VERSE 16.
Having asserted the incarnation of the Lord Christ, the captain of our salvation, and showed the necessity of it, from the ends which were to be accomplished by it, and therein given the reason of his concession that he was for a season made less than the angels, the apostle proceeds in this verse to confirm what he had taught before by testimony of the Scripture; and adds an especial amplification of the grace of God in this whole dispensation, from the consideration of the angels, who were not made partakers of the like love and mercy.
Ver. 16.—03 yap djrov dyytrhov émirapedveras, GAG omtpuaros "ACpucm emiropuCdvercs. |
Ov yap W4rov. The Syriac quite omits d470v, and reads only "A 8, “non enim;” “for he did not,” ‘V. L., “‘nusquam enim,” Ilov he renders “usquam,”
454 AN EXPOSITION OF THE (CHAP. IL
“anywhere;” and on the consideration of the negative particle, ov, “ nusquam,” “nowhere.” Beza, “non enim utique,” as ours; “for verily” [he took] “not,”—— not reaching the force or use of d4x0v. Arias, “non enim videlicet;” which answers not the intent of this place. Erasmus fully and properly, “non enim sane usquam,” “for verily not anywhere;” that is, in no place of the Scripture is any such thing testified unto: which way of expression we observed our apostle to use before, chap. i. 5.
-Ayysnav erirnawoaverct. Syr., 203 SDN 12, “ex angelis assumpsit,” “he took not of” (or “from among”) “the angels;” that is, of their nature. V. L., Arias, “angelos apprehendit,” “he doth not take hold of angels.” Beza, “angelos assumpsit,” “he assumed not,” “he took not angels to himself:” eminapmocveroe for ér¢aas, by an enallage of time; which ours follow, “he took not on him the nature of angels.” But this change of the tense is needless; for the apostle intends not to express what Christ had done, but what the Scripture saith and teacheth concerning him in this matter. That nowhere affirms that he takes hold of angels.
The remaining words are generally rendered by translators according to the analogy of these: “sed apprehendit,” “assumit,” “assumpsit, semen Abrahe,’— ‘he laid hold of,” “he takes,” “he took the seed of Abraham;” only the Ethiopic reads them, “Did he not exalt the seed of Abraham?” departing from the sense of the words and of the text.
The constant use of this word é7:Aw~Céva, in the New Testament, is “ to take hold of;” and so in particular it is elsewhere used in this epistle, chap. viii. 9, "ExiraCousvov mov THs xetpos avrav,—“In the day that I took them by the hand.” In other authors it is so variously used that nothing from thence can be determined as to its precise signification in this or any other place. The first and proper sense of it is acknowledged to be “to take hold of,” as it were with the hand. And however the sense may be interpreted, the word cannot properly be trans- lated any otherwise than “to take.” As for what some contend, that the effect or end of taking hold of is to help, to vindicate into liberty,—whence by Castalio it is rendered “opitulatur,’—it belongs to the design of the place, not the meaning of the word, which in the first place is to be respected.’
Ver. 16,—For verily not anywhere doth he take angels, but he taketh the seed of Abraham.
In the words there is first the reference that the apostle makes unto somewhat else, whereby that which he declareth is confirmed, “For verily not anywhere;” that is, that which he denieth in the following words is nowhere taught in the Scripture: as chap. i. 5, “For unto which of the angels said he at any time;” that is, ‘There is no testimony extant in the Scripture concerning them to that purpose. So here, ‘Nowhere is it spoken in the Scripture that Christ taketh angels. And what is so spoken, he is said to do.
1° Exe. is now translated differently from the A. V., by almost all exposi- tors. “He doth succour.”—Stwart. “He giveth his aid.”—Conybeare and Howson. “He doth lay hold on.”—Craik. “The church fathers and the theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries supplied a Qvow to the genitive, and rendered thus, ‘ He has not assumed the nature of angels, but that of the seed of Abraham.’ Castalio was the first to oppose this monstrous inter- pretation; after him the Socinians and Arminians. Since 1650 the right interpretation has been the general one.” —Zbrard.—Eb.
‘VER. 16.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 455
And thus also the affirmative clause of his proposition, “But he taketh the seed of Abraham,” is to be referred to the Scripture. There it is promised, there it is spoken, and therein it is done by him.
Secondly, That which he asserteth hath the nature of a discrete axiom, wherein the same thing is denied and affirmed of the dis- parates expressed, and that univocally in the same sense: “He took not angels, but he took the seed of Abraham.” And this, we being referred to the Scripture for the proof and confirmation of, gives light and perfect understanding into the meaning of the words, For how doth Christ in the Scripture take the seed of Abraham, in such a sense as that therein nothing is spoken of him in reference unto angels? Jt is evident that it was in that he was of the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh; that he was promised to Abraham that he should be of his seed, yea, that he should be his seed, as Gal. ii. 16. This was the great principle, the great expectation of the Hebrews, that the Messiah should be the seed of Abraham. This was declared unto them in the promise; and this accordingly was accomplished, And he is here said to take the seed of Abraham, because in the Scripture it is so plainly, so often affirmed that he should so do, when not one word is anywhere spoken that he should be an angel, or take their nature upon him. And this, as I said, gives us the true meaning of the words. The apostle in them con- firms what he had before affirmed, concerning his being made par- taker of flesh and blood together with the children. . This, saith he, the Scripture declares, wherein it is promised that he should be of the seed of Abraham, which he therein takes upon him; and which was already accomplished in his being made partaker of flesh and blood. See Johni. 14, Rom ix. 5, Gal. iv. 4, iii, 16. This, then, the apostle teacheth us, that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, according to the promise, took to himself the nature of man, coming of the seed of Abraham,—that is, into personal union with himself; but took not the nature of angels, no such thing being spoken of him or | concerning him anywhere in the Scripture. And this exposition | _ of the words will be further evidenced and confirmed by our exami- | nation of another, which, with great endeavour, is advanced in © opposition unto it.