Jan 1963 - Q & A

Question:

In Hebrews 2.16, the R.V. reads For verily not of angels doth He take hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham."

What are we to understand by not taking hold of angels?

Does taking hold of the seed of Abraham refer to the Incarnation?

Answer:

1. The A.V. reads, "For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels: but He took on Him the seed of Abraham." Firstly we should note that the difference in these versions is not on account of various readings of the Greek text, but is the result of different views in respect to what may be understood by the verb epilambanetai. Epilambano is defined, "to take hold of, or seize'. Then its metaphorical use is given as, "to seize on one's words, catch at one's words, to assume a portion of, to assume the nature of, to succour". The context of the passage must guide as to which of the above the Spirit of God indicates, and here there may be scope in measure for judgement. As I understand the portion, the Lord Jesus is presented as laying hold on an instrument with which He could be the Deliverer and the One who succours. This was His body of blood and flesh, like unto that of the children. As David is seen in weakness when he went forth to meet the giant, and became the deliverer by using the giant's sword, so the Lord Jesus through death brought to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. His work declares Him the Deliverer of all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Then in His being made in all things like unto His brethren He is fitted to be a merciful and faithful High Priest (a) to make propitiation for the sins of the people, and (b) to succour the tempted.

2. The meaning of this verse turns upon the interpretation of the verb Epilambanomai (Passive, third person), rendered correctly in the R.V. by the words "taketh hold," and the context in which it is found. In the A.V. this verb in various forms is rendered "took" eleven times, "laid hold and take hold" five times, "caught" twice. It will be seen at a glance that the words supplied in the A.V. printed in italics "him the nature of" have no equivalent words in the Greek. By adding these words the translators of the A.V. were indulging in interpretation and seeking to make this verse mean the Lord's incarnation, which is not the meaning of the verse.

There is a procession of thought in Hebrews 2. In verses 11, 12, and 18 we have reference made to brethren who, like the Lord Himself, are all of One, even God, and to these same persons as the children God has given to Him (the Lord). These children are (common) sharers in blood and flesh, that is, they had no existence apart from blood and flesh, the Lord in contrast, whose Being is eternal, partook of what He had not before, even blood and flesh, when He, the Word, became flesh. This action of the Lord was at His incarnation.

Then we read that His human birth was necessary to His death, it was that (Hina, in order that) through death He might destroy Him that had the power of death, that is the devil. So we have the human birth of the Lord and His death in verse 14 before we come to verse 16, the meaning of which is in question now. Does this verse repeat what is said in verse 14, that here we have the incarnation again referred to?

The question is what does the word Epilambanomai mean? This word is used in a bad sense as when the masters of the young soothsaying girl of Philippi laid hold on (or caught) Paul and Silas and dragged them before the rulers (Acts 16.19), and when the Jews in Corinth laid hold on Sosthenes and beat him before the judgement seat (Acts 18.17). It is used in a good sense of the Lord, when He took hold on Peter when he was sinking in the sea (Matthew 14.31), and when He took hold of a blind man by the hand (Mark 8.25), and when He took and healed a man suffering from dropsy (Luke 14.4). Then besides other references, which can be verified by a concordance, we have the exhortations, in 1 Timothy 6. 12, 19, to lay hold on eternal life.

There is somewhat of a parallel use of the verb in Hebrews 8.9, to that of Hebrews 2.16, where, referring to Israel, the Lord says, "I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt." Indeed Mr. Darby renders Hebrews 2. 16 thus: "For He does not indeed take hold of angels [by the hand], but He takes hold of the seed of Abraham," and of the words of interpretation, "by the hand," which he adds, he gives the following footnote:

"It means 'to take hold of' but it is constantly used for 'taking up a person to help him,' though in other senses as well. We say, 'he took him by the hand.' But this would be too free and too familiar. It is used in the sense of 'taking hold of,' literally 'deliver'."

Mr. Alford translates the verse thus in his commentary

"It is not angels that He helpeth, but it is the seed of Abraham that He helpeth."

He refers to the bad sense in which the Greek word is used, as we have done earlier, then he says, "in a good sense, to take by the hand in order to help or lead."

This help (Boetksai, to help or succour) is translated by the word "help" by Mr. Darby, and another translation, which translations lie before me, gives "help" instead of giving the word "succour. This help He, as a Priest, gives to the spiritual seed of Abraham, is because of His own temptations, as Hebrews 2.17, 18 shows. To succour means to help in difficulty. J.M.

unknown | Jan 1963
Question And Answer