05.6.3. Appendix C - On Hebrews 2:9,16

APPENDIX

Note C On Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 2:16 The possibility of the recovery of fallen angels is said to be absolutely negatived by the Apostle’s words, in Hebrews 2:16, that our Lord "took not on Him the nature of angels." Angels therefore, it is argued, cannot be restored. But is it true that our Lord has never taken the nature of angels? What then is taught in such Scriptures as Genesis 22:15-16; Genesis 48:16; Judges 6:12-14; Judges 6:22-23; Judges 13:21-22; Isaiah 63:9; Zechariah 3:1; Malachi 3:1; Acts 7:38; Colossians 2:10; &c; where our Lord is shewn to have appeared before His Incarnation as an angel? In the next place, is it true that the verse in question really says that our Lord "took not on Him the nature of angels?" To answer this we have only to turn to the Original, where (as the marginal note of our Authorized Version shews even to an English reader,) the words, ου γαρ επιλαμβανεται, translated in the Authorized Version "took not on Him the nature of," are seen to be simply, "is not laying hold of"; the statement being, that Christ is not now laying hold of angels, but only of the seed of Abraham. That this is the meaning of επιλαμβανεται may be shewn from countless passages, such for example as Matthew 14:31; Luke 9:47; Acts 16:19; Acts 23:19; Hebrews 8:9. See also the LXX. in Genesis 25:26; Exodus 4:4; Judges 16:3; Judges 16:21, &c. This verse therefore gives no support whatever to the doctrine based on the translation (corrected in the margin) of our Authorized English Version.

There is however a passage in the same second chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, if we take what appears to have been the original reading, teaches, as Bengel and others have shewn, a very different doctrine. I allude to Hebrews 2:8-9, where our Version reads, "that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man." It is not generally known that an older reading is, "that He should taste death for all excepting God"; χωρις θεου instead of χαριτι θεου. This is the way Ambrose, A.D. 370, quotes the verse; and long before his time, when Origen wrote, A.D. 203, this was the usual reading, though in his Commentary on S. John (tom. i. par. 40,) he allows that "in some copies," (εν τισι αντιγραφοις,) the other reading was also then to be met with. The ancient Syriac Version too has followed the reading χωρις θεου. The following notes on the passage, from Cornelius a Lapide, -- who gives us Ambrose’s exposition, -- from Origen, and lastly from Bengel, shew how strong the evidence is in favor of χωρις θεου.

Cornelius a Lapide’s note is as follows: -- "Nota. Pro χαριτι, id est, gratia Dei, Theodoretus, Theophylactus, et Oecumenius legunt χωρις θεου, id est, sine Deo, vel excepto Deo, adduntque, ita corruptim esse hunc locum a Nestorianis; hinc enim illi probant in Christo duas fuisse personas, et Deum ab homine fuisse separatum. Verum ante Nestorium Ambrosius, (lib. de fide, cap. 4,) legit quoque το sine Deo; sicque explicat: ’Christus pro omnibus sine Deo, id est, excepto Deo, mortem gustavit, q.d. Christus pro omnibus, etiam angelis, non autem pro Deo ipso, (Deum enim excipio,) mortuus est. Non quasi angelos redemerit Christus, sed quod angelos hominibus reconciliarit, eorumque laetitiam et gloriam auxerit, dum sedes eorum, ex quibus collapsi erant daemones, per homines restauravit et replevit." Which explanation of the words shews that Ambrose accepted the reading, χωρις θεου, though he would draw another conclusion from it.

Origen constantly quotes the passage, with the reading χωρις θεου; e.g. Comment. in Johan. tom. i. par. 40; (vol. iv. p. 41. Ed. Delarue, Paris, 1733-59;) and again tom. xxviii. par. 14, (vol. iv. pp. 392, 393.) And again in his Comment. in Epist. ad. Rom. lib. iii. par. 8; (vol. iv. p. 513.) And again lib. v. par. 7, of the same; (p. 560.) In quoting the verse in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (lib. v. par. 7. pp. 559, 560,) he says, "Requiritur sane, si in solis hominibus superabundet gratia, in quibus abundavit aliquando peccatum; et an in nullo superabundet gratia, nisi in quo abundivit peccatum; an et in aliquibus potest superabundare gratia, in quibus nunquam vel abundaverit vel fuerit peccatum. Et si quis illud aspiciat quod dicit Apostolus, quia pacificavit Christus per sanguinem suum non solum quae in terris sunt, sed et quae in coelis, et illud, Ut sine Deo pro omnibus gustaret mortem, putabit et ibi similiter aliquem abundantiem fuisse peccati, ut nihilominus etiam gratiae superabundantia fieret."

Bengel too evidently prefers the reading χωρις. Having pointed out, (Gnomon, in loco,) how nearly identical the teaching of verses 8 and 9 is with that of 1 Corinthians 15:27, where, as he observes, "in treating of the same Psalm, the same verse, and the same words, ’All things put under Him,’ the Apostle states, that the ’All’ admits of one most evident and proper exception, saying, ’It is evident that He is excepted which did put all things under Him,’" -- Bengel goes on to say, that "the same exception is made in this passage, only here it is as those for whom He tasted death. ’For all, excepting God.’" He then thus sums up in favour of the reading χωρις θεου: -- "Nunc quaeritur, utra lectio genuina est. Non ignoro, χαριτι plausibilius esse, quam χωρις. Et sine labore ullo a me impetrarem, ut hoc missum facerem, et illud amplecterer. Sed ubi de verbo Dei, ubi de unico Dei verbulo agitur, ni, temporis causa statuere debemus. Facilius χωρις in χαριτι, quam χαριτι in χωρις librariorum sedulitis, planiora omnia quaerens, mutavit: et tamen χωρις remanet in monumentis antiquis, multis, gravibus. Neque lectionem hanc, neque interpretationem hic a nobis propositam, quisquam, ut spero, exagitabit lectori tamen integrum est, rem amplius expendere."