Heb. 2:16 Revisited: Jesus Didn’t Become an Angel

In the following post HEBREWS 2:16 & LIMITED ATONEMENT, I showed that the author of Hebrews expressly teaches that Christ did not become an angelic being, but chose to become a flesh and blood human in order to save mankind from their fear of dying. This understanding is reflected in the following translation:

“Since, then, ‘the children’ have a common physical nature as human beings, he also became a human being, so that by going through death as a man he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might also set free those who lived their whole lives a prey to the fear of death. It is plain that for this purpose he did not become an angel; he became a man, in actual fact a descendant of Abraham. It was imperative that he should be made like his brothers in nature, if he were to become a High Priest both compassionate and faithful in the things of God, and at the same time able to make atonement for the sins of the people. For by virtue of his own suffering under temptation he is able to help those who are exposed to temptation.” Hebrews 2:14-18 J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)

Specific Bible expositors agree that this is the plain meaning of the inspired text:

2:16. This verse tells two facts about Christ’s incarnation. First, Christ did not assume the nature of angels. He did not take angelic nature on himself. Probably some of the readers of Hebrews felt that an angelic deliverer would come to rescue them. Hebrews declares firmly that Jesus was not merely an angelic deliverer.

Second, Christ did assume human nature. The original language literally read that “he took on himself the seed of Abraham.” As a human being, Christ descended from Abraham. He also showed by his obedience that he was a spiritual descendant of Abraham. All believers are spiritual descendants of Abraham (Gal. 3:29).

Christ became a human being to give help to us as sinners. When the Son of God humbled himself in his incarnation, he stooped lower than the position of an angel to become a human being. When he became a human being, he was able to provide for the salvation of human beings. (Thomas D. Lea, Hebrews, James, Holman New Testament Commentary [Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999], vol. 10, p. 30; emphasis mine)

Ver. 16. The nature of angels.—

Angels:—It must be a spiritual one,—for “He maketh His angels spirits.” It must be very pure,—for they are “the holy ones.” Very lofty,—for they “stand before the throne, and always behold God’s face.” Very powerful, too, they must be,—for “they excel in strength.” And very busy they must be, and very humble,—for “each has six wings, and with twain he covers his face, with twain he covers his feet, and with twain he does fly.” And very accurate they must be,—for they hear their messages so faithfully. And very unselfish,—for they always give all the glory to God alone. They are not entirely spotless,—for “He chargeth His angels with folly”; and some did once fall. And they never seem to originate anything—they go where they are sent, they say what they are instructed, they do whatever they are told. Neither does their love appear to be so much their own love, as a love with which they are commissioned. And their office is not, for the most part, so much with the souls of men, to convert, or to influence, or to comfort them, as with the outer circumstances of men—to minister to them in their dangers, in their wants, in their difficulties. And how does “the nature of angels” stand related to our own? Is it higher or lower? Originally, in Eden, I do not know; but I should say the angelic nature was then the lower, because that is said of man which is never said of angels, that he was “made in the likeness of God,” and because to man was given what was never given to angels—supremacy and sovereignty over all the works of God. The fallen nature of man is, on the whole, lower. But only a little—“a little lower than the angels.” But how is it with man’s redeemed and renewed nature? Beyond a doubt, it is above angels; for such as Christ’s present glorified nature is, such is that. The angels never sing our song—theirs is jubilant, but ours is triumphant, their theme is creation, ours is grace; they praise God in His works, we adore and love Him in His Son. And do not you know that we shall “judge angels,” and that we shall reign with Christ for ever and ever. We bless God for His holy angels! We bless Him that there is anything so pure and beautiful in His creation for us to think of and to love. We bless Him that we have such presences, so stilling, so assuring, so restful. We bless Him for that incentive to all propriety in our solitary hours—an angel’s ear, and an angel’s eye. We bless Him for the debts we owe to those ethereal beings, of which we are yet but dimly conscious. We bless Him that they take charge of our daily walk, and our midnight slumbers. We bless Him that He commits it to creatures so lovely to exercise His merciful providences. We bless Him that they ministered so tenderly to their and our dear Lord in the days of His sojourn here, and that now they do all they do for us for that Jesus’s sake. We bless Him that they take such pious interest in our spiritual welfare, and rejoice in the tears of which they know that the sadness is joy. We bless Him that those who look on us so kindly do also behold His face. We bless Him that when we come to die, it is they, those heavenly watchers, who shall waft our spirits on their wings to heaven. We bless Him that we with them, and they with us, we shall mingle our songs and our services, and encircle the throne together with our common praise. We bless Him that when Christ, and we with Christ, shall come back again to this earth, we shall be attended by The glory of the holy angels. (J. Vaughan, M.A.) He took on Him the seed of Abraham.—...

On the Incarnation of Christ:—

I. What is naturally inferred from Christ’s “taking on Him the seed of Abraham.” 1. The Divine nature of Christ. 2. The reality of Christ’s human nature. 3. The truth of His office, and the divinity of His mission. 4. His voluntary choice and design, to assume a condition here upon earth low and contemptible.

II. Why christ took upon Him the nature of man, and not of angels. 1. The transcendent greatness and malignity of the sin of the angels above that of men. (1) As being committed against a much greater light, which is to be the proper guide and ruler of the will in all its choices. (2) The sin of the angels commenced upon a greater liberty of will and freedom of choice. There was no devil to tempt them to become devils; no seducer of a stronger reason to impose upon theirs; they moved entirely upon the motives of an intrinsic malice. 2. The next, and perhaps the grand cause, that induced Christ to take upon Him the nature and mediation of men, and not of angels, might be this; that without such a Redeemer, the whole race and species of mankind had perished, as being all involved in the sin of their representative; whereas, though many of the angels sinned, yet as many, if not more, persisted in their innocence; so that the whole kind was not cashiered by a universal ruin, nor made unserviceable to their Creator, in the nobler instances of active obedience. (R. South, D.D.)...

On passing by angels to redeem men:—If He who made all things took upon Him man’s nature, we may feel sure that there is in that nature some intrinsic excellence and greatness, one proof of which is that it is capable of being united with the Person of the Word who was in the beginning with God, and was God. But so, unquestionably, was the angels’ nature; for man is a little lower than the angels. Here were two fallen races before the eye of the Redeemer, and we cannot doubt that it was optional with Him to redeem either of them, or both. Why He did not redeem both must be left to sovereign wisdom.

I. Fallen angels, if redeemed, would no doubt become as great and glorious as before. We see in this world enough of degradation made by sin to keep us from doubting the power of sin to degrade fallen angels into devils, and devils into alliance with swine. But the memory of innocence and of bliss in heaven no doubt remains in them. What a good work it would have been to redeem that memory and restore that angel. How sad, one might say, to think that Christ would not redeem him, but went after South Sea Islanders and the aborigines of the British Isles, than whom none was ever more lost to shame, or more distant from God. And what a wicked world this, which He redeemed, has proved. Thus far the few are saved; the many hate God.

II. But in reply it may be said, His success might have been no better had Christ made redemption for angels instead of for men. Angels might have invented objections to Him as men did; some might go so far as to deny His Godhead and incarnation, and ask whether a good God would let His innocent Son visit such an abode, to suffer and die for devils; and what virtue there could be in the sufferings of one for the sins of others; and whether it is just to substitute an innocent being for the guilty? It is the great mystery of wisdom that while God does His pleasure, it is in such a way that every man exercises his free choice...

Fallen humanity elected to redemption in preference to fallen angels:—

I. There are strong reasons which might have led us to suppose that God would have given the preference to fallen angels. 1. The superiority of angelic natures. 2. The probability of their greater misery. 3. Their greater competency of appreciating the redemptive act.

II. Although there might appear strong reasons for the choice of fallen angels, we can discover most satisfactory reasons for the election of fallen men. 1. The election of men in preference to fallen angels furnishes a more striking manifestation of Divine justice. 2. A more striking manifestation of Divine independence. 3. A more striking manifestation of Divine condescension. Lessons: 1. How cautious should we be in pronouncing judgment upon the conduct of God. 2. How devoutly earnest should man’s acceptance of this redemption be. 3. How zealously should those who have become participators of this redemption seek to extend it to others. (Homilist.)

Men chosen—fallen angels rejected:—

I. In the first place, the translation of our authorised version runs thus: “He took not on Him the nature of angels.” Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not take upon Himself the nature of angels. His condescension dictated to Him, that if He did stoop, He would descend to the very lowest degree; that if He did become a creature, He would become, not the noblest creature, but one of the most ignoble of rational beings, that is to say, man, therefore, He did not stoop to the intermediate step of angelship, but He stooped right down and became a man. Let us notice the wisdom and the love of this, and I think there will be something to cause us to glorify God for so doing. 1. If Christ had taken upon Himself the nature of angels, He could never have made an atonement for man. 2. Had our Saviour become an angel, He would never have been a fitting example for us. I cannot imitate an angelic example. If you would give me something to imitate, give me a man like myself, then I may attempt to follow him. 3. Sweetly, also, let us remember that if Christ had been an angel, He could not have sympathised with us. In order to sympathise with our fellow creatures we must be something like them. Suppose a man made of iron, or of brass, could he sympathise with our wearied lungs, or with our aching bones? 4. Once more, Christ became a man, and not an angel, because He desired to be one with His dear Church. 5. Again, if Christ had not taken upon Him the nature of man, then manhood would not have been so honourable or so comfortable as it is.

II. The literal translation, according to the marginal reading, is, “He took not up angels, but He took up the seed of Abraham.” by which is meant, that Christ did not die to save angels, though many of them needed salvation, but He died to save fallen man. 1. I do not think it is because of any difference in the sin. When two criminals are brought before a judge, if one of them is to be saved, and the other punished, very likely the judge will say, “Let the greatest offender die, and let the less offender be saved.” Now, I do not know that Satan was a greater offender than man; I am not sure that the fallen angels sinned more than man did. “Why, sir,” you say, “man’s sin was a very little one; he only stole some of his Master’s fruit.” Aye, but if it was such a little thing to do, what a little thing it would have been not to do it! If it were so little a thing, how easily he might have avoided it! and, therefore, because he did it, it became all the greater sin. 2. But suppose there is not much difference in their sin, the next question is, which of those two beings is the most worth saving? Which would serve his Maker most, if his Maker should spare him? And I defy any of you to hold that a sinful man is a more valuable creature than an angel. 3. Sometimes the government will say, “Well, here are two persons to be executed; we desire to save one; which of the two would be the most dangerous character to allow to continue an enemy?” Now, which could hurt God the most, speaking as man would speak, a fallen angel, or a man? I answer, that fallen man can do but little injury to Divine government, compared to a fallen angel. 4. Perhaps it would be said, if one is to be saved, let that one be saved who would take the least trouble to save. Now, which could be saved with the greatest ease, should you suppose a fallen angel, or a fallen man? For my part, I can see no difference; but if there be any it strikes me that a restoration does not put things one-half so much out of order as a revolution; and to have restored the angels to the place from which they had fallen, speaking as a man must speak, would not have been so hard as to have taken fallen man out of the place from which he had fallen, and placed him where fallen angels had once stood. 5. But, you may say, God saved man because He pitied him. But then why did not He pity the devils? I know two men living on three or four shillings a week. I pity one of them very much, indeed; but the other, who is no better off, I pity him the most, for he once knew better times. Man, it is true, fell out of Eden; but Satan fell out of heaven, and is the more to be pitied on account of the greatness of his fall; and, therefore, if pity had ruled the day, God would have decided for the fallen angels, and not for fallen men. (C. H. Spurgeon.) (Joseph S. Exell, The Biblical Illustrator: Hebrews [London: James Nisbet & Co., n.d.], vol. 1, pp. 178–180, 182-183; emphasis mine)

This next commentary makes two rather interesting points:

Verse 16 begins with gar and indicates the summary or conclusion of what has been said in 2:10–15. It also explains the reason for the incarnation in v. 14. The use of the emphatic particle dēpou (“surely”) indicates strong affirmation and assumes knowledge that the readers already have and that they are in agreement with the author’s statement. The verb epilambanetai (“he helps”) literally means “to lay firm hold of” or “to appropriate.” It is used of taking hold of a person in either a friendly or hostile sense. It occurs three times of taking hold of someone’s hand, either literally or figuratively. Paul used the term in the sense of taking hold of eternal life (1 Tim 6:12, 19), and Luke used it of Jesus’ enemies taking hold of his words to trap him (Luke 20:20, 26). Context is the key to how the verb should be translated. From the early church until the time of the Reformers, this verb was interpreted to mean that the Son took on humanity via the incarnation. However, in the seventeenth century there was a departure from this interpretation to the more general sense of “coming to the aid of.” Since then, many scholars have taken the verb that way. But in the seventeenth century Turretin pointed out that in the more than 40 occurrences of epilambanomai in the LXX, it never has the metaphorical sense of aid.²⁹⁹

The absence of the definite article with “angels” and with “Abraham’s descendants” (lit. “seed of Abraham”) in Greek indicates they refer to a class.³⁰⁰ The “seed of Abraham” may be either the Jewish race as a whole or both Jews and Gentiles. Hughes took the first view, arguing that the author frames the incarnation within the perspective of the covenant with Christ the incarnate Son.³⁰² But the covenant perspective could still be in view if both Jews and Gentiles were intended. Lane’s claim that the author’s use of “seed of Abraham” is an allusion to Isa 41:8–10 is well founded given the linguistic and semantic parallels: sperma Abraam, mē phobou, eboēthēsa, and antelabomēn. (The author of Hebrews likely substituted the cognate epilambanetai for the latter term in light of Jer 31:32, where the exodus is described as God’s taking Israel by the hand, epilambanetai, to lead them out of bondage.) This is another example of the author’s rich and deep understanding of the Old Testament and his Christocentric reading of the text.

It is grammatically possible to take “fear” in 2:15 as the subject of “helps” (lit. “takes hold of”) in 2:16. In this case, the author would be employing brachylogy where the subject of a sentence is taken from a preceding noun in an oblique case without a referential pronoun to aid in the transition. If this is the case, a possible translation would be: “For it [the fear of death] clearly does not seize angels, but it does take hold of the seed of Abraham.” The use of the verb epilambanomai to characterize fear as “seizing” or “taking hold of” or even as “gripping” someone is completely within its normal semantic range. In a similar way, the Peshitta version takes “death” as the subject of epilambanomai. The original readers may have thought: “How could Jesus, who died by crucifixion, be superior to angels who, by their very nature, do not even die?” The author argued that the incarnation enabled Jesus to die and thus destroy the one who held the power of death. The fear of death does not affect angels at all, but it certainly does human beings. On this interpretation, 2:16 brings into sharp focus the difference between angelic nature and human nature and serves to strengthen the author’s argument as to why it was necessary for Jesus to have a mortal, human nature. However, it is probably best to take “Jesus” as the subject of the verb epilambanomai, where the verb is being used in a positive sense of “help.”

299 F. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. G. Giger, ed. J. Dennison (New Jersey: P&R, 1994), 2:308; This has been noted by many since. See Hughes, Hebrews, 116. DeSilva (Perseverance in Gratitude, 120) commented: “‘Laying hold’ here speaks of Jesus’ role as rescuer, deliverer, and protector of his client in the new exodus from the shakable realm and entrance into the ‘rest’ of God.” This is an example of the patron-client, honor-shame grid through which DeSilva viewed the epistle. His analysis here seems strained at best. (David L. Allen, Hebrews, The New American Commentary [Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010], pp. 221–223; emphasis mine)

The fact that Christians up until the 17^th century interpreted Heb. 2:16 in respect to Christ taking on human nature, along with the Greek version of the Old Testament (LXX) never employing the verb epilambanomai to mean aid or help, are quite significant. These two factors show that the intended meaning of the inspired author is that Christ did not take upon the nature of the angels, but chose to become a human being instead.

And here’s an English rendering of the Syriac Peshitta:

“For because the children shared together in flesh and blood, he also shared in these things in the same form, so that by his death he would destroy the one who had held the authority of death, who is Satan, And he would free those who, by the fear of death, all their lives were subjected to bondage. For death was not authorized over the Angels, but death was authorized over the seed of Abraham. Because of this, it was right that he would become like his brethren in all things, that he would be a compassionate and trustworthy High Priest in what is God's, and would make atonement for the sins of the people. For in this, because he has suffered and was tempted, he can help those who are tempted.” Hebrews 2:14-18 Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (PHBT: https://biblehub.com/hpbt/hebrews/2.htm)

Thus, the verse of Heb. 2:16 along with chapter 1 provide an irrefutable case that Christ is not an angelic being by nature, and never became one. Rather, he is God Almighty who became a Man in order to redeem human beings from death and their fear of dying by his physical, bodily resurrection.

And because Christ has been raised as a human being he has glorified and immortalized human nature, thereby giving hope and assurance that death is not the end of human existence:

“Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” Hebrews 4:14-16 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE)

“It is even more obvious when another priest arises, resembling Melchizedek, one who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent but through the power of an indestructible life.” Hebrews 7:15-16 NRSVUE

“Furthermore, the former priests were many in number because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests humans, who are subject to weakness, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.” Hebrews 7:23-28 NRSVUE

“Now may the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, make you complete in everything good so that you may do his will, as he works among us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen.” Hebrews 13:20-21 (NRSVUE)