Hebrews 2:10-18

The humiliation of the Son justified; “a condensed and pregnant view of the theory of the whole work of Christ, which subsequent Chapter s develop, eludicate, and justify dialectically, in contrast or comparison with the O.T.… The ultimate source of all doubt whether the new dispensation is superior to the old is nothing else than want of clear insight into the work of Christ, and especially into the significance of His passion, which, to the Jews, from whom the Hebrew Christians of our Epistle were drawn, was the chief stumbling-block in Christianity. Here, therefore, the writer has at length got into the heart of his subject, and, leaving the contrast between Christ and the angels, urges the positive doctrine of the identification of Jesus with those that are his his brethren, the Sons of God whom He sanctifies as the best key to that connection between the passion and glorification of Christ which forms the cardinal point of N.T. revelation” (Robertson Smith). To this it may only be added that in order to prove man's supremacy and justify Psalms 8, it was essential that the writer should show that Christ was man, identified with humanity.

In justification then (justification introduced by γὰρ) of the subjection of Jesus to the πάθημα θανάτου, the writer proceeds to say ἔπρεπεν αὐτῷ “it befitted Him”. The expression, says Carpzov, is “frequentissima Philoni phrasis”; but in Scripture, at least in this sense, it stands alone: cf. Jeremiah 10:7; Psalms 65:1. Aristotle (Nic. Eth., iv. 2 2: Burnet, p. 173) says that what is befitting is relative to the person, the circumstances and the object [τὸ πρέπον δὴ πρὸς αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐν ᾧ καὶ περὶ ὅ]. The object here in view, the “bringing many sons to glory,” needs no justification. As Tertullian (adv. Marcion, ii. 27) says: “nihil tam dignum Deo, quam salus hominis”. But that the means used by God to accomplish this end was not only fit to bring it about but was also πρέπον θεῷ, in other words, that Christ's humiliation and death were in accordance with the Divine nature, is the point the writer wishes to make good. “The whole course of nature and grace must find its explanation in God, and not merely in an abstract Divine arbitrium, but in that which befits the Divine nature”. This matter of Christ's suffering has not been isolated in God's government but is of a piece with all He is and has done; it has not been handed over to chance, accident, or malevolent powers, but is part of the Divine rule and providence; it is not exceptional, unaccountable, arbitrary, but has its root and origin in the very nature of God. God acted freely in the matter, governed only by His own nature. “Man has not wholly lost the intuitive power by which the fitness of the Divine action, its correspondence to the idea standard of right which his conscience certifies and his reason approves, may be recognised” (Henson, Disc, and Law, p. 56). “It is worth noting that the chief value of Anselm's view of the Atonement lies in the introduction into theology of the idea of what befits God the idea, as he puts it, of God's honour. Anselm fails, however, by thinking rather of what God's honour must receive as its due than of what it is seemly for God in His grace to do, and thus his theory becomes shallow and inadequate” (Robertson Smith). The writer does not say ἔπρεπεν θεῷ but ἔπρεπεν αὐτῷ διʼ ὅν τὰ πάντα καὶ διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα “Him on account of whom are all things and through whom are all things,” who is the reason and the cause of all existence; in whom, therefore, everything must find its reason and justification. “Denn wenn um seinetwillen das All ist, also Alles seinen Zwecken dienen muss, und durch ihn das All ist, also nichts ohne sein Zuthun zu Stande kommt, so muss man bei Allem, was geschieht, und somit auch bei dem Todesleiden fragen, wiefern es ihm angemessen ist” (Weiss). The purpose of God is expressed in the words: πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα “in bringing many sons to glory”. The accusative ἀγαγ. (although referring to αὐτῷ) does not require us to construe it with ἀρχηγὸν. That is a possible but clumsy construction. The use of υἱοὺς implies that the Father is the subject and leads us to expect that the action of God will be mentioned. And this construction, in which the dative of the subject becomes an accusative when an infinitive follows, is not unknown, but is merely a species of attraction the infinitive drawing the noun into the case appropriate. Cf. Acts 11:12; Acts 15:22; Luke 1:74. Examples from the classics in Matthiae, 535. The aorist participle has led the Vulgate to translate “qui multos filios in gloriam adduxerat,” needlessly, for “the aorist participle is sometimes used adverbially in reference to an action evidently in a general way coincident in time with the action of the verb, yet not identical with it. The choice of the aorist participle rather than the present in such cases is due to the fact that the action is thought of, not as in progress, but as a simple event or fact (Burton, M. and T., 149). πολλοὺς υἱοὺς “many” is not used with any reference to the population of the world, or to the proportion of the saved, but to the one Son already celebrated. It was God's purpose not only to have one Son in glory, but to bring many to be partakers with Him. Hence the difficulty; hence the need of the suffering of Christ. But it is not merely πολλοὺς but πολλοὺς υἱοὺς suggesting the relationship dwelt upon in the succeeding verses. τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τ. σωτηρίας … the author [pioneer] of their salvation indicating that feature of Christ's relation to the saved which determined His experience, “the Captain of their salvation”. R.V. has “author” following Vulg. Chrysostom has ἀρχηγὸν τουτέστι τὸν αἴτιον, and so Robertson Smith, “it is hardly necessary to put more meaning into the phrase than is contained in the parallel expression of Hebrews 5:9 ”. So Bleek, Kübel and von Soden. But the word is select, and why select, if not to bring out precisely this, that in the present case the cause is also the leader, “that the Son goes before the saved in the same path”. He is the strong swimmer who carries the rope ashore and so not only secures His own position but makes rescue for all who will follow. “The ἀρχηγός himself first takes part in that which he establishes” (Westcott). One of the chief points in the Epistle is that the Saviour is also ἀρχηγός. The word is commonly used of founders of tribes, rulers and commanders, persons who begin anything in become the source of anything, but or this Epistle (Hebrews 12:2) it has over and above the sense of “pioneer”. διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι, “to perfect through sufferings”. τελειῶσαι is to make τέλειον, to bring a person or thing to the appropriate τέλος, to complete, perfect, consummate. In the Pentateuch it is regularly used to denote the consecration of the priests. In the N.T. this consecration is no formal setting apart to office, but a preparation involving ethical fitness. So that here the word directly denotes making perfect as leader of salvation, but indirectly and by implication making morally perfect. And this moral perfection, requisite in one who was to cleanse sinners (note σωτηρίας) and lead the way to glory, could only be proved and acquired through the sufferings involved in living as man, tempted and with death to face. Therefore διὰ παθημάτων, “a plurality of sufferings” not merely as in Hebrews 2:9 τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου. Cf. Hebrews 2:18. The glory indeed to which this captain of salvation leads is the glory of triumph over temptation and all that tends to terrify and enslave men.