# Hebrews 2:16



## heartoflesh (Mar 3, 2010)

NKJV
For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.



One of the things I like about the NKJV is that it keeps the literal rendering of certain words such as "seed", instead of translating it as descendant and offspring as the other modern translations do. Reading through Hebrews the other night I ran across 2:16 and the note in the NKJV margin ( Or.. does not take on the nature of angels, but takes on the seed of Abraham) This seems to make much more sense in the passage than "gives aid to" and "gives help to" which is how all the other translations translate it. I was pleased to find the KJV as the exception....


KJV
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.


This rendering seems to make so much better sense in the context of the passage, I wonder why all the modern translations (including the NKJV) would translate it as "gives help to"?


----------



## rbcbob (Mar 3, 2010)

NKJ Hebrews 2:16 For indeed He does not give aid (Επιλαμβανω) to angels, but He does give aid (Επιλαμβανω) to the seed of Abraham.

KJV Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on (Επιλαμβανω) him the nature of angels; but he took on (Επιλαμβανω) him the seed of Abraham.



> Επιλαμβανω “Present middle indicative and means to lay hold of, to help, like boêthêsai in verse 18.” From Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 3, 2010)

I'm not a scholar by any means, but the difficulty arises with the word "ἐπιλαμβάνεται".

It probably means "to take hold" or "to seize" as might be found in Matthew 14:31.

But the word has implied the notion of "aid" (as in Jesus taking hold and healing in Luke 14:4). Some modern commentators deem the grammar to require it to be translated as aiding the objects of the sentence rather than taking on the nature of the objects.

I don't have my Calvin commentary handy, but I am pretty sure he rendered it something like "assumed the nature of." I personally think context implies that meaning rather than the modern one, but I'm not educated enough to follow the latest argument.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 3, 2010)

This post speaks to the matter, though it doesn't give a full answer to your question, but post #48 in the same thread goes into more depth (I would permalink, but for some reason it redirects me to post #61.)


----------



## MW (Mar 3, 2010)

Rick Larson said:


> This rendering seems to make so much better sense in the context of the passage, I wonder why all the modern translations (including the NKJV) would translate it as "gives help to"?


 
John Owen: "The Socinians embrace and endeavour to confirm this second exposition of the words: and it is their concernment so to do; for if the words express that the Lord Christ assumed human nature, which necessarily infers his
pre-existence in another nature, their persuasion about the person of Christ is utterly overthrown."

There is a belief in modern translation method that the translation should not be biased towards specific doctrines, and so translation committees tend to adopt the translation which is most neutral. But Christianity makes exclusive claims; hence it turns out that any translation which attempts to be neutral ends up being prejudicial against Christianity.


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 3, 2010)

It seems clear to me that "took on" is correct, given the context:



> 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 3, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> > This rendering seems to make so much better sense in the context of the passage, I wonder why all the modern translations (including the NKJV) would translate it as "gives help to"?
> ...


 
Matthew, I knew I should have gone to Owen before piping up, and, because this thread intrigued me, I did some more digging in lexicons and elsewhere. Owen on p. 299 and following, volume 12 (Banner ed.), opened it up very well. I see that even back then some were pushing for "help."

It seems that you are being charitable about calling the translation neutral. As near as I can tell, rendering "take hold" as "help" is a fair stretch. I admit that the notion of help or aid may fall under the possible shades of meaning of lambano, but it sure seems to be a pretty narrow and specialized rendering that would require more than what is there.


----------



## rbcbob (Mar 4, 2010)

After reading Matthew's quote from Owen I looked at his commentary on Hebrews (six large volumes). His treatment of 2:16 was as lengthy as it was convincing, which is to say *very!*


----------



## Hebrew Student (Mar 4, 2010)

armourbearer,



> There is a belief in modern translation method that the translation should not be biased towards specific doctrines, and so translation committees tend to adopt the translation which is most neutral. But Christianity makes exclusive claims; hence it turns out that any translation which attempts to be neutral ends up being prejudicial against Christianity.



However, at this point, one has to ask what your ultimate authority really is. Is it the text of scripture or your theology? If your theology is being used to actually translate the text of scripture, then how could the text of scripture ever correct your theology?

I would not say that a translation should be "neutral." I would say that a translation should do its best to give the *entirity* of the semantic range of the verse, passage, etc., and not just the theological portions of the semantic range. The semantic range of a passage may, indeed, include some theological truth, but it is not the only portion of the semantic range. The translator must take care to accurately bring the *entirity* of the meaning from one text into another.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Iconoclast (Mar 5, 2010)

A.W.Pink;


> "For verily He took not on angels; but He took on the seed of Abraham" (verse 16). This verse, which has occasioned not a little controversy, presents no difficulty if it be weighed in the light of its whole context. It treats not of the Divine incarnation, that we have in verse 14; rather does it deal with the purpose of it, or better, the consequences of Christ’s death. Its opening "for" first looks back, remotely to verses 9,10; immediately, to verses 14, 15. The Spirit is here advancing a reason why Christ tasted death for every son, and why He destroyed the Devil in order to liberate His captives; because not angels, but the seed of Abraham, were the objects of His benevolent favor. The "for" and the balance of the verse also, looks forward, laying a foundation for what follows in verse 17: the ground of Christ’s being made like to His brethren and becoming the faithful and merciful High Priest was because He would befriend the seed of Abraham.
> 
> The Greek verb here translated "He took on" or "laid hold" is found elsewhere in some very striking connections. It is used of Christ’s stretching out His hand and rescuing sinking Peter, Matthew 14:31, there rendered "caught." It is used of Christ when He "took" the blind man by the hand (Mark 8:23). So of the man sick of the dropsy. He "took" and healed him (Luke 14:4). Here in Hebrews 2:16 the reference is to the almighty power and invincible grace of the Captain of our salvation. It receives illustration in those words of the apostle’s where, referring to his own conversion, he said, "for which also I am (was) apprehended (laid hold) of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:12). Thus it was and still is with each of God’s elect. In themselves, lost, rushing headlong to destruction; when Christ stretches forth His hand and delivers, so that of each it may be said, "Is not this a brand plucked from the burning" (Zech. 3:2). "Laid hold of" so securely that none can pluck out of His hand!
> 
> ...


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 9, 2010)

My John Brown commentary arrived a few days ago, and after reading his take on this verse he has satisfied to my judgment that the verse should rightly be interpreted as teaching that Jesus Christ "does not (give help to) (deliver) (save) angels, but he does (give help to) (deliver) (save) the seed of Abraham." He points out that it would a needless repetition to be refering to the incarnation in this verse, since the writer has clearly expressed this point in verses 11 and 14. So, here, he is taking it step further to say that Christ "is not the deliverer of angels, but of the seed of Abraham".


----------



## MW (Mar 9, 2010)

Hebrew Student said:


> However, at this point, one has to ask what your ultimate authority really is. Is it the text of scripture or your theology? If your theology is being used to actually translate the text of scripture, then how could the text of scripture ever correct your theology?



It's called an exegetical spiral -- a well accepted fact of hermeneutics. If translators wish to neglect this reality then they only succeed in spiralling downwards in naivete.



Hebrew Student said:


> The translator must take care to accurately bring the *entirity* of the meaning from one text into another.



Which they clearly cannot do in the text under discussion, nor in any text of Scripture. Hence the translator's care to translate the entirety of meaning will show itself to be uncaring and downright deceptive.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

I would trust the KJV over any other translation. Those scholars were great and pious men, and God greatly blessed their translation. These new translations are a dime a dozen and their all based on manuscripts that everyone thinks were recently found because somehow the ECFs must have lost them or something. I would certainly lean more towards the camp that says they put them away or threw them away because they weren't as accurate, I highly doubt that they just didn't know about them. Older garbage doesn't mean better manuscripts by a pious hand.


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 11, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> I would trust the KJV over any other translation. Those scholars were great and pious men, and God greatly blessed their translation. These new translations are a dime a dozen and their all based on manuscripts that everyone thinks were recently found because somehow the ECFs must have lost them or something. I would certainly lean more towards the camp that says they put them away or threw them away because they weren't as accurate, I highly doubt that they just didn't know about them. Older garbage doesn't mean better manuscripts by a pious hand.


 
I could be wrong, but I don't believe the rendering of this verse has anything to do with any textual variant.


----------

