Heb 2:14
The writer reflects on the incarnation and mission of Jesus.
Comment: The writer (presumably Paul) is reflecting
how Jesus is fully flesh and blood i.e human in every respect, and
not a hybrid of natures as Trinitarians purport!
The irreconcilable issue: Nowhere in the Epistle does the writer discuss, draw on OT prophecies, or provide context for Jesus being fully God and fully man in respect to nature.
His becoming man was necessary because his ‘children’ were flesh and blood, a somewhat unexpected way of putting it.
Comment: An unfounded assumption is being made that God became man
The irreconcilable issue: Nowhere in the Epistle does the writer discuss, draw on prophecies, provide context for God becoming man. In fact the writer is specific at a certain day and time God fathered a Son...he did not become the Son and the Son did not become the Father Heb 1:5
Nevertheless the idea is clear enough.
Comment: The "idea" is not clear as we shall see from his own words.
The irreconcilable issue: The author & editor of the commentary have made two assumptions and now question the idea as being clear; lets see what evidence they use to support their idea.
It is worth noting that in the Greek text the order is blood and flesh. It has been suggested that ‘blood’ alludes to Christ’s shedding of blood, which is then given as the reason for his becoming flesh, i.e. the atonement required the incarnation.
Comment: Here the author misses the entire point as to why Jesus needed to be raised up out of Adam, David & Abraham - God's righteousness was declared through an obedient life and that life and blood was an offering to God (as it was upon the altar)
Supporting texts: 1 Cor 15:45; Matt 1:1 - life is in the blood Lev 17:11
The irreconcilable issue: The authors basis of atonement is God becoming condemned man, whereas the Bible states emphatically, its the cleansing from pure blood (not literal) which represents an "obedient life" in whole service to Yahweh - not that Yahweh was being obedient to Yahweh.
To deliver man, Jesus Christ had to share his nature. We are in the presence of a mystery here.
Comment: See how Hypostasis destroys the atonement principles? Jesus had to be fully human and be tempted in all points as we are - his nature was condemned to die and death reigned over him all the days of his mortal life - he needed to die to sin (flesh) once that God might declare his righteousness through weak condemned nature, that through death he would destroy that which has the power of death, the devil (Sin = Rom 6:23).
The irreconcilable issue: The author introduces a
mystery and rightly so! He is unable to reconcile hypostasis with Jesus' nature (and the atonement principles).
The fact that he himself partook of the same nature sums up the perfect humanity of Jesus. When this statement is set over against the statements in chapter 1, about the divine Sonship of Jesus, the mystery deepens.
Comment: Notice how the author uses the word perfect? Because he doesn't understand the nature of Jesus he is torn between the nature of God and the nature of Man.
Jesus states "none good" Matt 19:17
Jesus states only perfection found in the Father Matt 5:48
Jesus was made perfect - by putting of sins flesh Heb 5:9
Jesus made perfect through suffering Heb 2:10
Jesus' brothers and sisters are yet to be made perfect in him Heb 11:40
These and many Scriptures teach us that Jesus and his servants are imperfect in nature and that God has nothing to do with such imperfection other than to totally destroy it all the while upholding His righteousness.
Jesus is said to be crucified through weakness which the author has not consider in his "perfect nature" idea. Paul in 2 Cor 13:4 teaches his flesh was put to death through weakness and that he only lives because of the Spirit or rightly rendered, Power of God. Paul is also right to associated us with Christs weakness (imperfection in nature) due to its latent desires which prompt carnal thinking, temptation and sin.
Because the author of the commentary cannot see the indescribable agony which Jesus experienced every day of his probation (Luke 12:50NET) he has entirely missed the divine teaching on the atonement.
The irreconcilable issue: Trinitarians are forced between a "perfect nature" and an "imperfect one"; the Bible teaches that
all flesh is corrupt and worthy of putting to death. In this matter the editor and author have acted foolishly Gal 3:3
God divine nature must be completely removed from the nature of Jesus Christ in order for the atonement to be understood.
His superiority to angels is set against his equality with man.
This superiority was never in nature as he was made a little lower than they, but in his exalted position he was clothed with the divine nature and given a name and authority greater than theirs. The author needs to appreciate Hebrews 1 is speaking of Jesus' inheritance while Heb 2 is speaking to his probation in the flesh.
Jesus was equal with man in terms of being condemned to death as all men, but in mind (Logos) he was only ever like his Father.
There can never be a wholly satisfactory explanation of these two facets of his nature, because man has no suitable frame of reference in which to consider it.
Comment: Yes this is true because there is no divine revelation on the two facets of his nature because his nature was as Paul express "Sins flesh" Rom 8:3 - A combination of sins flesh with divine nature would be only achievable if God could bring together light and darkness. Not only is this physically impossible the spiritual implications for any Christian would be catastrophic. God can and will only ever "divide" Gen 1:4;7
The irreconcilable issue: Here is Pauls teaching on the mystery Eph 5:32; 6:19; Col 1:26,27; 2:2 - Paul has gone to great lengths in the Epistle to Hebrews and the Romans to explain Jesus is in every respect the exact same flesh and his brothers. Heb 2:17 - in fact his High Priest status could only be achieved on that very basis Heb 5:1 (to represent them)
How could Jesus possess a hybrid nature and be like us in every way and represent us in our imperfect condition if as this author suggests there is a great mystery surrounding his nature?
Now that is irreconcilable!.
There are no human analogies. The writer is not concerned with theological debate, but with showing how closely Jesus Christ is identified with his people.
Comment: He is not interested in a debate because he has just admitted that he has no evidence or proof in what he believes. This is the irreconcilable issues for most in this forum.
Notice his words "how closely?" Pauls states in every way, every respect his nature was the same as those he came to represent.
There is doubt in this mans mind as to how closely Jesus was like his brothers and its that doubt which is caused by the Trinity.
It is significant that a different verb (meteschen) is used to describe what Jesus shared from that used (kekoinōnēken) to describe what the children shared. Although there is no essential difference in meaning, the change of tense from the perfect to the aorist suggests that Christ’s taking on human nature is a specific act in time; he became what he was not before (i.e. a man).
Comment: Finally after struggling to understand the verse as the author intended he is now forced to find a way to bring preexitence into the verse in a desperate attempt to support the Trinity.
The verse reads: “So, since children have flesh and blood in common (
kekoinōnēken), he also shares (
meteschen) in these same things.”
The Greek here is extremely simple where
meteschen is often associated with ownership i.e. the condemned nature which Jesus bore was his entirely from birth Gal 4:4 and its was one he required saving from Heb 5:7
Conclusion:
I choose not to explore the atonement principles any deeper than stating that Jesus shared "our" exact nature and offered up a life of obedience to his Father, which was acceptable in His sight. The result of such a life was "declared" to be the Son of God (Rom 1:4) note: "by" the resurrection from the dead. In this declaring through his Son he also declared His own righteous treatment of flesh and blood (for all those who are in bondage to it) - Heb 2:15
Whom God hath set forth (Jesus) a propitiation through faith in his (Jesus) blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (Romans 3:25)
What the audience reading this needs to focus on is how was Gods righteousness manifested through Jesus Christ both in his nature and his sacrifice, death, resurrection from the dead.
I can tell you all here and now that it had nothing at all to do with God becoming man in the flesh - nothing what so ever.
P.
shturt678 said:
Heb.2:14 kekoinwneken, "have been in fellowship" The perfect tense reached back to Adam and continues on from that point.
metesxen, "shared" The historical aorist marking the moment and the fact of the Incarnation. This tense in no way implies that this sharing lasted only for a time and then ended.
Old, just the basics, Jack
Old Jack - Jesus shared in "our" nature not God's! - I think you need to go back and read Heb 2:14.
To emphasise this point the author states Jesus sharing in condemned nature in every respect and being an acceptable sacrifice for sin is able to...
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
(Hebrews 2:15)
Of Jesus also Heb 5:7
Middle aged Purity over here keeping old Jack in his box!