Hebrews 2:16: The KJV correct, most other versions wrong
May 1, 2016 3:34:07 GMT
Post by Colossians on May 1, 2016 3:34:07 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
_____________________________________________________________
HEBREWS 2:16: THE KJV CORRECT, MOST OTHER VERSIONS WRONG
The issue
Here is the KJV, contrasted with the NASB (which with regard to the essential element at hand, is representative of most other versions). We have underlined the section in focus.
KJV
“For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.”
Non-KJV (represented by the NASB)
“For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.”
Morphological overview
The Greek word responsible for the text we have underlined, is epilambanetai.
Structurally:
(derivational prefix) epi + (root) lamban + (inflexional suffix) etai.
Semantically:
Prefix: epi = “over upon”
Simple lexical stem: lambano = “to take, to get hold of”
etai: present tense mediopassive voice inflexion.
Such taking hold of can be for various purposes, as it would be generally expected to be.
And so because one might take hold of someone in order to help him, the non-KJV translators have, for want of being able to see any other semantic outcome in their theology, presumptuously supplanted such taking hold of with such help
That is, that which you will find in an interlinear:
“[it [(he)] is] taking hold [of …]”,
has in the non-KJV become:
“[it [(he)]] helps …”.
___
There are essentially 3 ways the help notion is expressed in Greek as a verb:
1. Directly: boetho.
2. Complex: (Idiomatic/implicative rendering of) one or more prefixes + simple lexical stem.
3. By way of synonym (e.g. parastemi = “to assist”).
We are of course chiefly interested in instances of (2), and shall point out that, whether in NT or ancient Greek literature, no forms prefixed with epi are rendered “help”: all (complex) forms rendered “help” are either prefixed with sun (“together”: pronounced “soon”), anti (“instead of”), or the both together, sunanti (“together” + “instead of”).
There is a construction in ancient Greek literature which involves epi + (root) lamban + inflexional suffix and which intimates “help to/contribute towards (a result)”, but the entire (inflexional) stem is actually sun + epi + (root) lamban + inflexional suffix: sun is once again part of the picture.
In a nutshell, an epi + (lexical stem) lambano construction that is on its own rendered “help”, is without companion in Greek literature, as we might well expect it to be. For else how could one express the notion that is “taking hold of” if one wanted to say just that?
The “the seed of Abraham” upon which the verb of Hebrews 2:16 operates, is therefore not being “helped”, but as a first approximation, “taken hold of”. “First approximation”, we say, because although the margin notes of the (original) KJV proffer “taketh hold of” as an alternate rendering to the one they have actually supplied, such latter “took on Him” is better as it takes into account the fact that the verb is not merely in the middle voice, but the mediopassive: if the middle voice is reasonably expected to be expressing some degree of effect on the doer, then even more so the mediopassive: when Christ takes hold of the seed of Abraham, He affects Himself in the so doing. Just what this actually means, will be born out by the theological analysis which follows.
Theological Analysis
It was necessary to first of all analyse the issue linguistically, for the issue is primarily a linguistic one.
However theology is more about argument and context than word-studies: one can go on forever arguing over every possible permutation and combination of a word’s meaning(s), but in the end context and logic – moreover, theology – will have the final say.
To begin our theological analysis we shall firstly point out that because the verb under discussion – epi + (root) lamban + etai – operates on the noun phrase “the seed of Abraham”, our analysis will necessarily hinge on the meaning of both such variables – the verb phrase and the noun phrase – in tandem.
And so given that our verb phrase variable has 2 contending (linguistic) values – “helps” (non-KJV), “took on Him” (KJV), and our noun phrase variable 2 possible (theological) values – “the physical seed of Abraham”, “the spiritual seed of Abraham” – there will be 4 possible scenarios, 3 of which will be necessarily discarded.
....Verb phrase variable..........................Noun phrase variable
1. “helps” (non-KJV)........................“the physical seed of Abraham”
2. “helps” (non-KJV)........................“the spiritual seed of Abraham”
3. “took on Him” (KJV)...................“the physical seed of Abraham”
4. “took on Him” (KJV)...................“the spiritual seed of Abraham”
___
Scenario (1) tells us that instead of helping angels, Christ helps those of the physical line of Abraham. Even the novice theologian will discard this option out of hand: the word of God being written for the encouragement of all believers, such scenario in which it is implied that the physical line of Abraham exhausts the scope of Christ’s help, is clearly unacceptable.
Accordingly, we remind ourselves of the following from John the Baptist to those of the line of Abraham:
“think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” Mt 3:9.
And from the apostle:
“They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God” Rom 9:8.
Finally, such limited-scope scenario is clearly at odds with the final verse of the very same passage from which our head verse is taken:
“For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted” Heb 2:18
: we understand in the Spirit that such succouring knows no genealogical bounds.
We have dispensed with scenario (1).
___
Scenario (2) tells us that instead of helping angels, Christ helps those who are of the spiritual seed of Abraham.
To this we reply that to without notice (i.e. to directly) address the Bride as the seed of Abraham, is to uncover her and render her naked. For:
“the woman ought to have power on her head” 1 Cor 11:10
which power is her husband and which is not only over her, but for her.
For whilst it is true that we who are Christ’s are indeed the seed of Abraham, it is rather Christ Himself to whom such title actually attaches, and then to us by way of marriage.
So:
“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ” Gal 3:16.
“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed” Gal 3:29.
Commensurately, in so abstracting His wife away from Himself (by referring to her as the seed without reference to Himself as the basis for such), He takes away the very foundational sustenance – her being joined to Him as “one spirit” (1 Cor 6:17) – that provides for her sharing in such title in the first place; and we know that “if any provide not for his own ... he ... is worse than an infidel” (1 Ti 5:8).
The Bride is no mere concubine, and Christ no infidel.
We have dispensed with this shameful, even patronising, scenario.
___
Because scenario (3) employs the verb phrase “took on Him”, in order to avoid a nonsensical rendering we have necessarily to substitute the (thus-far) referent of the physical seed of Abraham – “those of the physical line of Abraham” – with “flesh descendant from Abraham”, with meaning that Christ became incarnate in the line of the seed of Abraham, or simply, that Christ became incarnate.
The problem with this interpretation is that it renders V17 redundant:
v14: He became incarnate because we also were flesh and blood.
v15: (Not central to the issue at hand.)
v16: For assuredly He chose not to be like an angel, but to become incarnate.
v17: “Wherefore” (“on account of which”) it was incumbent upon Him that He become incarnate.
We have dispensed with scenario (3).
___
Because there are only 4 possible scenarios, scenario (4) is necessarily the correct one: Christ took on Him the spiritual seed of Abraham. Here is what it means:
“For assuredly Christ chose not to adopt the particular kind of spirituality of angels (who being not in the flesh have no need of faith, for they see God), but rather to walk in faith toward God just as his father Abraham did.”
That is, the phrase “took on Him the seed of Abraham” is in fact metaphorical: just as one might say something like “Jim took life by the horns”, v16 in similar fashion tells us that Christ wholeheartedly submitted Himself to the obedience that is faith (cf. Rom 16:26), as exemplified in the life of his father Abraham, and hence our earlier point that because the verb under analysis is in the mediopassive voice, it should properly relate some sort of affect on the doer: to take something “on” (KJV) oneself reasonably relates a certain fusing together of the doer with the affect of what is done.
Confirming with the context:
v14: He became incarnate because we also were flesh and blood.
v15: (Not central to the issue at hand.)
v16: For assuredly He chose not to adopt the particular kind of spirituality of angels (who being not in the flesh have no need of faith, for they see God), but rather to walk in faith toward God just as his father Abraham did.
v17: “Wherefore” (“on account of which”) it was incumbent upon Him that He become incarnate [(,for faith is outworked not in the realm of angels who see God, but the realm of the flesh, the realm in which Abraham lived)].
Summary
The non-KJV is linguistically, logically, and theologically errant.
It is also contextually errant: there is not the slightest suggestion in the text leading up to Hebrews 2:16 that angels should be or can be the recipients of help (and therefore no need for Hebrews 2:16 to declare that they are not), but rather, the glory of the angels is (simply) introduced as a way of magnifying by way of comparison the (necessarily-far-greater) Son of God (see Heb 1:5-8). And so given that at Hebrews 2:16 the (non-KJV-) suggested predicator “helps” is equally (albeit disjunctively) applicable to (both) the angels and the seed of Abraham, the fact that there is no earlier-provided suggestion that angels should be or can be the recipients of help, tells us that the alternative – that the seed of Abraham be such recipient instead – is (necessarily) also not suggested. That is, regardless of who it is that the verb might operate on, the verb is not “help”.
Irrespective then of whether the KJV scholars understood spiritually why they were writing what they were writing, what they have written is correct: “He took on Him the seed of Abraham” provides for us the reason Christ had to become flesh, to wit, His will was to do the will of the Father, which doing was prefigured in the life of His earthly father Abraham, more particularly, Abraham’s seed Isaac, who was offered up to God.
The verse has nothing to do with ‘helping’ the Bride.
The verse has everything to do with the passion of the Forerunner to whom the Bride is gladly joined.
“In Isaac shall thy seed be called” Rom 9:7.
Amen.
(See also our works: “Exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16: the “covering”, “Expounding Romans 9:6-9, the ‘gateway’ to Romans 9-11”.)
__________
References
Woodhouse, S. C. 1910. English-Greek dictionary: A vocabulary of the Attic language. London: George Routledge & Sons Limited. [Online]: www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/Woodhouse. Chicago: University of Chicago library.
Vine, W. & Unger, M. & White, W. 1996. Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words. Nashville: T. Nelson.
Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. & Collins, P. & Blair, D. 1984. An introduction to language. Artarmon: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, W. Greek inflection: Endings of the noun and verb. Middlebury: Middlebury College. [Online] community.middlebury.edu/~harris/GreekTags.html.
DeArmond, R.. 2004. Roots, Bases and Stems. [Online]: www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/323/323%20/323-Roots-Bases-Stems.fm6.htm. Canada: Simon Fraser University.
_____________________________________________________________
HEBREWS 2:16: THE KJV CORRECT, MOST OTHER VERSIONS WRONG
The issue
Here is the KJV, contrasted with the NASB (which with regard to the essential element at hand, is representative of most other versions). We have underlined the section in focus.
KJV
“For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.”
Non-KJV (represented by the NASB)
“For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.”
Morphological overview
The Greek word responsible for the text we have underlined, is epilambanetai.
Structurally:
(derivational prefix) epi + (root) lamban + (inflexional suffix) etai.
Semantically:
Prefix: epi = “over upon”
Simple lexical stem: lambano = “to take, to get hold of”
etai: present tense mediopassive voice inflexion.
Such taking hold of can be for various purposes, as it would be generally expected to be.
And so because one might take hold of someone in order to help him, the non-KJV translators have, for want of being able to see any other semantic outcome in their theology, presumptuously supplanted such taking hold of with such help
That is, that which you will find in an interlinear:
“[it [(he)] is] taking hold [of …]”,
has in the non-KJV become:
“[it [(he)]] helps …”.
___
There are essentially 3 ways the help notion is expressed in Greek as a verb:
1. Directly: boetho.
2. Complex: (Idiomatic/implicative rendering of) one or more prefixes + simple lexical stem.
3. By way of synonym (e.g. parastemi = “to assist”).
We are of course chiefly interested in instances of (2), and shall point out that, whether in NT or ancient Greek literature, no forms prefixed with epi are rendered “help”: all (complex) forms rendered “help” are either prefixed with sun (“together”: pronounced “soon”), anti (“instead of”), or the both together, sunanti (“together” + “instead of”).
There is a construction in ancient Greek literature which involves epi + (root) lamban + inflexional suffix and which intimates “help to/contribute towards (a result)”, but the entire (inflexional) stem is actually sun + epi + (root) lamban + inflexional suffix: sun is once again part of the picture.
In a nutshell, an epi + (lexical stem) lambano construction that is on its own rendered “help”, is without companion in Greek literature, as we might well expect it to be. For else how could one express the notion that is “taking hold of” if one wanted to say just that?
The “the seed of Abraham” upon which the verb of Hebrews 2:16 operates, is therefore not being “helped”, but as a first approximation, “taken hold of”. “First approximation”, we say, because although the margin notes of the (original) KJV proffer “taketh hold of” as an alternate rendering to the one they have actually supplied, such latter “took on Him” is better as it takes into account the fact that the verb is not merely in the middle voice, but the mediopassive: if the middle voice is reasonably expected to be expressing some degree of effect on the doer, then even more so the mediopassive: when Christ takes hold of the seed of Abraham, He affects Himself in the so doing. Just what this actually means, will be born out by the theological analysis which follows.
Theological Analysis
It was necessary to first of all analyse the issue linguistically, for the issue is primarily a linguistic one.
However theology is more about argument and context than word-studies: one can go on forever arguing over every possible permutation and combination of a word’s meaning(s), but in the end context and logic – moreover, theology – will have the final say.
To begin our theological analysis we shall firstly point out that because the verb under discussion – epi + (root) lamban + etai – operates on the noun phrase “the seed of Abraham”, our analysis will necessarily hinge on the meaning of both such variables – the verb phrase and the noun phrase – in tandem.
And so given that our verb phrase variable has 2 contending (linguistic) values – “helps” (non-KJV), “took on Him” (KJV), and our noun phrase variable 2 possible (theological) values – “the physical seed of Abraham”, “the spiritual seed of Abraham” – there will be 4 possible scenarios, 3 of which will be necessarily discarded.
....Verb phrase variable..........................Noun phrase variable
1. “helps” (non-KJV)........................“the physical seed of Abraham”
2. “helps” (non-KJV)........................“the spiritual seed of Abraham”
3. “took on Him” (KJV)...................“the physical seed of Abraham”
4. “took on Him” (KJV)...................“the spiritual seed of Abraham”
___
Scenario (1) tells us that instead of helping angels, Christ helps those of the physical line of Abraham. Even the novice theologian will discard this option out of hand: the word of God being written for the encouragement of all believers, such scenario in which it is implied that the physical line of Abraham exhausts the scope of Christ’s help, is clearly unacceptable.
Accordingly, we remind ourselves of the following from John the Baptist to those of the line of Abraham:
“think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” Mt 3:9.
And from the apostle:
“They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God” Rom 9:8.
Finally, such limited-scope scenario is clearly at odds with the final verse of the very same passage from which our head verse is taken:
“For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted” Heb 2:18
: we understand in the Spirit that such succouring knows no genealogical bounds.
We have dispensed with scenario (1).
___
Scenario (2) tells us that instead of helping angels, Christ helps those who are of the spiritual seed of Abraham.
To this we reply that to without notice (i.e. to directly) address the Bride as the seed of Abraham, is to uncover her and render her naked. For:
“the woman ought to have power on her head” 1 Cor 11:10
which power is her husband and which is not only over her, but for her.
For whilst it is true that we who are Christ’s are indeed the seed of Abraham, it is rather Christ Himself to whom such title actually attaches, and then to us by way of marriage.
So:
“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ” Gal 3:16.
“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed” Gal 3:29.
Commensurately, in so abstracting His wife away from Himself (by referring to her as the seed without reference to Himself as the basis for such), He takes away the very foundational sustenance – her being joined to Him as “one spirit” (1 Cor 6:17) – that provides for her sharing in such title in the first place; and we know that “if any provide not for his own ... he ... is worse than an infidel” (1 Ti 5:8).
The Bride is no mere concubine, and Christ no infidel.
We have dispensed with this shameful, even patronising, scenario.
___
Because scenario (3) employs the verb phrase “took on Him”, in order to avoid a nonsensical rendering we have necessarily to substitute the (thus-far) referent of the physical seed of Abraham – “those of the physical line of Abraham” – with “flesh descendant from Abraham”, with meaning that Christ became incarnate in the line of the seed of Abraham, or simply, that Christ became incarnate.
The problem with this interpretation is that it renders V17 redundant:
v14: He became incarnate because we also were flesh and blood.
v15: (Not central to the issue at hand.)
v16: For assuredly He chose not to be like an angel, but to become incarnate.
v17: “Wherefore” (“on account of which”) it was incumbent upon Him that He become incarnate.
We have dispensed with scenario (3).
___
Because there are only 4 possible scenarios, scenario (4) is necessarily the correct one: Christ took on Him the spiritual seed of Abraham. Here is what it means:
“For assuredly Christ chose not to adopt the particular kind of spirituality of angels (who being not in the flesh have no need of faith, for they see God), but rather to walk in faith toward God just as his father Abraham did.”
That is, the phrase “took on Him the seed of Abraham” is in fact metaphorical: just as one might say something like “Jim took life by the horns”, v16 in similar fashion tells us that Christ wholeheartedly submitted Himself to the obedience that is faith (cf. Rom 16:26), as exemplified in the life of his father Abraham, and hence our earlier point that because the verb under analysis is in the mediopassive voice, it should properly relate some sort of affect on the doer: to take something “on” (KJV) oneself reasonably relates a certain fusing together of the doer with the affect of what is done.
Confirming with the context:
v14: He became incarnate because we also were flesh and blood.
v15: (Not central to the issue at hand.)
v16: For assuredly He chose not to adopt the particular kind of spirituality of angels (who being not in the flesh have no need of faith, for they see God), but rather to walk in faith toward God just as his father Abraham did.
v17: “Wherefore” (“on account of which”) it was incumbent upon Him that He become incarnate [(,for faith is outworked not in the realm of angels who see God, but the realm of the flesh, the realm in which Abraham lived)].
Summary
The non-KJV is linguistically, logically, and theologically errant.
It is also contextually errant: there is not the slightest suggestion in the text leading up to Hebrews 2:16 that angels should be or can be the recipients of help (and therefore no need for Hebrews 2:16 to declare that they are not), but rather, the glory of the angels is (simply) introduced as a way of magnifying by way of comparison the (necessarily-far-greater) Son of God (see Heb 1:5-8). And so given that at Hebrews 2:16 the (non-KJV-) suggested predicator “helps” is equally (albeit disjunctively) applicable to (both) the angels and the seed of Abraham, the fact that there is no earlier-provided suggestion that angels should be or can be the recipients of help, tells us that the alternative – that the seed of Abraham be such recipient instead – is (necessarily) also not suggested. That is, regardless of who it is that the verb might operate on, the verb is not “help”.
Irrespective then of whether the KJV scholars understood spiritually why they were writing what they were writing, what they have written is correct: “He took on Him the seed of Abraham” provides for us the reason Christ had to become flesh, to wit, His will was to do the will of the Father, which doing was prefigured in the life of His earthly father Abraham, more particularly, Abraham’s seed Isaac, who was offered up to God.
The verse has nothing to do with ‘helping’ the Bride.
The verse has everything to do with the passion of the Forerunner to whom the Bride is gladly joined.
“In Isaac shall thy seed be called” Rom 9:7.
Amen.
(See also our works: “Exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16: the “covering”, “Expounding Romans 9:6-9, the ‘gateway’ to Romans 9-11”.)
__________
References
Woodhouse, S. C. 1910. English-Greek dictionary: A vocabulary of the Attic language. London: George Routledge & Sons Limited. [Online]: www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/Woodhouse. Chicago: University of Chicago library.
Vine, W. & Unger, M. & White, W. 1996. Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words. Nashville: T. Nelson.
Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. & Collins, P. & Blair, D. 1984. An introduction to language. Artarmon: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, W. Greek inflection: Endings of the noun and verb. Middlebury: Middlebury College. [Online] community.middlebury.edu/~harris/GreekTags.html.
DeArmond, R.. 2004. Roots, Bases and Stems. [Online]: www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/323/323%20/323-Roots-Bases-Stems.fm6.htm. Canada: Simon Fraser University.