Hebrews 2:16-17 PSA.

[Iconoclast]

Greek: ou gar depou aggelon epilambanetai, (3SPMI) alla spermatos Abraam epilambanetai. (3SPMI)

Amplified: For, as we all know, He [Christ] did not take hold of angels the fallen angels, to give them a helping and delivering hand], but He did take hold of the fallen] descendants of Abraham [to reach out to them a helping and delivering hand]. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)

Analyzed Literal: For surely He does not take hold of [fig., give aid to] angels, _but_ He takes hold of [fig., gives aid to] [the] seed of Abraham.

Barclay: For I presume that it is not angels that helps; but it is the seed of Abraham that he helps. (Westminster Press)

NLT: We all know that Jesus came to help the descendants of Abraham, not to help the angels (NLT - Tyndale House)

Phillips: It is plain that for this purpose he did not become an angel; he became a man, in actual fact a descendant of Abraham. (Phillips: Touchstone)

Wuest: For, as is well known, He does not take hold of angels for the purpose of helping them, but of the seed of Abraham He takes hold, with a view to succoring them.

Young's Literal: for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold,
ASV
Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
AMP
Therefore, it was essential that He had to be made like His brothers (mankind) in every respect, so that He might [by experience] become a merciful and faithful High Priest in things related to God, to make atonement (propitiation) for the people’s sins [thereby wiping away the sin, satisfying divine justice, and providing a way of reconciliation between God and mankind].
AMPC
So it is evident that it was essential that He be made like His brethren in every respect, in order that He might become a merciful (sympathetic) and faithful High Priest in the things related to God, to make atonement and propitiation for the people’s sins.

EXB
For this reason Jesus had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way so he could ·be their [L become a] merciful and faithful high priest in ·service [L the things pertaining] to God. Then Jesus could ·die in their place to take away [make atonement for; be the sacrifice that pays for; be the sacrifice that appeases God’s wrath against] ·their sins [L the sins of the people].

 

[Iconoclast]

In our previous thread we discovered that a careful study of the words used in scripture determined what scripture had to say on PSA. we saw what many gifted teachers have seen when they looked at scripture. This protects us from self styled ascended masters who suggest they are beyond all of us teachers and kingdom members alike.
We now will continue by examining these verses.

preceptaustin;

Spurgeon - Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, when He came from heaven to die, did not take upon Himself the nature of angels. It would have been a stoop more immense than if a seraph should have changed himself into an ant for the Almighty Son of God to have been clothed in the garb of even the archangel Gabriel. But 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. Christ’s great mission was not to save angels, but to save men. Therefore He came not in the nature of angels, but in the nature of men. He so took upon His flesh and blood as to die in our nature, that thus He might slay death, and might set us free from all fear of death.

Give help (1949) (epilambanomai from epí = upon + lambáno = to take) means take hold of or grasp, with focus upon the goal of motion. To seize for help, injury, attainment or any other purpose. The idea is literally, to help by taking one by the hand or to draw one to one's self to help. The present tense implies continuous activity of Jesus our Mediatorial High Priest.

The old word "succor" would be a good rendering of epilambanomai for succor means specifically to give help or assistance especially in time of hardship, distress or difficulty. A archaic but still picturesque meaning of succor is reinforcements of troops (ponder this thought as it applies to this passage in Hebrews!) See notes on the related idea of "come to the aid of" in Hebrews 2:18 (and also Hebrews 4:16) on for more on this picture of our Great High Priest coming to our rescue in our time of testing and need.

While epilambanomai in this verse does not have the idea of violent grasping which it carries elsewhere, the ideas of help and deliverance are clearly conveyed. One gets the picture of a person drowning in quicksand, ready to go under, but able to hold their hand above the surface. The Deliverer grasps the hand of the one in need and lifts it up.

Wuest has a helpful note on the meaning writing that epilambanomai - By a metaphor drawn from laying hold of another to rescue him from peril, the word came to mean “to lay hold of for the purpose of helping or succoring.” It is used in this latter sense here. (Wuest, K. S. Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Eerdmans)

It is not angels that He is helping but it is the seed of Abraham that He is helping.

 

[Iconoclast]

Descendant of Abraham - Some commentators interpret this referring to Jews but it could include Gentiles, specifically Gentile believers (See discussion below). In any event the point is that Jesus helps men not angels!

And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL (Jew and Gentile) THE NATIONS SHALL BE BLESSED IN YOU." (Galatians 3:8)

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your Seed," that is, Christ. (Galatians 3:16)

And if you (speaking to Jewish and Gentile believers) belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:29)

Descendant (4690) (sperma) refers to seed sown as containing the germ of new fruit, but here is figurative referring to the posterity.

Believer's Study Bible writes that - Seed of Abraham usually refers to the physical descendants of Abraham, but the absence of the article in Greek before "seed" may emphasize the character of the people, thus the spiritual seed of Abraham: Gentiles and Jews (Gal. 3:29). The same expression in John 8:33, however, obviously means "Jews." (Ed note: Thus as always correct interpretation is critically dependent on the context of the word, phrase or verse being interpreted!) (Criswell, W A. Believer's Study Bible: New King James Version. 1991. Thomas Nelson)

 

[Iconoclast]

A.W.PINK on Hebrews;
"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! But not only does our verse emphasize the invincibility of Divine grace, it also plainly teaches the absolute sovereignty of it.

Christ lays hold not of "the seed of Adam," all mankind, but only "the seed of Abraham"—the father of God’s elect people.

This expression, "the seed of Abraham," is employed in the New Testament in connection with both his natural and his spiritual seed. It is the latter which is here in view: "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)—not only Christ personal, but Christ mystical. The last verse of Galatians 3 shows that: "And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to promise."

 

[Iconoclast]

This verse presents an insoluble difficulty to those who believe in the universality of God’s love and grace. Those who do so deny the plain teaching of Scripture that Christ laid down His life for "the sheep," and for them alone.

They insist that justice as well as mercy demanded that He should die for all of Adam’s race. But why is it harder to believe that God has provided no salvation for part of the human race, than that He has provided none for the fallen angels?

They were higher in the scale of being; they, too, were sinners needing a Savior. Yet none has been provided for them! He "laid not on" angels. But more: Our verse not only brings out the truth of election, it also presents the solemn fact of reprobation. Christ is not the Savior of angels. "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6). On this Dr. J. Brown has well said: "What an overwhelming subject of contemplation is this! He is not the Savior of angels, but of the elect family of men. We are lost in astonishment when we allow our minds to rest on the number and dignity of those whom He does not lay hold of, and the comparative as well as real vileness of those of whom He does take hold. A sentiment of this kind has engaged some good, but in this case not wise men, in an inquiry why the Son of God saves men rather than angels. On this subject Scripture is silent, and so should we be. There is no doubt that there are good reasons for this, as for every other part of the Divine determinations and dispensations; and it is not improbable that in some future stage of our being these reasons will be made known to us. But, in the meantime, I can go no further than, ‘even so, Father, for so it hath seemed good in Thy sight.’ I dare not ‘intrude into things, which I have not seen,lest I should prove that I am ‘vainly puffed up by a fleshly mind.’ But I will say with an apostle, ‘Behold the goodness and severity of God; on them that fell, severity’—most righteous severity; ‘but to them who are saved, goodness’—most unmerited goodness." (Dr. J. Brown

 

[Iconoclast]

The verses which are now to be before us complete the second main division of the Epistle, in which the apostle has set forth the superiority of Christ over angels, and has met and removed a double objection which might be made against this.

In showing that it was necessary for the Son of God to become Man in order to save His people from their sins, the Holy Spirit took occasion to bring out some striking details concerning the real and perfect humanity of Christ. In Hebrews 2:11 He affirms that Christ and His people are "all of one." This receives a sevenfold amplification, which is as follows:

First, they are one in sanctification, verse 11.

Second, they are one in family relationship, verses 11, 12a.

Third, they are one in worship, verse 12b.

Fourth, they are one in trust, verse 13.

Fifth, they are one in nature, verse 14.

Sixth, they are one in the line of promise, verse 16.

Seventh, they are one in experiencing temptation, verse 18.

It is remarkable to notice, however, that in this very passage which sets forth Christ’s identification with His people on earth, the Holy Spirit has carefully guarded the Savior’s glory and shows, also in a sevenfold way, His uniqueness:

First, He is "the Captain of our salvation" (verse 10), we are those whom He saves.

Second, He is the "Sanctifier," we but the sanctified (verse 11).

Third, the fact that He is "not ashamed to call us brethren" (verse 11), clearly implies His superiority.

Fourth, He is the Leader of our praise and presents it to God (verse 12).

Fifth, mark the "I,and the children" in verse 13.

Sixth, note the contrast between "partakers" and "took part of" in verse 14.

Seventh, He is the Destroyer of the enemy, we but the delivered ones verses 14, 15.

Thus, here as everywhere, He has the pre-eminence in all things." Another thing which comes out strikingly and plainly in the second half of Hebrews 2 is the distinguishing grace and predestinating love of God. Christ is His "Elect" (Isa. 42:1), so called because His people are "chosen in Him" (Eph. 1:4). Mark how this also is developed in a sevenfold manner.


First, in "bringing many sons unto glory." (verse 10).


Second, "the Captain of their salvation" (verse 10).

Third, "they who are sanctified," set apart (verse 11).

Fourth, "in the midst of the church" (verse 12).

Fifth, "the children which God hath given me" (verse 13).

Sixth, "He took on Him the seed of Abraham" (verse 16), not Adam, but "Abraham," the father of God’s chosen people.

Seventh, "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (verse 17).

 

[Iconoclast]

"To make reconciliation for the sins of the people." It is a pity that the translators of the A.V. rendered this clause as they did.


The Revisers have correctly given: "to make propitiation for the sins of the people." The Greek word here is "Hilaskeothai," which is the verbal form of the one found in 1 John 2:2and 1 John 4:10. The word for "reconciliation" is "katallage," which occurs in 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19, and Romans 5:11, though the word is there wrongly rendered "the atonement." The difference between the two terms is vital though one which is now little understood.

Reconciliation is one of the effects or fruits of propitiation. Reconciliation is between God and us;
propitiation is solely God-ward. Propitiation was the appeasing of God’s holy anger and righteous wrath;

reconciliation is entering into the peace which the atoning sacrifice of Christ has procured. "To make propitiation for the sins of the people." Here is the climax of the apostle’s argument.



Here is his all-conclusive reply to the Jews’ objection. Atonement for the sins of God’s elect could not be made except the Son became Man; except He became "all of one" with those who had, from all eternity been set apart in the counsels of the Most High to be "brought unto glory"; except He took part in "flesh and blood," and in all things be "made like unto His brethren." Only thus could He be the Redeemer of the "children" which God had given Him.

 

[Iconoclast]

"To make propitiation for the sins of the people." This word, in the light of its setting, is one of the most vital to be found in all Holy Writ on the subject of the Atonement, bringing out, as it does, the absolute righteousness of God in connection therewith. At the back of many minds, we fear, there lurks the suspicion that though it was marvelous grace and matchless love which moved God to give His Son to die for sinners, yet that, strictly speaking, it was an act of unrighteousness. Was it really just for an innocent person to suffer in the stead of the guilty? Was it right for One who had so perfectly honored God and kept His law at every point, to endure its awful penalty? To say, It had to be, there was no other way of saving us, supplies no direct answer to our question; nay, it is but arguing on the jesuitical basis that "the end justifies the means." Sin must be punished; a holy God could not ignore our manifold transgressions; therefore, if we are to escape the due reward of our iniquities a sinless substitute must be paid the wages of sin in our stead. But will not the Christian reader agree that it had been infinitely better for all of us to be cast into the Lake of Fire, than that God should act unrighteously to His Own Beloved? Has, then our salvation been secured at the awful price of a lasting stigma being cast upon the holy name of God? This is how the theological schemes of many have left it. But not so the Holy Scriptures. Yet, let us honestly face the question: Was God just in taking satisfaction from His spotless Son in order to secure the salvation of His people? It is at this point that so many preachers have shown a zeal which is not "according to knowledge" (Rom. 10:2). In their well-meant but carnal efforts to simplify the things of God, they have dragged down His holy and peerless truth to the level of human affairs. They have sought to "illustrate" Divine mysteries by references to things which come within the range of our senses. God has said, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). Why not believe what He has said? You cannot teach a corpse, and the natural man is dead in sin. If the Word of God does not bring him life and light, no words of ours can or will. And to go outside of Holy Writ for our "illustrations" is a piece of impertinency, or worse. When a preacher attempts to simplify the mystery of the three Persons in the Godhead by an illustration from "nature" he only exhibits his foolishness, and helps nobody.

 

[Iconoclast]

The "propitiation" (which is the New Testament filling out of the Old Testament "tomake an atonement") which Christ made, was the perfect satisfaction that He offered to the holiness and justice of God on behalf of His people’s sins, so that they could be righteously blotted out, removed for ever from before the face of God, "as far as the east is from the west." This sacrificial work of the Savior’s was a priestly act, as the words of our present verse clearly enough affirm. For "the sins of the people" is parallel with Matthew 1:21; John 10:11. They plainly teach that atonement has been made for the sins of God’s elect only. "The people" are manifestly parallel with the "heirs of salvation" (Heb. 1:14), the "many sons" (Heb. 2:10), the "brethren" (Heb. 2:12), the "seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16). It is with them alone Christ identified Himself. The "all of one" of Hebrews 2:11 is expressly defined as being only between "Hethat sanctifieth and they who are sanctified."

He laid hold of "the seed of Abraham," and not "the seed of Adam." He is the "Head" not of mankind, but of "the church which is His body" (Eph. 1:21-23). A universal atonement, which largely fails of its purpose, is an invention of Satan, with the design of casting dishonor upon Christ, who would thus be a defeated Savior. A general atonement, abstractedly offered to Divine justice, which is theoretically sufficient for everybody, yet in itself efficient for nobody, is a fictitious imagination, which finds lodgment only in those who are vainly puffed up by a fleshly mind. A particular atonement, made for a definite people, all of whom shall enjoy the eternal benefits of it, is what is uniformly taught in the Word of God.

 

[agedman]

@Iconoclast,

I do understand what I read, and although you admit that other commentators on the subject do broaden the work of Christ to all, I do not.

Just as the OT Passover blood was available to all who heeded the warning, others at Will could also have headed and though not do Abraham’s seed partook of the promise. Indeed many apparently did from which come the “mixed multitude.”

When the tabernacle/temple were established the yearly sacrifice was also to all in the land. Believers and unbelievers, slave free gentile Jew, as long as they were in the land.

However, when it came to the cross, there does seem to be a separation in application.

John records the giving of Christ was for the whole of the creation, not just earth and not just man.

John also specifically wrote that the blood sacrifice (propitiation) was for the whole of humanity.

However, does not the Scriptures teach that only the death and resurrection benefit believers?

Believers have no death, but pass from physical cessation to eternal life.

So we agree in part, and more than we disagree, which is good.

I can rightly say to any unbeliever, “Christ shed His blood for you,” and I can rightly quote,”Those who believe have eternal life, and those who do not believe will not see life, but are already condemned.”

Imo, this view is equally endorsement of all Scriptures such that even a child can understand.

 

[Iconoclast]

Charnock;
(3) Our sins were charged upon him in regard of their guilt. Our sins are so imputed to him as that they are 'not imputed to us' (2 Corinthians 5:19), and not imputed to us because 'he was made a curse for us' (Galatians 3 :13). He bore our sins, as to the punishment, is granted. If he were an offering for them, they must in a judicial way be charged upon him. If by being 'made sin', be understood a sacrifice for sin (which indeed is the true intent of the word sometimes in scripture), sin was then legally transferred on the antitype, as it was on the types in the Jewish service by the ceremony of laying on of hands and confessing of sin, after which the thing so dedicated became accursed and though it was in itself innocent, yet was guilty in the sight of the law and as a substitute. In the same manner was Christ accounted. So on the contrary, believers are personally guilty, but by virtue of the satisfaction of this sacrifice imputed to them, they are judicially counted innocent. Christ, who never sinned, is put in such a state as if he had.

 

[Iconoclast]

MacDonald adds...We must beware of any idea that on the Cross of Calvary the Lord Jesus Christ actually became sinful in Himself. Such an idea is false. Our sins were placed on Him, but they were not in Him. What happened is that God made Him to be a sin-offering on our behalf. Trusting in Him, we are reckoned righteous by God. The claims of the law have been fully satisfied by our Substitute. (MacDonald, W & Farstad, A. Believer's Bible Commentary: Thomas Nelson)

Hughes makes a good point reminding us that...Not for one moment does He (Jesus) cease to be righteous, else the radical exchange envisaged by the Apostle here, whereby our sin is transferred to Him and His righteousness is transferred to us, would be no more than a fiction or an hallucination.

MM. said this awhile back;
I find your request for expert corroboration rather droll. When @Iconoclast quoted Charnock, Srurgeon etc., you said that we should rely on our own work, but now, all of a sudden, you want expert witnesses. However:

'It has sometimes been suggested that the 'sin' which Jesus is 'made' is the antitype to the Old Testament sin-offering....The interpretation is to be rejected for several reasons. First, in the Septuagint, the Greek word for sin, hamartia, when used for sin offering, is always in the genitive, 'for sin' or 'of sin.' This is not the case in 5:21. Second, the word 'sin' occurs twice in the verse, and consistency demands that it should have the same connotation in both circumstances.' Paul Naylor, 2 Corinthians Vol 1, Evangelical Press Study Commentary, 2002. ISBN 0-85234-502-X.

It has been asked what it means that our Lord was 'made sin.' It means that all our sins were laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), that He was made legally responsible for them as if they were His own, and punished for them on our behalf (Isaiah 53:5) though personally innocent (Hebrews 7:21), and that He willingly bore those sins and the curse of them on the cross / tree (1 Peter 2:24).

 

[Iconoclast]

@Iconoclast,

I do understand what I read, and although you admit that other commentators on the subject do broaden the work of Christ to all, I do not.

Just as the OT Passover blood was available to all who heeded the warning, others at Will could also have headed and though not do Abraham’s seed partook of the promise. Indeed many apparently did from which come the “mixed multitude.”

When the tabernacle/temple were established the yearly sacrifice was also to all in the land. Believers and unbelievers, slave free gentile Jew, as long as they were in the land.

However, when it came to the cross, there does seem to be a separation in application.

John records the giving of Christ was for the whole of the creation, not just earth and not just man.

John also specifically wrote that the blood sacrifice (propitiation) was for the whole of humanity.

However, does not the Scriptures teach that only the death and resurrection benefit believers?

Believers have no death, but pass from physical cessation to eternal life.

So we agree in part, and more than we disagree, which is good.

I can rightly say to any unbeliever, “Christ shed His blood for you,” and I can rightly quote,”Those who believe have eternal life, and those who do not believe will not see life, but are already condemned.”

Imo, this view is equally endorsement of all Scriptures such that even a child can understand.

We can rightly say Christ Jesus died to save sinners. That is what is biblically accurate.

 

[agedman]

We can rightly say Christ Jesus died to save sinners. That is what is biblically accurate.

I totally agree, which is another verse stating why I hold the death and resurrection only benefit believers.

 

[agedman]

MacDonald adds...We must beware of any idea that on the Cross of Calvary the Lord Jesus Christ actually became sinful in Himself. Such an idea is false. Our sins were placed on Him, but they were not in Him. What happened is that God made Him to be a sin-offering on our behalf. Trusting in Him, we are reckoned righteous by God. The claims of the law have been fully satisfied by our Substitute. (MacDonald, W & Farstad, A. Believer's Bible Commentary: Thomas Nelson)

Hughes makes a good point reminding us that...Not for one moment does He (Jesus) cease to be righteous, else the radical exchange envisaged by the Apostle here, whereby our sin is transferred to Him and His righteousness is transferred to us, would be no more than a fiction or an hallucination.

MM. said this awhile back;
I find your request for expert corroboration rather droll. When @Iconoclast quoted Charnock, Srurgeon etc., you said that we should rely on our own work, but now, all of a sudden, you want expert witnesses. However:

'It has sometimes been suggested that the 'sin' which Jesus is 'made' is the antitype to the Old Testament sin-offering....The interpretation is to be rejected for several reasons. First, in the Septuagint, the Greek word for sin, hamartia, when used for sin offering, is always in the genitive, 'for sin' or 'of sin.' This is not the case in 5:21. Second, the word 'sin' occurs twice in the verse, and consistency demands that it should have the same connotation in both circumstances.' Paul Naylor, 2 Corinthians Vol 1, Evangelical Press Study Commentary, 2002. ISBN 0-85234-502-X.

It has been asked what it means that our Lord was 'made sin.' It means that all our sins were laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), that He was made legally responsible for them as if they were His own, and punished for them on our behalf (Isaiah 53:5) though personally innocent (Hebrews 7:21), and that He willingly bore those sins and the curse of them on the cross / tree (1 Peter 2:24).

Now, Iconoclast, I have no trouble with Christ bearing our sin, no problem with Him suffering at the hands of the sin filled; however, it pleased the Father that the son was bruised for our iniquities, chastised for our peace, whipped for our healing, all done by vile ungodly humankind.

What you, Packer, and all would disagree is that at no place in Scripture is there even a hint God poured vengeance and wrath upon the Son.

We went through weeks and threads over this matter, pleading with folks to show us from Scripture the proofs. There were none.

There was basically a reworking of the Scriptures to imply, but that isn’t the way you and I use the Scriptures. You and I are of the mold, “if the Scriptures present “it” then I believe “it””. We think through the Scriptures and our first “go to” is the Scriptures. The Scriptures never align wrath or Divine judgement/Justice with the crucifixion in any of the 66 books.

What is there?

God planned it all, was pleased the plan was performed, and satisfied to the point of reconciliation now offered without further sacrifice.

What is there?

God has no wrath for believers, but buckets full stored for the ungodly rebelliousness.

What is there?

The suffering Son who guarantees believers will also suffer, also drink of the cup, also bear the marks, for that is as a badge of partnership. The world hated him, it hates us. The world tested and tempted Him it does not change for us. Remember the “B” attitudes? They are for us, not the world.

These are in the Scriptures and in abundance.

If anyone can show by the Scriptures that I am wrong, that the Scriptures state God poured His wrath out up9n the Son, then I will certainly recant, and publish such.

But the only Scripture cited was used as one said, “like the trinity” but there isn’t even that foundation when examination took place.

If you have read this far, know that I continue to search the Scriptures, if you do find a verse, then let me know.

 

[Iconoclast]

All of these verses speaking of propitiation mean a turning away of the wrath.
That means wrath was upon us, and it had to be answered and turned away.
Jesus suffered that wrath by Gods design.That is how He turns it away and the result is the satisfaction of Gods justice

 

[SavedByGrace]

Greek: ou gar depou aggelon epilambanetai, (3SPMI) alla spermatos Abraam epilambanetai. (3SPMI)

Amplified: For, as we all know, He [Christ] did not take hold of angels the fallen angels, to give them a helping and delivering hand], but He did take hold of the fallen] descendants of Abraham [to reach out to them a helping and delivering hand]. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)

Analyzed Literal: For surely He does not take hold of [fig., give aid to] angels, _but_ He takes hold of [fig., gives aid to] [the] seed of Abraham.

Barclay: For I presume that it is not angels that helps; but it is the seed of Abraham that he helps. (Westminster Press)

NLT: We all know that Jesus came to help the descendants of Abraham, not to help the angels (NLT - Tyndale House)

Phillips: It is plain that for this purpose he did not become an angel; he became a man, in actual fact a descendant of Abraham. (Phillips: Touchstone)

Wuest: For, as is well known, He does not take hold of angels for the purpose of helping them, but of the seed of Abraham He takes hold, with a view to succoring them.

Young's Literal: for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold,
ASV
Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
AMP
Therefore, it was essential that He had to be made like His brothers (mankind) in every respect, so that He might [by experience] become a merciful and faithful High Priest in things related to God, to make atonement (propitiation) for the people’s sins [thereby wiping away the sin, satisfying divine justice, and providing a way of reconciliation between God and mankind].
AMPC
So it is evident that it was essential that He be made like His brethren in every respect, in order that He might become a merciful (sympathetic) and faithful High Priest in the things related to God, to make atonement and propitiation for the people’s sins.

EXB
For this reason Jesus had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way so he could ·be their [L become a] merciful and faithful high priest in ·service [L the things pertaining] to God. Then Jesus could ·die in their place to take away [make atonement for; be the sacrifice that pays for; be the sacrifice that appeases God’s wrath against] ·their sins [L the sins of the people].

Where is PSA in Hebrews 2:16-17?

 

[Iconoclast]

Where is PSA in Hebrews 2:16-17?

You would have to read these two verses to see it.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You would have to read these two verses to see it.

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.

where is PSA?

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

where is PSA?

He took upon Him the seed of Abraham...the word wrongly translated reconciliat9ion...is actually propitiation That's not only teachers PSA but it also teaches particular redemption he did not take upon him the seed of Adam he took upon him the seed of Abraham because the children were flesh and blood he likewise took part of the same that he might destroy him with the power of death that is the devil.
on the other treads you were correct on PSA.....now be consistent with the objects of it.