John Brown, Hebrews Quote 2

Ver. 16  “For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels;  but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.”
The meaning of these words, as they stand in our English version, is sufficiently obvious:  ‘The Son of God assumed into connection with His divine nature, not the nature of angels, but the nature of man;  and He did so by becoming a descendant of Abraham.’  This is an important truth, but it does not appear to me to be the truth intended by the inspired writer.  A careful reader will notice that our translators have inserted a very important word—the nature—in the first clause of the verse, to bring out the sense;  which, indeed, would have been required to be repeated in the second clause--‘but He took on Him the nature  of the seed of Abraham,’ as the expression ‘seed of Abraham’ never in Scripture means anything but the descendants, either natural or spiritual, of that patriarch;  and, in strict accuracy, perhaps the words on HIm should have been marked as a supplement also.

The words as they stand in the original are:  “For verily He took not angels, but He took the seed of Abraham.”  The word rendered “took” never, in either sacred or profane writers, is used to signify, ‘to assume, or to put on;’  the ordinary and primary signification is, ‘to lay hold of.’  The sense given in our version, though conveying an important truth, does not well suit the context.  The words seem a reason assigned for the statement made in the 14th and 15th verses.  The leading statement there is, “Inasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also took part of the same.”  Now, surely the Apostle would never assign as the reason of this,  “For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, but that of man;”—that were just to say ‘He became incarnate, for He became incarnate.’  It is not in this way that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews reasons, though his translators and interpreters have sometimes made him appear to reason so inconclusively.  (see note at bottom)
The real connection is:  ‘He assumed human nature, not angelic  nature;  for He is the Saviour not of angels, but of men.’  The word properly signifies ‘to lay hold of, to lay the hand on a person or thing.’  I may lay hold of a person for different and even opposite purposes.  I may lay hold of him to punish him.  I may lay hold of him to help him or deliver him.  The word in itself merely denotes ‘to lay hold of;’—the purpose must be gathered from the context.  There is no difficulty in the passage before us.  Salvation, deliverance, is the subject spoken of, and the word is to be understood in reference to that subject.  “He laid not hold on angels”—i.e., to save them—“but He laid hold on the seed of Abraham,” to save them.  Understood in this way, there is a close and important connection between these words and the preceding statement.  He became a partaker of “flesh and blood,” for His object was to save not angels but men.  It deserves notice, also, that the word is not in the past, but in the present time:  ‘He lays not hold on angels, but He lays hold.’  The assumption of human nature is a past event, but the salvation of His people is the constant employment of the Saviour.

Note:  Frommann (Opusc. P. 274) very justly remarks,  “If this interpretation stands, Paul must be said to have repeated one and the selfsame thought three times;  for this would be the thread of his utterance:  ‘For as much as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same:  for He took not the nature of angels but of the seed of Abraham.  Wherefore it behoved Him in all things to be made like His brethren.’  What would this mean but—‘Christ became a partaker of true human nature:  for He became a partaker, not of the nature of angels, but of human nature.  Wherefore it behoved Him to become a partaker of human nature.’  Who, now, would think such stuff tolerable in the utterance, I will not say of a divine writer, but of a mere human writer?  ‘Christ is the deliver not of angels, but of men.’