Charles Ellicott Commentary Hebrews 2

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard.—Better, to the things heard; for this expression contains the complement of the thought of Hebrews 1:1.

Both “speak” and “hear” are words which carry weighty emphasis in this Epistle (Hebrews 2:2; Hebrews 12:25; Hebrews 3:5; Hebrews 3:7; Hebrews 4:2, and other passages). Because of the supreme dignity of Him in whom at the last God speaks, people are bound to give the more earnest heed to the words spoken, whether heard by them from the Lord Himself or (as in this case, Hebrews 2:3) from His servants.

Lest at any time we should let them slip.—This translation (first introduced by the Genevan Bible of 1560) substantially gives the sense, but inverts the figure presented in the Greek. The words must be rendered, lest possibly we drift away (Wiclif, “lest perhaps we float away”). It is the person who is in danger of being carried along by the current: unless the mind is held closely to the words that God has spoken, it must drift away from them, and from the salvation which they promise. There seems no foundation for the rendering of the margin, first given in the Genevan Testament of 1557.

On verses 1-4:

These verses must be closely joined with the first chapter. Before advancing to the next step in his argument, the writer pauses to enforce the duty which results from what has been already established. But the exhortation does not interrupt the thought, but rather serves as a connecting link. (See Note on Hebrews 2:5.)

The word spoken by angels.—Or rather, through angels : the word was God’s, but angels were the medium through which it was given to men. In accordance with the tone of the whole passage, where the focus is not on the reward of obedience but on the peril of neglecting duty, “the word” must denote divine commands delivered by angels. As the close parallel presented by Hebrews 10:28-29 seems to prove, this refers especially to the commands of the Mosaic law. Therefore, this verse must be connected with the other passages (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; compare also to Acts 7:38) that highlight the ministry of angels in the giving of the Law. The nature of the argument in this Epistle gives special importance to this subject here.

The only passage in the Pentateuch that can be quoted in illustration is Deuteronomy 33:2: The Lord came from Sinai. . . . He came from amid myriads of holy ones. The Greek version (introducing a double rendering of the Hebrew) adds, at His right hand were angels with Him; and two of the Targums likewise speak of the “myriads of holy angels.”Psalms 68:17 is difficult and obscure, but very possibly agrees with the passage just quoted in referring to angels as the attendants of Jehovah on the mount. Nowhere in the Old Testament is this idea developed further; but there are a few passages in Jewish writers that clearly show that such a ministry of angels as is spoken of here was a tenet of Jewish belief in the apostolic age.

Philo, after stating that angels derive their name from reporting the Father’s commands to His children and the children’s needs to the Father, adds: “We are unable to receive His abundant and pure benefits if He Himself offers them to us without employing others as His ministers.” Much more important are the words of Josephus (Ant. xv. 5, § 3), who introduces Herod as reminding the Jews that they had learned the noblest of the ordinances and the holiest of the things contained in the laws from God through angels.

Jewish writers quoted by Wetstein speak of the “angels of service” whom Moses had known from the time of the giving of the law. Moreover, they speak of the angel who, when Moses through terror had forgotten all that he had been taught during the forty days, delivered the law to him again. Such speculations are of interest as they show the place that this tenet held in Jewish doctrine and belief. Here and in Galatians 3:19 (see Note there), this mediation of angels is cited as a mark of the law’s inferiority; in Acts 7:53, where no such comparison is made, the implied contrast is between angels and men as givers of a law.

Was steadfast.—Rather, proved steadfast or sure; evidence of this was given by the punishment that overtook the transgressor, whether inflicted by the direct visitation of God or by human hands faithfully executing the divine will. Of the two words, well rendered transgression and disobedience, the one points especially to the infraction of a positive precept, while the other is more general. The former relates more commonly to “thou shalt not;” the latter, rather, to “thou shalt.” The two words are united here so that every violation of the command may be included. The use of reward in a neutral or unfavorable sense (2 Peter 2:13; Psalms 94:2, and others) is not uncommon in our older writers (Compare to “the reward of a villain,” in Shakespeare).

How shall we escape?—In a different context, these words might naturally mean, “How shall we, transgressors of the law, escape from the penalty it threatens, if we neglect the one means of deliverance now offered to us?” (Galatians 4:5). Here, however, the command and threat that came through angels and the salvation “spoken through the Lord” are placed in contrast. While the one “word” is thus wholly unlike the other in substance and in form of proclamation, each is a law, in that neglect is met with penalty. The writer does not dwell on the intrinsic greatness of the salvation; it is implied in the unique dignity and commission of Him through whom it was given.

Which at the first began to be spoken.—Better, which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was made sure to us by those who heard. “Through the Lord” was spoken this word of God that brought salvation. In two other passages, Jesus receives the name “our Lord” (Hebrews 7:14; Hebrews 13:20), but nowhere else in this Epistle (unless perhaps in Hebrews 12:14) is He spoken of as “the Lord”; the dignity of the title here heightens the contrast.

“By those who heard” “the word from Him,” the writer says, it “was made sure” (not confirmed, as if a stronger attestation were the meaning intended) “to us.” It is evident that the writer here classes himself with those who had not immediately heard the word from Jesus. Such language as this stands in striking contrast with St. Paul’s claim, repeatedly maintained, to have received his doctrine directly from the Lord Himself (Galatians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 9:1, and other passages).

God also bearing them witness.—That is, bearing witness with them to the truth they preached. Mark 16:20 is a striking parallel; see also Acts 4:30. The divine attestation was given by miracles and by gifts (literally, distributions, as in the margin; see 1 Corinthians 12:11) of the Holy Spirit. We have here, as in Acts 2:22 and 2 Corinthians 12:12 (see the Notes), the full threefold description of miracles, as signs and wonders and powers; as wonderful works that are performed by divine power, and are thus signs of the divine presence and symbols of a corresponding spiritual work.

The words here used are illustrated especially by 2 Corinthians 12:12, in its reference to miracles as attesting the apostolic preaching. Yet greater works (John 14:12) were performed by the messengers of Christ, because through them the gifts of the Spirit were bestowed. The last words, according to His will, bring us back to the first words of the section (Hebrews 1:1); as it is God who speaks to men in His Son, it is He who works with those who proclaim the word that they have heard, attesting their message by gifts according to His will.

For.—There is a very clear connection between this verse and Hebrews 1:14. Angels are but ministering spirits, serving God in the cause of those who shall inherit salvation; for not to angels is the world to come made subject. But the connection with Hebrews 2:2-3 is equally important: the salvation that is now given has been proclaimed not by angels but by the Lord, and it is God Himself who works with the messengers of the Lord; for not to angels, and so on. The word “salvation” binds together this section and the first. (Hebrews 2:2; Hebrews 2:10.)

Has He not put in subjection.—Better, did He subject; for the reference is to the passage quoted in the following verses, which is already in the writer’s thought. “He”: God, speaking in the prophetic Scripture.

The world to come.—The same expression occurs in the English version of Hebrews 6:5, but in the Greek “world” is represented by entirely different words. Here, as in Hebrews 1:6, the meaning is “inhabited earth,” “world of man”; there, the word properly relates to time, “age.”

Is “the world to come” still future, or is it here looked at from the Old Testament point of view? (See Hebrews 1:2.) The following verses make it clear that the period referred to is that which succeeds the exaltation of Christ.

We ourselves cannot but markedly distinguish the present stage of Messiah’s kingdom from the future; but in the perspective of prophecy the two were blended. The thought of this kingdom among men has been present from the first verses of the Epistle onward; hence, of which we speak.

On verses 5-18:

It was needful that Jesus, as Author of salvation to man, should in all points be made like those whom He saves, and in their likeness suffer and die; thus He becomes for them a merciful and faithful High Priest.