 |  |
What does this imply?
B.--There are three different interpretations of the passage, and therefore I would not
unduly press this verse into service:--
1.
The Lord did not assume angelic nature, but limited His kinsmanship to mankind.
2.
The angels are not laid upon to rule in the kingdom that is coming (see parallel in
verse 5).
3.
The fear of death did not lay hold upon angels, but men, therefore Christ did not
become an angel, but a man.
Has Satan a Kinsman-Redeemer.
A.--In any case it seems to strike a blow at the doctrine I have fondly entertained, that
Christ's redemptive work embraced not only men, but angels and even Satan himself.
B.--I feel, with scripture as my guide, that my attitude with regard to these things must
be expressed like this. Before we can think of discussing the question of the possibility
of the redemption of Satan or angels, can you point me to their KINSMAN? Until you
can the matter is for me ruled out.
There is another element in the scriptural conception of the kinsman-redeemer that we
have not considered, but which finds an expression here in Heb. 2: 14, 15 in the two
words:--
"That He might destroy . . . . . and deliver."
The kinsman was both redeemer and avenger. You will read in Numb. 35: 19 and
other places of the "revenger of blood". The double office is suggested in the words of
Isa. 63: 4:--
"The day of vengeance is in my heart, and the year of my redeemed is come."
The same is found in I John 3: 5-8:--
"He was manifested to take away our sins . . . . . For this purpose was the Son of God
manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil."
Here the works of the devil are to be destroyed; in Heb. 2: 14 the devil himself is
said to be destroyed.
A.--But at the reconciliation of all things Col. 1: suggests that "principalities and
powers" come under the power of redemption.
Redeemer OR Avenger.
B.--Without arguing over your comment in detail I would remind you that Col. 1:
presents one side of the picture. Col. 2: presents the other; and when they are brought