Why did the Son of God Become Man? - Hebrews 2:5-9 - Part 5 Jason Willis

The past five weeks we've been going through the book of Hebrews for Sunday school, and today we're going to be looking at Hebrews chapter 2, verses 5 through 9. Two questions that I want us to keep in our minds today as we think through this. Number one, why did the Son of God become man?

Question number two, did the Son of God have to become a man? These are questions that have always intrigued me. In some ways, I feel as if I somewhat have a grasp on them, but not completely. I still feel like I'm missing something.

My gut feeling is that these are not questions that we can fully know on this side of the grave, but I don't think that this should stop us from seeking the answers to them. In my own mind, I view these as like a big puzzle.

And as I'm seeking to understand God and what He has done for man, these questions are always lingering in the background, and every so often a piece falls into place. And I understand a little more why the Son of God became man. And when this happens, it's always a great thrill for me.

And this is one of the reasons that I'm excited about this passage this week, and also we're going to be talking about it more next week in Hebrews, is because these passages contain pieces to this puzzle of the great mystery of God. That is, why did Jesus put on man?

So Hebrews 2:5-9, let's read it and then we'll dig into it together. "For He has not put the world to come of which we speak into subjection to angels. But one testified in a certain place saying, 'What is man that you are mindful of him, or the Son of Man that you take care of him? You have made him a little lower than the angels. You have crowned him with glory and honor and set him over the works of your hands. You have put all things into subjection under his feet.

For in that he put all into subjection under him, he left nothing that was not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him, but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.'" So that's going to be the text today. Let's go back and see what we can dig out of it. "For he has not put the world to come." Now the word world, according to the Interlinear Bible, it means the inhabited earth. So he has not put the inhabited earth to come of which we speak into subjection to angels.

Now we have discussed at length in the past few weeks this idea of angels, but previously we were comparing angels to Jesus. And now real quickly, let's just compare angels to humans. Angels have supernatural powers. Humans do not have supernatural powers.

Angels are not subject to death. Humans are subject to death. Angels are not bound to the physical world, while humans are bound to the physical world. So the angels are spirit beings. They exist in the spirit or heavenly realms, but they're not bound there. With God's permission, they can leave the spirit realm and enter into this physical realm, and they're able to inject themselves into this world or the inhabited earth. But humans, not so much. Humans were bound here to earth. We have no other choice. In fact, we are restricted even more than this. Each one of us is imprisoned, so to speak, in one particular meat suit. Like this is it. This is how much what we get.

We're free to roam the world if we wish with our meat suit, but we are bound to this.

Through the history, angels had the ability to appear to men, but men don't have the ability to appear to angels. And if we did, I seriously doubt that our first words would be, "Do not be afraid."

But here we see that the world has not been put into subjection to angels, but we will see in these next verses that the world has been put into subjection to man. And this goes all the way first back to Genesis. And then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And we all know the story of dominion of the earth was given to man, and then Satan seized it by bringing man into subjection to sin.

So real quick, what I would like to do is skip forward to verse 8, and then we'll go back to verses 6 and 7. "You have put all things into subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him." Now these passages confuse me quite a bit. It took me a little while to really wrap my head around this one. What I'm going to try to do is explain why it was confusing to me, and then explain what helped me to move past the confusion, just in case any of you are right there with me.

In English, it's important to pay close attention to the capital H's in this verse because the author uses the words he and him and his, but because of the context, it can be difficult to know when he's talking about God and when he's talking about man. So I read this passage in many different versions. I started with the New King James, and then the King James, and the NIV, and the ESV, and I realized that they all almost followed the exact same pattern. Some of them, even when they're referring to man, they would insert the word them instead of him.

So based on this pattern, this is how it reads. "God has put all things into subjection under man's feet. For in that God put all things into subjection under man. God left nothing that is not under man. But now we do not yet see all things put under man."

At first glance, I admit this verse seems a little bit bipolar. Paul first quotes the Old Testament saying, "You," speaking of God, "You put all things into subjection under man's feet." And then Paul reiterates this by using his own words, by saying, "For in that God put all things into subjection to man. God left nothing that's not under man." So he says, "Nothing is left out. All is under him. God left nothing that's not put under man." Then suddenly, it seems he says the opposite by saying, "But now we do not yet see all things put under man."

So what do we make of this? Let's go back to verse 6 and 7 and see if we can piece this together. "But one testified in a certain place saying, 'What is man that you are mindful of him, or the Son of Man that you take care of him?'" Here he is quoting Psalms 8:4, where David is pondering the idea of how insignificant humanity can seem when looking at the grand scheme of things.

I remember back when I was on my way to the mountains at Blackhawk, Colorado. In Denver, Colorado, it doesn't matter where you are. When you look up, you see majestic mountains everywhere. In your backyard, mountains. You go to the city, mountains. Countryside, mountains. Grocery store, mountains. Every time you look up, you see them. They are a sight to be seen. And I'd probably lived there for over a year, but this was going to be the first time that I was taking a trip into the mountains. And I had no idea what I was getting into. The closer and closer I got, the more massive they became. Then by the time I reached the base of the mountains, I was completely awestruck.

You have no idea the magnitude of what you're looking at when you're miles away. This picture right here, I'm telling you, you have no idea what you're looking at. If you haven't been there in person, no justice is being done here.

When I reached the base of the mountains, I was utterly dwarfed. I felt like a speck of dust blowing in the wind. But on a grand scheme of things, this is nothing. Taking the world as a whole, these massive mountains themselves become a speck of dust. And this made me a speck of dust standing next to a speck of dust.

Then when we consider the greatness of the universe, we realize that the earth itself is a speck of dust, which made me a speck of dust, dwarfed by a speck of dust sitting on a speck of dust floating through space.

And this is what David is crying in the Psalms that Paul is referring to here in Hebrews. But one has testified in a certain place saying, "What is this speck of dust by a speck of dust on a speck of dust that you're mindful of him, or the Son of Man that you take care of him? God, what am I that you would even consider my existence? Who am I that you would take care of me? I am so small and puny and fragile and broken, and on top of this, I'm sinful. I have transgressed your laws."

Verse 7, "You have made him a little lower than the angels. You have crowned him with glory and honor and set him over the works of your hands." And then this brings us right back to verse 8, "You have put all things into subjection under his feet. For in that you put all things into subjection under him, he left nothing that's not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him."

Now in verse 7 and 8 here, Paul points out three things. Truth. Three truths. True in that the Bible says so. But this is where it gets confusing for me, because when I read these things, it didn't seem to quite line up with what I see in the world. Something wasn't adding up. Let's look at these three things. "You have made him a little bit lower than the angels." That's not one of them. That's that we can see that. We're definitely a little bit lower than the angels. We just talked about that. "You have crowned him with glory and the honor." You have made him lower than the angels. We see that, but crowned with glory and honor?

Do we see that? When we look at humanity as a whole, are the words that come to our minds, glory and honor, or does sinful and wicked seem to match us or fit us better? It's thought one. Thought two. "And set him over the works of your hand." Now we read it in scripture, but is that really quite what we see? Now remember, I'm explaining what was confusing about this for me. Next verse 8, "You have put all things into subjection under his feet." Do we see this? I mean, man is powerful, yeah, but all things into subjection? Do we see man subduing all things? Paul answers these questions with a resounding no.

But now we do not yet see all things under him. So what do we make of this? How do we reconcile these things? He continues verse 9, "But what do we see? We see Jesus, just like David prophesied in Psalms, who was made a little bit lower than the angels. The Son of God became a man for what reason? For the suffering of death." We'll talk about that in just a moment. What else do we see? "Crowned with glory and honor." So I know this is a little bit redundant, but I'm going to zoom out a little bit just so that we can make sure we're on the same sheet of music. "You have made him a little bit lower than the angels."

I put that in blue because my brain grasped that pretty well. "You crowned him with glory and honor and set him over the works of your hand and put all things under subjection under his feet. For in that you put all things into subjection to him, he left nothing that's not put under his feet." I put this in red because this is where I'm like, "Is that what we see?"

It seems to be describing man in a way that I really don't see in the world. But now we do not see all things under his feet. And again, we're back at blue. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering death and crowned with glory. Okay, so now the muddy water begins to get a little clear. All of this begins to make perfect sense when applied to the Son. Listen to how Chrysostom explains it. He said, "Now although these things were spoken of human nature generally, all that red stuff is generally about human nature, they would nevertheless more apply properly to Christ according to the flesh.

For this, thou hast put all things into subjection under his feet belongs to Christ rather than us. For the Son of God visited us when we were nothing. And after having assumed our nature and uniting our nature to himself, he became higher than all."

He shows his extreme interest on behalf of human nature and that God makes a great account of it. "For in very deed, it is a great and wonderful thing and full of amazement that our flesh should sit on high and be adored by angels and archangels and cherubim and seraphim. For myself, having often thought upon this, I am amazed of it and imagine myself great things concerning the human race. For I see the introductions are great and splendid and that God has great zeal on behalf of our nature." Just think about the statement he made on the previous slide. He said, "For this very deed, it is a great and wonderful thing and full of amazement that our flesh should sit on high and be adored by the angels and archangels and the cherubim and seraphim."

He's describing his amazement at the fact that when the Son ascended, he ascended with a glorified body of flesh. And now with a glorified body of flesh, he sits in the heavenly realms, and the angels appear on him and adore the flesh that is united with Jesus. "For I see the introductions are great and splendid and that God has great zeal on behalf of our nature."

Excuse me. "In the beginning, God made man and gave him the command, 'Fill the earth and subdue it.' But man fell into sin and to judgment, making us subject to death. And dominion of the earth was lost, seized by the adversary Satan." So what did God do? Move on to plan B? No.

As David Brousseau taught us, God doesn't have a plan B. He's got a plan A. That's it. And we men are not strong enough to thwart God's plan. All along, this was his plan that mankind, our species, should be crowned with glory and honor and set over the works of his hand. And this is one reason that Jesus became a man. So that his act of conquering Satan and bringing all things into subjection would be done by man. He created the earth and man in his image, and he declared that man would be over the works of his hand, not angels, but man. And just when it looked like man had totally blown it, all things were lost.

Christ said, "No, it is not all lost. For I will bring all things into subjection, and I will do it as a man." Wow, what great zeal God has shown on behalf of our nature. And all of this happened for a reason. Jesus became man for what reason? For the suffering of death.

Now at face value, that's a weird reason. Why would anyone let that be the reason for doing anything? For the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor. Chrysostom, but he says, we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, for the suffering of death. Then the good thing, crowned with glory and honor.

Seeest thou how all things apply to him? Again, he's pointing to how he's pointing out how all these things fit better when applied to Jesus, not us. They were spoken about men. They were spoken about men in general, but man as God's plan A. But these were all fulfilled and when Jesus became a man. For the expression, a little would rather suit him, Christ, who was only three days in Hades, but not ourselves, who are for a long time in corruption. Again, he shows how these things are fitting when applied to Jesus. For the expression, a little, a little lower than the angels, the keyword is little there, would rather suit Christ, who was only three days in Hades.

But it doesn't fit ourselves, who are for a long time in corruption. So he says, a little lower than the angels describes the Son because he was in Hades for three days. But us as men, we're corrupt for a long time. Therefore, men is described lower than angels, while the Son of Man is described as a little lower than angels.

Likewise, here he's going to be pointing out another way that these things apply more clearly to him. Likewise, also the expression with glory and honor will suit him much more than us.

Finally, let's look at these parts of the passage. "For the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone."

Excuse me. Ideas truly do have consequences. We say that a lot around here. Seems to come out of my mouth every second or third time I'm up here. And a good example of this surfaced this week in my life as I was preparing for this lesson. One of the elders and I, he's been helping me go look he's been looking at my lessons, helping me think through them, helping me think them through before I get up here and speak. And this week, he called me and we discussed some of these ideas. And this was one that we discussed, that he might taste death for everyone. He called and he said, "Jason," and these aren't verbatim words, but this is just the conversation, "Jason, you're more than welcome to teach it this way," referring to the way that I had prepared the lesson.

He said, "It's not exactly what my view is exactly, but you're more than welcome to teach it that way. There are a lot of people out there who see it exactly like that." And I had done a good job of qualifying most of my statements with things like I believe and in my opinion. So it wasn't like I was cramming false truth claims down.

So after the conversation wrapped up, I got out my Kindle and I opened up the Anthony Sion Church Fathers and I found how Chrysostom taught about this passage. Very enlightening. I got done reading it and I was thinking, "Wow, this is a fantastic explanation, but it does not resemble in any way the lesson that I had just prepared."

And I realized for the 10,000th time in my life that ideas have consequences. Many months ago, I taught a Sunday school when David was absent, if I was filming for him. And just coincidentally, this past week, it went up online. And so I had just watched it. And so these ideas were fresh in my mind. And in that Sunday school, I talked a little bit about atonement theories and how all my life I had been taught through the lens of penal substitution. And then I was up into my late 30s, almost 40, before I ever even heard that there were any other ideas that existed.

And then after reading Chrysostom's view of this passage and then comparing it to how I had always viewed it, I was thinking to myself, "How in the world did we come up with such different conclusions or understandings?" And then it dawned on me. My entire view of this passage was learned through the lens of the penal substitution.

My view was colored with it. And the reason Chrysostom's view is the way that it is is because he had a completely different lens. The evidence shows that the early church didn't hold to that view. So in my original lesson I prepared, I had gone down this whole line of explaining the difference between physical death and spiritual death and how Christ experienced spiritual separation from God and he was my substitute. I didn't use that particular word, but undergirded it was in there. And how he was made to be sin and the Father hid his face from him and the sky was dark and he cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" I had it all worked out, backed up with scripture and all.

And it's an explanation that you've probably all heard if you've been in church for long in your life. But let's contrast that by looking at how Chrysostom interprets this passage. Let's begin with verse 9. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels."

Again, he reminds them of the cross, thereby affecting two things, both showing his care for them and persuading them to bear all things nobly, looking to the Master. So he says that Paul is trying to accomplish two things here, showing us how much Christ cares for us and persuading us to bear all things nobly, both showing his care for them and persuading them to bear all things nobly, looking to the Master. He continues, "For," he would say, "if Christ, who is worshiped of angels for thy sake, endure to have a little less than the angels, much more oughtest thou, who are inferior to angels, bear all things for his sake." He says, "Christ, who was worshiped by the angels, was willing to become less than an angel for your sake.

How much more should you, being inferior than the angels, be willing to bear all things for Christ's sake?" "Crowned with glory and honor that he, by the grace of God," Chrysostom. Then he says that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.

And he indeed, because of grace of God towards us, suffered these things. "He who spared not his own son," he says, "but delivered him up for all." Why? He did not owe us this, but he has done it of grace. He says, "Look, God owes you nothing, absolutely nothing.

But he spared not even his own son. He delivered his own son up for suffering, not because he owed you anything, but solely because of grace. By grace, by the grace of God, he might taste death for everyone."

Chrysostom. "That by the grace of God, he should taste death for every man, not for the faithful only, but even for the whole world. For he indeed died for all, but what if all do not believe? He had fulfilled his own part."

By saying then, for the suffering of death, he signifies real death. And by saying superior to angels, he declares the resurrection. In contrast, I was going to be teaching quite the opposite. I was going to be teaching that his death that he tasted was some sort of spiritual death, separation from the Father, that he experienced the spiritual death so that I didn't have to. Do you see how the penal substitution was just embedded into my thought process? But here Chrysostom says, "By saying then, for the suffering of death, he signifies real death." He continues, "Moreover, he said rightly, taste death for every man. He did not say die, for as he really was tasting it, when he had spent a little time therein, he immediately rose."

So Chrysostom is pointing out how Paul didn't just say Jesus died, he had only tasted it. Now listen carefully to this next part. "For as a physician, though not needing to taste the food prepared for a sick man, yet in his care for him, he tasted himself, that he may persuade the sick man with confidence to venture towards that food." So he paints this picture of a physician with a sick man. And he's saying, "You need to eat. It'll make you strong." And the sick man doesn't eat. And he says, "No, no, it's okay. It's okay. Look, it's okay."

He tasted himself, though he does not need to, to persuade the sick man with confidence to venture towards the food. And then he takes this illustration and he shows how it applies to Jesus.

"So once all men were afraid of death and persuading them to take courage against death, he tasted it also himself, though he needed not. For he says, 'The prince of this world cometh and findeth nothing in me.' Our King, knowing that all men were afraid of death, wanting to persuade us to take courage against death, he tasted it." Now once again, look at how he words it. He says, "He tasted death also himself, though he needed not." He didn't need to taste it according to Chrysostom. He tasted it for us to give us courage against death, like a physician tasting the food to give courage to the patient to eat. Now reading this, I noticed that Chrysostom said this twice.

He said first, though not needed to taste the food prepared for the sick man. And then here he says, "He tasted death, though not needed." And I was asking myself, why does he keep trying to drive this point home?

And didn't Jesus need to die? But then we look and he actually gives a scripture reference for how he came to this conclusion. He points to John 18:30. I think I have 29:30 on the screen, but I think it's 18:29 and 30. So Jesus is speaking to his disciples and he tells them what's going to happen in the near future. And he says this, "And now I have told you before it comes that when it does come to pass, you will believe." And here it is, "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming." And I sense that Jesus is saying, "Boys, our time is short.

I won't be with you much longer. Satan's coming for me. There's a ransom on my head. I must be handed over for your sake." And listen to this, he says, "And he has nothing in me." He's speaking of Satan. "And Satan has nothing in me. Time is short and Satan is coming. I must go, but he has nothing in me." That is to say that Satan has produced no sin in his life. Satan had nothing in him. And remember, the wages of sin is death. And where there is no sin, there is no need to die. And I think this is why Chrysostom points to this verse to explain why he insists that Christ did not need to die.

There was no sin in him. He says that he died in compassion. He saw that men were all their lives fearful of death. So in compassion of man, like a good physician, he said, "It's okay. It's okay. Have courage." And he tasted it himself.

So since all men were afraid of death and persuading them to take courage against death, he tasted it also himself, though he needed not.