A Perfected Sacrifice (Hebrews 2:10)

The Incarnation Does Not Make Christ Inferior to the Angels

Hebrews chapter 2. And let's pray before we begin. Father we're so grateful that you have given to us. Your word is a revelation of your will for us in Christ Jesus and what you have done for us in Christ Jesus.

And we would know all about.

Your.

Certain attributes because from creation even if we did not have your word We would know that you are that you are mighty that you are powerful that you are wise that you are infinite. But we would never know of your love and your mercy and your grace.

Except that you have revealed them in your word and in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. And so we thank you for both of these revelations of your gracious and saving character and we pray that you would grant to us an Ability to understand and appreciate and to obey both may you be honored through our time here.

We pray in Christ's name. Amen. In Hebrews chapter 2 and we're looking at this section of Hebrews where the author almost as if he is anticipating Some objections that somebody would raise to what he has said in chapter 1.

He answers these two these two objections that he's anticipating to the revelation of that Christ is so much superior to the angels into the angelic hosts and One of them that we've looked at in verses 5 through 8 and 9.

5 through 9 actually is the objection that would say because Christ became a man the reality of his incarnation He was fully human. Therefore he could not have been greater than the angels if he was fully human.

We know from Scripture that God created man a little lower than the angels. So if Christ became man and he must be lower than the angels and therefore inferior to the angels. And the author answers that by showing that it was the intention of the father in the incarnation to Allow Christ and to have Christ take this inferior position so that he might raise to a place of eternal glory All those who believe in him and though he became a man and in reality was a man in full humanity.

He did not lose or sacrifice any of his divine essence any of his divine character or nature or any of those divine attributes. He fully possessed those while at the same time being completely united with all that.

It means to be human save the sin that we are familiar with that is not an essential part of humanity. But it is an accidental part of what has come to us because of the fall. So that does not prove then because he became fully man.

That does not prove that he is not greater than the angels since he's going to take all of this redeemed humanity and exalt them to a place and a station higher than the angels and Give to those the kingdom that is to come and give them Authority and dominion over the world that is to come.

The Death of Christ Was Voluntary, Not a Sign of Inferiority

The second question that he answers is this question. Doesn't the death of Christ prove that he was less than the angels. Angels don't die. Do they angels don't suffer and and suffer the humiliating death of of the fall as all of Adams progeny does.

So doesn't the fact that Christ suffered a real death as a real man evidence that he is inferior to the angels. And again, the answer is no because of what the death of Christ has done. It is not an a death that he didn't die that death because he had to Like we have to die be virtue by virtue of the fact that we are sinners.

He died that death as a volunteer not as a victim. And it in fact was the purpose and plan of the father and Triune God from eternity past to send a son into the world to bear the sins of his people and to die in their stead and in their place that They could have eternal life.

And therefore his death does not show that he is inferior to the angel since he dies. Not out of necessity like you and I have to die. But he dies out of the providential plan the sovereign plan and the intention of the father.

It pleased the father to crush the son. So that's where we pick it up now this morning in verse 10. So the fact that he was a real human. There's not evidence that he is less than the angels. The fact that he died a real death is not evidence that he is less Than the angels.

And in verses 10 through 18 the author now begins to discuss the the work that Christ did his death on the cross. So Hebrews I said at the beginning is a book about the person and the work of Christ. And I remember when we were in John it was that glorious time before the book of Ecclesiastes.

When we were in John we looked at mostly the person of Christ and Then we also talked about how that the person of Christ has an impact on what he did. We looked at the person in the work of Christ the emphasis being on who he was he's got in human flesh.

Hebrews is a little bit the opposite the emphasis is upon the work of Christ. But the necessary background for understanding his work is in chapter 1 who is he. So Hebrews still focuses on those two. Those two same themes.

But now having discussed who he is chapter 1 the author is now going to discuss what he has done. And it might be said That the rest of the book of Hebrews is an exposition of what the death of Christ means.

What does it mean that we have this one who is both a king and our priest. Remember Psalm 110? He is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. And he is the king who sits upon David's throne and Receives the kingdom.

So he is a king and a priest in one person. And the rest of Hebrews is an explanation of what that Means for those for whom he has died. So now we're transitioning into talking about the death of Christ and that's what we pick up in verse 10.

Let's read together verse 10 and I want to show you I Want to show you how the rest of this chapter kind of breaks down in verses 10 through verse 13. We see that the sufferings of Christ Identify him with his people and I want you to look for as we read these verses.

I want you to look for the language of a family father brethren brother, etc. Beginning of verse 10 for it was fitting for him. For whom are all things and through whom are all things. In bringing many sons to glory to perfect the author of their salvation through Sufferings for both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one father.

For which reason he is not ashamed to call them brethren saying I will proclaim your name to my brethren in the midst of the congregation. I will sing your praise and again I will put my trust in him and again behold I and the children whom God has given me and.

That is.

Notice the language of family their brethren brothers father sons bring you many sons to glory. The one thing one thing that the death of Christ does is identify him with his people. We are identified with him in his death as verses 10 to 13.

The second thing the sufferings of Christ do is destroy the power in the works of the devil. Look at verse 14. Therefore since the children share in flesh and blood he himself likewise also partook of the same that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death.

That is the devil. The third thing the sufferings of Christ do is free his people from slavery verse 15 and he might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives and That's what we get because we are identified with Christ because of his sufferings we are freed from that fear of death and from the slavery that we had.

And the fourth thing that the sufferings of Christ do in verse 16 through 18 is Qualify him as a merciful high priest for his people. Look at verse 16 for assuredly He does not give help to angels, but he gives help to the descendant of Abraham.

Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in all things so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest and things Pertaining to God to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since he himself was tempted in that which he was has suffered.

He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. So the sufferings of Christ Identify him with his people. They free us from the fear of death they release us from the slavery to Satan and destroy his works and They qualify him and perfect him as a merciful and faithful high priest who can sympathize with us.

Now those are sort of four general categories today. We're gonna be looking at the first of that that he had It his sufferings identify him with us with his people and we're just gonna be looking at verse 10.

If by going through verse 10 through 18, you thought yourself. Oh, we're gonna be covering a serious chunk of materials. Yeah, somebody's already shaking your head and yep. We're not we're gonna be looking at verse 10 and we're gonna see three things here about the death of Christ or the sufferings of Jesus number one that his sufferings are according to the nature and the will of God.

That's important. Second they result in glory for his people and third they perfect him as our Savior. Now if you're worried a little bit about the Idea that Jesus Christ was perfected by suffering and you're wondering that's that's odd language.

How if he was already perfect? How is he perfected by sufferings that sort of implies that he was imperfect before he was perfected, right? We'll deal with that and today but just put that for a second on the back burner.

Don't don't stumble over that as we go through everything else. Okay, so the sufferings of Jesus. They are according to the nature and the will of God they result in glory for his people and they perfect him as our Savior.

So look at the first one. They are according to the nature and the will of God. I haven't forgotten about what I promised you last week. I promised you last week that we would deal with the last phrase of verse 9.

What does it mean that he tasted death for everyone? Right if he tasted death for everyone doesn't mean what does it mean to taste death? And if he tasted death for everyone, then why isn't everyone saved?

I'm gonna talk about that in connection with the second point. So put that on the back burner you got a lot of stuff on the back burner already. Okay. Now notice first of all in verse 10 the the word it is fitting the term it was fitting.

It was fitting for him for whom are all things and through whom are all things. In bringing many sons to glory to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings that word fitting. What was fitting was that the father should?

Perfect the son through sufferings. It was fitting that the father should bring many sons to glory through what his son suffered. That was fitting now. What does the word fitting mean the word fitting means something that is proper something that is appropriate or something?

That is suitable and the word oftentimes has a moral connotation to it and that's important. It means what is proper but not what is proper as in I wore the proper tie with this shirt. That's not a moral issue.

This might be a fitting tie to wear with this shirt, but it wouldn't be immoral if I wore an Orange tie with this shirt, but that would actually look bad. But if I read a lot more like a a red tie with this shirt, that would be improper or not fitting.

But it's not a moral issue when we talk about it was fitting for him to perfect the author of our salvation through suffering. We're talking about something that has moral connotations to it. So here are a couple instances where that word fitting is used in a moral sense.

Titus chapter 2 verse 1 where Titus is describing us as adorning the gospel by the right conduct of our lives. Right living lives that adorn the gospel through our good works. So top all says in Titus chapter 2 verse 1 but as for you speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.

That is the the application the moral behavior the moral character the holiness for the Saints speak those things and teach those things the the moral aspect of Christianity would be fits or is Appropriate to the sound doctrine that they are also teaching as we teach sound doctrine.

But we also say here's the application of it here are the moral things the ethical things that a character Lives as a result of these things of sound doctrine being true. 1st Timothy 2 verse 10. But rather by means of good works as is proper or fitting for women making a claim to godliness.

In other words, if you have women who make a claim to godliness They ought to behave or comport themselves in such a way in an ethical and moral sense in the congregation of God in such a way That comports or matches up is fitting with the sound doctrine that they claim.

Ephesians chapter 5 verse 3. But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you as is proper or fitting same word among Saints. That is that our moral conduct in terms of our morality and things which are impure and greed ought not even to be named among Us by why because this is fitting where it's proper and appropriate.

So it was we could say in verse 10 the first phrase it was morally appropriate and morally fitting for God to bring many sons to glory by Predetermining and intending the suffering of his son. It's important.

It is morally appropriate in what God does is is come it is in Compatible we would say with his with his nature and with his character. For God to intend the suffering of the Son in bringing many sons to glory.

So the one who is here described as the author of salvation is Jesus. He is the one who is perfected by suffering and the one who for whom are all things and through whom are all things is.

The father.

So it is appropriate Morally speaking for the father to punish the son in our stead. That's important. Now. Listen if it was morally fitting for the father to will the suffering of his son. For people's good and for his glory.

That's this it is morally appropriate for God to will my suffering if it can result in somebody's good or in God's glory. God intending or willing or determining that I should suffer and That I might endure pain or suffer some horrible thing if it results in his glory and in the good of others.

There is no moral problem with that. Now this answers an aspect of some atheists and critics of Christianity who would say things like this for instance that That God's slaying an innocent person. That's just not befitting or morally proper for a God of love to do that where people say that the idea that God would slay Jesus or Offer him up as a sacrifice in our stead the fact that God would do that.

That's morally improper. It's not right for God to do that. If God is a God of love. Why can't he just forgive all people? Why does he have to demand the death of an innocent victim and the fact that the father would demand the death of an innocent Victim that's not morally right for a God of love and and goodness and graciousness and kindness.

That's not right for him to do that. Or some people would say that a religion of blood Sacrifices and suffering is not fitting for a God of love. Look at the Old Testament and they see that even even just outside the garden that God slayed an animal and covered Adam and Eve with the skins of that animal and that Noah offered an animal sacrifice and Abel offered an animal sacrifice and Abraham offered an animal sacrifice and the covenant that God made with Abraham required the death of animals in the shedding of blood and Then he instituted on On Mount Sinai the the covenant with the nation of Israel and required animal sacrifices.

The entire Old Testament is a is a bloody religion. It is established there and all the covenants and everything regarding God's relationship with his people. It all revolves around sacrifices and blood the death of the innocent in the place of the guilty.

That's the Old Testament economy and in the New Testament people think that well that the God of the Old Testament He got it all wrong. He was wrong Jesus. He got it, right? It was all love and grace.

Then we find out that Jesus died in the New Testament and shed his blood and guess what our entire salvation hinges upon that reality and some people and this was this was I should say this was Something that was popular in emergent church circles.

Not so long ago where they said that the teaching that the father would require the death of the Son for our salvation. That was something akin to divine child abuse. It was the statement that they made that's divine child abuse.

Well, it's not divine child abuse. Because in the instance of the death of Christ. What we have is the one who has been appointed as the judge of all things the one who himself will cast unbelievers into eternal perdition and the impenitent into eternal tradition.

That one who has wrath against the unbelieving because they are rebels against his kingdom. That same one is the one who comes and takes upon himself human flesh to die in the place of his people. That is an instance of the judge stepping down from his seat in the courtroom and Bearing the penalty that he and the laws of justice demand that Jesus dies not as a victim.

He dies as a volunteer. Willingly laying down his life for his people bearing the wrath and the justice that he himself demands. It's not divine child abuse because Jesus wasn't Unvoluntarily or unwillingly whipped in our stead.

Instead he came on a rescue mission to willingly and voluntarily lay down his life for us. And so this what we're talking about this a great exchange where he is treated like a sinner in my stead. So that I can be treated as if I am righteous the way that he lived his life.

That is not unjust. It is not immoral. It's not in any way inappropriate. It is fitting for Him through whom and to whom are all things to perfect the author of our salvation through his sufferings. The sufferings of Christ are morally appropriate in the plan of God according to his nature and according to his character.

This was right. It is just it is holy. It is pure and it is beautiful and all of the blood and the sacrifice of the Old Testament. What they tell us is an innocent person has to die in the place of a guilty man or woman.

In order for that guilty man or woman to be set free to be justified and declared righteous that's what all the sacrifice of the Old Testament pointed forward to and Now we stand on this side and we understand exactly what happened on the cross that the innocent one suffered in the place of the guilty so that the guilty can go free and the guilty can be justified and Treated as if they are righteous.

God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in him. This is the exchange. He takes my guilt. I get his righteousness. It's a beautiful thing, isn't it? That's not divine child abuse.

It's the perfect judge stepping in to bear our penalty and it is fitting. It's morally appropriate it's holy it's righteous. It's glorious. It's beautiful in every respect. So that's the first thing that this suffering of Christ is completely fitting.

It is justice on display. It is grace on display. It is the place where where mercy and justice meet where love and divine wrath kiss. Each other is at the cross of Christ. Second the sufferings of Jesus result in glory for his people look what he says in verse 10.

It was fitting for him for who for whom are all things and through whom are all things in bringing many sons to glory. This was the end result. This is the Dominion for which we were created. So we get the kingdom and he gives us the kingdom and he shares his father's throne with us.

Just as he shares his throne with his father. He shares just as the father shares his throne with him he shares his throne with us so that we get the glory that he gets as a result of his suffering and God has created us to share in that glory and Christ has suffered and died in order to purchase and secure that glory for us.

His people and this is the end result of our salvation that we as his sons may be brought to glory. Notice again the familiar language of verse 10. We are the sons who are brought to glory and then you'll notice in verse 11 Reference to the father in verse 11 reference to brethren in verse 12 reference to brethren and in verse 13 reference to children.

There's a family aspect going on here with Christ as our elder brother as it were to whom the entire inheritance has been given. He does something in our stead and in our place that we receive all of the benefits that would normally accrue to him.

We get all of those and there must be this adoption this family Relationship in order for us to be given the kingdom just as the Lord Jesus will be given the kingdom. There has to be that family aspect.

And so it is the intention of God to bring these many sons to glory and listen if it is God's intention to bring many Sons to glory. What are the chances that that is going to fail? Is it possible for that to fail?

Is it possible for God to say I? Have a desire and an intention to bring X number of people to eternal life and Then for the result of that intention and desire to be that X number of people minus 10 Actually are given eternal life or if the father has determined to bring many sons to glory.

What are the chances that he could fail in that chances that he would fail in that or zero? He cannot fail in what he intends to do and he cannot fail on what he has purpose to do. Because he will complete every good work.

He is predestined us to be conformed to the image of his son and Jesus will not fail to raise up all those To whom he has given eternal life. Which is all those to whom the father has given to him and who come to him.

If it is intention of the son to save an individual that intention by the son cannot fail to come to pass. It cannot fail to happen. It must happen because Jesus cannot be a failure. He is not a failure.

Now notice the contrast in verse 10. He is the one who suffers and we get the glory. He suffers and we get the glory. God brings us to glory through his suffering. And so it is his suffering that results in us being glorified and in us receiving the kingdom so as I said earlier the father treated Christ as if he had committed every sin that I committed so that he can treat me as If I had done every righteous deed that Jesus did.

That's the exchange. Not just that he treated Christ as if I had as if he had sinned every sin that I committed so that I could be Just innocent but actually so that he could treat me as if I had done every righteous thing that Jesus ever did.

So all of his righteousness becomes mine. This is the doctrine of justification. This is what we call justification. The God not only declares us not only declares us forgiven. But he declares us righteous because of what Christ has done and he gets the reward for his suffering.

So what does Jesus get out of this great exchange? What does Jesus get as a result of his suffering? He gets a redeemed bride. He gets a people who praise his name for all of eternity. He gets us what a prize we are aren't we?

He gets us glorified. So maybe that's better. That is better. But we his bride his people. We get to share his glory and he gets us as his possession now whatever about verse 9 because we're talking then about the result of his suffering if he if he is going to suffer he is Going to bring his people to glory through that that is the most certain result of that.

So what does it mean at the end of verse 9 then when it says that? He by the grace of God tasted death for everyone and asked this question at the end of last week. What does it mean that he tasted death?

And what does it mean that he tasted it for everyone? What terms in what way did he taste death for everyone? Let's deal with first of all with this phrase tasting death. The idea of tasting death or tasting something is a Hebrew ism.

It's a Hebrew Colloquialism that was the word sorry things more than like two. Two syllables have to take a while to get past the lips. It was a Hebrew colloquialism or a figure of speech that described eating or Tasting or drinking something to its fullest now you and I use the term tasting, right?

You go to the the potluck this afternoon and you might be sitting next to somebody and say did you taste that? Taste that potato salad and what you mean by that is did you get a little tiny helping of that potato salad and Taste it so that you know what it tastes like.

When you talk about tasting death in a Hebrews in the sense of this Hebrew metaphor or colloquialism. It means that you eat or drink or take in something to the fullest measure. In other words when we say that he drank the bitter cup that is reserved for me.

We sing that song. It means that he drank it to the dredges. So if I wanted to use this Hebrew colloquialism this afternoon I said you did you taste the potato salad. What I would be asking you is did you take that bucket of potato salad and eat every last bite of it from the top to the bottom of it and then take a spatula and squeegee out the bowl and eat every last bit of it taste it in its fullness.

So when it says that he tasted death for everyone. The author is not saying that he's sort of sipped at death or that he sort of appeared to die or kind of sort of Died a little bit. But rather that he suffered fully all that is death and he experienced to the last To the nth to the very final degree all that it means to endure that suffering and then to ultimately die.

Jesus didn't just appear to die. He didn't just kind of sort of die. He didn't die in a sense He expired on this earth and died and experienced a taste of death from top to bottom. Every last bit of it emotional suffering physical anguish a mental and spiritual suffering all of that.

He bore every element of death so there is nothing about any death that you could possibly ever die that he has not tasted and endured and Experienced in its fullness. That's what it means to taste death.

Now if he did this then why do I die if he tasted death for me and he ate the entire bucket of death? On my behalf. Why is it that I still die and I get to look forward to death. It is because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

So though I am renewed in the inner man This outer man must perish this body must perish this body must die so that it can be renewed and resurrected again and raised up on the last day so his death and experiencing that death secured my salvation and Guarantees my resurrection and your resurrection if you're trusting in him, that's why we still have to die now.

Who is the everyone for whom he has done this? Now if you believe that Jesus Christ died and paid for every last sin of every last person who has ever lived in the face of the planet from Adam through the Amorite high priest who Sacrificed children on the altar of Moloch to Pharaoh who even while Jesus was suffering on the cross He himself was suffering in in hell all the way to everybody today unbelievers non-elect elect every last person who has ever lived then you are stuck with a moral or judicial dilemma and the Judicial and moral dilemma is this if he tasted death in that sense bearing the Penalty and the burden for the sin of every last person who has ever lived and I'd have to ask you this question.

Why then are those people who are impenitent and in hell? Why are they being suffered for what crime if the? Justice and the law of God is satisfied concerning their sin because Christ bore it all. Then they are being punished in hell unjustly.

If the penalty in full has been paid completely for them. That's the moral dilemma. And if you believe in a universal atonement. Do you have to say if you believe in universal atonement that didn't actually die in this as a substitute in the place of anybody?

In particular he died sort of for everyone, but it was not actually a substitute for anyone in specific and People who believe that would point to verse 10 and they would say see it sees it says that he tasted death for everyone and everyone always means everyone.

Or does everyone always mean everyone it is possible for us to use the term everyone and not mean? Everyone and we do it all the time. It is possible for us to use the term everyone. To refer to every single person who has ever lived we can do that for instance.

If I say everyone is created in the image of God everyone bears the image of God. Then what I mean by that is whether you're Adam or Pharaoh or the Amorite high priest. Or you sitting here or me or whether you're deformed or handicapped or born of the deep birth defect or whatever it is because we are Human by nature the fact we're human everybody Born of human parents bears the image of God because we are created in God's image and that in that case saying the term everyone Would be referring to everyone.

We can also use the term everyone in a second sense and that is to describe Everyone without distinction, but not everyone without exception. So if I were to say to you that Jesus died not just for the Jews, but for everyone I would be saying that he didn't just die for those who are ethnically Jewish but that he died and he is the Savior that is presented for the whole world whether you're a Jew or a Gentile or something in between or some mixture of the two the death of Christ is intended to be this his death is intended to be sufficient for Everyone not just Jews, but Jews and could be Gentiles as well.

Or I could use the term everyone to describe everyone who is inside of a particular group of whom I am speaking. I'll give you an illustration several weeks ago, well, I Should say it this way as many of you know, I'm due to get a raise.

Now not that I'm getting a salary increase. But that my oldest son is getting married in about seven days and that's gonna mean. That's gonna mean about four hundred dollars a month salary increase for me.

And that's just that's just the food budget. That's not including incidentals and consumables or electricity. I'm getting emotional just thinking about it. The thought of the lower electrical bill gets me every time.

Okay, so several weeks ago when we were over at the school I said to you during an announcement time everyone is invited to the wedding. Now let's say that you heard that announcement and then you went out that afternoon you set up a tent outside of Walmart you start handing out invitations.

Jim said everyone's invited to the wedding. So he must mean everyone in the world is invited to the wedding because he said everyone and then you do a door-to-door campaign like you're running for office handing out invitations to the wedding and you have a buddy who's having a family reunion that next week that.

There's next weekend during the during the wedding and you call him up and you say hey I know you and your family are gonna be in town. I know there's about a hundred hundred and fifty of you. You're all invited to the pastor's kids wedding.

Why. Because Jim said everyone from the pulpit right now when I say everyone in that context do you think that I'm talking about everyone in the whole world is invited to that wedding or. Would you glean from the context of the people to whom I'm speaking and about whom I am speaking and the incident that I am Describing would you instead assume that what I meant by everyone?

Was everyone present or everyone in a particular group or everyone that I was addressing? You would allow the context to determine what I mean by everyone wouldn't you? So does the context of everyone in verse 9 define what it is that the author is talking about what he means by everyone.