Hebrews 2:2-4 "How shall we escape if such a great salvation we deem as less?

2. ει γαρ ο δι αγγελων λαληθεις λογος εγενετο βεβαιος και πασα παραβασις και παρακοη ελαβεν ενδικον μισθαποδοσιαν 3. πως ημεις εκφευξομεθα τηλικαυτης αμελησαντες σωτηριας ητις αρχην λαβουσα λαλεισθαι δια του κυριου υπο των ακουσαντων εις ημας εβεβαιωθη 4. συνεπιμαρτυρουντος του θεου σημειοις τε και τερασιν και ποικιλαις δυναμεσιν και πνευματος αγιου μερισμοις κατα την αυτου θελησιν2.

2. For if the word spoken by the angels was trustworthy, and each transgression and each time they did not heed had its due reward, 3. how shall we escape if such great salvation we deem as less? Which from the beginning the Lord took hold of it broadcasting it to those who heard it, being confirmed before us 4. God Himself testifying together with marvels and prodigious and diverse portentous signs and the Holy Spirit administering according to His will.

At the center of this passage is v. 3, which has been most often translated as “How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?”

It is a question that implies inescapable consequences. However, it presents a rather confused concept of the gospel’s announcement of salvation. In refering to salvation it describes it as “such a great salvation”. On the other hand, it implies that we can escape this salvation if we neglect it. If understood in this manner, this salvation is really not all that great or powerful if indeed mere neglect will bring upon us inescapable punishments as sure and as certain as the revelation given by angels to Moses. If we can escape this salvation by mere neglect, then the “greatness” of this salvation is certainly diminished. It may be great, but easy to elude. This interpretation of the text has certainly presented difficulties for believers in the gospel.

Another problem is that the question implies a motivation arising from fear rather than love for accepting Christ’s great salvation. “How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” If salvation may be lost with a mere neglect (other modern language translations render “careless” [descuido (Spanish)]), we will not escape punishment, therefore Christ’s salvation must be accepted in order to escape punishment. However, this is not the gospel motivation for accepting Christ, and neither does it agree with the testimony of other Scriptures: “If I be lifted up [on the cross] I will draw all unto me” (John 12:32). “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:18,19).

Is there then a way of understanding this question in the light of the gospel? We must remember that Scripture is its own interpreter, and that all Scripture points to Christ and to the great love found in the gospel. That principle is also true here in Hebrews 2:2-4. This Scripture has its sense and meaning in the great revelation of the love of the Lord Jesus.

Verse 2 is the introduction to verse 3. The question found in v. 3, “How shall we escape...?” cannot be understood apart from its connection with v. 2. Verse 2 is a continuation of the author’s entire argument given in chapter 1: The revelation given in the Son is greater than the revelation given to the angels. However, the author does not demean the revelation given to the angels. This revelation was trustworthy as God’s will for Israel. It was trustworthy because it pointed to the coming of the Messiah. The revelation given to the angels was replete with symbols, figures, and types that announced the redemptive work of the Messiah, the work of the Son, the greater revelation. The revelation given to the angels showed God’s relationship with humanity without the redemptive work of the Messiah: “every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward” (Hebrews 2:2).

Therefore, the author’s question of v. 3 is directly connected to v. 2: “How shall we escape if such a great salvation we deem as less?” The question compares the revelation given in the Son with the previous revelation given to Moses through the angels. How shall we escape the consequences if the revelation given in the Son we deem of lesser value than the revelation given to the angels? The question presupposes a comparison between the two revelations. It is not that now we are going to “neglect” or be “careless” with the revelation given in the Son. That is not the target or thrust of the author’s question. His objective is to create a comparison between the two revelations through the incisive question: “If the greater and absolute revelation given in the Son we deem as less in value as that which was given to the angels, we have no other recourse than to await the same consequences of punishment received by those who disobeyed the first revelation. There was no escaping the consequences of not heeding that revelation. How then will there be any escape if the greater revelation we don’t even hold as being equal in value as the old revelation?” Such is the literal translation of the Greek which appears above, which then renders the question as “How shall we escape if such great salvation we deem as less?”

For many, understanding this penetrating question in this manner will be new, and perhaps difficult to accept. In general, modern versions have translated the Greek of this question like this: “How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” The difference between the literal translation offered above and the most common translation lies in the translation of the Greek verb “amello”. This verb is most commonly translated “neglect” which is also found in the Latin translations (neglexerum). However the translations which render “neglect” render not the original or literal meaning of the word, but rather the consequential meaning of the word. Among the modern language translations the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras translations point to the earlier meaning of the word when it uses the phrase “tener en poco” (to deem as small). However, the original Greek’s intent is “to deem less than”, “to undervalue”, “to depreciate”. Something that is “undervalued” is certainly “neglected” because it is considered as of “less value” than something else which is given greater value.

However, the precise and original meaning, confirmed by the context of v. 3 is “to deem less than”, “to undervalue”, “to depreciate” (to value something as of less value in comparison to something given greater value).

This translation of “amello” here in Hebrews 2:3 is confirmed by the same use of “depreciating” or “under-valuing” which the same verb word, in the same tense carries in Matthew 22:5. In this text, this same verb is found to describe what those invited to the wedding feast of the king’s son did with the invitation: they “under-valued” it. They deemed the invitation of the king to his son’s wedding feast as below the value of their own interests: to take care of their fields and their own business interests.

(1) The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son, (3) and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast: and they would not come. (4) Again he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them that are bidden, Behold, I have made ready my dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come to the marriage feast. (5) But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his merchandise (Matthew 22:1-5).

In v. 5 the word that is generally translated “did not pay attention” (CEV), or “did not care” (MKJV), is more correctly translated as “made light of it” in the King James Version. This translation points to the more precise translation of “undervalued” or “deemed less than”. In other words the invitees deemed the invitation of the king to his son’s wedding beneath their own businesses and interests. They compared the importance of two things as having value for their lives: the invitation of the king vs. their own interests. After weighing and comparing they underrated the king’s invitation in value when compared to their own interests. They thought that in the long run they would be better off with the works of their own doing than accepting the generous and free invitation of the king to his son’s wedding. They depreciated or undervalued the king’s invitation when compared to the value of the fruit of their own works. This is the sense of the Greek word “amello”, the same word that is used in Matthew 22:5 and in Hebrews 2:3.

Therefore, in Hebrews 2, the author compares the old revelation given to Moses through the angels with the perfect and complete revelation given “in these last days” in the Son. In 2:2, the author affirms that the old revelation was trustworthy, and to transgress it and not heed it brought its due just consequences. Although the author finds value in the old revelation he now proceeds to weigh the value of the new revelation given in the Son comparing it with the old: “How shall we escape if the new revelation given in the Son is deemed to be of lesser value than the old?

It is a rhetorical question since the answer is obvious. We will not escape because when we value the new revelation beneath the old revelation given to Moses we remain subject to the same punishments that were given for transgressing and not heeding that old revelation. When the new revelation is undervalued, there is nothing better. The old revelation remains in place with its same punishments dealt in due consequence for the transgressions. The theological question the author poses is, "How shall we escape if the old revelation did not provide salvation, how can we expect it to provide salvation now, when a new and greater salvation has been opened in the revelation of Jesus Christ?"

But it is not so with the new revelation. This new revelation in the Son is “so great a salvation”. Therefore, it is strong, powerful, sovereign. Rather, there is no escaping the reach of this salvation given through the grace of Christ bearing our sins on His body on the cross. The author’s argument implies another question: “How shall we escape such a great salvation?” In the old revelation there was no escaping the punishments. In the new revelation there is no escaping the Son’s great power to save.

"(37) All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. (38) For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. (39) And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (40) For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:37-40 ESV)."