Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ the Redeemer Church of Manhattan, KS, 24 Mar. 2019
Several years ago I ran for the Kansas State House of Representatives after interviewing the Republican candidate and discovering that she was not willing to take a position against abortion. I ran under the Reform Party (which had been popularized previously by Ross Perot), and which was unapologetically pro-life. I discovered a problem, however. All but a couple of my friends in Manhattan were either Republican or Democrat, and the vast majority of them were unwilling to leave their longstanding party affiliation to support me because they’d never heard of the Kansas Reform Party. As a result, I couldn’t raise funds, I couldn’t get volunteers, my kids were not allowed to promote my campaign among some of their friends, and the one campaign sign I scraped together my own money to put out on K-18 was stolen. Predictably, I did not win that election, and, within a couple more years, the Kansas Reform Party lost ballot access and now there is almost nothing left of it. Considering the outcome, I can’t say I blame folks for not leaving the well-established political parties to vote for a dark horse candidate whose campaign was doomed to failure along with all the other 3rd party zealots who come and go like the wind.
Christianity in the first century was in a similar situation. Judaism had weathered two thousand years of human history and was still going strong. Jesus had come on the scene for three years and had fulfilled some of the Messianic prophecies, but then He had disappeared, and His followers were not a politically powerful bunch. They were being persecuted and run out of town, so it looked like the whole Christian movement was going to fizzle. In such circumstances, it seemed that the safe thing to do was to go back to Judaism and not remain with the unstable Christian zealots.
And ever since the first Century, new movements have arisen, saying that Jesus was a good man, but in these last days an even greater prophet has arisen:
It didn’t take but a few hundred years before bishops in Rome were claiming that they were the new representatives of Christ on earth, that they had authority over all churches, and that anyone who wanted to get right with God had to go through one of their priests. After a thousand years of that, it looked like the Roman Catholic church had a permanent stranglehold on religion in Europe.
Mohammed came along in Saudi Arabia in the 600’s. He said that he was the greater prophet foretold by Moses, greater than Jesus, and he said that his book, the Quaran superseded all of the holy scriptures written before. Within 600 more years, Muslims had almost conquered the whole world. It looked like Christianity was just a passing phase.
Joseph Smith did a similar thing back in the 1800’s in America. He came out with his book of Mormon which, supposedly, was an update to the Christian Bible. He won quite a following. Mormon doctrine teaches that Jesus was just a phase, and we are just as good as him, and the Mormons are the ones who will rule the future.
Nowadays we still get preachers with very charismatic personalities drawing huge audiences away from Jesus toward themselves,
but more and more we’re seeing non-Christians claiming that the day is now theirs and that Christianity is on its way out. For instance, I was just reading a review of Sean Carrol’s recent book, The Big Picture. This text won the Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books. In it, this theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology wrote, “As we understand the world better, the idea that it has a transcendent purpose seems increasingly untenable (p. 9) ... life can simply start up out of non-life... our experience of consciousness needs no more ingredients than atoms obeying the laws of physics (pp. 9-10) … Life isn’t forever... What matters is what matters to people…. It’s up to us to make wise choices and shape the world to be a better place … Illusions can be pleasant, but the rewards of truth are enormously greater” (pp. 426-427). In other words, as renaissance man has torn himself out of the rock of dark-ages Christianity, we are finally coming to the true truth that matter and energy is all there is in life, and all religions are illusions. With this kind of ideology being taught in all our public school science classes, it would be easy to conclude that Christianity is on its way out and maybe investing in devotion to Jesus isn’t such a good idea after all.
And yet Christianity has outlived the Roman empire, broken out of the Roman Catholic box, stopped the tide of Islam, exposed the 19th century hoaxes, and, despite the crowings of atheistic Western civilizations on the brink of collapse, it remains the largest religious group in the world and makes more converts than any other religion each year.
The book of Hebrews is there to talk some sense into our heads whenever we quail at the latest fad that threatens to dethrone Jesus. We have God’s word that He has sworn and will not go back on His promise that the Lord Jesus will be priest – not just for a thousand years like the Levitical priesthood, but – forever! Devoting our lives to Jesus is the most solid investment that we can possibly make, because it will be good for eternity.
In the last sermon on Hebrews 7, we examined another argument for the superiority of Jesus making us right with God – even though He was not from the tribe of Levi, for the laws governing the succession of priests in the Aaronic priesthood couldn’t apply to a priesthood where the priests were eternal. Verses 18-19 concluded: “So, what has happened is, on the one hand, a displacement of a prominent command (on account of its weakness and lack of benefit -- for the Law perfected nothing), and, on the other hand, a superimposition of a better hope through which we get close to God!” (NAW)
Now in verses 20-25, the apostle is going to introduce two more comparative arguments to prove that Jesus is better as a priest than the Levitical priests were. The first of these two arguments is based on the fact that God put Himself under oath to make Jesus a priest, whereas God never went to such lengths with the Old Testament priests.
The subject and verb are not stated in the Greek text of verse 20. The King James version supplies “He was made a priest” as the subject and verb, but I take it that the words from the end of v.19 are what’s in view “the imposition of a better hope,” but that ends up amounting to the same thing.
The contrast is between the one priest Jesus and the many Levite priests, and the difference is over whether or not they came into office with God swearing an oath.
The Greek word ὁρκωμοσίας (which I translated “oath-taking”) contains the same root - but is more complex than - the Greek word ὁρκος (translated “oath”) back in chapter 6 verse 16-17, but both words are used as synonyms for God’s covenants with Abraham and with David, and here it is also associated with the “better covenant” in v.22. If there is a difference in meaning, the word here for oath-taking is more formal and ceremonious.
Now, the only1 thing God ever “swore” in the Pentateuch was to give the promised land to His people (e.g. Exodus 13:5). Later He swore He would not give the promised land to the unbelieving Israelites – and that was mentioned back in Hebrews 3:11&18 and in 4:3, but God’s oath was all about the land, never about the Levitical priests.
The Messiah, on the other hand, got the special distinction of God swearing a special oath just for Him, and that oath was recorded in Psalm 110, quoted in this verse:
This proof text from the Psalms was brought up earlier in chapter 5 verse 6, but here it starts a little earlier in the Psalm to include the part about the Lord swearing and not relenting.
Now, there were three times in the Greek Old Testament when this same Greek word meta-mellomai is used to say that God repented/felt differently/changed His mind about something2:
The first is in 1 Samuel 15:35 “...the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.” (Brenton) God told Samuel he could anoint Saul king over Israel, but later said He regretted it.
The second time is in 1 Chronicles 21:15 When God punished the nation of Israel with a 3-day plague as punishment for taking a forbidden census, “And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the Lord saw, and repented for the evil, and said to the angel that was destroying, Let it suffice thee; withhold thine hand. And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshing-floor of Orna the Jebusite.” (Brenton) God said, “I’m going to wipe out these disobedient people!” Then, after killing thousands upon thousands of people, He saw David and his friends and said, “Ah. No, I’m not going to wipe them ALL out.”
Finally, God speaks of relenting from chastisement when His people call out to Him for salvation, a consistent part of His gracious character spoken of in Psalm 106:38-45 “...they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was defiled with blood… So the Lord was very angry with his people… And he delivered them into the hands of their enemies... And their enemies oppressed them… Yet the Lord looked upon their affliction, when he heard their petition... and He repented according to the multitude of his mercy.” (Brenton)
So when the first century Jews heard this teaching about there being a change in the priesthood, it must have occurred to them to think, “Well, if God changed the offering of sacrifices from the patriarchs to the Levites a thousand years ago, and then God changed the priesthood from the Levites to Jesus now, then perhaps in another thousand years God will change the way we get right with Him again – perhaps through Mohammed or Joseph Smith or Joel Osteen – or even back to the Levites. Doesn’t that stand to reason?
But God denied any possibility of that in Psalm 110 when He said, “and will not relent.” He will never entertain another course of action on that front of priesthood. He’s never going to go back on His decision to put Jesus Christ into office as our Great High Priest; He will never go back to a Levitical priesthood that slaughters animals again. In the book of Revelation, Jesus, the one “Lamb” that looked like it had been slain, is all there will be in the future.
Hanging on wistfully to the politically-powerful Levitical priesthood in Jerusalem looked like the safest bet, but in just a few years, the Roman army would slaughter them all and level that temple to the ground, and Jesus would prove to be the real winner.
Now, you may have noticed that I ended the quote of Psalm 110 with the phrase “according to the order of Melchizedek,” but that phrase might not be in your Bible. There is a disagreement among Bible scholars on how much of the quote to include, but it’s not a big deal.
There is no dispute as to whether those words at the end of the quote were in the original Psalm, so there’s really nothing controversial despite the shorter reading adopted by the NAS, NIV, and ESV.
Three of the earliest-known manuscripts don’t include “the order of Melchisedek” at the end of the quote, but the vast majority of Greek manuscripts do, and all the manuscripts include it back in v. 17.
It makes no difference to the meaning either way because, whereas Melchisedek was the focus of some earlier points made in the book of Hebrews, the point here is that the Lord swore to make the Messiah a priest.
In verse 22, the argument concludes with the same grammar that opened the argument in v.20 : “inasmuch as” those Levitical priests got no oath whereas Jesus did, “so to the same degree” of divine investment we can be confident to invest ourselves in this high-priest-to-end-all-high-priests.
Jesus became an enguos/assurance/surety/guarantee/guarantor, and, even though the Greek word for “the” is not in this verse, perhaps the emphatic placement of this word in the Greek sentence warrants calling Him THE enguos.
This Greek word pictures sticking “an arm/leg into” something, and could be compared to modern English idioms of “having skin in the game” or “having a dog in the fight.” The fact that God swore an oath to install Jesus into office as our great high priest means God has invested Himself in this direction and therefore that is the direction we should be investing ourselves in as well!
And what Jesus guarantees or assures us of is a “better covenant.”
This is the first mention of the word “covenant” in Hebrews and also the first mention of a “better covenant” in the Bible.
If we read on to chapter 8, we’ll see that the apostle explains the “better covenant” as one-and-the-same with the “new covenant” prophesied by Jeremiah: Hebrews 8:3-8 “For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer... 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...’” (NKJV)
This is also the “everlasting covenant” referred to in Hebrews 13:20 brought into effect by the shedding of Jesus’ blood and the “new covenant” to which Jesus referred in His last Passover supper which forms the basis for our communion services.
I think I will save the discussion on how the “new covenant” is better than the old for a future sermon, when I get into chapter 8.
For now, God’s oath gives us a huge boost of confidence in the effectiveness of Jesus’ priesthood and in the never-ending duration of His priesthood, leaving us with every reason to entrust our whole lives and eternal future to Jesus to make us right with God.
Now this reference to Psalm 110 raises a second point of contrast between Jesus and the Levitical priests which also favors Jesus. Not only did God swear an oath in Jesus’ case (and not in the case of the Levitical priests), He also ordained that Jesus’ priesthood be “forever,” a term of office that was impossible for the Levitical priests. This second point is laid out using the same men… de construction of Greek grammar used in vs. 20-21 to point out the first contrast. It is translated into English idiomatically as “on the one hand…. but on the other hand...”
Here is a case where “more” is not “better.” This word πλείονές is the comparative form of the Greek word for “many,” which leads me to wonder if the Apostle might be rebutting a specific argument used by first century Judaism against Christians. It’s not just that Judaism had “many” priests, the argument may have run that Judiasm had “more” priests than Christianity, and more is better, right? Well, it’s better if you’re talking about ice cream, but “more” is not “better” when you’re talking about mortals.
God is pointing out that the reason they had to have so many priests over the course of history in Israel was that the poor fellows kept kicking the bucket. Oops, Nadab and Abihu just disobeyed God and got turned to ashes, now we need to ordain Eleazar and Ithamar, but then, after a few decades they too die of old age, so we need to ordain their sons as priests, and on it goes. They don’t have lots of priests because they are so great; they have lots of priests because none of them are so great that they can do it all by themselves and last for very many years.
Christianity is better because, in Christ Jesus, we have the one guy who can do it all by Himself and who can do it for thousands upon thousands of years without skipping a beat.
Again we see a contrast between the Levitical priests who had “become many” and the one man Jesus.
Jesus was not hindered by death. He just rose back up from the dead and kept right on teaching and getting people right with God!
He was ordained to be “priest forever;” He’s going to continue remaining in that role as our great high priest, and, as such, we see that His priesthood is qualitatively different from the limited priesthood of Judaism; it is intransient/ unchangeable/ permanent – the Greek adjective describing the priesthood held by Christ is the alpha-privative of the root word parabainw. This word implies that:
He will never make a boo-boo and get fired from this position (like Nadab & Abihu);
His priesthood will never pass over from him to anybody else (as it did from Aaron), and
He will never retire (like Eleazar and Ithamar eventually did).
Jesus will always be around to save us and make us o.k.
Now, just as verse 22 drew a conclusion from the first contrast between Jesus and the Levites made in verses 20-21, so now verse 25 draws a conclusion from the second contrast between Jesus and the Levites made in verses 23-24:
Four things that flow out of the words of this verse are:
The word “also,” which stands near the beginning of verse 25 (and which was unfortunately removed by the NIV and ESV translators), indicates that Jesus not only holds the privileges of being a special office-holder; He “also” really exercises the duties of that office as a public servant. He really does make folks right with God. Jesus is not just some fat-cat dignitary; He actually gets involved in rescue operations!
The word pantelos can be interpreted a number of ways, as evidenced by the many ways it is translated “in any eventuality/to the uttermost/forever/completely/perfectly/withouten end” - there seem to be three main directions, all of which I think are valid:
Jesus can save to the extent of all time. His priesthood is forever, so His ministry of salvation is forever, thus all who trust Him to save them can be assured of being o.k. forever. The causal statement which follows, stating that Jesus is “always living” supports this interpretation. He’s going to be around forever, and it is always His job as a priest to be a go-between for us before God.
Jesus has the ability to save completely. This was the position of most commentators I read. Albert Barnes, for instance wrote, “He does not abandon the work midway; he does not begin a work which he is unable to finish. He can aid us as long as we need anything done for our salvation.” “He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it.” (Phil. 1:6)
However, the way I am most inclined to interpret the word pantelos is by its literal meaning “any eventuality.” (Incidentally, Matthew Henry also seemed to take it this way.) This takes it in the sense of whatever point in the commission of sin and experience of its consequences we make our jumping-off point into trust in Christ. He can take us at any point, in any set of circumstances, no matter how much trouble we’ve gotten ourselves into, and He can turn it around for us and save us.
Note also the little phrase “through Him” (or “by him” if you’re reading one of the old versions). He does not promise to save people who try to come to God through Mohammed or through the Pope or through the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Jesus is only able to save those who come to God through Him. And we come to Him by faith. So, who you put your faith in makes a difference. Not just any faith will make you right with God. People are not saved by being sincere in their faith; they are saved by Jesus, so it is important that Jesus is the one you are trusting to make you safe.
Finally, the word ἐντυγχάνειν translated “to intercede” is a wonderful description of Jesus’ priestly ministry on our behalf.
Of this, Adam Clarke wrote, “the manner in which the Jewish high priest made intercession for the people on the day of atonement, and which was a type of Christ’s intercession in heaven… [was] not by offering of prayers for them in the most holy place, but by sprinkling the blood of the sacrifices on the mercy-seat, in token of their death. And as, by that action, he opened the earthly holy places to the prayers and worship of the Israelites during the ensuing year; so Jesus, by presenting his humanity continually before the presence of his Father, opens heaven to the prayers of his people”
I also like the meditation John Gill wrote expanding on all that might be involved in Jesus’ intercession: “this he does now in heaven; not by vocal prayer and supplication, at least not as in the days of his flesh; or as if he was supplicating an angry Judge; nor as controverting, or litigating, a point in the court of heaven; but by the appearance of his person for them; by the presentation of his sacrifice, blood, and righteousness; by declaring his will, that such and such blessings be bestowed on such and such persons; and by recommending the prayers of his people, and removing the charges and accusations of Satan: the things he intercedes for are, the conversion of his that are in a state of nature; the consolation of distressed ones; fresh discoveries of pardoning grace to fallen believers; renewed strength to oppose sin, exercise grace, discharge duty, and bear up under temptations, and deliverance out of them; perseverance in faith and holiness, and eternal glorification...”
All this Jesus does for you who come to God through Him.
Greek NT |
NAW |
KJV |
18 ἀθέτησις μὲν γὰρ γίνεται προαγούσης ἐντολῆς διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές· |
18 So, what has happened is, on the one hand, a displacement of a prominent command (on account of its weakness and lack of benefit -- |
18
For
there
is
|
19 οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος, ἐπεισαγωγὴB δὲ κρείττονος ἐλπίδος, δι᾿ ἧς ἐγγίζομεν τῷ Θεῷ. |
19 for the Law perfected nothing), and, on the other hand, a superimposition of a better hope through which we get close to God! |
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. |
20 Καὶ καθ᾿ ὅσονC οὐ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίαςD· οἱ μὲν γὰρ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας εἰσὶν ἱερεῖς γεγονότες, |
20 Furthermore, it was not without oath-taking for, inasmuch as, on the one hand, those men are becoming priests withOUT oath-taking, |
20
And inasmuch as not without an oath he
was made priest:21
(For
those priests |
21 ὁ δὲ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν· ὥμοσε Κύριος, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται· σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα [κατά τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ·E] |
21 on the other hand, this one WITH oath-taking, on account of the One who said to Him, “The Lord swore and He will not feel differently, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedek’” |
but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) |
22 κατὰ τοσοῦτο[νF] κρείττονος διαθήκης γέγονεν ἔγγυοςG ᾿Ιησοῦς. |
22 - so much so that Jesus became the assurance of a better covenant. |
22
By so much
|
23 Καὶ οἱ μὲν πλείονές εἰσιν γεγονότεςH ἱερεῖς διὰ τὸ θανάτῳ κωλύεσθαι παραμένεινI· |
23 Also, on the one hand, those priests had become more-numerous on account of their sticking-around being hindered by death; |
23
And they |
24 ὁ δὲ διὰ τὸ μένειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἀπαράβατονJ ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην· |
24 He, on the other hand, on account of His remaining forever, has the intransient priesthood. |
24
But this man,
because he continueth ever, hath |
25 ὅθεν καὶ σῴζειν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τῷ Θεῷ, πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν. |
25 In view of which He is also able to save in any eventuality those who come through Him to God, since He is always living for the purpose of interceding on their behalf. |
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. |
נִשְׁבַּ֤ע יְהוָ֙ה׀ וְלֹ֥א יִנָּחֵ֗ם אַתָּֽה־כֹהֵ֥ן לְעוֹלָ֑ם עַל־דִּ֜בְרָתִ֗י מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק׃ |
LXX ὤμοσεν κύριος καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται σὺ εἶ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδεκ |
Heb. 7 ὥμοσε Κύριος, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται· σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα [κατά τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ·M/TR] |
1Deut. 32:40 might be a lone exception
2This does not include synonyms for this word, such as the two in Jonah 3:9: “...μετανοήσει ὁ θεὸς καὶ ἀποστρέψει...”
AThe
Greek is the Majority text, edited by myself to follow the majority
of the earliest-known manuscripts only when the early manuscript
evidence is practically unanimous. My original document includes
notes on the NKJV, NASB, NIV, & ESV English translations, but
since they are all copyrighted, I cannot include them in my online
document. Underlined words in English versions indicate a
standalone difference from all other English translations of a
certain word. Strikeout usually indicates that the
English translation is, in my opinion, too far outside the range of
meaning of the original Greek word. The addition of an X indicates a
Greek word left untranslated – or a plural Greek word
translated as an English singular. [Brackets] indicate words added
in English not in the Greek. Key words are colored consistently
across the chart to show correlations.
BHapex legomenon, building upon eisagw from Heb 1:6
CAlthough most English versions translate comparatively “inasmuch as,” Hanna suggests this is causal. No comment in Vincent or AT Robertson. καθ᾿ ὅσον only occurs three times in the NT – all in Hebrews (3:3; 7:20; 9:27), and three times in the LXX (Exod. 22:16; Deut. 15:8; Ps. 102:12), where it seems to mean more literally “according to the amount of.”
DOnly found in this passage and in Ezekiel 17:18-19 where it is in parallel to the word for “covenant” and refers to a political treaty. Slightly different from the more common orkos found in Heb. 6:16-17.
EThe entire quote is word-for-word identical to the LXX (although it wouldn’t be surprising if the LXX had not been consulted and a translation of the Hebrew had come up with the same words, since it is a pretty straightforward text in Hebrew.) The end of the quote is not in four of the six oldest-known Greek manuscripts, thus not in a handfull of the Byzantine manuscripts and not in the Vulgate or Patriarchal Greek or critical Greek editions and not in most of the ancient Ethiopian versions or modern English versions, but is in the Alexandrinus, the Claramontanus and the Byzantine Majority, and stands as a correction in the Sinaiticus, so it’s in the ancient Syriac versions, the Textus Receptus, and the KJV.
FAlthough the final nun is in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, it’s not in the six oldest-known. It doesn’t change the meaning though. Three of the six oldest known Greek manuscripts add the word “and” here, so it’s in the critical Greek editions and the NASB, but it’s not in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, it’s not in the old Greek editions (Greek Orthodox Patriarchal edition or Textus Receptus), and it’s not in the ancient Vulgate, Syriac, or Coptic versions, so I think it is best not added in, so I think the NIV and ESV made the right call here.
GHapex Legomenon – although in apocrypha: Sirach 29:14-16 An honest man is surety for his neighbour: but he that is impudent will forsake him. Forget not the friendship of thy surety, for he hath given his life for thee. A sinner will overthrow the good estate of his surety.” and 2 Maccabees 10:28 “Now the sun being newly risen, they joined both together; the one part having together with their virtue their refuge also unto the Lord for a pledge of their success and victory: the other side making their rage leader of their battle”
HI suspect that the perfect paraphrastic form here is intended to signal that ginomai, which is normally spelled in perfect tense when the past tense is intended, should be interpreted as truly perfect tense here.
IOnly here and two other places in the Greek Bible: 1 Cor. 16:6; Jas. 1:25
JHapex Legomenon – alpha privative of parabainw