104 - The Excellent High Priest [B]

Hebrews Lesson 104   October 18, 2007 

^NKJ Psalm 119:9 How can a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your word.

We are back in Hebrews 7, Hebrews 7.  Now last time we were in Hebrews we got down through about verse 14 and then I took us on a little detour.  We went down a side trail to go through an orientation to dispensations and to understand why we believe in dispensations.  It's not an external theology imposed on the Bible.  But as we apply the basic principles of a literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic consistently to the Scripture; then what we discover is that God has worked in different ages in different ways.  There are some things in all the dispensations that stay the same and there are other things that are different.  One of the things that changes (and whether you are dispensationalists or not, you are forced to deal with this, forced to admit this, that there) is a major shift that occurs because of the cross.  That's what's focused on in this particular chapter because at the cross the Law is finished.  When the Law ends, it not only ends the Law, it ends the Old Testament ritual.  It ends the Old Testament priesthood.  It ends the whole structure of the spiritual life that is built on the ritual system that God gave to Israel.  So a new priesthood comes into effect by the Lord Jesus Christ at the cross. 

Now when we look at Hebrews we have to remember as Church Age believers living some 1900 years or so later, that we really don't read Hebrews the way the original recipients read Hebrews. The original recipients were Jewish believers probably from a priestly background and they were deeply troubled by the fact that there was this new priesthood.  They had spent their lives dealing with the fact that they were Levites, that there was a temple in Jerusalem, that the High Priest was a descendent of Aaron and all the ritual associated with that, and all of the ceremony that was associated with that was the very fabric of their lives.  Now they are wrestling with whether or not to go back into Judaism and to really understand what has changed with this new revelation that has come through Jesus Christ.  That becomes the backdrop for this.  The things they are wrestling with are not as significant to us as Gentiles in the Church Age, but the implications are because it relates to Jesus Christ's ministry as a High Priest. 

What happens in the structure of this epistle is as you move from the first part of the chapter 7 talking about the high priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek in verses 11 down thru 17 (actually from 11 down through 28), we see a transition. I can basically summarize what he is going to say in those verses from 11 down to 28 – those 18 verses – he is going to talk about the fact that the priesthood according to the order of Aaron was temporary.  It was limited and the priests themselves were sinners.  They not only had to offer sacrifices for themselves;  they had to offer sacrifices for themselves before they could offer sacrifices for the people. There were numerous priests because they all died.  In contrast what they really needed was a high priest who was sinless, who didn't need to sacrifice for himself, who was eternal and would not be replaced.  That is grounded in a verse Psalm 110:4 which quoted in verse 17 and quoted again in verse 21 so that everything that is said between 11 and 28 is basically unpacking this one verse from Psalms. 

Before we diverted down the dispensational track for a few weeks, we had gone through verses 11 through 14 in this section.  Now I want to go back and review that tonight so that we get our heads back into that.  This isn't a long review but by way of introduction.

1. The first thing that the writer is saying in verse 11 is the completion of the plan of salvation and that's the key word.  Maybe you have it translated perfection which is what the New King James has.

Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood

That's the Greek word telios which has to do with completion, not perfection in the sense of flawlessness, but completeness.  There is no completed salvation in the Old Testament because their salvation was provisional until the Messiah actually paid for sins on the cross.  So the first thing that he is saying is that the completion of the plan of salvation could not take place through the Levitical priesthood because it (the Levitical priesthood) was incomplete.  That's the first verse. 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law),

That's his initial clause.  It's a second class condition as we studied at the time.  If and it's not.  It wasn't possible but he is making that assumption even though it's not true.  Then he is going to bring in the "then" clause in the second point.  It relates to the second point.  But the first point is simply that the completion of the plan of salvation could not take place through the Levitical priesthood.  It was impossible for any of the Old Testament ritual or ceremony to bring a complete salvation. It was simply a picture of what God would do. 

2. The second point of review is that he is saying that because the order of Aaron was insufficient another order of priest was necessary.  This is the second half of verse 11 where he says in the apodosis,

what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

His point is that "if perfection" (if a complete salvation were available through the Levitical priesthood and it's not), what need would there be for another priest.  But we do have another priesthood.  We have another high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.  Therefore it was necessary to have this second priest who could complete the plan of salvation. 

Actually what the writer is doing is he is stating the same principle three or four different times from one angle, then another angle, then another angle.  He keeps repeating this to make sure that these Jewish former priests who are now Church Age believers understand the issue.  It is called repetition.  He is drilling it into them to make sure that they get it. 

3. The third point that he makes is that the order of priesthood was tied to a particular covenant, the Mosaic Covenant.  So the Aaronic priesthood was established by the Mosaic Covenant and therefore the two are integrally related.  You can't separate the Aaronic priesthood from the Mosaic Covenant.  If one ends the other ends.  If one continues, the other continues because the Mosaic Covenant is a legal contract that establishes the order of Aaron as a priestly order which leads to point 4.

4. A change in priesthood would therefore necessitate a change in the covenant.  If you change the priesthood you have to change the contract.  That's Hebrews 7:12.

^NKJ Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

This is a great passage that I really had not thought of in demonstrating the end of the Law.  Usually I go to a passage in Romans or in Galatians to demonstrate that the Law has ended.  But, this is a much stronger passage to show that the Mosaic Law ended because we have a different priesthood, a high priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.  There is a different legal structure, a different covenant.  What comes through in this whole section is how God grounds and establishes all of His relationships with man according to legal contracts.  There is this legal structure that I think has to go back to the basic concept of some sort of appeal trial of Satan.  There is this judicial dimension.  We are justified.  We will be eventually judged before the Supreme Court of Heaven.  We have imputation.  All these terms are forensic terms.  They are courtroom terms.  They're not experiential emotional feel-good terms.  They all have to do with that which is legally correct and it's all laid out in legal documents known as covenants or contracts.  So a change in the priesthood necessitates a change in the covenant. 

5. The Levitical priesthood was based on physical factors, not spiritual factors.  You couldn't have certain physical defects and serve as a priest.  You had to be physically related to Levi to be a Levitical priest and to Aaron to be a high priest.  There is no mention of any spiritual aspect to that priesthood – no indication of regeneration, no indication that they are walking with the Lord, or anything.  Of course that is what the Lord would desire, but that's not a prerequisite.  What was required was genetic relationship to Levi, to Aaron, and they had to be without physical defect. 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:13 For He

…referring to the Lord Jesus Christ.

of whom these things

That is, related to the Melchizedekean priesthood. 

are spoken belongs to another tribe,

He was of the tribe of Judah. Someone from the tribe of Judah could not officiate in the temple service which is what he concludes with. 

from which no man has officiated at the altar.

Only a Levite was qualified to go in and offer sacrifices at the altar and to serve in the temple.

6. The sixth point that he makes is that Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi so another order of priesthood was necessary.  This he says is virtually self-evident.  Since Jesus is not of the tribe of Levi, it is logically evident that another priesthood is necessary. 

7. The seventh point he makes is that the Mosaic Code said nothing of another kind of priesthood.  This is what he states in verse 14. 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.

Now we are going to come back and look at this word "evident" because if you are looking at your Bibles (and you should be), you'll notice that verse 14 and verse 15 both have a statement that's translated into English as if it's the same Greek word.  Verse 14 reads "for it is evident" and verse 15 reads "and it is yet far more evident".  Actually they are two different words in the Greek.  They have the same root, but they have different prepositions which indicate a greater intensification in the second word.  The word "here" simply indicates something that is factually obvious - something that is factually obvious.  It's factually obvious that our Lord arose from Judah.  Everyone could demonstrate that from His parentage.  It was obvious to one and all that He was from the tribe of Judah.  Moses said nothing in the Pentateuch about the tribe of Judah serving in the Temple.  It is a self-evident fact from the Scriptures. 

8. He is drawing a conclusion and an inference.  Therefore the Lord as a Melchizedekean high priest in manifestly superior to the Aaronic priesthood. 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest

^NKJ Hebrews 7:16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment,

He had to be related to Aaron.  He had to be related to Levi, no physical defects.  That is what is meant by a fleshly commandment. 

but according to the power of an endless life.

That's really a key phrase there – the power.  He is focusing on the fact that Jesus is eternal so His priesthood would be eternal.  That's the point of the quote in verse 17.  Now as I pointed out already, the difference between these two words that are both translated evident in the English.  The first word is prodelos and the second word is katadelos – delos being the root.  In the first word pro is your prepositional prefix and in the second word kata is your prepositional prefix.  Kata is a stronger emphasis than pro.  The first one means that is factually obvious or apparent.  The second word katadelos indicates something that is more than factually obvious.  It is an irresistible conclusion.  It is overwhelmingly obvious.  So you can't escape this conclusion that it becomes an irresistible conclusion that …

Then we have the word "if".  We do have a first class condition set up here in the Greek, but the "if" expresses the protasis which is the first part of the clause.  In any conditional clause you have "if" and "then".  If this happens, then that happens.  The "if" clause is called the protasis.  Pro indicates it comes first.  The apodosis comes afterward; it follows.  There is no apodosis here.  Therefore what he is basically saying is something along the idea that … and the "and" (Now I am starting to get into the exegesis of his verse.) really shouldn't be translated and because that looks as if it's just adding something.  But the kai here is used in an ascensive manner, something even more.  So it should be translated something like "it is even more inescapably obvious since there has arisen".  It is a present tense, but it has a perfective sense to it.  It has happened with results that are continuing into the present.  It is even more intently obvious that another High Priest has arisen in the likeness of Melchizedek.  We'll look at a corrected translation in just a minute. 

He is drawing a very strong conclusion based on the reality that because another High Priest has arisen according to Melchizedek, it completely replaces the previous priesthood and that implies a replacement of the previous covenant.  He hasn't really introduced the word covenant yet, but he will before we get too much further.  He has just introduced Law, but he starts talking about covenant a little later on in the section 20 down to 28.  But all of this is leading to chapter 8. That's what is a little bit difficult about going through and explaining this section from 11 to 28 because it's a transition.  He is not making strong doctrinal points.  There are no imperatives here.  There is nothing for mandates for you to go do or to think differently.  He's simply drawing a very tight argument that if there is a new priest, He is after the order of Melchizedek, if this priest is eternal and we know he is eternal because he is a priest forever.  That is going to be verse 17, the quote from Psalm 110 4.  Then that means that the former commandment is going to be nullified.  That is verse 18.  Because of that, he goes on and is building one thing on another, walking the readers through a logical thought process based on the fact that if Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, then that means the old covenant has ended, the ceremonial law has ended, and a new covenant has been put in place.  That's where he is going to end and then he is going to unpack the idea of a new covenant in chapter 8 and then get into the temple sanctuary and other things in chapter 9 which is all going to be based on an understanding of Old Testament structures and ceremony and the tabernacle and the temple. 

Let's go on.  Let's make sure I covered everything. 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest

Now the word for arise is the Greek word anistemi which means to cause to stand, to erect something, to raise or lift something up, to bring something back to life almost in the sense of anastasis which is resurrection.  Anastasis – anistemi – do you hear the similarity?  So anistemi is a cognate to anastasis which is the word for resurrection.  But he is not talking about resurrection here.  He is talking about the idea of providing someone who is going to take a certain position. 

So in verse 15 he says, "There arises (There has been put into place you might say.) another priest and this priest has come not according to the Law of fleshly commandments but the power of an endless life." 

Now let's get a corrected translation of Hebrews 7:15.  Hopefully this will put that verse, give it a little better significance for you.

Literal translation:  He says

In the King James it says, "And it is far more apparent if."

What does the "it" refer to?  The "it" refers to this principle of a change in priesthood and Jesus' higher status.  So we would read it this way:

It (that is the principle of a change in priesthood)is even made exceedingly more evident since another priest according to the order of Melchizedek is arisen.

I translated that "is arisen" because it is a present tense, but there is a use of the present tense that has in the Greek a perfective sense.  Perfective means that it is completed action.  That is what it is talking about.  He is already in place.  That action at the ascension of Christ has already taken place, but he is focusing on the fact that there are ongoing results of the fact that Christ has risen and is seated at the right hand of God the Father as our High Priest.  This is what we have now.  It is so important that He is seated at the right hand of the Father and not ruling from the throne of David in heaven.  If you have Jesus sitting on some kind of Davidic throne at the Father's right hand (which is what a-millennialism teaches and what progressive dispensationalism teaches) is that Jesus is on the throne of David ruling from the Father's right hand.  It starts to destroy the significance of the present session of Christ as our High Priest and all that we have in Him as our High Priest because the Davidic rulership and the kingdom are essentially Jewish oriented concepts.  They are not Church Age oriented concepts.  That is why we covered that – the last class I covered the dispensational material when we looked at Acts 2 and its use of the Old Testament and went through all those different passages showing that we are not in some form of the kingdom now.  The kingdom is postponed and the kingdom doesn't come in until Jesus Christ returns at the Second Coming.  Right now the focus is on the church where He is functioning as our High Priest.  Now we get into verse 16

^NKJ Hebrews 7:16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.

The point that he is making here is very simple that the humans, the fallen human beings who were in the Aaronic high priesthood, all died.  Their life spans were limited.  It was necessary to have a high priest who would not die, who would be eternal.  This is brought out in the Greek word that is used here, akatalutos, which has the idea of something indestructible in the temporal sense.  His life can't be destroyed.  It is therefore endless or eternal.  It is just a very simple point that he has come not according to the fleshly commandment for those individuals would all die, but it's the power of an endless life. 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:17 For He testifies: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."

Now he has been talking about this all the way back to the early part of this particular chapter.  He is talking about the Melchizedekean priesthood.  But the emphasis right now isn't on the fact that you are a priest.  It's not on the last part of that is quoted according to the order of Melchizedek.  The only thing he is focusing on is that one word "forever" - because he is a priest forever.  That means that the Davidic king, (that is the context of Psalm 110:1-4 that the Davidic king) is also a priest and He is an eternal priest.  That means that the eternal priest mentioned there is based on the Melchizedekean order is superior to the Levitical priest because the Levitical priests die, but the Melchizedekean priest won't die.  He will be eternal.  So that makes it a superior high priesthood. 

Now I am making another point here.  That is just on how the writers of Scripture in the New Testament often quote Old Testament passages.  He quotes more than he needs and all he is talking about is one word.  Now that's going to be important when we get into chapter 8 because when we get there we are going to see this lengthy quote from the Old Testament starting in verse 8 of chapter 8.  We are going to see this lengthy quote coming out of Jeremiah 31:31-34 and he is going to have a one- two–three-four-five–six verse quotation.  But he is not referencing anything else in that quotation other than the initial phrase – a new covenant - to show that the very term "new covenant" implied that the old covenant had to be temporary.  He is not talking about anything else in that quote.  When we looked at the issue on interpretation of Old Testament uses in the New Testament in the last class when we talked about Peter's quote of Joel 2 in Acts 2 that he really quotes this lengthy out of Joel 2, but he is just focusing on a parallel as it were.  He is not even giving any kind of exposition of all those verses.  To our mind that's strange because we are used to somebody … if you are going to quote 8 verses you are going to talk about everything in those verses.  But in the Jewish mindset you would just quote the passage because you wanted to make sure you had the context.  But all you are talking about is one word in that quote.  This is just an example of that.  He quotes these two stanzas from Psalm 110:4 only to focus on one word.  That is the word "forever" – the Melchizedekean priest would be a priest forever. 

Then we get into a very crucial point in verse 18.  This is a great little passage.  In verse 18 down to the first part of 19, we have three negative assessments – actually four negative assessments about the old dispensation, about the dispensation of the Law - four negative assessments of the Law.  And then in the last part of 19 we have two positive things said about the Church Age that correct the negatives from the Mosaic Law. 

He says, "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment…" 

because of its weakness and unprofitableness,

Now the word "for" indicates that he is going to give us an explanation of why all of this is the way it is.  His first statement is on the one hand.  He is going to do a comparison contrast between the old law and the new dispensation.

He says, "For on the one hand there is the annulling of the former law…"

So the first negative is that the old law is annulled.  The Greek word there is athetesis.  It simply means that it is removed, set aside, abrogated, cancelled, annulled and rendered invalid.  It is removed. It refers to something that is removed, set aside, abrogated, annulled, cancelled or rendered invalid.  How much stronger language can you use?  The Mosaic Law is gone.  It's no longer valid.  It has been completely annulled, athetesis.  When he talks about the former commandment it simply means that which is historically prior. 

He says, "For on the one hand there is an annulling a complete canceling of the former commandment" for two reasons. 

First of all, because of its weakness.  The Greek word is the word asthenes which means that it as no power.  It had no power to save.  It was only basically a teaching tool, a ritual that pointed to something else.  It was weak.  It was impotent.  It was without strength and it was powerless. 

The second thing he says about it is its unprofitableness.  The Greek word here anopheles means it served no purpose.  That came to indicate that because something served no purpose, it could therefore become injurious, noxious, useless and harmful.  Something was there and now it no longer served a purpose so it could actually become harmful.  So what he says about the law is first of all it's completely cancelled.  It's cancelled because it was spiritually impotent.  And it's cancelled because it is harmful now because it has been replaced by something higher. 

Then the last thing he says is in the first part of verse 19:

^NKJ Hebrews 7:19 for the law

We could almost translate that in terms of an explanation, almost causal because the law never made anything complete.  The law never saved anybody.  We are going to have this long chapter coming up talking about the fact that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin.  Nothing in law – nothing in the moral law, nothing n the ceremonial law, nothing in the civil law - could provide anything of real spiritual value.  It was all ritual that pointed to that which would have value, what was done at the cross so that the Old Testament believer never had access to the kind of power, the kind of reality that you and I have as Church Age believers.  What we have is so far beyond anything they could ever imagine.  We have a completed canon of Scripture.  We have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  We have the filling of the Holy Spirit.  But, that barely touches what we have.  So he mentions two things that we do have in the latter part of verse 19.  These are the positive things that we have in this dispensation. 

First of all, it brought in a better hope.  Now this is not saying that it can make us more hopeful.  It's not talking about something that is emotional. It's talking about the ground of our future expectation.  Whenever we see the word "hope" in the New Testament it doesn't have the idea of an optimistic wish. 

Some of us have been wishing a cold front would finally come in so that is would cool things off a little bit and we would have a sense of fall in October. 

"I hope a cold front makes it through this weekend.  I hope that it won't rain tomorrow."

That is just optimistic wistfulness.  That's not what the Bible means by hope. 

When we say, "I hope something happens tomorrow", there is a level of uncertainty there. 

But when the Bible talks about hope it talks about a certain future expectation.  There is definiteness about it.  There is a certainty about it that something specific is going to happen.  This is our superior hope.  It's superior to what they had in the Old Testament because there wasn't that measure of certitude there.  But with Christ there is a better hope, a better ground for our future expectation.

made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

Through that ground of expectation we draw near to God because we are united with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection and more than that we are seated with Christ. 

Hold your place and go with me to Ephesians 2.  This is a great passage.  It's a fun passage to work through in the Greek because the first 7 verses are actually one sentence in the Greek.  I taught this last week when I was out in California at the WHW Conference.  This was the main passage I had them work through every morning in terms of diagramming and phrasing the whole structure because Paul's real focus is on what happens with the main subject and the main verb.  You don't get the grammatical subject of this long sentence until you get to verse 4.  You don't get to the verbs (and there are 3 verbs) until verses 5 and 6.  So you go through three verses of negatives before you ever get to the positive.  That sets up that contrast – but God.  Then, Paul diverts in a relative clause. 

^NKJ Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,

^NKJ Ephesians 2:5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

That's the reminder of the negatives in verses 1 through 3 that we were born dead in our trespasses and sins and walked according to the course of the world, according to the prince and power of the air and conducted ourselves in the lust of the flesh – all of those things. 

He says, "But God."

What did God do?  You have three verbs.  It's a compound verb.  Three different verbs, three different things God did.  The first thing He did, He made us alive together with Christ.  The second thing that He did is He raised us up together.  The third thing that He did was He made us sit together in the heavenly places with Christ.  That is our salvation.  That's why He has the interjection in the middle of verse 5 "by grace you have been saved".  He is summarizing with the word "saved" those three things that we have been made alive together in Christ and raised and seated in Christ.  That is where you and I are positionally.  We are seated in Christ at the right hand of the Father in the session.  That's as close as Paul gets to dealing with the session in the Pauline epistles.  But, that's what we have.  This is our magnificent salvation that has been provided for us.

Back to Hebrews 7.  Now none of that could be true unless the law was nullified.  So the Law is completely nullified and completely cancelled.  On the other hand we have this better hope and we are able to draw near to God.  Why?  Because, positionally you are in Christ, seated at the Father's right hand.  You just have to look up at Him.  That's it.  Positionally we are right there with the Father. 

Look at a couple of these other verses.  This is a major theme in Hebrews.

^NKJ Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace,

It is the same verbiage, to draw near to the Father. 

This is the same theme that we saw back in Hebrews 4, the priesthood of Christ because we are seated at the Father's right hand. 

that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Then it is used again in our passage in Hebrews 7.  Then it will be used again as we get into the warning section to this part of Hebrews, Hebrews 10:1. 

^NKJ Hebrews 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come,

The other reason it's cancelled is it's just a shadow.  It's a typology.  It is a concrete version of the spiritual realities that would come in with Christ. 

and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

The Mosaic Law couldn't do it.  You can't do it on the basis of ritual and morality and sacrifices.  It has to be grounded on the imputed righteousness of Christ and the completed work of His sacrifice on the cross.

Then there is one other mention of this concept of drawing near in Hebrews 10:22.

^NKJ Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

That last part is a picture, a verbal picture, of what happens at the instant of justification in our positional cleansing that occurs in the baptism by means of the Holy Spirit where we are placed into Christ and then seated at the Father's right hand. 

See how all these things come together.  So often we take them as separate doctrines, but they all interconnect.  They all come together in that mysterious thing we talk about in being identified in Christ, being in Christ and the whole concept of positional truth that we are so familiar with. 

We say, "Oh, that is positional truth."

Yeah, well unpack it for the next five years.  That is a fabulous doctrine that nobody really talks about or deals with - that our position in Christ gives us this proximity, this access, this nearness to the Father that no believer at any other time in history has. They didn't have it in the Old Testament; they aren't going to have it in the tribulation. But we have that.  That is something that is going to be part of our eternal relationship, even in the Millennial Kingdom when we are there as the bride of Christ.  We are serving as what?  As priests and kings.  We're in that training ground right now to learn how to be priests and kings.

So verse 19 finalizes his point that the law has ended.  It's over with. 

So at this point we get into verse 20.  Melchizedek is virtually left behind and the focal point from 20 to 28 is one the superiority of Jesus Christ which is established by a better covenant.  Look at verse 20. 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath

Then we have a parenthesis.  The grammar here is kind of interesting.  It's awkward or it is unusual.  But it's interesting.  Verse 20 makes your first positive sense.  Verses 20 to 22 is one sentence in the Greek. 

Then you have a parenthesis. 

The "they" being Levitical priests, Aaronic high priests. 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:21 (for they have become priests without an oath,

See, there is the contrast.  Jesus Christ was made a High Priest on the basis of an oath.  The Old Testament priest did not have an oath.  Why is that important?  Well, once again the oath makes the legal contractual foundation more certain.  It makes it more significant.  It's more emphatic.  It raises it to another level.  The Old Testament priesthood was not founded on this kind of a legal oath.  But, the Melchizedekean priesthood is. 

but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "The LORD has sworn

And then we quote Psalm 110:4 again. 

Here it's a little bit lengthier quotation.  It includes everything we saw in verse 17 but more. 

What is he talking about in these three verses?  Swearing an oath.  But once again he quotes four stanzas. 

And will not relent, 'You area priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek' "),

He quotes the whole thing to give us the content of the oath – that Christ is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. 

Then he draws his conclusion in verse 22. 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.

That is He has become a pledge of that better covenant, a seal.  The fact that He has become a High Priest according to this oath seals the contract.  The contract as we will see in chapter 8 is the New Covenant.  That is sealed at the cross.  This is the same thing Jesus is talking about when He is redefining the elements in the Passover meal at the Last Supper. 

He says;

^NKJ Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."

The new covenant terminology there is the new contract. 

He is saying, "My blood is the sacrifice that is going to establish this new covenant."

Now the New Covenant though doesn't come into effect until the Second Coming because the New Covenant isn't with the church.  Now I know that Paul says he is a minister of the New Covenant.  That is because New Covenant blessings are applied to the church today, but we aren't a covenant partner. 

Skip over to the next page in Hebrews 8:8 in the quote from Jeremiah 31:31. 

Here is the quote from Jeremiah 31:31. 

^NKJ Hebrews 8:8 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 –

And with the church…

Oh, you didn't see that there did you?  See the church is never mentioned as a contract partner in the New Covenant.  The contract is between the Lord and Israel.  On the basis of that legal document, He is then able to bless the Gentiles.  It sounds an awful lot like the Abrahamic Covenant, doesn't it?  It is just the expansion of that Abrahamic Covenant.  Everything that God does is based on this legal contract.  Now He doesn't have to do that, but He lowers Himself for the benefit of the creature.  In order to demonstrate His faithfulness, He enters into these binding legal contracts with His creatures so that He can be free to bless us and we understand what the parameters are for that blessing. 

So verse 22 says: 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.

Jesus is a pledge or seal of our better covenant.

Then verse 23 goes on to talk about the fact, the limitations of the other priesthood also from the same dimension of this eternality.  It says:

^NKJ Hebrews 7:23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.

In the Old Testament there were many priests.  All the Levites could serve in the temple.  Many of them were priests.  You had Levites and those that were qualified to serve in the temple could serve in the temple.  Then you have the high priests.  But you had to have so many because they all died.  They could only serve from the time that they were 30 to the time they were 50.  Then they had to quit.  You had to have other priests.  So it is temporary.  They don't have any permanent service. 

In verse 23: 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.

^NKJ Hebrews 7:24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.

He is a priest forever, Psalm 110:4. 

He has an unchangeable or immutable priesthood.  Now what does that mean?  What are the implications of that? 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:25 Therefore

(because He has an eternal priesthood that is superior to the Levitical priesthood)

He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives

He is not dead.  When they sacrifice that lamb, the lamb was still dead.  When they sacrificed the goat, the goat was still dead. 

to make intercession for them.

This is one of the primary reasons we have eternal security.  It's reflected in Jesus' high priestly prayer in John 17.  He prays continually for the Father to keep us.  He never stops that prayer.  His intercession is Jesus who keeps us saved.  It is not our actions.  It is not by doing "good".  It's not by applying the Word or any of the other things Lordship salvation people come up with or Arminians come up with to say that the way you stay saved is by being obedient.  What you do has nothing whatsoever to do with the preservation of your salvation.  It is preserved by the Lord Jesus Christ's faithfulness to His promise to save you.  That's why you can know without a shadow of a doubt that you are saved.  It's not based on anything that can happen.  You can fail miserably 5 seconds after you're saved and never recover for the rest of your life, and guess what?  You are still saved because you are kept not by your perseverance; you are kept by Christ's power and by His prayer. 

^NKJ Hebrews 7:25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Next point, explanation in verse 26.

^NKJ Hebrews 7:26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens;

Holy is hagios, set apart. 

The adjectives there which I don't have time to go into tonight…I think I am going to stop here, just a little early.  We are going to have to come back and look at each of those adjectives and get a correct translation of them.  Then it ends with the fact that He has become higher than the heavens.  That takes us right back to what?  The doctrine of the ascension.  What has happened that Christ passed through the heavens and He is now higher than the heavens – literal, spatial terminology here - seated at the right hand of God the Father?  All of that has to do with what we have now in Him as our High Priest. 

So we will start next time with verse 26 and finish up this chapter and go into the next one.