Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 7:20
And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]:
20. inasmuch as not without an oath ] This is the sixth point of superiority. He has lingered at much greater length over the fifth than over the others, from the extreme importance of the argument which it incidentally involved. The oath on which the Melchisedek Priesthood was founded is that of Psa 110:4. The word used for “oath” is not the common word horkos (as in Heb 6:17), but the more sonorous horkomosia.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And inasmuch as not without an oath – In addition to every other consideration showing the superiority of Christ as a priest, there was the solemnity of the oath by which he was set apart to the office. The appointment of one to the office of priest by an oath, such as occurred in the case of Jesus, was much more solemn and important than where the office was received merely by descent.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 20. Not without an oath] “The apostle’s reasoning here is founded on this, that God never interposed his oath, except to show the certainty and immutability of the thing sworn. Thus he sware to Abraham, Ge 22:16-18, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; and to the rebellious Israelites, De 1:34; De 1:35, that they should not enter into his rest; and to Moses, De 4:21, that he should not go into Canaan; and to David, Ps 89:4, that his seed should endure for ever, and his throne unto all generations. Wherefore, since Christ was made a priest, not without an oath that he should be a priest for ever, after the similitude of Melchisedec, that circumstance showed God’s immutable resolution never to change or abolish his priesthood, nor to change or abolish the covenant which was established on his priesthood; whereas the Levitical priesthood and the law of Moses, being established without an oath, were thereby declared to be changeable at God’s pleasure.” This judicious note is from Dr. Macknight.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This is a further proof of the excellency of Christs priesthood above Aarons, taken from his constitution in it by oath. He who is made a priest by oath, is a better and a greater priest than any made so without it; but so is Christ. is a comparative, answered Heb 7:22, insinuating by how much the cause constituting or confirming an office of priesthood is more excellent, by so much the effect and office must excel, receiving greater power for some more excellent end. This is as much as a double oath, . By the swearing of an oath by God the Father was the gospel High Priest constituted an eternal one after Melchisedecs order; and it addeth so much the more strength and glory to the sanction. This is testified by David, Psa 110:4. The Levitical priests were made by a Divine designation, and with external rites were consecrated; but Christ was constituted a Priest by oath, as our translators well supply it out of the following verse.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
20. Another proof of thesuperiority of Christ’s Melchisedec-like priesthood; the oath of Godgave a solemn weight to it which was not in the law-priesthood, whichwas not so confirmed.
he was made priestrather supply from Heb 7:22,which completes the sentence begun in this verse, Heb7:21 being a parenthesis, “inasmuch as not without an oathHe was made surety of the testament (for, &c.), of so muchbetter a testament hath Jesus been made the surety.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And inasmuch as not without an oath,…. Our version supplies as follows,
he was made priest; which well agrees with what is said in the next verse; the Syriac version renders it, “and which he confirmed to us by an oath”; that is, the better hope, Christ and his priesthood, said to be brought in, and by which men draw nigh to God; this is established by the oath of God himself referring to Ps 110:4 afterwards cited in proof of it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Without the taking of an oath ( ). As in Ps 110:4.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Not without an oath [ ] . The A. V. is, on the whole, better than Rev. by inserting he was made priest. JOrkwmosia only in Hebrews. In LXX see Eze 17:18; 1 Esdr. 9 93. For an oath rend. the taking of an oath.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And inasmuch as,” (kai kath’ hoson) “And in proportion;” To establish ones truthfulness or honesty in a statement or testimony the law provided for one to take an oath of pledge in the name of Deity. Priests were not required to take an oath, but God did this to the human race regarding the sending of His son as High Priest and King, Exo 22:11.
2) “Not without an oath,” (he was made priest) (ou choris horkomosias) “Not without an oath taking,” without the taking of a priestly oath, he, Jesus, became a priest, Heb 6:16-20.
3) “For those priests were made without an oath,” (hoi men gar choris horkomosias eisin hieeis gegonotes) “For they (those law priests) on the one hand, apart from or without oath-taking, have become priests,” an oath was taken or immutability of the thing pledged or sworn, under God.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
20. And inasmuch as not without an oath, etc. Here is another argument, why the Law ought to give place to the Gospel; for God has set Christ’s priesthood above that of Aaron, since in honor to the former he was pleased to make an oath. For when he appointed the ancient priests, he introduced no oath; but it is said of Christ, the Lord swore; which was doubtless done for the sake of honoring him. We see the end for which he again quotes the Psalmist, even that we may know, that more honor through God’s oath was given to Christ than to any others. But we must bear in mind this truth, that a priest is made that he may be the surety of a covenant. The Apostle hence concludes, that the covenant which God has made by Christ with us, is far more excellent than the old covenant of which Moses was the interpreter.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
B.
He is a priest made with an path. Heb. 7:20-22.
Text
Heb. 7:20-22
Heb. 7:20 And inasmuch as it is not without the taking of an oath Heb. 7:21 (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but He with an oath by Him that saith of Him.
The Lord sware and will not repent Himself,
Thou art a priest forever);
Heb. 7:22 by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant.
Paraphrase
Heb. 7:20 Moreover, that the Gospel is a better and more effectual covenant than the law, is evident; for in as much as not without an oath Jesus the Mediator of the Gospel covenant was made a Priest:
Heb. 7:21 For Aaron and his sons verily were made priests without an oath; but Jesus was made a Priest with an oath, in which an unchangeable priesthood was conferred on Him by God, Who said to Him, The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent of the appointment, Thou art a Priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek:
Heb. 7:22 I say, inasmuch as by the oath of God an unchangeable priesthood was conferred on Him, by so much was Jesus made the Mediator of a more permanent and effectual covenant than the Sinaitic.
Comment
And inasmuch as it is not without the taking of an oath
Psa. 110:4 expresses this oath, This is more of the abundant evidence.
a.
Gods oath is to show the certainty and immutability of the thing sworn.
1.
He swore to Abraham. Gen. 22:16-18.
2.
He swore that Israel would not enter his rest. Deu. 1:35.
3.
He swore that Moses would not enter Canaan, Deu. 4:21.
4.
He swore that David and his seed would endure. Psa. 89:4.
b.
Now Christs priesthood is sworn to, to show its unchangeableness, The Levitical priesthood not being sworn to indicates that it was temporary.
For they indeed have been made priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him that saith of Him, The Lord sware and will not repent Himself, Thou art a Priest forever
For they indeed have been made priest without an oath indicates a contract.
a.
Their priesthood came by natural descent.
b.
The value of the covenant is determined by the presence or absence of an oath.
An oath is something final and determinative in nature, But He with an oath shows the superiority of Christs priesthood. This is found in Psa. 110:4, By him that saith of Him indicates Gods oath. The Lord sware and will not repent Himself, Thou art a Priest forever, indicates the unchangeable priesthood.
by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant
By so mucha term of measurement.
a.
Heb. 1:4 : A fuller revelation.
b.
Heb. 3:3 : More honor.
c.
Heb. 7:22 : Better covenant.
d.
Heb. 8:6 : Better ministry.
e.
Heb. 9:14 : Complete cleansing.
. . . hath Jesus become the surety has the idea of binding.
a.
The Greek word for surety is egguos, and appears only here.
1.
It means a sponsor or bondswoman.
2.
Act. 17:30-31 : It gives the idea of final evidence.
Of a better covenant ought to be of interest to all:
a.
See Heb. 8:6, which says it is better because of better promises involved.
b.
Most people realize the superiority of anything new over the old, except those who deal with antiques.
1.
Too many are interested in religious antiques.
2.
The new covenant with a superior priest and promises should be preferred.
Study Questions
1238.
What was without an oath, or is this what the author says?
1239.
Where is the oath recorded? Cf. Psa. 110:4.
1240.
Is this more of the abundant evidence of Heb. 7:15?
1241.
What other times did God swear? Cf. Gen. 22:16-18; Deu. 4:21; Deu. 8:1.
1242.
If the Levitical priesthood was not sworn to, what can be assumed?
1243.
What was the content of the oath?
1244.
If the Levitical priests were not appointed by an oath, how were they appointed?
1245.
Is the value of a priesthood determined by the oath?
1246.
What is meant by will not repent Himself?
1247.
What is meant by the expression, by so much?
1248.
What is implied by the word surety?
1249.
What is the surety of?
1250.
How is it a better covenant? Cf. Heb. 1:4; Heb. 3:3; Heb. 7:22; Heb. 8:6; Heb. 9:14.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(20) This and the next two verses constitute one sentence, the third verse answering to the first, and Heb. 7:21 being parenthetical. Hitherto no reference has been made to the remarkable opening of Psa. 110:4, so often quoted: these three verses are occupied with the thought of the oathor rather (for a very uncommon word is used, one that answers well to the importance of the thought) the swearing of an oath. This is a further illustration of the words of Heb. 7:15, a different priest.
He was made priest.Some supplement is needed to give clearness to the English sentence; but one of general meaning, such as all this was done, will best answer the purpose.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
20-22. Point fifth. The high priesthood forever was inaugurated by an oath, the Levitical not.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
20. Not without an oath Christ’s high priesthood, as the highest and surest inauguration, the oath of God. Note on Heb 6:13.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And inasmuch as it is not without the taking of an oath, (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but he with an oath by him that says of him, The Lord swore and will not repent himself, You are a priest for ever), by so much also has Jesus become the surety of a better covenant.’
And the superiority of this coming dispensation, this new way of management, this new household economy, this new divine order, under a better covenant, is emphasised by the fact that with regard to it Jesus was instituted as High Priest by an oath, so that there was no possibility of a ‘change of mind’. It is guaranteed to be permanent and eternal, for this is sworn by God. It is a priesthood that cannot change.
Such an oath was something that never happened under the old priesthood. That was dependent on a breakable covenant. But this new institution was established under the oath of God precisely because it was intended to be eternal, and everlastingly guaranteed, as Psa 110:4 demonstrates. The result is that the High Priesthood in question is a better and more permanent High Priesthood, and it indicates that Jesus has become the surety and guarantee of a better covenant, a new and superior covenant, an unfailing covenant. We no longer live under the old covenant but under a new, one that has been instituted under God’s personal oath. It is a covenant which along with our great High Priest is eternal. It is a covenant which will be expanded on shortly in chapter 8.
Under the old covenant agreement the old priesthood was given to the descendants of Aaron ‘under the covenant of an everlasting priesthood’ (Num 25:13). It was a priesthood promised for ever as long as there was faithfulness to the covenant. But there was not faithfulness to the covenant. The covenant was broken because of sin, failure and misuse, and because of the inadequacy of the priesthood, and the helplessness of the Law, and the priesthood therefore failed. However the new covenant is seen to be under God’s oath, and is guaranteed by Jesus through His incarnation as perfect representative man, and through His death, resurrection, exaltation and eternal priesthood. It is therefore sure for ever. (And thus no other covenant or different dispensation will ever be required).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The oath of God a guarantee of the superiority of Christ’s priesthood:
v. 20. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest,
v. 21. (for those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by Him that said unto Him, The Lord swore and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,)
v. 22. by so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. This is another important consideration in the proof of Christ’s greater excellence: And in proportion as not without the swearing of an oath (was He made priest), in that proportion Jesus also became surety for a better covenant. Jesus became our High Priest in consequence of, and for the sake of fulfilling, a solemn oath made by His heavenly Father. This oath is one of the evidences which we have of the earnest intention and purpose which God has with regard to the salvation of all mankind. Christ was the only one in whose case such an extraordinary exception was made. By that token, therefore, He is the surety, the sponsor, the guarantee of a better, superior, more excellent covenant. This fact is brought out still more strongly by the clause which the author inserts for the sake of explanation: For the one indeed are priests, having become so without the swearing of an oath, but the other with an oath by Him that said to Him, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. The members of the Levitical priesthood were installed into office and discharged the functions of their ministry without a special objuration of the ordinand or oath on their own part. Their work was clearly defined by the Mosaic Law, and they discharged it in the knowledge that all their sacrifices were but types of the Messiah’s work. But in the case of Christ, the true High Priest, God swore an oath and had it recorded through His prophet, Psa 110:4, designating His Son, the Messiah of the world, as the eternal High Priest. The incarnation of Christ, therefore, signified that the Levitical priesthood was no longer needed for the purpose of mediating between God and men, and the oath of God, in addition, set the priesthood of Christ just that much higher, God Himself indicating the superior excellence of Christ’s office.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Heb 7:20-22. And in as much, &c. The apostle produces here another argument to prove the superior excellence of the new covenant above the law of Moses; or rather, the superior dignity of the priesthood of Christ, above that of the Levitical priesthood. The reasoning is this: “The more solemn and aweful the manner is, in which any one is appointed to his office, the more important in general is the office: now God engaged himself by oath, in constituting Christ a priest; which he did not in the case of making the Levitical priests. And then, as to the covenant itself, that covenant is generally the best, which is most solemnly engaged in by the party who makes it: but the covenant made by Jesus was more solemnly engaged in than the covenant made by Moses; therefore it was a better covenant. Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God and man, 1Ti 2:5. Here he is called the surety, sponsor, or engager, that the conditions shall be observed by him from whom they were brought. If God then enters into a covenant, and promises eternal life upon the conditions of repentance, faith, and holiness, and sendshis only-begotten Son to offer this salvation, and to ratify the whole by his atoning Blood, and to assure mankind of God the Father’s gracious disposition to them, if they will yield to be saved by his free unmerited grace; and if we find by comparing what is contained in the Old Testament, that God had sworn by himself that he would send such a person;one cannot but infer that the Christian dispensation is infinitely more excellent than that, which was given or made without these solemnities and most glorious accompaniments.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 7:20-22 . As one element in the superiority of the everlasting priesthood after the manner of Melchisedec, assigned to Christ, over the Levitical priesthood has been already implicitly brought forward, Heb 7:18-19 , namely, that the goal, for the attainment of which the strength was lacking to the Levitical priesthood, is really attained by the everlasting priesthood. A second point of superiority in the new order of things over the old follows in Heb 7:20-22 . Of less moment than the everlasting priesthood of Jesus must the Levitical priesthood be; for the former was constituted by God by virtue of a declaration upon oath, the latter without a declaration upon oath. Heb 7:20-22 form again a single period, the protasis being contained in , to which then . . ., Heb 7:22 , corresponds as the apodosis, while all that intervenes ( , to the end of Heb 7:21 ) is a parenthesis. Wrongly do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Calvin (in the translation), Er. Schmid, and others join , too, to the closing words of Heb 7:19 : and, indeed, a hope which is better, inasmuch as it is not brought in without an oath . So also Luther: “and moreover, which is a great thing, not without oath;” while, with not less violence, Lud. Cappellus, who, in enclosing Heb 7:18-19 within a parenthesis, and taking with Heb 7:17 , gives as the sense: “Deus constituit Christum sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedec, et quidem non sine jurejurando.”
] coupling on a farther link in the chain of enumeration, as Heb 7:8-9 ; Heb 7:23 .
] sc. ; and inasmuch (Heb 9:27 ) as He has become priest not without a declaration upon oath, i.e. He has not become so without God having sanctioned His appointment to be a priest by a declaration upon oath (namely, by virtue of the oath, with which the declaration, Psa 110:4 , is introduced). Only this mode of supplementing is warranted by the connection, as is shown partly by the immediately following, partly by the circumstance that the author is still engaged in the exposition of the Scripture statement, Heb 7:17 , this statement thus containing for him the gist of the matter; as, accordingly, this declaration of Scripture is repeated anew, Heb 7:21 , and then likewise the recurs in the further member of the thought, Heb 7:23 f. The explanation therefore of Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Heinrichs, Bhme, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Alford, Kurtz, and others is to be rejected, when to they supplement from the apodosis ; as also that of Storr, Schulz, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, Delitzsch, Moll, and Hofmann, when they supply ( sc. ) ( ).
] namely, the Levitical priests.
] since nothing is related in Scripture of an oath of God, when He destined Aaron and his posterity to be priests.
] forms one idea: have become . Wrongly, Paulus and Klee: are priests who have become so without an oath. Bhme (and so also Hofmann): “sunt sacerdotes, sed sine juramento (illi quidem singuli deinceps) facti” which must have been expressed by . Still more widely mistaken the view of Michaelis ad Peirc.: “fuerunt, i.e. esse desierunt,” which is grammatically as well as logically impossible. The tempus periphrasticum marks the fact already belonging to the past as still extending onwards into the present.
] namely, Christ .
] sc. .
] i.e. in the sense of the author: by God , not: by the psalmist (Rambach, Heinrichs), although certainly the statement, Psa 110:4 , that God hath sworn and will not repent of this oath, forms not a constituent part of the words of God Himself, but a remark of the psalmist, with which he introduces the words of God. Yet, when in the psalm it is said that God has sworn, and of this oath He will not repent, and then there is adduced as the subject-matter of this oath the declaration: . . ., this is tantamount to saying that God has declared by virtue of an irreversible oath: . . . As, accordingly, the psalmist is relating the words of God, so does he also relate the oath which preceded them.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
III
The New Covenant is by so much the more excellent as Jesus Himself is its personal guarantee
Heb 7:20-22
20And inasmuch as not without an oath [the swearing of an oath, ] was he made priest: 21(For those priests were made [for they indeed have become priests] without an oath; but this [he] 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 Melchisedek:)11 22By so much12 [also] was Jesus made [hath Jesus also become] a surety of a better testament [covenant].
[Heb 7:20., the swearing of an oath: so the fuller form (like , Heb 2:2) had better be rendered (with Alf.), than by the simple oath (, as Heb 6:17).
Heb 7:21. . . , for they indeed=for while they, without the swearing, etc., have become priests. It is difficult to reproduce in English the force of the periphrastic , are having become, bringing out more fully the two-fold idea of becoming and continuance. We cannot, perhaps, render better than simply have become as if it were .
Heb 7:22. . . ., also of a better covenant (not testament), hath Jesus become (not, been made) surety.K.].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Heb 7:20. And inasmuch as, etc.Luther translates erroneously, and besides, what is much, from a misconception of the Vulgate et quantum est. He connects also, like Chrys., Theodoret, Erasm., Calv., etc., these words with the preceding. True, the text in fact emphasizes the idea that this hope was not introduced without the swearing of an oath, but in form a protasis precedes to which the corresponds, and in which we are not to supply (c., Beng., Bhme, Ln.), still less , but, (Bleek, De W., Thol., Hofm., Del.).
Heb 7:22. Surety of a better covenant.Luther erroneously understands here as testament, and translates without authority , ausrichter=executor. In classic Greek always denotes an arrangement, in general, a disposition or settlement, of which will or testament is a special form. The Sept., however, employs the word regularly instead of , as a translation of , so that it is also to be regarded in the New Testament as a terminus dogmaticus = covenant, from which signification we are to depart, only when compelled by the connection. The justification of this view of the word on the part of the LXX., and of the New Testament writers, lies in the fact that the covenant of God with men is not a compact concluded between two equally authorized and independent parties; but is essentially a Divine arrangement and disposition against sin and for human salvation, into which those who are called enter under a religious obligation, and to which God binds Himself in His truth and faithfulness. The Hebrew expression appears, on the contrary, to spring from this latter view, since for the word the signification determine, constitute, establish, assumed by Hofm., cannot be proved, but only either the signification separate, choose out, is admissible, 1Sa 17:8, or the signification cut, with reference to the original mode of ratifying a covenant, to which Jehovah (Genesis 15.), as matter of convenience condescends. is not to be explained by , mediator, although this word (not found elsewhere in the New Testament) may have been selected with allusion to the preceding . Moreover the strictly juristic conception of the term fidejussor, and a reference to Christs vicarious satisfaction (Thom. Aquin., Calov, etc.), as well as any supposed reference to Christs sufferings in general, as sealing the covenant (Bl., De W., Ln.) is against the context, which in Christ, the Everlasting One, exalted at the right hand of God, recognizes the voucher and guaranty for the eternal maintenance and validity of the covenant which He mediates.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The Levitical priests entered the priestly office by a simple command; Christ entered it by an arrangement confirmed with a Divine oath. In this lies an undoubted pledge: 1. for the fulfilment under the conduct of the Messiah, of the Divine promise; 2. for the exaltation of the New Covenant above the earlier one; 3. for its everlasting duration.
2. Jesus is the promised eternal priestly king, whose personal character, position and dignity, give to the covenant which He mediates a closely allied and corresponding preminence.
3. In the very nature of a royal command in regard to an arrangement and institution whose perpetuity is not specially indicated, still less promised and pledged, lies already the possibility of the reversing of the command, of the annulling of the institution, of a change of the arrangement by the Ruler Himself, without His thereby of necessity becoming untruthful, unrighteous and untrustworthy, falling into contradiction with Himself, or throwing back into confusion the products of His own creative power.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Jesus Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant, is at the same time the pledge: a. of its everlasting continuance; b. of its divinely approved character; and c. of the perpetual accomplishment of its promises.How the preminence of the New Covenant over the Old is assured a. by the promise and oath of its author; b. by the person of its priestly mediator.From the Old Testament itself we might infer the exaltation of the Priest of the Promise above the priests of the law, and above their service.The Promise connects with one another Law and Gospel, and at the same time leads over from time into eternity.
Starke:As it was conceived and determined in the counsels of the adored Trinity, so in Christ Jesus has all been carried out that in Him all should become blessed, and whatever will may become blessed.
RiegerFrom the swearing of the oath the Apostle justly infers the great earnestness, the weighty interest and the extraordinary pleasure with which God has entered into and sealed this His arrangement.Elsewhere he swears who undertakes an office in order that persons may entrust to him their interests; but here He swears who confers the office in testimony of His high purposes, and of His unchangeable will.
Footnotes:
[11]Heb 7:21.The words ., are wanting in Cod. Sin., B. C., 17, 80. In the Sin. are wanting also the preceding words .
[12]Heb 7:22.Instead of the Rec. , we are to read according to the Sin. A. B. C. D*. In the Sin. the has been added by a later hand, as also previously the words as far as .
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest :
Ver. 20. Not without an oath ] A singular confirmation: what a monstrous sin then is unbelief!
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
20 22 .] See summary at Heb 7:11 . Further proof of the superiority of the Melchisedek-priesthood of Christ in that he was constituted in it by an oath , thus giving it a solemnity and weight which that other priesthood had not. And inasmuch as (it was) not without an oath (Thdrt. and some of the older Commentators (hardly Chrys.) join this clause with the former verse, and understand it to apply to the certainty of the . . Thdrt. And so Calvin, “Nihil enim lex perfecit, sed accessit introductio ad spem potiorem per quam appropinquamus Deo: atque hoc potiorem, quod non absque jurejurando res acta sit.” So Luther. The vulg., “et quantum est, non sine jurejurando,” is apparently meant as an exclamation, as indeed Primas. and Justiniani take it. But there can be little doubt that the right connexion is to take as the protasis, the following, to , as a parenthesis, and . . . as the apodosis. So, distinctly, Thl. (having before said on . . ., . . ., he explains , , ). And so I believe Chrys. meant, though ordinarily quoted on the other side. He is by no means clear: and indeed the notes of his lectures on parts of this Epistle are evidently very imperfect. So almost all the modern Commentators, including Delitzsch. As regards the ellipsis here, it is variously supplied. Some fill it up out of the apodosis, . And this seems on the whole more natural, and more agreeable to the style of our Epistle, than to put in, as E. V. after c., and Bengel, Lnem., al., , or as Bleek, al., (viz. ) (or ). , the swearing of an oath, is not found in classical Greek, but , in Plato, Phdr. p. 241 A, and Crito, p. 120 B, or being understood. Still, as Wolf remarks, , , and many similar forms, are actually found), for they, as we know (on , see above, Heb 7:18 ), without swearing of an oath are made priests ( , not only for the sake of rhythm, but as more strongly marking the existence of these priests at the time of writing. The quasi-aoristic use of is so common, that it would not convey to the reader here the meaning intended. Paulus and Klee render, “ are without an oath made priests :” Bhme, “ sunt sacerdotes, sed sine juramento (illi quidem singuli deinceps) facti :” which would require . . Michaelis would render it “ fuerunt , i. e. esse desierunt :” which is against both grammar and context), but He with swearing of an oath, by Him who saith (i. e. certainly not the Psalmist, as some (hardly Schlichting), who cannot be said to have spoken this , unless indeed we take in the mere secondary sense of ‘with reference to.’ In the following citation it is the words of address only to which this refers: the former part is the mere introduction to them. Not seeing this has led to the above mistake. It was God who addressed Him, God who made Him priest, God who sware unto Him) to Him, The Lord ( , as commonly in LXX, for ) sware, and will not repent (so ref. Jer. Heb., : i. e. the decree stands fast, and shall undergo no change). Thou art a priest for ever (see var. readd.): of so much (in that same proportion, viz. as the difference between the oath and no oath indicates) better a testament (the meanings of , 1. an appointment, without concurrence of a second party, of somewhat concerning that second party, of which nature is a last will and testament ; 2. a mutual agreement in which all parties concerned consent, = a covenant , in the proper sense, being confessed, our business here is, not, as Ebrard absurdly maintains, to enquire what is the fixed theological acceptance of the word, and so to render it here, irrespective of any subsequent usage by our Writer himself; but to enquire, 1. how he uses it in this Epistle, 2. whether he is likely to have used it in more than one sense: and to render accordingly. Now it cannot well be doubted, that in ch. Heb 9:16-17 , he does use it in the sense of “ testament .” And just as little can it be questioned, that he is speaking there of the same thing as here; that the there answers to the here, this first mention of it being in fact preparatory to that fuller treatment. I therefore keep here to the E. V., which Bleek also approves in spite of Ebrard’s strong but silly dictum, that every passage is to be interpreted as a reader would understand it who had never read any further) also hath Jesus become surety ( , see reff., occurs in the Apocrypha, and in the later classics, e. g. Xen. Vectig. iv. 20, , and Polyb. in reff.: but the form is much more common. Bl. remarks that Moeris’s notice is wrong, , . “Jesus is become the surety of the better covenant, i. e. in His person security and certainty is given to men, that a better covenant is made and sanctioned by God. For Christ, the Son of God, became man, to publish this covenant on earth, has sealed it with His sufferings and death, and by His resurrection from the dead was declared with power to be sent by God as the Founder of such a Covenant.” Lnemann. This seems better, considering the context, in which our hope mainly, and not at present Christ’s satisfaction, is in question, than to bring in, as Calov., al., that satisfaction, or to regard His suretyship (Limborch, Baumgarten, al.) as meaning His mediatorship (see ch. Heb 8:6 , where He is described as ) seen from both sides that He is God’s surety for man and man’s surety for God. is emphatically placed at the end: cf. Joh 19 ult.).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Heb 7:20-22 . Another element in the superiority of the covenant established upon the priesthood of Jesus is that in the very manner of the institution of His priesthood it was declared to be permanent. The long parenthesis of Heb 7:21 being held aside the statement of 20 22 reads thus: “And [introducing a fresh consideration] in proportion as not without an oath [was He made priest] in that proportion better is the covenant of which Jesus has become the surety”. The parenthesis of Heb 7:21 is inserted to confirm by an appeal to Scripture [Psa 110:4 ] the fact that by the swearing of an oath the Melchizedek priest was appointed, and to indicate the significance of this mode of appointment, viz .: that repentance or change of plan is excluded. That is to say, this priesthood is final, eternal. And the superiority of the priesthood involves the superiority of the covenant based upon it. The oath signifies therefore the transition from a provisional and temporary covenant to that which is eternal. . This form of argument is frequent in Philo, see Quis. Rev. Div. H. , 17, etc. , “not without oath-swearing”; the clause may be completed from that which follows, “has he been made priest,” as in A.V., although Weiss maintains that this is “sprachwidrig” and that the broken clause “kann natrlich nur aus dem Vorigen ergnzt werden”. But it is most natural and grammatical to complete it from the sentence in which it stands: “As not without an oath, so of a better covenant has Jesus become surety ”. The parenthesis thus furnishes the needed ground of this statement. He became surety by becoming priest, and as priest he was constituted with an oath. “For the one [that is, the Levitical priests] “have been made priests” Vaughan renders “are having become priests are priests having become so”. So Delitzsch, Weiss and von Soden. Westcott says: “The periphrasis marks the possession as well as the impartment of the office;” and on the “periphrastic conjugation” see Blass, sec. 62; Stephanus Thesaurus s.v . , and cf. Act 21:29 , .]. . “but the other [the new priest] with an oath,” of course not being instrumental, but “interposito jurejurando”; where and how this oath is to be found is next explained, it is f1 “through Him that saith to him. The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art,” etc. There is no call to translate “in reference to Him”; neither is there any difficulty in referring the words . to God. “Though the words are not directly spoken by the Lord, they are His by implication. The oath is His” (Westcott). On the distinction between and see Trench, Synonyms , 241. “He who has changed his mind about the past is in the way to change everything; he who has an after care may have little or nothing more than a selfish dread of the consequences of what he has done.” This, however, does not apply to the LXX (from which the quotation of this verse is taken) where both words are used to translate . Cf. 1Ki 15:29 ; 1Ki 15:34 . “by so much,” that is, the superiority of the new covenant to the old is in the ratio of eternity to time, of what is permanent and adequate to what is transitory and provisional. “of a better covenant” [“id est, non infirmae et inutilis. Frequens in hac epistola epitheton, , item , , , , , , , , , , ” (Bengel)], here first mentioned in the Epistle, but whose character and contents and relation to the “foregoing” covenant are fully explained in the following chapter. Here already its “betterness” is recognisable in this, that it supersedes the older, and is itself permanent because perfectly accomplishing the purposes of a covenant.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
inasmuch as. Greek. kath’ (App-104.) hoson.
oath. Greek. horkomosia. Only here and verses: Heb 7:21, Heb 7:28. Compare Heb 6:16, Heb 6:17.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
20-22.] See summary at Heb 7:11. Further proof of the superiority of the Melchisedek-priesthood of Christ-in that he was constituted in it by an oath, thus giving it a solemnity and weight which that other priesthood had not. And inasmuch as (it was) not without an oath (Thdrt. and some of the older Commentators (hardly Chrys.) join this clause with the former verse, and understand it to apply to the certainty of the . . Thdrt. And so Calvin, Nihil enim lex perfecit, sed accessit introductio ad spem potiorem per quam appropinquamus Deo: atque hoc potiorem, quod non absque jurejurando res acta sit. So Luther. The vulg., et quantum est, non sine jurejurando, is apparently meant as an exclamation, as indeed Primas. and Justiniani take it. But there can be little doubt that the right connexion is to take as the protasis, the following, to , as a parenthesis, and … as the apodosis. So, distinctly, Thl. (having before said on …,- …, he explains , , ). And so I believe Chrys. meant, though ordinarily quoted on the other side. He is by no means clear: and indeed the notes of his lectures on parts of this Epistle are evidently very imperfect. So almost all the modern Commentators, including Delitzsch. As regards the ellipsis here, it is variously supplied. Some fill it up out of the apodosis, . And this seems on the whole more natural, and more agreeable to the style of our Epistle, than to put in, as E. V. after c., and Bengel, Lnem., al., , or as Bleek, al., (viz. ) (or ). , the swearing of an oath, is not found in classical Greek, but , in Plato, Phdr. p. 241 A, and Crito, p. 120 B, or being understood. Still, as Wolf remarks, , , and many similar forms, are actually found),-for they, as we know (on , see above, Heb 7:18), without swearing of an oath are made priests ( , not only for the sake of rhythm, but as more strongly marking the existence of these priests at the time of writing. The quasi-aoristic use of is so common, that it would not convey to the reader here the meaning intended. Paulus and Klee render, are without an oath made priests: Bhme, sunt sacerdotes, sed sine juramento (illi quidem singuli deinceps) facti: which would require . . Michaelis would render it fuerunt, i. e. esse desierunt: which is against both grammar and context), but He with swearing of an oath, by Him who saith (i. e. certainly not the Psalmist, as some (hardly Schlichting), who cannot be said to have spoken this , unless indeed we take in the mere secondary sense of with reference to. In the following citation it is the words of address only to which this refers: the former part is the mere introduction to them. Not seeing this has led to the above mistake. It was God who addressed Him, God who made Him priest, God who sware unto Him) to Him, The Lord (, as commonly in LXX, for ) sware, and will not repent (so ref. Jer. Heb., : i. e. the decree stands fast, and shall undergo no change). Thou art a priest for ever (see var. readd.):-of so much (in that same proportion, viz. as the difference between the oath and no oath indicates) better a testament (the meanings of , 1. an appointment, without concurrence of a second party, of somewhat concerning that second party,-of which nature is a last will and testament; 2. a mutual agreement in which all parties concerned consent, = a covenant, in the proper sense,-being confessed, our business here is, not, as Ebrard absurdly maintains, to enquire what is the fixed theological acceptance of the word, and so to render it here, irrespective of any subsequent usage by our Writer himself; but to enquire, 1. how he uses it in this Epistle, 2. whether he is likely to have used it in more than one sense:-and to render accordingly. Now it cannot well be doubted, that in ch. Heb 9:16-17, he does use it in the sense of testament. And just as little can it be questioned, that he is speaking there of the same thing as here; that the there answers to the here, this first mention of it being in fact preparatory to that fuller treatment. I therefore keep here to the E. V., which Bleek also approves in spite of Ebrards strong but silly dictum, that every passage is to be interpreted as a reader would understand it who had never read any further) also hath Jesus become surety (, see reff., occurs in the Apocrypha, and in the later classics, e. g. Xen. Vectig. iv. 20, , and Polyb. in reff.: but the form is much more common. Bl. remarks that Moeriss notice is wrong, , . Jesus is become the surety of the better covenant, i. e. in His person security and certainty is given to men, that a better covenant is made and sanctioned by God. For Christ, the Son of God, became man, to publish this covenant on earth,-has sealed it with His sufferings and death, and by His resurrection from the dead was declared with power to be sent by God as the Founder of such a Covenant. Lnemann. This seems better, considering the context, in which our hope mainly, and not at present Christs satisfaction, is in question, than to bring in, as Calov., al., that satisfaction, or to regard His suretyship (Limborch, Baumgarten, al.) as meaning His mediatorship (see ch. Heb 8:6, where He is described as ) seen from both sides-that He is Gods surety for man and mans surety for God. is emphatically placed at the end: cf. John 19 ult.).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 7:20. , inasmuch as) Supply from what follows, He was made a priest. The Apodosis is in Heb 7:22, , by so much.-) A magnificent compound.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Heb 7:20-22
THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRISTS
PRIESTHOOD PROVED FROM THE FACT
THAT, UNLIKE THE LEVITICAL, IT WAS
INAUGURATED WITH AN OATH
Heb 7:20-22
Heb 7:20 —And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:-I have in the analysis of this, as in that of every other section, endeavored to assist the reader by indicating the extent and scope of each of the several paragraphs of which it is composed. The change of thought at the close of each of these may, I think, be readily perceived by all who read the Epistle with even ordinary care and reflection. Caution, however, is necessary lest perchance we make the breach of thought greater than what is really demanded or warranted by the construction and course of the argument. The connection of thought is very close throughout this entire section; and the several parts of it are all very intimately connected together, as links of the same chain. In the first paragraph, we have discussed and demonstrated very clearly, the superiority of the Melchisedecian order of priesthood. In the second, the Apostle shows that it was Gods purpose of old, even in the time of David, to set aside the Old Economy and introduce the New; thereby proving indirectly from Psa 110:4, the very great superiority of Christs priesthood over that of Aaron. But as yet, the meaning of this oracle of Jehovah is but partially developed. It furnishes indeed the main line of thought throughout the remainder of the section, leading the Apostle to the sublime conclusion in which his whole argument finally culminates, that Jesus is now a High Priest and Minister of the Holy of holies, and also of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. The third phase of thought in this line of argument is given, as indicated, in verses 20-22; in which the Apostle further demonstrates the superiority of Christs priesthood from the fact that it was confirmed and its perpetuity guaranteed by the oath of God. The reasoning of the Apostle, says Dr. Macknight, is founded on the conceded fact that God never interposed his oath except to show the certainty and immutability of the thing sworn. Thus he swore to Abraham, Gen 22:16-18, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; and to the rebellious Israelites, that they should never enter into his rest, Deut. 1: 34, 35; and to Moses, that he should not go into Canaan, Deut. 4:21; and to David, that his seed should endure forever, and his throne unto all generations, Psalm 89: 4. Wherefore, since Christ was made a priest, not without an oath that he should be a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec, that circumstance showed Gods purpose never to change or abolish his priesthood; and never to change or abolish the covenant which was established on his priesthood. Whereas the Levitical priesthood and the Law of Moses being established without an oath, were thereby declared to be changeable at Gods pleasure.
Heb 7:21 —For those priests were made without an oath: without the swearing of an oath.-(horkomosia from orchos an oath and om- nutni to swear). God simply said to Moses, Take unto thee Aaron thy brother and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priests office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar Aarons sons. (Exo 28:1.) There was nothing extraordinary in the mode of their appointment. They were consecrated merely in the way of ordinary legislation, with becoming rites and ceremonies. See Exodus 24 and Leviticus 8, 9. But the manner of Christs appointment was altogether extraordinary. God himself made oath on the occasion, as David testifies in Psa 110:4, Jehovah has sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. It is therefore clearly indicated that God will never set aside the priesthood of Christ, as he did that of Levi, in order to make way for another of a different order. When God is said to repent, the meaning is that he simply wills a change; and when it is said that he will not repent, it means that he will never will a change. And consequently there is nothing beyond the priesthood of Christ, to which it will ever give place, as a means of accomplishing Gods benevolent purposes in the redemption of mankind. Christ himself will continue to officiate as a priest upon his throne, until the work of mans redemption shall have been fully consummated.
Heb 7:22 —By so much, etc.-The Levitical priests received their appointment according to the law of a mutable and transitory Institution ; an Institution which perfected nothing, because it was in its design wholly preparatory and introductory to a better state of things; and which was therefore finally set aside in order to make way for the inauguration of a new and better Institution, of which Christ is made the Surety. But as before intimated, this new arrangement embracing the priesthood of Christ and all else pertaining to the justification, sanctification, and redemption of mankind, can never be set aside in order to make room for anything else. Gods oath is given as a pledge of this; and Christ himself being constituted a priest by the oath of God, now stands as security that this new covenant or arrangement will never be abrogated, until the benevolent designs of God shall have been accomplished in the salvation of all who believe and obey him. For as the Levitical priesthood was the basis of the Old Covenant (verse 11), so also is the priesthood of Christ the basis of the New Covenant; and as this will, according to the oath of Jehovah, endure to the final consummation of all that God has promised by his holy Apostles and Prophets, so also will the New Covenant of which Christ is made the Surety, continue until Gods eternal government is magnified in the everlasting salvation of the righteous, and the eternal condemnation of the wicked. This, the oath of Jehovah clearly indicates showing, as Peter says, that this is the true grace of God in which we now stand. (1Pe 5:12.) And hence the difference of being made a priest with or without an oath is very great; and just so great is the difference between the Old Covenant and the New.
The Greek word rendered testament (diatheke) means properly a disposition or an arrangement. And it is accordingly used (1) to denote any arrangement made by a superior for the benefit of an inferior; such, for example, as that which God made for the Israelites at Mount Sinai. And (2) it is used in the same sense as sun- theke to denote a mutual agreement between equals; such as the covenant which Abraham made with Abimelech. (Gen 21:22-32.) In our text, it is evidently used in the former sense, to denote Gods gracious arrangement made through Christ for the salvation of the world on given conditions. But what shall we call this dia theke? The word arrangement, or disposition, is too generic; and the word will, or testament, is specifically different. For as our author says (9: 16), before a testament can be carried into effect, there must of necessity take place the death of the testator. In this sense, which is very common in the Greek classics, the word dia theke can never of course be literally and strictly applied to any of Gods arrangements for the benefit of mankind. And to the word covenant there is this objection, that in its usual acceptation it represents the parties as too much on an equality. It corresponds much better with the second meaning of diatheke than with the first. But as it is now used by our writers to represent diatheke in both senses, it is perhaps on the whole the best word that we can employ in this instance. This covenant is better than the old covenant in many respects (see notes, on 8: 6-13), but chiefly in this, that founded as it is on the everlasting and efficacious priesthood of Christ, it cannot fail to secure for all who accept of its conditions, free, full, and everlasting forgiveness.
Of this better covenant, Christ is made the Surety (engnos). But what is the meaning of this? Some think that the word is used in the same sense as mediator (mesites) in Heb 8:6 Heb 9:15 Heb 12:24; Gal 3:19-20; and 1Ti 2:5. But if this had been Pauls meaning, he would doubtless have used the word mediator as in other instances. The word enguos does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament; but in classic Greek, it means a surety, a sponsor or a bondsman: one who pledges his name, property, or influence that a promise shall be fulfilled, or that something else shall be done. In this sense it is manifestly used in our text. Jesus has become the surety, sponsor, or bondsman of the New Covenant. But in what sense, and for what purpose? It can not be, says Albert Barnes, that he is a bondsman for God that he will maintain the covenant, and be true to the promises which he makes; for we need no such security of the Divine faithfulness and veracity. It cannot be that he becomes responsible for the Divine conduct in any way; for no such responsibility is needed or possible. But it must mean that he is security, or bondsman on the part of man. This is plausible, but it does not well harmonize with the context.
The argument of the Apostle requires us to understand this security as given on the part of God for the greater encouragement and consolation of his children; just as he gave the oath to Abraham and to his seed after him. (6: 17, 18.) Jesus, says Liinemann, is become the surety of a better covenant; that is, in his person security is given to men that a better covenant is made and sanctioned by God. For Christ, the Son of God, became man to publish this covenant on earth; he has sealed it with his death and sufferings; and by his resurrection from the dead, he was declared with power to be sent by God as the founder of such a covenant.
Commentary on Heb 7:20-22 by Donald E. Boatman
Heb 7:20 –And inasmuch as it is not without the taking of an oath
Psa 110:4 expresses this oath, This is more of the abundant evidence.
a. Gods oath is to show the certainty and immutability of the thing sworn.
1. He swore to Abraham. Gen 22:16-18.
2. He swore that Israel would not enter his rest. Deu 1:35.
3. He swore that Moses would not enter Canaan, Deu 4:21.
4. He swore that David and his seed would endure. Psa 89:4.
b. Now Christs priesthood is sworn to, to show its unchangeableness, The Levitical priesthood not being sworn to indicates that it was temporary.
Heb 7:21 –For they indeed have been made priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him that saith of Him, The Lord sware and will not repent Himself, Thou art a Priest forever
For they indeed have been made priest without an oath indicates a contract.
a. Their priesthood came by natural descent.
b. The value of the covenant is determined by the presence or absence of an oath.
An oath is something final and determinative in nature, But He with an oath shows the superiority of Christs priesthood. This is found in Psa 110:4, By him that saith of Him indicates Gods oath. The Lord sware and will not repent Himself, Thou art a Priest forever, indicates the unchangeable priesthood.
Heb 7:22 –by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant
By so much-a term of measurement.
a. Heb 1:4 : A fuller revelation.
b. Heb 3:3 : More honor.
c. Heb 7:22 : Better covenant.
d. Heb 8:6 : Better ministry.
e. Heb 9:14 : Complete cleansing.
. . . hath Jesus become the surety has the idea of binding.
a. The Greek word for surety is egguos, and appears only here.
1. It means a sponsor or bondswoman.
2. Act 17:30-31 : It gives the idea of final evidence.
Of a better covenant ought to be of interest to all:
a. See Heb 8:6, which says it is better because of better promises involved.
b. Most people realize the superiority of anything new over the old, except those who deal with antiques.
1. Too many are interested in religious antiques.
2. The new covenant with a superior priest and promises should be preferred.
Study Questions
1238. What was without an oath, or is this what the author says?
1239. Where is the oath recorded? Cf. Psa 110:4.
1240. Is this more of the abundant evidence of Heb 7:15?
1241. What other times did God swear? Cf. Gen 22:16-18; Deu 4:21; Deu 8:1.
1242. If the Levitical priesthood was not sworn to, what can be assumed?
1243. What was the content of the oath?
1244. If the Levitical priests were not appointed by an oath, how were they appointed?
1245. Is the value of a priesthood determined by the oath?
1246. What is meant by will not repent Himself?
1247. What is meant by the expression, by so much?
1248. What is implied by the word surety?
1249. What is the surety of?
1250. How is it a better covenant? Cf. Heb 1:4; Heb 3:3; Heb 7:22; Heb 8:6; Heb 9:14.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The apostle had warned the Hebrews before, that he had many things to say, and those not easy to be understood, concerning Melchisedec. And herein he intended not only those things which he expresseth directly concerning that person and his office, but the things themselves signified thereby in the person and office of Christ. And therefore he omits nothing which may from thence be any way represented. So from that one testimony of the psalmist he makes sundry inferences unto his purpose; as,
1. That the Lord Christ was to be a priest; which included in it the cessation of the Levitical priesthood, seeing he was of the tribe of Judah, and not of the tribe of Levi.
2. That he was to be another priest; that is, a priest of another order, namely, that of Melchisedec. And this he variously demonstrates, to prove his pre-eminence above the Aaronical priesthood, as also thereon, that upon his introduction that order was utterly to cease and be disannulled.
3. He observes from the same testimony, unto the same purpose, that he was to be a priest for ever, so as that there should never more, upon his death or otherwise, be any need of another priest, nor any possibility of the return of the former priesthood into the church.
4. Neither yet doth he rest here, but observes moreover the manner how God, in the testimony insisted on, declared his purpose of making the Lord Christ a priest, which was constitutive of his office; and that was by his oath: and thence he takes occasion to manifest how far his priesthood is exalted above that under the law. This is that which now lies before us in these verses. And we have in these things an instance given of what unsearchable stores of wisdom and truth are laid up in every parcel of the word of God, if we have a spiritual light in their investigation.
Heb 7:20-22. ( , , ), .
The words of the 20th verse being elliptical, the sense of them is variously supplied. Most translators carry on the sense unto that which is the midst of the 21st in our translation, others were made priests without an oath. The Syriac refers the words unto them foregoing, , and confirmed it (that is, the better hope) with an oath; and Beza, etiam quatenus non sine jurejurando superintroducta est, inasmuch as [that hope] is not brought in without an oath; and another since, et eo potior ilia spes, quatenus non absque jurejurando superintroducta est, Schmid. But this limits the comparison unto this verse, which the apostle really finisheth Heb 7:22. Vulg. Lat., et quantum est non sinejurejurando; which the Rhemists render, and inasmuch as it is not without an oath. Ours supply, he was made a priest, inasmuch as not without an oath he was made a priest: no doubt according to the mind of the apostle; for he hath a prospect in these words unto what ensues, where he expressly applies this oath unto the priesthood of Christ, and the consummation thereof.
, etiam quatenus, et quatenus; and inasmuch. is omitted by the Syriac. Vulg., in quantum est, inasmuch. Hereunto answereth , verse 22, eatenus.
is the same with , jusjurandum; an oath. But it is here principally applied unto those oaths whereby conventions, compacts, or covenants, were confirmed. Hence were the sacrifices that were offered in the confirmation of sworn covenants. It is three times used here by our apostle on this occasion, verses 20, 21, 28, and nowhere else in the New Testament.
. Vulg., alii quidem; which the Rhemists mend by rendering it, and the other. Beza, nam illi quidem. And so the Syriac, , and they. Ours, for those priests; rather, and truly those priests, though have only the force of a causal conjunction.
. Syr., , were. But the manner of their being made priests is intended, and so the words are to be expressed fully; facti sunt, were made. . The Syriac adds, , by the hand of David. It is not the giving of the oath, but the recording of it in the psalm, that he intendeth.
, non pcenitebit. Syr., and will not lie; will not repent, or change his mind.
. Vulg., in tantum; to answer in quantum before. Tanto, eatenus; tanto, by so much. Syr., hoc toto, by all this; and so proceeds, this covenant was more excellent wherein Jesus was made the surety.
Of the signification of the word I shall speak afterwards. [9]
ft9 VARIOUS READING. The clause, usque ad , is omitted by Tischendorf, on the authority of c, some other manuscripts, and several versions. EXPOSITION. Christ is called a surety here, not as the vicarious fulfiller of that which men ought to have performed, but because God on his part gave him to the human race, as a surety for the actual fulfillment of his covenant promise. For this, and this alone, is what is spoken of in the context. Ebrard. Several writers expound it as a paronomasia with , verse 19; in which case it must include not his relation, as surety, to God only, but to his redeemed also. TRANSLATION. Owen here translates covenant, not testament, according to the A.V. He is followed by all modern critics, Scholefield, Craik, Stuart, Ebrard, etc. Bleek, however, adheres to the rendering, testament. ED.
Heb 7:20-22. And inasmuch as not without an oath: (for they truly were made without an oath; 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:) by so much was Jesus made surety of a better covenant.
The same argument is pursued as in the foregoing verses, only with a new medium, and that such as leads on towards the conclusion of the whole disputation. The introduction of a new priesthood, the cessation or abolition of the old, with the advantage of the church thereby, because of its dignity, pre-eminence, and stability, above that which was to give place unto it, are the things which the apostle is in the proof and confirmation of. There are three things in these three verses:
1. A proposition of a new medium for the confirmation of the principal argument before insisted on, Heb 7:20.
2. An illustration and proof of what is asserted in that proposition, Heb 7:21.
3. An inference from its being so established and proved, Heb 7:22. In the proposition three things may be considered:
1. The connection of it unto the preceding discourse, by the conjunction .
2. The modification of the proposition, in the manner of its introduction; , quanto, quatenus, in quantum; inasmuch.
3. The proposition itself, expressed negatively: , Not without, etc.
1. The note of connection, , may respect Heb 7:17, where the same testimony now insisted upon is introduced, and so may intimate a further pursuit of the same argument. If so, the other two verses, 18, 19, are inserted as a parenthesis, comprising an inference of what the apostle had before proved, with the reason of it: for whereas before he had only made use of the words of the Father unto Christ, Thou art a priest for ever, and thereon showed what would thence follow; he now proceeds to declare the manner how those words were spoken, namely, with an oath. Or it may respect the words immediately foregoing, namely, the bringing in of a better hope; for it was brought in by an oath: and this sense is followed by most translators, who supply the defect in these words by the repetition of a better hope. But although neither of these suppositions concerning the connection of the words doth prejudice the sense or design of them, yet, as we have observed before, oftentimes is as much as moreover, as it is rendered, etiam, by Beza; and then it denotes not an immediate connection with, or dependence on what went before in particular, but only a process in the same general argument. And so it is here a note of introduction of a new, special consideration, for the confirmation of the same design. Hence our translators supply the words, not with any thing that went before, but with what follows after, which the apostle designed now in particular to speak unto, he was made a priest.
2. The modification of the proposition is in these words, , eatenus quantum, in quantum; inasmuch, so much. Hereunto answers , Heb 7:22, in tantum, quanto, tanto. The excellency of the covenant whereof Christ was made mediator above the old covenant, had proportion with the pre-eminence of his priesthood above that of Aaron, in that he was made a priest by an oath, but they were not so. And we may observe in general, that,
Obs. 1. The faith, comfort, honor, and safety of the church, depend much on every particular mark that God hath put upon any of the offices of Christ, or whatever belongs thereunto.
We have lived to see men endeavoring their utmost to render Christ himself, and all his offices, of as little use in religion as they can possibly admit, and yet retain the name of Christians. And it is to be feared that he is as little valued by some in their practice as he is by others in their notions. This is not the way of the Scripture. Therein every concernment of him and his offices is particularly insisted on; and the apostle in this chapter makes it manifest what important mysteries depend on such minute considerations as some would think were little to be regarded. But all things concerning him are full of divine mysteries; and every word about them that drops from infinite wisdom ought to be an object of faith and admiration. When, therefore, we cease to inquire with all diligence into all the revelations made concerning Christ or his offices, or any thing which belongs unto them, we do really cease to be Christians. And there can be no greater evidence of our want of faith in him and love unto him, than if we neglect a due consideration of all things that the Scripture reveals and testifies concerning him.
3. The proposition itself is in these words: Not without an oath. Two things the apostle supposeth in this negative proposition:
(1.) That there were two ways whereby men either were or might be made priests; namely, they might be so either with or without an oath. And he expresseth the latter way, applying it negatively unto Christ, that he might include a negation of the former way with respect unto the priests under the law; both which he afterwards expressly mentioneth.
(2.) That the dignity of the priesthood depends on, and is declared by the way whereby God was pleased to initiate men into that office. These two things being in general laid down, as those which could not be denied, the apostle makes application of them in the next verse distinctly, unto the priests of the law on the one hand, and Christ on the other, in a comparison between whom he is engaged. And we may observe, that,
Obs. 2. Nothing was wanting on the part of God that might give eminency, stability, glory, and efficacy, unto the priesthood of Christ: Not without an oath. For,
1. This was due unto the glory of his person. The Son of God in infinite grace condescending unto the susception of this office, and the discharge of all the duties of it, it was meet that all things which might contribute any thing unto the glory or efficacy of it should accompany his undertakings. For being in himself the image of the invisible God, by whom all things were created, it was meet that in his whole work he should in all things have the pre-eminence, as our apostle speaks, Col 1:15-16; Col 1:18. He was, in every thing that he undertook, to be preferred and exalted above all others, who ever were employed in the church, or ever should be; and therefore was he made a priest not without an oath.
2. God saw that this was needful, to encourage and secure the faith of the church. There were many things defective in the priesthood under the law, as we have partly seen already, and shall yet see more fully in our progress. And it suited the design and wisdom of God that it should be so; for he never intended that the faith of the church should rest and be terminated in those priests or their office. What he granted unto them was sufficient unto the end and use whereunto he had designed it; so as that the church might have all that respect for it which was needful or for their good. But so many defects there were in that administration, as might sufficiently evidence that the faith of the church was not to acquiesce therein, but to look for what was yet to come, as our apostle proves by many instances in this chapter. But upon the introduction of the priesthood of Christ, God really and actually proposeth and exhibiteth unto the church all that they were to trust unto, all that he would do, or was any way needful to be done, for their peace and salvation. No other relief was to be expected for the future; therefore did God, in infinite wisdom and grace, for the stability and security of their faith, grant the highest and most peculiar evidences of the everlasting confirmation of his priesthood. And hereby did he manifest that this dispensation of his will and grace was absolutely unchangeable; so that if we comply not therewithal we must perish for ever. Thus all the whole Scripture, and all contained therein, direct us unto our ultimate hope and rest in Christ alone.
Heb 7:21. In the application of this assertion, the apostle affirms that those priests, the priests under the law, were made without an oath. No such thing is mentioned in all that is recorded concerning their call and consecration; for where they are expressly declared in their outward circumstances, Exodus 28; Exodus 29; there is mention made of no such thing. But their dedication consisted in three things:
1. A call from God, expressed Exo 28:1. We have showed how necessary this was unto the first erection of any priesthood, though it was to be continued by an ordinary succession. See Heb 5:4. It is therefore granted, that in this general foundation of the office, Aaron had it, even as Christ had, though not in the same way or manner; for the call of Christ was far more eminent and glorious than that of Aaron, as hath been showed.
2. It consisted in the appointment and preparation of those peculiar garments and mystical ornaments wherein they were to administer their office; and their unction with the holy anointing oil, when clothed with those garments.
3. In the sacrifices wherewith they were consecrated and actually set apart unto that office whereunto they were called.
And these two were peculiar unto them, there being no use of them in the consecration of Christ: for both of them did declare their whole administration to be external and carnal, and therefore could never make any thing perfect; nor were capable of a confirmation unto perpetuity.
But the promise made unto Phinehas seems to be expressed for an eternity in this priesthood. Behold, saith God, I give unto him my covenant of peace: and he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, Num 25:12-13. But this proves not a certain absolute perpetuity of this priesthood of Phinehas. For,
1. The covenant intended was not a complete, solemn covenant, confirmed either by oath or sacrifice, but only a naked promise or declaration of the will of God. And that is frequently used for such a promise as wherein the nature of a covenant is not contained, is acknowledged by the Jews themselves.
2. All the special covenants or promises that God made unto or with any under the law, that had respect unto legal administrations, were all of them commensurate unto the duration and continuance of the law itself. Whilst the covenant of the law itself was in force, they also continued; and when that ceased, then also were they to cease; for, the foundation being taken away, the whole building must come to the ground. Now, that this old covenant of the law was to cease, and be taken away by the introduction of another and a better, God did openly and frequently declare under the old testament, as our apostle manifests by one signal instance in the next chapter. And this is the sense of , for ever, in this case constantly. It expresseth a certain continuance of any thing, so as not to be changed, or to have another thing substituted in the room of that whereunto it is applied, whilst that legal dispensation continued. And so it was in this promise made unto Phinehas. For although there was an intercision made afterwards, as to the continuance of the priesthood in the line of his family, by the interposition of Eli and his sons, who were of the posterity of Ithamar, yet he returned again unto the enjoyment of this promise, in the person of Zadok, in the days of Solomon, and so continued until the second temple was forsaken of God also, and made a den of thieves.
But neither with respect unto him or any other is there any mention of the oath of God; for indeed God did never solemnly interpose himself with an oath, in a way of privilege or mercy, but with direct respect unto Jesus Christ. So he sware by himself unto Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; whereby he declared the immutability of his counsel, in sending his Son to take his seed upon him. So he sware unto David by his holiness, that his seed, namely Christ, should sit on the throne for ever. Wherefore, although God never changeth any real internal acts of his will, or his purposes, for with him there is neither variableness nor shadow of turning, yet he often works an alteration in some things, which on some conditions, or for some time, he hath proposed and enjoined unto his church, unless they were confirmed by his oath; for this declares them to be absolutely immutable.
This is the account the apostle gives of the Aaronical priests, , And they truly, that is, Aaron, and all his posterity that exercised the priests office in a due manner, they were all made priests; that is, by God himself. They did not originally take this honor unto themselves, but were called of God. For he hath no regard unto them who in those days invaded the priests office with violence, deceit, or bribery; and so not only corrupting but evacuating the covenant of Levi. Those that entered into and executed their office according to the law are here intended by him. These were all made priests in the way of Gods appointment; but neither all of them nor any of them were made priests by an oath. God, into whose sovereign will and pleasure all these things are resolved, granted unto them what he saw convenient, and withheld what seemed good unto him. What he did, was sufficient to oblige the people unto obedience during that dispensation of his will; and what he did not add, but reserved for a further dispensation of his grace, intimated that liberty which he reserved unto himself of making an alteration therein, as he saw good. And we may see that,
Obs. 3. Although the decrees and purposes of God were always firm and immutable, yet there was no fixed state of outward dispensations, none confirmed with an oath, until Christ came. Nor shall we find any rest in any thing, until we come to Christ.
The apostle in the next words declares in particular and positively what he had in general and negatively before laid down: But this with an oath; , but he, this man, he who was to be a priest after the order of Melchisedec. He was made , with an oath. This is first asserted, and then proved by the testimony of the psalmist. And the assertion may have a double signification:
1. That this oath was constituent of his office. Therein his call and consecration did consist.
2. That his call, constitution, or consecration, was confirmed and ratified with an oath. And the latter sense is intended; for so doth the antithesis require.
Those legal priests had a divine constitution and call; but they had no confirmation by the addition of an oath; God used not an oath in or about any thing that belonged unto them. Wherefore this man was also to have another call unto and constitution of his office; but he was to be confirmed therein by an oath.Wherein this call of Christ unto his office did consist, what were the acts of the divine will thereabout, and what was the manifestation of them, I have declared at large in the exercitations about the priesthood of Christ. Two things are to be considered in this oath:
1. The form; and,
2. The matter of it.
The form of it is in these words, The Lord sware, and will not repent. And the matter of it is, that he in his own person should be a priest for ever.
1. The person swearing is God the Father, who speaks unto the Son in Psa 110:1. The LORD said unto my Lord. And the oath of God is nothing but the solemn, eternal, and unchangeable decree and purpose of his will, under an especial way of declaration. So the same act and counsel of Gods will is called his decree, Psa 2:7. Wherefore, when God will so far unveil a decree and purpose as to testify it to be absolute and unchangeable, he doth it in the way of an oath; as hath been declared, Heb 6:13-14. Or, to the same purpose, God affirms that he hath sworn in the case.
If, then, it be demanded, when God thus sware unto Christ, I answer, We must consider the decree itself unto this purpose, and the peculiar revelation or declaration of it; in which two this oath doth consist. And as to the first, it belongs entirely unto those eternal federal transactions between the Father and the Son, which were the original of the priesthood of Christ, which I have at large explained in our exercitations. And as for the latter, it was when he gave out that revelation of his mind in the force and efficacy of an oath, in the psalm by David.
It is, therefore, not only a mistake, but an error of danger in some expositors, who suppose that this oath was made unto Christ upon his ascension into heaven. For this apprehension being pursued, will fall in with the of the Socinians in this whole cause, namely, that the kingly and priestly offices of Christ are not really distinct. Moreover, it supposeth the principal discharge of the priesthood of Christ, in his sacrifice, to have been antecedent unto this oath; which utterly enervates the apostles argument in these words. For if he were made a priest and discharged his office without an oath, as he must be and do on this supposition, that the oath of God was made unto him after his ascension (or that his death and oblation therein belonged not unto his priestly office), he had no pre-eminence herein unto the Aaronical priests. He might so have a subsequent privilege of the confirmation of his office, but he had none in his call thereunto.
Wherefore this oath of God, though not in itself solely the constituent cause of the priesthood of Christ, yet it was, and it was necessarily to be, antecedent unto his actual entrance upon or discharge of any solemn duty of his office.
That additional expression, And he will not repent, declares the nature of the oath of God and of the purpose con firmed thereby. When God makes an alteration in any law, rule, order, or constitution, he is or may be said, , to repent. This God by this word declares shall never be; no alteration or change, no removal or substitution, shall ever be made in this matter. ever. He was not only made a priest with an oath, which they were not, but a priest for ever. This adds unto the unchangeableness of his office, that he himself in his own person was to bear, exercise, and discharge it, without substitute or successor.
And this for ever answers unto the for ever under the law, each of them being commensurate unto the dispensation of that covenant which they do respect; for absolute eternity belongs not unto these things. The for ever of the old testament was the duration of the dispensation of the old covenant. And this for ever respects the new covenant, which is to continue unto the consummation of all things, no change therein being any way intimated or promised, or consistent with the wisdom and faithfulness of God; all which were otherwise under the law. But at the end of the world, together with the dispensation of the new covenant, an end will be put unto all the mediatory offices of Christ, and all their exercise. And there are four things which the apostle declareth and evinceth in this observation:
1. That our high priest was peculiarly designed unto and initiated into his office, by the oath of God, which none other ever was before him.
2. That the person of the high priest is hereby so absolutely determined, as that the church may continually draw nigh unto God the fall assurance of faith.
3. That this priesthood is liable to no alteration, succession, or substitution.
4. That from hence ariseth the principal advantage of the new testament above the old, as is declared in the next verse; and we may observe,
Obs. 4. That although God granted great privileges unto the church under the old testament, yet still in every instance he withheld that which was the principal, and should have given perfection unto what he did grant. He made them priests, but without an oath.
In all things there was a reserve for Christ, that he in all might have the pre-eminence.
Obs. 5. God by his oath declares the determination of his sovereign pleasure unto the object of it. What he proposeth and pre- scribeth unto us, he declares no more of his mind and his will about but that he requireth and approveth of our obedience unto it; but it and about it that seem good unto him. Nothing, therefore, in the whole legal administration being confirmed by the oath of God, it was always ready for removal at the appointed season.
Obs. 6. Christs being made a priest for ever by the oath of God, is a solid foundation of peace and consolation to the church. For,
Obs. 7. All the transactions between the Father and the Son, concerning his offices, undertakings, and the work of our redemption, have respect unto the faith of the church, and are declared for our consolation. Such were his solemn call to his sacerdotal office, and the oath of God whereby he was confirmed therein. I will not say that these things were needless on the part of Christ himself, seeing it became the glory of his person to be thus testified unto in his condescension unto office; yet was it in all these things the good and benefit of the church that was-designed. What the Lord Christ said of his prayer unto God the Father, at least so far as it was vocal, that it was not needful for him, but was only for the confirmation of the faith of others, Joh 11:41-42, may be spoken of all other transactions between God and him; the faith of others was principally respected in them, and thereunto they were absolutely needful. For,
1. The things which God proposeth unto our faith through Christ are exceeding great and glorious, and such as, being most remote from our innate apprehensions, do need the highest confirmation. Things they are which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man, 1Co 2:9. Things unexpected, great and glorious, are apt to surprise, amaze, and overwhelm our spirits, until they are uncontrollably testified unto. So when Jacobs sons told their father that Joseph was alive, and made governor over all the land of Egypt, Gen 45:26, the tidings were too great and good for him to receive. But it is added, that when they gave evidence unto their report by the wagons that Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob revived, verses 27, 28. The things of the gospel, pardon of sin, peace with God, participation of the Spirit, grace and glory, are great and marvellous. Men at the hearing of them are like them that dream; the words concerning them seem like the report of the women unto the apostles concerning the resurrection of Christ, they seemed as idle tales, and they believed them not, Luk 24:2. Wherefore God discovers the fountains of these things, that we may apprehend the truth and reality of them. His eternal covenant with his Son about them, his oath that he hath made unto him, whereby he was established in his office, and the like glorious transactions of his wisdom and grace, are revealed unto this very end, that we might not be faithless in these things, but believe. For can any thing that is proposed unto us be supposed to exceed the duty of faith, when we see it, either in itself or in its springs and foundation, solemnly confirmed by the oath of God? They are glorious things which we are to expect from the priesthood of Christ, and the discharge of that office. And is it not an unspeakable encouragement thereunto, that God hath confirmed him in that office by his solemn oath unto him? For two things evidently present themselves unto our minds thereon:
(1.) That this is a thing which the infinitely holy, wise God lays great weight and stress upon. And what is he not able to effect when he doth so, and consequently lays out the treasures of his wisdom and en-gageth the greatness of his power in the pursuit of it? And,
(2.) His counsel herein is absolutely immutable, and such as on no emergency can admit of alteration. If, therefore, the engagement of infinite wisdom, grace, and power, will not excite and encourage us unto believing, there is no remedy, but we must perish in our sins.
2. As the things proposed in the gospel, as effects of the priesthood of Christ, are in themselves great and glorious, requiring an eminent confirmation, so the frame of our hearts with respect unto them is such, from first to last, as stands in need of all the evidence that can be given unto them. For there is in us by nature an aversation unto them, and a dislike of them. In the wisdom of our carnal minds, we look on them as foolish and useless. And when this woful enmity is conquered by the mighty power of God, and the souls of sinners wrought over to approve of these effects of divine wisdom and grace, yet no man can recount how many doubts, fears, jealous suspicions, we are, as to our closing with them by faith, obnoxious unto. Every ones own heart, if he have any acquaintance with it, if he be diligent in the examination of it, will sufficiently satisfy him what objections faith in this matter hath to conflict withal. And it is to be feared that he who is insensible of the oppositions that arise against sincere believing, never yet knew what it is so to believe. To encourage and strengthen our hearts against them, to give power unto faith against all oppositions, doth God thus reveal the wisdom of his counsel and the glorious springs of this ministration whereinto our whole faith is principally resolved. And indeed we may try the sincerity of our faith by its respect unto these things. It may be some, for aught I know, may be carried on in such an easy course, and be so preserved from perplexing temptations, as not to be driven to seek their relief so deep as these springs of Gods confirmation of the office of Christ by his oath do lie; but yet he that doth not of his own choice refresh his faith with the consideration of them, and strengthen it with pleas in his supplications taken from thence, seems to me to be greatly unacquainted with what it is truly to believe.
Heb 7:22. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
, by so much, answers directly to , Heb 7:20, inasmuch. There is therefore an immediate connection of these words unto that verse. Hence verse 21, wherein a confirmation is interserted of the principal assertion, is justly placed in a parenthesis in our translation. So the sense of the words is to this purpose: And inasmuch as he was not made a priest without an oath, he is by so much made the surety of a better testament.
And there may be a twofold design in the words:
1. That his being made a priest by an oath made him meet to be the surety of a better testament; or,
2. That the testament whereof he was the surety must needs be better than the other, because he who was the surety of it was made a priest by an oath.
In the one way, he proves the dignity of the priesthood of Christ from the new testament; and in the other, the dignity of the new testament from the priesthood of Christ. And we may reconcile both these senses by affirming, that really and efficiently the priesthood gives dignity unto the new testament, and declaratively the new testament sets forth the dignity of the priesthood of Christ.
It is owned tacitly, that the priesthood of Levi, and the old testament, were good, or these could not be said to be better, in way of comparison. And good they were, because appointed of God, and of singular use unto the church during their continuance. But this priesthood and testament are better, by so much as that which is confirmed with an oath is better than that which is not so; which alone gives the proportion of comparison in this place. Many other advantages there were of the priesthood of Christ and of the new testament, in comparison unto those of the old, all which increase the proportion of difference; but at present the apostle considers only what depends on the oath of God. Wherefore the design of the comparison contained in these words, , is, that whereas this priest after the order of Melchisedec was designed to be the surety of another testament, he was confirmed in his office by the oath of God; which gives a pre-eminence both unto his office and the testament whereof he was to be a surety.
In the assertion itself, that Jesus was made a surety of a better testament, we may consider,
1. What is included or supposed in it; and,
2. What is literally expressed.
First, Three things are included and supposed in this assertion:
1. That there was another testament that God had made with his people.
2. That this was a good testament.
3. That this testament had in some sense a surety.
Secondly, As unto what is expressed in these words, there are four things in them:
1. The name of him who was the subject discoursed of; it is Jesus.
2. What is affirmed of him; he was a surety.
3. How he became so; he was made so.
4. Whereof he was a surety; and that is of a testament of God: which
5. is described by its respect unto the other before mentioned, and its preference above it; it is a better testament.
First, It is supposed,
1. That there was another testament which God had made with his people. This the apostle supposeth in this whole context, and at length brings his discourse unto its head and issue in the eighth chapter, where he expressly compareth the two testaments the one with the other. Now this was the covenant or testament that God made with the Hebrews on Mount Sinai, when he brought them out of Egypt, as is expressly declared in the ensuing chapter, whereof we must treat in its proper place.
2. It is supposed that this was a good testament. It was so in itself, as an effect of the wisdom and righteousness of God; for all that he doth is good in itself, both naturally and morally, nor can it otherwise be. And it was of good use unto the church; namely, unto them who looked unto the end of it, and used it in its proper design. Unto the body of the people, indeed, as far as they were carnal, and looked only on the one hand for temporal benefits by it, or on the other for life and salvation, it was a heavy yoke, yea, the ministration of death. With respect unto such persons and ends, it contained statutes that were not good, commandments that could not give life; and it was every way unprofitable. But yet in itself it was on many accounts holy, just, and good:
(1.) As it had an impression upon it of the wisdom and goodness of God.
(2.) As it was instructive in the nature and demerit of sin.
(3.) As it directed unto and represented the only means of deliverance, by righteousness and salvation in Christ.
(4.) As it established a worship which was very glorious and acceptable unto God during its season. But, as we shall show afterwards, it came short in all its excellencies and worth of this whereof Christ is the surety.
3. It is supposed that this testament had a surety; for this new testament having a surety, the other must have so also. But who this was must be inquired into.
(1.) Some would have our Lord Jesus Christ to be the surety of that testament also; for so our apostle affirms in general, There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 1Ti 2:5-6.
Be the covenant or testament what or which it will, there is but one mediator between God and men. Hence our apostle says of him, that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, Heb 13:8. If, therefore, he be the only mediator to-day under the new testament, he was so also yesterday under the old.
Ans. [1.] There is some difference between a mediator at large, and such a mediator as is withal a surety. And however, on any account, Christ may be said to be the mediator of that covenant, he cannot be said to be the surety of it.
[2.] The place in Timothy cannot intend the old covenant, but is exclusive of it; for the Lord Christ is there called a mediator with respect unto the ransom that he paid in his death and blood-shedding. This respected not the confirmation of the old covenant, but was the abolition of it: and the old was confirmed with the blood of beasts, as the apostle expressly declares, Heb 9:18-19.
[3.] The Lord Christ was indeed, in his divine person, the immediate administrator of that covenant, the angel and messenger of it on the behalf of God the Father: but this doth not constitute him a mediator properly; for a mediator is not of one, but God is one.
[4.] The Lord Christ was a mediator under that covenant, as to the original promise of grace, and the efficacy of it, which were administered therein: but he was not the mediator and surety of it as it was a covenant; for had he been so, he being the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, that covenant could never have been disannulled.
(2.) Some assert Moses to have been the surety of the old testament; for so it is said that the law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator, Gal 3:19, that is, of Moses, whom the people desired to be the internuncius between God and them, Exo 20:19; Deu 5:27; Deu 18:16.
Ans. [1.] Moses may be said to be the mediator of the old covenant in a general sense, inasmuch as he went between God and the people, to declare the will of God unto them, and to return the profession of obedience from them unto God; but he was in no sense the surety thereof. For, on the one side, God did not appoint him in his stead to give assurance of his fidelity unto the people. This he took absolutely unto himself, in those words wherewith all his laws were prefaced, I am the LORD thy God. Nor did he, nor could he, on the other side, undertake unto God for the people; and so could not be esteemed in any sense the surety of the covenant.
[2.] The apostle hath no such argument in hand as to compare Christ with Moses, nor is he treating of that office wherein he compares him with him, and prefers him above him; which was his prophetical office, whereof he had before discoursed, Heb 3:4-6. Wherefore,
(3.) It was the high priest alone who was the surety of that covenant. It was made and confirmed by sacrifices, Psa 50:5; as we shall see more at large afterwards, Heb 9:19-20. And if Moses were concerned herein, it was as he executed the office of the priest in an extraordinary manner. Therefore the high priest, offering solemn sacrifices in the name and on the behalf of the people, making atonement for them according to the terms of that covenant, supplied the place of the surety thereof. And we may observe, that,
Obs. 8. How good and glorious soever any thing may appear to be, or really be, in the worship of God, or as a way of our coming to him, or walking before him, if it be not ratified in and by the immediate suretiship of Christ, it must give way unto that which is better; it could be neither durable in itself, nor make any thing perfect in them that made use of it.
Secondly, In what is positively asserted in the words we may observe,
1. The person who is the subject spoken of; and that is Jesus. He had in general declared the nature of the priesthood of him who was to have that office, according to the order of Melchisedec; but he had not yet, in this whole chapter, that is, from the beginning of this discourse, mentioned who that person was, or named him. But here he makes application of the whole unto him. It is Jesus who in all these things was intended. And this he doth suitably unto his design and occasion. For two things were in question among the Hebrews:
(1.) What was the nature of the office of the Messiah?
(2.) Who was the person? For the first of these, he proves unto them, from their own acknowledged principles, that he was to be a priest; as also what was the nature of that priesthood, and what would be the necessary consequence of the setting up of that office in the church, and the exercise of it: this his whole precedent discourse is designed unto. Now he asserts the second part of the difference, namely, that it is Jesus who is this priest; because in him alone do all things concur that were to be in that priest, and he had now discharged the principal part and duty of that office.
It was sufficient for the church of the Jews to believe in the Messiah, and to own the work of redemption which he was to accomplish. Nor did the mere actual coming of Christ make it absolutely necessary that they should all immediately be obliged to believe him to be the person. Many, I doubt not, died after his incarnation and went to heaven without an actual belief that it was he who was their Redeemer. But their obligation unto faith towards that individual person arose from the declaration that was made of him, and the evidences given to prove him to be the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. So he tells those unto whom he preached and who saw his miracles, If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins, Joh 8:24. It would not now suffice them to believe in the Messiah in general, but they were also to believe that Jesus was he, or they must perish for their unbelief. Howbeit they only were intended who, hearing his words and seeing his miracles, had sufficient evidence of his being the Son of God. Of others in the same church this was not as yet required. Nor, it may be, cloth our Savior oblige them immediately unto faith in this matter; only he declares what would be the event with them who, upon his accomplishment of his work on the earth, and the sending of the Holy Ghost after his ascension, whereby he gave the principal declaration and evidence of his being the Messiah, should continue in their unbelief. Hereon, and not before, the belief in his individual person, in Jesus, the Son of God, became the foundation of the church; so that whoever believed not in him did die in their sins. Wherefore the apostles, immediately upon the coming of the Holy Ghost, made this the first and principal subject of their preaching, namely, that Jesus was the Christ. See Acts 2-5. So our apostle in this place, having asserted the nature of the office of the promised Messiah, makes an application of it unto his person; as he also had done, Act 2:9. And we may observe, that,
Obs. 9. All the privileges, benefits, and advantages of the offices and mediation of Christ will not avail us, unless we reduce them all unto faith in his person. Indeed it is not so much what is done, though that be inconceivably great, as by whom it is done, namely, Jesus, the Son of God, God and man in one person. It is a matter of somewhat a surprising nature, that divers in these days do endeavor to divert the minds and faith of men from a respect unto the person of Christ. But that the crafts of Satan have made nothing, be it never so foolish or impious in religion, to seem strange, a man could not but admire how such an attempt should be either owned or countenanced. For my part, I must acknowledge that I know no more of Christian religion but what makes me judge that the principal trouble of believers in this world lies herein, that they can no more fervently love, nor more firmly believe in the person of Christ, than what they have as yet attained unto. But this notion hath been vented and carried on among us by persons who, out of an aim after things novel and contrary to the received faith, have suffered themselves to be imposed on by those who have other principles than what they seem to own. For the Socinians, denying the divine nature of Christ, do their utmost, in the pursuit of that infidelity, to take the minds of men from a regard unto his person, and would reduce all religion unto a mere obedience unto his commands. And indeed there can be no place for that divine faith in him, trust on him, and love unto him, which the church has always professed, if it be supposed that he is not God and man in one person. And their reasonings, they are unto this purpose, which some represent unto us, who yet will not avow that principle from whence alone they are taken and do rise. But so long as we can hold the head, or this great foundation of religion, that the Lord Christ is the eternal Son of God, which alone gives life and efficacy unto his whole work of mediation, our faith in all its actings will be reduced unto his person; there it beginneth, there it endeth. It is Jesus who is this mediator and surety of the covenant, in whose person God redeemed the church with his own blood.
2. That which is affirmed of this person is, that he was made a surety. The way whereby he became so is expressed by , he was made so. So is this word used with respect unto him, Heb 1:4 : of the same importance with another translated appointed, Heb 3:2; and it signifies what is expressed, Heb 5:5. The places may be consulted with our exposition of them. Respect is had herein unto the acts of God the Father in this matter. What are those acts of God, whether eternal or temporal, that did concur unto or any way belong unto the investiture of Christ in his offices, I have at large declared on Heb 1:1-3. And more particularly for what concerns his priesthood, it hath been handled apart in our exercitations on that subject. But we may here also observe, that,
Obs. 10. The whole undertaking of Christ, and the whole efficacy of the discharge of his office, depend on the appointment of God, even the Father.
3. It is affirmed that he was thus made, appointed, or constituted, that is, by God himself, a surety; which is further declared by the addition of that whereunto his suretiship had a respect, namely, a better covenant, .
Of the proper signification of the word , and its use, we must treat expressly afterwards. Here we shall only observe, that in this word the apostle takes many things as granted among the Hebrews; as,
(1.) That there was to be another covenant or testament of God with and towards the church, besides that which he made with Israel when he brought them out of Egypt. The promises hereof are so frequently repeated by the prophets, especially those who prophesied towards the latter end of their church-state, that there could be no question about it, nor could they be ignorant of it.
(2.) That this new covenant or testament should be better than the former, which was to be disannulled thereby. This carried along with it its own evidence. For after God, in his wisdom and goodness, had made one covenant with his people, he would not remove it, abolish it, and take it away by another, unless that other were better than it; especially declaring so often as he doth that he granted them this new covenant as the highest effect of his grace and kindness towards them. And that indeed it was expressly promised to be a better covenant than the former, we shall see in the next chapter, if we live and God will.
(3.) It is supposed that this better covenant must have a surety. The original covenant that God made with Adam had none, and therefore was it quickly broken and disannulled. The especial covenant made with Israel had no surety, properly so called; only therein the high priest did represent what was to be done by any one that should undertake to be such a surety.
Of the word and its signification we have spoken before. And in our inquiry into the nature of this suretiship of Christ, the whole will be resolved into this one question, namely, Whether the Lord Christ was made a surety only on the part of God unto us, to assure us that the promise of the covenant on his part should be accomplished; or also an undertaker on our part for the performance of what is required, if not of us, yet with respect unto us, that the promise may be accomplished?The first of these is vehemently asserted by the Socinians, who are followed by Grotius and Hammond, in their annotations on this place.
The words of Schlichtingius are:
Sponsor foederis appellatur Jesus, quod nomine Dei nobis spoponderit; id est, fidem fecerit Deum foederis promissiones servaturum esse. Non vero quasi pro nobis spoponderit Deo, nostrorumve debitorum solutionem in se receperit. Nec enim nos misimus Christum sed Deus, cujus nomine Christus ad nos venit, foedus nobiscum panxit, ejusque promissiones ratas fore spopondit et in se recepit, ideoque nec sponsor simpliciter sed foederis sponsor nominatur. Spopondit autem Christus pro foederis divini veritate, non tantium quatenus id firmum ratumque fore verbis perpetuo testatus est, sed etiam quatenus muneris sui fidem maximis rerum ipsarum comprobavit documentis, tum perfecta vitae innocentia et sanctitate, tum divinis plane quae patravit operibus, tum mortis adeo truculentae, quam pro doctrinae suae veritate subiit, perpessione.
After which he subjoins a long discourse about the evidences which we have of the veracity of Christ. And herein we have a brief account of their whole opinion concerning the mediation of Christ. The words of Grotius are:
Spopondit Christus; i.e., nos certos promissi fecit, non solis verbis, sed perpetua vitae sanctitate, morte ob id tolerata, et miraculis plurimis;
which are an abridgment of the discourse of Schlichtingius. To the same purpose Dr. Hammond expounds it, that he was a sponsor or surety for God unto the confirmation of the promises of the covenant.
On the other hand, the generality of expositors, ancient and modern, of the Roman and Protestant churches, affirm that the Lord Christ, as the surety of the covenant, was properly a surety or undertaker unto God for us, and not a surety or undertaker unto us for God. And because this is a matter of great importance, wherein the faith and consolation of the church are highly concerned, I shall insist distinctly upon it.
(1.) And first, we may consider the argument that is produced to prove that Christ was only a surety for God unto us. Now this is taken neither from the name nor nature of the office and work of a surety, nor from the nature of the covenant whereof he was a surety, nor of the office wherein he was so. But the sole argument insisted on is, That we do not give Christ as a surety of the covenant unto God, but he gives him unto us; and therefore he is a surety for God and the accomplishment of his promises, and not for us, to pay our debts, or to answer what is required of us.
But there is no force in this argument; for it belongs not unto the nature of a surety by whom he is or may be designed unto his office and work therein. His own voluntary susception of the office and work is all that is required thereunto, however he may be designed or induced to undertake it. He who of his own accord doth voluntarily undertake for another, on what grounds, reasons, or considerations soever he doth so, is his surety. And this the Lord Christ did in the behalf of the church: for when it was said, Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings for sin, God would not have, or accept as sufficient to make the atonement that he required, so as that the covenant might be established and made effectual unto us; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God, Heb 10:5-9. He willingly and voluntarily, out of his own abundant goodness and love, took upon him to make atonement for us; wherein he was our surety. And accordingly this undertaking is ascribed unto that love which he exercised herein, Gal 2:20; 1Jn 3:16; Rev 1:5. And there was this in it, moreover, that he took upon him our nature, or the seed of Abraham; wherein he was our surety. So that although we neither did nor could appoint him so to be, yet he took from us that wherein and whereby he was so: which was as much as if we had designed him unto his work, as to the true reason of his being our surety. Wherefore, notwithstanding those antecedent transactions that were between the Father and him in this matter, it was the voluntary engagement of himself to be our surety, and his taking our nature upon him for that end, which was the formal reason of his being instituted in that office.
(2.) We may consider the arguments whence it is evident that he neither was nor could be a surety unto us for God, but was so for us unto God. For,
[1.] , or , a surety, is one that undertaketh for another wherein he is defective, really or in reputation. Whatever that undertaking be, whether in words of promise, or in depositing of real security in the hands of an arbitrator, or by any other personal engagement of life and body, it respects the defect of the person for whom any one becomes a surety. Such an one is sponsor, or fidejussor, in all good authors and common use of speech. And if any one be of absolute credit himself, and of a reputation every way unquestionable, there is no need of a surety, unless in case of mortality. The words of a surety in the behalf of another, whose ability or reputation is dubious, are, Ad me recipio, faciet aut faciam.
And when is taken adjectively, as sometimes it is, it signifies him who is satisdationibus obnoxius, liable to payments for others that are non-solvent.
[2.] God can therefore have no surety properly, because there can be no imagination of any defect on his part. There may be, indeed, a question whether any word or promise be a word or promise of God. To assure us hereof is not the work of a surety, but of any one or any means that may give evidence that so it is. But upon a supposition that what is proposed is his word or promise, there can be no imagination or fear of any defect on his part, so as that there should be any need of a surety for the performance of it. He doth, indeed, make use of witnesses to confirm his word; that is, to testify that such promises he hath made, and so he will do. So the Lord Christ was his witness: Isa 43:10, Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen. But they were not at all his sureties. So Christ affirms that he came into the world to bear witness unto the truth, Joh 18:37 : that is, the truth of the promises of God; for he was
a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises unto the fathers, Rom 15:8.
But a surety for God properly so called he was not, nor could be. The distance and difference are wide enough between a witness and a surety; for a surety must be of more ability, or more credit and reputation, than he for whom he is a surety, or there is no need of his suretiship. This none can be for God, no not the Lord Christ himself, who in his whole work was the servant of the Father. And the apostle doth not use this word in a general, improper sense, for any one that by any means gives assurance of any other thing: for so he had asserted nothing peculiar unto Christ; for in such a sense all the prophets and apostles were sureties for God, and many of them confirmed the truth of his word and promises with the laying down of their lives. But such a surety he intends as undertaketh to do that for others which they cannot do for themselves, or at least are not reputed to be able to do what is required of them.
[3.] The apostle had before at large declared who and what was Gods surety in this matter of the covenant, and how impossible it was that he should have any other: and this was himself alone interposing himself by his oath. For in this cause, because he could swear by none greater, he sware by himself, Heb 6:13-14. Wherefore if God would give any other surety besides himself, it must be one greater than he. This being every way impossible, he swears by himself only. Many ways he may and doth use for the declaring and testifying of his truth unto us, that we may know and believe it to be his word, and so the Lord Christ in his ministry was the principal witness of the truth of God, but other surety than himself he can have none. And therefore,
[4.] When he would have us in this matter, not only to come unto the full assurance of faith concerning his promises, but also to have strong consolation, he resolves it wholly into the immutability of his counsel, as declared by his promise and oath, Heb 6:17-19. So that neither is God capable of having any surety properly so called, neither do we stand in need of any on his part, for the confirmation of our faith in the highest degree.
[5.] We on all accounts stand in need of a surety for us, or on our behalf. Neither without the interposition of such a surety could any covenant between God and us be firm and stable, or an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure. In the first covenant, made with Adam, there was no surety, but God and man were the immediate covenanters. And although we were then in a state and condition able to perform and answer all the terms of that covenant, yet was it broken and disannulled. If this came to pass by the failure of the promise of God, it was necessary that, on the making of a new covenant, he should have a surety to undertake for him, that the covenant might be stable and everlasting. But this is false, and blasphemous to imagine. It was man alone who failed and brake that covenant. Wherefore it was necessary that, upon the making of the new covenant, and that with a design and purpose that it should never be disannulled as the former was, we should have a surety and undertaker for us; for if that first covenant was not firm and stable, because there was no surety to undertake for us, notwithstanding all that ability which we had to answer the terms of it, how much less can any other be so, now our natures are become depraved and sinful! Wherefore we alone are capable of a surety, properly so called, for us; we alone stood in need of him; and without him the covenant could not be firm and inviolable on our part: the surety, therefore, of this covenant is so with God for us.
[6.] It is the priesthood of Christ that the apostle treats of in this place, and that alone. Wherefore he is a surety as he is a priest, and in the discharge of that office; and is therefore so with God on our behalf. This Schlichtingius observes, and is aware what will ensue thereon against his pretensions, which he endeavors to obviate: Mirum, saith he,
porro alicui videri posset, cur D. Auctor de Christi sacerdotio in superioribus et in sequentibus agens, derepente eum sponsorem foderis, non vero sacerdotem vocet. Cur non dixerit, tanto praestantioris foederis factus est sacerdos Jesus? hoc enim plane requirere videtur totus orationis contextus. Credi-bile est in vote sponsoris sacerdotium quoque Christi intelligi. Spon-sorts enim non est solum alieno nomine quippiam promittere, et fidem suam pro alto interponere; sed etiam, si ira res ferat, alterius nomine id quod spopondit, praestare. In rebus quidem humanis, si id non praestet is pro quo sponsor fidejussit; hic vero propter contrariam causam (nam prior hic locum habere non potest) nempe quatenus ille, pro quo spopondit Christus, per ipsum Christum promissa sua nobis exhibet, qua in re praecipue Christi sacerdotium continetur.
Ans. 1st. It may indeed seem strange, unto any one who imagineth Christ to be such a surety as he doth, why the apostle should so call him and so introduce him in the description of his priestly office, as that which belongeth thereunto. But grant what is the proper work and duty of a surety, and for whom the Lord Jesus was a surety, and it is evident that nothing more proper or pertinent could be mentioned by him, when he was in the declaration of that office.
2dly. He confesseth that by his exposition of this suretiship of Christ, as making a surety for God, he contradicteth the nature and only notion of a surety among men. For such a one, he acknowledgeth, doth nothing but in the defect and inability of them for whom he is engaged and doth undertake. He is to pay that which they owe, and to do what is to be done by them, which they cannot perform. And if this be not the notion of a surety in this place, the apostle makes use of a word nowhere else used in the whole Scripture, to teach us that which it doth never signify among men: which is improbable and absurd; for the sole reason why he did make use of it was, that from the nature and notion of it among men in other cases, we may understand the signification of it, what he intends by it, and what under that name he ascribes unto the Lord Jesus.
3dly. He hath no way to solve the apostles mention of Christ being a surety in the description of his priestly office, but by overthrowing the nature of that office also: for, to confirm this absurd notion, that Christ as a priest was a surety for God, he would have us believe that the priesthood of Christ consists in his making effectual unto us the promises of God, or his effectual communicating of the good things promised unto us; the falsehood of which notion, really destructive of the priesthood of Christ, I have elsewhere at large detected and confuted. Wherefore, seeing the Lord Christ is the surety of the covenant as a priest, and all the sacerdotal actings of Christ have God for their immediate object, and are performed with him on our behalf, he was a surety for us also.
(3.) It remaineth that we inquire positively how the Lord Christ was the surety of the new covenant, and what is the benefit we receive thereby. And unto this purpose we must first consider that opinion of some, that the whole end of the mediation of Christ was only to procure the new covenant: although at first view it be irreconcilable unto the nature and notion of a surety; for a surety is not the procurer of that whereof he is the surety, but only the undertaker for its accomplishment. But we must more distinctly consider this assertion, and in what sense Christ may be said to procure the new covenant by his death and mediation. And to this end we must observe, that the new covenant may be considered divers ways, in various respects:
[1.] In the designation and preparation of its terms and benefits in the counsel of God. And this, although it have the nature of an eternal decree, yet is it distinguished from the decree of election, which first and properly respects the subjects or persons for whom grace and glory are prepared; for this respects the preparation only of that grace and glory, as to the way and manner of their communication. It is true, this purpose, or counsel of Gods will, is not called the covenant of grace, which is the express declared exemplification of it. The covenant of grace, I say, is only the declaration of this counsel of Gods will, accompanied with the means and power of its accomplishment, and the prescription of the ways whereby we are to be interested in it, and made partakers of the benefits of it. But in the inquiry after the procuring cause of the new covenant, it is the first thing that ought to come under consideration; for nothing can be the procuring cause of this covenant which is not so of this spring and fountain of it,
of this idea of it in the mind of God. But this is nowhere in the Scripture affirmed to be the effect of the death or mediation of Christ; and so to ascribe it, is to overthrow the whole freedom of eternal grace and love. Neither can any thing that is absolutely eternal, as is this decree and counsel of God, be the effect of, or be procured by, any thing that is external and temporal. And besides, it is expressly assigned unto absolute love and grace: see Eph 1:4-6, with all those places where the love of God is assigned as the sole cause of the designation of Christ unto his office, and the sending of him.
[2.] It may be considered with respect unto the federal transactions between the Father and Son concerning the accomplishment of this counsel of his will. What these were, wherein they did consist, I have declared at large in my exercitations. Neither do I call this the covenant of grace absolutely, nor is it so called in the Scripture: but it is that wherein it had its establishment, as unto all the ways, means, and ends of its accomplishment; and by it were all things so disposed, as that it might be effectual unto the glory of the wisdom, grace, righteousness, and power of God. Wherefore the covenant of grace could not be procured by any means or cause but that which was the cause of this covenant of the mediator, or of God the Father with the Son as undertaking the work of mediation. And as this is nowhere ascribed unto the death of Christ in the Scripture, so to assert it is contrary unto all spiritual reason and understanding. Who can conceive that Christ, by his death, should procure the agreement between God and him that he should die?
[3.] With respect unto the declaration of it. This you may call Gods making or establishing of it with us, if you please; though making of the covenant in the Scripture is applied only unto its execution or actual application unto persons. But this declaration of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the mediator for the making of it effectual unto his glow, is most usually called the covenant of grace. And this is twofold:
1st. In the way of a singular and absolute promise; as it was first declared unto and thereby established with Adam, and afterwards with Abraham. This is the declaration of the purpose of God, or the free determination of his will as to his dealing with sinners, on the supposition of the fall and the forfeiture of their first covenant state. Hereof the grace and will of God were the only cause, Heb 8:8. And the death of Christ could not be the means of its procurement; for he himself, and all that he was to do for us, were the substance of that promise wherein this declaration of Gods grace and purpose was made, or of this covenant of grace, which was introduced and established in the room of that which was broken and disannulled, as unto the ends and benefits of a covenant. The substance of the first promise, wherein the whole covenant of grace was virtually comprised, directly respected and expressed the giving of him for the recovery of mankind from sin and misery, by his death, Gen 3:15. Wherefore if he, and all the benefits of his mediation, his death and all the effects of it, be contained in the promise of the covenant, that is, in the covenant itself, then was not his death the procuring cause of that covenant, nor do we owe it thereunto.
2dly. In the additional prescription of the way and means whereby it is the will of God that we shall enter into a covenant state with him, or be interested in the benefits of it. This being virtually comprised in the absolute promise, is expressed in other places by the way of the conditions required on our part. This is not the covenant, but the constitution of the terms on our part whereon we are made partakers of it. Nor is the constitution of these terms an effect of the death of Christ, or procured thereby. It is a mere effect of the sovereign wisdom and grace of God. The things themselves as bestowed on us, communicated unto us, wrought in us by grace, are all of them effects of the death of Christ; but the constitution of them to be the terms and conditions of the covenant is an act of mere sovereign wisdom and grace. God so loved the world as to send his only-begotten Son to die, not that faith and repentance might be the means of salvation, but that all his elect might believe, and that all that believe might not perish, but have life everlasting. But yet it is granted, that the constitution of these terms of the covenant doth respect the federal transactions between the Father and the Son, wherein they were ordered to the praise of the glory of Gods grace; and so, although their constitution was not the procurement of his death, yet without respect unto it, it had not been. Wherefore the sole cause of making the new covenant, in any sense, was the same with that of giving Christ himself to be our mediator, namely, the purpose, counsel, goodness, grace, and love of God, as it is everywhere expressed in the Scripture.
It may be therefore inquired what respect the covenant of grace hath unto the death of Christ, or what influence it hath thereinto. I answer, it hath a threefold respect thereunto:
[1.] In that it was confirmed, rattled, and made irrevocable thereby. This our apostle insists upon at large, Heb 9:15-20. And he compares his blood, in his death and sacrifice of himself, unto the sacrifices and their blood whereby the old covenant was confirmed, purified, dedicated, or established, Heb 9:18-19. Now these sacrifices did not procure that covenant, or prevail with God to enter into it, but only ratified and confirmed it; and this was done in the new covenant by the blood of Christ, in the way that shall be afterwards declared.
[2.] He thereby underwent and performed all that which the righteousness and wisdom of God required, that the effects, fruits, benefits, and grace intended, designed, and prepared in the new covenant, might be effectually accomplished and communicated unto sinners. Hence, although he procured not the covenant for us by his death, yet he was, in his person, mediation, life, and death, the only cause and means whereby the whole grace of the covenant is made effectual unto us. For,
[3.] All the benefits of it were procured by him; that is, all the grace, mercy, privileges, and glory that God had prepared in the counsel of his will, and proposed in the covenant or promises of it, are purchased, merited, and procured by his death, and effectually communicated or applied unto all the covenanters, by virtue thereof, with other of his mediatory acts. And this is much more an eminent procuring of the new covenant than what is pretended about the procurement of its terms and conditions. For if he should have procured no more but this, if we owe this only unto his mediation, that God would thereon, and did, grant and establish this rule, law, and promise, that whosoever believed should be saved, it was possible that no one should be saved thereby; yea, if he did no more, considering our state and condition, it was impossible that any one should so be.
These things being premised, we shall now briefly declare how or wherein he was the surety of the covenant, as he is here called. A surety, sponsor, vas, praes, fidejussor, for us the Lord Christ was, by his voluntarily undertaking, out of his rich grace and love, to do, answer, and perform, all that is required on our part, that we may enjoy the benefits of the covenant, the grace and glory prepared, proposed, and promised in it, in the way and manner determined on by divine wisdom. And this may be reduced unto two heads:
[1.] He undertook, as the surety of the covenant, to answer for all the sins of those who are to be and are made partakers of the benefits of it; that is, to undergo the punishment due unto their sins; to make atonement for them, by offering himself a propitiatory sacrifice for their expiation; redeeming them by the price of his blood from their state of misery and bondage under the law and the curse of it, Isa 53:4-6; Isa 53:10; Mat 20:28; 1Ti 2:6; 1Co 6:20; Rom 3:25-26; Heb 10:5-10; Rom 8:2-3; 2Co 5:19-21; Gal 3:13. And this was absolutely necessary, that the grace and glory prepared in the covenant might be communicated unto us. Without this undertaking of his, and performance of it, the righteousness and faithfulness of God would not permit that sinners, such as had apostatized from him, despised his authority, and rebelled against him, falling thereby under the sentence and curse of the law, should again be received into his favor, and be made partakers of grace and glory. This, therefore, the Lord Christ took upon himself, as the surety of the covenant.
[2.] That those who were to be taken into this covenant should receive grace enabling them to comply with the terms of it, fulfill its conditions, and yield the obedience which God required therein. For, by the ordination of God, he was to procure, and did merit and procure, for them the Holy Spirit, and all the needful supplies of grace, to make them new creatures, and enable them to yield obedience unto God from a new principle of spiritual life, and that faithfully unto the end. So was he the surety of this better covenant.
Obs. 11. The stability of the new covenant depends on the suretiship of Christ, and is secured unto believers thereby. The introduction of a surety in any case is to give stability and security; for it is never done but on a supposition of some weakness or defect, on one account or other If, in any contract, bargain, or agreement, a man be esteemed every way responsible, both for ability and fidelity, there is no need of a surety, nor is it required. mentioned by our apostle in the next verse, namely, that they are all mortal and subject unto death, in which case neither ability nor fidelity will avail any thing, men in all cases of importance need sureties. These give the utmost confirmation that affairs among men are capable of. So doth the suretiship of Christ on our behalf in this covenant. For the evidencing whereof, we may consider,
1. The first covenant, as made with Adam, had no surety. As unto that which in the new covenant the suretiship of Christ doth principally respect, it had no need of any: for there was no sin, transgression, or rebellion against God, to be satisfied for; so that it was absolutely incapable of a surety unto that end. But as to the second part of it, or his undertaking for us, that, through supplies of strength from him, we shall abide faithful in the covenant, according to the terms and tenor of it, this had no inconsistency with that first state. As the Lord Christ, upon his undertaking the work of mediation, became an immediate head unto the angels that sinned not, whereby they received their establishment and security from any future defection, so might he have been such a head unto, and such an undertaker for man in innocency. No created nature was, or could have been, unchangeable in its condition and state, merely on its root of creation. As some of the angels fell at first, forsaking their habitation, falling from the principle of obedience, which had no other root but in themselves; so the rest of them, all of them, might afterwards have in like manner apostatized and fallen from their own innate stability, had they not been gathered up into the new head of the creation, the Son of God as mediator, receiving a new relation from thence, and establishment thereby. So it might have been with man in innocency; but God, in his infinite, sovereign wisdom, saw it not meet that so it should be. Man shall be left to the exercise of that ability of living unto God which he had received in his creation, and which was sufficient for that end; a surety God gave him not. And therefore, although he had all the advantage which a sinless nature, filled with holy principles, dispositions, and inclinations, free from all vicious habits, rebellious affections, inordinate imaginations, could afford unto him, yet he brake the covenant, and forfeited all the benefits thereof. Whatever there was besides in that covenant of grace, power, ability, and the highest obligations unto duty, yet all was lost for want of a surety. And this abundantly testifies unto the pre-eminence of Christ in all things For whereas Adam, with all the innumerable advantages he had, that himself to conflict withal, yet utterly brake the covenant wherein he was created and placed; believers, who have little strength in themselves, and a powerful inbred opposition unto their stability, are yet secured in their station, by the interposition of the Lord Christ as their surety.
2. When God made a covenant with the people in the wilderness, to manifest that there could be no stability in it without respect unto a surety, that it could not continue, no, not for a day, he caused it to be dedicated or confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. This the apostle declares, and withal its typicalness with respect unto the new covenant, and the confirmation of it with the blood of Christ, Heb 9:18-21. And afterwards, as we have declared, the high priest, in the sacrifices that he offered, was the typical mediator and surety of that covenant. And the end of this appointment of God, was to manifest that it was from the blood of the true sacrifice, namely, that of Jesus Christ, that the new covenant was to receive its stability. And we need a surety unto this purpose,
(1.) Because, in the state and condition of sin, we are not capable of immediate dealing or covenanting with God. There can be no covenanting between God and sinners, unless there be some one to stand forth in our name, to receive the terms of God, and to undertake for us. So when God began to treat immediately from heaven with the people of old, they all jointly professed, such was the greatness and glory of God, such the terror of his majesty, that it was impossible for them so to treat with him; and if he spake unto them any more, they should all die and be consumed. Wherefore, with one consent, they desired that there might be one appointed between God and them, to transact all things and to undertake for them as to their obedience; which God well approved in them, Deu 5:23-31. Adam, indeed, in the state of innocency, could treat immediately with God, as unto that covenant wherein he was placed; for notwithstanding his infinite distance from God, yet God had made him for converse with himself, and did not despise the work of his own hands. But immediately upon the entrance of sin he was sensible of the loss of that privilege; whereon he both fled and hid himself from the presence of God. And hence those who of old thought they had seen God, concluded that they should die, as being sensible of their incapacity to treat immediately with him. So when the prophet cried out that he was undone, or cut off, because of the immediate presence of God, his eyes having seen the King, the LORD of hosts, Isa 6:5, he was not relieved from his apprehensions until his mouth was touched with a live coal from the altar, a type of the mediation and sacrifice of Christ. Whilst we have any thing of sin remaining in us, we can have nothing to do with God immediately. Wherefore, that there may be any covenant between God and us, much more such an one as shall be ordered in all things, and sure, there must be one to stand before God in our stead, to receive the terms of God and to declare them unto us, and to undertake for us that we shall stand unto them and make them good, to the glory of God. And in this sense was the new covenant firstly made with Christ, not only as he undertook the work of mediation, which he did upon the especial eternal compact which was between the Father and him, but also as he undertook for all the elect to receive the terms of the covenant from God for them, in which sense the promise in the first place was made unto the seed that is one, which is Christ, Gal 3:16, and to answer for them, that they should receive and stand to those terms. For he said,
Surely they are my people, children that will not lie; so he was their Savior, Isa 63:8.
Wherefore it could not be, upon the account of Gods holiness and glorious greatness, that there should be any new covenant at all between God and sinners, without the interposition of a surety. Nor did it become the infinite wisdom of God, after man had broken and disannulled the covenant made with him in innocency, to enter into a new covenant with him, in his fallen condition, without an immediate undertaker that it should be assuredly kept and the ends of it attained. If you have lent a man a thousand pounds upon his own security, when he owed nothing else, nor was indebted to any other, and he hath not only failed in his payment, but contracted other debts innumerable; will you now lend him ten thousand pounds on the same security, expecting to receive it again? Had God entered into never so many covenants with men, without such a surety and undertaker, they would have been all broken and disannulled, as he well knew. He knew that we would deal very treacherously, and were rightly called transgressors from the womb, Isa 48:8. But so to covenant with us, would no way have become the infinite wisdom of God. Wherefore he laid help upon one that is mighty, he exalted one chosen out of the people, Psa 139:19. He committed this work unto Jesus Christ; and then said concerning us, Now deliver them, for I have found a ransom.
(2.) The changeableness of our condition in this world requires a surety for us, to render the covenant firm, stable, and unalterable. So the psalmist, complaining of our frail and mutable condition, shows that it is in Christ alone that we have all our establishment: Psa 102:25-28, Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth, etc. That it is the Lord Christ, the Son of God, that in an especial manner is intended, I have showed and proved at large on Heb 1:10, where this passage in the psalm is applied unto him. And the conclusion that the psalmist makes from the consideration of his immutability is this, The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee, verse 28. Without an interest in him and his stability we are subject to change, alter, decline, so as it is impossible the covenant should be sure unto us. The very nature of the principle whereby we live and walk before God in this world, renders our condition alterable in itself; for we walk by faith, and not by sight, 2Co 5:7. It is vision alone, or the immediate enjoyment of God, which will instate us in an unalterable condition. Whilst we walk by faith it is otherwise with us, and we depend wholly on our surety for our security in the covenant.
(3.) Who is it, among the whole society of believers, that is not sensible of such actual dispositions unto change, yea, such actual changes, as that it is evident unto him that his final stability depends on the undertaking of a surety? No man can give an account, from himself, whence it is that he hath not already utterly broken covenant with God. There is no one corruption, no one temptation, but doth evidence a sufficiency in itself to defeat us of our covenant interest, if we stood upon our own bottoms. It is faith alone with respect unto the suretiship of Christ which discovers how we have been kept hitherto, and which gives us any comfortable prospect of our future preservation. And the same is evident from the consideration of all the adversaries of our covenant interest.
Here we might stay a while, to contemplate the glory of divine wisdom and grace in providing this surety of the covenant, and to adore the infinite love and condescension of Him who undertook the discharge of this office for us; but we must proceed, only observing,
Obs. 12. That the Lord Christs undertaking to be our surety gives the highest obligation unto all duties of obedience according to the covenant. For he hath undertaken for us that we shall yield unto God this covenant obedience, and said, Surely they are children that will not lie. He is no believer who understands not somewhat of the force and power of this obligation.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
Heb 7:20. Another contrast in favor of Christ is that he obtained the priesthood under the oath of God (verse 21).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 7:20-22. A third argument is now introduced. The oath which God sware in making His Son Priest gives to His office higher sanctions.
And inasmuch as (it is) not without an oath; rather a simpler filling up of the omission than the Authorised Version, though He was made (or came to be) priest better represents what is really a new argument.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Our apostle has not yet done with his several arguments to prove the transcendent excellency of Christ’s priesthood above that of Aaron’s: His argument in the verses now before us lies thus: he that is made an unchangeable priest by the oath of God, is a better, greater, and more excellent priest, than any made so without it. But whereas the Levitical priests were made without an oath, by the law changeable at the will of the lawgiver; Jesus Christ was made a Priest by the unchangeable oath of God. The Lord swore and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever.
Learn hence, That nothing was wanting on the part of God, that might either give eminency and glory, or stability and efficacy to the priesthood of Christ: This was both due to the glory of his person, and also needful to encourage and secure the faith of the church.
Learn, 2. That Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, being initiated into his office by the oath of God, his priesthood is liable to no alteration, succession, or substitution; but the church may continually draw nigh to God, in full assurance of his meritorious satisfaction and prevailing intercession, and receive from thence a solid foundation of peace and consolation; By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Observe here, 1. The title given to the gospel-covenant, it is here called a better testament: Better not for substance, but for clearness; for substance, the old covenant dispensation and the new are the same: but the latter is made more clear, more free, more full, more surely ratified, by the death of Christ, and accompanied with a more mighty operation of the Spirit of God.
Observe, 2. The title here given to Christ, he is the surety of a better testament. Our surety, because our sacrifice. The Socinians own Christ to be the surety of the covenant in respect of his holy life, and exemplary death, sealing it as a testimony by his blood, but deny him to be a surety in respect of his satisfaction, merit, and intercession. But alas! as our sinful condition requires a mediator of redemption so our changeable condition requires a mediator of intercession; and, blessed be God, he has appointed one for both, even his own and only Son, who is the surety of a better testament.
Learn thence, that the Lord Jesus was not only made a surety on God’s part to us, to assure us, that the promise of the covenant on his part, should be performed, but was also a surety on our part, to furnish us with that grace and assistance which shall enable us to do, answer, and perform all that is required on our part, that we may enjoy the benefit of the covenant, first, to satisfy for sin, by offering himself a propitiatory sacrifice: and next to furnish forth sufficincy of grace to enable for the fulfilling the conditions of the gospel-covenant. Thus was Jesus the surety of this better covenant.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Heb 7:20-22. And inasmuch as, &c. Here is another argument from the words of the psalmist, to prove the appointment of a new priesthood, the removal of the old, and the superior excellence of the new to the old; not without an oath Which argues the weightiness of the matter, and the eternal continuance of Christs priesthood. The apostles reasoning here is founded on this, that God never interposed his oath except to show the certainty and immutability of the thing sworn. Thus he sware to Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, Gen 22:16-18; and to the rebellious Israelites, that they should not enter into his rest, Deu 1:34-35; and to Moses, that he should not go into Canaan, Deu 4:21; and to David, that his seed should endure for ever, and his throne unto all generations, Psa 89:4. Wherefore, since Christ was made a priest not without an oath, that he should be a priest for ever, &c., that circumstance showed Gods immutable resolution never to change or abolish his priesthood, or the covenant established thereon. Whereas the Levitical priesthood and the law of Moses being established without an oath were thereby declared to be changeable at Gods pleasure. Macknight. The Lord sware and will not repent Hence also it appears that his priesthood is unchangeable. God not only sware that he would make him a priest for ever, but sware also that he would never repent of doing it. By so much, &c. By how much the priesthood of Christ was better than the former, by so much the testament, or rather covenant, of which he was to be surety, was better also. The word covenant frequently occurs in the remaining part of this epistle. The original word means either a covenant, or a last will and testament. St. Paul takes it sometimes in the former, sometimes in the latter sense; sometimes he includes both. The word surety or sponsor, may here mean one who has undertaken, on our behalf, to satisfy divine justice for our sins, making atonement for them; and to give to all that sincerely, earnestly, and perseveringly ask it, grace sufficient to enable them to perform the conditions of the covenant, and thereupon to receive its blessings. But it is proper to observe, that the Greek commentators explain the word , here rendered a surety, by , a mediator, which is its etymological meaning. For it comes from , near, and signifies one who draws near, or who causes another to draw near. Now, as in this passage a comparison is stated between Jesus, as a High-Priest, and the Levitical high-priests; and as these were justly considered by the apostle as the mediators of the Sinai covenant, because through their mediation the Israelites worshipped God with sacrifices, and received from him, as their king, a political pardon, in consequence of the sacrifices offered by the high-priest on the day of atonement, it is evident that the apostle, in this passage, calls Jesus the High-Priest, or Mediator, of the better covenant, because through his mediation believers receive all the blessings of the better covenant. And, as the apostle had said, (Heb 7:19,) that, by the introduction of a better hope, , we draw near to God, he, in this verse, very properly called Jesus , rather than , to denote the effect of his mediation. See Heb 7:25. Our translators, indeed, following the Vulgate and Beza, have rendered the word surety, a sense which it hath, Sir 29:16, and which naturally enough follows from its etymological meaning. For the person who becomes surety for the good behaviour of another, or for his performing something stipulated, brings that other near to the party to whom he gives the security; he reconciles the two. But in this sense, the word , is not applicable to the Jewish high-priests. For to be a proper surety, one must either have power to compel the party to perform that for which he hath become his surety, or, in case of his not performing it, he must be able to perform it himself. As little is the appellation, surety of the new covenant, applicable to Jesus. For since the new covenant doth not require perfect obedience, but only the obedience of faith; if the obedience of faith is not given by men themselves, it cannot be given by another in their room, unless we suppose that men can be saved without personal faith; I therefore infer, that they who speak of Jesus as the surety of the new covenant, must hold that it requires perfect obedience, which not being in the power of believers to give, Jesus hath performed it for them. But is not this to make the covenant of grace a covenant of works, contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture? For these reasons, I think the Greek commentators have given the true meaning of the word in this passage, when they explain it by , Mediator. Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
7:20 {10} And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]:
(10) Another argument, by which he proves that the priesthood of Christ is better than the priesthood of Levi, because his was established with an oath, but theirs was not so.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The inviolability of God’s oath 7:20-22
Heb 7:20-25 draw out the pastoral implications of the conclusion that the writer reached in Heb 7:18-19.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Another oath from God (Psa 110:4) launched Messiah’s priesthood. The Levitical priesthood had no such origin, another indication of its inferiority.