Hebrews chapter 7

vs 19

You might be tempted to call the last verse hyperbole, and that is probably a reasonable assessment. It's like when Jesus says that people have to hate their families to be his followers. It's comparitive.

It is true that when you compare the Law, which makes nothing perfect, to the new hope of Christ, which draws us near to God, then it does seem pretty weak and feeble. Again, comparitive.

vs 20

That's interesting, for sure! You think of Eli's sons and Samuel's sons and some of the other various priests that caused trouble - they inherited a priesthood, but they didn't even take an oath for it like a Nazarite. Inhereted jobs is inherently a bad idea. In leadership it produces stability to an extent, but ultimately it's not a fruitful or logical move to make. In family work it produces normally at least one son who can do the job well.

vs 21

So again, Jesus is different, in that God swore an oath to make his eternal priesthood.

vs 22

So this new covenant that Jesus brings is sealed by God's own oath. To be fair, God sealed the covenant for the original priesthood too, but the difference is that that covenant was with Israel overall, and so it was inevitably going to include bad priests. This one is with the new priesthood, whose new high priest is the priest forever.

vs 23

It seems the next difference we will look at is the number of high priests. Humans die, so they need to be replaced.

vs 24

Of course, he did die, but that was like a long weekend off more than requiring a replacement.

vs 25

So the eternal nature of the priest means that he has an eternal role in salvation. It's an interesting idea. The theological development in this book is just awesome.

vs 26

All of those are focusing on things that a regular high priest can never be. So we've looked at his humanity, but now we see the glory of having God, in Christ, as our High Priest. He is, of course, perfect for the job. Interestingly, the things that make him so are to do almost exclusively with his holiness. It's all about separation and purity. Do we focus on that enough?

vs 27

The similarities of the sacrifice to the old covenant are only all the more in sharp relief when you compare these differences. A sacrifice of self, rather than animal. No need for sacrificing for his own sins. A one of sacrifice that covers sin forever in a way that human sacrifices of animals never could - it could only further highlight the bloody cost of sin.

This is a pinnacle of our faith - but it's based on the Jewish system. This idea frames such a big part of our soteriology, and so we go and beat people over the head with it. Now to a Jew, they're more likely to go "Wow!" - but to Jews still do animal sacrifices? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. So even then it might not be a super powerful statement, although I guess they're more likely to know their history.

My point is not that we should drop this idea from our soteriology - crazy talk! It is foundational, it is necessary, and it is awesome! But perhaps we should reconsider its usefulness as a picture for evangelism.

vs 28

That is a very good final summary verse. I don't know really what I can say about it, so I won't say anything. You can feel in the language, though, the urging to pull Jews away from their law-iness. Especially Jewish Christians who may have been straying back towards the law.