Heb 7:21 and Aaron's priesthood without an oath

  • Thread starter Thread starter ryanoneil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ryanoneil

Guest
**Those who formerly became priests took thier office without an oath. . . (Heb 7:21a) **

I was talking with some Jewish friends and they couldn’t make sense of Hebrews. I never thought of it so I ask, Was there a divine oath and is the Aaronic priesthood a revocable and changeable arrangement? The following scripture was cited. What am I missing?

**And they shall have the priesthood as a statute forever and you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons. (Ex. 29:9)

Bring close Aaron your brother and his sons with him from among the children of Israel to become priests to Me [for all time]. (Exodus 28:1)

And anoint them as you anointed their father, that they may serve Me, and it shall be for them an appointment to an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. (Exodus 40:15)

You and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood . I give your priesthood as a gift of service. (Numbers 18:7)

It is an everlasting covenant of salt before G-d with you and with your descendants. (Numbers 18:19)

And it shall be to him and to his descendants after him a covenant of everlasting priesthood . (Numbers 25:13)

For G-d your G-d has chosen him of all your tribes to stand and serve with the name of G-d he and his sons forever. (Deuteronomy 18:5)**
 
Maybe some of these ECF commentaries on the verse will help?

*And inasmuch as not without an oath. What is And inasmuch as not without an oath? That is, Behold another difference also. And these things were not merely promised (he says). For those priests were made without an oath, Hebrews 7:21-22 but This with an oath, by Him that said unto Him, The Lord swore and will not repent, You are Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant. He lays down two points of difference, that it has no end as the [covenant] of the Law had; and this he proves from [its being] Christ who exercises [the priesthood]; for he says according to the power of an endless life. And he proves it also from the oath, because He swore, etc., and from the fact; for if the other was cast out, because it was weak, this stands firm, because it is powerful. He proves it also from the priest. How? Because He is One [only]; and there would not have been One [only], unless He had been immortal. For as there were many priests, because they were mortal, so [here is] The One, because He is immortal. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant, inasmuch as He swore to Him that He should always be [Priest]; which He would not have done, if He were not living. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 13 on Hebrews)
  1. – Having proved by the authority of the Psalmist that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the Levitical and does away with it, the Apostle now proves the same thing by two other authorities: first, from the fact that he says, ‘The Lord has sworn’; secondly, that he says, ‘You are a priest’ (v. 23).
  2. – In regard to the first he forms the following argument: ‘That which is instituted without an oath is less valid than that which is instituted with an oath. But the priesthood of Christ was instituted with an oath, as is clear from what he says, the Lord has sworn; but not the priesthood of Aaron, as is clear from Exodus (28:1): ‘Take unto you also Aaron’, therefore, etc. In regard to the major premise he says, and it was not without an oath. Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath. All this is set down to prove that the priesthood of Christ is firmer; because, as has been stated above, every promise made in the Old Testament by an oath is a sign of God’s unchangeable plan. Therefore, because that promise about Christ was made with an oath of David and to Abraham, Christ is called their son in a special way (Mt. 1:1). But that oath designates the eternity of Christ’s power: ‘His power is an everlasting power’ Dan (7:14); ‘And of his kingdom there will be no end’ (Lk. 1:33).
  3. – This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant, because His priesthood is firmer, which is evident, because it was set up with an oath. Therefore, it is necessary that something better and firmer be obtained by it. But it should be noted that a priest is a mediator between God and the people: ‘I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you’ (Date: 5:5). But a priest should bring God and the people to concord. And this is done, as it were, by a pact dealing with temporal goods, in which only the affection for carnal things rested, as it says in Ps. 72 (v. 5): ‘For what have I in heaven? and besides you what do I desire upon earth?’ Consequently, it was fitting that another priest should come to be a surety, i.e., a promise, of a better testament and of a better pact, because it is concerned with spiritual and stable goods; and this is Jesus: ‘I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the convenient which I made with their fathers’ (Jer. 31:31); ‘Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Mt. 4:17). (St. Thomas Aquinas, commentary on Hebrews)*It seems perhaps the oath in question is one made by God, not by the priest, per se. The oath, the promise is made by God that this priesthood is better, forever, the fulfillment of the OT priesthood that foreshadowed the NT priesthood as it’s antitype.
 
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.The confusing thing is, the scripture I cited sure sounds like God is making an oath about the Levites
 
He may be - if I recall on some radio show or other, there is a special promise to the Levitical priesthood that still stands - I can’t recall where or when I heard it though to even begin to remember how to keyword search it. But I think the answer exists.
 
ryanoneil said:
**Those who formerly became priests took thier office without an oath. . . (Heb 7:21a) **

I was talking with some Jewish friends and they couldn’t make sense of Hebrews. I never thought of it so I ask, Was there a divine oath and is the Aaronic priesthood a revocable and changeable arrangement? The following scripture was cited. What am I missing?

**And they shall have the priesthood as a statute forever and you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons. (Ex. 29:9)

Bring close Aaron your brother and his sons with him from among the children of Israel to become priests to Me [for all time]. (Exodus 28:1)

And anoint them as you anointed their father, that they may serve Me, and it shall be for them an appointment to an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. (Exodus 40:15)

You and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood . I give your priesthood as a gift of service. (Numbers 18:7)

It is an everlasting covenant of salt before G-d with you and with your descendants. (Numbers 18:19)

And it shall be to him and to his descendants after him a covenant of everlasting priesthood . (Numbers 25:13)

For G-d your G-d has chosen him of all your tribes to stand and serve with the name of G-d he and his sons forever. (Deuteronomy 18:5)**
Click to expand...
There was no divine oath by God to the Aaronic priesthood in terms of the Greek
LXX ‘omosen’-to swear, corresponding to Hebrew ‘Sheba’-to swear (that i know of 🤷)
like that used in Ps 110.4

Psalm 110:4 The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever
after the order of Melchizedek.”

is that what you mean??
none of the above verses you cited use the ‘to-swear’ language

below is taken from ‘Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament’ p.968

“The superiority of Jesus’ high priesthood is demonstrated by God’s use of an oath
in bringing about his appointment (7:20-22). The earthly priests were not appointed with an
oath. Yet Ps 110.4 clearly shows God’s oath concerning the Melchizedekian high priest: “The
LORD has sworn and will not change his mind.” Here again a quotation from Ps 110.4 is used,
this time with focus on the first part of the verse, to reinforce the idea (7:21). The author
understands this to imply that Jesus guarantees a better covenant.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top