Verse 4 forms a bridge between the introductory statement of verses 1-3 about the greatness of the Son, and an extended comparison between the Son and angels, which goes on (with an interruption in 2.5-9) until the end of chapter 2. That is why some translations begin a new section here, as in Good News Translation. The comparison is expressed as a proportion. A mathematical parallel would be “2 is to 4 as 3 is to 6.” As Revised Standard Version shows, this can produce a heavy and complicated sentence if translated literally, and Good News Translation simplifies by using just as.

The word Son is not used in this verse in the Greek, but Good News Translation supplies it from the context in order to have an explicit subject of the sentence. It is often impossible to speak about The Son, since in many languages all terms which involve kinship must have some indication as to whom such an individual is related. In this case it may be necessary, therefore, to say “God’s Son.”

Was made is clearer than Revised Standard Version‘s literal “having become.” Verse 5 states what verse 4 already implies, that it was by a specific act of the Father that Jesus became his Son. Made here has a meaning similar to chosen (“appointed”) in verse 2; it does not have the meaning of created in verse 2. If one interprets was made in the sense of “became,” it is possible to say “God’s Son became greater than the angels”; but since the result derives from God’s action, it may be appropriate to use a causative, for example, “God caused his Son to be greater than the angels.” In this type of context greater must be understood in the sense of “more important,” “of higher rank,” or “of greater authority.”

In a number of languages angels is rendered as “messengers from heaven.” It is far better to use such an expression than to employ some fanciful phrase such as “heavenly winged creatures” or “winged spirits.”

In the Greek the word name is in an emphatic position at the end of the sentence, and the context (especially verses 2 and 5) makes it probable that the name is that of the Son. Bijbel in Gewone Taal translates “title,” and this fits the immediate context well. In Hebrew thought, a name was not just a means of identification; it referred to someone’s whole nature or personality. For example, when Jesus gives Simon the name Peter (Matt 16.18), he is declaring that Simon will be a rock; when God calls Jesus his Son, he is God’s Son.

The name that God gave him is literally “he has inherited a name”; compare King James Version “he hath by inheritance obtained a … name.” The metaphor of inheritance was discussed in the comments on Heb. 1.2. Here the meaning is that the Son has received his name from God as a gift. The tense of the verb shows that the gift is a permanent possession.

In a number of languages it is difficult to speak of “giving a name to a person.” Therefore it may be necessary to translate the name that God gave him as “the name that God assigned to him,” “the name by which God calls him,” or “the name that God said belonged to him.” By introducing an expression such as “belonged to,” one can do justice to the underlying meaning of the Greek, in which “inheritance” involves the concept of “coming into one’s rightful possession.”

It may, however, be strange in some languages to speak of a “name” as being “greater” than that of someone else. In some instances, is greater than theirs may be rendered as “shows that he is greater than they are.”

In a number of languages one must distinguish clearly between a personal name which identifies an individual, and a title indicating rank. In this context the emphasis is upon the title which was given to Jesus.

Verses 5-14 consist almost entirely of quotations from the Old Testament which are used to illustrate the fact that God has given the Son greater authority than the angels. The writer usually does not quote directly from the Hebrew but from the Septuagint, and often he does not quote the Septuagint exactly. This is the reason why the quotations in Hebrews are not always exactly as they appear in the Old Testament. In translating a quotation, the translator should respect its New Testament form and not try to harmonize the quotation with the Old Testament passage quoted.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Because he is himself weak is perhaps a little heavy after the similar expression in verse 2, but it is clearer than Revised Standard Version‘s “Because of this.” In the Greek, “this” certainly refers to “weakness.” The rendering of weak in the clause because he is himself weak should be expressed in the same way that weak is translated in verse 2.

He must means “it is his duty as high priest.” Barclay has “he is under obligation.” The background of this verse is Leviticus 16.11-14, the high priest’s sacrifice for himself, and 16.15-19, his sacrifice for the people; see also Leviticus 9.7; 16.6, and the comments on Hebrews 2.17. He must may be expressed as “it is necessary for him” or “it is required that he.”

Offer is literally “bring toward” or “present.” This verb is often used of presenting gifts and sacrifices to God. There is no suggestion that the sacrifice might not be accepted, though of course the Old Testament contains examples of sacrifices which were in fact refused.

In a number of languages there is no such neat contrast as not only … but also. However, the same ideas may be expressed as “he must do this … he must also do that.” The last part of verse 3 may be rendered as “he must offer sacrifices to take away the sins of the people, and he must also offer sacrifices to take away his own sins.”

In a number of languages a careful distinction is made between “sins” in the sense of the actual event of doing something wrong, and “sins” as guilt which results from such wrongdoing. It is the latter sense which is focal in this context.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse may be read as four lines of poetry, the ends of the lines corresponding to the full stops (periods) and semicolons in Good News Translation.

Most modern translations, including Good News Bible and other common language translations, avoid the most direct translation of the first part of this verse, which Phillips gives as “He has no father or mother and no family tree. He was not born nor did he die.” For ancient Jewish writers, and for the author of Hebrews, there could be deep meaning even in what the Old Testament did not say. The writer therefore does not hesitate to argue from silence where scripture is concerned. If the Old Testament did not give these details about Melchizedek’s ancestry, birth, and death, then for the purposes of the writer’s argument this is as good as a positive statement that he had no ancestors, that he was not born, and that he did not die. The purpose of Good News Bible‘s apparently weaker statement, There is no record…, is to indicate the basis on which the writer claims that Melchizedek had no father or mother. It may be necessary to be more specific and translate “Scripture says nothing about Melchizedek’s father or mother,” especially if there is any danger of the passage being misunderstood to mean that Melchizedek was not a real human person. In any case, the context should make it clear, first, that he is a mysterious figure, and second, that he is less important than Jesus, the Son of God.

There is no record of may be rendered as “Nothing was written in the holy books about” or “There are no written words about.”

It may be important to distinguish clearly between father or mother and any of his ancestors, since all those who are prior to any particular individual are sometimes regarded as ancestors. This would then include father or mother. It is important in the choice of a word for ancestors to avoid what might be regarded as a contradiction.

Verse 3b, the second sentence in Good News Translation, comes back to what is for the writer the point of the story of Melchizedek. Revised Standard Version‘s “but” marks the change from negative to positive statements about Melchizedek. The equivalent in Good News Bible is the fact of beginning a new sentence. The meaning of the sentence is the same as the quotation in 5.10 and 6.20, though different words are used (priest instead of high priest, and a different phrase for forever).

Is like (so also New English Bible) is literally “having been made like” (compare King James Version), which may imply God’s activity. This astonishing statement is neither emphasized nor explained in the text, so Good News Translation‘s translation is quite adequate.

In Greek, as in Revised Standard Version “resembling” is grammatically subordinate to remains, but in meaning, the second phrase is as important as the first, since it defines in what way Melchizedek is like the Son of God (Good News Translation‘s semicolon could be a colon, pointing forward to the second half of the sentence; so Bijbel in Gewone Taal, Bible en français courant.) The relationship between the two parts of verse 3b may be indicated by saying “He is like the Son of God in that remains a priest forever.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

It will not be like the covenant …: as verse 10 shows (I will be their God, and they will be my people, see Lev 26.12), the new covenant has something in common with the old (see comment on 7.22). The difference is that the new covenant will be based on inward obedience to a different kind of law (7.12). Verse 10 will make this clear. Hebrews uses the ordinary Greek word for made, which is different from the more technical term used in the Septuagint. Good News Translation preserves this distinction by using draw up in verse 8.

It may be necessary to repeat “The new covenant” rather than employ a pronoun such as It. Therefore the first part of verse 9 may be rendered as “The new covenant will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors.”

I took them by the hand is an idiom meaning “to guide carefully” or “to lead with care.” Therefore I took them by the hand may be rendered as “I carefully guided them.”

In rendering led them out, it is essential to use an expression which is applicable to people and not merely to animals.

“The land of” (Revised Standard Version) before Egypt is omitted in Good News Translation, Bijbel in Gewone Taal, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, though it is in the Greek. The readers of the translation are expected to know that Egypt is the name of a country.

They were not faithful brings out the meaning of “did not continue in” (Revised Standard Version). They did not keep the promise to be “God’s people.” They were not faithful to the covenant may be rendered as “They did not continue to do what the covenant said they should do” or “… what they should do in accordance with the agreement.”

Paid no attention to means “disregarded” or even “rejected.” I paid no attention to them may be rendered negatively as “I let them go their own way,” or one may employ some such expression as “I abandoned them” or “I went off and left them.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Jewish is implied, as in verse 11. This term is not historically correct, since Israelites were not called “Jews” until after the exile, while the first five books of the Bible are set in an earlier period. However, the writer is not concerned with the distinction between the various periods of Old Testament history. Nor are most modern readers concerned, for whom “Jews” are a recognizable group, whereas “Israelites” or “Hebrews” are not. Jewish is therefore widely used in common language translations. See comment on 8.4.

The phrase The Jewish Law may be rendered as “The Law given to the Jews” or “The Law for the Jews.” Note, however, that in many languages it may be necessary to employ a plural form, namely, “The laws given to the Jews.”

As a comparison with Revised Standard Version shows, Good News Translation reverses the original order of not a full and faithful model and only a faint outline. This change makes the verse easier to understand, by putting the more important negative statement first. The translator should consider whether or not this is natural and effective in his own language.

In contrasting the full and faithful model and the faint outline, the writer returns to the contrast expressed in partly different words in 8.5 between the pattern and the shadow (also Col 2.17). For model, King James Version uses “image,” which is appropriate in Mark 12.16 and Colossians 1.15, but is misleading here; the writer does not mean “the image of an original” but the original itself, the reality itself, of which the Old Testament worship is only a “shadow.”

Not a full and faithful model has a textual problem. For the Greek, “not the true form,” one early manuscript has “and the true form,” and others have different readings. Both old and modern translations choose the same text as Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version.

The expression for the real things is as general in meaning in the Greek as its equivalent is in English; all the stylistic emphasis falls on “true form.”

The phrase the real things can be almost completely obscure, especially in a literal translation in which the equivalent of things may indicate merely objects. It would appear that the real things must in some way be related to the good things to come, but in view of what has been said about what is real in the previous two chapters, the real things may relate to “that which exists in heaven.”

Is not a full and faithful model of the real things may be expressed as “does not look just like the real things.”

The good things were to come, from the point of view of the Law, but have now already come, from the point of view of the writer (see 9.11). For this reason Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch‘s “a weak indication of what God wanted to do for men in the future” is preferable to Moffatt‘s “a mere shadow of the bliss that is to be” or Barclay‘s “no more than a shadow of the good things which are to come.” Phillips has “a dim outline of the benefits Christ would bring,” and New English Bible “the good things which were to come.” These renderings are similar to that of GECL.

It may be difficult to translate the phrase a faint outline of the good things to come. In some languages the equivalent may be “words which are difficult to understand about the things that are to come,” “only some few words about the things that are to come,” “only a picture which is difficult to see clearly, which shows those good things that are to come,” or “… those good things in the future.”

On sacrifices, see comments on 5.1; 7.27.

The passive are offered is like the English impersonal pronoun “they,” since it does not specify who does the offering; it means quite generally “people offered.” The writer is now less concerned with the High Priest than with the sacrifice. The same sacrifices are offered may be expressed in some languages as “The same sacrifices happen” or “… occur.”

The writer is more interested in Old Testament texts on worship than with what was happening in the Jerusalem Temple in his own lifetime. The writer is unlikely to have meant that sacrifices would go on being offered forever in the Temple (see 8.13; 9.8), but rather “repeatedly” or “indefinitely” (see Traduction œcuménique de la Bible; similarly Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). This is true whether or not the Jerusalem Temple was still in use when Hebrews was written. On this matter scholars disagree. The New English Bible text solves this problem by taking the Greek for forever (“continually”) with make perfect, thereby translating “can never bring the worshippers to perfection for all time.” However, this translation, and the New English Bible footnote “bring to perfection the worshippers who come continually,” go against the natural flow of the Greek sentence.

It may be possible to indicate in an effective and idiomatic way the meaning of forever, year after year as “day after day, year after year, always.” Instead of are offered forever, one may use a negative expression, for example, “never cease,” and then add “day after day and year after year.”

Revised Standard Version‘s “never” is strongly emphasized. Good News Translation brings this out by turning the negative statement “it can never … make perfect…” into a rhetorical question, How can the Law … make perfect…? Translators must decide how far it is natural to follow this example in their own languages.

Instead of Revised Standard Version‘s “it [that is, the Law] can never,” many good manuscripts have “they can never,” referring to “sacrifices” or to those who offer them, leaving “the Law” without further explanation. Translations and commentators generally choose the text followed by Revised Standard Version, but one or two mention the alternative in a note.

On make perfect, see comments on 2.10.

On come to God or “draw near” (Revised Standard Version), see comments on 4.16.

It may be difficult to speak of “the Law making something perfect,” for in many languages the Law is not regarded as being an agent. However, one can often say “How can the people who come to God become perfect by following the laws which tell about these sacrifices?” or “… the laws which indicate how sacrifices are to be performed?”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Most translations, except Good News Translation and perhaps Bible en français courant, make this verse refer to a single group of people who suffer two types of punishment: (a) mocking and whipping, which last for a short time; and (b) being chained and imprisoned, which are worse because they last for a longer period. Barclay makes this explicit: “Some had to face mockery and the lash, and the even worse fate of chains and imprisonment”; similarly New English Bible “Others, again, had to face jeers and flogging, even fetters and prison bars.” However, the noun translated mocked may itself suggest torture, as in 2 Maccabees 7.7, where New English Bible has “brutality.” If this is so, the verse as a whole will mean “Others, again, were tortured and whipped, and tied up and put in prison as well.”

Put in chains and taken off to prison should not be taken to mean that they were chained only while on their way to prison. It was common to chain people while in prison (for example, Acts 28.20 and Col 4.18) or on trial (Acts 26.29).

The passive expressions in this verse may be readily changed into active ones by saying “People mocked and whipped some of those who trusted God, and others they put in chains and kept in prison.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .