Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 7:11

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood ] At this point begins the argument which occupies the next nine verses. “Perfection” (compare the verb in Heb 9:9, Heb 10:1; Heb 10:14, Heb 11:40) means power of perfectionment, capacity to achieve the end in view; but this was not to be attained through the Levitic priesthood. The fifth point of superiority is that the Melchisedek Priesthood implies the abrogation of the Levitic, and of the whole law which was based upon it.

for under it ] Rather, “for on the basis of it.” The writer regards the Priesthood rather than the Law as constituting the basis of the whole Mosaic system; so that into this slight parenthesis he really infuses the essence of his argument. The Priesthood is obviously changed. For otherwise the Theocratic King of Psalms 110 would not have been called “a Priest after the order of Melchisedec ” but “after the order of Aaron ” Clearly then “the order of Aaron” admitted of no attainment of perfection through its means. But if the Priesthood was thus condemned as imperfect and inefficient, the Law was equally disparaged as a transitory institution. Righteousness did not “come by the Law;” if it could so have come Christ would have died in vain (Gal 2:21. Comp. Heb 10:1-14).

what further need was there ] There could be no need, since none of God’s actions or dispensations are superfluous.

another priest ] Rather, “a different priest”

and not be called after the order of Aaron ] Lit., “and that he should not be said (viz. in Psa 110:4) to be after the order of Aaron.”

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood – As the Jews supposed. They were accustomed to regard the system as perfect. It was an appointment of God, and they were tenacious of the opinion that it was to be permanent, and that it needed no change. But Paul says that this could not be. Even from their own Scriptures it was apparent that a priest was to arise of another order, and of a more permanent character, and this he says was full proof: that there was defect of some kind in the previous order. What this defect was, he does not here specify, but the subsequent reasoning shows that it was in such points as these – that it was not permanent; that it could not make the worshippers perfect; that the blood which they offered in sacrifice could not take away sin, and could not render those who offered it holy; compare Heb 7:19, Heb 7:23-24; Heb 10:1-4.

For under it the people received the law – This assertion seems necessary in order to establish the point maintained in Heb 7:12, that if the priesthood is changed there must be also a change of the Law. In order to this, it was necessary to admit that the Law was received under that economy, and that it was a part of it, so that the change of one involved also the change of the other. It was not strictly true that the whole Law was given after the various orders of Levitical priest were established – for the Law on Sinai, and several other laws, were given before that distinct arrangement was made; but it was true:

(1)That a considerable part of the laws of Moses were given under that arrangement; and,

(2)That the whole of the ceremonial observances was connected with that. They were parts of one system, and mutually dependent on each other. This is all that the argument demands.

What further need was there … – If that system would lead to perfection; if it was sufficient to make the conscience pure, and to remove sin, then there was no necessity of any other. Yet the Scriptures have declared that there would be another of a different order, implying that there was some defect in the former. This reasoning is founded on the fact that there was an express prediction of the coming of a priest of a different order Psa 110:4, and that this fact implied that there was some deficiency in the former arrangement. To this reasoning it is impossible to conceive that there can be any objection.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Heb 7:11-13

A change also of the law

Change in the law

It is modified in these circumstances:

1.

In regard of justification (Act 13:39). The law was first given to justify the observers thereof; but now in regard of mans corruption that is impossible (Rom 8:3; Gal 3:11). God therefore now hath appointed another means for that end, which is Christ and faith in Him Act 13:39; Rom 3:28).

2. In regard of the rigour thereof. The law accepteth no duty but that which is every way perfect. This much is implied (Rom 10:5). This, there, fore, is the doom of the law (Gal 3:10). Yet there is a righteousness (though not framed according to this exact rule) which is accepted of God. This is the righteousness of faith, whereby laying hold on Christs righteousness to be justified (Act 24:16).

3. In regard of an accidental power which the law, through mans corruption, hath to increase sin, and to make it out of measure sinful Rom 7:13). For the very forbidding of a sin by the law maketh the corrupt heart of man more eagerly pursue it: as a stubborn child will do a thing the more, because it is forbidden. There is a secret antipathy in our corrupt nature to Gods pure law. But by the Spirit of Christ that antipathy is taken away, and another disposition wrought in true believers: namely, a true desire and faithful endeavour to avoid what the law forbiddeth; and to do that which it requireth. In this respect, saith the apostle, I delight in the law of God concerning the inward man (Rom 7:22).

4. In regard of the curse of the law. Yet the law peremptorily denounceth a curse against every transgressor and transgression (De Gal 3:10). The law admits no sure y, nor accepts any repentance. Thus, all men having sinned, come short of the glory of God Rom 3:23). Yet this curse doth not light on all (Gal 2:13). In this respect, there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus Rom 8:1). Though the moral law be altered in the forementioned respects, yet still it remains to be of use for instruction and direction.

1. For instruction, it demonstrateth these points following:

(1) What God Himself is (Exo 20:2).

(2) Want His holy will is (Psa 40:8).

(3) What our duty is to God and man (Mat 22:37-39).

(4) What sin is (1Jn 3:4; Rom 3:20).

(5) What are the kinds of sin (Jam 2:11; Rom 7:7).

(6) What the pravity of our nature is (Rom 7:14).

(7) What the sinfulness of our lives is (Rom 7:19).

(8) Gods approbation of obedience (Exo 20:6; Exo 20:12).

(9) Gods detestation of transgressors (Exo 20:5; Exo 20:7).

(10) The fearful doom of sinners (Gal 3:10).

(11) Mans disability to keep the law (Rom 8:3).

(12) The necessity of another means of salvation (Rom 3:20-21).

2. For direction. The law is of use to these points following:

(1) To convince men of sin.

(2) To humble them for the same.

(3) To work an hatred of sin.

(4) To restrain them from it.

(5) To work self-denial.

(6) To drive men to Christ.

(7) To put them on to endeavour after as near a conformity to the law as they can.

(8) To make them fearful of pulling upon their souls a more fearful doom than the curse of the law: which is by despising the gospel.

(9) To make impenitents the more inexcusable.

(10) To make believers more thankful for Christs active and passive obedience; whereby as a surety He hath done for them what they could not, and endured that curse which they deserved, to free them from the same. (W. Gouge.)

Divine institutions abrogated

I. NOTWITHSTANDING THE GREAT PROVOCATIONS OF THEM BY WHOM IT WAS EXERCISED AND DISCHARGED, YET GOD TOOK IT NOT AWAY, UNTIL IT HAD ACCOMPLISHED THE END WHEREUNTO IT WAS DESIGNED.

1. Neither the wickedness of the people nor of the priests themselves could provoke the Lord to revoke His institution until the appointed end of it was come.

2. God took it not away till He brought in that which was more excellent, and advantageous unto the Church, namely, the Priesthood of Christ. And if this be not received through their unbelief, they alone are the cause of their being losers by this alteration.

3. In abundant patience and condescension, with respect unto that interest which it had in the consciences of men from His institution, God did not utterly lay it aside in a day, after which it should be absolutely unlawful to comply with it. But God took it away by degrees.

II. THE EFFICACY OF ALL ORDINANCES OR INSTITUTIONS OF WORSHIP DEPENDS ON THE WILL OF GOD ALONE. Whilst it was His will that the priesthood should abide in the family of Levi, it was useful and effectual unto all the ends whereunto it was designed. But when He would make an alteration therein, it was in vain for any to look for either benefit or advantage by it. And although we are not now to expect any change in the institutions of Divine worship, yet all our expectations from them are to be resolved into the will of God.

III. DIVINE INSTITUTIONS CEASE NOT WITHOUT AN EXPRESS DIVINE ABROGATION. Where they are once granted by the authority of God, they can never cease without an express act of the same authority taking of them away.

IV. GOD WILL NEVER ABROGATE OR TAKE AWAY ANY INSTITUTION OR ORDINANCE OF WORSHIP UNTO THE LOSS OR DISADVANTAGE OF THE CHURCH. He would not remove or abolish the priesthood of Levi, until that which was incomparably more excellent was introduced and established.

V. GOD IN HIS WISDOM SO ORDERED ALL THINGS, THAT THE TAKING AWAY OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE LAW, GAVE IT ITS GREATEST GLORY. For it ceased not before it had fully accomplished the end whereunto it was designed, which is the perfection of any ordinance: even the mediation of Christ Himself shall cease when all the ends of it are fulfilled. And this end of the priesthood was most glorious; namely, the bringing in that of Christ, and therein of the eternal salvation of the Church.

VI. IT IS A FRUIT OF THE MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD, THAT IT WAS A GREAT MERCY TO GIVE THE LAW, AND THE GREATER TO TAKE IT AWAY. VII. If under the law the whole worship of God did so depend on the priesthood, and that failing or being taken away, the whole worship of itself was to cease, as being no more acceptable before God; HOW MUCH MORE IS ALL WORSHIP UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT REJECTED BY HIM, IF

THERE BE NOT A DUE REGARD THEREIN UNTO THE LORD CHRIST, as the only High Priest of the Church, and to the efficacy of His discharge of that office.

VIII. It is the highest vanity to pretend use or continuance in the Church, FROM POSSESSION OR PRESCRIPTION, OR PRETENDED BENEFIT, BEAUTY, ORDER, OR ADVANTAGE, WHEN ONCE THE MIND OF GOD IS DECLARED AGAINST IT. The pleas of this kind for the old priesthood and law excelled all that can be insisted on with respect unto any other things for which any pretend a veneration in Divine worship; yet were they of no validity or efficacy. (John Owen, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood] The word , as we have before seen, signifies the completing or finishing of any thing, so as to leave nothing imperfect, and nothing wanting. Applied here to the Levitical priesthood, it signifies the accomplishment of that for which a priesthood is established, viz.: giving the Deity an acceptable service, enlightening and instructing the people, pardoning all offences, purging the conscience from guilt, purifying the soul and preparing it for heaven, and regulating the conduct of the people according to the precepts of the moral law. This perfection never came, and never could come, by the Levitical law; it was the shadow of good things to come, but was not the substance. It represented a perfect system, but was imperfect in itself. It showed that there was guilt, and that there was an absolute need for a sacrificial offering to atone for sin, and it typified that sacrifice; but every sacrificial act under that law most forcibly proved that it was impossible for the blood of BULLS and GOATS to take away sin.

For under it the people received the law] That is, as most interpret this place, under the priesthood, being understood; because, on the priesthood the whole Mosaical law and the Jewish economy depended: but it is much better to understand on account of it, instead of under it; for it is a positive fact that the law was given before any priesthood was established, for Aaron and his sons were not called nor separated to this office till Moses came down the second time from the mount with the tables renewed, after that he had broken them, Ex 40:12-14. But it was in reference to the great sacrificial system that the law was given, and on that law the priesthood was established; for, why was a priesthood necessary, but because that law was broken and must be fulfilled?

That another priest should rise] The law was given that the offence might abound, and sin appear exceeding sinful; and to show the absolute necessity of the sacrifice and mediation of the great Messiah, but it was neither perfect in itself, nor could it confer perfection, nor did it contain the original priesthood. Melchisedec had a priesthood more than four hundred years (422) before the law was given; and David prophesied, Ps 110:4, that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, nearly five hundred years (476) after the law was given. The law, therefore, did not contain the original priesthood; this existed typically in Melchisedec, and really in Jesus Christ.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood: now the Spirit infers from the doctrine of Melchisedecs priesthood, the dignity and perpetuity of Christs, typified by it: so that it is not Aarons priesthood, but Christs, which the Hebrews were to use for their salvation after Aarons was expired. For perfection was not to be had by Aarons priesthood or law, but by a better, of another order, even Christ and his law. The form of these words are interrogative, implying a vehement denial of what is queried in them. A perfecting of persons to life eternal by expiation, justification, renovation, &c.; see Heb 9:9; 10:1; freeing sinners from the guilt, stain, filth, and consequents of their sins by an expiatory, satisfactory sacrifice to God, and fitting of them for an eternal enjoying him; a self-efficiency to these things without Christ, is, as to the Aaronical priesthood, vehemently denied; as to this, that is defective.

For under it the people received the law; for with the priesthood, about the time of its institution by God, the Iraelitish church, Gods covenanted people, received the law; by which, as well as by its priesthood, there is no expiation, remission, nor eternal life to be obtained, Gal 3:17-19; compare Mal 2:4-8. This law and priesthood being types of far better to succeed them, they were but leading to them, which in the fulness of time were to be revealed, and which should perfect what they could not, Gal 3:23,24; 4:3-5.

What further need was there, &c.? It was needful, since the Levitical priesthood and law could not perfect sinners, that another should take place which could perfect them. David therefore, who lived above four hundred years after their institution, and feeling their imperfection, did by the Spirit foresee and tell of a royal priesthood and law to take place after this, that should perfect sinners, which could not be done by any called after Aarons imperfect order. This was the Lord Christ the Messiah, who must be after the order of Melchisedec, Psa 110:4, and who by his priesthood and law should abundantly effect it; which was far more excellent for both, than any of the Levitical family can pretend to.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

11. perfectionabsolute: “thebringing of man to his highest state, namely, that of salvation andsanctification.”

under itThe reading inthe oldest manuscripts is, “Upon it (that is, on theground of it as the basis, the priest having to administer the law,Mal 2:7: it being presupposed)the people (Heb 9:19, ‘allthe people’) have received the law (the Greek is perfect,not aorist tense; implying the people were still observing the law).”

what further need (Heb8:7). For God does nothing needless.

anotherrather asGreek, “that a different priest (one of adifferent order) should arise (anew, Heb7:15).

not be calledGreek,“not be said (to be) after the order of Aaron,” thatis, that, when spoken of in the Ps110:4, “He is not said to be (as we should expect, if theAaronic priesthood was perfect) after the order of Aaron.”

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,…. The priesthood which was established in the tribe of Levi; so called, to distinguish it from that which was before this institution, from the times of Adam, as well as from the priesthood of Melchizedek, and from the priesthood of Christ, and from that of his people under the Gospel, who are all priests; as well as to restrain it to the subject of the apostle’s discourse: the design of which is to show, that there is no perfection by it; as is clear from the priests themselves, who were but men, mortal men, sinful men, and so imperfect, and consequently their priesthood; and from their offerings, between which, and sin, there is no proportion; and at best were but typical of the sacrifice of Christ; and could neither make the priests nor the worshippers perfect, neither in their own consciences, nor in the sight of God: moral actions are preferred before them, and yet by these there is no perfection, justification, and salvation; to which may be added, that the sacrifices the priests offered did not extend to all kind of sins, only to sins of ignorance, not to presumptuous ones; and there were many under that dispensation punished with death; and at most they only delivered from temporal, not eternal punishment, and only entitled to a temporal life, not an eternal one.

For under it the people received the law: not the moral law, which was given to Adam in innocence, and as it came by Moses, it was before the Levitical priesthood took place; but the ceremonial law, and which was carnal, mutable, and made nothing perfect: the Syriac version renders it, “by which a law was imposed upon the people”; to regard the office of priesthood, and the priests in it, and bring their sacrifices to them; and the Arabic version reads, “the law of a the priest’s office”; which office was after the law of a carnal commandment, and so imperfect, as is manifest from what follows: for had perfection been by it,

what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? that there was another priest promised and expected, and that he should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and who was to make his soul an offering for sin, is certain, Ezr 2:63 and such an one is risen, even Jesus of Nazareth; and yet there would have been no need of him, and especially that he should be of a different order from Aaron’s, had there been perfection by the Levitical priesthood.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Melchisedec and Christ Compared.

A. D. 62.

      11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?   12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.   13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.   14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.   15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,   16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.   17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.   18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.   19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.   20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:   21 (For those priests 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:)   22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.   23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:   24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.   25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.   26 For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;   27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.   28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

      Observe the necessity there was of raising up another priest, after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron, by whom that perfection should come which could not come by the Levitical priesthood, which therefore must be changed, and the whole economy with it, Heb 7:11; Heb 7:12, c. Here,

      I. It is asserted that perfection could not come by the Levitical priesthood and the law. They could not put those who came to them into the perfect enjoyment of the good things they pointed out to them they could only show them the way.

      II. That therefore another priest must be raised up, after the order of Melchisedec, by whom, and his law of faith, perfection might come to all who obey him; and, blessed be God, that we may have perfect holiness and perfect happiness by Christ in the covenant of grace, according to the gospel, for we are complete in him.

      III. It is asserted that the priesthood being changed there must of necessity be a change of the law; there being so near a relation between the priesthood and the law, the dispensation could not be the same under another priesthood; a new priesthood must be under a new regulation, managed in another way, and by rules proper to its nature and order.

      IV. It is not only asserted, but proved, that the priesthood and law are changed, Heb 7:13; Heb 7:14. The priesthood and law by which perfection could not come are abolished, and a priest has arisen, and a dispensation is now set up, by which true believers may be made perfect. Now that there is such a change is obvious.

      1. There is a change in the tribe of which the priesthood comes. Before, it was the tribe of Levi; but our great high priest sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning the priesthood, v. 14. This change of the family shows a real change of the law of the priesthood.

      2. There is a change in the form and order of making the priests. Before, in the Levitical priesthood, they were made after the law of a carnal commandment; but our great high priest was made after the power of an endless life. The former law appointed that the office should descend, upon the death of the father, to his eldest son, according to the order of carnal or natural generation; for none of the high priests under the law were without father or mother, or without descent: they had not life and immortality in themselves. They had both beginning of days and end of life; and so the carnal commandment, or law of primogeniture, directed their succession, as it did in matters of civil right and inheritance. But the law by which Christ was constituted a priest, after the order of Melchisedec, was the power of an endless life. The life and immortality which he had in himself were his right and title to the priesthood, not his descent from former priests. This makes a great difference in the priesthood, and in the economy too, and gives the preference infinitely to Christ and the gospel. The very law which constituted the Levitical priesthood supposed the priests to be weak, frail, dying, creatures, not able to preserve their own natural lives, but who must be content and glad to survive in their posterity after the flesh; much less could they, by any power or authority they had, convey spiritual life and blessedness to those who came to them. But the high priest of our profession holds his office by that innate power of endless life which he has in himself, not only to preserve himself alive, but to communicate spiritual and eternal life to all those who duly rely upon his sacrifice and intercession. Some thing the law of the carnal commandment refers to the external rites of consecration, and the carnal offerings that were made; but the power of an endless life to the spiritual living sacrifices proper to the gospel, and the spiritual and eternal privileges purchased by Christ, who was consecrated by the eternal Spirit of life that he received without measure.

      3. There is a change in the efficacy of the priesthood. The former was weak and unprofitable, made nothing perfect; the latter brought in a better hope, by which we draw near to God, Heb 7:18; Heb 7:19. The Levitical priesthood brought nothing to perfection: it could not justify men’s persons from guilt; it could not sanctify them from inward pollution; it could not cleanse the consciences of the worshippers from dead works; all it could do was to lead them to the antitype. But the priesthood of Christ carries in it, and brings along with it, a better hope; it shows us the true foundation of all the hope we have towards God for pardon and salvation; it more clearly discovers the great objects of our hope; and so it tends to work in us a more strong and lively hope of acceptance with God. By this hope we are encouraged to draw nigh unto God, to enter into a covenant-union with him, to live a life of converse and communion with him. We may now draw near with a true heart, and with the full assurance of faith, having our minds sprinkled from an evil conscience. The former priesthood rather kept men at a distance, and under a spirit of bondage.

      4. There is a change in God’s way of acting in this priesthood. He has taken an oath to Christ, which he never did to any of the order of Aaron. God never gave them any such assurance of their continuance, never engaged himself by oath or promise that theirs should be an everlasting priesthood, and therefore gave them no reason to expect the perpetuity of it, but rather to look upon it as a temporary law. But Christ was made a priest with the oath of God: The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, v. 21. Here God has upon oath declared the immutability, excellency, efficacy, and eternity, of the priesthood of Christ.

      5. There is a change in that covenant of which the priesthood was a security and the priest a surety; that is, a change in the dispensation of that covenant. The gospel dispensation is more full, free, perspicuous, spiritual, and efficacious, than that of the law. Christ is in this gospel covenant a surety for us to God and for God to us, to see that the articles be performed on both parts He, as surety, has united the divine and human nature together in his own person, and therein given assurance of reconciliation; and he has, as surety, united God and man together in the bond of the everlasting covenant. He pleads with men to keep their covenant with god, and he pleads with God that he will fulfil his promises to men, which he is always ready to do in a way suitable to his majesty and glory, that is, through a Mediator.

      6. There is a remarkable change in the number of the priests under these different orders. In that of Aaron there was a multitude of priests, of high priests, not at once, but successively; but in this of Christ there is but one and the same. The reason is plain, The Levitical priests were many, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. Their office, how high and honourable soever, could not secure them from dying; and, as one died, another must succeed, and after a while must give place to a third, till the number had become very great. But this our high priest continues for ever, and his priesthood is aparabaton—an unchangeable one, that does not pass from one to another, as the former did; it is always in the same hand. There can be no vacancy in this priesthood, no hour nor moment in which the people are without a priest to negotiate their spiritual concerns in heaven. Such a vacancy might be very dangerous and prejudicial to them; but this is their safety and happiness, that this ever-living high priest is able to save to the utmost–in all times, in all cases, in every juncture–all who come to God by him, v. 25. So that here is a manifest alteration much for the better.

      7. There is a remarkable difference in the moral qualifications of the priests. Those who were of the order of Aaron were not only mortal men, but sinful men, who had their sinful as well as natural infirmities; they needed to offer up sacrifices first for their own sins and then for the people. But our high priest, who was consecrated by the word of the oath, needed only to offer up once for the people, never at all for himself; for he has not only an immutable consecration to his office, but an immutable sanctity in his person. He is such a high priest as became us, holy, harmless, and undefiled, c., &lti>v. 26-28. Here observe, (1.) Our case, as sinners, needed a high priest to make satisfaction and intercession for us. (2.) No priest could be suitable or sufficient for our reconciliation to God but one who was perfectly righteous in his own person; he must be righteous in himself, or he could not be a propitiation for our sin, or our advocate with the Father. (3.) The Lord Jesus was exactly such a high priest as we wanted, for he has a personal holiness, absolutely perfect. Observe the description we have of the personal holiness of Christ expressed in various terms, all of which some learned divines consider as relating to his perfect purity. [1.] He is holy, perfectly free from all the habits or principles of sin, not having the least disposition to it in his nature; no sin dwells in him, though it does in the best of Christians, not the least sinful inclination [2.] He is harmless, perfectly free from all actual transgression, has done no violence, nor is there any deceit in his mouth, never did the least wrong to God or man. [3.] He is undefiled, he was never accessory to other men’s sins. It is a difficult thing to keep ourselves pure, so as not to partake in the guilt of other men’s sins, by contributing in some way towards them, or not doing what we ought to prevent them. Christ was undefiled; though he took upon him the guilt of our sins, yet he never involved himself in the fact and fault of them. [4.] He is separate from sinners, not only in his present state (having entered as our high priest into the holiest of all, into which nothing defiled can enter), but in his personal purity: he has no such union with sinners, either natural or federal, as can devolve upon him original sin. This comes upon us by virtue of our natural and federal union with the first Adam, we descending from him in the ordinary way. But Christ was, by his ineffable conception in the virgin, separate from sinners; though he took a true human nature, yet the miraculous way in which it was conceived set him upon a separate footing from all the rest of mankind. [5.] He is made higher than the heavens. Most expositors understand this concerning his state of exaltation in heaven, at the right hand of God, to perfect the design of his priesthood. But Dr. Goodwin thinks this may be very justly referred to the personal holiness of Christ, which is greater and more perfect than the holiness of the hosts of heaven, that is, the holy angels themselves, who, though they are free from sin, yet are not in themselves free from all possibility of sinning. And therefore we read, God putteth no trust in his holy ones, and he chargeth his angels with folly (Job iv. 18), that is, with weakness and peccability. They may be angels one hour and devils another, as many of them were; and that the holy angels shall not now fall does not proceed from an indefectibility of nature, but from the election of God; they are elect angels. It is very probable that this explanation of the words, made higher than the heavens, may be thought too much strained, and that it ought to be understood of the dignity of Christ’s state, and not the perfect holiness of his person; and the rather because it is said he was made higher genomenos; but it is well known that this word is used in a neutral sense, as where it is said, genesthe ho Theos alethes—Let God be true. The other characters in the verse plainly belong to the personal perfection of Christ in holiness, as opposed to the sinful infirmities of the Levitical priests; and it seems congruous to think this must do so too, if it may be fairly taken in such a sense; and it appears yet more probable, since the validity and prevalency of Christ’s priesthood in v. 27 are placed in the impartiality and disinterestedness of it. He needed not to offer up for himself: it was a disinterested mediation; he mediated for that mercy for others which he did not need for himself; had he needed it himself, he had been a party, and could not have been a Mediator–a criminal, and could not have been an advocate for sinners. Now, to render his mediation the more impartial and disinterested, it seems requisite not only that he had no present need of that favour for himself which he mediated for in behalf of others, but that he never could stand in need of it. Though he needed it not to-day, yet if he knew he might be in such circumstances as to need it to-morrow, or at any future time, he must have been thought to have had some eye upon his own interest, and therefore could not act with impartial regard and pure zeal for the honour of God on one hand, and tender pure compassion for poor sinners on the other. I pretend not here to follow the notes of our late excellent expositor, into whose labours we have entered, but have taken the liberty to vindicate this notion of the learned Dr. Goodwin from the exceptions that I know have been made to it; and I have the rather done it because, if it will hold good, it gives us further evidence how necessary it was that the Mediator should be God, since no mere creature is of himself possessed of that impeccability which will set him above all possible need of favour and mercy for himself.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Perfection (). Abstract substantive of . More the act than the quality or state (, 6:1). The condition is of the second class, “if there were perfection, etc.” The Levitical priesthood failed to give men “a perfectly adequate relation to God” (Moffatt).

Priesthood (). Old word, in N.T. only here, verses Heb 7:12; Heb 7:24. Cf. in verse 5. The adjective occurs in Philo.

Received the law (). Perfect passive indicative of , old compound to enact law (, ), to furnish with law (as here), only other N.T. example in 8:6.

What further need was there? ( ;). No copula expressed, but it would normally be , not just : “What need still would there be?”

Another priest ( ). Of a different line (), not just one more (). Accusative of general reference with the infinitive (present middle of intransitive).

And not to be reckoned ( ). The negative belongs rather to the descriptive clause than just to the infinitive.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

In Christ, as the Melchisedec – priest, the ideal of the priesthood is realized.

Perfection [] . Only here and Luk 1:45. The act or process of consummating. By this word is signified the establishment of a perfect fellowship between God and the worshipper. See ch. Heb 9:9; Heb 10:1.

Priesthood [] . Only in Hebrews. See vers. 12, 14. It expresses the abstract notion of the priest ‘s office; while iJeratia ver. 5, expresses the priestly service.

For under it the people received the law [ ] . Under, rather on the basis of. The verb lit. the law has been laid down Only here and ch. Heb 8:6.

What further need [ ] . Eti after that, assuming that there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood.

Another priest [ ] . Not merely another, but a different kind of priest. See on Mt 6:24.

Should rise [] . In Hebrews only here and ver. 15, both times in connection with priest.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical Priesthood,” (ei men oun teleiosis dia tes Levitikes heirosunes hen) “If therefore perfection existed through the priestly office; If the means, instrument, or agency of bringing man from sin’s condemnation, to salvation and sanctification, by the Levitical Priesthood law, under the Mosaic economy. This is a condition, supposition contrary to fact, Heb 7:18-19.

2) “For under it the people received the law,” (ho laos gar ep’ autes nenomothetetai) “For the people (those) under it has (have) been furnished (the) Law,” Heb 10:1; Heb 10:5-9; Gal 2:21.

3) “What further need was there,” (tis eti chreia kata) “Why was there still a need for,” or according to; Because remission of sins could not be received thru the blood of bulls and goats under the Levitical Law economy it was necessary that there be a better sacrifice and a better priest, Heb 10:4; Heb 10:11-14.

4) “That another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec,” (ten taksin Melchisedek heteron anistasthai heirea) “According to the order of Melchisedec another priest to arise or stand up; A priest of another kind, Heb 8:1-2; Heb 8:6-8.

5) “And not be called after the order of Aaron?” (kai ou kata ten taksin Aaron legesthai) “And not to be named, or called, according to the order of Aaron?” If perfection (Salvation and spiritual maturity) could have been received thru the Levitical order of Aaron in the priesthood, there would not have been a need for the High-Priest-King, Jesus Christ, after the order or rank of Melchisedec.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

11. If therefore perfection, or, moreover if perfection, (118) etc. From the same testimony the Apostle concludes, that the old covenant was abrogated by the coming of Christ. He has hitherto spoken of the office and person of the priest; but as God had instituted a priesthood for the purpose of ratifying the Law, the former being abolished, the latter necessarily ceases. That this may be better understood, we must bear in mind the general truth, — That no covenant between God and man is in force and ratified, except it rests on a priesthood. Hence the Apostle says, that the Law was introduced among the ancient people under the Levitical priesthood; by which he intimates, that it not only prevailed during the time of the Law, but that it was instituted, as we have said for the sake of confirming the Law.

He now reasons thus, If the ministry of the Church was perfect under the order of Aaron, why was it necessary to return to another order? For in perfection nothing can be changed. It then follows, that the ministry of the Law was not perfect, for that new order was to be introduced of which David speaks. (119)

For under it the people received the Law, etc. This parenthesis is inserted in order that we may know that the Law was annexed to the priesthood. The Apostle had in view to prove that in the Law of Moses there was no ultimate end at which we ought to stop. This he proves by the abrogation of the priesthoods and in this way: Had the authority of the ancient priesthood been such as to be sufficient fully to establish the Law, God would have never introduced in its place another and a different priesthood. Now, as some might doubt whether the abolition of the Law followed the abolition of the priesthood, he says that the Law was not only brought in under it, but that it was also by it established. (120)

(118) The particles Εἰ μὲν οὖν, are rendered by Elsner, “but if,” — by Doddridge, “now if,” — by Stuart, “moreover if,” and by Macknight, “moreover, if indeed;” and all these consider that there is here a commencement from what has preceded. — Ed

(119) “Perfection,” or completion, rather than consummation is no doubt the best word τελείωσις. To render it “perfect expiation,” as Schleusner does, is not to render the word, but to explain it. The imperfection of the Levitical priesthood was doubtless its capacity really to make an atonement for sin, as its work was ceremonial and typical: but it was enough for the present purpose merely to say that it was not perfect, as it failed to answer the great end of establishing a priesthood. And the Apostle grounds its deficiency, or imperfect character, on the fact that a priest of another order had been promised. This was an argument which the Jews could not resist, as it was founded on the Scriptures, which they themselves acknowledged as divine. — Ed

(120) See Appendix Z.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

PRIESTS OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

Heb 7:11; Heb 7:26-27.

PRIESTHOOD is an essential element in all natural religions. The deeper the superstition, the grosser the heathenismthe greater the multitude of priests. History has told us of the Hierophants of Egypt, the Magi of Persia, the Sacerdotes of Greece and Rome, the Druids of Gaul, the Caliphs, Mufties, etc., of other nations, in evidence of how common was the craft of priesthood under ancient peoples. And today, in China, India, and Africa, our missionaries of the Gospel find their chief opposition in the priests who abound everywhere, and who make it their business to speak against the Sacred Scriptures, and threaten their people with all manner of evils in case they accept the Christian faith.

In all these countries temples are erected, and multitudes of gods are set up, and this middle man, this sacerdotal intercessor, is in evidence and active.

It would seem indeed that there is something in the very constitution of human nature that requires a priesthooda mediator between God and man. It may be that fear of the Holy Presence which the Israelites felt when God spoke to them out of the mount, and they cried to Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

And then again it is in part because of the constitutional need of human sympathy and human assistance.

You remember how Hawthorne in The Marble Faun makes the Protestant child, who had come to the knowledge of an awful crime, seek out a confessional and pour her information into the ears of an aged priest, solely that she might be rid of bearing that burden alone.

What an illustration of the deep concern God takes in human souls that He provided for this spiritual demand, and appointed a priesthood.

If any have come here to-night supposing that I would deny that there was any priesthood in the New Testament they must be disappointed. There is a priesthood in the Old Testament; there is a priesthood in the New Testament as well; and so long as men sin and stand in need of reconciliation with God, a priestor days-manwill be a necessity, and will remain.

As Mackintosh remarks, The sinner needs a sacrifice, and the believer needs a Priest.

I want this evening to speak to you first of all concerning priests under the Law; and then, regarding priests under the Gospel.

I think no one, and surely no good student of the Scripture, would object to considering the Old Testament priests as typical. We will, therefore give our first concern to

THE TYPES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Aarons priesthood was intended as a shadow of Heavenly things.

Through it the Israelites looked forward to better things to come when, as the Apostle Paul remarks, another Priest should arise after the order of Melchisedek, whose priesthood should remain, constituted not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

In that Old Testament arrangement there were two types, and only two, by Divine appointment the high priest, and the common priest. The first office was always associated with a solitary man and his house; the second with an ever increasing company.

Aaron was the high priest! If you go back to the introduction of the Levitical system you will discover this man receiving a Divine appointment to the office of high priest. For a long time, it would seem, as one studies the sacred record of his history, God had been making Aaron ready for this honored office. His kinship with Moses suggested the suitableness of his appointment; his fellowship with this marvelous brother aided in fitting him for it, while his special privileges in beholding the glory of the Lord, and witnessing the manifestations of His power, were all a part of the preparation. His intercession for Miriam, when smitten with leprosy, and his success in obtaining her forgiveness, showed his acceptance with God. The overthrow of Korah and all his confederates who conspired against Moses and Aaron, and the falling of thousands who had joined this conspiracy, gave fresh occasion to the exercise of Aarons office. You will remember that he filled the censor with fire from the altar and rushing forward, to stand between the living and the dead, arrested the plague. And when, on one occasion, the chiefs of the several tribes deposited their rods in a special place in the Tabernacle over night, it was Aarons rod that budded and yielded the fruit of almonds. And that rod was preserved, you remember, as a sure evidence of the Divine appointment of the Aaronic family to the priesthood. That appointment was never afterward disputed.

It might seem in order to speak here of the distinguishing features of the high priesthood, but I prefer to reserve what should be said upon that subject for presentation at a later moment, and remark further

Aarons sons were the common priests. And they were, as I have suggested, an ever-increasing number. According to Josephus, Aaron and his direct successors, to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, made up eighty-three in all. The names of these we can find tabulated in any good religious encyclopaedia, with the approximate years which they served. But what man shall tell how many common priests there were? To be sure Aaron had only four sons, and yet his grandchildren were a greater number, and so the common priesthood grew with the going of the years until their name was legion.

If one wishes to know what the difference between the high priest and the common priest was, the study of the Levitical system brings information upon that subject. The high priest must always be the first-born in the succession from Aaron. His dress was different from that of the common priestmore splendid. His duties always were differentiated: he alone could enter the holy of holies; he alone could make the offering on the great day of the atonement; and it was appointed for him to speak the absolution of the people from their sins.

And, as he was different from the common priests so, also, was he altogether another person from the Prophets of the Old Testament. The Priests work was largely that of intercessor with God; the Prophets work was largely that of address to the people. The Priest appeared as the peoples representative, to plead their cause and secure their pardon; the Prophet came as Gods representative to remind men of the violations of His Law, and call them to repentance.

It is a perfect illustration of that Jesuitical custom of juggling with words that Cardinal Gibbons employs when he confounds the Priests with Prophets and Apostles, and speaks of them as if the terms were synonymous. It is inconceivable that such a confusion of terms was ignorance on the Cardinals part. Listen to this opening sentence on Priesthood in The Faith of Our Fathers:

The Apostles were clothed with the powers of Jesus Christ. The Priests, as the successors of the Apostles, were clothed with their power.

Who ever said the Apostles were the successors of Jesus Christ; and by what sleight of hand can any make the Priests the successors of the Apostles?

Again, the Cardinal remarks, The Priest is the ambassador of God, appointed to vindicate His honor and to proclaim His glory. We are ambassadors for Christ, says the Apostle.

When he is arguing the dignity of the Priests office, he says, No greater indignity can be offered our Lord than to do violence to His representativesthe priests of His Church; then quotes, to prove his assertion, Touch not Mine anointed, and do My Prophets no harm, and so forth.

The child in a grammar school, reading the Old Testament without a teacher, would easily discern that the Priests office was one thing, and the Prophets altogether another thing; and that these seldom, if ever, combined in a single man.

But, as we have already suggested, the high priest and the common priests of the Old Testament were types.

This leads us to speak of

THE ANTITYPES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The types of the Old Testament did not pass away at the appearance of Jesus, but they came to their fruition instead. They blossomed in the Perfect One toward whom they had been pointing all the time. Aaron, therefore, should find his antitype in the New Testament; and his sonsthe common priestsshould also discover their antitypes in this new and better covenant. And according to the Gospels and the Epistles, it is so.

Christ is the Great High Priest. That is what the Apostle meant in the text of this nightIf therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood * * what further need was there that another Priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec?

In what respects was Christs priesthood after the order of Melchisedec? Two or three! He sprang from the royal tribe of Judah, and not from the sacerdotal tribe of Levi. As Melchisedec came from a house of kings, and not from a house of priests, so Christ was not only Priest, but He was King also.

But perhaps the most striking symbol of Christs priesthood is found in the circumstance that, so far as human knowledge went, Melchisedec was without beginning or end of days; and Christ, the Son, is consecrated to the priesthood for evermore.

It would be an easy thing to rehearse the arguments showing the deficiencies of the Old Testament priesthoodsinful man who must offer sacrifice for himself; who, by his own sins might fail with the Father; by whose death the office might be empty, and by whose apostasy the people might be misled. But all this is so well believed that argument is not necessary. The whole people rejoice that God has removed that sort of priesthood, and has put into the place of the Old Testament office of high priest His perfect, never-failing Son, who is without spot or stain, or any such thing, with whom no wickedness obtains, who is alive for evermore, and whose prayers are always heard in Heaven; who enters not once a year into the holy of holies to make intercession for us, but who sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, there to talk with the Father face to face concerning His erring children, and to make intercession in their behalf that always avails.

In The Faith of Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons insists that a priest should not be eminent for his learning only, but more conspicuous for his virtues because he is expected to preach more by example than by precept. And St. Chrysostom says concerning the sacrament of the Lords Supper, Purer than any solar ray should that hand be which divides that flesh, that mouth which is filled with spiritual fire, that tongue which is purpled with that awful Blood.

If Chrysostom is right in his demand upon the high character of the priesthood, God pity the people who have put their trust in stained clergy, for what one of them ever measures up to that high demand; and how many of them have not only fallen below it, but into the grossest iniquity?

There is but One who can meet that demand, and He is indeed the Great High Priest, without spot or blemish, or any such thing.

Again Cardinal Gibbons says of the priest, As judge of souls he must know when to bind and when to loose, when to defer and when to pronounce sentence of absolution. If nothing is so disastrous to the republic as an incompetent judge, whose decisions, though involving life and death, are rendered at haphazard, and not in accord with the merits of the case, so nothing is more detrimental to the Christian commonwealth than an ignorant priesthood whose decisions injuriously affect the salvation of souls.

If there is one thing for which a man ought to be more profoundly grateful than another, it is that he was neither born nor brought up under the system which teaches that the salvation of souls was put into the power of any erring man, in contradiction to the whole Scripture which makes Jesus the sole judge and arbiter in this high realm.

Ah, it is blessed to turn away from such sophistry to what the Scriptures have to say upon this subject; to read of Christ, He ever liveth to make intercession for us (Heb 7:25); to hear Christ say, Because I live, ye shall live also (Joh 14:19); to follow the pen of the Apostle Paul, If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (Rom 5:10), and, in the chapter just following the words of our text, to find,

For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this Man have somewhat also to offer (Heb 8:3);

and again,

But Christ being come a High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own Blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Heb 9:11-12; Heb 9:24).

A man must miss the entire significance of the Old Testament priesthood if he fail to see that there was but one high priest at a time. And if Christ be the High Priest of the New Testament, as there was but one type, so there can be but one antitype.

A man must miss the entire significance of the Old Testament if he fail to see that only the high priest could appear on the day of atonement to perform the function of absolution; and as that office belongs to the type in the Old Testament, so it belongs to the antitypeJesus Christin the New Testament; and He only hath power on earth to forgive sins.

But as there was a second order of priests in the Old Testament so there is a second order in the New.

Christians are the New Testament antitypes of the Old Testament common priests. And when I speak of Christians I mean all of Gods people, without reference to whether they belong to clergy or laity; whether they be mighty or weak, bond or free, they are all priests unto God.

Ye shall be unto Me a Kingdom of priests, said the Lord, as He looked into our era. Isaiah, writing by inspiration, declares, Ye shall be named the priests of the Lord.

And the great Apostle Peter, said, concerning the household of faith, Ye are** a royal priesthood. Pauls teaching touching this priesthood you have heard already in this Epistle to the Hebrews; and John puts into the mouth of all saints, Glory and dominion to Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own Blood, because He hath made us kings and priests unto God. It was this same Apostle who declared concerning them that have part in the first resurrection, They shall be priests of God and of Christ.

Here is your antitype for your Old Testament common priests. They were a company ever increasing; thank God the Christians are the same. They came to their office not by self-exaltation, but by birth and Divine appointment; and we come into ours in the same way. They must be descendants of Aaronthe great high priest; we must be the children of Christthe High Priest of the New Testament, begotten unto Him by the Holy Ghost.

As the common priests of the Old Testament which met the Divine approval, were the children of Aaron, so if we would be priests of God and our Christ, we must come to that office by birth and birth alone. That is the meaning of Jesus words to Nicodemus, Ye must be born again.

I visited sometime ago in a family which had had a little child in it, a child that had been left at the door step, which they had taken in and treated as their own. They claimed that it was theirs by birth, and when it died they mourned it as though it were their own. You could give them no greater insult now than to suggest or even hint that it was not their own. But no possible care, no training or education could ever have so transformed that child as to make it theirs. You can adopt into your home a child of another; you can educate it, and adorn it until it excites your pride; but you can never impart your nature!

That is the process of generationthe heritage of birth. And today I know of no more serious error, no more soul-destroying teaching than that which tells men that they can be made priests of God by having the hands of prelates laid upon them. The divinely appointed priesthood never occurred after that manner, and it never can. You must be born into it; you must be the sons of the Great High Priest Himself.

Charles Spurgeon, speaking of the baptismal service of the state church in his country, says, When little children are brought to be sprinkled, certain god-fathers and god-mothers promise for them that they shall renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and so forth, and that they shall obediently keep all Gods holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of their life.

To me, says Spurgeon, it seems as if they might as well promise that they shall grow up with Roman noses, auburn hair, and blue eyes, for they are just as able to make them do the one as the other.

So I think that those who have the hands of prelates laid upon them, and certain garments put upon them, and certain education given them, and then are sent out as priests in the world, and spoken of as clothed with power, might just as well be called kings, great nations assigned to them as their rightful territory, since the people who make the assertion could just as easily bring that to pass as they could the former claim.

Priesthood unto God is not a question of how you are educated, what you wear, what pretentions you make, or even what profession you choose it is a question of birth! If you are children of the Great High Priest you belong to the common priesthood; and if you are not born of God, nothing will help you or make you a priest.

Now let me remark furtherThe New Testament knows no other priesthood, save the high priesthood of Christ, and the common priesthood of all. If God had purposed any other He certainly would have made mention of it, and it is a significant fact that the priest is not so much as mentioned among the officials of the New Testament Church.

In view of the prominent part played by the priests in the Old Testament this omission requires explanation. Why is it, that, in connection with the organization of the Church at Jerusalem, reported in Acts 2, no priests are mentioned? Why is it that when the Word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith that they immediately doff their official robes, and never appear in that capacity again?

The only priests known to the New Testament in an official way, are those who are under the Law and in opposition to the Gospel. Should it not impress all priests of today as a strange thing that when the Apostle Paul wrote his Epistle to the Ephesians and spoke of the gifts which the ascended Christ bestowed upon men that he said, And He gave some, Apostles, and some, Prophets; and some, Evangelists; and some, Pastors and Teachers, and omitted the name priests?

Some years since my attention was attracted by this subject, Priests Dethroned by Publicans. I looked up the discussion in the Review of Reviews and found it to refer to tax gathering. The writer was pleading that it was better to have the priests lay tribute upon the French people than the publicans. But I will tell you when the priest was dethroned by the publican, and that was when the publican went up into the Temple to pray, and smiting upon his breast cried to God, Be merciful to me a sinner.

That was the earnest of the New Testament truth that God would have men come directly to Him and receive absolution at His hands, as it is written, There is * * one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

As Charles Spurgeon says, Why should we set up other mediators, and go to them for absolution, when our Lord Jesus receives all who come to Him? See you in the New Testament any trace of such assumptions on the part of Gods ministers? Does the Gospel say, He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, if absolved by a humanly-appointed priest? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, is the Gospel according to the Scriptures!

Confess to the priest and thou shalt be forgiven, is the Gospel of the Vatican.

Everywhere the Scripture calls man to come into personal contact with his reconciled God in Christ Jesus. The first resolution of the awakened sinner is, I will arise and go to my Father.

It is not, I will arise and go unto the authorized minister or, in fact, to any human being; it is not, I will resort to sacraments and ceremonies; but I will arise and go to my Father. In fact the whole object of the Gospel is to bring us near to God in Christ Jesus, and to put down every interposing medium. He who rent the veil of the Temple has ended this priestly business.

Now a few words on another phase of this subject and my address ends:

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STEPS IN CONSECRATION

There were seven steps divinely appointed for the consecration of the priests of the Old Testament:

First, He must be presented before the congregation. What a type this of the fact that no man is to live the life of a secret disciple. You who are to be made a kingdom of priests unto Him are to come out boldly for Him.

I have little or no faith in those people who will whisper into my ear their confidence in God, but who are ashamed to declare it before the crowd. What does Jesus say? Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him shall the Son of Man also confess before the angels of God: but him that denieth Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. What did Paul pen in his Epistle to the Romans?

The Word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the Word of faith, which we preach;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed (Rom 10:8-11).

The second step, He was to be washed with clean water. It was a ceremony calculated to show the necessity of holiness. No spot or stain of sin, no mark of defilement is to be found upon Gods own. Even as in the New Testament we see God requiring the washing of regeneration, and renewing by the Holy Ghost, shed now so abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, and symbolized so strikingly by the divinely appointed ordinance of baptism in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Yet our washing is not a mere external rite, as one has said, but inward grace, the answer of a good conscience toward God. Beloved, the blessing of baptism is found in what it symbolizes death to sin, burial with Jesus Christ and resurrection to walk in newness of life with Him. This is the true washing; this is the true cleansing of the Christianthe man who proposes to come into the very presence of God. And this is the meaning of the Apostles wordsIf we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.

In the third place he must be robed in royal attire. What was that but the symbol of the fact that as Jesus was holy, undefiled, separate from sinners, so His children are to keep themselves unspotted from the world? And we can never forget how John has interpreted for us what would otherwise have been a difficult passage, For the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

I wonder sometimes if men appreciate what it means to be clothed upon with the righteousness of Christ? Robert Murray MCheyne writes concerning a meeting which he was holding in Scotland: The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved! A young woman was with me tonight in great distress. She said, I have a wicked heart within me that would sink a world. I said, I am thankful to hear you complain of your wicked heart, dear friend; it is unsearchably wicked. There is not a sin committed on earth or in hell but has its spring and fountain in your breast and mine. You are all sin: your nature is sin, your heart is sin, your past life is sin, your prayers are all sin. Oh, that you would despair of being righteous in yourself! Then take the Lord Jesus for your righteousness. In Him is no sin. And He stood for us, and offers to be your shield, your way to the Father. You may be righteous in Christ with a perfect righteousness, broad as the law, and pure as the light of Heaven. If you had an angels righteousness, you might well lay it down, and put on Jesus. The robe of a Blood-washed sinner is far whiter than that of an angel.

Jesus, Thy robe of righteousness My beauty is, my glorious dress;Mid flaming worlds, in this arrayed,With joy shall I lift up my head.

This spotless robe the same appears When ruined nature sinks in years;No age can change its glorious hue;The robe of Christ is ever new.

O let the dead now hear Thy voice;Now bid Thy banished ones rejoice;Their beauty this, their glorious dress,Jesus, the Lord, our Righteousness.

And then there was the complete consecration, symbolized by the blood stain upon the ear, the right thumb, and the great toe of the right foot.

God is not content to have men merely accept Jesus for the sake of being saved; God calls men to service. The Church has in it already too many who have accepted it as a hiding place, when, in fact, God has appointed it as a field for service. The true Christian is not so much concerned as to whether he is to get to Heaven, as he is with how much he may accomplish while on earth.

And he was to be anointed with oilsymbol of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

He was to feed upon the lambtype of the great truth that every Christian finds in Christ his Bread of Life.

And he was to abide seven days before he entered upon his dutiesmarvelous suggestion of the great need of waiting before God, until by meditation and prayer, we are fitted for the life to which He has called us.

Seven essential steps they were indeed. And yet not more essential than for any man who would now be saved and become a servant of Him who gave His Son that we might be redeemed.

This is a great life to which God is calling men, a life of purity and a life of power. I wonder tonight how! many there are here who propose to accept the proffer of the High Priest and receive absolution from sin, and be empowered for service. Remember He has said that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, md to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That is the word of your Priest! Go to Him! Tell Him all your heart! Get your pardon! Receive your cleansing!

And the same Great High Priest holds also in reserve for the saved, the baptism of the Spirit, and is more willing to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him than earthly parents are to give good gifts to their children.

All, therefore, that the sinner needs to make him an efficient servant is with the Son of God, the pontiff of the soul!

Link your life with His. Begin this moment not only to be His son through surrender, but His fellow-laborer through service. And then you Will find your life so sweetly linked with His that you can say with Rowland Hill, the great pastor of Christs Church:

When I am to die, receive me, to cry,For Jesus has loved me, I cannot tell why,But this do I find, we two are so joined,Hell not be in Heaven and leave me behind.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Heb. 7:11.Here begins the argument of the next nine verses. Perfection.A difficult word; the full meaning of everything that could be required of a human priesthood. Power of perfectionment, capacity to achieve the end in view. This was not to be attained through the Levitical priesthood. Some say the term means accomplishment; others sanctification; others consummate happiness; others moral rectitude. Compare Heb. 9:9-14; Heb. 10:1, Heb. 10:2-4; Heb. 10:3; Heb. 10:14. The point of the writer is, that it could not meet the entire circle of human need. It could neither spiritually purify their worshippers, nor free them from the conscience-burden of their sins, nor from their apprehension of eternal punishment. There was, therefore, manifest room for another priesthood after another order.

Heb. 7:12. Being changed.Better, being transferred; a mild and delicate term is purposely chosen, . It is a characteristic of the writer to be thus careful not to shock the prejudices of his readers more than was inevitable. His whole style of argument, though no less effective than that of St. Paul in his own sphere, is more conciliatory, more deferential, less vehemently iconoclastic. This relation to St. Paul is like that of Melancthon to Luther (Farrar). Also of the law.From a ceremonial to a spiritual range. With the ceremonial alone had the Levitical priest to deal. This change of the law is not sufficiently recognised. It is easy to go astray if we attempt to explain the work of Christ by the formal terms of the Mosaic law. Christ is the fulfilment of its spiritual suggestions and meanings.

Heb. 7:14. Out of Juda.Whatever may be the difficulties of our Lords genealogies, as given in Matthew and Luke, the fact is clear that He belonged to Judah, not Levi. This is mentioned as one instance of change in the law.

Heb. 7:15. More evident.Because there is a distinct prophecy and promise of another priest. Ariseth.Is to arise.

Heb. 7:16. Carnal.Fleshly, in the range of the outward, the material. Not here fleshly in its bad sense, but simply human. Power of an endless life.Stuart renders as preceptum caducum, an obligation of a temporary, perishable nature; and , indissoluble life, or perpetuity. The word is not elsewhere found in the New Testament. Based on the assumption that the priesthood of Melchizedek was without limitations of time.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Heb. 7:11-17

The Two Priestly Orders.It must be evident to every candid reader of this epistle that its author does not use the older Scriptures as confirmation or proof precisely in the way that we do. He probably follows the method taught in the Rabbinical schools, which laid undue stress upon single, and often subordinate, words. It is necessary to bear in mind that truths are eternally true, but the methods in which they are presented and proved belong to each particular age, and are precisely adapted to each age. We are not obliged to recognise the force of every argument that has ever been used to support a truth. The Divine inspiration works through the mental methods and mental moods of each age, with a precise adaptation to one age, and a general adaptation to all ages. What the student has to do is to put himself into the times when a particular method of proof was used, and so get to feel its precise force. And this may be quite in harmony with his endeavours to find and use the method of proof which may be effective on his own generation. These remarks are important because the proofs from Scripture given in this epistle often become a grave stumbling-block to critical-minded readers. All the offices which the Lord Jesus Christ is represented as filling are interesting to us. Some we can appreciate at once. Some require much and careful thought before we are able to trace their permanent relations and value. And some are difficult to appraise aright, because we have no help from our associations. Such an office is that of priest. We are not in any sense familiar with it. It does not come into the range of ordinary Christian thought, but it was bound up with the religious thought, and the daily life, of the Jews. And this writer addressed Jews, to whom the high priest was a most familiar figure, and who had thoughts about him that we can hardly realise. In endeavouring to detach the Jewish Christians from their new-found faith in Christ, the bigoted Jews made a strong point of the fact that Jesus could not be a priest, seeing that they all admitted the Aaronic priesthood to be the direct appointment of God. So far from Jesus being in the Aaronic order, He did not even belong to the tribe of Levi, but to a tribe of which nothing had been said concerning priesthood. This was a very fair plea from their outward, national, and limited standpoint. It is indeed so fair a plea that the writer of this epistle feels bound to give it elaborate and careful consideration, meeting this strictly Jewish objection on strictly Jewish lines. Admitting that God did establish the Aaronic order of priesthood, and that it stood, and always had stood, upon the Divine authorisation, he argues

1. That Gods having appointed one order does not involve that He never has appointed, and never will appoint, any other. In asserting the priesthood of Christ, it is only necessary for him to prove that the same God appointed Him, in His order, as appointed the Aaronic priests in theirs; and consequently that Christ, as priest, equally acts upon Divine authorisation.

2. But he can advance on this, and say, not only may God appoint another order of priesthood, but He has done so; He had done so long before He established the Aaronic order, and entirely independent of it. The order of Melchizedek was no seed out of which the Aaronic order grew; it was a priesthood for men quite distinct from the priesthood for a particular nationthe Jews. Patriarchal priesthood was established by God long ages before the Levitical. It was a universal human priesthood, and out of the range of the limited Mosaic Revelation 3. Then he is able to make a somewhat surprising assertion. The earlier order of Melchizedek was recognised by the later as higher than itself, and the earlier order actually received the representative homage of the later. It received tithes from Abraham. And so to say, through Abraham, even Levi, who received tithes, hath paid tithes; for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

4. The appeal is now made to Scripture. God can make a new order; God had made another order; and God has actually promised in the Scripture to raise up a new priest after the older order.
5. That promise, he claims, was fulfilled in the raising up of Jesus, and constituting Him priest, not as the Aaronic, after the law of a carnal commandment, but as the order of Melchizedek, after the power of an endless [indissoluble] life. It is important that we should understand the distinctions between the two priestly orders, so that we may recognise the peculiarities of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I. The order of Melchizedek had all the permanent essentials of priesthood.And these are three:

1. The power of intercession. Too readily we assume that the essential thing in priesthood is presidency over a religious ceremonial, which includes sacrifice. But this is an accident of priesthood; the essential thing is his acting as medium of communication between God and manthe difference between a priest and a prophet being that a priest so acts constantly, and the prophet so acts occasionally. In thinking of the Jewish high priest we seldom see the importance of wearing the breastplate, and being the peoples mediator. Melchizedek was an intercessor. He stood for Abraham to present to God the tithes of thanksgiving. He stood for God to present to Abraham acceptance and blessing.

2. The power of character. Ideally this is absolutely essential to priesthood. It is the secret of acceptance with God, and the secret of influence on men. It is the basis of reverence and trust. It was not guaranteed in Jewish priests, seeing their office was hereditary: it was found in Melchizedek, as indicated in the respect shown him, which Abraham felt, and responded to.

3. The power of continuity. A priesthood which is really efficient cannot be thought of as stopped or changed. If there is need for change in it, then there must be some imperfection in it, or in its adaptations. The priesthood of Melchizedek was never changed while he lived. The ideal priesthood of man, which he represented, God established for ever; He has never changed it: in the line of the absolute priesthood of universal humanity Jesus came.

II. The order of Aaron had certain temporary characteristics.Especially may be noticed its

1. Limitation to a
(1) nation,
(2) tribe,
(3) time. Jewish priests only held office from thirty to sixty years of age.
2. Its hereditary character, which did not involve any direct Divine call to individuals. A man was an Aaronic priest, not because he was singularly fitted for the office, but because his father was a priest.
3. Its sacrificial character. Careful distinction needs to be made between the great and universal human ideas of sacrifice, and the small and particular Jewish ideas of sacrifice, connected with a local religion, a limited revelation, and an elaborate social and ceremonial system. The priests of the Jewish cult must be distinguished from the priests of humanity. In Judaism the system was greater than any individual.

III. The priesthood of Christ represents the permanent, and not the temporary, ideas of priesthood.Therefore it is said to be after the order of Melchizedek, and not after the order of Aaron.

1. He is our Intercessor. This is the essential side of priestliness. It need not be affirmed that Melchizedek presented no sacrifice, but it should be noticed that no mention is made of any in the narrative (Genesis 14), and that the interceding element of his priesthood is the one set forth prominently.

2. His power lies in His personal character. Such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separate from sins. He, on this ground, stands in acceptance with God: He offered Himself without spot to God. He, on this ground, gains influence on men, who always respond, with their confidence, to ideal goodness.

3. And His relation is a continuous one. He has an unchangeable priesthood, in the power of an endless life. What He is to us He is for ever, He is so long as we need Him.

Conclusion.The cry of human souls, in the sense of their separation from God, is for a priest, an intercessor. That cry can never be stilled by the ministry of any man. It can be quieted, and the soul can be satisfied, with the full, and practical, acceptance of Jesus as actually now, for us, our great High Priest, passed into the heavens, ever living to make intercession or us.

SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES

Heb. 7:11. Perfection as Complete Meeting of Requirements.Perfection applied to the uncreated, independent Being, God, is an absolute quality. It is the standard. But perfection applied to any one, or anything, in the created sphere, can never be more than a relative thing. It may reach the standard of its particular class or order. An absolutely perfect man is inconceivable. A man perfect, according to the perfection that is possible to humanity, is conceivable. An act of a created human being that is absolutely perfect is inconceivable, but an act judged perfect according to the standard of the class of acts to which it belonged is quite conceivable. And only such perfection can be of any real or vital interest to us, because only such perfection is attainable by us. Another idea of perfection is embodied in the word entire. It is often applied to animals. Given a whole set of organs and capacities as belonging to an animal, if we find all those organs and capacities in any animal, and those organs all in full health, and harmonious proportions, we call that animal entire. And it is easy to see how the idea can be applied in the Christian life. But in our text the idea of perfection, though related, is somewhat different. A thing is perfect when it precisely and fully meets what is reasonably required and expected of it. So a man who invents or makes a machine strives to make it perfect in the sense of adequately meeting what is expected of it. It is imperfect if it leaves any expectation unfulfilled, or only half fulfilled. In this sense of perfection the old Mosaic economy of sacrifices, and ceremonies, and formal rules has to be judged. And so judged, the writer is compelled to condemn it as imperfect. Given the reasonable expectations of a particular nation, in a particular set of circumstances, and at a particular time, and the Levitical system may be considered perfect. But given the requirements of man as man, of man as a moral being, of man as sinful, of man as out of relations with God, of man as deteriorated by his wilfulnessgiven the requirements of mans conscience and will, and relations with God, and with fellow-men, and then the Levitical system must be condemned; perfection is not that formal, outward way. A spiritual religious system is wanted in order to meet spiritual conditions.

Heb. 7:16. The Power of an Endless Life.The suggestion is, that the priesthood of Christ is graduated by the wants and measures of the human soul, as the priesthood of the law was not; that the endless life in which He comes matches and measures the endless life in mankind whose fall He is to restore; providing a salvation as strong as their sin, and as long or lasting as the run of their immortality.

I. The power of an endless life in man, what it is, and, as being under sin, requires.The word translated power in the text is the original of our word dynamic, denoting a certain impetus, momentum, or causative force, which is cumulative, growing stronger and more impelling as it goes. And this is the nature of life or vital force universallyit is a force cumulative as long as it continues. The cumulative powers of vegetable life are only feeble types of that higher, fearfully vaster power, that pertains to the endless life of a soulthat power that, known or unknown, dwells in you and in me. The possible majesty to which any free intelligence of God may grow, in the endless increment of ages, is after all rather hinted than imaged in their merely vegetable grandeur. Mere attention to eternal duration limits thought and apprehension. If we look no further, that is only the eternal continuance of its mediocrity or comparative littleness. Its eternal growth in volume and power is, in that manner, quite lost sight of. The growth of the soul is a merely spiritual growth, indicated by no visible and material form that is expanded by it and with it. As in old age there seems to be an apparent limit to the spiritual powers and faculties, we drop into the impression that these have now passed their climacteric. But the soul outgrows the growth and outlives the vigour of the body, which is not true in trees. In the beginning of the souls history, it is a mere seed of possibility. But a doom of growth is in it, and the hidden momentum of an endless life is driving it on. What a chasm there is between the idiot and the man! One a being unprogressive, a being who is not a power; the other a careering force started on its way to eternity, a principle of might and majesty begun to be unfolded, and to be progressively unfolded for ever. Intelligence, reason, conscience, observation, choice, memory, enthusiasmall the fires of his inborn eternity are kindling to a glow, and, looking on him as a force immortal, just beginning to reveal the symptoms of what he shall be, we call him man. And yet we have, in the power thus developed, nothing more than a mere hint or initial sign of what is to be the real stature of his personality in the process of his everlasting development. We exist here only in the small, that God may have us in a state of flexibility, and bend or fashion us, at the best advantage, to the model of His own great life and character. And most of us, therefore, have scarcely a conception of the exceeding weight of glory to be comprehended in our existence. Illustration may be taken from the faculty of memory, imagination, acquisitionfrom the executive energy of the will, from the benevolent affections, and from all the active powers. What force must be finally developed in what now appears to be the tenuous and fickle impulse, and the merely frictional activity of a human soul! But this expression looks on the soul as a falling power, a bad force, rushing downward into ruinous and final disorder. It was this which made the mighty priesthood of the Lord necessary. By what adequate power, in earth or in heaven, shall mans sin be taken away?

II. What Christ, in His eternal priesthood, has done; or the fitness and practical necessity of it, as related to the stupendous exigency of our redemption.The great impediment which the gospel of Christ encounters in our world is that it is too great a work. It transcends our beliefit wears a look of extravagance. We are beings too insignificant and low to engage any such interest on the part of God, or justify any such expenditure. In the contemplations started on this subject, the purpose is to start some conception of ourselves, in the power of an endless life, that is more adequate. Mere immortality, or everlasting continuance, when it is the continuance only of littleness or mediocrity, does not make a platform or occasion high enough for this great mystery of the gospel. It is only when we see in human souls, taken as germs of power, a future magnitude and majesty transcending all present measures, that we come into any fit conception at all of Christs mission to the world. This power of endless life, could we lay hold of it, could we only grasp the force there is in it, how true and rational, how magnificently Divine would the great salvation of Christ appear, and in how great dread of ourselves should we hasten to it for refuge! Then it would shock us no more that visibly it is no mere man that has arrived. Were He only a human teacher, reformer, philosopher, coming in our human plane to lecture on our self-improvement as men, in the measures of men, He would even be less credible than now. Nothing meets our want, in fact, but to see the boundaries of nature and time break way to let in a Being and a Power visibly not of this world. Let Him be made a priest for us, and not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. Humbled to the flesh and its external conditions, He will only the more certainly even Himself with our want, if He dares to say, Before Abraham was, I am. The great salvation is a work supernatural transacted in the plane of nature; and what but such a work could restore the broken order of the soul under evil? It incarnates God in the world; and what but some such opening of the senses to God, or of God to the senses, could reinstate Him in minds that have lost the consciousness of Him, and fallen off to live apart? What but this could enter Him again, as a power, into the worlds life and history? We are astonished by the revelation of Divine feeling; the expense of the sacrifice wears a look of extravagance. If we are only the dull mediocrities we commonly take ourselves to be, it is quite incredible. But if God, seeing through our possibilities into our real eternities, comprehends in the view all we are to be or become, as powers of endless life, is there not some probability that He discovers a good deal more in us than we do in ourselves, enough to justify all the concern He testifies, all the sacrifice He makes in the passion of His Son? Inasmuch as our understanding has not yet reached our measures, we plainly want a grace which only faith can receive. Christ therefore comes not as a problem given to our reason, but as a salvation offered to our faith. His passion reaches a deeper point in us than we can definitely think, and His eternal Spirit is a healing priesthood for us, in the lowest and profoundest depths of our great immortality, those which we have never seen ourselves. He is somehow able to come into the very germ principle of our life, and be a central, regulating, new-creating force in our disordered growth itself. And if we speak of righteousness, it is ours when it is not ours. How can a being unrighteous be established in the sense of righteousness? Logically, or according to the sentence of our speculative reason, it is impossible. And yet, in Christ, we have it! We are consciously in it, as we are in Him; and all we can say is, that it is the righteousness of God, by faith, unto all, and upon all, them that believe.Horace Bushnell, D.D.

An Indissoluble Life.The Greek word would be more precisely rendered an indissoluble life. There are no conceivable agencies, influences, or forces that can break it up. Let a thing once be moved, and it will go on moving for ever, unless something acts upon it to check it. Let a thing once exist, and it will never cease to exist, unless some outside force acts upon it to destroy it. Let a thing be a whole, it will remain a whole for ever, if no power breaks it up. Thus we are absolutely assured of the continuty and unchangeableness of God, because it is wholly impossible for us to conceive of any being, or force, or combination of forces, that can affect them so as to make any change in Him. It may further be observed that continuity is one of our chief notes of value. We estimate things in the light of their persistency. They are valuable if they will last unchanged for a long while. The diamond is counted the most valuable of all earthly possessions, not for its appearance, but for its imperishableness. We know of nothing that can destroy it; it outlasts the generations; it can cut its kind, but nothing else can cut it. That note of value is taken to bring home to our minds the infinite value of Christ our Priest and Saviour. He has an endless, or an indissoluble, priesthood. It is not possible for us to conceive the conditions of humanity for which that priesthood is not necessary and effective. It is not possible for us to conceive of any forces that can ever so affect that priesthood as to make changes in it which will imperil its efficiency.

An Endless Life.Life! the dearest and most wonderful thing we knowwonderful in its universality, its diversity, its mystery. Next comes lifes crowning wonder, death. Lifes greatest question is, What is it to be dead? What, in death and after death, becomes of life? The answer of the text is, The human race has the power of an endless life. We can, indeed, no more be eternal, as God is, than we can be almighty, or all-present, as God is. What is possible for us is an immortal life in the eternal life of Godto keep in and after death our consciousness, memory, will, and affectionsourselves: to find ourselves alive after death, and alive for evermore.

1. Without laying undue stress upon it, the mere existence of a world-wide belief in an endless life is, in a world with such a history and such daily experiences as ours, very wonderful. The history of the world is a history of death. And yet men refuse to believe in death! In Greenland and in Greece, in Rome and Egypt, Persia and India, men have persistently refused to believe the testimony of death; and wherever they raised a stone to chronicle a death, on that stone, by word or rude symbol, they recorded their undaunted faith in a life beyond the grave. Here then is a creed old as time, wide as the world, catholic as the race, native to every climate, and common to every religion.
2. Do not mens mental powers point to another life? All but man reach their highest development here. Man dies with the best powers undeveloped. His great actions are only specimens, earnests of what he could do were not time too niggard of its days. We may see the possible progress by the actual achievement of man.
3. What is God to uswhat are we to God? Man is a creature with strong longings for life, and apparently fitted for immortality. God is not playing with human life. He is our Father in heaven, and we are His children. And here is the ground of our faith: Man has a capacity for life; God a desire that we should live. Eternal life is the gift of eternal love.J. M. Gibbon.

Heb. 7:17. The Order of Melchizedek.The references to Melchizedek are found in Gen. 14:18-20; Psa. 110:4. Without descent means without genealogy, such as Levitical priests had. Without end of life means that no limit of age attached to his office, as to that of Jewish priests. Observe the application of the argument of this chapter to the fact, that the Jewish religious system was a temporary one, that it had now done its work, and was decaying and passing.

I. The order of Melchizedek involves superiority to the Levitical order.Abraham, the Jewish race-father, paid tithes to Melchizedek. The contrast was so pointed when the writer presented it, because then the Jewish system was evidently decaying. The Jews clung desperately to it, but nevertheless it was fast slipping out of their grasp.

1. The order of Melchizedek is antecedent to that of Aaron.
2. The order of Melchizedek is intercessory, not sacrificial.
3. The new priesthood, being spiritual and universal, must of necessity supplant that which is material and local.

II. The order of Melchizedek involves the direct appointment of God.The Jewish priests came into office by regular succession from father to son, and no priest was ever able to claim direct Divine appointment. Both Melchizedek and Christ were specially called by God. Illustrate by the witness of the Divine voice at our Lords baptism.

III. The order of Melchizedek involves the perpetuity of priesthood.There is no account of Melchizedeks having diedno account of his priesthoods ever closing. And Christs death was but the beginning of His spiritual and eternal life. Abideth a priest for ever.

IV. The order of Melchizedek involves the union of two offices, king and priest.King of righteousness.

1. Thatrighteousnessis the end and object of his rule.
2. Thatrighteousnessis the characteristic of the peoples whom he rules. King of peacewhich of necessity always attends upon the triumph of righteousness. Righteousness and peace have kissed each other. They always do. Christ in the eternal temple is our King-priest. King of righteousness, which is for sinful humanity the essential condition of peace.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

3.

As seen in the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood. Heb. 7:11-19.

Text

Heb. 7:11-19

Heb. 7:11 Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron? Heb. 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Heb. 7:13 For He of Whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar.

Heb. 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests. Heb. 7:15 And what we say is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another Priest, Heb. 7:16 Who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life: Heb. 7:17 for it is witnessed of Him,

Thou art a priest for ever
After the order of Melchizedek.

Heb. 7:18 For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness Heb. 7:19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God.

Paraphrase

Heb. 7:11 Moreover, to show you the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood to the priesthood of Christ, I ask, If the pardon of sin were really to be obtained through the ministrations of the Levitical priesthood, because on account of establishing that priesthood the Israelites received the law; what further need was there that a different priest should arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron? Is not the prediction, of the raising up of a priest of a different order from that of Aaron, a declaration of the inefficacy of the Levitical priesthood, and of Gods intention to change it?

Heb. 7:12 Wherefore, the priesthood, on account of which the law was given, being changed, of necessity there must be a change also of the law itself.

Heb. 7:13 Now, God certainly intended to change the priesthood from the tribe of Levi: For He to Whom He said, Thou art a priest, was of a different tribe, of which no one ever officiated as a priest at the altar; nor by the law could officiate.

Heb. 7:14 For it is very plain from the scriptures, that our Lord Messiah, called by David, (Psa. 110:1) his Lord, and to Whom God said, Thou art a priest, was to spring up from Judah; to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning their obtaining the priesthood.

Heb. 7:15 Moreover, it is still more exceedingly plain from Gods oath, that, according to the similitude of Melchizedek, a different kind of Priest from the Levitical ariseth, Who, like Melchizedek, will be also a King;wherefore, since the law was given for the purpose of establishing the priesthood, (Heb. 7:11.), the priesthood being changed, the law must be changed likewise, Heb. 7:12.:

Heb. 7:16 Who is made, not according to the law, whose commandment concerning the priests hath a respect only to their bodily strength, but according to the power of that endless life which He possesses, and by which He can minister as a priest for ever.

Heb. 7:17 For God testifieth concerning Him, Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek, Like Melchizedek, thou art a Priest and a King, and shalt continue the only Priest of the people of God, so long as they have any need of the Priests office.

Heb. 7:18 Well, then, the priesthood being changed, there is a total abrogation of the precedent commandment, the law of Moses, because of its weakness in reforming mankind, and its unprofitableness in procuring for sinners;

Heb. 7:19 For the law by its priesthood made no one perfect in respect of pardon and access to God: But the after introduction of a better priesthood, as the foundation of a better hope, maketh men perfect in these respects; by which priesthood we worship God acceptably. (See Eph. 2:18.)

Comment

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood

Gods full benevolent and saving purpose was not in it. Frail, sinful man, acting as priests, could not be perfect. The Greek word for perfection means properly completed, consummated.

for under it hath the people received the law

This is to say that the law was annexed to the priesthood. It was to show that the priesthood was foundational.

a.

With it the law stood or fell.

b.

The law then was no ultimate end at which we ought to stop.

c.

When the priesthood was changed, naturally the law would go with it.

what further need was there that another Priest arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

If the old system could bring perfection, then why did God Speak through David of a change? Cf. Psa. 110:4. The blood of Jesus, not after the order of Aaron, would not have been required if perfection could be gained otherwise.

for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law

The Seventh Day Adventists cannot escape this.

a.

Gal. 3:21 : If there had been a law given which could have given life, then verily righteousness would have been of law.

b.

Gal. 3:23-29.

c.

Col. 2:14 states that the law was nailed to the cross.

d.

We are not obligated under law to tithe, but we are under love to do more.

1.

The law of the tithe is changed, for that is the portion of the law he has dealt with in the tithe.

2.

We cannot worship with a tithe, which is already Gods, only as we sacrifice beyond the tithe.

For He of whom these things are said

Psa. 110:4 : Jehovah hath sworn and will not repent. Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek. All of this discussion is centered upon Christ.

belongeth to another tribe

Jesus came from the house of David, of the tribe of Judah. Jer. 23:5 is the prophecy: Behold the days cometh, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch and he shall reign as King and deal wisely. This shows the completeness of the change. The tribe of Judah was not allowed in the Old Testament to fill the priestly office.

a.

2Ch. 26:19 : King Uzziah of the tribe of Judah tried it, and became leprous.

from which no man hath given attendance at the altar

The tribe of Judah could not serve at the altar. Christ is a priest contrary to the law.

For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah, as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests

It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah refers to the genealogies and prophecies. Which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests indicates the silence.

And what we say is yet more abundantly evident

The argument of silence, he says, is not all of the matter. The author is interested in giving unanswerable argument, and such is found only in the scriptures.

if after the likeness of Melchisedek there ariseth another priest

How was Melchizedeks and Christs priesthood different from the Levitical?

a.

The Levitical Priesthood

Many priests

Yearly, repeated sacrifices
Sinful
Final death

b.

Christs priesthood

One priest

Once
Sinless
The likeness is in the character of the office.

Who hath been made

The Levites were made priests, not because of superiority, but by carnal descent. Priests were made, appointed, and no one could take the office upon himself.

not after the law of a carnal commandment

Law was added as a temporary thing.
Law was given because of their hardness.

a.

Mat. 19:8.

b.

Mar. 10:5.

Carnality is used here to suggest temporariness.

but after the power of an endless life

Christ is greater than the Levitical priests.

a.

Those priests had no power, but our Priest does. Mat. 28:18.

b.

Those priests were not kings, but Christ is.

c.

Those priests did not have full sympathy, but Christ is touched with our infirmities. Heb. 4:15.

Newell says: Endlessness is not the best word here, for it is the undying character of the risen Lord that is meant rather than its mere endlessness.

For it is witnessed of Him, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek

It is witnessed of Him refers to a testimony.

a.

Also translated it is testified. See Psa. 110:4.

b.

The scriptures are the best interpreters of the scriptures. This ought to settle the question with the Jew, for David spoke of it.

for there is a disannulling

The old covenant is done away. It was for the children of Israel only.

a.

Lev. 27:34; These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel on Mount Sinai. Disannulling is the Greek athetcsisthe same word as in Heb. 9:26 where we have putting away sin, The disappearance is thorough.

The disannulling is discussed in several books of the New Testament:

a.

Rom. 6:14.

b.

Rom. 7:4-6.

c

Col. 2:14.

d.

Eph. 2:15.

of a foregoing commandment

This refers to the old covenant. The inferiority of the old foregoing commandments is evident.

a.

They were never given to the entire human race.

b.

The law was given to Israelto no other. Psa. 147:19-20.

c.

The object was to reveal sin, not to save.

d.

Its principle was law; the new law is love.

because of its weakness

It could not make alive. 1Co. 15:22 : In Christ all are made alive, It could not take away sin.

a.

Heb. 10:4 : For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

b.

Only one life could show the real love of God.

1.

Not of cattle.

2.

Not of angels.

3.

Not of men, but Christs life.

c.

Christs blood is able to take away sins, where other blood was unable to do so.

d.

Rom. 3:25 : Once for all. Cp. Heb. 9:28.

e.

Gal. 3:21 : If there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law.

and unprofitableness

Does this disagree with Gal. 3:24?

a.

It brought us to that which is profitable.

b.

It was unprofitable in its ability to take away sin.

It must mean that within itself it was unprofitable.

for the law made nothing perfect

It was not sufficient to meet and accomplish Gods purpose.

a.

Gal. 3:21 : Is the law against the promises of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law.

b.

Rom. 8:3 : For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His Own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

Milligan argues that Owing to the weakness and imperfection of the flesh (Rom. 8:3) the law perfected nothing.

and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope

All can see the superior hope of the Christian as seen in the power of Christ.

a.

Rom. 8:11 : But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwelleth in you, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through His Spirit that dwelleth in you.

The wise person should always take the better when it is offered.

through which we draw nigh unto God

It is Christ, Joh. 14:6, the Way, our Hope, which brings us nigh unto God. We may define our Hope in particulars, such as new body, new home, etc., but the fact remains that Christ is our Hope.

Study Questions

1177.

Does Heb. 7:11 indicate that the law that contained the Levitical priesthood was not adequate?

1178.

In what way did it lack perfection?

1179.

What is actually meant by the word perfect here?

1180.

Does this verse say that the law was affixed to an already existing priesthood?

1181.

Who did Jacob and his sons pay tithes to?

1182.

Jacob vowed to tithe. Who received it?

1183.

The inability of the law called for what?

1184.

Why couldnt it have been that God would improve the Aaronic priesthood instead of reckoning it after Melchizedek?

1185.

When God changed priesthoods, what else did he also change?

1186.

What does this do to the Seventh Day Adventist doctrine?

1187.

Why did the law have to be changed? Cf. Gal. 3:21.

1188.

What does this verse do to the law of tithe?

1189.

Are we obligated more since we are under a greater priesthood?

1190.

Can it be said that Jesus is a Priest contrary to the law of Moses?

1191.

Is this an argument from silencenothing said, nothing condemned?

1192.

Of what tribe did Jesus come?

1193.

What is the evidence?

1194.

What did Moses have to say?

1195.

What did the prophets say?

1196.

If Christ had been of the tribe of Levi, would it have been as complete a change?

1197.

What happened to King Uzziah of Judah when he tried to act as priest? Cf. 2Ch. 26:19.

1198.

Is the author through arguing the case according to Heb. 7:15?

1199.

What is the more abundant argument? Is all of it found in Heb. 7:15?

1200.

Name the differences in Christs priesthood and the Levitical one.

1201.

How is Christs like that of Melchizedek?

1202.

How were the Levitical priests chosen?

1203.

Was it because of superiority over the other tribes?

1204.

What is meant by, carnal commandment?

1205.

Why was the law given at all? Cf. Mat. 19:8 and Mar. 10:5.

1206.

Whose endless life is referred to here?

1207.

Could it be said that Melchizedeks endless life had power?

1208.

What is meant by endless life?

1209.

Is the word after a period of time?

1210.

Describe the power that Christ had that these priests did not have.

1211.

A witness is referred to here. What is witnessed? Heb. 7:17.

1212.

What is the witness? Could it be Psa. 110:4?

1213.

What word could be used in place of witness?

1214.

Define the word disannulling.

1215.

Was the law a universal law? Cf. Psa. 147:19-20; Lev. 27:34.

1216.

If it was for the Jews only, how much was there a need for a universal law?

1217.

Compare the disannulling expression with Rom. 6:14; Rom. 7:4-6; Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15.

1218.

What does the foregoing commandment refer to?

1219.

If there were ten, why is it singular here?

1220.

In what ways was the earlier commandment inferior to Christs covenant?

1221.

In what way was it weak?

1222.

Could it make man alive? Cf. 1Co. 15:22.

1223.

Could it take away sin? Cf. Heb. 10:4.

1224.

Could anything less than Christ demonstrate so great a love?

1225.

Was the law of no value when he says that it was unprofitable?

1226.

Gal. 3:24 says something was a tutor. What was it?

1227.

In what realm was the law unprofitable?

1228.

He says that the law made nothing perfect?. Is this the fault of the law or of the men to whom it was directed? Cf. Rom. 8:3; Gal. 3:21.

1229.

Was there ever a perfect person under the law?

1230.

What brought in a better hopethe law?

1231.

Was it the law of Moses, or the new priestly system?

1232.

Why do you think so?

1233.

Read the 18th and 19th verses as one sentence to give the true exegesis.

1234.

Should we not always take the better of two ways?

1235.

Name the ways in which our better hope works.

1236.

What is it in this verse that helps us to draw nigh unto God?

1237.

Is he saying that Christ is our Hope, and it is through Him that we draw nigh unto God?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(11) The connection of thought may be given thus:It has been shown that the position of Melchizedek towards Abraham involves of necessity his superiority to Abraham, to Levi also and his descendants, so that the order of Melchizedek is altogether different from, and higher than, the order of Aaron. This being so, how could this other priesthood take the place of the Levitical if this latter had answered its full purpose?

Perfection.Literally, the making perfectthe full accomplishment of the essential aim of priesthood, in bringing men near to God.

Received.The better reading is hath received.The object of this parenthesis is to point out the intimate relation between the Law and the priesthood: I speak of the Levitical priesthood, for it is on the basis of this that the Law given to the people rests.

Another priest.That is (as the Greek implies), a priest of a different kind (Heb. 7:13; Heb. 7:15). The question is equivalent to a strong denial: there could be no such need.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

11-19. Point fourth. The declaration of the psalmist, affirming another order of priesthood than the Levitical: also a change of the law of descent, and showing that one order, the Levitical, is transient, and the other, Melchizedekian, is supreme and permanent.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

11. If the Levitical priesthood was not defective, what need of another order, as predicted by the psalmist?

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?’

What, he asks, does all this prove? It proves that the fact that another priest of a different order and likeness (‘after the order/likeness of Melchizedek’) had, according to the Psalmist, to arise, demonstrates the insufficiency of the levitical priesthood, and consequently of the Law. It demonstrates that it had not replaced the earlier priesthood. For had the levitical priesthood been perfect in accomplishing its purpose of bringing men eternally to God, and making them acceptable eternally to God, no other further priesthood would again have been needed and the Law would have been vindicated.

True, these priests gave people the Law, and they taught and instructed them, and they must not be denigrated, but the need for a further priest ‘after the likeness of Melchizedek’ is specifically indicated by the Psalmist when speaking by the Holy Spirit, and that could only mean therefore that another of the order of the levitical priesthood would have been insufficient. It is thus seen as significant that once God wanted to establish a new everlasting priesthood he did not look to the levitical priesthood, but to the Melchizedekian type of priesthood. This demonstrates the levitical priesthood to be lacking. Otherwise why the need for someone of another type of priesthood?

And as we have seen this other order is of a priesthood superior to Abraham, (and therefore to all who followed him and traced their descent to him). It pre-existed the levitical priesthood, and gives the appearance of being untainted by death. It blessed Abraham, who was in turn the one through whom the whole world was to be blessed. And as the Psalmist declared, this priesthood is the right and privilege of the continuing house of David and of the Messiah in particular. How great it then is, and how great is the Messiah.

‘If there was perfection.’ This is what it is all about, the search for a perfect High Priest Who can perfectly represent us and perfectly atone for us. And this was not found in the levitical priesthood, but it is found in the One Who is after the likeness of Melchizedek.

(It should possibly be noted here that had this been written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, which resulted in the cessation of the priestly activity of the levitical priesthood, it seems quite inconceivable that the writer should not have seized on that fact when he is concentrating so much on the temporary nature of the levitical priesthood compared with the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, even though admittedly he was not concerned with recent priesthood. This is further confirmation that it was written earlier).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Comparison Between Christ’s Priesthood and the Levitical Priesthood ( Heb 7:11-25 ).

Having established the superiority and permanence of the Melchizedekian priesthood, the writer now applies its superiority to Jesus as the Psalmist himself is seen as doing in Psa 110:4. He has already cited Psa 110:4 and applied it to Jesus as the One Who has ascended into Heaven as a High Priest after the likeness of Melchizedek (Heb 5:6; Heb 5:10; Heb 6:20), because He was the Messiah Who was in view in Psalms 110. Now he draws from that fact the inevitable conclusions.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Order of Melchizedek is Superior to that of the Levites because it is Unending – Heb 7:11-28 argues the point that the order of Melchizedek is superior to that of the Levites because it is unending. This passage of Scripture serves largely as an exegesis of Psa 110:4, “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

God Judged Israel Because They Failed to Provide Atonement for the People Through the Mosaic Law – Had the Israelites honored the Temple service, and the Levitical priests properly performed their duties in behalf of the people, Israel would not have backslidden and God would not have judged His people. However, Israel failed to perform the Law in every aspect. God judged Israel because they failed to provide atonement for the people through the Mosaic Law.

Heb 7:11  If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Heb 7:11 “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood” Comments – The concept of perfection before God is mentioned a number of times in the epistle of Hebrews (Heb 6:1; Heb 7:19; Heb 7:28).

Heb 6:1, “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,”

Heb 7:19, “For the law made nothing perfect , but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

Heb 7:28, “For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity ; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”

Heb 7:11 “for under it the people received the law” – Comments The people received the Law through the Levitical priesthood, beginning with Aaron and his son; but through the centuries that followed, the Levitical priests settled in towns throughout the Promised Land with the duties of teaching the people how to serve God under the Law. Unfortunately, this strategy failed because of human weakness. Heb 7:11 presents man’s efforts of perfection and failure before God in observing the Law.

Heb 7:11 “what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron” – Comments In Heb 7:11 the author begins to explain the need of Jesus Christ and a new priestly order.

Heb 7:12  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Heb 7:12 Comments – The Priesthood changed from a Levitical priesthood to Melchizedek. Thus, we have been placed under a new law, which is the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and the words of Jesus Christ, His teachings.

Heb 7:13  For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

Heb 7:13 Comments – Judah did not serve at the altar of the Mosaic Law.

Heb 7:14  For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Heb 7:14 “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda” Scripture References – Note similar verses:

Gen 49:10, “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”

Isa 11:1, “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:”

Mat 1:3, “And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;”

Luk 3:33, “Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda ,”

Rom 1:3, “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;”

Rev 5:5, “And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.”

Heb 7:15  And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

Heb 7:15 Comments – What is far more evident? That Jesus is after order of Melchizedek. See verses15-17.

Heb 7:16  Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Heb 7:16 Comments Heb 7:16 says Jesus’ similarity to Melchisedec was not in a systems of laws, but in the eternal nature of both of them.

Heb 7:17  For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Heb 7:17 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – This is a quote from Psa 110:4.

Psa 110:4, “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

This quote points out the “endless life” of Jesus as High Priest.

Heb 7:18  For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Heb 7:18 “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before” Comments – The Mosaic law proceeded Jesus.

Heb 7:18 “for the weakness” Comments – How was the law weak? It was weak through the carnal flesh of man (Rom 8:3, Gal 4:9).

Rom 8:3, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:”

Gal 4:9, “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?”

Heb 7:18 “and unprofitableness thereof” Comments How was the law unprofitable? Verse19 says that the Law made nothing perfect.

Heb 7:19  For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Heb 7:19 “For the law made nothing perfect” Comments – The Law made nothing perfect in regards to man’s nature and habits. The epistle of Hebrews makes a number of references to the need of perfection, and the failure of the Law to accomplish this goal of mankind (Heb 6:1; Heb 7:19; Heb 7:28).

Heb 6:1, “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,”

Heb 7:19, “For the law made nothing perfect , but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

Heb 7:28, “For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity ; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”

Scripture References – Note similar verses:

Act 13:39, “And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.”

Rom 3:20, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Gal 2:16, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Heb 7:19 “but the bringing in of a better hope did” Comments – Our better hope is Jesus. Note Heb 6:18.

Heb 6:18, “That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:”

Scripture Reference – Note also:

Col 1:27, “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:”

Heb 7:19 “by the which we draw nigh unto God” – Scripture Reference – Note:

Rom 5:2, “By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”

Heb 3:6, “But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.”

Heb 3:14, “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;”

Heb 7:19 Comments – The Law was for exposing sin, and not for perfecting men. Note:

Gal 3:19, “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”

Heb 7:20  And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

Heb 7:20 Comments – God swore by Himself (Heb 7:21).

Heb 7:21, “(For those priests 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:)”.

Heb 7:21  (For those priests 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:)

Heb 7:21 Comments According to Heb 7:28, the Levitical priests were appointed to their offices by the Mosaic Law rather than by an oath.

Heb 7:28, “For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”

Heb 7:20-21 Comments The Oath of the Priesthood – Jesus was made a priest with an oath, but the Levites without an oath.

Heb 7:22  By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Heb 7:22 Comments The word “surety” means “a guarantee.” To the degree Jesus was made a priest by an oath (verse 20), this is the degree that He was guaranteed to provide mankind a better covenant.

Scripture References – Note:

Heb 8:6, “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”

Heb 12:24, “And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”

Heb 7:25 “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him” Comments Jesus is able to save . BDAG says the phrase is found in Luk 13:11 and Heb 7:25 and it can be used in two possible senses, that of completeness or of time. Modern English versions are divided between both senses.

(1) Completeness – As in Luk 13:11, it could mean, “completely, fully, wholly”; thus, “to the uttermost” ( ASV, ESV, KJV, Weymouth), or “completely” ( ISV, NET, NIV), or “fully” ( BBE), or “always” ( GodsWord).

(2) Time This phrase could refer to time and mean, “forever, for all time”; thus, “always” ( NCV), or “once and forever” ( NLT), or “for all time” ( NRSV, RSV), or “now and always” ( GNB), or “forever” ( DRB, CEV, Goodspeed, Murdock), or “(un)to the very end” ( Rotherham, YLT), or “from now to eternity” ( Message).

Note that Luk 13:11 is used in the negative sense of completeness, “And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.”

A similar phrase is used in the New Testament and means, “unto the end, forever.”

“seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” – Comments Jesus feels our pains and sufferings. He is at the right hand of the Father as our great High Priest, interceding for our greatest needs.

Scripture References – Note other references to Jesus’ office as our Great High Priest:

Rom 8:34, “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.”

1Jn 2:1, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:”

Heb 7:25 Comments Our salvation is complete in Christ Jesus, from the day we were saved until the time we go to Heaven. Once we are saved, our salvation is secure in Christ Jesus. If we stumble and fall in sin, it does not make our salvation incomplete or insufficient. He blood paid for our sins, past, present, and future. However, the epistle of Hebrews warns us several times not to willing renounce our faith in Jesus Christ, at which time we walk away from our salvation and eternal life.

Heb 7:26  For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Heb 7:27  Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Heb 7:27 “ as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s” Scripture References – Note references to the Levitical system of offering sacrifices.

Lev 9:7, “And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the LORD commanded.”

Lev 16:6, “And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.”

Lev 16:11, “And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself:”

Lev 16:15, “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:”

Heb 5:3, “And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.”

Heb 9:7, “But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:”

Heb 7:27 Comments Under the old covenant, the work of the Levitical priesthood is never done. No matter how many sacrifices were offered, there were many others left undone by the people. However, Jesus’ sacrificial offering was once and for all, cleansing all sins for all of mankind for all time.

Heb 7:28  For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Heb 7:28 “For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity” Scripture Reference – Note:

Heb 5:1-2, “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.”

Heb 7:28 “but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore” Comments While the Law came during the time of Moses, the oath came during the time of King David and is recorded in Psa 110:4, “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The imperfection of the Levitical priesthood and of the Mosaic system:

v. 11. If, therefore, perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the Law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

v. 12. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law.

v. 13. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

v. 14. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

v. 15. And it is yet far more evident; for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest,

v. 16. who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

v. 17. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

v. 18. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

v. 19. For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Careful and tactful arguing was required at this point, lest the Jewish Christians be offended without need and the attempt to win them to a sound understanding of Christ’s importance fail. But the arguments go forward with inexorable force: If, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, for upon it the people received the Law, what further need would there have been that another priest should arise, and one not named after the order of Aaron? If the Levitical priesthood had actually been able to accomplish what many people insisted it could do, if men through its ministration could have been brought to that state in which they had been considered perfect by a just God, if forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation could have been imparted through the teaching of the Law and the offering of sacrifices, then it would have been foolish to have another priest come. It was true indeed that the children of Israel received their entire legislation on the basis of the Levitical priesthood. All the precepts of the Ceremonial Law, the entire administration of the theocratic form of government, was connected with the priestly service. And yet God ordained and appointed another Priest, who, strange to say, was not called after the order of Aaron, did not belong to the tribe of Levi, but arose after the order of Melchizedek. As the writer intimates, there must have been some important reason why God should make this provision, even during the age of prophecy. For the story of Melchizedek is recorded of a time more than four hundred years before the Law was given on Mount Sinai, and almost five hundred years after the journey through the wilderness David prophesied that another priest would arise after the order of Melchizedek, Psa 110:4.

There is another point to be considered in this connection: For if the priesthood is changed, there is of necessity a change also of the Law. By their acceptance of Jesus as the High Priest of the new dispensation, the Jewish Christians had openly acknowledged a change in the priesthood. It followed, then, that the Law which was bound up with the Old Testament priesthood was also changed or abrogated. This change was necessary, it followed as a logical result. The sacrificial offerings of the Old Testament could not, in themselves, reconcile God to man. Only He in whom all the types and prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled could bring about this perfect condition.

This enormous and epochal change was taking place in accordance with the prophecy of old: For He of whom this is said belongs to a different tribe, of which no one ever attended at the altar; for it is evident that out of Judah our Lord sprang, to which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. The word of David, Psa 110:4, was said with regard to Jesus, the true High Priest, in whom all the types of old are fulfilled. But the Messiah did not belong to the tribe of Levi; He did not belong to those to whom God had entrusted the ministry of the altar. He became rather, by His incarnation, a member of a different tribe, of the tribe of Judah, as was well known, Gen 49:8-10. This was the tribe and family from which the Savior, our great High Priest, sprang, a tribe to which Moses had said nothing about priests, giving them no intimation that any priest would ever be taken out of their midst. The fact, then, that Jesus has proved Himself to be the great High Priest, and has been accepted as such, shows that the Levitical priesthood and the entire Mosaic system have been abrogated.

That a change has been inaugurated and is in force follows from still another fact: And still more abundantly is it evident, if according to the likeness of Melchizedek another priest arises, who has become such not after the law of an ordinance of the flesh, but according to the power of an indissoluble life. By the prophecy of God a new and wonderful Priest was to make His appearance, who was to enter upon His office, not according to ordinances which concerned external, temporal matters, such as the pedigree and the physical condition of the body, Lev 21:16-23, but one according to the likeness of Melchizedek, of whom the same things might be said, who entered upon His office according to the power of the indissoluble, endless life, according to the singular power of the eternal and unchangeable divine life which was transmitted also to His human nature. Even death could not dissolve and take away the power of this divine life; for He conquered death and brought back eternal life out of death. That which enabled the Son of God to be Messianic King and High Priest of men is His rank as Son, but as the Son who truly took into His divine person the weakness of the human flesh and blood and became the Redeemer according to both natures. All this is included when God testifies, Thou art a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Incidentally the point is here emphasized that Christ’s redeemership did not come to an end, but that it is perennially new and exists in full power for the comfort of all sinners.

Through this installation of Christ into His office the change referred to above has been brought about: For a disannulment took place of the previous commandment on account of its weakness and uselessness; for the Law perfected nothing, but the introduction of a better hope did, through which we draw near to God. By the incarnation of Christ in the fullness of time, by His entering upon the work of His office, especially as our great High Priest, the previous, the Old Testament commandment, which had established and upheld the Levitical priesthood, was abrogated and disannulled, being set aside in favor of, and superseded by, the order of salvation in which Jesus Christ is the center. This had to come about on account of weakness and uselessness of the Old Testament priesthood, which failed utterly in bringing men back into the right relation to God. The Law revealed the holy will of God; it taught ceremonies, rudiments; it hinted, it foreshadowed, it presented types; but it brought nothing to perfection, did not effect man’s return into the fellowship of God. This was brought about only by the introduction of the better hope in Christ, of the powerful, comforting hope by which we draw near to God without the fear of eternal damnation, not with confidence in our own works and merits, but with a simple reliance in the perfect atonement and reconciliation gained for us by our great High Priest. There is no longer a need of a Levitical priesthood, of a Mosaic system, there is no need of depending upon an imperfect and useless system of outward forms and ceremonies; for in Christ and His work we have the hope of faith, which is sure to bring us into God’s presence and fellowship.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Heb 7:11. If therefore perfection, &c. But if, or now if perfection had been. The Levitical priesthood was appointed, when the law was given to the Jews. But could perfection have been had by the priesthood appointed under the law, or had that been the design of it, the scriptures would have had no occasion to mention another priest. And yet we find in David’s time, 400 years after the giving of that law, which was received under the Levitical priesthood, mention is made of a priest after the order of Melchisedec, who was to continue for ever. Why should this new priest be mentioned at all? Or why be said to be after the order of Melchisedec? or why not after the order established, if that had been intended to bring men to perfection? The truth is, the priesthood of the law was designed for a particular purpose during the law, and not to give remission of all sins, or to bringmen to perfect happiness. See ch. Heb 9:9 Heb 10:1.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 7:11 . From the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood to the priesthood of Melchisedec, just proved, it followed that the former was imperfect and incapable of leading to perfection. This fact is now presupposed by the author as a self-evident consequence, and he proceeds at once to demonstrate the truth thereof.

] deduces the conclusion from Heb 7:5-10 , not from Heb 6:20 (de Wette, Bisping), whereby an interruption ensues in the continuity of the development begun by the author.

] with the indicative preterite (Heb 4:8 , Heb 8:4 ), supposition of an impossible case: if there were, if there existed ; in combination with : if it were effected .

] perfection, i.e. attainment of the highest goal of mankind in a moral and religious respect. There is included in it the obtaining of the expiation of sins and the glory to come. Comp. Heb 9:9 , Heb 10:1 ; Heb 10:14 , Heb 11:40 .

] for the people on the ground thereof hath received the law . These words can be taken only as a parenthesis (against Stein). signifies to give laws to one , to provide one with a law (here the Mosaic law). The mode of transposing this active construction into the passive is quite the usual one; comp. Winer, Gramm. , 7 Aufl. p. 244 f.

] relates not to (so, upon the supposition of the reading , Vatablus, but undecided; Seb. Schmidt, Starck, Rambach), but to . , however, denotes: upon the ground or condition of the existence of the Levitical priesthood, i.e. the Levitical priesthood is indissolubly conjoined with the Mosaic law which the people has received; it forms a foundation pillar upon which the latter rests, so that with the fall of the one the other also must fall (Heb 7:12 ). Erroneously, because the statement thus arising would be too insignificant, and because in this sense is used only with verba dicendi (comp. Gal 3:16 ; Heindorf, ad Plat. Charm . p. 62; Bernhardy, Syntax , p. 248),

Schlichting and Grotius [as also Whitby]: de sacerdotio Levitico legem accepit [an interpretation already rejected by Junius and Piscator]; as likewise Bleek I.: the people had received legal instruction concerning the Levitical priesthood.

But to what end the parenthesis? Its design is to indicate the ground on which one might expect to attain to the , if the Mosaic law were at all capable of leading thereto, by the intervention of the Levitical priesthood, since the Mosaic law is erected upon this very Levitical priesthood as its basis.

] sc . , or . The words following are not to be blended together into one thought (Faber Stapulensis, Luther, Baumgarten, Chr. Fr. Schmid), in such wise that is governed immediately by , and again all the rest ( ) by . The position of the words would then be contorted, and one explicable on no justifying grounds. On the contrary, the infinitive clause depends at once upon the immediately preceding ; and to this first infinitive clause the second forms an epexegetic parallel clause: What need was there still then (or: would there then still have been ) that another priest should arise “after the order of Melchisedec,” and not be called (priest) after the order of Aaron ?

] sc . after the Levitical priesthood had long been instituted, and in general the Mosaic law promulgated.

] in distinction from , brings prominently forward the dissimilarity of his nature and constitution as compared with that of the Levitical priests.

To we have not to supplement the whole idea , but only .

, however, is placed, not as the infinitive might seem to require, because the negation extends to only a part of the clause. , namely, is closely associated with , and forms with the same merely a more precise definition to the which is to be supplied, so that the total expression ( ) presents an opposition to the foregoing total expression .

] namely, Psa 110:4 . That is not to be taken in the sense of eligi (Kuinoel, Stein, al .) is already shown by the , Heb 7:13 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Heb 7:11-17 . The Levitical priesthood in general has, together with the Mosaic law, lost its validity.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

II
The Old Testament itself predicts the abrogation of the Levitical high-priesthood which rests on the basis of the Mosaic law, and the merging of it in the eternal priesthood of the Messiah

Heb 7:11-19

11 If therefore [If indeed now, If to be sure now, , ] perfection were by [=through, ] the Levitical priesthood, (for under it [on the basis of it, ]6 the people [have] received the law,) what further need was there [om. was there] that another [different, ] priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12For the priesthood being changed [transferred, ], there is made [becometh] of necessity a change also of the law. 13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of [from] which no man gave [none hath 14given] attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang [hath sprung] out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood [priests, ].7 15And it is yet far more [is still more abundantly] evident, for that [if, ] after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another [a different, ] priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal8 commandment, but after the power of an endless 17[indestructible] life. For he testified [is testified of, ]9 Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18For there is verily [there becometh indeed, ] a disannulling of the [preceding] commandment going before [om. going before] for the [on account of its] weakness and unprofitableness thereof [om. thereof]; 19For the law made nothing perfect, but [(for the law perfected nothing), and] the bringing in of a better hope did [om. did], by which we draw nigh unto God.

[Heb 7:11. , if to be sure now, if, indeed, therefore, , looking back and linking the proposition in a general way with the preceding; the looking forward, and implying that the writer has in his mind some alternative sentiment to that which immediately follows, and which would naturally be introduced by , but which may be, as here, suppressed. The words , do not affect in the slightest degree the construction or meaning of with its verb. Alford absurdly translates: If again as the nearest English expression to . It could not well be more unfortunately rendered, unless possibly by yea if, by which Alford renders the same combination at Heb 8:4, while the rendering of , Heb 7:18 of Hebrews 7., by for moreover, is equally regardless of the meaning of the particles, and the demands of the context. In the present case the author passes (Heb 7:11) from a consideration of the personal greatness of Melchisedek,a greatness guaranteeing, by implication, the greatness of the priesthood in which his should find its antitypeto the points of superiority of the Melchisedek priesthood of Christ over the Levitical priesthood. , on the basis of it Perf. like , Heb 7:9, have had their legislation, stand recorded as having received the law. , what need any longer; , logical here, not temporal. , a different priest, not merely , another, numerically.

Heb 7:12.,while it is undergoing a change or transfer; not simply being changed=.

Heb 7:13. , upon, in relation to whom., hath participated in, hath shared in (perf. not as Heb 2:14, ); Eng. ver., pertaineth to. , none hath given attendance.

Heb 7:14. , for it is conspicuously evident, hath sprung or risen, not sprang. , concerning priests.

Heb 7:15. , more abundantly still is it evident, , intensive of , and , stronger than the simple comparative of ., if=if it is the case thatand it is; Eng. ver., for that which gives the meaning., there ariseth.

Heb 7:16., hath become, viz, priest; Alford, is appointed; Eng. ver., is made., not exactly as Eng. ver., endless; but not to be dissolved, indissoluble, indestructible.

Heb 7:19. ., for the law brought nothing to perfection, should be in parenthesis, and , a bringing in upon, or in place of, cordinated with as subject of , as shown clearly both by the and , and the much greater clearness and elegance of the construction; there takes place an abrogation on the one handand an introduction thereupon ). Ebr. follows the Eng. ver. in its erroneous construction. Alf. constructs the sentence otherwise correctly, but (misunderstanding apparently a statement of Hart. Pertikel. II. 414) regards as here used elliptically, and pointing to an understood contrast in the permanence of the . just mentioned. It is hardly possible, even with the right construction of the sentence, to regard this as answering to the following ; its connection with the will not allow this. If this had been intended we should have expected the form of the sentence to be . No criticism could be more incorrect. There is not the slightest reason why cannot stand with , and yet be followed by its corresponding , unless it is impossible for a sentence to stand in the relation indicated by to a previous sentence, and yet itself be susceptible of a distribution of its members by and . We have in fact just such a construction at Heb 7:20-21, and it is among the most natural and familiar in the language. And the construction proposed by Alf. as required in case the and here were in contrast, is totally wrong. The order of words which he has given would imply a contrast not between the abrogation of the preceding commandment and the introduction of a better hope, but a contrast between the abrogation of the preceding commandment on the one hand, and of something else on the other. The construction, as it stands, brings out, regularly and elegantly, the required antithesis. It might indeed have stood . , and also in one or two other modes of arrangement; but no change is needed.K.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Heb 7:11. If, indeed, now perfection were, etc. is the genuine Greek construction for a hypothetical proposition which denies the reality of the case supposed.10 The does not refer back to Heb 6:20 (De Wette, Bisping). The in the parenthetical clause refers to the obvious but unexpressed thought that one might be inclined to assume that perfection was brought about through the Levitical priesthood, inasmuch as this stood in reality in organic connection with the Mosaic law. The supposition that the sentiment merely is that the people received legal ordinances regarding the priesthood (Schlicht., Grot., Bl.), is contradicted not merely by the utter superfluousness of such a remark, but chiefly by the fact that it is only with verbs of speaking that with the Gen. stands in such a sense (Bernhady, Synt., p. 248). Many, as Seb. Schmidt, Rambach and others, have even explained it barely of rites and institutions pertaining to the . Clauses denoting necessity are commonly followed by the Inf. with (Hart. Partikellehre II. 125). When, however, the negation refers not to the entire sentence, but, as here, to an individual portion of it, also occurs (Madvig Gr. Synt., 205; Khn., 214, Anm. 2). Luther makes depend on , and all that intervenes depend on . It is more easy and natural to make the two Infinitives, and cordinate with each other, and both dependent on . emphasizes the diversity in kind.

Heb 7:12. For if the priesthood is undergoing a change, etc.The refers not (as with Ln.) to the parenthetical clause, but introduces the first argument in support of the main idea of Heb 7:11, viz., that the appointment of a Melchisedek priest, is incompatible with the assumption of the sufficiency and efficiency of the Levitical priesthood. is neither to be restricted to the law of the priesthood (Bez., Grot., etc.), nor to the ceremonial law (Calv., Lapide, Carpz., etc.). For although it is true that Heb 7:13 merely introduces the proof of the proposition of Heb 7:12, that the change of the law, there asserted as inseparable from the change of the priesthood, appears historically in the fact that the Old Covenant itself predicts the Melchisedek priest as a non-Aaronic and Levitical priest, while Heb 7:14 attaches to this the historical proof of the fulfilment of this prediction in the person of Jesus, and thus far the law spoken of might be the mere law of the priesthood; yet inasmuch as it has been previously stated that the Israelitish people had received their in organic connection with the institution of the priesthood, of course the change of law here referred to can by no means be regarded as a partial one. [Moll then regards Heb 7:13 as still lingering back in the realm of prophecy, and simply asserting that the person of whom the language of the prediction is uttered, viz., thou art a priest, etc., appears in the very fact of the prediction as belonging to another tribe, where none gave attendance at the altar; for if he was a Melchisedek priest, he could not be an Aaronic and Levitical priest, and therefore could not be of the tribe of Levi; and he then regards Heb 7:14 as coming down into the actual historical life of our Lord, and confirming the inference from prophecy by the well known testimony of fact. The main scope of the paragraph, he thinks, is to illustrate the cardinal idea of Heb 7:11, viz., that the institution of the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ is incompatible with the supposition of the competence of the Levitical priesthood to accomplish its intended work of perfection. This is shown, first, by the fact that the Old Testament itself, as shown by the prediction of Psalms 110., contemplated a transfer of the Levitical priesthood to another tribea transfer actually realized in the person of Jesus (1214). Secondly, by the essential difference in the character of the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ (1517)K.]. , Heb 7:14, refers to the words of the Psa 110:4. The Perfects , , , point to the historical facts as now standing completed before the eye. denotes the springing forth from the . =to give ones attention, or devote ones activity to a thing. The reading in Erasmus is a Patristic gloss. The in is not temporal (Pierce), but strengthens the conception of a thing as lying open or conspicuous by the facts, while in like manner emphasizes the reasonings of Heb 7:15.

Heb 7:15. And it is still more abundantly evident, etc.Ebrard entirely erroneously supposes that the thing here asserted to be evident is the fact of our Lords springing from Judah (Heb 7:14). Bisping, following Chrys. and others, supposes it to be the greatness of the difference between the Levitical and the New Testament priesthood. Klee, with Primas., Just., Rambach, etc., supposes it to be the reality of the change of the priesthood. Delitzsch, with J. Cappell. and Bengel, regards it as the inefficiency of the Levitical priesthood; while Bleek, De Wette, Thol., Ln., find in it the statement that the change of the priesthood involves the change of the law. But this statement itself served merely as the first proof of the capital thought contained in Heb 7:11, viz., that the appointment of a Melchisedek priest was incompatible with the efficiency of the Levitical priesthood, and was itself again substantiated by the fact of the actual occurrence of the change. The author now advances to the second proof of the same point, a proof in which is involved alike the insufficiency of the Levitical priesthood, and the greatness of the distinction between the Levitical and the New Testament priesthood. In the previous argument the stress was laid on the circumstance that with the change of the priesthood stood actually and as matter of fact connected a change of the Mosaic law. It is now laid on the intrinsic idea and character of a Melchisedek priest. A Melchisedek priest, as such, is the subject of the clause. Had the author had in mind Jesus personally, he would have personally designated the subject, of which the predicate would then be the priest of a different character. The greater clearness of this proof, however, lies in the fact that His birth from a different Israelitish tribe does not so much constitute the Messiah a as his likeness to Melchisedek. This not merely places him in another of Priests, but gives him a priesthood forever ( ), and such a priesthood can alone work , comp. Heb 7:25.

[The passage Heb 7:11-16 is, as indicated by the great diversity of opinions regarding it, while easy enough to translate, among the most difficult in the Epistle to analyze so as to assure us that we have the precise scope and drift of the author. Some, as Lnemann, regard Heb 7:12, with its ratiocinative , as simply illustrating the parenthetical clause of Heb 7:11, a view which at first glance seems probable. Others, as Bleek, De Wette, Delitzsch, regard it as paving the way for what follows, and laying down the ground why, not, without urgent cause, the priesthood is changed (De Wette), admitting at the same time that the parenthetical clause of Heb 7:11 has an important bearing on the illustration. Moll considers the capital thought which the whole passage is designed to illustrate, to be the incompatibility of the institution of the Melchisedek priesthood, with the idea of the sufficiency and competence of the Levitical priesthood. Equally, perhaps still more diverse, are the views regarding the reference of the , Heb 7:15. Let us follow a little the course of thought. The author passes, at Heb 7:11, from illustrating the personal greatness of Melchisedekinvolving by implication, the superiority of his priesthood to that of Aaron, and a fortiori the superiority of that of which his was but a type, to the Aaronicto the consideration of the relative claims of the two priesthoods themselves, viz., the Levitical priesthood and the Melchisedek priesthood of Christ. The main ideas which he introduces, and which lie in the very nature and relations of the case, are the following: 1. That the Mosaic economy rested for its execution and effectiveness on the Levitical priesthood; the abrogation, therefore, of the latter involves an abrogation of the former. This abrogation he mildly calls a transfer. 2. That this abrogation of the priesthood and of its associated and superincumbent economy is already predicted in the Old Testament, (in the declaration of God, Thou art a priest forever, etc.), and that this prediction is actually realized in the well-known descent of Jesus Christ from the stock of Judaha non-priestly tribe. 3. That the change of priesthood, and of course the superiority of the latter, consists even more in the internal character of the Melchisedek priesthood, as compared with the Levitical, than in the mere external fact of change. 4. That the oath which accompanied the inauguration of the Melchisedek priest marks its superiority. 5. That its superiority is also marked by its singleness, untransferableness, and perpetuity, in all which features it stands contrasted with the Levitical. These are the general ideas from Heb 7:11 to Heb 7:26, and it is only at two or three points, chiefly at Heb 7:12-13; Heb 7:15, that the difficulty is found in tracing the precise thread of connection. Without feeling over confident, I think it as nearly as follows:

If, indeed, now (the now , linking it in a general way with what precedes, the pointing to the suppressed affirmation, contrasted with the supposition as; if, indeed it were, but it is not) perfection were by the Levitical priesthoodand that priesthood was bound to make the law effective, for the legislation of Moses was based upon itthere were no need for another priest to be spoken of in prophecy as about to arise after the order of Melchisedek, and not after the order of Aaron. And that such a change would not take place without urgent cause is evident, for see how far-reaching it is. For when the priesthood is transferred, as in the prediction of the Psalm it is, it carries with it a transfer and an abrogation of the Law. And that such a transfer is made is clear; for he in regard to whom the language of this prediction is uttered, belongs to another tribe, of which none has ministered at the altar;(Delitzsch considers that in this verse (Heb 7:13) the author has already descended from the region of prophecy to that of fulfilment. Moll regards him as still standing on the ground of the prophecy, and simply stating what the prophecy implies regarding the birth and tribal relations of the predicted priest. In favor of Molls view is the indefinite ; in favor of that of Delitzsch are the definite statements with the perfect tense of the verb, which seem to point to actual historical facts. I concur on the whole with Delitzsch; Alford scarcely touches the question).For it is a well-known historical fact, that our Lord hath sprung from Judah, to which tribe appertains no regular priesthood. From this fact now it is evident that that change of priesthood has taken place which brings change of law, viz., the fact that the old priesthood belonged to a particular tribe, and that when it passes to another tribe, of course the Mosaic priesthood is subverted, and therefore the whole structure reared upon it falls to the ground; but it is still more abundantly evident from another fact, viz., the intrinsically different character of this new priesthood, in that this priest arises after the likeness of Melchisedekhaving those properties which this likeness would presupposewho hath been made, etc. From this point the course of thought is easy. I thus do not regard the course of thought as carried out with strict logical precision. The author shows how great consequences depend on the overthrow of the Levitical priesthoodno less consequences than the abrogation of the whole law that rests upon itshows how this transfer is actually made in the person of Jesus, and how still more vital and deep-reaching than the mere transfer, is the change in the intrinsic character of the Melchisedek priesthood itself. Here he has, as it were, drifted into the topic of the superiority of Christs Melchisedek priesthood to the Aaronic, which he then farther illustrates by the matter of the oath, and the singleness and perpetuity of the Melchisedek priest as against the plurality and transitoriness of the Levitical priests.K.].

Heb 7:16. Who has been made not after the law, etc.By here Chrys., Calv., Beng., Bhme, Thol., and others, understand the Mosaic law, whose elements are collectively designated as a fleshly institution. But the expression in antithesis to , requires certainly that we take as at Rom 7:21; Rom 7:23 in the sense of norm. We are not, however, to infer from this that is the special requisition of the Mosaic law regarding the Levitical priesthood (Ln.), and is so designated because it lays stress merely on outward, earthly things, which are liable to destruction, as on lineal descent, etc., and installs only mortal men as priests (Theod., Grot., Bl., De Wette, etc.). Still less may we appeal to the fact that in later Greek the distinction between adj. ending in and is done away (Winer, Thol., etc.). For no New Testament writer could characterize the Mosaic law, whether taken as a whole or in any of its ordinances, as fleshly, inasmuch as they are collectively to be referred back to the will of God, and for this reason Paul expressly emphasizes the spiritual nature alike of the and of the , Rom 7:12; Rom 7:14. Doubtless, indeed, the signification of perishableness, which Beng., Carpz., etc., have found in , is possible for (=made of flesh). Still I should prefer to refer the epithet to the qualities of externality, frailty and impotence, which belong to the nature of the , and which are also at the same time predicated of the ritual and statutory character of the Mosaic law. It is this property of the law which I conceive to be expressed by . To this corresponds the fact that it is not placed in contrast directly with the historic Jesus but with the , which finds its realization in Him, whose characteristic, as shown by Heb 7:18, is drawn from the words of the Psalm. Any reference to the capacity of Christ to impart life to others (as supposed by Cam., Dorsch., Calov, etc.), is not for a moment to be assumed. As previously . was explained by M., so here is explained by . The language then has not reference to the incarnation of Christ the Messiah, but to His appointment as Melchisedek priest in the presence of God, in the completeness and perfection of His personal life. He is also the subject of [so Alf.], which Bleek and others take impersonally. is the of citation as Heb 10:8; Heb 11:18.

Heb 7:18. For there becometh a doing away, etc.The author is showing that the thought expressed in Heb 7:15-16 is contained in the passage of the Psalm. To this passage points the Pres. , which belongs to the two clauses that are separated by the parenthesis. Some interpreters remove the parenthesis, erroneously and make Heb 7:19 an independent sentence, either making a predicate to , and supplying or (Erasm., Calv., Ebr., etc.), or making subject and repeating (as Beza, Grot., E. Ver.). In the former case the meaning would be: but the law is indeed, or was, an introduction to a better hope: in the second case: but the , etc., did bring in perfection. The latter construction would demand the article before . as before , indicating the subject. The former is opposed alike by the fact that the without the corresponding is not=namely, but only=for to be sure, for at least, (Hart. Partik. II., 414), which is here entirely out of place, and that is not=, but denotes the introduction of something either as added to an object already existing, or as a substitute for it. This object is here , whose meaning is determined by the connection, for which reason the absence of the article does not require that the clause be taken as a general one (Schlicht., De Wette), while the use of as substantially equivalent to the Mosaic , would be adverse to it, (Primas., Chrys., Theod., Calv., Grot., etc.). The thought contained in the parenthesis (so rightly at first constructed by Luther, and erroneously changed in his later version), is weakened by changing the neut. into the masc. , (Chrys., Schlicht., Grot., Carpz., Bisp., etc.).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

From this passage Chr. Ferd. Baur takes occasion (Christianity and the Church of the three first centuries, p. 99), to maintain that our author holds an essentially different position from Paul, saying, To the Apostle Paul Judaism is essentially law, while in the law again appears only its negative relation to Christianity. To the author of the Hebrews, Judaism is essentially a priesthood. The priesthood is with him the primary thing, and the starting point of his entire discussion; the law is but secondary. The latter must regulate itself by the former. It is only when torn from its connection that our passage can be so explained. It points rather to the historically known fact, that the Mosaic law, through which the Israelites in general were constituted a people, and especially a people of God, was given to them with direct reference to, and on condition of the ministry of the priesthood, which, in its establishment and functions, stood indissolubly connected with it. From this, then, could the conclusion be drawn, that the change of so essential an institution as the priesthood would include and draw after it the change of the law itself. If then, farther, as an historical fact it must be acknowledged, that in the Old Testament itself, by the divine word of prophecy, this change of the priesthood is announced as one designed by God, and with certainty to be introduced through the Messiah, there could be drawn the farther conclusion that the whole law and the legal covenant relation in general, has, in the plan of God himself, only a transitory, and as elsewhere indicated, disciplinary significance. The fact was thus demonstrated, that in the establishment of the Law, and of its institutions, God did not promise and pledge within the covenant of the law itself, and within its means of grace, the attainment of the demanded and designed perfection. Rather this perfection must and can be attained by other means of grace, which are in like manner announced by God, and have been already introduced.

2. The Law can, as the verbal expression of the Divine will, only describe perfection; it cannot exhibit it personally. It can further, as the command of God to His people, only demand from them human perfection, but not create it in them. Finally, as the law of the holy God, it cannot overlook the universal lack of perfection, nor leave those whose duty binds them to this perfection, exempt from punishment. It must rather judge the sin everywhere disclosed by it, and, since all men prove themselves to be sinners, can only condemn and not acquit. This is the imperfection and the weaknessthis incapacity to produce perfectionwhich lies in the nature of law as such, and of course also in the law of God; comp. Rom 8:3; Gal 4:9, where Paul calls the law .

3. Should, with this condition of things, a positive covenant relation between God and His people, bound solemnly to the law, be possible, this could only take place by instituting an expiation, upon the foundation of which rests a reconciliation for the forgiveness of sin, and the introduction of the spiritual peace and blessing, which we so deeply need. But since man as a sinner is incapacitated for it, his only hope rests upon the Divine interposition in providing such an expiation.

4. This divinely originated plan is not merely promised by the word of prophecy, but was immediately, by a system of legal arrangements, by the institution of the Levitical priesthood, at once prepared for and prefigured. So far was it from lying within the divine purpose to introduce perfection by this institution, that on the one hand its typical and symbolical character was made clearly manifest, and on the other its transitory nature and import were expressly declared by the direct prediction of a priesthood of another character in the Old Testament itself, where the Messiah is purposely represented not merely as a priest-king, but also as not an Aaronic, but a Melchisedek Priest.

5. It is true that Christ is also the antitype of the high-priest Aaron; yet only in so far as His death on the cross, which wrought an eternal redemption, is compared with the annual expiatory sacrifice, which only the high-priest, after first making expiation for himself, was permitted to offer. But in respect, on the other hand, to the origin and dignity of the Son, who, forever perfected, sits enthroned at the right hand of the Father; in respect to that ministry of intercession and of blessing, which gives perpetual efficacy in heaven to the sacrifice which once for all was offered upon earth,in respect to these He is the counterpart of the Priestly King Melchisedek.

6. In this relation Christ exercises forever His mediatorial function, because in His person He possesses an indestructible life. He is Priest, not in consequence of any commandment, or on the ground of any priestly descent, but in virtue of His personality, which renders Him the bearer of an eternal and untransferable priesthood, on the ground of His offering of Himself on the cross, and in consequence of the position which He assumes as the Risen, eternally living God-man, exalted above all heavens to the throne of God.

7. The origin of Jesus from the tribe of Judah (Rev 5:5), through His descent from the house of David (Act 2:30; Rom 1:3; 2Ti 2:8), which is, on the one hand, like the rising of a star, Num 24:17, or of light from on high, Isa 60:1; Mal. 3:20; Luk 1:78; on the other, like the sprouting branch, Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5; Jer 33:15; Zec 3:8; Zec 6:12, shows that the priesthood of Jesus is not the Levitico-Aaronical, but the Melchisedek priesthood; that thus the change predicted in the Old Testament has already historically taken place, and with this the abrogation of the Mosaic law received its authorized beginning. In this connection the remark of the author that this birth of Jesus from Judah is a perfectly well-known fact, so that he can make of it as of an unquestionable foundation, the most decided use in addressing his readers, is of great historical importance, especially in view of the circumstance that this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.

8. In the old covenant the Levitical priests were the mediators between God and the people; they had the honorable appellation of those who draw near to Jehovah, Num 10:3. Since Christ entered on His office as the only and eternal mediator, the whole people of God have received the appellation of a royal priesthood; a free access to the Father has been opened to all believers, and the realization of a better hope has commenced, which in the Old Testament prophecy came from the Melchisedek priest to the law, and passed over, out of and beyond it.

9. Also the hope of the believers of the Old Covenant was not directed merely to earthly goods, to long life and possession of the promised land, to security from enemies, and to dominion over unbelievers. The hope of a future life was according to Heb 11:10; Heb 11:13-14 by no means wanting to the Patriarchs, and the Messianic hope gave them not only a concrete subject matter of their hope, but led also to better means for perfection than the legal institutions could furnish.

10. The idea of perfection embraces all points and elements in that state of perfectness in which the Divinely appointed goal is reached, to which Christ was led by sufferings (Heb 2:10), and to which man (Heb 10:1) can attain only through this on the ground of the sacrifice of this New Test. high-priest (Heb 10:14). But this state is not with Reuss (Hist. de la Theol. II., 551) to be limited to subjective and moral perfection. It rather has only its beginning in the purification which appertains to the conscience, Heb 9:7; its progress in that drawing near to God (Heb 7:19), in which the outward objective principle of sanctification described in Heb 10:14, now proves itself actually efficacious; and its conclusion in eternal life, primarily in the spirits of just men made perfect, Heb 12:23, then after the resurrection, in their participation in glory, Heb 11:40.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The likeness and unlikeness of Christ to the priests of the law.Wherein consists the strength, and wherein the weakness of the law?The hope, by which we draw near to God, as already foretold in the Old Testament, by means of the old covenant, however, was not to be realized.God changes not His plan, but does change sometimes the means of its accomplishment.The glorious harmony of prophecy and history in the person of Jesus Christ.How do law and Gospel stand related to each other?The hope to which we are called: a. as to its substance; b. as to its foundation; c. as to its nurture.Christ, a priest of a different kind from all other priests whatsoever.Christ at once God and man, Priest and King, subject to the law, and free from its statutory observance.The mutual relation of law and priesthood.

Starke:The Old Testament, as one which in itself was much too weak, must necessarily be changed, and through the New Testament, a better hope be brought in, through the efficacious sacrifice and intercession of Jesus Christ, as the perfect high-priest, who alone gives us salvation. The Levitical Priesthood is fulfilled through the Messianic, and thereby has been done away.The holy and wise God has in His word set forth, for the good of men, the mystery of Christ, in manifold ways, with so many reasons, of which some are at once clearer and more binding than others.What the prophets have predicted of Christ so many hundred years ago, has been in Him so exactly fulfilled. Who sees not also in this, the divinity of the Holy Scriptures?While all believing Christians are permitted to draw near to God in Christ, they are also all spiritual priests, whose dignity and office it is to offer themselves in sacrifice to God, (Rom 12:1; 1Pe 2:5; 1Pe 2:9) as those who are animated with the Spirit of Christ, and adorned with the white priestly garment of righteousness, Isa 61:10.Blessed is he who from time to time draws near in faith to Christ, and in Christ unto God, and makes his whole life nothing else than, as it were, a perpetual going out from himself and the world, and going in unto God, Jam 4:8.He who, while he lives on earth, draws not near to God, in faith and prayer, will not come to God after death, Heb 4:16; Rom 5:1-2.

Hahn:As Priest, Christ assists from within; creates an internal atmosphere, gives freedom and joy. As King, He aids also from without, and removes everything which can hinder the inner life of His people, and brings to naught the assaults of their foes.

Rieger:From the fact that another Priest was to appear, was to be inferred an entire change in the economy of God.

Heubner:The present religion of the Jews is an exceedingly defective Judaism. They admit some of its elements, while what is most important in it, they are utterly unable to carry out.All mysteries, orders, societies, which claim equal or even superior rank to the Church of Christ, are a sin against the high-priestly dignity of Christ.

Stein:Christianity is by so much the more perfect covenant, in that the covenant of God in the Old Testament, merely introduced, prepared for, and prefigured it; in that it then removes imperfections which the former was not able to remove; and finally, in that there are also blessed prospects for the future, which indicate Christianity as the more perfect covenant.

Footnotes:

[6]Heb 7:11.Instead of , read after Sin. A. B. C. D*. E*. 17, 31, 46, ; and instead of the Pluperf. , read after Sin. A. B. C. D*., 17, 47, 73, .

[7]Heb 7:14.Instead of , read after A. B. C*. D*. E., 17, 47, . So also in Sin., excepting that there stood originally after , and has been placed before it by a later hand.

[8]Heb 7:16.Instead of , read with Sin. A. B. C. D*. L., .

[9]Heb 7:17.Instead of , should be read with Sin. A. B. D*. E., 17, 31, .

[10][The has nothing whatever to do with the character of the hypothetical construction. The words simply indicate, the one () its logical relation to that which precedes, and the other () its connection with that which follows. The (all that belongs intrinsically to the construction) is indeed genuine Greek, for the protasis of a hypothetical proposition which denies the reality of the case supposed, but so it is equally for that of one which admits it. All turns upon the character of the apodosis. If the apodosis be an Indicative past with , the proposition denies; if any Ind. tense Without , it admits. Thus , would be; if there were perfection, there would not be need, but there was, or is, not. , would be: if there was perfection there was no needand there was perfection.K].

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

(11) If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (12) For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (13) For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. (14) For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. (15) And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, (16) Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. (17) For he testifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. (18) For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. (19) For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. (20) And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (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:) (22) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. (23) And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: (24) But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

So much having been said of Melchizedec, and his ministry, at typical of Christ, by way of shewing the infinite greatness of Christ’s Person; and the infinite superiority of Christ’s office of Priesthood to all other; the Chapter now takes up the subject, in shewing, the imperfection of the law, and the Priesthood, under that dispensation, to answer the purpose of salvation; and which become, as it was designed, to enhance the dignity of Christ, and to shew the vast importance of his office of Priesthood. Perfection was never intended by the Levitical Priesthood, It was designed, but as a shadow of good things to come. The very nature of its service, carried with it the fullest conviction, that it never could, as pertaining to the conscience, make the comers thereunto perfect. The daily use of it manifested its weakness. And void of an eye to some substance, which it was supposed to prefigure, there could be no one affinity whatever, between the sin of a man, and the blood of a beast. Hence the Apostle saith; the law made nothing perfect. The Sinner, the Levite, the Priest, and the whole service, could none of them derive sanctity, nor communicate sanctity by it. But the whole, being simply an outward sign, or symbol, of some more important act, shadowed forth its own imperfection; the more fully to introduce the substance, to which it referred. And thus, as a preliminary to the Gospel of Christ, became very useful in its way; for while it made nothing perfect, the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh unto God.

And not only the law, but the priests of the law, manifested their insufficiency. No oath either introduced them at the first, or afterwards confirmed them, in their office. But Jesus’s consecration had both. Moreover, the multitude of the daily Priests; and the necessity of their succession, by reason of death, carried together with both, the imperfection of their order. Whereas Christ, in the eternity of his nature; and the perpetual, and unchanging quality of his office; demonstrated the truth of his having been called to it by Him, who sware, and could not repent, when he said to him, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedec, Psa 110:4 .

I must not trespass. But what a multitude of sweet thoughts arise out of this one view of Jesus and the perfection of his Priest-hood, as contrasted to the imperfection of the law, and the poverty, and helplessness of the Levitical priesthood? And again, how is the whole heightened in the recollection, that the very appointment of all before Christ was only shadowy representations; but his the substance, to which they all ministered? And still more as all were but mere shadows, and Christ the one only matter of the whole, his very Priesthood must be engaged to render the whole effectual. Christ had never been made an High Priest, nor introduced with such a world of solemnity, and importance into it, but with the fullest assurance, that all the purposes of his high administration, must be accomplished. So infinitely precious, and so everlastingly made sure, are the ends, for which Christ was made an High Priest; and that not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Ver. 11. If therefore perfection ] i.e. Justification, sanctification, salvation.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

11 25 .] Further proofs of the perfection of Christ’s priesthood , as compared with the Levitical: (Heb 7:11-14 ) in that He sprang from a tribe not recognized as a priestly one by the law, thus setting aside the law : (Heb 7:15-19 ) in that He was constituted priest not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life, thus impugning the former commandment as weak and unprofitable : (Heb 7:20-22 ) in that He was made with an oath, they without one : (Heb 7:23 , Heb 7:24 ) in that they by reason of their transitoriness were many, He, one and unchangeable .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

11 .] If again (this seems the nearest English expression to . It takes up the reasoning, not from the point immediately preceding, but from the main line of argument, of which what has just preceded has been merely a co-ordinate illustration. So that it is not necessary to say here, as some have attempted to do, from what point in the preceding chapters the reasoning is resumed. The main line of thought is again referred to, dependently on the promise of Psa 110:4 , as made to our Lord and verified in Him) perfection (in the widest sense: the bringing of man to his highest state , viz, that of salvation and sanctification: see on Heb 7:19 , . Commentators have too much limited it: Grot. understands perfection of priesthood (“quod in genere sacerdotii perfectissimum est”): Primasius and Beza, moral perfection : Estius, Schlichting, al., perfect remission of sins . But manifestly these two latter are included in the idea, which is a far more extensive one than either) were ( may be rendered either by the imperf. subj. or pluperf. subj. The former, ‘ if perfection were ,’ would imply ‘ it is not :’ the latter, ‘ if perfection had been ,’ would imply, ‘ it was not .’ The difficulty of deciding here arises from the apodosis being given in an elliptic form, viz. in that of a question in which the verb is left out) by means of (could be brought about by the instrumentality of) the Levitical priesthood (on , see note, Heb 7:5 ), for upon it (i. e. : not as, reading , many Commentators, , for the sake of obtaining perfection . Three meanings are legitimate for . 1. Concerning it , it being the objective basis or substratum of the : as in . , Gal 3:16 ; , Joh 6:2 . This is taken by Schlichting, Grot., Bleek. So ‘disserere’ or ‘scribere super se.’ 2. In its time , as , . 3. On its ground , it being the subjective basis or substratum of the : it being presupposed, and the law-giving proceeding on it as ex concesso. This is taken with slight variations, by De Wette, Lnemann, Ebrard, al. And this seems most agreeable to the sense. For (1) would seem hardly to account for the insertion of the parenthesis at all: that the law was enacted concerning the priesthood, would certainly be no reason for here introducing it: still less would the form of the parenthesis thus be accounted for, ., see below: and (2) again, being a mere notice of date, would not account for the occurrence of the parenthesis. But it we consider the priesthood as the basis on which the law was constructed, so that not the priests only, but the people also (cf. the same , , in ch. Heb 9:19 ) were involved in the question of the dignity and finality of the priesthood, then a sufficient reason seems to be gained for inserting the parenthesis: q. d. not only they, but the whole system of which the priesthood was the basis and centre) the people (emphatic: not , but : see above) hath received the law (the verb is common both in classical and Hellenistic Greek. It is used sometimes with a dative of the person, so Xen. Rev 15 , , sometimes with an accus. of the thing, so Xen. Rep. Laced. Heb 7:1 , . The use of the passive hence is obvious: and although not justified by Greek usage, finds a parallel in such expressions as , , &c.: see Winer, 39. 1, edn. 6. The LXX use the word rather differently, for to teach : e. g. Psa 24:8 , , Heb 7:12 , : Ps. 118:33, . The perfect is used, as indicating the fact that the people was still remaining and observing the law), what further need ( was there ) (what need after that , any longer , that being so: so Sext. Empir. cited by Wetst.: , , 😉 that a different priest ( , more than not only another, but of a different kind) should arise (Herod. iii. 66, . See reff. There is no idea in it of suddenness or unexpectedness, as Bhme (not Tholuck in his last edn.)), after the order of Melchisedek, and that he (the priest that should arise) is said to be not after the order of Aaron (there have been various views as to the construction. Some, as Faber Stap., Luther, al., take the whole as one sentence only, thus: . . . . . , . . . ., “ what further need was there for it to be said that another priest should arise, after Melchisedek’s, and not after Aaron’s order? ” But thus we should have expected . to be future (this perhaps is not decisive, but notwithstanding Tholuck’s protest against Bleek, I cannot help still believing it would have been so): besides that the transposition of the infinitives is very harsh (Tholuck tries to justify this by , Demosth. p. 66. But the case is not parallel, inasmuch as there is no ambiguity in it). Besides which, can hardly have any other meaning than that in Heb 7:15 , not = , but implying diversity of nature and order: in which case it cannot be the subject to , which has for its predicate, thus nullifying the . So that we must either take impersonal, ‘ that it is said ,’ or, which is preferable, supply as above, ‘ that he (the coming priest) is said .’ would more naturally be , in a sentence expressing necessity, which of itself involves a judgment, see Hartung, Partikell. ii. 125. But in such cases may stand where the denial is carried in the particle itself, which seems to bring out a negative expression as set over against a positive one: e. g. Aristoph. Eccles. 581, : Thuc. i. 51, . So here the must be closely joined with ., not with : or we must with Bleek suppose that or is to be supplied with )?

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Heb 7:11-14 . The imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, and by implication of the whole Mosaic system, proved by the necessity of having a priest of another order.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Heb 7:11 . . “If then there was [or had been] perfecting by means of the Levitical priesthood for upon it [as a basis] the people have received the law what further need was there [or would have been] that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedek and be styled not after the order of Aaron?” introduces a statement of some of the consequences resulting from the introduction of a priest of another order. It argues the failure of the Levitical priesthood to achieve . “ Perfection is always a relative word. An institution brings perfection when it effects the purpose for which it was instituted, and produces a result that corresponds to the idea of it. The design of a priesthood is to bring men near to God (Heb 7:19 ), and this it effects by removing the obstacle in the way, viz . men’s sin, which lying on their conscience impedes their free access to God; compare Heb 9:9 , Heb 10:1 ; Heb 10:14 ” (Davidson). On the rendering of see Sonnenschein’s Greek Gram. , 355, Obs. 3. , the omitted clause is “and we are justified in demanding perfectness from the priesthood,” because it is the soul of the entire legislation. All the arrangements of the law, the entire administration of the people, involves the priesthood. If there is failure in the priestly service, the whole system breaks down. It was idle to give a law without providing at the same time for the expiation of its breaches. The covenant was at the first entered into by sacrifice, and could only be maintained by a renewal of sacrifice. The priesthood stood out as the essential part of the Jewish economy. to be a used in classics sometimes with dative of person, as in LXX, Exo 24:12 , . Sometimes it is followed by accusative of that which is ordained by law. The use of the passive here is peculiar, cf. also Heb 8:6 . The contained in the word, and expressed separately in Heb 7:12 , is not the bare law contained in commandments, but the whole Mosaic dispensation. , this use of is justified by an instance from Sextus Empiricus quoted by Wetstein: ; , not but another of a different kind. so Act 7:18 , and cf. the transitive use in Act 2:24 ; Act 2:32 ; Act 3:22 ; Act 3:26 ; Act 7:37 . . The negative belongs rather to the description . . . than to the verb and Burton’s rule (481) applies. “When a limitation of an infinitive or of its subject is to be negatived rather than the infinitive itself, the negative is sometimes used instead of .” “be spoken of” or “designated”.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Heb 7:11-22

11Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. 15And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is attested of Him,

“You are a priest forever

According to the order of Melchizedek.”

18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20Inasmuch as it was not without an oath 21(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,

“The Lord has sworn

And will not change His mind,

‘You are a priest forever'”);

22so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Heb 7:11 “if” This is a second class conditional which is called contrary to fact. A false statement is made to make a point. The Levitical priesthood did not bring spiritual perfection or maturity.

“perfection” The Greek family of terms based on telos basically means “to bring to the end,” “to bring to completion,” or “to bring to maturity.” Here it refers to an adequate and effective representative or intercessor.

SPECIAL TOPIC: END OR FULL (TELOS)

“through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law)” This apparently refers to (1) Moses being from the tribe of Levi and being God’s messenger in giving the sacrificial system of Israel or (2) the Levites and priests teaching the law to the people.

Heb 7:12 “a change of law also” The purpose of the Mosaic law was never to produce righteousness, but to show the continuing results of the fall and mankind’s inability to please God (cf. Gal 3:24-25). This is a major truth in trying to figure out God’s purpose for the Mosaic Law.

This phrase in context must refer to the “new covenant.”

Heb 7:13 “from which no one has officiated at the altar” This is a Perfect active indicative, which may imply that the sacrificial system was continuing. If so, Hebrews was written before Titus’ destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

No one outside the tribe of Levi and family of Aaron served as a priest in the OT. This was not the case in the Roman period of the occupation of Palestine (i.e., Annas, Caiphas).

Heb 7:14 “our Lord was descended from Judah” This is another perfect active indicative. The verb “descend” means “sprang from” and is used for

1. the rising of the sun (cf. Mat 5:45)

2. the movement of the planets

3. plant shoots

4. metaphorically, for human descent (cf. Zec 6:12; Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5-6)

Here it refers to Jacob’s prophecies about his sons in Genesis 49 (esp. Gen 49:10).

“Judah” Jesus was from the Davidic royal line of Judah (cf. Gen 49:8-12; 2Sa 7:12-16; Isa 9:6-7). Convincing Jews that Jesus was high priest was so difficult because He was not of the priestly tribe of Levi like Moses and Aaron.

Heb 7:15 “if” This is a first class conditional sentence which is assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes. Another priest has come and is from the line of Melchizedek.

Heb 7:16

NASB”not on the basis of a law of physical requirement”

NKJV”not according to the laws of a fleshly commandment”

NRSV”not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent”

TEV”not by human rules and regulations”

NJB”not in virtue of a law of physical descent”

Jesus’ priestly authority does not rest in what tribe/family He descended from, but from His possession of eternal, indestructible life (i.e., Melchizedek’s parents are not named in Genesis 14 and the word “forever” is used in Psa 104:4). Jesus has the endless life of God (as well as the oath and promise of God).

NASB, NRSV,

NJB”an indestructible life”

NKJV”an endless life”

TEV”a life that has no end”

This seems to be related to the rabbinical exegetical (Midrash) implication from Psa 110:4 b that Melchizedek had no parents and, therefore, was eternal (cf. Heb 7:6; Heb 7:8).

Heb 7:17 “For it is attested of Him” This is a quote from the Septuagint of Psa 110:4 (as is Heb 7:21).

Heb 7:18

NASB”there is a setting aside”

NKJV”there is an annulling”

NRSV”the abrogation”

TEV”is set aside”

NJB”is thus abolished”

This term has been found in the Egyptian papyri in the sense of (1)”to set aside”; (2) “to make null and void”; or (3) “to be paid in full.”

This verse speaks of the setting aside of a commandment (probably the physical lineage of the high priest). It is rather shocking that an inspired OT passage (cf. Mat 5:17-19) can be “set aside,” yet this is exactly Paul’s point in Galatians 3, in respect to the redemptive purpose of the law being set aside. Paul, however, asserts that it was the weakness of fallen man (cf. Romans 7), not the OT. The author of Hebrews is showing the superiority of Jesus over Moses and calls the “Law” weak and useless (cf. Heb 8:13).

“of a former commandment” This refers to the Levitical system or the Old Covenant characterized by the Mosaic legislation.

“because of its weakness and uselessness” Romans 7 and Galatians 3 are helpful in interpreting this phrase. It was not the Law of God, but human fallen nature that was weak and the Law was unable to perform its restorative task!

Heb 7:19 “(for the Law made nothing perfect)” Read Galatians 3 and see Special Topic at Heb 7:11.

“better” See full note at Heb 7:7.

“through which we draw near to God” This is a key concept (cf. Heb 7:25; Heb 4:16; Heb 10:1). The author asserts that the Mosaic Law, with its Levitical priesthood and sacrifices, failed to bring humanity to God, but Jesus, our high priest, did not fail and will not fail (cf. Heb 10:22; Jas 4:7).

Notice that Jesus brings a better covenant, but it is still a covenant to which humans must respond as the priests did (believers are now new covenant priests in a corporate sense, cf. 2Pe 2:5; 2Pe 2:9; Rev 1:6).

Heb 7:20 “it was not without an oath” God’s promises can be trusted because His character and power stand behind them (cf. Isa 46:10). This oath is a reference to Psa 110:4, which is discussed in Heb 6:13-17.

Heb 7:21 This is another quote from the Septuagint of Psa 110:4 (as is Heb 7:17).

Heb 7:22

NASB, NRSV,

TEV, NJB”the guarantee”

NKJV, ASV”the surety”

The Hebrew background is “a pledge put in the hand,” which implies surety. It came to be used in Greek for collateral on a loan or a jail bond. Also, in Roman law it stood for that which was legally secured. Jesus is the Father’s surety of the effectiveness of the new covenant.

“a better covenant” Jer 31:31-34 speaks of this “new covenant” (cf. Eze 36:22-36) where the focus is an internal law motivated and produced by the Spirit, not an external code which relies on human performance.

For “better” see full note at Heb 7:7.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

If. App-118.

perfection Greek. teleiosis. Only here and Luk 1:45 (performance). Compare App-125.

Levitical. Only here.

priesthood. Greek. hierosune. Only here and Heb 7:12, Heb 7:14, Heb 7:24.

under = upon (as a basis). Greek. epi App-104., but the texts read ix. 1.

received the law = were furnished with law. Greek. nomotheteo. Only here and Heb 8:6 (established)

another. Greek. heteros. App-124.

rise. Greek. anistemi. App-178.

after. Greek. kata. App-104.

order. See Heb 5:6.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

11-25.] Further proofs of the perfection of Christs priesthood, as compared with the Levitical: (heb 7:11-14) in that He sprang from a tribe not recognized as a priestly one by the law, thus setting aside the law: (heb 7:15-19) in that He was constituted priest not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life, thus impugning the former commandment as weak and unprofitable: (heb 7:20-22) in that He was made with an oath, they without one: (heb 7:23, 24) in that they by reason of their transitoriness were many, He, one and unchangeable.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Heb 7:11. , if then) Now, the apostle, by referring to the 110th Psalm, shows that the Levitical priesthood yields to the priesthood of Jesus Christ: because Melchisedec, according to whose order and likeness Jesus Christ is a priest, (1.) is opposed to Aaron, Heb 7:11-14; (2.) has no end of life, Heb 7:15-19.-, perfection) The LXX. put this word for the Hebrew , Exo 29:22, etc.; Lev 7:37; Lev 8:22; Lev 8:28-29; Lev 8:31; Lev 8:33, where the writer is treating of Levitical perfection; but here , absolute perfection, is intended: comp. Heb 7:19. The article is not added, and therefore Paul increases the force of the negative expression.-) if-were. So , ch. Heb 8:7.- , for the people) The conjunction put after the noun, as in Heb 7:28, intimates that the noun people is here emphatic the whole people of GOD. It at the same time shows why any one might perhaps ascribe perfection to the Levitical priesthood, and why it is necessary that that opinion should be confuted: comp. , for, which is likewise subjoined to the word , if, ch. Heb 8:7-8.- , under, or in connection with it) Under the Levitical priesthood. with the dative, on, upon, concerning, in the case of, etc., often denotes the object, and that too having the force either of cause or effect, ch. Heb 8:1; Heb 8:6, Heb 9:10; Heb 9:17, Heb 11:4.-, had received the law) The Pluperfect, because a time intervened before the 110th Psalm was given. As is , the law, Heb 7:12, so the LXX. translate the verb , to instruct any one: Psa 25:8; Psa 27:11; Psa 119:33; Psa 119:102. The people were only instructed about the Levitical priesthood, with which the whole law is occupied, and speaks of no other priesthood, Heb 7:5; but the 110th Psalm introduces a different system of instruction, namely, because God has changed the priesthood.- , what any longer now) This now any longer is very urgent.-, necessity) for GOD does nothing in vain.-, another) Comp. the epithets, new, second, ch. Heb 8:13, Heb 10:9.-) should arise anew, Heb 7:15. The antithesis is , should be called, according to the old form of instruction.-, should not be called) in the psalm, at the time of which Aaron, i.e. the order of Aaron, flourished.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Heb 7:11-19

THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD AND THE

LAW OF MOSES BOTH ABROGATED ON

ACCOUNT OF THEIR INSUFFICIENCY;

AND A BETTER GROUND OF HOPE

BROUGHT IN THROUGH THE

PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST

Heb 7:11-19

Heb 7:11 —If therefore perfection, etc.-The Greek word for perfection (teleiosis) means properly completion, consummation, perfection. It may therefore be used to denote the end or consummation of any scheme, plan, or purpose. But here, it evidently means the full consummation of Gods benevolent designs and purposes in reference to the redemption of mankind; including of course pardon, justification, sanctification, and whatever else is necessary in order to our enjoyment of full and perfect blessedness. All this, the Jews were wont to believe, would be finally secured to the seed of Abraham through the Levitical priesthood and the other provisions of the Old Covenant. And hence it was, that rejecting Gods plan of justification by grace through faith in Christ, they went about to establish their own righteousness by the works of the Law. (Rom 10:3.) To those who were in danger of being misled by this delusion, the Apostle here addresses himself. If, he says, perfection were attainable through the Levitical priesthood, then whence the necessity that another priest should arise of a wholly different order? If Gods honor could be promoted and mans salvation secured through the services of Aaron and his successors, then why did God say by David that he would raise up another Priest after the order of Melchisedec? Manifestly, this implies that there was imperfection in the Levitical priesthood: for otherwise, God would certainly not have abolished it, and established another. He never would have required that the blood of his own dear Son should be shed and offered for the sins of the world, if these sins could have been expiated by means of the Levitical offerings. So Paul reasons very forcibly in his letter to the Galatians. If, he says, there had been a law given which could have given life, then verily righteousness would have been by law. (Gal 3:21.) God would never have set aside the Law and introduced the Gospel, as a means of justification, had the Law been adequate to save men from their sins. But now the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22.)

Heb 7:11 —for under it the people received the law.-(ho laos gar epi antes nenomothetetai), for upon it the people have received the law. The idea is that the priesthood was, so to speak, the basis of the whole Mosaic economy. It was the main object with reference to which the law was given, and consequently it was also the ground on which the law properly rested. Had no priesthood been contemplated, then indeed no law would have been given. But as a priesthood was necessary in order to the accomplishment of Gods benevolent purposes, then it followed that the law was also necessary, not only to prescribe and regulate the several functions of the priesthood, but also to serve as a civil code, to convict men of sin, to restrain idolatry, and to support in various ways the worship of the true God, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. (Gal 3:19.) It is obvious, therefore, that the object of the Apostle in introducing this parenthetical clause, was simply to keep prominent before his readers the fundamental bearings of the Levitical priesthood; to remind them that it was in fact the foundation of the Old Economy, and that the whole law of Moses stood or fell with it.

Heb 7:12 —For the priesthood being changed, etc.-This clearly follows from the premises submitted. Concede that the priesthood was the basis of the law, the ground on which it rested; and then it follows of necessity that any change in the priesthood must have an effect also on the whole law. Take away the foundation, and the superstructure must fall to the ground. Remove from any system that which is central and fundamental, and then all that depends on it falls at once for want of the necessary support. The abrogation of the Levitical priesthood was therefore not a matter of small moment. God would never have effected a change involving such consequences, for light and unimportant reasons. But this very change he has effected as our author now proceeds to show.

Heb 7:13 —For he of whom these things are spoken-The Apostle assumes here what was doubtless conceded by all his readers, and of which he has, in fact, already spoken with sufficient fullness (see notes on Heb 5:5-6), that Christ has been made a priest by the decree of him who said to him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. But this, our author insists, implies of necessity a transfer of the priesthood; and by consequence, the abrogation of the whole law. For it is evident, he says, that our Lord has sprung up as a branch out of the house of David (Jer 23:5), and from the tribe of Judah. But according to the law of Moses, none but those of the house of Aaron were allowed to minister at the altar. (Num. 16:1 to 18: 7.) (See Num 18:7) And consequently it follows that in the decree given in Psa 110:4, God contemplated a transfer of the priesthood, and also the abolition of the whole Sinaitic Covenant.

Heb 7:14 —For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah;-This is evident from the given references: see particularly the genealogies of Christ as recorded by Matthew and Luke. In the word sprang (anatetalken), there is a beautiful allusion to the springing up of plants, as in Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5 Jer 33:15; and Zec 6:12. Or it may be, as some have alleged, that the Apostle draws his imagery from the rising of the sun, as does the prophet Malachi (Mai. 4: 2) ; or from the rising of a star, as Balaam does in Num 24:17. But as he has here in view the genealogy of Christ, it is more natural to suppose that, in harmony with Hebrew usage, he refers to Christs springing up as a branch from the roots of Jesse.

Heb 7:15 —And it is yet far more evident:-What is far more evident? In reply to this, it is alleged (1) that it is the distinction between the Levitical priesthood and that of the New Testament (Chrysostom) ; (2) that it is the fact that our Lord sprang out of Judah (Ebrard) ; (3) that the law of Moses is abrogated (Alford) ; (4) that perfection was not attainable through the Levitical priesthood (Delitzsch) ; and (5) that a change of the priesthood involves of necessity a change also of the law (Tholuck). The passage is confessedly a very difficult one, and where there is so great a diversity of views even among the ablest critics, it becomes us to be cautious and modest in giving our own judgment. I fully agree with Alford, however, in this, that the view of Ebrard is wholly inadmissible, and that his whole commentary on this verse is one of those curiosities of exegesis which unhappily abound in his otherwise valuable commentary. But it seems to me that the more judicious Alford has also failed to perceive the exact point of the argument. The abolition of the law is indeed a necessary consequence of what is here uppermost in the mind of the Apostle, but it is certainly not the main thought which he here endeavors to set forth and support by a twofold argument. This, according to my understanding of the passage, is the fact, not merely that the Levitical priesthood was insufficient; but more particularly that, in consequence of this, there had been made such a change in the priesthood as in effect to abolish both the Levitical order of priesthood, and also the law which was given in reference to it. This the Apostle proves (1) from the fact that Christ, though of the tribe of Judah, is now a priest, contrary to the provisions of the law (Num 16:40 Num 17:1-9) ; and (2) from the fact that, according to the decree of Jehovah Christs priesthood is of a wholly different order from that of the house of Aaron. This it is which makes the aforesaid change so very obvious. True, indeed, the transfer of sacerdotal functions from the tribe of Levi to the tribe of Judah, is very strong evidence of such a change, but not so strong as that which we gather from the transfer which was made according to the oath of Jehovah, from the order of Levi to that of Melchisedec. This thought our author now proceeds to develop more fully in the following verse.

Heb 7:16 —Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment,-The Levitical priests were all so constituted. Their appointment was made, not on account of any superior excellence on their part, but solely on the ground of carnal descent. It was made, therefore, as Paul says, according to the law of a carnal commandment, but Christ received his appointment according to the power of an endless life. These two clauses are placed in contrast with each other, and they will therefore be best understood by comparing together the several antithetical words of which they are composed. Thus we find that law is opposed to power; carnal, to endless; and commandment to life. By the word law (nomos) in this connection, some understand the whole law of Moses (Chrysostom, Calvin, Bengel, Tholuck) ; but others, with more propriety, understand by it simply the rule of priestly succession as prescribed by the carnal commandment. This is the view of Alford, T. S. Green, Moll, and others. In either case it had reference only to outward and perishable forms, and it was therefore wholly destitute of the internal power which commended Christ to the Father, and on the ground of which he received his appointment from the Father, as the high priest of our confession. The Levitical priests had all the form of godliness, but many of them were wholly destitute of its power. But in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Col 2:9.) And hence he is able to save, even to the uttermost, all who come to God by him. The word carnal (sarkinos) may have reference (1) to anything composed of flesh; (2) to anything relating to the flesh; and (3) to whatever has the properties, characteristics, or accidents of the flesh, such as frailty, weakness, corruptibility, etc. As it is here used in contrast with endless or imperishable (akatalutou) it seems to indicate externality, frailty, or perishableness. The idea is that the commandment was outward and perishable, liable at any time to be changed or abrogated, but the life of Christ is inherent and imperishable. It is this intrinsic difference between the two orders of priesthood which makes them so very distinct from one another, and which, therefore, serves to make the aforesaid change so very obvious.

Heb 7:17 —For he testifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.-Or rather, Thou shall be a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. The verb is not expressed in either the Hebrew or the Greek, but the historical circumstances clearly indicate that the decree of Jehovah, as given in Psa 110:4, has reference to the future. Christ was not a high priest in the time of David, nor could he become a priest after the order of Melchisedec until after his death, burial, and resurrection. For if we draw a picture of the priesthood of Melchisedec, we see in it no beginning, no ending, no interruption by death or anything else. Nothing, in fact, appears in it but life-continued and uninterrupted life, crowned with royal and sacerdotal honors. And just so it must ever be with every correct representation of the priesthood of Christ. It must, in these respects, resemble the priesthood of Melchisedec, for they are of the same order, and are therefore similar in these essential points. That Christ acted, in some respects, both as a king and a priest while he was on earth we may readily grant. But such acts were only preparatory, and therefore extraordinary. His royal entrance into Jerusalem, for instance, and his giving himself up voluntarily to death, were but a shadow of what was to follow. The fact is, that the precise time when he was fully invested with the royal and sacerdotal honors and prerogatives of the new dispensation, is not known to mortals. The first manifestation of this was given on the day of Pentecost, just fifty days after his resurrection. But then he appeared, as Melchisedec appeared to Abraham, in all his royal and sacerdotal dignity, to bless all who would acknowledge his authority as the priest of the Most High God. And just so he ever lives, and reigns, and intercedes for his people. For like Melchisedec, he had no predecessor, and like him he will have no successor. As he is the only begotten Son of the Father, so also he is now the only king and high priest that is appointed by the Father; and as such he will sit as a priest upon his throne until the purposes of God in reference to the redemption of mankind shall have been fully accomplished. Then, and not till then, will he deliver up both the kingdom and the priesthood to the Father. But that epoch, like the beginning of his administration, is concealed from the eyes of mortals. In the representation of his priesthood, therefore, as given by the Holy Spirit, there is neither beginning nor ending. Like Melchisedec, he abides a priest perpetually. See note on Heb 7:27.

Heb 7:18 —For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment-In this verse and the next following, we have the argument of the paragraph amplified and brought out to its legitimate results. In the twelfth verse, the Apostle speaks simply of a change or transfer (metathesis) of the priesthood and the law. But that change, as he now proceeds to show, results of necessity in a complete abrogation (athetesis) or setting aside of the commandment relating to the priesthood, and also of the whole law, in order to make way for the bringing in of a better ground of hope, through the Gospel of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The construction of the sentence is well given, and the main thought happily expressed by Delitzsch as follows: For while there taketh place, on the one hand, a disannulling of the foregoing commandment, because of its weakness and insufficiency (for the law had perfected nothing), there is, on the other hand, a bringing in, over and above, of a better hope, through which we draw nigh to God.

Heb 7:19 —For the law made nothing perfect,-This parenthetical clause is thrown in here for the purpose of explaining on what account the law was abrogated. It was an introductory arrangement, and had not the power to bring anything to perfection. Had it been sufficient to meet and accomplish Gods benevolent designs in reference to the justification, sanctification, and redemption of mankind, then indeed, as our author very clearly intimates in the eleventh verse of this chapter, and also in Gal 3:21, perfection would have been by the law. In that event, Christ would never have died for the salvation of the world (Gal 2:21), and the New Economy would never have been inaugurated. But the fact is, as here stated, that owing to the weakness and imperfection of the flesh (Rom 8:3) the law perfected nothing. And hence when God had accomplished his benevolent designs in giving it to the Israelites, he then took it out of the way, and gave the Gospel to the world as the only efficient means of purifying our consciences from dead works, and fitting us for his service here, and for the enjoyment of his presence hereafter. (Heb 9:14.)

Heb 7:19 —but the bringing in of a better hope did;-This is an erroneous construction, and serves to mislead the reader. The idea which the Apostle wishes to convey to his readers is simply this: that, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of the Old Economy on account of its weakness and insufficiency; and on the other hand, there is the bringing in of the New Economy, by which we may all now, as priests, draw nigh to God and worship him in spirit and in truth. So Alford, Green, and others, rightly construe this passage, and this rendering is sustained by such other passages as Rom 5:1-2; Heb 10:19-22, and 1Pe 2:5.

Commentary on Heb 7:11-19 by Donald E. Boatman

Heb 7:11 –Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood

Gods full benevolent and saving purpose was not in it. Frail, sinful man, acting as priests, could not be perfect. The Greek word for perfection means properly completed, consummated.

Heb 7:11 –for under it hath the people received the law

This is to say that the law was annexed to the priesthood. It was to show that the priesthood was foundational.

a. With it the law stood or fell.

b. The law then was no ultimate end at which we ought to stop.

c. When the priesthood was changed, naturally the law would go with it.

Heb 7:11 –what further need was there that another Priest arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

If the old system could bring perfection, then why did God Speak through David of a change? Cf. Psa 110:4. The blood of Jesus, not after the order of Aaron, would not have been required if perfection could be gained otherwise.

Heb 7:12 –for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law

The Seventh Day Adventists cannot escape this.

a. Gal 3:21 : If there had been a law given which could have given life, then verily righteousness would have been of law.

b. Gal 3:23-29.

c. Col 2:14 states that the law was nailed to the cross.

d. We are not obligated under law to tithe, but we are under love to do more.

1. The law of the tithe is changed, for that is the portion of the law he has dealt with in the tithe.

2. We cannot worship with a tithe, which is already Gods, only as we sacrifice beyond the tithe.

Heb 7:13 –For He of whom these things are said

Psa 110:4 : Jehovah hath sworn and will not repent. Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek. All of this discussion is centered upon Christ.

Heb 7:13 –belongeth to another tribe

Jesus came from the house of David, of the tribe of Judah. Jer 23:5 is the prophecy: Behold the days cometh, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch and he shall reign as King and deal wisely. This shows the completeness of the change. The tribe of Judah was not allowed in the Old Testament to fill the priestly office.

a. 2Ch 26:19 : King Uzziah of the tribe of Judah tried it, and became leprous.

Heb 7:13 –from which no man hath given attendance at the altar

The tribe of Judah could not serve at the altar. Christ is a priest contrary to the law.

Heb 7:14 –For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah, as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests

It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah refers to the genealogies and prophecies. Which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests indicates the silence.

Heb 7:15 –And what we say is yet more abundantly evident

The argument of silence, he says, is not all of the matter. The author is interested in giving unanswerable argument, and such is found only in the scriptures.

Heb 7:15 –if after the likeness of Melchisedek there ariseth another priest

How was Melchizedeks and Christs priesthood different from the Levitical?

a. The Levitical Priesthood

Many priests

Yearly, repeated sacrifices

Sinful

Final death

b. Christs priesthood

One priest

Once

Sinless

c. The likeness is in the character of the office.

Heb 7:16 –Who hath been made

The Levites were made priests, not because of superiority, but by carnal descent. Priests were made, appointed, and no one could take the office upon himself.

Heb 7:16 –not after the law of a carnal commandment

a. Law was added as a temporary thing.

b. Law was given because of their hardness.

1. Mat 19:8.

2. Mar 10:5.

c. Carnality is used here to suggest temporariness.

Heb 7:16 –but after the power of an endless life

Christ is greater than the Levitical priests.

a. Those priests had no power, but our Priest does. Mat 28:18.

b. Those priests were not kings, but Christ is.

c. Those priests did not have full sympathy, but Christ is touched with our infirmities. Heb 4:15.

Newell says: Endlessness is not the best word here, for it is the undying character of the risen Lord that is meant rather than its mere endlessness.

Heb 7:17 –For it is witnessed of Him, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek

It is witnessed of Him refers to a testimony.

a. Also translated it is testified. See Psa 110:4.

b. The scriptures are the best interpreters of the scriptures. This ought to settle the question with the Jew, for David spoke of it.

Heb 7:18 –for there is a disannulling

The old covenant is done away. It was for the children of Israel only.

a. Lev 27:34; These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel on Mount Sinai. Disannulling is the Greek athetcsis-the same word as in Heb 9:26 where we have putting away sin, The disappearance is thorough.

The disannulling is discussed in several books of the New Testament:

a. Rom 6:14.

b. Rom 7:4-6.

c Col 2:14.

d. Eph 2:15.

Heb 7:18 –of a foregoing commandment

This refers to the old covenant. The inferiority of the old foregoing commandments is evident.

a. They were never given to the entire human race.

b. The law was given to Israel-to no other. Psa 147:19-20.

c. The object was to reveal sin, not to save.

d. Its principle was law; the new law is love.

Heb 7:18 –because of its weakness

It could not make alive. 1Co 15:22 : In Christ all are made alive, It could not take away sin.

a. Heb 10:4 : For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

b. Only one life could show the real love of God.

1. Not of cattle.

2. Not of angels.

3. Not of men, but Christs life.

c. Christs blood is able to take away sins, where other blood was unable to do so.

d. Rom 3:25 : Once for all. Cp. Heb 9:28.

e. Gal 3:21 : If there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law.

Heb 7:18 –and unprofitableness

Does this disagree with Gal 3:24?

a. It brought us to that which is profitable.

b. It was unprofitable in its ability to take away sin.

c. It must mean that within itself it was unprofitable.

Heb 7:19 –for the law made nothing perfect

It was not sufficient to meet and accomplish Gods purpose.

a. Gal 3:21 : Is the law against the promises of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law.

b. Rom 8:3 : For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His Own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

Milligan argues that Owing to the weakness and imperfection of the flesh (Rom 8:3) the law perfected nothing.

Heb 7:19 –and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope

All can see the superior hope of the Christian as seen in the power of Christ.

a. Rom 8:11 : But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwelleth in you, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through His Spirit that dwelleth in you.

The wise person should always take the better when it is offered.

Heb 7:19 –through which we draw nigh unto God

It is Christ, Joh 14:6, the Way, our Hope, which brings us nigh unto God. We may define our Hope in particulars, such as new body, new home, etc., but the fact remains that Christ is our Hope.

Study Questions

1177. Does Heb 7:11 indicate that the law that contained the Levitical priesthood was not adequate?

1178. In what way did it lack perfection?

1179. What is actually meant by the word perfect here?

1180. Does this verse say that the law was affixed to an already existing priesthood?

1181. Who did Jacob and his sons pay tithes to?

1182. Jacob vowed to tithe. Who received it?

1183. The inability of the law called for what?

1184. Why couldnt it have been that God would improve the Aaronic priesthood instead of reckoning it after Melchizedek?

1185. When God changed priesthoods, what else did he also change?

1186. What does this do to the Seventh Day Adventist doctrine?

1187. Why did the law have to be changed? Cf. Gal 3:21.

1188. What does this verse do to the law of tithe?

1189. Are we obligated more since we are under a greater priesthood?

1190. Can it be said that Jesus is a Priest contrary to the law of Moses?

1191. Is this an argument from silence-nothing said, nothing condemned?

1192. Of what tribe did Jesus come?

1193. What is the evidence?

1194. What did Moses have to say?

1195. What did the prophets say?

1196. If Christ had been of the tribe of Levi, would it have been as complete a change?

1197. What happened to King Uzziah of Judah when he tried to act as priest? Cf. 2Ch 26:19.

1198. Is the author through arguing the case according to Heb 7:15?

1199. What is the more abundant argument? Is all of it found in Heb 7:15?

1200. Name the differences in Christs priesthood and the Levitical one.

1201. How is Christs like that of Melchizedek?

1202. How were the Levitical priests chosen?

1203. Was it because of superiority over the other tribes?

1204. What is meant by, carnal commandment?

1205. Why was the law given at all? Cf. Mat 19:8 and Mar 10:5.

1206. Whose endless life is referred to here?

1207. Could it be said that Melchizedeks endless life had power?

1208. What is meant by endless life?

1209. Is the word after a period of time?

1210. Describe the power that Christ had that these priests did not have.

1211. A witness is referred to here. What is witnessed? Heb 7:17.

1212. What is the witness? Could it be Psa 110:4?

1213. What word could be used in place of witness?

1214. Define the word disannulling.

1215. Was the law a universal law? Cf. Psa 147:19-20; Lev 27:34.

1216. If it was for the Jews only, how much was there a need for a universal law?

1217. Compare the disannulling expression with Rom 6:14; Rom 7:4-6; Col 2:14; Eph 2:15.

1218. What does the foregoing commandment refer to?

1219. If there were ten, why is it singular here?

1220. In what ways was the earlier commandment inferior to Christs covenant?

1221. In what way was it weak?

1222. Could it make man alive? Cf. 1Co 15:22.

1223. Could it take away sin? Cf. Heb 10:4.

1224. Could anything less than Christ demonstrate so great a love?

1225. Was the law of no value when he says that it was unprofitable?

1226. Gal 3:24 says something was a tutor. What was it?

1227. In what realm was the law unprofitable?

1228. He says that the law made nothing perfect?. Is this the fault of the law or of the men to whom it was directed? Cf. Rom 8:3; Gal 3:21.

1229. Was there ever a perfect person under the law?

1230. What brought in a better hope-the law?

1231. Was it the law of Moses, or the new priestly system?

1232. Why do you think so?

1233. Read the 18th and 19th verses as one sentence to give the true exegesis.

1234. Should we not always take the better of two ways?

1235. Name the ways in which our better hope works.

1236. What is it in this verse that helps us to draw nigh unto God?

1237. Is he saying that Christ is our Hope, and it is through Him that we draw nigh unto God?

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

In this verse, after so long a preparation and introduction, whereby he cleared his way from objections and secured his future building, the apostle enters on his principal argument concerning the priesthood of Christ, and all the consequences of it, with respect unto righteousness, salvation, and the worship of God, which depend thereon. This being his main design, he would not engage into it before he had in every respect declared and vindicated the dignity and glory of the person of Christ as vested with his blessed offices. And from hence unto the didactical part of the epistle, he proceeds in a retrograde order unto what he had before insisted on. For whereas he had first declared the glory of the person of Christ in his kingly office, Hebrews 1; then in his prophetical, Hebrews 2, 3; having now entered on his sacerdotal, he goes on to enlarge upon this last function, then he returns unto his prophetical, and shuts up the whole with a renewed mention of his kingly power, as we shall see in their order and proper places.

Heb 7:11. ( ) , , ;

. Syr., , consummatio, perfectio; a sacred perfection, or completeness of state and condition.

. Syr., , by the hand of the priesthood of Levi himself; because Levi himself received not the priesthood in his own person, but his posterity. Tremellius renders it Levitarum, the priesthood of Levites. The original leaves no scruple, by the Levitical priesthood, the priesthood that was confined to the house, family, tribe, and posterity of Levi.

(Ms.,; , corruptly). Nam sub hoc populo sancita est lex, Beza; for under it the law was established to the people. Sub ipso populus legem accepit, aceeperat Syr., by whom (or whereby) the law was imposed upon the people. If , by whom, relate unto Levi, the sense is mistaken;and much more by the Arabic, which takes the law only for the law of the sacerdotal office, from which it is plainly distinguished. The Ethiopic reads the whole verse to this purpose, And the people did according to the law of the priesthood which was appointed; what need was there, therefore, that he should give another priest, whose appointment one should say was according to Melchisedec? which argues the great unskilfulness of that interpreter.

, quid adhuc, quid amplius opus erat, esset; necessarium fuit; what need was there yet, or moreover. Syr., wherefore; ad quid, to what purpose.

oriri; Beza, exoriri; Vulg. Lat., surgere. Syr., , should arise. Oriri, properly. . Syr., , after the likeness of Melchisedec; secundum ordmem.

in or , et non secundum ordinem Aaron dick Syr., ; which is rendered in the translation in the Polyglot, sed dixit, but he said, it shall be (or he shall be) in the likeness of Aaron: Dixisset autem, which, regulated by the precedent interrogation, gives us the true sense of the place: Suppose there must another priest arise, yet if perfection had been by the Levitical priesthood, he would have said that he should be of the order of Aaron. [4]

[4] VARIOUS READINGS. Lachmann and Tisehendorf adopt as the text, , on the authority of such manuscripts as A B C D. TRANSLATION. . Under it; the rendering of our version would convey the impression that the law was prescribed during the time of the priesthood, whereas part of the law was in existence antecedently to the institution of the priesthood; and if be the preferable reading, such a translation would be untenable for grammatical reasons. It is accordingly differently rendered by various critics; by Craik, In dependence upon it; by Ebrard, Upon the basis of it; and by Turner, In connection with it. The last remarks, Inasmuch as the author proceeds to show that the predicted abrogation of the priesthood, in the announcement of another like Melchisedecs, implied also an intended abrogation of the law, it was directly to the purpose to intimate the close connection of the two. Stuart gives the same view: The meaning is, that the priesthood and the law are inseparably linked together, so that if the one be changed, the other must of necessity be, ED.

Heb 7:11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron ?

The first thing in the words is the introduction of the ensuing discourse and argument in these particles of inference, , if therefore; if things be as we have declared.he had a peculiar scope and design in all those things. These he is now introducing. The improvement of his whole preceding discourse, and the whole mystery of the priesthood of Melchisedec, he will now make an application of unto the great cause he has in hand. He hath proved, by all sorts of arguments, that the priesthood of Melchisedec was superior unto that of Aaron. Before, he had evinced that there was to be another priest after his order; and this priest must of necessity be greater than all those who went before him of the tribe of Levi, inasmuch as he was so by whom he was represented before the institution of that priesthood. Now he will let the Hebrews know whither all these things do tend in particular, and what doth necessarily follow from and depend upon them. This he lays the foundation of in this verse, and declares in those following. And that they might consider how what he had to say was educed from what he had before proved, he introduceth it with these notes of inference, , if therefore. And to comprehend the meaning of these words in genera], with the design of the apostle in them, we may observe,

1. That his reasoning in this case is built upon a supposition which the Hebrews could not deny. And this is, that , perfection, or consummation, is the end aimed at in the priesthood of the church. That priesthood which perfects or consummates the people, in order unto their acceptance with God and future enjoyment of him, their present righteousness and future blessedness, is that which the church stands in need of, and cannot rest till it comes unto. That priesthood which doth not do so, but leaves men in an imperfect, unconsummate estate, whatever use it may be of for a season, yet it cannot be perpetual unto the exclusion of another. For if so, either God has not designed to consummate his people, or he must do it some other way, and not by a priesthood. The first is contrary to the truth and faithfulness of God in all his promises, yea, would make all religion vain and ludicrous; for if it will never make men perfect, to what end doth it serve, or what must do so in the room thereof? That this should be done any other way than by a priesthood, the Hebrews did neither expect nor believe; for they knew. full well that all the ways appointed by the law, to make atonement for sin, to attain righteousness and acceptance with God, depended on the priesthood, and the services of it, in sacrifices and other parts of divine worship. If, therefore, the apostle proves that perfection could not be attained by nor under the Levitical priesthood, it necessarily follows that there must be some more excellent priesthood remaining as yet to be introduced. This, therefore, he undeniably evinceth by this consideration. For,

2. Look unto the Levitical priesthood in the days of David and Solomon. Then was that order in its height and at its best; then was the tabernacle first, and afterwards the temple, in their greatest glory, and the worship of God performed with the greatest solemnity. The Hebrews would grant that the priesthood of Levi could never rise to a higher pitch of glory, nor be more useful, than it was in those days. Yet, saith he, it did not then consummate the church; perfection was not then attainable by it. This the Jews might deny, and plead that they desired no more perfection than what was in those days attained unto. Wherefore our apostle proves the contrary; namely, that God designed a perfection or consummation for his church, by a priesthood, that was not then attained. This he doth by the testimony of David himself, who prophesied and foretold that there was to be another priest, after the order of Melchisedec. For if the perfection of the church was all that God ever aimed at by a priesthood, and if that were attained or attainable by the priesthood in Davids time, to what end should another be promised to be raised up, of another order? To have done so, would not have been consistent with the wisdom of God, nor the immutability of his counsel; for unto what purpose should a new priest of another order be raised up to do that which was done before? Wherefore,

3. The apostle obviates an objection that might be raised against the sense of the testimony produced by him, and his application of it. For it might be said, that though after the institution of the Levitical priesthood there was yet mention of another priest to arise, it might be some eminent person of the same order; such a one as Joshua the son of Josedech, after the captivity, who was eminently serviceable in the house of God, and had eminent dignity thereon, Zec 3:4-7 : so that the defect supposed might be in the persons of the priests, and not in the order of the priesthood. This the apostle obviates, by declaring that if it had been so, he would have been called or spoken of as one of the order of Aaron; but whereas there were two orders of the priesthood, the Melchisedecian and Aaronical, it is expressly said that this other priest should be of the former, and not of the latter.

4. He hath yet a further design, which is, not only to prove the necessity of another priest and priesthood, but thereon also a change and an abrogation of the whole law of worship under the old testament. Hence he here introduceth the mention of the law, as that which was given at the same time with the priesthood, and had such a relation thereunto, as that of necessity it must stand or fall with it. And this may suffice for a view of the scope of this verse, and the force of the argument contained in it.

We shall now consider the particulars of it:

1. A supposition is included, that , which we render perfection, is the adequate and complete end of the office of the priesthood in the church. This, at one time or another, in one order or another, it must attain, or the whole office is useless. And the apostle denies that this could be obtained by the Levitical priesthood. And he calls the priesthood of the law Levitical, not only because Levi was their progenitor, the patriarch of their tribe, from whom they were genealogized; but also because he would comprise in his assertion not only the house of Aaron, unto whom the right and exercise of the priesthood was limited and confined, but he would also take into consideration the whole Levitical service, which was subservient unto the office of the priesthood, and without which it could not be discharged. Wherefore the Levitical priesthood is that priesthood in the family of Aaron which was assisted in all sacerdotal actings and duties by the Levites, who were consecrated of God unto that end. That , or perfection, was of this priesthood, is denied in a restrictive interrogation. If it had been so, it would have been otherwise with respect unto another priest than as it is declared by the Holy Ghost.

2. Our principal inquiry on this verse will be, what this is, and wherein it doth consist. The word is rendered perfectio, consummatio, consecratio, sanctificatio, dedicatio. The original signification and use of the word hath been spoken unto on Heb 2:10, where it is rendered sanctification. Real and internal sanctification is not intended, but that which is the same with sacred dedication or consecration; for it is plainly distinguished from real inherent sanctification by our apostle, Heb 10:14, , By one offering he hath perfected them that are sanctified. This , the effect and product of , is wrought towards them who are sanctified, and so doth not consist in their sanctification. Much less, therefore, doth it signify an absolute perfection of inherent holiness. Some men no sooner hear the name of perfection, in the Scripture, but they presently dream of an absolute, sinless, inherent perfection of holiness; which, if they are not utterly blinded and hardened, they cannot but know themselves far enough distant from. But this word hath no such signification. For if it denotes not internal holiness at all, it doth not do so the perfection of it; nor is any such perfection attainable in this life, as the Scripture everywhere testifies. Wherefore the apostle had no need to prove that it was not attainable by the Levitical priesthood, nor to reflect upon it for that reason, seeing it is not attainable by any other way or means whatever. We must therefore diligently inquire into the true notion of this , or perfection, which will guide the remaining interpretation of the words. And concerning it we may observe in general,

First, That it is the effect, or end, or necessary consequent of a priesthood. This supposition is the foundation of the whole argument of the apostle. Now the office and work may be considered two ways:

1. With respect unto God, who is the first immediate object of all the proper acts of that office.

2. With respect unto the church, which is the subject of all the fruits and benefits of its administration.

If we take it in the first way, then the expiation of sin is intended in this word; for this was the great act and duty of the priesthood towards God, namely, to make expiation of sin, or atonement for it by sacrifice. And if we take the word in this sense, the apostles assertion is most true; for this perfection was never attainable by the Levitical priesthood. It could expiate sin and make atonement only typically, and by way of representation; really and effectually, as to all the ends of spiritual reconciliation unto God and the pardon of sin, they could not do it. For it was not possible, as our apostle observes, that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins, Heb 10:4; which he also proves in his ensuing discourse at large. But I do not know that this word is anywhere used in this sense, nor doth it include any such signification. And whereas God is the immediate object of that sacerdotal energy whereby sin is expiated, it is the church that is here said to be perfected; so that expiation of sin cannot be intended thereby, though it be supposed therein. Besides, the apostle doth not here understand sacrifices only, by which alone atonement was made, but all other administrations of the Levitical priesthood whatever.

The Socinians would have expiation of sin here intended; and I shall therefore examine briefly what they speak to this purpose in their comment on this place:

Perfectionis,, nomine hoc loco nihil aliud intelligit auctor, quam veram et perfectam expiationem peccatorum, qua non tantum quorundam sed omnium etiam gravissimorum criminum reatus, isque non tantum poenae alicujus temporariae et ad hanc vitam spectantis, sed ipsius aeternae mortis, aufertur, jusque homini vitae sempiternae conceditur; qua denique non tantum reatus omnis omnium peccatorum, sed et ipsa peccata in hominibus tolluntur. Namque his in rebus vera hominum perfectio coram Deo consistit. Si, ergo, haec perfectio hominibus contingere potuisset per sacerdotium Leviticum, certe nullus fuisset usus novi sacerdotis Melchisedeciani. Sacerdotium enim propter peccatorum expiationem constituitur. At si perfecta peccatorum expiatio con- tingebat per Aaronicum sacerdotium, quid opus erat novum istum superinducere sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedeci, ut scilicet perageret id, quod peragere potuerat Aaronicus? Quocirca cum Deus illum constituere voluerit, atque adeo jam constituerit; hinc pater nemini, per Leviticum sacerdotium, perfectionem seu perfectam expiationem contigisse, ut certe non contigit. Quorundum enim peccatorum expiatio per illud fiebat, nempe ignorantiarum et infirmitatum; gravium autem peccatorum et scelerum poena morris luenda erat. Nec ista expiatio ad tollendam aeternam mortem quid-quam virium habuit, sed tantum ad tollendas quasdam poenas temporarias, et huic vitae proprias. Nec denique illis sacrificiis ulla vis inerat homines ab ipsis peccatis retrahendi.

First, what in general is suited unto the apostles argument, whatever be the sense of the , here mentioned, is approved. The question is, whether the expiation of sin be here intended, what is the nature of that expiation, and what was the use of the sacrifices under the law? All which on this occasion are spoken unto, and the mind of the Holy Ghost in them all perverted. For,

1. That expiation of sin properly so called, by an act of the priestly office towards God, is not here intended, hath been before declared, both from the signification of the word and the design of the apostle. What these men intend by the expiation of sin, and how remote it is from that which the Scripture teacheth, and the nature of the thing itself requireth in the reason and common understanding of all mankind, I have fully evinced in the exercitations about the priesthood of Christ. And take expiation in the sense of the Scripture, with the common sense and usage of mankind, and in their judgment it was by the Levitical priesthood, and was not by the priesthood of Christ. For it cannot be denied but that the Levitical priests acted towards God, in their offering of sacrifices to make atonement of sin: but that the Lord Christ did so is by these men denied; for that which under this name they ascribe unto him is only the taking away of punishment due unto sin by his power, which power was given him of God upon his ascension or entrance into heaven, as the holy place.

2. They deny that expiation was by the Levitical priesthood, on two grounds:

(1.) Because they did expiate only some lesser sins, as of ignorance and infirmity; and so it cannot be said to be by them, because they were only some few sins that they could expiate.

(2.) Because their expiation concerned only deliverance from temporal punishment. That expiation in the Scripture sense could not be really effected by the Levitical priesthood is granted, and shall afterwards be proved. But both these pretended reasons of it are false. For,

1. There was an atonement made in general for all the sins of the people. For when Aaron made an atonement by the scape-goat, Lev 16:10, he confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, verse 21. And herein the greatest as well as the least of their sins were comprised. For although there were some sins which were capital, according unto the constitutions of their commonwealth, in which respect there was no sacrifice appointed in particular whereby they who were guilty of them might be freed from punishment, that the ordinances of God might not seem to interfere; yet had they, by their interest in the more general sacrifices, a right unto expiation of sin as to its guilt, for otherwise every one who died penally must of necessity die eternally.

2. It is also false, that their sacrifices had no other use but to free men from temporal punishments. Indeed it is a wild apprehension, that the use of sacrifices in the church of old, to be observed by the people with so great solemnities, and under so great penalties, wherein the principal actings of faith did consist, as also the great exercise of the spiritual obedience of the whole church, should serve only to free men from legal, outward, civil, temporal punishments, for lesser sins of ignorance and infirmity; which were none at all, for the most part. Absolutely, indeed, and of themselves, by virtue of their own worth, or by their own innate efficacy, they neither did nor could expiate sin as to its guilt and eternal punishment, which attended all sin by the curse of the law; nor did God ever appoint them for that end: yet they did it relatively and typically; that is, they represented and exhibited unto the faith of the sacrificers that true, effectual Sacrifice to come, whereby all their sins were pardoned and done away. Wherefore, 3. The difference between the expiation of sin by the Levitical priesthood and by Christ did not consist in this, that the one expiated sin only with respect unto temporal punishments, the other with respect unto them that are eternal; but in the manner of their expiation, and the efficacy of each to that end. They expiated sins only typically, doctrinally, and by way of representation; the benefit received from their sacrifices being not contained in them, nor wrought by their causalty, nor procured by their worth or value, but were exhibited unto the faith of the sacrificers, by virtue of their relation unto the sacrifice of Christ. Hence were they of many sorts, and often repeated; which sufficiently argues that they did not effect what they did represent. But the Lord Christ, by the one offering of himself, wrought this effect really, perfectly, and absolutely, by its own value and efficacy, according unto the constitution of God. But this is not the perfection here intended by the apostle.

Secondly, This respects the church, which is the subject of all the benefits of the priesthood, and it is that perfect state of the church in this world which God from the beginning designed unto it. He entered upon its erection in the first promise, with respect unto his worship, and the blessed condition of the church itself. Hereon, and with respect hereunto, is the church-state of the old testament said to be weak and imperfect, like that of a child under governors and tutors. Hence also it had a yoke imposed on it, causing fear and bondage; God having ordained better things for us, or the church under the new testament,

, Heb 11:40, that they without us should not be consummated, or made perfect in their church-state. And this state of the church is expressed by this word in other places, as we shall see. The foundation of it was laid in that word of our Savior wherewith he gave up the ghost, , Joh 19:30, It is finished, or completed; that is, all things belonging unto that great sacrifice whereby the church was to be perfected were accomplished. For he had respect unto all that the prophets had foretold, all that he was to do in this world; and the consummation of the church was to ensue thereon, when by one offering he for ever perfected them that are sanctified. And those who were thoroughly instructed in the privileges of this church-state, and had a sense of the benefits thereof, are called , perfect, 1Co 2:6 : We speak wisdom , the mysteries of the gospel, wherein such persons discerned the wisdom of God. And so are they called, Heb 5:14. This our Savior prayed for in the behalf of his church immediately before he procured it by his sacrifice, Joh 17:23, That they may be perfected. And the end of the institution of the ministry of the gospel, to make his mediation effectual unto the souls of men by the application of it in the word unto them, was to bring the church , Eph 4:13, to a perfect man, or that perfection of state which it is capable of in this life. So the apostle informs us, that what he aimed at in his ministry, by warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, was that he might present , Col 1:28, every man, that is, all believers, perfect in Christ Jesus. For

in him we are complete, Col 2:10; where, though another word be used (), yet the same thing is intended; namely, that perfect, complete state of the church, which God designed to bring it unto in Christ. And that our apostle useth the same word in the same sense in sundry places in this epistle we shall see in our progress.

Thirdly, This , or perfection, may be considered two ways:

1. As to its absolute completeness in its final issue. This the apostle denies that he himself had as yet attained, Php 3:12, Not as though Ihad already , attained, or received; namely, the whole of what is purchased for me by Christ; , or were already made perfect :which could not be without attaining the resurrection of the dead, verse 11; though the substance be so already in the saints departed; whence he calls them the spirits of just men , Heb 12:23, made perfect.,And this he calls absolutely , 1Co 13:10, that which is perfect; or that state of absolute perfection which we shall enjoy in heaven.

2. It may be considered as to its initial state in this world, expressed in the testimonies before cited; and this is that which we inquire after. And the Lord Christ, as the sole procurer of this state, is said to be , the consummator, the perfecter, the finisher of our faith, or religious worship, Heb 12:2, as having brought us into a state , of perfection.

This is that, whatever it be (which we shall immediately inquire into), that is denied unto the Levitical priesthood, and afterwards unto the law, as that which they could not effect. They could not, by their utmost efficacy, nor by the strictest attendance unto them, bring the church into that state of perfection which God had designed for it in this world, and without which the glory of his grace had not been demonstrated.

Fourthly, The chief thing before us, therefore, is to inquire what this state of perfection is, wherein it doth consist, and what is required unto the constitution of it; and in the whole to show that it could not be by the Levitical priesthood or law. Now the things that belong unto it are of two sorts: first, Such as belong unto the souls and consciences of believers, that is, of the church; and secondly, Such as belong to the worship of God itself. For with respect unto these two doth the apostle discourse, and assert a state of perfection in opposition unto the imperfect state of the church under the law, with respect unto them both. And as unto the first, there are seven things concurring unto the constitution of this state:

1. Righteousness;

2. Peace;

3. Light, or knowledge;

4. Liberty with boldness;

5. A clear prospect into a future state of blessedness;

6. Joy;

7. Confidence and glorying in the Lord.

And the latter, or the worship of the gospel, becomes a part of this state of perfection,

1. By its being spiritual;

2. Easy, as absolutely suited unto the principles of the new creature;

3. In that it is instructive;

4. From its relation unto Christ, as the high priest;

5. From the entrance we have therein into the holy place.

In these things consists that state of perfection which the church is called unto under the new testament, which it could never attain by the Levitical priesthood. This is that kingdom of God which is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, Rom 14:17. But because these things are of great importance, although the particulars are many, I shall briefly consider them all apart. First, The first thing constituting this gospel-state of perfection, is righteousness. The introduction of all imperfection and weakness in the church was by sin. This made the law weak, Rom 8:3, and sinners to be without strength, Rom 5:6. Wherefore the reduction of perfection must in the first place be by righteousness. This was the great, fundamental promise of the times of the new testament, Isa 60:21; Psa 72:7; Psa 135:10-11. And this was to be brought in by Christ alone.

Wherefore one name whereby he was promised unto the church was, The LORD our Righteousness, Jer 23:6. Righteousness of our own we had none, nor could any thing in the whole creation supply us with the least of its concerns, with any thing that belongs thereunto; yet without it must we perish for ever. Wherefore Jehovah himself becomes our righteousness, that we might say, In Jehovah have we righteousness and strength; and that in him all the seed of Israel might be justified and glory, Isa 45:24-25. For by him are all that believe justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses, Act 13:39. To this end he brought in everlasting righteousness, Dan 9:24, , not a temporary righteousness, suited unto the , the age of the church under the old covenant, which is often said to be everlasting, in a limited sense; but that which was for all ages, to make the church blessed unto eternity. So is he of God made unto us righteousness, 1Co 1:30.

This is the foundation of the gospel , or perfection; and it was procured for us by the Lord Christ offering up himself in sacrifice, as our great high priest. For we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, Eph 1:7; God having

set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins, Rom 3:25.

And this he is in opposition unto whatever the law could effect, taking away that condemnation which issued from a conjunction of sin and the law:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, Rom 8:3-4. The end of the law in the first place, was to be a means and instrument of righteousness unto those to whom it was given. But after the entrance of sin it became weak, and utterly insufficient unto any such purpose; for by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified. Wherefore Christ is become the end of the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth, Rom 10:4.

And by whomsoever this is denied, namely, that Christ is our righteousness, which he cannot be but by the imputation of his righteousness unto us, they do virtually overthrow the very foundation of that state of perfection which God designed to bring his church unto. This the Levitical priesthood could not effect, for the reason given in the words following, For under it the people received the law. It could do no more but what the law could do; but that could not make us righteous, because it was weak through the flesh; and by the deeds of the law no man can be justified.

It may be said, that believers had this righteousness under the Levitical priesthood, or they could not have had a good report through faith, namely, this testimony, That they pleased God.

Ans. (1.) Our apostle doth not deny it, yea, he proves at large, by manifold instances, Hebrews 11, that they had it; only he denies that they had it by virtue of the Levitical priesthood, or any duties of the law He speaks not of the thing itself, with respect unto the persons of believers under the old testament, but of the cause and means of it. What they had of this kind was by virtue of another priesthood, which therefore was to be introduced; and the other, which could not effect it, was therefore to be removed. He denies not perfection unto persons under the Levitical priesthood, but denies that they were made partakers of it thereby.

(2.) They had this righteousness really, and as to the benefits of it; but had it not in such clearness and evidence of its nature, cause, and effects, as it is now revealed in the gospel. Hence, although their interest in it was sufficient to secure their eternal concernments, yet they had it not in such a way as is required unto this in this life. For we know how great a portion of the perfect state of the gospel consists in a clear apprehension that Christ is, and how he is, our righteousness; whereon the main of our present comforts do depend. The great inquiry of the souls of men is, how they may have a righteousness before God. And the clear discovery of the cause of it, of the way and manner how we are made partakers of it, is a great part of the perfection of the gospel-state.

(3.) It was so obscurely represented unto them, as that the law rose up in a competition with it, or rather, against it, in the minds of the generality of the people. They looked for righteousness as it were by the works of the law, Rom 9:32; and on this rock of offense, this stumbling- stone,they shipwrecked their eternal condition, Rom 9:32-33. For whilst

they went about to establish their own righteousness, they submitted not unto the righteousness of God, Rom 10:3.

And we may easily apprehend how great a snare this proved unto them. For there is in corrupted nature such an opposition and enmity unto this righteousness of God in Christ, and the dictates of the law are so rivetted in the minds of men by nature, that now, after the full and clear declaration of it in the gospel, men are shifting a thousand ways to set up a righteousness of their own in the room of it. How strong, then, must the same inclination be in them who had nothing but the law to guide them, wherein this righteousness was wrapped up under many veils and coverings! Here, therefore, at the last, the body of the people lost themselves, and continue unto this day under the curse of that law which they hoped would justify and save them.

2. Peace is the next thing that belongs unto this gospel-state of perfection. The kingdom of God is …… peace, Rom 14:17. To lay the foundation of this kingdom, the Lord Christ both made peace and preached peace, or declared the nature of the peace he had made, tendering and communicating of it unto us, Eph 2:14; Eph 2:17. And this peace of evangelical consummation is threefold:

(1.) With God;

(2.) Between Jews and Gentiles;

(3.) In and among ourselves:

(1.) It is peace with God. This is the first effect and fruit of the righteousness before mentioned, Isa 32:17. For being justified by faith, we have peace with God, Rom 5:1. And hereon depends our peace in the whole creation, above and below. And if we look into the promises of the Old Testament concerning the kingdom of Christ, the greatest part, and the most eminent of them, respect peace with God and the whole creation. All things in the creation were at odds, jarring and interfering continually, upon the entrance of sin. For an enmity thereby being introduced between God and man, it extended itself unto all other creatures that had either dependence on man, or were subservient naturally unto his use, or were put in subjection to him by God, the Lord of all. Hereby were they all cast into a state of vanity and bondage; which they groan under, and as it were look out for a deliverance from, Rom 8:20-23. But in this gospel-state God designs a reconciliation of all things, or a reduction of them into their proper order. For

he purposed in himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he would gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him, Eph 1:9-10.

The here mentioned is the same on the matter with the in this place. God had, in his counsel and purpose, distributed the times or ages of the world into several parts or seasons, with respect unto his own works, and the revelation of his mind and will unto men. See our exposition on Heb 1:1. Every one of these parts or seasons, had its particular , or dispensation. But there was a , a certain time or season, wherein all the rest that were past before should have their complement and perfection. And this season had its especial , or dispensation also. And this was the mentioned; the peace-making and reconciliation of all things, by gathering up the scattered, divided, jarring parts of the creation into one head, even Christ Jesus. And as this enmity and disorder entered into the whole by the sin of man, so the foundation of this catholic peace and order, from which nothing is excluded but the serpent and his seed, must be laid in peace between God and man. This, therefore, God designed in Christ alone, 2Co 5:20-21. The first and fundamental work of Christ, as the high priest of the new covenant, was to make peace between God and sinners. And this he did by bringing in of everlasting righteousness. So was he typed by Melchisedec, first king of righteousness, then king of peace. For when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son, Rom 5:10. Hence his name was , the Prince of Peace, Isa 9:5. Wherefore this reconciliation and peace with God is a great part of this gospel-perfection. So our Savior testified, Joh 14:27. Peace, saith he, I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. Assured peace with God, delivering the souls of his disciples from all trouble and fear, is that which he peculiarly bequeathed unto them. And so great a share in this doth this peace with God, and the consequence of it in peace with the residue of the creation, bear, that the kingdom of Christ is most frequently spoken of under this notion, Isa 11:4-9, etc. But these things are liable under a double objection. For,

[1.] Some may complain hereon, Behold, our bones are dried, our hope is lost, we are cut off for our parts; for we cannot attain unto this peace with God, being exercised with fears and disconsolations all our days, so as that we seem to have no interest in this gospel-state.

Ans. 1st. Peace is made for all that believe.

2dly. The way of attaining it is laid open unto them, Isa 27:5.

3dly. Patient abiding in faith will in due time bring them into this peace.

4thly. It is one thing to have peace with God, which all believers have; another to have the constant sense and comfort of it in their own souls, which they may want for a season.

[2.] Some say, they are so far from finding peace with the whole creation, that on all accounts they meet with great enmities in the world.

Ans. 1st. It is not said that peace is made for us with Satan and the world, the serpent and his seed. This belongs not unto this perfection.

2dly. Whatever troubles we may have with other things, yet in the issue they shall all work together for our good; which is sufficient to constitute a state of peace.

This part of the perfection of the church could not be attained by the Levitical priesthood. For two things belong thereunto:

[1.] That peace be actually made.

[2.] That it be fully declared. o the apostle expresseth it as it was effected by Christ, Eph 2:14,

He is our peace: and that,

1st. By making peace, he made peace, Eph 2:15-16.

2dly. By declaring it, Eph 2:17, He came and preached peace.

Neither of these could be done by the Levitical priesthood. Not the first, it could not make peace; because it could not bring in righteousness, which is the cause and foundation of it, Isa 32:17; Rom 5:1. Not the second, it could not declare or preach this peace; for the giving of the law, with all tokens of dread and severity, with the curse annexed unto it, was directly contrary hereunto. This, therefore, was brought in by this better priesthood alone.

(2.) Peace between Jews and Gentiles belongs unto this state; for God designed not the erecting of his kingdom amongst one party or sort of mankind. That it should be otherwise, that the Gentiles should become the children of Abraham, and be made heirs of the promise, was a great mystery under the old testament, Eph 3:4-6. And we know how slow the disciples of Christ themselves were in the receiving and understanding hereof. But evident it is that this was Gods design from the giving of the first promise: and we see now, in the light of the gospel, that he gave many intimations of it unto the church of old; with respect whereunto the veil abideth on the minds of the Jews unto this day. Wherefore without this peace also, the perfect state of the church aimed at could not be attained. But this could never have been brought about by the Levitical priesthood and the law; for they were indeed the principal occasion of the distance between them, and the means of the continuance of their disagreement. And that which the Jews thought to have been the principal advantage and privilege of Abraham in his posterity, was that which, whilst it continued, kept him from the actual possession of his greatest glory, in being the heir of the world, and a father of a multitude of nations. Nor, whilst that priesthood was standing, could Japheth be persuaded to dwell in the tents of Shem. Hence this peace was so far from being the effect of the Levitical priesthood and the law, as that it could not be introduced and established until they were both taken out of the way, as our apostle expressly declares, Eph 2:14-16. The last issue of this contest came unto these two heads:

[1.] Whether the Gentiles should at all be called unto the faith of the gospel.

[2.] Whether, being called, they should be obliged unto the observation of the law of Moses. The first fell out among the apostles themselves, but was quickly determined by our Lord Jesus Christ, unto their joy and satisfaction. And this he did two ways:

1st. By sending Peter to preach the gospel unto Cornelius, and thereon bestowing the Holy Ghost on them that did believe, Act 10:14; Act 10:17; Act 10:45-47

2dly. By giving Paul an open, full commission to go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel unto them, Act 22:21; Act 26:15-18. Here the body of the people of the Jews fell off with rage and madness. But the other part of the controversy was of longer continuance. The Jews, finding that the Gentiles were by the gospel brought so near unto them as to turn from dumb idols unto God, and to receive the promise no less than themselves, would by all means have brought them over unto the obedience of the law of Moses also. This yoke the Gentiles being greatly afraid of, were in no small perplexity of mind what to do. The gospel they were resolved to embrace, but were very unwilling to take on them the yoke of the law. Wherefore the Holy Ghost in the apostles at length puts an issue unto this difference also, and lets the church know, that indeed the wall of partition was broken down, the law of commandments contained in ordinances was taken away, and that the Gentiles were not to be obliged unto the observation of it; which they greatly rejoiced in, Act 15:31. Other way there was none for the reconciliation of those parties, who had been at so long and so great a variance.

It will be said, that we yet see a variance between Jews and Gentiles continued all the world over; and that they are in all places mutually an abomination unto each other. And it is true it is so, and is likely so to continue; for there is no remedy that can be so effectual to heal a distemper, or make up a fracture, as that it will work its cure without use or application. The gospel is not at all concerned in what state and condition men are who reject it, and refuse to believe it. They may still live in enmity and malice, hateful, and hating one another. But where it is believed, embraced, and submitted unto, there an absolute end is put unto all difference or enmity between Jews and Gentiles, as such, seeing all are made one in Christ. And this belongs only unto them who do obey the gospel.

(3.) Peace among ourselves, that is, among believers, doth also belong hereunto. There was peace and brotherly love required under the law. But no duty receiveth a greater improvement under the gospel. The purchase of it by the blood of Christ, his prayer for it, the new motive added unto it, the communication of it as the legacy of Christ unto his disciples, with the especial ends and duties of it, do constitute it a part of the perfect state of the church under the gospel.

3. The third thing wherein this , or perfection, doth consist, is spiritual light and knowledge with respect unto the mysteries of the wisdom and grace of God. God had designed for the church a measure of spiritual light and knowledge which was not attainable under the law; which is the subject of that great promise, Jer 31:35, whose accomplishment is declared, 1Jn 2:27. And there are three things which concur unto the constitution of this privilege:

(1.) The principal revealer of the mind and will of God. Under the law God made use of the ministry of men unto this purpose, as of Moses and the prophets. And he employed also, both in the erection of the church-state and in sundry particulars afterwards, the ministry of angels, as our apostle declares, Heb 2:2. And in some sense that state was thereby put in subjection unto angels, verse 5. But this ministry, and the dispensation of light and knowledge thereby, could not render it complete; yea, it was an argument of the darkness and bondage under which it was. For there was yet one greater than they all, and above them all, one more intimately acquainted with God and all the counsels of his will, by whom he would speak forth his mind, Deu 18:18-19. This was the Son of God himself, without whose immediate ministry the consummation of the church-state could not be attained. This consideration our apostle insists upon at large in the first chapter, and the beginning of the second, concluding from thence the pre-eminence of the evangelical state above the legal. The especial nature whereof we have declared in the exposition of those places. A most eminent privilege this was, yea, the highest outward privilege that the church is capable of, and it eminently concurs unto its perfection. For whether we consider the dignity of his person, or the perfect knowledge and comprehension that he had of the whole counsel of God and the mysteries of his grace, it incomparably exalts the present church-state above that of old; whence our apostle draws many arguments unto the necessity of our obedience above what they were urged withal. See Heb 2:2-3; Heb 12:25. And this full revelation of his counsels by the ministry of his Son, God did reserve, partly that he might have a pre- eminence in all things, and partly because none other either did or could comprehend the mysteries of it as it was now to be revealed. See Joh 1:18.

(2.) The matter or things themselves revealed. There was under the Levitical priesthood a shadow of good things to come, but no perfect image or complete delineation of them, Heb 10:1. They had the first promise, and the enlargements of it unto Abraham and David. Sundry expositions were also added unto them, relating unto the manner of their accomplishment; and many intimations were given of the grace of God thereby. But all this was done so darkly, so obscurely, so wrapped up in types, shadows, figures, and allegories, as that no perfection of light or knowledge was to be obtained. The mystery of them continued still hid in God, Eph 3:9. Hence the doctrines concerning them are called parables and dark sayings, Psa 128:2. Neither did the prophets themselves see into the depth of their own predictions, 1Pe 1:11-12. Hence the believing church waited with earnest expectation, until the day should break, and the shadows should flee away, Son 2:17; Son 4:6. They longed for the breaking forth of that glorious light which the Son of God was to bring, attending in the meantime unto the word of prophecy, which was as the light of a candle unto them shining in a dark place. They lived on that great promise, Mal 4:2. They expected righteousness, light, and grace, but knew not the way of them. Hence their prophets, righteous men, and kings, desired to see the things of the gospel, and saw them not, Mat 13:17; Luk 10:24. And therefore John the Baptist, though he was greater than any of the prophets, because he saw and owned the Son of God as come in the flesh, which they desired to see, and saw not; yet, living and dying under the Levitical priesthood, not seeing life and immortality brought to light by the gospel, the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he in spiritual knowledge. Wherefore it belonged unto the , or perfect state of the church, that there should be a full and plain revelation and declaration made of the whole counsel of God, of the mystery of his will and grace, as the end of those things which were to be done away. And this is done in the gospel, under that new priesthood which was to be introduced. Nor without this priesthood could it be so made; for the principal part of the mystery of God depends on, consists in the discharge of the office of that priesthood. It does so on its oblation and intercession, the atonement made for sin, and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness thereby. The plain revelation of these things, which could not be made before their actual accomplishment, is a great part of this gospel perfection. This the apostle disputes at large, 2 Corinthians 3. from verse 7 to the end of the chapter.

(3.) The inward spiritual light of the minds of believers, enabling them to discern the mind of God, and the mysteries of his will as revealed, doth also belong unto this part of the perfection of the gospel church-state. This was promised under the old testament, Isa 11:9; Isa 54:13; Jer 31:34. And although it was enjoyed by the saints of old, yet was it so in a very small measure and low degree, in comparison with what it is now, after the plentiful effusion of the Spirit. See 1Co 2:11-12. This is that which is prayed for, Eph 1:17-19; Eph 3:18-19.

Wherefore this head of the , or perfection intended, consists in three things:

(1.) The personal ministry of Christ in the preaching of the gospel, or declaration of the mystery of the wisdom and grace of God in himself.

(2.) The dispensation or mission of the Holy Ghost, to reveal and fully make known the same mystery by the apostles and prophets of the new testament, Eph 3:5.

(3.) The effectual illumination of the minds of them that do believe, enabling them spiritually to discern the mysteries so revealed, every one according to the measure of his gift and grace. See concerning it, 1Pe 2:9; Eph 3:16-19; Eph 5:8.

4. There belongs unto this perfection that , that liberty and boldness, which believers have in their approaches unto God. This is frequently mentioned as an especial privilege and advantage of the gospel- state, Eph 3:12; Heb 3:6; Heb 4:16; Heb 10:19; Heb 10:35; 1Jn 3:21; 1Jn 5:14. And, on the contrary, the state under the Levitical priesthood is described as a state of fear and bondage; that is, comparatively, Rom 8:15; 2Ti 1:7; Heb 2:15. And this bondage or fear arose from sundry causes inseparable from that priesthood and the administration of it; as,

(1.) From the dreadful manner of giving the law. This filled the whole people with terror and amazement. Upon the administration of the Spirit by the gospel, believers do immediately cry, Abba, Father, Rom 8:16; Gal 4:6. They have the liberty and boldness to draw nigh unto God, and to call him Father. But there was such an administration of a spirit of dread and terror in the giving of the law, as that the people were not able to bear the approaches of God unto them, nor the thought of an access unto him. And therefore they desired that all things for the future might be transacted by an internuncius, one that might go between God and them, whilst they kept at their distance, Deu 5:23-27. When any first hear the law, they are afraid of God, and desire nothing more than not to come near him. They would be saved by a distance from him. When any first hear the gospel, that is, so as to believe it, their hearts are opened with love to God, and all their desire is, to be near unto him, to draw nigh unto his throne. Hence it is called the joyful sound.

Nothing can be more opposite than these two frames. And this spirit of fear and dread, thus first given out in the giving of the law, was communicated unto them in all their generations, whilst the Levitical priesthood continued. For as there was nothing to remove it, so itself was one of the ordinances provided for its continuance. This are we now wholly delivered from. See Heb 12:18-21.

(2.) It arose from the revelation of the sanction of the law in the curse. Hereby principally the law gendered unto bondage, Gal 4:24;f or all the people were in some sense put under the curse, namely, so far as they would seek for righteousness by the works of the law. So saith our apostle, As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, Gal 3:10. This curse was plainly and openly denounced as due to the breach of the law, as our apostle adds, It is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. And all their capital punishments were representations thereof. This could not but take a deep impression on their minds, and render them obnoxious unto bondage. Hence, although on the account of the promise they were heirs, yet by the law they were made as servants, and kept in fear, Gal 4:1. Neither had they such a prospect into the nature and signification of their types as to set them at perfect liberty from this cause of dread. For as there was a veil on the face of Moses, that is, all the revelations of the mind and will of God by him were veiled with types and shadows, so there was a veil on their hearts also, in the weakness of their spiritual light, that they could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished, 2Co 3:13; that is, unto Him who is the end of the law for righteousness unto every one that believeth, Rom 10:4. It was therefore impossible but that their minds must ordinarily be filled with anxiety and fear. But there is now no more curse, in the gospel-state, Rev 22:3. The curse abideth only on the serpent and his seed, Isa 65:25. The blessing of the promise doth wholly possess the place of it, Gal 3:13-14. Only they who will choose still to be under the law, by living in the sins that it condemneth, or seeking for righteousness by the works which it commands, are under the curse.

(3.) Under the Levitical priesthood, even their holy worship was so appointed and ordered as to keep them partly in fear, and partly at a distance from the presence of God. The continual multiplication of their sacrifices, one day after another, one week after another, one month after another, one year after another, taught them that by them all there was not an end made of sin, nor everlasting righteousness brought in by any of them. This argument our apostle makes use of to this purpose, Heb 10:1 : The law, saith he, could never by those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, , bring the worshippers unto this perfection. And he gives this reason for it, namely, because they had still a conscience of sins; that is, a conscience condemning them for sin: and therefore there was a remembrance made of sins again every year, Heb 10:2-3. Hereby they were kept in dread and fear. And in their worship they were minded of nothing so much as their distance from God, and that they had not as yet a right to an immediate access unto him. For they were not so much as once to come into the holiest, where were the pledges and tokens of Gods presence. And the prohibitions of their approaches unto God were attended with such severe penalties, that the people cried out they were not able to bear them, Num 17:12-13; which Peter reflects upon, Act 15:10.

The Holy Ghost thereby signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing, Heb 9:8.

No man had yet right to enter into it with boldness; which believers now have, Heb 10:19-20.

(4.) God had designed the whole dispensation of the law under that priesthood unto this very end, that it should give the people neither rest nor liberty, but press and urge them to be looking after their full relief in the promised Seed, Gal 4:1-2; Gal 3:24. It pressed them with a sense of sin, and with a yoke of ceremonial observances, presenting them with the hand-writing of ordinances which was against them, Col 2:14. It urged their consciences not to seek after rest in or by that state. Here could be no perfection, because there could be no liberty. The , or boldness we speak of, is opposed unto all these causes of bondage and fear. It was not the design of God always to keep the church in a state of non-age, and under schoolmasters; he had appointed to set it at liberty in the fullness of time, to take his children nearer unto him, to give them greater evidences of his love, greater assurances of the eternal inheritance, and the use of more liberty and boldness in his presence. But what this of the gospel is, wherein it doth consist, what is included in it, what freedom of spirit, what liberty of speech, what right of access and boldness of approach unto God, built upon the removal of the law, the communication of the Spirit, the way made into the holiest by the blood of Christ, with other concernments of it, constitutive of gospel perfection, I have already in part declared, in our exposition on Heb 3:6, and must, if God please, yet more largely insist upon it, on Hebrews 10; so that I shall not here further speak unto it.

5. A clear foresight into a blessed estate of immortality and glory, with unquestionable evidences and pledges giving assurance of it, belongs also to this consummation. Death was originally threatened as the final end and issue of sin. And the evidence hereof was received under the Levitical priesthood, in the curse of the law. There was, indeed, a remedy provided against its eternal prevalency, in the first promise. For whereas death comprised all the evil that was come, or was to come on man for sin, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, the promise contained the means of deliverance from it, or it was no promise, tendered no relief unto man in the state whereinto he was fallen. But the people under the law could see but little into the manner and way of its accomplishment, nor had they received any pledge of it, in any one that was dead, and lived again so as to die no more. Wherefore their apprehensions of this deliverance were dark, and attended with much fear; which rendered them obnoxious unto bondage. See the exposition on Heb 2:14-15, where we have declared the dreadful apprehensions of the Jews concerning death, received by tradition from their fathers. They could not look through the dark shades of death, into light, immortality, and glory. See the two-fold spirit of the old and new testaments with respect unto the apprehensions of death expressed; the one, Job 10:21-22; the other, 2Co 5:1-4. But there is nothing more needful unto the perfect state of the church. Suppose it endowed with all possible privileges in this world, yet if it have not a clear view and prospect with a blessed assurance of immortality and glory after death, its condition will be dark and uncomfortable. And as this could not be done without the bringing in of another priesthood, so by that of Christ it is accomplished. For,

(1.) He himself died as our high priest. He entered into the devouring jaws of death, and that as it was threatened in the curse. And now is the trial to be made. If he who thus ventured on death as threatened in the curse, and that for us, be swallowed up by it, or detained by its power and pains, there is a certain end of all our hopes. Whatever we may arrive unto in this world, death will convey us over into eternal ruin. But if he break through its power, have the pains of it removed from him, do swallow it up in victory, and rise triumphantly into immortality and glory; then is our entrance into them also, even by and after death, secured. And in the resurrection of Christ the church had the first unquestionable evidence that death might be conquered, that it and the curse might be separated, that there might be a free passage through it into life and immortality. These things originally and in the first covenant were inconsistent, nor was the reconciliation of them evident under the Levitical priesthood; but hereby was the veil rent from top to bottom, and the most holy place not made with hands laid open unto believers. See Isa 25:7-8.

(2.) As by his death, resurrection, and entrance into glory, he gave a pledge, example, and evidence unto the church of that in his own person which he had designed for it; so the grounds of it were laid in the expiatory sacrifice which he offered, whereby he took away the curse from death. There was such a close conjunction between death and the curse, such a combination between sin, the law, and death, that the breaking of that conjunction, and the dissolving of that combination, was the greatest effect of divine wisdom and grace; which our apostle so triumpheth in, 1Co 15:54-57. This could no otherwise be brought about but by his being made a curse in death, or bearing the curse which was in death, in our stead, Gal 3:13.

(3.) He hath clearly declared, unto the utmost of our capacities in this world, that future state of blessedness and glory which he will lead all his disciples into. All the concernments hereof, under the Levitical priesthood, were represented only under the obscure types and shadows of earthly things. But he hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2Ti 1:10. He destroyed and abolished him who had the power of death, in taking away the curse from it, Heb 2:14. And he abolished death itself, in the removal of those dark shades which it cast on immortality and eternal life; and hath opened an abundant entrance into the kingdom of God and glory. He hath unveiled the uncreated beauties of the King of glory, and opened the everlasting doors, to give an insight into those mansions of rest, peace, and blessedness which are prepared for believers in the everlasting enjoyment of God. And these things constitute no small part of that consummate state of the church which God designed, and which the Levitical priesthood could no way effect.

6. There is also an especial joy belonging unto this state; for this kingdom of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Neither was this attainable by the Levitical priesthood. Indeed many of the saints of the old testament did greatly rejoice in the Lord, and had the joy of his salvation abiding with them. See Psa 51:12; Isa 25:9; Hab 3:17-18. But they had it not by virtue of the Levitical priesthood. Isaiah tells us that the ground of it was the swallowing up of death in victory, Isa 25:8; which was no otherwise to be done but by the death and resurrection of Christ. It was by an influence of efficacy from the priesthood that was to be introduced that they had their joy: whence Abraham saw the day of Christ, and rejoiced to see it. The prospect of the day of Christ was the sole foundation of all their spiritual joy, that was purely so. But as unto their own present state, they were allowed and called to rejoice in the abundance of temporal things; though the psalmist, in a spirit of prophecy, prefers the joy arising from the light of Gods countenance in Christ above all of that sort, Psa 4:6-7. But ordinarily their joy was mixed and alloyed with a respect unto temporal things. See Lev 23:39-41; Deu 12:11-12; Deu 12:18; Deu 16:11; Deu 27:7. This was the end of their annual festivals. And those who would introduce such festival rejoicings into the gospel-state do so far degenerate unto Judaism, as preferring their natural joy, in the outward manner of expression, before the spiritual, ineffable joys of the gospel. This it is that belongs unto the state thereof: such a joy in the Lord as carrieth believers with a holy triumph through every condition, even when all outward causes of joy do fail and cease. A joy it is unspeakable, and full of glory, 1Pe 1:8. See Joh 15:11; Rom 15:13; Jud 1:24. It is that inexpressible satisfaction which is wrought in the minds of believers by the Holy Ghost, from an evidence of their interest in the love of God by Christ, with all the fruits of it, present and to come, with a spiritual sense and experience of their value, worth, and excellency. This gives the soul a quiet repose in all its trials, refreshment when it is weary, peace in trouble, and the highest satisfaction in the hardest things that are to be undergone for the profession of the name of Christ, Rom 5:1-5.

7. Confidence and glorying in the Lord is also a part of this perfection. This is the flowering or the effect and fruit of joy; a readiness unto, and the way whereby we do express it. One great design of the gospel is to exclude all boasting, all glorying in any thing of self in religion, Rom 3:27. It is by the gospel, and the law of faith therein, that men are taught not to boast or glory, neither in outward privileges nor in moral duties. See Php 3:5-9; Rom 3:27-28; Rom 4:2. What, then? is there no glorying left us in the profession of the gospel, no triumph, no exultation of spirit, but we must always be sad and cast down, at best stand but on even terms with our oppositions, and never rejoice over them? Yes, there is a greater and more excellent glorying introduced than the heart of man on any other account is capable of. But God hath so ordered all things now, that no flesh should glory in his presence, but that he who glorieth should glory in the Lord, 1Co 1:29; 1Co 1:31. And what is the reason or foundation hereof? It is this alone, that we are in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, verse 30. So it was promised of old, that in the LORD, that is, The LORD our Righteousness, all the seed of Israel should be justified and glory, Isa 45:25. This is that which we have opened on Heb 3:6; Heb 3:14, whither the reader is referred. It is that triumphant exultation of spirit which ariseth in believers, from their absolute preferring their interest in heavenly things above things present, so as to contemn and despise whatever is contrary thereunto, however tendered, in a way of allurement or rage.

In these things, and others of the like nature and kind, consists that , or consummation of the state of the church as to the persons of the worshippers, which the apostle denies to have been attainable by or under the Levitical priesthood. The arguments wherewith he confirms his assertion ensue in the verses following, where they must be further considered. But we may not proceed without some observations for our own edification in this matter:

Obs. 1. An interest in the gospel consisteth not in an outward profession of it, but in a real participation of those things wherein the perfection of its state doth consist. Men may have a form of godliness, and yet be utter strangers to the power of it. Multitudes in all ages have made, and do make a profession of the gospel, who yet have no experience in themselves of the real benefits and advantages wherewith it is accompanied. All that they obtain hereby is but to deceive their souls into eternal ruin. For they live in some kind of expectation, that in another world they shall obtain rest, and blessedness, and glory by it; but the gospel will do nothing for them hereafter, in things eternal, who are not here partakers of its power and fruits in things spiritual.

Obs. 2. The pre-eminence of the gospel-state above the legal is spiritual, and undiscernible unto a carnal eye. For,

1. It is evident that the principal design of the apostle, in all these discourses, is to prove the excellency of the state of the church under the new testament, in its faith, liberty, and worship, above that of the church under the old. And,

2. That he doth not in any of them produce instances of outward pomp, ceremonies, or visible glory, in the confirmation of his assertion. He grants all the outward institutions and ordinances of the law, insisting on them, their use, and signification, in particular; but he opposeth not unto them any outward, visible glory in gospel administrations.

3. In 2 Corinthians 3 he expressly compares those two administrations of the law and the gospel, as unto their excellency and glory. And first, he acknowlegeth that the administration of the law, in the institution and celebration of it, was glorious, verses 9-11; but withal he adds, that it had no glory in comparison with that under the new testament, which doth far excel it. Wherein, then, doth this glory consist? He tells us it doth so in this, in that it is the administration of the Spirit: verse 8, How shall not the administration of the Spirit be rather glorious? He doth not resolve it into outward order, the beauty and pomp of ceremonies and ordinances. In this alone it doth consist, in that the whole dispensation of it is carried on by the grace and gifts of the Spirit; and that they are also administered thereby. This,saith he, is glory and liberty, such as excel all the glories of old administrations.

4. In this place he sums it up all in this, that the perfection we have treated of was effected by the gospel, and could not be so by the Levitical priesthood and the whole law of commandments contained in ordinances. In these spiritual things, therefore, are we to seek after the glory of the gospel, and its pre-eminence above the law. And those who suppose they render the dispensation of the gospel glorious by vying with the law in ceremonies and an external pomp of worship, as doth the church of Rome, do wholly cross his design. And therefore,

Secondly, This , or perfection, respects the worship of the gospel as well as the persons of the worshippers, and the grace whereof they are made partakers. God had designed the church unto a more perfect state in point of worship than it was capable of under the Levitical priesthood. Nor, indeed, could any man reasonably think, or wisely judge, that he intended the institutions of the law as the complete, ultimate worship and service that he would require or appoint in this world, seeing our natures, as renewed by grace, are capable of that which is more spiritual and sublime. For,

1. They were in their nature carnal, as our apostle declares, Heb 7:16, and Heb 9:10. The subject of them all, the means of their celebration, were carnal things, beneath those pure spiritual acts of the mind and soul, which are of a more noble nature. They consisted in meats and drinks, the blood of bulls and goats, the observation of moons and festivals, in a temple made of wood and stone, gold and silver, things carnal, perishing, and transitory. Certainly God, who is a spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit and in truth, designed at one time or other a worship more suited unto his own nature, though the imposition of these things on the church for a season was necessary. And as they were carnal, so they might be exactly performed by men of carnal minds, and were so for the most part; in which respect God himself speaks often with a great undervaluation of them. See Psa 50:8-13; Isa 1:11-14. Had not he designed the renovation of our natures into his own image, a new creation of them by Jesus Christ, this carnal worship might have sufficed, and would have been the best we are capable of. But to suppose that he should endow men, as he doth by Christ, with a new, spiritual, supernatural principle, enabling them unto a more sublime and spiritual worship, it cannot be imagined that he would always bind them up unto those carnal ordinances in their religious service. And the reason is, because they were not a meet and sufficient means for the exercise of that new principle of faith and love which he bestows on believers by Jesus Christ. Yea, to burden them with carnal observances, is a most effectual way to take them off from its exercise in his service. And so it is at this day; where-ever there is a multiplication of outward services and observances, the minds of men are so taken up with the bodily exercise about them, as that they cannot attend unto the pure internal actings of faith and love.

2. What by their number, and what by their nature and the manner of exacting of them, they were made a yoke which the people were never able to bear with any joy or satisfaction, Act 15:10. And this yoke lay partly, in the first place, on their consciences, or the inner man. And it consisted principally in two things:

(1.) The multitude of ceremonies and institutions did perplex them, and gave them no rest; seeing which way soever they turned themselves, one precept or other, positive or negative, touch not, taste not, handle not, was upon them.

(2.) The veil that was on them, as to their use, meaning, and end, increased the trouble of this yoke. They could not see unto the end of the things that were to be done away, because of the veil; nor could they apprehend fully the reason of what they did. And it may be easily conceived how great a yoke it was, to be bound unto the strict observation of such rites and ceremonies in worship; yea, that the whole of their worship should consist in such things as those who made use of them did not understand the end and meaning of them. And, secondly, it lay on their persons, from the manner of their imposition; as they were tied up unto days, times, and hours, so their transgression or disobedience made them obnoxious to all sorts of punishments, and excision itself For they were all bound upon them with a curse; whence every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward, Heb 2:2. For he that despised Moseslaw died without mercy, Heb 10:28; which they complained of, Num 17:12-13. This put them on continual scrupulous fears, with endless inventions of their own to secure themselves from the guilt of such transgressions. Hence the religion of the Jews at present is become a monstrous confused heap of vain inventions and scrupulous observances of their own, to secure themselves, as they suppose, from transgressing any of those which God had given them. Take any one institution of the law, and consider what is the exposition they give of it in their Mishna, by their oral tradition, and it will display the fear and bondage they are in; though the remedy be worse than the disease. Yea, by all their inventions they did but increase that which they endeavored to avoid; for they have brought things unto that pass among them, that it is impossible that any one of them should have satisfaction in his conscience that he hath aright observed any of Gods institutions, although he should suppose that he requireth nothing of him but the outward performance of them.

3. Their instructive efficacy, which is the principal end of the ordinances of divine worship, was weak, and no way answered the power and evidence of gospel institutions, Heb 10:1. Therefore was the way of teaching by them intricate, and the way of learning difficult. Hence is that difference which is put between the teachings under the old testament and the new. For now it is promised that men shall not teach every man his brother, and every man his neighbor, saying, Know the LORD, as it was of old. The means of instruction were so dark and cloudy, having only a shadow of the things themselves that were to be taught, and not the very image of them, that it was needful that they should be continually inculcated, to keep up the knowledge of the very rudiments of religion. Besides, they had many ordinances, rites, and ceremonies imposed on them, to increase their yoke, whereof they understood nothing but only that it was the sovereign pleasure and will of God that they should observe them, though they understood not of what use they were: and they were obliged unto no less an exact observance of them than they were unto that of those which were the clearest and most lightsome.

The best direction they had from them and by them was, that indeed there was nothing in them that is, in their nature or proper efficacy to produce or procure those good things which they looked for through them, but they only pointed unto what was to come. Wherefore they knew that although they exercised themselves in them with diligence all their days, yet by virtue of them they could never attain what they aimed at; only there was something signified by them, and afterwards to be introduced, that was efficacious of what they looked after. Now unto the strict observation of these things were the people obliged, under the most severe penalties, and that all the days of their lives. And this increased their bondage. God, indeed, by his grace, did influence the minds of true believers among them unto satisfaction in their obedience, helping them to adore that sovereignty and wisdom which they believed to be in all his institutions; and he gave unto them really the benefits of the good things that were for to come, and that were prefigured by their services; but the state wherein they were, by reason of these things, was a state of bondage. Nor could any relief be given in this state unto the minds or consciences of men by the Levitical priesthood; for it was itself the principal cause of all these burdens and grievances, in that the administration of all sacred things was committed thereunto.

The apostle takes it here for granted that God designed a , or state of perfection, unto the church; and that as unto its worship as well as unto its faith and obedience. We find, by the event, that it answered not the divine wisdom and goodness to bind up the church, during its whole sojourn in this world, unto a worship so carnal, burdensome, so imperfect, so unsuited to express his grace and kindness towards it, or its sense thereof. And who can but pity the woful condition of the present Jews, who can conceive of no greater blessedness than the restoration of this burdensome service? So true is it what the apostle says, the veil is upon them unto this present day; yea, blindness is on their minds, that they can see no beauty but only in things carnal: and like their forefathers, who preferred the bondage of Egypt, because of their flesh-pots, before all the liberty and blessings of Canaan; so do they their old bondage-state, because of some temporal advantages it was attended withal, before the glorious liberty of the sons of God.

In opposition hereunto, there is a worship under the gospel which hath such properties as are constitutive also of this perfection. By gospel- worship, I understand the whole way and order of that solemn worship of God which the Lord Christ hath commanded to be observed in his churches, with all the ordinances and institutions of it; and all the private worship of believers, in their whole access unto God. The internal glory and dignity of this worship must be referred unto its proper place, which is Heb 10:19-22. Here I shall only mention some few things wherein its excellency consists, in opposition unto the defects of that under the law, on the account whereof it is constitutive of that evangelical perfection whereof we treat:

1. It is spiritual; which is the subject of the apostles discourse, 2Co 3:6-9, etc. And it is so on a twofold account:

(1.) In that it is suited unto the nature of God, so as that thereby he is glorified as God. For God is a spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit; which our Savior asserts to belong unto the gospel-state, in opposition unto all the most glorious carnal ordinances and institutions of the law, Joh 4:21-24. So is it opposed unto the old worship as it was carnal. It was that which, in and by itself, answered not the nature of God, though commanded for a season. See Psa 50:8-14.

(2.) Because it is performed merely by the aids, supplies, and assistances of the Spirit, as it hath been at large proved elsewhere.

2. It is easy and gentle, in opposition unto the burden and insupportable yoke of the old institutions and ordinances. That so are all the commands of Christ unto believers, the whole system of his precepts, whether for moral obedience or worship, himself declares: Take my yoke upon you, saith he, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light,

Mat 11:29-30. So the apostle tells us that his commandments are not grievous, 1Jn 5:3. But yet concerning this ease of gospel- worship some things must be observed:

(1.) As to the persons unto whom it is so easy and pleasant. And it is so only unto them who, being weary and heavy laden, do come unto Christ that they may have rest, and do learn of him; that is, unto convinced, humbled, converted sinners, that do believe in him. Unto all others, who on mere convictions, or by other means, do take it upon them, it proves an insupportable burden, and that which they cannot endure to be obliged unto. Hence the generality of men, although professing the Christian religion, are quickly weary of evangelical worship, and do find out endless inventions of their own, wherewith they are better satisfied, in their divine services. Therefore have they multiplied ceremonies, fond superstitions, and downright idolatries, which they prefer before the purity and simplicity of the worship of the gospel; as it is in the church of Rome. And the reason hereof is, that enmity which is in their minds against the spiritual things represented and exhibited in that worship. For there being so near an alliance between those things and this worship, they that hate the one cannot but despise the other. Men of unspiritual minds cannot delight in spiritual worship. It is therefore,

(2.) Easy unto believers, on the account of that principle wherewith they are acted in all divine things. This is the new nature, or new creature in them, wherein their spiritual life doth consist. By this they delight in all spiritual things in the inner man, because they are cognate and suitable thereunto. Weariness may be upon the flesh, but the spirit will be willing. For as the principle of corrupted nature goeth out with delight and vehemency unto objects that are unto its satisfaction, and unto all the means of its conjunction unto them and union with them; so the principle of grace in the heart of believers is carried with delight and fervency unto those spiritual things which are its proper object, and therewithal unto the ways and means of conjunction with them and union unto them. And this is the proper life and effect of evangelical worship. It is the means whereby grace in the soul is conjoined and united unto grace in the word and promises; which renders it easy and pleasant unto believers, so that they delight to be exercised therein.

(3.) The constant aid they have in and for its performance, if they be not wanting unto themselves, doth entitle it unto this property. The institution of gospel-worship is accompanied with the administration of the Spirit, Isa 59:21; and he , helpeth and assisteth in all the worship of it, as was intimated before.

(4.) The benefit which they receive by it renders it easy and pleasant unto them. For all the ordinances of evangelical worship are of that nature, and appointed of God unto that end, so as to excite, increase, and strengthen grace in the worshippers; as also, to convey and exhibit a sense of the love and favor of God unto their souls. And in these two things consists the principal interest of all believers in this world, nor have they any design in competition with that of increasing in them. Finding, therefore, how by the diligent attendance unto this worship, they thrive in both parts of their interest, it cannot but be pleasant unto them.

(5.) The outward rites of it are few, lightsome, easy to be observed, without scrupulous, tormenting fears, nor such as, by attendance unto bodily services, do divert the mind from that communion with God which they are a means of.

3. It is instructive, and that with clearness and evidence of the things which we are to know and learn. This was a great part of the imperfection of legal institutions, that they taught the things which they signified and represented obscurely, and the mind of God in them was not learned but with much difficulty; no small part of their obedience consisting in a resignation of their understandings unto Gods sovereignty, as to the use and the end of the things wherein they were exercised in his worship. But all the ordinances and institutions of the gospel do give light into, and exhibit the things themselves unto the minds and faith of believers. Hereon they discern the reasons and grounds of their use and benefit; whence our whole worship is called our reasonable service, Rom 12:1. Thus in the preaching of the word, Jesus Christ is evidently set forth, crucified among us, Gal 3:1; not darkly represented in types and shadows. And in the sacrament of the supper we do plainly show forth his death till he come, 1Co 11:26 And the like may be said of all other evangelical institutions. And the principal reason hereof is, because they do not represent or shadow things to come, no, nor yet things absent, as did those of old; but they really present and exhibit spiritual things, Christ and the benefits of his mediation, unto our souls. And in the observance of them we are not kept at a distance, but have an admission unto the holy place not made with hands; because Christ, who is the minister of that holy sanctuary, is in them and by them really present unto the souls of believers. Two other things, mentioned before, concerning this worship, namely, its relation unto Christ as our high priest, and our access in it unto the holy place, the throne of grace, must be spoken unto at large elsewhere.

This is a brief declaration of that , or perfection, which the apostle denies to have been attainable by the Levitical priesthood. And the grounds of his denial he gives us in the remaining words of the text, which we shall also consider: only we may observe by the way, that,

Obs. 3. To look for glory in evangelical worship from outward ceremonies and carnal ordinances, is to prefer the Levitical priesthood before that of Christ. That which we are to look for in our worship is a such a perfection as we are capable of in this world. This the apostle denies unto the Levitical priesthood, and ascribes it unto the priesthood of Christ. But if such a perfection be to be found in ceremonies and ordinances outwardly pompous and glorious, upon necessity the contrary conclusion must be made and affirmed. But yet so it is come to pass in the world, that men do order things in their public worship as if they judged that the pure, unmixed worship of the gospel had no glory in comparison of that of the law, which did excel, and whereunto they do more or less conform themselves. But it is time for us to proceed with our apostle.

Having denied perfection unto the Levitical priesthood, which he lays down in a supposition including a negation, so as to make way for the proof of what he denied; for the further explication of it, and application unto his present purpose, he adds the respect that their priesthood had to the law, intending thereby to bring the law itself under the same censure of disability and insufficiency: .

1. The subject spoken of is , the people; that is, in the wilderness, the body of the church, to whom the law and priesthood were given immediately by the ministry of Moses. But after this, the whole posterity of Abraham in their successive generations were one people with them, and are so esteemed. For a people is still the same: and, as a people never dies till all individuals that belong unto it are cut off, so by this people the whole church of all ages under the old testament is intended.

2. Of this people he says, , they were legalized. They were also evangelized, as our apostle speaks, Heb 4:2. They were so in the promise made unto Abraham, and in the many types of Christ and his offices and sacrifice that were instituted among them. Yet were they at the same time so brought under the power of the law, as that they had not the light, liberty, and comfort of the gospel, which we enjoy. , is legem ferre, legem sancire, legem imponere; to make constitute, impose a law And the passive, , when applied unto persons, is legi latae subjici, or legem latam accipere; to be made subject unto a law; to receive the law made to oblige them. So is it used in this place. We have therefore not amiss rendered it received the law, The people received the law. But the sense of that expression is regulated by the nature of a law. They so received it as to be made subject unto it, as to be obliged by it. Other things may be otherwise received; but a law is received by coming under its obligation. They were brought under the power, authority, and obligation of the law. Or, because the law was the foundation and instrument of their whole state, both in things sacred and civil, the meaning of the word may be, they were brought into that state and condition where into the law disposed them.

This is said to be done , under it; that is, , under that priesthood. But how the people may be said to receive the law under the Levitical priesthood, must be further inquired into. Some think that in this place answers unto in the Hebrew; that is, concerning it.

And so the meaning of the word is, For it was concerning the Levitical priesthood that the people received a command;that is, God by his law and command instituted the Levitical priesthood among them, and no other, during the times of the old testament. According unto this interpretation, it is not the whole law of commandments contained in ordinances that is intended, but the law constituting the Levitical priesthood. This sense is embraced by Schlichtingius and Grotius; as it was before them touched on, but rejected, by Junius and Piscator. But although there be no inconveniency in this interpretation, yet I look not on it as suited unto the design of the apostle in this place. For his intention is, to prove that perfection was not to be attained by the Levitical priesthood. Unto this end he was to consider that priesthood under all its advantages; for if any of them seem to be omitted, it would weaken his argument, seeing what it could not do under one consideration it might do under another. Now, although it was some commendation of the Levitical priesthood that it was appointed of God, or confirmed by a law, yet was it a far greater advancement that therewith the whole law was given, and thereon did depend, as our apostle declares in the next verses.

The introduction of this clause by the particle may be on a double account, which though different, yet either of them is consistent with this interpretation of the words.

1. It may be used in a way of concession of all the advantages that the Levitical priesthood was accompanied withal: Be it that together with that priesthood the people also received the law.Or,

2. On the other side, there is included a reason why perfection was not to be attained by that priesthood; namely, because together with it, the people were brought into bondage under the yoke of the law. Either way, the whole law is intended. But the most probable reason of the introduction of this clause by that particle, for, was to bring the whole law into the same argument, that perfection was not attainable by it. This the apostle plainly reassumes, verses 18, 19, concluding, as of the priesthood here, that it made nothing perfect. For it is the same law, which made nothing perfect, that was given together with that priesthood, and not that especial command alone whereby it was instituted.

There yet remains one difficulty in the words: for the people are said to receive the law under the Levitical priesthood; and therefore it should seem that that priesthood was established before the giving of the law. But it is certain that the law was given on Mount Sinai before the institution of that priesthood; for Aaron was not called nor separated unto his office until after Moses came down from the mount the second time, with the tables renewed, after he had broken them, Exo 40:12-14. Two things may be applied to the removal of this difficulty. For,

1. The people may be said to receive the law under the Levitical priesthood, not with respect unto the order of the giving of the law, but as unto their actual obedience unto it, in the exercise of the things required in it. And so nothing that appertained unto divine worship, according unto the law, was performed by them until that priesthood was established. And this, as I have showed, is the true signification of the word , here used. It doth not signify the giving of the law unto them, but their being legalized, or brought under the power of it. Wherefore, although some part of the law was given before the institution of that priesthood, yet the people were not brought into the actual obedience of it but by virtue thereof. But,

2. The apostle in this place hath especial respect unto the law as it was the cause and rule of religious worship, of sacrifices, ceremonies, and other ordinances of divine service; for in that part of the law the Hebrews placed all their hopes of perfection, which the moral law could not give them. And in this respect the priesthood was given before the law. For although the moral law was given in the audience of the people before, on the mount; and an explication was given of it unto Moses, as it was to be applied unto the government of that people in judiciary proceedings, commonly called the judicial law, before he came down from the mount, Exodus 21-23; yet as to the system of all religious ceremonies, ordinances of worship, sacrifices of all sorts, and typical institutions, whatever belonged unto the sacred services of the church, the law of it was not given out unto them until after the erection of the tabernacle, and the separation of Aaron and his sons unto the office of the priesthood: yea, that whole law was given by the voice of God out of that tabernacle whereof Aaron was the minister, Lev 1:1-2. So that the people in the largest sense may be said to receive the law under that priesthood. Wherefore the sense of the words is, that together with the priesthood the people received the law of commandments contained in ordinances; which yet effected not in their conjunction the end that God designed in his worship. And we may observe, that,

Obs. 4. Put all advantages and privileges whatever together, and yet they will bring nothing to perfection, without Jesus Christ. God manifested this in all his revelations and institutions. His revelations from the foundation of the world were gradual and partial, increasing the light of the knowledge of his glory from age to age: but put them all together from the first promise, with all expositions of it and additions unto it, with prophecies of what should afterwards come to pass, taking in also the ministry of John the Baptist; yet did they not all of them together make a perfect revelation of God his mind and will, as he will be known and worshipped, Heb 1:1-2; Joh 1:18. So also was there great variety in his institutions. Some were of great efficacy and of clearer significancy than others; but all of them put together made nothing perfect. Much more will all the ways that others shall find out to attain righteousness, peace, light, and life before God, come short of giving rest or perfection.

The last thing considerable in these words, is the reason whereby the apostle proves, that in the judgment of the Holy Ghost himself, perfection was not attainable by the Levitical priesthood: For if it were, what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

The reason in these words is plain and obvious. For after the institution of that priesthood, and after the execution of it in its greatest glory, splendor, and efficacy, a promise is made in the time of David of another priest of another order to arise. Hereof there can be no account given but this alone, that perfection was not attainable by that which was already instituted and executed. For it was a perfection that God aimed to bring his church unto, or the most perfect state, in righteousness, peace, liberty, and worship, which it is capable of in this world; and whatever state the church be brought into, it must be by its high priest, and the discharge of his office, Now, if this might have been effected by the Levitical priesthood, the rising of another priest was altogether needless and useless. This is that invincible argument whereby the holy apostle utterly overthrows the whole system of the Judaical religion, and takes it out of the way, as we shall see more particularly afterwards. But the expressions used in this reason must be distinctly considered. That another priest; a priest of another sort. Not only a priest who individually was not yet exhibited, but one of another stock and order; a priest that should not be of the tribe of Levi, nor of the order of Aaron, as is afterwards explained. , to arise; that is, to be called, exalted, to stand up in the execution of that office. To rise up, or to be raised up, is used indefinitely concerning any one that attempts any new work, or is made eminent for any end, good or bad. In the latter sense God is said to raise up Pharaoh, to show his power in him, that he might magnify his glorious power in his punishment and destruction, Exo 9:16; Rom 9:17. In a good sense, with respect unto the call of God, it is used by Deborah, Jdg 5:7, Until I Deborah arose, until I arose another in Israel. Commonly and are used to this purpose, Mat 11:11; Mat 24:24; Joh 7:52. To arise, therefore, is to appear and stand up at the call of God, and by his designation, unto the execution or performance of any office or work. So was this other priest to appear, arise, stand up, and execute the priests office, in compliance with the call and appointment of God.

And this priest was thus to rise after the order of Melchisedec. So it is expressly affirmed in the Psalms. And here the apostle takes in the consideration of what he had before discoursed concerning the greatness of Melchisedec. For he designed not only to prove the thing itself, which is sufficiently done in the testimony out of the psalmist, but also to evidence the advantage and benefit of the church by this change. And hereunto the consideration of the greatness of Melchisedec was singularly subservient, as manifesting the excellency of that priesthood by whom the righteousness of the church and its worship was to be consummated.

Lastly, The apostle adds negatively of this other priest, who was to rise by reason of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood, which could not perfect the state of the church, that he was not to be called after the order of Aaron.

, And not to be called after the order of Aaron; that is, in the psalm where the rising of this priest is declared and foretold. There he is said to be, or is denominated, a priest after the order of Melchisedec, and nothing is spoken of the order of Aaron. , denotes only an external denomination, not an internal call. It is not the same with , used by our apostle, Heb 5:4, , called of God; that is, by an effectual call and separation unto office. But it answers , Heb 5:10, cognominatus; called so by external denomination. For the real call of Christ unto his office, by Him who said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, was such as the call of Melchisedec himself could not represent. Wherefore the call of Christ unto his office and that of Melchisedec are nowhere compared. But upon the account of sundry resemblances, insisted on by the apostle in the first verses of this chapter, Christ is called by external denomination a priest after his order, and is nowhere called so after the order of Aaron. And the reason why the apostle addeth this negative is evident. For it might be said, that although another priest was foretold to arise, yet this might respect only an extraordinary call unto the same office, and not a call unto an office of another kind or order. Aaron was called by God immediately, and in an extraordinary manner; and all his posterity came into the same office by an ordinary succession. So God promised to raise up a priest in a singular manner, 1Sa 2:35,

I will raise me up a faithful priest, which shall do according unto that which is in mine heart and in my mind.

A priest of another order is not here intended, but only the change of the line of succession from the house of Ithamar unto that of Phinehas, fulfilled in Zadok in the days of Solomon. So a new priest might be raised up, and yet the old legal order and administration be continued. But,saith the apostle, he is not to be of the same order.For the defect of the Levitical priesthood was not only in the persons, which he mentions afterwards, but it was in the office itself, which could not bring the church to perfection. And that de facto he was not so to be, he proves by this argument negatively from the Scripture, that he is nowhere by the Holy Ghost said to be of the order of Aaron, but, on the contrary, of that of Melchisedec, which is in consistent therewithal.

And this is the first argument whereby the apostle confirms his principal design, which he particularly strengthens and improves in the verses following.

Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

Our Ever-Living and All-Sufficient Intercessor

Heb 7:11-28

If, as we saw in our last reading, the Levitical priests have been superseded, clearly the whole order of things-that is, the Mosaic covenant under which these priests were appointed-has been superseded also. The law of the carnal-that is, the outward ritual-has passed away in favor of a new dispensation which deals with the heart and character. It served a temporary purpose, but we are living in an eternal order which is steadfast and abiding.

Our Lords priesthood is unchangeable and indissoluble. His blood and righteousness, His mediation for us, His loving understanding of us, will be a joy and comfort in the unending ages. We shall always be specially associated with Him-the brethren of the King, the sheep of the Divine Shepherd. Each priest of Aarons line had to vacate his office; but our Lords priesthood will never pass to another; and therefore to the uttermost lapse of time and to the farthest demand of circumstance, He will save and help all that come to Him. No infirmity weakens Him, no stain or sin unfits Him-above the heavens and from the throne He exercises His ministry.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

perfection: [Strong’s G5050], completion, or fulfilment of the plan and purpose of God. Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19, Heb 8:7, Heb 8:10-13, Heb 10:1-4, Gal 2:21, Gal 4:3, Gal 4:9, Col 2:10-17

what: Heb 7:26-28

another: Heb 7:15, Heb 7:17, Heb 7:21, Heb 5:6, Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20

Reciprocal: Exo 29:9 – the priest’s Num 20:26 – General Num 25:13 – an everlasting 1Ch 6:49 – Aaron 1Ch 24:19 – under Aaron Psa 110:4 – Thou Act 6:14 – change Gal 3:25 – we Heb 6:1 – let Heb 8:4 – he should Heb 8:13 – he hath Heb 9:9 – the time Heb 9:11 – an high priest

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Heb 7:11. The law of Moses was inspired and served the purpose of the Lord, but it was not intended to be permanent as to the duration of its force. (See Gal 3:18-25) The Judaizers (Jews who tried to force the law of Moses on Christians) maintained that it was to be permanent. Paul reasons that since the law was received under the Levitical priesthood, such law would necessarily be changed whenever the priesthood was changed. But it was well established that another priest was to arise like Melchisedec more than like Aaron (father of the Levities), therefore the point is made that the law was not longer in force.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Heb 7:11. If therefore perfection was; better, If again, or Now if, a transitional particle indicating an argument bearing on the same subject (see Heb 9:1). Was, not were; the reasoning is not, If there were perfection, there would be no need; but, If there was perfection, there was no need. The Psalm tells us that in the person of the Messiah there was to arise a priest who did not belong to the order of Aaron, but to a different order; and this declaration implies that the priesthood of Aaron was not capable of securing the great end of a priesthood. What that end is has been largely discussed. Expiation, consecration, transformation of personal character, true permanent blessedness, each has had its advocates, and we may safely combine them all. If sinners are to be forgiven, forgiveness must be consistent with the Divine character and law; the conscience must be pacified and man made holy. That the Levitical priesthood did not effect these ends is proved at length later on; here the writer restricts himself to the one point, that after the first priesthood was instituted it was announced that its work was to pass into the hands of another order, an intimation of its insufficiency. The case is made clear by the parenthetic statementfor on the ground of the Levitical priesthood (not under it) the people have received the law (i.e not that the priesthood was first and the law afterwards, for the contrary is the fact, nor that the people were subject to a law that had reference to the priesthood). The law rested on the assumed existence of a priesthood, all its precepts and requirements presupposing some such body; so that now, if the priesthood is removed, the economy itself is removed also. Under the Gospel, God appoints, as He foretold, a priest who does not answer to the description given of priests under the lawa clear proof that He who first made the law has annulled it.

What need was there that there should arise (the usual word to describe one raised to dignities in his office, Act 3:22; Act 7:37) a different priest after the order of Melchisedec, and that he should be said to be not (or not be called) after the order of Aaron?

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

In perfection, that is, a perfect expiation and remission of sin, could have been made by the sacrifice which the legal priests offered, there should then have been no need that God should institute a priest of another and more excellent order, namely, his own Son, to be a priest after Melchizedek’s order, and not after the order of Aaron.

Where note, That perfection is denied in the Levitical pristhood, and ascribed to the priesthood of Christ. To perfect sinful man, is to free him from the guilt of sin, and from the direful and dismal consequences of sin, and to make him righteous and holy, capable of communion with God, both here and here after. Now this the Levitical pristhood could not do. “But Jesus Christ has by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” Heb 10:14.

Thus the apostle infers the necessity of changing the pristhood: And next he tells us, Ver. . That the Change of the Levitical priesthood necessarily draweth along with it a change of the Levitical law, and the legal dispensation of the covenant of grace; for the Levitical priesthood and the Levitical law do both stand and fall together: The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. By the changing of the priesthood, understand the abolition of it; by the change of the law, understand the abrogation of it; by the word necessity, understand that the change was not casual and contingent, but absolutely needful, in regard of the imperfection and inability of the Levitical priesthood to effect any such thing.

Learn hence, That the promulgation of the gospel, and the instution of Christianity, did abrogate the Levitical law, and make it of no farce. This might be the reason why God did not only be the Death and Sacrifice of Christ, the great High Priest, abolish the Levitical Priesthood, but also destroyed the Temple itself, where he had put his name, and never suffered it to be rebuilt; denoting thereby the utter abolition of the Levitical Presthood, and the total abrogation of the ceremonial law.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

The Imperfections of Levi’s Priesthood

If the end of God’s plan for the redemption of man was to come under the Levitical priesthood, there would not have been a need for another priest of the order of Melchizedek. Parenthetically, the writer reminds the reader that redemption under the old law stands or falls with the Levite priest ( Gal 3:21-24 ). Since the priesthood changed under Christ, the law must also have changed. Priests were important in the Mosaic system. Without their sacrifices, there would be no law. The change in law and some of its effects are noted elsewhere in scripture ( 2Co 3:6-14 ; Gal 3:19-29 ; Gal 4:19-31 ). In Col 2:10-17 , Paul shows that the order of the priesthood was changed at the cross, since in Christ’s crucifixion the law of Moses was nailed to the cross ( Heb 7:11-12 ).

Under the law, only those of the house of Aaron could serve at the altar ( Numbers 16-28:7 ). Psa 110:4 indicates a change was to one day come. Since Jesus was not of Aaron’s house, He could not, by law, wait at the altar. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, which was not the priestly tribe ( Isa 11:1-5 ; Mic 5:2 ; Rev 5:5 ; Mat 1:1-25 ; Luk 3:1-38 ). The priesthood of Christ is that of the order of Melchizedek and represents a change from the Aaronic priesthood. Christ was also of the tribe of Judah, which shows a change in the priestly tribe since it was that of Levi. Jesus did not receive his priesthood from a fleshly, perishable, line of men, but from the eternal power of God.

The law of Moses just gave the priesthood to descendants with no thought of other qualifications. Christ received the office of priest because He was eternal. Melchizedek’s priesthood was totally uninterupted, so Christ could only be called a priest after his order once He was raised from the dead and could serve without interruption ( Heb 7:13-17 ; Psa 110:4 ).

The law of Moses had to be set aside, made void, or abolished before a new law could take effect. The law had to be replaced because it could not bring anything to perfection. The new law is better as it allows one to draw closer to God through the blood of Christ. God’s oath in connection with Christ’s priesthood stresses its importance. It also shows that this law was to last forever, since God fully keeps his oaths and a Melchizedek priest has no end ( Heb 7:18-20 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Heb 7:11. The apostle, having cleared his way from objections, now enters on his principal argument concerning the priesthood of Christ, and all the consequences of it with respect to righteousness, salvation, and the worship of God which depend thereon. If, therefore, or, now if perfection were by the Levitical priesthood If it perfectly answered all Gods designs and mans wants; what further need was there that another priest A priest of a new order; should rise Or be set up; and not one after the order of Aaron? As if he had said, Since by what has been advanced it appears from Scripture that another priesthood was to arise after Aarons, of another order, it follows hence that perfection could not be attained by that of Aaron; for if it could, that certainly would not have been removed, and another substituted in its place. In other words, the prediction of the rising up of a priest of a different order from that of Aaron, is a declaration of the inefficacy of the Levitical priesthood, and of Gods intention to change it. Instead of the clause, for under it, (namely, the Levitical priesthood,) Macknight reads, on account of it, the people received the law Observing that the law was prior to the priesthood, being given for the purpose of forming and establishing the priesthood; and that the Jewish people themselves were separated from the rest of mankind, and made a people by the law, merely that they might, as a nation, worship the only true God according to the Levitical ritual, in settling which most of the precepts of the law were employed. This being the case, is it any wonder that such of the Jews as looked no farther than the outside of the priesthood and law, imagined that perfection, in respect of pardon and acceptance with God, was to be obtained by the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices, and in that persuasion believed they never would be abolished? Nevertheless, if they had understood the true meaning of the law, they would have known that it was a typical oracle, in which, by its services, the priesthood and sacrifice of the Son of God were prefigured, and that by calling his Son a priest, not after the order of Aaron, but after that of Melchisedec, God declared that his services as a High-Priest, and the sacrifice of himself which he was to offer, were entirely different, both in their nature and effects, from the Levitical services and sacrifices, and that they were to be substituted in the room of these services, for which there was no occasion after the priest and sacrifices which they prefigured, were come.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 11

For under it, &c.; that is, the law was so connected with the Levitical priesthood, that whatever imperfection or inferiority is shown to pertain to the one, attaches in like manner to the other.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

7:11 {5} If therefore {d} perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

(5) The third treatise of this Epistle, in which after he has proved Christ to be a King, Prophet and a Priest, he now handles distinctly the condition and excellency of all these offices, showing that all these were shadows, but in Christ they are true and perfect. He begins with the priesthood that the former treatise ended with, that by this means all the parts of the debate may better hold together. First of all he proves that the Levitical priesthood was imperfect because another priest is promised later according to an other order, that is, of another rule and fashion.

(d) If the priesthood of Levi could have made any man perfect.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The superior priesthood of Jesus 7:11-25

Having shown the superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham and Levi, the writer proceeded to point out the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood and Jesus’ priesthood. He did so to clarify for his readers the inferiority of the Mosaic Covenant and its priesthood. Not only was Melchizedek greater than Aaron, Melchizedek, though he preceded Aaron in time, also replaced Aaron.

"Within the structure of the homily, Heb 7:1-28 is clearly defined as a literary unit. The reference to ’the Son of God’ in Heb 7:3 prepares for the climactic reference to the ’Son’ in Heb 7:28. The entire chapter is concerned with the Son as priest, or high priest, ’like Melchizedek,’ who is superior to the Levitical priests. The fact that Heb 7:28 summarizes and concludes the comparison of Jesus as Son with the Levitical priesthood, a subject that occupies the writer in a preparatory way in Heb 7:1-10 and directly in Heb 7:11-28, is of special importance . . ." [Note: Lane, p. 177.]

Gen 14:17-20 now falls into the background, and Psa 110:4 becomes dominant. [Note: Cf. G. L. Cockerill, The Melchizedek Christology in Hebrews 7:1-28, pp. 16-20.] Note also the keywords "perfection" (Heb 7:11) and "perfect" (Heb 7:19; Heb 7:28). These two words not only form an inclusio but begin and end the argument of the pericope. Perfection did not come through the Old Covenant priests but through the Son the New Covenant Priest. Why would God replace the Levitical priesthood? Four reasons follow.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The imperfection of the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law 7:11-14

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The writer’s point was that since God promised in Psa 110:4 that the coming Messiah would be a priest after Melchizedek’s order, He intended to terminate the Levitical priesthood because it was inadequate. If the Levitical priesthood had been adequate, the Messiah would have functioned as a Levitical priest.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)