Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
12. being changed ] He here uses the comparatively mild and delicate term “being transferred ” When he has prepared the mind of his readers by a little further argument, he substitutes for “transference” the much stronger word “ annulment ” (Heb 7:18). 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 its own sphere, is more conciliatory, more deferential, less vehemently iconoclastic. This relation to St Paul is like that of Melanchthon to Luther.
of necessity ] The Law and the Priesthood were so inextricably united that the Priesthood could not be altered without disintegrating the whole complex structure of the Law.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For the priesthood being changed – According to the prediction in Ps. cx., that it would be. When that occurs, the consequence specified will also follow.
There is made of necessity a change also of the law – The Law so far as it grew out of that, or was dependent on it. The connection requires us to understand it only of the Law so far as it was connected with the Levitical priesthood. This could not apply to the ten commandments – for they were given before the institution of the priesthood; nor could it apply to any other part of the moral law, for that was not dependent on the appointment of the Levitical priests. But the meaning is, that since a large number of laws – constituting a code of considerable extent and importance – was given for the regulation of the priesthood, and in reference to the rites of religion, which they were to observe or superintend, it followed that when their office was superseded by one of a wholly different order, the Law which had regulated them vanished also, or ceased to be binding. This was a very important point in the introduction of Christianity, and hence, it is that it is so often insisted on in the writings of Paul. The argument to show that there had been a change or transfer of the priestly office, he proceeds to establish in the sequel.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 12. The priesthood being changed] That is, The order of Aaron being now abrogated, to make way for that which had preceded it, the order of Melchisedec.
There is made of necessity a change also of the law.] The very essence of the Levitical law consisting in its sacrificial offerings; and as these could not confer perfection, could not reconcile God to man, purify the unholy heart, nor open the kingdom of heaven to the souls of men, consequently it must be abolished, according to the order of God himself; for he said, Sacrifice and offering, and burnt-offering, and sacrifice for sin, he would not; see Ps 40:6; Ps 40:7, compared with Heb 10:5-10, and with Ps 110:4, where it is evident God designed to change both the law and the priesthood, and to introduce Jesus as the only Priest and Sacrifice, and to substitute the Gospel system for that of the Levitical institutions. The priesthood, therefore, being changed, Jesus coming in the place of Aaron, the law of ordinances and ceremonies, which served only to point out the Messiah, must of necessity be changed also.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For the priesthood being changed: for refers to the expiration of the Aaronical order, to which these Hebrews now were not bound, for that a better priesthood and law were to fill up their room in the church. The Levitical priesthood was changed and abolished to make way for this; God designing that to continue for a time, and then to expire, when the truth perfecting it should take place.
There is made of necessity a change also of the law; the mutation of the priesthood indispensably requireth the change of the law, i.e. the legal dispensation of the covenant of grace, and the bringing in with another priesthood a better hope, Gal 3:17-27; compare Heb 7:18,19 of this chapter; even the covenant of grace in the gospel dispensation of it. This was made necessary by the decree of God, who determined, that both priesthood and law should expire together, and accordingly hath fulfilled it. For when Christ, the gospel High Priest, had in his person and work perfected all of it in heaven, he roots out that order of priesthood, abolisheth the law, scatters the people which would cleave to it; demolisheth the temple and city to which he confined the administration, so as all designs and endeavours of Jews, or of apostate Christhins, to repair, or to restore it, have been ineffectual to this day.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
12. Forthe reason why Paulpresses the words “after the order of Melchisedec” in Ps110:4, namely, because these presuppose a change or transferenceof the priesthood, and this carries with it a change also of the law(which is inseparably bound up with the priesthood, both stand andfall together, Heb 7:11). Thisis his answer to those who might object, What need was there of a newcovenant?
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For the priesthood being changed,…. Not translated from one tribe, family, or order, to another, but utterly abolished; for though it is called an everlasting priesthood, yet that is to be understood with a limitation, as the word “everlasting” often is, as relating to things under that dispensation; for nothing is more certain than that it is done away: it was of right abrogated at the death of Christ, and it is now in fact; since the destruction of Jerusalem, the daily sacrifice has ceased, and the children of Israel have been many days without one, and without an ephod. And the Jews themselves own, that the high priesthood was to cease in time to come m, and which they say Azariah the son of Oded prophesied of in 2Ch 15:3.
There is made of necessity a change also of the law; not the moral law, that was in being before the priesthood of Aaron, nor do they stand and fall together; besides, this still remains, for it is perfect, and cannot be made void by any other; nor is it set aside by Christ’s priesthood: though there is a sense in which it is abolished; as it is in the hands of Moses; as it is a covenant of works; as to justification by it; and as to its curse and condemnation to them that are Christ’s; yet it still remains in the hands of Christ, and as a rule of walk and conversation; and is useful, and continues so on many accounts: but either the judicial law; not that part of it which is founded on justice and equity, and was a means of guarding the moral law, for that still subsists; but that which was given to the Jews as Jews, and some parts of which depended on the priesthood, and so ceased with it; as the laws concerning the cities of refuge, raising up seed to a deceased brother, preserving inheritances in families, and judging and determining controversies: or rather the ceremonial law, which was but a shadow of good things to come, and was given but for a time; and this concerned the priesthood, and was made void by the priesthood of Christ; for that putting an end to the Levitical priesthood, the law which related to it must unavoidably cease, and become of no effect. This the Jews most strongly deny; God, they n say, will not change nor alter the law of Moses for ever. The nineth article of their creed, as drawn up by Maimonides, runs thus o;
“I believe with a perfect faith that this law “shall not be changed”, nor shall there be another law from the Creator, blessed be his name.”
But the reasoning of the apostle is strong and unanswerable.
m Vajikra Rabba, sect. 19. fol. 160. 4. n Seder Tephillot, Ed. Amsterd. fol. 2. 1. o Apud Seder Tephillot, Ed. Basil. fol. 86. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The priesthood being changed ( ). Genitive absolute with present passive participle of , old word to transfer (Ga 1:6).
A change (). Old substantive from . In N.T. only in Heb. (Heb 7:12; Heb 11:5; Heb 12:27). God’s choice of another kind of priesthood for his Son, left the Levitical line off to one side, forever discounted, passed by “the order of Aaron” ( ).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Being changed [] . Or transferred to another order. See on Gal 1:6.
A change [] . A transfer to a new basis. Only in Hebrews. See ch. Heb 11:5; Heb 12:27. The inferiority of the Levitical priesthood is inferred from the fact that another priesthood was promised. If perfection was possible at all under the Mosaic economy, it must come through the Levitical priesthood, since that priesthood was, in a sense, the basis of the law. The whole legal system centered in it. The fundamental idea of the law was that of a people united with God. Sin, the obstacle to this ideal union, was dealt with through the priesthood. If the law failed to effect complete fellowship with God, the priesthood was shown to be a failure, and must be abolished; and the change of the priesthood involved the abolition of the entire legal system.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For the priesthood being changed,” (metatithemenes gar tes heirosunes) “For the priestly off ice being (or existing) changed,” at this time. When the Law of Moses was fulfilled, abolished, or taken out of the way, as a system of worship and service, another order of worship succeeded it, that of the church of earth, and the new High Priestly intercession of Christ in heaven, Heb 7:25; 1Jn 2:1-2.
2) “There is made of necessity,” (ginetai eks anagkes) “Out of necessity there occurs; As a result of the fulfillment of the Levitical Law and the bringing in of the New Covenant order of worship and High Priestly intercession in heaven, Col 2:14-17; 2Co 3:7-14; Mat 28:18-20.
3) “A change also of the law,” (kai nomou metathesis) “Also a metathesis (a change), of (the) law,” an alteration of Divine order of worship. Since the Christ, first priest, and second High Priest has offered himself as a ransom sacrifice, offering himself on Calvary for the sins of the whole world, and then entered heaven with his own blood where he intercedes as High Priest today, it is necessary to recognize the new covenant order of worship. His church administers two pictorial ordinances as testimonies of the Resurrected Redeemer and High Priest King, Jesus Christ. These pictorial ordinances (laws) of the new covenant church worship are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, to be administered in memorial testimony of his completed redemptive work on earth and his continuing redemptive work in heaven, till he comes again, ; 1Co 11:1-2; 1Co 11:23-26.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
12. For the priesthood being changed, or, transferred, etc. As the authority of the Law and the priesthood is the same, Christ became not only a priest, but also a Lawgiver; so that the right of Aaron, as well as of Moses, was transferred to him. The sum of the whole is, that the ministry of Moses was no less temporary than that of Aaron; and hence both were annulled by the coming of Christ, for the one could not stand without the other. By the word Law, we understand what peculiarly belonged to Moses; for the Law contains the rule of life, and the gratuitous covenant of life; and in it we find everywhere many remarkable sentences by which we are instructed as to faith, and as to the fear of God. None of these were abolished by Christ, but only that part which regarded the ancient priesthood.
For Christ is here compared with Moses; whatever then they had in common, is not to be taken to the account, but only the things in which they differ. They in common offer God’s mercy to us, prescribe the rule of a holy and godly life, teach us the true worship of God, and exhort us to exercise faith and patience, and all the duties of godliness. But Moses was different from Christ in this respect, that while the love of the Gospel was not as yet made known, he kept the people under veils, set forth the knowledge of Christ by types and shadows, and, in short, accommodated himself to the capacity of ignorant people, and did not rise higher than to puerile elements. We must then remember, that the Law is that part of the ministration which Moses had as peculiarly his own, and different from that of Christ. That law, as it was subordinate to the ancient priesthood, was abolished when the priesthood was abolished. And Christ, being made a priest, was invested also with the authority of a legislator, that he might be the teacher and interpreter of the new covenant. At the same time, the word Law is applied, though not in its strict sense, to the Gospel; but this impropriety of language is so far from having anything harsh in it, that on account of the contrast it adds beauty to the sentence, as we find in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans
Moreover, the impiety of the Pope is extremely arrogant, who has inserted this article in his decretals, that he himself is now invested with the same authority as Aaron formerly had, because the Law and also the priesthood have been transferred to him. We see what the Apostle says; he maintains that ceremonies have ceased since the time when Christ came forth with command to proclaim the new covenant. It is then absurd hence to conclude, that anything has been transferred to the ministers of Christ; for Christ himself is alone contrasted here with Moses and Aaron. Under what pretext then can Antichrist arrogate to himself any such authority? I do not indeed speak now for the sake of disproving so gross an arrogance; but it is worth while to remind readers of this sacrilegious audacity, that they may know that this notorious servant of the servants of Christ wholly disregards the honor of his Master, and boldly mangles the Scriptures, that he may have some cloak for his own tyranny.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(12) This verse connects itself with the parenthesis in Heb. 7:11. For if the priesthood is changed there takes place also of necessity a change of law. It is no light matter to speak of the order of Aaron as set aside: this carries with it a change of law.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
12. A change of the priesthood so predicted necessitated a change also of the law of succession, limiting it no longer to the tribe of Levi.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For the priesthood being changed, there becomes of necessity a change also of the law.’
But if the levitical priesthood is replaced by the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, as the Psalmist is basically declaring, huge consequences follow. The whole situation with regard to the Law changes. For it was the levitical priests who were appointed by the Law to supervise the Law, but the Melchizedekian priesthood precedes the Law, just as Abraham preceded the Law. It existed in the time of promise and was not subject to the Law, and does not have to act in accordance with the Law. Something greater has taken over. The way of the Law has been replaced by the way of the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. And this is the way of the promises given to Abraham.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Heb 7:12. For the priesthood being changed, Another priest arising, there must be a change of the priesthood; but how does it follow that there must be a change of the law? For though the priesthood admitted an alteration, might not the law, as to other points, have continued the same? The truth is, so much of the law concerns the priesthoodimmediately,alltheirsacrifices,oblations,purifications,theirgreatday of atonement, and in short all their temple service,that, supposing those to have been abolished or set aside, their law itself might properly be said to be changed. But there is a still juster reason for this inference of the apostle: the law had promised temporal blessings to its observers, and had denounced as severe curses on such as disobeyed it; and as there could not, in the nature of things, but be frequent lapses and deviations from obedience, a priesthood was appointed, and a method of expiation by means thereof, to restore the offenders to what they had no right to, but by obedience. If therefore the priesthood was changed, the means of atonement were taken away; and the promises annexed only to obedience, or to propitiation, were void, or of no effect at all; and in consequence, the law itself was insignificant and useless, and must be either changed or abolished quite, the end of it in this respect being wholly lost. See the next notes and on Heb 7:15-17.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 7:12 . In the parenthesis, Heb 7:11 , the author has brought forward in general the close connectedness of the Levitical priesthood with the Mosaic law, and thereby already indicated that if the former is an imperfect and unsatisfying one, the same also is true of the latter; the perishing of the one involves also the perishing of the other. This truth the author now further specially urges, by means of a corroboration of the parenthetical remark, Heb 7:11 . So in recent times also Alford and Woerner. Otherwise is the connection apprehended by Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm ( Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 484), Maier, and Moll. They refer to the main thought in Heb 7:11 , and find in Heb 7:12 an indication of the reason “why a change of the sacerdotal order would not have ensued without an urgent cause, namely, because such change would have involved also a change of the law in general.” But subject-matter and form of expression in Heb 7:12 point back to the parenthesis, Heb 7:11 . For in both the author is speaking of the inseparable conjunction of the Levitical priesthood with the Mosaic law; and , Heb 7:11 , is resumed by , Heb 7:12 ; , Heb 7:11 , by , Heb 7:12 .
] denotes, like the immediately following, certainly as to its verbal signification, only a transformation or change , (not specially, as Chrysostom, Piscator, Grotius, Bengel, Heinrichs, Stuart, and others suppose, a transference of the priesthood to another tribe of the Jewish people, or to a non-Aaronides). As regards the thing intended, however, as is manifest from the parallel , Heb 7:18 , an actual rendering obsolete or abrogation is spoken of. The author thus still expresses himself with delicacy of feeling.
That, further, is to be limited, neither, with Beza, Pareus, Piscator, Grotius, Wittich, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Zachariae, Whitby, Schulz, to the law of the priesthood , nor, with Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. Cappellus, Carpzov, Kuinoel, Klee, and others, to the ceremonial law , but is to be interpreted of the Mosaic law in general , is self-evident.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Ver. 12. A change also of the law ] “For we are not under the taw, but under grace.” The gospel is post naufragium tabula, a plank after shipwreck, and hath its remuneration,Heb 11:6Heb 11:6 , viz. of grace and mercy. By law here some understood only the law of priesthood.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
12 .] For if the priesthood is changed (better thus than E. V., “ the priesthood being changed ,” which gives the reader the idea of ), there takes place of necessity a change of the law (not ‘ of law ,’ which would be decidedly wrong, and would require , as in a general sentence, implying ‘the law’ of the particular case in view; , anarthrous, means that law, which had already begun to be used as a proper name, the well-known law of Moses) also (viz. of that law, which, as above, is legislated upon the ground of that priesthood: not, as Beza, Grot., al., of the law of the priesthood only, nor as Calvin, a-Lapide, Jac. Cappell., Bhme, Kuinoel, al., of the ceremonial law only. Chrys. says rightly: , , ; The connexion is with the parenthesis in Heb 7:11 , which was inserted to prepare the way for our verse. Bleek, De Wette, al. deny the reference to the parenthetical clause in Heb 7:11 , and regard our verse as preparing the way for what follows: “It lays down the ground, why not without urgent cause a change of the priesthood took place” (De W.), that cause being that the law itself was to be abrogated. The Writer as yet expresses himself mildly and cautiously: the here in fact amounts to the in Heb 7:18 , but is not yet so expressed).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Heb 7:12 . . “For if the priesthood is changed, there is of necessity a change also of the law”. Or, This change of priesthood being made, as it is now being made, a change of the law is also being made. The connection is: What need was there for a new priesthood? It must have been a crying need, for to change the priesthood is to change all. It means nothing short of revolution. Chrysostom rightly , ;
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
changed. Greek. metatithemi. See Act 7:16.
change. Greek. metathesis. Only here, Heb 11:5; Heb 12:27.
also, &c. = of the law also.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
12.] For if the priesthood is changed (better thus than E. V., the priesthood being changed, which gives the reader the idea of ), there takes place of necessity a change of the law (not of law, which would be decidedly wrong, and would require , as in a general sentence, implying the law of the particular case in view; , anarthrous, means that law, which had already begun to be used as a proper name, the well-known law of Moses) also (viz. of that law, which, as above, is legislated upon the ground of that priesthood: not, as Beza, Grot., al., of the law of the priesthood only, nor as Calvin, a-Lapide, Jac. Cappell., Bhme, Kuinoel, al., of the ceremonial law only. Chrys. says rightly: , , ; The connexion is with the parenthesis in Heb 7:11, which was inserted to prepare the way for our verse. Bleek, De Wette, al. deny the reference to the parenthetical clause in Heb 7:11, and regard our verse as preparing the way for what follows: It lays down the ground, why not without urgent cause a change of the priesthood took place (De W.), that cause being that the law itself was to be abrogated. The Writer as yet expresses himself mildly and cautiously: the here in fact amounts to the in Heb 7:18, but is not yet so expressed).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 7:12. , being transferred or changed) from order to order, from tribe to tribe.-, for) He shows why, in Heb 7:11, he presses the words of the psalm concerning the order of Melchisedec, because it follows from this, that the law was also changed along with the priesthood, and that both are brought to Christ.-, of the law) Heb 7:5; Heb 7:16; Heb 7:19; Heb 7:28; ch. Heb 8:4. , order (not ), is the expression used of Christ.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
, .
Mutato sacerdotio. Vulg. Lat., translato. Beza, hoc sacerdotio; expressing the article. Syr., Yea, even as a change was made in the priesthood, so a change was made also in the law; not to the mind of the apostle. Ethiop., If their law is passed away, their priesthood shall pass away; more out of the way than the other.
Heb 7:12. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law.
In this verse the apostle evidently declares what he intended by the law in that foregoing, which the people received under the Levitical priesthood. It was the whole law of commandments contained in ordinances, or the whole law of Moses, so far as it was the rule of worship and obedience unto the church; for that law it is that followeth the fates of the priesthood.
And herein lieth the stress and moment of the controversy which the apostle then had with the Jews, and which we have at this day with their unbelieving posterity. For the question was, whether the law of Moses was to be eternal absolutely, the rule of the worship of the church whilst it was to continue in this world. And it appears that in the preaching of the gospel, that which most provoked the Jews was, that there was inferred thereby a cessation and taking away of Mosaical institutions. This was that which enraged them, unto the shedding of the blood of the church, which they were guilty of, after the murder of the Head thereof. For they fell on Stephen under pretense that he had said that Jesus of Nazareth should change the customs which Moses delivered, Act 6:14. And this also provoked their rage against our apostle, Act 21:28. Yea, the most of them who were converted to the faith of the gospel yet continued obstinate in this persuasion, that the law of Moses was yet to continue in force, Act 21:20. And with this opinion some of them troubled the peace and hindered the edification of the churches called from among the Gentiles, as hath been at large elsewhere declared. This matter, therefore, which the apostle now entereth upon, was to be managed with care and diligence. This he enters upon in this verse, being a transition from one point unto another, having made way for his intentions in the verse foregoing. That which hitherto he hath insisted on in this chapter, is the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of the law, manifested in the representation made of it by Melchisedec. In the pursuit of his argument unto that purpose, he proves that the Aaronical priesthood was to be abolished, because, after its institution, there was a promise of the introduction of another, wherewith it was inconsistent. And herein observing the strict conjunction that was between that priesthood and the law, with their mutual dependence on one another, he proves from thence that the law itself was also to be abolished.
Herein, therefore, lay the principal design of the apostle in this whole epistle. For the law may be looked on under a double consideration:
1. As unto what the Jews, in that degenerate state of the chinch, obstinately looked for from it.
2. As unto what it did really require of them, whilst it stood in force and power. And under both these considerations it was utterly inconsistent with the gospel.
1. The Jews at that time expected no less from it than expiation of sin by its sacrifices, and justification by the works of it. It is true, they looked for these things by it unjustly, seeing it promised no such thing, nor was ever ordained unto any such purpose; but yet these things they looked for, and were resolved so to do, until the law should be removed out of the way. And it is evident how inconsistent this is with the whole work of the mediation of Christ, which is the sum and substance of the gospel. But suppose they looked not absolutely for atonement and justification by the sacrifices and works of the law, yet the continuance of their observance was repugnant unto the gospel. For the Lord Christ, by the one offering of himself, had made perfect atonement for sin; so that the sacrifices of the law could be of no more use or signification. And the continuance of them, wherein there was renewed mention of the expiation of sin, did declare that there was not a perfect expiation already made: which overthrows the efficacy and virtue of the sacrifice of Christ; even as the daily repetition of a sacrifice in the mass continueth to do. Again; whereas the Lord Christ, by his obedience and righteousness, had fulfilled the law, and was become the end of it for righteousness unto them that do believe, the seeking after justification as it were by the works of the law was wholly repugnant thereunto.
2. And in the next place, the law may be considered as it prescribed a way of worship, in its ordinances and institutions, which God did accept. This the people were indispensably obliged unto whilst the law stood in force. But in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ had now appointed a new, spiritual worship, suited unto the principles and grace thereof. And these were so inconsistent as that no man could at once serve these two masters.
Wherefore the whole law of Moses, as given unto the Jews, whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant unto and inconsistent with the gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office, therein declared; neither did God either design, appoint, or direct that they should be co-existent. If, then, the law continue in its force, and have power to oblige the consciences of men, and is still so to abide, there is neither room nor place for Christ and his priesthood in the church, nor, indeed, for the discharge of his other offices. And this opposition between the law and the gospel, works and grace, our own righteousness and that of Christ, our apostle doth not only grant, but vehemently urge, in all his epistles, allowing none to suppose that they may have both these strings unto their bow. One of them he is peremptory that all mankind must betake themselves unto. Here the Jews were entangled, and knew not what to do. The greatest part of them adhered unto the law, with an utter rejection of the gospel and the Author of it, perishing in their unbelief. Others of them endeavored to make a composition of these things, and retaining of Moses, they would admit of Christ and the gospel also. And this the Holy Ghost in the apostles did for a while bear withal. But now, whereas the whole service of the tabernacle was of itself fallen down, and become, as useless, so of no force, its obliging power ceasing in its accomplishment by Christ; and whereas the time was drawing near wherein God by his providence would utterly remove it; the inconsistency of it with the gospel-state of the church was now fully to be declared.
This, therefore, our apostle grants, that there was such a repugnancy between the law and the gospel, as unto the ends of righteousness and divine worship, as that one of them must of necessity be parted withal. Wherefore the whole controversy turning on this hinge, it was highly incumbent on him to manifest and prove that the law did now cease, according unto the appointment of God; and that God had of old designed, foretold, and promised, that so it should do, and be abolished upon the introduction of that which was the end and substance of it. And this I look upon as the greatest trial the faith of men ever had in the concerns of religion; namely, to believe that God should take away, abolish, and leave as dead and useless, that whole system of solemn worship which he had appointed in so glorious a manner, and accepted for so many generations. But yet, as we are to acquiesce in the sovereign pleasure of God, made known by revelation, against all reasonings of our own whatsoever; so it must be confessed that faith was greatly bespoken and prepared, by the nature, end, and use of all those institutions, which more than intimated that they were appointed only for a time, and served to introduce a more glorious dispensation of divine wisdom and grace.
The proof, therefore, of the utter cessation of the law, the apostle enters upon by the invincible argument whose foundation or proposition is laid in this verse, and the especial parts of it are explained, confirmed, and vindicated, in those that follow. And in his ensuing discourse his principal design is to prove, that the church is so far from being a loser or disadvantaged by this change, as that she receiveth thereby the highest privilege and greatest blessing that in this world she is capable of.
In the words of this verse there is a supposition of the change of the priesthood, as that which was proved before; and an inference from thence unto a necessity of the change of the law.
The priesthood being changed; that is, the priesthood of Levi, appointed and exercised under the law. , translato, mutato; so some read, transferred, translated; some, changed. The former do not reach the whole sense intended; for the office of the priesthood may be transferred from one person to another, one family unto another, yea, one tribe unto another, and yet the priesthood, as to the kind and nature of it, continue the same. This our apostle afterwards mentions, verses 13, 14, as a part of his argument to prove the priesthood itself to be changed. But this it doth not absolutely, seeing it is possible that the office may be transferred from one tribe unto another and yet not be changed as unto its nature. But the proof lies in this, that Moses, in the institution of the priesthood, made no mention of the tribe of Judah; and therefore if that office be transferred unto that tribe, it must be of another kind than that before instituted. And on this supposition, that which he intends to prove follows evidently upon the translation of the priesthood. For all the sacred services and worship which the law required were so confined, or at least had that respect unto the Levitical priesthood, as that no part of it, no sacred duty, could be performed, on a supposition of taking away the priesthood from that tribe and family. For whereas the whole of their worship consisted in the service and sacrifices of the tabernacle, God had appointed that whosoever did draw nigh unto the performance of any of these services that was not of the seed of Aaron, should be cut off and destroyed. Wherefore, upon a supposition of the ceasing or changing of the priesthood in that family, the whole law of ordinances became impracticable, useless, and lost its power; especially seeing there was no provision made in the law itself for a priesthood in any other tribe. Besides, such was the contexture of the law, and such the sanction of it, (Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them,) that if any thing be taken out of it, if its order be disturbed, if any alteration be made, or any transgression be dispensed withal, or exempted from the curse, the whole fabric must of necessity fall unto the ground.
But yet it is not a mere transferring of the priesthood from one tribe unto another that is here intended by the apostle; for there is such a change of the priesthood as there is of the law. But the change of the law was an , a disannulling or abolishing, as it is affirmed, verse 18: such, therefore, must the change of the priesthood be; and so it was. The priesthood was changed, in that one kind of it was utterly abolished, and another introduced. So was the Levitical priesthood changed, as that the other priest, which came with his office in the room thereof, could not be called or said to be after the order of Aaron, but was of another kind, typed out by Melchisedec. It may therefore be inquired on what grounds this priesthood was to be so abolished, or how it appears that so it is, and by what means it was actually taken away.
That it was so to be abolished the apostle proves,
1. Because, before the institution of that priesthood, there was another far more excellent, namely, that of Melchisedec.
2. That the Holy Ghost had declared that the introduction of that more excellent priesthood for a season was to prefigure and represent another priesthood, that was afterwards to be established. And this could not be that of Levi, seeing God doth not make use of that which is more excellent to prefigure or represent that which is inferior thereunto. Another priesthood, therefore, must arise and be granted unto the church, in answer unto that type.
3. That it was impossible that this new priesthood, after the order of Melchisedec, should be consistent with that of Levi, or that it should be continued after that was brought in. For,
(1.) He was to be of another tribe, as he immediately proves.
(2.) Because his priesthood and sacrifice were to be of another kind than that of Levi; which he demonstrates at large in the three ensuing chapters.
(3.) Because, on the other, hand, the priesthood of Aaron,
[1.] Could never accomplish and effect the true and proper ends of the priesthood, which the church stood in need of, and without which it could not be consummated: and,
[2.] Was in its own nature, offices, works, and duties, inconsistent with any priesthood that was not of its own order. It must therefore be abolished.
It may therefore be inquired, how the priesthood was changed, or that of the house of Levi taken away. And I say, as the apostle directs, first, It was done by the appointment of God. For his introduction of another priest, when it was actually accomplished, had the force of a repealing law. The institution of the former was abrogated thereby, without any other constitution. For as unto its use, it did hence cease of itself. It had no more to do, its work was at an end, and its services of no advantage to the church. For the sign of what is to come is set aside when the thing signified is brought in, and ceaseth to be a sign; yea, the continuance of it would give a testimony against itself. And as to its right, this new institution of God, by his own authority applied unto it in its proper season, took it away. Secondly, The application of the authority of God in the institution of a new priesthood to take away the old was made by the Holy Ghost, in the revelation of the will of God by the gospel, wherein the ceasing of it was declared. And sundry things may be observed concerning this abolishing of it:
Obs. 1. Notwithstanding the great and many 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. Neither the wickedness of the people, nor of the priests themselves, could provoke the Lord to revoke his institution, until,
1. The appointed end of it was come. And it is no small part of the blindness of the present Jews, to think that God would so utterly abolish his own ordinance, as they must acknowledge he hath done, if he would have it to be of any longer use in the church. For sixteen hundred years they have not had any priest among them. Nor is it possible they should, according unto the law, if they were actually restored unto their own pretended right in Canaan: for they have utterly lost the distinction of tribes among them, nor can any of them in the least pretend that they are of the lineage of the priests; and for any one to usurp that office who is not lineally descended from Aaron, they own to be an abomination. As, therefore, they know not how to look for a Messiah from the tribe of Judah, seeing all sacred genealogy is at an end; no more can they look for a priest of the house of Aaron. Now, this end of it was the bringing in of a better hope, or the promised Seed; who, according to the promise, was to come to the second temple, and therefore whilst that priesthood continued.
2. God took it not away till he brought in that which was more excellent, glorious, 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 he took it away by degrees, as shall afterwards be declared.
Obs. 2. That 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.
Obs. 3. Divine institutions cease not without an express divine abrogation. Where they are once granted and erected by the authority of God, they can never cease without an express act of the same authority taking them away. So was it with the institutions of the Aaronical priesthood, as the apostle declares. And this one consideration is enough to confirm the grant of the initial seal of the covenant unto the seed of present believers, which was once given by God himself in the way of an institution, and never by him revoked.
Obs. 4. 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.
Obs. 5. 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 and absolutely accomplished the end whereunto it was designed: which is the glory and 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 of that of Christ, and therein of the eternal salvation of the church. And what more honorable issue could it come unto? The Jews, by their pretended adherence unto it, are they which cast the highest dishonor upon it; for they own that it is laid aside, at least that it hath been so for sixteen hundred years, and yet neither the end of it effected nor any thing brought in by it unto the greater advantage of the church.
The next thing considerable in these words, is the inference which the apostle makes from his assertion and the proof of it: There is made of necessity a change also of the law; , of necessity. It is not a note of the necessity of the inference from the proposition, in the way of argument, but the necessary dependence of the things mentioned, the one on the other. For whereas the whole administration of the law, so far as it concerned the expiation of sin by sacrifices, and the solemn worship of God in the tabernacle or temple, depended absolutely on, and was confined unto the Aaronical priesthood, so as that without it no one sacrifice could be offered unto God, nor any ordinance of divine worship be observed; that priesthood being abolished and taken out of the way, the law itself of necessity and unavoidably ceaseth and becometh useless. It doth so, I say, as unto all the proper ends of it, as a law obligatory unto the duties required in it.
Wherefore there is also , a change of the law; that is, an abolition of it: for it is a change of the same nature with the change of the priesthood; which, as we have showed, was its abolition and taking away. And how this came to pass the word declares; there is made a change. It did, indeed, necessarily follow on the change of the priesthood; yet not so, but that there was an act of the will and authority of God on the law itself. God made this change, and he alone could do it; that he would do so, and did so, the apostle proves in this and the verses following. So is the law of commandments contained in ordinances taken out of the way, being nailed unto the cross of Christ, where he left it completely accomplished.
But moreover, the law in its institutions was an instructive revelation, and taught many things concerning the nature of sin, its expiation and cleansing; representing, though darkly, good things to come. So it is yet continued as a part of the revealed will of God. And the light of the gospel being brought unto it, we may learn things far more clearly out of it than ever the Jews of old could do.
And the force of the argument here insisted on by the apostle against the absolute perpetuity of the law, which was of old, and yet continueth to be, the head of the controversy between the Jews and the church of Christ, is so unavoidable, that some of them have been compelled to acknowledge that in the days of the Messiah legal sacrifices and the rest of their ceremonies shall cease; though the most of them understand that their cause is given away thereby. And they have no other way to free themselves from this argument of the apostle, but by denying that Melchisedec was a priest, or that it is the Messiah who is prophesied of, Psalms 110.; which evidences of a desperate cause, and more desperate defenders of it, have been elsewhere convinced of folly. Wherefore this important argument is confirmed by our apostle in the ensuing verses. And we may see,
Obs. 6. How it is a fruit of the manifold wisdom of God, that it was a great mercy to gave the law, and a greater to take it away. And,
Obs. 7. If under the law the whole worship of God did so depend on the priesthood, that 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!
Obs. 8. 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 that any pretend a veneration for in divine worship; yet were they of no validity or efficacy.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
a change: Isa 66:21, Jer 31:31-34, Eze 16:61, Act 6:13, Act 6:14
Reciprocal: Heb 7:18 – a disannulling Heb 8:13 – he hath
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 7:12. This is a repetition Of the argument in verse 11.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 7:12. For the priesthood being changed. This is true of an institution that forms the foundation of the law in the sense just described (Heb 7:11). If Christ is made priest, the law is changed in its ceremonial and political arrangements, and even in the ethical relation of the people to God. They have another priest, and through the completeness of his work they have a freeness of access and a fulness of forgiveness which alters the very nature of their economy.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Heb 7:12-14. For, or, wherefore, the priesthood On account of which the law was given; being changed, of necessity there must be a change also of the law As if he had said, Since there is such a near relation between the priesthood and the law, and since the whole administration of the law, as the rule of worship, depended absolutely on the Aaronical priesthood, therefore the one being changed, the other must be changed also. Under the law the offices of the priesthood consisted in offering the sacrifices of beasts, and in performing various rites for purifying the bodies of the worshippers from ceremonial defilement, that they might be fit to join the congregation in the public worship of God. But when the priesthood was changed by raising up from another tribe a priest after the order of Melchisedec, whose services had for their object to purify the conscience of the worshippers, not by the sacrifice of beasts, but by the sacrifice of himself, and to sanctify their souls by the influences of the Holy Spirit; the whole law concerning the sacrifices of beasts, and the sanctifying of the flesh of the Israelites by washing, was of necessity entirely abolished. For he of whom Or, to whom; these things are spoken That is, he to whom it was said, Thou art a priest for ever, &c., was of a different tribe, namely, that of Judah; of which no man gave attendance at the altar Or, was suffered by the law to minister there, so that the priesthood is manifestly changed from one order to another, and from one tribe to another. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah That the Messiah was to spring up from Judah is plain from the prophecies concerning his descent: and it is likewise plain that this part of his character was verified in our Lord, whose genealogy Matthew and Luke have traced up to King David from the public tables. For that such tables of their descent were kept by the Jews Josephus testifies, (section 1. of his Life, at the end,) saying, I give you these successions of our family as I find them written in the public tables. By these tables Paul knew himself to be of the tribe of Benjamin.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 12
Also of the law; the law and the priesthood being parts of the same system.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
7:12 {6} For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the {e} law.
(6) He shows how by the institution of the new priesthood, not only the imperfection of the priesthood of Levi was declared, but also that it was changed for this: for these two cannot stand together, because the first appointment of the tribe of Levi shut out the tribe of Judah and made it inferior to Levi: and this latter passage places the priesthood in the tribe of Judah.
(e) Of the institution of Aaron.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The priesthood was such a major part of the whole Mosaic Covenant that this predicted change in the priesthood signaled a change in the whole Covenant. This verse is one of the clearest single statements in the New Testament indicating that God has terminated the Mosaic Law (Covenant; cf. Rom 10:4). Paul went on to say that Christians, therefore, are not under it (Rom 6:14-15; Gal 3:24-25; Gal 5:1; Gal 6:2; 2Co 3:7-11). That is, it is not what God has given to regulate the lives of Christians.
"If Christ is our high priest today, then there has to be a change in the law, since He could not qualify as a priest under the Levitical arrangement (being of the tribe of Judah). If the law has not been done away today, then neither has the Levitical priesthood; but if Christ is our high priest, we cannot be under the law. Every prayer offered in the name of Christ is an affirmation of the end of the law." [Note: Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):244. Cf. Morris, p. 67; and Hal Harless, "The Cessation of the Mosaic Covenant," Bibliotheca Sacra 160:639 (July-September 2003):349-66.]
"So by his own independent line of argument our author reaches the same conclusion as Paul: the law was a temporary provision, ’our tutor to bring us unto Christ . . . but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor’ (Gal 3:24 f.)." [Note: Bruce, p. 145.]