Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 7:15
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest,
15. yet far more evident ] The word used ( katadlon) is stronger than that used in Heb 7:14 ( prodlon) and does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. The change of the Law can be yet more decisively inferred from the fact that Melchisedek is not only a Priest of a different tribe from Levi, but a priest constituted in a wholly different manner, and even as he might have said out of the limits of the Twelve tribes altogether; and yet a Priest was to be raised after his order, not after that of Aaron.
for that ] Rather, “if” (as is the case), i.e. “seeing that.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And it is yet far more evident – Not that our Lord would spring out of Judah, but the point which he was endeavoring to establish that there must be a change of the priesthood, was rendered still more evident from another consideration. A strong proof of the necessity of such a change of the priesthood was furnished from the fact that the Messiah was to be of the tribe of Judah; but a much stronger, because as a priest he was to be of the order of Melchizedek – that is, he was of the same rank with one who did not even belong to that tribe.
After the similitude – Resembling; that is, he was to be of the order of Melchizedek.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 15. And it is yet far more evident] . And besides, it is more abundantly strikingly manifest. It is very difficult to translate these words, but the apostle’s meaning is plain, viz., that God designed the Levitical priesthood to be changed, because of the oath in Psa. cx., where, addressing the Messiah, he says: Thou art a Priest for ever after the order, or , similitude, of Melchisedec, who was not only a priest, but also a king. None of the Levitical priests sustained this double office; but they both, with that of prophet, appear and were exercised in the person of our Lord, who is the Priest to which the apostle alludes.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And it is yet far more evident: the change and abolition of the Levitical priesthood, and law, that the perfecting of Christ might succeed, is not only clearly represented to the understanding of all, that they assent to it, but it is far more evident from the eternity of this priesthoods constitution, as is proved, Heb 7:16.
For that; ei it, is a particle vehemently asserting, as in form of swearing, and not doubting, and therefore rendered for that.
After the similitude of Melchisedec; like and parallel in order to him, and in all the properties foretold, which make him a most excellent priest; a priesthood far above that of Aaron, upon the account of the law and covenant to which it is related, which was not only the law of nature, serving God as Creator, but the law of grace, as he was Redeemer in Christ, who with the patriarchs worshipped God by, as believed in, a Christ to come.
There ariseth another priest; not only of another tribe than Aaron, but of a different order from his; is constituted, manifested, and beginneth the exercise of his office with the abolition of Aarons.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15. Another proof that the law,or economy, is changed, namely, forasmuch as Christ is appointedPriest, “not according to the law of a carnal (that is, a mereoutward) commandment,” but “according to the powerof an indissoluble (so the Greek) life.” Thehundred tenth Psalm appoints Him “for ever” (Heb7:17). The Levitical law required a definite carnaldescent. In contrast stands “the power”; Christ’sspiritual, inward, living power of overcoming death. Not agreeably toa statute is Christ appointed, but according to an inwardliving power.
itthe change of thelaw or economy, the statement (Heb 7:12;Heb 7:18).
far moreGreek,“more abundantly.”
for that“seeingthat,” literally, “if”; so Ro5:10.
after the similitude ofMelchisedecanswering to “after the order of Melchisedec”(Heb 5:10). The “order”cannot mean a series of priests, for Melchisedec neitherreceived his priesthood from, nor transmitted it to, any other mereman; it must mean “answering to the office ofMelchisedec.” Christ’s priesthood is similar to Melchisedec’s inthat it is “for ever” (Heb 7:16;Heb 7:17).
anotherrather asGreek, “a different.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it is yet far more evident,…. From a fact which cannot be denied;
for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest; or another has risen, even Jesus the son of David, of the tribe of Judah; another from Aaron, one that is not of his family or tribe, but one like to Melchizedek: hence we learn that Melchizedek and Christ are not the same person; and that the order and similitude of Melchizedek are the same; and that Christ’s being of his order only imports that there is a resemblance and likeness between him and Melchizedek, in many things, which are observed in the beginning of this chapter: and this “arising” does not intend Christ’s setting up himself, only his appearance in this form; and being expressed in the present tense, denotes the continual being, and virtue of his priesthood.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Yet more abundantly evident ( ). Only N.T. instance of the old compound adjective thoroughly clear with (still) added and the comparative (more abundantly) piling Ossa on Pelion like Php 1:23.
Likeness (). See 4:15, only N.T. examples. Cf. the verb in verse 3.
Ariseth another priest ( ). As said in verse 11, now assumed in condition of first class.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Evident [] . N. T. o. Thoroughly evident. Not referring to that which is declared to be prodhlon evident in ver. 14, viz., that Christ sprang out of Judah, but to the general proposition – the unsatisfactory character of the Levitical priesthood.
Similitude [] . Better, likeness : answering to made like, ver. 3, and emphasizing the personal resemblance to Melchisedec.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And it is yet far more evident,” (kai perissoteron eti katadelon estin) “And more abundantly still it is quite clear,” or it is far more evident, from biblical evidence.
2) “For that after the similitude of Melchisedec,” (ei kata ten homoioteta Melchisedek) “(For) if according to the likeness of Melchisedec,” according to the account of, Heb 7:6-10.
3) “There ariseth another priest,” (anistatai hereus heteros) “There arises another in kind of character, of a different order from, that of Aaron or the tribe of Levi; He is one who continually offers his own blood as an atonement for our sins, in the presence of God, Heb 9:21-26.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. And it is yet far more evident, etc. He proves by another argument, that the Law is abolished. He reasoned before as to the person of the priest, but now as to the nature of the priesthood, and the reason for which it was appointed. The ancient priesthood, he says, had to do with external rites; but in Christ’s priesthood there is nothing but what is spiritual. It hence appears, that the former was evanescent and temporary; but that the latter was to be perpetual.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(15, 16) And it is.That which is yet far more evident is the proposition of the preceding verses, viz., the failure of the Levitical priesthood to bring perfection (Heb. 7:11), a failure placed beyond doubt by the change of priesthood (Heb. 7:13-14). And what we are speaking of is yet more abundantly evident if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth a different priest, who hath been made (priest) not according to a law of a carnal commandment, but according to power of indissoluble life. Hitherto, in Heb. 7:12-14, the thought has rested on what is given up,viz., the priesthood of Aaron, set aside by the words of prophecy (Psa. 110:4); and so far as these three verses are concerned, nothing more might be intended than the transference of the priesthood to another line of men. Far more striking will the proof appear, when we look on the other side, and observe what is brought ina priesthood like Melchizedeks, resting not on mere positive enactment, but assumed by inherent power, by right of life (Heb. 7:8).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. And it The transfer of the priesthood from Levi.
For The reason that, according to the psalmist, there is a new order.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And it is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest, who has been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless (or ‘indissoluble’) life. For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”.’
And this fact of operating under a different way of divine management especially comes out in that this Priest, the Messiah, has arisen after the likeness of Melchizedek. And His arising was not as a result of following the principle of some fleshly commandment tied to earth, but as a result of possessing the power of an endless, indissoluble life. His source is heavenly not earthly. His appointment was not under the Law, for the Law of a fleshly (and therefore temporary and dying) commandment which can only say, ‘do this and you will live’, has been replaced by the power of indissoluble life, something clear from the words of His institution, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” . Note the contrasts. ‘Law’ (principle) is contrasted with ‘power’. Earthly intention is replaced by heavenly effectiveness. It is the contrast of a ‘fleshly (human, liable to decay, temporary) commandment’ with the idea of ‘indissoluble (spiritual, permanent, everlasting) life’. In the end it is a contrast of total death with total life. So the Mechizedekian priesthood has a further thing going for it, it is rooted in everlasting life, in unceasing life, in life which cannot cease or be destroyed, and not in death and earthiness and fleshliness and constant demands.
‘And it is yet more abundantly evident.’ What is? Probably he means that the law must necessarily change is more abundantly evident, or possibly he is referring to the superiority of the one priesthood over against the other. Both in fact go together.
‘After the likeness of Melchizedek.’ Confirming that ‘after the order of Melchizedek’ signifies ‘after the likeness of his priesthood’.
‘There arises.’ In accordance with the divine purpose.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Heb 7:15-17. And it is yet far more evident; “And, independent on all genealogical controversywhich the most ingenious malice couldurge concerning Mary’s family, it is yet more abundantly manifest that the law must be changed, from the least attention to that scripture alone, so frequently mentioned, That, or inasmuch as another priest ariseth according to the similitude of Melchisedec. For, let the priesthood be in any tribe, it can continue according to the legal establishment only for the natural life of a man: and then provision is made for a successor: but the priesthood according to the similitude of Melchisedec admits of no such thing as succession, but is for an indissoluble life. A carnal commandment here is opposed to a power of living for ever; a carnal commandment therefore is a law that concerneth the flesh which dies; whereas a priesthood for ever does not depend upon flesh, which, in the common course of things, soon comes to an end.” The apostle, therefore, is not speaking, of the law as enjoining sacrifices, or any other external worship; but of the necessity of the law of Moses being changed, since a priest was to arise of a different sort, who was to live for ever;as he infers from the words of the Psalmist, Thou art a priest FOR EVER, &c. Dr. Heylin renders the 16th and 17th verses thus: Who is not established according to the law of a carnal succession, but according to the power he has to live for ever: As the scripture testifieth in these words, Thou art a priest for ever, &c.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 7:15 . ] and the more still is it evident , namely, that with the Levitical priesthood the whole Mosaic law, too, is changed (and deprived of validity), Heb 7:12 . Comp. also Heb 7:18 . Not: what difference there is between the Levitical and the N. T. priesthood (Chrysostom: , , Clarius, Zeger, Bisping); nor yet that perfection is to be found, not in the Levitical priesthood, but in the priesthood of Christ (Jac. Cappellus, Bengel, Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 551; Delitzsch); and just as little: that the priesthood is changed (Primasius, Justinian, Owen, Hammond, Rambach, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Stuart, Klee, Paulus). Quite mistakenly Ebrard: to we have to supply from Heb 7:14 the clause : “that Jesus descended from Judah is first in itself an acknowledged fact (Heb 7:14 ); this, however, is so much the more clear, since (Heb 7:15 ) it follows from the Melchisidecian nature of His priesthood that He could not be born !” How then could it be inferred from the fact that Jesus could not be born , that He must have descended precisely “from Judah”?!
] a similar intensifying of the simple form, as previously .
] if, as surely is the case, there arises . [82] thus, as to the sense, equal to (Oecumenius, Theophylact).
] as the main idea placed first, and an elucidation of the in the passage of the Psalms.
The subject in the conditional clause is (if another priest arises), not merely (Schulz: “if another is appointed as priest”), nor yet Jesus (if He arises as another priest).
[82] That Stein would combine and in the sense: “It is quite clear to all that, if at any time another priest after the manner of Melchisedec arises, he then,” etc., deserves to be mentioned only as a curiosity.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Heb 7:15-17 . Second proof of Heb 7:12 . The abrogation of the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic law follows further from the fact that the new priest who is promised is to bear resemblance to Melchisedec, whereby it is made manifest that his characteristic peculiarity is one quite different from that of the Levitical priests.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Ver. 15. After the similitude of Melchisedec ] i.e. After an order distinct and different from that of Aaron.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
15 17 .] Another proof that the law is changed (set aside): for our Lord could not be of the law (= Levitical priesthood), seeing He is an eternal Priest .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
15 .] And it (viz. the change of the law; the proposition of Heb 7:12 .: so c., , . Chrys. takes ‘ it ’ to mean the distinction between the Levitical and the N. T. High Priesthood: ; . Jac. Cappellus, and Bengel “illud quod in Heb 7:11 asseritur, nullam consummationem factam esse per sacerdotium Leviticum,” and so Delitzsch. Primasius, Hammond, al., that the priesthood is altered: Ebrard strangely supplies, “that our Lord sprung from Judah:” indeed his whole comment on this verse is one of those curiosities of exegesis which unhappily abound in his otherwise valuable commentary. But the alteration of the law is the proposition here: and so Estius, Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Bleek, Lnem., al.) is yet more abundantly (see for , on ch. Heb 2:1 ) manifest ( is another stronger form of , common in the classics (reff.), but found only here in LXX and N. T.), if (i. e. siquidem , seeing that: , , c.: “ si rem dubitative loquitur, sed affirmative, quasi diceret quia” &c., Primasius, in Bleek. See reff. could not well have been used here, as the reader would have connected it with , ‘it is evident, that’ &c.) according to the similitude of (= before) Melchisedek ariseth a different priest (it is best to take as the subject, being a mere epithet: not, as Schulz (also in Heb 7:11 ), predicatively, “ another ariseth as priest ,” nor as some (?) mentioned by Lnem., to take and both predicatively, “ He ariseth as another priest ,” viz. our Lord).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Heb 7:15-19 . Imperfection of the Levitical priesthood more abundantly proved by contrast with the nature of the Melchizedek priest.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Heb 7:15 . . “And more abundantly still is it evident” [Weizscker excellently “Und noch zum Ueberfluss weiter liegt die Sache klar”. What is it that is more abundantly evident? Weiss says, It is, that an alteration of the priesthood has been made. Similarly Vaughan, “And this insufficiency and consequent supersession of the Levitical priesthood is still more conclusively proved by the particular designation of the predicted priest (in Psa 110:4 ) as a priest, etc.”. So too Westcott. But from the twelfth verse the argument has been directed to show that there has been a change of law, and this argument is continued in Heb 7:15 . This change of law is evident from the fact that Jesus belongs to the non-Levitical tribe of Judah, and yet more superabundantly evident from the nature of the new priest who is seen to be no longer “after the law of a carnal commandment”. So Bleek after cumenius, Davidson, Farrar and others. , quite evident, as in Xen., Mem. , i. 4, 14, ; Wetstein quotes from Hippocrates, . In the preposition has the force of “ob” in “obvious”; in the preposition strengthens. , . . . “if as is the case” or “since” ( cf. Heb 7:11 ) “after the likeness of Melchizedek” the . of previous verses changed now into . , because attention is directed to the similarity of nature between Melchizedek and this new priest.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
evident. Greek. katadelos. Only here. Compare Heb 7:14.
for = if. Greek. ei. App-118.
similitude. Greek. homoiotes. See Heb 4:15.
ariseth. Same as “rise”, Heb 7:11.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
15-17.] Another proof that the law is changed (set aside): for our Lord could not be of the law (= Levitical priesthood), seeing He is an eternal Priest.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 7:15-18. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
The old Levitical law is disannulled; it became weak and unprofitable; and now a higher and better dispensation is ushered in with a greater and undying priesthood.
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.
That is all it did: it was a stepping-stone towards something better. by which we draw near unto God. The Lord hath sworn and will not repent.
Heb 7:20-24. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest. (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:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better Testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death; But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
I think they reckoned that there were eighty-three high priests in regular succession from Aaron to the death of Phineas, the last high priest at the siege of Jerusalem. One succeeded another, but this one goes on continually, for ever hath an untransferable priesthood. That word untransferable is nearer to the meaning than this unchangeable. If any of you have old Bibles with the margin, you will see hath a priesthood which cannot be passed from one hand to another, and the margin happens in this case to have the true rendering, This man hath an untransferable priesthood.
Heb 7:25. 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. For such an high priest became us,
We want just that high priest who would live on throughout all the ages for ever to sustain his people, and do for them all they should need to have done for them, until time should have been no more.
Heb 7:26-28. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the peoples: For this he did once, when he offered up himself. 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.
There is our joy.
This exposition consisted of readings from Hag 1:1 to Hag 2:9; Heb 7:15-28.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Heb 7:15. ) it is evident, namely, that which is asserted, Heb 7:11, [that there was no perfection realized by the Levitical priesthood-V. g.]-, if) An elegant particle for , when, in reference to those to whom this point might seem to be either new or doubtful; as Act 26:23.-, similitude) which is included in , order, and is called similitude, because here the discourse is designed to show the everlasting vigour and freshness of the priesthood in the following verse, from the phrase, , for ever, Heb 7:17.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
That the Aaronical priesthood was to be changed, and consequently the whole law of ordinances that depended thereon, and that the time wherein this change was to be made was now come, is that which is designed unto confirmation in all this discourse. And it is that truth whereinto our faith of the acceptance of evangelical worship is resolved; for without the removal of the old, there is no place for the new. This, therefore, the apostle now fully confirms by a recapitulation of the force and sum of his preceding arguments.
Heb 7:15-17. , , , . , . [6]
[6] VARIOUS READINGS. , instead of , is the reading preferred by Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf; the sense remaining unchanged. is adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf, on the authority of such Mss. as ABD*E.*. The sense is thus improved, it is testified. The other reading would seem to ascribe the psalm to Moses, verse 14, contrary to Mat 22:43. ED.
Heb 7:15-17. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.
There are four things to be considered in these words:
1. The manner of the introduction of this new argument, declaring its especial force, with the weight that the apostle lays upon it: And it is yet far more evident.
2. The medium or argument itself which he insists upon; which is, that from what he had already proved, there was another priest to arise, after the similitude of Melchisedec.
3. The illustration of this argument, in an explication of the ways and means whereby this priest arose, declared both negatively and positively: Who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
4. The confirmation of the whole with the testimony of David: For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec. The manner of the introduction of this argument is emphatical: , And it is yet far more evident.
The conjunctive particle, , connects this consideration unto that foregoing, as of the same nature and tendency.
The thing spoken of is said to be . Of what he said before he affirmed that it was , Heb 7:14, namely, that our Lord sprang of Judah, evident, manifest, demonstrable; but this, he adds, is : which composition of the word intends [strengthens] the signification, arguing yet a more open and convincing evidence.
Hence he adds, that it is , magis patet, abundantius manifestum, comparatively with what was said before; of an abundant efficacy for conviction; that whose light nothing can stand against. But we must observe, that the apostle doth not compare the things themselves absolutely with one another, and so determine that one is of a more evident truth than the other; but he compares them only with respect unto the evidence in arguing unto his end. There is more immediate force in this consideration, to prove the cessation of the Levitical priesthood, that another priest was to arise after, the similitude of Melchisedec, than was merely in this, that our Lord sprang of the tribe of Judah; but of this afterwards.
And therefore he adds , yet; that is, Above all that hath been collected from the consideration of Melchisedec, there is yet this uncontrollable evidence unto our purpose remaining.
The apostle, we see, lays great weight on this argument, and withal proceeds gradually and distinctly from one thing to another in the whole discourse. It may be we see not why he should insist so much upon, and so narrowly scan, all particulars in this manner; for being freed by the gospel from the power of temptations about it, and being of the Gentiles, who were never concerned in it, we cannot be sensible of the just importance of what is under confirmation. The truth is, he hath the greatest argument in hand that was ever controverted in the church of God, and upon the determination whereof the salvation or ruin of the church did depend. The worship he treated of was immediately instituted by God himself; and had now continued nearly fifteen hundred years in the church. All this while it had been the certain rule of Gods acceptance of the people, or his anger towards them: for whilst they complied with it, his blessing was continually upon them; and the neglect of it was still punished with severity. And the last caution that God had given them, by the ministry of the last prophet he sent unto them, was, that they should abide in the observance of the law of Moses, lest he should come and smite the earth with a curse, Mal 4:4; Mal 4:6. Besides these and sundry other things, that were real and pleadable in the behalf of the Mosaical worship, the Hebrews esteemed it always their great and singular privilege above all other nations, which they would rather die than part withal. And the design of the apostle in this place, is to prove that now, utterly unexpectedly unto the church, after so long a season, their whole worship was to be removed, to be used no more, but that another system of ordinances and institutions, absolutely new, and inconsistent with it, was to be introduced. And upon the compliance of the Hebrews with this doctrine, or the rejection of it, depended their eternal salvation or destruction.
It was therefore very necessary that the apostle should proceed warily, distinctly, and gradually, omitting no argument that was of force and pleadable in this cause, nor failing to remark on them in an especial manner which contained an especial evidence and demonstrative force in them; as he doth in this instance. For this introduction of it, And it is yet far more, or abundantly more evident, is as a hand put in the margin of a writing, calling for a peculiar attendance unto and consideration of the matter directed unto. And we may see,
Obs. 1. That present truths are earnestly to be pleaded and contended for. So the apostle Peter would have believers established , in the present truth. All truth is eternal, and in itself equally subsistent and present unto all ages; but it is especially so either from the great use of it in some seasons, or the great opposition that is made unto it. So this doctrine about the abolition of the Mosaical ceremonies and institutions, with the introduction of a new priesthood and new ordinances of worship, was then the present truth, in the knowledge and confirmation whereof the church was eternally concerned. And so may other truths be at other seasons. And any of them may be so rendered by the opposition that at any time is made unto them. For God is pleased to exercise and try the faith of the church by heresies; which are fierce, pertinacious, and subtile oppositions made to the truth. Now none of them, which aim at any consistency in and with themselves, or are of any real danger unto the church, did ever reject all gospel truths, but some general principles they will allow, or they would leave themselves no foundation to stand upon in their opposition unto others. Those, therefore, singly opposed by them at any time, as the deity or satisfaction of Christ, justification by faith, and the like, being so opposed, become the present truth of the age; in the instance of adherence whereunto God will try the faith of his people, and requires that they be earnestly pleaded for. And this is that which the apostle Jude intends, verse 3, where he exhorts us , to contend, strive, wrestle with all earnestness and the utmost of our endeavors, for the faith once delivered unto the saints; namely, because of the opposition that was then made unto it. And a truth may come under this qualification by persecution as well as by heretical opposition. Satan is always awake and attentive unto his advantages: and therefore though he hates all truth, yet doth he not at all times equally attempt upon every thing that is so; but he waiteth to see an inclination in men, from their lusts, or prejudices, or interests in this world, against any especial truth, or way of divine worship which God hath appointed. When he finds things so ready prepared, he falls to his work, and stirs up persecution against it. This makes that truth to be the present truth to be contended for, as that wherein God will try the faith, and obedience, and patience of the church. And the reasons why we ought with all care, diligence, and perseverance, to attend unto the preservation and profession of such troths, are obvious unto all.
Obs. 2. Important truths should be strongly confirmed. Such is that here pleaded by the apostle; and therefore doth he so labor in the confirmation of it. He had undertaken to convince the Hebrews of the cessation of their legal worship, out of their own acknowledged principles. He deals not with them merely by his apostolical authority, and by virtue of the divine revelation of the will of God which himself had received; but he proceeds with them on arguments taken out of the types, institutions, and testimonies of the Old Testament, all which they owned and acknowledged, though without his aid they had not understood the meaning of them. On this supposition it was necessary for him to plead and press all the arguments from the topic mentioned which had any cogency in them; and he doth so accordingly.
Obs. 3. Arguments that are equally true may yet, on the account of evidence, not be equally cogent; yet,
Obs. 4. In the confirmation of the truth, we may use every help that is true and seasonable, though some of them may be more effectual unto our end than others.
This we are instructed in by the apostle affirming, in this place, that what he now affirms is yet far more evident. And this evidence, as we observed before, may respect either the things themselves, or the efficacy in point of argument. For in themselves all things under the old testament were typical, and significant of what was afterwards to be introduced. So our apostle tells us that the ministry of Moses consisted in giving testimony to those things which were to be spoken or declared afterwards, Heb 3:5. But among them some were far more clear and evident, as to their signification than others were. In the latter sense, the things which he had discoursed about Melchisedec and his priesthood were more effectually demonstrative of the change of the Levitical priesthood, than what he had newly observed concerning the rising of our Lord Jesus Christ, not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah, although that had life and evidence also in itself, which is principally intended.
The argument itself is nextly expressed whereunto this full evidence is ascribed, , If another priest do arise, after the similitude of Melchisedec. And in the words there is,
1. The modification of the proposition, in the particle .
2. The notation of the subject spoken of: another priest.
3. His introduction into his office: he did arise.
4. The nature of his office, and the manner of his coming into it: after the likeness of Melchisedec.
1. , if, is generally taken here not to be a conditional, but a causal conjunction. And so, as many judge, it is used, Rom 8:31; 2Co 5:14; 1Th 3:8; 1Pe 1:17. And it is rendered in our translation by for, For that an other priest; as Beza rendereth it by quod, because; others by ex eo quod, and siquidem; Syr., And again, this is more known, by that which he said. All take it to be an intimation of a reason proving what is affirmed. And so it doth if, with the Vulgar, we retain si, or siquidem, if so be: And it is yet far more evident, if so be that another priest.
As to the argument in general, we must observe,
(1.)That the design of the apostle in this place is not to demonstrate the dignity and eminency of the priesthood of Christ from that of Melchisedec, his type, which he had done before sufficiently; he cloth not produce the same words and arguments again unto the same purpose: but that which he aims at is, from that testimony, whereby he had proved the dignity of the priesthood of Christ, now also to prove the necessary abolition of the Levitical priesthood. Wherefore,
(2.) He doth not insist on the whole of the testimony before pleaded, but only on that one thing of another priest, necessarily included therein.
2. The subject spoken of is, : that is, not merely ; that is, , alius, as the Syriac understood it, who renders it by ; but it is , alienusthat is intended. Every was by the law absolutely forbidden to approach unto the priests office, or altar, or sacred employment. So , another, in this case is a stranger, one that is not of the house or family of Aaron. And nothing can be more evident, than that the Levitical priesthood, and the whole law of divine worship, must be taken away and abolished then, if it appear that any , , or stranger, may be admitted into that office; much more, if it were necessary that it should so be. For the law of the priesthood took care of nothing more than that no stranger, that was not of the house of Aaron, should be called to that office. See Exo 29:33; Lev 22:10; Num 1:51; Num 3:10 : Aaron and his sons they shall wait on the priests office; , and the stranger that cometh nigh (that is, to discharge any sacerdotal duty) shall be put to death. And God gave an eminent instance of his severity with respect unto this law in the punishment of Korah, though of the tribe of Levi, for the transgression of it. And he caused a perpetual memorial to be kept of that punishment, to the end they might know that no stranger, who is not of the seed of Aaron, should come near to offer incense before the LORD, Num 16:40. And hence our apostle in the next verse observes, that this priest was not to be made after the law of a carnal commandment, seeing his making was a dissolution of that law or commandment. If, therefore, there must be , another priest, that was not of the lineage of Aaron, the other is abolished.
3. His introduction into his office is expressed by , there ariseth. Oritur, exoritur. Syr., , surgit; Vulg. Lat., exsurgat; arose, in an extraordinary manner: Jdg 5:7, Until I Deborah arose, I arose a mother in Israel; that is, by an extraordinary call from God to be a prophetess and a deliverer. Deu 18:18, I will raise them up a Prophet; which was Christ himself. So God raised up an horn of salvation in the house of his servant David, Luk 1:69; that is, with an extraordinary power and glory. So was this priest to arise; not springing out of, nor succeeding in any order of priesthood before established. But all things in the law lay against his introduction; and the body of the people in the church was come unto the highest defiance of any such priest. But as God had foresignified what he would do, when the time of the reformation of all things should come, so when he performed his word herein, he did it in that manner, with that evidence of his glory and power, as introduced him against all opposition. For when the appointed time is come wherein the decrees of God shall bring forth, and his counsel be accomplished, all difficulties, though appearing insuperable, shall vanish and disappear, Zec 4:6-7.
4. The nature of his priesthood is declared, in its resemblance unto that of Melchisedec, . The apostle intendeth not to express the words of the psalmist, , which he constantly renders , according unto the order;but he respects the whole conformity that was between Melchisedec and our Lord Jesus Christ, in the instances which he had before insisted on. For whereas God had ordered all things in the Scripture concerning Melchisedec, that he might be , verse 3, made like unto the Son of God, he is said to arise , according to the likeness or similitude of Melchisedec. For every similitude is mutual; one thing is as like unto another as that is unto it. This, therefore, is evident, that there was to be another priest, ; not only , merely another,
but , one of another stock and race: and a priest he was to be after the similitude of Melchisedec, and not so much as after the similitude of Aaron. The arising of Christ in his offices puts an end unto all other things that pretend a usefulness unto the same end with them. When he arose as a king, he did not put an end unto the office and power of kings in the world, but he did so unto the typical kingdoms over the church, as he did to the priesthood by arising as a priest. And when he ariseth spiritually in the hearts and consciences of believers, an end is put unto all other things that they might before look for life, or righteousness, or salvation by.
Heb 7:16. This verse containeth an illustration and confirmation of the foregoing assertion, by a declaration of the way and manner how this other priest, who was not of the seed of Aaron, should come into that office. And this was necessary also, for the prevention of an objection which the whole discourse was obnoxious unto. For it might be said, that whatever was affirmed concerning another priest, yet there was no way possible whereby any one might come so to be, unless he were of the family of Aaron. All others were expressly excluded by the law. Nor was there any way or means ordained of God, any especial sacrifice instituted, whereby such a priest might be dedicated, and initiated into his office. In prevention of this objection, and in confirmation of what was before declared, the apostle adds, Who was made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
The words declare,
1. That this priest was made so; and,
2. How he was made so, both negatively and positively.
1. He was made so; , which priest was made, or who was made a priest. The force of this expression hath been explained on Heb 3:2; Heb 5:5. The Lord Christ did not merely on his own authority and power take this office upon himself; he became so, he was made so by the appointment and designation of the Father. Nor did he do any thing, in the whole work of his mediation, but in obedience unto his command, and in compliance with his will. For it is the authority of God alone which is the foundation of all office, duty, and power in the church. Even what Christ himself is and was unto the church, he is and was so by the grace and authority of God, even the Father. By him was he sent, his will did he perform, through his grace did he die, by his power was he exalted, and with him doth he intercede. What acts of God in particular do concur unto the constitution of this office of Christ, and to the making him a priest, have been declared before.
2. The manner of his being made a priest is first expressed negatively: , Not after, (or not according unto) the law of a carnal commandment. Syr., , the law of bodily commandments. It is unquestionable, that the apostle by this expression intendeth in the first place the law of the Levitical priesthood, or the way and manner whereby the Aaronical priests were first called and vested with their office; and then any other law, constitution rule, or order of the same kind. He was made a priest neither by that law, nor any other like unto it. And two things we must enquire into:
(1.) Why the call of the Aaronical priests is said to be after the law of commandment.
(2.) Why this commandment is said to be fleshly:
(1.) For the first, we may observe, that the whole law of worship among the Jews is called by our apostle, , Eph 2:15, The law of commandments in ordinances. And it is so called for two reasons:
[1.] Because commands were so multiplied therein that the whole law was denominated from them. Hence it became , a yoke hardly to be borne, if not altogether intolerable, Act 15:10.
[2.] Because of that severity wherewith obedience was exacted. A command in its formal notion expresseth authority; and the multiplication of them, severity: and both these God designed to make eminent in that law; whence it hath this denomination, a law of commandments. Hereof the law of the constitution of the office of the priesthood, and the call of Aaron thereunto, was a part; and he was therefore made a priest by the law of commandments, that is, by a preceptive law, as a part of that system of commands wherein the whole law consisted. See this law and all the commands of it, Exodus 28, throughout.
(2.) Why doth the apostle call this commandment carnal or fleshly?
Ans. It may be on either of these three accounts:
[1.] With respect unto the sacrifices, which were the principal part of the consecration of Aaron unto his office. And these may be called fleshly on two accounts:
1st. Because of their subject-matter; they were flesh, or the bodies of beasts: as the Syriac reads these words, the commandment of bodies; that is, of beasts to be sacrificed.
2dly. In themselves and their relation unto the Jewish state, they reached no farther than the purifying of the flesh. They sanctified unto the purifying of the flesh, as the apostle speaks, Heb 9:13. And thus the whole commandment should be denominated from the principal subject-matter, or the offering of fleshly sacrifices, unto the purifying of the flesh.
[2.] It may be called carnal, because a priesthood was instituted thereby which was to be continued by carnal propagation only; the priesthood appointed by that law was confined unto the carnal seed and posterity of Aaron, wherein this other priest had no interest.
[3.] Respect may be had unto the whole system of those laws and institutions of worship which our apostle, as was also before observed, calls carnal ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation,
Heb 9:10. They were all carnal, in opposition unto the dispensation of the Spirit under the gospel, and the institutions thereof.
None of these ways was the Lord Christ made a priest. He was not dedicated unto his office by the sacrifice of beasts, but sanctified himself thereunto when he offered himself through the eternal Spirit unto God, and was consummated in his own blood. He was not of the carnal seed of Aaron, nor did, nor could, claim any succession unto the priesthood by virtue of an extraction from his race. And no constitution of the law in general, no ordinance of it, did convey unto him either right or title unto the priesthood.
It is therefore evident that he was in no sense made a priest according to the law of a carnal commandment; neither had he either right, power, or authority to exercise the sacerdotal function in the observance of any carnal rites or ordinances whatever. And we may observe,
Obs. 5. That what seemed to be wanting unto Christ in his entrance into any of his offices, or in the discharge of them, was on the outward solemnity. The sacrifices which were offered, and the garments he put on, with his visible separation from the rest of the people, had a great ceremonial glory in them. There was nothing of all this, nor any thing like unto it, in the consecration of the Lord Christ unto his office. But yet, indeed, these things ,had no glory, in comparison of that excelling glory which accompanied those invisible acts of divine authority, wisdom, and grace, which communicated his office unto him. And indeed, in the worship of God, who is a spirit, all outward ceremony is a diminution and debasement of it. Hence were ceremonies for beauty and for glory multiplied under the old testament; but yet, as the apostle shows, they were all but carnal. But as the sending of Christ himself, and his investiture with all his offices, were by secret and invisible acts of God and his Spirit; so all evangelical worship, as to the glory of it, is spiritual and internal only. And the removal of the old pompous ceremonies from our worship is but the taking away of the veil which hindered from an insight and entrance into the holy place.
Secondly. The way and manner whereby the Lord Christ was made a priest is expressed positively: , But according unto the power of an indissoluble life. denotes an opposition between the way rejected and this asserted, as those which were not consistent, He was not made a priest that way, but this.
How then is Christ made a priest according to the power of an endless life? That is, saith one in his paraphrase, installed into the priesthood after his resurrection. What is meant by installed, I well know not. It should seem to be the same with , consecrated, dedicated, initiated. And if so, this exposition diverts wholly from the truth; for Christ was installed into his office of priesthood before his resurrection, or he did not offer himself as a sacrifice unto God in his death and blood- shedding. And to suppose that the Lord Christ discharged and performed the principal act of his sacerdotal office, which was but once to be performed, before he was installed a priest, is contradictory to Scripture and reason itself. Ideo ad vitam immortalem perductus est, ut in aeternum sacerdos noster esset, He was therefore brought unto an immortal life, that he might be our priest for ever, saith another. But this is not to be made a priest according to the power of an endless life. If he office always, unto the consummation of all things, what he says is true, but not the sense of this place: but if he means, that he became immortal after his resurrection, that he might be our priest, and abide so for ever, it excludes his oblation in his death from being a proper sacerdotal act; which that it was, I have sufficiently proved elsewhere, against Crellius and others.
Some think that the endless life intended is that of believers, which the Lord Christ, by virtue of his priestly office, confers upon them. The priests under the law proceeded no farther but to discharge carnal rites, which could not confer eternal life on them for whom they ministered; but the Lord Christ, in the discharge of his office, procureth eternal redemption and everlasting life for believers. And these things are true, but they comprise not the meaning of the apostle in this place. For how can Christ be made a priest according to the power of that eternal life which he confers on others? For the comparison and opposition that is made between the law of a carnal commandment, whereby Aaron was constituted a priest, and the power of an endless life, whereby Christ was made so, do evidence, that the making of Christ a priest, not absolutely, which the apostle treats not of, but such a priest as he is, was the effect of this endless life.
Wherefore the , the indissoluble life here intended, is the life of Christ himself. Hereunto belonged, or from hence did proceed, that , or power, whereby he was made a priest. And both the office itself and the execution or discharge of it are here intended. And as to the office itself, this eternal or endless life of Christ is his life as the Son of God. Hereon depends his own mediatory life for ever, and his conferring of eternal life on us, Joh 5:26-27. And to be a priest by virtue of, or according unto this power, stands in direct opposition unto the law of a carnal commandment.
It must therefore be inquired, how the Lord Christ was made a priest according unto this power. And I say, it was because thereby alone he was rendered meet to discharge that office, wherein God was to redeem his church with his own blood, Act 20:28. By power, therefore, here, both meetness and ability are intended. And both these the Lord Christ had, from his divine nature and his endless life therein. Or it may be the life of Christ in his human nature is intended, in opposition unto those priests who, being made so by the law of a carnal commandment, did not continue in the discharge of their office, by reason of death, as our apostle observes afterwards. But it will be said, that this natural life of Christ, the life of the human nature, was not endless, but had an end put unto it in the dissolution of his soul and body on the cross.
I say, therefore, this life of Christ was not absolutely the life of the human nature considered separately from his divine; but it was the life of the person of the Son of God, of Christ as God and man in one person. And so his life was endless. For,
(1.) In the death which he underwent in his human nature there was no interruption given unto his discharge of his sacerdotal office, no, not for a moment. For,
(2.) His person still lived, and both soul and body were therein inseparably united unto the Son of God. Although he was truly and really dead in his human nature, he was still alive in his indissoluble person. And this the apostle hath a respect unto in the testimony which he cites in the next verse to prove that he is a priest for ever. The carnal commandment gave authority and efficacy unto the Levitical priests; but Christ is made a priest according to the power of an endless life, that is, through the power and efficacy of that eternal life which is in his divine person, both his human nature is preserved always in the discharge of his office, and he is enabled thereby to work out eternal life on the behalf of them for whom he is a priest.
And so the apostle proves the difference of this other priest from those of the order of Aaron, not only from the tribe whereof he was to be, and from his type, Melchisedec, but also from the way and means whereby the one and the other were enabled to discharge their office.
Heb 7:17. The proof of all before asserted is given in the testimony of the psalmist so often before appealed to: For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
The introduction of this testimony is by , or he witnesseth, or testifieth; that is, David doth in the psalm, or rather, the Holy Ghost, speaking in and by David, doth so testify. He doth not absolutely say that so he speaketh, but testifieth; because he used his words in a way of testimony unto what he had delivered. And although one thing be now principally intended by him, yet there is in these words a testimony given unto all the especial heads of his discourse: as,
1. That there was to be another priest, a priest that was not of the stock of Aaron, nor tribe of Levi; for he says unto the Messiah, prophesied of, who was to be of the seed of David, Thou art a priest, although a stranger from the Aaronical line.
2. That this other priest was to be after the order of Melchisedec, and was not to be called after the order of Aaron. For he was , , after the order. is a redundant, and not a suffix, is from ; and signifies a state or order of things: , Ecc 3:18; I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, their condition and order of all things; that is, . The priesthood of Christ, in the mind of God, was the eternal idea or original exemplar of the priesthood of Melchisedec. God brought him forth, and vested him with his office, in such a way and manner as that he might outwardly represent in sundry things the idea of the priesthood of Christ in his own mind. Hence he and his priesthood became an external exemplar of the priesthood of Christ, as unto its actual exhibition: and therefore is he said to be made a priest after his order; that is, suitably unto the representation made thereof in him.
3. That he was made a priest, namely, by him and his authority who said unto him, Thou art a priest; as Heb 5:5-6; Heb 10:4. That he was so after the power of an endless life; for he was a priest for ever. This word is applied to the law and legal priesthood, and signifies a duration commensurate unto the state and condition of the things whereunto it is applied. There was an of the law, an age, whereunto its continuance was confined. So long all the promises annexed unto it stood in force. And as ascribed unto the new state of things under the gospel, it doth not signify eternity absolutely, but a certain unchangeable duration unto the end of the time and works of the gospel; for then shall the exercise of the priesthood of Christ cease, with his whole mediatory work and office, 1Co 15:28. Christ, therefore, is said to be a priestfor ever:
1. In respect of his person, endued with an endless life.
2. Of the execution of his office unto the final end of it; he liveth for ever to make intercession.
3. Of the effect of his office; which is to save believers unto the utmost, or with an everlasting salvation.
And the apostle had sufficient reason to affirm that what he proposed was eminently manifest, namely, from the testimony which he produceth thereof. For what can be more evident than that the Aaronical priesthood was to be abolished, if so be that God had designed and promised to raise up another priest in the church, who was neither of the stock nor order of Aaron, nor called the same way to his office as he was; and who, when he was so raised and called, was to continue a priest for ever, leaving no room for the continuance of that priesthood in the church, nor place for its return when it was once laid aside? And we may observe, that,
Obs. 6. The eternal continuance of Christs person gives eternal continuance and efficacy unto his office. Because he lives for ever, he is a priest for ever. His endless life is the foundation of his endless priesthood. Whilst he lives we want not a priest; and therefore he says, that because he liveth, we shall live also.
Obs. 7. To make new priests in the church, is virtually to renounce the faith of his living for ever as our priest, or to suppose that he is not sufficient to the discharge of his office.
Obs. 8. The alteration that God made in the church, by the introduction of the priesthood of Christ, was progressive towards its perfection. To return, therefore, unto or look after legal ceremonies in the worship of God, is to go back unto poor, beggarly elements and rudiments of the world.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
An Unchangeable Priesthood
Heb 7:12-14 “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
We cannot come to God without an altar, a priest, and a sacrifice. But those Old Testament priests, altars, and sacrifices could never bring anyone to God. Therefore, a change had to come. The picture had to be replaced with the Person. The shadow had to give way to the Substance. The law had to give way to grace. The Levitical priesthood had to die to make room for a Priest after the order of Melchizedek from the tribe of Judah (Isa 11:1; Mat 1:3; Luk 3:33; Rom 1:3; Rev 5:5)
Heb 7:15-16 “And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.”
The Lord Jesus Christ, our great High Priest entered into and exercises his everlasting and efficacious priesthood by virtue of his resurrection glory.
Heb 7:17-18 “For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” (See Psa 110:4; Heb 5:6; Heb 5:10; Heb 6:20.) “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”
The law made nothing perfect. It was never intended to do so, but only to point sinners to Christ who would make everything perfect (Rom 8:3-4; Heb 10:1-4; Act 13:38-39; Rom 3:20-21; Rom 3:28; Rom 8:1-4; Gal 2:16; Heb 9:9). By his perfect obedience to God in the room and stead of his people, the Lord Jesus has brought in a better hope (Heb 6:18; Heb 8:6). In him believing sinners have a good hope through grace, hope founded upon righteousness established, justice satisfied, and grace bestowed. Christ has given us such absolute perfection before God that we can now draw near to God himself with confidence, peace, and assurance (Rom 5:1-2; Eph 2:18; Eph 3:12; Heb 4:16; Heb 10:19).
Heb 7:20-22 “And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (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 Melchizedek:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”
Our Great High Priest is our covenant Surety, the Surety God himself has accepted as our Representative (Psa 110:4; Heb 8:6; Heb 9:11-15; Heb 12:24; Heb 13:20-21).
Heb 7:23-24 “And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: “But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.”
Our Savior is an unchangeable, immutable, irrevocable, eternal, effectual Priest! The virtue of his sacrifice is everlasting and unalterable! Read Heb 7:25-28 and rejoice!
Heb 7:25-28 “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. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 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. 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” (Rom 8:33-34; 1Ti 2:5; Heb 9:24-26; Heb 9:28; 1Jn 2:1-2).
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
after: Heb 7:3, Heb 7:11, Heb 7:17-21, Psa 110:4
Reciprocal: Heb 5:6 – Thou
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 7:15. Yet far more evident means the testimony on behalf of the priesthood of Jesus is still more clearly shown. Paul refers to the comparison made between Melchisedec and Him, and the point is made stronger by the fact that Melchisedec lived several centuries before the Mosaic system was started. And it was concerning Melchisedec that another priest was to arise; flint is, another besides him.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 7:15-17. The writer now touches another point of the argument.
And it is yet far more evident. What is more evident? That the law is changed? as De Wette and Bleek hold. Hardly; for this is not the main thought, but the imperfection of the priesthood (Heb 7:11). That imperfection has been proved by the change of priests, and that imperfection is made still more evident by the fact that a new priesthood is to arise after the similitude of Melchisedec (Heb 7:16), who hath been made (who hath become) priest not after what is a law of a carnal commandmenti.e a rule of external ordinances (see Lev 21:17-24; Exo 40:12-17), temporary and perishingbut after what is the power (the priestly and kingly power, Romans 1) of an endless, an indissoluble life. We are bidden to conceive of His priesthood in this light, and not in the light of the qualities and temporary office of the priests under the Levitical law (Heb 7:17).
For it is testified of him, Thou art a priest for ever, the emphatic phrase.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
That the Aaronical priesthood was to be changed, and consequently the whole law of ordinances that depended thereupon, and that the time was now come wherein this change was to be made, is the grand truth which our apostle here designs the confirmation of; it being indeed that truth, where into our faith of the acceptance of evangelical worship is resolved.
And accordingly he give a farther proof of the change of the priesthood from the different manner of the priest’s consecration. Thus the Levitical priest was set apart to his office by a number of carnal rites and outward ceremonies, which the law prescribed to be used at the consecration of Aaron and his sons, who were purified with water, anointed with oil, sprinkled with blood, clothed with priestly vestments, initiated with sacrifices, administered in an earthly tabernacle and temple.
But says our apostle, the evangelical or gospel High Priest, Christ Jesus, was not constituted thus, or made a priest with such carnal rites and outward ceremonies, but with the power of an endless life: That is, he was consecrated a Priest by the power of the Holy Ghost, having an immortal life suitable to his priesthood, an authority to give eternal life to as many as depend upon the benefit of his sacrifice and satisfaction; He was made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, (with corporeal ceremony and carnal duration), but after the spiritual power of an endless life.
Learn hence, That all the outward ceremony which seemed to be wanting unto Christ, in his entrance into his priestly office, was on the account of a greater glory. Aaron was made a priest with great outward solemnity, Christ with none at all; yet all Aaron’s ceremonial glory which accompanied those invisible acts of divine authority, wisdom, and grace, which communicated Christ’s office unto him.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Heb 7:15-17. And it is yet far more evident That both the priesthood and the law are changed, because the priest now raised up is not only of another tribe, and of a quite different order, but is made a priest; not after the law of a carnal commandment With such carnal rites and outward solemnities as the law prescribed for those priests, which reached no further than to the purifying of the flesh; but after the power of an endless life Which he has in himself as the eternal Son of God. Being a sacrifice, as well as a priest, it was indeed necessary that he, as a man, should die; but as he continued only a short while in the state of the dead, and arose to die no more, he may justly be said to have an endless life, even as to his human nature. Besides, it should be considered that his life, as a priest, did not begin till after his ascension, when he passed through the heavens into the holiest of all, with the sacrifice of his crucified body. And having offered that body there, he sat down at the right hand of the throne of his Fathers majesty, where he remains the minister of that true tabernacle, making continual intercession for his people.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 15
Far more evident; still more evident; that is, the imperfect and temporary character of the Mosaic service is so.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
7:15 {7} And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
(7) Lest any man object, the priesthood was indeed translated from Levi to Judah. Nonetheless the same still remains, he both considers and explains those words of David “for ever, according to the order of Melchizedek” by which also a different institution of priesthood is understood.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The need for a better replacement 7:15-19
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
A third proof that God made a change in the priesthood is that God predicted that Messiah would live forever (Psa 110:4). Jesus Christ did not become a priest because He met a physical requirement, namely, was born into the priestly tribe and qualified by his descent to serve as high priest. He became a priest because He would not die. In this He showed Himself to be a member of Melchizedek’s "order" since Melchizedek appears from the scriptural record to have lived forever. Jesus is a priest forever because of His resurrection. [Note: See Manson, p. 116.]