24<\/strong>. but this man<\/em> ] Rather, “ but He<\/em> ”<\/p>\n hath an unchangeable priesthood<\/em> ] Rather, “hath his priesthood unchangeable” ( sempiternum<\/em>, Vulg.) or perhaps “untransmissible;” “a priesthood that doth not pass to another,” as it is rendered in the margin of our Revised Version. The rendering “not to be transgressed against,” or “inviolate” ( intransgressibile<\/em>, Aug.), is not tenable here. This is the seventh particular of superiority. I think it quite needless to enter into tedious modern controversies as to the particular time<\/em> of Christ’s ministry at which He assumed His priestly office, because I do not think that they so much as entered into the mind of the author. The one thought which was prominent in his mind was that of Christ passing as our Great High Priest with the offering of His finished sacrifice into the Heaven of Heavens. The minor details<\/em> of Christ’s Priestly work are not defined, and those of Melchisedek are passed over in complete silence.<\/p>\n But this man – <\/B>Greek But he – referring to Christ.<\/P> Because he continueth ever – <\/B>Greek Because he remains forever. The idea is because he does not die, but ever lives, he has an unchanging priesthood. There is no necessity that he should yield it to others, as was the case with the Jewish priests because they were mortal. The reason in their case, why it passed to others, was not that they did not perform the office well, but that they were mortal, and could not continue to hold it. But this reason could not operate in the case of the Lord Jesus, and therefore his priesthood would be permanent.<\/P> Hath an unchangeable priesthood – <\/B>Margin, or, which passeth not from one to another. The margin expresses the sense of the passage. The idea is not strictly that it was unchangable, but that it did not pass over into other hands. The Levitical priesthood passed from one to another as successive generations came on the stage of action. This reasoning is not designed to prove that the priesthood of Christ will be literally eternal – for its necessity may cease when all the redeemed are in heaven – but that it is permanent, and does not pass from hand to hand,<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 24. But this<\/B><\/I>] , But he<\/I>, that is, Christ, because<\/I> he continueth ever<\/I> i s eternal, hath an unchangeable priesthood<\/I>, , a priesthood that passeth not away<\/I> from him; he lives for ever, and he lives a priest<\/I> for ever.<\/P> <\/p>\n But this man, because he continueth ever; this Priest, Jesus, Heb 7:22<\/span>, is opposed to the Aaronical multitude; this excellent one, 1Ti 2:5<\/span>, after his resurrection abideth immortal. He is eternal and permanent for person and office: see Heb 7:25<\/span>; Rom 6:9<\/span>. They are vanished, but he continues for ever, Rev 1:17<\/span>,18<\/span>. <\/P> Hath an unchangeable priesthood; aparabaton, a priesthood that cannot pass from him to any other, as Aarons did to his successors: no person is to be a sharer in it, nor a successor to it: it is reciprocal with himself; his individual person terminateth it for ever; he hath no vicars nor successors of his priesthood, whatever the pope pretends to in it. <\/P> <\/p>\n 24. he<\/B>emphatic; Greek,<\/I>“Himself.” So in Ps110:4<\/span>, “THOU arta priest<\/I>“; singular, not priests,<\/I> “many.”<\/P> continueth<\/B>Greek,<\/I>simple verb, not the compound as in Heb7:23<\/span>. “Remaineth,” namely, in life.<\/I> <\/P> unchangeable<\/B>Greek,<\/I>“hath His priesthood unchangeable”; not passing from oneto another, intransmissible.<\/I> Therefore no earthly so-calledapostolic succession of priests are His vicegerents. The Jewishpriests had successors<\/I> in office, because “they could notcontinue by reason of death.” But this Man, because He livethever, hath no successor in office, not even Peter (1Pe5:1<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n But this man, because he continueth ever<\/strong>,…. Though he died, death did not forbid him to continue, as it does other men; he was not forced to die, he died voluntarily; and he continued but for a small time under the power of death; besides, his death was a branch of his priestly office: so that he not only continued in his divine nature, which still had the human nature in union with it, but he continued in his office as a priest, and quickly rose from the dead; and the virtue of his sacrifice always remains, and he himself ever lives as an intercessor: wherefore he<\/p>\n hath an unchangeable priesthood<\/strong>; which will never be antiquated, and give place to another; nor does it, or ever will it pass from him to another, for it is needless, seeing he lives, and no other is sufficient for it; and it would be injustice to pass it to another; the glory of it is due to him; and this is matter of comfort to the saints, that he sits a priest upon his throne, and that his priesthood always continues.<\/p>\n Because he abideth <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Same idiom as in verse 23<\/span>, “because of the abiding as to him” (accusative of general reference, <\/SPAN><\/span>).<\/P> Unchangeable <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Predicate adjective in the accusative (feminine of compound adjective like masculine), late double compound verbal adjective in Plutarch and papyri, from alpha privative and <\/SPAN><\/span>, valid or inviolate. The same idea in verse 3<\/span>. God placed Christ in this priesthood and no one else can step into it. See verse 11<\/span> for <\/SPAN><\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n Hath an unchangeable priesthood [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Rend. hath his priesthood unchangeable. The A. V. misses the possessive force of the article, his priesthood, and the emphasis is on unchangeable ajparabatov, N. T. o. o LXX This may be explained either as inviolable, or which does not pass over to another. Comp. Exo 32:8<\/span>; Sir. 23 18. Usage is in favor of the former meaning, but the other falls in better with the course of thought.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “But this man,”<\/strong> (ho de) “But this one,” Jesus, this heavenly, regal Priest-King, after the order of Melchisedec.<\/p>\n 2) “Because he continueth ever,”<\/strong> (dia to menein auton eis ton aiona) “Because he remains unto the age,” continues unto the eternal age, forever, to live and to intercede for his own forever, Heb 7:27<\/span>; Rev 1:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Hath an unchangeable priesthood;”<\/strong> (aparabaton echei ten heirosunen) “Has, holds, or possesses the intransmissible priestly office,” the office that may not, can not be transmitted to any other, Joh 14:1<\/span>; Act 4:12<\/span>; Heb 7:25<\/span>. In this official position of dignity Jesus appears “in the presence of God for us,” Heb 9:24<\/span>. Our High Priest’s eyes never grow dim; His ears never grow dull; His voice never grows weak; and His hands never grow numb as he ever lives and listens to our cries, to make intercession in heaven for us; In this he is the unchanging, understanding, Intercessor, the “yesterday, today, and forever.” Heb 1:12<\/span>; Heb 4:14-16<\/span>; Heb 13:8<\/span>; Rev 1:4<\/span>.<\/p>\n (24) But this man.<\/strong>Better, But He, because He remaineth for ever, hath His priesthood inviolable<\/em> (or, unchangeable<\/em>).<\/em> The former ordinance related to a race, and the individuals were ever passing away; since His life is indissoluble (Heb. 7:16<\/span>), none can trespass on His right and invade His priesthood. The rendering of the margin, that passeth not from one to another, expresses nearly the same thought; but it is very doubtful whether the Greek will bear this meaning.<\/p>\n 24<\/strong>. <\/strong> This man<\/strong> Extends his own line of unbroken individual life through ages, into and throughout eternity.<\/p>\n Heb 7:24<\/span> . The other, on the other hand, because<\/em> (not “by the fact that,” de Wette, Bisping) He abides unto eternity, has His priesthood as an unchangeable one<\/em> .<\/p>\n ] must not be explained, with Estius, Seb. Schmidt, and others, of abiding for ever as priest<\/em> . For in this way the declaration of Heb 7:24<\/span> becomes tautological. The expression denotes the everlasting duration of life<\/em> (comp. Joh 12:34<\/span> ; Joh 21:22-23 ; 1Co 15:6<\/span> ; Phi 1:25<\/span> ), is thus equivalent to the , Heb 7:25<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] a word belonging to later Greek (comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn<\/em> . p. 313), save here, foreign to the N. T., as also to the LXX. Erasmus, Schlichting, Bengel, Schulz, Bhme, Stengel, Stuart, Ebrard, Hofmann, Conybeare, and the majority, take it in the active<\/em> signification: not passing over to another, thus remaining with the same person<\/em> , or unchanging<\/em> . So, as it would seem, already Theodoret ( ), Oecumenius ( , ), Theophylact ( , ). More correctly, however, because more consistently with the demonstrable usage of the language (see instances in Wetstein and Bleek), does Bleek, after the precedent of Elsner, insist upon the passive<\/em> signification: “that which may not be overstepped, transgressed; therefore: inviolable, unalterable, immutable,” which then, it is true, includes likewise the notion of “unchanging.”<\/p>\n 24 But this man<\/em> , because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 24. He continueth ever<\/strong> ] What need then is there of a vicar, as the pope will needs be styled?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n An unchangeable<\/strong> ] Gr. , impassable. He needeth no successor. <\/p>\n 24<\/strong> .] but He, on account of his remaining for ever<\/strong> (here again, our former argument conversely applies, and obliges us to understand this of endurance now in life<\/em> , not in priesthood. It would be tautology to say, as Estius, Seb. Schmidt, al., “because He remains a priest for ever, He has an unchangeable priesthood:” besides that thus the members of the parallelism would not correspond. They, on account of their deaths, are subject to continual renewal: He, because He lives for ever, has, &c. See, besides reff., Joh 21:22 f.: 1Co 15:6<\/span> ; Php 1:25 ), hath his priesthood unchangeable<\/strong> (such is the construction: as in such sentences as , and , Plut. de Discr. Am. et Adult., 35, in Bl. The art. in such case is quasi-personal, and the adjective a pure predicate, not an epithet. <\/strong> is a word of later Greek: sec Lob. on Phryn. p. 313 ( , : on which Lob. says, “Ratio convenit: nam vetus est sed poeticum: neque vetus, neque oratoricum”). Many expositors, Thdrt., c., Thl., al., take it actively, , . But it seems doubtful whether the word ever has this meaning. Palm and Rost give it, but cite only this place as justifying it. On the other hand, the examples in Bleek and Wetst. all tend to substantiate the passive meaning, unalterable<\/em> ; which may not be passed by or put aside. So Galen i. in Hippocr. says, , . The same expression, , is found in Epictet. 75. The sun, in Plut. de Oracul. Defect. p. 410, has a : and Hierceles, Aur. Carm. p. 26, has, , and p. 72, . So vulg. and D-lat., “ sempiternum<\/em> :” Ambr [37] de Fuga Sculi c. 3 (16), vol. i. p. 424, “ imprvaricabile<\/em> :” Aug [38] de Pecc. Mer. i. 27 (50), vol. x. pt. i., “ intransgressibile<\/em> ”).<\/p>\n [37] Ambrose, Bp. of Milan<\/em> , A.D. 374 397<\/p>\n [38] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo<\/em> , 395 430<\/p>\n this. Supply “Priest”, in place of “Man”. <\/p>\n continueth. Same as “abideth”, Heb 7:3. <\/p>\n ever. See verses: Heb 7:17, Heb 7:21. <\/p>\n unchangeable. Greek. aparabatos. Literally not passing over to another. Only here. <\/p>\n 24.] but He, on account of his remaining for ever (here again, our former argument conversely applies, and obliges us to understand this of endurance now in life, not in priesthood. It would be tautology to say, as Estius, Seb. Schmidt, al., because He remains a priest for ever, He has an unchangeable priesthood: besides that thus the members of the parallelism would not correspond. They, on account of their deaths, are subject to continual renewal: He, because He lives for ever, has, &c. See, besides reff., Joh 21:22 f.: 1Co 15:6; Php 1:25), hath his priesthood unchangeable (such is the construction: as in such sentences as ,-and , Plut. de Discr. Am. et Adult., 35, in Bl. The art. in such case is quasi-personal, and the adjective a pure predicate, not an epithet. is a word of later Greek: sec Lob. on Phryn. p. 313 ( , : on which Lob. says, Ratio convenit: nam vetus est sed poeticum: neque vetus, neque oratoricum). Many expositors, Thdrt., c., Thl., al., take it actively, , . But it seems doubtful whether the word ever has this meaning. Palm and Rost give it, but cite only this place as justifying it. On the other hand, the examples in Bleek and Wetst. all tend to substantiate the passive meaning, unalterable; which may not be passed by or put aside. So Galen i. in Hippocr. says, , . The same expression, , is found in Epictet. 75. The sun, in Plut. de Oracul. Defect. p. 410, has a : and Hierceles, Aur. Carm. p. 26, has, , and p. 72, . So vulg. and D-lat., sempiternum: Ambr[37] de Fuga Sculi c. 3 (16), vol. i. p. 424, imprvaricabile: Aug[38] de Pecc. Mer. i. 27 (50), vol. x. pt. i., intransgressibile).<\/p>\n [37] Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, A.D. 374-397<\/p>\n [38] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430<\/p>\n Heb 7:24. , because that He continueth) in life and in the priesthood.-) because He Himself continues: , Thou art a Priest, in the singular.-, not passing away) into the hands of successors.<\/p>\n But: [Strong’s G1161], But he, that is, Christ, because “he continueth ever,” hath [Strong’s G531], [Strong’s G2420], “a priesthood that passeth not away from him.” <\/p>\n he continueth: Heb 7:8-25, Heb 7:28, Heb 13:8, Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7, Joh 12:34, Rom 6:9, Rev 1:18 <\/p>\n hath: 1Sa 2:35 <\/p>\n an unchangeable priesthood: or, a priesthood which passeth not from one to another <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Num 16:48 – General Num 20:26 – General Num 20:28 – died there Jos 1:2 – Moses Jos 24:33 – died 2Ch 7:3 – For he is Jer 32:40 – I will make Zec 1:5 – General Zec 6:12 – behold Zec 6:13 – a priest Gal 2:17 – is Heb 7:16 – the power Heb 7:25 – ever 1Jo 2:1 – we have<\/p>\n Heb 7:24. This man refers to Christ who continueth ever because He never died after becoming a priest. Unchangeable means the priesthood did not pass or change from one man to another, hence it necessarily was a stronger system.<\/p>\n Heb 7:24. But he because of his abiding for ever (i.e in His life, Joh 12:34) hath his priesthood unchangeable (inviolable). The active sense of the word rendered unchangeable (what does not pass over to another) is very unusual, and therefore less likely; but either meaning makes a good, and nearly the same, sense. By some commentators the abiding which is here affirmed of Christ is applied not to His life, but to His priesthood. If this meaning seem preferable, it needs then to be kept in mind that the for ever of the Psalm relates to the priesthood of Christ, and answers to the for ever of the arrangement with Melchisedeceach of them having reference to the covenant to which they belong, and so not eternal in the case of Melchisedec, nor even in the case of Christ; for though the life of Christ is eternal, as are the effects of His priesthood, yet His exercise of that office will cease when all the glorious ends of it are completely answered in the eternal salvation of the redeemed, even as He will then deliver up the kingdom to the Father (1Co 15:24). But the more natural reference of for ever is to His life.<\/p>\n 7:24 But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an {i} unchangeable priesthood.<\/p>\n (i) Which cannot pass away.<\/p>\n But this [man,] because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 24. but this man ] Rather, “ but He ” hath an unchangeable priesthood ] Rather, “hath his priesthood unchangeable” ( sempiternum, Vulg.) or perhaps “untransmissible;” “a priesthood that doth not pass to another,” as it is rendered in the margin of our Revised … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 7:24”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30012","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30012","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30012"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30012\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30012"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"