Hebrews Chapter 7/Commentary

Hebrews Chapter 7

Having admonished his readers for their lack of spiritual growth (5:11-6:20) the writer now resumes His purpose to further discuss Christ being a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (5:11). This section could be a response to Jewish Christians who were confused. They may have been thinking, “How could Jesus be this priest-king Messiah promised in the Scriptures, seeing that Jesus was from the wrong tribe to be a priest after the order of Aaron?” All along the Jews had been taught that legitimate priests could only come from the tribe of Levi. The writer points out that in Scripture there was a greater priest mentioned, in fact, greater than the Levitical priests. Verse 4 will point out that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham, seeing that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, who in turn blessed Abraham. The writer argues that no one would dispute the fact that the lesser is always blessed by the greater (7:7). Verses 9-10 extend the argument and demonstrate that the high priesthood of Melchizedek is even greater than the Levitical priesthood, for in a sense, Levi and his descendants (who were descendants of Abraham) and collected tithes from the Jewish people (7:5,9), paid tithes to Melchizedek (7:9-10).

7:1 “For this Melchizedek”: “If you want to do a character study of some person in the Bible, it is necessary to look up all the passages that tell about that person. The author of Hebrews is doing just that! He had already quoted Psalm 110:4. Now he gets back to the only other place in the Old Testament where Melchizedek is mentioned, Genesis 14” (Reese p. 102).

The name “Melchizedek” means “king of righteousness”; he is only mentioned here and Genesis 14:18-20; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6-11 and 6:20-7:28. Melchizedek was the subject of tremendous speculation in Jewish circles, including the Essene community of the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls. The writer of Hebrews clearly views Melchizedek as a real historical person, just as he is described in Genesis (7:1).

1

7:1 “King of Salem”: “Salem” is best identified as an early name for the city that would be later called “Jerusalem” (Psalm 76:2). The city of “Salem” is mentioned in secular sources such as the Tell el-Amarna letters (14th century B.C.) and in Assyrian inscriptions as “Uru salem”. “Priest of the Most High God”: Here we have a KingPriest, of which the Messiah would come (Zechariah 6:12-13). Abraham and Melchizedek worshipped the same God (Genesis 14:19,22). Melchizedek equated His God as the Creator of the Universe, a concept foreign to the polytheistic religions of the ancient Near East which did not distinguish spirit from matter and therefore worshipped the elements of the cosmos. In contrast to his idolatrous neighbors, Melchizedek had not abandoned the true God (Romans 1:18ff). Melchizedek may have known God in the same way that Abraham knew Him, that is, by hearing God’s revelation (Romans 10:17) to mankind. We should note that a true priest of the true God existed in Canaan to officiate for the worshippers of the true God in that part of the world!

7:1 “Who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him”: This is actually what happened in Genesis 14. Once more the New Testament confirms the historical accuracy and detail of the Old Testament and especially of the early chapters in Genesis. “Jerusalem would have been on the general route Abraham would have taken on his return trip from the slaughter of the kings near Damascus” (Reese p. 103). It seems clear that since Abraham was a distinct historical person that the writer views Melchizedek in the same light. Note the writer of the Hebrews does not engage in nonsensical conjectures about Melchizedek. Attempts by men to identify this Melchizedek has however resulted in numerous conjectures: Luther and Melanchthon held a view similar to the opinion found in the Jewish Targums, that Melchizedek was the patriarch Shem, who survived the Flood and outlived Abraham forty years. The purpose of this view was to downplay the greatness of Melchizedek over Abraham and make him one of Abraham’s forefathers and thus keeps everything within Jewish ancestry. Others believed that he was one of the patriarchs such as Ham, some descendant of Japheth, or Job, or even Enoch reappearing on the earth. Origen viewed him as the archangel Michael. Many viewed him as a pre-incarnate Jesus on earth in human form in Abraham’s day.

7:2 “To whom Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils”: This fact will be more fully presented in verse 4 and following. “The dedication of a tenth of the spoils of war to a deity was practiced among the Greeks and other nations” (Reese 2

p. 104). Apparently, Abraham did this to support this place of true worship. This clearly indicates that his custom of giving tithes to God for the maintenance of His worship and the support of true religion was of very remote antiquity. This does not mean that Abraham was under the Law of Moses, but rather the practice of tithing was an existing practice that was incorporated into the Law. 7:2 “Was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness”: “First, indeed, when translated” (Rhm). In ancient times names were very expressive of a person’s character. The literal interpretation of the Hebrew name “Melchizedek” signifies, “righteous king”. “Melek” is king and “Tsedek” is righteousness. In like manner, Jesus is also a righteous king (Hebrews 1:9). “And then also king of Salem, which is king of peace”: The term “Salem” means “peaceful”, for it comes from the same root as Shalom, the Hebrew word for peace. In like manner, Jesus is a king that brings peace (Isaiah 9:6). The argument is that even the titles by which this king/priest was designated point to Christ.

7:3 “Without father, without mother, without genealogy”: These terms do not mean that Melchizedek was eternal or never had a beginning point, rather they mean “unrecorded or unknown paternity and maternity”. “There is no record of his father, or mother, or lineage” (TCNT). The Greeks and the Romans were wont to apply the same expressions to orphans and persons of unknown or obscure parentage. In the same way the Jews spoke of those whose parents were not named in Scripture.

“It must be remembered that the Levitical and Melchizedekan priesthoods are being contrasted and compared. Now in the Levitical system, the priest’s family tree was of utmost importance (see Nehemiah 7:64-65; Ezra 2:62-63). The pedigree of both father and mother clear back to Aaron was carefully recorded. Yet how different with Melchizedek. In the sacred writings there is no record made of the name either of his father, or his mother, nor any of his descendants” (Reese pp. 104-105). “He stands in the Scripture alone. He does not come from an illustrious father or mother from whom he could have inherited power and dignity, still less can his priestly office and service be ascribed to his belonging to a priestly family” (Gr. Ex. N.T. p.

308).

7:3 “Having neither beginning of days nor end of life”: Some have concluded from these statements that Melchizedek was some kind of supernatural being. There is 3

even a religious sect called the “Melchizedekites” who believe that Melchizedek is more important than Jesus. First, it is clear that Melchizedek was a man (7:4 “how great this man was”). Secondly, he is not a supernatural being superior to Jesus and neither is he Jesus, for the next verse says he was made “like” the Son of God. It is strange language to say that Melchizedek was made like the Son of God if he was actually the Son of God. Psalm 110:4 says that Jesus is a priest “after the order of Melchizedek”, which makes it clear that a distinction exists between the Messiah and Melchizedek. The two are not the same person. If Melchizedek was actually a pre-incarnate appearance of God in the world, then why spend a whole chapter (Hebrews 7) on proving He was superior to any human patriarch! Finally, if this is true, why not just come out and say, “Jesus was Melchizedek!” The above expression is like the others in verse 3, that is, “history is silent concerning his birth and death”. In addition, seeing that Melchizedek had no successors or predecessors, he holds his priesthood permanently.

7:3 “But made like the Son of God”: “Rendered similar” (Thayer p. 90). The likeness, besides the significance of this man’s titles, is found in the next expression.

“He abides a priest perpetually”: “He continues to be a priest without interruption” (Amp). “Like Jesus, Melchizedek completely fills up the entire era of his royal priesthood in his own proper person” (Milligan p. 198). “As far as the record goes, his priesthood, as well as that of Christ, is unbroken, uninterrupted by any changes in succession” (p. 55). He was the only one in his line and hence holds his office permanently. His office never passed into the hands of another successor, as it did with the Levitical priesthood. “The Hebrew writer here tells us that when the Old Testament record was written, God deliberately led the writers to include and to omit certain facts so that Melchizedek would serve as a type of Jesus. As far as the Scriptural record goes, there is no account of his death, or of his ceasing to exercise his priestly office, unlike Aaron whose death is recorded in detail (Numbers 20:2329; 33:37-39).    

Both united the offices of king and priest.

Both were kings of peace and righteousness.

Both had neither ancestors to their office or any successors.

Both were of a different order than that of Aaron.

4

The Superiority of Melchizedek over Aaron “The superiority of Melchizedek to the Levitical order is explained in verses 4-10.

Argument is given to show that the one is inherently above the other, on the basis of the Old Testament record” (Kent p. 127). The reason for this line of argument is that the Jews had a profound respect for Abraham, and if it could be shown that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham, then it would be easy to demonstrate the superiority of Christ as a priest to all who were descended from Abraham.

7:4 “Now observe how great this man was”: The word “observe” means to consider with interest and with careful observation to the details (Vine p. 114 “Behold”). There is a valuable lesson to be learned here, so pay attention. “To whom the patriarch”: Not just any patriarch, but Abraham himself. The first evidence of greatness is that no less than the great Abraham gave a tenth of the choicest spoils to this man. “Gave a tenth of the choicest spoils”: That is the best of the booty, literally what comes from the top of the heap, the pick of the spoil.

“These Hebrew Christians are now earnestly urged to consider an amazing spectacle: here is the respected founder of their race paying the very best of the booty to this priest!” (Wilson p. 81).

7:5 “And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest’s office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people”: That is, the Law gave the Levites, the descendants of Aaron, the right to be financially supported by the nation of Israel (Numbers 18:24-31; Deuteronomy 14:22-29; 26:12-15; Nehemiah 10:38). “That is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham”: “The Levites received tithes from their own brethren, and not on the basis of personal greatness, but due to a legal command of God. Paying tithes to the Levitical priests was not acknowledgement of greatness. But Abraham was under no such law to Melchizedek, in fact he was not even related to him” (Gr. Ex. N.T. p. 309). Although both the Levitical priests and their brethren had a common ancestor, the people were obligated to support them. Yet Melchizedek had no place in the Levitical line, and Abraham did not present tithes to him as a matter of legal obligation, but in voluntary recognition of his superiority as priest of God Most High.

5

7:6 “But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises”: Here the dignity of Abraham is stressed, “He had the promises!” (Genesis 12:1-3). Although Abraham would be a fountain of blessings to both the Jewish race and the entire world, the person everyone else depended upon to be blessed, yet Melchizedek blessed him!

7:7 “But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater”: The writer asserts a rule that no one thinks of questioning. This was true here and likewise in the case of Isaac blessing Jacob (Genesis 27:27-40); Jacob blessing Joseph (48:1520); and Jesus blessing His disciples (Luke 24:50-51). The act of blessing signifies superiority. The term “blessing” here is used in an official sense. When Melchizedek blessed Abraham his words were not just congratulatory, but were an expression of God’s approval. Thus at that moment Melchizedek stood between God and Abraham and was the better, while Abraham was the lesser. All of this in spite of the fact that this was the same Abraham who was the patriarch of the Hebrew people, and the recipient of remarkable promises from God” (Kent pp. 129-130).

7:8 “And in this case mortal men receive tithes”: This first part of the sentence refers to the Levitical priests receiving tithes from their Jewish brethren. “Under that system, dying men receive tithes” (Reese p. 108). Here is a contrast: under the Law the Levitical priests (dying men) received tithes. “But in that case”: The case in which Melchizedek received a tenth from Abraham. “One receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on”: That is, the Scriptures never record the death of Melchizedek, he lives on in his official capacity, his priesthood being continued in Christ. Melchizedek did not lose his priesthood by death. Even though he did die, his priesthood never passed to a successor.

7:9 “And, so to speak”: “This is introducing an unusual statement or one which may appear paradoxical or startling to the reader” (Vincent p. 459). “Through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes”: This will be further explained in the next verse. “Levi” here stands for the entire Levitical priesthood, for he was the founder of the tribe. “One might be inclined to suppose that the Levitical priesthood was better since it came later than Melchizedek’s. Not so, for even Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek (so to speak)” (Reese p. 109).

6

7:10 “For”: This is how the above statement can be true. “He was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him”: Abraham was actually the greatgrandfather of Levi. The family tree was Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and then Levi. Just as one can say that Levi received tithes (in the person of his descendents) so he can say that Levi paid tithes through his ancestor Abraham. Thus the entire Levitical priesthood had actually paid tithes to Melchizedek.  When Abraham met Melchizedek (14 years before the birth of Isaac), Levi was already in God’s plan.  Our present actions or inaction can and will affect our descendants (Deut.

7:6-8). We can either be a curse or a blessing to our children and grandchildren.  This principle is true in other realms as well. When a man becomes a citizen of a country, that confers on all his descendants certain privileges and obligations.

The clear inference from verse 11 is that God's purposes could not be fully accomplished through the Levitical system of priests. If “imperfection” existed in the priesthood, then it had to exist in the “Law” which was inseparably linked to it (7:12). While the priests depended on the Law for their authority, the Law depended upon the priests to carry it out. They were inseparable. Verses 7:13-15 serve to remove all doubt that there is a complete change in priesthood, seeing that Jesus, God's designated high priest, is clearly from the wrong tribe to serve in the Levitical system. Clearer still, even the Old Testament predicted this change (7:17).

In addition, the Superiority of Christ over the Levitical priests is seen in fact that: 1.

They were priests based on physical qualifications; He is a priest based on an endless life (7:16). 2. They became priests without an oath; God's oath is behind His priesthood (7:21). 3. They could only hold their office for so long; He abides a priest perpetually (7:23-24). “If the Levitical order had achieved the end for which the priestly office had been instituted by God, then clearly the Psalmist would not have spoken of the rise of a different kind of priest (Psalm 110:4)” (Wilson p. 84).

7:11 “Now if perfection”: The term “perfection” means literally the making perfect, that is, “the full accomplishment of the essential aim of the priesthood, that of bringing men near to God” (Reese p. 110). In this passage the term means the condition in which men are acceptable to God, which is the complete removal of their sins. This was something the Jewish priesthood could not do, since the 7

sacrifices they offered, the blood of bulls and goats, could never take away sin (Hebrews 10:1-4). Something may be termed “perfect” or complete when it fulfills the purpose for which it was designed. Any priesthood is established for the purpose of making men right with God. The Levitical priesthood could only accomplish the above within limits. It makes possible an atonement that needed to be repeated; yet it could not provide a complete forgiveness.

7:11 “Was through the Levitical priesthood”: The Jews assumed that perfection did come through this priesthood. “For on the basis of it the people received the Law”: The Law depended upon the priesthood, for the Law contained ordinances dealing with sacrifices, cleansings, worship, and so on. “All the arrangements of the Law, the entire administration of the people, involve the priesthood. It was idle to give a Law without providing at the same time for the expiation of its breaches. The Covenant was first entered into by sacrifice, and could only be maintained by a renewal of sacrifice” (Gr. Ex. N.T. p. 311). “It is commonly thought that the order was first the Law came, and second, on the basis of the Law the priesthood rested.

But a restudy of the Old Testament record will show that God chose both Moses and Aaron before the Law was given. It was on the basis of the priestly function that God wanted performed that He issued the Law at Sinai, given the regulations and directions for how the priesthood should function” (Reese p. 110).

7:11 “What further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?”

The term “arise” means to appear or stand forth, and is used of the arrival of kings, priests, and prophets. Even while the Law was in force and during the height of Israel’s glory, God speaking through David concerning the Messiah said that He would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm110: 1-4). This should have taught the Jews that something was imperfect with the Levitical priesthood. The Messiah would be a priest (Zechariah 6:12-13), but a priest of a different order.

“One might be disposed to argue that since the Levitical priesthood came later than Melchizedek, God must have intended it as the permanent replacement. Yet it is clear from the Old Testament that God Himself said that Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek” (Kent p. 132).

In light of the above Scripture, why would Mormons have an Aaronic priesthood, if the Hebrew writer argues that such existed only under the Law of Moses and did 8

not lead to perfection? “There is material here that Mormons find hard to explain.

Mormons have both an Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood and a Melchizedekan priesthood in their system. Hebrews says one is to replace the other—how could we have both at the same time?” (Reese p. 111). Modern Jews need to be confronted with Psalms 110:1-4 as well. The necessary inference from Psalm 110:4 is that Judaism is not the final religion for God’s people.

7:12 “For when the priesthood is changed”: This is inferred from Psalm 110:1-4.

The term “changed” has the idea of “abrogated”, that is, replaced by something better “Of necessity there takes place a change of law also”: This statement is the logical conclusion from the point made in the previous verse, that the priesthood was the basis for the Law. While the priests depended upon the Law for their authority, the Law depended upon the priests to carry it out. “Concede that the priesthood was the basis of the law, the ground on which it rested; and then it follows of necessity that any change in the priesthood must have an effect also on the whole law. Take away the foundation, and the superstructure must fall to the ground” (Milligan p. 204).  Both stand or fall together and both are removed at the same time.  The Law prescribed offerings and sacrifices yet such depended upon a priesthood to be offered (Leviticus 17:5).  People under the Law depended upon the priesthood to atone for their sins (16:30-34) and remove their uncleanness (15:30-31).  Remove the priesthood and no offerings could be made for sins and no service could be performed at the Temple.  The Aaronic priesthood was a “perpetual priesthood throughout their generations” (Exodus 31:16-17; 40:15; Leviticus 24:8-9; 16:29-34; 1 Kings 9:3).

This means that when the priesthood changed, physical Israel ceased to be the people of God. God’s nation is now a nation of believers in Christ (1 Peter 2:5-10).

The idea in the above verse is that if the Messiah is going to be of a different priesthood than that revealed in the Law, then obviously God is going to make a change in the Law when the Messiah comes and offers His sacrifice (Himself).

7:13 “For the one concerning whom these things are spoken”: That is, the things spoken about the Messiah in passages such as Psalm 110. “Belongs to another 9

tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar”: Jesus belonged to the tribe of Judah, which was a different tribe than the one designated as the priestly tribe under the Law. Even the Old Testament taught that the Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah (Isaiah 11:1). The “altar” under consideration could be the altar of burnt offerings, or the altar of incense, or both. “Nowhere in any of the Mosaic legislation is there provision made for any of Judah to minister as priests. 2 Chronicles 26 describes the divine wrath that occurred when Uzziah, of Judaic descent, intruded into priestly functions” (Kent pp. 133-134).  The Old Testament made it clear that only the tribe of Levi was allowed to minister at the altar (Numbers 16:1; 18:7).  Yet the Messiah, who is to be from the tribe of Judah, will serve as a priest.

Therefore, it is clear that God is going to change the priesthood and the Law that rests upon it.

7:14 “For it is evident”: “It is known to all” (Arndt p. 704). It is a well-known fact.

The gospel of Matthew and Luke both contained detailed genealogies of Jesus, pointing out that He was indeed from the tribe of Judah. Thus both appeared to have been in circulation before this letter was written. In addition, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem anyone who was interested could have checked the records in Jerusalem and found that Jesus was indeed from the tribe of Judah. This was a matter of public record in Israel! “That our Lord”: This is the Jesus whom these Christians had confessed as Lord.

7:14 “Was descended from Judah”: In addition, the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament clearly showed that the Messiah would spring from the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:6). “The Jews still admit that the Messiah is to be of the tribe of Judah. Since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, when the genealogical records were destroyed, there is no way of knowing who belongs to the tribe of Judah and who does not. But it is held by them that when Messiah does come, the fact that He is of the tribe of Judah will be made known by miracle” (Reese p. 113). It was also common knowledge among the Jews that the Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah (Matthew 22:42). The term “descended” means to “spring” and refers to the historical appearance of this promised “branch” (Jeremiah 23:5; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12).

10

7:14 “A tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests”: “The Mosaic Law cannot be applicable if Jesus the Messiah (from the tribe of Judah) is functioning as a priest” (Reese p. 113).  First, this is proof that Moses wrote the Law and not some unknown writer of a later period.  It also denotes that God endorses the principle of the “silence of the Scriptures”. Concerning priests under the Law, Moses had specified the tribe of Levi (Numbers 3:10; 16:40; Exodus 29:9; Numbers 18:7). When God specified the Levites, this ruled out all the other tribes. When God selected Aaron and his sons, everyone else was automatically excluded as priests. God did not have to say, “Members from the tribe of Judah cannot be priests”, rather all He had to do was specify who were the priests. Unfortunately, most religious people today would not accept the reasoning given by the Hebrew writer. When the writer says, “A tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests”, they would say, “So what, He can still be a priest if he wants to”. Or, “The Bible does not specifically forbid it, so he can do it!”  In the days of Ezra those who could not prove their Levitical ancestry were forbidden from serving in the priesthood (2:61-62), even though they claimed to be from the right tribe. Silence did not give members of the tribe of Judah the right to serve as priests!

Even Wilson notes, “That a ceremony is not expressly forbidden in Scripture does not warrant its practice, because the Scriptural rule excludes all religious ceremonies which are not of Divine appointment. Their not being commanded is therefore a sufficient reason for refusing them” (p. 86).

7:15 “And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek”: “All this becomes even more plain when we remember” (TCNT). It was evident that a change was coming when Psalm 110 was penned. It is also evident seeing that Jesus is from the tribe of Judah. This verse seems to gather up all the previous points: 1. Perfection did not come through the Levitical priesthood.

2. With a change of priesthood comes a change of Law. 3. Jesus came from Judah, not Levi, yet He is a priest, for God declared it. Notice the term “likeness”. Jesus and Melchizedek are not the same person and neither are they identical in all points, yet there is a definite likeness. The expression “clearer still” must refer to the fulfillment

11

of Psalm 110:4. He was born of the tribe of Judah, He died for our sins, and we actually do have such a priest right now! (4:14-16). Clearly, the Law had ended.

7:16 “who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement”: The requirements for being a priest in the Old Testament related to various physical requirements, such as being from the right tribe (Numbers 16:40), and having no bodily blemish or defect (Leviticus 21:16-23). Jesus however possesses His priesthood on another principle. It is not dependent upon laws that relate to mere physical requirements, but rather to the power of an endless life. “But according to the power of an indestructible life”: The term “power” refers to inherit power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature (Thayer p. 159). An indestructible life is one that is not subject to destruction. Jesus has life within Himself; He is selfexistent (John 1:4; 10:18; Acts 2:24).

Notice the contrast between Jesus and the priests in the Old Testament: Levitical Priesthood

Jesus

“Requirement”

“Power”

“Physical”

“Indestructible”

“Commandment” (18)

“Life”

“God’s statement in Psalm 110:4 termed Christ a priest forever. He was thus an entirely different sort from Aaron. All of the Levitical priests were subject to death” (Kent p. 135). Even death could not prevent Jesus from serving as our High Priest, yet death did prevent all the priests in the Old Testament from continuing to serve.

7:17 “For it is witnessed of Him”: Once again appeal is made to Psalm 110:4. This time the word “forever” is singled out for special attention. “That single word is the very word through which God Himself testifies about the indestructible character of the life of Jesus, the new High Priest” (Reese p. 114). “These words are quite inapplicable to the old order; no priest of Aaron’s line could have been described as a ‘priest forever’” (Bruce). If Jesus holds His priesthood “forever” then why do Mormons insist on being after the order of Melchizedek? Does not such a claim 12

assert two things: 1. Jesus has died and lost His priesthood. 2. They are claiming equality with Jesus.

7:18 “For, on the one hand, there is the setting aside of a former commandment”: The term “setting aside” means “abolition, annulment, cancellation”. The “former commandment” is the requirements of the Levitical priesthood (7:16), which in turn means the removal of the entire Law (7:12).

Why was the Law removed?

7:18 “Because of its weakness and uselessness”: Here is the reason. The term “uselessness” means “not beneficial” or “serviceable”. This does not mean that God gave a useless Law or that the Levitical priesthood was a bad idea or a waste of time.

The Law and the priesthood were useful for many things (Romans 7:7,12, Galatians 3:19). Rather, the Law was never designed to bring the perfection, that is, the complete atonement for sin that God desired (10:4). So the Law was not a bad idea and neither was it a mistake on God’s part; it was completely suited for the purpose that God intended. Yet these Jewish Christians were desiring that the Law be something that it could never be, that is, the final Law and the ultimate method of making men right with God. 7:19 “For the Law made nothing perfect”: Here is the realm in which the Law was weak and profitless, in the area of removing sin effectively. Compare with Romans 8:1-4. “On the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God”: While the Law has been set aside, this is not a bad thing, for what has been brought in as a replacement is a better hope. The better hope was mentioned in the previous chapter, that is, Jesus serving as our High Priest at the right hand of God in heaven (6:11, 13-20). Until a man’s sins are forgiven he cannot truly draw near to God, and this is the perfection that God accomplished in Jesus Christ. Drawing near to God will be further explained in 10:19-22. As a result of Jesus’ sacrifice and His officiating as High Priest we can have greater boldness and confidence in our salvation (4:14-16). We should also add that the sacrifice of Christ gives validity to all the sacrifices in the Old Testament (9:15). Hence with Christ we can be assured that the faithful in the Old Testament did end up saved!

Let it also be noted that because of what Jesus did on the cross, every believer today can draw near to God; there is no need for an official human priesthood to be 13

placed between the worshipper and God. In the New Covenant every believer is a priest (1 Peter 2:5) and has his or her own spiritual sacrifices to offer (13:15). “The discussion now moves to the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over Aaron’s because it was based upon God’s oath” (Kent p. 136).

7:20 “And inasmuch as it was not without an oath”: “The Hebrew writer continues his study of Psalm 110:4 so as to extract from it the last degree of significance for the character of Messiah’s priesthood. In this sentence he calls the reader’s attention to the oath God took as He announced the coming of a priest after the order of Melchizedek. That oath, he says, makes Messiah’s Melchizedek priesthood something special when compared to the Levitical priesthood” (Reese p. 116).

“What He has said about God’s oath to Abraham in 6:13ff is equally true about God’s oath here” (Bruce). “That never imposed His oath, except to shew the certainty and immutability of the thing sworn” (Macknight p. 150). The purpose of this oath is to demonstrate God’s unchangeable purpose in the matter. The priesthood of Christ will never be set aside in favor of another priesthood. In addition, neither will the New Covenant, which is based on that priesthood, be removed in favor of another covenant. Consider how the Holy Spirit reasons and all the lessons, points, and arguments that He has drawn from one verse (Psalm 110:4). Many today are saying that we need to get away from digging into the text and yet making arguments from Scripture instead merely get the overall idea, yet the Holy Spirit draws many arguments from one verse, and makesarguments that establish very important truths!

7:21 “For they indeed became priests without an oath”: “The difference between the two priesthoods is considered from the standpoint of the temporary versus the permanent. In the case of the Levitical priests, no oath of God guaranteed by His oath the uninterrupted operation of the Aaronic order. Aaron and his sons were formally appointed for the exercise of their office, but God did not bind Himself with an oath that their priesthood was established forever” (Kent p. 137). Therefore the Levitical priesthood could be changed, in fact, changes were made within various priestly families who became unfaithful (i.e. the sons of Eli, 1 Samuel 2:27-36).

14

7:21 “But He with an oath through the One who said to Him”: The specific oath under consideration is the one given in Psalm 110:4. “God’s simple word is sufficient to insure truthfulness, but the addition of the oath provides additional confirmation to men” (Kent p. 137). “The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind”: Some older versions have the term “repent”, which is the equivalent to “will not change”. Seeing that repentance is a change of mind, the term can be used in this manner. “It is therefore clearly indicated that God will never set aside the priesthood of Christ, as He did that of Levi, in order to make way for another of a different order” (Milligan p. 210). Obviously this verse contradicts the claims of premillennialists who argue that the church age will be followed by a return to animal sacrifices.

We need to be impressed with the fact that the Holy Spirit interpreted definite statements in Scripture as settling the case. “Thou art a priest forever” has no other interpretation than what the verse says. The statement, “will not change His mind,” means exactly that. There is no room to argue, “Well, the verse does not say that God may change His mind later on”. What a verse says excludes all other possibilities.

7:22 “So much the more”: Jesus’ priesthood is to this greater degree superior to the Levitical priesthood. “In the same proportion, i.e. as the difference between the oath and non-oath” (Alford p. 1511). “Jesus has become the guarantee”: In classical Greek the term here rendered “guarantee” or “surety” meant a sponsor, or a bondman, that is one who stands good for a debt. One who pledges his name, property, or influence that a promise shall be fulfilled or that something else shall be done (Milligan p. 211). This is what Jesus does to ensure that all the requirements of the new covenant shall be satisfied. “It means Jesus is the personal guarantee of the terms of the new and better covenant, secured on the ground of His perfect sacrifice (7:27)” (Wilson p. 89). “Of a better covenant”: First of all, this makes it clear that there has been more than simply one covenant or one eternal covenant. A “better” covenant infers the existence of another a covenant that was inferior. Remember, the law rests upon the priesthood (7:1112), and we know that there have been two distinct priesthoods there have therefore been two distinct laws.

The writer wishes to emphasize the thought that by the appointment of Jesus to a priesthood that will last forever, the covenant based on that priesthood (the New 15

Covenant), is secured against all failure of any of the ends for which it was established. That is, the New Testament is just as secure in Jesus’ priesthood, and this is why Jesus is called the “guarantee” of a better covenant. If we have an unchangeable priest, then we are under an unchangeable covenant.

We can conclude that the New Testament is the final covenant, and the claims of Mormonism (another Testament of Jesus Christ) are false. We should note that the claim, “another Testament/Covenant of Jesus Christ” is the equivalent of saying that the priesthood of Jesus has changed, for when the priesthood changes the law changes and vice versa. In addition, another Testament would have to come with another law, that is, another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).

The term “covenant” or “testament” is a term that people have tried to manipulate for their own purposes. First of all, the term does not mean simply a “relationship”, for this term does not mean an agreement between equals, rather it means an agreement between a superior and those who are inferior (i.e. between God and man). Secondly, God gives the conditions for any covenant and man must supply the obedience, for there is no idea of negotiation between two equal parties in this term. A covenant is not something where God does all the work and neither is a covenant unconditional, that is that one is saved or lost no matter what they do or do not do. Third, God has not excluded anyone from enjoying the benefits of the New Covenant, if they will simply obey (2 Peter 3:9).

7:23 “And the former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers, because they were prevented by death from continuing” In 1 Chronicles 6:49-53 there is a list of the various high priests who had served in Israel up to that time. ‘Josephus says that 83 high priests officiated from Aaron to the destruction of Jerusalem” (Fudge p. 77). The reason that the Aaronic priests existed in greater number is because, due to death, there was always a need for a successor. Here we see that the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood is indicated by the fact that it is not interrupted by death. “The very fact that the operation of the priesthood was periodically confronted with such interruption is here viewed as a weakness. The constant and inevitable change left the way open for a breakdown in proper representation. A faithful priest who had the confidence of the people might be succeeded in office by a worthless son” (Kent pp. 139-140).

Added to this fact, the Hebrew writer is reminding his readers what the Law had 16

actually said about the Levitical priesthood, yet the Jewish high priesthood, especially since the times of the Greeks and Romans, was often given up to the highest bidder or whoever bowed the lowest to the foreign power.

7:24 “But He, on the other hand, because He abides forever”: Jesus did die, but not for the same reason that others die. Jesus died for our sins yet He was resurrected. Part of His task as priest including sacrificing Himself and presenting that sacrifice before the throne of God in heaven (Hebrews 9:24). Death did not stop Him from serving as our priest; rather, death was part of the program. “The death of Christ on the cross does not weaken the author’s point because it was Calvary which provided the once-for-all sacrifice” (Kent p. 140). In addition, much of His work as our high priest is post-resurrection and in heaven (7:25). 7:24 “Holds His priesthood permanently”: The term “permanently” means something that is non-transferable.

7:25 “Hence”: Seeing that Jesus holds His priesthood forever and will have no successors, He will permanently be in a position to help man. “He is also able to save forever”: Notice that Jesus is “able”. While we might sympathize with someone, we also might not be able to help him or her. Jesus can do both. Let us also remember that whenever the Bible uses the term “save”, it obviously is implying that we need to be saved from something. There is a place where people perish who are not saved (John 3:16). “Forever”: “Unto the very end” (Rhm); “Save absolutely” (NEB). The term here translated “forever” means “completely, perfectly, utterly” (Thayer p. 476). “Completely, fully, wholly” (Arndt p. 608). Hence some translations have the expression “to the uttermost”. “To the highest degree possible” (Reese p. 119).

There may be a couple of different ideas here. 1. Since Jesus always lives, He is always able to save those who obey Him. His sacrifice has perpetual validity as long as this earth exists. 2. Jesus is able to save us completely, something that the Old Testament sacrifices were unable to do. 3. He can also save a person all the way to the end, that is, the Christian continually needs the blood of Christ, for they will sin from time to time (1 John 1:8-10). 4. His one sacrifice is valid for every generation and this sacrifice does not depend upon validation from some other source. Remember, the sacrifices of the Old Testament depended upon the sacrifice of Jesus to made them valid and the Mosaic system could not save a man entirely (9:14; 10:10,14). “He does not abandon the work midway; He does not 17

begin a work which He is unable to finish. He will aid us as long as we need anything done for our salvation” (Barnes p. 166).

7:25 “Those who”: The salvation that Jesus brought is conditional, that is, Jesus’ death on the cross did not automatically save everyone. “Draw near to God through Him”: Neither does the sacrifice of Jesus save people who simply draw near to God, rather one must draw near to God specifically through Jesus Himself (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). For the expression “draw near” see Hebrews 4:16; 11:6; 10:22 and James 4:8.

“Since He always lives to make intercession for them”: The expression “make intercession” means “to make petition” or “plead for”. Jesus made but one sacrifice, but He ever lives to make intercession on the basis of that sacrifice, even the Christian has a continual need for the benefits of that sacrifice (1 John 2:1).

This is the same idea that John notes that Jesus is our “Advocate”, and is one reason why Jesus can save completely, for He is always present to plead our case for forgiveness. “As His life on earth was spent in the interests of men, so He continues to spend Himself in this same cause” (Gr. Ex. N.T. p. 317). Yet such intercession is only for those who draw near to God through Him, Jesus does not make intercession for other religions or for the rebellious. In light of this verse, is it clear that Jesus is the only One who makes such intercession. Mary does not make intercession and neither does Joseph or any other departed person. Finally, it is assumed the person drawing near to God is still presently alive and that they are drawing near on behalf of their own salvation. We cannot draw near to God and receive the benefits of Jesus death for someone else.

7:26 “For it was fitting”: “Exactly suited to our need” (Wey); “Does indeed fit our condition” (NEB); “Here is a high priest we needed” (Beck). This is the same word as used in Hebrews 2:10. “That we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners”: The term “innocent” means “without fraud, harmless, free from guilt” (Thayer). We do need a high priest who is holy, for God is holy. We need a high priest that we can trust, for our salvation is in His hands.

Would you completely trust your eternal destiny to any other? The term “undefiled” means that Jesus will never become disqualified due to some personal defilement. He will always remain a very effective high priest. Jesus was unspotted by the world, untouched by sin, and therefore qualified to approach the throne of God for us. Even though Jesus spent His entire earthly life among sinners, He Himself was holy, guileless, and undefiled. Now in heaven, Jesus is 18

separated from sinners forever. Jesus mingled with sinners, yet to do them good, not to sin with them, in a sense He has always been separated from sinners (John 8:46).

The above verse describes the superior personal moral fitness of Jesus compared to the Jewish priests. He is completely holy, innocent and undefiled, in contrast they only possessed such qualities in a very limited degree. “His purity goes far beyond any ceremonial cleanness, such as resulted when the Levitical high priests purified themselves, put on clean garments and observed certain physical taboos, in order to be suitably prepared to officiate on the Day of Atonement” (Reese p.

121). Jesus does not need to make any special ceremonial preparations to serve, rather, He is and has always been holy, innocent, and undefiled.

7:26 “And exalted above the heavens”: Ephesians 1:22-23; 1 Peter 3:22; Ephesians 4:10; Hebrews 4:14. This statement denotes His present abode at the right hand of the Father (1:13; 2:9).

7:27 “Who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people”: The Law commanded such daily sacrifices (Exodus 29:38). While Jesus intercedes constantly, He does not need to purify Himself or offer another sacrifice day by day. In contrast to Jesus who is holy, the Levitical high priests were “sinners”. The Jewish high priest was responsible for having the daily sacrifices carried out and this verse infers that He needed the benefits of such sacrifices just like the rest of the people. He depended upon those daily sacrifices for his own salvation as well.

7:27 “Because this He did once for all”: That is, one time for all time (9:12, 28; 10:2,10). Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself has such validity that He never needs to offer Himself again. “When He offered up Himself”: (9:14; 10:5,10).

7:28 “For the Law”: That is, the Law of Moses. “Appoints men as high priests who are weak”: That is, men who are weak compared to Jesus. Men who are liable to death, and were men who sin. Even priests such as Aaron himself, caved into temptation (Exodus 32:1-29). God knew that such men were imperfect, for He built into the Law the necessity of sacrifice for our their sins and then for the sins of the people (Leviticus 16; Hebrews 5:2-3). “But the word of the oath”: (Psalm 110:4). “Which came after the Law”: That is, it is recorded in the Psalms, 19

inferring that God was going to make a change and the Law of Moses was not the final covenant. “Since the oath came after the Law, it cannot be argued that the Law superseded the oath. The oath was the last word, not the Law” (Reese p.

123). “Appoints a Son”: In contrast to weak and imperfect men. “Made perfect forever”: “For all time, the perfect priest” (TCNT); “Fully qualified to be high priest forever” (Gspd). Literally, have been perfected, see 2:10 and 5:8-9. “The once-for-all nature of His sacrifice coupled with the personal qualifications of the priest Himself as God’s own Son make the eternal character of His priesthood a certainty, immeasurably superior to the Aaronic order” (Kent p. 145).

20