Hebrews 7

Robert Milligan Commentary On Hebrews 7SECTION SIXHeb_7:1-28 and Hebrews 8:1-5Having by the admonitions and warnings given in the preceding section, excited his Hebrew brethren to greater diligence in the study of God’ s word, the Apostle again resumes the consideration of Christ’ s priesthood. His main object in this section is to set forth clearly and prominently its great superiority over that of Aaron and his successors. This he does— I. By showing that the priesthood of Melchisedec was of a higher order than that of Aaron. And as the priesthood of Mel­chisedec was only a type of the priesthood of Christ, it follows of necessity that the latter is even more than the former superior to that of Aaron. (Hebrews 7:1-10.) That the priesthood of Melchisedec was superior to that of the Levitical order, he proves—

1. From the fact that Melchisedec was a king as well as a priest (Hebrews 7:1-2).2. From the fact that Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, paid tithes to him (Hebrews 7:2).
2. From the fact that, as a priest, Melchisedec appears on the typical canvas alone, without predecessors and without successors. II. In this, the unity, immutability, and general perfection of Christ’ s priesthood are beautifully illustrated (Hebrews 7:3).
3. From the fact that Abraham himself acknowledged the supe­riority of Melchisedec (1) by giving him a tithe of the spoils, and (2) by receiving his blessing (Hebrews 7:2 Hebrews 7:7).2. From the fact that on the principle of federal representation, even Levi himself paid tithes to Melchisedec through Abraham (Hebrews 7:9-10). From all of which it follows that the priesthood of Melchisedec is of a higher order than that of Aaron, and conse­quently that the priesthood of Christ is greatly superior to the Levitical.

III. The Apostle further demonstrates the superiority of Christ’ s priesthood over that of Levi, from the fact that God had promised by David that he would introduce a new order of priesthood. This, as our author shows, implies an imperfection in the Levitical order, and also in the whole law of Moses (Hebrews 7:11-19). For

1. If the Levitical priesthood had reached the end of God’ s be­nevolent purposes, then certainly he would not have thought of in­troducing another of a different order (Hebrews 7:11).
2. But this he has done. For in Psalms 110:4, as our author has shown in Hebrews 5:5-6, God promised to make his Son Jesus a High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. And as Jesus is not of the tribe of Levi but of Judah, it follows that the Levitical priesthood is abolished, and with it also the whole law of Moses, of which the Levitical priesthood was the basis (Hebrews 7:12-14).
3. This is further and still more manifestly implied in the stipu­lated terms and conditions of the new order of priesthood. Christ holds his office, not as did the Levitical Priests “ after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” He is a priest forever according to the decree of Jehovah as given in Psalms 110:4.
4. The whole law of Moses, then, embracing the carnal com­mandment relating to the Levitical priesthood is abrogated, being, as it was, incapable of perfecting anything, and a new and better ground of hope is now brought in through the priesthood of Christ; so that we can now, at all times, draw near to God, as chil­dren to a father, and obtain from him seasonable help (Hebrews 7:18-19). IV. The Apostle makes a third argument in proof of the superiority of Christ’ s priesthood on the ground that it was instituted with an oath. “ Jehovah has sworn, and will not repent,” says David, addressing the Messiah, “ thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.”
5. But no such solemnities were observed in inaugurating the Levitical priesthood (Hebrews 7:20-22).
6. Now when it is understood that God never makes oath, save on the most sol­emn occasions and in reference to the most important matters this argument is of very great force.

V. The fourth argument is drawn from the frequent changes that occurred in the Levitical priesthood, occasioned by the death of the high priest (Hebrews 7:23-25).

1. From the inauguration of the Levitical priesthood to the birth of Christ, sixty-seven different persons held the office of high priest, and from the same epoch to the destruction of Jerusalem, eighty-one persons ministered in this office (Hebrews 7:23).
2. But no such imperfection exists in the priesthood of Christ; he ever lives to intercede for his people, and to save even to the uttermost those who come unto God by him (Hebrews 7:24-25).

I. In the next place he proves the superiority of Christ’ s priesthood from his perfectly holy and sinless nature (Hebrews 7:26-28).

1. The Levitical high priests were all sinners like other men, and hence they had to offer sacrifices daily for themselves as well as for the people.
2. But Christ being without sin, had no need to offer sacrifice for himself. And so perfect was the one offering of himself which he made for the sins of the people that no further offering is re­quired. God can now be just in justifying all who believe in Jesus.

II. Finally and chiefly, the Apostle proves the superiority of Christ’ s priesthood from his exalted position and his official dig­nity (Hebrews 8:1-5).

1. He sits enthroned on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens (Hebrews 8:1).
2. He is a minister of the Sanctuary and also of the true Taber­nacle, of which Jehovah himself is the supreme architect. In these archetypes of both the tabernacle of Moses, and the temple of Solo­mon, Jesus ever ministers as our high jpriest, dealing not with shadows as did the priests under the Law, but with the sublime realities of the economy of redemption (Hebrews 8:2-5).

It appears, then, from the preceding analysis that the main thoughts and divisions of this section may be briefly summed up as follows: I. Hebrews 7:1-10. The Melchisedecian order of priesthood superior to the Levitical. II. Hebrews 7:11-19. The Levitical priesthood and law of Moses both abrogated on account of their insufficiency, and a better ground of hope brought in through the priesthood of Christ. III. Hebrews 7:20-22. The superiority of Christ’ s priesthood proved from the fact that, unlike the Levitical, it was inaugurated with an oath. IV. Hebrews 7:23-25. The frequent changes in the Levitical priesthood occasioned by the death of the high priest, contrasted with the ever-enduring and unchangeable character of Christ’ s priesthood. V. Hebrews 7:26-28. The great superiority of Christ’ s priesthood proved and illustrated from his own pure and spotless character, and from the perfection of the one offering which he made for the sins of the world. VI. Heb 8: 1-5. The superiority of Christ’ s priesthood further demonstrated from the higher and more exalted sphere of his min­istry.THE ORDER OF TO THE Hebrews 7:1-10 Hebrews 7:1 —For this Melchisedec,—The Apostle expresses here in one compact sentence the main characteristics of Melchisedec as a type of Christ. His object is to amplify and illustrate the closing re­mark of the last section that Christ is “ made a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” This he goes on to say is true, for Melchisedec being king of Salem, etc., abides a priest continu­ally, and so also does Christ.

Who this Melchisedec was, has long been a question of interest with both the learned and the unlearned. Some say that he was Christ himself (Ambrose, Hottinger) ; some, that he was the Holy Spirit (Hieracas, Epiphanius) ; some, that he was an angel (Ori- gen, Didymus) ; some, that he was Enoch (Hulsius, Calmet) ; some, that he was Shem (Jerome, Luther); and some have conjec­tured that he was an extraordinary emanation from the Deity which suddenly appeared for a little while on the stage of action, and was then as suddenly removed from it. But all such notions are purely hypothetical, and are wholly inconsistent with the man­ifest purpose of God in making Melchisedec an extraordinary type of his own Son as the great high priest of our confession. For it is very obvious that the Holy Spirit has intentionally thrown an im­penetrable veil over both the birth and the death of Melchisedec, over both his parentage and his posterity, for the purpose of mak­ing him a more perfect type of Christ. He now stands before us on the typical canvas alone, without father, without mother, with­out genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. He appears in the sacerdotal drama by himself, and in the prime of manhood, honored and respected by the most eminent servants of God “ as a priest upon his throne,” thus beautifully illustrating in his own person the royal dignity and the perpetual character of Christ’ s priesthood.

But let it be once clearly demonstrated that he was Shem, the son of Noah, or any other person of known genealogy, and that moment the analogy fails, and he forever ceases to be a fit type of Christ. It was not, therefore, a matter of chance, or of accident, but of real design on the part of God, that so little is said in history of this truly great and mysterious person.

He comes out suddenly from the dark, invisible background of the drama of human redemption; appears for a little while as a royal priest, and then retires forever without leaving behind him the slightest recorded evidence that he had either predecessors or suc­cessors ; that he had either beginning of days or end of life. And hence it is really more than folly to ransack the archives of antiq­uity with the view of discovering anything more concerning him than what is recorded in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. Josephus, after the manner of Moses, represents him simply as the king of Salem, and says that “ he supplied Abraham’ s army in a hospitable manner, and gave them provisions in abundance.” (Ant. 10, 2.) So also Philo speaks of him as a real person. He says, “ God made him king of Salem,” and he calls him “ the priest of the Most High God.” (Legg. Alleg. Section 25, 26.) The name Mcl- chisedec, as our author defines it, means simply king of righteous­ness.

Hebrews 7:1 —King of Salem,— Some expositors, as Bohme and Bleek, think that we have in these words, as in Melchi-tsedek, a mere title (Melek-Salem) of this illustrious personage, and that there is really here no reference to any locality. Others, as Jerome and Ewald, suppose that the Salem of our text is the same as the Salim of Joh 3:23, near to which John was baptizing. But the com­mon opinion of both Jewish and Christian writers has always been that the Salem of our text is the same as Jerusalem. This was the view of Josephus (Ant. i. 10, 2; vii. 3, 2; Bell. vi. 10), and is prob­ably correct for the following reasons: (1) the name Salem is manifestly given to Jerusalem in Psalms 76:2. (2)The name Jerusalem is composed as some think of Jebus-Salem (Judges 19:10), or as others with more probability, suppose, of Jeru-Salem, which means foundation of peace. (3) The situation of Jerusalem corresponds well with the facts recorded in Genesis 14:17-20. (4) The name Melchi-tsedek is formed after the same analogy as Adoni-tsedek (lord of righteousness) the name of another king of Jerusalem. (Joshua 10:1.) And (5) since it was God’ s purpose to make Jerusalem prominent above all other places in bringing about the reign of the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), it is most likely that he would select it in preference to any other locality for the sacer­dotal reign of the king of righteousness.

Hebrews 7:1 —priest of the most high God,— The Hebrew word kohen, ren­dered priest, occurs about seven hundred times in the Old Testa­ment, and like the Greek hiereus, is always used to denote one who offers sacrifice and ministers in other sacred things. It is first of all applied to Melchisedec in Genesis 14:18, who is there, as well as in our text, called “ priest of the Most High God.” The title “ Most High,” is given to God, as Philo says, “ not because there is any other God who is not most high, for God being one is in Heaven above, and the earth beneath, and there is none other be­side him.” (Legg. Alleg. Section 26.)

Hebrews 7:1 —who met Abraham, etc.— The account of this meeting is given in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, to which the reader is re­ferred for all necessary details. Suffice it to say here, that after Abraham had completely routed and vanquished the four kings whose names and places are there recorded, and was returning, laden with the spoils of victory to Hebron, the place of his sojourn about twenty miles south of Jerusalem, he was met on his way thither by Melchisedec, who refreshed him and his servants with bread and wine, and, as the priest of the Most High God, he blessed Abraham, saying, “ Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be the Most High God who hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand.”

Hebrews 7:2 —To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all,— This act of devotion on the part of Abraham, as well as the vow of Jacob (Genesis 28:22), clearly indicates that the custom of paying tithes to God for the maintenance of his worship and the support of true religion, was of very remote antiquity. Indeed, there is no reason to doubt that the paying of tithes, as well as the offering of sacri­fice, was of Divine origin, and that a law to this effect was given to Adam and his family soon after the fall. And accordingly we find traces of its observance not only among the Patriarchs, but also among many of the most ancient nations, such as the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, and the Carthaginians. And hence Moses does not introduce tithing as a novelty, but finding it, as he found sacrifice, already in vogue, he merely gave new laws and regulations concerning it, making that now obligatory which was perhaps before somewhat voluntary. While, therefore, the offer­ings of Abraham to Melchisedec were most likely voluntary on the part of this illustrious Patriarch, it is but reasonable to suppose that he made them in harmony with what he knew to be an exist­ing religious ordinance, and also on account of the great respect which he had for Melchisedec as a priest of the Most High God.

Hebrews 7:3 —Without Father, etc.— The Greeks and Romans were wont to apply the epithets “ without father” (apator) and “ without mother” (ametor), (1) to their gods; (2) to orphans; and (3) to persons of unknown or obscure parentage. Thus, for instance, Livy says of Servius Tullius, that “ he was born of no father.” (Lib. iv. 3.) So also the Jews were accustomed to use these terms of persons, the names of whose parents were not given in the Holy Scriptures or in their genealogies. Philo, for example, speaking of Sarah, the wife of Abraham, says, “ She is said not to have had a mother, having received the inheritance of relationship from her father only” (DeEbriet, Section 14) : meaning evidently that her mother’ s name is not found in the sacred records. And to the same effect is the Rabbinical maxim which says of the Gentile pros­elyte that “ He has no father,” after his conversion to Judaism. In this popular sense, the Apostle manifestly uses these negative epithets in our text, to denote simply that the parentage of Mel- chisedec is unknown; that so far as the record goes, he was with­out father and without mother, and furthermore that he was with­out descent, or rather, without genealogy (agenealogetos). Nothing concerning either his ancestry or his posterity is recorded in the Holy Scriptures.

There, he appears on the page of typical history isolated and alone. See note on verse 1.

Hebrews 7:3 —having neither beginning of days nor end of life;— This is but a part of the constructive parallelism which the Apostle frames here with the view of amplifying his description of Melchisedec in his typical relations to Christ as the great high priest of our con­fession. Christ, in the sense in which he is here contemplated by our author, had no predecessors, and he will have no successors. He himself will continue to officiate as our royal high priest during the entire period of his mediatorial reign. And so it was with Melchisedec. So far as the record goes, his priesthood, as well as that of Christ, was unbroken, uninterrupted by any changes of suc­cession. All that is here meant by his being made like unto the Son of God, and abiding a priest perpetually (eis to dienekes) is simply this: that like Jesus he completely fills up the entire era of his royal priesthood in his own proper person.

This period, how­ever short, is intended to serve as a typical representation of the era of Christ’ s priesthood, and Melchisedec is thus made a more perfect type of Christ than was Aaron or any of his successors. The word perpetually (dienekes) and forever (aion) are relative terms, and are simply exhaustive of the period to which they are severally applied, whether it be long or short. And all that is therefore implied in the words of the text is simply this: that as the shadow, however small it may be, corresponds with the sub­stance which forms it, so also did the priesthood of Melchisedec correspond with that of Christ. Each of them was unbroken, un­interrupted, and relatively perfect in itself. Great care is therefore necessary in dealing with these relative terms and expressions, lest peradventure we give them an extension which is wholly beyond what was intended by the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 7:4 —Now consider how great this man was,—The Apostle aims here to exalt the character of Melchisedec with the view of still further exalting the character and priesthood of Christ, of whom Melchisedec was an eminent type. This he does by comparing Melchisedec with Abraham, who, at that time, had apparently reached the very summit of human greatness. “ Of his own free­will, he had, from motives of pure benevolence, engaged in an en­terprise which resulted in the overthrow of four kings and the de­liverance of five, and now he was returning to his quiet home cov­ered with glory and the spoils of victory. But just at this moment, when raised above his fellow-men in deeds of prowess and works of mercy, he encounters the venerable form of the king of Salem, who steps forth for an instant from his mysterious seclusion, and as speedily retires again, but not before Abraham, at his highest exaltation, has acknowledged in Melchisedec one superior to him­self” Del. in loc.). This Abraham did (1) by paying to Mel­chisedec the tenth of all the spoils which he had taken, and (2) by receiving the blessing of Melchisedec as the priest of the Most High God.

The Greek word rendered spoils (akdrothinion), means literally the top of the heap. It generally occurs in the plural number, and is variously used to denote the first fruits of the harvest, taken as they usually were from the top of the heap of corn, and also the best of the spoils of war, which the heathens generally consecrated to the honor and worship of their gods. In our text it means not the whole of the booty taken, but only those choice articles of it which Abraham selected and offered to Melchisedec as the tenth of all.

Hebrews 7:5 —And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, etc.— The Apostle goes on to demonstrate still further the very exalted per­sonal and official dignity of Melchisedec. This he does in the first place by drawing a broad line of distinction between Melchisedec and the Levitical priests. These, he concedes, were in official rank superior to the laity, as is clearly indicated by their receiving tithes from them. But this difference of rank between the priests and the people, is modified by the fact that they were all brethren, descend­ants of the common stock of Abraham, and also by the fact that the priests had a legal right to tax the people as a reward for ser­vices rendered. But not so in the case of Melchisedec and Abra­ham. Melchisedec bore no such relation to Abraham; he was not of the same kindred, nor had he, so far as we know, any legal right to tax Abraham for his services.

And yet, so great was his per­sonal and official dignity, that even Abraham, the honored father of the whole stock of Israel, including the priesthood as well as the people, paid tithes to him and received his blessing. The whole sentence is well rendered by Delitzsch as follows: “ And, indeed, while the sons of Levi receiving the priesthood, have a command­ment to take tithes from the people, according to the law, that is, from their own brethren, although issued like themselves from the loins of Abraham; he, on the other hand, who hath no part in their genealogy, hath received tithes from Abraham himself, and be­stowed his blessing on the possessor of the promises.”

Hebrews 7:5 —have a commandment to take tithes of the people— The Apostle speaks here not of all the sons of Levi, but of those only “ who receive the office of the priesthood” ; that is, of the house of Aaron. (Exodus 28:1; Numbers 17:1-11.) These, he says, have a com­mand to tithe the people. But we learn from Numbers 18:22-32, that the people were required to pay a tithe of all their increase to the Levites, and that the Levites were in turn required to pay a tithe of this tithe to the priests. And hence some allege that there is a discrepancy between the requirements of the law and the statement that is here made by our author. But this, as in other cases, is only in appearance. It is owing simply to the very great brevity with which the Apostle makes reference to the provisions of the law. Had his object been to give us a critical analysis of the law, touching the mutual relations, duties, and obligations of the priests, Levites, and people, the case would have been very different.

We would then have reason to expect that every point would be stated and discussed with clearness and precision. But in a general ref­erence, such as our author here makes to the law, it is perfectly legitimate to say, as he does, that the priests “ have a command­ment to tithe the people” ; that is, indirectly through the Levites. The priests tithed the Levites, and the Levites tithed the people. But in reality it was all done for the sake of the priesthood, for the Levites were the servants of the priests. (Numbers 18:2-6.)

Hebrews 7:6 —But he whose descent is not reckoned from them— that is, from the sons of Levi. In this verse the Apostle brings out fully the great contrast between Melchisedec and the Levitical priests. These, indeed, tithed their brethren, a fact which may well excite our surprise when we remember that these brethren were all the children of Abraham, the honored heirs of the promises. But stranger still by far is the fact that Melchisedec, of a wholly differ­ent stock, and without any legal authority, tithed Abraham himself, and blessed him who had the promises. In all this, the transcen­dent dignity of Melchisedec, as the honored priest of the Most High God, is abundantly manifested.

Hebrews 7:7 —And without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better.— The words rendered less (elatton) and better (kreitton) are both in the neuter gender, thus indicating the general and proverbial character of the proposition. yThe Apostle expresses here a sort of axiomatic truth; a truth which is so very plain in itself, and which is so generally acknowledged that it is really be­yond dispute. “ Now beyond all controversy,” he says, “ the infe­rior is blessed by the superior.” The one who blesses is to the one who receives the blessing as the giver is to the receiver. So it was in the case of Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 27:27-29) ; so it was in the case of Christ and his Apostles (Luke 14:10-11) ; and so also it was in the case of Melchisedec and Abraham (Genesis 19:17-20).

Hebrews 7:8 —And here men that die receive tithes, etc.— The word “ here” (hode) refers to the Levitical economy; and “ there” (ekei), to the administration of Melchisedec, as given in the four­teenth chapter of Genesis. Under the Law, the death of the high priest was always made a matter of record; and so also was the inauguration of his successor. Aaron died and left his office to his son Eleazar; Eleazar, to Phinehas; Phinehas, to Abishua; Abi- shua, to Bukki; Bukki, to Uzzi, etc. (1 Chronicles 6:50-52.) And hence it came to pass, that under the Mosaic economy, the mortal­ity of the priesthood was one of its most prominent features. But not so in the inspired representation which is given us of the priesthood of Melchisedec. When we look at it as a pictorial de­lineation of the priesthood of Christ, we see no signs of death or mortality in it, or about it. Every feature of it beams with life and durability.

It has in appearance neither beginning nor ending. And hence so far as the inspired representation goes, Melchisedec lives forever.

He can never die. As Delitzsch very forcibly and justly remarks on this point, “ The witness of the Scripture con­cerning him is simply that he liveth. The actual historical Mel­chisedec no doubt died; but the Melchisedec of the second narra­tive does nothing but live,— fixed, as it were, by the pencil of inspi­ration in unchangeable existence; and so made the type of the eter­nal Priest, the Son of God. The sacred writer has here still only Genesis 14:17-20 in view: the abrupt and absolute way in which Melchisedec is there introduced is for him a testimony that he liv­eth.” This, and nothing more than this, I am constrained to think is the meaning of the author. True, indeed, there is a sense in which the type may be said to live in the antitype. David still lives in the person of Christ; and thus it is that his throne endures throughout all generations. (Psalm 89: 19-37.) And so also Mel­chisedec, as a royal Priest, still lives in Christ, and his priesthood endures forever.

But to this view of the matter, I do not think our author makes any reference in this connection. He is here con­templating Melchisedec as a type of Christ, not with the view of exalting Melchisedec through Christ, but rather with the view of exalting the priesthood of Christ through that of Melchisedec.

And hence he speaks of Melchisedec in his official relations, simply as a type of Christ. Hebrews 7:9 —And as I may so say,—(kai hos epos eipein) and “ as the saying is” ; or “ so to speak.” This phrase is often used by Greek writers to modify or soften a paradoxical or apparently harsh ex­pression, which is liable to be pressed too far; and so the Apostle clearly uses it in this connection. So far as he has gone, his argu­ment might seem to be applicable only to Abraham. He has yet made no direct comparison between Melchisedec and the Levitical priesthood. But now for the purpose of covering the whole ground, so that no room might be left for Jewish objections, he proceeds to show still further that his reasoning applies to Levi and his descendants, as well as to Abraham. For, as he says, Levi also, so to speak, paid tithes through (dia) Abraham. How he did this, the Apostle goes on to show in the next verse. Hebrews 7:10 —For he was yet in the loins of his father, etc.— This decla­ration is given in proof of the previous allegation, that Levi himself was tithed by Melchisedec through Abraham. The fact then is in­disputable ; but the sense in which this was done is still a matter of legitimate inquiry. To say with some, that this is simply an “ argu- mentum ad hominem” is to trifle with the word of God. Nothing short of an “ argumentum ad rem” will at all satisfactorily meet the case and fulfill the design of the Apostle. His object is not to il­lustrate, but to prove; it is not to remove an objection, but to es­tablish a fact. And hence any explanation of this difficult passage, founded on “ Jewish prejudices” or “ Rabbinical conceits,” is wholly out of the question.

The context admits of no such evasion as this. And yet on the other hand there is danger of taking these words of the Apostle in too literal a sense; otherwise he would not have used the qualifying phrase, “ so to speak” That Levi did not personally and by his own voluntary act pay tithes through Abra­ham, as his appointed agent, is very certain for as the Apostle says, Levi was not then born: he was yet in the loins of his great grand­father Abraham, when Melchisedec met him.

What then is the meaning of this passage? This will perhaps be best understood by considering a parallel case. Such a one occurs in Romans 5:12. Here the same Apostle says, “ By one man sin en­tered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed through upon all men, for that all sinned (hemarton).” That is, the fact that all men die, depends on the antecedent fact, that all men sinned. But how? “ Not,” says Paul, “ after the similitude of Adam’ s transgression.” He sinned in his own proper person; and the rest of mankind, so to speak, sinned in him. For the Apostle adds (verse 19), “ by the disobedience of the one the many were made sinners.” God created mankind in Adam (Genesis 1:26-27), and with him as the head and representative of the race he made a covenant, upon the keeping of which depended the life, not only of Adam himself, but also of his entire posterity.

When he trans­gressed the covenant he died, and then also the race died in him; because, so to speak, they all sinned in him: for they were all still in the loins of Adam when he ate of the forbidden fruit. And hence it is that we are all by nature (phusei) under the curse of that broken law, and treated by God as children of wrath, until we are redeemed by the second Adam. Now just so it was with Abraham and his posterity. God made a covenant with him also, as the head and representative of his race. Their fortunes were therefore largely involved in his fortunes; their dignity, in his dignity; and their rights and privileges, in the honors which God bestowed on him as the father and founder of his own elect people.

When Abraham therefore paid tithes to Melchisedec, Levi also and his posterity virtually paid tithes through him as their federal head and representative: for they were all yet in the loins of their father Abraham, when he met and honored Melchisedec as the Priest of the Most High God. This is the simple fact of the case, as it is here stated by the Apostle, and used by him as an essential element of his promises. And hence it should be received by all, as a fact, however incompetent we may be to understand the principle which underlies it in all its ethical and religious bearings. Infidels may scoff and sneer at this principle of federal representation as “ un­just and absurd” ; but it somehow happens that we cannot get rid of it, nor act independently of it even in secular matters. Individuals, corporations, and governments, are every day making arrangements, signing pledges, and sealing documents which in­volve largely the interests and fortunes of others, as well as of themselves. It would be much more becoming, then, in frail and fallible men, humbly to confess their ignorance in such cases, and to try to learn more of the infinite wisdom of God, as exhibited in the works of creation, providence, and redemption, rather than scoffingly and scornfully to reject as “ unjust and absurd,” matters about which they yet know but little, and into which the angels de­sire to look with reverence. (1 Peter 1:12.) Without then making any further attempt at explanation, we simply admit the fact as here stated, that Levi himself, and of course his whole posterity including the house of Aaron, virtually paid tithes to Melchisedec through Abraham, on the principle of federal representation. And consequently it clearly follows from the premises submitted that the Levitical Priests were all inferior to Melchisedec, and still more to Christ, of whom Melchisedec was but a type. THE AND THE LAW OF MOSES BOTH ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR ; AND A BETTER GROUND OF HOPE BROUGHT IN THROUGH THE OF CHRIST Hebrews 7:11-19 Hebrews 7:11 —If therefore perfection, etc.— The Greek word for perfec­tion (teleiosis) means properly completion, consummation, perfec­tion. It may therefore be used to denote the end or consummation of any scheme, plan, or purpose. But here, it evidently means the full consummation of God’ s benevolent designs and purposes in ref­erence to the redemption of mankind; including of course pardon, justification, sanctification, and whatever else is necessary in order to our enjoyment of full and perfect blessedness. All this, the Jews were wont to believe, would be finally secured to the seed of Abraham through the Levitical priesthood and the other provisions of the Old Covenant. And hence it was, that rejecting God’ s plan of justification by grace through faith in Christ, they went about to establish their own righteousness by the works of the Law. (Romans 10:3.) To those who were in danger of being misled by this de­lusion, the Apostle here addresses himself. If, he says, perfection were attainable through the Levitical priesthood, then whence the necessity that another priest should arise of a wholly different order?

If God’ s honor could be promoted and man’ s salvation se­cured through the services of Aaron and his successors, then why did God say by David that he would raise up another Priest after the order of Melchisedec? Manifestly, this implies that there was imperfection in the Levitical priesthood: for otherwise, God would certainly not have abolished it, and established another. He never would have required that the blood of his own dear Son should be shed and offered for the sins of the world, if these sins could have been expiated by means of the Levitical offerings. So Paul rea­sons very forcibly in his letter to the Galatians. “ If,” he says, “ there had been a law given which could have given life, then ver­ily righteousness would have been by law.” (Galatians 3:21.) God would never have set aside the Law and introduced the Gospel, as a means of justification, had the Law been adequate to save men from their sins. “ But now the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” (Galatians 3:22.)

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

Hebrews 7:12 —For the priesthood being changed, etc.— This clearly fol­lows from the premises submitted. Concede that the priesthood was the basis of the law, the ground on which it rested; and then it follows of necessity that any change in the priesthood must have an effect also on the whole law. Take away the foundation, and the superstructure must fall to the ground. Remove from any system that which is central and fundamental, and then all that depends on it falls at once for want of the necessary support. The abrogation of the Levitical priesthood was therefore not a matter of small mo­ment. God would never have effected a change involving such consequences, for light and unimportant reasons. But this very change he has effected as our author now proceeds to show. Hebrews 7:13 —For he of whom these things are spoken— The Apostle as­sumes here what was doubtless conceded by all his readers, and of which he has, in fact, already spoken with sufficient fullness (see notes on Hebrews 5:5-6), that Christ has been made a priest by the decree of him who said to him, “ Thou art my Son, this day have I begot­ten thee.” But this, our author insists, implies of necessity a transfer of the priesthood; and by consequence, the abrogation of the whole law. For it is evident, he says, that our Lord has sprung up as a branch out of the house of David (Jeremiah 23:5), and from the tribe of Judah. But according to the law of Moses, none but those of the house of Aaron were allowed to minister at the altar. (Num. 16:1 to 18: 7.) (See Numbers 18:7) And consequently it follows that in the decree given in Psalms 110:4, God contemplated a transfer of the priesthood, and also the abolition of the whole Sinaitic Covenant.

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

Hebrews 7:15 —And it is yet far more evident:— What is far more evident? In reply to this, it is alleged (1) that it is the distinction between the Levitical priesthood and that of the New Testament (Chrysos­tom) ; (2) that it is the fact that our Lord sprang out of Judah (Ebrard) ; (3) that the law of Moses is abrogated (Alford) ; (4) that perfection was not attainable through the Levitical priesthood (Delitzsch) ; and (5) that a change of the priesthood involves of necessity a change also of the law (Tholuck). The passage is con­fessedly a very difficult one, and where there is so great a diversity of views even among the ablest critics, it becomes us to be cau­tious and modest in giving our own judgment. I fully agree with Alford, however, in this, that the view of Ebrard is wholly inad­missible, and that “ his whole commentary on this verse is one of those curiosities of exegesis which unhappily abound in his other­wise valuable commentary.” But it seems to me that the more judicious Alford has also failed to perceive the exact point of the argument. The abolition of the law is indeed a necessary consequence of what is here uppermost in the mind of the Apostle, but it is certainly not the main thought which he here endeavors to set forth and support by a twofold argument. This, according to my understanding of the passage, is the fact, not merely that the Levitical priesthood was insufficient; but more particularly that, in consequence of this, there had been made such a change in the priesthood as in effect to abolish both the Levitical order of priesthood, and also the law which was given in reference to it.

This the Apostle proves (1) from the fact that Christ, though of the tribe of Judah, is now a priest, contrary to the provi­sions of the law (Numbers 16:40 Numbers 17:1-9) ; and (2) from the fact that, according to the decree of Jehovah Christ’ s priesthood is of a wholly different order from that of the house of Aaron. This it is which makes the aforesaid change so very obvious. True, indeed, the transfer of sacerdotal functions from the tribe of Levi to the tribe of Judah, is very strong evidence of such a change, but not so strong as that which we gather from the transfer which was made according to the oath of Jehovah, from the order of Levi to that of Melchisedec. This thought our author now proceeds to develop more fully in the following verse.

Hebrews 7:16 —Who is made, not after the law of a carnal command­ment,—The Levitical priests were all so constituted. Their ap­pointment was made, not on account of any superior excellence on their part, but solely on the ground of carnal descent. It was made, therefore, as Paul says, “ according to the law of a carnal commandment,’’ but Christ received his appointment “ according to the power of an endless life.” These two clauses are placed in con­trast with each other, and they will therefore be best understood by comparing together the several antithetical words of which they are composed. Thus we find that law is opposed to power; carnal, to endless; and commandment to life. By the word law (nomos) in this connection, some understand the whole law of Moses (Chrysostom, Calvin, Bengel, Tholuck) ; but others, with more propriety, understand by it simply the rule of priestly suc­cession as prescribed by the carnal commandment. This is the view of Alford, T.

S. Green, Moll, and others.

In either case it had reference only to outward and perishable forms, and it was therefore wholly destitute of the internal power which com­mended Christ to the Father, and on the ground of which he received his appointment from the Father, as the high priest of our confession. The Levitical priests had all the form of god­liness, but many of them were wholly destitute of its power. But in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:9.) And hence he is able to save, even to the uttermost, all who come to God by him. The word carnal (sarkinos) may have reference (1) to anything composed of flesh; (2) to anything re­lating to the flesh; and (3) to whatever has the properties, charac­teristics, or accidents of the flesh, such as frailty, weakness, cor­ruptibility, etc. As it is here used in contrast with “ endless” or imperishable (akatalutou) it seems to indicate externality, frailty, or perishableness. The idea is that the commandment was out­ward and perishable, liable at any time to be changed or abrogated, but the life of Christ is inherent and imperishable. It is this in­trinsic difference between the two orders of priesthood which makes them so very distinct from one another, and which, there­fore, serves to make the aforesaid change so very obvious.

Hebrews 7:17 —For he testifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.— Or rather, Thou shall be a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. The verb is not expressed in either the Hebrew or the Greek, but the historical circumstances clearly indi­cate that the decree of Jehovah, as given in Psalms 110:4, has ref­erence to the future. Christ was not a high priest in the time of David, nor could he become a priest after the order of Melchisedec until after his death, burial, and resurrection. For if we draw a picture of the priesthood of Melchisedec, we see in it no beginning, no ending, no interruption by death or anything else. Nothing, in fact, appears in it but life— continued and uninterrupted life, crowned with royal and sacerdotal honors. And just so it must ever be with every correct representation of the priesthood of Christ.

It must, in these respects, resemble the priesthood of Melchisedec, for they are of the same order, and are therefore similar in these essential points. That Christ acted, in some respects, both as a king and a priest while he was on earth we may readily grant.

But such acts were only preparatory, and therefore extraordinary. His royal entrance into Jerusalem, for instance, and his giving himself up voluntarily to death, were but a shadow of what was to follow. The fact is, that the precise time when he was fully in­vested with the royal and sacerdotal honors and prerogatives of the new dispensation, is not known to mortals. The first manifestation of this was given on the day of Pentecost, just fifty days after his resurrection. But then he appeared, as Melchisedec appeared to Abraham, in all his royal and sacerdotal dignity, to bless all who would acknowledge his authority as the priest of the Most High God. And just so he ever lives, and reigns, and intercedes for his people.

For like Melchisedec, he had no predecessor, and like him he will have no successor. As he is the only begotten Son of the Father, so also he is now the only king and high priest that is ap­pointed by the Father; and as such he will sit as a priest upon his throne until the purposes of God in reference to the redemption of mankind shall have been fully accomplished.

Then, and not till then, will he deliver up both the kingdom and the priesthood to the Father. But that epoch, like the beginning of his administration, is concealed from the eyes of mortals. In the representation of his priesthood, therefore, as given by the Holy Spirit, there is neither beginning nor ending. Like Melchisedec, he abides a priest per­petually. See note on Hebrews 7:27.

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

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

Hebrews 7:19 —but the bringing in of a better hope did;— This is an erro­neous construction, and serves to mislead the reader. The idea which the Apostle wishes to convey to his readers is simply this: that, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of the Old Economy on account of its weakness and insufficiency; and on the other hand, there is the bringing in of the New Economy, by which we may all now, as priests, draw nigh to God and worship him in spirit and in truth. So Alford, Green, and others, rightly construe this passage, and this rendering is sustained by such other passages as Romans 5:1-2; Hebrews 10:19-22, and 1 Peter 2:5.THE OF CHRIST’ S PROVED FROM THE FACT THAT, UNLIKE THE , IT WAS WITH AN OATHHeb_7:20-22 Heb 7:20 —And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:—I have in the analysis of this, as in that of every other sec­tion, endeavored to assist the reader by indicating the extent and scope of each of the several paragraphs of which it is composed. The change of thought at the close of each of these may, I think, be readily perceived by all who read the Epistle with even ordinary care and reflection. Caution, however, is necessary lest perchance we make the breach of thought greater than what is really de­manded or warranted by the construction and course of the argu­ment. The connection of thought is very close throughout this en­tire section; and the several parts of it are all very intimately con­nected together, as links of the same chain. In the first paragraph, we have discussed and demonstrated very clearly, the superiority of the Melchisedecian order of priesthood. In the second, the Apostle shows that it was God’ s purpose of old, even in the time of David, to set aside the Old Economy and introduce the New; thereby proving indirectly from Psalms 110:4, the very great supe­riority of Christ’ s priesthood over that of Aaron.

But as yet, the meaning of this oracle of Jehovah is but partially developed. It furnishes indeed the main line of thought throughout the remain­der of the section, leading the Apostle to the sublime conclusion in which his whole argument finally culminates, that Jesus is now a High Priest and Minister of the Holy of holies, and also of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man.

The third phase of thought in this line of argument is given, as indicated, in verses 20-22; in which the Apostle further demonstrates the supe­riority of Christ’ s priesthood from the fact that it was confirmed and its perpetuity guaranteed by the oath of God. The reasoning of the Apostle, says Dr. Macknight, “ is founded on the conceded fact that God never interposed his oath except to show the cer­tainty and immutability of the thing sworn. Thus he swore to Abraham, Genesis 22:16-18, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; and to the rebellious Israelites, that they should never enter into his rest, Deut. 1: 34, 35; and to Moses, that he should not go into Canaan, Deut. 4:21; and to David, that his seed should endure forever, and his throne unto all generations, Psalm 89: 4. Wherefore, since Christ was made a priest, not without an oath that he should be a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec, that circumstance showed God’ s purpose never to change or abolish his priesthood; and never to change or abolish the covenant which was established on his priesthood. Whereas the Levitical priesthood and the Law of Moses being established with­out an oath, were thereby declared to be changeable at God’ s plea­sure.”

Hebrews 7:21 —For those priests were made without an oath: without the swearing of an oath.—(horkomosia from orchos an oath and om- nutni to swear). God simply said to Moses, “ Take unto thee Aaron thy brother and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’ s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar Aaron’ s sons.” (Exodus 28:1.) There was nothing extraordinary in the mode of their appointment. They were consecrated merely in the way of ordinary legislation, with becoming rites and ceremonies. See Exodus 24 and Leviticus 8, 9. But the manner of Christ’ s appointment was altogether extraordinary. God himself made oath on the occasion, as David testifies in Psalms 110:4, “ Jehovah has sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Mel­chisedec.” 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.

When God is said to repent, the meaning is that he simply wills a change; and when it is said that he will not repent, it means that he will never will a change. And consequently there is nothing beyond the priesthood of Christ, to which it will ever give place, as a means of accom­plishing God’ s benevolent purposes in the redemption of mankind. Christ himself will continue to officiate as a priest upon his throne, until the work of man’ s redemption shall have been fully consum­mated.

Hebrews 7:22 —By so much, etc.—The Levitical priests received their ap­pointment according to the law of a mutable and transitory Institu­tion ; an Institution which perfected nothing, because it was in its design wholly preparatory and introductory to a better state of things; and which was therefore finally set aside in order to make way for the inauguration of a new and better Institution, of which Christ is made the Surety. But as before intimated, this new ar­rangement embracing the priesthood of Christ and all else pertain­ing to the justification, sanctification, and redemption of mankind, can never be set aside in order to make room for anything else. God’ s oath is given as a pledge of this; and Christ himself being constituted a priest by the oath of God, now stands as security that this new covenant or arrangement will never be abrogated, until the benevolent designs of God shall have been accomplished in the salvation of all who believe and obey him. For as the Levitical priesthood was the basis of the Old Covenant (verse 11), so also is the priesthood of Christ the basis of the New Covenant; and as this will, according to the oath of Jehovah, endure to the final con­summation of all that God has promised by his holy Apostles and Prophets, so also will the New Covenant of which Christ is made the Surety, continue until God’ s eternal government is magnified in the everlasting salvation of the righteous, and the eternal con­demnation of the wicked. This, the oath of Jehovah clearly indi­cates showing, as Peter says, that this is the true grace of God in which we now stand. (1 Peter 5:12.) And hence the difference of being made a priest with or without an oath is very great; and just so great is the difference between the Old Covenant and the New.

The Greek word rendered testament (diatheke) means properly a disposition or an arrangement. And it is accordingly used (1) to denote any arrangement made by a superior for the benefit of an inferior; such, for example, as that which God made for the Israel­ites at Mount Sinai. And (2) it is used in the same sense as sun- theke to denote a mutual agreement between equals; such as the covenant which Abraham made with Abimelech. (Genesis 21:22-32.) In our text, it is evidently used in the former sense, to denote God’ s gracious arrangement made through Christ for the salvation of the world on given conditions. But what shall we call this dia theke? The word arrangement, or disposition, is too generic; and the word will, or testament, is specifically different. For as our author says (9: 16), before a testament can be carried into effect, there must of necessity take place the death of the testator.

In this sense, which is very common in the Greek classics, the word dia theke can never of course be literally and strictly applied to any of God’ s arrangements for the benefit of mankind. And to the word covenant there is this objection, that in its usual acceptation it rep­resents the parties as too much on an equality. It corresponds much better with the second meaning of diatheke than with the first. But as it is now used by our writers to represent diatheke in both senses, it is perhaps on the whole the best word that we can employ in this instance. This covenant is better than the old cove­nant in many respects (see notes, on 8: 6-13), but chiefly in this, that founded as it is on the everlasting and efficacious priesthood of Christ, it cannot fail to secure for all who accept of its condi­tions, free, full, and everlasting forgiveness.

Of this better covenant, Christ is made the Surety \

Hebrews 7:1

Hebrews 7:1. This epistle was written for the special benefit of the Hebrews (or Jews) who had become Christians. The Judaizers in those days were very busy in trying to force the Mosaic system upon Christians, claiming it to be still in force. The argument of this book is based on both contrasts and likenesses between the t w o systems. But a special argument is made in connection with the priesthood of Melchisedec. All readers of the Old Testament know it was predicted that the “other priest” (verse 11) was to be more like Melchisedec than Aaron.

The present argument, therefore, is concerning that remarkable character. Salem is a short name for Jerusalem (Psalms 76:2), where this man was located as both king and priest. The Jews made great claim of being related to Abraham, yet this verse (citing Genesis 14:18-20) shows that Melchisedec blessed Abraham. And since a person would need to be greater than another in order to be able to bless him (verse 7), this circumstance shows that even their father Abraham was not as great a person as Mel-chisedec. Proper nouns in Bible times often had distinctive meanings, and Thayer says that the name Melchisedec means, “King of righteousness,” which is the statement in our verse. Salem is defined in this verse as King of peace, and the brief information given in Thayer’s lexicon does not contradict it.

Melchisedec is set forth as a type of Christ, hence it was fitting to connect him with a place signifying “peace.” (See Isaiah 9:6.)

Hebrews 7:2

Hebrews 7:2. Another fact showing Mel-chisedec to have been greater than Abraham, is that the latter paid tithes (a tenth) of his personal property to the former.

Hebrews 7:3

Hebrews 7:3. The key to this misunderstood verse is in the meaning of the phrase without descent. It is from the Greek word which Thayer defines as follows: “Of whose descent there is no account.” This was no accident nor is it due to a lack of custom or facilities for recording descent which means a record of family names. Many other persons of those times had their pedigrees or family names recorded in the Bible. (See Genesis 10.) This shows that God had a purpose in leaving out all record of Melchisedec’s family, namely, so that he would appear in that sense to be like that “other priest” who actually was not to have any descendants. (See Isaiah 53:8; Acts 8:33.) In other words, the verse describes the situation of Melchisedec as God permitted it to appear in history, in order to form a type of Christ whose situation as to family relationship was to be actually that way. Withnut father and without mother means he did not obtain his priesthood from his ancestors as did the Levitical priests (Exodus 29:29-30; Numbers 20:28). The beginning of the days of Melchisedec and the end of life are all kept from the record for the purpose of carrying out the type, and it is to be understood on the same principle as “without descent” explained above.

In this way he was made like unto the Son of God. This shows they were two separate persons, but were like unto each other in certain respects. If no record is given of the death or replacement of Mel-chisedec, then logically his priesthood was continous. This was true of him apparently, as it was true of Christ actually.

Hebrews 7:4

Hebrews 7:4. Paul did not underestimate the greatness of Abraham; he emphasized it. However he used that fact in support of his reasoning, since it was made clear that notwithstanding his greatness, he was inferior to Mel-chisedec who was declared in so many points to be like Jesus in the priesthood order.

Hebrews 7:5

Hebrews 7:5. This verse continues the argument based on likenesses and contrasts between important characters. It is evident that he who pays tithes is less than the one to whom he pays them. Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec hence was of less importance than he. But the Levite priests (who descended from the great man Abraham) took tithes from the people. The argument is that although the Levitical priests were great enough to receive tithes from the people, yet their great ancestor was not great enough to receive tithes from Mel-chisedec, but rather had to pay them to him. All this is according to the teaching, that the priestly order of this great man Melchisedec being more like that of Christ than was that of Levi, it follows that the priesthood of Christ should be accepted over all previous ones.

Hebrews 7:6

Hebrews 7:6. The reasoning of this verse is virtually the same as the several preceding ones. There is one additional point on the greatness of Abraham, namely, he was the one to whom God made the first promise of Christ.

Hebrews 7:7

Hebrews 7:7. Without all contradiction means it is so evident that it cannot be successfully disputed. Blessed is from EULOGEO which Thayer defines at this place, “To invoke blessings.” In order for a good wish to have any assurance of fulfillment, it must be uttered by someone endowed with special knowledge and authority. Mel- chisedec had such qualification since he was the priest of the most high God.

Hebrews 7:8

Hebrews 7:8. The word here stands for the Levitical priesthood, and there refers to that of Melchisedec. Men that die is said because the priests under the Levitical order ceased to serve because of death and the event was recorded. Whereas there is no record of the death of Melchisedec, and as far as the historical account is concerned he is still living. The point is that while the priests designated by here had tithes given them, yet they were subject to death. The priest designated by there also received tithes, but there is no account of his death. This makes him superior to the other priests notwithstanding both orders received tithes.

Hebrews 7:9

Hebrews 7:9. Another contrast between Melchisedec over Levi is that the latter (though being given tithes), himself paid tithes to Melchisedec while in Abraham’s body.

Hebrews 7:10

Hebrews 7:10. Was yet in the loins, etc. Paul takes advantage of a common theory believed by the Hebrews concerning the seat of the reproductive function. The word for loins is OSPHUS which Thayer defines. “A loin . . . the (two) loins,” and then explains it by, “The Hebrews thought the generative powers resided in t h e loins.” Strong defines it, “The loins (externally), i. e., the hip; internally (by extension) procreative powers.” There was a pure blood line from Abraham to Levi, who was only the fourth generation from his great ancestor. In this sense Levi was represented by Abraham as he paid the tithes to Melchisedec. This is a phase of the argument based on the superiority of Melchisedec over Levi.

Hebrews 7:11

Hebrews 7:11. The law of Moses was inspired and served the purpose of the Lord, but it was not intended to be permanent as to the duration of its force. (See Galatians 3:18-25) The Judaizers (Jews who tried to force the law of Moses on Christians) maintained that it was to be permanent. Paul reasons that since the law was received under the Levitical priesthood, such law would necessarily be changed whenever the priesthood was changed. But it was well established that another priest was to arise like Melchisedec more than like Aaron (father of the Levities), therefore the point is made that the law was not longer in force.

Hebrews 7:12

Hebrews 7:12. This is a repetition Of the argument in verse 11.

Hebrews 7:13

Hebrews 7:13. These things refers to the statements about another priest who was to bring a change in the law. That priest belonged to another tribe, which had nothing to do with the altar service.

Hebrews 7:14

Hebrews 7:14. Evident denotes something that is plainly established and understood. Juda is a short spelling of Judah, the tribe from which Christ sprang or was produced. The genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show Christ to have descended from David, who all readers of the Bible know was a descendant of Judah the fourth son of Jacob. And the writings of Moses concerning the system of priesthood were completely silent about the tribe of Judah.

Hebrews 7:15

Hebrews 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.

Hebrews 7:16

Hebrews 7:16. Carnal means pertaining to the flesh; the Levitical priests received their office through their fleshly birth. Melchisedec was made a high priest by the Lord independent of any fleshly relationship to anyone. Endless life is used in the sense set forth in verse 3, namely, his life is still continuing as far as any record of his death is concerned. This makes Melchisedec’s priesthood more like that of Christ than was that of the priests in the Levitical order.

Hebrews 7:17

Hebrews 7:17. The pronoun he refers to God, who testified or declared that the Son was to be priest for ever (unchanging, throughout the age) after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 7:18

Hebrews 7:18. To disannul signifies to cancel the force of the law which went before. God declared that such an act would be done by changing the priesthood and also the commandment (law of Moses). The reason for this annulling was the weakness and un-profitableness thereof. This weakness was not through any failure of God. for it was not brought into the world with the idea of its being final and complete. (See Galatians 3:18-25.)

Hebrews 7:19

Hebrews 7:19. Law made nothing perfect. The last word means something complete regardless of the quality of the thing spoken of. Since the law was added for a limited time only (see reference in Galatians cited above), it follows that God did not equip it with the entire requirements of a spiritual life. Better hope is a term used to designate the hope that is held out to those who serve under the priesthood of Christ in the place of the Levitical one.

Hebrews 7:20

Hebrews 7:20. Another contrast in favor of Christ is that he obtained the priesthood under the oath of God (verse 21).

Hebrews 7:21

Hebrews 7:21. Without an oath is a negative statement, based on the truths that are recorded in the books of Exodus and Leviticus. In all those passages where so much is said about the priesthood of the Levites, the reader will not find one instance of an oath in connection with their office. On the other hand we find a positive declaration (Psalms 110:4) that an oath was made in reference to the priesthood of Christ. Will not repent means that the Lord will never change his mind concerning the priesthood of Christ, namely, that it is to be after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 7:22

Hebrews 7:22. By so much refers to the oath by which Jesus was made a High Priest, and it enabled Him to make a testament (or covenant) that was better. The last word does not infer that the first one was not good as to its qualities or principles of righteousness. Paul elsewhere (Romans 7:12) declares the law to be good and holy, but the second is better in the sense of having more advantages and being more useful.

Hebrews 7:23

Hebrews 7:23. The first system was served by priests whose terms were terminated by death, which made it necessary for it to have many priests.

Hebrews 7:24

Hebrews 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.

Hebrews 7:25

Hebrews 7:25. An advocate or representative may start pleading for a client, and be getting the case in good shape. Then if something makes it needful to change representatives, he may be unable to do as satisfactory a service as the previous one because of the break in the procedure. Christ never died and hence he is always on the case and is at all times “up to date” on the conditions.

Hebrews 7:26

Hebrews 7:26. Became us means it was fitting that we of the last dispensation should have a High Priest having the best of qualifications. Holy, harmless, undefiled all means a character that is perfect, and Christ has such because He is separate from sinners; has no association with them. Higher refers to rank or importance rather than bodily position; Jesus is more lofty as a High Priest than all the heavens.

Hebrews 7:27

Hebrews 7:27. There are two contrasts between Christ and the Levitical priests, namely, they had to offer sacrifices daily and also needed to atone for their own sins. Christ had to offer a sacrifice only once for the people, and not one time for Himself for he had no sins for which to make atonement.

Hebrews 7:28

Hebrews 7:28. The priests made under the law were infirm in that they were subject to death. Word of the oath came after the law since David (to whom the oath was made) lived some centuries after Moses (through whom the law was given). The point is that since the oath came after the law, it proves that document was not considered absolutely perfect. This later act (the oath) maketh the Eon (High Priest). The grand total conclusion is our High Priest has a service that continues evermore.