Hebrews 7

Hebrews 7:1-10

SECTION SIX

Hebrews 7:1-28 and Hebrews 8:1-5

Having 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).

3. 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).

1. 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.”

1. But no such solemnities were observed in inaugurating the Levitical priesthood (Hebrews 7:20-22).

2. 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).

 

VI. 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.

 

VII. 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.

Hebrews 7:11-19

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.

Hebrews 7:20-22

THE OF CHRIST’S

PROVED FROM THE FACT

THAT, UNLIKE THE , IT WAS

WITH AN OATH

Hebrews 7:20-22

 

Hebrews 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 (engnos). But what is the meaning of this? Some think that the word is used in the same sense as mediator (mesites) in Hebrews 8:6 Hebrews 9:15 Hebrews 12:24; Galatians 3:19-20; and 1 Timothy 2:5. But if this had been Paul’s meaning, he would doubtless have used the word mediator as in other instances. The word enguos does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament; but in classic Greek, it means a surety, a sponsor or a bondsman: one who pledges his name, property, or influence that a promise shall be fulfilled, or that something else shall be done. In this sense it is manifestly used in our text.

Jesus has become the surety, sponsor, or bondsman of the New Covenant. But in what sense, and for what purpose? “It can not be,” says Albert Barnes, “that he is a bondsman for God that he will main­tain the covenant, and be true to the promises which he makes; for we need no such security of the Divine faithfulness and veracity. It cannot be that he becomes responsible for the Divine conduct in any way; for no such responsibility is needed or possible. But it must mean that he is security, or bondsman on the part of man.” This is plausible, but it does not well harmonize with the context.

The argument of the Apostle requires us to understand this secur­ity as given on the part of God for the greater encouragement and consolation of his children; just as he gave the oath to Abraham and to his seed after him. (6: 17, 18.) “Jesus,” says Liinemann, “is become the surety of a better covenant; that is, in his person security is given to men that a better covenant is made and sanctioned by God. For Christ, the Son of God, became man to publish this covenant on earth; he has sealed it with his death and sufferings; and by his resurrection from the dead, he was declared with power to be sent by God as the founder of such a covenant.”

Hebrews 7:23-25

THE CHANGES IN THE

PRIEST­HOOD BY THE DEATH OF

THE HIGH PRIEST, WITH THE

EVER- AND

OF CHRIST’S

Hebrews 7:23-25

 

Hebrews 7:23 —And they truly were many priests,—The contrast made here by the Apostle, is not between Christ and all the Levitical priests, but, as we learn from the context, only between Christ and the high priests. In this sense the word priest (hiereus), is often used in the Holy Scriptures; as, for example, in Exodus 29:30 Exodus 31:10; Leviticus 1:7 Leviticus 4:3 Leviticus 4:5-7, etc. The title high priest occurs first in Leviticus 21:10. See note Hebrews 4:14. These high priests under the law were not permitted to continue long in office, because they were soon cut off by death. Thus, Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas, who served from A.D. 26 to A.D. 35, was the sixty-seventh in the line of Aaron, and Phannias, the last who wore the mitre, A.D. 70, was the eighty-first in order, showing that mortality was a prominent feature in the Levitical priesthood. See “Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy BibleArt. on the priesthood.

 

Hebrews 7:24 —But this man, because he continueth ever, etc.—Christ is not subject to death like the Levitical priests. He continues in life forever, and hence he has an unchangeable priesthood. This same point of contrast was slightly touched on by the Apostle in the eighth verse, and also in the sixteenth. But in the former in­stance, as Alford justly remarks, his object was to show the abid­ing nature of the superiority of the priesthood; its endurance in Melchisedec, and in Christ, Melchisedec’s antitype, as contrasted with dying men who here receive tithes, and in the latter it was to bring out the differences between the ordinances which constituted the two priesthoods, the one, the law of a carnal commandment; the other the power of an endless life. Here, however, in the twenty-fourth verse, it is the personal contrast that is brought out and made prominent. The many change, but the one abides. And hence he has an unchangeable priesthood.

 

Hebrews 7:25 —Wherefore he is able also, etc.—The object of the Apostle in this verse is very nearly the same as in Romans 8:28-31; viz.: to give to the ransomed sons and daughters of the Lord God Al­mighty strong assurance that if they continue faithful to the end of life, Christ will certainly save them from all the power and devices of their enemies. But here he does not embrace so wide a range of thought as he does in the eighth of Romans. There, he refers par­ticularly to the decrees of God as indicating his benevolent designs and purposes with respect to all the faithful in Christ Jesus. But here, the ground of consolation is the fact that Christ ever lives “to make intercession for those who come unto God by him.” The Apostle assumes, of course, that in order to redeem man Christ be­came flesh and dwelt among us; that for this purpose he died and made an offering of his own blood for the sins of the world, and that to this end he has been invested with all authority in heaven and on the earth. All this is implied in the argument. But the main ground of encouragement in this paragraph is the consoling fact that Christ, having died for our sins according to the Scrip­tures, and having also by the offering of his own blood made an atonement for the sins of the world, now lives, and lives forever, to intercede for those who come unto God by him, and so to perfect their salvation.

 

The word intercede (eutunkano) is used here in a very com­prehensive sense, to denote all that Christ is now doing for the jus­tification, sanctification, and redemption of his people. Seated, as he is, on the right hand of the Father, and clothed with omnipotent power and authority, he is ever ready to plead for those who have been cleansed by his blood, ever ready to defend them against all the assaults of their enemies, and, in a word, ever ready to make all things work together for their good.

Hebrews 7:26-28

THE OF CHRIST’S

PROVED AND

FROM HIS OWN PURE AND

, AND THE OF

THE ONE WHICH HE MADE FOR

THE SINS OF THE WORLD

Hebrews 7:26-28

 

Hebrews 7:26 —For such an high priest became us,—That is, we ourselves needed just such a high priest; such a one as the Apostle has de­scribed in this section, and such as he describes still further in this paragraph: one “who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.” The word holy (ho- sios) means godlike, pious, devout, religious. It is used here to denote the pious and reverential bearing of Christ in his relations to God. Harmless (akakos) means without malice or ill-will to anyone. It indicates a person who is kind, benevolent, and gra­cious to all. Undefiled (amiaitos) means without spot, immacu­late. It here denotes that Christ is never, like the Levitical priests, disqualified for the performance of his duties in consequence of any personal defilement.

There is no defect or blemish about him. “He is the chief among ten thousand, and the one that is altogether lovely.” He is constantly purifying others, but he is himself never defiled. And hence there is no necessity that he should, like the Levitical priests, bathe and purify himself before making purifica­tion for the sins of the people. He is moreover <(separate from sin­ners,” not only because he is himself without sin (4: 15), but also perhaps because he is exalted far above all sinners. “And made higher than the heavensor, as Paul says in Ephesians 4:10, “He is exalted far above all heavens.” This is, by some expositors, con­strued as indicating that Christ has gone literally above all created heavens, even the dwelling place of angels and of the spirits of the just made perfect, into “the place of God,” the uncreated glory of the Divine presence and essence, “which,” says Delitzsch, “is not essentially different from God himself, who is above all, and through all, and in all.” (Ephesians 4:6.) And again he says, “He [Christ] has passed away from the world and entered into God— and now he mediates for us in the Holy of holies of the Divine na­ture.” This, it seems to me, is but “to darken counsel by words without knowledge.” Delitzsch is an able critic, and, in the main, a judicious commentator, but occasionally his speculations savor more of the Hegelian philosophy than of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. I am not sure, however, that I myself fully un­derstand the meaning of the Spirit in some of these apparently hy­perbolical expressions. But I am inclined to think that nothing more is intended by the Apostle than to strongly indicate Christ’s absolute supremacy over the whole created universe, as when he says to the brethren at Ephesus, “God hath put all things under his [Christ’s] feet, and given him to be the Head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.” (Ephesians 1:22-23.) See also 1 Corinthians 15:27, and 1 Peter 3:22.

 

Hebrews 7:27 —Who needeth not daily, etc.—The high priest was officially the head of the Levitical priesthood, and to him was therefore com­mitted, in a special manner, an oversight of all the services of the Tabernacle. He was not required by any law or statute to offer the daily sacrifice in person, but as the head of the priesthood, he was of course chiefly responsible for the offering of the daily sacri­fice, and also all the other sacrifices of the year. And hence what was done by a subordinate priest might be said to be done by the high priest, on the principle that “what any one does by another he does himself.”

 

For a like reason, being first in authority and first in responsibility, he was also relatively the first for whom the daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly sacrifices were offered. On the day of atone­ment he was therefore required to slay a young bullock and make an atonement for himself and his house, before he was allowed to make expiation for the sins of the people. (Leviticus 16:11-15.) But in the daily offerings, the distinction between himself and the peo­ple is not made so obvious, because, in this case, there was but one lamb offered in the morning and one in the evening. (Exodus 29:38­46; Numbers 28:1-10.) It is obvious, however, from the nature of the case, as well as from the words of our text, that the high priest was relatively the first represented in the daily, as well as in the yearly offerings. He, like the rest of the Israelites, sinned daily, and hence the necessity that he should make a daily offering, either in his own proper person, or through a representative, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people. For priority in point of privilege always implies priority in point of obligation. This is a law of the moral universe.

 

Hebrews 7:27 —For this he did once when he offered up himself.—What did he do once? or rather, once for all (ephapax) ? Evidently, he of­fered himself once, and once only, for the sins of the people. To say that the offering was for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people, would be blasphemous, and plainly contrary to one of the most clearly illustrated laws of sacrifice under the Old Econ­omy, that none but an innocent victim could suffer for the guilty. And besides, it is contradictory of what is taught elsewhere in this same Epistle. See notes on Hebrews 4:15 and Hebrews 7:26. Beyond all doubt then it was for the sins of the people, and for these only, that Christ offered himself once for all.

 

But when and where did he do this? Was it when he expired on the cross? Or was it when he “entered into that within the Vail,” to make an atonement for the sins of the world? Or does the Holy Spirit in this remark refer to both of these events as to­gether constituting the one great offering ?

 

Under the Law, the victim was first brought to the north side of the altar of burnt-offerings, and there the sinner was required to lay his hand upon its head and kill it. (Leviticus 1:4-5 Leviticus 3:2 Leviticus 3:8 Leviticus 3:13 Leviticus 4:4, etc.) If the whole congregation sinned, the Elders were re­quired to act as their representatives. (Leviticus 4:15.) On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest performed this service for the people; but not until he had first offered a young bullock for himself and his house. (Leviticus 16:11-16.) The slaying of the victim was not therefore, of necessity, a priestly act. This was only preparatory to the offering, and was usually performed by the sinner himself. But after this was done, the priests were required to dispose of the several parts of the victim, as prescribed in the Law. On the Day of atonement the High Priest took the blood of the victim with in­cense into the Most Holy Place; and there, while burning the in­cense before the Lord, he sprinkled of the blood seven times on and before the Mercy-Seat; making an atonement for the Most Holy Place itself, and also for all the people. In like manner he made an atonement for the Tabernacle of the congregation and for the Altar of burnt-offerings. The fat of the victim was then consumed on the Altar, and its flesh was burned without the camp. (Leviticus 16:15-28.)

 

This reference to the Old Economy may serve to illustrate in some measure the great atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. He, like an innocent lamb, had no direct agency in putting himself to death. This was done by sinners. Jews and Gentiles united in laying their guilty hands on his sacred and consecrated head, and in hurrying him off to the cross. He was by them led as a lamb to the slaughter, “and as a sheep before her shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.” (Isaiah 53:7.) True, indeed, he came from Heaven to Earth, and assumed our nature, so that he might by the grace of God taste death for every man. And for this purpose he went up to Jerusalem before the Passover (Mark 10:32-34), and gave himself up to the people, knowing perfectly well all that was about to befall him there.

It is not too much to say that he even sought death; went voluntarily to the cross, and gave up his life a ransom for the many. But in this there was no priestly offering.

It was all preparatory to the great sin-offering that Christ was about to make in the Holy of holies for the sins of the world. That the Apostle may have some reference here to Christ’s death on the cross, as well as the offering of his blood in Heaven, is quite probable. These two events are, of course, inseparably connected, but not I think as parts of the atoning act. The former of these, like his incarnation, is rather preparatory to this. And hence it seems most probable, that Christ did not begin to act in the full capacity of a Priest, till after his resurrection. Then, and not till This view of the matter is corroborated by what is further said of Christ’s priesthood in this Epistle.

In 8: 3, for instance, our author after saying that Christ is now a High Priest, and that as such he must have something to offer, goes on to state in sub­stance, that he could not lawfully make his offering on Earth; and that he is therefore exalted to Heaven, and made “a Minister of the Sanctuary and of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.” To the same effect is also his teaching in 9: 7, 12, 14, 24-26; 10: 10, 11, 14. From all of which it is, I think, mani­fest that Christ, as our great High Priest, entered into Heaven it­self, and there once for all made an offering of himself unto God for us.

 

Hebrews 7:28 —For the law maketh men high priests who have infirmi­ty; —Such was the character of the Levitical High Priests. Some of them were very wicked, proud, vain, and ambitious men: and all of them, without exception, were subject to the common weak­nesses and infirmities of our nature. Even Aaron himself, the first and doubtless one of the best of the order, made a golden calf and encouraged the people to worship the idol. (Ex. 32: 1-29.) And hence the necessity that these High Priests should daily offer up sacrifices for themselves as well as for the sins of the people. But not so with Jesus, the Son of God, who was made a High Priest by “the word of the oath” which was given after the Law. He has by the one offering of himself in the heavenly Sanctuary, not only made expiation for the sins of the people, but by the sufferings and trials which he endured on Earth he has himself been perfected (tetelciomenos) forevermore. See notes on 2: 10 and verse 9.