Hebrews 7
LenskiCHAPTER VII
THE FOURTH MAIN PART
Jesus, the High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek, chapter 7
Introductory: The Scriptural Data Regarding Melchizedek, v. 1–3.
Hebrews 7:1
1 This strange person, who appears suddenly in and disappears as suddenly from the Scripture record (Gen. 14:18–20), who is in a remarkable way unexpectedly referred to by David in a quotation from God himself (Ps. 110:4), has given rise to still stranger speculation as to his identity. Rabbi Ismael, about 135 B. C., thought him to be Shem, Noah’s son; this opinion has been accepted by Luther and by others. Philo saw in him a figure of the human soul, divine reason functioning in a priestly way as the ὀρθὸςλόγος (the upright word) that controlled the passions, delighted the soul and honored God with exalted thought; he did not regard Melchizedek as a historical person. Origen thought him to be an angel being; others specified this angel as Michael. Hierakas, at the end of the third century, made him a temporary incarnation of the Holy Spirit, others a similar incarnation of the Logos.
Theodot, 200 B. C., and the sect of the Melchizedekites made him μεγάληντινὰδύναμιν, greater than Christ, the original of whom Christ was only a copy, through whom all prayers must be brought to God. There have been still other opinions.
There are three short verses in Genesis, one in the Psalms, nothing more in the rest of the Bible, yet here in Hebrews we have an elaborate exposition concerning Melchizedek and Christ. It is the statement made in the psalm that sheds the divine light on Melchizedek and those three verses of Genesis. Yet already this fact arrests attention, namely that God himself should so long a time after Abraham refer to Melchizedek in Genesis when he was speaking of David’s son who was David’s Lord. It was reserved for our epistle to add the complete light.
There was a call for it now. The readers, former Jews who were now thinking of returning to Judaism, are here confronted with their great forefather Abraham and are shown how he accepted the royal priest Melchizedek long before Levi and Aaron were born and the Aaronitic high priesthood came into existence. The readers want to be true sons of Abraham, yea, are thinking of returning to Judaism for that very reason. Well, let them look at Abraham and at the one priest to whom Abraham bowed. Let them consider what God said through David regarding this royal priest and regarding the Messiah-Christ who is typified by Melchizedek.
The very objection which the readers may raise against Jesus, the fact that he was not a son of Levi but descended from the tribe of Judah, was not in the Aaronic succession and thus not a legitimate priest and high priest, is made the most overwhelming proof for the absolutely exceptional, for the eternal High Priesthood of Jesus, which is, indeed, not according to the order of Aaron but, as God himself had declared by David, “according to the order of Melchizedek.” Our High Priest must also be King eternal who has none to precede and none to succeed him, who is far beyond Aaron by being after the type of Melchizedek. All that God revealed about the significance of Melchizedek in David’s time is thus brought to bear upon the readers of our epistle who need it. Although it appeared to lie dormant in those four Old Testament verses, it is “living and powerful” (4:12) to save the readers from taking a fatal step.
The writer has used the most effective psychological method of approach. He has first prepared his readers. He has repeatedly presented Jesus as our High Priest, in fact, as our Great High Priest (4:14); he has twice quoted God’s own statement in the psalm that Jesus was to be Priest and High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (5:6, 10). He has delayed until now to reveal in detail what this means. He has injected the strongest warnings against sluggishness of mind and the deadliness of unbelief. The preparation is complete; he now proceeds, and his exposition leaves nothing to be desired.
The first step presents the main historical facts about Melchizedek. These are the data embodied in Genesis. Γάρ = in order that you may fully understand what God means by saying that Jesus is a High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (6:20).
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God the Most High, the one who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, he to whom Abraham parceled out also a tenth from everything, first, by interpretation, king of righteousness and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace, without father, without mother, without genealogical line, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but having been made like the Son of God: remains a priest in perpetuity.
“This Melchizedek” = the man whom I have (6:20) so significantly brought to your attention for the third time (5:6, 10). There follows a series of appositions and nominative modifiers until the verb μένει is reached (v. 3). “King of Salem” and “priest of God the Most High” are quoted from Gen. 14:18. These are the significant features because this man was both king and priest and was unlike any other Old Testament personage. It is in vain to ask from what line this kingpriest descended; he is “without genealogy” (v. 3), and speculation is useless.
But how could there be “a priest of God the Most High” in this idolatrous country of Canaan? The answer must be that the true religion of Noah had been fully conserved in Melchizedek. “The Most High” is not relative, not polytheistic: the highest of many gods as Zeus was called “the highest”; “Most High” is absolute, monotheistic: High beyond all other things. We now say “God Almighty” to express the same idea. “Most High” appears a number of times in the New Testament, being appropriated from the Old.
The textual evidence supports the reading ὅς instead of the article ὁ; the relative, however, produces a very awkward construction, one that it is impossible to attribute to a writer who is as masterly as our writer shows himself to be. The sigma with which the participle began was evidently written twice by some copyist so that ὁ became ὅς. We regard this expression as another apposition: “the one who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,” i. e., who on this occasion exercised his priestly function with regard to no less a person than Abraham. Note v. 7: only the less is blessed by another, who is thereby acknowledged as the greater. The kings that were defeated on this expedition of Abraham’s are named in Gen. 14:1, 9: Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, and Tidal, i. e., Khammurabi, Eriaku, Kudurlachgumal, and Tudchula as they are called in the inscriptions; yet the identification of Amraphel with Khammurabi is disputed. See Dodds who also notes that the monuments show us that these kings were contemporaries who lived 2, 300 B. C.; they also furnish many interesting particulars regarding them.
Hebrews 7:2
2 We regard the relative clause as a further appositional statement: “he to whom Abraham parceled out also a tenth from everything,” i. e., a tenth part of all the spoils that were taken from the defeated kings. Καί states that besides receiving the blessing from Melchizedek, Abraham recognized and honored Melchizedek as a divine priest by presenting this notable and grand tithe, and v. 4 adds that it was taken from the finest part of the booty. Here was food for thought for the readers of this epistle: Abraham accepted a priest of the Highest who had no connection with the Aaronitic priesthood.
We do not adopt the parenthesis of the R. V.; we do not even need ἐστί which some supply, or “being” (A. V.). We regard the following as an apposition; ἑρμηνευόμενος is merely inserted in the sense of “by interpretation” or “when interpreted”: “first, by interpretation, ‘king of righteousness,’ and then also king of Salem, which is ‘king of peace.’” Blessing Abraham and receiving the tenth from Abraham in a double way emphasize the priesthood of Melchizedek; his kingship is made evident by his names: the Hebrew “Melchizedek” means “king of righteousness,” and “king of Salem” means “king of peace.”
The main point does not, however, lie in his being a king of some kind like the four kings Abraham had defeated but in his being king in harmony with his divine priesthood, a priest-king, who ought thus to be a king of “righteousness” and a king “of peace.” This priest was the former by virtue of his very name and the latter by virtue of the name of the capital which he ruled. The point in noting the meaning of the names is the fact that they reflect the very attributes of Jesus, our royal High Priest, who in the very highest sense is the King of righteousness, the King of peace. The names of the type point to the far greater antitype. We may perhaps add that righteousness is the personal quality which shows itself in righteous ruling, while peace is the result for the capital that is ruled in righteousness, this capital being called “Salem” or “Peace.”
It makes little difference whether we are able to identify the capital that was ruled by Melchizedek, to know whether this was, indeed, the later Jerusalem, which was in Melchizedek’s time called “Salem,” or some other city. Jerome favors a Salem (Salumias) that was located eight Roman miles from Scythopolis, eighty from Sodom. On the question of topography see Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, IV, 2788, etc. Some think that “king of peace” refers to no city at all but is a personal name like “king of righteousness” but this is an untenable assumption. As in the case of ἑρμηνευόμενος, the Greek injects ὅἐστι, id est, almost anywhere in a sentence. Πρῶτονμέν and ἔπειταδέ = “in the first place … in the second place.”
Hebrews 7:3
3 The three adjectives and the two participles seem to be further appositions to the subject. The description advances beyond what is stated in Genesis in so many words to what appears in Genesis regarding this priest: he lacked everything that a Jewish priest had to have. He was “without father, without mother, without genealogical line, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Every Aaronitic priest had to be able to trace and to establish his genealogy or be excluded from the priesthood (Ezra 7:63, 64); he was restricted even as to the wife he might marry, thus even the female line of descent (Ezek. 44:22; Lev. 21:7) was safeguarded.
All these regulations concerning parentage, genealogy, time of birth and time of death, and children born to continue the priestly line, all of which were so essential for the Aaronitic priests, were completely absent in the case of Melchizedek. The idea is not that he had no father and no mother, no ancestors and no descendants, no day of birth and no day of death. This is the extravagant supposition of those who made Melchizedek an angel, the Holy Spirit, etc., as noted above. The point is that, as far as the Scripture record is concerned, king-priest though this record makes him, it does so while omitting all these things because they are regarded as being wholly immaterial.
“Without father,” etc., means that the Scriptures completely ignore his descent. Melchizedek did not inherit, nor did he transmit his priesthood, royal though it was. It depended on no connection backward or forward but inhered in his person alone; it was wholly independent of any connection save that with God. The old genealogical records were kept very meticulously, but Melchizedek’s name and his line are found in none of them. He appears, he vanishes—that is all. Yet Abraham bows to his priesthood, Abraham, in whom all the nations were to be blessed (6:14). This fact must have been stunning to the first readers of our epistle who had in mind to leave Christianity for the old Jewish priesthood.
It is the second participle that caps the climax: because of all that v. 3 has said of him this Melchizedek is one who “has been made like the Son of God,” the perfect tense indicating that he remains so. Not, indeed, as the church fathers thought, that as the Son of God Jesus had no human genealogy and no successor but that, like Melchizedek, nothing, absolutely nothing depended on the human genealogy of Jesus as far as his priesthood was concerned. The genealogies of Jesus, that of his legal father in Matthew, that of his physical mother in Luke, extend back to royal David and back of that, the former to Abraham, the latter to Adam, and nowhere are there any priestly ancestors; his tribe is that of Judah and not of Levi. The sudden way in which the Scriptures draw back and close the curtain on Melchizedek is the divine way of making him a type of Jesus, the King-Priest, who, like Melchizedek, stands alone and unique in his priesthood and is absolutely distinct from the long Aaronitic succession of priests.
“This Melchizedek” (v. 1), as he is described by all the appositions including the last participle which states his likeness to the Son of God, “remains a priest in perpetuity.” How? He remains so because the type is perpetuated in the antitype Jesus. Thus “this Melchizedek remains in perpetuity.” The difference between εἰςτὸναἰῶνα, “for the eon,” i. e., “forever” (5:6; 6:20) and εἰςτὸδιηνεκές is the fact that the former expresses eternity, the latter continuance or perpetuity. Jesus is eternal in his royal priesthood; Melchizedek is perpetual, his priesthood is perpetuated in Jesus. Jesus is independent, absolute; Melchizedek is dependent on the antitype Jesus, and his priesthood is thus relative.
Some would eliminate Melchizedek and have “remains a priest in perpetuity” refer only to Jesus. Others eliminate “the historic Melchizedek” and retain only art abstraction, “the typically prophetic Melchizedek picture.” Some group together and let hang in the air all save the last participial modifier and then have “remains,” etc., refer only to that. We do not, of course, share these views.
To be sure, Melchizedek died, and after his death he could neither bless as a priest as he once blessed Abraham, nor as a priest receive a tenth as he once did from Abraham; he ceased to function as a king-priest. Even if one should claim that, like Enoch, Melchizedek was transferred to heaven, he would have ceased to function. Only the Melchizedekites, who placed Jesus far below Melchizedek, could say that Melchizedek functioned and still functions and that all our prayers reach God through him. The text does not say that Melchizedek functions but that he “remains” in perpetuity. And it is he, “this Melchizedek,” and not the mere Bible picture of him that remains; Ps. 110:4 states that this is due to the fact that David’s Son and David’s Lord is a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. As real as is the antitype, so real remains and must remain his type, “this Melchizedek.”
The Greatness of Melchizedek in Receiving a Tenth from Abraham, v. 4–10.
Hebrews 7:4
4 More must be said about Abraham’s giving a tenth of the spoils of his victory over the kings to Melchizedek. This act of Abraham’s is of the highest significance in regard to Melchizedek, the enduring type of Jesus, our King-Priest. Δέ takes up the new point. Now behold how great this man is to whom Abraham gave a tenth out of the choice spoils, he, the patriarch!
The readers are asked to look long and attentively at this point, Πηλίκοςοὗτος is an indirect question, ἐστί being omitted. The relative clause is causal, for from Abraham’s act one may judge how great he at least thought Melchizedek to be. A tenth he gave him (the emphasis is on the object) as priests receive a tenth, and that was selected out of the prime and most valuable pieces of the booty. Abraham did not make up a tenth out of the poorer articles but out of the most precious, and by this act showed his lofty estimate of Melchizedek. Gen. 14:20 says only “a tenth of all”; the fact that this consisted of the best parts must have been a point that had been conserved by oral tradition. “He, the patriarch,” is placed significantly at the end in order to emphasize the greatness of Abraham and thus the more to enhance the greatness of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7:5
5 Καί adds what Abraham’s giving a tenth really involves when one considers the law of tithes; μέν and δέ balance the comparison between the Levitical priests and Melchizedek. And, indeed, they from Levi’s sons receiving the priesthood have commandment to tithe the people by the law, that is, their brethren, although having come out of the loins of Abraham; but he who does not reckon his genealogy from them has tithed Abraham and has blessed him who has the promises.
“Indeed” is too strong a translation for μέν, yet we need a word to translate this particle, and “indeed” is about the best we have. Ἐκ is not partitive; with οἱ it means “the descendants of Levi” and is modified by the participle “receiving the priesthood.” We have already noted that some of Levi’s descendants were excluded from the priesthood, those, namely, who married improperly or were unable to prove their descent. To the tribe of Levi there belonged the priesthood or the priestly service (Deut. 31:9; Josh. 18:7). They had received it through Aaron and Aaron’s descendants. Levi is mentioned instead of Aaron in order to show the connection with Abraham more closely, for Levi himself was not a priest.
Thus they “have commandment to tithe the people by the law,” the Mosaic law which embodied such a commandment and lent it divine sanction. This means that they had the legal right to tithe their own brethren, the point of which is made plainer by the addition “although (these brethren) have come out of the loins of Abraham.” The circumstance that brethren should have the legal right and the divine sanction to tithe brethren, and brethren who had come from Abraham’s loins, is remarkable but a fact; this is the force of καίπερ. Note how this tithing is related to Abraham himself through Levi. This is done because of what is said regarding Abraham in the comparison that is here made.
Hebrews 7:6
6 Something that is even more remarkable is now stated, something of which the readers had probably never thought: “but he who does not reckon his genealogy from them,” who is not related to the sons of Levi or to Levi, who, in fact, has no recorded genealogy at all (v. 3), “has tithed” no less a person than “Abraham” himself, and has done that without applying a law—Abraham, who never before or after was tithed by anybody. “Has tithed” does not mean that Melchizedek demanded a tenth from Abraham but only that he received it when Abraham, recognizing the priestly greatness of Melchizedek, voluntarily brought him the tenth. “And,” priest that he was, “has blessed him who has the promises,” by this act, too, showing the kind of priest he is, one who was so high that, although Abraham had the promises of God (6:14), the very greatest of blessing, he could still bless Abraham. Note that “he has tithed and has blessed” are perfect tenses because of the lasting significance and effect of these priestly acts.
Hebrews 7:7
7 Δέ adds the principle which sheds the fullest light on these acts on the part of Melchizedek: Now without dispute the less is blessed by the greater. We should not separate the two acts, that of blessing and that of receiving the tenth, and think that something is now said only about the blessing. What receiving the tenth really means appears most clearly from the bestowing of the blessing. The two constitute a unit. In v. 6 blessing is mentioned in the second place only because blessing is used in v. 7; in v. 8–10 the tithe is further discussed, yet here, too, not apart from the blessing. It is a universally acknowledged fact that he who blesses is greater than he who is blessed.
The Greek has the neuter singular in classic fashion and thereby brings out the idea of quality the more although this pertains to persons (B.-D. 138, 1), and R. 409, 763 add that this neuter singular is also used in a collective sense when a plurality of persons is involved. As far as bestowing and receiving blessing are concerned, the former quality makes this person greater than the one that has the latter quality.
Although he was blessed by God with the promises Abraham acknowledged himself as being less than Melchizedek when he bowed beneath Melchizedek’s blessing. Abraham was right, for Abraham was not the king-priest, Melchizedek was; Abraham was not the royal-priestly type of Jesus, Melchizedek was. All the greatness of Abraham remains; by his very greatness he shows “how great” (v. 4) Melchizedek is. If someone should object that we bless God (James 3:9) and certainly are not greater than God, the answer is that we do so only with our tongue and not as was done here when Melchizedek acted for God by blessing Abraham.
Hebrews 7:8
8 Καί does not add a second and a separate item, nor does the καί used in v. 9 add a third. These verses complete the thought of the preceding so that we understand the whole of what is stated in v. 4–7. For the superiority of Melchizedek over Abraham includes his superiority over all the priests who were descended from Abraham through Levi. Although these, too, received tithes, this does not place them on an equality with Melchizedek; they actually paid a tithe to Melchizedek in Abraham. Μέν and δέ again balance the statements.
And here dying men are receiving tithes, but there one who has witness that he lives. And, to state it plainly, through Abraham even Levi, he who receives tithes, has been tithed, for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. Verse 8 is preliminary; v. 9, 10 contain the main thought. “Here” points to the nearer fact, “there” to the one that is more remote.
Here “dying men are receiving tithes.” One after another they die, and the tithes go to their successors in a continuous line. “There, however” (in the case of Melchizedek), we see nothing of the kind. Melchizedek has no successors to whom the high honor of receiving a tithe from anybody was or could be handed on. Melchizedek receives the one tithe from Abraham, Melchizedek who was “one given the testimony (passive) that he lives.” It is certainly not the writer who at this late date and on the basis of conclusions at which his thinking has arrived gives Melchizedek this testimony. The testimony “that he lives” is given Melchizedek in the Scriptures.
Commentators are divided as to where this testimony is to be found: some think of Gen. 14, some prefer Ps. 110, while others appeal to both. The point is that the Scriptures deal only with the living Melchizedek and not with his having “an end of life” (v. 3). This is the fact, and he is said to live, not because he did not finally die, but because his royal priesthood was in no way affected by his death as was the priesthood of all the Levitical priests, which called for a continuous succession of priests, a constant transfer of office.
“He lives” does not mean that “Melchizedek still lives physically” but that “Melchizedek, as the typical king-priest lives in the antitypical King-Priest Jesus.” His one act with regard to Abraham, royal and priestly as it was, stands irrespective of his physical death, stands in the King-Priest Jesus, who also by one act is what Melchizedek typifies.
There is no need to say that only “a Biblical picture of Melchizedek” lives as though the reality of Melchizedek is gone. Have we, then, also only a picture of the Levitical priests? No; we have also their reality. But even their picture would not be true to fact if it did not include their constant dying and succession, because this is the very feature which, in contrast with Melchizedek, marks their priesthood and any significance of it in connection with Jesus; for Jesus was not after their order but “after the order of Melchizedek.” In the case of both Melchizedek and Jesus predecessors and successors cannot have a place.
Hebrews 7:9
9 The main statement follows. This is, however, misunderstood by some who take the parenthetical ὡςἔποςεἰπεῖν to mean “as speaking loosely,” i. e., not exactly. Some say that what follows is not to be taken literally; but it is to be taken so. Others think the expression means that the following statement is bold and not unobjectionable, but that the writer ventures to make it nevertheless. Just about the opposite is true. This common phrase (although it is found only here in the New Testament) = “to use the right word,” “to use a strong expression” (B.-P. 475), “to speak out freely” (Liddell and Scott, 589). Any one of these meanings is fitting, for this is exactly what the writer does when he says that Levi was still in the loins of Abraham when Abraham paid the tenth to Mechizedek; he uses the proper expression.
Stating it in a word, and that plainly: even Levi, the one who receives tithes, has himself been tithed through Abraham. To state it thus is telling in a double way. Levi never received tithes in person; he received them only through the Aaronitic priesthood which consisted of his descendants. So also, looking backward, Levi was not in person tithed by Melchizedek; he was tithed only through his great-grandfather Abraham at a time when that great-grandfather had not yet begotten Levi’s grandfather Isaac. The former point helps to explain and to justify the latter.
Yes, Levi, the very receiver of tithes, “has been tithed” (perfect tense as in v. 6) and thus stands forever as one who was tithed. Abraham’s act counts for all his descendants. Why speak of it as being “perhaps open to objection,” as “loose” and not “literal” when countless acts of ancestors are regarded in the same way today? Did Adam’s act not put death upon all of us (Rom. 5:12)? When a king abdicates, does that not count also for his sons and for their sons? When I squander my property, do my heirs still retain it?
Why speak of Levi as not personally giving assent to what was done by Abraham before Levi was born? Although he was at that time unborn and gave no personal assent did Levi not share in Abraham’s blessing, both that which was bestowed by God and that which was pronounced by Melchizedek?
Hebrews 7:10
10 The final “for” clause merely rounds out the whole statement that Levi and the entire priesthood that was descended from him bowed before Melchizedek in and through Abraham, their forefather. Can anything resembling that be said of Melchizedek? Thus the readers and all of us to this day behold how great this Melchizedek is (v. 4).
The Levitic Priesthood Brought no Completion and Itself Necessitated a Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek, v. 11–17.
Hebrews 7:11
11 The preceding section is built up on the very greatness of Abraham; but Melchizedek and the royal-kingly priesthood represented in him are shown to be even greater than Abraham. We have also seen that the priesthood that had its source in Abraham through Levi was beneath Melchizedek and the priesthood which he represents. Now we learn in what respect the Levitical priesthood is lacking and thus necessitated a greater priesthood, namely the one that is typified in Melchizedek and that is before us in Jesus, “a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” Οὖν does not indicate a deduction but only a transition to this new side of the subject.
If, then, completion was by means of the Levitical priesthood (the people, indeed, have been subjected to laws on its score) what need yet that according to the order of Melchizedek there arise a different kind of priest and be designated as not according to the order of Aaron? For, with the priesthood undergoing a change, of necessity a change also of law occurs. For he of whom these things are said has belonged to a different tribe from which no one has (ever) attended the sacrificial altar. For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of Judah, a tribe in regard to which Moses uttered nothing pertaining to priests.
The condition is not one of unreality: “if there were” (A.V.), but of simple reality: “if there was” (R. V.); the writer assumes for the moment that completion actually was by way of the Levitical priesthood and on that assumption asks what is then an unanswerable question: “What need yet that according to the order of Melchizedek there arise a different kind of a priest,” etc.? This could, of course, be expressed in the form of a present or of a past unreality: “If there were, or if there had been … what need would there be, or would there have been?” But either form of unreality would require a verb in the question, an imperfect or an aorist, preferably with ἄν.
Τελείωσις is a word expressing an action: “completing” or “completion by means of the Levitical priesthood,” ἱερωσύνη, the institution: “priesthood” as distinguished from ἱερατεία in v. 5, “the priestly service.” The thought is: “if the Levitical priesthood was the means of completing everything for which priesthood was designed,” nothing more in the way of a priesthood was evidently needed. Yet God did not think so, for in Ps. 110 he speaks of an entirely different kind of priest (ἕτερονἱερέα). The readers are confronted with the question: “What need yet that according to the order of Melchizedek there arise a different kind of priest, and (that he) be designated (λέγεσθαι) not according to the order of Aaron?” This is not a case of οὐ with the infinitive; the negative negates the phrase and makes the opposition sharp; a Melchizedek kind of a priest and not an Aaronitic kind.
The question is made acute by the insertion of the parenthesis: “the people, indeed, have been subjected to laws on its score,” ἐπʼ αὐτῆς (note the genitive!). The λαός are the Jewish people who not only had the Levitical priesthood as nations have certain institutions, that have grown up in their midst but had been put under law by God on the score of this priesthood. God gave the Levitical priesthood to the Jews and then imposed a number of laws upon them with regard to this priesthood. The perfect tense “have been lawed,” i. e., “have been subjected to law,” stresses the condition as continuing thus under the laws imposed. So far removed is the writer from in any way detracting from the Levitical priesthood, so far from trying even covertly to make it appear inferior, that he himself brings out as fully as any Jew possibly could the high standing of this priesthood which was fortified by a whole system of divine laws as if this priesthood was the final thing to produce completion, to bring the Jewish people to the τέλος or goal, as far as expiation, salvation, and all else in their relation to God are concerned.
So a Jew might in truth exalt the Jewish priesthood. Where in all the world was there a priesthood that was graced thus, fortified thus by a system of legal enactments that had been made by God himself? The readers of our epistle seem to have had such thoughts when they were inclined toward Judaism. Here is their answer: if this Levitical priesthood, which is supported by all this law, was, indeed, the means for completion so that nothing more needed to be provided for, what need was there for God to arrange for an altogether different kind of priest as he did in Ps. 110?
Ἐπʼ αὐτῆς is misunderstood by some, including our versions, which translate “under it the people received the law.” But this is not the force of ἐπί. Some render “on the basis of it,” etc. (B.-P. 445), which is also not the sense of the author. The phrase means “on top of it” the people have received law in order to keep this priesthood intact, to regulate it, to maintain its authority. What law is referred to is evident: it is not the whole Mosaic law but the laws that pertain to this priesthood; γάρ is added in the confirmatory sense of “indeed.”
Hebrews 7:12
12 But was this volume of law supporting the Levitical, Aaronitic priesthood not unalterable? “For” explains: “For with the priesthood undergoing a change, of necessity a change also of law occurs.” God, making a change or a transfer in the priesthood, namely from that “according to the order of Aaron” to that “according to the order of Melchizedek” as we see this in Ps. 110, necessarily changes also any “law” (no article) that supports the Aaronitic priesthood. The statement is couched in present tenses (participle in the genitive absolute and the main verb) as being a self-evident proposition which holds good irrespective of the time when the change is made. Μετατιθεμένης and μετάθεσις are mild terms that refer only to a change; the change was a complete termination of the Aaronitic priesthood, which was superseded by the Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus, the Son of God.
The Jews as well as any other readers of this epistle were mistaken if they believed that the laws regarding the Aaronitic priesthood were unalterable and thus also made that priesthood unalterable. These laws rested only on the priesthood. When this priesthood was set aside, the laws of necessity went with it. “Completion” had to be attained; God could not permit inadequate means and laws concerning such means to stand in the way. These means and these laws served their temporary purpose; and when the time came, they had to be changed for something that would be permanent, complete, eternal.
Hebrews 7:13
13 Another “for” takes us a step farther: “For he of whom these things are said” in Ps. 110 by God himself and restated in detail right here by the writer “has belonged to a different tribe from which no one has (ever) attended the sacrificial altar.” These things are said about Jesus who is not of the tribe of Levi but of a different tribe, no member of which was ever a priest, ever like the Levitical priests functioned at the great altar outside of the Sanctuary where all sacrifices were burnt; for this is the meaning of θυσιαστήριον. A mighty change, indeed, a change to an entirely different tribe which ignored all laws that had confined the former priesthood to Levi and to Aaron!
The antecedent is embedded in ἐφʼ ὅν: “He of whom,” etc. Note that this is a singular; the change was made from the many Levitical priests to just one Melchizedekian Great High Priest (4:14). This point is held in abeyance but will be emphasized in v. 23. Note the two perfect tenses; they are not aoristic but descriptive of length of time: having held a permanent place in a different tribe, not having a permanent office at the altar.
Hebrews 7:14
14 “For” completes what v. 13 says in an incomplete way: “For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of Judah, a tribe in regard to which Moses uttered nothing pertaining to priests.” Πρόδηλον = “it is perfectly clear or evident” (M.-M. 538), everybody knows. Jesus is named “our Lord”; the pronoun “our” is confessional on the part of the writer and the readers, and “Lord” recalls Ps. 110 where David calls his exalted son “my Lord” (Adonai). “Our Lord” gently draws the readers back to their confession and their faith in him. He has sprung out of Judah, “concerning which tribe Moses said nothing pertaining to priests,” namely in all the laws pertaining to priests, laws to which reference is made in v. 11, 12. Even in Gen. 14, in the account about Melchizedek, Judah is not named. The fact that “our Lord” did, indeed, bring the completion, which was not achieved by means of the Levitical priesthood (v. 11), need not be stated, for this is what constitutes him “our Lord.” We again have two per fect tenses, and they are to be understood in the same sense as they were before; and ἀνατέλλω recalls ἀνατολή (LXX), “Branch,” in Jer. 23:5; Zech, 3:8; 6:12.
Hebrews 7:15
15 And more abundantly still is it self-evident if in accord with the likeness of Melchizedek there is raised up a priest of a different kind, the one who has become (priest), not in accord with a law of fleshly commandment, but in accord with a power of life indissoluble, for he is attested:
Thou a Priest for the eon
According to the order of Melchizedek.
What is “still more abundantly evident” than the fact that Jesus has sprung out of the tribe of Judah? What has been said in the foregoing (v. 11–13). Some commentators select only one or the other point: that there was no completeness in the Levitical priesthood; that there is need of a different kind of priest; that the law regarding the Aaronitic priesthood had to be changed; that Jesus is not of the tribe of Levi. But all these belong together, and one item cannot be separated from the others. In fact, all this that is even more evident than that Jesus is from a tribe about which Moses says nothing in regard to priests is repeated in the “if” clause which is then brought to its climax in the relative clause (v. 16).
That Jesus sprang from Judah is evident because this is a verifiable historical fact. Matt. 1:3 sqq. and Luke 3:33 sqq. show that these evangelists verified this fact on the basis of the genealogical records. The standing of Jesus as a priest is far more evident when we note the norm according to which he has become a priest, a norm, ground, or principle that is vastly higher than that seen in the Aaronitic priests (v. 16), one that is attested already in Ps. 110 (v. 17).
All this about Jesus’ priesthood is so entirely evident “if in accord with the likeness of Melchizedek there is raised up a priest of a different kind,” of which fact there can be no doubt whatever since in Ps. 110 God himself raises him up, namely David’s son and David’s Lord, “our Lord” (v. 14), with David, the royal ancestor of Jesus, coming from the tribe of Judah. The condition is one of reality: “if” as no one will dare even to question. The writer now says “in accord with the likeness of Melchizedek” and thereby expounds what τάξις or “order” in the psalm means. This “if” is only preliminary, the reality to which it points is fully assured.
Hebrews 7:16
16 The main point is to be found in the relative clause, ὅς has demonstrative, even causal force: “the one who has become (priest, ever so to remain—perfect tense), not in accord with a law of fleshly commandment, on the contrary (ἀλλά), in accord with a power of life indissoluble.” Nothing but “a law of fleshly commandment,” an outward law that demanded a certain physical descent and ancestry which extended back to Aaron and thus to Levi, a law that demanded the absence of physical defects, physical purification, marriage with a reputable daughter of Aaron, and the like—nothing more than such a law made Aaronitic priests. In the case of Annas and Caiaphas we see what some of them were. Even when they were noble characters, it was nothing but this outward law that governed their being priests.
Some extend “law” so as to include all that these priests did: sacrifice of animals and of gifts, purifications, etc.; but these official acts are not considered here, we shall hear of them later (9:10, 13). The same is true with regard to the singular “the one who” as already noted in v. 13, “he of whom”; the setting of this one over against the many Aaronitic priests is reserved for v. 23. “A law of fleshly commandment” has the attributive or qualitative genitive. Instead of “a law of flesh” or “a fleshly law” we have the much clearer combination “a law of fleshly commandment,” i. e., a law that gives fleshly orders such as pertain to the physical flesh.
In the case of Jesus there was nothing of this kind; “on the contrary, he has become priest in accord with a power of life indissoluble,” a power that is inherent in himself. “Of life” is again qualitative, it enables Jesus to declare: “I am the Life” (John 14:6; compare 11:25; 1:4). “Indissoluble” is placed last for the sake of emphasis. No death could dissolve and destroy this life when this priest sacrificed himself as the Lamb of God. Those are right who find the deity of Jesus back of this “life”; the psalm itself declares it in its first verse. They are also right when they place this “life” in the human nature of Jesus, for it shares all his divine attributes. Finally, they are right who connect his “power of life indissoluble” with the priesthood of Jesus and say that it enables him to bestow life also upon us.
Hebrews 7:17
17 The writer once more stamps God’s own testimony in the psalm on all that has been said: “for he is attested: ‘Thou a Priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek!’ “The power of his indissoluble life makes him a Priest forever, one who is totally different from the whole Aaronitic priesthood, who is comparable only to the one remarkable, typical kingpriest Melchizedek as portrayed especially in v. 3. Ps. 110:4 has really been the writer’s text, especially from v. 11 on; he thus concludes with it at this point.
Three Convincing Contrasts, v. 18–25.
Hebrews 7:18
18 “For” = to explain still more what is said in v. 15–17, and what is thus said also in v. 11–14. We take it that this “for” extends also to v. 20–22, the second contrast that is added to the first by καί, and to v. 23–25, which are added as the third contrast by another καί. All three contrasts are worded in balanced statements; in the first and the third we have μέν and δέ, in the Second καθʼ ὅσον … κατὰτοσοῦτονκαί. This is stylistic excellence.
For on the one hand (μέν) a disannulling occurs of the preceding commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness—for the law made nothing complete—on the other hand (δέ) a bringing in (occurs) of a better hope by which we draw nigh to God.
This is the first contrast. It carries the thought expressed in v. 12 to its climax, namely, that a change of law necessarily occurs with the change of priesthood. The change of law referred to is not an alteration into a new law regarding priesthood; it is vastly more, a complete “annulling” or cancellation of the whole “preceding commandment” that supported the Levitical priesthood until the time of Jesus. The writer properly says “commandment” (taking over that word from v. 16) because he has in mind that part of the ceremonial law which deals with the priesthood. The reason God makes this disannulling is clearly stated: “because of its weakness and unprofitableness.” This carries out the thought begun in v. 11 where it is the Levitical priesthood that fails to bring completion. We see that the very commandment which supports that priesthood suffers from weakness and unprofitableness and is thus the cause of its own annulling.
Hebrews 7:19
19 The little parenthesis with its historical aorist of fact puts this cause for disannulling beyond question: “for the law made nothing complete,” namely “the law” that is here thought of, the one that pertained to the Levitical priesthood and upheld it, to which the Jewish people were subjected (νενομοθέτηται, v. 11). As “commandment” takes over this word from v. 16, so “the law” takes over “law” from v. 16. In v. 11 it is stated that the Levitical priesthood lacks “completion” (noun), so we now hear that “the law,” the whole of it, which was given to impose this priesthood on the people, “did not make a thing complete” (verb). All that both this priesthood and the law pertaining to it could do was to precede (note προαγούσης), to pave the way for something better, for something that would, indeed, bring completeness and thus be final. The writer nowhere says that the Levitical priesthood and its supporting law were valueless but quite the contrary. They were weak, and in this sense unprofitable; they could not and actually did not bring anything to completion; in all that they accomplished they left out the final thing that was necessary.
We know what the lack was to which the writer refers. He points to that shortcoming in this verse and explains at length in the three chapters that follow. The Levitical priesthood and its law constituted a shadow (8:5; 9:23; 10:1; Col. 2:17) that was cast by something which was about to follow and was far greater, a shadow of Christ, the Son of God (v. 3), our Great High Priest (4:14), who was so different from this entire multitude of priests (ἕτερος, v. 11), who even came from a different tribe (v. 13), who would and did bring the actual expiation (v. 17) which this Levitical priesthood could only foreshadow. The shadow pointed Israel forward to the substance and the reality and urged it to put faith in this coming substance and to be saved by faith in it.
No greater mistake could be made, either before our Great High Priest wrought the expiation or now after he has wrought it, than to think that the shadow is the substance and to cling to the shadow with its incompleteness and to reject the substance with its completeness. The value of the shadow lies in what it foreshadows; apart from this it would be empty, was empty for all Jews who imagined the shadow to be the eternal substance and rejected the substance as not being even a shadow but a grand delusion.
On the one hand there occurs this annulling for the reason stated; “on the other hand (there occurs) a bringing in of a better hope by means of which we draw near to God.” We supply γίνεται from v. 18. The present tense leaves the double statement general, without reference to historical dates. The A. V. supplies an aorist and overlooks the parenthesis and the correlation of μέν and δέ. As the “disannulling” is made by God, so also is the “bringing in.” God removed the shadow and substituted the substance. This fact alone ought to be enough to show that what God brought in is something objective: “a better hope by means of which we draw near to God” (“of a better hope,” objective genitive).
Here, as in 6:18, “hope” is objective and not subjective. The writer does not stop to say what this objective hope is, this thing on which God wants us all to rest our hope for eternal life; he will do this in the following.
It is the expiating blood of our Great High Priest Jesus. This is a “better” basis of hope than the blood offered by the Levitical priests. It is “better” because it actually takes away all sins (εἰςτὸἱλάσκεσθαιτὰςἁμαρτίας, 2:17; 1 John 1:7), and because this blood lent its expiating power to the Levitically offered blood and enabled it, too, to expiate. So many speak as if the Old Testament sacrifices removed no sin whatever; if that were the case, no believer during Old Testament days was saved from sin. In and of itself the blood shed during the Old Testament could not remove sin, but in its connection with Christ’s blood it did remove sin. Its weakness and unprofitableness, its lack of completion lay in the fact that in and of itself it could do nothing, that its entire efficacy depended on Christ’s blood which was yet to be shed. When that blood was finally shed, the whole Levitical priesthood and all its sacrifices, having served their purpose, were automatically disannulled—the better hope had come.
While “a better hope” is objective, the subjective side is by no means forgotten, for “by means of this objective hope, Christ’s blood and righteousness (define it in other terms if you wish), we draw nigh to God,” enter into saving communion with him in this life and into glorious communion in the life to come. Here the confessional we again appears as in v. 14 we have the confessional our Lord. It is wrong to think that only we and not the Old Testament believers draw near to God. The comparative “a better hope” excludes that thought. Those believers also drew near to God, also were saved here and hereafter; but only by the Levitical blood and expiation which was far beneath that of Christ because it was wholly dependent on the efficacy of his sacrifice.
Thus from this angle the readers are again shown that the Levitical priesthood had to be abolished when “our Lord” came as the eternal High Priest, and they are shown what would result for them if they turned away from this High Priest in order again to put their hope in the disannulled Levitical priesthood.
Hebrews 7:20
20 Καί adds another point to the γάρ used in v. 18, 19, one that lies on the surface of Ps. 110:4: And in so far as (they occur, namely this disannulling and this bringing in, v. 18, 19) not without a sworn statement, (for they without a sworn statement are priests (simply) having become (such), but he with a sworn statement by means of him who says regarding him:
The Lord swore and will not repent:
Thou a Priest for the eon!)
by so much also of a better testament has he become a surety, (namely) Jesus.
The ellipsis must be completed from v. 18, 19 as we have indicated (not from v. 19 alone). Some, like the A. V., complete it from the general connection, from the parenthesis used in v. 21, or from the thought expressed in v. 22: “And in so far as (he has become priest) not without a sworn statement”; or: “As not without an oath, so of a better testament has Jesus become surety” (Dods). But the parenthesis expresses its own thought and cannot thus supply something for the main sentence; the material between v. 21 and v. 23 is so extensive that v. 23 can scarcely round out v. 21 without an ellipsis as Dods proposes. It is more natural to connect with the preceding verses as we have indicated.
The annulment and the bringing in (v. 18, 19) occur “not without a sworn statement” (ὁρκωμοσία), which is a litotes, stating in negative form what is intended positively in a decided way. This negation applies to the whole Levitical priesthood. Most certainly, no such sworn statement could ever be made concerning it as is made concerning Jesus.
Hebrews 7:21
21 The parenthesis explains without delay: “for they without a sworn statement are priests” as the readers know full well, and γεγονότες adds that they simply “have become” such. There was a law back of them, and this only a temporary law, but never an oath, a sworn statement with irrevocable force. Those who regard εἰσιν … γεγονότες as a periphrastic perfect seem to be at a loss to explain the participle; yet they do not say why the writer should use the periphrastic and not, as he does so often in this whole connection, the simple participial form. They must then also supply the periphrastic in the next clause, where it is still more uncalled for, where ἐστί alone is in place.
“But he with a sworn statement (is priest) by means of him who says regarding him: ‘The Lord swore,’” etc. Πρὸςαὐτόν is not “unto him” (A. V.) but “of him” (R. V.), better “regarding him,” for Ps. 110:4 is not addressed to Jesus. “By him who says,” etc. = by God, whose declaration in Ps. 110 still says what it has ever said. The oath proper is not recorded in the psalm but only the statement to which God declares that he has sworn. Hence it is inadequate to translate ὁρκωμοσία “oath” (A. V.; the R. V. translates “taking of an oath” and then just “oath”); the word means precisely what the psalm presents: “a sworn statement.”
On the votive formula with εἰ see the oath quoted in 3:11; 4:3, 5. The doubling “swore and will not repent” is strong emphasis. The passive future form μεταμεληθήσεται, as R. 819, 334 explains, might have a passive meaning: “the Lord will not be made to repent,” but it is most likely only the passive form doing duty for the middle: “will not repent himself.”
The point is the statement itself that is sworn to by God, and this is not that David’s son and Lord is only to be Priest but “Priest for the eon,” forever (see 5:6), “his priesthood unchangeable” (v. 24), the opposite of the Levitical priesthood which according to God’s intention was to be only temporary.
Hebrews 7:22
22 By as much as the sworn statement regarding the priesthood of Jesus involves compared with the unsworn Levitical priesthood, “by so much also of a better testament has he become a surety, (namely) Jesus.” His name is emphatically at the end.
Monographs have been written on the term διαθήκη and its connection with the Hebrew berith, “covenant.” Our versions waver between the translations “covenant” and “testament.” We give the sum of the matter. The Old Testament dealt with the promises of God to the chosen people. By means of these God placed himself in “covenant” relation to Israel (berith). This relation, like the promises and the gifts of God to Israel, is always one-sided. It is always God’s covenant and not Israel’s and not a mutual agreement, not a συνθήκη. This promise and covenant obligate Israel, and Israel assumes these obligations, but the covenant emanates entirely from God.
The LXX translated berith, “covenant” in this sense, with διαθήκη, “testament,” since this term has the same one-sided connotation; a will or testament emanates only from the testator. Christ brought about the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. The result is that God’s people now have the inheritance and are God’s heirs: “If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs of Christ,” Rom. 8:17. Thus by way of the LXX we have διαθήκη used in the sense of “will or testament” in the New Testament.
Riggenbach defines διαθήκη as the divine institution of grace which has these features in common with a human testament: 1) it rests solely on the determination of its author; 2) it aims to bestow treasure; 3) it connects the bestowal with certain conditions on the part of the recipients. The last point is not well worded; it should be: designates certain persons as the recipients.
Hebrews does not deal with the testament that was made to Abraham. It would be a serious error to think that in Hebrews the new testament is placed in opposition to that which was given to Abraham. As far as Abraham’s testament is concerned, Jesus fulfilled the promises constituting this testament. Hebrews deals with Moses, Sinai, the Levitical ritual, all of which came in 430 years after Abraham, and in contrast with which Jesus brings in “a better testament” which is called “new” because the Mosaic testament was only to endure for a definite period of time (καινή, 8:8, the old, worn-out, to be replaced; νέα, 12:24, totally new, totally different, not even to be compared with the Mosaic testament). Abraham’s testament never grew old, it stands today, its promise has been fulfilled in Christ. We are sons of Abraham, in possession of the promised inheritance.
When it came, the “better testament” had a wonderful Priest as its “surety,” but more of this in 8:6, etc. The ἔγγυος is of a testament is not its Ausrichter, “administrator” (Luther); nor is this a technical term; it simply means Buerge, “surety,” “guarantor.” Since a “testament” is entirely one-sided, it is impossible to think of a surety for men to God; Jesus is a surety for God to us. Nor should we try to include both of these ideas. It may well be possible that ἔγγους is chosen to form a paronomasia with ἐγγίζομεν, for both are derived from ἐγγύς. Yet the two thoughts would be opposites: we draw near to God; Jesus stands near God’s better testament in order to guarantee all its provisions for us.
We should not avoid the question as to how Jesus is “surety” of the better testament, for it will be asked, in fact, belongs to the interpretation of the word. One is “surety for a testament” (objective genitive) when he is at hand to insure to those named in it the reception of all that it is intended to convey. Jesus does this by being “a Priest forever” according to the sworn declaration of God (v. 21).
But we should unfold what lies in this expression. Some, like C.-K. 378, emphasize only “forever” and point to the exalted life of Jesus, to the fact that he is our “forerunner” (6:20), crowned with glory and honor (2:9), our King-Priest, etc.; but they do not mention his death. But we should surely also include “Priest” mentioned in v. 21 (his unchangeable priesthood, v. 24) and everything to which his human name “Jesus” points so emphatically; in other words, his life, his death, and his resurrection as well as his eternal glorification. For everything that makes him our High Priest, everything that he achieved here on earth in his human nature stands forever, and it is this by which “he has become” and ever continues to be (perfect tense) the surety who guarantees that our hope is sure (v. 19) and will be made our possession in due time.
Hebrews 7:23
23 Another καί adds a further item to the γάρ statement made in v. 18: And they are more (in number), having become priests in consequence of being prevented by death from continuing to remain; but he, in consequence of his remaining forever, has an unchangeable priesthood; whence also he is able to save to the utmost those who come through him to God, ever living to intercede for them.
We have noted that the writer repeatedly speaks of many Levitical priests and of only one Priest when he refers to Jesus. The significance of this vital difference is now strikingly revealed as far as both the cause involved and the effect are concerned. Οἱμέν and ὁδέ are the demonstrative opposites; the present tenses state the facts without reference to time.
Some regard εἰσιγεγονότες as a periphrastic perfect just as they do in v. 21, cf., R. 1119. But we say that, just as v. 21 has no periphrastic perfect, so also v. 23 has none. A strongly attested reading places the words exactly as they are found in v. 21: εἰσὶνἱερεῖςγεγονότες; which may, indeed, be the original although it is difficult to decide this point. Either reading is not periphrastic. For one thing, we have the plain correlation: “they on their part are … he on his part has,” two present tenses. For another thing, those who prefer this construction in v. 21 and here do not explain why, if the writer desires to use a perfect tense, he employs the periphrastic perfect when the simple perfect form would be sufficient.
There is really no reason for the periphrastic form. The simple fact is that “they on their part are more numerous,” we may say, “many” although the word that is used is not πολλοί. The comparative means: “more (in number)” than they would be if it were not for the fact that they have become priests because of their being prevented by death from continuing to remain in their office.
We construe γεγονότεςδιὰτόκτλ., which states why they are so many. All of them have become priests, i. e., have at the very start become priests because of their being prevented by death from continuing to remain on in their office (note the iterative present infinitives). They are one by one stopped by death. At the time of the appointment of Aaron his sons, too, were appointed because Aaron would presently die; and so the number is a constant “more”; upon entering the priesthood everyone knows that death will end it for him.
Hebrews 7:24
24 There now follows the mighty contrast: “but he, because he remains forever, εἰςτὸναἰῶνα,” as God himself declares in his sworn statement in Ps. 110:4, “has an unchangeable priesthood.” The διά phrases with the substantivized present infinitives are placed chiastically, thus close together, which heightens the contrast: they are prevented from remaining on—he remains forever. God says this regarding him under oath. He thus has a priesthood that is ἀπαράβατον; this word always has the sense of “unchangeable,” unwan-delbar, and does not mean, as some suppose, “untransferable” (C.-K. 184, etc.; B.-P. 126). Because he remains forever he has an unchangeable priesthood.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Ὅθεν is a favorite expression of the writer’s and states a summary deduction as the result of this unchangeable priesthood of Jesus: “whence (or hence) also he is able to save to the utmost those who come through him to God,” etc. The present tenses are continued, and relations of time are thereby omitted. It is debated as to whether εἰςτὸπαντελές has temporal force or not. M.-M. 477 thinks it has: “to save finally: so long as our Intercessor lives our σωτηρία is assured.” Others think of degree: ganz und gar, “completely.” The temporal idea, we think, need not be excluded, but it is not that proposed by M.-M., “so long as.” The thought is not that by living forever and being priest forever Jesus saves forever. The idea is more profound. It is expressed already in v. 11.
By the very fact that they continue in a succession the Levitical priests demonstrate that their ministration is incomplete as far as saving is concerned, that it is in reality ever dependent on the eternal Priest to come and on his ministration, and that their ministration is able to save only by making their work point to that Great High Priest. So they, indeed, saved men during Old Testament times, but never by their ministration alone, never as if their priesthood was complete, but ever only as pointing forward to the Messiah-High Priest and drawing the saving power from him. It is he and his priesthood that save “to the utmost,” so that there is nothing to draw on in order to make up the whole that is necessary to attain the goal of salvation—πᾶν plus τέλος. This is necessarily the case, for he is the final Priest, the Priest forever, who has an unchangeable priesthood. We may state it in this way: only as proxies of Christ do those priests save; he saves as having everything (degree) forever (time).
We note that ζῶν is construed as were the two γεγονότες in v. 21 and 23. It lifts out one grand feature of Jesus’ priestly work: “ever living to intercede for them” or “in their behalf.” The writer does not say “in our behalf” because he couches the whole of v. 23–25 in present tenses so that the entire statement is kept general and thus general also in this last phrase ὑπὲραὐτῶν, “in their behalf.” We should not separate this intercession of Jesus from his other priestly work as some would do, for it crowns his priestly life, death, resurrection, and exaltation. The proper conception is that he bases all his intercession on this other work. It is correct to say that in interceding he makes his whole mediatorial work count for our benefit with God.
No man may know how he intercedes. This is a matter between him and the Father. Yet we rightly put away all thought of humbly pleading, all thought of lowering himself in the act. Although he is exalted at God’s right hand (1:13), Jesus, the Son of God incarnate, is still our Priest, living ever, active in the presence of God for us. We call this his intercessio specialis because it is made for “those coming to God” as is done in the High-priestly Prayer (John 17) and distinguish this from the intercessio generalis which is made for all men in order to extend their time of grace (Isa. 53:12; Luke 23:34). There is no intercession for the damned.
The High Priest That Became Us, v. 26–28.
Hebrews 7:26
26 In a summary statement which gathers up the main points discussed and combines the difference between Jesus and the Aaronic high priests with his likeness to Melchizedek and Ps. 110:4 the writer shows us the kind of High Priest that it became us to have. “For” connects with v. 25 and thus elucidates his power to save to the uttermost as ever living and now doing no more than interceding for us.
For such a High Priest was becoming to us, holy, without anything bad, without a stain, withdrawn from the sinners, and become higher than the heavens, who does not day by day have the necessity, like the high priests, first for his own sins to offer up sacrifices, then (for) those of the people; for this he did once for all by offering up himself. For the law establishes men as high priests who have weakness, but the word of the sworn statement, subsequent to the law, a Son who has forever been made complete.
In 2:10 we heard what was becoming to God, namely to make the Author of our salvation complete by means of sufferings. We now hear the counterpart, that it was becoming to us to have such a High Priest, who has all the basic requisites and thus has also been made complete forever. We see at once that τελειῶσαι used in 2:10 and τετελειωμένον correspond, and that thus the τελείωσις that was lacking in what the Levitical priesthood was able to provide (v. 11) is provided to the uttermost in this High Priest of ours. We have the same imperfect “was becoming” that was used in 2:10, but it now has a personal and not, as in 2:10, an impersonal subject. One might say “such a High Priest was necessary for us,” which would also be true.
“Was becoming,” fitting, appropriate, meet, does not put the matter on a lower plane; it deals only with another side, that of providing us with the proper High Priest, one who is this in a way that is complete in every respect, is fully fitted for his task. We may say that stating it thus leaves room for the temporary and incomplete work of the Levitical priests (v. 11), which was also fitting and proper in a way because it was preparatory for Christ and with its incompleteness pointed to the completeness of Christ, with its incompleteness depended on Christ’s completeness and thus achieved its results through him.
The very fact that by means of the Levitical priesthood completeness was not attained (v. 11) together with all that is added in v. 11–25 show how it became us to have a High Priest of a different kind, one who is, indeed, absolutely complete as a High Priest. The imperfect tense is in place, for this propriety existed at all times from the very beginning of the priestly idea and the priestly expiation of our sins—completeness both in the personal qualification and in the work of the Priest who would, of course, be a high priest. If καί is retained, its force would be: was “precisely” becoming for us (R. 1181).
The matter is presented in an objective way: this objectivity is more convincing for the readers than if Jesus were actually named in this paragraph. Yet a little thought shows that all that is here said about the kind of High Priest that is proper for us is found in Jesus, in him alone. This form of presentation practically asks the readers to take these objective specifications and to find the High Priest in whom they appear. There is none other than Jesus despite the host of priests and of high priests the Jews have had. What a fatal mistake, then, for the readers to think of forsaking “such a High Priest” and turning back to Judaism, to the Levitical priests whose function had long been superseded as God himself declares in his sworn statement (v. 20–22, 28).
First, the character of the High Priest who is becoming for us is stated in five items, all five being appositions to τοιοῦτος: “such a one … holy,” etc.; we do not have a relative clause: “who is holy,” etc. (A. V.). Note that all five terms, like the very word “High Priest,” refer to the human nature of this objectively presented High Priest. It would be utterly inappropriate for him to be anything but ὅσιος, “holy.” This word takes us back to Ps. 16:10 (LXX) which is quoted in Acts 2:27 and 13:35: “thy Holy One,” Hebrew chasid. This word for “holy” appears often in the LXX but infrequently in the New Testament, where it is not the same as ἅγιος, “holy” as separated unto God. Ὅσιος, as Trench shows well, is the opposite of polluted; in 1 Tim. 2:8, when the men are praying, they are to lift up hands that are “holy” in this sense, otherwise God will see their pollution and turn away from them. Our High Priest is such a completely “holy personality” who never deviates in the least from all God’s ordinances and commandments, he is without a speck of pollution.
The next three terms are little more than synonymous elaborations. Thus ἄκακος, with not a thing that is κακόν, bad, base, or even morally inferior attaching to him. We unfortunately have no exact English equivalent for this word, hence we have the poor renderings “harmless” (A.V.) and “guileless” (R.V.). Ἀμίαντος = “without a stain.” Some have differentiated these three: the first relating to God, the second to men, the third to the world. We take them to be synonymous, all three, each in its way, emphasizing the one supreme quality of sinlessness: “without sin” (4:15); all three are the more weighty because the writer has already stated how Jesus was tempted and tried by suffering and death (2:9, 10, 18; 4:15; 5:7–9) without even the least fault appearing in him.
Some regard “withdrawn from the sinners” as a local withdrawing, as the negative to the positive “become higher than the heavens,” both being the result of Christ’s ascension. But why is the first participle a perfect tense of condition, the second an aorist? And why should the significance of the ascension be found in a separation and withdrawal of Christ from the sinners here on earth? “Having been withdrawn or separated from the sinners” completes the thought of the three preceding adjectives. Jesus lived his entire life among the sinners, but his whole life long he was “holy, without anything bad, without a stain,” was ever in his whole person and character separated from them. Then finally: “become (by the one act of his ascension) higher than the heavens”; 4:14: “having gone through the heavens,” 1:13 to sit at God’s right hand, 2:9, “crowned with glory and honor.”
That is the kind of High Priest that is proper for us if we are to have one such as we really need. The fact that only Jesus is such a High Priest need not be stated; the readers see that themselves. But if any of them have a lower conception of the proper High Priest who is such completely, the writer revises their idea and elevates it to what it ought to be. He is not offering only his own personal conception; he is offering God’s own conception as it is contained already in Ps. 110 and then in all that God made Jesus to be.
Hebrews 7:27
27 One might regard τοιοῦτος … ὅς as correlative, and ὅσιοςκτλ., as being parenthetical. We prefer to regard this relative clause as another apposition. First three adjectives; then two participles; now a relative clause. Καί is placed between the participles to mark the fact that the appositions which are descriptive of the person and the character are not to be continued; the relative intends to deal with the work which such a High Priest as is proper for us should do. A relative clause affords room for inserting the necessary modifiers. It is also good style to make the last member of a coordinate series the longest.
The High Priest we should have is one who is not constantly under necessity of offering up sacrifices but one who once for all completes the sacrificial work by one all-sufficient sacrifice. That will, of course, make this High Priest entirely different from all the Aaronitic high priests who had to offer up constantly repeated sacrifices even for their own sins and in addition to that repeated sacrifices for the people. This is the thought of v. 27. Here, however, the aorist: “this he did once for all by offering up himself,” breaks through the objectivity of the presentation and speaks directly of the historical fact of what Jesus did.
Some critics think that the writer of Hebrews betrays the fact that he does not know that the Jewish high priests offered sacrifices first for themselves and then for the people only once a year, on the Great Day of Atonement, that the writer imagined that the high priest did this καθʼ ἡμέραν, “daily.” These critics do not have much ground to stand on, for it can be readily observed that the writer says “once a year” in 9:7 and “year by year” in 10:1, and that he knows Lev. 16:2: “not at all times,” as well as Lev. 16:29, etc., and v. 34: “once a year.”
Commentators, nevertheless, wrestle with the sentence as it stands. Some think that the writer combines the daily sacrifices of the ordinary priests with the annual sacrifice of the high priest in an inexact way. They refer to Josephus for the information that the high priests offered sacrifices on special festival days. Or they cite the Mishna which says that on any day when the high priest so desired he performed the sacrifices. Philo even attributes to the high priest a daily sacrifice for his own sins which some other priest, however, usually brought for him. Others let καθʼ ἡμέραν mean “yearly on a definite day” or explain the phrase in some other way. But what is here said about the high priests refers solely to what they did on one day in the year: offer a sacrifice (first for their own sins and then for those of the people, Lev. 16:6, 9).
We are unable to see why Riggenbach cites Lev. 6:12–16 in order to establish the fact of a daily sacrifice on the part of the high priest when Aaron and not his sons was the high priest. When he quotes Sirach 45:17 to prove that the high priest’s sacrifice was made “daily twice” he contradicts his own claim that the writer of Hebrews deals, not with things as they may have been in later days, but only with things as they were instituted by God in the wilderness, in the Tabernacle, in the Mosaic record.
Καθʼ ἡμέραν belongs where it is placed, ὃςοὐκἔχεικαθʼ ἡμέρανἀνάγκην, it does not belong to “like the high priests.” Trouble arises only when this is not kept in mind. Also when the sentence is read without reference to what precedes in v. 25, 26. Being sinless (v. 26), the High Priest befitting us certainly has no sins of his own for which to offer sacrifices; if he were not sinless, then, in order to intercede, daily for us, he would most certainly have to interrupt his interceding and would “day by day” have to have his own sins removed first of all.
The same is true of such a High Priest’s constant interceding for the people. Being sinless (v. 26), offering up himself once for all (as “a lamb without blemish and without spot,” 1 Pet. 1:19) is sufficient ground for his “ever living to intercede for them” who come to God through him (v. 25). If he were not sinless and could not make such a sacrifice once for all, then he would, indeed, constantly have to interrupt his interceding and “day by day” repeat the sacrifice for the people as also for himself. In other words, this necessity would make him “like the high priests” of the Levitical priesthood, Aaron and his successors, who never got through, who never attained “completeness” (v. 11). Another such a high priest does not become us, who gets no farther, who also leaves the goal (τέλος in τελείωσις) still unattained. Then, too, why change from the Aaronitic to the Melchizedekian type, change even the entire law regarding the priesthood as is pointed out in v. 11–17? “Like the high priests” is an independent insertion and not an incomplete sentence which is to be completed from the following words. Τῶνἰδίωνἁμαρτιῶν is hot “their own sins” but “his own sins”; ἰδίων is plural only because of the noun.
Such a necessity must properly be absent in the case of the High Priest who is befitting us and our need. We might translate τοῦτο “the latter”: “for the latter,” the offering up of sacrifices for the people, “he did once for all by offering up himself” as the complete and all-sufficient sacrifice, which it was impossible as well as unnecessary to repeat. The very idea that τοῦτο can refer to both: offering up of sacrifices for his own sins and for those of the people, is, as Delitzsch says, blasphemous. No man can offer up himself for his own sins; the blasphemy, however, lies in ascribing sins to Jesus. Delitzsch takes von Hofmann to task for ascribing quasi, sins to Jesus on the basis of 5:7, 8 and thus claiming that what Jesus did in Gethsemane is analogous to what the high priests did when they made sacrifice for their own sins. Ἐφάπαξ is far stronger than ἅπαξ. We have already noted that the aorist verb and participle now speak directly of Jesus although the subject is still “such a High Priest.” The writer has Jesus in mind even in his general statements.
Hebrews 7:28
28 The writer closes by summarily bringing into opposition the Levitical, Aaronitic priesthood and that of Jesus which is like to Melchizedek and thus reverts to v. 11–25. “For the law establishes (appoints, places in office) men (mere men) as high priests who have weakness (sins of their own that require sacrifices); but the word of the sworn statement (of the ὁρκωμοσία mentioned in Ps. 110:4, see v. 21), subsequent to the law (and thus altering that law about the Aaronitic priests), establishes (by something that is far greater, a far greater High Priest) a Son who has forever been made complete (thus by his one sacrifice of himself bringing to completeness forever all things that God intended the whole priestly institution to complete).” Little more is needed by way of comment. The statement is again general and uses a present tense and has “a Son” and not the definite “the Son.” All that precedes deals with the human nature of Jesus, but “a Son” shows that this is in union with his divine nature as we have already been abundantly told.
One new point appears in this paragraph, this that he offered up “himself” as the all-complete sacrifice. Nothing further is said here on this point; it will be fully elaborated in the following and is introduced here for that purpose.
Can the readers still think of renouncing such a High Priest, of turning back to the high priesthood that was long ago discarded by God? Can they forsake the efficacy of the Son’s sacrifice of himself in order to fall back upon the merely human high priests who need sacrifices as much as the readers themselves do? Can they abandon the intercession of this everliving High Priest who is higher than the heavens and resort to the high priests who must die just as the readers themselves die (v. 23–25)?
B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.