Bibelkommentare

The doctrine of the priestly office of Christ is so excellent in itself, and so essential a part of the Christian faith, that the apostle loves to dwell upon it. Nothing made the Jews so fond of the Levitical dispensation as the high esteem they had of their priesthood, and it was doubtless a sacred and most excellent institution; it was a very severe threatening denounced against the Jews (Ho 3:4), that the children of Israel should abide many days without a prince or priest, and without a sacrifice, and with an ephod, and without teraphim. Now the apostle assures them that by receiving the Lord Jesus they would have a much better high priest, a priesthood of a higher order, and consequently a better dispensation or covenant, a better law and testament; this he shows in this chapter, where, I. We have a more particular account of Melchisedec, Heb 7:1-3. II. The superiority of his priesthood to that of Aaron, Heb 7:4-10. III. An accommodation of all to Christ, to show the superior excellency of his person, office, and covenant, Heb 7:11-28.

Analysis Of The Chapter

In Hebrews 5:10-11, the apostle had introduced the name of Melchizedek, and said that Christ was made an high priest after the same order as he. He added, that he had much to say of him, but that they were not in a state of mind then to receive or understand it. He then Hebrews 5:12-14 rebukes them for the little progress which they had made in Christian knowledge; exhorts them to go on and make higher attainments (Hebrews 6:1-3); warns them against the danger of apostasy Hebrews 7:4-8; and encourages them to hold fast their faith and hope to the end, in view of the covenant faithfulness of God, Hebrews 7:9-20; and now returns to the subject under discussion - "the high priesthood of Christ." His object is to show that he was superior to the Jewish high priest, and for this purpose he institutes the comparison between him and Melchizedek. The "argument" is the following:

I. That which is drawn from the exalted rank of Melchizedek, and the fact that the ancestor of the whole Jewish priesthood and community - Abraham - acknowledged him as his superior, and rendered tribute to him. But Christ was of the order of Melchizedek, and the apostle, therefore, infers his superiority to the Jewish priesthood; Hebrews 7:1-10. In the prosecution of this argument, the apostle dwells on the import of the name "Melchizedek" Hebrews 7:1-2; states the fact that he was without any known ancestry or descent, and that he stood alone on the pages of the sacred record, and was therefore worthy to be compared with the Son of God, who had a similar pre-eminence Hebrews 7:3; urges the consideration that even Abraham, the ancestor of the whole Jewish community and priesthood, paid tithes to him, and thus confessed his inferiority Hebrews 7:4; shows that he of whom a blessing was received must be superior to the one who receives it Hebrews 7:6-7; and that even Levi, the ancestor of the whole Levitical priesthood, might be said to have paid tithes in Abraham, and thus to have acknowledged his inferiority to Melchizedek, and consequently to the Son of God, who was of his "order;" Hebrews 7:9-10.

II. The apostle shows that "perfection" could not arise out of the Levitical priesthood, and that a priesthood that introduced a perfect state must be superior; Hebrews 7:11-19. In the prosecution of this argument, he states that perfection could not be arrived at under the Hebrew economy, and that there was need that a priesthood of another order should be formed Hebrews 7:11; that a change of the priesthood involved of necessity a change in the law or administration Hebrews 7:12; that the necessity of change of the law also followed from the fact that the great high priest was now of another tribe than that of Levi Heb 7:13-14; that the Christian High Priest was constituted not after a commandment pertaining to the flesh and liable to change, but "after the power of an endless life" - adapted to a life that was never to change or to end Hebrews 7:15-17; that consequently there was a disannulling of the commandment going before, because it was weak and unprofitable Hebrews 7:18; and that the old Law made "nothing" perfect, but that by the new arrangement a system of entire and eternal perfection was introduced; Hebrews 7:19.

III. The apostle shows the superiority of the priesthood of Christ to that of the Jewish system from the fact that the great High Priest of the Christian system was constituted with the solemnity of an oath; the Jewish priesthood was not; Hebrews 7:20-22. His priesthood, therefore, was as much more important and solemn as an oath is superior to a command; and his suretyship became as much more certain as an oath is superior to a simple promise; Hebrews 7:22.

IV. The superiority of the priesthood of Christ is further shown from the fact that under the former dispensation there were "many" priests; but here there was but "one." There, they lived but a brief period, and then gave way to their successors; but here there was no removal by death, there was no succession, there was an unchangeable priesthood; Hebrews 7:23-24. He infers, therefore Hebrews 7:25, that the Christian High Priest was able to save to the uttermost all that came to the Father by him, since he ever lived to make intercession.

V. The last argument is, that under the Levitical priesthood it was necessary for the priest to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. No such necessity, however, existed in regard to the High Priest of the Christian system. He was holy, harmless, and undefiled; he had no need to offer sacrifices for his own sins; and in this respect there was a vast superiority of the Christian priesthood over the Jewish; Hebrews 7:26-28. The force of these several arguments we shall be able to estimate as we advance in the exposition.

Concerning the greatness of Melchisedec, after whose order Christ is a high priest, Hebrews 7:1-4. The Levites had authority to take tithes of the people; yet Abraham, their representative, paid tithes to Melchisedec, Hebrews 7:5-10. Perfection cannot come by the Mosaic law, else there could be no need for another priest after the order of Melchisedec, according to the prediction of David in Psalm 110:1-7, which priest is sprung from a tribe to which the priesthood, according to the law, did not appertain; but Christ is a priest for ever, not according to the law, but after the order of an endless life, Hebrews 7:11-17. The law, therefore, is disannulled, because of its unprofitableness and imperfection; and Christ has an unchangeable priesthood, Hebrews 7:18-24. He is therefore able always to save them that come unto him, being in every respect a suitable Savior; and he has offered up himself for the sins of the people, Hebrews 7:25-27. The law makes those priests who have infirmity; but he who is consecrated by the oath is perfect, and endures for ever, Hebrews 7:28.

INTRODUCTION TO Hebrews 7

The apostle having made mention of Melchizedek in the latter part of the preceding chapter, proceeds in this to give some account of him, and of the excellency of his priesthood, and to show that Christ is a priest of his order, and is superior to Aaron and his sons. He first declares what Melchizedek was, that he was both king and priest; he names the place he was king of, and tells whose priest he was, even the priest of the most high God; and goes on to observe what he did, that he met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, that he blessed him, and took tithes of him, Hebrews 7:1 and then interprets his name, and royal title, the one signifying king of righteousness, the other king of peace; that for anything that can be learned from the Scriptures, it is not known who was his father or his mother; what his lineage and descent; when he was born, or when he died; and that he is like to the Son of God, and continues a priest, Hebrews 7:2 upon which the apostle calls upon the Hebrews to consider the greatness of his person; and as it appears from that single instance of his receiving tithes from the patriarch Abraham, Hebrews 7:4 by which it is evident, that he is greater than the Levites; and which is demonstrated in the following particulars: the Levites received tithes of their brethren that came out of Abraham's loins, as they did, but Melchizedek, whose descent was not from them, received tithes from Abraham himself, and besides blessed him; and it is a clear case, that the lesser is blessed of the greater, Hebrews 7:5 the Levites were mortal men that received tithes, but a testimony is bore to Melchizedek, that he lives, Hebrews 6:8 yea, Levi himself paid tithes to Melchizedek, since he was in the loins of his father Abraham when Melchizedek met him, and took tithes of him; and therefore must be greater than Levi, Hebrews 7:9. And next the apostle proves the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood from this consideration, that there is another priest risen up, not of the order of Aaron, but of the order of Melchizedek, of which there would have been no need, if the Levitical priesthood had been perfect; nor would it have been changed, as it is, and which has also made a change of the law, by which it is established, necessary, Hebrews 7:11 that the priest that is risen up is not of the order of Aaron, is clear, because he is of another tribe, even of the tribe of Judah, to which the priesthood did not belong, Hebrews 7:13, and that he is of the order of Melchizedek, and so not according to the ceremonial law, but after the power of an endless life, is manifest from the testimony of the sacred Scripture, Hebrews 7:15 which lies in Psalm 110:4 and that the ceremonial law, on which the Levitical priesthood stood, is changed and abrogated, is strongly asserted, and the reasons of it given, because it was weak and unprofitable, and made nothing perfect; and this was disannulled by Christ, the better hope brought in, who has made something perfect, and through whom we have access to God, Hebrews 7:18. Moreover, the superior excellency of Christ's priesthood to the Levitical one is shown in several particulars; the priests of Aaron's order were made without an oath; Christ was made with one, as is evident from the above cited testimony, Hebrews 7:20 they were many, he but one; they were mortal, and did not continue, he continues ever, having an unchangeable priesthood, Hebrews 7:23 wherefore, as they were not suffered to continue by reason of death, their priesthood was ineffectual; they could not take away sin, and save sinners; but Christ is able to save to the uttermost all that draw nigh to God by him, as a priest, and that because he ever lives to complete his office by intercession, Hebrews 7:25 wherefore such an high priest as he is, must become men, and be suitable to them, especially since he is pure and holy, and in such an exalted state, Hebrews 7:26 and this is another difference between him and the priests under the law; they were men that had infirmity, and were guilty of sins themselves, and so had need to offer for their own sins, and then for the sins of others; but Christ, the Son of God, who was consecrated a priest for evermore, by the word of the oath, had no sin of his own to offer sacrifice for, only the sins of his people, which he did once, when he offered himself, Hebrews 7:27.

Ch. 7. Christ, as an eternal High Priest after the order of Melchisedek, is superior to the Levitic High Priest

Historic reference to Melchisedek (1–4). His Priesthood typically superior to that of Aaron in seven particulars, i. Because even Abraham gave him tithes (4–7). ii. Because he blessed Abraham (7). iii. Because he is the type of an undying Priest (8). iv. Because even the yet unborn Levi paid him tithes, in the person of Abraham (9, 10). v. Because the permanence of his Priesthood, continued by Christ, implied the abrogation of the whole Levitic Law (11–19). vi. Because it was founded on the swearing of an oath (20–23). vii. Because it is intransmissible, never being vacated by death (23, 24). Summary and conclusion (25–28).

The subject of Christ’s priesthood is resumed; the interpolated admonition (Hebrews 5:11 to Hebrews 6:20) having been skilfully brought round to a second mention of Melchizedek. The chief reason for introducing the priesthood of Melchizedek as the type of Christ’s priesthood was that it was “for ever”. The Aaronic priesthood was successional, this single; and in this sense “for ever”. There were, however, other reasons. The first question with a Jew who was enjoined to trust to Christ’s priestly mediation, would be, What are His orders? He belonged to a tribe “of which Moses had spoken nothing concerning priesthood”. He might or might not be the true heir to David’s throne; but if He was, did not this very circumstance exclude him from the priestly office? Was it credible that the nation had been encouraged rigorously to exclude from the priesthood every interloper, only in order that at last this rigidly preserved order should be entirely disregarded? This writer seizes upon the fact that there was a greater priest than Aaron mentioned in Scripture—a priest more worthy to be the type of the Messianic priesthood, because he was himself a king, and especially because he belonged to no successional priestly order but was himself the entire order. This idea of a priesthood superseding that of Levi’s sons found its way into Scripture through the hymn (Psalms 110) which celebrated the dignity (as priest-king) of Simon the Maccabee. Bickell has shown that the first four verses of the Psalm are an acrostic on the name Simon, שׁמען. When the Maccabees displaced the Aaronic priesthood, they found their Justification in the priestly dignity of Melchizedek, and assumed his style, calling themselves “priests of the Most High God”. Cf. Charles, Book of Jubilees, pp. lix. and 191. The chapter may be divided thus:—

I.  Characteristics of Melchizedek, 1–10.

1.  In himself as depicted in Scripture, 1–3.

2.  In his relation to Levi and his line, 4–10.

II.  Inadequacy of Levitical priesthood in comparison with the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ, 11–25.

1.  Levi being provisional, Melchizedek being permanent, 11–14.

2.  Official and hereditary: personal and eternal, 15–19.

3.  Without oath: with oath, therefore final, 20–22.

4.  Plural and successional: singular and enduring, 23–25.

III.  Summary of the merits of the new Melchizedek Priest, Jesus.

CHAPTER 7

Hebrews 7:1. Instead of τοῦ ὑψίστου, Elz. has only ὑψίστου. Against A B C D E K L א, 23, 44, 46, 48, al. pl., Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, al. mult.

ὁ συναντήσας] Lachm. and Alford, after A B C (corr.) D E K א, 17, 117, al.: ὃς συναντήσας. Notwithstanding the strong support of authorities, manifest error, arising from the reading together of the article and the initial letter of the participle.

Hebrews 7:4. Instead of the Recepta ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 read, after B D* E* Vulg. (Amiatin. Toletan.) It. Copt. Basm. Syr., merely ᾧ δεκάτην. Certainly καί is not indispensable, and might be regarded as a later gloss from Hebrews 7:2. But with quite as much probability it may be supposed that it was added by the author himself, the words of Hebrews 7:2 being still present to his mind. It is therefore, since it has in its favour the considerable attestation by A C D*** E** K L א, by, as it appears, all the cursives, by the Vulgate (also Demidov. and Harlej.), Syr. Philonex. al., by Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al., Aug. Bede, with Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, to be retained.

Hebrews 7:6. The article τόν before Ἀβραάμ is deleted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford, after B C D* א* 23, 57, 109, al. In favour of the omission pleads the very sparing use made of the article before proper names in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the article as a rule being placed only where, as in Hebrews 11:17, the perspicuity of the discourse imperatively demanded it.

Hebrews 7:9. In place of the received Λευΐ we have here, with Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 2, to write Λευΐς, after A (λευις) B C* א*** (λευεις). In the ed. vii. and viii. Tisch. writes: Λευείς.

Hebrews 7:10. Elz.: ὁ Μελχισεδέκ. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Alford, after B C* D* א, 73, 118, al., Chrys.: Μελχισεδέκ. The rejection of the article is to be approved on the same grounds as in Hebrews 7:6.

Hebrews 7:11. The Recepta ἐπʼ αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο (defended by Reiche) has decisive witnesses against it. Instead of ἐπʼ αὐτῇ is ἐπʼ αὐτῆς (approved by Grotius, placed on the inner margin by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required by A B C D* E* א, 17, 31, 46, al., Cyril; instead of νενομοθέτητο is νενομοθέτηται (already approved by Camerarius and Grotius, adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required by A B C D* א, 17, 47, 73, al., Cyril.

Hebrews 7:13. προσέσχηκεν] Tisch. 1, after A C, 17, al.: προσέσχεν. Commended to notice by Griesb. also. Rightly, however, do Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche (Commentar. crit. p. 56, note 9), prefer the Recepta προσέσχηκεν. In favour of this pleads, besides the yet stronger attestation (B D E K L א, Oecum. al.), the paronomasia with μετέσχηκεν, consonant with the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Hebrews 7:14. Elz.: οὐδὲν περὶ ἱερωσύνης. But A B C* D* E א, 17, 47, al., It. Vulg. Copt, Sahid. Arm. Cyr. Chrys. (codd.) have: περὶ ἱερέων οὐδέν. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. περὶ ἱερωσύνης is a glossematic elucidation.

Hebrews 7:16. Instead of the Recepta σαρκικῆς, Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford have adopted σαρκίνης, after A B C* D* L א (also H in the title), many min. and Fathers. Rightly. σαρκίνης might easily be changed into σαρκικῆς by transcribers, since σαρκικός is an adjective of very frequent recurrence in the N. T., σάρκινος a rare one.

Hebrews 7:17. μαρτυρεῖται] Elz.: μαρτυρεῖ. Against preponderating testimony (A B D* E* א, 17, 31, al., Copt. Sahid. Basm. Slav. Cyr. Chrys. Theophyl.).

Hebrews 7:21. After αἰῶνα Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bloomfield, Reiche add once more: κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ. Deleted by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, after B C, 17, 80, Vulg. Sahid. Basm. Arm. Ambr. (?) Bede. Rejected also by Delitzsch. But without sufficient ground. For the words are found in A D E K L א*** It. Syr. utr. Copt. al., with Chrys. Theodoret, al., and the omission of them is to be explained by the fact that immediately after the same (Hebrews 7:22) the discourse is continued afresh with κατά; the eye of the transcriber might thus easily wander from the first κατά to the second κατά. Also for א* there was found in the twofold κατά the occasion for overlooking not only κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ, but in addition to this likewise εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

Hebrews 7:22. τοσοῦτον] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield. But the weighty authority of A B C D* א* Athan. (cod.) al. decides in favour of the form of the word preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, τοσοῦτο.

Hebrews 7:23. Recepta: γεγονότες ἱερεῖς. So also Tisch. 2, 7, and 8. As better attested, however (A C D E, Cyr. [twice] Chrys. [ms.]), the order of words: ἱερεῖς γεγονότες, is to be preferred, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Delitzsch, and Alford.

Hebrews 7:26. Elz.: ἔπρεπεν. More correctly, however, Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz (?), Tisch. and Alford, after A B D E, Syr. utr. Arab. Erp. Euseb.: καὶ ἔπρεπεν.