Bible Commentaries
Hebrews 7

Verses 1-10

The Son’s Melchizedekian High Priesthood (7:1-28)

Supremacy of the Melchizedekian High Priesthood (7:1-10)

The author now comes to deal in a conclusive fashion with the supremacy of the Melchizedekian high priesthood over that of the Levitical order. And by implication the Son of God who, according to Hebrews, belongs to the Melchizedekian order will share in this supremacy. The author appears to argue from Melchizedek to Christ. But in reality he intends his argument to proceed in the other direction, for in verse 3 he speaks of Melchizedek as "resembling the Son of God." It is probably correct to say that he has chosen Melchizedek merely because the description of him and his officce found in Genesis 14:17-20 and Psalms 110:4 serves his present purpose. The major point which he wishes to make is that the high-priestly or sacrificial work of Christ has superseded all the sacrifices offered under the Levitical order.

Melchizedek’s very name and title suggested his close association with God’s saving purpose for man. For "righteousness" ("zedek") and "peace" ("Salem") were two of the words commonly employed by the Hebrew prophets to refer to God’s redemptive activity (vs. 2). Melchizedek, therefore, as a redemptive figure might very appropriately be employed as a foil for Jesus Christ, God’s ultimate redemptive agent in the world.

Hebrews suggests three senses in which Melchizedek is to be thought of as superior. Of these the first is the most important, and it is this one in which the author finds particular (perhaps one should say exclusive) likeness to Jesus Christ. This is the fact that in the Genesis record Melchizedek is apparently "without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life" (vs. 3 ) . It is true that in Genesis, Melchizedek is not described in these terms. The author of Hebrews is basing his argument upon the well-known fact that it was customary for the author of Genesis, upon introducing any great figure, to state his genealogy (see Genesis 5 for Noah; 11 for Abraham). Melchizedek, as we read his story in Genesis, is an obvious exception to this rule. He flashes, so to speak, across the stage of history like a meteor. He arrives without announcement, without pedigree, without fanfare of any sort. And having done the work which God gave him to do, he flashes off into the night again. The author sees him in this respect as like Jesus Christ, who came out of eternity in the Incarnation, performed his appointed service in a short span of years, and by his resurrection and ascension again passed out into the eternal order. Of each of these, therefore, it may be said that "he continues a priest for ever" (vs. 3). For where there is neither beginning nor ending, it may be argued that there is only continuity in the priestly office.

The second feature which places Melchizedek above the Levitical order is the fact that according to the Genesis account "Abraham the patriarch gave him a tithe of the spoils" (vs. 4). The Mosaic Law declared that only those belonging to the tribe of Levi were to receive tithes (Numbers 18:21). But it would appear that Abraham recognized in Melchizedek a transcendent figure worthy of receiving tithes, not because this was validated by a law but because of his inherent worth. Moreover, it could be argued from the Jewish point of view that all Levitical priests, who were so to speak "still in the loins" (vs. 10) of Abraham, had by his action conceded the right of Melchizedek to receive tithes even from themselves! Such an argument may not appeal to us, but there is no question that it would be acceptable among those accustomed to rabbinical methods of logic and interpretation of the Scriptures. The argument was based upon the assumption that a degree of continuity is found in the successive generations of men throughout history — a continuity which results in a certain corporate responsibility and privilege. This principle was allowed by the Jew in the day in which our author wrote, and indeed it has a certain legitimacy attaching to it for any day. It is simply a matter of common observation that what is done by one generation is done for all succeeding generations. The achievements and mistakes made by one generation accrue to the credit or debit of all which follow.

Hebrews’ third argument in favor of Melchizedek’s superiority to the Levitical order is found in the fact that "Melchizedek . . . met Abraham . . . and blessed him" (vs. 1). But it is a matter of common knowledge that "the inferior is blessed by the superior" (vs. 7). Melchizedek accordingly, it may be argued, is superior both to Abraham and to the Levitical priesthood in his loins. Here again is an argument drawn from the facts as stated in Genesis which is sufficiently cogent to justify our author’s choice of Melchizedek as a type of Christ For it is true that the greater blesses the lesser. And again our author’s argument will mean in the last analysis that Melchizedek receives a priesthood from God which guarantees its own validity. This priest needs no law to justify his blessing the greatest man of God in his day. This right to bless is inherent in the office which Melchizedek has received from God. Man can neither add to nor subtract from the validity of such a right.

There is even some historical justification for the choice of Melchizedek as the proper figure preceding the Levitical priesthood to typify our Lord as Messiah-High Priest. The "Salem" of which Melchizedek was king-priest was generally acknowledged to be the predecessor of Jerusalem, which was built presumably on the same site (see Psalms 76:2). It could be argued, therefore, that David and his successors of Jerusalem had succeeded to the high-priestly functions of Melchizedek of Salem and, as Jesus himself pointed out, David as the "messiah" of God considered himself as having been given priestly prerogatives (Mark 2:26). The psalmist in Psalms 110:1 is doubtless drawing upon this tradition in declaring the king of Israel to be at once messiah and high priest of God. And the author of Hebrews, in taking over and applying Psalms 110 to Jesus Christ — an act which is no doubt based on Jesus’ own teaching in Mark 12:36 (see 5:6 above) — has done no more than the Early Church would have considered legitimate. For that Church, Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of all types and promises made under the Old Covenant. As Prophet, Priest, and King he combined within his own function all of the prophetic, priestly, and kingly ministries of his people.

Verses 11-22

Suspension of the Levitical Order (7:11-22)

The author now attempts to show that it was right and proper that the Levitical priesthood should be superseded by the Melchizedekian one. For "perfection" for man was obviously not obtained under the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law (vs. 11). This proves their general "weakness and uselessness" (vs. 18). "The law made nothing perfect" (vs. 19).

"Perfection" in this context and in succeeding ones (see 9:9; 10:1; 11:40; 12:23) would seem to have reference to the preparation of the spirit of man for fellowship with and worship of God. And the author’s argument is that this cannot be accomplished by law or by a priesthood established by law. Rather it is to be achieved only by that act of Jesus Christ as the great High Priest to which we have already been introduced (6:19-20) , namely, the planting of the anchor of the Christian hope firmly upon the mercy seat in the eternal sanctuary.

In the course of this argument the author finds it necessary to establish the fact that the Levitical priesthood has indeed been set aside through the changing of the Law (vs. 12). This he proves, first, by reminding his readers of the well-known fact that Jesus "belonged to another tribe" than Levi, a tribe "from which no one has ever served at the altar." This tribe was of course that of Judah (vss. 13-14). Second, he sets beside this historical fact the words of Psalms 110:4, in which the reigning messianic king is addressed as "priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek" (vss. 15-17). The argument here is based upon the natural observation that the creation of a messiah-high priest after the order of Melchizedek which the Psalm avers, does not proceed upon the basis of law but rather contravenes the explicit commandment in the Law (vs. 18). It also assumes that there is in the Psalm an overtone reaching beyond the immediate messianic king and attaching itself to Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God. The justification for this assumption on the author’s part lies in his belief that Jesus had heard his Father speaking to him in these terms (see 5:6 and Mark 12:36). That Jesus Christ is such a High Priest justifies the setting aside of the Law regarding priests, a fact that rests upon "the power of an indestructible life" (vs. 16) which, as we have already seen, was his (vss. 3 and 8).

Finally, the author, as though to clinch his entire argument for the greater worth and validity of the Melchizedekian priesthood represented by Jesus, calls attention to the fact that in the Psalm the appointment of the messiah-high priest is made by God, under oath (vss. 20-22) . This, as he rightly remarks, cannot be said of the Levitical priesthood. The very solemnity therefore by which the Melchizedekian priest is appointed is itself proof of his greater worth in the sight of God. Once again applying the words of the Psalm to Jesus Christ, he remarks, "This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant" (vs. 22), thereby introducing a new element, that of the New Covenant. As we have already seen, it is this author’s custom to introduce a new subject upon which he will expound at length later in the book. The theme will be developed particularly in chapters 8 and 9.

Verses 23-28

Characteristics of the Son as Melchizedekian High Priest (7:23-28)

In the closing verses of the seventh chapter the author takes the phrase "for ever" ("permanently" in vs. 24) from Psalms 110:4 and develops its meaning and application in the light of the eternal nature of the Son of God. His intention is to give assurance to the readers that their High Priest is able really "to save those who draw near to God through him" (vs. 25). This assurance is based upon the fact that Jesus Christ is an eternal figure who lives forever "to make intercession" for his people. By contrast the Levitical priests were many in number because death intervened to disrupt their priesthood; thus no assurance could be given that they would see matters through to a definitive end.

No doubt we should see a contrast between the phrases "for ever" (vs. 24, literally, "into eternity") and "for all tune" (vs. 25), the one phrase referring to the eternal nature of the High Priest, Jesus Christ, and the other to the effectiveness of his work within time. His high priesthood is carried on in eternity, as we shall see carefully elaborated in the next chapter (8:1,4), but its effectiveness is experienced also by the people whom he serves on the temporal plane. On that temporal plane and within history this High Priest had once offered himself on the cross (Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 10:10). But that one high-priestly act having been performed on the plane of history, the High Priest’s further activity in the eternal order consists in "intercession" for his people (vs. 25).

And now we arrive at the pinnacle of Hebrews’ characterization of this eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ. In verses 26-28 he is described in terms intended to set him apart from "those high priests" who officiate under the Levitical system. The author has already called attention to the fact that in his humanity the Levitical high priest was one with his people, inasmuch as he was "bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people" (5:3). This weakness of the IvCvitical high priest is here repeated (7:27). The suggestion that those high priests had to "offer sacrifices daily" is a pardonable use of hyperbole; the high priest was obliged to officiate only on one day of the Jewish calendar — the Day of Atonement. Nonetheless, his services on the Day of Atonement were intended to sum up all the sacrifices offered throughout the year previous, in order that, so to speak, the cultic worship might have its slate wiped clean and be enabled to start anew.

As the author indicates, however, Jesus as High Priest "did this once for all when he offered up himself," that is, upon the cross (vs. 27) . For the Christian faith, then, the work of its High Priest, Jesus Christ, is as final as the Jewish Day of Atonement was conceived to be under the older faith. Only in this case no repetition of the high-priestly act is required year by year, and this essentially because of Jesus’ eternal character as "a Son." This Son, it is true, had to be "made perfect for ever" (vs. 28), and this he became, as already noted, when "he learned obedience through what he suffered" (5:8); for, being thus "made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (5:9).

As previously remarked, in Hebrews the Christian life is considered as an ellipse with its two foci of Christ’s death on the cross and his final coming. Each of these foci has one temporal event in view, and between them lies the activity of this eternal High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle (see chs. 8-10). This means, in effect, that the Atonement on the cross within history is an act of the eternal High Priest accomplished in the outer priestly court of the eternal tabernacle. This tabernacle has, so to speak, an outer court which crosses the line dividing history from eternity, and it is in this outer court in history that the Cross, or altar of Christian sacrifice, stands. Once the eternal High Priest, the Son of God, performs his sacrifice at that outer altar he immediately passes into the eternal tabernacle, never again being required to offer sacrifice for the sins of his people.

It would be a mistake to understand from verse 27 that the author thinks of Jesus as offering sacrifice even once "for his own sins." This might be inferred from the fact that he goes on to say that "he did this once for all when he offered up himself." But the high terms which he uses to describe the character of Jesus Christ as the eternal Son and the eternal High Priest preclude any such conclusion. In the present context he speaks of him rather as "holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens" (vs. 26). And elsewhere in the letter he will allow no more than that Jesus himself "has suffered and been tempted" (Hebrews 2:18), that "he learned obedience through what he suffered" (Hebrews 5:8), and that he was "one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Hebrews 4:15). This is also the unanimous testimony of the New Testament Scriptures regarding the Church’s belief in the sinless character of its Lord (Matthew 4:1-11; John 8:46; 2 Corinthians 5:21).