VI.
Melchizedek (7:1-28)
A.
God's Promise Is Sure (7:1-10)
7.
() Continued: Once more the divine author is emphasizing the silence of Scripture to bring out his point, for Scripture records nothing about the death of Melchizedek (). This must be borne in mind when estimating the significance of the incident and the way the priest-king prefigures Christ.
8.
() The expression "so to speak" often introduces a statement that startles a reader and requires one to be careful against misinterpretation. The characteristic of Levi (and his descendants after him) was not that of paying but of receiving tithes. Of course, there is something of the "so to speak" about Levi's collecting of tithes, just as there is in his paying of them, because he collects them not in person but through his descendants. But the startling thing is that he should be said to pay tithes at all.
a.
In other words, when Abraham paid Melchizedek a tithe, the author sees Levi as paying it, for "Levi … was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." This is a way of speaking we find here and there in the Bible when the ancestor includes the descendants. For example, it was said to Rebekah that not two children but "two nations are in your womb" (). Levi and all subsequent priests were thus included in the payment of the tithe. The divine author wants his readers to be in no doubt about the superiority of Christ to any other priests, and he sees the mysterious figure of Melchizedek as powerfully illustrating this superiority
B.
The Royal Priesthood of Melchizedek and of Christ ()
1.
For the Jew there was an air of finality about the law; it was God's definitive word to His people. Also, the Jews felt that the Aaronic priesthood was superior to that of Melchizedek, for the law came later than Melchizedek and thus replaced all previous priesthoods. But the author points out that the priesthood of Melchizedek was spoken of in , long after the giving of the law. That God spoke through David about the Melchizedekian priesthood while the Aaronic priesthood was still a going concern, shows that the priests of the line of Aaron could not accomplish what a priesthood truly aimed at. And because the priesthood and the law went together, a change in priesthood also meant a change in the law. The author sees it as significant that Jesus did not come from the priestly tribe of Levi but from the royal tribe of Judah. This fits in with the fact that Jesus' priesthood is of the order of Melchizedek and that He was king as well as priest.
2.
() Here "perfection" means the condition in which people are acceptable to God. The work of the priests of the line of Levi aimed at bringing about this acceptability, but our author tells us that they failed. That the writer of speaks of another priest shows that the Levitical priests had not accomplished what they aimed at. The words in parentheses show that the law and the priesthood were closely connected.
a.
We ought not to think of the law and the priesthood as two separate things that happened to be operative at the same time among the same people. The priesthood was the very basis of the law. Without that priesthood it would be impossible for the law to operate in its fullness. Thus, the declaration by the psalmist David () that there would be another priest was devastating. He looked for a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek," not according to the order of Aaron. The Aaronic priesthood was not succeeding and thus had to be replaced by a more effective priesthood. In the first century time of the writing of Hebrews, the Aaronic priesthood was apostate (opposed to Jesus Christ).
3.
() The link between the priesthood and the law meant that a change in the one involved a change in the other. The author is speaking of a change from one kind of priesthood to another. A priesthood like that of Melchizedek differs fundamentally from that after the order of Aaron. Christ is not another Aaron; he replaces Aaron with a priesthood that is both different and better. And with the Aaronic priesthood went the law that had been erected with that priesthood as its basis. So, the author says there must be "a change of law."
4.
() The change in the law is seen in that Jesus did not belong to the tribe recognized by the law as the priestly tribe. His tribe was "another," which may mean no more than that it was another than the priestly tribe or that the tribe was of a different nature. It was a nonpriestly tribe. In fact, it was a royal tribe. From this tribe no one "has officiated at the altar," and Jesus has a permanent share in that tribe.
a.
(; ; ) But what about David and Solomon, who were of the tribe of Judah and who offered sacrifices? Two things should be said about this. (1) It is possible that these kings did not do the actual ceremony. (It is unlikely that Solomon personally offered 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep.) David and Solomon may have "offered" in the sense that they provided 22 oxen and 120 sheep of sacrificial animals. "Thousand" in Hebrew has more than one meaning: its meaning of "chief" could indicate David and Solomon were chief people who provided the animals to be sacrificed (2) Even if these kings did sometimes perform the actual offering, this was occasional and not their regular function. The author's concern is the regular ministrations of a priest at the altar, which belonged to Aaron and his sons during the Old Testament period.
5.
() "For" introduces the explanation of the preceding. The author calls Jesus "our Lord" again only in (a title usually reserved for the Father). His verb "descended" is unusual here. It means "rise" or "spring up," and it can be used of the rising of a star or of the springing up of a shoot from the roots of a plant. The author may have in mind the rising of a star or, more likely, the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah being a shoot from the root of David (see ; ). Here Jesus is said to come "from Judah," a tribe for which Moses had nothing to say about priests; the law did not envisage priests from any tribe other than Levi. That is what made a priesthood like Melchizedek's so unusual.
C.
Christ's Priesthood Superior ()
The divine author pursues his theme of the superiority of Christ — superior because of His life, the divine oath, the permanence of His priesthood, and His sacrifice.
Because of His life (7:15-19)
1.
() What it is that is "clearer still" is not said. Most likely the expression is meant to include both the ineffectiveness of the Levitical priesthood and the abrogation (the repeal) of the law. It is the appearance of a priest like "Melchizedek" that is the decisive factor.
2.
() This priest is distinguished by the quality of His life. His quality is literally "a law of physical requirement." This phrase includes this new priest's ancestry, but it may well be wider — including all that is fleshly about the law. Christ's priesthood is not based on this type of law, but it depends on "the power of an indestructible life." There is a special quality about the life of Christ. It does not end, nor can it end.
3.
() "For" introduces the clinching testimony of Scripture, giving the reason for the foregoing. It is quoted verbatim as in and establishes the special character of Christ's priesthood, because of no other priest could it be said that his life was "indestructible" (). Though it could be said that the Aaronic priesthood was "a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations" (), no individual priest before Christ is "forever."
4.
() "Commandment" refers to the whole Mosaic law. The Levitical system in its entirety is "set aside" and annulled by Christ's coming and work. At the same time, there is a connection (implied by the word "former"). The Levitical system was not simply earlier in time; it also prepared the way for the coming of Christ. But it had to give way because of its "weakness and uselessness." It could not give people strength to meet all the needs of life. It could not bring salvation.
5.
() The parenthesis underlines the defects of the law. The writer does not explain what he means by "the Law made nothing perfect," but clearly, he has in mind something like "fitting for Him (God the Son)" (see ). The law did not give people complete and lasting access to the presence of God. It had its merits, but it did not satisfy their deepest needs. For the writer's use of "better," see ; and for his use of "hope," see ; . The thought of what is "better" is characteristic of Hebrews, and certain "hope" is central to the Christian way. Law and Gospel stand in contrast. The Gospel is "better" because it enables people to "draw near to God." It was this that the old covenant could not bring about, but the new covenant can.
Because of the Divine Oath ()
The argument is now developed with reference to the oath (cf. ) that established the Melchizedekian priesthood. There was no such oath when the Aaronic priesthood was set up, which means that this priesthood lacks the permanence so characteristic of the other priesthood. There was always something conditional about Aaron's priesthood.
1.
() The oath declares the purpose of God in an absolute fashion. It allows of no qualification on account of human weakness or sinfulness or anything else. So, the writer contrasts the priesthood that has the security of the divine oath to that which lacked it. Christ is contrasted with the Levitical priests, and the importance of the oath is stressed. It was not simply that an oath was sworn at the same time as He was made priest but that the oath was the very essence of what was done. That is the point of the argument. is quoted once more, this time beginning a little earlier to include the reference to the swearing of the oath and the assurance that the Lord will not change His mind. The new priesthood is permanent. There is no question of it ever being done away.
2.
() "Guarantee" brings before us an unusual idea. () The old covenant was established with a mediator but with no one to guarantee that the people would fulfill their undertaking. But Jesus stands as a continuing guarantor and that in two directions. He guarantees to the people that God will fulfill His "better covenant" of forgiveness, and He guarantees to God that those who are in Him are acceptable.
a.
This is the writer's first use of the term "covenant", an important word he uses seventeen times. In nonbiblical Greek, this word denotes a last will and testament, but in the LXX it is the normal rendering of the Hebrew berit ("covenant"). In the New Testament it usually means "covenant" (). Berit occurs 300 times in the Old Testament and a few times it means "agreement." There is something absolute about a will. One cannot dicker with the testator. And in like manner, humans cannot bargain with God; He lays down the terms.
Because of Its Permanence ()
It matters to the author that Christ's life was different in quality from other lives. He has'emphasized this in , and he comes back to it with the thought that the permanence of Christ's priesthood makes it superior to the Levitical priesthood. His life is such that there is no need and no place for a successor.
1.
() Once more the Levitical priests are set in contrast to Christ. They had to be numerous because like all people, they died, and successors were needed to keep the priesthood functioning. The death of the Aaronic priests meant the cessation of their exercise of the high priesthood. But with Christ, it is different. He remains forever and thus His priesthood never has to be continued by another. The word rendered "permanently", found only here in the New Testament, is often understood to mean "without a successor," but this meaning is not justified here. The word means "that cannot be transgressed," or "inviolable, and so unchangeable." Christ lives through eternity, and His priesthood lives with Him. The quality of His life means a quality of priesthood that cannot be matched by the Levitical priests.