The Enigma of Melchizedek and His Priestly Order
In order to make the argument about Christ’s high priesthood as convincing as it can be, the author begins by establishing the great importance of Melchizedek, who resembles the Son of God in many respects and hence serves as a type of Christ. His superiority to Abraham and Levi is then made plain. This in turn leads to a discussion of the significance of his priestly order, which in recent history had found a new and definitive representative in fulfillment of the expectation in Psalm 110:4. Again the discussion is midrashic in character, utilizing at several points the actual phraseology of the original quotation of Genesis 14:18–20.
7:1–2a The identification of Melchizedek given here, as well as the brief description of his encounter with Abraham, is drawn from Genesis 14:18–20. (The author’s language is heavily dependent on the LXX version of this passage.) Melchizedek appears in the Genesis narrative as an extraordinary person, indeed, but not more than a human king and priest. The Salem, of which Melchizedek was king, was probably Canaanite Jerusalem. He is said to have been priest of God Most High, that is, of El Elyon, the head of the Canaanite pantheon. This God is seen to be the same as the God of Israel, as is evident from his description as the “Creator of heaven and earth” and the one who gave Abraham his victory (Gen. 14:19–20). It is remarkable in itself that the priesthood of a Canaanite king, outside the stream of salvation history, could be recognized as legitimate. The only other biblical reference is in Psalm 110:4, which of course our author uses most skillfully. Melchizedek blessed Abraham upon his return from a victorious battle, and Abraham gave a tenth of everything to Melchizedek. The significance of these deeds is midrashically explored in the next paragraph (vv. 4–10).
7:2b–3 The parenthetical explanation of the meaning of Melchizedek and Salem is important because of the appropriateness of the titles in describing Christ, who is preeminently king of righteousness and peace. This supports the conclusion that Melchizedek is like the Son of God. He is also like the Son of God in that he is without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life. It is the literal reading of verse 3 that has led some to the conclusion that Melchizedek was actually an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. What actually is being pointed out by the author, however, is the surprising silence of Scripture about the lineage and the birth and death of Melchizedek. In a rabbinic way, the silence is seen to be significant rather than simply fortuitous, especially for a person of such great status, who was both a king and a priest. Because there is no record of Melchizedek’s death, nor therefore of the termination of his priesthood (or of any succession to it), the conclusion can be drawn that he remains a priest forever. As far as what Scripture says and does not say about Melchizedek, then, it is evident that he is like the Son of God, who also is without beginning of days or end of life and whose priesthood therefore is eternally valid (cf. v. 17 with its quotation of Ps. 110:4).
7:4–6 The opening statement is best understood as an exclamation: “Look how great this one is!” Even the patriarch Abraham felt impelled to give him a tenth of the plunder. The magnitude of the event already mentioned in verse 1 is now stressed. It was one no less than the great Abraham who tithed to Melchizedek. The author now proceeds to acknowledge the practice of tithing among the descendants of Abraham. The levitical priesthood, not having an inheritance in the land, received according to the law a tenth from the people—that is, their brothers. This was in return for their service (Num. 18:21). Tithing thus involved those who are descended from (lit., “from the loins of”) Abraham both on the receiving and giving end of the transaction. Melchizedek, on the other hand, did not trace his descent from Levi (lit., “not genealogically from them”) and therefore his right to receive a tithe from Abraham depended not on the law but on his own superior worth (cf. v. 7). His priesthood accordingly is of an exceptional character. Thus Melchizedek received the tithe from and blessed (the word is drawn from Gen. 14:19) the very one who was the recipient of the promises and from whom eventually would come the levitical priesthood itself (cf. v. 10). The remarkable significance of this is brought out in the verses that follow.
7:7–8 Just as the one who receives the tithe is of higher position than the one who gives the tithe, so also the lesser person is blessed by the greater. The great Abraham is thus subordinate to Melchizedek. Furthermore, the levitical priesthood is inferior to Melchizedek’s because in the one case (of the priests; lit., “here”), we have mortal recipients of the tithe. But in the other case (as for Melchizedek; lit., “there”), the recipient is declared to be living. The words is declared to be indicate that this conclusion is drawn from Scripture. Yet it is important to note that this is an inference based on what Scripture does not say (i.e., its failure to record Melchizedek’s death) rather than on what Scripture actually says (cf. v. 3).
7:9–10 The author goes even further in his argument: One might even say, he says, that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham. The point is clear. Since Levi was an eventual descendant of Abraham, he was in the body of (lit., “in the loins of”) his ancestor (lit., “his father”) when Abraham was met by Melchizedek (the words again allude to Gen. 14) and gave him a tithe. Therefore Levi may also be said to have tithed to Melchizedek through Abraham, and it is implied that Levi and his descendants are thus also subordinate to Melchizedek.
7:11 The words if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood suggest the inability of that system to arrive at the goal of full salvation. Had the levitical system been sufficient to the task, what need, the author asks, is there to speak of another priest to arise, one of the order of Melchizedek, and not Aaron? That is, if the levitical system were self-sufficient, why then does Psalm 110:4 speak of the one at the right hand of God, who waits for his enemies to become a footstool for his feet, as one who is “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek”? Psalm 110:4 thus confirms the inadequacy of the Aaronic priesthood. The parenthetical comment concerning the law being given to the people on the basis of the levitical priesthood cannot be taken literally, since that priesthood did not precede the Mosaic law. What seems to be meant is that the priestly system is basic to the entire superstructure of the law. The two are inextricably related, as can be seen from the argument that now follows.
7:12 This change in priesthood has important consequences for the law: there must also be (lit., “is of necessity”) a change of the law. Thus for all our author’s stress on the continuity between the old and the new and on the nature of Christianity as the fulfillment of the promises to Israel, he also is forced to acknowledge substantial discontinuity between the old and the new. It would have taken great courage on the author’s part to say something so problematic and so contrary to the disposition of his Jewish readers, not to mention the Jewish critics of Christianity who apparently exercised some influence over them. In the immediate context the change of the law involves a man from the tribe of Judah—and not Levi—becoming a priest. The implications are wider, however, as will be seen below (see vv. 18–19, and 8:7, 13). But despite his insistence upon the necessity of a change in the law, the author’s basic perspective remains: Christianity stands in continuity with the past as the fulfillment of what God promised he would do.
7:13–14 It was plain that he of whom these things are said (Jesus, the Son of David) belonged to a different tribe (the tribe of Judah) and thus, according to the law itself, could not qualify to be a priest. Yet he is the one referred to in Psalm 110:4, the priest of the order of Melchizedek. No precedent exists for this turn of events. The levitical priesthood is now replaced by another order altogether. Moses here, of course, refers to the Pentateuch.
Additional Notes
7:1–2a Melchizedek held an important place in the Judaism of the first century. Because he is so remarkable in the Genesis narrative, he became associated with the eschatological events to come. Thus, at Qumran a scroll has been discovered (labeled 11Q Melchizedek) that portrays Melchizedek as a heavenly deliverer of Israel and avenger against the enemies of God. In this role he functions in a way similar to the archangel Michael as portrayed in the scrolls. In Jewish writings of the Middle Ages the identification of the two is made explicit. It is unlikely, however, that the author of Hebrews viewed Melchizedek as an angel or archangel as some of his Jewish contemporaries may have. Certainly if this had been the case, the author would have been explicit about it, given his earlier preoccupation with angels. See M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude, “11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament,” NTS 12 (1966), pp. 301–26; and J. A. Fitzmyer, “Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11,” JBL 86 (1967), pp. 25–41.
Another example of a priesthood regarded as legitimate, although not of the levitical line, is found in Jethro, the Midianite priest who became the father-in-law of Moses (Exod. 2:16; 18:12). Although this does not enter our author’s argument, it does confirm the idea of a priesthood such as Melchizedek’s being somehow acceptable to God. It is interesting to note our author’s refusal to mention or to utilize the potential symbolism of the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek to Abraham in the Genesis account. The sacramental allusion proved irresistible to the early Fathers of the church.
The giving of a tenth of the spoils of war to a deity or deities is known in Greek culture but is nowhere stipulated for Israel in the OT, where tithing has to do solely with agricultural produce. Abraham’s tithe is apparently a kind of thanksgiving offering to God (cf. Gen. 28:22) through Melchizedek’s mediation, something that in itself emphasizes the importance of this priesthood.
7:2b–3 Although Philo, the Hellenistic Jew of Alexandria, allegorizes the Genesis narrative concerning Melchizedek in a way quite foreign to our author, he does explain the names Melchizedek and Salem in the same way, relating Salem to the Hebrew šālôm (“peace”). See Philo, Allegorical Interpretation, 3.79. Philo also describes Sarah as “without mother” (same word used by our author to describe Melchizedek) since no record of her mother is to be found (On Drunkenness, 59ff.).
Jewish eschatological expectation (e.g., Qumran) looked for a priestly and a royal messiah. In Christ the two are combined, and Melchizedek as king and high priest serves as a type or an anticipation of Christ. In time not too remote from our author, the two offices had been combined, viz., in Simon the Maccabee and other Hasmonean rulers of the second century B.C. But the high priesthood of Simon was not of the legitimate line, being conferred by human authority (and hence contradictory of Heb. 5:4). Thus Melchizedek is like the Son of God. As is usually true, the type resembles the antitype, or that which is prefigured (and hence normative). Yet the author can also say that Christ is “like Melchizedek” (7:15). For Son of God, see note on 1:5. The Greek words that underlie forever (eis to diēnekes) occur only in Hebrews in the NT and the LXX (the same phrase is found in 10:1, 12, 14). For helpful studies of Melchizedek and the present passage, see F. L. Horton, Jr., The Melchizedek Tradition, SNTSMS 30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); M. Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JSJ 2 (1971), pp. 115–35; B. Demarest, “Heb. 7:3: A Crux Interpretum Historically Considered,” EQ 49 (1977), pp. 141–62; idem., A History of the Interpretation of Hebrews 7,1–10 from the Reformation to the Present (Tübingen: Mohr, 1976); see also the excursus, “The Significance of Melchizedek” in Hughes, pp. 237–45; A. J. Bandstra, “Heilsgeschichte and Melchizedek in Hebrews,” CTJ 3 (1968), pp. 36–41; J. W. Thompson, “The Conceptual Background and Purpose of the Midrash in Hebrews 7,” NovT 19 (1977), pp. 209–23.
7:4–6 How great translates pēlikos (the same word occurs only once again in the NT, in Gal. 6:11, where Paul uses it to describe his handwriting). The language of v. 4 is drawn from the LXX of Gen. 14:20. Josephus describes the tithe offered by Abraham as a “tithe of the plunder” (Ant. 1.181). The pervasiveness of the principle of tithing is seen in the fact that the tithe received by the Levites was further tithed to the priests (Num. 18:26; cf. Neh. 10:38f.). The reference to the patriarch, standing at the end of the Greek sentence (v. 4), is emphatic. The Greek word underlying did not trace his descent in v. 6 (genealogoumenos) is found in the NT only here.
7:7–8 The concept of “blessing” has a rich OT background that is taken up in Judaism and the NT. Here a special priest confers the divine power of God’s blessing upon a central figure in the history of redemption. See H. W. Beyer, TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 754–65. The argument of v. 8 is rabbinic in character, drawing great significance from the silence of the text (cf. v. 3). The reference to him who is … living, however, finds its parallel in the references to Christ in vv. 16 and 24, where the reference to endless life is literally true.
7:9–10 The Hebraic use of the Greek word for “loins” in referring to the source of physical generation is found only in the LXX and NT (in dependence on the LXX). See H. Seesemann, TDNT, vol. 5, pp. 496f.
7:11 Since the argument assumes the importance of both the levitical priesthood and the law, it seems obviously directed to Jewish rather than Gentile readers. The latter would have regarded the levitical priesthood as merely preparatory for what had come in Christ; but even in their eschatological expectations many Jews looked for the appearance of a high priest from the line of Levi. Indeed, Judaizing groups in the early church continued to stress the importance of the tribe of Levi, as well as Judah, in eschatological expectation. Such groups either did not know of the argument of the author of Hebrews about the obsolescence of the levitical priesthood, or else they found it unacceptable. See the discussion in Hughes, pp. 260ff.
Perfection again refers to completeness in the sense of arriving at the intended goal. Although the root is prominent and other forms of it occur frequently in Hebrews, this is the only occurrence of the noun form teleiōsis. See note on 2:10. The verb underlying was given (nomotheteō) occurs only here and in 8:6 (with a different subject) in the NT. See W. Gutbrod, TDNT, vol. 4, p. 1090.
Ps. 110:4, just quoted in 5:6 and about to be quoted again in vv. 17 and 21, is obviously the basis for the argument in this verse. See commentary on 5:6.
7:12 The tension between continuity and discontinuity of the old and the new is common to all NT writers to some extent and is only to be expected because of the nature of the fulfillment brought by Christ. That the author of Hebrews can express the discontinuity as sharply as he does, however, is surprising, given his readership. The word change (metathesis) means more than a slight modification (the same word occurs in 11:5 and 12:27, where it connotes removal). As we learn from v. 18 and 8:7, 13, what is meant is essentially an abrogation of the law, paradoxically by its fulfillment in Christ—to whom it pointed all along. Thus, for our author, as for Paul, the significance of Christ and his work cannot be fully appreciated without at the same time realizing the temporary status of the law. Unlike Paul, however, our author limits himself to the temporary character of the ceremonial legislation of the OT.
7:13–14 Although the word is common in the NT, the word altar (thysiastērion) occurs only once again in Hebrews (13:10). Here served at the altar is obviously a priestly function. Although David (and Solomon), of the line of Judah, did sacrifice animals to the Lord, this involved no sanctioning of the tribe of Judah as priests. The expression our Lord occurs in Hebrews only here and in 13:20, where it is “our Lord Jesus.”
Descended is from the verb that means literally “to rise” (anatellō), and hence “to spring from.” It is probably used deliberately to allude to Num. 24:17 where the same verb refers to the star of Jacob who is to rise in fulfillment of God’s promises.
The Legitimacy and Superiority of Christ’s Priesthood
Extending the argument of the preceding section, the author now explores ways in which the priesthood of Christ, resembling that of Melchizedek, is superior to the levitical priesthood set forth in the law of Moses.
7:15 The possibility of greater clarity about what we have said, according to the author, is the result of the reality of another priest of this order of Melchizedek, like Melchizedek. That is, such a one has appeared, and from this fact the point of the argument can now be better understood.
7:16–17 This priest “has become and remains” a priest (this is the sense of the Greek perfect tense) not on the basis of a regulation (lit., “the law of a fleshly commandment”)—that is, concerned with external matters such as bodily descent—but on the basis of an indestructible life. The reference to power in this context may be an allusion to the resurrection. Whether this is true or not, the point of the argument rests on the unique identity of the Son (cf. Ps. 110:1)—whose life continues forever, and in whom alone, therefore, the promise of Psalm 110:4 (“a priest forever”) can be understood to be fulfilled literally. Jesus is made the priest of Psalm 110:4 because he is the person described in Psalm 110:1. He who presently sits at the right hand of God alone can be the priest appointed forever. The anti-type is truly without beginning and without end, just as the type is apparently without beginning or end. The authority of Christ’s priesthood depends on his identity as the Son of God. On the quotation of Psalm 110:4, cf. the earlier use of this verse in 5:6; 6:20.
7:18 The statements in verses 18 and 19b are linked in the original (cf. RSV “on the one hand” … “on the other hand”). The former regulation (lit., “a former commandment”) refers to the Mosaic legislation concerning the levitical priesthood, which is now set aside (lit., “a setting aside occurs”). This stern note of discontinuity with the law of Moses (anticipated in 7:12; cf. 8:13) is justified by noting that the law was weak and useless (lit., “its weakness and uselessness”). The description of the commandment as weak or ineffective finds a parallel in Paul (Rom. 8:3; cf. Gal. 4:9). The strongest word of all, however, is “uselessness,” which is used in the LXX of Isaiah 44:10 to describe idols (cf. RSV, “profitable for nothing”). The author’s point apparently is that although the law had a proper role to play before the fulfillment brought by the Christ, once that fulfillment has been realized, the law is outmoded and hence useless. It should be noted, however, that it is the law concerning the levitical priesthood and ritual that is particularly in view (cf. 10:9b). The author does not draw further implications.
7:19 The first sentence in this verse is parenthetical, interrupting the contrast between 18 and 19b. The law literally made nothing perfect. That is, it was unable to bring anything to God’s intended purpose of redemption (cf. 5:9). But in the new situation, which it is the major task of our author to expound, a better hope enters the picture, one which indeed makes it possible to draw near to God, which is exactly what the law of the cultus did not allow, and to realize the fullness of salvation that he promised. Again the language is that of the temple cult, but now transposed to a new key because of the very nature of God’s definitive work in Christ.
7:20 Verses 20–22 constitute one sentence in the Greek, with a comparison beginning in verse 20 (“to the degree that” there was a divine oath) that concludes in verse 22 (“by so much” is Jesus the guarantee of a better covenant). In this long sentence the name Jesus is the very last word and, because of this artistic placement, becomes emphatic. Verses 20b–21 thus amount to an insertion. The appeal to God’s vow (lit., it was not without an oath) is reminiscent of the argument concerning the covenant made with Abraham in 6:13ff. The point again is that something already fixed becomes doubly sure, since to God’s word is added an oath (cf. v. 28). In the case of the levitical priesthood, however, there was no such vow (without any oath). NIV adds others to indicate the levitical priesthood.
7:21–22 In the case of the priesthood of Jesus, though, when in Psalm 110:4 it is said that you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, that same verse says that the Lord has sworn and will not change his mind. Thus the author uses the full content of Psalm 110:4 to the advantage of his argument. This is a confirmation of the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus to that of the Levites. Because of this different state of affairs, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. Thus a better promise (one confirmed with an oath) implies a better covenant—indeed, what will later be identified as the “new covenant” (cf. 8:8; 9:15). And Jesus is the ground or basis of the security of that covenant (cf. 9:15 and 12:24, where Jesus is described as “the mediator of a new covenant”).
7:23–24 Because death prevented them, the levitical priests were unable to remain perpetually in office. It was necessary to have many … priests in order that the work might continue. In contrast, Jesus lives (lit., “he continues”) forever (cf. 13:8). The last word involves a Greek phrase (eis ton aiōna) that is a deliberate allusion to Psalm 110:4. The result is that this priesthood is not passed to another: Jesus has a permanent priesthood.
7:25 Because Jesus’ priestly work is not hindered by death, he is able to save completely (or “for all time,” RSV; cf. NASB) those who come to God through him. In view here is the quality of the salvation. By its very nature, what Jesus offers is an “eternal salvation” (cf. 5:9; 9:12; 10:14; 13:20) and a perfect or “complete” salvation, unlike the temporary and the incomplete work of the levitical priests. Because is added by NIV, being inferred from the participial clause translated he always lives. The priestly work of Christ depends directly on “the power of an indestructible life” (7:16), and it is that same kind of permanence that determines the character of the salvation experienced by its recipients. They are sustained by the continual intercession of Jesus on their behalf. On this point the author is in agreement with Paul (Rom. 8:34; cf. 1 John 2:1).
7:26 The words meets our need are an interpretation of the literal “it was fitting.” The inference that Jesus is able to meet our needs is a correct one, but the emphasis here falls rather upon the superior character of Jesus and hence the superior character of his work, as the following verses show. That he is holy by itself affirms the separateness of Jesus from the rest of humanity, as do the accompanying words blameless and pure. Not only by virtue of his character is Jesus incomparably superior, but also because of his ascension, whereby he has been set apart from sinners and exalted above the heavens (cf. 4:14; Eph. 4:10). In these last words we again encounter an allusion to Psalm 110:1 (cf. 1:3 and the note on 1:13). Thus, despite the full humanity of Jesus—that he became “like his brothers in every way” (2:17)—the author strongly reaffirms (cf. 4:14) the sinlessness of Jesus.
7:27 The result is plain: Jesus has no need to offer sacrifices day after day … for his own sins, as do the priests (cf. 5:3). Over against the necessarily repetitive sacrifices of the levitical priests, which for our author represents a self-confessed inadequacy (cf. 10:11), Jesus sacrificed for their sins once for all (lit., “this he did once for all”). This he accomplished when he offered himself. This shocking fact—that this high priest offers himself in sacrifice—here mentioned directly for the first time (but cf. 2:9, 14; 5:8), becomes a central argument in 9:11–28. The definitive, once-and-for-all, character of the work of Christ is of course a hallmark of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
7:28 This verse serves as a summary of the argument thus far by again contrasting what is true according to the law with the greater truth found in the one to whom the Melchizedek passage in Psalm 110:4 points. The law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath … appointed (NIV adds this verb; the original assumes the verb appoints from the first clause) the (lit., “a”) Son (cf. Ps. 2:7) … forever. These last two words, which occur together in the Greek text, allude to Psalm 110:4, but the word “Son” from Psalm 2:7 is substituted for “priest.” This conflation is reminiscent of the use of the two quotations successively in 5:5–6. The author’s observation that this oath-confirmed word came after the law reflects a Jewish conclusion that new revelation is more authoritative than the older revelation (although by no means is this conclusion always accepted!). The notion of having been made perfect is again best understood as the state of having accomplished God’s saving purposes (cf. 5:9) and being raised to God’s right hand. As we have seen, “perfection” in Hebrews generally has this teleological connotation and therefore is well-suited to express the sense of fulfillment that is so prominent in the epistle.
Additional Notes
7:15 The actual Greek words used here, “according to the likeness of Melchizedek,” are again a deliberate allusion to Ps. 110:4. Appears (lit., “arises”), although representing a different verb (anistēmi), may also allude to the coming of the promised Messiah (see note on v. 14 above). The present tense of “arises” emphasizes the present reality of his existence. Another (heteros) suggests in the context one of a unique kind, despite his similarity to Melchizedek.
7:16–17 The word “fleshly” (sarkinos), not obvious in NIV, is used in reference to the regulation because it is the earthly (and hence transitory) sphere to which the commandment applies. See E. Schweizer, TDNT, vol. 7, pp. 143f. The power (dynamis) of an indestructible life (cf. Acts 2:24) is such that it is self-validating. The power of God is regularly linked in the NT with the resurrection of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 13:4; Rom. 1:4). The quotation in v. 17 again reminds us of the importance of Ps. 110 for the argument of the book. On the significance of Ps. 110:4 see commentary on 5:6.
7:18 The word used for “setting aside” (athetēsis) means “to declare invalid” and is used in the papyri for official, legal annulment (cf. the verb form of the same root in Gal. 3:15). The author’s courage to say that the law concerning the levitical priesthood is set aside is especially notable given a reference such as in Exod. 40:15 to “a priesthood that will continue for all generations to come” (cf. Jer. 33:18). Only the author’s perception of the fulfillment and the concomitant newness brought by Christ can account for this. “Weakness” is twice ascribed to the levitical priests in Hebrews (5:2; 7:28). The Greek word for useless (anōpheles) occurs elsewhere in the NT only in Titus 3:9, where it describes futile controversies.
7:19 Whereas in the preceding verse the word “commandment” (entolē) is used, now the author uses the broader word, law (nomos). Again the author stresses the importance of arriving at the intended goal (using the verb teleioō), but this time negatively by pointing out the inadequacy of the law (cf. 7:11). See note on 2:10 (cf. 5:9). The positive use of the same verb can be seen below in v. 28. One of the author’s favorite words to describe Christianity is the word better. (See note on 1:4.) Here it modifies hope, a prominent word in our epistle (3:6; 6:11, 18; 10:23). As in 6:18, here the word refers to a present rather than a future reality. Or, to put it another way, our confidence concerning the future (because it rests on the finished work of Christ) is such that it transforms the present. Eschatology concerns not only the future, but also the present (realized). On “hope,” see E. Hoffmann, NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 238–44.
7:20 In this verse we encounter again the rabbinic argument from the silence of the text (cf. 7:3). That is, since no vow is mentioned in connection with the establishment of the levitical priesthood, it is taken as inferior to the priestly order of Melchizedek, which was established with a vow. Although the argument is very similar to that in 6:13–18, the rare word for vow here and in the next verse is horkōmosia rather than the more common horkos.
7:21–22 Again, the crucial text in the argument of this section of the epistle, Ps. 110:4, is quoted (cf. 5:6, 10; 7:17), but now in its entirety for the first time. And again the new is contrasted with the old by being called better (cf. note on 1:4), In this instance a better covenant is in view—the first occurrence of the word “covenant” (diathēkē), which will become very important in the next few chapters (see 8:6, 8–10; 9:15–20; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20). The word indeed occurs far more often in Hebrews (seventeen times) than in any other NT book. Like Paul, the author can use diathēkē in the legal sense of “testament” or “will” (9:16; cf. Gal. 3:15ff.). The primary sense of the word, however, is religious, referring to the arrangement whereby God’s saving purpose becomes a reality. There was an old arrangement or covenant (at Sinai) whereby Israel experienced redemption. From our author’s perspective, this has now given way to a new state of affairs to which, indeed, it pointed. The “new covenant” (as it will be called in 9:15 and 12:24) is defined over against the old (note especially the great dependence on the Jeremiah passage [31:31–34] quoted initially in chap. 8) and of course depends absolutely on the saving work of Christ in fulfillment of the promises (cf. 8:6; 9:15; 10:29; 13:20). See J. Behm, TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 124–34; G. Vos, “The Epistle’s Conception of the Diathēkē” in The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), pp. 27–45; E. A. C. Pretorius, “Diathēkē in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Neotestamentica 5 (1971), pp. 37–50. The word guarantee (engyos) occurs only here in the NT. Through his priestly work, Jesus has become the solid assurance that God’s saving purpose has become a reality, fully sufficient for both the present and the future. See H. Preisker, TDNT, vol. 2, p. 329.
7:23–24 NIV’s have been in the first sentence does not adequately reflect the periphrastic construction in the Greek, where the finite verb is in the present tense. The implication of this (which also occurs in v. 20) is that there are many priests at the time of writing. The concept of “continuing on forever,” as well as the allusion to Ps. 110:4, recalls the statement made about Melchizedek’s priesthood in 7:3. But that it is the life of Jesus that is primarily in view (and only then the priesthood) is indicated by the statement in v. 16. The Greek word aparabatos occurs only here in the NT and LXX; it means permanent or “unchangeable.” See J. Schneider, TDNT, vol. 5, pp. 742f. Josephus provides the graphic statistic that there were eighty-three high priests from Aaron to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 (Ant. 20.227).
7:25 The verb “be able” (dynamai) and the negative “be unable” occur often in Hebrews, especially in explicating the contrast between the new and the old. The new is always able to do what the old could not do. In the present instance the object is to save, and although not made explicit, a contrast with the old is implied. The phrase translated completely by NIV (eis to panteles) may be taken to mean “forever” in that the situation spoken of is permanent, or it may be understood to connote totality. Although it is difficult to be certain of the precise nuance intended, since the full adequacy of the salvation is in view and since totality includes the idea of permanence, the latter seems preferable. See G. Delling, TDNT, vol. 8, pp. 66f. The idea of permanence is of course implied in that Jesus always lives (pantote, only occurrence in Hebrews) to intercede. The fact of this intercession again points to the sufficiency of the salvation. As F. F. Bruce (p. 155) notes, Jesus intercedes “as a throned Priest-King, asking what He will from a Father who always hears and grants His request.” On intercede, see C. Brown, NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 882–86. The language come to God has overtones of the temple worship (cf. 11:6).
7:26 The verb “it was fitting” (prepō) occurs also in 2:10. What is “right” and “appropriate” comes very close to, and may imply, “what God wills”—that is, the working out of his perfect providence. Jesus as high priest is of course a central motif in Hebrews (cf. note on 2:17). Only here in Hebrews is Jesus called holy (hosios, cf. Acts 2:27; 13:35; Rev. 15:4; 16:5). The words blameless (akakos) and pure (amiantos, lit., “undefiled”) remind us of the total innocence of the sacrificial victim (cf. the next verse).
7:27 The language of this verse is obviously that of the temple cultus. Aaron is explicitly directed to make a sin offering for himself first and then for his house and the people (Lev. 16:6ff.). The reference here to high priests offering sacrifices day after day is unusual, since the high priest’s work is generally associated with the annual sacrifice of the Day of Atonement and not the daily sacrifices of the ordinary priests (see 9:7, 25). The argument about the once for all character of Christ’s sacrifice is repeatedly stressed by the author in the next two chapters, using two almost identical words (ephapax: here, 9:12; 10:10; hapax: 9:26, 28). The completeness and finality of this one act are bound up with who it is that sacrifices and is sacrificed, and the fact that this is the consummation of God’s provision of salvation. The contrast with the repetitive futility of the levitical cultus is immediately evident and telling. See G. Stählin, TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 381–84.
7:28 The “weakness” of the levitical priests is again stressed, as it was in 5:2. By contrast, Jesus is able to “feel sympathy for our weaknesses” because of his full humanity. Yet he did not know the weakness that stems from imperfection and sin. The oath (lit., “word of the oath”), a unique expression in the NT, refers of course to the argument that begins in v. 20, which is based on Ps. 110:4. The final verb, has been made perfect (teleioō), is in the perfect tense, suggesting action completed in the past with results lasting into the present. Thus the Son, having accomplished his once-and-for-all sacrifice, has brought God’s saving purposes, as well as his own personal calling, to their goal, all of which produces a state of completion and permanence—this in contrast to the law (7:19), which could bring nothing to this stage of completeness and fulfillment.
