Heb 7:11-19 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood . As the Jews supposed. They were accustomed to regard the system as perfect, It was an appointment of God, and they were tenacious of the opinion that it was to be permanent, and that it needed no change. But Paul says that this could not be. Even from their own Scriptures it was apparent that a priest was to arise of another order, and of a more permanent character; and this, he says, was full proof that there was defect of some kind in the previous order. What this defect was he does not here specify, but the subsequent reasoning shows that it was in such points as these--that it was not permanent; that it could not make the worshippers perfect; that the blood which they offered in sacrifice could not take away sin, and could not render those who offered it holy. Comp. , . For under it the people received the law . This assertion seems necessary in order to establish the point maintained in , that if the priesthood is changed there must be also a change of the law. In order to this it was necessary to admit that the law was received under that economy, and that it was a part of it , so that the change of one involved also the change of the other. It was not strictly true that the whole law was given after the various orders of Levitical priests were established--for the law on Sinai, and several other laws were given before that distinct arrangement was made; but it was true (1) that a considerable part of the laws of Moses were given under that arrangement; and (2) that the whole of the ceremonial observances was connected with that. They were parts of one system, and mutually dependent on each other. This is all that the argument demands. What further need was there , etc. "If that system would lead to perfection; if it was sufficient to make the conscience pure, and to remove sin, then there was no necessity of any other. Yet the Scriptures have declared that there would be another Of a different order, implying that there was some defect in the former." This reasoning is founded on the fact that there was an express prediction of the coming of a priest of a different "order," , and that this fact implied that there was some deficiency in the former arrangement. To this reasoning it is impossible to conceive that there can be any objection. (a) "If, therefore"

Hebrews 7:11-19

Verse 11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood. As the Jews supposed. They were accustomed to regard the system as perfect, It was an appointment of God, and they were tenacious of the opinion that it was to be permanent, and that it needed no change. But Paul says that this could not be. Even from their own Scriptures it was apparent that a priest was to arise of another order, and of a more permanent character; and this, he says, was full proof that there was defect of some kind in the previous order. What this defect was he does not here specify, but the subsequent reasoning shows that it was in such points as these--that it was not permanent; that it could not make the worshippers perfect; that the blood which they offered in sacrifice could not take away sin, and could not render those who offered it holy. Comp. Heb 7:19,23,24, Heb 10:1-4.

For under it the people received the law. This assertion seems necessary in order to establish the point maintained in Heb 7:12, that if the priesthood is changed there must be also a change of the law. In order to this it was necessary to admit that the law was received under that economy, and that it was a part of it, so that the change of one involved also the change of the other. It was not strictly true that the whole law was given after the various orders of Levitical priests were established--for the law on Sinai, and several other laws were given before that distinct arrangement was made; but it was true

(1) that a considerable part of the laws of Moses were given under that arrangement; and

(2) that the whole of the ceremonial observances was connected with that. They were parts of one system, and mutually dependent on each other. This is all that the argument demands.

What further need was there, etc. "If that system would lead to perfection; if it was sufficient to make the conscience pure, and to remove sin, then there was no necessity of any other. Yet the Scriptures have declared that there would be another Of a different order, implying that there was some defect in the former." This reasoning is founded on the fact that there was an express prediction of the coming of a priest of a different "order," Ps 110:4, and that this fact implied that there was some deficiency in the former arrangement. To this reasoning it is impossible to conceive that there can be any objection.

(a) "If, therefore" Gal 2:21, 5:18,19, Heb 8:7 Verse 12. For the priesthood being changed. According to the prediction in Ps 110 that it would be. When that occurs, the consequence specified will also follow.

There is made of necessity a change also of the law. The law so far as it grew out of that, or was dependent on it. The connexion requires us to understand it only of the law so far as it was connected with the Levitical priesthood. This could not apply to the ten commandments--for they were given before the institution of the priesthood; nor could it apply to any other part of the moral law, for that was not dependent on the appointment of the Levitical priests. But the meaning is, that since a large number of laws--constituting a code of considerable extent and importance--was given for the regulation of the priesthood, and in reference to the rites of religion, which they were to observe or superintend, it followed that when their office was superseded by one of a wholly different order, the law which had regulated them vanished also, or ceased to be binding. This was a very important point in the introduction of Christianity, and hence it is that it is so often insisted on in the writings of Paul. The argument to show that there had been a change or transfer of the priestly office, he proceeds to establish in the sequel. Verse 13. For he of whom these things are spoken. The Lord Jesus, the Messiah, to whom they had reference. The things here spoken of pertain to his office as priest; his being of the order of Melchizedek. The apostle here assumes it as a point concerning which there could be no dispute, that these things referred to the Lord Jesus. Those whom he addressed would not be disposed to call this in question, and his argument had conducted him to this conclusion.

Pertaineth to another tribe. To the tribe of Judah, Heb 7:14.

Of which no man gave attendance at the altar. The priestly office pertained only to the tribe of Levi. No one of the tribe of Judah had any part in the performance of the duties of that office. This was settled by the Jewish law. Verse 14. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah. It is well known; it cannot be a matter of dispute. About the fact that the Lord Jesus was of the tribe of Judah there could be no doubt. Comp. Mt 1:3. But probably the apostle means here to refer to more than that simple fact. It was a doctrine of the Old Testament, and was admitted by the Jews, that the Messiah was to be of that tribe. See Gen 49:10; Isa 11:1, Mic 5:2, Mt 11:6, This was an additional consideration to show that there was to be a change of some kind in the office of the priesthood, since it was declared Ps 110 that the Messiah was to be a priest. The fact that the Messiah is to be of the tribe of Judah is still admitted by the Jews. As their distinction of tribes now, however, is broken up, and as it is impossible for them to tell who belongs to the tribe of Judah, it is held by them that when he comes this-will be made known by miracle.

Of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. That is, in the Mosaic laws respecting the office of priest this tribe is not mentioned. All the arrangements pertain to the tribe of Judah.

(b) "evident" Isa 11:1, Mt 1:3, Rev 5:5 Verse 15. And it is yet far more evident. Not that our Lord would spring out of Judah, but the point which he was endeavouring to establish; that there must be a change of the priesthood, was rendered still more evident from another consideration. A strong proof of the necessity of such a change of the priesthood was furnished from the fact that the Messiah was to be of the tribe of Judah; but a much stronger because, as a priest, he was to be of the order of Melchizedek--that is, he was of the same rank with one who did not even belong to that tribe.

After the similitude, Resembling; that is, he was to be of the order of Melchizedek. Verse 16. Who is made. That is, the other priest is made--to wit, the Messiah. He was made a priest by a peculiar law.

Not after the law of a carnal commandment. Not according to the law of a commandment pertaining to the flesh. The word carnal means fleshly; and the idea is, that the law under which the priests of the old dispensation were made was external, rather than spiritual; it related more to outward observances than to the keeping of the heart. That this was the nature of the Mosaic ritual in the main, it was impossible to doubt, and the apostle proceeds to argue from this undeniable truth.

But after the power of an endless life. By an authority of endless duration, That is, it was not concerned mainly with outward observances, and did not pass over from one to another by death, but was unchanging in its character, and spiritual in its nature. It was enduring and perpetual as a priesthood, and was thus far exalted above the service performed by the priests under the former dispensation. Verse 17. For he testifieth. "That this is the true account of it is proved by the testimony of God himself, that he was to be a Priest for ever. Heb 5:6.

(a) "Thou art a Priest" Ps 110:4 Verse 18. For there is verily a disannulling. A setting aside. The law which existed before in regard to the priesthood becomes now abrogated, in consequence of the change which has been made in the priesthood. Heb 7:12.

Of the commandment. Relating to the office of priest, or to the ceremonial rites in general. This does not refer to the moral law, as if that was abrogated, for

(1) the reasoning of the apostle does not pertain to that, and

(2) that law cannot be abrogated. It grows out of the nature of things, and must be perpetual and universal.

Going before. Going before the Christian dispensation, and introducing it.

For the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. That is, it was not adapted to save man; it had not power to accomplish what was necessary to be done in human salvation. It answered the end for which it was designed--that of introducing a more perfect plan, and then vanished as a matter of course. It did not expiate guilt; it did not give peace to the conscience; it did not produce perfection, (Heb 7:11,) and therefore it gave place to a better system.

(b) "weakness" Acts 13:39 Verse 19. For the law made nothing perfect. The Levitical, ceremonial law. It did not produce a perfect state; it did not do what was desirable to be done for a sinner. Heb 8:11. That law, as such, did not reconcile man to God; it did not make an atonement; it did not put away guilt; in one word, it did not restore things to the condition in which they were before the law was broken and man became a sinner. If man were saved under that system--as many undoubtedly were--it was not in virtue of any intrinsic efficacy which it possessed, but in virtue of that great Sacrifice which it typified.

But the bringing in of a better hope did. Marg. "But it was." The correct rendering is, probably, "but there is the bringing in of a better hope by which we have access to God." The law could not effect this. It left the conscience guilty, and sin unexpiated. But there is now the introduction of a better system by which we can approach a reconciled God. The "better hope" here refers to the more sure and certain expectation of heaven introduced by the gospel. There is a better foundation for hope; a more certain way of obtaining the Divine favour than the law could furnish.

By the which. By which better hope; that is, by means of the ground of hope furnished by the gospel--to wit, that God is now reconciled, and that we can approach him with the assurance that he is ready to save us.

We draw nigh unto God. We have access to him. Rom 5:1; Rom 5:2.

(1) "the bringing" "but it was" (d) "which we draw" Rom 3:20