Hebrews 7
Jesus As The Superior High Priest of The Order of Melchizedek
In Hebrews 5:10-11, the apostle had introduced the name of Melchizedek, and said that Christ was made a 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. - Albert Barnes
Christ belongs to the priestly order of Melchizedek, a priesthood that existed before, and is far higher than that of Aaron. (For the background concerning Melchizedek see Genesis 14:17-24 and Psalms 110:4.) Melchizedek was both a priest and a king, a combination not allowed in the Aaronic priesthood. In the Levitical order, people kept strict records of ancestry, birth and death, to confirm a person’s right to be a priest (cf. Ezra 2:62-63; Nehemiah 7:63-65), but no such records exist for Melchizedek. They are not necessary, because his priesthood is not limited by time or Levitical laws. This is clearly seen in Abraham’s acknowledgment of Melchizedek as the representative of the Most High God long before the Levitical law was given. In all these things, the priesthood of Melchizedek foreshadowed that of Christ. - Don Fleming
These Christians from a Jewish background were interested in Jesus as their High Priest, but had a significant intellectual objection to the idea. This is because Jesus did not come from the priestly tribe (the tribe of Levi) or the priestly family in that tribe (the family of Aaron). The writer to the Hebrews wanted to remove these intellectual problems the Jewish Christians had with the gospel. - David Guzik
Here begins the longest single expository passage in the epistle. Its very length suggests its importance. Its theme is the core theme of Hebrews. The real resource of the readership, in the midst of their pressures, is the high priesthood of Christ. They must realize the greatness of that priesthood, its superiority to the Levitical institutions, and the perfect access they have to it on the basis of Christ’s death. - Zane Hodges
In Hebrews 7, the writer argued that Christ’s priesthood, like Melchizedek’s, is superior in its order. In Hebrews 8, the emphasis is on Christ’s better covenant; in Hebrews 9, it is His better sanctuary; and Hebrews 10 concludes the section by arguing for Christ’s better sacrifice. - W. Wiersbe
Who Was Melchizedek?
King of Salem
Vs. 1 - For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, met Abraham and blessed him as he returned from defeating the kings
Melchizadek is mentioned in Genesis 14, Psalm 110, and the book of Hebrews. Some commentators note that his name was likely a title, like Pharaoh, rather than an actual name.
Melchizedek was “the king of Salem” (Hebrews 7:1). This means that he was actually the king of Jerusalem: Salem would become Jerusalem. But he was also the “priest of the Most High God.” Melchizedek was both king and priest at the same time. No other figure in the Bible ever held both offices—until Jesus. - Michael Kruger
It was not uncommon for one individual to combine the roles of priest and king in antiquity. [Note: Morris.] Aaron was also the head of a priestly order. The writer explained that Jesus Christ was a member of Melchizedek’s order, not Aaron’s (Hebrews 6:20). Melchizedek was a prototype of Jesus Christ in two respects. He was both a king and a priest, and what characterized him was righteousness and peace. - Thomas Constable
Vs. 3 - Without father, mother, or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God
Some scholars have concluded Abraham's encounter with Melchizadek was a theophany, an early appearance of God the Son Himself. However, most commentators explain this obscure priest-king of Salem as an example of a unique pre-Mosaic law priesthood.
It seems that Melchizedek was a real human, and thus would have had a real father and mother. But the way that Melchizedek is presented in Scripture makes it seem that he pops in and pops out without a beginning or an end. He shows up on the scene out of nowhere and then disappears. We are not told anything about his parents nor where he comes from. So, he seems eternal. Therefore, he is a very effective type of Christ: “resembling the Son of God.” - Michael Kruger
Melchizedek is introduced into the story of Abraham, as a ‘priest of God most high’, but without any mention being made of where he got his priesthood from, more particularly of whether he obtained it by inheritance from his family. Nor is there any mention of his priesthood starting or finishing with birth or death. It is as though, in the story, he is just there, as something of a permanent fixture. - N.T. Wright
Abraham’s Tithe
Vs. 2 - Abraham gave him a tenth of everything.
Vs. 4 - Now consider how great this man was: even Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the plunder to him.
Genesis 14 records the account of Abraham rescuing Lot from capture after his city was attacked by multiple military groups. When he returned from pursuit and victory, the king of Sodom and the king of Salem, Melchizedek, came out to meet with Abraham. Melchizedek blessed “the patriarch” before Abraham gave him ten percent of the spoils of battle. This was the first and last time Moses included Melchizedek in any Torah account.
Vs. 9-10 - And in a sense Levi himself, who receives a tenth, has paid a tenth through Abraham, for he was still within his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
When we think of priests in the Bible, we are generally thinking of the Levitical priesthood. Levites were the descendants of Levi, one of Jacob’s twelve sons. When the Israelites had conquered the promised land, the Levites were not given a portion of the land like the other tribes. Instead their job was to work in the temple—handling all the details and logistics of temple life. A subset of the Levites—those who were descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses—could become priests. But our passage introduces another priesthood: one in the order of Melchizedek, who lived long before Levi and Aaron. And our author is going to make a very simple argument: Melchizedek’s priestly order is greater than the Levitical priesthood. - Michael Kruger
The descendants of Abraham paid tithes to their priests, the sons of Levi, but Abraham himself paid tithes to Melchizedek. The writer was really contrasting Aaron and Melchizedek more than Abraham and Melchizedek in this section. The writer implied that the one to whom Abraham paid tithes (Melchizedek) was superior to the one to whom Abraham’s descendants paid tithes (the Levitical priests). - Thomas Constable
Why Was Jesus Compared to Melchizedek?
Vs. 11 - Now if perfection came through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to appear, said to be according to the order of Melchizedek and not according to the order of Aaron?
The author posed the rhetorical question: If God had already established a priesthood, why was there a need for another priest to come? The answer: Jesus, the great high priest, the One every other priest pictured, was superior. Every member of the Aaronic order, along with every act of obedience and ritual of worship, had culminated in Jesus’ ministry and sacrifice. He fulfilled all that they figured.
This verse highlights a central theme in the book of Hebrews, one which will be revisited again in the next three chapters: namely, that the old-covenant infrastructure was inadequate and temporary and would soon be replaced by a “better” covenant (7:22). This doesn’t mean, of course, that the old covenant was sinful or wrong. No, it was simply provisional, pointing forward to the One who would ultimately achieve redemption for us: Jesus Christ. - Michael Kruger
A Better Covenant
Vs. 12 - For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of law as well.
Vs. 18-19 - So the previous command is annulled because it was weak and unprofitable (for the law perfected nothing), but a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Vs. 22 - Jesus has also become the guarantee of a better covenant.
Since the old priesthood was the heart of the Old Covenant, and God terminated both of them, a new priesthood must accompany the New Covenant that is superior to the Old Covenant. Since the new Priest has come, so must the New Covenant have come. This is the first mention in the epistle of the word "covenant" that will play a major role in the writer’s argument to follow. - Thomas Constable
Hebrews develops the theme of the new covenant more fully than any other NT writer, the epistle accounting for just over half the occurrences of diatheke ["covenant] in the NT. - Ellingworth
The argument of Hebrews 7:11-19 constitutes a bold, and even radical, declaration by the writer. This section asserts unequivocally that the death and resurrection of Jesus has introduced a new and permanent priesthood that brings the Levitical priesthood to an end and, with it, the demise of the law of Moses. It is important to note in Hebrews 7:11-12 that the law was originally given to support the priesthood, not the other way around. The priesthood and the tabernacle with its sacrifices were the means God employed to render the sinful people acceptable to himself. They constituted the shadow of Jesus in the Old Testament. Then the law was given with its sharp demands to awaken the people to their true condition so that they might avail themselves of the sacrifices. This agrees fully with Paul’s statement in Romans 5:20 and Galatians 3:19-23 that the law was a teacher to lead to Christ (represented in Israel by the tabernacle and its priesthood). To suggest that either of these venerable institutions (the priesthood and the law) were inadequate and needed change was to assault Judaism in its most sacred and revered precincts. But that this was the teaching of Christians from the beginning is seen in the savage charges hurled at Stephen, and later Paul, when they engaged certain Jewish leaders in religious dialog. See, for instance, Acts 6:14, where Stephen’s opponents testified, “We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place [the temple] and change the customs Moses handed down to us. - Ray Stedman
This truth was extremely important for Jews to hear. It was important for believing Jews, as assurance that they were now totally secure in Jesus Christ, that their break with Judaism and its rituals and repeated sacrifices was justified. They had no reason to look back longingly at the forms and ceremonies and symbols-as meaningful and significant as these once were. They no longer needed a picture of salvation, for they had the reality of the Savior. But in the argument of Heb 7, the truth is even more important for Jews who had not yet come all the way to Christ. It shows them that the Levitical priesthood could not bring men to perfection, to God. It was never intended to do so. As long as they held onto the priestly ceremonies & relied on animal sacrifices, they would never be free of sin, and they would never have access to God. - F.F. Bruce
A Different Tribe
Vs. 14-16 - Now it is evident that our Lord came from Judah, and Moses said nothing about that tribe concerning priests. And this becomes clearer if another priest like Melchizedek appears, who did not become a priest based on a legal regulation about physical descent but based on the power of an indestructible life.
One of the main objections the author addressed in this section was the obvious dilemma of Jesus’ tribal lineage. Tribal identity was crucial to the Jew, and it was no small matter that Jesus was born into the tribe of kings and not into the tribe of priests. In linking Jesus’ priestly appointment to Melchizedek via Psalm 110, the author sought to assure the Hebrews that God had already planned and promised that the Levitical priesthood would culminate in the Messiah as perfect and eternal priest and king.
If Christ is our high priest today, then there has to be a change in the law, since He could not qualify as a priest under the Levitical arrangement (being of the tribe of Judah). If the law has not been done away today, then neither has the Levitical priesthood; but if Christ is our high priest, we cannot be under the law. Every prayer offered in the name of Christ is an affirmation of the end of the law. - Charles C. Ryrie
A Better Priest
The priesthood of Aaron and his successors was intended to be temporary. God did not confirm the priests of old in their offices, because He held in reserve the right to set them aside when He pleased. He from the first intended that their functions should be abolished when the fullness of time should come for another and better priest to take their place. They were candles for the darkness, but the sun was to rise, and then they would not be needed. They were pictorial representations, but when the substance was come they would not be required. He allowed their priesthood to be one of imperfect men, because He intended, by-and-by, to supersede it by a perfect and enduring priesthood; hence, no oath of God attended the ordination of the sons of Aaron. - Charles Spurgeon
Appointed
Vs. 15-17 - another priest like Melchizedek appears, who did not become a priest based on a legal regulation about physical descent but based on the power of an indestructible life. For it has been testified: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
Vs. 20-21 - For others became priests without an oath, but he became a priest with an oath made by the one who said to him: The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever.”
The author returned to Psalm 110:4 here to make the same argument he had begun in chapter 5 that Jesus was appointed by God the Father to His office of high priest.
Out of all the verses in the Hebrew Bible, the most frequently quoted in the New Testament is Psalm 110:1. But that’s not all. Verse 4 of the same psalm gets almost an entire chapter’s worth of commentary (Heb. 7:11–28). Clearly, the apostles and prophets saw this messianic psalm as highly significant for their understanding of Jesus. - Justin Dillehay
Once again, therefore, the very striking fact of God swearing an oath to confirm something is brought forward as part of the letter’s assurance to its readers. Verses 20–21 draw attention to the fact that Psalm 110 reports God swearing an oath that the Messiah, the coming king, will indeed be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not for a while only but for ever. - N.T. Wright
Eternal
Vs. 17, 21 - You are a priest forever
Vs. 23-24 - Now many have become Levitical priests, since they are prevented by death from remaining in office. But because he remains forever, he holds his priesthood permanently.
The point of the present passage is that the long list of Levitical priests who ministered, both in the original wilderness tabernacle and then in the Temple in Jerusalem, was like that list of clergy who served a particular church. They all held office for a while and eventually they died. There had to be plenty of them, from generation to generation. But Jesus, by sharp contrast, ‘continues as a priest for ever’. Once you reach him, the list comes to a stop. No more are needed. - N.T. Wright
Sinless
Vs. 26-27 - For this is the kind of high priest we need: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He doesn’t need to offer sacrifices every day, as high priests do—first for their own sins, then for those of the people.
In Israel’s daily sacrifices, the priest had to offer a sacrifice for his own sins before he could offer one for the sins of others (Exodus 29:38-46; Leviticus 4:3-12). Also on the Day of Atonement the high priest would offer a sin offering for expiation for himself and then another one for the sins of the people (Leviticus 16:6-10). Jesus Christ does not need to offer up periodic sacrifices to atone for sin either for His own sins or for those of His people. His one sacrifice of both worship and expiation on the cross completely satisfied God. No subsequent sacrifices are necessary for that purpose. The writer proceeded to develop this thought more fully in Hebrews 9:11-14 and Hebrews 10:1-15, after introducing it initially here. - Thomas Constable
Jesus did not have to offer sacrifices “for his own sins” (v 27) as the Old Testament priests did. And more importantly, Jesus’ perfect, sinless life allowed him to do something unthinkable—something no other priest would have ever dreamed of doing: he “offered up himself.”
With such a Savior available to us, why turn to anything else? Whatever we are tempted to trust in today other than Jesus, the book of Hebrews bids us to let it go. Only Jesus is sufficient to save. - Michael Kruger
The great and overarching point of this text at the end of chapter 7 and the beginning of chapter 8 is that we have a great High Priest, Jesus Christ, who came into the world as the Son of God, lived a sinless life, offered himself as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of his people, rose to everlasting life at the right hand of the majesty of God, and there loves us and prays for us and bids us draw near to God through him. He did not come to fit into the old system of priestly sacrifices. He came to fulfill them and end them. He is the reality; they were the shadow and the copy of the reality. When the reality comes, the shadow passes away. - John Piper
