TEXT [Commentary]
3. A new priesthood (7:1-28)
1 This Melchizedek was king of the city of Salem and also a priest of God Most High. When Abraham was returning home after winning a great battle against the kings, Melchizedek met him and blessed him. 2 Then Abraham took a tenth of all he had captured in battle and gave it to Melchizedek. The name Melchizedek means “king of justice,” and king of Salem means “king of peace.” 3 There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors—no beginning or end to his life. He remains a priest forever, resembling the Son of God.
4 Consider then how great this Melchizedek was. Even Abraham, the great patriarch of Israel, recognized this by giving him a tenth of what he had taken in battle. 5 Now the law of Moses required that the priests, who are descendants of Levi, must collect a tithe from the rest of the people of Israel,[*] who are also descendants of Abraham. 6 But Melchizedek, who was not a descendant of Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham. And Melchizedek placed a blessing upon Abraham, the one who had already received the promises of God. 7 And without question, the person who has the power to give a blessing is greater than the one who is blessed.
8 The priests who collect tithes are men who die, so Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told that he lives on. 9 In addition, we might even say that these Levites—the ones who collect the tithe—paid a tithe to Melchizedek when their ancestor Abraham paid a tithe to him. 10 For although Levi wasn’t born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s body when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him.
11 So if the priesthood of Levi, on which the law was based, could have achieved the perfection God intended, why did God need to establish a different priesthood, with a priest in the order of Melchizedek instead of the order of Levi and Aaron?[*]
12 And if the priesthood is changed, the law must also be changed to permit it. 13 For the priest we are talking about belongs to a different tribe, whose members have never served at the altar as priests. 14 What I mean is, our Lord came from the tribe of Judah, and Moses never mentioned priests coming from that tribe.
15 This change has been made very clear since a different priest, who is like Melchizedek, has appeared. 16 Jesus became a priest, not by meeting the physical requirement of belonging to the tribe of Levi, but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. 17 And the psalmist pointed this out when he prophesied,
“You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”[*]
18 Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless. 19 For the law never made anything perfect. But now we have confidence in a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
20 This new system was established with a solemn oath. Aaron’s descendants became priests without such an oath, 21 but there was an oath regarding Jesus. For God said to him,
“The LORD has taken an oath and will not break his vow:
‘You are a priest forever.’”[*]
22 Because of this oath, Jesus is the one who guarantees this better covenant with God.
23 There were many priests under the old system, for death prevented them from remaining in office. 24 But because Jesus lives forever, his priesthood lasts forever. 25 Therefore he is able, once and forever, to save[*] those who come to God through him. He lives forever to intercede with God on their behalf.
26 He is the kind of high priest we need because he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin. He has been set apart from sinners and has been given the highest place of honor in heaven.[*] 27 Unlike those other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices every day. They did this for their own sins first and then for the sins of the people. But Jesus did this once for all when he offered himself as the sacrifice for the people’s sins. 28 The law appointed high priests who were limited by human weakness. But after the law was given, God appointed his Son with an oath, and his Son has been made the perfect High Priest forever.
NOTES
7:1 king of the city of Salem. The Jewish historian Josephus, not long after Hebrews was written, interpreted Gen 14:18-20 to mean that Melchizedek was the original founder of Jerusalem, “a Canaanite chief, called in the native tongue ‘Righteous King,’ for such indeed he was. In virtue thereof he was the first to officiate as priest of God and, being the first to build the temple, gave the city, previously called “Solyma,” the name of Jerusalem” (War 6.438; LCL 3.501-503; also Antiquities 1.180; LCL 4.89). Hebrews, however, makes no connection between Melchizedek and Jerusalem or “Mount Zion” (12:22), whether earthly or heavenly. Instead, “Salem” evokes for this author the Hebrew word shalom [TH7965, ZH8934], “peace” (7:2).
a great battle against the kings. The battle was against King Kedorlaomer of Elam and others, on the side of the king of Sodom and others (see Gen 14:1-12). Abraham, with his 318 servants, won the battle and rescued his nephew Lot (Gen 14:13-16). Then Abraham encountered his ally, the king of Sodom (Gen 14:17, 21-24), and with him Melchizedek, who seems to have had no part in the battle (Gen 14:18-20). Ignoring the king of Sodom altogether, the writer of Hebrews fixes attention on Melchizedek, who appears in the Genesis narrative out of nowhere and just as abruptly disappears again.
Melchizedek met him and blessed him. Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to Melchizedek’s gift of bread and wine to Abraham (Gen 14:18). Philo of Alexandria, by contrast, finds significance in the wine: “But Melchizedek shall bring forward wine instead of water, and shall give your souls to drink, and shall cheer them with unmixed wine, in order that they may be wholly occupied with a divine intoxication, more sober than sobriety itself” (Allegorical Interpretation 3.82; Yonge 1993:59).
7:2 king of justice. The Hebrew word for “king” is melek [TH4428, ZH4889], and tsedek [TH6664, ZH7406] means “just” or “righteous.” Hence, “Melchizedek” means “righteous king” or “king of justice” (see 1:8-9, where God’s Son is said to “rule with a scepter of justice” and to “love justice and hate evil”).
7:3 forever. This expression in Greek (eis to diēnekes [TG1336A, ZG1457], “in perpetuity”) means the same as a phrase used already in connection with Melchizedek in Psalm 110 (eis ton aiōna [TG165, ZG172]), translated as “forever” in 5:6 and “eternal” in 6:20. While Jewish priests were also appointed “forever” in the sense of “for life” (“death prevented them from remaining in office”; 7:23), the term has obviously acquired a deeper meaning here.
resembling the Son of God. While Melchizedek is never called “Son of God” in early Judaism, he can be viewed as a kind of archangel presiding over the court of heaven (as in the Qumran document 11QMelchizedek [11Q13]; see Vermes 1977:500-502). A possible analogy in Jewish tradition is Enoch (Gen 5:23-24), who was both a historical figure of the remote past (see 11:5-6) and an eternal heavenly being (in the later traditions of 1–3 Enoch), the vehicle of revelation about the heavenly world. The analogy is not perfect, however, because Enoch, “in the seventh generation after Adam” (Jude 1:14), obviously had a genealogy, and Melchizedek did not.
7:6 who was not a descendant of Levi. More literally, “not in their genealogy” (cf. 7:3, where “no record of . . . any of his ancestors” is literally, “without a genealogy”).
7:7 the person who has the power to give a blessing is greater than the one who is blessed. The Greek is simpler: “The lesser is blessed by the greater.”
7:8 we are told that he lives on. More specifically, “it is testified that he lives” (see 7:3). The “testimony” is that of the biblical text under discussion (Gen 14:18-20). For the verb “testify” (martureō [TG3140, ZG3455]) in relation to the words of Scripture, see 7:17; 10:15 (where it is explicitly “the Holy Spirit” testifying in Scripture); see also 11:2, 4, 5, and 39. In this instance the Scripture bears “testimony” by its silence. The point is not that we are explicitly “told” that Melchizedek lives on but that we are never told that he died.
7:10 the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s body. The same could obviously be said of Jesus, for in the flesh he too was descended from Abraham (see 2:16), but the author was wise enough not to go there. He was making a very specific point about Levi and had no interest in possible wider ramifications. He also knew that even though Jesus was descended from Abraham, he was not, like the sons of Levi, a mere mortal (see 7:16, 23-25).
when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him. Lit., “when Melchizedek met him” (as in 7:1). The reference to collecting the tithe is supplied in light of 7:6, 9.
7:11 on which the law was based. The author makes a close connection between “the law of Moses” (see 7:5) and the Levitical priesthood. The connection is seen as reciprocal: It was the law that appointed the descendants of Levi as collectors of the tithe (7:5), and yet it was “under” (epi [TG1909, ZG2093], “on the basis of”) the Levitical priesthood that the law itself was given. Probably all that is meant is that both Moses (who gave the law) and his brother Aaron were descendants of Levi.
the perfection God intended. The Greek is simply “perfection” (teleiōsis [TG5050, ZG5459]). While the writer of Hebrews has not used this noun before, he has used a closely related one in urging believers to become “mature,” or go on to “perfection” (teleiotēs [TG5047, ZG5456], 6:1). The latter refers to a quality or state of being, while the term here looks more at the process by which that state is achieved (the corresponding verb appears in 7:19, “For the law never made anything perfect”).
Levi and Aaron. The text mentions only “Aaron.” The NLT supplies “Levi” in order to show a connection with the references to Levi in the preceding verses. Aaron, himself a Levite, is the one named here because he was the first Levite specifically called to the priesthood (Exod 28:1; see note on 5:4).
7:14 our Lord. Only rarely does Hebrews have the term “the Lord” or “our Lord” to refer to Jesus, and when it does so, it is in relation either to Jesus’ earthly origins (as here), his ministry on earth (2:3), or his resurrection from the dead (13:20). Behind it, possibly, are the opening lines of Psalm 110:1 (never directly quoted in Hebrews), “the LORD said to my Lord.” But more likely it simply represents a conventional usage among Christians generally (as frequently in the Gospel narratives).
Moses never mentioned priests coming from that tribe. That is, Scripture identifies Levi and not Judah as the tribe from which all priests must come. In later traditions, the principle stated here was not always maintained. According to the Testament of Levi 8.14, “From Judah a king will arise and shall found a new priesthood in accord with the gentile model and for all nations.” This could refer to Jewish priest-kings in Maccabean times (first and second centuries BC; see Charlesworth 1983:1.791) or specifically to Jesus of Nazareth. If it refers to Jesus, it must derive from Jewish Christian communities (probably later than Hebrews) who affirmed Jesus as High Priest without recourse to Melchizedek.
7:17 And the psalmist pointed this out when he prophesied. Nothing is said of “the psalmist.” More literally, “for it is testified” (that is, in Scripture; see note on 7:8).
7:20 This new system was established with a solemn oath. No “new system” is mentioned in the text, which reads simply, “inasmuch as it was not without an oath.” The NLT infers a “new system” in light of the notice of a “better covenant” two verses later (7:22), on the assumption that this “better covenant” (which is in fact a “new system”) is in view already here.
7:22 Jesus. As elsewhere, the Greek text of Hebrews withholds the sacred name of Jesus to the end of the sentence for emphasis (see 2:9; 3:1; 4:14; 6:20).
the one who guarantees. This is just one word in Greek (enguos [TG1450, ZG1583]), which can mean a “guarantee,” “guarantor,” or “surety”—that is, one who takes responsibility for a debt or for the fulfillment of the terms of an agreement (see Sir 29:14-20).
7:27 every day. The ritual described in this verse is that of the Jewish Yom Kippur, or Day of Atonement, but this took place “only once a year” (9:7), not “every day.” There were daily sacrifices (10:11; see Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:3-8), but these were not the work of the high priest nor so far as we know were they offered first for the priest’s own sins and then for the sins of the people. “Every day” is probably just an imprecise way of saying “repeatedly,” in contrast to “once.”
But Jesus did this once for all. What is meant by “this”? Not that Jesus offered a sacrifice first for himself and then for the people but simply that he offered a sacrifice. “This” (touto [TG3778A, ZG4047]) implies a single sacrifice, “once for all” (ephapax [TG2178, ZG2384]), in contrast to sacrifices repeated every day or every year (cf. 9:12; 10:10; compare the use of the similar adverb hapax [TG530, ZG562], “once,” in 9:26-28).
COMMENTARY [Text]
Chapter 7 can be divided into three parts (7:1-10, 11-19, and 20-28), each framed by a single word or idea. The first ten verses are framed by the name “Melchizedek” (7:1, 10), the next nine by “perfection” and the inadequacy of the Jewish law to gain perfection (7:11, 19), and the last eight by references to God’s oath or vow, by which a “better covenant” and a new priesthood have come into being (7:20, 28).
Melchizedek, Abraham, and the Son of God (7:1-10).Having introduced Melchizedek three times (5:6, 10; 6:20) on the basis of a single verse in one biblical psalm (Ps 110:4), the writer of Hebrews now explores his only other appearance in the Jewish Bible (Gen 14:18-20). Who was Melchizedek? Some interpreters have viewed him merely as what he was in Genesis, “a righteous and peaceful king, a worshiper and priest of the most High God, in the land of Canaan; a friend of Abraham, and of a rank elevated above him” (Stuart 1833:578). Yet in this chapter he appears larger than life and more than human. In Greek, the first three verses of the chapter are all one sentence: “This Melchizedek . . . remains a priest forever” (7:1, 3). The sentence reinforces the notice at the end of the preceding chapter that Jesus “has become our eternal High Priest in the order of Melchizedek” (6:20).
Why “forever”? We know that Melchizedek’s priesthood was “forever” according to Psalm 110:4, and now the author wants to confirm it from Genesis. He made the most of the scanty information Genesis supplies, that Melchizedek was “king of the city of Salem and also a priest of God Most High” (7:1; see Gen 14:18). Looking closely at the text, he interpreted the Hebrew name “Melchizedek” to mean “king of justice” and the designation “king of Salem” as “king of peace” (7:2; see note). Yet his main conclusion—that Melchizedek’s priesthood is “forever”—is based not on what the text says but on what it does not say: “There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors—no beginning or end to his life” (7:3). It was obviously true that Melchizedek, unlike most of the main characters in Genesis, had no place in any biblical genealogies. He was a gentile king after all, and the genealogies of Gentiles are given only in the most general and tribal of terms (see Gen 10:1-32; 11:10-26, 27-32). As a rule, absence of a genealogy means only that no information exists about a person’s origins. But our author read far more into the silence. To him, no genealogy means no father, no mother, no ancestors. No record of this man’s birth or death implies “no beginning or end to his life” (7:3). The argument from silence yields a startling conclusion: Melchizedek was no mortal man but an eternal being. What kind of an eternal being? Hebrews assigns him no specific category as a god or an angel but defines him simply by his role or function, as “king” and “priest” (7:1). Kingship is written into his very name. The titles “king of justice” and “king of peace” identify him as a good king, a servant and representative of God. While never explicitly called an “angel,” Melchizedek serves as a prime example of those ministering “servants” or “spirits” of which we heard earlier, “sent to care for people who will inherit salvation” (1:14). Abraham has now been introduced as the prime illustration of “those who are going to inherit God’s promises because of their faith and endurance” (6:12), and what could be more natural than to accent Melchizedek’s role as Abraham’s ministering spirit or angel? If this is the case, then Melchizedek is not to be identified, as some interpreters have proposed from time to time, with the preexistent Christ. If he is an angel of some kind, he is emphatically not the Son, for the Son is superior to the angels (see commentary on 1:1-14).
According to Genesis, Melchizedek ministered to Abraham by bringing him bread and wine (Gen 14:18), but the author of Hebrews mentions neither (see note on 7:1). For an early Christian writer, this would have been the perfect opportunity to speak of the Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, but the writer of Hebrews does not take advantage of it, calling attention instead to two other facts suggesting Melchizedek’s superiority to Abraham. One is that Melchizedek “blessed” Abraham (7:1), and the other is that “Abraham took a tenth of all he had captured in battle and gave it to Melchizedek” (7:2). These he develops in verse 7 (about the blessing) and in verses 4-6 and 8-10 (about collecting the tithe). The former is the more significant, though briefer. Having made clear that God promised to bless Abraham (6:14), the author now specifies that God did so (or began to do so) through his messenger, Melchizedek. “And without question,” he concluded, “the person who has the power to give a blessing is greater than the one who is blessed” (7:7). In blessing Abraham, it appears, Melchizedek was acting as God’s representative.
The second detail, that Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek, is developed at greater length in order to show Melchizedek’s superiority not so much to Abraham as to Abraham’s descendant Levi, and therefore the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood to that of Levi. “Consider then how great this Melchizedek was,” the author begins. “Even Abraham, the great patriarch” (7:4) and “the one who had already received the promises of God” (7:6), recognized his greatness by paying him a tithe. Literally and figuratively, Abraham “paid tribute” to him. Our author compared this with the later situation under “the law of Moses,” in which the collecting of tithes was a priestly duty performed by the Levites. They, like “the rest of the people of Israel,” were descendants of Abraham, but more specifically “of Levi” (7:5), Abraham’s great-grandson and one of Jacob’s 12 sons. Levi’s descendants were Israel’s priests and as such collected tithes from the people (see Num 18:21), but in this instance, our author argues, another priest, Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” collected the tithe—even from Israel’s “patriarch,” Abraham.
There is more. Not only did Levites not collect the tithe in this case, but “we might even say,” our author claims, “that these Levites—the ones who collect the tithe—paid a tithe to Melchizedek” (7:9). In a half serious, almost playful vein, he explains that “although Levi wasn’t born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s body when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him” (7:10; see note). Behind the touch of humor is the more important point that Levi’s descendants are mortals, “men who die” (cf. 7:23), while “Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told that he lives on” (7:8). The appeal finally is to the deafening silence of Genesis about Melchizedek’s origins: no genealogy, no father or mother or ancestors, “no beginning or end to his life” (7:3). When the author writes, “we are told that he lives on,” he refers to this testimony of Scripture (see note). Melchizedek is immortal, for he “remains a priest forever.” Levi, by contrast, is mortal. In Melchizedek’s time he was not yet born, and when he was born, he had ancestors, Abraham among them. Levi was human, but Melchizedek is eternal, “resembling the Son of God” (7:3).
The latter statement is important because it reminds us that Melchizedek is modeled after “the Son of God,” not the Son of God after Melchizedek. God’s Son was introduced right at the outset as the one through whom God “created the universe,” who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God,” and who “sustains everything by the mighty power of his command” (1:2-3). Given that God’s Son was superior to all the angels (see 1:5-13) and that Melchizedek is presented as a kind of archangel or messenger of God (see note on 7:3), it is not surprising to see him defined in relation to the Son and not the other way around.
What is surprising is that in the Gospel tradition God’s Son clearly did have a human father and mother, and a detailed genealogy (see Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38), and the author of Hebrews knows this (see 7:14). What then was his point? Not that the Son of God did not become a human being but that his identity as Son is not dependent on his physical birth or human ancestry. As God’s Son, there is indeed “no beginning or end to his life,” and the same was true of Melchizedek. If it is true that the Son “became flesh and blood” in order to die (2:14) and was “made in every respect like us” in order to become “our merciful and faithful High Priest” (2:17), it is equally true that his priesthood is from all eternity. He has been God’s High Priest for as long as he has been God’s Son (see 5:5-6). His priesthood neither begins nor ends with his death on the cross. It is an eternal priesthood, a point the author will develop in more detail in the remainder of the chapter.
Perfection and the Law (7:11-19).The author used the greatness of Melchizedek and the eternal priesthood of the Son of God to emphasize the limitations of the historic Jewish priesthood in “the order of Levi and Aaron” (7:11; see note). These limitations were present from the start, and to the author they signal limitations in the law of Moses itself, for it was the priesthood “on which the law was based” (7:11; see note). The section begins with a reminder that the old priesthood failed to achieve “the perfection God intended” (7:11), and it ends with the somber verdict that “the law never made anything perfect” (7:19). The old requirement of the law that priests come from the tribe of Levi now turns out to be “weak and useless” (7:18) because Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi, and yet God long ago appointed him “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (7:17). This testimony of Scripture (Ps 110:4) brought about a change in the priesthood, and consequently, “if the priesthood is changed, the law must also be changed to permit it” (7:12).
It is not at once clear from the NLT translation whether the change in the priesthood is itself by definition a change in the law or whether it necessitates other changes in the law. But the question is moot as soon as it is recognized that the “change” is radical, amounting to nothing less than removal and replacement (see 12:27, where the same word is translated “removed”). The decisive change in the priesthood is that it is no longer based on physical descent (7:16). While this may sound like a minor change in the law on one specific point, a change at one point is in principle a change in the whole law. It is not unlike the principle laid down by James that “the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God’s laws” (Jas 2:10). Here it is not a matter of breaking the law but of changing or abolishing it. The single “change” now means that the old law as a whole was “weak and useless,” unable to make anything perfect (7:18-19; see also 9:9). The law of Moses and the Levitical priesthood are so closely intertwined throughout the latter half of Hebrews that the limitations of the priesthood render the law ineffective (see 7:5, 16, 19, 28; also 8:4; 9:19, 22; 10:1, 8). To that extent, the author of Hebrews echoes Paul in Romans and Galatians; for example, “God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:3-4, RSV).
Despite coming from the wrong tribe according to the law, Jesus is nevertheless a priest, “a different priest, who is like Melchizedek” (7:15). We have already heard that Melchizedek “remains a priest forever, resembling the Son of God” (7:3), and now we look at the equation from the other side. Because Melchizedek “resembles” the Son of God, Jesus “resembles” Melchizedek! The implication is that Jesus’ priesthood and Melchizedek’s are not two priesthoods but one. Melchizedek’s priesthood lives on forever not in and of itself but in and through the priesthood of Jesus. While the author of Hebrews stops short of asserting that Melchizedek was himself the preexistent Son of God, he emphasizes only continuity, with no discontinuity between the two. Melchizedek is in no sense a rival to Jesus, but—in a manner quite different from John the Baptist—his herald and forerunner.
Jesus, unlike Melchizedek, has a genealogy going back to Judah (see note on 7:14), but his genealogy is not what matters—at least not for priesthood. What matters is “the power of a life that cannot be destroyed” (7:16)—this author’s way of asserting the common Christian confession, “Christ is risen!” But Jesus’ “life that cannot be destroyed” rests on far more than an analogy with an obscure Old Testament character who had no genealogy (7:3). At the end of the day, Jesus’ status as High Priest rests on his victory over death (2:14; 5:7) and his exaltation to God’s right hand (1:13). It is no accident that Melchizedek is never mentioned by name again in Hebrews after 7:17, where we hear once again the biblical testimony, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.” By this time Melchizedek has served his purpose, which is to show the limitations of the Levitical priesthood and, consequently, of the Mosaic law. Negatively, the conclusion of the argument is that “the law never made anything perfect,” and positively, that “now we have confidence in a better hope, through which we draw near to God” (7:19). We will hear more of this “better hope” in the section to follow and in the chapters to come.
The Oath of God (7:20-28).The last third of the chapter is framed by references to the solemn oath validating Jesus’ appointment as High Priest. The author emphasizes that Jesus’ priesthood “was established with a solemn oath,” citing Psalm 110:4 yet again, this time without naming Melchizedek but with the psalmist’s introductory words, “The LORD has taken an oath and will not break his vow” (7:21). Divine oaths or vows are, as we have seen, important to this author, and this is the third such oath mentioned in Hebrews (see 3:11; 4:3; 6:13-17). The author differentiates Jesus from the Levitical priests by noting that “Aaron’s descendants became priests without such an oath, but there was an oath regarding Jesus” (7:20-21). By this oath Jesus became the guarantor, or the surety (enguos [TG1450, ZG1583]), of a “better covenant with God” (7:22; see note). The Jewish writer Ben Sirach had earlier praised those who stand as “guarantor” or “surety” for the obligations of others, and at the same time warned his readers of the risks of doing so. “A good man will be surety for his neighbor,” he wrote, “but a man who has lost his sense of shame will fail him. Do not forget all the kindness of your surety, for he has given his life for you” (Sir 29:14-15, RSV). At the same time he warned, “Being surety has ruined many men who were prosperous, and has shaken them like a wave of the sea” (Sir 29:18, RSV).
Charles Wesley once wrote of Jesus as our surety: “Before the throne my surety stands. My name is written on his hands.” To the author of Hebrews as well, Jesus’ eternal priesthood guarantees our salvation, or more specifically, a “better covenant with God” (7:22). The word “covenant” (diathēkē [TG1242, ZG1347]) occurs here for the first time in Hebrews. A covenant is a religious system involving a treaty or agreement between two parties, in this case two unequal parties: God and Israel in one instance, and God and the Christian community in the other. From here on the author will speak repeatedly of two covenants, the “old” and the “new” (see 8:6, 8-10; 9:4, 15-17; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20). Already here, the phrase “better covenant” (as in 8:6) implies a preceding covenant which was not so good. The author’s only term so far for that inferior covenant is “the law” (see 7:5, 12, 16, 19), and he has already contrasted that old “law” with “a better hope, through which we draw near to God” (7:19). “Better hope” is now defined as a “better covenant.” The key word is “better,” and the author’s purpose is to show the limitations of the old system (above all, the Mosaic law) and the superiority of the new.
In this connection, he also points out that the priests under the old system were mortal, “limited by human weakness” (7:28), and in good Pauline fashion he links their mortality to their sinfulness. He has spoken of their weakness before, but more as a virtue than a vice, emphasizing the similarities between Jesus’ priesthood and theirs (see 5:1-5). A Levitical priest, he has said, “is able to deal gently with . . . people because he himself is subject to the same weaknesses” (5:2). Like them, Jesus too “understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin” (4:15). Here the emphasis is quite different. While it is still true that Jesus “understands our weaknesses,” the more important point is that “he did not sin.” The Levitical priests did sin (7:27; see 5:3), and consequently “death prevented them from remaining in office” (7:23). Jesus, by contrast, “lives forever” (7:24-25), and his priesthood “lasts forever” (7:17, 21, 24). As High Priest, “he is able, once and forever, to save those who come to God through him” and “to intercede with God on their behalf” (7:25). None of this was true of the Levitical priests. Consequently, unlike them (see 5:3), Jesus “does not need to offer sacrifices every day,” first for himself and then for others. Rather, his sacrifice is himself, and therefore necessarily once for all, for he can hardly die twice (7:27; see 9:27). For this reason, Jesus is “the kind of high priest we need,” for he is “holy and blameless, unstained by sin, . . . set apart from sinners . . . given the highest place of honor in heaven” (7:26).
Rhetorically and stylistically, this sudden rhapsody of praise to the exalted Jesus near the chapter’s end corresponds to the author’s opening characterization of Melchizedek as one with “no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors—no beginning or end to his life” (7:3), forming an almost-matched pair. Melchizedek was great, but Jesus is immeasurably greater. Although the chapter is widely remembered as the “Melchizedek” chapter in Hebrews, only the first ten verses are really about Melchizedek. His sole function is to put the old Levitical priesthood in perspective, heralding a new priesthood and with it a new covenant in the person of Jesus. Once he has served his purpose, we hear nothing more of him. He disappears from the text of Hebrews just as suddenly as he disappeared from the text of Genesis.
As the chapter ends, the author again reminds us that “the law appointed high priests who were limited by human weakness,” in contrast to one who by God’s oath has now “been made the perfect High Priest forever” (7:28). This verse serves a double function, framing and concluding (as we have seen) the subject of the oath in verses 20-28, but at the same time framing and concluding the subject of “perfection,” and how it is (or is not) attained, in verses 11-28 as a whole. Missing in the whole argument is any explicit claim that Jesus is simultaneously both King and Priest, as Melchizedek was. The claim is present, but we must read between the lines in order to find it. The reader has learned to see Jesus in the royal psalms of the Greek Bible and knows that he has a “throne,” or kingdom. Like Melchizedek he is a “king of justice” (see 7:2), for he rules “with a scepter of justice” (1:8). Because this King loves justice and hates evil, God has anointed him, “pouring out the oil of joy . . . more than on anyone else” (1:9).
More specifically, the reader knows that the one said to be “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4) is in fact the same one to whom God said, “Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet” (Ps 110:1; see 1:13). In the present chapter the author reminds us that “our Lord came from the tribe of Judah, and Moses never mentioned priests coming from that tribe” (7:14). We are expected to know that what Moses did mention in connection with Judah was kingship and the hope of an anointed King (the “Messiah” or “Christ”) from David’s line (see Gen 49:8-10; cf. Rev 5:5). Filling in the gaps, we are able to conclude that Jesus is both High Priest and King. But in Hebrews, as in Psalm 110, his kingship is a given, and therefore the emphasis falls rather on his priesthood.