<- Previous   First   Next ->

while they have been made priests many in number, because they are hindered by death from abiding with men, 24 He, because He abideth for ever, hath His priesthood inviolable. 25 Whence also He is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God through Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Heb. 7:11-14. The Levitical priesthood and the Law, which it represented, were alike transitional and transitory.

It is assumed that the object of the Law was to bring or to prepare for bringing the people to ‘perfection’: divine legislation can have no other end. The priesthood, on which the Law rested, embodied its ruling idea. And conversely in the Law as a complete system we can see the aim of the priesthood. The priesthood therefore was designed to assist in bringing about this ‘perfection.’

If then there had been a bringing to perfection through the Levitical priesthood—if in other words there had been a bringing to perfection through the Law—there would have been no need of another priesthood. If on the other hand the whole Law failed to accomplish that to which it pointed, then so far also the priesthood failed. Such a failure, not a failure but the fulfilment of the divine purpose, was indicated by the promise of another priesthood in a new line.

7:11. eij me;n ou\n ... h\n ... tiv" e[ti creiva ... levgesqai ;] Now if there had been a bringing to perfection...what further need would there have been...? Vulg. Si ergo consummatio...erat...quid adhuc necessarium...? The argument starts from the line of thought just laid down. Before the Levitical priesthood was organised another type of priesthood had been foreshewn. But if the utmost object of a priesthood—of a divine provision for man's progress to his true goal—had been capable of attainment under the Mosaic order, what need would there have been that another priest should arise and that this new priest should be styled after a different order? Experience however proved its necessity. The Levitical priesthood was, and was proved to be, only provisional. It could not effect that to which it pointed. This conviction was expressed by the Psalmist when he recalled the earlier type.

The conditional form ( eij ... h\n ... tiv" e[ti creiva ...;) may be rendered either ‘if there had been (which was not the case) what further need would there have been (as in fact there was)?’ or ‘if there were (as is not the case) what further need would there be (as there is)?’ The former suits the context best. Comp. Heb. 4:8 Additional Note.

For the use of me;n ou\n without any dev afterwards, see Heb. 8:4; Acts 1:6; 2:41; 13:4; 1 Cor. 6:4, 7; Phil. 3:8.
dia; th'" Leueitikh'" iJer. ] The word Leueitikov" appears to have been formed by the writer. It is not found in the LXX. nor is it quoted from Josephus, Philo or the Apostolic fathers. The use of this title (as distinguished from ‘Aaronic’: kata; th;n tavxin jAarwvn ) illustrates the desire of the writer to regard the priesthood as the concentration (so to speak) of the hallowing of the tribe (Heb. 7:5 note).

The word iJerwsuvnh occurs in the N.T. only in this chapter (vv. 12, 24 [14 iJerevwn ]). It is rare in the LXX. and found there only in the later books. As distinguished from iJerativa ( -eiva ) (7:5 note) it expresses the abstract notion of the priestly office, as distinguished from the priestly service. The words are not distinguished in the Versions.


<- Previous   First   Next ->