<- Previous   First   Next ->

The incapacity of the Levitical priesthood to bring to perfection was shewn, as has been seen, by the fact that the promise of another priesthood was made while it was still in full activity (7:11-14). The conclusion is established still more obviously from the consideration that this promised priesthood was after a wholly different type, not legal but spiritual, not sacerdotal only, but royal, not transitory but eternal.

7:15. kai; perissovteron e[ti katavd. ...] And what we say is yet more
abundantly evident
... Vulg. Et amplius adhuc manifestum est ...Doubt has been felt as to the exact reference of this statement. Is it the abrogation of the Law which is more abundantly proved by the language of the Psalm? or the inefficacy of the Levitical priesthood? Both conclusions follow from the special description of the new priesthood. But the thought of the abrogation of the Law is really secondary. This is involved in the inefficacy of the priesthood which is the dominant thought in connexion with Christ's work. Hence the new proof is directed to the former main argument.

This is the view given in the main by patristic commentators: tiv ejstin katavdhlon ; to; mevson th'" iJerwsuvnh" eJkatevra", to; diavforon, o{son kreivttwn o}" ouj kata; novmon ejntolh'" sarkikh'" gevgone (Chrys.).
h] o{ti to; ejnallaghvsesqai kai; th;n iJerwsuvnhn kai; th;n diaqhvkhn (Theophlct.).
amplius manifestum est ...subaudi destructum esse sacerdotium legis (Primas.).
katavdhlon ] The word occurs here only in the N. T. and it is not found in LXX. (Hdt. Xen. Jos.). Compare for the force of kata;, kateivdwlo" (Acts 17:16), katafilei'n .
eij kata; th;n oJmoiov. M. ] if , as may be most certainly laid down on the authority of Scripture, it is after the likeness of Melchizedek another priest ariseth , if this is to be the pattern of the new priesthood. Rom. 8:31 & ch. John 7:23 & c.

The idea of ‘order’ is specialised into that of likeness. Melchizedek furnishes, so to speak, the personal as well as the official type of the new High-priest. This ‘likeness’ brings out more clearly than before the difference between the new and the old priesthood.

For the use of eij , where the truth of the supposition is assumed, see Rom. 8:31; John 7:23 & c.

JOmoiovth" occurs again in Heb. 4:15. The word is classical and is found in Gen. 1:11 f.; Wisd. 14:19.
ajnivstatai ] Heb. 7:11. The present describes the certain fulfilment of the divine purpose, which has indeed become a fact (v. 16, gevgonen ). Comp. Matt. 2:4; 26:2.
iJereu;" e{tero" ] Heb. 7:11, i.e. Christ fulfilling the promise of the Psalm. Theodoret remarks (on v. 3) that while Melchizedek was only a type of Christ's Person and Nature, the Priesthood of Christ was after the fashion of Melchizedek. For the office of priest is the office of a man.

7:16. o{" ... gevgonen ... ajkataluvtou ] who hath become priest not after a law expressed in a commandment of flesh, but after the power of an indissoluble life. There is a double contrast between ‘law’ and ‘power,’ and between the ‘commandment of flesh’ and the ‘indissoluble life.’ The ‘law’ is an outward restraint: the ‘power’ is an inward force. The ‘commandment of flesh’


<- Previous   First   Next ->