11 Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
If therefore perfection, or, moreover if perfection, [1] etc. From the same testimony the Apostle concludes, that the old covenant was abrogated by the coming of Christ. He has hitherto spoken of the office and person of the priest; but as God had instituted a priesthood for the purpose of ratifying the Law, the former being abolished, the latter necessarily ceases. That this may be better understood, we must bear in mind the general truth, -- That no covenant between God and man is in force and ratified, except it rests on a priesthood. Hence the Apostle says, that the Law was introduced among the ancient people under the Levitical priesthood; by which he intimates, that it not only prevailed during the time of the Law, but that it was instituted, as we have said for the sake of confirming the Law. He now reasons thus, If the ministry of the Church was perfect under the order of Aaron, why was it necessary to return to another order? For in perfection nothing can be changed. It then follows, that the ministry of the Law was not perfect, for that new order was to be introduced of which David speaks. [2] For under it the people received the Law, etc. This parenthesis is inserted in order that we may know that the Law was annexed to the priesthood. The Apostle had in view to prove that in the Law of Moses there was no ultimate end at which we ought to stop. This he proves by the abrogation of the priesthoods and in this way: Had the authority of the ancient priesthood been such as to be sufficient fully to establish the Law, God would have never introduced in its place another and a different priesthood. Now, as some might doubt whether the abolition of the Law followed the abolition of the priesthood, he says that the Law was not only brought in under it, but that it was also by it established. [3]
1 - The particles Ei men oun, are rendered by Elsner, "but if," -- by Doddridge, "now if," -- by Stuart, "moreover if," and by Macknight, "moreover, if indeed;" and all these consider that there is here a commencement from what has preceded. -- Ed
2 - "Perfection," or completion, rather than consummation is no doubt the best word teleiosis. To render it "perfect expiation," as Schleusner does, is not to render the word, but to explain it. The imperfection of the Levitical priesthood was doubtless its capacity really to make an atonement for sin, as its work was ceremonial and typical: but it was enough for the present purpose merely to say that it was not perfect, as it failed to answer the great end of establishing a priesthood. And the Apostle grounds its deficiency, or imperfect character, on the fact that a priest of another order had been promised. This was an argument which the Jews could not resist, as it was founded on the Scriptures, which they themselves acknowledged as divine. -- Ed
3 - See [27]Appendix Z.
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; compare Hebrews 7:19, Hebrews 7:23-24; Hebrews 10:1-4.
For under it the people received the law - This assertion seems necessary in order to establish the point maintained in Hebrews 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 priest 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 - "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" Psalm 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.
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood - The word τελειωσις, as we have before seen, signifies the completing or finishing of any thing, so as to leave nothing imperfect, and nothing wanting. Applied here to the Levitical priesthood, it signifies the accomplishment of that for which a priesthood is established, viz.: giving the Deity an acceptable service, enlightening and instructing the people, pardoning all offenses, purging the conscience from guilt, purifying the soul and preparing it for heaven, and regulating the conduct of the people according to the precepts of the moral law. This perfection never came, and never could come, by the Levitical law; it was the shadow of good things to come, but was not the substance. It represented a perfect system, but was imperfect in itself. It showed that there was guilt, and that there was an absolute need for a sacrificial offering to atone for sin, and it typified that sacrifice; but every sacrificial act under that law most forcibly proved that it was impossible for the blood of Bulls and Goats to take away sin.
For under it the people received the law - That is, as most interpret this place, under the priesthood, ἱερωσυνῃ being understood; because, on the priesthood the whole Mosaical law and the Jewish economy depended: but it is much better to understand επ' αυτῃ on account of it, instead of under it; for it is a positive fact that the law was given before any priesthood was established, for Aaron and his sons were not called nor separated to this office till Moses came down the second time from the mount with the tables renewed, after that he had broken them, Exodus 40:12-14. But it was in reference to the great sacrificial system that the law was given, and on that law the priesthood was established; for, why was a priesthood necessary, but because that law was broken and must be fulfilled?
That another priest should rise - The law was given that the offense might abound, and sin appear exceeding sinful; and to show the absolute necessity of the sacrifice and mediation of the great Messiah, but it was neither perfect in itself, nor could it confer perfection, nor did it contain the original priesthood. Melchisedec had a priesthood more than four hundred years (422) before the law was given; and David prophesied, Psalm 110:4, that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, nearly five hundred years (476) after the law was given. The law, therefore, did not contain the original priesthood; this existed typically in Melchisedec, and really in Jesus Christ.
(5) If therefore (d) perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
(5) The third treatise of this Epistle, in which after he has proved Christ to be a King, Prophet and a Priest, he now handles distinctly the condition and excellency of all these offices, showing that all these were shadows, but in Christ they are true and perfect. He begins with the priesthood that the former treatise ended with, that by this means all the parts of the debate may better hold together. First of all he proves that the Levitical priesthood was imperfect because another priest is promised later according to an other order, that is, of another rule and fashion.
(d) If the priesthood of Levi could have made any man perfect.
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,.... The priesthood which was established in the tribe of Levi; so called, to distinguish it from that which was before this institution, from the times of Adam, as well as from the priesthood of Melchizedek, and from the priesthood of Christ, and from that of his people under the Gospel, who are all priests; as well as to restrain it to the subject of the apostle's discourse: the design of which is to show, that there is no perfection by it; as is clear from the priests themselves, who were but men, mortal men, sinful men, and so imperfect, and consequently their priesthood; and from their offerings, between which, and sin, there is no proportion; and at best were but typical of the sacrifice of Christ; and could neither make the priests nor the worshippers perfect, neither in their own consciences, nor in the sight of God: moral actions are preferred before them, and yet by these there is no perfection, justification, and salvation; to which may be added, that the sacrifices the priests offered did not extend to all kind of sins, only to sins of ignorance, not to presumptuous ones; and there were many under that dispensation punished with death; and at most they only delivered from temporal, not eternal punishment, and only entitled to a temporal life, not an eternal one.
For under it the people received the law: not the moral law, which was given to Adam in innocence, and as it came by Moses, it was before the Levitical priesthood took place; but the ceremonial law, and which was carnal, mutable, and made nothing perfect: the Syriac version renders it, "by which a law was imposed upon the people"; to regard the office of priesthood, and the priests in it, and bring their sacrifices to them; and the Arabic version reads, "the law of a the priest's office"; which office was after the law of a carnal commandment, and so imperfect, as is manifest from what follows: for had perfection been by it,
what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? that there was another priest promised and expected, and that he should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and who was to make his soul an offering for sin, is certain, Ezra 2:63 and such an one is risen, even Jesus of Nazareth; and yet there would have been no need of him, and especially that he should be of a different order from Aaron's, had there been perfection by the Levitical priesthood.
The priesthood and law by which perfection could not come, are done away; a Priest is risen, and a dispensation now set up, by which true believers may be made perfect. That there is such a change is plain. The law which made the Levitical priesthood, showed that the priests were frail, dying creatures, not able to save their own lives, much less could they save the souls of those who came to them. But the High Priest of our profession holds his office by the power of endless life in himself; not only to keep himself alive, but to give spiritual and eternal life to all who rely upon his sacrifice and intercession. The better covenant, of which Jesus was the Surety, is not here contrasted with the covenant of works, by which every transgressor is shut up under the curse. It is distinguished from the Sinai covenant with Israel, and the legal dispensation under which the church so long remained. The better covenant brought the church and every believer into clearer light, more perfect liberty, and more abundant privileges. In the order of Aaron there was a multitude of priests, of high priests one after another; but in the priesthood of Christ there is only one and the same. This is the believer's safety and happiness, that this everlasting High Priest is able to save to the uttermost, in all times, in all cases. Surely then it becomes us to desire a spirituality and holiness, as much beyond those of the Old Testament believers, as our advantages exceed theirs.
perfection--absolute: "the bringing of man to his highest state, namely, that of salvation and sanctification."
under it--The reading in the oldest manuscripts is, "Upon it (that is, on the ground of it as the basis, the priest having to administer the law, Malachi 2:7 : it being presupposed) the people (Hebrews 9:19, 'all the people') have received the law (the Greek is perfect, not aorist tense; implying the people were still observing the law)."
what further need-- (Hebrews 8:7). For God does nothing needless.
another--rather as Greek, "that a different priest (one of a different order) should arise (anew, Hebrews 7:15).
not be called--Greek, "not be said (to be) after the order of Aaron," that is, that, when spoken of in the Psalm 110:4, "He is not said to be (as we should expect, if the Aaronic priesthood was perfect) after the order of Aaron."
The superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek to that of Aaron in dignity having been shown, the imperfection of the latter is next pointed out.
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood. If it effected the complete pardon of sins and made men holy.
What further need was there, etc. If it gave all needful spiritual blessings there would be no need of another priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood would have been continued on forever. But a change of the priesthood has been predicted, as will soon be shown.
For the priesthood being changed. The law as given "under the Levitical priesthood" (Hebrews 7:11), and was all grouped around the priesthood as its very center. Of course, if the priesthood was changed the law of the old priesthood, the law of Moses, must go with it, and give place to a new law.
For he of whom these things are spoken. Of whom an unchangeable priesthood is predicted.
Pertaineth to another tribe. All the priests of the Jewish dispensation had been of the tribe of Levi, but Christ was not of this tribe.
Our Lord sprang from Judah. In the genealogies as given by Matthew and Luke. The Messiah was to be the son of David.
It is yet far more evident. Still more clear than that the new High Priest should be of the tribe of Judah. That could be shown by an argument, because it was affirmed (1) that the Christ was to be the Son of David; (2) David was of Judah; (3) The Christ was to be a priest. On the other hand, without argument, is the clear affirmation that there was to be a new priesthood, a priest after the likeness of Melchizedec.
Who is made, etc. The Levitical priesthood based their claims on a a carnal commandment, a fleshly claim, that of hereditary right. Eleazer succeeded Aaron because he was his son, and so each high priest.
The power of an endless life. The claim of the great high priest is not fleshly descent, but that he lives forever. He demonstrated his title to the office by rising from the dead. He was exalted to the kingly priesthood when he arose from the dead (Ephesians 1:20).
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. See Psalm 110:4. This declares that the Christ shall be a priest, a priest forever, a priest not of the order of Aaron, but of Melchizedek; a priest-king whose office abideth continually.
The apostle now demonstrates that the Levitical priesthood must yield to the priesthood of Christ, because Melchisedec, after whose order he is a priest, Is opposed to Aaron, Hebrews 7:11-14. Hath no end of life, Hebrews 7:15-19, but "remaineth a priest continually." If now perfection were by the Levitical priesthood - If this perfectly answered all God's designs and man's wants For under it the people received the law - Whence some might infer, that perfection was by that priesthood. What farther need was there, that another priest - Of a new order, should be set up? From this single consideration it is plain, that both the priesthood and the law, which were inseparably connected, were now to give way to a better priesthood and more excellent dispensation.
*More commentary available at chapter level.