HEBREWS CHAPTER 7
7:1-10
The author of Hebrews first mentions Melchizedek in 5:6-10 and then again in 6:20. In both places, we learn that Jesus is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. In chapter seven, the author develops this idea. Who was Melchizedek? Little is said of him in the Bible. We meet him in Genesis fourteen, after Abraham (then known as Abram) rescued his nephew Lot from Chedorlaomer. When Abraham returned in victory, Melchizedek king of Salem came out to meet him, bringing bread and wine (14:18). This Melchizedek, described as “priest of God Most High” (14:18) blessed Abraham, and Abraham in turn tithed a tenth of all the spoils of war to Melchizedek (14:21).
The only other reference we have of Melchizedek outside of Hebrews is Psalm 110:4, which states, “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’” Psalm 110, written by King David, is full of Messianic significance, and the author of Hebrews understood this, for it is this verse that he quotes and alludes to in chapters five, six, and seven.
Do we know anything else about Melchizedek? There is a Jewish belief that he was Shem, one of the sons of Noah. The Talmud teaches,
The author of Hebrews first mentions Melchizedek in 5:6-10 and then again in 6:20. In both places, we learn that Jesus is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. In chapter seven, the author develops this idea. Who was Melchizedek? Little is said of him in the Bible. We meet him in Genesis fourteen, after Abraham (then known as Abram) rescued his nephew Lot from Chedorlaomer. When Abraham returned in victory, Melchizedek king of Salem came out to meet him, bringing bread and wine (14:18). This Melchizedek, described as “priest of God Most High” (14:18) blessed Abraham, and Abraham in turn tithed a tenth of all the spoils of war to Melchizedek (14:21).
The only other reference we have of Melchizedek outside of Hebrews is Psalm 110:4, which states, “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’” Psalm 110, written by King David, is full of Messianic significance, and the author of Hebrews understood this, for it is this verse that he quotes and alludes to in chapters five, six, and seven.
Do we know anything else about Melchizedek? There is a Jewish belief that he was Shem, one of the sons of Noah. The Talmud teaches,
Said R. Zechariah in the name of R. Ishmael, “The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to bring forth the priesthood through Shem: ‘And he, Melchizedek, was the priest of the most high God’ (Gen. 14:18) (Nedarim 1.18).
While we cannot know for certain, Shem would have still been alive at this time in history and could have been Melchizedek. This would explain where Melchizedek received his knowledge of the one true God, from his father Noah.
In Hebrews, the author briefly summarizes the Genesis account about Melchizedek and then makes a few distinct points about the man. First, he focuses on his names/titles. Melchizedek means “king of righteousness.” Further, he was king of Salem, which means “king of peace.” The author therefore stresses that these qualities were part of the character of this man (7:2).
Second, Melchizedek is said to be “... without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever” (7:3). The idea is not that Melchizedek literally did not have a mother or father but rather that the lack of mention of his parents shows that he is a type of Christ. F.F. Bruce comments,
In Hebrews, the author briefly summarizes the Genesis account about Melchizedek and then makes a few distinct points about the man. First, he focuses on his names/titles. Melchizedek means “king of righteousness.” Further, he was king of Salem, which means “king of peace.” The author therefore stresses that these qualities were part of the character of this man (7:2).
Second, Melchizedek is said to be “... without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever” (7:3). The idea is not that Melchizedek literally did not have a mother or father but rather that the lack of mention of his parents shows that he is a type of Christ. F.F. Bruce comments,
… it is not suggested that he was a biological anomaly, or an angel in human guise. Historically Melchizedek appears to have belonged to a dynasty of priest-kings in which he had both predecessors and successors. If this point had been put to our author, he would have agreed at once, no doubt; but this consideration was foreign to his purpose. The important consideration was the account given of Melchizedek in holy writ; to him the silences of Scripture were as much due to divine inspiration as were its statements. In the only record which Scripture provides of Melchizedek Gen. 14:18–20 nothing is said of his parentage, nothing is said of his ancestry or progeny, nothing is said of his birth, nothing is said of his death (159-160).
Why does the author bring this issue up? Not to discuss the lack of genealogy of Melchizedek or Christ, but rather to show that neither of them were of Levitical descent and yet still are priests (Cockerill, 300). The fact that the Messiah does not come from the tribe of Levi does not disqualify him for a priestly office. Rather, because Jesus is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, his office is superior to that of Levi. The author makes this case by pointing out that Abraham tithed to Melchizedek; therefore Levi, in the loins of Abraham, tithed to Melchizedek (7:4-9). Since “...it is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior” (7:7), then the Levitical priesthood is inferior to Jesus’ priesthood. He thus emphasizes “... how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils!” (7:4).
7:11
After introducing Melchizedek, the author shows the insufficiency of the Levitical priesthood:
7:11
After introducing Melchizedek, the author shows the insufficiency of the Levitical priesthood:
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? (7:11)
What is meant by the term “perfection” in this verse? The Greek word is τελείωσις (teleiosis), which means completion or fulfillment. Ellingworth explains that in Hebrews, the word has a sense of “...reaching a goal or fulfilling a function” (371). What is this goal that was not attainable through the Levites? Cockerill states that it is “... ultimate access to God through a definitive removal of sin” (8), something only Jesus was able to provide. Ceremonial sacrifices cannot make a person perfect. Their atonement is temporary; the need for atonement is continual. The writer of Hebrews will develop this idea more in the chapters to come.
Thus, we wrestle with the question, what did the animal sacrifices accomplish? The parts of the Torah that deal with atonement and sin are shadows and pointers to the work of Christ. They teach us about the seriousness of our sin and God’s need for justice. At the same time, they demonstrate an insufficiency and a need for an effectual sacrifice. The sacrifices ought to awaken a yearning for a sufficient sacrifice. They ought to create a longing for complete access to God, a definitive end to sin, and a perfect relationship with God.
It is important to have an overall understanding of the purpose of the Torah, the law of God. The Torah is not and never has been about salvation by works. Paul says in Galatians three, “Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law” (21). Paul’s point is that righteousness is not by the Torah, but by the promises of God. The law could not save a person; rather, it teaches us the way we should walk and live, and it gives us constant reminders of these ways, that we would not go after our own flesh (e.g., Numbers 15:28-40). Through the Torah, we learn about and walk in God’s commandments as he sanctifies us and makes us more like his Son.
In the same way, the people of God were never saved by means of animal sacrifices. Rather, they were responding in obedience to God’s commands regarding what to do when they sinned. Yet all the while, the sacrifices could not complete the work of atoning for our sin, once for all. For that, we need another priest, after the order of Melchizedek—Jesus, through whom perfection is attainable. He is the one who can give us eternal access to the Father. He is the one who can permanently end our sin.
Likewise, Lane states,
Thus, we wrestle with the question, what did the animal sacrifices accomplish? The parts of the Torah that deal with atonement and sin are shadows and pointers to the work of Christ. They teach us about the seriousness of our sin and God’s need for justice. At the same time, they demonstrate an insufficiency and a need for an effectual sacrifice. The sacrifices ought to awaken a yearning for a sufficient sacrifice. They ought to create a longing for complete access to God, a definitive end to sin, and a perfect relationship with God.
It is important to have an overall understanding of the purpose of the Torah, the law of God. The Torah is not and never has been about salvation by works. Paul says in Galatians three, “Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law” (21). Paul’s point is that righteousness is not by the Torah, but by the promises of God. The law could not save a person; rather, it teaches us the way we should walk and live, and it gives us constant reminders of these ways, that we would not go after our own flesh (e.g., Numbers 15:28-40). Through the Torah, we learn about and walk in God’s commandments as he sanctifies us and makes us more like his Son.
In the same way, the people of God were never saved by means of animal sacrifices. Rather, they were responding in obedience to God’s commands regarding what to do when they sinned. Yet all the while, the sacrifices could not complete the work of atoning for our sin, once for all. For that, we need another priest, after the order of Melchizedek—Jesus, through whom perfection is attainable. He is the one who can give us eternal access to the Father. He is the one who can permanently end our sin.
Likewise, Lane states,
The concept of τελείωσις is thus eschatological: the fulfillment of the promises of the new covenant in the priestly ministry of Christ makes possible an access to God and relationship with him that was not possible under the former covenant (181).
To clarify, believers could and did draw near to God under the Levitical priesthood. Lane agrees: “[T]he writer does not absolutely deny to the people of the old covenant the possibility of ‘drawing near to God’” (ibid). That is what the entire book of Leviticus is about. But now we have a better hope, a sure hope, based on a complete and final act.
Some commentators such as F.F. Bruce infer from Hebrews 7:11 that the old covenant, namely the Torah or Law, has already been replaced by the new covenant. In Bruce’s interpretation, first century Christians understood
Some commentators such as F.F. Bruce infer from Hebrews 7:11 that the old covenant, namely the Torah or Law, has already been replaced by the new covenant. In Bruce’s interpretation, first century Christians understood
... the Levitical priesthood as something belonging to the age of preparation, which had now given way to the age of fulfilment; but they were in danger of concluding that, after all, the old order (including the Levitical priesthood and everything else that went with it) had still much to be said in its favor (166).
According to Bruce, since Christ is a superior high priest to that of the Levites, then the job of the Levitical priesthood has been superseded and ended. It had a place in history to prepare for Christ, and now has nothing to offer.
Yet in this verse, the author of Hebrews is not making this argument. The insufficiency of the Levites does not imply that the Levitical priesthood has ended. Ellingworth comments,
Yet in this verse, the author of Hebrews is not making this argument. The insufficiency of the Levites does not imply that the Levitical priesthood has ended. Ellingworth comments,
This does not necessarily mean that the author thought that the old order had already ended … In the present passage, his concern is with the contrast between the old and new orders as such; the present survival of the earlier cultus is not in focus (371).
Up to this point, the author stresses that the Melchizedekian priesthood is superior to and more effective than the Levitical priesthood, not that it has replaced it or that the old covenant has ended.
7:12-14
In Hebrews 7:12, the author continues, “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” Here he makes a logical argument. If the priesthood changes, then the law necessarily undergoes a change, since the priesthood is part of the law. What is the change in the priesthood? The following verses contain the answer:
7:12-14
In Hebrews 7:12, the author continues, “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” Here he makes a logical argument. If the priesthood changes, then the law necessarily undergoes a change, since the priesthood is part of the law. What is the change in the priesthood? The following verses contain the answer:
For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests (13-14).
The change in the priesthood is that there is a high priest (Jesus) who is not from the line of Aaron. Exodus 28:1 tells us that priests were to come from Aaron: “Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests” (cf. Numbers 3:10; 16:40). Jesus, however, was not descended from Levi but from Judah. If Jesus is a high priest, then this stands in contrast to what is said about the Levitical priesthood in the Torah.
What does “change” mean, and what does it not mean? Traditionally, commentators understand a change in the law to mean a replacement of the old Aaronic priesthood by the new Melchizedekian priesthood, and moreover a replacement of the Mosaic law with something new. Bruce explains it as such:
What does “change” mean, and what does it not mean? Traditionally, commentators understand a change in the law to mean a replacement of the old Aaronic priesthood by the new Melchizedekian priesthood, and moreover a replacement of the Mosaic law with something new. Bruce explains it as such:
That priesthood was instituted under the Mosaic law, and was so integral to it that a change in the priesthood carries with it inevitably a change in the law. If the Aaronic priesthood was instituted for a temporary purpose, to be brought to an end when the age of fulfilment dawned, the same must be true of the law under which that priesthood was introduced … the law was a temporary dispensation of God, valid only until Christ came to inaugurate the age of perfection (166-167).
Note that Bruce understands change to imply something being brought to an end, something that was temporary and is no longer valid.
Yet, regarding this same passage, Ellingworth notes, “In the present verse, both noun and verb should be understood neutrally as “change,” not of the “removal” of law altogether” (374). As he did with verse eleven, Ellingworth is careful to note what the writer of Hebrews says and what he does not say. The author simply states there has been a change, but not that the prior has been replaced.
If we look at this passage in isolation, perhaps it would seem that the Aaronic priesthood has ended since the priesthood has changed. Problems arise, however, when we find other passages that show a continuing role for the Levitical priesthood on earth. Consider these:
Yet, regarding this same passage, Ellingworth notes, “In the present verse, both noun and verb should be understood neutrally as “change,” not of the “removal” of law altogether” (374). As he did with verse eleven, Ellingworth is careful to note what the writer of Hebrews says and what he does not say. The author simply states there has been a change, but not that the prior has been replaced.
If we look at this passage in isolation, perhaps it would seem that the Aaronic priesthood has ended since the priesthood has changed. Problems arise, however, when we find other passages that show a continuing role for the Levitical priesthood on earth. Consider these:
And the LORD said to Moses, “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.’” (Numbers 25:10–13).
“For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.” The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me” (Jeremiah 33:17–22).
In Numbers, God gives Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, a perpetual priesthood. In Jeremiah, God says that his covenant with David will never be broken, nor will his covenant with the Levitical priests. David will always have a son to reign on his throne, and the Levites will always serve as ministers to God.
The Hebrew word often translated “perpetual” or “forever” is עולם (olam). While it can refer to eternity, it can also imply that something exists continually through a limited period of time, such as a person’s lifetime or to the end of an age (“ע,” NIDOTTE, 3:345-346). Because of this, many understand passages such as the Numbers and Jeremiah passages above to mean that the priests will continue as priests until the age of their priesthood is over. We agree with this, but also believe that this age is not yet ended. Ezekiel 44:15-31 tells of a future time in which the Levites are serving as priests. Ezekiel 44:15-16 reads,
The Hebrew word often translated “perpetual” or “forever” is עולם (olam). While it can refer to eternity, it can also imply that something exists continually through a limited period of time, such as a person’s lifetime or to the end of an age (“ע,” NIDOTTE, 3:345-346). Because of this, many understand passages such as the Numbers and Jeremiah passages above to mean that the priests will continue as priests until the age of their priesthood is over. We agree with this, but also believe that this age is not yet ended. Ezekiel 44:15-31 tells of a future time in which the Levites are serving as priests. Ezekiel 44:15-16 reads,
But the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the people of Israel went astray from me, shall come near to me to minister to me. And they shall stand before me to offer me the fat and the blood, declares the Lord GOD.
Note that the Levitical priests will minister before God, offering sacrifices to him.
If the age of the Levites ended at the death of Christ or even at the destruction of the temple in AD 70, then how is it that they are serving again in the future? These are powerful words that we cannot ignore. Can they be reconciled with what Hebrews says?
The author of Hebrews has presented these ideas: (1) there has been a change in the priesthood in that we have a high priest (Jesus) who is not descended from Aaron, and (2) this necessarily results in a change in the law, since the priesthood is a component of the law.
At this point, we wrestle with how these relate to what the Bible says about the ongoing role of the Levites. As we continue our study of Hebrews, we will begin to see how the writer develops his understanding of these same issues.
7:15-19
The writer now explains the priesthood of Melchizedek, applied to Jesus:
If the age of the Levites ended at the death of Christ or even at the destruction of the temple in AD 70, then how is it that they are serving again in the future? These are powerful words that we cannot ignore. Can they be reconciled with what Hebrews says?
The author of Hebrews has presented these ideas: (1) there has been a change in the priesthood in that we have a high priest (Jesus) who is not descended from Aaron, and (2) this necessarily results in a change in the law, since the priesthood is a component of the law.
At this point, we wrestle with how these relate to what the Bible says about the ongoing role of the Levites. As we continue our study of Hebrews, we will begin to see how the writer develops his understanding of these same issues.
7:15-19
The writer now explains the priesthood of Melchizedek, applied to Jesus:
This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek” (7:15-17).
He shows the validity of Jesus’ priesthood, which is not based on a specific lineage as is the case with the Levites. The writer describes the Levitical priesthood as based on a legal requirement concerning bodily descent. The Greek word for bodily is σάρκινος (sarkinos), which means “pertaining to being material or belong to the physical realm, material, physical, human, fleshly” (BDAG, 914). Thus, the author connects the Levitical priesthood with things of this earth and our dwelling in the flesh. (As is our author’s style, he will develop this idea more in the chapters to come.) Jesus’ priesthood, in contrast, is based on the power of an indestructible life. The one who lives forever is our high priest. Even David prophesies of him in Psalm 110:4, “You are a priest forever...”, quoted here by the author in 7:17.
The writer of Hebrews continues,
The writer of Hebrews continues,
For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God (7:18–19).
This refers back to verse eleven, where he states the Levitical priesthood cannot make us perfect, that is, cannot effectually complete atonement for all of our sins. In that sense, it is weak and useless. This commandment is “set aside,” and a better hope is introduced.
What does “set aside” mean? The Greek word is ἀθέτησις (athetesis) and means a refusal to recognize the validity of something; an annulment (BDAG, 24). The author has begun to juxtapose two priesthoods: the priesthood of the Levites and the priesthood of Melchizedek. God has not taken the Levitical priesthood and changed it into something different under which Jesus can operate as high priest. In other words, the Levitical priesthood has not been transformed into the Melchizedekian. God has not set aside or annulled the basic tenets of the Levitical priesthood for the Levites. As we will see, Levites can still function as priests under the principles of their priesthood (8:4).
But Jesus functions under a completely different priesthood. With regard to Jesus’ work, the tenets of the Levitical priesthood are set aside. Specifically, the stipulation that Jesus must be a descendent of Levi is set aside, and a better hope is introduced. For Jesus functions as high priest after the order of Melchizedek. The regulations of the Levitical priesthood do not apply to Jesus because he is of a different order. Far greater and awesome stipulations apply: To be a high priest in the likeness of Melchizedek, Jesus must have an indestructible life (7:16).
It is good that God sets aside the tenets of the Levitical priesthood with regard to Jesus because the Levitical priesthood could not bring about perfection (7:11); Jesus as high priest can. We must not apply a priesthood to him that could not accomplish what he did accomplish with power and efficacy. The Levitical priesthood is weak and useless to complete a permanent atonement for our sins, but Jesus, through his indestructible life, introduced a better hope that allows us to draw near to God (7:19).
With this in mind, we can return to our consideration of 7:12: “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” The change in the law is that a new priesthood has been introduced—not one that replaces the earthly Levitical priesthood, but one that has a different role and a greater purpose, to bring about our perfection. This is the priesthood under which Jesus functions as our heavenly high priest.
7:20-28
The writer has already established that Jesus is a valid high priest. As he did in the beginning of chapter seven, he now reaffirms that not only is Jesus’ high priesthood valid, but it is in fact superior to the Levitical. He introduces a better hope (7:19) guaranteed by an oath from God himself (7:20-21). Therefore, Jesus’ priesthood is not only based on the power of an indestructible life (16), but it is also guaranteed through an oath made by God (20-21). And as the writer has already established at the end of chapter six, God cannot lie and must be faithful to what he swears he will do (6:13-20). For the second time, the writer quotes Psalm 110:4, this time including the beginning of the verse, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind.” His purpose is to demonstrate that God has validated Jesus’ priesthood with his own word, which cannot change. Therefore, “This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant” (7:22).
Jesus’ covenant is better because he is an effective, eternal high priest:
What does “set aside” mean? The Greek word is ἀθέτησις (athetesis) and means a refusal to recognize the validity of something; an annulment (BDAG, 24). The author has begun to juxtapose two priesthoods: the priesthood of the Levites and the priesthood of Melchizedek. God has not taken the Levitical priesthood and changed it into something different under which Jesus can operate as high priest. In other words, the Levitical priesthood has not been transformed into the Melchizedekian. God has not set aside or annulled the basic tenets of the Levitical priesthood for the Levites. As we will see, Levites can still function as priests under the principles of their priesthood (8:4).
But Jesus functions under a completely different priesthood. With regard to Jesus’ work, the tenets of the Levitical priesthood are set aside. Specifically, the stipulation that Jesus must be a descendent of Levi is set aside, and a better hope is introduced. For Jesus functions as high priest after the order of Melchizedek. The regulations of the Levitical priesthood do not apply to Jesus because he is of a different order. Far greater and awesome stipulations apply: To be a high priest in the likeness of Melchizedek, Jesus must have an indestructible life (7:16).
It is good that God sets aside the tenets of the Levitical priesthood with regard to Jesus because the Levitical priesthood could not bring about perfection (7:11); Jesus as high priest can. We must not apply a priesthood to him that could not accomplish what he did accomplish with power and efficacy. The Levitical priesthood is weak and useless to complete a permanent atonement for our sins, but Jesus, through his indestructible life, introduced a better hope that allows us to draw near to God (7:19).
With this in mind, we can return to our consideration of 7:12: “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” The change in the law is that a new priesthood has been introduced—not one that replaces the earthly Levitical priesthood, but one that has a different role and a greater purpose, to bring about our perfection. This is the priesthood under which Jesus functions as our heavenly high priest.
7:20-28
The writer has already established that Jesus is a valid high priest. As he did in the beginning of chapter seven, he now reaffirms that not only is Jesus’ high priesthood valid, but it is in fact superior to the Levitical. He introduces a better hope (7:19) guaranteed by an oath from God himself (7:20-21). Therefore, Jesus’ priesthood is not only based on the power of an indestructible life (16), but it is also guaranteed through an oath made by God (20-21). And as the writer has already established at the end of chapter six, God cannot lie and must be faithful to what he swears he will do (6:13-20). For the second time, the writer quotes Psalm 110:4, this time including the beginning of the verse, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind.” His purpose is to demonstrate that God has validated Jesus’ priesthood with his own word, which cannot change. Therefore, “This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant” (7:22).
Jesus’ covenant is better because he is an effective, eternal high priest:
The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them (7:23–25).
Unlike the Levites, Jesus will never die and therefore permanently holds his office as high priest. He alone, therefore, can completely save us. His eternality ensures that he can guarantee his covenant forever.
Further, his covenant is better because it was initiated with a perfect sacrifice:
Further, his covenant is better because it was initiated with a perfect sacrifice:
For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever (7:26–28).
Jesus is the only high priest who is holy, innocent, unstained, and separated from sinners. He is the only high priest that does not need to make atonement for his own sins first. Verse 28 says that the law appoints men in their weakness. They are weak because of their sin. This alludes back to verses 18 and 19, which says the former commandment was weak and useless and could make nothing perfect. Now the author elaborates on this. The Levitical priesthood is weak and useless because the priests themselves are imperfect. They are prevented from continuing in office by death (7:23). They sin and must continually offer sacrifices for both themselves and others (5:2-3; 7:27). In contrast, Christ lives forever (7:23,25); he is perfect and therefore offered an effective, one-time sacrifice (7:27-28).