Hebrews 7:15-17

That the Aaronical priesthood was to be changed, and consequently the whole law of ordinances that depended thereon, and that the time wherein this change was to be made was now come, is that which is designed unto confirmation in all this discourse. And it is that truth whereinto our faith of the acceptance of evangelical worship is resolved; for without the removal of the old, there is no place for the new. This, therefore, the apostle now fully confirms by a recapitulation of the force and sum of his preceding arguments.

Hebrews 7:15. Καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστιν, εἰ κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότηατ Μελξισεδὲκ ἀνίσταται ἱερεὺς ἕτερος, ὅς οὐ κατὰ νὁμον ἐντολῆς σαρκικῆς γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου. Μαρτυρεῖ γὰρ, ῞Οτι σὺ ἰερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ. [6]

[6] VARIOUS READINGS. Σαρκίνης , instead of σαρκικῆς , is the reading preferred by Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf; the sense remaining unchanged. Μαρτυρεῖται is adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf, on the authority of such Mss. as ABD*E.*. The sense is thus improved, “it is testified.” The other reading would seem to ascribe the psalm to Moses, verse 14, contrary to Matthew 22:43. ED.

Hebrews 7:15. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.

There are four things to be considered in these words:

1. The manner of the introduction of this new argument, declaring its especial force, with the weight that the apostle lays upon it: “And it is yet far more evident.”

2. The medium or argument itself which he insists upon; which is, that from what he had already proved, “there was another priest to arise, after the similitude of Melchisedec.”

3. The illustration of this argument, in an explication of the ways and means whereby this priest arose, declared both negatively and positively: “Who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.”

4. The confirmation of the whole with the testimony of David: “For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.” The manner of the introduction of this argument is emphatical: Καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστι, “And it is yet far more evident.”

The conjunctive particle, καί, connects this consideration unto that foregoing, as of the same nature and tendency.

The thing spoken of is said to be κατάδηλον. Of what he said before he affirmed that it was πρόδηλον , Hebrews 7:14, namely, that “our Lord sprang of Judah,” “evident,” “manifest,” “demonstrable;” but this, he adds, is κατάδηλον : which composition of the word intends [strengthens] the signification, arguing yet a more open and convincing evidence.

Hence he adds, that it is περισσότερον, “magis patet,” “abundantius manifestum,” comparatively with what was said before; of an abundant efficacy for conviction; that whose light nothing can stand against. But we must observe, that the apostle doth not compare the things themselves absolutely with one another, and so determine that one is of a more evident truth than the other; but he compares them only with respect unto the evidence in arguing unto his end. There is more immediate force in this consideration, to prove the cessation of the Levitical priesthood, that “another priest was to arise after, the similitude of Melchisedec,” than was merely in this, that “our Lord sprang of the tribe of Judah;” but of this afterwards.

And therefore he adds ἔτι, “yet;” that is, ‘Above all that hath been collected from the consideration of Melchisedec, there is yet this uncontrollable evidence unto our purpose remaining.'

The apostle, we see, lays great weight on this argument, and withal proceeds gradually and distinctly from one thing to another in the whole discourse. It may be we see not why he should insist so much upon, and so narrowly scan, all particulars in this manner; for being freed by the gospel from the power of temptations about it, and being of the Gentiles, who were never concerned in it, we cannot be sensible of the just importance of what is under confirmation. The truth is, he hath the greatest argument in hand that was ever controverted in the church of God, and upon the determination whereof the salvation or ruin of the church did depend. The worship he treated of was immediately instituted by God himself; and had now continued nearly fifteen hundred years in the church. All this while it had been the certain rule of God's acceptance of the people, or his anger towards them: for whilst they complied with it, his blessing was continually upon them; and the neglect of it was still punished with severity. And the last caution that God had given them, by the ministry of the last prophet he sent unto them, was, that they should abide in the observance of the law of Moses, “lest he should come and smite the earth with a curse,” Malachi 4:4; Malachi 4:6. Besides these and sundry other things, that were real and pleadable in the behalf of the Mosaical worship, the Hebrews esteemed it always their great and singular privilege above all other nations, which they would rather die than part withal. And the design of the apostle in this place, is to prove that now, utterly unexpectedly unto the church, after so long a season, their whole worship was to be removed, to be used no more, but that another system of ordinances and institutions, absolutely new, and inconsistent with it, was to be introduced. And upon the compliance of the Hebrews with this doctrine, or the rejection of it, depended their eternal salvation or destruction.

It was therefore very necessary that the apostle should proceed warily, distinctly, and gradually, omitting no argument that was of force and pleadable in this cause, nor failing to remark on them in an especial manner which contained an especial evidence and demonstrative force in them; as he doth in this instance. For this introduction of it, “And it is yet far more,” or “abundantly more evident,” is as a hand put in the margin of a writing, calling for a peculiar attendance unto and consideration of the matter directed unto. And we may see,

Obs. 1. That present truths are earnestly to be pleaded and contended for. So the apostle Peter would have believers established ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ ἀληθείᾳ, “in the present truth.” All truth is eternal, and in itself equally subsistent and present unto all ages; but it is especially so either from the great use of it in some seasons, or the great opposition that is made unto it. So this doctrine about the abolition of the Mosaical ceremonies and institutions, with the introduction of a new priesthood and new ordinances of worship, was then “the present truth,” in the knowledge and confirmation whereof the church was eternally concerned. And so may other truths be at other seasons. And any of them may be so rendered by the opposition that at any time is made unto them. For God is pleased to exercise and try the faith of the church by heresies; which are fierce, pertinacious, and subtile oppositions made to the truth. Now none of them, which aim at any consistency in and with themselves, or are of any real danger unto the church, did ever reject all gospel truths, but some general principles they will allow, or they would leave themselves no foundation to stand upon in their opposition unto others. Those, therefore, singly opposed by them at any time, as the deity or satisfaction of Christ, justification by faith, and the like, being so opposed, become “the present truth” of the age; in the instance of adherence whereunto God will try the faith of his people, and requires that they be earnestly pleaded for. And this is that which the apostle Jude intends, verse 3, where he exhorts us ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι , to “contend,” “strive,” “wrestle” with all earnestness and the utmost of our endeavors, “for the faith once delivered unto the saints;” namely, because of the opposition that was then made unto it. And a truth may come under this qualification by persecution as well as by heretical opposition. Satan is always awake and attentive unto his advantages: and therefore though he hates all truth, yet doth he not at all times equally attempt upon every thing that is so; but he waiteth to see an inclination in men, from their lusts, or prejudices, or interests in this world, against any especial truth, or way of divine worship which God hath appointed. When he finds things so ready prepared, he falls to his work, and stirs up persecution against it. This makes that truth to be “the present truth” to be contended for, as that wherein God will try the faith, and obedience, and patience of the church. And the reasons why we ought with all care, diligence, and perseverance, to attend unto the preservation and profession of such troths, are obvious unto all.

Obs. 2. Important truths should be strongly confirmed. Such is that here pleaded by the apostle; and therefore doth he so labor in the confirmation of it. He had undertaken to convince the Hebrews of the cessation of their legal worship, out of their own acknowledged principles. He deals not with them merely by his apostolical authority, and by virtue of the divine revelation of the will of God which himself had received; but he proceeds with them on arguments taken out of the types, institutions, and testimonies of the Old Testament, all which they owned and acknowledged, though without his aid they had not understood the meaning of them. On this supposition it was necessary for him to plead and press all the arguments from the topic mentioned which had any cogency in them; and he doth so accordingly.

Obs. 3. Arguments that are equally true may yet, on the account of evidence, not be equally cogent; yet,

Obs. 4. In the confirmation of the truth, we may use every help that is true and seasonable, though some of them may be more effectual unto our end than others.

This we are instructed in by the apostle affirming, in this place, that what he now affirms is “yet far more evident.” And this evidence, as we observed before, may respect either the things themselves, or the efficacy in point of argument. For in themselves all things under the old testament were typical, and significant of what was afterwards to be introduced. So our apostle tells us that the ministry of Moses consisted in giving “testimony to those things which were to be spoken” or “declared afterwards,” Hebrews 3:5. But among them some were far more clear and evident, as to their signification than others were. In the latter sense, the things which he had discoursed about Melchisedec and his priesthood were more effectually demonstrative of the change of the Levitical priesthood, than what he had newly observed concerning the rising of our Lord Jesus Christ, not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah, although that had life and evidence also in itself, which is principally intended.

The argument itself is nextly expressed whereunto this full evidence is ascribed, Εἰ κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα Μελχισεδὲκ ἀνίσταται ἱερεὺς ἕτερος, “If another priest do arise, after the similitude of Melchisedec.” And in the words there is,

1. The modification of the proposition, in the particle εἰ.

2. The notation of the subject spoken of: “another priest.”

3. His introduction into his office: “he did arise.”

4. The nature of his office, and the manner of his coming into it: “after the likeness of Melchisedec.”

1. Εἰ, “if,” is generally taken here not to be a conditional, but a causal conjunction. And so, as many judge, it is used, Rom 8:31; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Thessalonians 3:8; 1 Peter 1:17. And it is rendered in our translation by “for,” “For that an other priest;” as Beza rendereth it by “quod,” “because;” others by “ex eo quod,” and “siquidem;” Syr., “And again, this is more known, by that which he said.” All take it to be an intimation of a reason proving what is affirmed. And so it doth if, with the Vulgar, we retain “si,” or “siquidem,” “if so be:” “And it is yet far more evident, if so be that another priest.”

As to the argument in general, we must observe,

(1.) That the design of the apostle in this place is not to demonstrate the dignity and eminency of the priesthood of Christ from that of Melchisedec, his type, which he had done before sufficiently; he cloth not produce the same words and arguments again unto the same purpose: but that which he aims at is, from that testimony, whereby he had proved the dignity of the priesthood of Christ, now also to prove the necessary abolition of the Levitical priesthood. Wherefore,

(2.) He doth not insist on the whole of the testimony before pleaded, but only on that one thing of “another priest,” necessarily included therein.

2. The subject spoken of is, ἱερεὺς ἕτερος : that is, not merely אחֵר; that is, ἄλλος, alius, as the Syriac understood it, who renders it by אחֲ רַינָא ;” but it is זָר, “alienus'that is intended. Every זָר was by the law absolutely forbidden to approach unto the priest's office, or altar, or sacred employment. So ἕτερος, “another,” in this case is “a stranger,” one that is not of the house or family of Aaron. And nothing can be more evident, than that the Levitical priesthood, and the whole law of divine worship, must be taken away and abolished then, if it appear that any זָר, ἕτερος, or “stranger,” may be admitted into that office; much more, if it were necessary that it should so be. For the law of the priesthood took care of nothing more than that no stranger, that was not of the house of Aaron, should be called to that office. See Exodus 29:33; Leviticus 22:10; Numbers 1:51; Numbers 3:10: “Aaron and his sons they shall wait on the priest's office; וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת, and the stranger that cometh nigh” (that is, to discharge any sacerdotal duty) “shall be put to death.” And God gave an eminent instance of his severity with respect unto this law in the punishment of Korah, though of the tribe of Levi, for the transgression of it. And he caused a perpetual memorial to be kept of that punishment, to the end they might know that “no stranger, who is not of the seed of Aaron, should come near to offer incense before the LORD,” Numbers 16:40. And hence our apostle in the next verse observes, that this priest was not to be “made after the law of a carnal commandment,” seeing his making was a dissolution of that law or commandment. If, therefore, there must be ἱερεὺς ἕτερος, “another priest,” that was not of the lineage of Aaron, the other is abolished.

3. His introduction into his office is expressed by ἀνίσταται, “there ariseth.” “Oritur,” “exoritur.” Syr., קָאֵם, “surgit;” Vulg. Lat., “exsurgat;” “arose,” in an extraordinary manner: Judges 5:7, “Until I Deborah arose, I arose a mother in Israel;” that is, by an extraordinary call from God to be a prophetess and a deliverer. Deuteronomy 18:18, “I will raise them up a Prophet;” which was Christ himself. So God “raised up an horn of salvation in the house of his servant David,” Luke 1:69; that is, with an extraordinary power and glory. So was this priest to arise; not springing out of, nor succeeding in any order of priesthood before established. But all things in the law lay against his introduction; and the body of the people in the church was come unto the highest defiance of any such priest. But as God had foresignified what he would do, when the time of the reformation of all things should come, so when he performed his word herein, he did it in that manner, with that evidence of his glory and power, as introduced him against all opposition. For when the appointed time is come wherein the decrees of God shall bring forth, and his counsel be accomplished, all difficulties, though appearing insuperable, shall vanish and disappear, Zechariah 4:6-7.

4. The nature of his priesthood is declared, in its resemblance unto that of Melchisedec, κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα . The apostle intendeth not to express the words of the psalmist, עלאּדִּבְרַתִי, which he constantly renders κατὰ τάξιν, “according unto the order;'but he respects the whole conformity that was between Melchisedec and our Lord Jesus Christ, in the instances which he had before insisted on. For whereas God had ordered all things in the Scripture concerning Melchisedec, that he might be ἀφωμοιωμένος τῷ Υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, verse 3, “made like unto the Son of God,” he is said to arise καθ᾿ ὁμοιότητα , “according to the likeness” or “similitude of Melchisedec.” For every similitude is mutual; one thing is as like unto another as that is unto it. This, therefore, is evident, that there was to be another priest, ἕτερος; not only ἄλλος, merely “another,”

but ἀλλογενής, one of “another stock and race:” and a priest he was to be “after the similitude of Melchisedec,” and not so much as after the similitude of Aaron. The arising of Christ in his offices puts an end unto all other things that pretend a usefulness unto the same end with them. When he arose as a king, he did not put an end unto the office and power of kings in the world, but he did so unto the typical kingdoms over the church, as he did to the priesthood by arising as a priest. And when he ariseth spiritually in the hearts and consciences of believers, an end is put unto all other things that they might before look for life, or righteousness, or salvation by.

Hebrews 7:16. This verse containeth an illustration and confirmation of the foregoing assertion, by a declaration of the way and manner how this other priest, who was not of the seed of Aaron, should come into that office. And this was necessary also, for the prevention of an objection which the whole discourse was obnoxious unto. For it might be said, that whatever was affirmed concerning another priest, yet there was no way possible whereby any one might come so to be, unless he were of the family of Aaron. All others were expressly excluded by the law. Nor was there any way or means ordained of God, any especial sacrifice instituted, whereby such a priest might be dedicated, and initiated into his office. In prevention of this objection, and in confirmation of what was before declared, the apostle adds, “Who was made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.”

The words declare,

1. That this priest was made so; and,

2. How he was made so, both negatively and positively.

1. He was made so; ὅς γέγονε, “ which priest was made,” or “who was made a priest.” The force of this expression hath been explained on Hebrews 3:2; Hebrews 5:5. The Lord Christ did not merely on his own authority and power take this office upon himself; he became so, he was made so by the appointment and designation of the Father. Nor did he do any thing, in the whole work of his mediation, but in obedience unto his command, and in compliance with his will. For it is the authority of God alone which is the foundation of all office, duty, and power in the church. Even what Christ himself is and was unto the church, he is and was so by the grace and authority of God, even the Father. By him was he sent, his will did he perform, through his grace did he die, by his power was he exalted, and with him doth he intercede. What acts of God in particular do concur unto the constitution of this office of Christ, and to the making him a priest, have been declared before.

2. The manner of his being made a priest is first expressed negatively: Οὐ κατὰ νόμου ἐντολῆς σαρκικῆς, “Not after,” (or “not according unto”) “the law of a carnal commandment.” Syr., דְּפוּקְדָנָא פַגְרְנָיָא , “the law of bodily commandments.” It is unquestionable, that the apostle by this expression intendeth in the first place the law of the Levitical priesthood, or the way and manner whereby the Aaronical priests were first called and vested with their office; and then any other law, constitution rule, or order of the same kind. He was made a priest neither by that law, nor any other like unto it. And two things we must enquire into:

(1.) Why the call of the Aaronical priests is said to be “after the law of commandment.”

(2.) Why this commandment is said to be “fleshly:”

(1.) For the first, we may observe, that the whole law of worship among the Jews is called by our apostle, ὁ νὸμος τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι, Ephesians 2:15, “The law of commandments in ordinances.” And it is so called for two reasons:

[1.] Because commands were so multiplied therein that the whole law was denominated from them. Hence it became ζύγος δυσβάστακτος, a “yoke hardly to be borne,” if not altogether intolerable, Acts 15:10.

[2.] Because of that severity wherewith obedience was exacted. A command in its formal notion expresseth authority; and the multiplication of them, severity: and both these God designed to make eminent in that law; whence it hath this denomination, “a law of commandments.” Hereof the law of the constitution of the office of the priesthood, and the call of Aaron thereunto, was a part; and he was therefore made a priest by “the law of commandments,” that is, by a preceptive law, as a part of that system of commands wherein the whole law consisted. See this law and all the commands of it, Exodus 28, throughout.

(2.) Why doth the apostle call this commandment “carnal” or “fleshly?”

Ans. It may be on either of these three accounts:

[1.] With respect unto the sacrifices, which were the principal part of the consecration of Aaron unto his office. And these may be called “fleshly” on two accounts:

1st . Because of their subject-matter; they were flesh, or the bodies of beasts: as the Syriac reads these words, “the commandment of bodies;” that is, of beasts to be sacrificed.

2dly . In themselves and their relation unto the Jewish state, they reached no farther than the purifying of the flesh. They “sanctified unto the purifying of the flesh,” as the apostle speaks, Hebrews 9:13. And thus the whole commandment should be denominated from the principal subject-matter, or the offering of fleshly sacrifices, unto the purifying of the flesh.

[2.] It may be called “carnal,” because a priesthood was instituted thereby which was to be continued by carnal propagation only; the priesthood appointed by that law was confined unto the carnal seed and posterity of Aaron, wherein this other priest had no interest.

[3.] Respect may be had unto the whole system of those laws and institutions of worship which our apostle, as was also before observed, calls “carnal ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation,”

Hebrews 9:10. They were all carnal, in opposition unto the dispensation of the Spirit under the gospel, and the institutions thereof.

None of these ways was the Lord Christ made a priest. He was not dedicated unto his office by the sacrifice of beasts, but sanctified himself thereunto when he offered himself through the eternal Spirit unto God, and was consummated in his own blood. He was not of the carnal seed of Aaron, nor did, nor could, claim any succession unto the priesthood by virtue of an extraction from his race. And no constitution of the law in general, no ordinance of it, did convey unto him either right or title unto the priesthood.

It is therefore evident that he was in no sense made a priest “according to the law of a carnal commandment;” neither had he either right, power, or authority to exercise the sacerdotal function in the observance of any carnal rites or ordinances whatever. And we may observe,

Obs. 5. That what seemed to be wanting unto Christ in his entrance into any of his offices, or in the discharge of them, was on the outward solemnity. The sacrifices which were offered, and the garments he put on, with his visible separation from the rest of the people, had a great ceremonial glory in them. There was nothing of all this, nor any thing like unto it, in the consecration of the Lord Christ unto his office. But yet, indeed, these things,had no glory, in comparison of that excelling glory which accompanied those invisible acts of divine authority, wisdom, and grace, which communicated his office unto him. And indeed, in the worship of God, who is a spirit, all outward ceremony is a diminution and debasement of it. Hence were ceremonies “for beauty and for glory” multiplied under the old testament; but yet, as the apostle shows, they were all but “carnal.” But as the sending of Christ himself, and his investiture with all his offices, were by secret and invisible acts of God and his Spirit; so all evangelical worship, as to the glory of it, is spiritual and internal only. And the removal of the old pompous ceremonies from our worship is but the taking away of the veil which hindered from an insight and entrance into the holy place.

Secondly. The way and manner whereby the Lord Christ was made a priest is expressed positively: ᾿Αλλὰ κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, “But according unto the power of an indissoluble life.” ᾿Αλλά denotes an opposition between the way rejected and this asserted, as those which were not consistent, He was not made a priest that way, but this.

How then is Christ made a priest “according to the power of an endless life?” That is, saith one in his paraphrase, “installed into the priesthood after his resurrection.” What is meant by “installed,” I well know not. It should seem to be the same with τελειωθείς, “consecrated,” “dedicated,” “initiated.” And if so, this exposition diverts wholly from the truth; for Christ was installed into his office of priesthood before his resurrection, or he did not offer himself as a sacrifice unto God in his death and blood- shedding. And to suppose that the Lord Christ discharged and performed the principal act of his sacerdotal office, which was but once to be performed, before he was installed a priest, is contradictory to Scripture and reason itself. “Ideo ad vitam immortalem perductus est, ut in aeternum sacerdos noster esset,” “ He was therefore brought unto an immortal life, that he might be our priest for ever,” saith another. But this is not to be “made a priest according to the power of an endless life.” If he office always, unto the consummation of all things, what he says is true, but not the sense of this place: but if he means, that he became immortal after his resurrection, that he might be our priest, and abide so for ever, it excludes his oblation in his death from being a proper sacerdotal act; which that it was, I have sufficiently proved elsewhere, against Crellius and others.

Some think that the “endless life” intended is that of believers, which the Lord Christ, by virtue of his priestly office, confers upon them. The priests under the law proceeded no farther but to discharge carnal rites, which could not confer eternal life on them for whom they ministered; but the Lord Christ, in the discharge of his office, procureth “eternal redemption” and “everlasting life” for believers. And these things are true, but they comprise not the meaning of the apostle in this place. For how can Christ be made a priest according to the power of that eternal life which he confers on others? For the comparison and opposition that is made between “the law of a carnal commandment,” whereby Aaron was constituted a priest, and “the power of an endless life,” whereby Christ was made so, do evidence, that the making of Christ a priest, not absolutely, which the apostle treats not of, but such a priest as he is, was the effect of this “endless life.”

Wherefore the ζωὴ ἀκατάλυτος, the “indissoluble life” here intended, is the life of Christ himself. Hereunto belonged, or from hence did proceed, that δύναμις, or “power,” whereby he was made a priest. And both the office itself and the execution or discharge of it are here intended. And as to the office itself, this eternal or endless life of Christ is his life as the Son of God. Hereon depends his own mediatory life for ever, and his conferring of eternal life on us, John 5:26-27. And to be a priest by virtue of, or according unto this “power,” stands in direct opposition unto “the law of a carnal commandment.”

It must therefore be inquired, how the Lord Christ was made a priest according unto this “power.” And I say, it was because thereby alone he was rendered meet to discharge that office, wherein God was to “redeem his church with his own blood,” Acts 20:28. By “power,” therefore, here, both meetness and ability are intended. And both these the Lord Christ had, from his divine nature and his endless life therein. Or it may be the life of Christ in his human nature is intended, in opposition unto those priests who, being made so “by the law of a carnal commandment,” did not continue in the discharge of their office, “by reason of death,” as our apostle observes afterwards. But it will be said, that this natural life of Christ, the life of the human nature, was not endless, but had an end put unto it in the dissolution of his soul and body on the cross.

I say, therefore, this life of Christ was not absolutely the life of the human nature considered separately from his divine; but it was the life of the person of the Son of God, of Christ as God and man in one person. And so his life was endless. For,

(1.) In the death which he underwent in his human nature there was no interruption given unto his discharge of his sacerdotal office, no, not for a moment. For,

(2.) His person still lived, and both soul and body were therein inseparably united unto the Son of God. Although he was truly and really dead in his human nature, he was still alive in his indissoluble person. And this the apostle hath a respect unto in the testimony which he cites in the next verse to prove that he is a priest for ever. The “carnal commandment” gave authority and efficacy unto the Levitical priests; but Christ is made a priest “according to the power of an endless life,” that is, through the power and efficacy of that eternal life which is in his divine person, both his human nature is preserved always in the discharge of his office, and he is enabled thereby to work out eternal life on the behalf of them for whom he is a priest.

And so the apostle proves the difference of this other priest from those of the order of Aaron, not only from the tribe whereof he was to be, and from his type, Melchisedec, but also from the way and means whereby the one and the other were enabled to discharge their office.

Hebrews 7:17. The proof of all before asserted is given in the testimony of the psalmist so often before appealed to: “For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”

The introduction of this testimony is by μαρτυρεῖ γάρ, or “he witnesseth,” or “testifieth;” that is, David doth in the psalm, or rather, the Holy Ghost, speaking in and by David, doth so testify. He doth not absolutely say that so he speaketh, but testifieth; because he used his words in a way of testimony unto what he had delivered. And although one thing be now principally intended by him, yet there is in these words a testimony given unto all the especial heads of his discourse: as,

1. That there was to be “ another priest,” a priest that was not of the stock of Aaron, nor tribe of Levi; for he says unto the Messiah, prophesied of, who was to be of the seed of David, “Thou art a priest,” although a stranger from the Aaronical line.

2. That this other priest was to be “ after the order of Melchisedec,” and was not to be called after the order of Aaron. For he was עלאּדִּבְרָתִי ,κατὰ τάξιν , “after the order.” is a redundant, and not a suffix, דִּבְרַת is from דָבַר; and signifies a state or order of things: מַרתִּי אֲנִי כְּלִבּי עַל־דִּבְרַת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם, Ecclesiastes 3:18; “I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men,” their condition and order of all things; that is, τάξις . The priesthood of Christ, in the mind of God, was the eternal idea or original exemplar of the priesthood of Melchisedec. God brought him forth, and vested him with his office, in such a way and manner as that he might outwardly represent in sundry things the idea of the priesthood of Christ in his own mind. Hence he and his priesthood became an external exemplar of the priesthood of Christ, as unto its actual exhibition: and therefore is he said to be “made a priest after his order;” that is, suitably unto the representation made thereof in him.

3. That he was made a priest, namely, by him and his authority who said unto him, “Thou art a priest;” as Hebrews 5:5-6; Hebrews 10:4. That he was so “after the power of an endless life;” for he was “a priest for ever.” This word is applied to the law and legal priesthood, and signifies a duration commensurate unto the state and condition of the things whereunto it is applied. There was an עוֹלַם of the law, an “age,” whereunto its continuance was confined. So long all the promises annexed unto it stood in force. And as ascribed unto the new state of things under the gospel, it doth not signify eternity absolutely, but a certain unchangeable duration unto the end of the time and works of the gospel; for then shall the exercise of the priesthood of Christ cease, with his whole mediatory work and office, 1 Corinthians 15:28. Christ, therefore, is said to be “a priestfor ever:”

1. In respect of his person, endued with an “endless life.”

2. Of the execution of his office unto the final end of it; “he liveth for ever to make intercession.”

3. Of the effect of his office; which is to “save believers unto the utmost,” or with an “everlasting salvation.”

And the apostle had sufficient reason to affirm that what he proposed was eminently “manifest,” namely, from the testimony which he produceth thereof. For what can be more evident than that the Aaronical priesthood was to be abolished, if so be that God had designed and promised to raise up another priest in the church, who was neither of the stock nor order of Aaron, nor called the same way to his office as he was; and who, when he was so raised and called, was to continue “a priest for ever,” leaving no room for the continuance of that priesthood in the church, nor place for its return when it was once laid aside? And we may observe, that,

Obs. 6. The eternal continuance of Christ's person gives eternal continuance and efficacy unto his office. Because he lives for ever, he is a priest for ever. His endless life is the foundation of his endless priesthood. Whilst he lives we want not a priest; and therefore he says, that “because he liveth, we shall live also.”

Obs. 7. To make new priests in the church, is virtually to renounce the faith of his living for ever as our priest, or to suppose that he is not sufficient to the discharge of his office.

Obs. 8. The alteration that God made in the church, by the introduction of the priesthood of Christ, was progressive towards its perfection. To return, therefore, unto or look after legal ceremonies in the worship of God, is to go back unto poor, “beggarly elements” and “rudiments of the world.”