Chapter 7

1 Christ Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchisedec, 11 and so, far more excellent than the priests of Aaron’s order.

1. Melchisedec. The historical facts mentioned in this verse are recapitulated from Gen. 14:18–20 (see comment there).

2. Abraham gave a tenth. See on Gen. 14:20. Abraham would not have given Melchisedec a tenth of all had he not known him to be a priest, and hence to have a right to receive the tithe.

There has been much discussion as to who Melchisedec was. Information concerning him is meager. He is mentioned in the OT only in Gen. 14:18–20; Ps. 110:4, and in the NT only in the book of Hebrews. There are some who believe that He was Christ; others, the Holy Spirit; others, Shem; still others, a supernatural being from another world. In the absence of good evidence for any of these positions, this commentary holds that Melchisedec was one of the contemporaries of Abraham, king of one of the small principalities of that time (see on Gen. 14:18). He is set forth in Hebrews as a type of Christ, a representation based on the Messianic prediction in Ps. 110:4.

King of righteousness. Attention is called to the name because of its significance when applied to the Messiah (see on Ps. 72:3; 85:10).

King of Salem. See on Gen. 14:18.

Peace. A term appropriately applied to the Messiah (see Isa. 9:5, 6; Zech. 9:10). See Ps. 72:3; 85:10, where righteousness and peace are mentioned together as characteristics of the Messianic kingdom.

3. Without father, without mother. These words have given rise to the speculation that Melchisedec was some supernatural being, as he must of necessity have been if he was actually without parents, without beginning of days and without end of life. Such an assertion in its totality can be literally true of the persons of the Godhead only. However, it is not necessary to take this view of the wording. The author may simply mean that there is no record of who Melchisedec’s father and mother were.

Without descent. Gr. agenealogeµtos, literally, “without genealogy.” The Jews were very careful to record and preserve their genealogies. This was especially true concerning the priests (see Ezra 2:61–63). No one could serve as priest unless he belonged to the family of Aaron of the tribe of Levi, and this he must be able to prove without any doubt whatever. If there was a break in the line somewhere, he would be counted out and thus lose the privileges accorded the priests. For this reason every Jew, and particularly the priests, preserved carefully their genealogical records. Of melchisedec no genealogy exists.

Beginning of days. That is, there is no record of his birth, or of his death, as indicated by the phrase “nor end of life.”

Made like. Or, “resembling.” Melchisedec was a type of Christ. Nothing is known of his birth or death because there is no record of either. All this fits into the picture of Christ, who had no beginning or end of days (see on John 1:1–3).

Abideth a priest. There is no record of the termination of his high-priestly office.

4. How great. The Jews held Abraham in high esteem (see John 8:52). The author of Hebrews now proceeds to prove that Melchisedec was still greater. And if he was greater, then Christ’s priesthood, which was after the manner of Melchisedec (see on Heb. 5:6), was greater than the Aaronic.

Even. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 10) between retaining and omitting this word.

Patriarch. Gr. patriarcheµs, “father of a nation.” Abraham is here called “patriarch” to heighten the effect. Melchisedec was so great that “even the patriarch” paid him tithe. In doing so, Abraham acknowledged the superior, priestly authority of Melchisedec.

Tenth. See v. 2.

Spoils. Doubtless the spoils of the recent battle (Gen. 14:14–16).

5. Commandment to take tithes. The Levites had the right to receive tithes by virtue of a divine command (see Num. 18:21). However, they were not the first to take tithes. Melchisedec did so before them. If they were divinely ordained, so was Melchisedec. And the fact that “even the Patriarch Abraham” paid tithes to Melchisedec shows that Melchisedec had the highest endorsement. If the Levites were authorized by God to receive tithes, Melchisedec was even more so.

6. Descent is not counted from them. See on v. 3. Only Levites could receive tithe. Melchisedec was not a Levite, and yet he received tithe from Abraham. Abraham has met a man greater than he is. He recognizes Melchisedec’s superiority and pays the priest tithe.

Blessed him. See Gen. 14:19.

Had the promises. See on ch. 6:13, 15.

7. Without all contradiction. Or, “apart from all dispute.”

The less … the better. The matter of superiority is settled by the fact that Abraham was the one who paid tithe and who received a blessing.

8. Here. That is, in the Levitical system.

There. That is, with reference to the Melchisedec priesthood.

He liveth. This, of course, would not be literally true of Melchisedec, nor is the explanation adequate that this simply means that there is no record in the Bible of Melchisedec’s death. It appears that these words reach beyond Melchisedec to the greater One whom he represents. Of Christ it is affirmed that “he ever liveth” (v. 25). The Melchisedec priesthood lives in Jesus Christ’s priesthood.

9. Levi … payed tithes. This observation is set forth to give further evidence that the Melchisedec priesthood was superior to the Levitical. The manner in which Levi paid tithe to Melchisedec is shown in v. 10.

10. In the loins. Whatever Abraham the patriarch did, his posterity did also. Thus when he paid tithe Levi paid tithe. This the author cites as another proof of the greatness of Melchisedec.

11. Perfection. The Levitical priesthood and the ceremonial law were provisional and shadowy, pointing forward to the work that Christ was to perform. Perfection came not through the law but through the Christ to whom it pointed. This thought is further developed in chs. 9; 10.

Law. Here, the entire Jewish system instituted at Sinai (see on Gal. 3:17).

What further need. The Levitical system was never intended to be an end in itself. It was to point men to Christ, in whom alone is salvation. If the system could have provided salvation apart from the work of Christ, then there would have been no need for the ministry of Christ.

12. The priesthood being changed. That is, from the Levitical to the Melchisedec.

Change also of the law. The law provided that only the Levites could serve at the tabernacle, and that only the sons of Aaron could be priests. Furthermore, it regulated the services of the priests with reference to the dispensation in which they served. It would be necessary to change the law if a priest were selected from another tribe (v. 13) and a new order of things were introduced (ch. 8:13).

13. He. That is, Christ (v. 14).

Another tribe. See on v. 14.

Gave attendance. Or, “officiated.”

14. Juda. See Micah 5:2; Matt. 1:1; Mark 10:47, 48; Luke 3:33; Rom. 1:3; Rev. 5:5.

Moses spake nothing. The laws regulating the priesthood were given through Moses (Num. 3; 4).

15. More evident. This seems to refer to the proposition set forth in v. 12, namely, that a change in law was necessary. Some hold that it refers to the temporary character of the Levitical priesthood. The prophecy referred to in v. 17, predicting that the new priesthood would be of a different order, makes it more evident that there must be a change in the laws of the priesthood, or that the Levitical priesthood was provisionary.

16. Carnal commandment. Doubtless called “carnal” with reference to the fact that the commandment specified succession by physical descent (Ex. 29:29, 30; Num. 20:26, 28).

Power. Note the contrast of this word with “law.”

Endless. Gr. akatalutos, “indestructible,” “not subject to dissolution.”

17. Priest for ever. The author returns to this statement from Ps. 110:4 again and again (Heb. 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:21). On this rests his argument. No mere man could be a priest forever. The Levitical priests served only a few years. If, therefore, one is to come who is to serve forever, he must be more than a man, more than a Levite. Hence, it is “far more evident” (v. 15) that there must be a change of the priestly law if that kind of priest is to officiate.

18. For there is. According to the Greek the connection between vs. 18, 19 is as follows: “There is, on the one hand, a disannulling of the commandment … and on the other, the bringing in of a better hope.”

A disannulling. A stronger term than “being changed” (v. 12). The law of the Levitical priesthood was designed to operate only until Jesus Christ, the great High Priest, took over His office. Then it was to be annulled.

Going before. Or, “preceding,” “former.”

Weakness and unprofitableness. Not that it was so inherently for God Himself had instituted it. But it failed because of the people’s attitude toward it. They made the law an end in itself and believed that obedience to it would bring them salvation. They had the gospel preached unto them, but it did not profit them, not being mixed with faith (ch. 4:2).

19. The law made nothing perfect. That is, the law in and of itself. This does not mean that salvation was impossible for men in OT times. Perfection was possible, but by the same means it is achieved today—faith in Jesus Christ. “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. … But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (see on Gal. 3:24, 25).

Bringing in of a better hope. For the connection of this phrase with its context see on v. 18. The better hope centers in Christ. He takes the place of the Levitical priesthood. This is the hope that is “set before us,” our “anchor,” “which entereth into that within the veil” (ch. 6:18–20).

Draw nigh unto God. This had been the purpose of the Levitical priesthood, but through faulty instruction and administration men felt that God was far removed from them. Now Jesus Christ, the High Priest, has entered “within the veil” (ch. 6:19). He is seated “on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (ch. 1:3); therefore men may “come boldly unto the throne of grace” (ch. 4:16) and in full assurance draw near to God.

20. Not without an oath. See on ch. 6:17.

21. With an oath. The contrast is here set forth to show the superiority of the Melchisedec high priesthood. For the importance of the oath see on ch. 6:17.

Repent. Gr. metamelomai, “to change one’s mind,” “to regret” (see on 2 Cor. 7:8, 9).

After the order of Melchisedec. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 10) as to the retention or omission of this phrase. It is fully attested in v. 17.

22. By so much. That is, in that it was confirmed by an oath, whereas the Levitical priesthood rested on a temporary command.

Jesus. This name emphasizes his human side (see on Matt. 1:1).

Surety. Gr. egguos, “a pledge,” “a guarantee.” The word here has the meaning of one who becomes responsible for, or guarantees, the performance of some agreement, here, the “better testament.”

Testament. Gr. diatheµkeµ (see on Gal. 3:15). This word is rendered both “testament” (Matt. 26:28; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; etc.) and “covenant” (Luke 1:72; Gal. 3:15; Heb. 8:6–10). In the text under consideration “covenant” would be a preferable translation, because the author is speaking of the new covenant (diatheµkeµ), a subject he develops in ch. 8:6–13. Diatheµkeµ is the word used elsewhere for “covenant.”

23. Many priests. The contrast here is between the many priests under the Levitical system and the one priest under the order of Melchisedec.

24. Unchangeable. Gr. aparabatos, “permanent,” “unchangeable.” The Levitical priests could not continue by reason of death. But Christ “ever liveth to make intercession” (Heb. 7:25; cf. Rev. 1:18).

25. Uttermost. Gr. panteleµs “completely,” “fully,” “wholly,” “forever,” “for all time.” Commentators are divided as to which meaning applies here. Both are true, for Christ saves both completely and for all time.

Come unto God. See on v. 19.

Ever liveth. See on v. 24.

Make intercession. Gr. entugchanoµ (see on Rom. 8:34).

26. Became. Gr. prepoµ, “to suit,” “to be fitting,” “to be becoming.” Compare the use of prepoµ in ch. 2:10. It was fitting that we should have a high priest of Christ’s nature.

Holy. Gr. hosios, “devout,” “pious,” “pleasing to God” (see on Acts 2:27).

Harmless. Gr. akakos, “guileless,” “innocent,” not vindictive.

Undefiled. Gr. amiantos, “pure, in a religious and moral sense.” Compare the use of the word in Heb. 13:4; James 1:27; 1 Peter 1:4.

Separate from sinners. Or, “having been separated from sinners.” Some believe this refers to Christ’s ability to mingle with sinners and yet be separate from them during the incarnation. Others believe the description is of Christ, not in His incarnation, but in His role as high priest, and that therefore “separate from sinners” refers to the completion of His work for sinners as far as His sacrificial death was concerned (see ch. 9:28). They believe the phrase should be interpreted in the light of the following phrase, which refers to Christ’s removal from this world and thus from literal contact with sinners, to be in the very presence of God. Those who hold this second view believe as truly as do those who hold the first, that Christ was ever “holy, harmless, undefiled.”

Made higher than the heavens. Christ, in His exaltation, is at the Father’s right hand. It is this kind of high priest that is fitting for us.

27. Who needeth not daily. There is no record of the high priest’s bringing a sin offering daily. There was an offering commanded to be offered daily by Aaron and his successors, but this appears to be a meal offering and not a sin offering (Lev. 6:20–22). The difficulty is therefore with the statement that the high priest of old presented a sin offering daily, and that Christ did not need to do this.

This difficulty has been explained by the consideration that whatever services the priests performed, they did as deputies of the high priest. They officiated in his place, and what they did was counted as though the high priest himself did it. They were merely helpers, and as they did offer sin offerings daily, the high priest can be said to offer daily.

For his own sins. On the Day of Atonement the high priest offered first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:11, 15). This was necessary. Being sinful, he could not appear before God in the most holy place unless and until he had brought an offering for himself. Christ did not need to do this. He was sinless.

This he did once. The question has been raised as to what is meant by “this.” Did Christ offer for His own sins once, as did the high priest, and then for the people? Christ had no sin of His own. The only sins He had were those He bore for us. He was made to be sin (2 Cor. 5:21). When, therefore, He offered Himself once, He provided for all the sins He carried. Those sins were our sins, which He bore in His body on the tree. They were His sins only as He had taken upon Himself the responsibility for them. He bore them vicariously.

Offered up himself. Christ was both priest and victim.

28. The law. See vs. 11, 12, 16.

Maketh men. Or, “appoints men.”

Infirmity. Or, “weakness” (cf. ch. 5:2).

The oath. See vs. 20, 21.

Since the law. The ceremonial system expired at the cross (see on Rom. 6:14; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14). Christ assumed His high-priestly office following the expiration of the law that regulated the Levitical priesthood.

Maketh the Son. Or, “appoints One who is Son.” The article is not present in the Greek. However, to translate “a Son” instead of “the Son” does not correctly convey the force of the Greek. The absence of the article lays stress on quality; hence the preferred rendering, “One who is Son” (cf. on Dan. 7:9, 13).

Consecrated. Gr. teleiooµ, “to perfect” (see on ch. 2:10).

For evermore. In contrast with the temporary service of the Levitical priests.

Ellen G. White comments

1    DA 578; PP 136, 157, 703; 3T 393

5     AA 336

24   DA 52

25   AH 544; COL 149, 156; CSW 111; DA 166,751, 835; FE 178, 184; GC 482; GW 155; MB 9; MH 243, 424; ML 33; MM 33, 181; MYP 407; SC 102; Te 280; TM 20; 1T 543; 2T 60, 321; 5T 200, 633, 741; 6T 123, 231; 8T 287; WM 193

26   AA 570; DA 25