Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Hebrews 7:11 - 7:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Old Testament itself predicts the abrogation of the Levitical high-priesthood which rests on the basis of the Mosaic law, and the merging of it in the eternal priesthood of the Messiah
Heb_7:11-19
[Heb_7:11.— åἰ ìὲí ïὖí , if to be sure now, if, indeed, therefore, ïὖí , looking back and linking the proposition in a general way with the preceding; the ìÝí looking forward, and implying that the writer has in his mind some alternative sentiment to that which immediately follows, and which would naturally be introduced by äÝ , but which may be, as here, suppressed. The words ìÝí ïὖí , do not affect in the slightest degree the construction or meaning of åἰ with its verb. Alford absurdly translates: “If again” as “the nearest English expression to åἰ ìὲí ïὖí .” It could not well be more unfortunately rendered, unless possibly by yea if, by which Alford renders the same combination at Heb_8:4, while the rendering of ìὲí ãÜñ , Heb_7:18 of Hebrews 7., by for moreover, is equally regardless of the meaning of the particles, and the demands of the context. In the present case the author passes (Heb_7:11) from a consideration of the personal greatness of Melchisedek,—a greatness guaranteeing, by implication, the greatness of the priesthood in which his should find its antitype—to the points of superiority of the Melchisedek priesthood of Christ over the Levitical priesthood.— ἐð ’ áὐôῆò , on the basis of it— íåíïìïèÝôçôáé Perf. like äåäåêÜôùôáé , Heb_7:9, have had their legislation, stand recorded as having received the law.— ôßò ἔôé ÷ñåßá , what need any longer; ἔôé , logical here, not temporal.— ἓôåñïí ἱåñÝá , a different priest, not merely ἄëëïí , another, numerically.
Heb_7:12.— ìåôáôéèåìÝíçò ,while it is undergoing a change or transfer; not simply being changed= ìåôáôåèåßóçò .
Heb_7:13.— ἐö ’ ὅí , upon, in relation to whom.— ìåôÝó÷çêåí , hath participated in, hath shared in (perf. not as Heb_2:14, ìåôÝó÷åí ); Eng. ver., pertaineth to.— ïὐäåὶò ðñïóÝó÷çêåí , none hath given attendance.
Heb_7:14.— ðñüäçëïí ãÜñ , for it is conspicuously evident— ἀíáôÝôáëêåí , hath sprung or risen, not sprang.— ðåñὶ ἱåñÝùí , concerning priests.
Heb_7:15.— ðåñéóóüôåñïí ἔôé êáôÜäçëüí ἐóôé , more abundantly still is it evident, êáôÜäçëïò , intensive of äῆëïò , and ðåñéóóüôåñïí , stronger than the simple comparative of êáôÜäçëïò .— åἰ , if=if it is the case that—and it is; Eng. ver., for that which gives the meaning.— ἀíßóôáôáé , there ariseth.
Heb_7:16.— ãÝãïíåí , hath become, viz, priest; Alford, is appointed; Eng. ver., is made.— ἀêáôáëýôïõ , not exactly as Eng. ver., endless; but not to be dissolved, indissoluble, indestructible.
Heb_7:19.— Ïὐäὲí ãὰñ ἐôåëåß ., for the law brought nothing to perfection, should be in parenthesis, and ἑðåéóáãùãÞ , a bringing in upon, or in place of, coördinated with ἀèÝôçóéò as subject of ãßíåôáé , as shown clearly both by the ìÝí and äÝ , and the much greater clearness and elegance of the construction; “there takes place an abrogation on the one hand—and an introduction thereupon ἐðß ).” Ebr. follows the Eng. ver. in its erroneous construction. Alf. constructs the sentence otherwise correctly, but (misunderstanding apparently a statement of Hart. Pertikel. II. 414) regards ìÝí as here used elliptically, and pointing to an understood contrast in the permanence of the æùÞ ἀêáôÜë . just mentioned. “It is hardly possible, even with the right construction of the sentence, to regard this ìÝí as answering to the äÝ following ἐðåéóáãùãÞ ; its connection with the ãÜñ will not allow this. If this had been intended we should have expected the form of the sentence to be ἀèÝôçóéò ãὰñ ãßíåôáé ôῆò ìὲí ðñïáãïýóçò ἐíôïëῆò .” No criticism could be more incorrect. There is not the slightest reason why ìÝí cannot stand with ãÜñ , and yet be followed by its corresponding äÝ , unless it is impossible for a sentence to stand in the relation indicated by ãÜñ to a previous sentence, and yet itself be susceptible of a distribution of its members by ìὲí and äÝ . We have in fact just such a construction at Heb_7:20-21, and it is among the most natural and familiar in the language. And the construction proposed by Alf. as required in case the ìÝí and äÝ here were in contrast, is totally wrong. The order of words which he has given would imply a contrast not between the abrogation of the preceding commandment and the introduction of a better hope, but a contrast between the abrogation of the preceding commandment on the one hand, and of something else on the other. The construction, as it stands, brings out, regularly and elegantly, the required antithesis. It might indeed have stood ãßíåôáé ãὰñ ἀèÝôçóéò ìὲí ðñïáãïýóçò — ἐðåéóáã . äÝ , and also in one or two other modes of arrangement; but no change is needed.—K.].
Heb_7:12. For if the priesthood is undergoing a change, etc.—The ãÜñ refers not (as with Lün.) to the parenthetical clause, but introduces the first argument in support of the main idea of Heb_7:11, viz., that the appointment of a Melchisedek priest, is incompatible with the assumption of the sufficiency and efficiency of the Levitical priesthood. Íüìïò is neither to be restricted to the law of the priesthood (Bez., Grot., etc.), nor to the ceremonial law (Calv., à Lapide, Carpz., etc.). For although it is true that Heb_7:13 merely introduces the proof of the proposition of Heb_7:12, that the change of the law, there asserted as inseparable from the change of the priesthood, appears historically in the fact that the Old Covenant itself predicts the Melchisedek priest as a non-Aaronic and Levitical priest, while Heb_7:14 attaches to this the historical proof of the fulfilment of this prediction in the person of Jesus, and thus far the law spoken of might be the mere law of the priesthood; yet inasmuch as it has been previously stated that the Israelitish people had received their íüìïí in organic connection with the institution of the priesthood, of course the change of law here referred to can by no means be regarded as a partial one. [Moll then regards Heb_7:13 as still lingering back in the realm of prophecy, and simply asserting that the person of whom the language of the prediction is uttered, viz., “thou art a priest,” etc., appears in the very fact of the prediction as belonging to another tribe, where none gave attendance at the altar; for if he was a Melchisedek priest, he could not be an Aaronic and Levitical priest, and therefore could not be of the tribe of Levi; and he then regards Heb_7:14 as coming down into the actual historical life of our Lord, and confirming the inference from prophecy by the well known testimony of fact. The main scope of the paragraph, he thinks, is to illustrate the cardinal idea of Heb_7:11, viz., that the institution of the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ is incompatible with the supposition of the competence of the Levitical priesthood to accomplish its intended work of perfection. This is shown, first, by the fact that the Old Testament itself, as shown by the prediction of Psalms 110., contemplated a transfer of the Levitical priesthood to another tribe—a transfer actually realized in the person of Jesus (12–14). Secondly, by the essential difference in the character of the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ (15–17)—K.]. Ôáῦôá , Heb_7:14, refers to the words of the Psa_110:4. The Perfects ìåôÝó÷çêåí , ðñïóÝó÷çêåí , ἀíáôÝôáëêåí , point to the historical facts as now standing completed before the eye. Ἀö ’ ἦò denotes the springing forth from the öõëÞ . ÐñïóÝ÷åéí ôéíé =to give one’s attention, or devote one’s activity to a thing. The reading ðñïóÝóôçêå in Erasmus is a Patristic gloss. The ðñü in ðñüäçëïí is not temporal (Pierce), but strengthens the conception of a thing as lying open or conspicuous by the facts, while êáôÜäçëïí in like manner emphasizes the reasonings of Heb_7:15.
Heb_7:15. And it is still more abundantly evident, etc.—Ebrard entirely erroneously supposes that the thing here asserted to be evident is the fact of our Lord’s springing from Judah (Heb_7:14). Bisping, following Chrys. and others, supposes it to be the greatness of the difference between the Levitical and the New Testament priesthood. Klee, with Primas., Just., Rambach, etc., supposes it to be the reality of the change of the priesthood. Delitzsch, with J. Cappell. and Bengel, regards it as the inefficiency of the Levitical priesthood; while Bleek, De Wette, Thol., Lün., find in it the statement that the change of the priesthood involves the change of the law. But this statement itself served merely as the first proof of the capital thought contained in Heb_7:11, viz., that the appointment of a Melchisedek priest was incompatible with the efficiency of the Levitical priesthood, and was itself again substantiated by the fact of the actual occurrence of the change. The author now advances to the second proof of the same point, a proof in which is involved alike the insufficiency of the Levitical priesthood, and the greatness of the distinction between the Levitical and the New Testament priesthood. In the previous argument the stress was laid on the circumstance that with the change of the priesthood stood actually and as matter of fact connected a change of the Mosaic law. It is now laid on the intrinsic idea and character of a Melchisedek priest. A Melchisedek priest, as such, is the subject of the clause. Had the author had in mind Jesus personally, he would have personally designated the subject, of which the predicate would then be the priest of a different character. The greater clearness of this proof, however, lies in the fact that His birth from a different Israelitish tribe does not so much constitute the Messiah a ἕôåñïò ἱåñåýò as his “likeness” to Melchisedek. This not merely places him in another ôÜîéò of Priests, but gives him a priesthood forever ( åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá ), and such a priesthood can alone work ôåëåßùóéò , comp. Heb_7:25.
[The passage Heb_7:11-16 is, as indicated by the great diversity of opinions regarding it, while easy enough to translate, among the most difficult in the Epistle to analyze so as to assure us that we have the precise scope and drift of the author. Some, as Lönemann, regard Heb_7:12, with its ratiocinative ãÜñ , as simply illustrating the parenthetical clause of Heb_7:11, a view which at first glance seems probable. Others, as Bleek, De Wette, Delitzsch, regard it as paving the way for what follows, and “laying down the ground why, not, without urgent cause, the priesthood is changed” (De Wette), admitting at the same time that the parenthetical clause of Heb_7:11 has an important bearing on the illustration. Moll considers the capital thought which the whole passage is designed to illustrate, to be the incompatibility of the institution of the Melchisedek priesthood, with the idea of the sufficiency and competence of the Levitical priesthood. Equally, perhaps still more diverse, are the views regarding the reference of the êáôÜäçëïí , Heb_7:15. Let us follow a little the course of thought. The author passes, at Heb_7:11, from illustrating the personal greatness of Melchisedek—involving by implication, the superiority of his priesthood to that of Aaron, and a fortiori the superiority of that of which his was but a type, to the Aaronic—to the consideration of the relative claims of the two priesthoods themselves, viz., the Levitical priesthood and the Melchisedek priesthood of Christ. The main ideas which he introduces, and which lie in the very nature and relations of the case, are the following: 1. That the Mosaic economy rested for its execution and effectiveness on the Levitical priesthood; the abrogation, therefore, of the latter involves an abrogation of the former. This abrogation he mildly calls a transfer. 2. That this abrogation of the priesthood and of its associated and superincumbent economy is already predicted in the Old Testament, (in the declaration of God, Thou art a priest forever, etc.), and that this prediction is actually realized in the well-known descent of Jesus Christ from the stock of Judah—a non-priestly tribe. 3. That the change of priesthood, and of course the superiority of the latter, consists even more in the internal character of the Melchisedek priesthood, as compared with the Levitical, than in the mere external fact of change. 4. That the oath which accompanied the inauguration of the Melchisedek priest marks its superiority. 5. That its superiority is also marked by its singleness, untransferableness, and perpetuity, in all which features it stands contrasted with the Levitical. These are the general ideas from Heb_7:11 to Heb_7:26, and it is only at two or three points, chiefly at Heb_7:12-13; Heb_7:15, that the difficulty is found in tracing the precise thread of connection. Without feeling over confident, I think it as nearly as follows:
If, indeed, now (the now ïὖí , linking it in a general way with what precedes, the ìÝí pointing to the suppressed affirmation, contrasted with the supposition as; if, indeed it were, but it is not) perfection were by the Levitical priesthood—and that priesthood was bound to make the law effective, for the legislation of Moses was based upon it—there were no need for another priest to be spoken of in prophecy as about to arise after the order of Melchisedek, and not after the order of Aaron. And that such a change would not take place without urgent cause is evident, for see how far-reaching it is. For when the priesthood is transferred, as in the prediction of the Psalm it is, it carries with it a transfer and an abrogation of the Law. And that such a transfer is made is clear; for he in regard to whom the language of this prediction is uttered, belongs to another tribe, of which none has ministered at the altar;—(Delitzsch considers that in this verse (Heb_7:13) the author has already descended from the region of prophecy to that of fulfilment. Moll regards him as still standing on the ground of the prophecy, and simply stating what the prophecy implies regarding the birth and tribal relations of the predicted priest. In favor of Moll’s view is the indefinite ἐö ’ ï ͂ í ëÝãåôáé ôáῦôá ; in favor of that of Delitzsch are the definite statements with the perfect tense of the verb, which seem to point to actual historical facts. I concur on the whole with Delitzsch; Alford scarcely touches the question).—For it is a well-known historical fact, that our Lord hath sprung from Judah, to which tribe appertains no regular priesthood. From this fact now it is evident that that change of priesthood has taken place which brings change of law, viz., the fact that the old priesthood belonged to a particular tribe, and that when it passes to another tribe, of course the Mosaic priesthood is subverted, and therefore the whole structure reared upon it falls to the ground; but it is still more abundantly evident from another fact, viz., the intrinsically different character of this new priesthood, in that this priest arises after the likeness of Melchisedek—having those properties which this likeness would presuppose—who hath been made, etc. From this point the course of thought is easy. I thus do not regard the course of thought as carried out with strict logical precision. The author shows how great consequences depend on the overthrow of the Levitical priesthood—no less consequences than the abrogation of the whole law that rests upon it—shows how this transfer is actually made in the person of Jesus, and how still more vital and deep-reaching than the mere transfer, is the change in the intrinsic character of the Melchisedek priesthood itself. Here he has, as it were, drifted into the topic of the superiority of Christ’s Melchisedek priesthood to the Aaronic, which he then farther illustrates by the matter of the oath, and the singleness and perpetuity of the Melchisedek priest as against the plurality and transitoriness of the Levitical priests.—K.].
Heb_7:16. Who has been made not after the law, etc.—By íüìïò here Chrys., Calv., Beng., Böhme, Thol., and others, understand the Mosaic law, whose elements are collectively designated as a fleshly institution. But the expression êáôὰ íüìïí ἐíôïëῆò óáñêßíçò in antithesis to êáôὰ äýíáìéí æùῆò ἀêáôáëýôïõ , requires certainly that we take íüìïò as at Rom_7:21; Rom_7:23 in the sense of norm. We are not, however, to infer from this that ἐíôïëὴ óáñêßíç is the special requisition of the Mosaic law regarding the Levitical priesthood (Lün.), and is so designated because it lays stress merely on outward, earthly things, which are liable to destruction, as on lineal descent, etc., and installs only mortal men as priests (Theod., Grot., Bl., De Wette, etc.). Still less may we appeal to the fact that in later Greek the distinction between adj. ending in éêüò and éíïò is done away (Winer, Thol., etc.). For no New Testament writer could characterize the Mosaic law, whether taken as a whole or in any of its ordinances, as fleshly, inasmuch as they are collectively to be referred back to the will of God, and for this reason Paul expressly emphasizes the spiritual nature alike of the íüìïò and of the ἐíôïëÞ , Rom_7:12; Rom_7:14. Doubtless, indeed, the signification of perishableness, which Beng., Carpz., etc., have found in óáñêéêüò , is possible for óÜñêéíïò (=made of flesh). Still I should prefer to refer the epithet to the qualities of externality, frailty and impotence, which belong to the nature of the óÜñî , and which are also at the same time predicated of the ritual and statutory character of the Mosaic law. It is this property of the law which I conceive to be expressed by ἐíôïëὴ óáñêßíç . To this corresponds the fact that it is not placed in contrast directly with the historic Jesus but with the ἔôåñïò ἱåñåýò , which finds its realization in Him, whose characteristic, as shown by Heb_7:18, is drawn from the words of the Psalm. Any reference to the capacity of Christ to impart life to others (as supposed by Cam., Dorsch., Calov, etc.), is not for a moment to be assumed. As previously êáôὰ ôὴí ôÜîéí Ìåë÷ . was explained by êáôὰ ôὴí ὁìïéüôçôá M., so here åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá is explained by êáôὰ äýíáìéí æùῆò Üêáôáëýôïõ . The language then has not reference to the incarnation of Christ the Messiah, but to His appointment as Melchisedek priest in the presence of God, in the completeness and perfection of His personal life. He is also the subject of ìáñôõñåῖôáé [so Alf.], which Bleek and others take impersonally. Ὅôé is the ὅôé of citation as Heb_10:8; Heb_11:18.
Heb_7:18. For there becometh a doing away, etc.—The author is showing that the thought expressed in Heb_7:15-16 is contained in the passage of the Psalm. To this passage points the Pres. ãßíåôáé , which belongs to the two clauses that are separated by the parenthesis. Some interpreters remove the parenthesis, erroneously and make Heb_7:19 an independent sentence, either making ἐðåéóáãùãÞ a predicate to ὁ íüìïò , and supplying ἐóôßí or ἦí (Erasm., Calv., Ebr., etc.), or making ἐðåéóáãùãÞ subject and repeating ἐôåëåßùóåí (as Beza, Grot., E. Ver.). In the former case the meaning would be: “but the law is indeed, or was, an introduction to a better hope:” in the second case: “but the ἐðåéóáãùãÞ , etc., did bring in perfection.” The latter construction would demand the article before ἐðåéóáã . as before íüìïò , indicating the subject. The former is opposed alike by the fact that the ìὲí ãÜñ without the corresponding äÝ is not=namely, but only=for to be sure, for at least, (Hart. Partik. II., 414), which is here entirely out of place, and that ἐðåéóáãùãÞ is not= åἰóáãùãÞ , but denotes the introduction of something either as added to an object already existing, or as a substitute for it. This object is here ðñïÜãïõóá ἐíôïëÞ , whose meaning is determined by the connection, for which reason the absence of the article does not require that the clause be taken as a general one (Schlicht., De Wette), while the use of ἐíôïëÞ as substantially equivalent to the Mosaic íüìïò , would be adverse to it, (Primas., Chrys., Theod., Calv., Grot., etc.). The thought contained in the parenthesis (so rightly at first constructed by Luther, and erroneously changed in his later version), is weakened by changing the neut. ïὐäÝí into the masc. ïὐäÝíá , (Chrys., Schlicht., Grot., Carpz., Bisp., etc.).
2. The Law can, as the verbal expression of the Divine will, only describe perfection; it cannot exhibit it personally. It can further, as the command of God to His people, only demand from them human perfection, but not create it in them. Finally, as the law of the holy God, it cannot overlook the universal lack of perfection, nor leave those whose duty binds them to this perfection, exempt from punishment. It must rather judge the sin everywhere disclosed by it, and, since all men prove themselves to be sinners, can only condemn and not acquit. This is the imperfection and the weakness—this incapacity to produce perfection—which lies in the nature of law as such, and of course also in the law of God; comp. Rom_8:3; Gal_4:9, where Paul calls the law ôὰ ἀóèåíῆ êáß ðôù÷ὰ óôïé÷åῖá .
3. Should, with this condition of things, a positive covenant relation between God and His people, bound solemnly to the law, be possible, this could only take place by instituting an expiation, upon the foundation of which rests a reconciliation for the forgiveness of sin, and the introduction of the spiritual peace and blessing, which we so deeply need. But since man as a sinner is incapacitated for it, his only hope rests upon the Divine interposition in providing such an expiation.
4. This divinely originated plan is not merely promised by the word of prophecy, but was immediately, by a system of legal arrangements, by the institution of the Levitical priesthood, at once prepared for and prefigured. So far was it from lying within the divine purpose to introduce perfection by this institution, that on the one hand its typical and symbolical character was made clearly manifest, and on the other its transitory nature and import were expressly declared by the direct prediction of a priesthood of another character in the Old Testament itself, where the Messiah is purposely represented not merely as a priest-king, but also as not an Aaronic, but a Melchisedek Priest.
5. It is true that Christ is also the antitype of the high-priest Aaron; yet only in so far as His death on the cross, which wrought an eternal redemption, is compared with the annual expiatory sacrifice, which only the high-priest, after first making expiation for himself, was permitted to offer. But in respect, on the other hand, to the origin and dignity of the Son, who, forever perfected, sits enthroned at the right hand of the Father; in respect to that ministry of intercession and of blessing, which gives perpetual efficacy in heaven to the sacrifice which once for all was offered upon earth,—in respect to these He is the counterpart of the Priestly King Melchisedek.
6. In this relation Christ exercises forever His mediatorial function, because in His person He possesses an indestructible life. He is Priest, not in consequence of any commandment, or on the ground of any priestly descent, but in virtue of His personality, which renders Him the bearer of an eternal and untransferable priesthood, on the ground of His offering of Himself on the cross, and in consequence of the position which He assumes as the Risen, eternally living God-man, exalted above all heavens to the throne of God.
7. The origin of Jesus from the tribe of Judah (Rev_5:5), through His descent from the house of David (Act_2:30; Rom_1:3; 2Ti_2:8), which is, on the one hand, like the rising of a star, Num_24:17, or of light from on high, Isa_60:1; Mal. 3:20; Luk_1:78; on the other, like the sprouting branch, Isa_4:2; Jer_23:5; Jer_33:15; Zec_3:8; Zec_6:12, shows that the priesthood of Jesus is not the Levitico-Aaronical, but the Melchisedek priesthood; that thus the change predicted in the Old Testament has already historically taken place, and with this the abrogation of the Mosaic law received its authorized beginning. In this connection the remark of the author that this birth of Jesus from Judah is a perfectly well-known fact, so that he can make of it as of an unquestionable foundation, the most decided use in addressing his readers, is of great historical importance, especially in view of the circumstance that this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
8. In the old covenant the Levitical priests were the mediators between God and the people; they had the honorable appellation of “those who draw near to Jehovah,” Num_10:3. Since Christ entered on His office as the only and eternal mediator, the whole people of God have received the appellation of a royal priesthood; a free access to the Father has been opened to all believers, and the realization of a better hope has commenced, which in the Old Testament prophecy came from the Melchisedek priest to the law, and passed over, out of and beyond it.
9. Also the hope of the believers of the Old Covenant was not directed merely to earthly goods, to long life and possession of the promised land, to security from enemies, and to dominion over unbelievers. The hope of a future life was according to Heb_11:10; Heb_11:13-14 by no means wanting to the Patriarchs, and the Messianic hope gave them not only a concrete subject matter of their hope, but led also to better means for perfection than the legal institutions could furnish.
10. The idea of perfection embraces all points and elements in that state of perfectness in which the Divinely appointed goal is reached, to which Christ was led by sufferings (Heb_2:10), and to which man (Heb_10:1) can attain only through this ἀñ÷çãὸò ôῆò óùôçñßáò on the ground of the sacrifice of this New Test. high-priest (Heb_10:14). But this state is not with Reuss (Hist. de la Theol. II., 551) to be limited to subjective and moral perfection. It rather has only its beginning in the purification which appertains to the conscience, Heb_9:7; its progress in that drawing near to God (Heb_7:19), in which the outward objective principle of sanctification described in Heb_10:14, now proves itself actually efficacious; and its conclusion in eternal life, primarily in the spirits of just men made perfect, Heb_12:23, then after the resurrection, in their participation in glory, Heb_11:40.
Starke:—The Old Testament, as one which in itself was much too weak, must necessarily be changed, and through the New Testament, a better hope be brought in, through the efficacious sacrifice and intercession of Jesus Christ, as the perfect high-priest, who alone gives us salvation. The Levitical Priesthood is fulfilled through the Messianic, and thereby has been done away.—The holy and wise God has in His word set forth, for the good of men, the mystery of Christ, in manifold ways, with so many reasons, of which some are at once clearer and more binding than others.—What the prophets have predicted of Christ so many hundred years ago, has been in Him so exactly fulfilled. Who sees not also in this, the divinity of the Holy Scriptures?—While all believing Christians are permitted to draw near to God in Christ, they are also all spiritual priests, whose dignity and office it is to offer themselves in sacrifice to God, (Rom_12:1; 1Pe_2:5; 1Pe_2:9) as those who are animated with the Spirit of Christ, and adorned with the white priestly garment of righteousness, Isa_61:10.—Blessed is he who from time to time draws near in faith to Christ, and in Christ unto God, and makes his whole life nothing else than, as it were, a perpetual going out from himself and the world, and going in unto God, Jam_4:8.—He who, while he lives on earth, draws not near to God, in faith and prayer, will not come to God after death, Heb_4:16; Rom_5:1-2.
Hahn:—As Priest, Christ assists from within; creates an internal atmosphere, gives freedom and joy. As King, He aids also from without, and removes everything which can hinder the inner life of His people, and brings to naught the assaults of their foes.
Rieger:—From the fact that another Priest was to appear, was to be inferred an entire change in the economy of God.
Heubner:—The present religion of the Jews is an exceedingly defective Judaism. They admit some of its elements, while what is most important in it, they are utterly unable to carry out.—All mysteries, orders, societies, which claim equal or even superior rank to the Church of Christ, are a sin against the high-priestly dignity of Christ.
Stein:—Christianity is by so much the more perfect covenant, in that the covenant of God in the Old Testament, merely introduced, prepared for, and prefigured it; in that it then removes imperfections which the former was not able to remove; and finally, in that there are also blessed prospects for the future, which indicate Christianity as the more perfect covenant.
Footnotes:
Heb_7:11.—Instead of ἐð ’ áὐôῇ , read after Sin. A. B. C. D*. E*. 17, 31, 46, ἐð ’ áὐôῆò ; and instead of the Pluperf. íåíïìïèÝôçôï , read after Sin. A. B. C. D*., 17, 47, 73, íåíïìïèÝôçôáé .
Heb_7:14.—Instead of ïὐäὲí ðåñὶ ἱåñùóýíçò , read after A. B. C*. D*. E., 17, 47, ðåñὶ ἱåñÝùí ïὐäÝí . So also in Sin., excepting that there ïὐäÝí stood originally after Ìùõóçò , and has been placed before it by a later hand.
Heb_7:16.—Instead of óáñêéêῆò , read with Sin. A. B. C. D*. L., óáñêßíçò .
Heb_7:17.—Instead of ìáñôõñåῖ , should be read with Sin. A. B. D*. E., 17, 31, ìáñôõñåῖôáé .
[The ìὲí ïὖí has nothing whatever to do with the character of the hypothetical construction. The words simply indicate, the one ( ïὖí ) its logical relation to that which precedes, and the other ( ìÝí ) its connection with that which follows. The åἰ ἦí (all that belongs intrinsically to the construction) is indeed genuine Greek, for the protasis of a hypothetical proposition which denies the reality of the case supposed, but so it is equally for that of one which admits it. All turns upon the character of the apodosis. If the apodosis be an Indicative past with ἄí , the proposition denies; if any Ind. tense Without ἄí , it admits. Thus åἰ ἦí ôåëåßùóéò , ÷ñåßá ïὐê ἂí ἦí would be; if there were perfection, there would not be need, but there was, or is, not. Åἰ ôåëåßùóéò ἦí , ÷ñåßá ïὐê ἦí would be: if there was perfection there was no need—and there was perfection.—K].