Deeper Commentary
CHAPTER 7
7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, priest of God Most High, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him- As noted on 5:14, Paul doesn't consider the Hebrews mature enough for this exposition. But he still gives it. The material in chapter 6 is therefore almost in parenthesis, which is very typical of Paul. There is no hint that Abraham and Melchizedek were personally acquainted before this meeting, although they both were servants of the true God. We might wonder why God didn't connect them earlier. In His wisdom He doesn't always force believers to regularly fellowship with each other, indeed He made Abraham travel all around Canaan rather than telling him to settle near Melchizedek and form some kind of ecclesia or community of believers. And clearly the implication is that Abraham maintained a legitimate relationship with God without needing to use a human priest, even one as good and exalted as Melchizedek. For more on Melchizedek, see on Heb. 5:10.
Paul was writing to Jewish converts. They were under the influence of various Jewish fables about Melchizedek which were current. The Qumran documents include that now known as 11QMelchizedek, which claimed that the Archangel leader of the Angels was Melchizedek, and he would bring salvation to Israel when under Gentile oppression. Hebrews began with the strong argument that salvation is in God's Son, the Lord Jesus, who is not an Angel. And so now the argument is repeated; the Lord Jesus is not Melchizedek [Trinitarians, eager for support of a personal pre-existence of Jesus, totally fail to grasp Paul's point here]. Melchizedek was not an Angel, but a real historical figure ["consider how great this man was..."]. He looked forward to the Lord Jesus, who is greater than Melchizedek, just as He is greater than Angels.
The blessing with bread and wine (Gen. 14)
clearly looks forward to the work of the Lord Jesus. Receiving those
elements is therefore a sign of His blessing. He does something for us at
the breaking of bread; something happens. He blesses us, and the bread and
wine are given to us by Him as the symbol and representation of that
blessing. And the argument will develop that this blessing means ultimate
salvation and perfection, whereas all the old covenant priests could offer
at mosts was forgiveness for specific sins. The king of Sodom, whom
Abraham had saved, likewise came out to meet Abraham. But Melchizedek King
of Jerusalem had not been saved by Abraham; it was the kings of Sodom who
had been. So Melchizedek, representing the Lord Jesus, blesses Abraham
(and his seed "in" him) by grace; for Abraham had done nothing for
Melchizedek.
7:2 To whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all. He was first, by
interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also, King of Jerusalem,
which is, King of peace- "King of righteousness" connects with Paul's
appeal for the Hebrews to accept the word or Gospel of imputed
righteousness in Christ; see on Heb. 5:13, remembering that here in chapter 7
Paul is picking up from Heb. 5:13 after the parenthesis of chapter 6. The
connection between righteousness and peace is a feature of Messiah- in
Him, they kiss each other (Ps. 85:10), and are the mainstay of the
Messianic Kingdom on earth (Ps. 72:3; Is. 32:17; Rom. 14:17).
Righteousness is emphasized before peace- "then also... king of peace".
"The work of righteousness shall be peace" (Is. 32:17). But in Paul's
theology, it is the righteousness of King Jesus which is imputed to us and
thereby creates peace with God. This is the much laboured message of
Romans 1-8. So we can understand his enthusiastic perception that
Melchizedek, a type of Messiah, was king of righteousness "and then
also... king of peace".
7:3 He was without recorded father or mother, without genealogy, having
neither beginning of days nor end of life but presented as being like the
Son of God, abiding a priest continually- Without doubt God frames the
Biblical record in order to highlight certain facts. Thus there is a
marked lack of information concerning the father and mother of Melchizedek
in Genesis. God is providing us with an interpretation of how He worded
the account in Genesis, making the point that Melchizedek typified Christ.
But although we are not to read Hebrews 7:3 at face value, there is no
explicit indication to this effect. The objection that the New Testament
does not warn us against reading the ‘casting out of demons’ language
literally is therefore not valid. Hebrews 7:3 is one of many examples of
where it is imperative to understand the way in which God is using
language if we are to correctly understand His word, but there is no
explicit warning about this in Hebrews 7:3!
Jesus has a Father (God) and a mother (Mary) and a genealogy (see Mt. 1,
Lk. 3 and cp. Jn. 7:27). ‘Melchizedek’ therefore cannot refer to Him
personally. Besides, Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of
God” (Heb. 7:3); he was not Jesus himself, but had certain similarities
with Him which are being used by the writer for teaching purposes. “After
the similitude of Melchizedek there arises another priest”, Jesus (Heb.
7:15), who was ordained a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb.
5:5,6). The language of Hebrews about Melchizedek just cannot be taken
literally. If Melchizedek literally had no father or mother, then the only
person he could have been was God Himself; He is the only person with no
beginning (1 Tim. 6:16; Ps. 90:2). But this is vetoed by Heb. 7:4:
“Consider how great this man was”, and also by the fact that he was
seen by men (which God cannot be) and offered sacrifices to God. If he is
called a man, then he must have had literal parents. His being “without
father, without mother, without descent” must therefore refer to the fact
that his pedigree and parents are not recorded. Queen Esther’s parents are
not recorded, and so her background is described in a similar way.
Mordecai “brought up... Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither
father nor mother... whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead,
took for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). The author of Hebrews was clearly
writing as a Jew to Jews, and as such he uses the Rabbinic way of
reasoning and writing at times. There was a Rabbinic principle that "what
is not in the text, is not" (See James Dunn, Christology In The Making
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) p. 276 note 59)- and it seems that this
is the principle of exposition being used to arrive at the statement that
Melchizedek was "without father". Seeing no father is mentioned in the
Genesis text, therefore he was "without father"- but this doesn't mean he
actually didn't have a father. It's not recorded, and therefore, according
to that Rabbinic principle, he effectively didn't have one.
The book of Genesis usually goes to great lengths to introduce the family
backgrounds of all the characters which it presents to us. But Melchizedek
appears on the scene unannounced, with no record of his parents, and
vanishes from the account with equal abruptness. Yet there can be no doubt
that he was worthy of very great respect; even great Abraham paid tithes
to him, and was blessed by him, clearly showing Melchizedek’s superiority
over Abraham (Heb. 7:2,7). The writer is not just doing mental gymnastics
with Scripture. There was a very real problem in the first century which
the Melchizedek argument could solve. The Jews were reasoning: ‘You
Christians tell us that this Jesus can now be our high priest, offering
our prayers and works to God. But a priest has to have a known genealogy,
proving he is from the tribe of Levi. And anyway, you yourselves admit
Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). Sorry, to us Abraham is our
supreme leader and example (Jn. 8:33,39), and we won’t respect this
Jesus’. To which the reply is: ‘But remember Melchizedek. The Genesis
record is framed to show that such a great priest did not have any
genealogy; and Messiah is to be both a king and a priest, whose priesthood
is after the pattern of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6 cp. Ps. 110:4). Abraham was
inferior to Melchizedek, so you should switch your emphasis from Abraham
to Jesus, and stop trying to make the question of genealogies so important
(see 1 Tim. 1:4). If you meditate on how much Melchizedek is a type of
Jesus (i.e. the details of his life pointed forward to him), then you
would have a greater understanding of the work of Christ’.
7:4- see on Heb. 1:5.
Now consider how great this man was, to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave
a tenth of the spoils-
Melchizedek was a man, not a pre-existent God. The argument is that tithes
are given to someone greater. Hence Jacob offers to give tithes to his
father's God if He will preserve him (Gen. 28:22).
7:5 And they indeed of the sons of Levi that receive the priest's
office- Paul doesn't call them Aaronites because he wants to make the
point that the tribal head, Levi, was not the ancestor of Melchizedek; and
as one of the patriarchs, he as it were paid tithes in Abraham to
Melchizedek.
Have the commandment according to the law to take tithes from the people,
that is, of their brothers; even though they are also descendants of
Abraham- Levi's sons could take
tithes of their brothers, but this did not make them 'greater' than their
brothers. They were 'brothers' on the same level as those who tithed to
them. But payment of tithes to an unrelated person was a more impressive
evidence of the greatness of that person over the tithe payers.
7:6 Melchizedek was not descended from Levi by genealogy- There is
no evidence that he was even from within the Abraham family; he was
effectively a Gentile, the king-priest of Jerusalem. But the fact he was
not a Levite is emphasized because this was a reason some were giving for
not accepting the priesthood of the Lord Jesus.
But he took tithes of Abraham and blessed him that had received the
promises- The blessing was given
from Melchizedek to Abraham in response to tithes. Yet Abraham is the one
who was to be a blessing in the land, according to "the promises"
received. But actually, the blesser had himself first to be blessed. This
definitely places Melchizedek on the level of manifesting God to Abraham.
7:7 But without any dispute the less is blessed of the better- To
suggest anyone was "better" than Abraham was radical for Hebrews, who
considered Abraham the father of their race. And to rub the point in by
saying that he was "less" was to suggest that the entire metanarrative of
descent from Abraham being so important was being overwritten- and had in
fact been overwritten by any sensitive to the brief details given about
Melchizedek. That the ministry of the Lord Jesus was "better" than that of
the Mosaic law is stressed in Hebrews (1:4; 7:19,22; 8:6; 9:23; 12:24).
7:8 And here mortal men receive tithes; but there one received them, of
whom it is witnessed that he lives- The argument here might appear
somewhat forced, but it was all legitimate within the style of Rabbinic
midrash. Melchizedek "lives" in that there is no record of his death; we
noted on :3 the Rabbinic principle that "what is not in the text, is not".
And Paul goes on to reason that the priesthood of Melchizedek continues
still, in that Messiah was to have this priesthood eternally. "That he
lives" can also be understood as meaning that Melchizedek had a lifelong
priesthood, that was not replaced by others because he had reached a
certain age. McKnight observes that the Greek verb zē here is not
in the present, but the imperfect of the indicative, and he translates
"that he lives" as " lived, a priest all his life, in contradistinction
from those who ceased to be priests at a certain age".
7:9 And, so to say- Another usage of language which suggests we are
reading a transcript of a spoken address; see on 13:22.
When Abraham paid the tithe, Levi, whose descendants receive the tithe,
also paid a tithe-
Abraham is seen as representing his descendant Levi. The Levitical priests
did indeed pay a tithe of their tithes- to God. But Paul argues here that
Levi, in Abraham, paid a tithe to Melchizedek, thus making him a
manifestation of God.
7:10 For Levi was yet in the loins of his ancestor Abraham when
Melchizedek met Abraham- This kind of argument may appear forced, but
it was quite legitimate within the milieu of Jewish midrash.
7:11 Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for
under it the people received the law), what further need was there for
another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be
reckoned after the order of Aaron?- The argument is that the whole
mention of Messiah having a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek
would have been unnecessary if the Levitical priesthood and legal system
could bring "perfection". Paul forces through the logic of his position by
reasoning that the "need" for the Melchizedek priesthood meant that this
new priest must actually not be "after the order of Aaron" and therefore
must not be a descendant of Aaron. I have previously noted that this kind
of apparently forced argumentation would have been acceptable to those
used to this kind of reasoning in the rabbinical interpretations of the
Old Testament. But it is all the same logically forced, although from our
Christian perspective it all makes good sense. I suggested on expounding
Paul's obsession with the Jerusalem Poor Fund in 2 Corinthians that he had
an obsessive streak within him, whereby he marshalled all possible
evidence to support his positions and at points his logic and reasoning
bears the hallmark of the obsessive. It could well be that we have a case
of that here.
7:12 For the priesthood being changed requires also a change of the law-
This verse is a stubborn problem for those who consider that the Mosaic
law has not been changed nor abrogated. The reasoning here is logically
sound, but it depends upon the assumption that the Melchizedek priest has
in fact come; and only in that case could it be reasoned that the
priesthood had been changed from the Aaronic to that of Melchizedek, this
requiring a change of the law. The argument only had [and has] force for
those who accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. It is therefore highly
relevant to the Hebrew Christian audience but would lack logical power
with Hebrew non-Christians.
The whole Law of Moses is described as an everlasting covenant (Is. 24:5;
Dt. 29:29), but it has now been done away (Heb. 8:13). The feasts of
Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting statute unto you” (Lev.
16:34; Ex. 12:14); but now the Mosaic feasts have been done away in Christ
(Col. 2:14-17; 1 Cor. 5:7). The Levitical priesthood was “the covenant of
an everlasting priesthood” (Ex. 40:15; Num. 25:13), but “the priesthood
being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a change also
of the law” (Heb. 7:12). There was an “everlasting covenant” between God
and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (Lev. 24:8). This
“everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled.
But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in 2 Samuel 23:5
concerning how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in
the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word olahm,
which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old
Testament? James Strong defines olahm as literally meaning “the
finishing point, time out of mind, i.e. practically eternity”. It was
God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated Sabbath law were to
continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this meant a
finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it; therefore
he was told that the Law would last for ever in the sense of “practically
eternity”. For all of us, the spectre of ultimate infinity is impossible
to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about God’s eternity
and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we pause to
really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools and
linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or
Greek word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know
that death has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we have the
hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity very
much from a human viewpoint.
7:13 For he of whom these things are said belongs to another tribe,
from which no one has ever served at the altar- The "He" refers to the
Melchizedek priest who was to be Messiah. "Has ever" makes the point that
a new priesthood is now in view. The Lord Jesus serves at the
altar; this is the altar at which the Levitical priests have no right to
eat / fellowship, but we Christians do (13:10), suggesting that we in
Christ are likewise there, serving at and eating at the heavenly altar
which features so strongly in Revelation, as part of the Heavenly
sanctuary which the tabernacle was a dim reflection of. The Lord Jesus is
actively 'serving' there; He is not passive in Heaven, just waiting to
return to earth.
7:14 For it is evident that our Lord originated from the tribe of
Judah. Regarding this tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood-
The Lord being descended from Judah was "evident" or obvious- presumably
from the genealogies which connected Mary to the tribe of Judah. But again
as noted on :11, Paul's enthusiasm seems to be carrying him away, for it
was far from obvious that Jesus of Nazareth was from Judah. However he may
have meant instead that Messiah had to come from Judah; this much was
indeed "evident" from the Old Testament and undisputed.
7:15 And what we say is even more abundantly evident, if after the
likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest- The abundantly
obvious argument was that the Melchizedek priest had to be eternal (see
:16,17); and the only candidate was Jesus, whom Christians believed had
been resurrected and given eternal life. He was the only person who had
then been immortalized. But this argument again was logically powerful
only to a Hebrew Christian, and not to a Hebrew non-Christian. The
'arising' of this 'other priest' may be a hint at His resurrection to
immortality.
7:16 Who has been appointed, not on the basis of a law about physical
descent, but according to the power of an endless life- The Levitical
priests became priests by reason of their age and descent, whereas the
Melchizedek Messiah priest had to be "appointed". The basis of the Lord's
appointment was His immortality- because the priest had to have an eternal
ministry, so it was necessary that he was immortal. And the only
immortalized human was Jesus of Nazareth.
7:17 For it is witnessed: You are a priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek- "For ever" is being interpretted as meaning that the
priest would be immortal, making the resurrected, immortalized Jesus the
only possible candidate. The 'witnessing' by God in Ps. 110:4 is
understood as the priest being "appointed" (:16).
7:18 On the other hand, there is an annulling of the former commandment
because of its weakness and unprofitableness- This new priesthood
required a new law; a changed priesthood meant a changed law (:12). And
this required an "annulling" of that law, and that was because it was weak
and unprofitable. Such language appears to deprecate the law, although
Paul elsewhere says that the law was "holy, just and good" (Rom. 7:12); it
was weak and not profitable because it was unable to bring salvation or
perfection to those under it. The strong language used here about the law
of Moses must be given its full weight by those who argue that it should
still be kept today.
7:19 (For the law made nothing perfect)- Likewise :11 has argued
that the Levitical priesthood had to be changed because it could not bring
"perfection". The law convicted men of sin and offered some mechanism of
patching up the broken relationship caused by it. It offered forgiveness,
as part of an endless cycle of human failure and Divine forgiveness; but
eternity and perfection are different ideas to that of forgiveness. And it
is these things which are enabled by the new priest. The Mosaic priesthood
and associated sacrifices did not enable
moral perfection. But by being in Christ, we can be counted as Him, the only
perfect human. Faith in Christ could therefore make perfect in that the
Lord Jesus was 'made perfect' by His sufferings, particularly on the cross
(5:7-9).
And a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw near
to God- By being counted as in
Christ, having His perfection as ours due to our status in Him, we have
the sure hope of future salvation. The elpis or hope in view is a
solid expectation regarding the future, not a mere hoping for the best.
And it is by having this hope that we find strength against materialism
and "draw near to God". The Hebrew readership would have understood this
as meaning 'drawing near in priestly service' (cp. Ex. 19:22). The Hope we
have compels us to God's service. All that is true of the Lord Jesus
becomes true of those in Him; His priesthood becomes ours. And it is after
the order of Melchizedek, which is why non-Levites can be part of it.
7:20 And the Melchizedek priesthood was not without the taking of an
oath- The oath taken was by God (Ps. 110:4), vowing by Himself to
honour the eternally powerful priesthood of Messiah. Such Divine
underwriting was not given to the Levitical priesthood.
7:21 The Levitical priests were made priests without an oath, but he
with an oath: The Lord swore and will not change His mind; you are a
priest for ever- The eternal nature of the Lord's Melchizedek
priesthood is at the basis of the certainty of our hope for future
salvation (:19). God Almighty guarantees that the Lord Jesus will be our
eternal priest. Our standing before Him is therefore eternal; we have such
a priest who is not simply a mediator between God and men, a conduit
allowing us to offer to Him and approach Him, but a priest who on His own
agenda eternally secures our salvation.
7:22 By this also has Jesus become the surety of a better covenant- The sure hope of :19 is underpinned by the way the Lord is the surety or guarantor of the better covenant. The argument here extends that of Heb. 6:13-15, where it is the promises to Abraham which were the subject of a covenant oath on God's very own life. They were and are the essence of the new covenant. They are a simple unilateral promise that Abraham's seed will inherit the earth for ever, with all that implies about salvation through the resurrection of the body.
The Greek for "surety" occurs only here
in the NT and LXX. The idea is of a guarantor who promises his self
sacrifice in the case that the party to the covenant is unfaithful. It
literally means 'the pledge of a limb'. The "surety" could offer his own
limbs, or himself into bondage as a slave, if the person being guaranteed
somehow failed. The Lord's death confirmed God's promises as being for
real. But did God's side of the covenant need such a surety? Perhaps we
are better to think of the Lord's being a surety as being a guarantee for
our faithfulness to the covenant. But we have not been faithful to it; and
so He died, gave His all, His limbs, and became the preeminent servant of
Yahweh on the cross. This was to the end that the new covenant between God
and us might still stand, despite our infraction of it.
7:23 And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because
that by death they are hindered from continuing- The eternal
priesthood required for the Messianic Melchizedek priest could not be
attained by mortal priests. Whereas their priesthood was ended by their
death, the Lord's priesthood began with His death. Constantly, the
contrast is between the Levitical priests and the Lord's priesthood. The
differences and not the similarities is the core of the argument.
Therefore when we read that they offered for their own sins and for the
people's, the context is surely implying that the Lord didn't offer for
His own sins- for He had none. If that had been better understood, and it
is quite clear really when the idea of contrast rather than
similarity is grasped- then much false reasoning about the Lord dying
to somehow atone for the sin of His own nature would then have been
stillborn.
7:24 But he, because he abides for ever, has his priesthood
unchangeable- The eternal priesthood of the Melchizedek priest meant
that His priesthood can never be changed. He has obtained eternal
redemption for us, and that can never be liable to any renegotiation. Our
hope for eternity is therefore sure (:19) because the One who obtained it
is immortal, and His work for us is in this sense eternal.
7:25- see on Heb. 2:3.
Therefore he is able to save for ever those that draw near to God through
him, seeing he lives forever to make intercession for them- The Lord's intercession for us is eternal. We are
in Him, and His drawing near to God in priestly service is therefore ours
(see on :19 for 'drawing near' as priestly language). It is our desire to
serve others and thereby serve God which is what propels us to draw near
to God; and in this desire we shall be eternally empowered.
The eternal nature of the Lord's priesthood is emphasized in the argument;
He is consecrated for ever (:28), and His priesthood will last eternally
rather than for a limited period of time, as was the case with the mortal
priests. What does this mean? The Lord Jesus eternally intercedes for us,
even after our death. The risen and exalted Lord is spoken of as being
shamed, being crucified afresh, as agonizing in prayer for us now just as
He did on the cross (Rom. 8:24 cp. Heb. 5:7-9). On the cross, He made
intercession for us (Is. 53:11,12); but now He ever lives to make such intercession (Heb. 7:25).
There He bore our sins; and yet now He still bears our sins (Is.
53:4-6,11). The fact that the Lord "ever lives to make intercession" for
us (Heb. 7:25) is an allusion back to Is. 53:12, which prophecies that on
the cross, Christ would make intercession for the transgressors. His
prayer for us then, that we would all be forgiven (and see the prophecies
of this in Psalms 22,69 etc.) was therefore His intercession for our
salvation. His whole death was His prayer / intercession for us. But it
was of His own freewill; He was not relaying our words then. And His
intercession for us on the cross is the pattern of His intercession for us
now. This ought to be a humbling thought.
He made one mediatory offering for all time (Heb. 5:7; 7:27); therefore He
has nothing to offer now. The High Priest going into the Holiest is also a
type of Christ entering Heaven. He is in a sense permanently in the
Holiest, He bears our names always before Yahweh; He ever lives,
all the time, to make intercession for us, always. This of course opens up
the interesting question as to in what sense the Lord will eternally
intercede for us, once we are immortalized. Perhaps the 'eternal' nature
of His intercession is relative to the temporary work of the Levitical
priests who died, and refers to eternity only in a relative sense; see on
:12. But the Greek for "intercession" does not of itself require the idea
of reconcilliation or mediation. Through the ministry of the Comforter, we
do not need that even now (Jn. 14:16; 16:26,27). The idea can simply be
that He will confer with the Father about us eternally; and that is how
the word is used in Acts 25:24 and Rom. 11:2. This is a wonderful thought;
that the Lord Jesus shall be talking eternally to the Father about you and
me.
7:26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us- holy, harmless,
undefiled, separate from sinners- He was and is “harmless” in His
priestly mediation; the same word is translated “simple” in Rom. 16:8. He
was an intellectual beyond compare, morally and dialectically He defeated
the most cunning cross-questioning of His day; and yet He was a working
man surrounded by masses of daily problems. But He was and is “simple” in
the sense of single-mindedly committed to His priestly work. We are on
earth and God is in Heaven, and therefore our words should be few (Ecc.
5:2). Not few in the sense that we don’t pray for very long, but few in
terms of their simplicity and directness. The Lord warned us against the
complicated prayer forms of the Pharisees; and asked us to mean our
words of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ rather than use more sophisticated assurances. The
heart is deceitful and so wicked we cannot plumb its depths (Jer. 17:9);
and yet the pure in heart are blessed. This must surely mean that the
“pure” in heart are those who despite the intrinsic self-deception of the
human heart, are nonetheless “pure” or single hearted in their prayer and
motives and desire to serve God.
The Lord Jesus was in His life "separate from sinners". The Greek word
very definitely means 'to actively depart from'- it's used about a partner
walking out of a marriage. Yet the Lord is always pictured as mixing with
sinners, to the extent that they felt they could come to Him easily, and
actually liked to do this. So how was He "separate" from them in the way
the Hebrew writer understood? Here again we see one of the profoundest
paradoxes in this supremest of personalities. He was with sinners, then
and now; His solidarity with us, the roughest and the most obvious and the
subtlest of us, is what attracts us to Him. And yet He is somehow totally
separate from us; and it is this in itself which brings us to Him.
It needs to be noted that the Lord Jesus had human nature, and yet was
holy, harmless and separate from sinners, and attained 'perfection'. Human
nature is not, therefore, an inevitable source of sin and separation from
God. The Father is not made at us for being human; it's no sin to be
alive.
And has been exalted higher than the heavens- The allusion is to the common Jewish idea of there
being various "heavens". Paul doesn't specifically criticize the idea, but
just states that whatever we understand about this, the Lord Jesus has
been exalted higher. The Gospels take a similar approach to the wrong
ideas about demon possession; the power of the Father and Son is
infinitely greater than that of 'demons', however we wish to understand
the term.
7:27 Who needs not to offer up sacrifices daily, like those high
priests, first for his own sins and then for those of the people. For this
he did once for all, when he offered up himself- "This he did once" is
a contrast with how the old High Priest offered ["this"] daily [Jesus did
it only "once"]. The reference to "first for his own sins, then for the
people's" is as it were in parenthesis, a throw away comment, to indicate
again the inferiority of the old High Priests who themselves were sinners
and therefore needed to offer for their own sins as well as those of God's
people. My own suspicion that Paul was the author of Hebrews is based upon
the style of writing we have there which we see in Paul elsewhere- so
often, a comment is made in passing like this example of commenting that
the old Priests had to offer for their own sins too. This kind of style is
typical of Paul, Ephesians and Colossians are full of this kind of thing-
making an argument, but throwing in a comment in the midst of it, a kind
of aside, which often phases the reader.
It is not the day of atonement which is in view here, because the contrast
is with the "daily" offerings of the priests. A sincere priest would have
offered daily sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. The
Lord Jesus didn't need to do this; the parallels with the Levitical
priesthood are by way of both contrast and similarity. They stood; He
sits. They offered animals, He offered "Himself". But as He offered for
"the people" so too did the mortal priests; but He did so once, whereas
they did so daily. They offered for their own wins too; He did not. If the
Lord in any sense had needed to offer for His own "sins", He would have
had to do so daily. But He offered only one offering, for us. That Christ
died for our sins according to the scriptures is the clear emphasis
of the entire Biblical revelation. "This He did" refers to His
offering for the people, for us; and not for His own 'sins'. This point is
underlined in the next verse, which notes that the priests were morally
weak, whereas the Son of God is perfect and shall be forever, unable to
sin.
7:28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but
the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has
been perfected forever- See on :27. Sin brings death, so the eternal
priest appointed by the word of God's oath in Ps. 110:4 had to be not only
eternal but also sinless. There could therefore be no other candidate for
this priest than the Lord Jesus. The contrast between the moral weakness
of the priests and the perfection of God's Son is further reason to
understand "this He did" in :27 as referring solely to His
sacrifice for "the people". The Lord's 'perfecting' was in the supreme
moral perfection He achieved on the cross (see on 5:8,9). That acme of
utter perfection, attained within a body covered in blood and spittle,
dying in agony on a tree trunk, tormented by flies and barking dogs on a
hill outside Jerusalem on a Friday afternoon, on a day in April, 2000 or
so years ago... has as it were been set in stone eternally. The perfection
attained is "forever". Our far weaker spiritual growth will likewise be
eternally set in stone.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
