Lesson 7: According To The Order Of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7)

Jesus’ role as high priest has been a chief part of the author’s argument of the superiority of Jesus. In explaining why Jesus had to live as a man, the author stated that such was necessary so that “He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2.17). The importance of Jesus’ high priesthood is again raised in Hebrews 4.14-5.4, giving assurance that Christians can enter God’s rest since our high priest can “sympathize with our weaknesses”. But how can Jesus serve as our high priest when He is not of the tribe of Levi; He is not a descendant of Aaron. Thus, the author reminded His audience of God’s promise to the Messiah: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5.6).

Hebrews 7.1-3, Who Is Melchizedek?

Melchizedek is mentioned only twice in the Old Testament. There is the promise we have been studying from Psalm 110.4 and there is the historical account found in Genesis 14.18-20. The narrative takes up after Abraham leads his men to rescue his nephew Lot and the other inhabitants of Sodom who had been taken captive by four kings from the north. While little is said about Melchizedek in the text, each bit of information is of great relevance

• King of Salem, priest of the Most High God: the Christ can be of the order of Melchizedek since he held both the offices of king and priest. The same cannot be said of Aaron and his line.
• Blessed Abraham: an important point to establish the superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham (see vss. 6-7).
• Given a tenth of the spoils by Abraham: another important point to establish the superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham (see vs. 6).
• King of righteousness: literal rendering of the name “Melchizedek”
• King of Salem, which is king of peace: note that Salem is another name for Jerusalem (see Psalm 76.2).
• Without father, without mother… there are some who take this to mean that Melchizedek was either a theophany (manifestation of God on earth) or an angel. However, such a conclusion is not warranted or needed. The author is merely making a point from what the text does not say to establish another linkage with the Christ. “Melchizedek’s priesthood was not established upon the external circumstances of birth and descent. It was based on the call of God and not on the hereditary process by which the Levitical priesthood was sustained… Melchizedek’s sudden appearance and equally sudden disappearance from recorded history evoked the notion of eternity, which was only prefigured in Melchizedek but was realized in Christ.” (William Lane, Word Biblical Commentary).
• Made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually: “The writer says that Melchizedek is “made like” (aphōmoiōmenos) the Son of God, not that the Son of God is like Melchizedek. Thus it is not that Melchizedek sets the pattern and Jesus follows it. Rather, the record about Melchizedek is so arranged that it brings out certain truths that apply far more fully to Jesus than they do to Melchizedek.” (Leon Morris, Expositors Bible Commentary).

Hebrews 7.4-10, The Order Of Melchizedek > The Order Of Aaron

Having laid out Melchizedek’s credentials, the author gets to his main point: Scripture shows that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, and by extension the Aaronic priesthood.

1. The Law stipulated that the Aaronic priesthood would collect tithes from the people (see Numbers 18.21ff). They collected the tithes from their “brethren”, other descendants of Abraham (vs. 5). But Abraham gave a tithe “of the choicest spoils” to Melchizedek (vs. 6).
2. Melchizedek not only received tithes from Abraham, he blessed the patriarch… and the lesser is always blessed by the greater (vss. 6-7).
3. In the case of the Aaronic priesthood, those who receive the tithes are mortal. But as was established in vs. 3, Melchizedek “lives on” (vs. 8).
4. Since Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, so did Levi, his great grandson and the ancestor of Aaron (vss. 9-10).

Hebrews 7.11-17, Changing Of The Orders

Having established that Melchizedek is superior to Abraham and the Aaronic priesthood, the author turns his attention back to the promise of Psalm 110.4. Why did God make this promise; why the need for another priest after the order of Melchizedek? Because the Levitical priesthood didn’t make man perfect, i.e. acceptable to God (vs. 11). Thus, another priesthood was necessary to accomplish this (recall Hebrews 4.14-16). But the need for another priest after the order of Melchizedek raises another issue: what about the Law? The Levitical priesthood was inseparable from the Mosaic Law, for not only did the Law prescribe the qualification for the priests, but the priests functioned to carry out the various ordinances of the Law. Without the Law there was no Levitical priesthood; without the Levitical priesthood there was no Law (vs. 12)!

Jesus, the One spoken of in Psalm 110.4, was not of the tribe of Levi, but of the tribe of Judah… a tribe with no association to the priesthood (vss. 13-15). But Jesus’ priesthood was not founded on the basis of the Law which required physical lineage from Aaron, but on the “power of an indestructible life” (vs. 16). “It was well suited to acknowledge that although Jesus’ human life had been exposed to κατάλυσις, “destruction,” through crucifixion, his life was not destroyed by the death suffered on the cross. The phrase δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου describes the new quality of life with which Jesus was endowed by virtue of his resurrection and exaltation to the heavenly world, where he was formally installed in his office as high priest” (William Lane, Word Biblical Commentary). And since He possesses an “indestructible life”, He can be declared “priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (vs. 17).

Hebrews 7.18-22, Changing Of The Priesthood… And The Covenant

The Levitical priesthood could not make one perfect (vs. 11), and neither could the “former commandment” i.e. the Law (vss. 18-19). The author says this was because “of its weakness and uselessness”. “Its “weakness” (ἀσθενής) inheres not in the law or its purpose, but in the people upon whom it depends for its accomplishment (see Comment on 4:15; 5:2; 7:28). Its “uselessness” (ἀνωφελής) derives from the fact that the law regulated the approach to God in a cultic sense and was able to cleanse only externally (9:9–10, 13, 23; 10:14).” (William Lane, Word Biblical Commentary). And since the Law could not make anything perfect, it was “set aside”.

But God had prepared something better to follow: a better priesthood under a better covenant which would bring in “a better hope, through which we draw near to God” (vs. 19). Note that this hope is tied directly to the change in priesthood and covenant, because we’ve already seen that Jesus’ priesthood is how we can “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace” (4.16). Furthermore, this was always God’s intention for while the Levitical priesthood was “without an oath” (vs. 21), the Lord made an oath that the Messiah would be “priest forever” (vs. 21). And since Jesus is priest forever, He “has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (vs. 22). “He guarantees to men that God will fulfill his covenant of forgiveness, and he guarantees to God that those who are in him are acceptable.” (Leon Morris, Expositors Bible Commentary).

Before we move on we should note that vs. 22 is the first occurrence of the term “covenant” in the letter. It is an important concept, being found 17 times in the letter. It would seem that the author uses the term diathēkē to get across a couple of concepts: “This is the writer’s first use of the term “covenant” (diathēkē), a word whose importance for him may be gauged from the fact that he uses it no fewer than seventeen times, whereas in no other NT book is it found more than three times. In nonbiblical Greek it denotes a last will and testament, but in the LXX it is the normal rendering of the Hebrew berîṯ (“covenant”). It is agreed that in NT diathēkē mostly means “covenant.” It also seems, however, that now and then the meaning “testament” is not out of mind (e.g., 9:16). The author may have chosen this word rather than synthēkē, the usual word for “covenant,” because the latter might suggest an agreement made on more or less equal terms. By contrast, there is something absolute about a will. One cannot dicker with the testator. And in like manner man cannot bargain with God. God lays down the terms.” (Leon Morris, Expositors Bible Commentary).

Hebrews 7.23-28, Superiority Of The New Covenant Priesthood

The new priesthood of Jesus and the associated new covenant are better than the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law, and now the author gives one concrete reason why this is true. The high priests under the Law, being mortal, died! (vs. 23, cf. vs. 8). Josephus states that there were 83 high priests from Aaron until the destruction of the temple in AD 70 (Antiq. XX, 227). But Jesus, being after the order of Melchizedek, retains his high priesthood forever (vs. 24).

Since Jesus lives forever and thus remains high priest forever, it follows that He saves forever. And this He does for those who “draw near to God through Him” (vs. 25). He saves forever because He is able to always intercede for us (see Romans 8.34; Hebrews 9.24). Jesus is a “fitting” high priest of the new covenant because of His holy character (vs. 26) and because of His superior sacrifice (vs. 27). Thus, the author again makes a contrast between the old and new covenants: the old appointed weak high priests, but the oath of Psalm 110.4 appointed God’s Son to be an eternally perfect high priest for us.