Jim McDonald

Hebrew 7:11-28 contains and illustrates one of the most methodical examples of logic one will ever see. It is the statement of the need for a new law because a new priesthood was given. The writer addressed those whose heritage was following the law from God given through Moses at Mt. Sinai. But these ones to whom he wrote had accepted the gospel of Jesus. For whatever reason, they were having second thoughts about that decision and were in danger of returning to what they had left for a better covenant. The writer will show them that the first covenant was never intended to be permanent. In fact, that first covenant had stated that both a new covenant and new priesthood was coming. God had promised a new priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4), and that God would also give a new covenant which would be different from the law Moses gave (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Notice how that after the writer had reminded his readers that their God had promised a priest to come like Melchizedek, and assured the certainty of that promise by confirming it with an oath, the writer then proceeded to show the logical consequence of a new priesthood. He asked, “If there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people had receive the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek and not be reckoned after Aaron?” (Hebrews 7:11). Why indeed? David’s prophecy regarding a new priest was given while Aaron’s priesthood was still lawfully functioning. Melchizedek lived during Abraham’s day, before Abraham had children and thus was a different priesthood than what was later given through Moses.

If there was to be a priest like Melchizedek (and different from that of Aaron), then that demanded a change of law: “For the priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Hebrews 7:12). That was true. Not only were Aaron’s descendants priests, but priests from another source were forbidden. Not even a king like Uzziah was allowed to function as priest because he was not of the family of Aaron (2 Chronicles 26:21). Uzziah (a descendant of David) attempted to enter the Holy Place and offer incense upon the altar of incense, but he was smitten by God with leprosy and remained a leper until his death. No Jewish reader could deny that. So, if the priesthood was changed (and the law itself said it would be, Psalm 110:4), then there had to be a change of law. In Hebrews 7:13-17 the writer showed that Jesus was not of the lineage of Aaron and lawfully could not serve as a priest under that first covenant, yet God had sworn that He would make His Son a priest forever.

The writer did not merely show that the law had to be changed because the priesthood was changed, he showed that the law was changed because of its weakness (Hb. 7:18f).  He identified it as weak and unprofitable, for it made nothing perfect (Hb. 7:18), all which was rectified by Jesus who brought in a better hope through which we draw nigh to God (Hb. 7:18-19).  He further reflected that not only was Jesus made a priest like Melchizedek, but that God confirmed that priesthood with an oath.  Those who served as priests under the Levitical priesthood were made priests without an oath (Hb. 7:20).

By God’s oath, Jesus has become the surety (guarantee) of a better covenant (Hebrews 7:20). Levitical priests were hindered in their service because that service was terminated by their death. Not so with Jesus. He is “able to save to the uttermost them that draw nigh unto God through him, he ever liveth to make intercessions for them” (Hebrews 7:24-25). Therefore, “Such a high priest became us, holy, guiltless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, who needeth not daily, let those high priests, to offer up sacrifices for their own sins, and then for the sins of the people, for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself. For the law appointed men high priests, having infirmities, but the word of the oath, which was after the law, appointed a Son, perfected forevermore” (Hebrews 7:26-28).

Dissenters might not accept the reasoning of the writer, but they could offer no reasonable answer otherwise, nor can they now for, even 1,900 years after the argument was made, it still is unanswerable.