TRV
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Hebrews 7:11–28. His three-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
Observe the necessity there was of raising up another priest, after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron, by whom that perfection should come which could not come by the Levitical priesthood, which therefore must be changed, and the whole economy with it, Heb 7:11, Heb 7:12, etc. Here,
I.It is asserted that perfection could not come by the Levitical priesthood and the law.
They could not put those who came to them into the perfect enjoyment of the good things they pointed out to them; they could only show them the way.
II.That therefore another priest must be raised up, after the order of Melchisedec, by whom, and his law of faith, perfection might come to all who obey him; and, blessed be God, that we may have perfect holiness and perfect happiness by Christ in the covenant of grace, according to the gospel, for we are complete in him.
III.It is asserted that the priesthood being changed there must of necessity be a change of the law; there being so near a relation between the priesthood and the law, the dispensation could not be the same under another priesthood; a new priesthood must be under a new regulation, managed in another way, and by rules proper to its nature and order.
IV.It is not only asserted, but proved, that the priesthood and law are changed, Heb 7:13, Heb 7:14.
The priesthood and law by which perfection could not come are abolished, and a priest has arisen, and a dispensation is now set up, by which true believers may be made perfect. Now that there is such a change is obvious.
1.There is a change in the tribe of which the priesthood comes. Before, it was the tribe of Levi; but our great high priest sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning the priesthood, Heb 7:14. This change of the family shows a real change of the law of the priesthood.
2.There is a change in the form and order of making the priests. Before, in the Levitical priesthood, they were made after the law of a carnal commandment; but our great high priest was made after the power of an endless life. The former law appointed that the office should descend, upon the death of the father, to his eldest son, according to the order of carnal or natural generation; for none of the high priests under the law were without father or mother, or without descent: they had not life and immortality in themselves. They had both beginning of days and end of life; and so the carnal commandment, or law of primogeniture, directed their succession, as it did in matters of civil right and inheritance. But the law by which Christ was constituted a priest, after the order of Melchisedec, was the power of an endless life. The life and immortality which he had in himself were his right and title to the priesthood, not his descent from former priests. This makes a great difference in the priesthood, and in the economy too, and gives the preference infinitely to Christ and the gospel. The very law which constituted the Levitical priesthood supposed the priests to be weak, frail, dying, creatures, not able to preserve their own natural lives, but who must be content and glad to survive in their posterity after the flesh; much less could they, by any power or authority they had, convey spiritual life and blessedness to those who came to them. But the high priest of our profession holds his office by that innate power of endless life which he has in himself, not only to preserve himself alive, but to communicate spiritual and eternal life to all those who duly rely upon his sacrifice and intercession. Some thing the law of the carnal commandment refers to the external rites of consecration, and the carnal offerings that were made; but the power of an endless life to the spiritual living sacrifices proper to the gospel, and the spiritual and eternal privileges purchased by Christ, who was consecrated by the eternal Spirit of life that he received without measure.
3.There is a change in the efficacy of the priesthood. The former was weak and unprofitable, made nothing perfect; the latter brought in a better hope, by which we draw near to God, Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19. The Levitical priesthood brought nothing to perfection: it could not justify men's persons from guilt; it could not sanctify them from inward pollution; it could not cleanse the consciences of the worshippers from dead works; all it could do was to lead them to the antitype. But the priesthood of Christ carries in it, and brings along with it, a better hope; it shows us the true foundation of all the hope we have towards God for pardon and salvation; it more clearly discovers the great objects of our hope; and so it tends to work in us a more strong and lively hope of acceptance with God. By this hope we are encouraged to draw nigh unto God, to enter into a covenant-union with him, to live a life of converse and communion with him. We may now draw near with a true heart, and with the full assurance of faith, having our minds sprinkled from an evil conscience. The former priesthood rather kept men at a distance, and under a spirit of bondage.
4.There is a change in God's way of acting in this priesthood. He has taken an oath to Christ, which he never did to any of the order of Aaron. God never gave them any such assurance of their continuance, never engaged himself by oath or promise that theirs should be an everlasting priesthood, and therefore gave them no reason to expect the perpetuity of it, but rather to look upon it as a temporary law. But Christ was made a priest with the oath of God: The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, Heb 7:21. Here God has upon oath declared the immutability, excellency, efficacy, and eternity, of the priesthood of Christ.
5.There is a change in that covenant of which the priesthood was a security and the priest a surety; that is, a change in the dispensation of that covenant. The gospel dispensation is more full, free, perspicuous, spiritual, and efficacious, than that of the law. Christ is in this gospel covenant a surety for us to God and for God to us, to see that the articles be performed on both parts He, as surety, has united the divine and human nature together in his own person, and therein given assurance of reconciliation; and he has, as surety, united God and man together in the bond of the everlasting covenant. He pleads with men to keep their covenant with god, and he pleads with God that he will fulfil his promises to men, which he is always ready to do in a way suitable to his majesty and glory, that is, through a Mediator.
6.There is a remarkable change in the number of the priests under these different orders. In that of Aaron there was a multitude of priests, of high priests, not at once, but successively; but in this of Christ there is but one and the same. The reason is plain, The Levitical priests were many, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. Their office, how high and honourable soever, could not secure them from dying; and, as one died, another must succeed, and after a while must give place to a third, till the number had become very great. But this our high priest continues for ever, and his priesthood is aparabaton - an unchangeable one, that does not pass from one to another, as the former did; it is always in the same hand. There can be no vacancy in this priesthood, no hour nor moment in which the people are without a priest to negotiate their spiritual concerns in heaven. Such a vacancy might be very dangerous and prejudicial to them; but this is their safety and happiness, that this ever-living high priest is able to save to the utmost - in all times, in all cases, in every juncture - all who come to God by him, Heb 7:25. So that here is a manifest alteration much for the better.
7.There is a remarkable difference in the moral qualifications of the priests. Those who were of the order of Aaron were not only mortal men, but sinful men, who had their sinful as well as natural infirmities; they needed to offer up sacrifices first for their own sins and then for the people. But our high priest, who was consecrated by the word of the oath, needed only to offer up once for the people, never at all for himself; for he has not only an immutable consecration to his office, but an immutable sanctity in his person. He is such a high priest as became us, holy, harmless, and undefiled, etc., Heb 7:26-28. Here observe,
(1.)Our case, as sinners, needed a high priest to make satisfaction and intercession for us.
(2.)No priest could be suitable or sufficient for our reconciliation to God but one who was perfectly righteous in his own person; he must be righteous in himself, or he could not be a propitiation for our sin, or our advocate with the Father.
(3.)The Lord Jesus was exactly such a high priest as we wanted, for he has a personal holiness, absolutely perfect. Observe the description we have of the personal holiness of Christ expressed in various terms, all of which some learned divines consider as relating to his perfect purity. [1.] He is holy, perfectly free from all the habits or principles of sin, not having the least disposition to it in his nature; no sin dwells in him, though it does in the best of Christians, not the least sinful inclination [2.] He is harmless, perfectly free from all actual transgression, has done no violence, nor is there any deceit in his mouth, never did the least wrong to God or man. [3.] He is undefiled, he was never accessory to other men's sins. It is a difficult thing to keep ourselves pure, so as not to partake in the guilt of other men's sins, by contributing in some way towards them, or not doing what we ought to prevent them. Christ was undefiled; though he took upon him the guilt of our sins, yet he never involved himself in the fact and fault of them. [4.] He is separate from sinners, not only in his present state (having entered as our high priest into the holiest of all, into which nothing defiled can enter), but in his personal purity: he has no such union with sinners, either natural or federal, as can devolve upon him original sin. This comes upon us by virtue of our natural and federal union with the first Adam, we descending from him in the ordinary way. But Christ was, by his ineffable conception in the virgin, separate from sinners; though he took a true human nature, yet the miraculous way in which it was conceived set him upon a separate footing from all the rest of mankind. [5.] He is made higher than the heavens. Most expositors understand this concerning his state of exaltation in heaven, at the right hand of God, to perfect the design of his priesthood. But Dr. Goodwin thinks this may be very justly referred to the personal holiness of Christ, which is greater and more perfect than the holiness of the hosts of heaven, that is, the holy angels themselves, who, though they are free from sin, yet are not in themselves free from all possibility of sinning. And therefore we read, God putteth no trust in his holy ones, and he chargeth his angels with folly (Job 4:18), that is, with weakness and peccability. They may be angels one hour and devils another, as many of them were; and that the holy angels shall not now fall does not proceed from an indefectibility of nature, but from the election of God; they are elect angels. It is very probable that this explanation of the words, made higher than the heavens, may be thought too much strained, and that it ought to be understood of the dignity of Christ's state, and not the perfect holiness of his person; and the rather because it is said he was made higher genomenos; but it is well known that this word is used in a neutral sense, as where it is said, genesthē ho Theos alēthēs - Let God be true. The other characters in the verse plainly belong to the personal perfection of Christ in holiness, as opposed to the sinful infirmities of the Levitical priests; and it seems congruous to think this must do so too, if it may be fairly taken in such a sense; and it appears yet more probable, since the validity and prevalency of Christ's priesthood in Heb 7:27 are placed in the impartiality and disinterestedness of it. He needed not to offer up for himself: it was a disinterested mediation; he mediated for that mercy for others which he did not need for himself; had he needed it himself, he had been a party, and could not have been a Mediator - a criminal, and could not have been an advocate for sinners. Now, to render his mediation the more impartial and disinterested, it seems requisite not only that he had no present need of that favour for himself which he mediated for in behalf of others, but that he never could stand in need of it. Though he needed it not today, yet if he knew he might be in such circumstances as to need it tomorrow, or at any future time, he must have been thought to have had some eye upon his own interest, and therefore could not act with impartial regard and pure zeal for the honour of God on one hand, and tender pure compassion for poor sinners on the other. I pretend not here to follow the notes of our late excellent expositor, into whose labours we have entered, but have taken the liberty to vindicate this notion of the learned Dr. Goodwin from the exceptions that I know have been made to it; and I have the rather done it because, if it will hold good, it gives us further evidence how necessary it was that the Mediator should be God, since no mere creature is of himself possessed of that impeccability which will set him above all possible need of favour and mercy for himself.
Historical interpretation
Ten Centuries of Reception
8 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
We may also ask what it means when it says in the law that Moses’ face was shining with glory, though covered with a veil, while his hand when put “into his bosom” became “leprous as snow.” In this it seems to me the form of the whole law is quite fully described. For his “face” is the word of the law, and by “hand” are described the works of the law. “For no human being will be justified by works of the law.” Nor could the law lead anyone to “perfection.” In the same way the “leprous” hand of Moses was hidden in his bosom, since it could not perform any perfect work; but his face shone, though covered with a veil, since his word has the glory of knowledge, but a hidden glory.
Because of their earthly voluptuousness and desire for pleasure, which the former priests showed, and because of their infirmity, through which they made their people infirm before their cupidities, they did not bring any of them to that perfection, thanks to which we got rid of all our material goods. In fact, “the introduction” of the gospel made for the hope which surpassed what was previously preached to us, was also made for the introduction of this precept: through our own freedom from material possessions “we approach God,” whereas through the voluptuousness and pleasures of the law we were rejected and removed from God.
"For the Law made nothing perfect." What is, "make nothing perfect"? Made no man perfect, being disobeyed. And besides, even if it had been listened to, it would not have made one perfect and virtuous. But as yet he does not say this here, but that it had no strength: and with good reason. For written precepts were there set down, Do this and Do not that, being enjoined only, and not giving power within. But "the Hope" is not such.
What is "a disannulling"? A casting out. A "disannulling" is a disannulling of things which are of force. So that he implied, that it once was of force, but henceforward was of no account, since it accomplished nothing. Was the Law then of no use? It was indeed of use; and of great use: but to make men perfect it was of no use. For in this respect he says, "The Law made nothing perfect." All were figures, all shadows; circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath. Therefore they could not reach through the soul, wherefore they pass away and gradually withdraw. "But the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw nigh unto God."
"But the bringing in of a better hope." For that system also had a hope, but not such as this. For they hoped that, if they were well pleasing to God, they should possess the land, that they should suffer nothing fearful. But in this dispensation we hope that, if we are well pleasing to God, we shall possess not earth, but heaven; or rather (which is far better than this) we hope to stand near to God, to come unto the very throne of the Father, to minister unto Him with the Angels. And see how he introduces these things by little and little. For above he says "which entereth into that within the veil", but here, "by which we draw nigh unto God."
The law ceases to have effect, he is saying, and the hope of better things is introduced. It ceases to have effect, not for being evil (the frenzied view of the heretics), but for being ineffective and incapable of providing the perfect benefit. It must be noted, of course, that he refers to the obsolete prescriptions of the law as ineffective and useless—circumcision, sabbath observance and similar things; the New Testament also bids us observe to a greater extent the commandments, you shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, and suchlike things. In place of the former, therefore, we receive the hope of the good things to come: it relates us to God.
What he says: "to intercede," take as what is said: "We have an advocate with the Father." (1 Jn. 2:1) From His very incarnation, He asks and intercedes with the Father that He may have mercy on us.
He said that the new covenant is better. And this indicates, he says, the difference of the priests. He said that everything has changed. Therefore, he speaks of the reason for the change, and he says, "For annulment occurs of the preceding command.” Therefore, an annulment occurs when the preceding commandment is in force, that is, of the older law. Not simply, but then when it was found to be weak and unprofitable. Since there is no fault, what need is there for the change? Therefore, he says, this is also the law. For this, the preceding commandment has been annulled due to weakness and uselessness.
For the law was not able to produce any perfection in virtue. For it only said, "Do this," and "Do not do that," and it was no longer able to strengthen and assist in bringing about what was said, which now happens to us through the Spirit.
"but is a certain introduction." It is done in common.
"of a greater hope." For the law had hope, but not such as that which was introduced. For those who were observing the law hoped to possess the land. "For you shall eat the good things of the land," (Is. 1:19) but the hope through Christ gives the kingdom of heaven, and the nearness to stand before God, and to serve Him with angels.He said above (Heb. 4:6): Entering into the inner part of the veil; but now: Through which we draw near to God, he says; for the hope that is with him leads us to the divine throne, and stands with the Cherubim.
"because the matter was not done without an oath." And so much, he says, the hope has been greatly improved, insofar as Christ has become a priest without an oath. For the oath indicates the unchangeable nature of his being a high priest forever.
"For they indeed became priests without an oath." Then, from the lesser, the comparisons of the priests among the Jews and our High Priest.For the legal priests, he says, were made priests without an oath; for God never found it necessary to swear: "You shall be a priest according to the law." But Christ, with an oath, made by the one who said to Him, as it were, by God; for God spoke through David: "You are a priest," in a certain new way; for He is not according to Aaron, but according to Melchizedek.
"by the one who said to him." As through God. For God spoke through David, "So much better is Jesus." "For," he says, "they indeed became priests without an oath, but Christ has become a high priest with an oath. And this would not have happened, he says, if the difference were not great. Therefore, there is also a great difference between the new and the old."
"the Guarantor [Έγγυος]." Like a guarantor [ἐγγυητὴς], Mediator.
"And indeed, there were many." And according to another, he says, the high priest is greater than us, not only because of the oath, but also because he is immortal.
"because they were prevented by death." For it is through death and change, namely of the priest.
"from continuing." in the priesthood, namely, "permanently." Lacking succession, forever, "Therefore." Since he always living. "always." Not only in this age, but also in the future. For this is what they want entirely and completely.
"those who come to God." Through the faith that is in Him. For whoever believes in the Son, comes to the Father certainly; for he himself is the way to the Father, and whoever takes hold of this, dwells there.
"always living." Therefore, He saves completely, because He always lives. Furthermore, He saves because He intercedes for those who approach God the Father.
"to intercede for them." Concerning Christ, as He is according to the flesh, this humble word has been said. However, when I say according to the flesh, I do not mean division. Far from it: but I know Him to be worshiped indivisibly, without confusion in one hypostasis along with His flesh. But what does it mean, "to intercede for them "? For example, He asks his Father on our behalf. For when he called him a priest, it is characteristic of a priest to ask on behalf of the people; for this reason, he said, “to intercede." That this has been said for this reason is evident. For He who raises the dead by His own authority, forgives sins, does not need the Father to save, as if He were powerless to save by His own power.
347. - Having proved the pre-eminence of Melchizedek’s priesthood over the Levitical, the Apostle now concludes to the excellence of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Levitical. But as has been stated above from the beginning of ch. 7, the Apostle proves his proposition from three statements taken from the Psalmist: first, from the phrase, ‘according to the order of Melchizedek.’ Therefore, he proved the pre-eminence of Melchizedek over Levi. Now according to the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood, he proves Christ’s pre-eminence over the Levitical. Hence, he lays great stress on the phrase, ‘according to the order.’ And he gives two reasons: the first concludes that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the Levitical; secondly, that it even makes it void (v. 15). In the first reason, which is conditional, he lays down two antecedents and two consequents: what further need would there have been for another priesthood to rise according to the order of Melchizedek?
348. - His reasoning is this: If the Levitical priesthood had been perfect, by whose ministry the Law was administered, there would have been no need for another priest according to another order through which another Law is administered, just as the Old Law was administered by the Levitical. But another priest has risen according to another order, namely, of Melchizedek. Therefore, the other was imperfect. Therefore, just as another priesthood has risen, so it is necessary that another Law arise. In this reasoning it is manifest that there are two antecedents, namely, one pertaining to the priesthood and the other pertaining to the Law. In regard to the first antecedent he says, if perfection was attainable by the Levitical priesthood. But in regard to the second he says that if a law is administered by a priesthood, which he proves, because under it, i.e., by its administration, the people received the law; not that the priesthood preceded the Law, but conversely. Hence, he states the second antecedent when he says, for under it the people received the law: ‘The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge; and they shall seek the law at his mouth’ (Mal. 2:7). But he makes mention of the priesthood specifically in order to pass to the Law, which was administered by the priestly office: for as a Gloss says, there can be no priest without a testament and a law and precepts. But the priesthood brought nothing to perfection, for its entire perfection was through the Law, which they administered; but as will be shown later: ‘The law brought no one to perfection,’ because it did not lead to the perfection of justice: ‘Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 5:20); likewise, it did not bring the perfection of heaven, because it did not bring one into life. A sign of this was that the lawgiver himself could not enter the promised land. But we have these two perfections through Christ: ‘The consumption abridged shall overflow with justice (Is. 10:22); ‘A short word shall the Lord make upon the earth’ (Rom. 9:28). These, therefore, are the antecedents.
349. - But he lays down the consequents when he says, what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron, i.e., he would not have said, according to the order of Melchizedek, but ‘according to the order of Aaron.’ Therefore, because He did not, it was imperfect. This is the entire first reason, through which it is clear that Christ’s priesthood is preferred to the Levitical. The second reason proves that He even voided it, because the perfect voids the imperfect: ‘When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away’ (1 Cor. 13:10). Therefore, the priesthood of Christ does away with the Levitical.
350. - The second consequent is that it also does away with the Law which was administered by it. He states this when he says, When there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the Law was under the administration of the priesthood; therefore, the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that the Law be changed; just as a person who changes his mind about traveling by water, changes his mind about finding a ship. But every Law is ordained to leading one’s life according to some rule. Hence, according to the Philosopher in the Politics, when the mode of life is changed, it is necessary for the law to be changed. But just as human law is ordained to human guidance, so a spiritual and divine law to divine guidance. But this guidance is regulated by a priesthood. Therefore, the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation be made of the Law.
351. - But he speaks carefully, because he does not say, ‘The priest being translated’: for the law does not regard the person of the priest. Hence, when the priest dies, the law is not changed, unless perchance the entire method and order of guidance is changed. Jeremiah speaks of change when he says: ‘Behold, the days shall come, says the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with your fathers’ (Jer. 31:31); ‘For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has delivered me from the law of sin and of death’ (Rom. 8:2). For the Old Law is called the Law of sin and of death, because it did not confer grace ex opere operato, as the sacraments of the New Law do.
352. - But the Manicheans raise an objection here: If the Old Law was given by divine providence, which is immutable, the Law itself should be immutable; consequently, it should not be changed. Therefore, since it was changed, it was not given by divine providence. I answer, as Augustine says Against Faustus, that just as a wide dispenser by one and the same arrangement and providence gives different laws according as times and persons differ, one law for summer and another for winter, one for children and one for adults, one for perfect and another for imperfect, and yet is the same providence; so with divine providence remaining unchanged, the Law was changed to fit the times: because before the coming of Christ precepts were given to prefigure His coming, but after His coming, precepts were given to signify that He had come. Furthermore, the precepts were given to them as to children, but in the New Law as to the perfect. Hence, the Law is called a pedagogue, which is strictly for children. Therefore, if something given in the Law suggests perpetuity, this is by reason of the One prefigured.
353. - Likewise, a Gloss here states that this translation of the priesthood was prefigured in 1 Sam (2:28), when the priesthood was transferred to Samuel, who was not of the tribe of Levi. But because Samuel was not a priest, this transfer seems rather to have prefigured by the transfer of the priesthood from Abiathar to Zadok, who was also a Levite. I answer that although Samuel was not a priest, he performed some priestly functions, because he offered sacrifices and anointed kings, namely, Saul and David. In this respect the priesthood had been transferred to him. Hence, it says in Ps. 98 (v. 6): ‘Moses and Aaron among his priests: and Samuel among them that call upon his name.’
354. - Likewise, contrary to the Gloss is the fact that he was not of the tribe of Levi, because in 1 Chronicles (7:23) Elkanah, who was his father, is himself numbered among the sons of Levi. I answer that Samuel was in some sense from the tribe of Judah, namely, through his mother; but in regard to his father he was of the tribe of Levi, but not through Aaron; in regard to his place he was from Mount Ephraim. For although eleven tribes had their own provinces, the tribe of Levi did not, but he took possession among them, and so he dwelt in Mount Ephraim.
355. - Then when he says, he of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, he clarifies what he had said: first, that the priesthood was transferred; secondly, he explains this (v. 14).
356. - He says, therefore: It has been stated that the priesthood was transferred, because the one to whom the prophet said, ‘You are a priest forever,’ is of another tribe, namely, of Judah and not of Levi, as is clear from Matthew (1:3), from which tribe, namely, Judah, no one has served the altar. But on the other hand, King Uzziah entered the temple to burn incense, as it says in 2 Chronicles (26:16). I answer that no one could lawfully attend on the altar or even do so with impunity. For Uzziah was grievously punished, because he was a leper, until he died. If you say that it is wrong to say ‘no one,’ because the Blessed Virgin was of the tribe and family of Aaron, for she was related to Elizabeth, who was one of the daughters of Aaron (Lk. 1:5), I answer that among the families the most illustrious were the priestly and royal families. Hence, they were frequently joined in marriage, as is clear in the case of the first high priest, who took to wife the daughter of Aminadab, the sister of Nahshon, who was the leader of the tribe of Judah (Ex. 6:23). Furthermore, in 2 Kg (11) Jehoiada, a priest, took to wife Jehosheba, daughter of King Joram. Hence, it is possible that on one side, Elizabeth was of the tribe of Judah.
357. - Then he explains what he had said, saying, It is evident that our Lord descended from Judah: ‘The lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered’ (Rev. 5:5). In connection with that tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. For the Law commanded that no one be entrusted with the ministry of the tabernacle, except from the tribe of Levi only; hence, in the tribe of Judah, Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
358. - Then when he says, This becomes even more evident, because above he had presented one reason to prove that Christ’s priesthood is preferred over the Levitical and does away with it; he now presents the other reason, in which he shows why it is done away with and changed. To do this he makes use of a conditional, in the first of which he lays down two antecedents, and in the second two consequents. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he lays down those antecedents; secondly, he clarifies what he has said (v. 17).
359. - His reasoning is this: If a new priest arises, this will not be according to the Law of a carnal commandment, but according to the Law of eternal and incorruptible life; the reason being that the first was according to that Law. It is proper, therefore, to say that the new one be according to another law, if a new one does actually arise. But a new one does arise. In the major premise are two statements: one pertains to the Old Testament, namely, that it is a carnal commandment, and this because it had certain carnal observances, as circumcision and purifications of the flesh, and because it promised carnal rewards and punishments: ‘If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land’ (Is. 1:19) ‘Justices of the flesh laid on them until the time of correction’ (Heb. 9:10). He lays down that antecedent when he says, and this becomes even more evident, if according to the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest. It is clear that it pertains to the New Testament, which is not dispensed by carnal things, but consists of spiritual things: for it is founded upon a spiritual power, by which a perpetual life is produced in us; and this because perpetual goods and punishments are promised in it: ‘But Christ, being come a high priest of the good things to come’ (Heb. 9:11); ‘And these shall go into everlasting punishment; but the just into life everlasting’ (Mt. 25:26). Furthermore, it does not consist in carnal observances but in spiritual: ‘The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life’ (Jn. 6:64). And this is what he says, namely, that it is according to the power of an indestructible life.
360. - Then when he says, For he testifies: ‘You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek’, he manifests what he had said; and he emphasizes the phrase forever, because if the priesthood is eternal, it is clear that it involves perpetuity.
361. - Then when he says, On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside, he lays down two consequents: first, in regard to the voiding of the Old Testament; secondly, the institution of the New.
362. - The first consequent is that the Old Testament came about by the law of carnal commandments, and the other is then introduced. The first, therefore, is changed: and this is what he says, namely, there is a setting aside of the former commandment. But nothing is set aside except what is evil: ‘That he may know how to refuse the evil’ (Is. 7:15). But the commandment is not evil ‘The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good’(Rom. 7:12). I answer that it was not evil in itself, but inasmuch as it was unsuited to the time. For the things of the Old Testament are not to be kept in the New Testament: ‘Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire: then said I: behold, I come’ (Ps. 39:8). Therefore, it is said to be set aside because of its weakness and uselessness. For that is said to be weak which cannot produce its effect; but the proper effect of the Law and of the priesthood is to justify. This the Law was unable to do: ‘For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin has condemned sin in the flesh’ (Rom. 8:3); ‘How turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again?’ (Gal. 4:9). Likewise, it is called useless, inasmuch as it prepared one for the faith: ‘All these died according to the flesh, not having received the promises’ (Heb. 11:13). But he shows why it is weak and useless when he says, it made nothing perfect in regard to justice or eternal life. Hence, it was imperfect, but it was made perfect by Christ.
363. - Then when he says, on the other hand a better hope is introduced, he lays down the second consequent from the second antecedent, saying, a better hope is introduced by the new priest, through which we draw near to God. For if a new priest arises, it is according to the power of an indestructible life (this is the antecedent); and the introduction of a better hope (this is the consequent): ‘He has regenerated us unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ (1 Pt 1:3). Likewise, through Him we draw near to God, for through sin we are separated from Him: ‘But your iniquities have divided you between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you that he should not hear’ (Is. 59:2). He, therefore, is the one who removes this and makes us draw near to God. He is that new Priest, namely, Christ, Who takes away the sins of the world: ‘Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access into this grace’ (Rom. 5:1).
Continue studying Hebrews 7:19 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Hebrews 7:19 encapsulates a pivotal theological truth within the Epistle to the Hebrews, articulating the fundamental inadequacy of the Mosaic Law to bring humanity to a state of full perfection or reconciliation with God. In stark contrast, it proclaims the transformative power of the "better hope" introduced through Jesus Christ, which not only fulfills the Law's limitations but also grants believers direct and intimate access to the very presence of God, establishing a new and superior covenant relationship.
Context
Literary Context
Hebrews 7:19 serves as a crucial summary statement within the broader argument of Hebrews 7, which meticulously details the superiority of Christ's priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. The preceding verses establish Melchizedek as a prefigurement of Christ's eternal and unchangeable priesthood, distinct from and superior to the Aaronic lineage (Hebrews 7:11). The author has just argued that a change in priesthood necessitates a change in the law (Hebrews 7:12), and that Christ's priesthood is established not by a carnal commandment but by the power of an indestructible life (Hebrews 7:16). Verse 19, therefore, functions as a concluding thought for this section, emphasizing that the Old Covenant, with its law and priesthood, was inherently limited in its ability to perfect, thus necessitating the "better hope" brought by Christ.
Historical & Cultural Context
The original audience of the Epistle to the Hebrews was likely Jewish Christians who were facing persecution and temptation to revert to Judaism. They were deeply familiar with the Mosaic Law, the Levitical priesthood, and the temple sacrificial system, which formed the bedrock of their religious identity. The author's argument directly challenges their understanding of these institutions, not by demeaning them, but by demonstrating their provisional nature and their ultimate fulfillment in Christ. The concept of "drawing nigh unto God" would have resonated profoundly, as access to God's presence in the Old Covenant was highly restricted to the high priest, and only once a year, into the Holy of Holies (Leviticus 16). The promise of direct access through Christ would have been revolutionary and deeply comforting.
Key Themes
This verse powerfully contributes to several overarching themes in Hebrews. Firstly, it underscores the insufficiency of the Old Covenant system, particularly the Law and its sacrificial rituals, to achieve true spiritual perfection or lasting reconciliation with God. The Law's purpose was to reveal sin and guide behavior, but not to provide ultimate atonement or a perfect conscience, as explored further in Hebrews 9:9. Secondly, it highlights the superiority of Christ and the New Covenant. The "better hope" explicitly refers to Jesus Christ, His perfect sacrifice, and the new covenant He inaugurated, which is superior to the old in every way (Hebrews 8:6). Finally, the verse emphasizes the new and direct access to God that believers now enjoy through Christ. This theme of intimate communion and bold approach to God's throne of grace is central to the epistle's pastoral encouragement, notably in Hebrews 4:16 and Hebrews 10:19-22.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This verb (G5048) means to complete, to bring to an end, or to make fully effective. When the text states "the law made nothing perfect," it signifies that the Mosaic Law, while holy and good, could not bring humanity to a state of final, spiritual completion, nor could it fully reconcile individuals with God or provide a perfect conscience. It was a preparatory system, not the ultimate means of salvation.
This noun (G1898) denotes a "superintroduction" or the act of bringing something in besides or in addition to what was already there. It powerfully conveys the idea that the "better hope" is not merely an improvement on the Law but a distinct, new, and superior reality that has been introduced, superseding the previous dispensation.
This adjective (G2909) is a comparative form meaning stronger, nobler, or superior. It is a key word throughout Hebrews, consistently used to describe Christ, His priesthood, His covenant, and His sacrifice as inherently superior to their Old Covenant counterparts, emphasizing the qualitative difference and ultimate fulfillment found in Him.
This verb (G1448) means to make near, to approach, or to be at hand. In this context, it highlights the profound shift in access to God. Under the Old Covenant, access was restricted and mediated. Through the "better hope," believers are now able to genuinely and intimately "draw nigh unto God," signifying a direct, personal, and unhindered relationship.
Verse Breakdown
"For the law made nothing perfect,"
This opening clause establishes the inherent limitation of the Mosaic Law. It's not a condemnation of the Law as evil, but an assertion of its inability to bring about ultimate spiritual maturity, full reconciliation, or a perfect conscience before God. The Law revealed sin and established a system of temporary atonement, but it could not fundamentally change the human heart or fully bridge the chasm between a holy God and sinful humanity.
"but the bringing in of a better hope [did];"
This clause introduces the divine alternative and solution. The adversative "but" signals a stark contrast. The "bringing in" refers to the inauguration of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ. He is the "better hope," superior to anything the Law could offer, because He accomplishes what the Law could not: perfect atonement, genuine transformation, and complete access to God. The implied "did" clarifies that this "better hope" is the agent that does make perfect.
"by the which we draw nigh unto God."
This final clause describes the glorious outcome and purpose of the "better hope." The "which" refers to the "better hope" (Christ and His work). Through Him, believers are granted an unprecedented privilege: the ability to "draw nigh unto God." This signifies a direct, intimate, and unhindered relationship with the Almighty, a privilege previously limited and mediated, now made possible for all who believe.
Literary Devices
The verse primarily employs Contrast and Juxtaposition to highlight the fundamental difference between the Old Covenant and the New. The limitations of "the law" are explicitly set against the efficacy of "the bringing in of a better hope." This serves to elevate the significance of Christ's work by demonstrating the inadequacy of the preceding system. Furthermore, the verse functions as a concise piece of Theological Argumentation, summarizing the author's broader point about the obsolescence of the Old Covenant and the superiority of Christ's new way of access to God. The language is direct and declarative, aiming to persuade the audience of the definitive nature of Christ's fulfillment.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Hebrews 7:19 stands as a powerful declaration of the New Covenant's supremacy, rooted in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It articulates a core theological principle: the Law, while divinely given and holy, was never intended to be the ultimate means of salvation or perfection. Its purpose was preparatory, pointing to a greater reality. The "better hope" is Christ Himself, whose perfect sacrifice and eternal priesthood accomplish what the Levitical system could only foreshadow. This shift from a system of external regulations and temporary atonements to an internal, grace-based relationship through Christ fundamentally redefines humanity's access to God, moving from mediated and restricted approaches to direct and intimate communion.
Reflection and Application
Hebrews 7:19 offers profound assurance and freedom for believers today, reminding us that our standing with God is not predicated on our flawed attempts to perfectly keep a set of rules, but entirely on the finished, perfect work of Jesus Christ. This truth liberates us from the burden of striving for a righteousness we can never achieve on our own and invites us into a relationship founded on grace. We are no longer under a system that could only reveal our sin without fully atoning for it. Instead, we possess a living, "better hope" in Christ, who has not only opened the way but is the way for us to boldly and continually "draw nigh unto God." This understanding should cultivate a vibrant, personal relationship with God, characterized by confident access, profound gratitude for His forgiveness, and a deep sense of His intimate presence, knowing that our acceptance is secured by Christ's perfection, not our own.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
What does "the law made nothing perfect" truly mean? Does it imply the Law was flawed or evil?
No, it does not imply the Law was flawed or evil. The phrase "the law made nothing perfect" (G5048, teleióō) means that the Mosaic Law, with its commandments, rituals, and sacrificial system, was insufficient to bring humanity to a state of complete spiritual maturity, full reconciliation with God, or a perfect conscience. The Law's purpose was to reveal sin (Romans 3:20), to act as a guardian until Christ came (Galatians 3:24), and to foreshadow the ultimate solution. It could not provide ultimate atonement or transform the heart. It was a temporary and preparatory system, good in its design, but incomplete in its ability to save or perfect. The author of Hebrews argues that its limitations necessitated the "better hope" found in Jesus Christ.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Hebrews 7:19 finds its profound Christ-centered fulfillment in Jesus as the ultimate "better hope" who perfectly accomplishes what the Old Covenant Law could not. The Law, a shadow of good things to come (Hebrews 10:1), revealed humanity's sin and God's righteous standards but could not provide a perfect cleansing or lasting reconciliation. Jesus, however, through His once-for-all sacrifice (Hebrews 9:26) and His eternal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:17), is the divine "bringing in" of a superior way. He is the one who "perfects" (G5048, teleióō) those who draw near to God (Hebrews 10:14). Through His blood, the veil separating humanity from God's holy presence was torn (Matthew 27:51), granting believers bold and direct access to the Father (Ephesians 2:18). Thus, Jesus is not merely a better priest or a better sacrifice; He is the living embodiment of the "better hope" by whom we, who were once far off, are now brought near to God (Ephesians 2:13), having full assurance and confidence in His completed work.