(avg. read time: 5–10 mins.)
7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God the Most High, who met Abraham after his return from the defeat [hapax] of the kings and blessed him,
7:2 and for whom Abraham divided a tenth [only in Hebrews] of everything, was first of all by translation, “king of righteousness/justice” then also “king of Salem,” which is/means “king of peace,”
7:3 without father [hapax], without mother [hapax], without genealogy [hapax], having neither beginning of days or end [telos] of life, but resembling [hapax] the Son of God remains priest continuously/forever [only in Hebrews].
7:4 Notice now how great this one is to whom Abraham, the patriarch, also gave a tenth [only in Hebrews] of the first fruits/spoils [hapax].
7:5 And those of the sons of Levi who received the priesthood have the commandment according to the law to take a tenth from the people, that is their brothers, although having come from the loins of Abraham,
7:6 but the one who did not descend from them had received a tithe [hapax] from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises.
7:7 But without any dispute the lesser was blessed by the greater.
7:8 And here mortal humans receive tithes [only in Hebrews], but in that case one receives about whom it is testified that he lives.
7:9 And so to speak [hapax], through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes [only in Hebrews], paid tithes [only in Hebrews],
7:10 for he was still in the loins of the ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
7:11 Therefore, if fulfillment/completion was possible through the Levitical priesthood [only in Hebrews], for the people received the law [only in Hebrews] under this priesthood, what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the order of Melchizedek and not according to the order of Aaron?
7:12 For when there is a transfer/change of the priesthood [only in Hebrews] out of necessity there is a change [only in Hebrews] in the law as well.
7:13 For the one of whom these things were said was part of another tribe, from which no one has occupied/attended to the altar;
7:14 for it is evident that our Lord rose up out of Judah, in a tribe of which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
7:15 And it is even clearer [hapax], if another priest should arise according to the likeness [only in Hebrews] of Melchizedek,
7:16 who has not become a priest according to the commandment of the fleshly law [law pertaining to flesh], but according to the power of an indestructible life [hapax],
7:17 for it is testified [that],
“You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
7:18 For the abrogation [only in Hebrews] of the preceding commandment took effect because of its weakness and uselessness,
7:19 since the law made nothing complete, and the introduction [hapax] of a greater/better hope took effect, through whom we approach God.
7:20 And to the degree that it was not without an oath [hapax], for those who became priests did so without an oath,
7:21 but he became one with an oath through the one who said to him,
“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever,’”
7:22 accordingly, Jesus has also become the pledge/surety [hapax] of a better covenant.
7:23 And the priests existed in great numbers because they were hindered from remaining by death;
7:24 but because he remains forever he holds the priesthood unchangeably/permanently [hapax];
7:25 therefore he is also able to save completely those who approach God through him, since he always lives in order to intercede on their behalf.
7:26 For such a high priest was also fitting for us: holy, innocent, undefiled, having been separated from sinners, and being exalted above the heavens;
7:27 who does not have daily need, as do the high priests, to offer up sacrifices first for his own sins, then for those of the people; for this he did once and for all when he offered up himself.
7:28 For the law appointed humans having weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath [only in Hebrews] that came after the law appointed a Son, who has been made complete forever.
It is on the reference to Melchizedek that the larger argument of chs. 7 through 10 builds. Much as the rebellious generation serves as an analogy for apostates of the new covenant age, Melchizedek serves as an analogy for Jesus as one who is both king and priest. His vocation as priest of God the Most High and his very name and title point to Jesus. After all, Melchizedek means “king of righteousness” or “king of justice,” a name that Jesus embodies as the executor of God’s faithful love and will and as the one who forged the way of obedience to God for others to follow. He also fulfills what it means to be king of Salem—that is, the king of peace—since he has reconciled God and humans, making peace between them through himself. And indeed, as the executor of God’s will, he has embodied the shalom mission of restoring God’s order and proper function in which all things have their wholeness and flourishing to his creation through new creation. While it is not clear how exactly the author understands Melchizedek—though many may be inclined by their own biases to read more into the statement than is there—the lacunae about him as one of the most mysterious characters in the Bible makes him a fine foreshadowing analogy for Jesus. We know nothing about his father, mother, or genealogy. These are pieces of information that would be relevant to the Levitical priesthood, where the priests and other orders of Levites had been determined by descent and relation, but to the order of Melchizedek they are not relevant. This is why a priest of this order can come from the tribe of Judah and it does not present a problem. Likewise, we know nothing about Melchizedek’s birth or his end, and so there is a precedent for a notion of a priesthood not defined by descent or by taking over the priesthood left by the deceased predecessor. But whatever it once meant to the original audience to be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, Jesus fulfills this quite literally by having no beginning—except in his incarnation—and having no end of life that he should need to pass on his priesthood to another.
As this man is the namesake of the priestly order, the author once again utilizes arguments for superiority. This time, the superiority of Melchizedek to the Levite priesthood is established by the former’s prior existence to the latter, his acknowledged superiority by Levi’s great-grandfather giving him a tithe (which is amplified by the fact that Levi’s descendants received tithes), and, related to the first point, his priority to the old covenant so that he was in a position to bless a patriarch who came before it and first bore the promises that would give rise to the old covenant. Paul makes similar arguments in Romans and Galatians when he argues for the fulfillment and replacement of the Mosaic covenant by going back to the Abrahamic covenant and showing how it is also fulfilled in Christ (Rom 4; Gal 3:6–29). There is also an argument that the Levites’ mortality shows their inferiority to the order of Melchizedek, even though they too receive tithes. Melchizedek received tithes from Levi’s own ancestor and his priesthood did not need to be passed on due to mortality, however exactly the author reasons that.
Indeed, the reference to a priest according to the order of Melchizedek reveals that all along the fulfillment of God’s will was not possible simply through the Levitical priesthood, as they are an aspect of the old covenant, and the old covenant did not represent the ultimate fulfillment of God’s will. The priesthood is so endemically tied to the covenant that a change/transfer of the priesthood is a change/transfer of the covenant. As such, the promise of a priest king after the order of Melchizedek was implicitly a promise of a new covenant as well, a covenant in which but one divine man from the tribe of Judah serves as the high priest, the executor of God’s will, and the mediator between God and humans. Jesus has become a priest like Melchizedek and not because his flesh was of the flesh of the Levites according to the dictates of the old covenant, but rather according to the power of an indestructible life. Thus, he is able to fulfill the already cited Ps 110:4, being a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek because he cannot be otherwise.
This reference to an indestructible life—unique in the NT—is possibly multivalent in reference to Jesus’s divine life as well as to the fact of his resurrection to that life, a life that God has promised to share with his followers. I find it likely that there is an implicit reference to resurrection here because Jesus’s everlasting priesthood is attributed as an enactment of God’s faithfulness, meaning that there was some fashion in which God gave Jesus this indestructible life and the resurrection best fits this bill in the context of the larger argument of how Jesus has performed as a priest through his life, death, implied resurrection, and exaltation. These things had to happen in order for the abrogation of the old covenant with its commandments concerning priests to take effect and for the introduction of a better hope to take effect, a better hope that ensures the possibility for believers to approach God on his throne of grace for reasons already discussed. What further confirms that Jesus’s everlasting priesthood is an exercise of God’s faithfulness is the statement that Jesus became priest with an oath, even though the Levitical priests did not take oaths when they were appointed. But this oath was not his own, but God the Father’s unbreakable oath spoken by an unchangeable will in Ps 110:4. As such, it is by God’s faithfulness that Jesus himself becomes the surety of a better covenant, being the embodiment and executor of God’s faithful will. By means of this indestructible life, God fulfills the great promise made in Ps 110:4 and the whole of Ps 110. The priests of the Levitical order were great in number out of necessity because of the reality of death, but because Jesus lives and remains forever, he holds his priesthood unchangeably. Furthermore, this indestructible life guarantees that he can save completely all who approach God through him. After all, he always lives in order to intercede on their behalf, thereby guaranteeing their salvation.
The author also attributes several other qualities to Jesus as appropriate complements to this indestructible life, such as how he is holy, innocent, and undefiled. He is holy both in the sense of being whole forever (v. 28)—wholly pure, wholly devoted to the purpose of God, wholly human in a way that no one ever has been—and, as is said here, in the sense of being set apart from sinners, who rebel against God. And he is the perfect priestly king because—as the author has argued in the first chapter—he is exalted above the heavens and all that is in them, sharing as he does in the throne of God. Being the sinless high priest that he is, he does not have the daily need to offer up sacrifices for his own sins prior to offering them for the sins of his people. Being sinless, eternal, and God enfleshed, he was able to offer up himself as a sacrifice once, and that is effective once and for all. The law may have appointed humans who had weakness to carry out the cultic duties, but the aforementioned oath of Ps 110 appointed the Son of God, who has been made complete (as I indicated above, one might say “whole” as a less direct translation) forever (v. 28). He has been made complete forever because of his resurrection to the eternal, divine life (as such, this reference brings together strands of “completion” throughout Hebrews that refer to sanctification and/or resurrection; cf. 2:10; 6:11; 7:19, 25; 9:9, 11; 10:14; 11:40; 12:2, 23; 13:21).