Hebrews 7:15

Heb 7:15-17. And it is yet far more evident — That both the priesthood and the law are changed, because the priest now raised up is not only of another tribe, and of a quite different order, but is made a priest; not after the law of a carnal commandment — With such carnal rites and outward solemnities as the law prescribed for those priests, which reached no further than to the purifying of the flesh; but after the power of an endless life — Which he has in himself as the eternal Son of God. Being a sacrifice, as well as a priest, it was indeed necessary that he, as a man, should die; but as he continued only a short while in the state of the dead, and arose to die no more, he may justly be said to have an endless life, even as to his human nature. Besides, it should be considered that his life, as a priest, did not begin till after his ascension, when he passed through the heavens into the holiest of all, with the sacrifice of his crucified body. And having offered that body there, he sat down at the right hand of the throne of his Father’s majesty, where he remains the minister of that true tabernacle, making continual intercession for his people.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7:15-17 This change of how God appoints priests (7:11-14) has been made very clear by the appointment of Jesus as a different priest. He, like Melchizedek, is a priest forever: Jesus’ resurrection from the dead shows that he has the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. Because his priesthood in the order of Melchizedek is superior to that of the Levites (7:1-10), he supersedes them as priest.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb 7:15. Κατάδηλόν ἐστι) it is evident, namely, that which is asserted, Heb 7:11, [that there was no perfection realized by the Levitical priesthood—V. g.]—εἰ, if) An elegant particle for ὅτε, when, in reference to those to whom this point might seem to be either new or doubtful; as Act 26:23.—ὁμοιότητα, similitude) which is included in τάξις, order, and is called similitude, because here the discourse is designed to show the everlasting vigour and freshness of the priesthood in the following verse, from the phrase, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, for ever, Heb 7:17.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb_7:15. Καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστιν] and the more still is it evident, namely, that with the Levitical priesthood the whole Mosaic law, too, is changed (and deprived of validity), Heb_7:12. Comp. also Heb_7:18. Not: what difference there is between the Levitical and the N. T. priesthood (Chrysostom: τὸ μέσον τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἑκατέρας, τὸ διάφορον, Clarius, Zeger, Bisping); nor yet that perfection is to be found, not in the Levitical priesthood, but in the priesthood of Christ (Jac. Cappellus, Bengel, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 551; Delitzsch); and just as little: that the priesthood is changed (Primasius, Justinian, Owen, Hammond, Rambach, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Stuart, Klee, Paulus). Quite mistakenly Ebrard: to κατάδηλόν ἐστιν we have to supply from Heb_7:14 the clause ὅτι ἐξ Ἰούδα ἀνατέταλκεν ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν: that Jesus descended from Judah is first in itself an acknowledged fact (Heb_7:14); this, however, is so much the more clear, since (Heb_7:15) it follows from the Melchisidecian nature of His priesthood that He could not be born κατὰ νόμον! How then could it be inferred from the fact that Jesus could not be born κατὰ νόμον, that He must have descended precisely from Judah?!

κατάδηλον] a similar intensifying of the simple form, as previously πρόδηλον.

εἰ … ἀνίσταται] if, as surely is the case, there arises.[82] εἰ thus, as to the sense, equal to ἐπειδή (Oecumenius, Theophylact).

κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα Μελχισεδέκ] as the main idea placed first, and ὁμοιότης an elucidation of the τάξις in the passage of the Psalms.

The subject in the conditional clause is ἱερεὺς ἕτερος (if … another priest arises), not merely ἕτερος (Schulz: if … another is appointed as priest), nor yet Jesus (if He … arises as another priest).

[82] That Stein would combine εἰ and ὅς in the sense: It is quite clear to all that, if at any time another priest after the manner of Melchisedec arises, he then, etc., deserves to be mentioned only as a curiosity.

Heb_7:15-17. Second proof of Heb_7:12. The abrogation of the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic law follows further from the fact that the new priest who is promised is to bear resemblance to Melchisedec, whereby it is made manifest that his characteristic peculiarity is one quite different from that of the Levitical priests.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 7:15-19 . Imperfection of the Levitical priesthood more abundantly proved by contrast with the nature of the Melchizedek priest.

Heb 7:15 . καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστιν . “And more abundantly still is it evident” [Weizsäcker excellently “Und noch zum Ueberfluss weiter liegt die Sache klar”. What is it that is more abundantly evident? Weiss says, It is, that an alteration of the priesthood has been made. Similarly Vaughan, “And this insufficiency and consequent supersession of the Levitical priesthood is still more conclusively proved by the particular designation of the predicted priest (in Psa 110:4 ) as a priest, etc.”. So too Westcott. But from the twelfth verse the argument has been directed to show that there has been a change of law, and this argument is continued in Heb 7:15 . This change of law is evident from the fact that Jesus belongs to the non-Levitical tribe of Judah, and yet more superabundantly evident from the nature of the new priest who is seen to be no longer “after the law of a carnal commandment”. So Bleek after Œcumenius, Davidson, Farrar and others. κατάδηλον , quite evident, as in Xen., Mem. , i. 4, 14, οὐ γὰρ πάνυ σοι κατάδηλον ; Wetstein quotes from Hippocrates, ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον κατάδηλον γίνεται . In πρόδηλον the preposition has the force of “ob” in “obvious”; in κατάδηλον the preposition strengthens. εἰ κατὰ , κ . τ . λ . “if as is the case” or “since” ( cf. Heb 7:11 ) “after the likeness of Melchizedek” the κατὰ τ . ταξιν of previous verses changed now into κατὰ τ . ὁμοιότητα , because attention is directed to the similarity of nature between Melchizedek and this new priest.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Lest any man might object, that the Priesthood indeed was translated from Levi to Judah, but yet notwithstanding the same remaineth still, he both weigheth and expoundeth these words of David, forever, according to the order of Melchizedek, whereby also a divers institution of priesthood is well perceived.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Another proof that the law, or economy, is changed, namely, forasmuch as Christ is appointed Priest, "not according to the law of a carnal (that is, a mere outward) commandment," but "according to the power of an indissoluble (so the Greek) life." The hundred tenth Psalm appoints Him "for ever" (Heb 7:17). The Levitical law required a definite carnal descent. In contrast stands "the power"; Christ's spiritual, inward, living power of overcoming death. Not agreeably to a statute is Christ appointed, but according to an inward living power.

it--the change of the law or economy, the statement (Heb 7:12, Heb 7:18).

far more--Greek, "more abundantly."

for that--"seeing that," literally, "if"; so Rom 5:10.

after the similitude of Melchisedec--answering to "after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb 5:10). The "order" cannot mean a series of priests, for Melchisedec neither received his priesthood from, nor transmitted it to, any other mere man; it must mean "answering to the office of Melchisedec." Christ's priesthood is similar to Melchisedec's in that it is "for ever" (Heb 7:16-17).

another--rather as Greek, "a different."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 15. And it is yet far more evident] Και περισσοτερον ετι καταδηλον εστιν. And besides, it is more abundantly strikingly manifest. It is very difficult to translate these words, but the apostle's meaning is plain, viz., that God designed the Levitical priesthood to be changed, because of the oath in Psa. cx., where, addressing the Messiah, he says: Thou art a Priest for ever after the order, or ομοιοτητα, similitude, of Melchisedec, who was not only a priest, but also a king. None of the Levitical priests sustained this double office; but they both, with that of prophet, appear and were exercised in the person of our Lord, who is the Priest to which the apostle alludes.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. And it is yet far more evident, etc. He proves by another argument, that the Law is abolished. He reasoned before as to the person of the priest, but now as to the nature of the priesthood, and the reason for which it was appointed. The ancient priesthood, he says, had to do with external rites; but in Christ’s priesthood there is nothing but what is spiritual. It hence appears, that the former was evanescent and temporary; but that the latter was to be perpetual.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(15, 16) And it is.—That which is “yet far more evident” is the proposition of the preceding verses, viz., the failure of the Levitical priesthood to bring “perfection” (Heb_7:11), a failure placed beyond doubt by the change of priesthood (Heb_7:13-14). “And what we are speaking of is yet more abundantly evident if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth a different priest, who hath been made (priest) not according to a law of a carnal commandment, but according to power of indissoluble life.” Hitherto, in Heb_7:12-14, the thought has rested on what is given up,—viz., the priesthood of Aaron, set aside by the words of prophecy (Psa_110:4); and so far as these three verses are concerned, nothing more might be intended than the transference of the priesthood to another line of men. Far more striking will the proof appear, when we look on the other side, and observe what is brought in—a priesthood like Melchizedek’s, resting not on mere positive enactment, but assumed by inherent power, by right of “life” (Heb_7:8).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15. yet far more evident] The word used (katadçlon) is stronger than that used in Heb_7:14 (prodçlon) and does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. The change of the Law can be yet more decisively inferred from the fact that Melchisedek is not only a Priest of a different tribe from Levi, but a priest constituted in a wholly different manner, and even—as he might have said—out of the limits of the Twelve tribes altogether; and yet a Priest was to be raised after his order, not after that of Aaron.

for that] Rather, “if” (as is the case), i.e. “seeing that.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who was made,.... Not as man, much less as God; but as a priest, constituted and appointed one:

not after the law of a carnal commandment: either the ceremonial law in general, which was a carnal one, if we consider the persons to whom it belonged, the Israelites according to the flesh; it was incumbent upon, and might be performed by such who were only carnal; and it was performed by and for men that were in the flesh, or mortal; and if we consider the matter of it, the subject on which various of its rites were exercised was the flesh or body, and which were performed by manual operation; and the sacrifices of it were the flesh of beasts; and these were for the sins of the flesh, and for the removing the ceremonial uncleanness of it; and the virtue of them reached only to the purifying of the flesh; and the whole of it is distinct from the moral law, which is spiritual, and reaches to the spirit or soul of man; whereas this only was concerned about temporal and external things: or else the law of the priesthood is particularly intended; or that commandment which respected the priesthood of Aaron; which law regarded the carnal descent of his sons; enjoined a carnal inauguration of them, and provided for their succession and continuance in a carnal way; after which, Christ the great high priest did not become one:

but after the power of an endless life; this may be understood either of the Gospel, according to which Christ is a priest; and which is called "life", in opposition to the law which is the ministration of death; and because it is the means of quickening dead sinners, and of reviving drooping saints; and points out Christ the way of life, and has brought life and immortality to light: and may be said to be "endless", in distinction from the law, which is temporary; and because it is itself permanent and everlasting; contains in it the promise of eternal life, and is the means of bringing souls unto it: and there is a "power" goes along with it; which distinguishes it from the weak and beggarly elements of the ceremonial law, which is abolished, because of the weakness of it; for it is attended with the power of the Spirit of God, and is the power of God unto salvation: or else this intends the endless life which Christ has, in and of himself; and which qualifies him for a priest; and stands opposed to the mortality of the priests, and to that law which could not secure them from it: the priests died, and the law by which they were priests could not prevent their death; Christ is the living God, the Prince of life, he had power to lay down his life as man, and power to take it up again; and his life, as man, is an endless one, which qualifies him for that part of his priestly office, his intercession and advocacy: or it may design that power, which his Father has given him as Mediator, of an endless life, both for himself and for all his people; and regards his ever living as a priest, and the perpetuity of and the continual virtue and efficacy of it.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

Ver. 15. After the similitude of Melchisedec] i.e. After an order distinct and different from that of Aaron.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And it is yet far more evident - Not that our Lord would spring out of Judah, but the point which he was endeavoring to establish that there must be a change of the priesthood, was rendered still more evident from another consideration. A strong proof of the necessity of such a change of the priesthood was furnished from the fact that the Messiah was to be of the tribe of Judah; but a much stronger, because “as a priest” he was to be of the order of Melchizedek - that is, he was of the same rank with one who did not even belong to that tribe.

After the similitude - Resembling; that is, he was to be of the order of Melchizedek.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And it is yet far more evident: the change and abolition of the Levitical priesthood, and law, that the perfecting of Christ might succeed, is not only clearly represented to the understanding of all, that they assent to it, but it is far more evident from the eternity of this priesthood’s constitution, as is proved, Heb 7:16.

For that; ei it, is a particle vehemently asserting, as in form of swearing, and not doubting, and therefore rendered for that.

After the similitude of Melchisedec; like and parallel in order to him, and in all the properties foretold, which make him a most excellent priest; a priesthood far above that of Aaron, upon the account of the law and covenant to which it is related, which was not only the law of nature, serving God as Creator, but the law of grace, as he was Redeemer in Christ, who with the patriarchs worshipped God by, as believed in, a Christ to come.

There ariseth another priest; not only of another tribe than Aaron, but of a different order from his; is constituted, manifested, and beginneth the exercise of his office with the abolition of Aaron’s.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. And it—The transfer of the priesthood from Levi.

For—The reason that, according to the psalmist, there is a new order.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 15-17. And it is yet more abundantly evident (i.e. the proposition of ver. 12), if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another Priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless (indissoluble) life. For it is testified (of him), Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. This is a resumption of what has been already seen, put so as to be effective for the present stage of the argument. The old priesthood, and consequently the Law, is changed and superseded, not only because the Priest of the new order of things is of the tribe of Judah, but still more evidently because his priesthood is witnessed to as being one of a different kind, and of a kind so much higher and diviner. It is evident that the Antitype of Melchizedek, the subject of the hundred and tenth psalm, rather than Melchizedek himself, suggests here the language used. (Observe the contrasts between nomon and dunmin sarkikhv and akatalutou, entolhv and zwhv . The idea of Heb_9:8-15 is in Chose few pregnant words briefly anticipated, after the manner of the Epistle)

Vers. 15-17. The increasing evidence of the appointment of our Lord to be an unchangeable Priest.

This is to be found in the Divine oracle proclaimed in the hundred and tenth psalm. The distinction of Christ"s priesthood is seen in the difference which subsists in his Divine office from that which was held by men who were made priests after a carnal commandment, which had to do with ceremonials and material matters chiefly, and who were mortal, and resembled in the brevity of their life and earthly charge the institution of which they were ministers. Our Lord rises infinitely above the Jewish priesthood, because he is appointed "after the power of an endless life." St. John beheld him, in the visions of Patmos, in the splendor of his priestly office as the Shepherd and Bishop of souls, and heard him say, "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore." Amid all the changes of human affairs and the diversified experiences of his followers he is "the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. B.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And it is still far more evident, that - Both the priesthood and the law are changed, because the priest now raised up is not only of another tribe, but of a quite different order.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

That the Aaronical priesthood was to be changed, and consequently the whole law of ordinances that depended thereupon, and that the time was now come wherein this change was to be made, is the grand truth which our apostle here designs the confirmation of; it being indeed that truth, where into our faith of the acceptance of evangelical worship is resolved.

And accordingly he give a farther proof of the change of the priesthood from the different manner of the priest’s consecration. Thus the Levitical priest was set apart to his office by a number of carnal rites and outward ceremonies, which the law prescribed to be used at the consecration of Aaron and his sons, who were purified with water, anointed with oil, sprinkled with blood, clothed with priestly vestments, initiated with sacrifices, administered in an earthly tabernacle and temple.

But says our apostle, the evangelical or gospel High Priest, Christ Jesus, was not constituted thus, or made a priest with such carnal rites and outward ceremonies, but with the power of an endless life: That is, he was consecrated a Priest by the power of the Holy Ghost, having an immortal life suitable to his priesthood, an authority to give eternal life to as many as depend upon the benefit of his sacrifice and satisfaction; He was made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, (with corporeal ceremony and carnal duration), but after the spiritual power of an endless life.

Learn hence, That all the outward ceremony which seemed to be wanting unto Christ, in his entrance into his priestly office, was on the account of a greater glory. Aaron was made a priest with great outward solemnity, Christ with none at all; yet all Aaron’s ceremonial glory which accompanied those invisible acts of divine authority, wisdom, and grace, which communicated Christ’s office unto him.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15. It is yet far more evident. Still more clear than that the new High Priest should be of the tribe of Judah. That could be shown by an argument, because it was affirmed (1) that the Christ was to be the Son of David; (2) David was of Judah; (3) The Christ was to be a priest. On the other hand, without argument, is the clear affirmation that there was to be a new priesthood, a priest after the likeness of Melchizedec.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

This quote comes from a psalm of King David.

What we say is clearer yet

"We can understand even more clearly." Here "we" refers to the author and his audience. (See: Inclusive "We")

if another priest arises

"if another priest comes"

in the likeness of Melchizedek

This means that Christ as a priest has things in common with Melchizedek as a priest. AT: "in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest"

It was not based on the law

"His becoming priest was not based on the law"

the law of fleshly descent

The idea of human descent is spoken of as if it had only to do with the flesh of one's body. AT: "the law of human descent" or "the law about priests' descendants becoming priests" (See: Metonymy and Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

For scripture witnesses about him

This speaks about scripture as if it were a person who could witness about something. AT: "For God witnesses about him through the scriptures" or "For this is what was written about him in the scripture" (See: Personification)

after the manner of Melchizedek

This means that Christ as a priest has things in common with Melchizedek as a priest. AT: "in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest"

translationWords

priest

raise

like

Melchizedek

law, laws

power

life

word of God

testimony

eternity

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

15. κατάδηλον. The word used is stronger than πρόδηλον in Heb 7:14 and does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. The change of the Law can be yet more decisively inferred from the fact that Melchisedek is not only a Priest of a different tribe from Levi, but a priest constituted in a wholly different manner, and even—as he might have said—out of the limits of the Twelve tribes altogether; and yet a Priest was to be raised after his order, not after that of Aaron.

εἰ. Followed by the present indicative εἰ means “if” (as is the case), i.e. “seeing that.”

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15-17.] Another proof that the law is changed (set aside): for our Lord could not be of the law (= Levitical priesthood), seeing He is an eternal Priest.

15.] And it (viz. the change of the law; the proposition of ver. 12.: so Œc., οὐ μόνον ἔνθεν δῆλόν ἐστιν, ὅτι ἐνηλλάγη ἥ τε λατρεία καὶ ἡ διαθήκη … ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνου περισσῶς δῆλόν ἐστιν … καὶ ἐκ τούτου κατάδηλός ἐστιν ἥ τε ἐναλλαγὴ καὶ ἡ μετάθεσις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης. Chrys. takes ‘it’ to mean the distinction between the Levitical and the N. T. High Priesthood: τί ἐστι κατάδηλον; τὸ μέσον τῆς ἱερωσύνης. Jac. Cappellus, and Bengel—“illud quod in ver. 11 asseritur, nullam consummationem factam esse per sacerdotium Leviticum,” and so Delitzsch. Primasius, Hammond, al., that the priesthood is altered: Ebrard strangely supplies, “that our Lord sprung from Judah:” indeed his whole comment on this verse is one of those curiosities of exegesis which unhappily abound in his otherwise valuable commentary. But the alteration of the law is the proposition here: and so Estius, Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Bleek, Lünem., al.) is yet more abundantly (see for περισσότερον, on ch. 2:1) manifest (κατάδηλος is another stronger form of δῆλος, common in the classics (reff.), but found only here in LXX and N. T.), if (i. e. siquidem, seeing that: τὸ εἰ ἀντὶ τοῦ ὅτι νοήσεις, ἤγουν ἐπειδή, Œc.: “si … rem dubitative loquitur, sed affirmative, quasi diceret … quia” &c., Primasius, in Bleek. See reff. ὅτι could not well have been used here, as the reader would have connected it with κατάδηλον, ‘it is evident, that’ &c.) according to the similitude of (= κατὰ τὴν τάξιν before) Melchisedek ariseth a different priest (it is best to take ἱερεὺς ἕτερος as the subject, ἕτερος being a mere epithet: not, as Schulz (also in ver. 11), ἱερεύς predicatively, “another ariseth as priest,” nor as some (?) mentioned by Lünem., to take ἱερεύς and ἕτερος both predicatively, “He ariseth as another priest,” viz. our Lord).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Evident [καταδηλον] . N. T. o. Thoroughly evident. Not referring to that which is declared to be prodhlon evident in ver. 14, viz., that Christ sprang out of Judah, but to the general proposition - the unsatisfactory character of the Levitical priesthood.

Similitude [ομιοτητα] . Better, likeness : answering to made like, ver. 3, and emphasizing the personal resemblance to Melchisedec.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι xarad....] And what wo say is yet more abundanitly evident... Vulg. Et amplius adhuc manifestum est... Doubt has been folt as to the exact reforenco of this statement. Is it the abrogation of the Law which is more abundantly proved by the languago of the Psalm? or tho inefficacy of the Lovitical priesthood? Both conclusions follow from the special description of the new priesthood. But the thonght of the abrogation of the Law is really secondary. This is involved in the inofficacy of the priesthood which is the dominant thought in connexion with Christ's work. Hence the new proof is directed to the former main argument.

This is the view given in the main τέρας, τὸ διάφορον, ὅσον κρείττων ὃς ov κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκικῆς γέγονε (Ohrys.).

ἣ ὅτι τὸ ἐναλλαγήσεσθαι καὶ τὴν ἱερωσύνην καὶ τὴν διαθήκην (Theophict.).

amplius manifestum est...subaudi destructum ease sacerdotium legis (Primas.).

κατάδηλον] The word occurs here only in the N. T. and it is not found in uxx. (IIdt. Xen. Jos... Compare for the force of κατὰ, κατείδωλος (Acts xvii. 16), καταφιλεῖν.

εἰ xara τὴν ὁμοιό. M. ] U/, a8 may be moet certainly laid down on the authority of Scripture, it te after the likeness of Melchizedek another priest ariseth, if this is to be the pattern of the new priesthood. Rom. viii. 31 &. ‘John vii. 23 ὅσ.

The idea of ‘order’ is specialised

ἱερεὺς ἕτερος,

into that of likeness. Melchizedek furnishes, so to speak, the personal as well as the official type of the new High-priest. This ‘likeness’ brings out more clearly than before the difference between the new and the old priesthood.

For the uso of εἰ, where the truth of the supposition is assumed, see Rom. viii. 31; John vii. 23 &c.

Ὁμοιότης occurs again in o. iv. 15. The word is classical and is found in Gen. i. 11 f.; Wiad. xiv. 19.

ἀνίσταται) v. 11. The present describes the certain fulfilment of the divine purpose, which has indeed become a fact (v. 16, γέγονενλ Oomp. Matt. ii. 4; xxvi. 2.

" ἱερεὺς repos) v.11, i. o Obriat fulfilling the promise of tho Psalm. Thoodoret remarks (on Ὁ. 3) that while Melchizodok was ouly a typo of Ohrist’s Porson and Nature, the Priesthood of Christ was after the fashion of Melchisedek. For the office of priest is the office of a man.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.