Thomas Aquinas Commentary Hebrews 7:11-19

"Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need [was there] that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests. And [what we say] is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life: for it is witnessed [of him,] Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek. For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God." — Hebrews 7:11-19 (ASV)

Having proved the preeminence of Melchizedek’s priesthood over the Levitical, the Apostle now concludes that Christ’s priesthood is more excellent than the Levitical. As stated at the beginning of chapter 7, the Apostle proves his proposition from three statements taken from the Psalmist, starting with the phrase, according to the order of Melchizedek. He first proved the preeminence of Melchizedek over Levi. Now, based on the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood, he proves Christ’s preeminence over the Levitical.

Therefore, he emphasizes the phrase according to the order and gives two reasons. The first reason concludes that Christ’s priesthood is preferred to the Levitical; the second, that it even makes it void (as seen in verse 15). The first reason is conditional, presenting two antecedents and two consequents, which prompts the question: what further need would there have been for another priesthood to arise according to the order of Melchizedek?

His reasoning is as follows: If the Levitical priesthood, through whose ministry the Law was given, had been perfect, there would have been no need for another priest from another order, through whom another Law is administered. But another priest has arisen according to another order—that of Melchizedek. Therefore, the first priesthood was imperfect. And just as another priesthood has arisen, so it is necessary that another Law arise.

In this reasoning, it is clear that there are two antecedents: one relating to the priesthood and the other to the Law. Regarding the first antecedent, he says, if perfection was attainable by the Levitical priesthood. Regarding the second, he notes that a law is administered by a priesthood, which he proves, because under it (that is, by its administration) the people received the law. This does not mean the priesthood came before the Law; rather, the reverse was true. He states the second antecedent when he says, for under it the people received the law, for The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge; and they shall seek the law at his mouth (Malachi 2:7).

He mentions the priesthood specifically in order to transition to the Law, which was administered by the priestly office. For as a gloss says, there can be no priest without a covenant, a law, and precepts. But the priesthood brought nothing to perfection, for its entire perfection was tied to the Law they administered. And as will be shown later, The law brought no one to perfection, because it did not lead to the perfection of righteousness: Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 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.

We have these two perfections, however, through Christ: The consumption abridged shall overflow with justice (Isaiah 10:22); and A short word shall the Lord make upon the earth (Romans 9:28). These, therefore, are the antecedents.

Next, he presents the consequents when he asks, 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? That is, God would not have said, according to the order of Melchizedek, but “according to the order of Aaron.” Because God did not say this, the Aaronic order 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 Christ’s priesthood even made the Levitical one void, because the perfect makes void the imperfect: When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away (1 Corinthians 13:10). Therefore, the priesthood of Christ does away with the Levitical priesthood.

The second consequent is that the new priesthood also does away with the Law that was administered by the old one. The author states this when he says, When there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. Since the Law was under the administration of the priesthood, it is necessary that the Law be changed when the priesthood is transferred, just as a person who changes his mind about traveling by water also changes his mind about finding a ship.

Every law is ordained for leading one’s life according to some rule. Thus, according to the Philosopher (Aristotle) in the Politics, when the way of life changes, the law must also change. Just as human law is ordained for human guidance, a spiritual and divine law is for divine guidance. But this guidance is regulated by a priesthood. Therefore, with the priesthood being transferred, it is necessary that the Law also be transferred.

The author speaks carefully, because he does not say, “the priest being transferred,” for the law does not concern the individual person of the priest. When a priest dies, the law is not changed, unless perhaps the entire method and order of guidance is changed. Jeremiah speaks of this 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 (Jeremiah 31:31). Likewise, Paul says, For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has delivered me from the law of sin and of death (Romans 8:2). 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.

Here the Manicheans raise an objection: If the Old Law was given by divine providence, which is unchangeable, the Law itself should be unchangeable and should not be altered. Therefore, since it was changed, it must not have been given by divine providence.

I answer, as Augustine says in Against Faustus, that just as a wise dispenser, by one and the same providence, gives different laws according to different times and persons—one law for summer and another for winter, one for children and another for adults, one for the perfect and another for the imperfect—and yet it is the same providence at work. So too, with divine providence remaining unchanged, the Law was changed to fit the times. Before the coming of Christ, precepts were given to prefigure His coming; after His coming, precepts were given to signify that He had come. Furthermore, the precepts of the Old Law were given to people as if to children, but in the New Law, as to the perfect. Hence, the Law is called a “pedagogue,” a term for a guardian of children. Therefore, if anything in the Law suggests permanence, it is because of the One who was prefigured.

A gloss here states that this transfer of the priesthood was prefigured in 1 Samuel 2:28, when the priesthood was transferred to Samuel, who was not of the tribe of Levi. However, because Samuel was not a priest, this transfer seems instead to be 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, offering sacrifices and anointing kings Saul and David. In this respect, the priesthood had been transferred to him. Hence, it says in Psalm 98:6: Moses and Aaron among his priests: and Samuel among them that call upon his name.

Furthermore, contrary to the gloss’s claim that Samuel was not a Levite, 1 Chronicles 7:23 numbers Elkanah, his father, among the sons of Levi. I answer that Samuel was, in a sense, from the tribe of Judah on his mother’s side, but on his father’s side he was of the tribe of Levi, though not descended from Aaron. Regarding his location, he was from Mount Ephraim. For although eleven tribes had their own provinces, the tribe of Levi did not; instead, they took up residence among the other tribes, and so Samuel dwelt in Mount Ephraim.

When the author says, he of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, he clarifies his previous point that the priesthood was transferred, and he explains this further in verse 14.

He says that the priesthood was transferred because the one to whom the prophet said, You are a priest forever, is from another tribe—Judah, not Levi (as is clear from Matthew 1:3). And from this tribe of Judah, no one has served at the altar. An objection might be raised concerning King Uzziah, who entered the temple to burn incense, as it says in 2 Chronicles 26:16. I answer that no one from another tribe could lawfully serve at the altar or do so without punishment. Uzziah was severely punished, for he was struck with leprosy until the day he died.

Another objection might be that it is wrong to say “no one,” because the Blessed Virgin was related to Elizabeth, who was one of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1:5), suggesting a Levitical connection. I answer that the priestly and royal families were the most illustrious and frequently intermarried. This is clear in the case of the first high priest, Aaron, who married the daughter of Amminadab, the sister of Nahshon, who was a leader of the tribe of Judah (Exodus 6:23). Furthermore, in 2 Kings 11, the priest Jehoiada married Jehosheba, daughter of King Joram. Therefore, it is possible that Elizabeth was of the tribe of Judah on one side of her family.

The author then explains his point further, saying, It is evident that our Lord descended from Judah, about whom it is also written, The lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered (Revelation 5:5). Regarding that tribe, Moses said nothing about priests. The Law commanded that only those from the tribe of Levi could be entrusted with the ministry of the tabernacle; therefore, Moses said nothing about priests from the tribe of Judah.

When the author says, This becomes even more evident, he introduces his second major reason. Having already presented one reason to prove that Christ’s priesthood is preferred over the Levitical and does away with it, he now shows why it is set aside and changed. He uses a conditional argument, laying out two antecedents and then two consequents. He first presents the antecedents and then clarifies them in verse 17.

His reasoning is this: If a new priest arises, he will not arise according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indestructible life. This is because the first priesthood was according to a carnal law, so it is fitting that the new one be according to a different law. And a new priest does, in fact, arise. The major premise contains two statements. The first relates to the Old Testament, calling it a “carnal commandment” because it involved carnal observances like 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 (Isaiah 1:19); and they were Justices of the flesh laid on them until the time of correction (Hebrews 9:10).

The author lays down this antecedent when he says, and this becomes even more evident, if according to the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest. The second statement clearly relates to the New Testament, which is not administered through carnal things but consists of spiritual things. It is founded on a spiritual power that produces eternal life in us, and it promises eternal rewards and punishments: But Christ, being come a high priest of the good things to come (Hebrews 9:11); and And these shall go into everlasting punishment; but the just into life everlasting (Matthew 25:26). Furthermore, it does not consist in carnal observances but in spiritual ones: The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life (John 6:64). This is what he means by saying the new priesthood is according to the power of an indestructible life.

Then, when he says, For he testifies: ‘You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek,’ he clarifies what he has said. He emphasizes the word forever, because if the priesthood is eternal, it clearly involves permanence.

Next, when he says, On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside, he presents two consequents: first, the setting aside of the Old Testament, and second, the institution of the New.

The first consequent is that the former commandment, which came about by the law of carnal commandments, is changed when the other is introduced. This is what the author means by a setting aside of the former commandment. But one might object that nothing is set aside unless it is evil, as Isaiah says, That he may know how to refuse the evil (Isaiah 7:15). The commandment, however, is not evil, for The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good (Romans 7:12).

I answer that the commandment was not evil in itself, but only insofar as it was unsuited to the time. The practices of the Old Testament are not to be kept in the New: Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire: then said I: behold, I come (Psalms 39:8). Therefore, it is said to be set aside because of its weakness and uselessness. It is called “weak” because it cannot produce its proper effect, which for the Law and 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 (Romans 8:3). Paul also asks, How turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again? (Galatians 4:9).

Likewise, it is called “useless” insofar as it only prepared one for the faith, but did not deliver the final reality: All these died according to the faith, not having received the promises (Hebrews 11:13). The author shows why it is weak and useless when he says, it made nothing perfect regarding either righteousness or eternal life. Hence, it was imperfect, but it was made perfect by Christ.

Then, when he says, on the other hand a better hope is introduced, he presents the second consequent from the second antecedent. He says that a better hope is introduced by the new priest, through which we draw near to God. The antecedent was: if a new priest arises, it is according to the power of an indestructible life. The consequent is the introduction of a better hope: He has regenerated us unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3). Through Him we draw near to God, for we are separated from God by sin: But your iniquities have divided between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you that he should not hear (Isaiah 59:2). He, therefore, is the one who removes this separation and makes us draw near to God. He is that new Priest, 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 (Romans 5:1).