Verse 12

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law.

In this verse the Apostle evidently declares what he intended by the law in that foregoing, which the people received under the Levitical priesthood. It was the whole law of commandments contained in ordinances, or the whole law of Moses so far as it was the rule of worship and obedience to the Church. For that law it is, that followeth the fates of the priesthood.

And herein lies the stress and moment of the controversy which the Apostle then had with the Jews, and which we have at this day with their unbelieving posterity. For the question was, whether the law of Moses was to be eternal absolutely, the rule of the worship of the Church while it was to continue in this world. And it appears that in the preaching of the Gospel, that which most provoked the Jews, was that there was inferred thereby a cessation and taking away of Mosaical institutions. This was that which enraged them, to the blood of the Church, which they were guilty of, after the murder of the Head thereof. For they fell on Stephen under pretence he had said that Jesus of Nazareth should destroy the customs which Moses delivered (Acts 6:14). And this also provoked their rage against our Apostle (Acts 21:28). Yes, the most of them who were converted to the faith of the Gospel, yet continued obstinate in this persuasion, that the law of Moses was yet to continue in force (Acts 20:21). And with this opinion some of them troubled the peace, and hindered the edification of the churches called from among the Gentiles, as has been at large elsewhere declared. This matter therefore which the Apostle now enters upon, was to be managed with care and diligence.

This he enters upon in this verse, being a transition from one point to another, having made way for his intentions in the verse foregoing. That which hitherto he has insisted on in this chapter, is the excellency of the priesthood of Christ, above that of the law, manifested in the representation made of it by Melchisedec. In the pursuit of his argument to that purpose, he proves that the Aaronical priesthood was to be abolished, because after its institution there was a promise of the introduction of another, wherewith it was inconsistent. And herein observing the strict conjunction that was between that priesthood and the law, with their mutual dependance on one another, he proves from there that the law itself was also to be abolished.

Herein therefore lay the principal design of the Apostle in this whole Epistle. For the law may be looked on under a double consideration. (1.) As to what the Jews in that degenerate state of the Church obstinately looked for from it. (2.) As to what it did really require of them, while it stood in force and power. And under both these considerations it was utterly inconsistent with the Gospel. The Jews at that time expected no less from it, than expiation of sin by its sacrifices, and justification by the works of it. It is true, they looked for these things by it unjustly, seeing it promised no such thing, nor was ever ordained to any such purpose; but yet these things they looked for, and were resolved so to do, until the law should be removed out of the way. And it is evident how inconsistent this is with the whole work of the mediation of Christ, which is the sum and substance of the Gospel. But suppose they looked not absolutely for atonement and justification by the sacrifices and works of the law, yet the continuance of their observance was repugnant to the Gospel. For the Lord Christ by the one offering of himself, had made perfect atonement for sin; so that the sacrifices of the law could be of no more use or signification. And the continuance of them, wherein there was renewed mention of the expiation of sin, did declare that there was not a perfect expiation already made, which overthrows the efficacy and virtue of the sacrifice of Christ. Even as the daily repetition of a sacrifice in the Mass continues to do.

Again, whereas the Lord Christ by his obedience and righteousness had fulfilled the law, and was become the end of it, for righteousness, to them that do believe, the seeking after justification as it were by the works of the law was wholly repugnant thereunto.

And in the next place the law may be considered as it prescribed a way of worship in its ordinances and institutions, which God does accept. This the people were indispensably obliged to while the law stood in force. But in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ had now appointed a new spiritual worship suited to the principles and grace thereof. And these were so inconsistent as that no man could at once serve these two masters.

Therefore the whole law of Moses, as given to the Jews, whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant to and inconsistent with the Gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office therein declared. Neither did God either design, appoint, or direct that they should be co-existent. If then the law continue in its force, and have power to oblige the consciences of men, and is still so to abide, there is neither room nor place for Christ and his priesthood in the Church, nor indeed for the discharge of his other offices. And this opposition between the law and the Gospel, works and grace, our own righteousness and that of Christ, our Apostle does not only grant, but vehemently urge in all his Epistles, allowing none to suppose that they may have both these strings to their bow. One of them he is peremptory that all mankind must betake themselves to. Here the Jews were entangled, and knew not what to do. The greatest part of them adhered to the law with an utter rejection of the Gospel and the author of it, perishing in their unbelief. Others of them endeavoured to make a composition of these things, and retaining of Moses, they would admit of Christ and the Gospel also. And this the Holy Ghost in the Apostles did for a while bear withal. But now whereas the whole service of the Tabernacle was of itself fallen down, and become, as useless, so of no force, its obliging power ceasing in its accomplishment by Christ; and whereas the time was drawing near wherein God by his providence would utterly remove it, the inconsistency of it with the Gospel-state of the Church was now fully to be declared.

This therefore our Apostle grants, that there was such a repugnancy between the Law and the Gospel, as to the ends of righteousness and divine worship, as that one of them must of necessity be parted withal. Therefore the whole controversy turning on this hinge, it was highly incumbent on him to manifest and prove that the Law did now cease, according to the appointment of God; and that God had of old designed, fore-told, and promised, that so it should do, and be abolished upon the introduction of that which was the end and substance of it. And this I look upon as the greatest trial the faith of men ever had in the concerns of religion; namely, to believe that God should take away, abolish, and leave as dead and useless, that whole system of solemn worship which he had appointed in so glorious a manner, and accepted for so many generations. But yet as we are to acquiesce in the sovereign pleasure of God made known by revelation against all reasonings of our own whatever: So it must be confessed, that faith was greatly bespoken and prepared by the nature, end, and use of all those institutions, which more than intimated, that they were appointed only for a time, and served to introduce a more glorious dispensation of divine wisdom and grace.

The proof therefore of the utter cessation of the Law the Apostle enters upon by the invincible argument, whose foundation or proposition is laid in this verse, and the especial parts of it are explained, confirmed, and vindicated in those that follow. And in his ensuing discourse his principal design is to prove, that the Church is so far from being a loser or disadvantaged by this change, as that she receiveth thereby the highest privilege, and greatest blessing that in this world she is capable of.

In the words of this verse there is a supposition of the change of the priesthood, as that which was proved before, and an inference from there to a necessity of the change of the Law.

The priesthood being changed; that is, the priesthood of Levi appointed and exercised under the Law [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], translato, mutato; so some read, transferred, translated, some changed. The former do not reach the whole sense intended. For the office of the priesthood may be transferred from one person to another, one family to another, yes, one tribe to another; and yet the priesthood, as to the kind and nature of it, continue the same. This our Apostle afterwards mentions (ver. 13, 14.) as a part of his argument to prove the priesthood itself to be changed. But this it does not absolutely; seeing it is possible that the office may be transferred from one tribe to another, and yet not be changed, as to its nature. But the proof lies in this, that Moses in the institution of the priesthood made no mention of the tribe of Judah, and therefore if that office be transferred to that tribe, it must be of another kind than that before instituted. And on this supposition that which he intends to prove follows evidently upon the translation of the priesthood. For all the sacred services and worship which the Law required, were so confined, or at least had that respect to the Levitical priesthood, as that no part of it, no sacred duty could be performed, on a supposition of taking away the priesthood from that tribe and family. For whereas the whole of their worship consisted in the service and sacrifices of the Tabernacle, God had appointed that whoever did draw nigh to the performance of any of these services that was not of the seed of Aaron, should be cut off and destroyed. Therefore upon a supposition of the ceasing or changing of the priesthood in that family, the whole Law of ordinances became unpracticable, useless, and lost its power; especially seeing there was no provision made in the Law itself for a priesthood in any other tribe. Besides such was the contexture of the Law, and such the sanction of it (Cursed is he who continues not in all things written in the Law to do them,) that if any thing be taken out of it, if its order be disturbed, if any alteration be made, or any transgression be dispensed withal, or exempted from the curse, the whole fabric must of necessity fall to the ground.

But yet it is not a mere transferring of the priesthood from one tribe to another, that is here intended by the Apostle. For there is such a change of the priesthood as there is of the Law. But the change of the Law was an [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], a disannulling or abolishing, as is affirmed (ver. 18). Such therefore must the change of the priesthood be, and so it was. The priesthood was changed, in that one kind of it was utterly abolished, and another introduced. So was the Levitical priesthood changed, as that the other priest which came with his office in the room thereof, could not be called or said to be after the order of Aaron, but was of another kind typed out by Melchisedec.

It may therefore be enquired on what grounds this priesthood was to be so abolished, or how it appears that so it is, and by what means it was actually taken away.

That it was so to be abolished the Apostle proves, (1.) Because before the institution of that priesthood, there was another far more excellent, namely, that of Melchisedec. (2.) That the Holy Ghost had declared that the introduction of that more excellent priesthood for a season, was to prefigure and represent another priesthood that was afterwards to be established. And this could not be that of Levi, seeing God does not make use of that which is more excellent, to figure or represent that which is inferior thereunto. Another priesthood therefore must arise and be granted to the Church in answer to that type. (3.) That it was impossible that this new priest after the order of Melchisedec, should be consistent with that of Levi, or that it should be continued after that was brought in. For (1.) He was to be of another tribe, as he immediately proves. (2.) Because his priesthood and sacrifice were to be of another kind than that of Levi, which he demonstrates at large in the ensuing chapters. (3.) Because on the other hand the priesthood of Aaron, (1.) Could never accomplish and effect the true and proper ends of the priesthood, which the Church stood in need of, and without which it could not be consummate: And (2.) Was in its own nature, offices, works, and duties, inconsistent with any priesthood, that was not of its own order. It must therefore be abolished.

It may therefore be enquired, how the Priesthood was changed, or that of the House of Levi taken away. And I say as the Apostle directs, it was done by the Appointment of God. For his Introduction of another Priest when it was actually accomplished, had the force of a repealing law. The Institution of the former was abrogated thereby, without any other Constitution. For as to its use, it did hence cease of it self. It had no more to do, its work was at an end, and its Services of no Advantage to the Church: for the sign of what is to come, is set aside when the thing signified is brought in; and ceaseth to be a sign. Yes, the continuance of it would give a testimony against it self. And as to its right, this new Institution of God, applyed by his own Authority to it in its proper season, took it away. (2.) The Application of the Authority of God in the Institution of a new Priesthood to take away the old was made by the Holy Ghost, in the Revelation of the will of God by the Gospel, wherein the ceasing of it was declared. And sundry things may be observed concerning this abolishing of it.

1. Notwithstanding the great and many provocations of them by whom it was exercised and discharged, yet God took it not away until it had accomplished the end whereunto it was designed. Neither the wickedness of the people, nor of the Priests themselves, could provoke the Lord to revoke his Institution, until the appointed end of it was come. And it is no small part of the blindness of the present Jews, to think that God would so utterly abolish his own Ordinance, as they must acknowledge he has done, if he would have it to be of any longer use in the Church. For 1600 years, they have not had any Priest among them, nor is it possible they should according to the Law, if they were actually restored to their own pretended right in Canaan. For they have utterly lost the distinction of tribes among them, nor can any of them in the least pretend that they are of the linage of the Priests. And for any one to usurp that office who is not lineally descended from Aaron, they own to be an abomination. As therefore they know not how to look for a Messiah from the Tribe of Judah, seeing all sacred genealogy is at an end; no more can they look for a Priest of the House of Aaron. Now this end of it, was the bringing in of a better hope, or the Promised Seed, who, according to the Promise, was to come to the Second Temple, and therefore while that Priesthood continued. (2.) God took it not away till he brought in that which was more excellent, glorious, and advantagious to the Church, namely, the Priesthood of Christ. And if this be not received through their unbelief, they alone are the cause of their being losers by this alteration. (3.) In abundant patience and condescention with respect to that interest which it had in the consciences of men from his Institution, God did not utterly lay it aside in a day, after which it should be absolutely unlawful to comply with it. But God took it away by degrees, as shall afterwards be declared.

2. That the efficacy of all Ordinances or Institutions of worship depends on the will of God alone. While it was his will that the Priesthood should abide in the Family of Levi, it was useful and effectual to all the ends whereunto it was designed. But when he would make an alteration therein, it was in vain for any to look for either benefit or advantage by it. And although we are not now to expect any change in the Institutions of Divine Worship, yet all our expectations from them, are to be resolved into the will of God.

3. Divine Institutions cease not without an express Divine Abrogation. Where they are once granted and erected by the Authority of God, they can never cease without an express Act of the same Authority taking of them away. So was it with the Institutions of the Aaronical Priesthood, as the Apostle declares. And this one consideration is enough to confirm the grant of the initial seal of the Covenant to the present seed of believers, which was once given by God himself, in the way of an Institution, and never by him revoked.

4. God will never abrogate or take away any Institution or Ordinance of worship to the loss or disadvantage of the Church. He would not remove or abolish the Priesthood of Levi, until that which was incomparably more excellent was introduced and established.

5. God in his wisdom so ordered all things, that the taking away of the Priesthood of the Law, gave it its greatest glory. For it ceased not before it had fully and absolutely accomplished the end whereunto it was designed, which is the glory and perfection of any Ordinance: even the Mediation of Christ himself shall cease, when all the ends of it are fulfilled. And this end of the Priesthood was most glorious; namely, the bringing in that of Christ, and therein of the eternal salvation of the Church. And what more honourable issue could it come to? The Jews by their pretended adherence to it, are they which cast the highest dishonour upon it; for they own that it is laid aside, at least that it has been so for 1600 years, and yet neither the end of it effected, nor any thing brought in by it, to the greater advantage of the Church.

The next thing considerable in these words, is the Inference which the Apostle makes from his Assertion and the Proof of it: There is made of Necessity a change also of the Law, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Of Necessity. It is not a note of the necessity of the Inference from the Proposition in the way of Argument, but the necessary dependance of the things mentioned, the one on the other. For whereas the whole Administration of the Law so far as it concerned the Expiation of sin by Sacrifices, and the Solemn Worship of God in the Tabernacle or Temple, depended absolutely on, and was confined to the Aaronical Priesthood, so as that without it no one Sacrifice could be offered to God, nor any Ordinance of Divine Worship be observed; that Priesthood being abolished and taken out of the way, the Law it self of necessity and unavoidably ceaseth and becometh useless. It does so, I say, as to all the proper ends of it, as a law obligatory to the duties required in it.

Therefore there is also a change of the Law; that is, an abolition of it. For it is a change of the same nature with the change of the Priesthood; which, as we have showed, was its abolition and taking away. And how this came to pass the word declares, there is made a change. It did indeed necessarily follow on the change of the Priesthood; yet not so, but that there was an act of the will and authority of God on the Law itself. God made this change, and he alone could do it; that he would do so, and did so, the Apostle proves in this and the verses following. So is the law of commandments contained in ordinances taken out of the way, being nailed to the Cross of Christ, where he left it completely accomplished.

But moreover the Law in its institutions was an instructive revelation, and taught many things concerning the nature of sin, its expiation and cleansing, representing, though darkly, good things to come. So it is yet continued as a part of the revealed will of God. And the light of the Gospel being brought to it, we may learn things far more clearly out of it, than ever the Jews of old could do.

And the force of the argument here insisted on by the Apostle against the absolute perpetuity of the Law, which was of old, and yet continues to be the head of the controversy between the Jews and the Church of Christ, is so unavoidable, that some of them have been compelled to acknowledge that in the days of the Messiah legal sacrifices and the rest of their ceremonies shall cease; though the most of them understand that their cause is given away thereby. And they have no other way to free themselves from this argument of the Apostle, but by denying that Melchizedec was a Priest, or that it is the Messiah who is prophesied of (Psalm 110), which evidences of a desperate cause, and more desperate defenders of it, have been elsewhere convinced of folly. Therefore this important argument is confirmed by our Apostle in the ensuing verses. And we may see,

1. How it is a fruit of the manifold wisdom of God, that it was a great mercy to give the Law, and a greater to take it away. And

2. If under the Law the whole worship of God did so depend on the Priesthood, that that failing or being taken away, the whole worship of itself was to cease, as being no more acceptable before God; how much more is all worship under the New Testament rejected by him, if there be not a due regard therein to the Lord Christ as the only High Priest of the Church, and the efficacy of his discharge of that office.

3. It is the highest vanity to pretend use or continuance in the Church, from possession or prescription, or pretended benefit, beauty, order, or advantage, when once the mind of God is declared against it. The pleas for the old Priesthood and Law of this kind excelled all that can be insisted on, with respect to any other things that any pretend a veneration in divine worship; yet were they of no validity or efficacy.