Hebrews 7 — Verse 28

For the Law maketh men High Priests which have infirmity; but the Word of the Oath which was since the Law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

The Apostle in this verse summeth up the whole of his precedent discourse, so as to evidence the true and proper foundation, which all along he has built and proceeded on. (1.) One principle there was agreed upon between him and the Hebrews who adhered to Mosaical institutions; and this was, that an High Priest over the Church there must be; and without such an one there is no approach to God. So it was under the Law, and if the same order be not continued, the Church must needs fall under a great disadvantage. To lose the High Priest out of our religion, is to lose the Sun out of the firmament of the Church. This was a common principle agreed on between them, whereon the Apostle does proceed.

(2.) He grants to them that the High Priests who officiated in the Tabernacle and the Temple were called and appointed by God to their office, in the Law.

(3.) Hereon ensued the main difference between him and them. They were perswaded and hoped that these Priests should continue for ever in the Church without change or alteration. He contends that there was a time designed wherein they were to be removed, and a Priest of another order to be introduced in their room; which would be so far from being any disadvantage to the Church, as that the whole safety, glory, and blessedness thereof did depend thereon. And this he proves by many cogent and irrefragable arguments to them.

1. That before the erection of the Levitical Priesthood by the Law, there was another priest of the High God, who was far greater and more excellent than those Priests, yes, than Abraham himself from whom they derived all their privileges.

2. Because after the giving of the Law and the setting up of the Levitical Priesthood thereby, God again promiseth to raise up another Priest, in another kind, after another order, after the manner of him who was called to that office long before the giving of the Law. Therefore he was prefigured before the Law, and promised after the Law, so that his introduction could not be prejudiced by the Law.

3. That this High Priest thus promised, neither was to be nor could be, of the same stock, nature, or order with the Levitical priests, but one that was not only distinct from them, but really inconsistent with them. He manifests that there was no possibility they should be priests together, or that the Church should be under the conduct of them both.

4. Whereas hereon it may be said, who knows whether this change and alteration will be to the advantage of the Church or no, whether it were not better to adhere to these priests which we have already, than relinquishing them and all benefits by them, to betake our selves to this new High Priest; the Apostle in answer to this possible objection, declares in sundry instances the excellency of this other Priest above them. And not only so, but he proves undeniably that by all which those other Priests did perform in divine service, and by all that the Law could effect, whereby they were constituted and made Priests, there was no access to God, no perfection, nor consummation in peace of conscience to be obtained. For there were so many defects and weaknesses that accompanied them and their services, as rendred them wholly unable to attain those great ends. On the other hand he manifesteth and proveth that by this one single High Priest now introduced, and his one sacrifice offered once for all, by reason of the perfection of the one and the other, all those blessed ends were compleatly accomplished.

This being the design of the Apostle's discourse in this Chapter, he giveth us a summary of the whole, and of the principal grounds which he proceeds upon, with wonderful brevity in this last verse. For upon an acknowledgement of the different principles mentioned, he shews us in an elegant antithesis,

1. The different means of the constitution of these different Priests; on the one hand, the Law; and on the other, the Word of the Oath.

2. The different times of their constitution; the one in the giving of the Law; the other after the Law.

3. The difference of their persons; those of the first sort were men, and no more; the other was the Son.

4. The difference in their state and condition; the former had infirmities, the later is consecrated for ever.

5. This also is included in the words, that those of the first sort were many, men that had infirmities; he of the later was one only. And in these things, as we shall briefly see, be the springs of all the arguments which the Apostle has used in this case, and a plain representation is given us of the truth he contended for.

1. The first difference is in the constituting principles of these distinct offices: That on the part of the Levitical Priesthood was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the Law, that is, the ceremonial Law, as we call it; the Law given in Horeb, concerning religious rites, the way and manner of the solemn worship of God in the Tabernacle. It was not the Moral Law, not immediatly the commands of the Decalogue, but the especial Law of divine service and worship that is intended.

And what does the Law do? [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], It appointeth. It did so morally, God appointed them in and by the Law. And he speaks in the present tense. So long as the Law continueth in force and efficacy it appointeth such Priests. None other are to be looked for in, or expected from the Law. Now a moral rule or institution is sufficient to convey power and authority of office to men. So is it under the New Testament. It is the Gospel that makes ministers, and not the people or any others, who have no power but only to act in obedience to the laws thereof. Hereby those other Priests came so to be.

Hereunto is opposed the word of the Oath, as the constituting cause of this new Priest and Priesthood. Thus much it had in common with the other way. It was a word as that was also. The Law was the word spoken by Angels (chapter 2:2), the word of God, though spoken by them. And a word in this sense is either a mere word of command, or a word of Promise; either of which is sufficient to constitute an office, being declarations of the authority of God himself. By this Word was both the office of the Priesthood of Christ consecrated, and himself called to be a Priest. See the exposition on chapter 5, verses 5, 6. But herein especially did this Word excel the Word of the Law, in that it was confirmed by the Oath of God. It was the Word, the Will, the Promise of God declared in and by his Oath. And herein has it many advantages above the Law, which was not so.

1. An high federal solemnity. Things confirmed by an Oath are peculiarly sacred; and are distinguished from all things that are not so; and therefore the interposition of an Oath was originally (it may be, solely) used in the confirmation of Covenants about things of moment, and wherein several parties were highly concerned.

2. An Oath declares the immutability of that counsel from where the matter sworn to does proceed. In the giving of the Law, God declared his will, so far as to what he would have the people at present obliged to. But he did not by any means declare that he had in his unchangeable counsel determined, that the kind of worship, and state of the Church then erected, should continue for ever. Yea, he did many ways intimate that he did reserve to himself the power of altering the whole. But now the immutability of God's counsel is declared by his Oath. What was this Oath of God, and how the Lord Christ was made a Priest thereby, has been before at large declared. The Apostle takes notice of it here only as it was given out in prophecy by David, which was but a solemn declaration of the eternal compact between the Father and the Son.

2. The difference of the time wherein these Priesthoods were ordained, is included on the one hand and expressed on the other. For the former, it was when the Law was given, whereby they were made Priests: the latter was after the Law, or the giving of it. This, I confess, does not appear at first view to be to the advantage of the Apostle's design, namely, that this Oath was after the Law. For in another place he expressly argues on the other hand, that what is first in such cases has the preeminence; and cannot be disannulled by what does ensue (Galatians 3:17). And this I say, that the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul, that it should make the Promise of none effect. May it not be as well said that this Oath, which was declared about four hundred years after the giving of the Law, could not disannul it, or make it of none effect? The objection being not without its difficulty, I shall spend a little time in the full solution of it. I answer therefore, that what followeth after cannot disannul what went before,

1. If that which is afterwards introduced be consistent with what was before established. For in that case there is no intimation of the pleasure of God that it should be disannulled. He may add what he will, to what is already ordained, so it be consistent with it, without prejudicing the first institution.

2. Especially it cannot do so, if it be inferior to that which went before, either in dignity or use and benefit, and so be made subservient to it.

3. And it must be invalid to any such purpose, if it had no other antecedent foundation, that did indeed precede the former Grant: for if it have so, it may rationally be supposed to be farther declared on purpose to supersede it.

Now thus it was with the Law in respect to the Promise, which (as the Apostle proves) going before it, could not be disannulled by it.

1. The Law as it was then ordained of God, was consistent with the Promise; yes, and given in the pursuit of it; so as that there was no need that any should forsake the Promise to comply with the will of God in giving the Law.

2. The Law as it was inferior in dignity and use to the Promise, so it was made subordinate and subservient to it. For the main end of giving the Law, was to guide and direct the Church to the right use and benefit of the Promise.

3. The Promise had an absolute priority above the Law. There was no ground or foundation laid for the Law, no intimation of its future introduction, before the giving of the Promise: and therefore the Promise could not be disannulled by it.

But in the present case all things are otherwise.

1. The Priesthood confirmed by an Oath, and introduced after the Law, was utterly inconsistent with the Law and the Priesthood thereof. This the Apostle has fully proved before. Therefore of necessity either the Law and the Priesthood of it must be disannulled, or the Oath of God must be of none effect; for what he had sworn to was inconsistent with the continuance of what was before appointed for a time.

2. This new Priesthood could no way be made subordinate or subservient to the other, so as to leave it a place in the Church. But as it was eminently above it in dignity and benefit; so the use of the other was only to be an introduction to it, and therefore must cease thereon.

3. This Priesthood had its reasons, grounds, foundation and representation long before the giving of the Law. For besides that it had a virtual constitution in the first Promise 2000 years before the giving of the Law, it had also a typical representation before it in the Priesthood of Melchisedek; and it received only a declaration and confirmation in the account given of the Oath of God after the Law.

Therefore the direct contrary is here the matter in hand, to what is spoken to in that other Argument of the Apostle. And therein the first thing, namely, the Promise was confirmed by an Oath, the latter was not. But here the latter which was after the Law, was confirmed by the Oath of God, which the Law was not. And hereon its being after the Law is a sufficient evidence of its preeminence above the Law, and all the institutions of it. For hereby was that introduced which was to supply all the defects and weaknesses of the Law and its Priesthood, and so to disanul them and take them out of the way.

3. The third difference is, that the Law made [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], men to be High Priests; that is, those who were mere men and no more. And therefore notwithstanding the office and dignity which they were called and exalted to, they were all but servants in the House of God, nor could they be any other as the Apostle proves (Hebrews 3:5). In opposition hereunto, the Word of the Oath makes [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the Son an High Priest; that Son who is Lord over the whole House, and whose the House is, as he declares in the same place (ver. 5, 6). And in this word the Apostle openeth the necessity and dignity of the Priesthood of the New Testament. For it consists in the dignity of the Person designed to that Office. This was no other, nor could be other, but the Son, the Eternal Son of God. Filium, nempe Dei, non hominem caeteris parem, nascendi sorte, says Grotius; as though Christ were here called the Son, that is the Son of God, because he was differenced from other men, in the way and manner of his birth, being born of a Virgin. But this is not the true and formal reason of this denomination. Christ is the Son of God by Eternal Generation, and thereon alone does his Sonship depend. But many ways there were, whereby he was manifested so to be, especially by his miraculous Conception and Nativity, and by his Resurrection from the Dead. Hence with respect to them he is sometimes called the Son of God; not that he became so thereby, but was only declared so to be. This therefore the Apostle resolves the force of his Argument into, namely, the dignity of the Person of our High Priest, he was the Son of God; for hereon the whole excellency and efficacy of his Priesthood does depend.

4. It is added in the last place that the Law made men Priests, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that had infirmity: subject to infirmities. And these were of two sorts, moral and natural; neither could they be freed from either of them during the whole time of their Priesthood. The first were their sins, hence they were obliged continually to offer sacrifice for their own sins, and that to the very last day of their lives. The sum and issue of their natural weakness was death itself. This seized on every one of them, so as to put an everlasting end to their sacerdotal administrations.

But therefore did the Law make such Priests, men, mere men, that had infirmity, subject to sin and death, so as to put an end to their Office? The reason is, because it could neither find any better, nor make them any better whom it found in that condition. The Law must be content with such as were to be had, and in itself it had no power to make them better.

In opposition hereunto it is said the Word of the Oath made the Son [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], consecrated for ever. What was the consecration of the Lord Christ to his Office and wherein it did consist, I have before at large declared. That which the Apostle intends here, in an especial manner, is his absolute freedom from the infirmities which those other Priests were obnoxious to, namely, such infirmities in the first place as with respect whereunto, sacrifice was to be offered to God, that is, their own sins. And the Apostle here opposing the Consecration of Christ, to their having infirmities, sheweth sufficiently that he intended not to insinuate that he offered for any infirmities of his own, seeing he is wholly different from them and opposed to them who had such infirmities. And if he had offered for his own infirmities, the Apostle could not have objected it as the weakness of the Law; that it made Priests which had infirmity; for in that sense, the Word of the Oath should have done so also. But whereas his Exaltation into Heaven for the discharge of the remaining duties of his Priesthood in his Intercession for the Church, belonged to the perfection of his Consecration, he was therein also freed from all those natural infirmities which were necessary to him that he might be a sacrifice. The ensuing observations offer themselves to us.

1. There never was, nor never can be any more than two sorts of Priests in the Church, the one made by the Law, the other by the Oath of God. Therefore,

2. As the bringing in of the Priesthood of Christ after the Law and the Priesthood constituted thereby, did abrogate and disanul it; so the bringing in of another Priesthood after his, will abrogate and disanul that also. And therefore,

3. Plurality of Priests under the Gospel overthrows the whole Argument of the Apostle in this place, and if we have yet Priests that have infirmities, they are made by the Law, and not by the Gospel.

4. The sum of the difference between the Law and the Gospel, is issued in the difference between the Priests of the one and the other state, which is inconceivable.

5. The great foundation of our faith, and the hinge whereon all our consolation depends, is this, that our High Priest is the Son of God.

6. The everlasting continuance of the Lord Christ in his Office, is secured by the Oath of God.