Hebrews 7:12Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

If there must be another priest, or rather another priesthood, then there must also be another law. This is said against those who ask: What need was there of a new covenant?

He could have brought testimonies from prophecy: You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers (Acts 3:25). But for now he reasons about the priesthood.

See how he wished to instill this. By saying according to the order of Melchizedek, he rejected the order of Aaron. He would not have said according to the order of Melchizedek if Aaron's order had been better.

Now he shows how the law is gradually abolished and another covenant is introduced in its place. For if the priesthood is changed, the law must necessarily be another, since there is no priest without a covenant, laws, and ordinances. The priesthood was changed not only in form, so that it was not according to the order of Aaron but according to the order of Melchizedek, but also in tribe. For it passed from Aaron's priestly tribe to the royal tribe of Judah. Attend to the mystery. First there was the royal tribe, and afterward the priestly tribe. So also Christ was always King, and in the last times He became High Priest, when He took flesh and offered the sacrifice.

Thus it has been proved in Melchizedek that the rank of priesthood would one day be taken from the tribe that ministered according to the law, and that another form and law of sacred service would shine forth. For it was necessary that, together with the change and removal of the sacred service, the law itself should also be changed and abolished. Therefore the divine Paul philosophizes about this and speaks.

Having thus proved the change of the priesthood, he now turns to proving that with the change of the priesthood the law also is changed. For when the priesthood is changed, he says, a change of the law also necessarily takes place. Why is a sacrificial law, one requiring sacrifices, needed when the sacrifices and the priesthood itself have been abolished?

The law is joined to the priesthood. Therefore, as soon as the priesthood ceases, the same must necessarily happen to the law.

If there had to be another priest, or rather another priesthood, then there also had to be another law. For after the priesthood passed from the priests according to the order of Aaron to those according to the order of Melchizedek, a change of law necessarily had to occur. That is, one had to be replaced by another, and the New Covenant introduced in place of the old. This is the evangelical preaching. For a new priesthood cannot be introduced without a covenant and ordinances corresponding to it, since it is not proper for the new priesthood to be guided by the old law.

As I enter upon the fulfillment of this duty, I recognize all my weakness and smallness beside the greatness of the gift of priesthood received by me with all the priests. I find it my duty to repeat the words of the prophet.

O Lord, I have heard Thy report and was afraid. O Lord, accomplish Thy work in the midst of the years. In the midst of the years make it known. In wrath remember mercy (Hab 3:2).

But what caused such anxiety, such fear, such trembling of the reed, such exaltation of the humble, such dignity of the unworthy? Yet we do not despair or grow faint, because we do not rely on ourselves, but on Him Who is one and the same, working all things in all (1 Cor 12:6).

When the priesthood is changed, a change of the law necessarily takes place. The Apostle directs his discourse toward showing the imperfection and non-eternity of the Mosaic law. He bases his proofs on the fact that God Himself calls the Messiah a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not of Aaron. Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem says in On the Divine Sacred Rite, 9: If Melchizedek is from another tribe and is a type of Christ, then the Levitical priesthood is plainly abolished. With its abolition, the Old Law and its service must also necessarily be changed.

These words must be understood with limitation, in accordance with the words of Jesus Christ: Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill (Mt 5:17).

Therefore it is necessary to distinguish between the destruction of the law and its change. Change may contain not the destruction of the law, but on the contrary even its confirmation. Therefore the Apostle says: Do we then overthrow the law by faith? By no means. Rather, we establish the law (Rom 3:31).

Having unfolded the typological features of Melchizedek, the Apostle proceeds to set forth the superior characteristics of Melchizedek's priesthood, which were realized in the person of Jesus Christ. He reveals the superiority of Christ's priesthood, according to the order of Melchizedek, over the imperfect Levitical priesthood.

First he sets forth a general consideration (Heb 7:11-12). The very foretelling of a new priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, while the former Levitical priesthood according to the order of Aaron still existed, already indicated that the latter, as imperfect, would one day be replaced by the former as more perfect.

Even the Old Testament law, which strove to bring those under the law to moral perfection, had to expect its own change because of its close connection with the priesthood, when the priesthood itself was changed.

Here the Apostle observes that the priesthood was, so to speak, the main pillar of the whole structure of Old Testament theocracy. For the priests preserved the law, watched over its fulfillment among the people, and explained it. But why does the Apostle attach such importance to the question of priesthood? This is explained by the fact that a change of priesthood is necessarily connected with a change of the whole law.