Heb 7:11

“"If therefore" (he says) "perfection were by the Levitical priesthood." Having spoken concerning Melchisedec, and shown how much superior he was to Abraham, and having set forth the great difference between them, he begins from this point forward to prove the wide difference as to the covenant itself, and how the one is imperfect and the other perfect. However he does not even yet enter on the matters themselves, but first contends on the ground of the priesthood, and the tabernacle. For these things would be more easily received by the unbelieving, when the proof was derived from things already allowed, and believed. He had shown that Melchisedec was greatly superior both to Levi and to Abraham, being to them in the rank of the priests. Again he argues from a different point. What then is this? Why (he says) did he not say, "after the order of Aaron"? And observe, I pray you, the great superiority of his argument. For from the very circumstance which naturally excluded His priesthood, viz. that He was not "after the order of Aaron," from that he establishes Him, and excludes the others. For this is the very thing that I say (he declares); why has He "not been made after the order of Aaron"? And the saying "what further need" has much emphasis. For if Christ had been "after the order of Melchisedec" according to the flesh, and then afterwards the law had been introduced, and all that pertained to Aaron, one might reasonably say that the latter as being more perfect, annulled the former, seeing that it had come in after it. But if Christ comes later, and takes a different type, as that of His priesthood, it is evident that it is because those were imperfect. For (he would say) let us suppose for argument's sake, that all has been fulfilled, and that there is nothing imperfect in the priesthood. "What need" was there in that case that He should be called "after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron"? Why did He set aside Aaron, and introduce a different priesthood, that of Melchisedec? "If then perfection," that is the perfection of the things themselves, of the doctrines, of life, "had been by the Levitical priesthood." And observe how he goes forward on his path. He had said that He was "after the order of Melchisedec," implying that the priesthood "after the order of Melchisedec" is superior: for he was far superior. Afterwards he shows this from the time also, in that He was after Aaron; evidently as being better.”

“"For under it the people have received the Law [or have been legislated for]." What is "under it"? Ordereth itself by it; through it does all things. You cannot say that it was given to others, "the people under it have received the law," that is, have used it, and did use it. You cannot say indeed that it was perfect, it did not govern the people; "they have been legislated for upon it," that is, they used it.”

“If the priesthood according to the law contained perfection, he is saying, on the grounds that through it everything according to the law was fulfilled, why is the giving of another one intended? Why on earth is the promise made to give it not according to the order of Aaron but according to the order of Melchizedek? Actually, all the law's requirements were fulfilled in the former one: it offered sacrifices, it gave purification from defilement, through it the commandments about festivals were fulfilled, the text says, "for under it the people received the law."After thus demonstrating the change of priesthood, he shows also the cessation of the law. The law was liked to the priesthood; so with priesthood coming to an end, the law also suffered the same fate.”

“When I compare the impoverishment of my insufficiency with the greatness of the gift I have received, I too should cry out in those words of the prophet, "Lord, I have heard your word and was afraid; I have considered your works and trembled." What indeed could instill as much anxiety and fear as labor for the frail, elevation for the lowly, dignity for the undeserving? Yet we do not despair or give up, since we do not depend on ourselves but on the one "who works in us." … So we have chanted with one voice the psalm of David, dearly beloved, not for our own exaltation but for the glory of Christ the Lord.He it is of whom it was said in prophetic manner, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," that is to say, "not according to the order of Aaron," whose priesthood passed down through the descent of his offspring and was a temporary ministry that ceased with the law of the Old Testament, but "after the order of Melchizedek," in whom the office of eternal high priest was prefigured. Since there is no mention of the parents he came from, he must be understood as standing for the one "whose genealogy cannot be told." Finally, since the mystery of this divine priesthood also extends to its implementation by people, it does not pass down through the course of generations. It is not what flesh and blood have created that is chosen. Rather, the privileges of paternity give way, and the social positions of families are disregarded, as the church accepts for its rulers those whom the Holy Spirit has prepared. Among the people of God's adoption, which is priestly and kingly when taken as a whole, the prerogative of earthly lineage does not obtain the anointing.”

“He showed that Melchizedek in the priestly order was far superior to both Abraham and Levi. Now he again brings forth another proof, showing that the priesthood in Christ far surpasses the Levitical priesthood, and that the priesthood of Christ is a perfect priesthood, while that one was imperfect. For if the priesthood according to the law were perfect, then a priest would need to arise according to the order of Aaron, for Aaron was of the tribe of Levi. But it is said that a priest arises not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchizedek. Then, since that priesthood was imperfect, another is introduced in its place. And the expression "yet" has great significance; it is as if to say that if Christ according to the order of Melchizedek had come first, and then the law had been given, one could with all fairness say that the priesthood according to the law, that is, the priesthood of Aaron, was given on account of the priesthood of Melchizedek being, as it were, imperfect. But in reality Christ came afterward and received a different form of priesthood. From this it is evident that since the priesthood of Aaron was imperfect, another is introduced in its place. What then does the expression mean: "for under it the people received the law"? On this basis one cannot say that the priesthood of Aaron is perfect, that it was given for others and not for the Jews; on the contrary, it was given entirely to one people, and under it the people received the law, that is, it was ordained that they should use it, be guided by it, and accomplish all things through it. So why was it abolished? — evidently because it was powerless.”

“347. – Having proved the pre-eminence of Melchizedek's priesthood over the Levitical, the Apostle now concludes to the excellence of Christ's priesthood over that of the Levitical. But as has been stated above from the beginning of ch. 7, the Apostle proves his proposition from three statements taken from the Psalmist: first, from the phrase, 'according to the order of Melchizedek.' Therefore, he proved the pre-eminence of Melchizedek over Levi. Now according to the order of Melchizedek's priesthood, he proves Christ's pre-eminence over the Levitical. Hence, he lays great stress on the phrase, 'according to the order.' And he gives two reasons: the first concludes that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the Levitical; secondly, that it even makes it void (v. 15). In the first reason, which is conditional, he lays down two antecedents and two consequents: what further need would there have been for another priesthood to rise according to the order of Melchizedek? 348. – His reasoning is this: If the Levitical priesthood had been perfect, by whose ministry the Law was administered, there would have been no need for another priest according to another order through which another Law is administered, just as the Old Law was administered by the Levitical. But another priest has risen according to another order, namely, of Melchizedek. Therefore, the other was imperfect. Therefore, just as another priesthood has risen, so it is necessary that another Law arise. In this reasoning it is manifest that there are two antecedents, namely, one pertaining to the priesthood and the other pertaining to the Law. In regard to the first antecedent he says, if perfection was attainable by the Levitical priesthood. But in regard to the second he says that if a law is administered by a priesthood, which he proves, because under it, i.e., by its administration, the people received the law; not that the priesthood preceded the Law, but conversely. Hence, he states the second antecedent when he says, for under it the people received the law: 'The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge; and they shall seek the law at his mouth' (Mal. 2:7). But he makes mention of the priesthood specifically in order to pass to the Law, which was administered by the priestly office: for as a Gloss says, there can be no priest without a testament and a law and precepts. But the priesthood brought nothing to perfection, for its entire perfection was through the Law, which they administered; but as will be shown later: 'The law brought no one to perfection,' because it did not lead to the perfection of justice: 'Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven' (Mt. 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. But we have these two perfections through Christ: 'The consumption abridged shall overflow with justice' (Is. 10:22); 'A short word shall the Lord make upon the earth' (Rom. 9:28). These, therefore, are the antecedents. 349. – But he lays down the consequents when he says, 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, i.e., he would not have said, according to the order of Melchizedek, but 'according to the order of Aaron.' Therefore, because He did not, it 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 He even voided it, because the perfect voids the imperfect: 'When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away' (1 Cor. 13:10). Therefore, the priesthood of Christ does away with the Levitical.”

“perfection--absolute: "the bringing of man to his highest state, namely, that of salvation and sanctification." under it--The reading in the oldest manuscripts is, "Upon it (that is, on the ground of it as the basis, the priest having to administer the law, Mal 2:7 : it being presupposed) the people (Heb 9:19, 'all the people') have received the law (the Greek is perfect, not aorist tense; implying the people were still observing the law)." what further need-- (Heb 8:7). For God does nothing needless. another--rather as Greek, "that a different priest (one of a different order) should arise (anew, Heb 7:15). not be called--Greek, "not be said (to be) after the order of Aaron," that is, that, when spoken of in the Psa 110:4, "He is not said to be (as we should expect, if the Aaronic priesthood was perfect) after the order of Aaron."”

“When Melchizedek had shown that he was superior to Levi and the priests, indeed even to the patriarch Abraham himself, he then demonstrated that this priesthood of the New Testament is superior to the Old, and that the new covenant is more perfect than the old covenant.If the Levitical priesthood had not been perfect, he says, what need was there for Christ to rise not according to the order of Aaron, who was also of the Levitical priesthood? But did he not need to rise according to the order ofMelchizedek? Is it not evident that this happened because of the imperfection, he says, through the Levitical priesthood? "for the people were constituted by it." For if the Levitical priesthood were perfect, it was necessary for Christ to arise from the lineage of Aaron, especially, he says, that the people are constituted to this Levitical priesthood, that is, to be used by it, to be arranged under it, to be led by it. Why then was it removed? Clearly because it was weak.”