Skip to content
mannafest.faith

Hebrews 7:11

in Hebrews 7

Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on this basis the people received the law), why was there still need for another priest to appear—one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron?

BSB

The same verse in ASV and KJV ▾

ASV

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?

KJV

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

This verse in Hebrews 7

Commentary

16 notes on this verse
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood - As the Jews supposed. They were accustomed to regard the system as perfect. It was an appointment of God, and they were tenacious of the opinion that it was to be permanent, and that it needed no change. But Paul says that this could not be. Even from their own Scriptures it was apparent that a priest was to arise of another order, and of a more permanent character, and this he says was full proof: that there was defect of some kind in the previous order.

This site's exposition

if perfection could have been attained

If perfection, teleiosis, came through the Levitical priesthood, why was there still need for another priest to appear? Psalm 110:4 names that other order, Melchizedek's, centuries after Aaron. That shows the law's priesthood left its work unfinished.

The record, by era

The Church Fathers5 voices

A commentator

Oecumenius

The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews · Written before 550.

proposed

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 …

A commentator

Theodoret of Cyrus

INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7 · Written before 458.

proposed

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 …

A commentator

Theodoret of Cyrus

INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7 · Written before 458.

proposed

The mystery of the divine plan is worthy of admiration: as Christ the Lord, eternal king as he is, was styled our high priest, so the tribe of Judah, which was formerly kingly, attained the priesthood through the Lord.

A commentator

John Chrysostom

Homily on Hebrews 13 · Written before 407.

proposed

"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. […]

A commentator

John Chrysostom

Homily on Hebrews 13 · Written before 407.

proposed

"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.
9 more voices on this verse

The Church Fathers1 voice

A commentator

Leo the Great

SERMON 3.1 · Written before 461.

proposed

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?

The Medieval Church2 voices

A commentator

Theophylact of Ohrid

Commentary on Hebrews · Written before 1107.

proposed

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 …

A commentator

Thomas Aquinas

Commentary on Hebrews · Written before 1274.

proposed

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 …

The Puritans and the Awakening4 voices

A commentator

Matthew Henry

1662–1714

Commentary on the Whole Bible (1710)

(2.) Many Christian writers have thought him to be Jesus Christ himself, appearing by a special dispensation and privilege to Abraham in the flesh, and who was known to Abraham by the name Melchisedec, which agrees very well to Christ, and to what is said, John viii. 56 , Abraham saw his day and rejoiced. Much may be said for this opinion, and what is said in

A commentator

Matthew Henry

1662–1714

Commentary on the Whole Bible (1710)

That therefore another priest must be raised up, after the order of Melchisedec, by whom, and his law of faith, perfection might come to all who obey him; and, blessed be God, that we may have perfect holiness and perfect happiness by Christ in the covenant of grace, according to the gospel, for we are complete in him.

A commentator

John Wesley

1703–1791

Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (1755)

proposed

The apostle now demonstrates that the Levitical priesthood must yield to the priesthood of Christ, because Melchisedec, after whose order he is a priest, 1. Is opposed to Aaron, ver. 11-14.
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,....

The Nineteenth Century2 voices

A commentator

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

1802–1910

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)

proposed

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 Ps 110:4, "He is not said to be (as we should expect, if the Aaronic priesthood was perfect) after the order of Aaron."

quarantine:debris (2026-07-29) — odd-straight-quotes

A commentator

Adam Clarke

1762–1832

Commentary on the Bible · Written before 1832.

proposed

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood - The word τελειωσις, as we have before seen, signifies the completing or finishing of any thing, so as to leave nothing imperfect, and nothing wanting. Applied here to the Levitical priesthood, it signifies the accomplishment of that for which a priesthood is established, viz.: giving the Deity an acceptable service, enlightening and instructing the people, pardoning all offenses, purging the conscience from guilt, purifying the soul and preparing it for heaven, and regulating the conduct of the people according to the precepts of the moral law. This perfection never came, and never could come, by the Levitical law; it was the shadow of good things to come, but was not the substance. It represented a perfect system, but was imperfect in itself. It showed that there was guilt, and that there was an absolute need for a sacrificial offering to atone for sin, and it typified that sacrifice; but every sacrificial act under that law most forcibly proved that it was impossible for the blood of Bulls and Goats to take away sin. For under it the people received the law - That is, as most interpret this place, under the priesthood, ἱερωσυνῃ being understood; because, on the priesthood the whole Mosaical law and the Jewish economy depended: but it is much better to understand επ’ αυτῃ on account of it, instead of under it; for it is a positive fact that the law was given before any priesthood was established, for Aaron and his sons were not called nor separated to this office till Moses came down the second time from the mount with the tables renewed, after that he had broken them, Exo 40:12-14. […]

The words behind it

32 Greek words

Every Greek word of this verse in the order it stands, with what it means and the door to its own study. The last column counts the times a word stands in the whole Bible: the rarer the word, the more the places it appears belong together.

A shaded row is a word that stands 400 times or fewer in the Bible.

The walk

8 stops

Each card is a verse this one points to, and under it the verses that one points to in turn. Where several paths arrive at the same place, that place is listed first: the text keeps returning to it.

  • Through

    Galatians 2:21

    I do not set aside the grace of God. For if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died for nothing.

    it leads to

    • Galatians 3:21

      Is the law, then, opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come from the law.

      Reached by 2 separate paths from here.

    • Romans 11:6

      And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.

    • 1 Corinthians 15:14

      And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith.

    • Galatians 2:16

      know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in…

    • Galatians 5:2–4

      Take notice: I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

  • Through

    Galatians 4:9

    But now that you know God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you are turning back to those weak and worthless principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them…

    it leads to

    • 1 Corinthians 8:3

      But the one who loves God is known by God.

    • Galatians 3:3

      Are you so foolish? After starting in the Spirit, are you now finishing in the flesh?

    • Romans 8:3

      For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin.…

Where this verse is studied

About Hebrews

This page draws on 13 works. Open the list of works

This page draws on Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible; Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments (1832-1869); Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament; Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; John Chrysostom, Homily on Hebrews 13; John Gill, Exposition of the New Testament (1746-1748); John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament; Leo the Great, SERMON 3.1; Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible; Oecumenius, The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews; Theodoret of Cyrus, INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7; Theophylact of Ohrid, Commentary on Hebrews and Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Hebrews.