It is evident that in dealing with the change of law and priesthood, the apostle had a delicate task before him, and

whereas the Gentile could easily grant the whole situation without scruple, the whole constitution of the Jew

rebelled against the very idea. So it is that we have so much detail, and the consideration of the subject from so

many different points of view. In the section 7:11-18, the argument revolves round the fact that the Old Testament

recognizes a change in the order of priesthood. In the law, priesthood is exclusively connected with one tribe, LEVI.

Christ however sprang out of JUDAH, but of this `Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood' (verse 14). `It is

evident', said the apostle, `that our Lord sprang out of Judah'. It is more abundantly `downright evident' (as the

words may be rendered), that the priesthood and the law with it must be set aside, for the Scripture testifies:

`Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec' (Heb. 7:17).

The new Priesthood differs from that of the Levitical order in one grand particular. The Levitical priest was

`After the law of a carnal commandment' (verse 16),

but the Melchisedec order was made:

`After the power of an endless life' (verse 16).

One more item is added before this section concludes, and that is, not only does the change of priesthood

necessitate the setting aside of the law, but the necessity to have such a change indicates the failure of that law so far

as `perfection' is concerned:

`There is, moreover, a setting aside of the preceding law, because it was inefficient and unprofitable' (verse 18

not AV JP).

In verse 16 the law was spoken of as `carnal'. While viewed in itself the law is `holy, just and good', that same

law is `weak through the flesh' and `though ordained to life' will be found `unto death' (Rom. 7). The sentiment of

Hebrews 7:11 is repeated in 8:7:

7:11-18. a Question - `If perfection were by the Levitical

order -'.

b What need for another priesthood?

c The law abrogated, as weak and profitless.

a Question - `If the first covenant were faultless -'.

b What need for seeking a second covenant?

c Finding fault, He said, `I make a new covenant'.

The theme of the first passage (7:11-18) is the better Priesthood, the theme of the second (8:7,8) is the better

All this was necessary to clear the way for a faith that would behold with single eye the Lord Jesus Christ as

Prophet, Priest, King and Sacrifice, and the `perfecter of faith'.

No perfection or maturity is possible under the Levitical priesthood, therefore the greater reason for thankfully

believing Him Who is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Such is the argument and conclusion of 7:11-18. In

verse 11 there is a parenthesis, viz., `for under it the people received the law'; this parenthesis is now brought

forward and dealt with in the same way as was the Levitical priesthood:

`For the law perfected nothing (or no one), but the superinduction of a better hope (did), through which we draw

nigh to God' (verse 19 not AV JP).

The three items of this verse characterize the whole section of 7:19 to 9:8:

(1) The failure of the law.

(2) The better hope, wherewith are connected better promises and a better covenant.