---
title: "Commentary on Hebrews"
author: "John Calvin"
translator: "John Owen"
languages: [en]
shelf: "Commentaries"
section: 59 of 81
url: https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-hebrews/59/
cite: "John Calvin, tr. John Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, section 59. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-hebrews/59/"
---

# Commentary on Hebrews

*John Calvin, tr. John Owen*

Calvin on the Epistle to the Hebrews.

## 59. Appendix A2

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-hebrews/59/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-hebrews/59/#p-N

[¶0] APPENDIX A 2

[¶1] Chapter 7:11­17. This passage may be thus rendered, —

[¶2] 11. “Now if indeed perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (though the people had received a law respecting it,) what need was there still that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not to be named after the order

[¶3] 12. of Aaron? The priesthood then being changed, there is of

[¶4] 13. necessity a change also of the law; for he of whom these things are said belongs to another tribe, from whom no one

[¶5] 14. attended at the altar. It is indeed evident that our Lord sprang from Judah, of which tribe Moses said nothing

[¶6] 15. respecting the priesthood. And this is still more manifest, since according to the likeness of Melchisedec rises another

[¶7] 16. priest; who is made, not according to the law of carnal

[¶8] 17. precept, but according to the power of perpetual life; for he testifies, ‘Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedec.’”

[¶9] “The law of carnal precept” is the rule that refers to the present life, life in the flesh, which is frail and uncertain; and contrasted with it is “perpetual life, which belongs to Christ as a priest, according to the quotation which follows. The meaning is, that Christ was not made a priest according to that law which regulates things belonging to dying men, (see verse 23,) but in accordance with what was suitable to one endued with permanent life or existence.

[¶10] The argument of the whole passage seems to be as follows, — There is no perfection in the Levitical priesthood, for another priest has been appointed. This being the case, the law respecting the priesthood must necessarily be changed; and that it is changed is proved by two things, — by the fact that Christ did not spring from the tribe of Levi, and by the prophetic announcement that he was to be a priest according to the order of Melchisedec, and consequently a perpetual priest, and not like the sons of Aaron, who were priests in succession, being all subject to death.

### Appendix B2

[¶12] APPENDIX B 2

[¶13] Chapter 7:19. But the bringing in, etc. Theophylact, Luther, Capellus, and others have rendered this noun as in the same predicament with “disannulling” or abrogation in the former verse, —

[¶14] 18. “There is therefore an abrogation of the preceding commandment, on account of its weakness and uselessness, (for

[¶15] 19. the law perfected nothing,) and an introduction of a better hope, through which we draw nigh to God.”

[¶16] This passage forms an inference or a conclusion from what has been said. The “commandment” abrogated was respecting the Levitical priesthood. Its “weakness” was, that it could not really atone for sin; and its uselessness, that it could not make men holy or confer life. The same thing is expressed in the words included in the parenthesis. But what has been said does not only prove that the Levitical priesthood is abolished, but also that there is brought in or introduced a better hope; which means that a better thing than the Levitical priesthood, which was an object of hope to the ancient saints, is introduced after that priesthood, and was expressly mentioned by David in the Psalms many years after the Levitical priesthood was established. This appears to be the genuine meaning of the passage.

[¶17] Then the following verses come in very suitably, as the “introduction” is mentioned here, —

[¶18] 20. “And inasmuch as it was not without an oath, (for they

[¶19] 21. indeed were made priests without an oath, but he with an oath, made by him who said to him, ‘The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, according

[¶20] 22. to the order of Melchisedec,’) of a covenant so much the

[¶21] 23. better is Jesus the surety. They are also many who are made priests, because they are not suffered by death to continue; but he, because he abideth for ever, hath a priesthood that passeth not to another, (or more literally, hath an intransmissible priesthood.)”

[¶22] What was not “without an oath” was “the introduction,” etc. There are here two additional things stated as proving the superiority of Christ’s priesthood: the oath proved that he was the surety of a better covenant; and his priesthood, unlike that of Aaron, which passed from one to another, was intransmissible or unsuccessive, as the word means, and not “unchangeable,” as in our version.