#STRask - What Does Hebrews 7 Mean When It Says Jesus Became a Priest Forever in the Order of Melchizedek?

Episode Date: June 15, 2026

Question about what Hebrews 7 means when it says Jesus became a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.   What does Hebrews 7 mean when it says Jesus became a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek?

Welcome back. We are going to continue to talk about Jesus in today's episode. And Greg, we're starting with a question from Tom. All right. What is meant when it says that Jesus became a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek? All of Hebrews 7 is confusing to me. Well, Hebrews is not an easy book. But there is a general theme that is being developed, but it deserves, it's worthy of. of study and careful reading. The general theme is that Jesus is greater. Maybe that's the simplest way of thinking about it. The book is written to suffering Christians, particularly to Jews, Hebrews, who were in transition between the Old Testament sacrificial system and the new covenant that Jesus initiated, actually in one sense at the last supper, and then grounded the details of it

in his sacrifice the next day and with the resurrection on Sunday, and then finally 40 days later with the giving of the Holy Spirit. That just kind of brings it all together. Now we're in a new covenant. The Holy Spirit has been poured out. That was a provision of the new covenant, forgiveness of sins, et cetera. And so what we have in the book of Hebrews is an appeal to the Jews who are either becoming Christian or are Christian or thinking about it how this whole transition works. And the declaration ultimately is that the Old Testament sacrificial system is no longer efficacious, effective for doing what it was intended to do before Jesus came, because that was temporary until now the fullness is here.

I mean, that's the general idea. And it launches out by saying it's so amazing how it starts, and we were talking before how John starts his gospel by identifying the deity of Christ, the writer of Hebrews, starts his letter identifying the idea, the deity of Christ for he says something to the effect of God spoke in many ways. In old days, through the prophecies, he's finally speaking now in a final way through his son, who is the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his nature.

Well, that's a pretty heavy start. And as such, Jesus is greater than angels, and that's the first few segments. line of reasoning. And then later on, he says he is a greater priesthood, a greater priesthood, that's chapter seven, than the Levitical priesthood. And then when he gets into chapter 10, especially, he provides a greater sacrifice. Now, he hints at that in chapter seven that it is a final sacrifice, but it's interesting the way he kind of works through this. Now, I just read, between our shows here the entire chapter 7, so I have a sense of the flow of thought here. And Tom, it might be good for you to do so as well. There's a reference that's made to

Melchizedek. Now, he is an individual that shows up in the book of Genesis fairly early on and has interactions with Abraham. Now, Abraham fights a battle with a bunch of other people. A lot has been captured. And there are other local kings that have been, have suffered as a result of this raid. And so he gets together with them all, and he's able to get lot back, and he's able to get a whole bunch of spoil back. Now, what Abraham does is he gives a tenth of the spoil to Melchizedek, who is a guy they find there, who is a priest of the most high God. Now, we don't know a lot about Mokysidek. He's just this guy shows up, and they give a tenth of the spoil to him. Now, a lot of people are pointing, well, even Abraham tithe before the law, therefore we should

be tithing. And I guess, well, if we're fighting battles and we get a lot of, you know, booty, maybe we can give a tenth away. But what's interesting about that is Abraham gave one-tenth of all the booty, which was his share. He gets one-tenth divided among everybody else. And he gave all of his stuff. So he didn't give a tenth of his. He gave everything. And the reason why is he didn't want anybody to say that Gentiles had prospered him. But the act of giving a tithe, if you will, to Melchizedek, given that Levi, as the text says, was in a sense in his loins, then it was Levi, who was the father of the Levittical priesthood that offered the sacrifices under the mosaic law. Levi was tithing to Melchizedek.

a different priest. One priest ties to another. Now, the lesser ties to the greater. Therefore, the Melchizedek, Melchizedek was of a greater priesthood than the Levitical priesthood. Then he goes on to explain, the Levitical priesthood was, by the way, just kind of temporary.

It was meant to cover sins year by year, and this is why it had to keep being repeated, and it wasn't just for the sins of the people. It was also for the sins of the priests. but then the comparison is made between Melchizedek and Jesus. And it says some odd things about Melchizedek. It says, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days

nor end of life, but made like the son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. Now, some people read that and think, he was never born. He was eternal. That's Jesus. Melchizedek is a Christophany. In other words, an appearance of Jesus before Jesus' time, or the word, I guess, to be most specifically. I don't hold that. I think it's just making a characterization that nobody knew anything about him. He wasn't part of unearthly priesthood. He was a unique priesthood, okay? And he's made like the Son of God. It doesn't say he was the Son of God. all right. And then he goes on to say that, and in verse 16 then, that, let's see,

and this is clear still, if another priest arises, Jesus, according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law, like the mosaic law, a physical requirement that is of the genealogy of Levi, but according to the power of an indestructible life, he is attested of him, you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Okay. The claim here then in chapter 7 is that Jesus is different and holds a superior priesthood like Melchizedek, not like the Levi's, but like Mokisadik, because he then can make a sacrifice of himself that is a perfect sacrifice. And in this case, I'm just going to read the last, say, five verses of the chapter, because this is where the whole thought is brought to a conclusion.

Remember, it's a comparison of the Malkisadic priesthood to the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priesthood is lesser for a number of reasons described here and temporary. Malkisadec has a different kind of priesthood, and Jesus is after the order of Malkisadig, not Levi. And here's how it ends. The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing. But Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, he holds his priesthood permanently. Roman says he always lives to make intercession for us. This is the same idea.

Therefore, he is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. There's that verse. Maybe it's not, is it in Romans? This one. It's Hebrews. Oh, it's in Hebrews. Okay. I thought we'd double dip to it. Okay, good. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, that shows the holiness and sinlessness of Jesus, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens, who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins. sin, which he didn't have, and then for the sins of the people, because this he did once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word

of the oath, which came after the law, appoints a son made perfect forever. And he starts chapter eight with this line, which sums it up. Now, the main point is, and what has been said, is this, we have such a high priest who has taken a seat at the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary, and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched not man. So I hope when you look at the whole passage, you see the comparison being made between these two priesthoods and how Jesus, in the order of Melchizedek, has been able to offer a once-for-all final sacrifice that does not have to be repeated, and he is there for us as that sacrifice forever. So remember that this book is being written because they're being tempted to return to the

Levittical priesthood system. So that he's explaining, as you said, why Jesus is better. And even beyond that, he's also saying that the whole. sacrificial system was only a copy and a shadow of the real thing, which would be Jesus doing all these things for us in the heavenly places, in the true temple, that the temple on earth, which has the Levitical priest, is merely a template of what would really happen with Jesus, the true and better covenant for reconciling us to God, because he points out all the ways that you noted, Greg, that it's lesser than the new covenant that Jesus would bring. Because remember, Jesus, and this is the point he makes, Jesus is not a Levite, so he cannot be a priest under that system.

It necessitates a completely different covenant, but now he's making the case of why there is a new covenant. And he says various things. First of all, the law can't make anything perfect. And by the way, this whole section goes 7 through 10. so it's a good idea to read the whole thing together because he keeps coming back to these same ideas. But he says that the law could not make us perfect, but Jesus makes us perfect by his one sacrifice for us, which he's able to do because he's sinless, unlike the other priests. He says Jesus lives forever, so he doesn't have to be replaced like the old priest. He guarantees our salvation, unlike the previous.

changing, I mean, constantly changing priests and having to have a new priest all the time. Jesus says this once for all time. It doesn't have to be repeated. He says he has, the reason why he's a priest in the order of Melchizedek is because he is the power of an indestructible life. He always lives. And like you said, like Melchizedek is kind of a type of that because we just see him come out of nowhere and then is that your view too that is a type that is my view

yeah I could be convinced otherwise but for now that is my view yeah I couldn't be convinced if someone came up with some I don't I mean I don't have like a I'm very against it

if someone came up with evidence then I would either here nor there the key is the type of priesthood that's being contrasted with the mosaic priesthood

libidical priesthood and note that he's making the point to them that this whole system was always intended only to lead to Christ. And this is the point Paul makes in Galatians that the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ. And this goes into much more detail. I don't, sorry. Greg just wrote a note. I have no idea what he means. But he, he, he, he, the law was intended to bring us to Christ. And he's saying

this is all just a shadow. This is just a shadow of the true temple where Jesus would bring the blood from his sacrifice that would actually be efficacious. Unlike the blood of bulls and goats, he specifically says that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away your sins. Jesus does that for real. And so he's just explaining why Jesus and his covenant is so much better. And by the way, you know, the Latter-day Saints, the Mormons will say that they have the Melchizedic priesthood because they look into the Bible and they see, oh, there's this Melchizedic priesthood. Well, now we have the erroneic priesthood and the Melchizedic priesthood in our church. But here's the problem with that. The whole point that is being made here is that Jesus holds the Malkisadic priesthood by the power of an indistrict.

restructible life, meaning he lives forever and he never will be replaced. There is one. There is only one. That's actually the very point being made is that Jesus is the one we need. We don't need anyone to replace him, and he's unique. He's the only one who can fulfill this requirement. So what's happening is that the Mormons are using this idea of a priesthood, when Jesus is that one priest and we don't need anyone to vote on that.

Yeah, it's like just read the text. Again, hopefully as we're going through this text, many of you are seeing, even with a challenging book like the book of Hebrews, that some things are not that hard. If we just move slowly through the text and we see what the words say, there's a line of argument that's being developed and it's not ambiguous. It isn't like hidden between the lines. It doesn't take a higher insight. There's not secondary, tertiary meanings to this that we've got to figure out.

It's just right there. And by the way, one thing I thought about here, Amy, is that as I move through the book of Hebrews, there is a couple of verses are exceptions, but there is such a powerful argument laid down. And here in chapter 7 by itself, we see that, also in chapter 10, very, very important. very vividly, I think. An argument for the safety and security that Christians have in Christ, he has obtained something for us that will not be taken away from us, by the nature of the thing itself, by the

power of God. And so with that in mind, it seems ironic to me that people will find passages in Hebrews, especially to argue that we're not safe, that our salvation is somehow dependent on our behaviors, and if our behaviors get too far out of line, then we're going to be lost. But this seems, in my mind, to go completely contrary to the main argument of many sections of the book, Chapter 7, Chapter 10, for example. That's why I said the law wasn't good enough because it couldn't guarantee our salvation. Yeah, yeah.

but Christ can guarantee the salvation. So if that's the case, what do you do with these other verses that seem to suggest? And my answer is you interpret the unclear in light of the clear. You can't take a verse, say, out of Hebrews 6, especially out of Hebrews 10, which is just radically misunderstood by almost everybody. I'll talk about that on my own show today, later today. But you can't take those. you can't take these verses and then have them up end the very clear line of argumentation that is at the foundation of the book itself.

You have to understand those verses in light of it. And if they seem to be contrary, there's something contrary then, not about the line of argument of the book, but the way you're understanding those passages. Interpret the unclear in light of the clear. Right. I love these chapters so much. And so what you might want to do, and I think this really helps with understanding, just memorize them. Memorize them.

Memorize 7 through 10. It's not that long. That might sound crazy, but it's really not that long. You always make it sound so easy, Amy. That's just the book of Romans. Just memorize the book of Romans. I don't want to discourage anybody from doing it because people do this. Some people have memorized the whole Bible, literally.

And I mean literally, literally, literally. And Amy's memorized whole segments of the Bible. She recommends it because she's benefited from herself. Well, what happens is you start to understand the whole argument. Because even if you just take this one chapter, especially if you just take a few verses, but even if you just take the chapter seven, you need that whole section in order to understand what is going on there. And even if you read through it once, it still takes a while.

to see all the connections, because the more you think about it and meditate on it, the more you'll notice the differences and the similarities and how he's referring back to other things, the more you'll recognize other places where the Bible has addressed this that are very similar. I mean, there are some things in here that are very similar to what Paul was teaching, even though most people don't think Paul wrote this. it's interesting to me how much I can see the influence of each person's ideas on the other. You can see they were all teaching the same thing, although they'll emphasize different things, but you see these same ideas coming back into it over and over because that's what they were teaching.

Exactly, exactly. I also think this point you made takes me back to the upper room discourse where Jesus said the Spirit will, will come, will teach you all things. And people read that for themselves. They think the Spirit's going to teach them everything. He's talking about the Apostles. It's obviously not talking about us because even you and I who have the spirit, same spirit, we disagree on some things.

But this point you just made is to show that the disciples have unanimity in their understanding of things and they fit together. So we're going to, we, because of that, we are going to look for ways to harmonize what Paul and Peter and James and the rest of them say with what Jesus all works together in a matrix. And many times it's not hard to do. You can see these themes repeating themselves in different passages. Well, thank you so much, Tom. We really appreciate your question. The last three episodes, we've only done one question each because they have been such deep, interesting,

questions about Jesus, and I'm so glad that you all gave us this opportunity to discuss all these topics. So if you have a question, don't hesitate, send it in. You can go to X and just use the hashtag STR Ask, or you can go to our website at STR.org and look for our hashtag STRask podcast page. Well, thank you so much. Thank you for listening. This is Amy Hall and Greg Coco for Stand to Reason.