Hebrews 7

If perfection had been by the Levitical priesthood—if it answered all God's designs and man's wants—why another priest after Melchizedek? Wesley: under it the people have received the law, whence some might infer perfection by that priesthood; from this single consideration priesthood and law must give way to a better priesthood and more excellent dispensation.

Levitical perfection was not attained; another order was needed. The note struck is "perfection" as what justifies and sanctifies—already pointing toward Wesley's later note that the law made nothing perfect. The Melchizedek priest is not optional decoration; Aaron's order must yield.

Calvin: no covenant between God and man is ratified except it rests on a priesthood; the Law was introduced under the Levitical priesthood. If the ministry under Aaron were perfect, nothing could be changed; it follows the Law's ministry was not perfect, for David's new order was introduced.

Common to both: the "if" proves imperfection. Priesthood and covenant stand together; another order means the old ministry was not the ultimate end. Perfection was never by Levi; the Son's order was always the goal the Psalm announced.

Change of priesthood necessarily changes the law. Wesley: one of these cannot be changed without the other.

Both traditions share this axiom. The Mosaic economy tied to Aaron cannot stay when Melchizedek's priest arrives. Better priesthood than Levi means a more excellent dispensation—not lawlessness, but the gospel's order. Hear the necessity; do not keep the shadows as if the priest had not changed.

Calvin: as the authority of Law and priesthood is the same, Christ became not only priest but Lawgiver; Moses' ministry was no less temporary than Aaron's; both were annulled by Christ's coming. By Law he means what peculiarly belonged to Moses regarding the ancient priesthood—not the rule of life and promises of mercy that Christ and Moses share.

Both readings: priesthood change entails law change. Ceremonies and the old priestly ministration pass; faith, fear of God, and the holy life's rule are not abolished as doctrine. The accessory falls with its principal.

The one spoken of belonged to another tribe—none of which ever served at the altar. Wesley: the priesthood is manifestly changed from one order to another and from one tribe to another. He of whom these things are said—namely Jesus—pertains to Judah; no man of that tribe was suffered to minister at the altar.

Common ground: tribal transfer proves the change. Arminian readers take the historical fact as decisive for Hebrew hearers who knew Jesus' lineage. The altar's old monopoly is broken by the Melchizedek priest from Judah.

Calvin: speaking to those who confessed Jesus the Son of Mary to be the Christ, he proves an end was put to the ancient priesthood because the new Priest was of another tribe, not Levi. The honor of priesthood was to continue in Levi by special privilege; Christ of Judah ends that exclusive claim.

If he is the Christ, he is David's son; if David's son, Judah; if Judah, the Levitical order cannot contain him. The law's tribal fence yields to Psalm 110's priest.

It is evident our Lord has sprung out of Judah; Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood from that tribe. Wesley: whatever difficulties have arisen since, it was then clear beyond dispute that our Lord sprang out of Judah.

Shared historical premise for both camps. "our Lord" is the Melchizedek priest; Moses' silence about Judah-priests is itself evidence that a new order, not Aaron's, is in view. Hear the evidence; let the law's silence speak.

Calvin: it was then a fact commonly known that Christ was born of Judah. Those who acknowledged him as the Christ must be persuaded he was the son of David; the promised one could derive his origin from no other.

Judah, not Levi; Moses silent on priests there. The confession of Jesus as Christ already carries Judah and David—and therefore a priesthood Moses never legislated for that tribe. The change is evident, not speculative.

Still more evident when another priest arises in Melchizedek's likeness. Wesley: both priesthood and law are changed, because the priest now raised up is not only of another tribe, but of a quite different order.

Wesleyan Arminians hear "arises" as God's raising of the Son's priesthood—different order, not a patched Aaron. The resemblance of chapter 7:1–10 now drives the legal consequence.

Calvin: he proves by another argument that the Law is abolished—now as to the nature of the priesthood. The ancient priesthood had to do with external rites; in Christ's priesthood there is nothing but what is spiritual. The former was evanescent; the latter perpetual.

Neither side disputes this: another priest in Melchizedek's likeness makes the change clearer still. Order and nature differ—spiritual, endless priesthood versus carnal ordinance. The likeness is the Psalm's forever-priest, not a second Levi.

Priest not by legal requirement of bodily descent, but after the power of an endless life. Wesley: not after the law of a carnal commandment—Mosaic commandments carnal compared with the gospel's spirituality—but after the power of an endless life, which he has in himself as the eternal Son of God.

The Son's own indestructible life is the basis—able Savior, better priest than Levi. Bodily genealogy cannot found this order; the eternal Son can.

Calvin: carnal commandment refers to external rites—ointment, vestments, blood, earthly ceremonies. Christ was consecrated not by Moses a mortal man with weak elements, but by the Holy Spirit with celestial power, set in opposition to those elements. Hence the eternity of his priesthood.

Common ground: not bodily descent; power of indestructible life. Appointment and power are spiritual and effectual. The forever-priest is made by divine power, not by Levitical pedigree. Indestructible life secures a priesthood that cannot pass to a successor.

It is testified of him: “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.” The Psalm is the court of appeal. Wesley has already tied endless life to this forever-priesthood.

Scripture's witness settles the order. Both camps hear forever as more than one age of shadow—Christ's priesthood does not expire with a mortal. Historic hearing: David's oath-word (soon in vv. 20–21) already stands behind this citation. The Son remains priest; Aaron's line does not.

Calvin lays stress on the single word forever: Christ differs from the whole race of Levi because he is made a priest forever. Applied to Christ, forever must be understood as eternity; by his coming a renovation of the world was effected, and no end can be found to his age.

Held in common: the quotation is decisive. Mosaic "forevers" for sacrifices were unto Christ; Christ's forever has no such terminus. The witness of Psalm 110 is the legal charter of the new order.

Wesley: implied in this new and everlasting priesthood is a disannulling of the preceding commandment—an abrogation of the Mosaic law—for its insufficiency either to justify or to sanctify.

The law’s weakness is not a divine mistake. Classical Arminians stress justify and sanctify: the law could not give the righteousness or holiness the gospel brings. The commandment is set aside as priestly-legal economy, so that a better hope may be introduced. Hear the verdict of insufficiency.

Calvin: the Law together with the priesthood had come to an end because it was weak and unprofitable—speaking of ceremonies that had nothing substantial in themselves. Types derived all virtue from Christ; separated from him, nothing is left but weakness. The commandment going before is annulled by the later word of the Psalm.

Set aside for weakness and uselessness. Ceremonies and the old priesthood, not the moral will of God, are in view as unprofitable when set against Christ. Former law yields to the forever-priest.

The law made nothing perfect; a better hope, through which we draw near to God. Wesley: the law taken by itself, separate from the gospel, could not perfect its votaries either in faith or love, in happiness or holiness. The better hope is the gospel dispensation, which gives a better ground of confidence. By which we draw nigh to God—yea, so nigh as to be one spirit with him. And this is true perfection.

Both traditions agree: law imperfect; better hope; drawing near. True perfection is gospel nearness—faith and love made possible by the better hope—not Levitical ritual finished. The able Savior brings us nigh; the former commandment could not.

Calvin: the Law was only a beginning; something more perfect had to follow. By a better hope he means the condition of the faithful under Christ's reign—nearer access than the fathers', who stood afar in the court while only the high priest entered within. He who still holds the shadows puts God at a great distance and deprives us of the liberty the Gospel grants.

Nothing perfected by the law; better hope; we draw near. The contrast is covenantal access and the form of revelation—fuller approach by the Mediator—more than a program of progressive holiness language.