If indeed then perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for the people had their law given to them in connexion with *it*, what need [was there] still that a different priest should arise according to the order of Melchisedec, and not be named after the order of Aaron?
Hebrews 7 has just shown Melchizedek to be greater than Abraham, and so greater than Levi. Now the writer asks a question that strikes at the heart of Israel's religion. If the priesthood God gave could bring perfection, why did He later promise a priest of a different order?
A second priest was never needed unless the first arrangement fell short.
If the Melchizedek priesthood stands above the Aaronic, that is clear proof that the Aaronic priesthood was imperfect. It was temporary in character and imperfect in its work. Later in the letter we learn that it gave no lasting relief to the conscience. It did not let the one who brought the offering draw near to God. This very imperfection proved the need of another Priest to rise after the order of Melchizedek. This Priest is found in Christ, in whom alone is perfection.
The proof comes from Israel's own Scriptures. The law pointed beyond itself.
Was perfection found in the law? Impossible! For if so, why did the law bear witness that another priest should rise of an order not known under the law? The law shut everyone out of the priesthood except the line of Aaron. Yet it prophesied a completely different order.
The word is not about flawless behaviour. It describes a settled standing before God.
Suppose this Levitical priesthood had brought in perfection — a satisfactory relationship between man and God. What need would there then have been to speak of any further priest, one not of the family of Aaron but of a completely different order? In this letter to the Hebrews especially, "perfection" does not mean personal perfection. It means the perfection of relationship with God — a perfect conscience. That is a conscience which God has enlightened and satisfied by the finished work of Christ.
By that measure the old system fell short.
How plain that in every way perfection was not in, or by, the Levitical priesthood. God gave it as a temporary provision for an earthly people — a dying priesthood for a dying people.
The verse adds one clause in brackets: the people received the law on the basis of that priesthood. Remove the priesthood and the whole legal order goes with it.
The change was not just about the special law of the priesthood, as some would put it. As we see on the Day of Atonement, Israel's whole relationship to God under that arrangement hung upon the priesthood. Year by year the high priest put blood on the mercy seat. That alone made it possible for God to dwell among them. And only a man of the family of Aaron could do it.
That arrangement also kept the people at a distance from God.
Israel received the law on the condition of the Levitical priesthood, and it could rest on no other footing. A faulty people could not draw near to God as things then were. They had no more than a symbolic redemption and symbolic sacrifices. A failing priesthood had to step in, trembling, with strict rites and ceremonies. Break them and the penalty was death. That system held no "perfection" anywhere. Yet perfection there must be to meet the mind, love, and holiness of God.
"Another" here does not mean one more of the same. The new Priest differs in two ways at once.
Christ is a priest of a different order, and came of a different tribe from Levi.
The difference lies in the order itself, not in who holds the office.
Notice, it is here a question of order, not of exercise. There was one undying Priest, not a succession.
The perfection the old priesthood could not reach now belongs to every believer. It shows itself as nearness — freedom to enter the holiest, the innermost place of God's presence.
The law and its priesthood could not bring the worshipper into the presence of God. It fell short of this; it could not finish or perfect it. But we — that is, all believers — have boldness to enter into the holiest "by the blood of Jesus." Now this is perfection. … There are no distinctions of priests and people, clergy and laity in the holiest. How can there be, since all alike are brought there as purged worshippers?
For the first readers, this truth overturned what they had been taught to honour.
What an astounding thought! That very Word showed him a priesthood foretold by God Himself, at the very time when the other priesthood was still going on. This new priesthood was to displace and completely change the very thing he had been taught to revere as God's permanent arrangement. No wonder there was a temptation to hold on to the Jewish forms and rituals.
- Question — The verse argues by asking. Why promise a second priest if the first order had done its work?
- Perfection — The word is not about faultless character. In Hebrews it means a settled relationship with God and a clear conscience.
- Basis — Israel's law rested on the Levitical priesthood. Change the priest and the whole system changes.
- Different — "Another" means another kind. A different order, a different tribe, and one undying Priest instead of a succession.
- Nearness — Christ gives what the old order never could. Every believer may enter God's presence, with no divide between priests and people.
For, the priesthood being changed, there takes place of necessity a change of law also.
Hebrews has just shown that the law itself pointed to a Priest of a different order from Aaron's. Here the writer draws the conclusion his first readers could not escape. If the priesthood moves, the whole legal system moves with it.
The change announced is not merely a swap of personnel. One commentator points to the exact wording. The verse says a change "of law," not of "the law" — a change of principle:
The change of the priest makes a change of law necessary too. That is what Scripture says here. It does not say "the law," as one lively but often unreliable commentator claimed, but "of law." From now on the principle is completely different. Only grace can save a sinner. The law cannot, and neither can a mixture of law and grace. Such a mixture only condemns the guilty more, since they have even less excuse.
Someone might limit this to the regulations about who may serve at the altar. But the priesthood was not one department among many:
As we see in the Day of Atonement, all the relation of Israel to God hung upon the priesthood. Year by year the high priest put the blood on the mercy seat. That alone made it possible for God to dwell among them, and only a man of Aaron's family could do it. The law allowed for no one else. Yet Christ came from Judah, and the law said nothing about priesthood in that tribe.
The argument runs both ways. The law itself predicted a priest of another order, which proves the old one never reached perfection. And when the priest changes, God's way of dealing changes with Him:
Perfection is a vital subject in Hebrews, and one the Jewish reader would fully agree with. But was it found in the law? Impossible! If it were, why did the law itself testify that another priest would rise, of an order the law did not know? And if the priesthood changed to a completely different order, then the law had to change. God's way of dealing would match the character of the priesthood He set up.
This is the point that shook the first readers hardest. The system now set aside was not a human invention. It came from God, and it still had to go:
Therefore that priesthood displaces entirely the priesthood of Aaron and his descendants. Since that is so, the law under which the priesthood was set up changed as well. So the Hebrew believer had to face this astounding fact. Christ, whom he knew to be the Son of God, glorified God in dealing with sin and then took His place on high. Such a Priest completely displaces every form of the order that came before, even though God Himself had ordained it.
If the two stand or fall together, then no part of the old can be bolted onto the new:
All that the saints are hangs upon what He is and what He has done. "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." It would be impossible to tack a legal system onto a risen Christ.
The change is so complete that Christ Himself would not serve as a priest under the old system:
Scripture tells us plainly that the priesthood is changed. It is so changed that even if Christ "were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law" (Heb. 8:4). So Aaron's order of priesthood was connected with the law, a shadow of heavenly things.
The removal is not a loss. What the old arrangement could never do, the new one does:
Under the law the effect of the priesthood was to put the people at a distance from God. The priest received the offering, sprinkled the blood, went into the sanctuary, and came out again. The people stayed far off. But here is "a better hope" by which we draw near to God. By faith we enter the sanctuary where our Priest is, and worship happily in His very presence. Here was the astounding fact for an Israelite, that his law was set aside as well as his priesthood. What had he left? He that believed had Jesus, the Son of God.
- Change — a new Priest of a new order is not a tweak to the old system. The priesthood and the law rise and fall together.
- Scope — this is not just about rules for priests. Israel's whole relationship with God rested on the high priest's work at the mercy seat.
- Necessity — God's way of dealing matches the priest He appoints. A Priest of a new order means a new principle: grace, not law.
- Cost — the old system was truly God-given, yet no fragment of it can be attached to a risen Christ.
- Gain — the old order kept people at a distance. The better hope brings believers into God's presence, with the Son of God as their Priest.
For he, of whom these things are said, belongs to a different tribe, of which no one has [ever] been attached to the service of the altar.
Hebrews 7 argues from Psalm 110 that God promised a Priest of a different order from Aaron's. Here the writer adds a fact no one could dispute. The Messiah came from a tribe that never gave Israel a single priest. That one detail unsettles the whole legal system, because Israel came to God through Levi alone.
The psalm's words about a priest forever point to one Person. His family line, not Aaron's, is where the argument turns.
The next fact shows the change even more clearly. The One these things are said of belonged to a different tribe, not Levi but Judah. No one from that tribe ever held an official place at the altar. Everyone could see it, as the text adds: "our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." The break was as clear as it was decisive.
The Greek word behind "another" does not mean one more of the same sort. It points to a difference in kind.
The word heteros expresses "a different kind." … Christ is a priest of a different order, and came from a different tribe than Levi. Heb. 7:11, 13, 15.
Israel's history shows how firmly God held that line. And the Lord Himself never reached for the place the law denied His tribe.
King Uzziah came from the tribe of Judah. He dared to enter the temple and act as a priest, and God struck him at once with leprosy (2 Chron. 26:16-21). And the Lord Jesus, while on earth, sought no place at all in the official priesthood. He never suggested taking the place or the duties of a priest in the temple.
The change of priesthood does not stop at the priesthood. The Day of Atonement shows how much hung on it.
The apostle argues that the change of the priesthood sets aside the law itself. We only have to think for a moment to see how complete a change this involved. As we see in the Day of Atonement, all the relation of Israel to God hung upon the priesthood. The blood put on the mercy seat by the high priest, year by year, alone enabled God to dwell among them. And this could only be done by one of the family of Aaron. The law provided for no other. Yet Christ had sprung from Judah, and the law said nothing of priesthood in connection with that tribe.
Verse 12 speaks of a change of law, not of the law. That small word carries a whole change of principle.
Now the change of the priest requires a change of law as well. That is what the inspired text says here: not a change of "the law," as some have claimed, but "of law." From now on there is a completely different principle. Grace alone can save a sinner — not law, and not a mixture of law and grace. That mixture only condemns the guilty all the more, since it leaves them with even less excuse.
One Person now holds two offices the law kept apart. And the place where He serves has changed too.
His coming, then, has taken the honour away from the tribe of Levi and set aside their priesthood. He came from Judah, and He is the priest like Melchizedek, joining priesthood and kingship. God made Him priest, not by a law about bodily descent, but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. … He has passed through death, and now He is the Melchizedek priest in heaven, not on earth. He has no end of days. He lives forever.
- Tribe — The Priest promised in Psalm 110 came from Judah. "Another" here means another kind, not one more of the same sort.
- Altar — No one from Judah ever served at the altar. Uzziah's leprosy showed how firmly God held that line, and Jesus never claimed a temple office.
- Change — Israel's whole approach to God hung on Aaron's family. Move the priesthood, and everything moves with it.
- Law — The change is of law as a principle. So grace alone saves — not law, and not a mixture of the two.
- Glory — Levi's honour passes to One who is both priest and king. He serves in heaven, in the power of a life that cannot end.
For it is clear that our Lord has sprung out of Juda, as to which tribe Moses spake nothing as to priests.
Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, while every priest under the law came from Levi. The writer of Hebrews builds his case on that one detail: if the priest has changed, the law built on the old priesthood must change too.
Nothing here was hidden. Anyone could see which family Jesus came from.
The One these things are said about belonged to a different tribe. Not Levi but Judah — and no one from that tribe had ever served at the altar as a priest. It was plain to everyone, as the writer adds, that our Lord "was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." The break was as clear as it was decisive. Prophecy had declared it: the Messiah would be born in David's line, to a virgin engaged to a man from Solomon's branch of that family.
Why does that silence matter so much? Consider what the priesthood carried in Israel.
The apostle argues that the change of the priesthood sets aside the law itself. It only takes a moment's thought to see how complete that change was. As we see on the day of atonement, Israel's whole relationship with God hung on the priesthood. Only the blood that the high priest put on the mercy seat year by year made it possible for God to live among them. And only a man from Aaron's family could do that: the law had no one else in view. Yet Christ had come from Judah, and the law said nothing about priesthood in connection with that tribe.
Jesus never reached for the priest's role. Israel's history showed what happened to a man of Judah who did.
King Uzziah came from the tribe of Judah. He dared to enter the temple to act as a priest, and God struck him at once with leprosy (2 Chronicles 26:16-21). And while He was on earth, the Lord Jesus sought no place at all in the official priesthood. He never suggested taking up the place or duties of a priest in the temple.
Judah rules Him out of Aaron's order. It marks Him out for a different one.
In verse 14 we read that our Lord "was descended from Judah" — the kingly line, not the priestly line of Levi. This shows the need for a king to be priest, as we have at the beginning of this chapter. Only a king could fill that order of priesthood. So God brought in Melchizedek before He brought in kingship, knowing that the Son would be King and Priest.
The change goes deeper than family. It changes what holds the priesthood up.
And He who came from Judah is the priest like Melchizedek, combining priesthood and royalty. He was made priest not by a law about bodily descent, but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. His priesthood is not a thing of time and change, a priesthood of flesh like Aaron's. It is a priesthood in the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. He has passed through death. Now He is the Melchizedek priest in heaven, not on earth — the priest who has no end of days, who lives for ever.
Judah's family line was not a clean one. Tamar's story in Genesis 38 sits right inside it.
Genesis 38 shows one of those remarkable moments where God's grace triumphs gloriously over man's sin. "It is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah." But how? "Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar." This is especially striking. God, in His great grace, rises above the sin and folly of man in order to bring about His own purposes of love and mercy... The Spirit of God is leading us along the family line through which Christ came as a man. And in doing so, He gives us Tamar and Bathsheba as links in that chain! How clear it is that there is nothing of man in this!
- Tribe. Christ came from Judah, as prophecy had said He would. And Moses said nothing about priests from that tribe.
- Silence. That silence carried enormous weight. Israel's whole relationship with God, right up to the blood on the mercy seat, ran through Aaron's family alone.
- Restraint. On earth Jesus claimed no place in the official priesthood. Uzziah's leprosy showed what a man of Judah risked by taking it.
- Order. Judah is the line of kings, and only a king could fill Melchizedek's order. God put that order on record before Israel had any king.
- Life. So His priesthood does not rest on a rule of descent. It rests on the power of a life that death cannot end, held in heaven for ever.
And it is yet more abundantly evident, since a different priest arises according to the similitude of Melchisedec,
The argument of Hebrews 7 has already shown that Jesus came from Judah, a tribe with no claim to the altar. Now the writer says the case is even clearer. The proof is not a tribe but a person: a priest who arises in the likeness of Melchizedek.
The word used here marks this priest off from Aaron's line entirely.
One could imagine that God, by His sovereign will, might have given Aaron's priesthood to a more exalted being. Such a person would shed new glory on it, matching His own greater dignity. But the Holy Spirit here leads the writer to press more than the change already argued. He presses a still more striking distinction: a different priest (heteros, not merely allos) arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek. This leaves Aaron, or any successor of his, and the law they were bound up with, completely aside.
The force of that word is worth spelling out.
The word heteros expresses "a different kind." Christ is a priest of a different order, and came of a different tribe from Levi, Hebrews 7:11, 13, 15.
The likeness between Melchizedek and Christ runs in both directions.
The apostle adds that it is not only evident that our Lord sprang from Judah. It "becomes even more evident" that another priest was to arise. See how the apostle now turns the question of likeness to the priest. Melchizedek was made like the Son of God as to His Person, but now the Son of God is made like Melchizedek as to His priesthood. It is remarkable how carefully these matters are stated to guard the Person of our Lord and yet to show His office.
If the promised King is also a priest, and He is not from Levi, then more than one man's credentials are at stake.
They believed that Jesus was the Messiah. But according to the Jewish Scriptures, the Messiah was just as He is presented here. In that case the priesthood was changed, and with it the whole system. And this was not only a conclusion to draw from the Messiah being of the tribe of Judah although a Priest. It was also necessary that a priest other than the priest of Aaron's family should arise, one after the likeness of Melchizedek.
Melchizedek was more than a priest. That double office is exactly what the old arrangement could never supply.
The type is the more complete when we consider that Melchizedek was both king and priest. Aaron's priesthood could never fill the first of these, for the king could not rise out of Levi. But this lone, striking statement in Psalm 110:4 opens out wonderfully the truth of the necessary change in the order of priesthood.
Aaron's line needed replacements built into it. The new priest needs none, and the reason lies in the kind of life He holds His office by.
He is a priest after the likeness of Melchizedek, but not by any commandment concerning the flesh. Such a commandment treats the priest as being in the flesh, and therefore subject to death. That is why a succession of priests provided for it. In contrast, the priesthood of Christ stands alone in all its solitary dignity, for it is after the power of an endless life. The Lord is called to be a Priest as risen, in the power of a life beyond death. So He is a Priest not for a lifetime, but "for ever".
Commentators differ on where that endless life comes from. George Davison adds that it is "not merely resurrection but what is true of Him in His very being. It was because of what He was in His very being that He came forth in resurrection" (George Davison).
The priest who arose is serving today, while He waits.
But while He waits on high, He is active as a priest in sustaining His own suffering ones, tried as they are on earth. And the order of His priesthood is not after the likeness of Aaron but of Melchizedek.
- Different, not improved — the word means a priest of a different order, not another of Aaron's kind. It sets Aaron and his law aside instead of upgrading them.
- Likeness reversed — Melchizedek was made like the Son of God in his person. The Son of God is made like Melchizedek in His office.
- One change forces another — a Messiah from Judah who is still a priest means the priesthood changed, and the whole system with it.
- King and priest together — Levi could never produce a throne. Only Christ could hold both offices, as Melchizedek did.
- Endless life, unbroken service — this Priest holds office by a life death could not end. He needs no successor, and He is sustaining His suffering people right now.
who has been constituted not according to law of fleshly commandment, but according to power of indissoluble life.
Hebrews 7 presents a new priest who does not belong to Aaron's line, and this verse says why His office stands. It rests on what older translations call "the power of an endless life" — a life death cannot end.
after_note: DELETE
The whole verse works by contrast. One writer sums up the aim of the letter in the same terms:
The apostle is now dealing with priesthood. He shows how much better the Melchisedec priesthood of Christ is. He uses it to draw these Hebrews away from what was after the "carnal commandment" to what is "after the power of an endless life."
The commandment governing Aaron's line was a rule about mortal men. It had to legislate for replacement, because the priest would die:
Aaron was a man in the flesh, and there was provision, in case of his death, for his son to minister in his place... This was the "carnal commandment" that kept the priesthood of the Aaronic order going. Succession is the only way man knows to keep anything going. It can only be human order. The king cannot die, we are told — why? Because his last breath places his successor on the throne, so the work of royalty never stops for a moment.
Another writer traces the same word "fleshly" back to what the law as a whole was aiming at, and why the aim failed:
The law is called here "the law of a carnal commandment." Its commands were all aimed either at holding down the evil tendencies of the flesh, or at drawing out of it the good that pleases God. But the letter to the Romans tells us that the flesh is not subject to the law of God, and no good lives in it.
The other half of the verse points to a life death cannot end. The law could neither hold such a life nor give it:
This new priest must be made a priest, not by the law of a carnal commandment. That was a law governing the flesh, which is subject to decay and death. He is made a priest "after the power of an endless life." He must be One who in His own person is above death. In willing grace He did pass through death for our sakes, and He triumphed over it in the power of an endless life — a life the law could never have, nor give.
Commentators differ on where the emphasis falls. Some tie the phrase to resurrection: He takes up this priesthood "as risen in the power of a life beyond death... therefore not for a lifetime, but 'for ever'" (Hamilton Smith). Another puts the order the other way round:
I may add that the power of endless life is not only resurrection. It is what is true of Him in His own being. It was because of what He was in Himself that He came forth in resurrection.
If the office rests on a life that never ends, no one needs to take it over. One writer draws a sharp conclusion:
A human priesthood on earth for Christian people is a falling away from the truth of the Son. He is perfected for ever, and He serves on high in the power of a life that cannot be dissolved. Such a priesthood revives the dead Aaronic order, which was set aside as weak and useless. In effect it denies the very gospel of salvation, which tells all who believe that the blood of Jesus blots out their sins at once and brings them near to God in a constant nearness — far beyond what the sons of Aaron and Aaron himself ever enjoyed.
The verse describes what makes Christ a priest. One writer adds that believers share the same life:
It was not a carnal command which made Him Priest. His priesthood is not tied to what vanishes away. It is His eternal existence as Son of God which is the witness of His priesthood. And is it not true, in a very precious sense, that He exercises that priesthood in connection with that same life, which is given to us all? We share in life for evermore. So we are not under a carnal commandment. We have a life which now displays the eternal character of our relationship.
- Death made the rule. Aaron's priests died, so the law provided successors. That need is what the writers call the "carnal commandment".
- Death cannot touch Him. His office rests on a life death cannot dissolve, not on a legal requirement. The law could neither hold that life nor give it.
- Life makes the priest. What He is in Himself, not a rule about bodily descent, gives His priesthood its character and its "for ever".
- No successor, no substitute. His priesthood never falls vacant. So there is no room for a human priest between the believer and God.
- His life shared. Believers share that endless life, and it shows the eternal character of their relationship with God.
For it is borne witness, *Thou* art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews has just said that a different priest has arisen. The writer now proves it with one line from Psalm 110, written long before Christ came. Everything hangs on two phrases: forever, and after the order of Melchizedek.
The verse opens with "For it is witnessed of Him." The writer settles the point from Scripture his Jewish readers already accepted, not from a new idea.
The change to a different priest of unique and surpassing glory is the teaching of the Old Testament, which every true Jew accepts as divine. This shows the weakness of the Levitical priesthood. Christ alone matches the pattern of Melchizedek. Beyond dispute, He is the other and different priest who arises... Even the royal priest who blessed Abraham was only a picture and a shadow. The substance belongs to Christ... It is as risen and in heaven that He is Melchizedek Priest.
Melchizedek blesses Abraham in Genesis and then drops out of the record. Scripture never mentions his death, and that silence carries the whole comparison.
Psalm 110 speaks of David's son, whom David still calls Lord, and He is acknowledged as priest — a priest like Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron... In Aaron's case there was a succession, for his was a priesthood of dying men following one after another. Melchizedek is the clean opposite. Scripture says of him that "he lives," and Genesis says not one word about his death, and neither does any other book. The apostle uses this as a picture of One who lives for ever in the fullest sense... Christ stands alone as an undying Melchizedek, and so He needs no successor. He is the one priest, and He is enough, as the Christian knows.
Verse 16 draws the contrast that this verse proves from Scripture. It sets a "legal requirement concerning bodily descent" against "the power of an indestructible life."
This new priest must be made so, not by the law of a physical commandment — that is, a law that governs the flesh in its state of decay and death — "but after the power of an endless life." He must be One who is above death in His own person. He did indeed pass through death in willing grace, for our sakes, and He triumphed over it in the power of an endless life. Law could never have that life, nor give it.
That life was never handed to Him. It is who He is.
This is not an outward appointment, as Aaron's was. God did not simply pick Him out by an act of sovereign will. God did mark Him out and appoint Him, to be sure. But God declares Him the Priest of God because of what He is: the Son of God... He can never cease to be a priest, because He can never cease to be the Son of God. He is priest because of what He is.
If one priest holds the office for ever, the old line of dying men has no place left. Commentators press this as a practical matter, not only a historical one.
A human priesthood on earth for Christian people is a falling away from the truth. That truth is the Son, perfected for ever, serving on high by the power of a life that cannot be dissolved. Such a priesthood rebuilds the dead Aaronic order, which was set aside because it was weak and useless. In effect it denies the gospel of salvation itself. That gospel tells all who believe that the blood of Jesus blots out their sins at once. It brings them near to God and keeps them near, far beyond anything the sons of Aaron, or Aaron himself, ever enjoyed.
Commentators note that holding an office and displaying it in full are not the same thing. Each of the two orders is also known by its own act.
Perhaps the two outstanding things connected with these two orders of priesthood are: in Aaron — intercession; and in Melchizedek — blessing. Melchizedek came to light after the battle in which Abraham was the victor. And it will be after the last great battle, in which Israel will triumph, that Christ will come forth in the Melchizedek priesthood. That is why we said that at present, though established as Melchizedek, He is acting after the pattern of Aaron. As long as we are in the wilderness we shall need Him like that. Whatever this word "for ever" means, whether in character or in length of time, we can take courage: as long as a priest is needed, there will be one.
- Witnessed — the claim is not opinion. It is quoted from Psalm 110, where the Old Testament announced a priest outside Aaron's line.
- Life — He is priest by the power of a life death cannot end. He is not priest by a rule about ancestry, which only ever governed dying men.
- Person — He cannot stop being priest because He cannot stop being the Son of God; the office rests on who He is.
- Alone — Scripture records no death and no successor for Melchizedek. So Christ needs none either. Any human priesthood set up on earth denies that His is enough.
- Forever — He serves now after Aaron's pattern, praying for people still in the wilderness. The open blessing of Melchizedek waits for the day of Israel's victory.