Hebrews 7:12: So What Really “Changed”?

Hebrews 7:12, Priesthood being changed…a change also of the law [Torah]. The Greek words for being changed and a change are respectively metatithemi (a verb) and metathesis (a noun). The root of the noun is the verb, which means “to transpose, to transfer, to go or pass over, to fall away or desert from one person or thing to another.” Many people interpret this verse to mean that YHVH’s Torah-law was changed (i.e., invalidated or annulled) by the new covenant, but is this what the author is saying here?

Before going further in our discussion, let’s lay out some basic truths of the Scriptures.

YHVH doesn’t change (Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8; Jas 1:17). The word torah [in English, translated as law] means “instructions, principles, teachings” and came directly from YHVH to his people. The Torah teaches men how to love YHVH and love one’s fellow man. It is YHVH’s instructions in righteousness and reflects his very character and nature. Who he is can’t change.

It is a sin (a violation of the Torah) to change the Torah (Deut 4:2; 12:32).

So in this light, what is this verse really saying? It declares that the priesthood was changed. The Levitical priesthood that was temporarily and parenthetically inserted into the Melchizadok priesthood (both priesthoods are revealed in the Torah, see Exod 19:2,4 cp. 28:1; 32:29). In the former priesthood, a father acted as the priest over his family interceding for them before Elohim via sacrifices and offerings (Gen 8:20; 12:7,8; 13:18; 22:9; 26:25; 33:20; 35:1,3,7; Exod 17:15; Job 1:5). In the latter priesthood, YHVH designated the descendants of Aaron as priests over Israel replacing the heads of each home as the priest of each family (Exod 30:31).

The writer of Hebrews reveals to us that with the coming of Yeshua, the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood was replaced by the original order of Melchizadok with Yeshua as its High Priest. This makes sense when we realize that Yeshua is not only the builder of his house (Heb 3:3), but also the head of it, for he is the High Priest over the spiritual house of Elohim (Heb 10:21), which is comprised of the saints who are living stones and are apart of that house (1 Pet 2:5) and temple (1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21–22) with Yeshua as the chief corner stone and the apostles and prophets the foundation (Eph 2:20). The saints are currently a part of this original Melchizadok priesthood, which has attained to the higher spiritual level through Yeshua, regardless of their tribal lineage (1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

This verse is also telling us that since the Levitical priesthood reverted to the original priestly order, certain temporary regulations within the Torah pertaining to the Levitical priesthood had to revert back to the original Torah priesthood. The Epistle to the Hebrews makes it clear what this change or transfer involves. The Levitcal priesthood ­— an expansion of the Melchizadok priesthood — was also prophetic shadow-picture of the new priesthood to come. The temporary Levitical priesthood in all of its aspects pointed to Yeshua’s sinless life, his death, burial, resurrection, and then his role as our Great Heavenly High Priest. The Levitical priesthood was a spiritual road sign that pointed to Torah’s greater fulfillment in the Person of Yeshua. So what was changed or transferred? The writer of Hebrews clearly answers this question throughout this book. Yeshua once and for all permanently replaced all the repeated sacrifices and the temple ceremonies associated with them, as well as the priesthood that administered these rites and rituals. That’s all that was “changed” or transferred. YHVH’s sabbaths, feasts, dietary laws, and his other instructions in righteousness have never been annulled. In fact, Yeshua upholds the Torah in every way (see Matt 5:17–19), and even tells us that we are not only to follow its letter, but also its spirit (Matt 5:21–48). Paul calls the Torah holy, just and good (Rom 7:12), and tells us in the strongest terms that the grace of YHVH doesn’t annul, but rather establishes the Torah (Rom 3:31). His adherence to the Torah to the end of his life is validated by the biblical record (Acts 21:24), and by the testimony of his own lips in two courts of law (Acts 24:14; 25:8).

 

5 thoughts on “Hebrews 7:12: So What Really “Changed”?

  1. Pingback: Which laws are and are not valid? - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums

  2. What you’ve written makes a lot of sense, but how would you make sense of Paul’s actions regarding the Nazarite vow in Acts 21:17-26 if animal sacrifices ended with Christ? Don’t his actions there suggest that the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices they did were still valid?

    Also, could you say more about how you would understand the laws related to purity and purification (e.g., the laws in Leviticus 12)? Do you think that they should still be obeyed, but that the components of them related to purity and purification no longer apply given the change in priesthoods?

    Thanks for your help with these questions.

    • Your first question: Yeshua died for our sins by becoming a sin offering. Their are five types of sacrifices. Three of them were for sins and two of them were not for sin, but were a barbecue-like offering between man and his Creator. They were for the purpose of feasting, fellowship and celebration, and not for sin-atonement purposes. The sacrifices for a Nazarite was similar to the latter type offering, not the former. This is why Paul could do it without “sacrificing” Yeshua again. Since there is no longer a temple or a priesthood, it is impossible to fully and properly fulfill the vow of the Nazarite as the Torah mandates.

      Your second question, I will can only give a quick answer here. The purity laws were for ceremonial holiness and hygiene purposes. We still must practice good hygiene, since this relates to healthful living. With regard to the ceremonial holiness, we are made righteous by our identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Yeshua and by taking on his righteousness and by walking it out in obedience to his Torah commands as best we can, and by repenting of sin when we sin. I would encourage you to read the book of Hebrews again to refresh in your mind how Yeshua’s death fulfilled many of these laws and to be clear which laws he fulfilled and are no longer applicable to us and which ones still are.

      • Thank you for the helpful response, Natan. I have a few questions that I would like to follow up with if that’s okay.

        First, sin offerings were involved in the fulfillment of the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:16), which seems to show that Paul did in fact engage in sacrifices for sin. (They also involved burnt offerings, which seem to have been used for unintentional sins.) That said, I can see someone responding by denying that all sin (and burnt) offerings were, despite their names, actually sacrifices for sin. Do you think that this position can be justified biblically? If not, how would you respond to this worry?

        Second (and perhaps more importantly), if the Levitical priesthood was no longer valid (since the priesthood had changed), then it would seem that *none* of the priests’ sacrifices–be they for sin or not–should have been valid either. But this would mean that it would already have been impossible to fulfill the Nazarite vow in Acts 21. I suppose that the correct solution here will depend on just how we understand the change in priesthood and priestly validity in general, and I’d be interested in hearing any thoughts you might have here.

        Third, regarding purity laws, would we have to still obey the non-ceremonial components of the laws (e.g., the bathing requirements in Lev. 15) for hygienic purposes? The difficulty that I have with an affirmative answer to this is that obedience to these components seems unnecessary in many cases if the goals are only hygienic, especially given modern advances in cleanliness and hygiene. Of course, this assumes that there actually are commands in the laws that are non-ceremonial, which may be disputed. For if none of them are ceremonial, then obedience to the letter of the laws may not required, but rather only obedience to the general hygienic principles underlying them. What do you think about this?

        I apologize ahead of time for the many questions, but as one who thinks that your position is quite reasonable and even plausible, I am very interested in seeing how you would resolve the difficulties presented in them.

      • To your first point that Paul involved himself in a sin-sacrifice in Acts 21:24, we mustn’t read too much into the text. You are correct in pointing out that coming out of a Nazarite vow involved a sin offering. However, Acts doesn’t say that Paul was coming out of his own Nazarite vow. What the text says is that he was acting as a wealthy patron—an act of charity—for four individuals who, presumably were unable to afford the costs to pay for the necessary sacrifices to exit a Nazarite vow. Admittedly, this is a perplexing passage. None of the Bible commentaries I examined on this text could give an adequate explanation as to why Paul would involve himself in this particular ceremony to prove to the Jerusalem mob that he was Torah-observant. The text just doesn’t give us enough information on the subject. One thing seems certain to me though. Paul was not making a sin offering for himself. His paying for the sacrifices of the Nazarites seems to have been a public relations gesture to appease those in the Jewish mob who were slandering him. I don’t think we can take this act on his part as him making a doctrinal statement favoring the continued validity of the sacrificial system after the death Yeshua, especially in light of what the other apostolic writers had to say about Yeshua’s fulfilling that system by his death. Certainly, the writer of Hebrews makes this point abundantly clear.

        I want to make one other quick point about why Paul may have involved himself in paying for four men to come out of a Nazarite vow. If one went into a Nazarite vow, then how were they to come out of it except through offering the prescribed sacrifices? There was no other way to legally come out of it. What if these four men were believers? How were they to come out of it? Perhaps this was the one exception where a follower of Yeshua could offer a sin offering just so they could come out of there vow.

        With regard to the viability of the Levitical system then and now, I have a brief comment. Technically, the NT makes it clear that currently in the time period between the two covenants—old and new–that both systems are in force or overlap. I have written on the before, and can’t go into it here or now, but there is abundant scriptural proof to validate this point. The old system is fading away and the new one is fading in. For the disciple of Yeshua, we are in the new covenant. But the NC hasn’t been universally implemented yet as Jer 31:31–33 cp. Heb 8:8ff point out. It will be when the two houses of Israel are reunited under Yeshua at his second coming. This will be the marriage of the Lamb and the completion of his wedding (in Hebrew, called the Nisuim). We are currently in the betrothal (Erusin) stage now. This is a whole other discussion. When the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the sacrificial system ended along with the Levitical priesthood, so it’s no longer an issue. When Paul paid for the sacrifices, it was still a few years before the temple was destroyed. When the Epistles to the Hebrews was written, it was likely after the temple had been destroyed, which is why that writer has a completely different vantage point from which to write. With the temple gone, suddenly the work of Yeshua at the cross took on a much more significant meaning pertaining to the fulfillment of past prophecy, and that writer was able to speak very authoritatively and dogmatically about the passing of the Levitical priesthood in favor of that of Yeshua.

        With regard to the purity laws, all I have to say is this: If you feel convicted to live up to all of them to the letter of the law, be my guest. I’m not going to say you should or shouldn’t. It’s an individual matter of choice.

Share your thoughts...