NOTES for Heb 7:15-28

Speaking about "the disannulling of the commandment going before", which moreover, according to the meaning of the Greek corresponding word would be more just to call "the refusal", the author of the message says that such a thing happens because of its "weakness" (and it is written like this in the Greek text).

According to the context, in this case, it is not that the commandment is bad as such, that it is insufficient to solve the task fixed by God, and that it is not a perfect instrument for achieving the established goal: this Torah, which acted in the pre-Christian time, as we see, could not solve the problem of complete sanctification and transformation of man.

That is effectively why was needed something more, which could enter the world only with Christ. But this thing more did not complete the previous Torah mechanically, did not mean its growth, similar to that, about which one can speak, for example, in case of the extra height of the house, where the height doesn’t suppose the change or the modification of the initial structure. Indeed, there was nothing else bigger than this Kingdom that the Savior brought into the world. It, certainly, includes all the plenitude of consecration accessible to man, in comparison with which any previous consecration was only partial and relative.

But this plenitude is not composed of parts; bringing the consecration until the plenitude means the total transformation of the human nature, it is a new quality and a new state of the person, and not the continuation of the previous rites of purification and sanctification. And this new quality, surpassing all that has been given to man before, makes the previous spirituality irrelevant. Because in the Kingdom are possible only plenitude, life in abundance, and nothing less.

Speaking of the "abolition of the former commandment," which, however, according to the meaning of the corresponding Greek word would more accurately be called a "renunciation," the author of the letter says that this happens because of its "weakness," exactly as the Greek text says. Judging by the context, the issue here is not that the commandment is bad as such, or that it is insufficient for solving the task set by God, but that it is not a perfect instrument for achieving the appointed goal: the Torah that functioned in pre-Christian times, as is evident, could not solve the task of the complete sanctification and transformation of a person. That is precisely why something greater was needed, something that could enter the world only with Christ. But this greater thing did not mechanically supplement the former Torah, nor did it mean its growth, similar to what one can speak of, for example, in the case of adding another story to a house, when the addition does not require changing or rebuilding the original structure. For the greater thing was nothing other than the Kingdom brought into the world by the Savior. It certainly includes all the fullness of sanctification available to a human being, compared with which every earlier sanctification was only partial and relative. But this fullness does not consist of parts; bringing sanctification to fullness means the complete transformation of human nature, a new quality and a new state of the human being, not a continuation of former purifying and sanctifying rituals. And this new quality, surpassing everything that had been given to humanity before, makes the former things spiritually no longer current. For in the Kingdom only fullness is possible, life in abundance, and nothing less.

Continuing the discussion of Christ as High Priest, the author of the epistle draws attention to the key difference that distinguishes Him from every high priest of the Levitical priesthood. The matter concerns death, which weighs upon every fallen person. And the point here is not only that after the fall every person is mortal.

The point above all is that death defines the whole life of a fallen person. In our ordinary state we all live while dying, and we begin to die from the very moment of our conception, even before we come into the world. Death has become an inseparable part of our fallen life. Meanwhile, it is precisely death that prevents a person, and indeed the whole universe, from being sanctified completely.

It is no accident that Yahwism traditionally sets against holiness (not in the sense of righteousness, as we often use the word today, but in the sense of consecration) not even sin, but impurity, as that which destroys the fullness and integrity of creation, bringing death into it and preventing it from being sanctified, from becoming part of the Kingdom completely and in fullness.

Of course, sin also defiles, but it is only part of the evil in which the world lies, the part directly connected with a person's spiritual life and spiritual self-determination. To be sanctified in fullness oneself and to become a mediator in this process for others, one must be free from death, and therefore free from the evil in which the world lies, including human sinfulness. But by definition there could be no such high priest from among the Levites: there are no sinless people on earth, and no examples of the living Torah are known among the Levitical priesthood.

It was necessary to resort to special purifying sacrifices for the priests. These, of course, did not free them from sin, but they gave the priest the ability to act, so to speak, "over" his own sinful nature, not allowing it to show itself while the priest was carrying out his service. But this was a half measure: the priest himself remained the same, and as soon as he moved away from the altar and returned to ordinary life, sin again gained power over him. That is precisely why, after the purifying sacrifices, the Torah forbids priests to leave the courtyard of the Tabernacle (or, later, the Temple courtyard) until the end of the period of their service, which could last from one day to several weeks.

Throughout this time the priest had to live by the Tabernacle or by the Temple. In practice, however, this state of affairs meant that the priest remained a priest in the full sense of the word only for a certain time, while he was serving: it was then that God, through his service and with his participation, sanctified the people, while at all other times the priest was no different from anyone else. With Christ it is not so: He is High Priest always; His whole life is the process by which He sanctifies the Church as His body, for sin has no power over Him, and therefore death has no place in His life. Once He comes into contact with it, Jesus immediately conquers it through the resurrection. Such a High Priest can sanctify His people and the whole world in fullness, so that it may become part of the Kingdom, as God intended from the very beginning.

Turning to the theme of the Torah (the Law), the author of the epistle reasons about it in the same way as his teacher Paul. He sees several levels of Torah: on the one hand, Torah as legislation, as a legal and moral code, and on the other, the inner Torah as a spiritual core and a spiritual and moral imperative that defines a person's relationship with God and his whole life. It is clear that the author of the epistle looks at Christ in the same way as all Christians of that time did: as the only example in the history of the people of God of the living Torah.

Continuing Paul's thought about the Torah and extending it to the Levitical priesthood, he says: just as the Torah by itself does not make a person perfect, so the priesthood existing within the framework of such a Torah, which does not bring to perfection, cannot sanctify the people in all fullness. Paul speaks often and at length in his epistles about the fact that the Torah, even the inner Torah, still does not make a person perfect, that it cannot qualitatively change human nature and free it from the power of sin. But the Levitical priests are the same sinful people as everyone else; none of them revealed to the world examples of the living Torah. And if so, then the sanctification by which God sanctified the people through their priestly action could not be complete. The fullness of the Torah is the living Torah, and the living Torah is Christ Himself.

In Christ there is a change, or alteration, of the Torah, and therefore the priesthood must also change. Of course, this does not mean that some other priestly community or corporation should come to replace the Levitical priesthood. The point is different: it concerns the manner and fullness of the people's sanctification, corresponding to the new quality of their life. In fact, for life in the Kingdom, for abiding as part of the body of Christ, a Christian must be sanctified in all the fullness possible for him, in a way he was never sanctified through Yahwist sacrifices, because no person in a fallen state can be sanctified completely.

But now, in the process of a person becoming a living Torah (and the path in Christ, the path of becoming like Christ, was understood by the first generations of Christians precisely as a person's becoming in Christ as the living Torah), he must be sanctified precisely in fullness, since it is given to him as a created being. And such sanctification is possible only in that spiritual space of the relationship between the Father and the Son where the Church also abides. There the High Priest is already Christ Himself, and the fullness of sanctification also proves to correspond to Him.