Hebrews 7:11-13 Commentary

Hebrews Home Page | Heb Rules Page | Sound of Grace

The Hebrews Commentary Project

Contents:

Hebrews 7:11-13

Mark McCulley

Donald Blind

Tim Clifton

James T. McClarty

Michael Cruz

Kostas Sarantidis

Kevin Hartley

Maurice Bergeron

Hebrews 7:11-13

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

[ Top of Page ]

1. Mark McCulley

Another passage to which appeal is commonly made by those who oppose the law´s general validity today is Hebrews 7:11-25...if we consult the passage carefully, however, it will be clear that the change which is in mind here is a particular or singular change pertaining to a requirement for priesthood...This change is one which pertains to the ceremonial law and thus does not contradict the general validity of Old Testament law. This change is said to be a “necessary” change, arising from its ceremonial character...Consequently, Hebrews 7 does not stand in opposition to the presumption that the Old Testament law is binding today until God´s word teaches us otherwise. (By This Standard, Greg Bahnsen, p. 310)

        Clearly I do not share Bahnsen´s presumption about Hebrews 7:12. But I would suggest his thinking is not that much different from many “new covenant” folk who assume that God always has an “absolute moral law.” Bahnsen did not teach justification by works. Bahnsen also could teach a “difference” between having the law govern your conscience and having the law instruct you and give you direction. Bahnsen knew that grace does for us what the law demands of us.

        I say again, like many “new covenant” folk, Bahnsen taught the unchanging validity of the death penalty. Like many “new covenant” preachers, Bahnsen´s model for the clergy was much like that of the Levitical priesthood. It is my suggestion that the solution to this problem is a greater understanding of redemptive history. It is not enough to say that Banner of Truth people use the law wrongly. It is certainly is no solution to give the impression that we, in the new covenant, have nothing more to do with any “law.” The answer is to say that the law has changed, as we are told in Hebrews 7:12.

        Why bother to say the law has changed if we are now law-free? Why bother to say the law has changed if the only need finally is to change how we USE law? If we could simply remember some of our slogans (not our conscience but our direction, etc.), we could have gone on “using” the old law, without any need of its being changed. Sure, if people attempt to use the old law as a means of justification, then of course that is an abuse of that law which denies the need of Jesus to come as our priest. But Bahnsen very clearly recognised the need for Jesus to come.

The work of Christ is in every way superior to the first covenant´s ritual ordinances. he is the surety of a “better covenant”, “a better hope” because His priesthood is everlasting and His sacrifice of Himself is totally efficacious. The very repetition of the Old Covenant sacrifices demonstrated that they were temporary and imperfect.The superiority of Christ´s ministry over the Old Covenant´s Levitical ministry is found in the fact that Christ´s priestly work is exercised in the true heavenly tabernacle rather than in the earthly shadowy one... “The redemptive rituals of the Old Testament law, then, could not perfect the believer; they were but a shadow of the good things to come...With the coming of the Savior´s perfect priestly work, necessarily the sacrifices, feasts, etc. of the old order are not binding upon the belief today in their shadow forms (Col 2:13-17). they are observed today by faith in Christ. (Bahnsen, p. 163)

        How much different is what Bahnsen wrote than saying that Christ obeyed the Mosaic law for us? The understanding of redemptive history is that there is one unchanging absolute law WHICH MUST BE SERVED. Now that the sanctions of that law have fallen upon Jesus, we can rest in our conscience, knowing that the law has been served. Thus we simply grow impatient with discussions of “the law changed,” and this in either of two ways: first because we see no problem with still getting instruction about magistrate and clergy from Old Testament law, or second because we have learned not to use law in the wrong way so that it no longer matters much “which law” is in force.

        We need to take a more radical view of redemptive history. Jesus did not simply fillfill the types given in the Levitical priesthood. Hebrews 7 appeals to Genesis 14 and to Psalm 110:4 and skips over the temporary arrangement of the levitical priesthood. For our understanding of the atonement, we should not go to the Mosaic law to tell us what Christ came to do. The death of Christ is NOT like the death of the animals killed during the Mosaic economy. His is not one more death designed to uphold the Mosaic law-order. Rather, his death is the end of the Mosaic law-order. It´s not only that the veil was rent: it goes much deeper than that. Those who saw themselves as the guardians of the Mosaic law-order sacrificed Jesus for the sake of that order!

        We could say the need was for these guardians of the Mosaic law-order to have understood and not misinterpreted the purpose of the law-order. They were “legalists”: they thought they could be justified by works of law. So, all we need to see (as Bahnsen sees) is that we are justified by the cross and not by the Mosaic law-order, and then we can go on getting our direction for how to live (and kill and how to do church) from the Mosaic law-order. But I think Hebrews 7 is teaching something much more radical than that. The Mosaic law order is not being served. We are being introduced to the law-order of Jesus. The problem was not simply misinterpretation of the Mosaic economy. The problem was that Mosaic economy itself, even though God was the one who gave it. It´s not enough to understand God didn´t give it to justify; we need to understand that God gave it temporarily, and that to increase sin and transgression!

        I am not saying there was no grace in the giving of the Mosaic economy, nor am I saying the new economy has no law to direct us. Hebrews 7:12 says rather clearly: “a change in the law.” If there were no law, that would be a pointless affirmation. My controversy with Banner of Truth and Reconstructionist preaching is not finally about grace. Sure, some of them act as if we won points from God for obeying the law, but some new covenant law people act that way also (the Amish, the Church of Christ). Sure, some of them fail to proclaim justification by grace and assurance as often and as clearly as they should, but nothing in their theology inherently prevents them from doing this. My controversy is about law: has the law changed or not? Is the “moral law” absolute except for some “ceremonial” changes? Or is our new high priest also our new lawgiver, so that we can listen to Jesus not merely as to an exegete of Moses but as One who has the prerogative to abolish the death penalty and to change the way we do church?

        So my question for sound folk: What´s wong with Bahnsen´s reading of Hebrews 7? We can say there are other NT texts which show us that it is not only “ceremonies” that change, but Bahnsen has written about those texts as well--even the ceremonies which were meant to foretell grace could be "against us" if ignored, so that when Jesus took away what was “against us” that meant Jesus took away ceremonies! We can ask lots of questions about how you know if something´s “ceremonial.” (If you are a covenant theologian, and it changes, then you know it´s ‘ceremonial”--which of course is a begging of the question!)

        After we get done saying how Bahnsen is wrong, how do we view the Levitical Scriptures? Do we continue to understand what Jesus did in terms which make Jesus a servant to Moses and to the demands of the Levitical sacrificial system? Or does his being a priest of a “different order” free us up to consider again what it means that Jesus was killed by guardians of order and sacrifice? Are we still comfortable saying: somebody´s got to die, and better that it be one person than all of us??? Or have we learned from the resurrection of Jesus that those who kill do not have the last word or the best word? Can we believe in a new Sermon on the Mount law-order in which grace is commanded by the God who, in giving us Jesus, did MORE than we could ever ask or think (or understand simply as fulfilling the Mosaic law-order)?

        What does this “change in the law” involve? It is NOT a change to no law. Nor is the change to no sanctions. I quote Carl Hock:

New covenant curses are not as obvious as old covenant curses because the New Testament does not include specific curse chapters like Leviticus 26 or Deteronomy 28 in the Old Testament. But punishment for disobedience to new covenant commands is clearly indicated in many passages. (All Things New, Carl Hoch, p. 101)

Then Hoch quotes Romans 14:10; I Cor 6:9-10; Galatians 6:7-8; and Hebrews 3: 4. I would point also to the end of the Sermon on the Mount (the wise and the fool) or, since we are in Hebrews, to chapter 10:31: “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

        What does it mean for us that the NEW covenant says "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God?" Does it mean simply that it is awful to find oneself outside the new covenant and facing the second death? Can it be said that those IN the new covenant also “profane the blood of the covenant by which they are sanctified and outrage the Spirit of grace”? I think so. Even though all in the old covenant were redeemed from Egypt, they were not justified by God from sin. People could be excluded from the old covenant because of their sin, but even those who continued in that covenant were not guaranteed justification. But my understanding of the new covenant and the “change in the law” assumes that, while all in the new covenant are justified, this does not mean that there are no sanctions. We are still to fear our gracious God, even though we will not be excluded from the new covenant. Call it “discipline” or “family punishment” or whatever, but there is loss of blessing if we fail to obey the commands of the new covenant. "God´s ends includes God´s means....   God intends the stipulations of the new covenant to be kept and that obedience and transgression are rewarded appropriately" (Hoch, p. 104).

        I will not take a great more time to detail how even “new covenant” folk ignore Jesus for the sake of a supposedly more timeless and absolute law. But I do want to highlight the difference redemptive-historical thinking should make in how we think of "ordination" as it relates to communion. I posted yesterday some clear words from Vernard Eller about this topic. The OT economy had priests who offered sacrifices to God continually. I am not marcionite: I do not deny that God gave this economy. But I argue that God has now given a much different economy. We no longer have priests who have different responsibilities/privileges than the rest of us. Most important, we should not think of communion as the eating of Jesus, not even in a symbolic or "spiritual” sense. to eat Jesus again would be to sacrifice Jesus again. And to sacrifice Jesus continually is to go by the Levitical system.

        But we protest: we are not Roman Catholics, nor have we ever been! But I would urge you to examine again your hymns and your mindset in communion: is the “feeding on Jesus” of our rhetoric a going back to the OT tabernacle and temple pattern? Can we not be content that Jesus is incarnate in heaven now (except for His home in us) and not incarnate in the bread? Can we rejoice that Jesus is resurrected now, so that there need be no more funeral songs, not for Him and not for others? Do we think we still need to sacrifice for the sake of good order?

From Vernard Eller on Hebrews: could the church have it wrong?

Of all the books of the New Testament, it is plainly the Letter to the Hebrews that makes the greatest use of sacramental language, i.e. the language of Jewish temple worship. Christ is called "a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God" (Heb. 2:17) who is priest forever (Heb. 7:3). There is much talk about "God's house." In a long passage about Jesus' being the high priest (Heb. 5), we are told of his offering "gifts and sacrifices for sins." There is talk about "the inner shrine behind the curtain" (6:19). Through chapters 8, 9, and 10, there is all sorts of talk about the tabernacle (Israel's original tent shrine), about priests and sacrifices, altars, lampstands, the Bread of the Presence, the Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant, and things of which the writer says "we cannot now speak in detail" (though it strikes me that he had already done a pretty good job of it). However, simply to take this language as expressive of his interest in sacramentalism is to miss the point. His thesis is that this entire development was ineffective: According to this arrangement, "gifts and sacrifices are [were] offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time comes to set things right" (Heb. 9:9-10).

"The time to set things right" is, of course, the coming of Jesus Christ with his gospel and the new people of God which is his "body." So, at this "time to set things right," in himself and in his work, Christ has accomplished everything the old sacramental system failed to do--and more, "He abolishes the first in order to establish the second" (Heb. 10:9).

        Indeed, that old sacramental order is now seen to have been of no real significance in itself; it was simply "a sketch and shadow" of the real thing that was to come in Christ (Heb. 8:5)--a foreshadowing as inadequate as a person's own shadow is in letting you know what the person himself looks like, a foreshadowing utterly useless once the thing itself has arrived.

        But "if perfection had been attained through the levitical priesthood ... what further need would there have been to speak of another priest to arising?" (Heb. 7:11). And "there is, on the one hand, the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual; ... there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God" (Heb. 7:18). "Accordingly, Jesus has also become the guarantee of a better covenant" (Heb. 7:22). "Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day; ... he did this once for all when he offered himself" (Heb. 7:27).

        So Christ is the new high priest in that he accomplishes all that the old high priests tried to do and more. But this is not to say that he is simply the servant of a new sacramentalism as the old priests were of the old. No, Jesus is the new high priest by being something entirely different from what had gone before. Those priests, of course, dealt ritually with the mystery of so-called "sacred objects."

        In order to get at this new Christian thing which displaces "sacramental mystery," the writer chooses the term "covenant." "Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant" (Heb. 8:6).

        The Hebrews author joins Paul and Luke in keeping the blood of Jesus as a ratification of the covenant made at the cross on Good Friday rather than letting it come into the Thursday evening upper-room as a cup of sacramental mystery--or as some sort of blood sacrifice to be made by new, Christian priests in new, Christian temples. It may well be that the Hebrews author would be the Christian teacher most horrified to find the church moving into a new,Christian sacramentaism--after God had done all he did in Christ.

        In Heb. 7:19, he told us Jesus is the one through whom there is "the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God." And drawing us near to God was precisely the thing the high priest of old temple-cult, with all his sacred apparatus, was striving to accomplish, though (the Hebrews author says) never able to bring off. So, in that Jesus proved the only one capable of doing for us what the high priest wanted to do, the author is well justified in calling Jesus the one true and real "high priest." Karl Barth, I suggest, was saying nothing different in calling Jesus the one true and real "sacrament." The two--priest and sacrament--are so completely interdependent (a priest isn't a priest except in his sacramental function; and a sacrament isn't sacred except when made so by a priest) that the statement says the same thing whichever way it be read.

        Even when Jesus accomplishes what the sacramental system was supposed to, he does it through anything but sacramental methods. So even though his accomplishment is that of a true high priest--he is himself nothing like a high priest. His accomplishment is that of one true sacrament--even though his action is nothing sacramental.

Mark McCulley
mcculley@redrose.net

[ Top of Page ]

2. Donald Blind

        Perfection in this context must mean the purpose of the priesthood, which would bring us to the perfection of knowing God. Jesus said in His intercessory prayer, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3). The whole purpose of the law, being added to the promise given to Abraham, was to make men see that they were miserable sinners, unable to approach the Holy God. Paul said so: "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made" (Gal. 3:19). The law itself compounded the situation: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith" (Gal. 3:10,11).

        The law that undergirded the whole levitical system, as the scriptures state, was written on stone. The law of Moses certainly did declare the holy mind of the God of the bible, but only in a temporal sense. It was never intended to be the "eternal law of God".

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. (2 Cor. 4:17,18)

And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:16-18)

        In the temporal, Moses set forth the demands of God to a people of the flesh. This was the mind of God, His law to a sinful nation and world, but our Lord Jesus Christ came AS God's eternal law, to lift them, and all mankind, to a place where they would see God/Jehovah in action.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (John 14:6-10)

        The Lord Jesus displayed Mt 5-7, the sermon on the mount and lived it.

For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. (1 Peter 2:19-25)

        Now we have seen the "eternal law of God," and it is His Son. Through the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec a continual priesthood, the true eternal law of God, and priest of God, prepares us to move on from serving the flesh, to get an actual feel of what it is to be a son of the true and living God in Christ Jesus.

        In order to attain perfection, something had to give. It was the priesthood and everything that had to do with the whole sacerdotal system. Obviously the law that under girded it, lock, stock, and barrel went with it, ceremonial, civil and moral. Nothing was left, not one stone left upon another. It was a shadow of good things to come, not the very image. Much is still to be learned from it. Genesis to Malachi is an encyclopedia to learn of this God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ as is His natural revelation in all of creation. What further need indeed.

        The necessity of a change of law, of course: A new priest and undergirding it was a new law. This one not written on tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart, this by the Spirit of the living God; 2 Cor 3:4. As we come to find out it is the priest himself; 1 Cor 9:21 (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ). Of course Ps. 110 is the clue to the whole thing. What tribe did Melchisedec come from? The existing law was in stone; Only the tribe of Levi. Now this was a mystery.

Donald E. Blind
dblind@erols.com

[ Top of Page ]

3. Tim Clifton

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (7:11)

Perfection: Did you ever want to 'complete' high school, or college, or the military, or get married so bad you could just "taste it"? You did so when you had 'fulfilled' all the necessary requirements. These are the kinds of ideas that this word entails. The 'accomplishment,' the 'consummation' of your desires were finally met. The first covenant (here called the Levitical priesthood) was just not able to get you to God's perfection (8:7). If it had been able, then Christ died in vain (Gal. 2:21).
        Consummation, for the child of God, is liberty from the law of sin and death, and it is eternal rest from all his works. Of this sort of perfection, the law under the Levitical priesthood was only a shadow of better things to come. The sons of Levi could ".. never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect" (10:1). And the Hebrew audience knew full well that year after year after year, the sacrifice had to be made anew, for the sons of Levi, the law, and the old covenant was just not able to offer more. Ultimate perfection was not part of the Levitical priesthood, and it would be God, through His only begotten Son, who would accomplish and complete all the necessary requirements via another priesthood. The need was indeed very real.

...under 'it' the people received the law: For the sake the next verse, it must be pointed out here that the 'it' that is 'ABOVE' the law is the priesthood. In any outline there are main points and sub-points. The law is a sub-point of the priesthood, according to this verse. In any regiment, there are captains and privates. The privates follow the captain, and never vice-versa. Under the Levitical priesthood, the people received the law. As the priesthood goes, so goes the law, and not the other way around. The tail does not wag the dog. And that leads us to the logical statement of verse 12...

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (7:12)

of necessity: Why of necessity? Because in 7:11, the law is UNDER the priesthood, and the focus of the author in this part of Hebrews is "the priesthood." The law follows, as does the dog's tail. Or we could repeat, 'as the priesthood goes, so goes the law that is under it.' So how do we view the law? Perhaps the same way we view a company of soldiers: not as guiding the fight, but as following their superior. Thus when the priesthood changes, so MUST the law.

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. (7:13)

        Now, from verses 13 to 17, we will take a specific look at the the new priesthood, and verse 13 begins by the fact that our Lord did not come from the tribe of Levi! No Levi, no temple service under Aaron, and thus no constraints to minister the old law to the people. Perhaps the most important point of this statement is that Christ is not of the sons of Levi, which is proof positive that He cannot be of their priesthood. So who IS He of, and how does He surpass this tribe of priests?

In Christ, Tim Clifton
tclifton@hotmail.com

[ Top of Page ]

4. James T. McClarty

        Way back in Hebrews 6:19 we were introduced to the "hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast." This hope allows the believer to enter "into that within the veil." Previous to Christ's priesthood, that sacred place behind the veil, the Holy of Holies, could only be entered into by the high priest, only with sacrificial blood, and only once a year. All other access was strictly denied.

        The reason we now have access to the Holiest place is because our High Priest, our elder brother, has gone in before us, closing the breach between God and man, providing access to the unapproachable God. And of course the reason given for Him having such an entrance is that He is "made an high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec" (8:20).

        Then, after a lengthy treatise on the superiority of Melchisedec (7:1-10), the author returns to this flow of thought - the superiority of the perfect priesthood of Christ over the imperfect system of "men who die" (v.8), and that's where we pick up - - -

COMMENTARY:

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law), (7:11a)

        The author poses a hypothetical statement to make his point. What would be the natural, expected outcome if the continuous slaughter of animals, the continuous flow of blood on the altar, and the generations of Levitical priests actually could save anyone? Obviously there would be no need to replace it! It would be effectual! It would be working and men would be standing before God, purified and cleansed from all unrighteousness. After all, didn't the tribes of Israel receive the law, given at Mt. Sinai, under this priesthood? Who could want for more?

        If the law could instruct people into consummate holy living and the tabernacle sacrifices could cleanse them from any residual sinfulness, then the ultimate system had been established and there was no need to change it.

BONUS SECTION: While this only peripherally affects the topic at hand, I just can't let the obvious slip by without comment. "The law" here is spoken of inclusively. Everything the Levites were responsible to perform and teach was included under the heading "the law."

        Or, to make my point, just today I heard "The Bible Answer Man" on the radio. He divided the law into four categories: moral, civil, dietary, and ceremonial. He said Christ fulfilled three of those legally binding categories and removed them from the Christian. But the writer of Hebrews, whom we can assume is intimately acquainted with the law in all of its minutiae, makes no such divisions. To him, the law is the law in its totality. That's going to be a vital notion to hang on to as we progress through this book. Okay, back to the matter at hand...

...what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (7:11b)

        The whole question obviously begs the answer, "The Levitical priesthood was not perfect, and could not perfect people." The facts bear that out. Israel, under the law, proved themselves to be a rebellious, stiff-necked people, always erring in their hearts (Ps.95:10, Heb.3:10). Despite having the law, the lineage of Aaron, and the entire tribe of Levi serving in the sanctuary, no one was saved under that system.

        So, what (to restate the original question) WAS the need for a new, completely different priesthood separate from the Aaronic/Levitical lineage? Well, every need in the world! The dying, condemned world was in desperate need of someone who could "stand in the gap" and reconcile God and man, and the Mosaic system wasn't cutting it.

        And so, declares the author, it was necessary that Christ be completely apart from that ineffective system which could only condemn men to death but never deliver them into life eternal. But, there's a necessary consequence of this fact - - -

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (7:12)

        The Levites ministered under the provisions of the law. Their station and authority were established in the body of the law. Their tenure was dependant on the continuation of the law. The Levites, the Aaronic priests, and the law all stand or fall together.

        But, if there's a new, better priesthood, not established by the Levitical law, not dependant on the continuation, sacrifices, or ordinances of that law, and superior in every way to that law - the law itself must also be changed, and not just changed around the edges. Just as the new priesthood was completely independent of the old system, the new law must be completely independent of the old system.

        In fact, in order to be completely new, the superior priesthood cannot be beholding to the old system in any manner or form. It must be established on higher, better principles. And, as we'll see, that's the very argument the author is heading toward.

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. (7:13)

        Continuing his argument for a change of priesthood and law, the author points out that Jesus ("he of whom these things are spoken") wasn't even born into the tribe of Levi. So, to proclaim Him a high priest in any manner automatically recognizes a completely different system than was instituted at Mt. Sinai. No man from Judah ever worked in the tabernacle or sacrificed at the altar.

        As such, the evidence of Scripture, which proclaims the new, eternal priesthood after the new, separate lineage and order of Melchizedek, demands a change of the laws and regulations under which this new High Priest rules. He is not here to perpetuate the old order; He came to institute the new, higher, better way.

AN ESSENTIAL CLARIFICATION:

        In Hebrews 7:5 is found the first occurrence of the word "law" in this epistle. It occurs for a second time in this week's passage: "for under it the people received the law." In order to avoid confusion and understand the balance of the author's treatise, it's important to recognize the difference between the "law" and the "Abrahamic covenant."

        The primary difference between them is that the Abrahamic Covenant was not a conditional covenant. Abraham was asleep as God passed through the torn animals; he was the inactive recipient of the deal God made with Himself. The Hebrews author pointed out the unconditional terms and the unchanging nature of the deal when he wrote,

Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us. (6:17-19)

        However, the law given at Mt. Sinai, the one which established the Levitical system, was completely conditional. God promised blessing and cursing according to any individual's reaction and commitment:

Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: and a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known. (Deut.11:26-28)

        The Abrahamic covenant included promises of land, seed, offspring, possessing the gates of their enemies, and a blessing to all nations. Every detail of that covenant rests on the unchanging, faithful character of God. However, the author of Hebrews argues that the Mosaic law must, by virtue of the change of priesthood, undergo a dramatic change.

        Abraham was blessed with faith (a gift of grace), and it was accounted to him for righteousness. The Mosaic system demands perfect obedience to a set of external rules and is, ultimately, unable to deliver anyone into righteous standing with God.

        The Abrahamic covenant established the doctrine of imputed righteousness. The law was added because of transgressions but it would only be in effect until "the seed should come to whom the promise was made" (Gal.3:19). Christ is that seed who was promised an eternal inheritance, Lordship, Kingship, and an unchanging priesthood. Hence, the law was impermanent. But the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled, is being fulfilled, and will be fulfilled. It pre-dated the law, survived despite the law, and continued beyond the law.

That's an essential difference.

Jim McClarty
McClartyfam@juno.com

[ Top of Page ]

5. Michael Cruz

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood.... 7:11)

        Now we come to a very important conditional statement. Here the author is assuming that the priesthood could not take away sin and so we should be content with that as well. Throughout history (both Bible and secular), the natural man has striven for the consolidation of power. We see it in the beginning as man tried to be as God, knowing good and evil. We see it in the downfall of Satan as he pursued the power of God. In the fall we see Adam and Eve all the more willing to give in to it. We see it as the Israelites desired to have a king, much to the dismay of God. We see in America today the implementation of a larger government even though people know this has never led to the ultimate good of any country. No matter at what point in history, there has always been someone to take control and others who give up control. Thus on both sides of the fence, we have in troubled mankind, the desire of some to rule over others and the desire of some to be ruled over.

         What's interesting about the Old Testament covenant is that its operation is based on a group of men from one tribe (the Levites). These men were the mediators between God and His chosen people.

We see in the middle of verse eleven that the Levitical priesthood is the entire basis for the giving of the law to the Israelites. There is no way to escape the fact that in this covenant, there was still a barrier that the system itself created: the law. The law only brought condemnation to sinful man and the Levitical priesthood only brought a temporary relief from the burden of sin. This is not to say that men had no hope for justification before the cross. Certainly we see that justification has always come by faith alone (Abraham trusted God and it was counted to him as righteous).

The second part of this verse brings us to the simple fact that if the priesthood could take away sin then there would have been no need for a great high priest. There would have been no sense in trusting in the Old Testament prophecies that spoke of one savior who would fulfill and bring together all of God's people into one flock. We have entered into the rest of which the Old Testament writers spoke, and what a glorious fact it is to be redeemed.

        It would be easy to stop here and assume that, since we have this New Covenant, we are in no danger of falling victim to the Old Covenant but it is just not the case. The need for this letter (Hebrews) as well as that of Galatians is evidence that there is in within man's nature a desire to go back to a system in which he can rule and be ruled. The present Catholic system should be ample evidence to men's feet of clay. But the consolidation of ecclesiastical power does not come about overnight. It took years to develop centralized bishops in each city of the early church and then many years more to develop the papal system. The descent was slow and hardly noticeable, even to genuine believers, during their generations. But the passing of the torch of tradition adds up over the years.

        The most disheartening part of all this is that man attempts to justify it scripturally. We have these ecclesiastical monoliths built by man's desire to please God but we forget to see that we cannot keep the sovereign God bound to our replicas of Him. We think that what we have is some how "God's Will". It would also be naive to think that the reformation put an end to all of the abuses of the Catholic system but it is not the case. We still have an abundance of churches and cathedrals that though once dedicated to the majesty of God now only house an ever increasing apostasy. Even in these United States which was the home to so many stalwarts of the faith in schools like Harvard and Yale are now lifeless and have totally forgotten the truths that once echoed from their halls. Those of us who are New Covenant believers have a special task. We need to be constantly aware of our own depravity. We need to be ever conscious of our desire to rule and be ruled. We see today that it is not uncommon for local churches to be known for one man rather than the whole body of believers or for the one who came as a man to save His Church. We see the advertisements of churches which testify to the pre-imminence of one gift while excluding the gifts of all the body. We need to keep in mind that I Corinthians was written to us as well as to the church at Corinth. We need to remember that the love of God does not cause us to boast of our gift because it is visible and leave the others unnoticed (I Cor 13:4-6). We need to realize that we should not go back to that old system that could not take away sin for we now have one Shepard who is Christ. He alone has made the eternal sacrifice for all of our sins. And to this we can add nothing!

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (7:12)

        We know without a doubt that the priesthood has changed, so we can be sure that the law has changed. The question to be answered is: how has the law changed? There are varying views on the changes in the law. The spectrum runs from no change to that of antinomianism. But what does the scripture say? For this is where we are to find our answer. Most reformed people would agree that the ceremonial parts of the law have been done away with. Some state that it is the ten commandments or moral summary of the law which remains. But again we should ask: what do the scriptures teach? It is easy to see that at least nine of the commandments are re-established in the New Testament but it is the fourth commandment that creates the most controversy. What is the status of the Sabbath? Well, we have clearly seen the status of the Sabbath earlier in the Hebrews study. Verses 4:1-12 state that we are under a law but not under The law given to the Israelites for we have entered into the rest of which the fourth commandment testified. One resource that may be of help to some is the view of the early reformers concerning the fourth commandment. The following is a quote from the Geneva catechism dated 1536 and published by John Calvin.

M.—Let us come to the fourth commandment.

S.—Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

M.—Does he order us to labour on six days, that we may rest on the seventh ?

S.—Not absolutely; but allowing man six days for labour, he excepts the seventh, that it may be devoted to rest.

M.—Does he interdict us from all kind of labour?

S.—This commandment has a separate and peculiar reason. As the observance of rest is part of the old ceremonies, it was abolished by the advent of Christ.

M.—Do you mean that this commandment properly refers to the Jews, and was therefore merely temporary?

S.—I do, in as far as it is ceremonial.

M.—What then? Is there any thing under it beyond ceremony?

S.—It was given for three reasons.

M.—State them to me.

S.—To figure spiritual rest; for the preservation of ecclesiastical polity; and for the relief of slaves.

M.—What do you mean by spiritual rest?

S.—When we keep holiday from our own works, that God may perform his own works in us.

M.—What, moreover, is the method of thus keeping holiday?

S.—By crucifying our flesh,-that is, renouncing our own inclination, that we may be governed by the Spirit of God.

M.—Is it sufficient to do so on the seventh day?

S.—Nay, continually. After we have once begun, we must continue during the whole course of life.

M.—Why, then, is a certain day appointed to figure it?

S.—There is no necessity that the reality should agree with the figure in every respect, provided it be suitable in so far as is required for the purpose of figuring.

M.—But why is the seventh day prescribed rather than any other day?

S.—In Scripture the number seven implies perfection. It is, therefore, apt for denoting perpetuity. It, at the same time, indicates that this spiritual rest is only begun in this life, and will not be perfect until we depart from this world.

M.—But what is meant when the Lord exhorts us to rest by his own example?

S.—Having finished the creation of the world in six days, he dedicated the seventh to the contemplation of his works. The more strongly to stimulate us to this, he set before us his own example. For nothing is more desirable than to be formed after his image.

M.—But ought meditation on the works of God to be continual, or is it sufficient that one day out of seven be devoted to it?

S.—It becomes us to be daily exercised in it, but because of our weakness, one day is specially appointed. And this is the polity which I mentioned.

M.—What order, then, is to be observed on that day?

S.—That the people meet to hear the doctrine of Christ, to engage in public prayer, and make profession of their faith.

M.—Now explain what you meant by saying that the Lord intended by this commandment to provide also for the relief of slaves.

S.—That some relaxation might be given to those under the power of others. Nay, this, too, tends to maintain a common polity. For when one day is devoted to rest, every one accustoms himself to labour during the other days.

M.—Let us now see how far this command has reference to us.

S.—In regard to the ceremony, I hold that it was abolished, as the reality existed in Christ. (Col. ii. 17.)

M.—How?

S.—Because, by virtue of his death, our old man is crucified, and we are raised up to newness of life. (Rom. vi. 6.)

M.—What of the commandment then remains for us?

S.—Not to neglect the holy ordinances which contribute to the spiritual polity of the Church; especially to frequent sacred assemblies, to hear the word of God, to celebrate the sacraments, and engage in the regular prayers, as enjoined.

Certainly this catechism is not inspired in any way but it included here to show that the mind set of the reformers was not necessarily in unity with present confessions that exalt the continuance of the fourth commandment.

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. (7:13)

        There is so much we can learn from the lineage of Christ. It would have been fitting to His priestly nature to have been born of the tribe of Levi but such is not the case. It is also true that the tribe that produced all of the high priests for Israel was not in the line of Christ who came through the line of Judah. This clan's members never had the privilege of serving at the altar. This can quite simply be summed up with the words from 1 Cor 1:27, "God has chosen the weak things of this world to confound the things which are mighty."

Michael Cruz
a_la_cruz@technologis

[ Top of Page ]

6. Kostas Sarantidis

        The key word is TELEIWSIS, translated as "perfection." It is interesting to do a concordance search on all the various forms and related Greek roots. Among the results of such a search, the following stick out as relevant to the exegesis of Hebrews 7:11. (I'm sorry if much of what follows is a digression into Philippians 3.)

Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected (EPITELEISQE) by the flesh?

2 Corinthians 12:9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected (TELEITAI) in weakness."

1 Corinthians 13:10 but when the perfect (TELEION) comes, the partial will be done away.

Ephesians 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature (TELEION) man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. {The NASB rendering is perfectly valid, since TELEION also means mature, etc. Note how at 1 Cor 14:20, the same word in the plural is translated as "men" by the KJV and "mature" by the NKJV. The NKJV does the same thing at 1 Cor 2:6 and Phil 3:15.}

Colossians 1:28 We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete (TELEION) in Christ. {The NASB rendering "complete" is absolutely perfect here! Pardon the pun.}

James 1:25 But one who looks intently at the perfect (TELEION) law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. {The NASB captures the thrust of the Greek more accurately than the KJV and NKJV here. The phrase, "the (law) of liberty", is indeed a separate phrase that qualifies or further identifies the "perfect law." If the Greek wanted to say what the KJV and NKJV make it say, it would have left out the definite article TON.}

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete (TELEIOS), go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." {The NASB's choice of "complete" is a little less defensible here. Not that there is any difference in meaning, but the literal "perfect" is preferred by most translations, including KJV, NKJV and NIV.}

John 17:23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected (TETELEIWMENOI) in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

Philippians 3:12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect (TETELEIWMAI), but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

And now for the related Hebrews passages:

Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect (TELEIWSAI) the author of their salvation through sufferings.

Hebrews 5:9 And having been made perfect (TELEIWQEIS), He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity (TELEIOTHTA), not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

Hebrews 7:19 for the Law made nothing perfect (ETELEIWSEN).

Hebrews 7:28 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 (TETELEIWMENON) forever.

Hebrews 9:9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect (TELEIWSAI) in conscience,

Hebrews 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect (TELEIOTERAS) tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;

Hebrews 10:1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect (TELEIWSAI) those who draw near.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected (TETELEIWKEN) for all time those who are sanctified.

Hebrews 11:40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect (TELEIWQWSIN).

Hebrews 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter (TELEIWTHN) of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Hebrews 12:23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect (TETELEIWMENWN),

        If we put all these passages together, some things become very clear. Perfection does not come through works of the flesh (the Law), but through the work of the Spirit (Gal 3:3). The perfect Law is not the Law of the stone tablets, but the law of liberty (James 1:25). It is a law that we are empowered to do (James 1:25), and it is a law that is completely linked to the presence of Christ (Matt 19:21, Phil 3:12) and the knowledge of Christ (Eph 4:13). This law of liberty is more an existence than a set of rules and regulations. That is why Paul can talk of the TELEION in absolute terms (1 Cor 13:10), as well as an adjective describing the man or woman in Christ (Eph 4:13, Col 1:28).

        The perfection which the NT speaks of cannot come through the Aaronic priesthood with its cultic requirements. It can only come through a new priesthood, the priesthood of Christ. And with the new priesthood comes a new law. That is the entire thrust of this passage which we are considering this week. It sums up everything which the NT says about perfection! If we follow the Hebrews writer's train of thought throughout his epistle we see clearly what he is saying about "perfection" and Christ's "priesthood."

The train of thought begins at 2:10, which speaks of the perfection of Christ through suffering. It is an amazing thought indeed, a bold assertion, this statement that Christ could become perfect! In 5:8-9 we learn what the Hebrews' writer had in mind: perfection in the sense of learning obedience through suffering. Is it any wonder that Paul, that greatest learner of Christ's ways, could say, in Philippians 3:8-12.

More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

         And he continues, Philippians 3:15-16 "Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained."

        In this extraordinary statement from the pen of Paul the apostle (and let's not forget the even greater passage in chapter 2 verses 5-8 of this same epistle,) we have the heart of the matter. Perfection is something already given (attained) and yet still un-attained. It is given (attained) because it belongs to Christ and He has laid hold of those for whom He died. But it is also future because WE have not yet laid hold of it, WE have not fully experienced it yet. Perfection is not based on a set of requirements, but is rooted in sharing the life of Christ, the author and perfecter of our faith. By His one offering, He has perfected those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). Who are the sanctified, but those set apart, those laid hold of by Christ. Perfection is both an accomplished and a future fact. Just as adoption in Romans 8 is both a present and a future reality (verses 15-16 and 23).

[TEXTUAL DIGRESSION]
[It's unfortunate that the NASB departs from the Critical Text in Phil 3:16 and follows the example of the KJV and the seemingly corrupt Textus Receptus by inserting the word "standard" in italics. Literally, the critical text says, "Only, to what we have attained (or, what we have come upon), let us keep in step (or, let us walk, or, let us live)." In other words, let us keep walking in what we have attained. Paul is repeating what he said in verse 12b. It's the idea of Christ laying hold of us and we walking in that path for which He has laid hold of us. It's the process of perfection.

[The idea of a "standard" comes from the TR insertion of the word "kanon," which means standard or rule. The best manuscripts, including the famous Chester Beatty papyrus (c. 200 AD), do not have this word. Most likely the word was inserted in imitation of Gal 6:16, but the context of the insertion in Philippians is more hazardous for the exegete and this insertion could lead to the legalistic, flesh-driven thinking that characterizes an enemy of the cross of Christ (Phil 3:18). This is possibly one of those many places where the TR represents the influence of the ascetic and legalistic tendencies of the Roman and Greek churches starting in the fourth century, which is also when the "Byzantine" and "majority" families of texts started taking shape. This is speculative, to be sure, and perhaps polemical on my part (against the TR-KJV), but it is a possible explanation.]

        Perfection has been freed from any connection to the Mosaic Law. But Paul seems to be saying that perfection comes from sharing in Christ's sufferings. Does this mean sharing in Christ's sufferings the way some have taught through the ages, in the form of ascetic self-abasement? I doubt it. Paul placed no confidence in the flesh (Phil 3:3) or in the abasement of the flesh (Col 2:20-23, a tremendous passage). No, Paul's sharing in the sufferings of Christ is not a legalistic self-abasement, but a literal, God-given sharing in the sufferings of Christ through the persecutions he underwent (Col 1:24; 2 Corinthians 4:7-12 and so much else in that letter). It means picking up his cross and following Jesus, what the rich young ruler could not accept when Jesus spoke to him in Matt 19:21. Jesus was perfected through obedience in suffering. The disciple of Jesus is also perfected in suffering. It is not a matter of the law, it is the matter of a given. Those who are of Christ and in Christ will be persecuted, and will share in the sufferings of the Lord. It's a given, and it will not consist in ascetic mortification and self-abasement. Hebrews 5:9 speaks of our obedience to Christ.

        Hebrews 6:1 says, in effect, if perfection implies sharing in the sufferings of Christ and obedience to Him who is the source of salvation (5:9), then let us leave behind the elementary teachings about repentance and baptism and eternal judgment, etc. Let us talk about perseverance instead! Indeed, let's not just talk about it, but let us persevere! For it is Christ's power that is at work in us. He is able to save forever (or, completely) those who draw near to God through Him (7:25). How can we then NOT persevere?! The perseverance of the saints is one of the great themes of Hebrews, and perseverance in suffering in particular - note especially the great chapter 12.

        The author of Hebrews speaks from the experience of perfection that Paul also spoke out from. That is why Hebrews is so much concerned with the high priesthood of Christ and this whole Melchizedek typology. It is not a christological issue primarily; it is soteriological. It is not so much a question of saying something about Christ, as it is about the law and salvation. Speculations about whether Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ are irrelevant and pointless. That is not the concern of the Hebrews' writer!

        What is his concern? He says it plainly in 7:11-12. It has to do with the change in priesthood and the change of law. Priesthood and law go together according to the Hebrews' writer. The priesthood of Christ is separate from the priesthood of the Law. The priesthood of Melchizedek also was separate from the Mosaic Law, indeed antedated the Mosaic Law by five centuries! Precisely here we have the connection between the two priest-kings, our Lord and Melchizedek.

        The Hebrews writer's point of reference is the priesthood of Christ, not the priesthood of Melchizedek, as I wrote a couple of weeks ago (Heb 7:3). Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God. He received a tithe long before there was a tithe instituted. It was not a tithe based on law. So our obedience to Christ is not based on law, but on the fact that He who learned obedience as a Son has laid hold of us as sons and daughters of God. Are you a son or daughter of the Father? Then you will learn obedience in suffering! And that will be the way of perfection.

The passage under discussion - and I'm so glad our blessed moderator limited it to just three verses - is the key turning point in the entire epistle. All the later verses which I quoted above continue to unfold the basic conclusion reached at this point.

Kostas Sarantidis
ksarant1@maine.rr.com

[ Top of Page ]

7. Kevin Hartley

        Great matters of theological breadth are henceforth addressed in this passage of Hebrews. The epistolary flow has brought the reader forth to the inconceivable matter of the ‘change of the law,' a volatile phrase to any Jew. Eye could not see, ear could not hear, and heart could not understand the declarative imperfections of the covenant of old. For to the mind of any Jew, Aaron was instilled with the work of perfection. It was he and his children who were tasked with mediation and continual reconciliation before God for the people of Israel. To declare their labors inadequate, and far from perfecting, was to destroy the foundation of every Jew´s confidence under the law. To put the change of the law into proper perspective for the modern reader, consider if we were told that Christ and His labor was insufficient and we were in need of another, superior mediator. What violence would this bring forth to the people of God? Would we not cling, to the death, onto our Christ and His labors as our sole means for hope?

        Sadly, for the Jew, they clung to that which was imperfect and but a shadow of the One who is perfect. They were as the Prophets of Baal, crying out unto their gods, cutting themselves, only to be consumed by the flames of the wrath of a holy God, who declared, “unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” The readers of this epistle were being courted by the imperfect shadows of the old order. Thus, our author continues to exalt the supremacy of Christ far above the relics of the Old Covenant.

        By way of argument, our author introduces the imperfection of the Levitical order with a second class conditional clause, thus assuming the condition in the protasis is untrue. Graphically, then, he depicts the imperfection of the Levitical Priesthood. The mere repetition of sacrifice demonstrated such imperfection, but here, our author has shown the superiority of the order of Melchizedek. This then proves his point, for if another order exceeds and replaces the old order of Levi, then logically the order replaced lacked perfection. This is the point of the eleventh verse. The very existence of a superceding order demonstrates the insufficiency of the first order. As every new invention in this world seeks to replace those old innovations due to their age, deficiency, and archaic quality that lacks perfect, so does this New Covenant reach a perfection and goal that the Levitical Priesthood could never attain. No matter how much blood filled the causeways of Israel, no matter how much burning flesh filled the sky with a detestable odor, no matter how weary Aaron and his descendants were with the slaughtering of living bullocks, they never could accomplish what Christ dying, once and for all, accomplished. Thus how fitting His cry, “It is finished.” What a glorious thing that Christ has finished what generations labored in without lasting accomplishment.

       A brief note now on the matter of the change of the law: The author of Hebrews declares the ‘law´ was given to the people of Israel under the Levitical order. There is a clear and marked espousing of the law and the priesthood of old. As surely as the two are bound together, any change to the Levitical Priesthood necessitates a change in the law, as verse twelve declares. The exact nature and aftereffect of that change has not yet been fully considered in this letter. That is surely to follow.

        Application: Who is injured by Christ? If we consider the reaction of Israel to Christ and His first advent, they were surely a people of great distress. Consider how they wept when Christ would not dance while they piped, nor lament while they mourned. Consider how they gnashed the teeth, and with great vehemence, as a people of injury, hurling stones at that man Stephen. Why such violence to those who heralded this message of Hebrews? Because Christ traumatized their consciences under the law.

        For when He appeared, their hopes crumbled, their righteousness perished, their labors were shown to be in vain, as weary men laboring all their lives to construct an ark sufficient to hold them from the deluge of God´s wrath. When the rain fell they found their vessel could not keep the waters out. Such is the plight of every religious man who labors in constructing a righteousness of his own. He finds that when the waters of God´s wrath come, his hopes sink. Rather than finding refuge in His righteousness, he shakes his fists at the darkened skies and curses Him to his death. For unless the God of righteousness allure him with sweet words of grace, every self-righteous man shall curse God´s righteousness to his death. O give thanks all ye saints of God that we have a lasting righteousness and righteous One who has replaced the leaky wood of that old ark behind that earthly curtain. We have a great and true High Priest, Jesus Christ the Righteous One.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kevin Hartley
kartleyk@erols.com

[ Top of Page ]

8. Maurice Bergeron

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood. (7:11a)

        If said perfection had been achieved through that family of priests there would be no need for the Christ. That is the logic of the writer and it should be understood and appreciated within the framework and mindset of these early Hebrew Christians. It is often assumed that until the coming of the Christ everything under the old economy was perfectly serving its purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What further need [was there] that another priest should rise? (7:11b)

        The need for another priest was demonstrated by the failure of the Levitical system. Over the course of their service, a great many of their number were disobedient to the commandments of that Covenant. Throughout the centuries, the people they served lived in and out of foreign bondage and at times were physically removed from the land God had given them. At one time they suffered the permanent and tragic loss of their tribes to the north. For the greater part of their history the majority of the twelve tribes of Israel were not served by the Levites nor by the Covenant established through Moses. If the twelve tribes which comprised the nation Israel had remained holy through that system, the judgement(s) of God would have been withheld.

The marks of disobedience and Jehovah's judgment was all around these Hebrew Christians even to the day they stood and heard the reading of this very letter. Rather than enjoying the blessings of an obedient people they were suffering under the curse of God brought about by centuries of continual disobedience. In their lifetimes the remaining patterns of the heavenlies would be swept away by the power of God, and unless these professing Hebrew Christians understood the work and the worth of God's Anointed in the establishment of the New, their own fate would lie in great peril. Of all the generations of Hebrews, this particular generation could see and understand the failure of the Levitical system and the coming demise of the Mosaic Covenant which they upheld.

And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God. (Deut. 8:19-20)

Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. (Isaiah 1:9)

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

For the priesthood being changed, (7:12a)

        If we, who are in Christ, would seriously consider all the ramifications of this statement and the statement that follows, there would be no need to emphasize the standing and blessings we presently possess and enjoy, for here the patterns of the heavenlies is done away with by Him who IS the reality. These Hebrew Christians did not enjoy our present vantage point brought about by the passing of time. They had to take what was then revealed and act upon it. Would you, if you were in their place, turn your back to that very present Levitical priesthood and the vestiges of the Covenant they upheld? These Hebrews were being called upon by God to take upon themselves an entirely new identity. Their eternal future lay outside the camp.

        Question: Are you mindful that the heavenly patterns shown by God to Moses were a reality already in heaven? The Levites were not copies of a future reality; they were copies of a present reality in the heavenlies. Thanks be to God that this great High Priest, Jesus, would no longer suffer the existence of the shadows.

         If any think lightly of the struggles of these early Hebrew Christians let me remind you there are many in, so called, Reformed circles who are no longer grieved by foreign typologies that emulate the Levitical system such as clergy and laity, inner and outer sanctuaries, tabernacles and altars, vestments and sacred objects. The charge of scripture is of no less importance than when given to these Hebrews. Pray that God give any who struggle with such inferior things the strength to cleave to Christ alone.

There is made of necessity a change also of the law. (7:12b)

        Essentially the writer is bluntly saying the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Covenant go hand in hand. One aspect of the covenant cannot continue without the other. Again, these words had to have had a tremendous affect upon these brethren.

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, (7:13a)

        The writer, as He moves his pen under the guidance of the Spirit of God, again cuts to the bone of the mind-set of these brethren. All of the underpinnings of their past and present existence is being carefully cut away. For them to see the Anointed as the Lamb of God, as the Suffering Servant, as the Word of God made alive, and even as King, were concepts that some had known and expected, but to have Him now revealed and fully displayed as a High Priest who originated from a "foreign" source had to have impacted them greatly.

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind? (John 10:17-21)

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. (Heb. 2:10)

...of which no man gave attendance at the altar. (7:13b)

        No one had ever before served this altar which our King-Priest Jesus serves. No one in eternity past and no one in eternity future has or ever will serve that altar other than our King Jesus. God dare not entrust our care into the hands of any other. We should take great comfort in these truths.

        When I was a school boy I served before a humanly constructed altar. The priest with whom I served presented their bloodless sacrifices which had no effect. Such priests may even plead before their man-made tabernacles on behalf of other men, but whatever they do, they do not serve as the Levites did, before genuine copies (of the original) in heaven. Moses gave these men no commandment to serve. Their priesthood is nothing more than imaginary. Along with these Hebrew Christians of old they must see and understand that God's Christ is the end of all shadows and types. He is the end of all copies. It is for them to lay aside their priestly garments and to walk in truth.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Tim. 2:5)

Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fullness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High: And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. (Psalm 50:7-15)

Maurice Bergeron
ic@mdc.net

[ Top of Page ]

Go to Chapter Seven Verses 14 through 19
Hebrews Home Page | Heb Rules Page | Sound of Grace
A Friends of John Bunyan Internet Project

Copyright 1998 Sound of Grace
Hebrews Online Project