Hebrews 7.19
Meat
March 9th 2014
Welcome, welcome.
Well, we are streaming this sermon live and out to any and all who want to do church with us from their home.
Please let people you know who are homebound that they can watch church – participate with us in everything we do here from the quiet of their own home if they are having trouble getting out.
It’s a perfect set-up for the bed-ridden, the homebound, the anti-social and the misanthropic.
So welcome those far and near.
What we do here is open with prayer, then go into singing the word of God put to music.
Once this ends we sit in silent, prayful reflection for a few minutes, and then when we come back we go into our verse by verse study – we are in Hebrews chapter seven beginning at verse twelve.
So let’s pray.
Music
Silence.
Okay . . . how long has it been? Two weeks since we covered Hebrews. Well we’re back.
Three weeks ago we covered the person or personage named Melchizedek, who we recall was an amazing type and picture of Christ and a figure who bore a special priesthood that was not anything like the Levitical priesthood that came after His appearance in Genesis.
In verse 11 of chapter seven, if fact, the writer of Hebrews asks:
“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?”
This takes us to our text for today, where the writer continues at verse twelve and says:
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.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
The point the writer of Hebrews seems to be making is to show that Jesus Christ, a priest after the order of this curious Old Testament Priest and King Melchizedek, was a far better Priest and King than anything the Levitical priesthood had or could offer.
So . . . after talking about Melchizedek (who I firmly believe was a pre-incarnate figure picturing the Messiah and NOT a real human being) he asks:
“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?”
In other words, if people could reach perfection through the Levitical priesthood (meaning through the Law because it was through the Levitical priesthood that the Law came) then there was no reason whatsoever for “another high priest (Jesus Christ) to appear (after the order of Melchizedek).
Then the writer makes a point, saying:
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
In other words, since the Levitical priesthood brought with it the Law of Moses, and since this priesthood has been changed (or maybe we could say upended . . . done away with) by a better priesthood, then there must by necessity, be a change in the Law!
This is such a vital part of Christianity it is frequently brought up by writers of the epistles – particularly Paul.
And so in the next number of verses the writer proceeds to show that there has been a priestly change (and therefore a change in the law).
Had the Levitical priesthood – with all it was involved with and all that it demanded – including things of the Law – been able to perfect man, then it would never have been up-ended by another priesthood heralded by another better, permanent high priest, even Jesus.
The argument is to then show that there had been a change or transfer of the priestly office from the Levites (and particularly, through Aarons line) to another, even Jesus Christ. And speaking of Jesus the writer continue (in verse 13) saying:
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
For the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, to whom we have been talking about belonged to “another tribe,” (meaning He was not from Aaron nor a Levite) and we know that no man has ever come from another tribe who “gave attendance” or worked at the altar.
The writer brings up a point here where there can be no historical or scriptural dispute – no one of the tribe Jesus came from had EVER had any part in the performance of the Levitical duties.
(verse 14)
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Come guys – it’s a well known fact – Jesus came out of the tribe of Judah – no priestly duties there.
But here’s the interesting thing. Any studied Jew knew that the promised Messiah was SUPPOSED to come from the Tribe of Judah.
And with this being the case, it was obvious that something had to happen with the Levitical priesthood once the only true Messiah showed up on the scene.
Let me put it another way:
When Jacob blessed his sons this is what he said in Genesis 49 (beginning at verse eight) about his son Judah:
8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before thee.
9 Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh (the Messiah) come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Going to Isaiah 11:1 a studied Jew would have read:
1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse (tribe of Judah), and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
In Micah 5:2 they would have read:
“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
Add in the fact that they would have known (from Psalm 110:4) that the promised Messiah was supposed to be “a of priest after the order of Melchizedek,” (BUT from the tribe of Judah) and we have some sort of an obvious change that was to take place between the Levitical priesthood and that the promised Messiah (coming out of Judah) who would come into play thereafter.
It is intriguing that the Jews today admit that the promised Messiah must come from the tribe of Judah.
What is also intriguing is that they have no way of really knowing who comes from what tribe (due to the destruction of genealogies in and around 70 AD) and so they are relying on the fact that the promised Messiah will somehow be able to prove His tribe when He comes.
The writer of Hebrews is trying to show them this “promised “priest from that prophesied tribe has already come, and therefore there has been a change from the way things were done under the Levitical order to this new administration under this new High Priest.
When we think about it, this distinction is the difference between all modern-Christian religious appeal and those who are in the Body of Christ by virtue of a direct relationship with Our King and High Priest Jesus Christ.
From what I can tell, ANYTHING that smacks of the former religion instead of the New Relationship ignores what the writer of Hebrews is saying here.
And it is SO easy to slip back into the ways and means of the former administration isn’t it?
Our flesh – which is the system (so to speak) by which the former or Levitical system operated by – is always trying to get in there and establish itself.
In so many ways managing by the ways and means of the flesh is . . . shall we say, easier.
A little rule here, a little role there, an ordinance that seems to corral people into a collective makes sense, doesn’t it? How about a hierarchy of authorities in the church? We need it to “do church right” right?
This snowball always rolls downhill, and it always gets bigger.
So the writer of Hebrews is attempting to illustrate to these Hebrew converts to Christ to avoid looking back (after having put their hand to the plow) . . . to instead look forward to the author and finisher of the faith (Christ Jesus) AS the author and finisher of the faith, and to avoid, “having begun in the Spirit, to think or pursue fleshly attempts at perfection through the former, lesser admin.
He continues his argument, saying in verse 15-17
15 And it is yet far more evident (that there should be a change in this priesthood): for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, (speaking of Jesus Christ) (16) Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. (17) For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
It is even more evident, is it not, that there would be a change from the Levitical priest admin to another because another priest would rise after the order of this Melchizedek (the promised Messiah) who would come, as prophesied, from the tribe of Judah . . .
(beat)
. . . and this High Priest was made not after the law of carnal (or fleshly commands) – meaning, His ordination did not come through fleshly ordinances and genealogies but . . .(the writer says) “after the order of an endless life.”
This is an important point friends – in many ways.
First, the writer is telling us that the New High Priest, who was NOT a Levite after the flesh but was after the order of Melchizedek which was . . . an order of an endless life and NOT one based in flesh.
I would strongly suggest that it would be impossible for Melchizedek, the predecessor to the Messiah to have been a living breathing human because he would not have possessed the power of an endless life.
Secondly, and in conjunction with this view, the Messiah, did not become the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek through fleshly transference or laying on of hands but was after the order by the fact that He brought with Him this high priesthood from an “endless life.”
In other words the high priesthood the Messiah bore would always exist, spiritually, and did not need to be bestowed on Him.
Additionally, because it did not need to ever be bestowed on Him (remember, He came AFTER the ORDER of Melchizedek, who too had no father or mother or beginning or ending of days) it would never be transferred to any other!
It was an unchangeable priesthood, not needing to be passed to another due to the death of the flesh.
A VERY different priestly administration from the Levitical they were looking over their shoulders and reconsidering going back to.
Let’s stop (Again) and ask – why?
What was causing these converted Jews – who were born-again, were in the body, and were (apparently at some point and at least in some cases) to “go back” to the supposed benefits and comforts of the formers admin?
Ready?
Loss of faith.
Faithlessness.
Losing faith in the author and finisher to see them through.
Through what?
Trials.
Difficulties.
You see, here is the application to us as we read what the writer of Hebrews is facing with the Hebrew converts.
Times were really getting tough on these converts. They had received Christ. They had accepted Him as the Messiah and they were willing to walk from the structure and safety of the former administration of Judaism and into a living, open, grace-filled relationship with the King.
But the heat was turning up in Jerusalem and round-about. And the very faith they once claimed and lived by was waning – in the face of trials and persecution.
Maybe, like their forefathers of old, they were looking back to their days under the Law, when everything was mandated through physical action and appeals, and they were longing for the family get-togethers, and the celebrations, and the days of the week, and the implementation of law . . . over this, this uncertain life of, yes, freedom, but of having to really trust that God would truly handle everything.
(beat)
We see it today too, don’t we. We experience it. Some of us have too come from lives under a different administration – lives of law, structure, certainty and family unity.
And we have stepped out and said, “Lord Jesus, take my life.”
And then life goes on. And we watch people and family continue on under the former administration. And they seem happy. And they are not experiencing the challenges you are. And we wonder:
“Did I choose right?”
Maybe even . . . “should I . . . go back?”
All the while, due to trials, forgetting the superiority of our Great High Priest who IS . . . mindful of us, and our every need, and will see us through . . . if we let Him.
This is what the writer is trying to convey.
“Don’t go back to priests of man who are constantly changing because of death and age, hang onto the One who has the power of an endless life.
In the King James the next verse (18) is a mouthful as it says:
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
In essence he is repeating the message that the priesthood they are thinking of re-embracing is now abrogated or changed.
Paul puts it this way to the Galatians, saying in Galatians 4:9-11:
“But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.”
One Bible translation puts verse 18 this way:
“For there is an annulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and uselessness.”
Now, there is a debate, interestingly enough, on what the writer means by “commandment” when he speaks of being disannulled.
Under the Law of Moses, and the Levitical priesthood, there are a few ways we could see “the commandment” or “the Law.”
Most commentators are very quick to repetitively remind readers that when the writer is speaking of the law or the “disannulling of the commandment” it is ONLY speaking of the ceremonial aspects of the Law and NOT the moral law.
In other words, and I find it ironic when we consider what the writer is trying to accomplish here, that many Christians today are terrified that the idea might be thought that in Christ the moral law
(thou shall, thou shalt not) be included in this disannulling of the commandment.
So let’s take a minute as examine this.
When the writer is speaking of the disannulling of the commandment, of the law, what does he mean?
Again, most religionists, and a majority of pastors and even scholars will suggest strongly that this only means a disannulling of the ceremonial aspects of the law – the sacrifices, the washings, the temple rituals – but does not include the moral aspects of the Law.
Maybe we can first examine – quickly – what “Law” is and what it means.
Law means a rule of “action.” I want to point that out because Law does not govern the heart of man but his actions.
I could, under the auspices of being a law-abiding citizen, think and desire all manner of evil. I could be full of disbelief, hatred from God and man, and be considered a law-abiding citizen if my actions were compliant to the demands of the law.
This element ought to play out into our understanding of what parts of the Law have been disannulled in the lives of those who have received Christ as the author and finisher of their faith.
Now, scripture brings out a number of different laws and commandments along with a number of different (sort of) administrations of these laws.
First, there is “the Law of Nature.”
We might liken this to the will of God made known to all human-kind by conscience or natural light.
Romans 1:20 speaks of it saying:
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”
I am not so sure this natural law ever leaves us – even as believers. But it always seems to be present, sort of like a moral basement in hearts and minds of all men and women.
Relativists deny its existence, citing the Aboriginals and their willingness to kill eat other, etc., but Romans 1 seems to disagree, saying instead we all have it and are therefore “without excuse” before God.
When talking about non-Jews, Romans again makes it clear that this “Law of Nature” is, in fact present among the gentiles, saying in Romans 2:14-15:
“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.”
Now, while I think this Law of Nature always abides – even in born-again Christians – I would simultaneously suggest that it too, is abrogated by the presence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit made possible by the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
That word – abrogated – to set aside, even disannul BY THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT . . . which moves us into a deeper level of existence relative to God’s rules of action.
For example, by Natural Law a people might rightly view an eye for an eye as of God and be right. But the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, in my opinion, abrogates this natural law and moves the possessor to another (higher) level of action . . . one that might just say, “forgive.”
Biblically speaking, there is then what we have been calling the Ceremonial Law – which, again, prescribe Old Testament rites and ceremonies of worship under the Law of Moses.
This element of “law” was obviously obligatory only till Christ as everything they did typified of Him and His life and being.
We might say that this aspect of law was fulfilled rather than abrogated by Him.
This is why the writer of Hebrews says in
Heb 7:11 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?
And Hebrews 10:1 says:
“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.”
The Bible also speaks of Judicial Law, which directed the civil policy of the Hebrew nation.
Did Christ fulfill or abrogate this law? Only in His kingdom. He obeyed and complied to judicial law as the Messiah and I suppose could have overcome it by forcing all to love each other, but that was not the case, so I am of the opinion that while judicial law may or may not continue on earth today, or manifests inself in a whole plethora of ways, believers completely comply to their edicts but personally live by something better when and if possible.
Often we see believers attempting to apply biblical judicial law to the nation and state today. Often they do this in Jesus name, citing the Bible to justify their views on every matter under the sun.
I do NOT see our Savior and King doing this while on earth, but instead complying with laws that fit the will of the Father, and suffering for those that did not.
This is the key. Christians obey the laws of the land unless those laws conflict with the Christian faith. If a conflict is present, I am of the opinion that Christians then suffer (in Christ’s name) by refusing to comply to laws that are in contradistinction to the faith but do not “fight them.”
Our kingdom is not of this world.
Then we get to the biggie – what we call The Moral Law.
Frankly this is a huge topic – with many nuances and things to consider – and with A LOT of passages to include.
But let’s just try and make a pass at it all and see if we can get a general idea of the place of the moral law in the life of believers.
Let’s begin with the Ten Commandments. The “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots.”
The question is often asked, “Are Christians commanded to obey the Ten Commandments?”
We could respond to this by saying:
“Well of course they are!” OR “Not at all,” and be right in both cases.
The key, from my estimation, is found in the fulfillment of the Law by Christ.
In other words, as believers and followers of Christ, who fulfilled the Moral Law (and not just the legislative nor the ceremonial) in and through the life He lived and gave, the “Big Ten” take on new meaning, new definition, and are no longer written in stone to be placed before our eyes (or in our schools) but are written on the human heart.
All we have to do is read what Jesus said about the Ten and we understand. Remember? Go to Matthew 5.
21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
So, to put the ten commandments in front of our faces and say, “Yes, we live by this,” is true but only in the sense a believer would never kill his neighbor.
But at the same time to put the moral law in front of our face and esteem our moral standing as sound by compliance is all-together wrong and so in this sense we would never say we live BY the Big Ten.
In other words, to place the ten before us is to use them as a measuring stick – and Jesus expects far MORE from us than compliance with the moral Law written in stone.
So I emphatically say no, we do NOT live by the Law as believers . . . we live by something far more demanding – love, which is the fulfillment of the law.
The Epistle to Galatia is one giant treatise on the Law (in my opinion it includes the moral law) and says some significant things about it relative to the Christian walk.
Consider . . .
Galatians 3:1-14 where Paul writes:
1 “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 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.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Then jump down to verses 21-26, where Paul continues saying:
Galatians 3:21-26 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
So . . .
While we know that the Law – judicial, ceremonial, and moral – given by God to the Nation of Israel is “perfect”
(Psalm 19:7), “perpetual” (Matthew 5:17-18), “holy” (Romans 7:12), “good,” and “spiritual” (Romans 7:14) it cannot perfect humankind because humankind is so “imperfect,” so unperpetual, unholy, bad and carnal.”
?
This causes Paul to say in Romans 4:15
“Because the law works wrath: but where no law is, there is no transgression.”
So, by removing the ceremonial, judicial, and (that’s right) the MORAL law from our lives, and in faith looking to Christ as the author and finisher, we find ourselves freed from condemnation and guilt and wrath, and and and! . . . then open and willing and desiring to love as He loved.
This is such a frightening perspective for even some of the best Christians (so to speak) they, like the Hebrews being addressed here in the epistle to the Hebrews, typically revert in some way or measure back . . . to the law.
This causes the writer to explain in verse 18 of Hebrews 7 that there was a “disannulling of the commandment that came to his audience before” due to the . . .
“weakness and unprofitableness thereof.”
Again, “weak and unprofitable” not in and of itself (any more than God Himself is weak and unprofitable) but the power and glory of both the Law of God (and God Himself) don’t have much of an effect when presented to fallen man – they only prove how bad man is.
This brings us to our final verse of the day (19) where the writer says:
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
No part of God’s law could produce a perfect state in fallen Man “but” the writer adds, making his case for Christ, “but the bringing in of a better hope did,” (there’s that word better again the writer often appeals to) BY the which (meaning Jesus) “we draw nigh unto God.”
QUESTIONS
PRAYER
