Hebrews SEVEN Kit Culver

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Administrator

Welcome new Members, we are not fully set up, but starting up now

Posts: 4,139

Hebrews SEVEN Kit Culver Aug 31, 2023 11:14:59 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:14:59 GMT -5

5. Though the writer spoke directly to his readers about issues pertaining to them
and their circumstance and challenges to their faith, his words reach beyond them
to speak to every Christian reader in every generation. For the things his audience
faced as first-century Jewish disciples of Jesus are things that, in general terms at
least, every Christian faces. Regression in one’s faith because of negligence is an
ever-present danger for believers, and everyone who claims Jesus’ name must
take seriously their obligation to endure all things in patient faith and strive
without compromise to grow up in Him. Complete Christiformity is the destiny
appointed for every one of God’s children, and this is the goal toward which the
Spirit is working. To stray from this mindset and pursuit is to grieve the Spirit,
and, in the case of those who fall away from the Messiah, to quench the Spirit
altogether. This is true regardless of whether a Christian is Jewish or Gentile, or
what century or culture he or she inhabits.
The writer’s instruction in this parenthesis profits all Christian readers because the
challenges of faith and faithfulness are universal. But it’s also profitable in that it
provides important insight into how he, a first-century Jewish disciple, perceived
the “Christ event” in relation to Israel’s history as God’s covenant people. His
perspective is crucially important, first because it was the Spirit’s perspective, if
indeed his epistle is inspired and canonical. But it’s also important in that it
contributes to the perspectives provided by Paul, Peter, John, James and the other
apostolic witnesses to Jesus – witnesses, who, by Jesus’ own acknowledgment,
would testify of Him through the illumination and leading of His Spirit (John
14:25-26, 15:26-16:15; cf. Acts 2). And when the Hebrews writer’s perspective is
set alongside the other New Testament writings, it’s clear that his understanding
of Jesus’ person and work and its outcome and fruit perfectly accords with the
other witnesses. At the same time, his contribution is indispensable because of
how thoroughly it addresses the promise-fulfillment correspondence between the
Christ event and the Israelite history grounded in Abraham.
It’s from this perspective of Jesus the Messiah as the fulfillment of Israel and its
history as God’s covenant people that the writer sets out His superiority to God’s
angelic servants, Moses, and Aaron. He is superior to them because He embodies
in His person and work what they prefigured. He is the substance of which they –
and everyone and everything pertaining to Israel’s covenant life with God – were
the shadow (cf. 8:1-6, 10:1-22 with Colossians 2:16-17). This same form of
superiority underlies the writer’s association of Jesus and His priesthood with
Melchizedek. As with Moses and Aaron, he related Melchizedek to Jesus as
promise to fulfillment, but the amount of space he devoted to discussing this
relationship indicates that he regarded it as especially important (5:1-7:28). And
the balance of the epistle demonstrates this, and shows why it’s the case: Jesus as
the fulfillment of Melchizedek is fundamental to the superiority of His status, His
priesthood, His mediation, and His covenant. The writer could not make his
argument regarding those things without addressing the relationship God ordained
between Melchizedek and Jesus, His ultimate and supreme King-Priest.
122
Jesus’ relationship to Melchizedek is foundational to numerous matters of
promise and fulfillment, but in terms of chapter seven, the writer focused on Levi
and the priesthood associated with him. He first argued that Jesus is superior to
Levi himself (7:1-10), and then that his priesthood is superior to Levi’s (7:11-28).
The writer previously legitimized Jesus’ priesthood by showing that it came about
in the same way as Aaron’s did. Though He is a priest of a different order, His
priesthood doesn’t deviate from or usurp God’s will and design for a priestly
order and ministration. Yahweh, the God of Israel, called and ordained the man
Jesus, just as He did Aaron (5:1-7).
Jesus’ priesthood and priestly ministration carry the same divine ordination and
sanction as Aaron’s, but He is a high priest of an entirely different order, which
implies one two scenarios: Either the two priesthoods coincide with some sort of
shared authority and ministration, or Jesus’ priesthood has, in some sense,
supplanted or replaced the former Aaronic order. In fact, the writer insists that the
latter has replaced the former – not by abrogation or usurpation, but fulfillment.
Jesus’ priesthood is the substance of which Aaron’s was the prefiguring shadow.
The Levitical priesthood and its ministration have passed away because they have
fulfilled their preparatory and prophetic purpose in the salvation history that has
now reached its apex and destiny in the person and work of Jesus the Messiah.
This is the way the writer understood Jesus’ superiority to Aaron and the Levitical
priesthood, and he made his argument in chapter seven along two lines, both of
which stand on the premise that Jesus is the fulfillment of Melchizedek: The first
is a scriptural argument for Melchizedek’s superiority over Levi (in whom the
Levitical/Aaronic priesthood was established and localized), and the second is a
covenantal and historical argument for the superiority of Jesus’ Melchizedekian
priesthood and its covenant ministration over the Levitical counterpart.
Again, the essential foundation of the writer’s argument is that Melchizedek
served a prototypical role in the salvation history. Even though the Old Testament
has little to say about him as an historical figure, it does underscore his significant
place in the messianic revelation disclosed and developed through Israel’s history.
- The early Christians understood this and made much of the MelchizedekMessiah connection to support their claim that Messiah Jesus is enthroned
as a high priest according to a different priestly order (hence Psalm 110 is
the most frequently referenced Old Testament text in the New Testament).
- This claim obviously undermined Judaism and the Temple and its priestly
ministration, and so Jews very early in the Christian era recognized the
need to answer the claim that Melchizedek represented a different priestly
order. Their answer wasn’t to deny Torah’s statement that Melchizedek
was “priest of God Most High” (Genesis 14:18), but to place him within
the Levitical priestly structure. They accomplished this by developing the
doctrine that Melchizedek was actually Noah’s son Shem.
123
This has been a traditional Jewish view since at least the second century, and is
almost certainly the reason the Hebrew Masoretic Text (the oldest extant copy
dates to about the 10th century) contains an altered reading of Shem’s genealogy
in Genesis 11; this allows Shem to still be alive during Abraham’s lifetime.
Because the Masoretic reading is reflected in virtually all English versions of the
Old Testament, most Christians have no idea that there is a different Hebrew
reading. But three sources – the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the
first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, all of which interacted with
Hebrew texts that predate the Masoretic Text – all agree on a genealogy that has
Shem dying long before Abraham’s birth (which is far more plausible than the
claim that Shem survived into the ninth generation of his descendents).
A simple alteration of Shem’s genealogy, then, allows him to become a
contemporary of Abraham, which is essential to the claim that he was
Melchizedek, given Genesis 14:18-20. That claim, in turn, served at least two
important purposes in countering Christian teaching about Jesus as the Messiah:
1) First, it answered the early and relatively common Christian view that
Melchizedek represents a christophany (a pre-incarnate manifestation of
the second person of the Trinity). It does so by negating the Hebrews
writer’s assertion that Melchizedek was “without father and mother,
without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (7:3),
which was (and is) fundamental to the christophany view. A larger effect
of this negation is that it brings the epistle itself into question; if the writer
was wrong about Melchizedek, and his view of Melchizedek was central
to his claims concerning Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, then there’s no reason
to trust and believe anything he said about Him.
2) But perhaps more importantly to a Torah Jew, making Melchizedek Shem
solves the immense problem for Jewish faith and practice of a new, nonLevitical priesthood, since Shem was the ancestor of Levi. The argument,
then, is that Shem, the forefather of the Hebrew people, transferred the
priesthood to Abraham, who then passed it down through Isaac and Jacob
to Levi and then to Aaron. Thus Melchizedek didn’t represent a new, postLevitical priesthood, but the origin of the permanent Levitical priesthood.
The point of the above consideration is simply to show how important the person
of Melchizedek is to biblical messianism. Jesus Himself testified to that (ref.
Matthew 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44), as did the Hebrews author
and the apostolic witnesses who argued Jesus’ messiahship from Psalm 110 (ref.
Acts 2:1-36, in addition to the synoptic citations above; cf. also Acts 5:30-31,
7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:28-2:6; Colossians 3:1). The New Testament
writings show that the person of Melchizedek was a key part of Christian witness
to Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, and this is the reason he was an issue in the Jews’
efforts to refute Christian claims and their use of the Jewish Scriptures.

Last Edit: Aug 31, 2023 11:15:32 GMT -5 by Admin

Admin
Administrator

Welcome new Members, we are not fully set up, but starting up now

Posts: 4,139

Hebrews SEVEN Kit Culver Aug 31, 2023 11:16:44 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:16:44 GMT -5

b. After providing a brief portrait of Melchizedek based on the Genesis
account, the writer turned to the matter of his personal greatness (7:4-10).
Once again he drew from the brief account of Melchizedek’s encounter
with Abraham (Genesis 14:17-20), this time to make the case for
Melchizedek’s superiority over the covenant patriarch. But he did so with
a more significant issue in view, namely the superiority of Melchizedek’s
priesthood over its Levitical (Aaronic) counterpart (7:11ff). His approach
was two-fold: First, he used the Genesis account to show Melchizedek’s
preeminence relative to Abraham, and then he drew an inference from
their encounter to assert the priest-king’s superiority over Levi.
The way the writer demonstrated Melchizedek’s superiority over Abraham
was by noting two features of the episode involving the two men. The first
was Abraham’s gift of a tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek, and the second
was Melchizedek’s blessing bestowed upon the patriarch. His rationale
was that both actions speak to the concept of a greater and a lesser person,
and both affirmed Melchizedek’s superiority. Most importantly, this
superiority focused on priestly status and function.
- The writer saw in Abraham’s “tithe” to the priest-king a
foreshadow of the tithes paid by the Israelites to the Levitical
priests (Numbers 18:21ff), indicating that he believed the same
priest-worshipper dynamic was present with Abraham’s offering.
- The same foreshadowing dynamic existed with Melchizedek’s
blessing: It anticipated God’s commission of Aaron and his
priestly sons to be the agents of His blessing upon His people (cf.
Numbers 6:22-27; Deuteronomy 21:5; 2 Chronicles 30).
In Israel’s covenant life, tithes were paid by the lesser to the greater, and
blessings were bestowed upon the lesser by the greater (7:7). And though
priests weren’t the only ones who bestowed blessing, the priesthood is the
issue of superiority here; the priests received the people’s tithes, and they
pronounced God’s blessing upon them. This is the perspective behind the
writer’s argument, and these Hebrew readers understood and shared it.
Melchizedek was superior to Abraham as God’s priest, but this wasn’t the
writer’s main concern. Again, his goal was to demonstrate the superiority
of his priesthood over its Levitical counterpart. Both Melchizedek and
Aaron (and his priestly sons) served the Most High God as priests, but not
with equal status or ultimacy. Melchizedek’s priesthood preceded Aaron’s,
and, in a certain sense, anticipated it, and yet Aaron’s priesthood was
inferior. Though it came later in history and built on the foundation of
Melchizedek’s priesthood, Aaron’s priesthood actually prefigured and
prepared for Melchizedek’s – not as that priesthood had existed with
Melchizedek himself, but as it looked to another priest of the same order.
127
The second part of the writer’s argument was his primary point in this
section, namely the relationship between Melchizedek and Levi. And his
concern with that relationship looked beyond it to the priesthoods and
priestly ministrations each of the two men represented. The main line of
his reasoning is that both Levi and his priesthood (which originated with
Levi’s descendent Aaron) were grounded in Abraham, and specifically
God’s covenant relationship with him. On the other hand, Melchizedek
wasn’t related to Abraham, and his priesthood predated the Levitical
counterpart that flowed from the Abrahamic Covenant. In a word,
Melchizedek was priest of a different order (5:5-10, 6:17-20, 7:11-17).
As noted above, the writer made his case concerning Melchizedek and
Levi by means of an inference drawn from Abraham’s “tithe” of the spoils
of his conquest (Genesis 14:20), and the way such offerings operated in
Israel’s experience as the Abrahamic covenant household. He started from
the premise that tithes are paid by the lesser individual to the greater one,
which implies that the Levitical priests enjoyed a preeminence over the
people of Israel, though both were equally covenant children of Abraham.
Levi thus was superior to his brethren, in that God appointed his offspring
to collect the tithes from all of Abraham’s other children (7:5). Levi
enjoyed priestly preeminence over the rest of Abraham’s household, but
the fact that he, too, was a child of Abraham established his inferiority to
Melchizedek. The writer demonstrated this through three considerations:
1) First is the fact that Melchizedek wasn’t part of Abraham’s family;
if he were, he couldn’t possess priestly superiority over Levi, since
God granted that superiority to Levi with respect to the entire
Abrahamic household. Abrahamic descent would have afforded
Melchizedek only two possibilities: shared priestly preeminence
with the Levites (if he was one of them), or the obligation to pay
tithes to them as inferior to them. But Melchizedek wasn’t related
to Abraham, which opened the possibility that he (and his
priesthood) could be superior to Levi as God’s priest.
2) Secondly, because Levi was a descendent of Abraham, he was
implicated in Abraham’s offering to Melchizedek. In the writer’s
words, Levi was in Abraham’s loins when he met Melchizedek, so
that he participated in the tithe and the blessing; Levi gave the
tenth to God’s priest-king and received his blessing (7:9-10).
3) Finally, Levi’s descent from Abraham meant that he shared the
patriarch’s mortality. So Levi’s priestly offspring enjoyed their
preeminence as mortal men, binding the Levitical priesthood to a
fundamental transience (7:8a). But whereas those priests held their
priesthood for a season, Melchizedek never passed his along. In
that sense, he “lived on” as a permanent priest (7:8b; cf. 7:23-25).

Admin
Administrator

Welcome new Members, we are not fully set up, but starting up now

Posts: 4,139

Hebrews SEVEN Kit Culver Aug 31, 2023 11:17:55 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:17:55 GMT -5

The writer’s reason for establishing Melchizedek’s superiority over Abraham and
Levi had nothing to do with those two men per se, but with what they represented.
Though Abraham enjoyed the unique preeminence of being God’s chosen
instrument for accomplishing His work of creational renewal, Melchizedek
transcended him. Their interaction in the King’s Valley, set in the context of
Abram’s astonishing triumph as God’s covenant man, suggested that his singular
greatness in God’s purposes was overarched by the greatness and ministration of
another – one who himself was unique as God’s king-priest. God had established
His covenant with Abram, but He affirmed and blessed that relationship through
His regal priest, a man whose priesthood and priestly distinction existed outside
the covenant with Abram, and yet affirmed it and served its ends. This dynamic is
key to the way the writer viewed Melchizedek’s superiority over Levi, and so also
the superiority of his priesthood. This is the subject of the balance of chapter 7.
This passage is dense and multifaceted, but in an organic way. Thus it cannot be
neatly partitioned into logical or thematic elements. But it does follow a certain
flow, arguing from the general to the specific, and this allows it to be treated in
two sections. The first section deals with the general relationship between the
Levitical and Melchizedekian priesthoods and the covenants associated with them
(7:11-19), while the second looks more closely at the differences between the two
priesthoods and the priestly men who administer them (7:20-28).
c. The fundamental thesis in the first section is that there exists an intrinsic
relationship between the Sinai Covenant and the Levitical priesthood. In
the writer’s words, it was on the basis of this priesthood that Israel
received the Law (i.e., the covenant at Sinai; 7:11). Specifically, God
ordained the Levitical priesthood to mediate His covenant relationship
with Israel, both in terms of instruction and remediation. The Law of
Moses bound Israel to Yahweh as covenant son to covenant Father, and
this Father-son relationship (which the Law defined and prescribed) was to
be administered and upheld by a priestly system. Israel’s priests stood
between God and His people, and their ministration – Godward and
manward – was vital to the covenant relationship and its continuance.
The reason this was the case is that the covenant bound together estranged
entities. It established a Father-son relationship, but one that was only
defined and prescribed, not actually realized. Israel was Yahweh’s son in
name only – a people elected to sonship (in Abraham) and commanded to
fulfill their election on behalf of the world, yet unable to do so. God had
covenanted with unbelieving and unfaithful people incapable of loving
Him, and only a mediating priestly system could hold things together. But
even so, this system couldn’t solve the problem it was ordained to address,
for the mediators themselves shared the same estrangement from God as
those they interceded for. So far from bringing together Father and son in
the intimate communion the Law prescribed, Israel’s priests only
perpetuated – and even exacerbated – the alienation between them.
129
Thus the Sinai Covenant (Law of Moses) had the Levitical priesthood as
its foundational premise; indeed, the writer recognized that this priestly
system was absolutely essential. There could be no covenant relationship
between Yahweh and Abraham’s descendents without some mediating
agency, because such a relationship demanded that the alienation existing
between them be managed and mitigated.
The existence and continuance of a covenant relationship between God
and Israel depended on a system of mediation, but this is not to say that
the Levitical priesthood – which God Himself ordained and defined –
brought success to the covenant relationship. In fact, the Hebrews writer
argued for just the opposite, and he pointed to Melchizedek and the
promise of Psalm 110 to make his case. Psalm 110 promised a future
priest-king according to the order of Melchizedek, and this promise was
sufficient in itself to prove the impermanence and imperfection of the
Levitical priesthood, and so also the covenant it oversaw. His logic was
simple and straightforward:
If God intended “perfection” to come through the Levitical priesthood
(“perfection” being the realization of a perfect relationship between
Himself and Abraham’s offspring as defined and prescribed by the
covenant), then why would He promise another priest according to an
entirely different priestly order?
The writer proposed this perfect outcome as a hypothetical, but with the
understanding that what he proposed was contrary to fact – God hadn’t
intended the Levitical priesthood to be the instrument of covenant
perfection. Indeed, the mere fact that He promised a new priestly order
proved that the old order was “imperfect.” But it wasn’t imperfect in the
sense of being misconceived, malformed, or misdirected; rather, it was
non-ultimate. God ordained and devised the Levitical priestly ministration,
and it was absolutely perfect according to its design. But it was designed
to be preparatory, and thus impermanent; God never intended that it would
actually bring to pass that which it attested and served. The Levitical
priestly system was a signifier that pointed forward to a counterpart that is
ultimate and effectual, and therefore everlasting: a priesthood and
ministration represented in the salvation history by Melchizedek.
But the promise of a new priestly order carried an even more significant
implication: Because the Sinai Covenant was founded on the Levitical
priesthood, the passing of that priesthood and its ministration meant the
passing away of the covenant itself; a new priesthood would bring about a
new covenant. This is what the writer meant by the phrase, “change of
law” (7:12). He wasn’t talking about a new legal code or set of precepts
and commandments, but a new Torah: a new definition and administration
of covenant relationship between God and His human image-bearers.
130
The Hebrews writer recognized that a new and distinct priestly order
implies a new and distinct covenant, but this conclusion was more than
merely a logical inference. It’s substantiated by the nature of this new
priesthood – specifically the fact that it is a regal priesthood. It is a
ministration in which kingship and priesthood are merged together, and
not for a season, but everlastingly. This is the preeminent reason that this
new priesthood necessarily ended the previous covenant and inaugurated a
new one; the Sinai Covenant overtly and absolutely precluded the idea of a
priest-king. This the subject of verses 12-17.
The Sinai Covenant (Law of Moses) ratified with Abraham’s descendents
the covenant relationship God had established with Abram himself (cf.
Genesis 15 with Exodus 3:1-17, 6:1-8). Thus the Law of Moses interacted
with Israel according to its Abrahamic origin and structure as twelve tribes
descended from Jacob. (Jacob was the progenitor of the nation of Israel as
the man Israel; cf. Genesis 32:24-28, 35:9-26). And part of God’s ordering
of Israel was His ordination of distinct tribes to fulfill Israel’s priestly and
regal functions as His elect image-son. The priestly function was assigned
to Levi (ref. Numbers 1:47-53, 3:5-12, also 26:52-59), while the regal one
was assigned to Judah. The covenant specified Levi as the priestly tribe,
but it was Jacob who identified the kingly tribe when, centuries earlier, he
blessed his sons just before his death (Genesis 49:1-10). Jacob’s
pronouncement that the scepter belonged to Judah stood intact throughout
the succeeding generations, even after Israel received the covenant at Sinai
and entered the land, until at last the nation became a monarchy and
Judah’s descendent David assumed the throne (1 Chronicles 2:1-15).
Thus the Law of Moses established an unbridgeable chasm between the
kingship and priesthood in Israel. No Israelite could ever hold the title of
king-priest, for it’s impossible to be descended from two brothers. God
reinforced this distinction by punishing those who sought to blur or ignore
it. King Saul and King Uzziah both usurped the priestly function, and both
paid dearly for it (ref. 1 Samuel 13:5-14; 2 Chronicles 26:1-21). The
notable (and sole) exception to this was David, whose priestly ministration
as Yahweh’s king was acceptable to Him because of his unique
significance. David was the great prototype of the coming Messiah, and so
it was necessary that he enthrone Yahweh on Mount Zion as a priest-king
(2 Samuel 6), because this was the way his messianic descendent would
establish God’s everlasting reign.
The Law separated the kingship and the priesthood, and thus the Hebrews
writer insisted that Jesus’ priesthood, as a descendent of Judah, necessarily
existed outside of, and even contradicted, the Sinai Covenant under which
He was born (7:13-14; cf. 8:1-4). If He was indeed a priest, then He was a
priest of a different order, and a new priestly order indicated the end of the
former order and the covenant it supported and administered.
131
Jesus, the descendent of Judah, is a priest, and therefore a priest who is not
of the Levitical order. The obvious difference in His priesthood is that it
merges together the regal and priestly offices and functions. This is
evident from Jesus’ genealogy, but also from the fact that this priestly
order has its prototype in Melchizedek, God’s archetypal king-priest.
David’s priestly actions and prophetic words (Psalm 110) hinted at this
merging, especially when viewed through the lens of the covenant God
made with him (2 Samuel 7). But it was Zechariah’s prophecy hundreds of
years later that explicitly declared God’s intent to bring the kingship and
priesthood together in David’s messianic offspring (Zechariah 6:9-15).
The Branch of David would establish and build Yahweh’s everlasting
kingdom, but He would do so as a priest upon His throne.
This alone should have told the Israelite people that the priesthood and
covenant structure established at Sinai were “imperfect” – i.e., nonultimate and appointed to pass away with the coming of the Messiah and
the messianic kingdom. And this, in turn, indicated that the renewal God
had been promising from the beginning wouldn’t involve resurrecting the
Israelite theocracy and David’s throne and kingdom in their previous
form. When Yahweh restored David’s regal house and set the Branch on
David’s throne, it would be to establish His reign over a new sort of
kingdom – a kingdom of renewal that would fill the earth (Isaiah 11:1-12).
This new, boundless and everlasting kingdom called for a king suited to it.
His reign was to encompass all peoples, tribes, nations and kingdoms, and
he needed to be a man characterized by the kingdom traits of
righteousness, renewed life, spiritual wisdom and power, and perfect
intimacy with the supreme King Himself (Psalm 45:1-7; Isaiah 9:1-7,
42:1-7, 61:1-3; Jeremiah 23:1-6, 33:14-16). And being a king-priest, these
same qualities would have to characterize his priestly ministration. Thus
he needed to be a different sort of priest, one whose priesthood and
ministration fully realized what the Levitical order only hinted at. He was
to obtain his priesthood, not on the basis of a law of fleshly requirement,
but in accordance with “the power of an indestructible life” (7:15-17).
The imperfection of the Sinai Covenant was indicated by the imperfection
of the priesthood ordained to administer it. For all the intricacies of its
ministration and the persistence of its ministers, the Levitical system
couldn’t secure the Father-son relationship held out and demanded by the
covenant. The priests mediated that relationship, but as men who were
themselves alienated from the God they represented and served. Thus the
promise of a different priestly order indicted the existing Levitical order as
weak and worthless, lacking both the strength and the ability to fulfill its
mandate. But this was God’s design, so that, at the appointed time, it
should yield to that which it prefigured – a better priesthood that actually
draws men to God in the sure confidence of a better hope (7:18-19).

Admin
Administrator

Welcome new Members, we are not fully set up, but starting up now

Posts: 4,139

Hebrews SEVEN Kit Culver Aug 31, 2023 11:18:57 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:18:57 GMT -5

d. After speaking to general issues pertaining to the two priesthoods and their
covenantal significance, the writer turned his attention to the respective
priests and their ministrations, explaining in summary fashion how Jesus’
priestly ministration transcends His Levitical counterparts (7:20-28). The
first point of distinction is that, unlike the Levitical priests, Jesus received
His priestly ordination by means of a divine oath. This isn’t to say that the
Levitical order was a human innovation; it, too, was divinely determined
and devised. But it originated as part of the Law of Moses, and the priests
who served within it did so because they met a genealogical criterion –
“the law of physical requirement” (7:16; cf. Exodus 28:1-29:9). Jesus, on
the other hand, entered upon His priesthood on the basis of God’s oath to
David’s regal and priestly Lord, as indicated by Psalm 110: “Yahweh has
sworn, and will not change His mind, you are a priest forever…” (7:21).
Jesus’ priesthood originated with an oath, not a directive. Moreover, this
oath explicitly established both the perpetuity and the unique order of His
priesthood. In this way, God’s unique oath – which He issued within the
context of the Law of Moses – pertained to a priesthood outside of the Law
and entirely distinct from it; a priesthood that transcends the Law and its
priestly order, and that endures beyond them. It is a new and everlasting
priesthood that is the basis of a new covenant appropriate to it.
Yahweh’s oath pledged a distinct, unending priesthood assigned
permanently to a singular priest. In the fullness of the times, that oath
found its object in Jesus the Messiah, the man who is uniquely David’s
son and lord (Matthew 22:41-45). The oath distinguished Jesus above all
of Israel’s priests, including Aaron himself, and the Hebrews writer
recognized that this distinction applies to the corresponding covenant: If
priesthood is the basis of covenant (v. 11), so that a change of priesthood
brings a corresponding change of covenant (v. 12), it follows that the oath
which guaranteed a transcendent priest and priesthood also guaranteed a
transcendent covenant. And recognizing that Jesus is the embodiment of
that oath, the writer could declare that He Himself is that guarantee of a
superior covenant (7:21-22). If He embodies the everlasting new
priesthood as its singular priest, Jesus is equally the surety that the new
covenant grounded in His priesthood is also unchangeable and everlasting.
But the superiority of the new priesthood and its covenant goes beyond
their constancy and perpetuity under the ministration of one high priest.
They are better than their Mosaic counterparts because they are associated
with a better priest. Because Jesus embodies both the better priesthood
and the better covenant, it’s not surprising that He Himself is characterized
by the same two qualities of constancy and perpetuity: He is a priest
forever, according to the unchanging order of Melchizedek. But these two
qualities point to the preeminent way in which He is a better priest: Unlike
His predecessors, Jesus is an effectual priest (7:23-28).
133
Israel’s priests (and preeminently their high priests) were “saviors” in the
sense that they remediated the failures and violations that undermined the
people’s relationship with God. Individually and collectively, Israel was
an unfaithful and disobedient son, but God upheld His covenant with His
son through the atoning and preserving intervention of His ordained
priesthood (ref. the various offerings of Leviticus 1-7, along with the
climactic, all-encompassing ministration of Yom Kippur). Israel’s priests
performed a “saving” ministration, but one that fell short; they couldn’t
reconcile and bind men to God everlastingly. There were two dimensions
to this shortfall, both of which the writer addressed for his readers.
1) The first was the priests’ transience. Every individual priest
exercised his ministration for a season. Even if nothing else
removed him from the priesthood, death eventually did. Therefore,
death insured that no priest would be able to save forever those
under his charge; his intercession, however effectual according to
the provisions of the Law of Moses (cf. Leviticus 1:4, 4:20, 5:6,
etc. with Philippians 3:6, 9), was only temporary (7:23-25).
2) The second dimension was the priests’ personal weakness and
failure. This flaw – and its implication for their role as “saviors” –
was highlighted from the very beginning of the priesthood by the
ritual of ordination. Though God personally identified Aaron and
his sons as His first priests under the Levitical order, their priestly
consecration and ordination involved a sacrifice of atonement
(Leviticus 8). They brought sin and guilt with them into the
priesthood, and then multiplied it in their personal priestly
ministration (Leviticus 10:1-5; Numbers 12:1-11).
Israel’s priests couldn’t “save forever” those under their charge, both with
respect to time and ultimacy: On the one hand, their mortality insured that
their atoning intercession was temporary; on the other hand – and more
significantly, their own personal corruption prevented their ministration
from achieving a conclusive atonement. In a word, the Levitical priests,
and thus the Levitical priestly order and system, were ineffectual. They
illumined the concept of priesthood and God’s design for it, and so
instructed and guided the people they served. But they never achieved the
end for which they existed; they never brought God and His imagechildren together in true communion. It is precisely at this point that the
supremacy of the new and everlasting priest – the one God ordained with
His own oath – is most gloriously revealed (7:23-28).
- Unlike His Levitical counterparts, Jesus is a permanent priest; His
ministration is unbroken and everlasting. He “always lives to make
intercession” for those under His charge, and so is “able to save
forever those who draw near to God through Him” (vv. 23-25).
134
- But He is also a flawless priest, and that in two crucial respects.
The first is more obvious, which is that He is “holy, innocent and
undefiled, separated from sinners.” Jesus lived as a sinless man,
but with a view to the ultimate goal of becoming consummate man
– man as God created him to be, by means of His resurrection and
glorification. Jesus is God’s human Priest-King, “exalted above the
heavens,” and enthroned to administer God’s sovereign rule over
His creation as true Image-Son (v. 26, ref. also 2:5-18, 4:14-16).
- Jesus has attained the human destiny of divine Image-Son, but by
means of a human act that is absolutely unique in human history –
an act that, more than any other, distinguishes Him from every
priest before and since. Before assuming His dominion as Great
High Priest, Jesus abased Himself to become the atoning sacrifice
for mankind (v. 27). His priesthood originated in His Father’s oath,
but it was realized through His willful, submissive self-giving. The
Messiah who is the everlasting Priest-King according to Yahweh’s
sworn decree was first the priestly sacrifice (9:11-12, 10:1-14).
No priest in Israel could claim the title of priest-king, but even
more importantly, no such priest ever offered himself on behalf of
those he served. The obvious reason is that doing so would end his
priesthood and ministration. Within the Levitical order, it was
impossible that there should be an abiding priest who offered
himself as a sacrifice. The finality of death precluded a self-giving
Levitical priest, but the problem of priestly flaw was the more
significant barrier. How could a priest offer himself as an atoning
sacrifice for others when he himself had need of such a sacrifice?
Thus the writer’s summation of the distinction between the two
priesthoods and their respective priests: The Law of Moses appointed
Israel’s priests, but in the midst of that structure, the God who had given
the Law interposed with an oath – an oath that pledged a priest and
priesthood outside of the Law and transcendent in their duration,
ministration, ultimacy, and effectuality. The Law and the oath each
established a priestly ministration, but the former had no option but to
designate men who were infirmed and incapable. Even if the Mosaic
prescription had allowed for priests to be drawn from the entirety of
mankind, this constraint would yet remain. And this constraint, in turn,
compelled the oath to look elsewhere for its priest: A different order of
priesthood demanded a different sort of human priest, one who is not
impotent and ineffectual because of transience and weakness. Thus, while
the Law appointed priests from within the sons of Israel – priests who, like
their countrymen, were sons in name and calling only, the oath appointed
a man who is a Son indeed: One who fulfilled the human vocation of
sonship so as to be “made perfect forever,” and that on behalf of all men.

Hebrews SEVEN Kit Culver

Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:14:59 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:16:44 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:17:55 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:18:57 GMT -5

Quick Reply