Out With The Old – Hebrews 7:11-14

Over to you, will you please turn to Hebrews chapter seven. Hebrews chapter seven, and we're gonna read together verse 11 through verse 17.

Hebrews seven, beginning of verse 11. Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of it the people received the law, what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe from which no one has officiated at the altar.

For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

And this is clearer still if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.

For it is attested of him, you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Let's pray together.

Our Lord, we ask before we look at your word today that you would be glorified through the proclamation of it and that you would give us ready and obedient hearts.

Help us to understand what is in your word and to appreciate the plan of our great triune

God for the redemption of a people from before time began. We thank you for your grace to us and we thank you for your word and we pray that you would grant us understanding in it this morning.

Be glorified through this time, sanctify us as your people and encourage our hearts together we pray in Christ's name.

Amen. Well, every religion on the face of the planet seeks to answer this one fundamental question.

How do we fix what is broken with mankind? How do we fix what is broken with mankind? And to answer that question, we have to have some idea of what is broken with mankind, right?

I mean, it's difficult, impossible to cure a disease that you first need to diagnose. So in order to understand what is broken with mankind, what is wrong with mankind, we have to have some idea of who

God is and who man is and what has gone wrong between God and man and how then man can be reconciled to God.

And every religion on the face of the planet has a theology of God and a theology of man and a theology of what is broken between God and man and the theology of how that can be remedied, how that can be made right and placed right.

Every religion on the face of the planet seeks to answer that question. How can we fix what is wrong with man?

So what does the Bible say is wrong with man? Well, we begin with God, and God, according to Scripture, is a transcendent, he is high, he is holy, he is near to his creation, he is imminent, and yet he is transcendent and high and above his creation.

Our God is holy and righteous and just, he is good, and because he is just, he must punish sin.

Because he is righteous, any sin against him is a violation of his own nature and character and an offense to him.

And our God is so high and so exalted and so beyond all of creation that he sits in the heavens and he rules over all as the sovereign king of all of creation.

And it's not that God is only holy, it is that he is perfectly holy and infinitely holy.

And it's not that God is just righteous, but he is perfectly righteous and he is infinitely righteous.

And God is holy and he is perfectly holy and he is infinitely holy. That's God.

We, on the other hand, we are fallen and we sinned in Adam when he sinned in the garden and because of Adam's sin, all of us are constituted as sinners and we are guilty before God and we are born into sin and we are born in iniquity.

And we are so fallen and so helpless and we lie under the curse of Adam's sin, which is, that curse is so severe that we are unable even to save ourselves, unable to do any righteousness, unable to do anything that might warrant

God's favor or his grace or his goodness to us. There is nothing that we can do to appease

God. There is no way that we can pay for our sins because the weight of them is too much to bear. Every sin that we commit is a high -handed act of treason against the most benevolent sovereign of the whole universe.

And even one sin, because of the being against whom it is committed, is worthy of eternal damnation.

And the weight of our sin is truly more than we can bear. The nature of our sin, the number of our sins would seek to crush us as the divine sword of justice hangs over our head, willing to drop at any moment.

And if God were to throw all of humanity into hell without any kind of remedy, it would have been just and it would have been good and it would have been righteous for him to do so.

So that's man. So what has gone wrong with man? We are sinful and fallen and we have quite a rap sheet.

And our guilt before a holy God is truly more than we can bear. And there is nothing that we can do to remedy that situation.

So God is holy and man is sinful. That's a theology of God and a theology of man.

And it explains what has gone wrong with man. So now that we know what has gone wrong with man, how do we fix it?

How do we remedy it? How do we resolve this? How can a holy God be reconciled to sinful creatures that deserve his justice?

Because God would be just to punish sin and he must express his justice in punishing sin and he can't simply overlook our sin.

He can't turn a blind eye to it. He can't just pretend that it never happened. Every sin has to be punished.

And because we are guilty, every sin must be punished in some way in order for God to demonstrate his righteousness and his love in some way.

So how is it that sinful men can be reconciled to an infinitely holy God? Better stated, how is it that infinitely sinful men who deserve an infinite wrath can be reconciled to an infinite holy and infinitely just God who must punish sin?

How can we fix what has become broken with mankind? Or maybe we would put the question differently this way.

Are we even able to fix what is broken with mankind? See, every religion on the face of the planet, except for Christianity, would say that we are able to fix what is broken with mankind.

And Christianity says, no, you are not able to fix what is broken with mankind because somebody else has done what is necessary to reconcile, to create reconciliation, to affect reconciliation, and to fix our broken condition.

It is God's solution to this problem which is behind all of Scripture. All of Scripture is written around that.

In the Garden of Eden in Genesis chapter three, God promised a Redeemer who would come and he would set at right what

Adam did in his rebellion against God. He promised that Redeemer. Later on in the book of Genesis, we find out that that Redeemer would come through a man,

Abraham, and specifically through one of his 12 descendants, Judah, specifically. And then from the tribe of Judah, it would be son of David.

And then from David, it would be eventually the Lord Jesus Christ. And he was the one who would come. But in that plan of redemption, and as God waited and humanity waited for the birth of the

Messiah, God made a covenant with a nation, with Abraham's descendants. And in that part of that covenant was a revelation of the moral law of God which shows us that we are sinners.

And then part of that covenant involved the institution of animal sacrifices and the offerings of blood and feasts and festivals and the institution of a priesthood to oversee those animal sacrifices.

And on the basis of those animal sacrifices, a guilty sinner could approach God in faith and offer an animal sacrifice in hopes that, with the expectation that God would be satiated and appeased regarding his wrath for them, and that God could, on the basis of that animal sacrifice, overlook their sin and grant them favor and forgiveness.

But those animal sacrifices could never take away sin and they could never fully deal with the problem of sin.

And so once again, since those animal sacrifices could never fully take away sin and could never deal with the problem of sin, what has to happen for our sin?

It has to be removed, it has to be forgiven and taken out of the way in some way. What is it that brings men near to God?

That Old Testament system, the Old Covenant with all of the sacrifices and the feasts, it did what

God intended for it to do. Until there would come one who would do what that system could never do, and that is where Jesus Christ comes into the equation.

He is the one who has made reconciliation, not just possible, but he has performed reconciliation, he has reconciled us to the

Father. So now in Hebrews chapter seven, we pick it up in verse 11, I say all of that to set the stage because we're talking about today about the sacrifices in the

Old Testament and their efficacy and whether they actually did what they were intended to do and whether or not they were intended to forgive sin and to take sin out of the way.

And that question is answered today in Hebrews chapter seven and having looked at the fact that there is a better priesthood, a higher priesthood than the

Levitical priesthood, that is the Melchizedekian priesthood, the author now is going to answer this question. How is it that we are to look at the

Old Testament sacrifices? If there is a better priesthood, the Melchizedekian priesthood, then there must also be a better priest who has occupied that place and it is the

Lord Jesus Christ. So then what has happened if Christ has come and he is possessing a better priesthood and he has performed a better sacrifice and he has done what the

Old Testament priest and sacrifices and feasts and all the animals and the bloodletting at the temple, if he has done what none of those things could do, then how should we view this

Levitical priesthood? How should we view the Old Testament priesthood? Now for us sitting here in 20th century, 21st century

America, this is not a question that you sit and stew over. I doubt if this morning while you were drinking your cup of coffee, preparing to come to church, you were thinking to yourself,

I wonder what we do with the Levitical priesthood. I doubt if anybody was thinking that because there has not been a Levitical priesthood since about 70

AD. So for 2 ,000 years, that has not been functioning over in Israel.

They have not been offering animal sacrifices. There's no Levitical priest over there performing those duties right now.

So you probably don't ask the question, what do we do with it? How do we view it? But a first century Jewish Christian would have asked that question and that is what our text today is intended to demonstrate.

So in verse 11, we'll pick it up in verse 11. We're gonna today look at verses 11 through 14. Let's read it together again.

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of it the people received the law, what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

And we'll stop right there at the end of verse 11. In verse 11, there are two arguments that are being offered by the author. One of them is that the

Old Testament Levitical priesthood was unable to perfect the worshiper. The one who drew near the Old Testament priesthood could not perfect them.

And the second argument is that the Jews should have expected a new priesthood since that was the thing that God had promised.

God had promised a new priesthood. The Old Testament priesthood could not perfect the worshiper and God had promised that a new one was coming.

And this was all laid out in the Old Testament and the Jews should have foreseen this. So then along comes the author of Hebrews and the

Christian church and the apostles and they start to teach that there is a new priesthood and the one who occupies this new priesthood is

Jesus and he has done what the Levitical priesthood could never do that shouldn't have come as any surprise to any first century

Jew. They should have said, oh yes, of course, we understand that the Levitical priesthood can never perfect anybody and we understand that God promised us to expect another priest.

And so Jesus must be that priest. So that's the argument that's being unfolded here. Now what is perfection?

It says in verse 11, now if perfection could come through the Levitical priesthood, what is this perfection? Is it a moral perfection?

Is it some form of maturity? What kind of perfection does the author have in mind? The word that's translated perfection, that form of that word is only used twice in the

New Testament. It's used here and it's used in Luke chapter one when Mary visits Elizabeth and Elizabeth is pregnant with John the

Baptist and the baby leaps in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice. And then Elizabeth says in chapter one, verse 45, and blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the

Lord. The word translated fulfillment is the same word translated here, perfection. It refers to something that has reached its completion or its fulfillment.

And though the form of that word is only used twice in the New Testament, it comes from a family of words that is used 167 times in the

New Testament. And that family of words refers to things which are finished, completed, accomplished, mature, brought to maturity, brought to a completed end, something that has reached its fulfillment.

That's the idea. It has been brought to the point where we would say it is perfect, not in the sense of being moral without flaw, but to the point where it has brought to its point, something has been brought to its point of completion and end, it has accomplished the goal for which it was set out to be accomplished.

That's the idea behind that word. Now, what is this state of perfection or completeness that the

Levitical priesthood could not bring? What was our need? Talked about it just a minute ago.

What was our need? Our need was to be brought near to God, was it not? That's what reconciliation is. It is the cessation of hostilities between two parties, that these two parties can be brought face -to -face, that they can be reconciled.

We needed to be reconciled with God. We needed to be brought face -to -face and brought near to God. This is something that the

Levitical priesthood could never do because no individual Jew could ever approach

God on their own, and we use the language coming boldly before the throne of grace to petition

God and to receive grace and to help in time of need, mercy to help in time of need. No Old Testament Jew could ever do that.

They always had to come through a mediator. It was the priest. They offered the sacrifice. The priest mediated the offering of that sacrifice, and yes,

Jews individually did pray, but it was not without anything but on the basis of that sacrifice, and the atonement had been made.

Then a Jew could pray to God, but they couldn't have that bold access that you and I have, and that reconciliation or forgiveness in the

Old Testament was very limited and because of the nature of the animal sacrifices and what it affected.

So our need was to be saved. Our need was to be brought near. That is the goal of salvation. The goal of salvation is not just the forgiveness of our sins and not just the declaration of our righteousness.

The goal of salvation is to bring us near to God so that we can be reconciled to a God that we are alienated from.

That's the state of completion. If that state of perfection, of being brought near to the throne of grace, could have come through the law, through the

Levitical priesthood, then the death of Christ was unnecessary. But the argument of verse 11, now if perfection was through the

Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of it the people received the law, what need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek?

What did the Old Testament sacrifices do? The sacrificial system of the Old Testament was never intended to take away sins or to forgive sins or to pay for sins.

That was not the goal of the Levitical priesthood or any and all of the animal sacrifices. Sinners could come to God with a sacrifice, but that sacrifice was itself a reminder of their sins.

We read that in Hebrews chapter 10. Every time a worshiper brought an animal to the temple to have it sacrificed for their sins, it was a reminder of their sin.

And it was a reminder of the cost of sin that an innocent party had to die in the stead of a guilty one.

And it was a reminder of the hideousness and the heinousness of sin that it required death and that there was blood that was being shed to cover and atone for that sacrifice.

But that sacrifice, that animal and its blood could never take away sin. It could never pay the price of that because as Hebrews chapter 10 says, the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin.

It was still there. It was just covered over. It was just temporarily covered over so that it was not visible and it was not something that inhibited the relationship of God and men.

The sin was never taken out of the way. It was just covered over. And I've used this illustration before and I'll use it again.

It is like when people come over to our house for dinner, when we'll have dinner around the table and when we're done, everybody always offers, hey, can

I help you clean up? Can I put the dishes away or something like that? And we always tell them, no, don't do that. You're just gonna sit here and enjoy the mess or go into the living room and pretend the mess is not there.

Imagine that we were, if the mess was so hideous that we couldn't bear the sight of it, that we were to take a nice big sheet and throw it over top of the table.

The mess would not be gone, but it would be covering the table so they didn't see it. It didn't stand out to you.

That is what the Old Testament sacrifice did for sin. It didn't clean up the mess. Just covered over it for a period of time until that mess, that sin, debt, could be paid for by one who could pay the full cost of that sin.

But the animal sacrifices could never make that payment. I want you to look down at chapter seven, verse 18 and 19.

This is going to be the theme, one of the themes that's gonna come up again and again from chapter seven, eight, nine, and 10. Look at chapter seven, verse 18.

For on the one hand, there is the setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and its uselessness for the law made nothing perfect.

See how that is parallel to what we have in chapter seven, verse 11. If perfection was through the Levitical priesthood, which on that the basis of the law was given, then what need was there for another priest to arise?

What is he saying in verse 18? On the one hand, there is the setting aside of that former commandment, the law, and everything attached to that concerning the priesthood.

That is all set aside, why? Because the law was weak and it was useless. To do what? To deal with the sin issue.

The law couldn't do that. The animal sacrifices couldn't do that. So verse 18 says, or verse 19, for the law made nothing perfect.

And on the other hand, there's a bringing in of a better hope through which we draw near to God. See the idea of being drawn near and perfection?

The law could not make us perfect. It could not bring us near to God and reconcile us. Neither the priesthood, the sacrifices, nor the law, none of that could do that.

But in Christ, he has done what that sacrificial system could not do. He has brought us near to God and it is through him that we draw near.

Because the law was weak and it was useless to affect reconciliation and to pay for the sin issue.

The law did what it was intended to do and we're gonna talk about that a little bit here in a moment. I want you to look down at chapter 10, verse four, one through four, back to where we had our scripture reading for this morning.

I want you to see how the same theme comes up again. Chapter 10, verse one. 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 those who draw near.

Notice that? The law can never make perfect those who draw near. It can never bring us to that end where our sins are forgiven, where our righteousness is affected, where reconciliation is complete.

The law can never do that. They just continue to make the same sacrifices year by year. Verse two, otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have consciousness of sins?

But in those sacrifices, there is a reminder of sins year by year, for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

The law was ineffective and could not do that. Look at chapter 10. Verse 11.

Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices which can never take away sins.

But he, that is Christ, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet, for by one offering he has perfected.

Chapter seven, verse 11, the Levitical priesthood could not perfect us. Chapter 10, verses one through four, the law could not perfect us.

But Christ has done something that the priesthood and the animal sacrifices and the law could never do.

What? He has perfected for all time everyone for whom he has made that sacrifice.

He has brought us near. Everything that the Old Testament, the Old Covenant, the sacrifices, the priesthood, all of it, all of the animal offerings, everything anticipated and looked forward to this one thing when one would come who would fulfill it and accomplish everything that those things were merely a picture and a shadow of.

Those saints in the Old Testament were saved in the very same way that we are. Every priest stands daily ministering and offer time after time sacrifices which can never take away sins.

But there needed to be one who would take away those sins. And he would come and he would deal with the sin issue.

Now, if the law and the priesthood and the sacrifices could never pay for sins, they could never take sins away, they could never fully deal with the sin issue, then that might raise a question in your mind and maybe you're thinking about it.

How then were Old Testament saints saved? If those animal sacrifices never dealt with the issue, how were the

Old Testament saints saved? How was their sin taken care of? They're saved in the same way that we are.

What was their need? To be brought near to God. Their need was to have their sins paid for and atonement made and to be declared righteous.

But they are saved in the same way and their sins are paid for in the same way that our sins are paid for, that is Christ paid for them.

They were looking forward to that sacrifice, we look backwards to that sacrifice. We could say, and it would be appropriate to say this, that the

Old Testament saints were saved on divine credit. Let me give you an illustration of how this would work. Let's say that I walk into the mall down here and I go into JCPenney's and I pick out a pair of shoes for a new pair of shoes and I walk up to the clerk and I show her the shoes and she rings it up at the till and I give her my credit card and I pay for it.

And then I walk over towards the exit and I'm about ready to leave and there's a security officer there because they have had a rash of burglaries, et cetera, so he's checking receipts and so I walk up to him, he says, sir, have you paid for those shoes?

And I say, yeah, I paid for those shoes. Can I see the receipt? And I show him the receipt that I paid for those shoes. And he looks at the receipt and he looks at my shoes and he's satisfied and he lets me leave the store.

Now here's the question, have I actually paid for those shoes? We say that we paid for those shoes, right?

That's what we say. But have you actually paid for those shoes? No, you have not. You're not paid for those shoes.

No money has been transferred from my account to their account. And if you check the balance on all of my accounts before I walked into that store, you would see that it is the same as when

I walked out of that store with a pair of shoes. No funds have transferred to anybody's hands.

No funds have changed hands at all. In fact, I have just as much cash on me walking out of the store with a pair of shoes as I had walking into the store without that pair of shoes.

The shoes have not been paid for at all. We say the shoes have been paid for, but they haven't. What has happened? Nobody's actually paid for the shoes, but the clerk at the till, when

I swiped my card, that was the guarantee of a payment that was yet to come. Was it not? Right, the full payment for that would be later.

But I'm able to walk out of the store and the clerk is not gonna say, no, you haven't paid for those. We're gonna wait until your credit card cycle cycles around and you get the bill in the mail and you pay for that.

Once that has been paid, then I'll know that you have paid for that shoes. The clerk is not interested in that. The clerk will let me walk out of the store because as far as she is concerned, the one who has issued the promise to pay, which is

Visa, it's everywhere I want to be, the one who has issued the promise to pay is going to see that that bill is paid in the future.

And so I can walk out of there having not paid for anything, no funds have transferred at all, but there has been a promise to pay that has been given for a later date.

And the clerk is satisfied with that promise to pay. Now when the security officer stops me and he asks me to see my receipt and I show him my receipt, is he satisfied?

Does he think that I've actually paid for that? He shouldn't think that I've actually paid for that because as I've already said, I haven't actually paid for anything.

But the security guard will let me leave. Why? Because a promise of future payment has been secured on my behalf.

So even though no funds have transferred or changed hands, I am able to walk out, everybody is satisfied with it, they overlook the fact that no funds have actually changed hands and no payment has actually been made because a promise of future payment has been secured when

I swipe the card. It is the same thing with the Old Testament saints and the sacrifices. When they went to the temple and they offered an animal, they were swiping the card, the transaction basically stated the future payment of this is yet to be but God will overlook this, on the basis of this, he will let me go free, walk out of the store with my pair of shoes, not because a payment has actually been made but God will let me go free and he will forgive me based upon the certainty of a payment that will be made in the future.

Now who is the one who has promised to make the payment? It's Christ. In eternity past, the

Son promised to pay the debt of all whom the Father chose and on the basis of that payment that the

Son has secured and because God who cannot lie made a divine promise to pay for that debt, the issuer of the card, that is the

Lord Jesus Christ, he has secured and promised that that debt will be paid. So when the worshiper brought the animal, they were swiping the card basically because this was a symbol of a transaction that would take place later on and on the basis of that,

God overlooked the fact that they were walking out of JCPenney's having not paid the bill. Do you see the analogy? I understand that every analogy limps just a little bit.

For us, on this side of the cross, we're not swiping a card anymore, are we? We have a store credit.

So we're able to go in and we walk out because the price has been paid in the past, it's been paid in full. You and I walk in and we receive forgiveness because we have an infinite store credit.

The Old Testament saints, they swiped the card and offered the animal sacrifice knowing that future payment was secure and that it was certain because God had promised to pay it and God cannot lie.

That's how Old Testament saints were saved. Now the law, look at, we've got one sentence in here, we're almost done.

If perfection was through the Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of it, the people received the law. That is simply to say that the law of Moses and the priesthood were intimately interconnected.

Any Jew who would have read this or heard this would have understood exactly what the author was saying and it's this, that it is not the law that created the priesthood, it's the priesthood that made the necessity for the law.

The law did not establish the priesthood. Moses and Aaron were chosen before the law was given. So in terms of chronology, it was

Moses and Aaron were chosen, Aaron and the Levites were chosen as the priestly tribe and then Aaron as the father of all who would serve as a high priest.

He was the father of all the high priests. So that choosing and that establishment of the priesthood necessitated that a law be given which was to regulate that priesthood.

So that law was given on the basis of the priesthood. On the basis of the priesthood, the law came. The law which regulated all of the activities and the sacrifices of the priesthood.

So you read through the book of Leviticus and you see all of the sacrifices spelled out and the ceremonies and how the priests were to succeed one another and how long they were to serve and who was qualified to serve as a priest and how they were to dress and all of the stuff that regulated the entire priesthood which was at the heart of Israel's relationship with God, all of that was regulated by the law.

Well, once the priesthood was established, it necessitated that a law be given which was to not only demonstrate the need for that priesthood but to regulate every aspect of how that priesthood and the whole relationship of the nation was to operate underneath that covenant.

So it is on the basis of the priesthood that the law was received and the author says if that perfection could come, if reconciliation could come and the animal sacrifices could have forgiven sin, then what need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek?

Now, if the priesthood is unable to perfect us, then what does that say about the law that is given to regulate the priesthood?

Is it, the law, able to perfect us? Can we get righteousness and forgiveness by obeying the law?

Well, if you cannot get righteousness and forgiveness by functioning in that Old Testament priesthood, if the priesthood itself and the administration of that is not going to affect forgiveness and change, or sorry, affect forgiveness and righteousness, if that's not possible, then the law which regulated it, that's not gonna save you either.

And this speaks to the Christian's relationship to the law. And notice the second argument, that's the first argument.

First argument was the Levitical priesthood cannot perfect anybody. Animal sacrifices, they can't perfect anyone.

All the offering of those animals that took place for 1 ,000 years, 10 centuries, that's not a typo and I didn't move a decimal point, all of those animal sacrifices that took place over the course of 10 centuries never paid for sin.

None of them. And the priest standing and ministering day after day in the temple, animal after animal, sacrifice after sacrifice, all of that blood, none of it could pay the cost for sin.

There was never a point where a priest got to the end of it and said, I think one more sacrifice will do it. One more animal will have this taken care of.

No priest could ever say that. There was no provision in the law that that priesthood and those sacrifices would ever come to an end.

Moses didn't write and say, okay, you're gonna do some animal sacrifices. Once you think you paid for sin, then you stop sacrificing animals.

There was no provision in the law for that to ever happen. There was no provision anywhere in the law of Moses for those sacrifices to come to an end.

Why? Because they could never pay for sin. For 1 ,000 years, the people were reminded, no matter how many animals we sacrifice, and listen, it was tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of animals.

Never could they ever say, it's done. Never could they offer an animal and say, this one takes care of it.

We finally offered enough. 1 ,000 years was intended to demonstrate that no amount of animal sacrifices was sufficient to pay the cost of sin for all who believe.

So the law is given on the basis of the priesthood, and that's the first argument is that then, that this perfection could not come through the

Levitical priesthood. Notice the second argument, and he is arguing here for something that he's going to refer to down in verse 17.

I'm just gonna point you forward here a bit. What further need was there for another priest to arrive?

The statement here is very simple. All the author is saying is, if those sacrifices could be perfected, then why did

God promise a future priest? And what he is referring to is the statement of David 500 years after the

Aaronic priesthood and the Levitical priesthood, 500 years after the animal sacrifices started, David wrote of the

Messiah that would come, yet 500 years future to David. David wrote of him, he will be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

In other words, five centuries after the animal sacrifices started, David said, we still have another priest who is to come.

And so the argument of the author is really simple. If the Levitical priesthood was gonna pay for sins, then why did

God promise another priesthood that was yet to come? That's a really good question, isn't it? Because every

Jew should have been able to read the Old Testament and understand. There's no provision for this to ever come to an end, which means sin can never be paid for.

And God has promised that another priest will come, one who is according to the order of Melchizedek. Now you might ask, why then did

God give the law? If the law and the priesthood and the sacrifices could not pay for sins, they could not atone for sins, they couldn't take sin out of the way and they couldn't perfect us, then why did

God give us the law? The law had a designed inadequacy.

It's a designed inadequacy. It was not the intention of God in giving animal sacrifices to pay for those sins. Those animal sacrifices never did pay for sins.

That was by design. The law and the priesthood were not designed to pay for sins or to atone for sins or to take them out of the way or to make people perfect.

That wasn't what it was designed to do. What was it designed to do? It was designed to show us the gravity of our sin, the weight of our sin, the cost of our sin, and to remind us over and over and over again of what we truly needed.

That's what it was designed to do. That's what the law and the Old Testament priesthood were intentionally designed to do.

It was never designed to take away our sin. Just like a screwdriver's not designed for driving nails or doing brain surgery, but a screwdriver does what it is designed to do very well.

What was the Old Testament's Levitical system intended to do? It was intended to demonstrate the need for sin.

It demanded righteousness, but it could not provide righteousness. It showed us the necessity of having our sins forgiven and the weight of it, and it caused us to anticipate what was to come that would fulfill all of that Old Testament Levitical system.

So a change of priesthood was necessary. That's verse 11. Now I want you to look at verses 12 and 13 and 14.

A change of law was also necessary. Has this priesthood been changed, the Old Testament Levitical priesthood? Yeah, the answer to that is yes.

Verse 13, or verse 12. For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change also.

Now the author is just simply stating this whole priesthood, the Levitical priesthood, Aaron and all of that, it's all been changed.

And by changed, he doesn't mean that God tweaked it a little bit, that he fine -tuned it and made it work a little bit better than it did in the

Old Testament. That's not what he means by changed. By changed, he means it's been scrapped for a newer, better, and different, and far more superior priesthood.

It is not that Christ has come according to that old priesthood and sort of tweaked it a little bit so that it works.

It's that Christ has come and being installed as a priest and declared to be a priest by God according to the order of Melchizedek, that entire priesthood has been scrapped.

Now if the priesthood has been scrapped, if it's been abrogated and set aside, if it's entirely useless and worthless now because the superior one has taken its place, what does that say about all of the law that is attached to that priesthood?

What has happened to the law? If the priesthood has been changed, and it has, verse 12 says, then there has also, by necessity, been a change in the law.

And this has to do with a Christian's relationship to the law and to the Old Testament law. If we are no longer under the

Levitical priesthood, then we are no longer under the law that regulates the Levitical priesthood. If that priesthood has been scrapped, so has the law which regulates that priesthood.

You and I cannot say we're under the law, we're just not under the priesthood. Well, the law obligates us to be under that priesthood.

So if we're under the law, then we're obligated to be under that priesthood. But if we're not under that priesthood because another priest has come from a different priesthood and he mediates for us, then we're not under the law that regulated that priesthood either.

Now, we're not talking here about the moral law. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, don't commit adultery, lust, murder, these things are still wrong.

Fornication, homosexuality, these things are still immoral and they are still wrong because they reflect God's moral nature. They're not connected to the ceremonial aspects which regulated the priesthood.

The moral law of God, revealed in the law of God, the moral elements of it, demonstrated our need for a priest and our need for a sacrifice.

It demonstrated our need for righteousness, but those things could not provide righteousness. So we're not talking about the moral elements of the law.

And it's important that we understand this, particularly in our day because, and here's why. In our day, there is a push inside of Christianity and among Christians, professing

Christians, to normalize homosexuality. And here is one of the arguments that they will use. And if you ever have these discussions with friends, family members, people online, this is the argument that they will use against you.

I get this all the time, and here it is. You Christians are always on about the evils and immorality of homosexuality.

That's in the book of Leviticus. But in the book of Leviticus, it also says that you need to stone your neighbor for blasphemy.

You Christians don't do that. It says you need to sacrifice animals. You Christians don't do that. It says you shouldn't eat shellfish and pork.

You Christians don't obey that one. It also says you shouldn't wear mixed fabrics or eat cheeseburgers.

And you Christians don't obey that one. So all those things, how is it that you hypocritical Christians have no problem eating a ham sandwich?

But somehow you think that Leviticus 21, which deals with homosexuality, that's still enforced. And this is called the cafeteria

Christianity argument. They say you kind of wander through the book of Leviticus like one wanders through a cafeteria, picking out the things you like and putting those on the plate and leaving the things that you don't like aside.

And it just so happens to be that you Christians love that prohibition against homosexuality, so you're all on about that. You make a lot about that, but not so much about shellfish and pork.

That's the argument that's constantly thrown at us, as if we're hypocrites, because we enforce some things and we don't others.

As if the reason we enforce or adhere to certain moral standards and not others in that book of Leviticus is based upon our own personal preferences.

Things we like and things we don't like, like walking through a cafeteria. That's the objection. So are we fine with a ham sandwich and not homosexuality?

Because, and I'm not trying to just equate homosexuality to ham sandwiches, I don't want to ruin anybody's ham sandwich from this point forward, but are we fine with ham sandwiches and not homosexuality based purely upon our own personal preferences, our own likes and dislikes?

No. It's because of what scripture says regarding the nature of all of these various commandments.

The moral law of God has not been set aside, because God's moral nature does not change. So the laws that express

God's moral nature in the Old Testament, they're expressed in the Old Testament because they're expressions of God's nature which does not change.

But the way in which he administers different covenants with different people at different times, that does change.

So you and I are able to look at the moral elements of the law of God, and we say those are reflections of God's moral nature, those don't change.

Then we look at the ceremonial aspects of the law, ceremonial and cleanliness and different feasts and festivals, and we say those things pertain to a certain administration of God's purposes with the priesthood.

That priesthood has been set aside. Those things regarding those ceremonies, they're no longer binding upon us. Why? Because God himself has set that aside.

God has not set aside the prohibition against homosexuality or adultery or murder or lying or stealing or any of the other violations of his moral nature.

He has to set those things aside because those are not given to specific people for a specific purpose, for a limited and specific time period, like the laws regarding dietary issues.

So another way of raising this objection, some people, Christians will say, we're not under the law, we're under grace, and that old prohibition against homosexuality, that was under the

Old Testament law in the book of Leviticus. We're not under the law, we're under grace, and therefore that has changed. Is that true? Well, we are under grace, but the very same

New Testament that tells us that we're under grace also tells us that homosexuality is a sin because the moral nature of God has not changed.

So yes, it would have been sinful for a Jew to eat a ham sandwich. It's not sinful for me, a Gentile, to eat a ham sandwich, number one, because I'm not a

Jew. That law was not given to me. But number two, that prohibition against those dietary laws was for specific people, for a specific time period, for a specific purpose.

All of that has been accomplished and it is now taken out of the way. If there's been a priesthood, if there is a new priesthood, if the priesthood has been changed, then by necessity, there is also a change of law also.

Our relationship to that law is entirely different than an Old Testament Jew living under that law. For us, that law has been set aside.

And listen, a New Testament Jew who believes in Jesus Christ as their Messiah, they're not bound by any of those aspects of that law either, why?

Because they're under a different priesthood, not Levi's priesthood, but Christ's priesthood. So those moral elements, standards in the law are expressed in the law, but they're not derived from law.

This is an important distinction to make. They're expressed in the law, but they're not derived from the law. Even if Leviticus had never been written, we would still know, for instance, that homosexuality is an abominable sin.

How would we know that? Because 500 years before Leviticus was written, God destroyed

Sodom and Gomorrah and testified as to how he feels about that sin. 500 years before Leviticus was written.

So why is the prohibition against that sin, and I'm not just picking on that sin, because I want to pick on people who engage in that sin.

That's not the point. The point in identifying the sin is because this is the battleground in our age right now today. So why is that sin, how is it that that sin is expressed in the book of Leviticus?

Because that sin is expressed there just like all the other moral aspects of God's nature are expressed there. They're codified in the law because they express

God's nature. Eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics, those are not expressions of God's moral nature.

And it takes clear thinking to kind of work through some of these issues, which is sometimes difficult to do, and you're certainly not gonna get this on The View tomorrow morning, as they all sit around and cackle at each other about what the

Bible says about moral issues. Verse 13 and 14, let's quickly sum up those verses as we are running out of time.

Verses 13 and 14, for the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe from which no one has officiated at the altar.

For it's evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And what he is doing in those two verses is establishing the fact that God has appointed another priest, and it's not a

Levitical priest. Who is the one of whom these things are spoken? Who is the one of whom the Father said, you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek?

Who is that one? It's the Lord Jesus Christ. But he was not a Levi, he was of the tribe of Judah. He belongs to another tribe, not the

Levitical tribe, not Levi. He belongs to another tribe from which no one has officiated at the altar.

There was no provision anywhere in the Old Testament for anyone other than a Levite to officiate at the altar, to offer a sacrifice and to be involved in priestly duties.

A Judaite could not do that, one from the tribe of Judah could not partake in that. There was no provision for someone from Judah to participate in the sacrifices associated with the animal offerings.

There was no provision for them to be involved in any of the administration of that. No one from Judah ever officiated at the altar.

Verse 14, it's evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which

Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. Moses was silent. So how is it that we as Christians can say there is one from the tribe of Judah who has come and he has been appointed a priest?

How is it that our Lord Jesus Christ can serve as a priest if he wasn't a Levite? The answer to that is really simple.

Because the priesthood that he serves is not a Levitical priesthood. You see, Jesus didn't come to simply join the priesthood in the

Old Testament in the tabernacle or the temple and start offering animal sacrifices, but just to do them better.

That's not why Jesus came. He came to do something that no priest of the Old Testament could do, that is to offer a better sacrifice.

It wasn't an animal sacrifice. It was his own innocent blood that he poured out to pay the price for sin.

That is what he came to do. No animal sacrifice could deal with that. No priest could ever offer a sacrifice like that because no priest was ever innocent.

They had to offer a sacrifice first for their own sins and then for the sins of the people. But no priest could ever stand as completely innocent and completely righteous and offer a perfect sacrifice that would usher in a new covenant and would completely pay the price for sin.

But the Lord Jesus Christ did that. He came as a better priest of a better priesthood to offer a better sacrifice to start and begin a better covenant that is enacted on better promises that provides for us a better hope than anything the

Old Testament could provide. How can a man be reconciled to God? How can a man be made right with God?

Not through Old Testament animal sacrifices and not through Levitical priesthood, but Christ has come and he has done what they could never do.

All the fulfillment and the perfection is found in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone.

We have a better covenant and a better sacrifice. Everything for us is better.

And the encouragement of the book of Hebrews is to abandon and leave behind all of that because it has all been set aside.

The law regulating the priesthood, set aside. The priesthood itself, done away with.

We have the fulfillment, the perfection, and the supremacy in the person of Jesus Christ.

And we are able to say glory be to our great high priest who has offered that sacrifice in our stead.

Not only did he obey every element of the law on our behalf, but he offered a sacrifice on our behalf that pays the full price for all our sin so that now we can have something that no

Old Testament saint could ever have, a clear conscience and complete forgiveness based upon the sacrifice that Christ has offered.

Let's pray. Our Father, we delight in and joy over and glory in the perfection of the

Lord Jesus Christ and the sacrifice that he offered in our stead. We thank you that we can have complete forgiveness and complete righteousness because of him.

It is the joy and delight of all your people to look to that high priest and to know that our sins are forgiven, taken out of the way, and so we can boldly approach your throne of grace for we have access to you personally, not through any other priesthood and not through any animal sacrifices, but we stand available and open to come to your throne because of what

Christ has done and you beckon us to come. We thank you for that great grace and the great salvation that is ours in him and it is in his name that we pray, amen.