The Priesthood of Christ contrasted with Aaron - The Consideration of Christ - Part 2 — William Skates

Melchizedek in Hebrews 5–7

Okay, we better move for the sake of time. Verse 10 says he's called of God, excuse me, on high priest after the order of Melchizedek. That brings us over to chapter 7 now, as he has to interrupt the flow of thought to deal with their immaturity there from verse 11 in chapter 5 through to the end of chapter 6.

So chapter 7, as we come to that, the first 10 verses, just a little overview, Melchizedek is mentioned 11 times in our Bible.

He was a real man, verse 4.

He wasn't some phantom, he wasn't a Christophany in that regard, he was a real man. His name is first of all King of Righteousness is the meaning of the name, but he's also King of Salem, meaning peace, but literally located in the area of Jerusalem.

He's a priest of the Most High God, El Elyon, and that title in itself will link us with millennium in Psalm 85, verse 10. He is without genealogy, it says, without father, without mother, without beginning of days, without end of life.

Now you say he's a real man, yes he's a real man. So what does that mean? Let me ask the question, I'll throw it out quick. What does it mean that he is without father, without mother, without beginning of days, without end of life?

Would they record a genealogy? So far as the witness of scripture is concerned, there's no genealogy linked with this title Melchizedek. Right. Why would that need to be said? Because he's going to build upon that to link it with the son.

But in relation to the Aaronic priesthood, genealogy had to be proven.

Yes, yes, but he, yes. The other thing that. The superiority of the order. Absolutely. It's the superiority of the order, he's switching to the order of Melchizedek. And the other thing that comes out is that Genesis is a book of recorded genealogies.

That word Toledoth occurs 11 times, 10 of them are central to the structure of the book. So you've got the generations of the heaven and the earth, the generations of this one, the generations of the next one.

Here's a man, and there's no generations, because he's made like unto the son of God. Made like, I think that's the key expression, he just, he appears, he disappears, we don't know where he came from, we don't know where he went, and that was providentially overseen.

So the writers of the Hebrews can. He likely was Shem, but that's another subject.

So Abraham, Abraham knew who he was. Yes.

And Abraham. Recognized him as a priest. In the days of the patriarchs, who was the priest? Father in the family. Right, so the oldest one in the family.

So you just made a comment, he likely was Shem. So that he would have a genealogy, we don't know that it was Shem.

It's not linked in the Old Testament record, this Melchizedek is not linked with the person Shem. But putting two and two together, he could come up with a five. Possibly. Possibly. Let's not get sidetracked in that.

He possibly was, Shem was still alive in the lifetime of Abraham. The son of Noah was still alive, right, and Abraham came from Shem. So Abraham, the oldest member of the family, is the priest? Possibly Shem.

The Superiority of Melchizedek’s Priesthood

All right, chapter seven, verse one, if therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for under it, that is on that basis that the people received the law, what further need was there for another priest?

It's the word heteros, it's the different kind of priest. So if there was a priesthood that existed under the Levitical system, why was there a need for a different priest? Different kind of priest, rather, that should arise after the order of Melchizedek and not called after the order of Aaron?

It is, to give a short answer, because Melchizedek's priesthood is going to be looked at as superior to Aaron's. In what sense did another priest rise? Is this one of the, perhaps one of the very few references, or an allusion at least, in the epistles of the resurrection?

I have thought maybe so far as the scriptural record is concerned, the Levitical system set in place in the Pentateuch, all right, but then over here in Psalm 110, we have this statement, thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.

So God is going to rise up another priest, raise up another priest. I agree with that, but I wonder just in the language used whether there wasn't a hint, perhaps in the background, of resurrection, I think the language that is used would support that.

Okay. Good. And we have the idea of perfection again, so this is what we're aiming at all the time, and the problem was the Levitical priesthood couldn't get you there, it couldn't get you across the line.

It couldn't put away sin once and for all, the Levitical system. Sure. It was limited in its extent and scope, but that's something that the Lord Jesus will bring in as he will develop later in the book.

And so then if the order of priesthood has changed, his point in verse 11 is that priesthood law has changed also. So the priesthood being changed, that priesthood was established under law. If the priesthood changes, then the law changes too.

So it's showing the shortcoming of the whole system and the law that supported that system. So there's going to be the need of a different covenant. He's going to be drawing that out as we move from this point in the book.

So the old is placed out, literally, and the new is placed in. The word change is put into place, and that mosaic law that they so revered, it is going to be superseded by something else. So are we beginning to move towards one of the ways in which the Melchizedek priesthood is very different from the Aaronic priesthood?

Christ as King and Priest

An Aaronic priest could not be a king. We're being introduced now to one who came from the tribe of Judah, and of course, one of the things about Melchizedek is that he is both a king and a priest. It didn't turn out too well in the Old Testament when someone tried to combine those two offices, because that's exclusively for Christ.

It didn't work out for Uzziah. No. No, it didn't. And even Moses is spoken of as king in Jeshurun. Or it could be a reference to the nation. God is king. It may be. Yeah, I thought it was Moses. You're going to give Moses the three offices, prophet, priest, and king.

But he wasn't recognized as a high priest. That's right. There was another man needed for that. We're just dividing up the offices here between men, right? But in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, you get the offices combined uniquely in him.

Others that tried it, it didn't work. But just, Moses is called a priest, Psalms, Psalm 99, is it? If that reference in Deuteronomy 32 is to Moses, he's called a king, and he is also called a prophet in Deuteronomy 18.

So you've got the three things in Moses, but of course, Christ is the preeminent one. So the change of law is evident further in verse 13, because he of whom these things are spoken pertain to another tribe.

He wasn't of the tribe of Levi, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. That's an interesting word, that I give attendance at the altar, that it's got the idea to apply one's mind to in a singular way.

And that was the function of the priests of old. Like a farmer would fix his eye on a point at the end of the field to keep the furrow straight, fixing the eye upon it, that was the point of focus. So no man gave attendance at the altar from the tribe of Judah, from which our Lord sprang, verse 14.

Is there a sense in which, too, in these verses that the order of Melchizedek is superior in the sense that it's more universal instead of just priesthood on behalf of the people of Israel?

Yeah, it extends beyond Israel to the people of faith, if you may so say. He brings in our hope as linked with Abraham, to whom God gave promises and confirmed it with an oath, which hope we have, pointing to Christ.

The Endless Life of Christ’s Priesthood

So what does he mean when he talks about the law of a carnal commandment? Carnal is one of these words that sets off a red light in our minds. What is the writer driving at here when he speaks of the law of a carnal commandment?

The law of the Old Testament had no more power. It couldn't impart power to frail human flesh, and flesh didn't have the ability to perform to perfection under that law. So it's carnal really in the sense of being, as you say, connected with the flesh and non-spiritual.

As to its accomplishment, it depended on the arm of the flesh. And so it's in contrast with the power of an endless life, which is spiritual power. The other thing in verse 16, it says, who is made, referring to the Lord Jesus.

It would be better translated, who has become, who has moved into this. I think that the Lord Jesus only ever has made two things. Isn't that correct? Second Corinthians 5, he's made sin. Peter in his preaching in the early chapters of the Acts says, God hath made this same Jesus, both Lord and Christ.

This is telling us of something that the Lord moved into voluntarily. He hath become, and he's taken it up.

A legal requirement concerning fulfillment of the priesthood in genealogical terms did not relate to him.

I think that's what he's emphasizing. So it's not a question of pedigree for him, but it's after the power of an endless life. It's his own inherent power. So is that the reason why verse number 11 says, another, a different priest?

Verse number 13, pertaineth to a different tribe. Verse number 15, there arises a different priest. That will never happen again. Moses transferred the garments of Aaron to his son Eliezer. But when we get down here, what is it, verse number 24, this man continues ever, and he has an untransferable priesthood.

The garments will never be transferred again. He's taken this up in the power of an indissoluble life. And so we find, I think, in Ezekiel in the coming day, that there's an entrance made specifically for one who is a king, but who operates in the capacity of a priest.

So the emphasis now is upon priest forever, thou art a priest forever. It's the power of the endless life. This is what sets his priesthood out as being superior to Aaron's. It's after the power of an endless life.

He is a priest forever. So what ratified that priesthood that makes him a priest forever? His resurrection from the dead, his ascension to God's right hand. Actually, I think it's the oath, verse number 20.

Right. Right. So one of the distinctions between the Aaronic priesthood and this person who's taken up this Melchizedek priesthood is that God confirmed it with an oath, and God never, ever confirmed the Aaronic priesthood with an oath.

If he had done, he couldn't have changed it, and there couldn't have been introduced this other priesthood. Now God has confirmed this with an oath, and he will not go back to it. This is permanent. This is permanent.

This is what God had in mind. Right. And furthermore, with all that said, verse 18, there is therefore, verily or truly, a disannoying, a making void of the commandment going before, that is the Old Testament mosaic law, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

So the Old Testament law, system, was cancelled or superseded by the death of Christ. That Levitical system was never intended to be final. It was introductory to what God would bring in, in Christ, and would fulfill in him.

The New Covenant Supersedes the Mosaic Covenant

So the writer is writing to those who were Jewish by birth and background. They've been illuminated by the gospel. They've trusted Christ. But this still must have been far more startling to them, perhaps, than it would have been to us.

I mean, the language that's used here is quite strong. And in a context where this system was still going on, and where there were those who were saying, look, you've left what is God-given, and you've left what is right, and you've gone for something, for some inferior imitation.

Their understanding of things is being adjusted here. It was weak, and it was unprofitable. Why was it so? Well, again, we're back to this idea of perfection. It couldn't make anything perfect. The law made nothing perfect, right?

Complete, mature, couldn't bring what it was working on to the goal of being sinless before God. Can I ask you to help us in verse 22? Can I take you to verse 22? Is that going too fast? Are we on the oath?

Okay, go ahead. The Lord Jesus is introduced as a surety in verse number 22. What is entailed with the work of suretyship? That's likely a bad terminology for an English professor, but it's the word pledge.

Sure. But we sing hymns, William. There is my surety, he firmly stood, paid for my ransom as precious blood, died for my sins to bring me to God, Jesus. It's wonderful hymnology. Is that scriptural theology?

I've never written a hymn, so I can't say. I enjoy that hymn. But every time you're looking at the surety, it's not a person who dies, it's a person who lives. And it's one of the indications you've been doing it, Mark, that there's resurrection and resurrected life in a man.

You go, the person that's the surety for a stranger in the book of Proverbs, he lives because he's surely smart for it. And here, this is the resurrected man, and because he lives, he's the surety now of a better covenant.

He's the guarantor.

Right. I still have to ask the question here, then. That seems like it takes us back to the counsel and foreknowledge of God, because he was as much a surety then as he is now. One is before, and one is carried out.

Am I way out of line on that? I think so.

Ruining our songs, is what that is.

A surety is, well, our dollar bill is a surety. It's a dead instrument. It is a promise that this piece of paper is worth something that you trade between two other items. That's what a surety is. It's a promise of a future event.

Now, him being, this is why I say it's all four, him being a man in heaven, is the first truth. He is a surety that a man, we men and women, are going to one day be in heaven. He's a surety as he ascends and stands before the...

But he is placed there by the oath. That's the context in which this is said. So he's made a priest by an oath, and now verse 22, by so much, or this is the mechanism by which Jesus was made the surety of a better testament.

So the Lord Jesus, who has gone through death, who has ascended to the right hand of God, he is the one who is the guarantor of this new covenant, because God has sworn and will not repent. That's the previous, we kind of jumped over it.

But God has sworn and has not repented, and God's word cannot be broken. So that's what guarantees him as the guarantor of this new covenant. So the Old Testament was everything to these people. The Old Covenant, and everything that came up, we've repeated it, but it needs to be repeated again.

There was a priesthood in the Old Covenant, and there was a high priest in the Old Covenant, and there were sacrifices in the Old Covenant, and there was a place of sacrifice, there was a tabernacle, and there was a temple in the Old Covenant, and we're going to lose all this.

But it's a better covenant. Because priesthood and covenant stand and fall together. Right. And with the doing away of the old priesthood, the point is he's doing away with the Old Covenant. Good. There's a bringing in of a new priesthood.

Right. So there's a bringing in of the New Covenant. Now would one of you rather care to give us a quick summary of the New Covenant?

Just quick. Well, it's in Jeremiah, we know that much. The essential element of the New Covenant were that God would promise a united nation, right? With those forgiveness of sins, the indwelling spirit, new heart.

And I still believe he's going to fulfill all of that for the nation. But do we come into the good of the spiritual blessings, those same spiritual blessings by the blood of the Lord Jesus?

The confirmation, sorry Mark, go ahead. The confirmation of that, David, is actually found in this letter. Because the New Covenant is introduced in chapter 8 of the book of Hebrews, and it's introduced in chapter 10 of the book of Hebrews.

In chapter 8 of the book of Hebrews, it says, I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. When you come to chapter 10, this is the covenant, and notice this now, that I will make with them.

And you notice what's been dropped out. The house of Judah and the house of Israel, because this is wider in its application, it includes us. Right. So, so far as the nation of Israel is concerned, that waits fulfillment.

They have not yet come into the good of the atonement of Christ. They will, at the manifestation of Christ, they'll take up the language of Isaiah 53. We did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, but he was wounded for our transgressions.

And they will enter into the good of this New Covenant. A nation will be born in a day, they'll have forgiveness of sins, and they'll be enjoying the blessings under that New Covenant. Go ahead. And Ephesians would teach us, wouldn't it, that we have a place in that covenant because we are in Christ.

We were far off, we were aliens, we were strangers, but now in Christ we have been brought now. That's part of the household of God. So, so just for younger ones, isn't it true that there's five descriptive terms in the book of Hebrews about this covenant?

Isn't that right? So it's a better covenant, it's a second covenant, it's an everlasting covenant, it's called the New Covenant, but it's called the New Covenant twice, and there's two different Greek words used in the book for the New Covenant.

So you can go through and check those, those various things, the five adjectives used about the covenant. And when you're going through that, the betters in this epistle are very important as well. Right, so we have that at the end of verse 22 in chapter 7 now, a better covenant.

Christ’s Permanent and Unchangeable Priesthood

And they truly were many priests, verse 23, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. That priesthood was so inadequate, and it got interrupted from time to time when these men up and died.

But this man, here's the Lord Jesus again in contrast with the Aaronic thing, his priesthood has no succession, he continueth ever, he's a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, and so he has an unchangeable priesthood, it's in perpetuity.

And I think it's worth emphasizing the value of that just from the point of view of the Israelites. It must have been quite a difficult thing when you'd known the same priest for years and he'd known all about you, and he was really able to sympathize and help because he knew you.

And then, as you say, he up and died. And here's another man, he's wearing the same robes, but he doesn't know me, and you have to start all over again. And we were reminding our hearts this morning about one who knows us through and through, he has us on his heart.

And there'll never have to be a moment when someone has to sort of get to know our need because he knows us and he continues. And the human priest has one or two million of you to look after. Pretty tough to get to know a few million people because of your circumstances in life and what you're facing from day to day, but our high priest knows all about that.

So in verse number 24 there, the word man is really italicized, telling us it's not really part of the Greek text. It would be just as well to read that, but this priest, it's not really stressing the manhood of the Lord Jesus, it's stressing the priesthood of the Lord Jesus, and he's continuing forever as a priest.

Right, it's unchangeable, it's untransferable. There's none that comes after him. He's the final goal that God had in mind. So it would be right to deduce from that then, would it, that Aaron's priesthood was a transferable priesthood and we've been taken to the mountaintop and it was transferred down the generations.

Not only is this not going to be, but it cannot be. So verse 25, therefore, or wherefore, because he is living forever, his priesthood goes on forever, then he is able to save to completion, completely, wholly, entirely, them that come on to God through him.

He ever lives to make intercession. The word he is able here really is the expression of his power, isn't that correct? It occurs five times, it occurs more than five times in this book, but it occurs five times in relation to the Lord Jesus.

So in chapter one we read, he upholds all things by the word of his power. It's the same word. In chapter two, the end verse, verse 18, in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able, he has power to succor them that are tempted.

When we come over here, verse number 16, after the power of an endless life and here, wherefore, he is able. There's another one I escaped in chapter four, which cannot be touched.

Is he primarily emphasizing in verse twenty five that come unto God by him, is he primarily emphasizing salvation there?

Yes, yes, in its fullest extent. What do you mean by that? What I mean by that is this, he delivers from sin in every aspect, so he delivers from the penalty of sin. He is currently delivering us from the power of sin.

He will appear again and deliver us from the very presence of sin. And so we are left in his presence sinless. Without charge, justified, actually declared righteous. Marvelous. So uttermost, right to the end of the road.

That's the goal.

Yes, he can meet our every need. You can't improve from then on. Yeah.

Christ’s Intercession and the Believer’s Access to God

But would you agree or would you not agree? The come to God by him is not so much as we might preach it in the gospel come for salvation. This is a this is the those who are in an ongoing way taking advantage of his priesthood and taking advantage of the way of access and are continually coming to God through him.

Yes. Yes, for sure. Which can't start somewhere. Assuming we're talking about an Israelite who's in covenant relationship with God, there were individuals we come across who were beyond the reach of the high priest to redeem.

They were to be stoned or burned or it was over. You had gone just too far. But it's refreshing to see here that that is not the case for those who repent as believers in our Christian walk.

I have a question. So I've joined this high priestly aspect of our Lord Jesus intercession for us. I was wondering, do we have an example of that in his life, that John 17, would that be an example, a sample prayer of his high priestly intercession prayer or would there be another one like Peter, we pray for like an effectual prayer where prayer came true for Peter.

I've prayed for the faith failed, his faith didn't fail. I enjoyed this person as can we take this for our Lord and know that he's doing that for us? An intercession prayer? Yeah.

The Lord's intercessionary prayer is sometimes called his high priestly prayer in John chapter 17 was prospective from the point that he's leaving them and he's committing them to the Father. But it is also an indication to us of his ongoing ministry.

This is what he's engaged. This is the interests on his heart for us now that we might be sanctified, that we might be kept from the world and so on. So yeah, thanks for the question John. Good link. And it's not just the Lord Jesus who makes intercession for us, isn't it good to know that there's also the Spirit who makes intercession for us.

The Holiness and Uniqueness of Christ the High Priest

So heavenly persons are interested in us, have a concern for us. You better get to verse 26, for such a high priest was suitable for us. One who is holy, one who is sanctified and set apart for God, in the presence of God.

He's harmless, he's undefiled, he's separate from sinners. Give us help with that now. It's an amazing statement, isn't it? It was suitable, it was fitting, it was right and proper for us to have a high priest like this.

An earthly priest with his infirmities and his death, that would do for Israel. As far as Israel were concerned, they were the big deal, they were the thing that was important. But the writer says now, for us, that will not be sufficient, it is fitting for us.

We need not to lose sight of the unique and special place that we have in the purposes of God in this dispensation. All these wonderful characteristics, he says that's the sort of high priest that was suitable for you.

Not just because of his dignity, but because of our need. We need a high priest like this because of the need that we have. Separate from sinners he always was, in terms of moral purity and excellence, but in a very real way now, in his exalted life at the right hand of God, as we were introduced to him at the very beginning of the book, he's ascended there to God's right hand and separate from sinners in that way, made higher than the heavens.

So he was holy in his life, he was harmless in his death, he was undefiled in his burial, and he's separate from sinners in his resurrection from the dead, and he's now made higher than the heavens. Very good.

Do you want to tell us about the making higher? There's the three references in the book, isn't there? Chapter 4, verse 14. Become higher. So chapter 4, verse 14 says he's passed into the heavens. Here, it says he's made higher than the heavens.

By the time you get to chapter 9, verse 24, he's moved into heaven itself. Very good. Now to appear in the presence of God for us. So he had no need to offer for his own sins, and then for the people's.

Christ’s Once-for-All Sacrifice

He did that once, when he offered himself. Can you help us, I know this is sort of a little bit of a chestnut, who needeth not daily as those high priests to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the people's?

That was really day of atonement activity, wasn't it? To offer for his own sins and then for the people, and yet we're told that he did it, well, we're told he needeth not daily. So how do you reconcile those two statements, or the statement on the Old Testament context?

Yes, the day of atonement was the culmination of a year, wasn't it? When sin offerings had been brought and so on. There was a daily need to bring a sin offering if you were conscious of sin, and it was all culminated in the day of atonement.

So either daily or once, a one-time event, the Lord Jesus didn't need to do that for himself, but he did it for the people with this one offering of himself.

Is he comparing the consecration where that was done daily for at least the seven days?

He could be. I had wondered whether the daily emphasis was more on the need, and so that there was the day of atonement, and in a sense that made provision for a year, but the very next day, well, the same provision was really needed, and the day after the same provision was needed.

So even though the day of atonement happened once a year, it was a daily and an ongoing need. It was possible for a priest to sin and bring a sacrifice every day. I really had wondered if David's point wasn't the pertinent point.

So those seven-day periods that you were thinking about? I was wondering if that's not what we have here, to show that this priest is so unique, he did not need that seven-day period to consecrate him.

Very good. Okay, good. Well, our time is fast running out. Any comments coming into Chapter 8? Christ is the minister and the mediator of heavenly things. This is the chief thing, this is the main point now that he's coming to, that we have, we hold, we possess such a high priest whom he has been talking about, that we've been talking about here in our discussion.

And he is now set at the right hand of the majesty, of the throne of the majesty, in the heavens. The place of preference, the right hand of the throne. So was there ever provision in the old economy for a priest to sit?

No. How many times in the book of the Hebrews does Christ sit? Oh no, you keep asking me these questions. You're supposed to know the answer. You're a narrow spencer, you know the answer already, go ahead.

So four times in the book the Lord Jesus sits, and it almost seems to be that it's expanding every time. Chapter 1, Chapter 8, Chapter 10, and Chapter 12, Christ sits in the book. In the Old Testament there's an occasion where a priest sat, Eli, and he was basically blind and died shortly thereafter.

We have a priest who was able to sit, but he's not blind and is very perceptive. God hadn't made provision for them to sit in the tabernacle system.

Christ’s Heavenly Sanctuary and Better Covenant

I have some more subpar alliteration to offer. So we've been looking at Christ obviously being great in his position, or great in his person, right, in who he is, and great even in the provision that he made.

But now you come here and he's great in his position. He sits enthroned.

So he serves in a sanctuary that is not of this earth, the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched. I take it that's the real, genuine dwelling place of God, where God is. We've seen this right through these readings, haven't we, that there's the idea of priesthood and sanctuary and sacrifice, they all come together.

So Moses saw this thing, didn't he? When he was on the Mount? The tabernacle. Well he saw something. Well he saw what he was to make. Did he see the essence of it all? This true tabernacle, you mean this heavenly tabernacle?

Just I'm really being bad at this point in the Bible reading. I don't think this was what was showed to him on the Mount. I think it was literally some kind of model or vision of the actual structure of the tabernacle, the way God wanted it historically to be made back then.

So we're learning the spiritual reality of that physical thing. Of what that spoke of. Yeah. Right. And it is interesting, of course, that the Holy of Holies, where God actually was going to dwell, everything else was proprietary to that, but where God would dwell in the Holy of Holies was a cube.

And then you have the heavenly city, it's a cube.

John saw something. Of course, it was a temple, not a tabernacle.

He saw no temple therein, because the whole thing was the temple. The heavenly city, God in the land was the temple. Yeah. All right. Where are we? What time is it? It's nearly supper time. Coffee's wearing off.

So now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, verse 6, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant. So he has a new ministry that was not Aaron's function, but the Lord now serves in a heavenly tabernacle, the very throne room of God, if you will.

And not only does he have a new ministry, but there's a new covenant. He's the mediator of a better covenant established upon better promises. Now tell me, what are the better promises? Don't we have one right here in this chapter?

Go ahead. Jeremiah 31 is quoted. Okay. There's quite a few promises in that if you were just to count them in.

So is the better covenant the new covenant? The new covenant. Yeah.

Right. And better promises, God's word cannot be broken. So why is he introducing better promises here? Israel made a promise that put them under law. Right. So all that the Lord has spoken, we will do.

They broke their promise. So they entered into a bilateral covenant. But God had already established a unilateral covenant with Abraham. And there were certain promises that God gave to Abraham. How are they going to be fulfilled?

They are fulfilled in the new covenant. And every aspect of the Abrahamic covenant or the Davidic covenant, whether it's to the seed, whether it's to the throne, whether it's to the land, is all confirmed under the auspices of the new covenant.