READINGS ON HEBREWS (5)
READINGS ON HEBREWS (5)
JT You will notice that, whilst we are enjoined to consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, the epistle deals mainly with the High Priest.
AFM Chapter 1 gives practically all the instruction we have of the Apostle; what follows is an opening up of the Priest until we come to chapter 10.
CB Would it convey the thought that the system was now to be maintained after being inaugurated?
JT Yes. Much is made of the priesthood in view of the maintenance of what is inaugurated by the Apostle.
FL Does not the Apostle go on to some extent into chapter 2? Then the thought of the Priest comes in.
JT Yes. The first four verses of chapter 2 and the early verses of chapter 3.
ANW What is there in the Old Testament that suggests apostleship? One can easily trace priesthood; what is there besides Moses as the apostle?
JT An apostle is one sent out from God. In Exodus 3 it says, “Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt ... Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: ... Go, and gather the children of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you [p. 68] in Egypt: And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of Canaanites”, Exodus 3. I think there you have his apostolic commission, and what may be observed is that God, in commissioning Moses says in verse 6 of this chapter, “I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” — “thy father”, meaning that he had a personal link with the patriarch. And further, that fresh communications (what He was about to say, involving “I AM” which was a present thought), were linked with what had been given to the fathers. “I AM”, expressing what God is at the present time, involves present ministry. “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”, refer to past ministry, or testimony, but all is linked together in the fresh ministry that is now given to Moses.
FL Would the thought of the apostle in the Old Testament go as far as the unfolding of that aspect of the house of God over which Moses was set, and therefore go on to resurrection ground? To Exodus 15, for instance, where we get the expression of divine purpose. Would we find apostleship there?
JT Quite.
ANW The idea in apostleship is one sent direct with fresh communications.
JT Paul said: “Am I not an apostle? ... Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” 1 Corinthians 9:1. There we have: “that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you”, 1 John 1:3. That, I think, conveys the thought of apostleship.
FL Would the attitude of Moses in Leviticus 1, be an example of his apostleship? “The Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel”, Leviticus 1:1.
JT Yes. John’s gospel emphasises that: “there was a man sent from God, his name John”, John 1:6 [p. 69] That was the idea, although John was not called an apostle; but what the Lord cites of Himself is: “I came forth from God; ... for neither am I come of myself, but he has sent me”, John 8: 42. So that the relation between Him and Moses seems to be very intimate. Exodus 3 is the beginning of it.
DMR Would Exodus 39 indicate that the people accepted him as the apostle? They were to make everything according to all that the Lord commanded Moses, and it says: “And Moses did look upon all the work, and behold, they had done it as the Lord had commanded, even so had they done it: and Moses blessed them”, Exodus 39:43.
JT You have it in Exodus 14: “The people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses”, Exodus 14:31.
WHC So an apostle is one who comes out from God with the mind of God in connection with the inauguration of something new.
JT The Name, “I AM” was new. It suggests God as ever existing and present. It might be said, How can you connect what is past with that, because the patriarchs are dead? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are dead. This is where the great truth of resurrection comes in — the past is linked with the present — because God is “not the God of the dead, but the God of the living”, Mark 12:27. We are not supposed to be dead, nor is it contemplated that we should die. Christianity is set up in life, and all is linked with the past because God is “the God of the living”. This was cited to the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection. The present is “I AM”; but there is the past, that is brought in because God is “the God of the living”; Abraham, Isaac and Jacob live to God on the principle of resurrection.
FL Take the thought of the prophet. Prophetic ministry is light from God brought to bear on what [p. 70] already exists, exercising the conscience. It is distinct from the apostle, or the priest.
JT It invariably contemplates departure.
FL Therefore recovery and revival. The exercise of the conscience is with the prophet.
DMR You were saying there is more detail in this epistle about the Priest than the Apostle. Would that be because the subject of the holiest is in view?
JT That we are to approach God. So Exodus 28 introduces the great subject of priesthood. Earlier God had said to Moses: “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh”, Exodus 7:1. It was a remarkable thing that a man on earth should be constituted a god. “And Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet”, Exodus 7:1. It was a wonderful thing that God should take up a shepherd in the wilderness, and make him a god!
FL What does that convey to you?
JT He represented God in the power that he used, and the words he spoke. God was there representatively before Pharaoh’s eyes: “And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth”, Exodus 9:16.
When Moses stood before Pharaoh he had the prophet by his side. Aaron acted with him in that capacity; but Aaron in Exodus 28 is constituted formally a priest: the prophet becomes the priest, and the point was, “that he may serve me as a priest”, Exodus 28:1. His service in Egypt was over at that particular time, there was no longer need for that; but there was need for the sustaining of what was set up by Moses.
DMR The word is: “Aaron ... and his sons with him”, Exodus 28:1.
JT His sons are with him. There were no sons with him in his prophetic ministry; but sons are necessary in the service of priesthood.
FL The Lord in the gospel of John quotes from Psalm 82 when He said: “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came”, John 10: 35. I was wondering if the Lord brought that in in the same connection, and with the same moral import as Moses when sent to Pharaoh with Aaron.
JT That is the point in John’s gospel. So he says in his first epistle, “he is the true God”, 1 John 5:20. The gospel sets before us that it was God Himself. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”, John 14:9. But the position of Aaron as priest comes in, in Exodus 28, with the thought in view that he should minister unto God in that office. So in the genealogy given in chapter 6 both Moses and Aaron are connected, “This is that Aaron and Moses”, Exodus 6:26. But then, it goes beyond that in Aaron’s case for we have Eleazar and Phinehas; but nothing is said there about Moses’ posterity because Moses is the apostle but the priesthood goes beyond Aaron, so that there is adequate testimony to the extension of that side. And the last-named son, Phinehas, has the priesthood forever; he secures it because of his personal devoted-ness, and not because of his being Aaron’s grandson. It is said in the book of Judges that he stood before the ark in those days — days of apostasy — this one priest stood and supported the testimony; chapter 20:27,28.
AFM Moses’ grandson stood at the same time!
JT Yes, but as an apostate priest.
FL With Phinehas, the priest, there is a suggestion of his carrying right through to Christ. Something like John at the end of his gospel: “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” John 21:22,23. He is an abiding one right through. So Phinehas is brought into view and is seen, in moral characteristics in Malachi and I suppose, can be perceived in Zacharias in Luke 1, and so comes through up to Christ.
AFM In the opening verses of our chapter [p. 72] the great point about the priest is that he should be taken from amongst men — men are in view Godward.
JT Taken by a definite calling: “No one takes the honour to himself but as called by God”. What came out, in the apostasy of the priest who ministered in Dan was, that the man Jehonathan, took the honour upon himself; Judges 18:30. That is like the modern clerical system: men have taken the honour upon themselves.
AFM I suppose, according to verse 5 of this chapter, there is what is prior to the priesthood. The Lord in Psalm 2 is addressed by Jehovah as “Son” — “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”, Psalm 2:7. Then in Psalm 110: “Thou art priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec”, Psalm 110:4. He must have links with God in sonship in view of priesthood.
JT Priesthood is in the Son. God addresses Him as Son in chapter 1, and then here: “Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec”. He is addressed by God as High Priest according to that order.
BTF Have you two orders of priesthood here — the Aaronic and that of Melchisedec?
JT Aaron represents the function that the Lord exercises today. He is brought in here to show that the Lord recognised the principle of the priest being called. “And no one takes the honour to himself but as called by God, even as Aaron also. Thus the Christ also has not glorified himself to be made a High Priest; but he who had said to him, Thou art my Son, I have today begotten thee. Even as also in another place he says, Thou art a Priest forever according to the order of Melchisedec”. The Lord did not constitute Himself a High Priest — He was called to it.
DMR Did not Korah, Dathan and Abiram fail in not apprehending the truth contained in these first four verses? They rose up, with others, against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “Ye take too much upon you, ... wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?” Numbers 16:2,3.
JT “Ye take too much upon you”, Numbers 16:2,3. Their error lay in desiring to assume the priesthood because they were Levites. We are priests because we are sons, not because we are servants. Because they were Levites they assumed to be priests; but our passage says: “No one takes the honour to himself but as called by God, even as Aaron also”. Korah and his company were disregarding the fact that Aaron was called by God.
AFM The attestation of the priesthood was made in connection with the twelve rods being laid up in the tabernacle; by this means it was established by God who the true priest was. Aaron’s rod budded, bloomed blossoms and yielded almonds.
JT So that the bulwark against such an uprising is life. To make the murmurings of the children of Israel to cease, God says. And further: “Bring Aaron’s staff again before the testimony, to be kept as a token for the sons of rebellion, that thou mayest put an end to their murmurings before me, that they may not die”, Numbers 17.
WLP What is the honour which goes beyond our being Christians? We are called with such a holy calling. What is necessary beyond that to be a priest?
FL It gives us an insight into the beautiful spirit of subjection which was in Christ. When here upon earth He well knew He was indicated as the great High Priest; yet He allows all His days to pass and never claims the priesthood. When He came to the temple, which He habituated, He went only into the outer courts, never into the holy place nor holiest of all. What subjection of spirit! What patience! Until the moment when God should call Him.
JT “Thus the Christ also has not glorified himself to be made a High Priest”.
ARS Would His waiting for the call of God be another example of His dependence?
JT It was the recognition that it was for God to select His Priest, and to designate the order also. The order involved the divinity of the Lord. Aaron was called, but not according to the order of Melchisedec. Melchisedec is typically a divine Person, as chapter 7 of this epistle shows.
BTF Would you say a word regarding the force of the Apostle and High Priest being in one glorious Person?
JT It insures against any possibility of disagreement or disintegration, if you have both in one Person. Even with Aaron and Moses there was a serious disagreement, such indeed as might have brought about the dissolution of the system had God not come in. Miriam and Aaron had rebelled against Moses, and said: “Has Jehovah indeed spoken only to Moses? Has he not also spoken to us?” Numbers 12:2. Here it was not the priesthood, but the apostleship they were claiming. It should be noticed that in this connection the Spirit does not speak of the official, or servant Moses, but of “the man Moses”. The point was that these two persons should have known that man. Others might have known him officially as he sat judging the people, etc., but Miriam and Aaron should have known the man. Miriam was considerably older, and Aaron was two years older than Moses; so that they both knew him from his infancy. The Spirit, therefore, adds what is so beautiful about him: “But the man Moses was very meek, above all men that were upon the face of the earth” Numbers 12:3; and God vindicated him. See Numbers 12.
AFM Was not the Lord’s ministry on earth priestly in character, as, for instance, the parable of Luke 10?
[p. 75] JT That was moral. He came where the man was, but He had no official place. It says, “A certain Samaritan”, Luke 10:33. He was just a Samaritan; but what He did was priestly work. Indeed, throughout Luke’s gospel His service is of that character, which shows that you must have the moral before you can have the official.
FL That is true from Genesis 4. There we see the priesthood in its moral aspect of approach to God in Abel. Then in Abram rescuing his brother Lot. Morally the priesthood existed before the priest himself was brought into view. So in the gospel. The blessed Lord fulfilled almost every function of the priest, even of the great priest; but the calling was not yet made evident.
JT He qualified before He was officially recognised.
ANW When would you say the Lord’s personal apostleship started?
JT In Luke 4: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach glad tidings to the poor; he has sent me to preach to captives deliverance, and to the blind sight, to send forth the crushed delivered, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord”, Luke 4:18.
FL “He has sent me”.
JT Before that He was recognised.
FL I suppose His recognition at His baptism would cover all the moral glories of His Person, Prophet, Priest and King — all that He was in the fulness of His Person was covered in His baptism and anointing; but then, the separate characteristics are afterwards unfolded, for instance, the apostleship in Luke 4, and the Priest in His ministrations.
CAM Would you say that His having this place accorded Him by God was in answer to what He was morally here?
JT It was due to God that the moral should be [p. 76] there. What we have here would refer to Him in resurrection. “If then indeed he were here upon earth, he would not even be a priest” (Hebrews 8:4), so the word is a strong one, “Addressed by God”, or “saluted of God as High Priest according to the order of Melchisedec”. God well knew what was there; but the salutation on His part is, “Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedec”. That would be to Christ as risen.
AFM The title conferred by God showed there was in Him all that was morally great to support it.
JT It is well to notice that not only is He recognised as High Priest, but His order is designated — the order in which He is to appear — that also is God’s doing. He designates Him as High Priest, but also as of the order of Melchisedec. Chapter 7 will disclose to us what God had in mind in that designation.
ARS In the ordinary course of events the priest was taken from the tribe of Levi, but did not continue; the High Priest after the order of Melchisedec continues forever, showing, I suppose, the greatness of His Person.
JT What comes out in this chapter is not so much the greatness of His Person as the moral side. Chapter 7 brings before us His greatness; but here it is the moral side; “who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears (and having been heard because of his piety); though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered; and having been perfected, became to all them that obey him, Author of eternal salvation”. It is as having been perfected; but prior to that, there is the moral perfection of Christ here upon earth.
FL There is something beautiful and very precious about this. “In the days of his flesh”, etc., He entered into the depths of suffering, and all that was [p. 77] involved in His humiliation; but He still waits, and God waits; then resurrection having come in, He is saluted of God. It is as though the King of England might set some personage in the highest position in his Empire; and then in public salute him as put into that position, being qualified and fitted for it by moral worth. There is something beautiful in the contrast: “strong crying and tears” and “saluted of God” in His resurrection.
JT It is a wonderful position. In chapter 7 you have fully opened up the personal dignity of “this Melchisedec”; but here you have the mention of the Melchisedec order, and then immediately the moral greatness of Christ in His obedience, and His becoming the Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him. So that we are supported by the priesthood for salvation as obedient.
Can anything be more wonderful than that it should be said He learned anything? It brings out the wonderful stoop He made. He who had always commanded, “he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast”, Psalm 33:9. He is now found in the position of obedience. It was His moral perfection that led Him to do the bidding of another. “He wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned”, Isaiah 1:4. It was His daily experience with God. As having taken man’s place, He would retain it, and dignify the manhood He had assumed. He dignified it morally. It will be dignified officially, because the race is dignified in its Head being the Son of God; but before that moment, you have displayed in Christ all that man should be to God. That is the force of the word ‘found’ at His baptism. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight” (Matthew 3:17); meaning that God had been looking for His delight in others, but did not find it; but He now had found it in Christ. All this was seen in the days of His flesh; but being [p. 78] perfected, and risen from the dead, He is saluted of God as High Priest, according to the order of Melchisedec.
BTF What you have said is brought out in the Psalms. God’s Man was found in Psalm 16 — the dependent Man.
JT That is so. The moral side precedes the official side. Man is reinstated before God in Christ in this moral way.
FL Hence the beauty of the choice of the word here that He becomes “The Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him”. Those He saves are like Himself. In chapter 2 He is “bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the Leader of their salvation through sufferings”, Hebrews 2:10. But here He becomes Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him. I think the choice of the word is worthy of note.
AFM “Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears (and having been heard because of his piety); though he was Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered”. The obedience was complete.
JT It would not have been complete unless He had passed all through that! He was heard because of His piety. We could only hope to be heard through another; but He is heard on account of His moral qualifications.
CAM Would you say that He came into this position of obedience to experience what obedience was, in order that we might come into this place through obedience?
JT It is so morally that those who are obedient get the good of this great salvation, and of the support of the Priest. You do not get it if you are rebellious. We are sanctified unto the obedience of Christ. That [p. 79] is the standard God has before Him, and we are sanctified to no less than that.
CAM What impresses me is that we come morally into the good of this through His taking this wonderful place of piety — the moral glories that come out in Him we come into the good of.
JT We are sanctified unto the obedience of Christ. The only One who was ever heard in His own right was Christ — He was heard on account of His piety. We are heard in virtue of the merits of another who gives us place and standing.
ANW Could a little more be said about His being heard? Gethsemane might suggest He was heard; would Calvary also?
JT “Thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns” (Psalm 22:21); that would be when on the cross, but the being heard is also found earlier in John 11. The Lord says, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me”, John 11:41. Then in John 12: “Father, glorify thy name”, John 12:28. Immediately the word comes, “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again”, John 12:28. I think the first glorification was in taking Lazarus out of the grave; and the second was in the taking of Christ out of it.
ANW Is that after Psalm 22:1 was fulfilled?
JT After the forsaking He is heard; “from the horns of the buffaloes thou hast answered me”, Psalm 22:21 It is there He commits His Spirit to the Father.
AFM Do you connect the hearing in Psalm 22 with what He went through on the cross?
FL Gethsemane and the suffering of Christ on the cross were, in a sense, all one.
AFM You would support your remark about the Lord being heard after the forsaking by Luke’s [p. 80] gospel?
JT Yes. He spoke to the Father after the forsaking in that gospel. It is a subject that opens up a vast field as to the Man who is our Head racially — not as of the church, but as having taken the place of Head of the race. The more you look into it, the more wonderful it is, since it brings in a race before God on moral grounds first, and then dignifies it in the fact that He is the Son of God. Our part in it, of course, could only be on the ground of redemption.
ANW “Concerning whom we have much to say, and hard to be interpreted in speaking of it, since ye are become dull in hearing”.
JT It is the full millennial glory the writer has in view. Think of the vast system of glory, and of Christ in His personal dignity, exercising the office of Priest! Think how much could be said about that, and about the Lord Himself in that relation! But few are able to listen, having “become dull in hearing”.
ANW Is it ever stated what the writer had to say as referred to in verse 11?
JT I think that in chapter 7 the writer returns to the subject; but here he has to rebuke them; he says: “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again, which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil”. They could not, therefore, take in the moral side of what we are speaking. There are those who can speak of the coming glories of Christ; but the first thing is to be able to take in what is moral, which suggests that we have our senses exercised to discern between good and evil. Malachi refers to that: “Then shall ye ... discern between the righteous and the wicked”, Malachi 3:18. If you cannot do that, you can not understand the first principles of the Priest.
FL You get the same thing in 1 Corinthians. The apostle could only speak to them as to babes. He was pent up. But then, he brings them under exercise, and in the second epistle He unfolds the things of which He could not speak in the first. So here in our chapter he is pent up; but he brings in a line of exercise, and in chapter 7 turns to the greatness of Christ and goes onward to the way into the holiest in chapter 10. It is not that he does not speak of it.
JT But he had to rebuke them, as he would us, if we have not our senses exercised to discern between good and evil. Many take up the book of Revelation, for instance, in a mental way; but the moral must come in before you can take in the meaning of the things it contains. How could any one rightly go through the book without being able to discern between good and evil beforehand?
CAM What you are saying places great value on the whole question of good and evil.
JT “The word of righteousness” is the first thing, which, I suppose, we find in the epistle to the Romans. The word of righteousness is that which in Christ disentangles everything here. It is the first thing we need to be skilled in. So that this question of righteousness — of having our senses exercised — is of all importance. There is no hope at all of any Christian getting on without it — having what answers to the five senses and all in full exercise.
AFM It is the habit of a full-grown man, really.
FL I suppose, when they take a recruit they exercise him, not only physically, but mentally. Romans is very much on that line. The individual is taken up and put through every necessary training to make him fit for his place in the body. He is then [p. 82] ready for Colossians. The apostle here says, in principle, you have not got as far as that.
CAM If we had not to start in this way, as unskilled, we could start with the gospels.
FL Take Saul of Tarsus — Paul. He was so wholly surrendered, and subject to the Man in glory, that it was a very short process with him and a very thorough one, whereas, we may take many long years, and never reach but a dim conception of what he reached in a few days.
JT Here you have, “solid food belongs to full-grown men”. Speaking of the gospels, they present what full-grown men delight in.
Rem You could not think of anything being left out in this epistle that ought to be in.
JT There is nothing left unsaid. You may be sure of that. Although the apostle says he can not say it here, you may be sure everything that should have been said about this Person has been said. The gospels unfold to us the varied glories of Christ; and I think, as we go on a little in the truth, they become more to us. They are written not from the side of our learning — though abundantly instructive — but from God’s standpoint. If you would have the thing perfectly, He says, you must let Me present it from My own side. The gospels give you that. The epistles present our side, and the full-grown man is the great end to be reached by us in them.
AFM One has observed that young believers love to turn to the gospels. In what order would you suggest that the Scriptures should be taken up in view of becoming full grown?
JT First of all, we should heed the word in 2 Timothy 3:16: “Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”, 2 Timothy 3:16. Every scripture is, therefore, available to the youngest believer for these things. If the order is described in [p. 83] detail, I would say the first scripture to read is Romans. That epistle is for adjustment. It takes account of the believer as in the world, and adjusts him in relation to God, and then in relation to his brethren. It incidentally gives light as to the faithfulness of God in regard to His ways with Israel; and also gives an inkling of His purposes. The next epistles would be 1 and 2 Corinthians, having assembly training and order in view. These do not take one out of the wilderness, so that Colossians follows, showing how I am to enter the land. Lastly Ephesians, where the land is opened up to us, and we are made to sit down and contemplate. The gospels present to us the Man who is in the land, Christ, “The old corn of the land” (Joshua 5:12), the One indigenous to that place — “The Son of man, which is in heaven”, John 3:13. The gospels furnish this, and present also the glories of His Person. The field opened up in the gospels is so great it is infinite!
FL A most helpful outline. One would point out that it supposes more or less of an acquaintance with the Old Testament scriptures. They were the only scriptures which Timothy knew from a child.
JT Luke 24 gives the Lord’s division of the Old Testament — “Law of Moses and prophets and psalms” (Luke 24:44) — and the great subject matter: “Concerning me”.