READINGS ON HEBREWS (7)
READINGS ON HEBREWS (7)
ANW Referring to chapter 7, the writer says he could not speak of many things he wished to, because they were hard of interpretation. Are the things in this chapter regarding Melchisedec easy of interpretation?
JT I think he refers to the things spoken of in this chapter. He had digressed from that point to speak a word to them as to their practical state; but now he returns to the subject in this chapter.
AFM He is more free, you would say, after clearing the ground in chapter 6, to return to his theme in chapter 7.
ANW Their hearing was better.
JT The word in chapter 6 would have the effect of bringing about better hearing. Then, having touched on the Priest who has gone in, he cannot refrain from calling attention to His personal greatness. He enlarges on it in order to bring out the greatness of the people of whom He is Priest. So he says, “such a High Priest became us”. This chapter is not only to call attention to the personal greatness of Christ (chapter 1 does that, to emphasise the speaking; and how great the word is!) but to the greatness of the company. So it says, “such a High Priest became us”.
In chapter 1 it is the Son: “God ... has spoken to us in Son”, Hebrews 1:1,2. The Son in His personal greatness is dwelt upon, but here it is the Priest. So the chapter begins: “For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, priest of the most high God”. The greatness of the Priest is brought before us.
ANW Did you say the great thought [p. 101] of the chapter was to set forth the greatness of those for whom He is Priest?
JT That is the point. He says in verse 26, “For such a High Priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens: who has not day by day need, as the high priests, first to offer up sacrifices for his own sins, then for those of the people; for this he did once for all in having offered up himself. For the law constitutes men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the swearing of the oath which is after the law, a Son perfected for ever”. So the greatness of the Priest indicates the greatness of the company. We should probably put it the other way: such a people becomes such a High Priest; but the Holy Spirit puts it in such a way as to elevate us in our apprehension of our great place.
J.S. Why king of Salem?
JT “First being interpreted king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace”. I suppose one thing follows the other: peace follows righteousness.
AFM I suppose those titles will have their bearing in the world to come, strictly speaking. He will establish righteousness publicly, and then bring in peace.
JT “He ... shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a Priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both”, Zechariah 6:13. The King and the Priest in one. The Lord will be known as a Priest on His throne; but a Priest as having established righteousness. The King of righteousness brings forward the great question of righteousness, that is to say, the rights of God.
JS He is that now; not King simply of a certain country, or nation; but King of righteousness.
JT He is described as the righteous One; but “King of righteousness” involves more, not only [p. 102] that He is personally righteous; but He is in full control of righteousness.
AFM In its application to us, would that be seen in His position as Lord?
JT I think so, as having accomplished righteousness. We were dwelling last evening on the constituent features of the gospel. Paul said: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith”, Romans 1:16,17. Now the King of righteousness has control, and is available for faith. He is presented “on the principle of faith to faith”, Romans 1:17. So the repentant sinner today comes unto the righteousness of God. That righteousness is revealed in the gospel, in fact, it is in Christ. The repentant sinner knows it, as we see in Peter, who fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Luke 5:8), showing he recognised that righteousness was there. There was power there also to give a draught of fishes; but the moral element is in righteousness, that is, God’s rights in mercy. The righteousness of God is attractive to the repentant soul, even though conscious of its unfitness for the divine presence.
DMR Abraham’s faith was accounted to him for righteousness. As a righteous man he rescued Lot, and Melchisedec came forth and blessed him.
JT I think Abraham would appreciate the King of righteousness. He was accounted righteous — he was a righteous man.
AFM The Lord’s word to Peter was: “Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men”, Luke 5:10.
JT Those words breathed the grace and mercy that were there, and Peter would be made conscious of that. So the leper, who is the next character in the chapter, says, “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And he put forth his hand and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean”, Luke 5:12. That was righteousness.
JS Being able to deal with the case.
JT He was disposed to deal with it. “I will”, He says.
AFM Rights in mercy.
ARS “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other”, Psalm 85:10.
JT All were combined in Christ. Righteousness is the first great thought. Without it you can have nothing; but think of having the King of it! He can control it and make it effective. Just as Solomon: “I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:12), meaning, he had means of making right of way for the preaching.
DMR That is the reason why there is so much made of righteousness in Romans.
JT I think so: “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith”, Romans 1:17. The moral element is there.
AFM In Romans 14 it says, “for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”, Romans 14:17. It is the practical result in us of God’s righteousness being known.
WB-w In that war, when Abram came forward and delivered Lot, neither the four kings nor the five were right.
JT It was four against five, and a real war, so to say. Neither side was right; but Abram the Hebrew was right. He dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, outside of all the conflict. He was of another world, but had trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen; that is to say, he had the means by him of rescuing his brother. It would [p. 104] not have been right to have joined either side; but it was right to rescue his brother, and he did so.
AFM Why do you think that Melchisedec, king of Salem, intercepted him?
JT It was to bring into evidence what God approved: “Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth”, Genesis 14:19 Melchisedec recognised Abram.
AFM It is very striking that it is before the king of Sodom comes up with his offer. I was wondering whether God saw that Abram might yield, and that he needed support in order to be superior to the offer of the king of Sodom.
JT He supported him in the presence of the test, you mean.
CB God brings in righteousness in Melchisedec as typifying the One who is able to control the universe.
JT And also that what was right was recognised. He recognised Abram.
AFM Is not the point in this chapter, that there was some one greater than Abraham to whom Abraham gave the tenth portion of all?
JT That is the point. Only it is very interesting to see that the King of righteousness comes in at a juncture where there had been conflict, and recognises Abram’s rescuing his brother Lot as right.
ANW This scripture does not refer to his rescuing his brother; but to the smiting of the kings.
JT The Old Testament furnishes the details. Abram’s interference recovered the brother; but then, he refused to take anything from the king of Sodom. I think Melchisedec recognised all that.
ARS What is Abram a type of, in smiting these kings?
JT He represents the Lord as rescuing the brethren — Israel in the last days.
JF Melchisedec is also called “King of peace”.
JT Peace is consequent on [p. 105] righteousness.
JF The Lord comes in and supports us previous to a trial that He knows is coming upon us. The Lord said in regard to Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not”, Luke 22:32.
ANW Is that not one of the points that the Spirit presses here? One would question if Abram would have been supported as he was had the king of Sodom appeared before he was blessed and refreshed by Melchisedec.
JT The point here is to bring out the greatness of Christ, as prefigured in Melchisedec. “The inferior is blessed by the better”. He was greater than Abraham.
ANW Another point the Spirit brings out is that the great patriarch rendered tithes to Melchisedec. One questions if he would have rendered tithes if he had not been made superior.
AFM Is it not Melchisedec’s service rendered in two ways, he blesses Abraham and also God?
JT Yes. In Genesis 14 it says: “And Melchisedec, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all”, Genesis 14:18 - 20.
ANW What I meant was, the giving on the part of Abram immediately follows his having been blessed by Melchisedec.
JT The priesthood of Christ induces giving. “And he gave him tithes of all”. “Now consider how great this personage was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth out of the spoils”. The Spirit of God in referring to Abraham as a patriarch suggests that the great progenitor of the greatest family on earth was not as great as Melchisedec. It is not only that Abraham was a righteous man; but, in regard to the Jew, he was their great progenitor — “the patriarch Abraham” — the great head of the family.
ANW So, if the Lord excels the greatest heavenly beings in chapter 1, He excels the greatest earthly people in chapter 8.
JT Even though one might pride oneself in being of the stock of Abraham, like Saul did, for example, one is brought into something greater than that in this chapter.
JF It would be a tremendous thing for the Jew to learn that the lowly Jesus was a Priest after the order of Melchisedec.
JT That was the thing for the Jewish believer to get hold of.
ANW I suppose you would not care to refer to the greatness of any man unless it suggested the greatness of Christ.
JT “The patriarch Abraham” had an undisputed place. There were other nations who would not dispute the place “the patriarch Abraham” had; but, what he was as a righteous man would only be understood spiritually. As the patriarch he would be recognised because he was the progenitor, not only of the Jewish nation, but of other nations. That he should be exceeded by our Priest shows our greatness, and lifts us above the greatest family on earth.
ANW In being called to consider how great this personage was, it is that we might see the greatness of Christ.
JT He is brought in here as coming in outside of the ordinary course of nature, not viewed as born of a woman: “without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life”. There never has been another such [p. 107] person. Such statements could only typify One who is divine.
Rem Looking at priesthood in that light, it eclipses the Aaronic priesthood.
JT One is taken out of the ordinary settings of life, however distinguished a man may be. “For such a High Priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens”. You are elevated as having such a High Priest, because ‘Like people, like priest’, applies here. “Such a High Priest became us”. What an exalted people the saints of this dispensation are! This is what the Jewish believers needed to get hold of, because they naturally prided themselves in their relation with Abraham and the Aaronic priesthood; but this is to lift them outside of that into heavenly relationships and associations.
JF “Without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life”, was that to emphasise the eternal existence of Christ?
JT I think so. The thought of having such a High Priest as that was intended to lift the saints out of ordinary relations.
We are apt to attach much to our family relations, this was especially so with the Jews in being able to trace their line back to Abraham — that was what Saul could do — but this ministry would lift one out of that, and connect one with the order of priesthood that had neither father, nor mother, without genealogy, nor beginning of days nor end of life.
AFM The object of all this is to bring us to the Lord’s side of things, that we might with Him as our High Priest minister to God. That service is rendered, as you say, by a heavenly people.
Rem Little is said in Scripture as to who Melchisedec was.
JT Whoever Melchisedec was historically, the [p. 108] Scriptures introduce him in this way, so that God might have a great type of Christ to refer to later. In Psalm 110 He refers to this great personage and swears: “Thou art Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec”, Psalm 110. Therefore it is that the saints might contemplate. This personage appeared on the scene at an extraordinary time, and disappears again; but God resumes His way with Abram, who was the immediate object with God. Then in David’s day, or the day of the Psalms, God introduces Melchisedec afresh. He was, as it were, a heavenly visitor in Abram’s day; but it was the divine thought at the very outset that he should be a type of Christ, and in the Psalms you have him brought in as such.
AFM Why the long silence regarding him until Psalm 110? Is it because Christ is brought before us very prominently in the Psalms?
JT The Psalms work out in man’s experience what is according to God. The Aaronic priesthood would not do; the godly would discern that. The Psalms go to show what was discerned by faith. The psalmist refers to God as addressing Christ as a Priest after the order of Melchisedec.
JT Although Christ is Priest after the order of Melchisedec, yet He exercises priesthood according to the Aaronic order now.
JT When you come to the function of the Priest it is Aaronic.
ANW Alluding to Aaron, the Spirit of God speaks of him as the son of Levi here, rather setting him aside in view of this heavenly priest, “without father, without mother, with genealogy”.
JT It is rather a question of the tribe to which priesthood belonged. So Juda is brought in, and it says: “For it is clear that our Lord has sprung out of Juda, as to which tribe Moses spake nothing as to priests”. “If then indeed he were upon earth, he would not even be a Priest”, (Hebrews 8:4)hence the thought of Melchisedec refers to [p. 109] Him, not as on earth, but as in heaven. It is one of the most interesting things to consider: First, his appearance in Genesis; then the long interval until his order is announced in the Psalms, as that after which Christ is Priest; it is as the final choice of God. “Thou art Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec”, Psalm 110. Others were hindered from continuing by death; but with Him there is no variation or alteration.
AFM In Psalm 110, He is saluted in resurrection.
ANW Was God waiting for kingship?
JT The old order of priesthood disappeared in Eli. Samuel is brought in, not to introduce a new order of priesthood, for he was a Levite; but, strictly speaking, he was a prophet. He asserted the rights of God when the priesthood broke down, and that made room for the king. “I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will”, Acts 13: 22. That is the king.
AFM The king was to go before the priest forthwith.
JT The priesthood would henceforth be subordinated to the king. “He shall walk before mine anointed continually”, 1 Samuel 2:35. So the Lord sits as a Priest upon His throne. After the breakdown of the priesthood, everything hinged on royalty. Not on the royalty that man selected in Saul, but on the one God selected, hence you have, “I have set my King upon my holy hill of Zion”, Psalm 2:6.
AFM David wore the linen ephod in 2 Samuel 6:14.
JT You have the two things combined in David, and exercised at the same time: the king and the priest. But the word is, “he shall walk before mine anointed continually”, 1 Samuel 2:35. Psalm 2 gives us the King: “my King”, and Psalm 110 the Priest.
JF Prophet, Priest and King.
JT That is the correct combination. Samuel,
[p. 110] the prophet; David, king and priest. The priest comes in, historically, before the king. It was a priestly theocracy. God ruled the people, but through the priest, and in that state of things it says of the ark: “Phinehas ... stood before it in those days”, Judges 20:28. The one with whom the covenant had been made of an everlasting priesthood because of his devotedness. It was therefore the priestly state of things which broke down under Eli. So that in David you have a new order of things, and the priest comes in subordinate to the king. Zadok and Abiathar were subordinate to David.
AFM Would you say a word about the swearing? The new order of priesthood was introduced with an oath in contrast to the other priesthood.
JT The swearing made it permanent. We had the oath in chapter 6, making things sure to us; but this chapter gives the establishment of the priesthood in permanency. You cannot think for a moment of God going back on His oath: “The word of the swearing of the oath which is after the law, a Son perfected forever”. I think we should be very happy in the sense that the priesthood is set up irrevocably, and the believer, who knows the greatness of the thing, should be supremely happy in it.
AFM The same Priest takes us right through.
JT The priests of the Aaronic order were hindered from continuing by death; but now we have a system set up in the Son in the power of an indissoluble life: “For the law constitutes men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the swearing of the oath, which is after the law, a Son perfected forever”. The believer may rest in that — there is to be no change.
Christians generally have very little conception of the greatness of their position. It is so great that it requires such a High Priest as this to be our Priest. You see, the office of priesthood in itself would make [p. 111] a man great. Aaron was made great by the office, not by his personality; whereas, Christ makes the office great and the company great also.
JF Is it the dignity or the weakness of the company that requires such a Priest?
JT The side of weakness would come out earlier: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same ... that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted”, Hebrews 2:14 - 18. That is one side of the priesthood, and of our position — we are going through the wilderness in weakness. The other side is, that we are a heavenly, and therefore a great company, because “such a High Priest became us”.
AFM Would you apply verse 26 to us?
JT You would make allowance for what is personal to Christ; but the saints, viewed as related to Him, must be in accord with Him. There must be correspondence.
ANW Chapter 2 puts it very beautifully: “for both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one”, Hebrews 2:11.
JT Quite. The description of the Priest comes in; afterwards he says, “for such a High Priest became us”. The greatness of the company is indicated in the Person who “became us”.
WB-w Was the “setting aside of the commandment going before” to make room for the new covenant?
JT Quite. The “commandment” refers to the old order of things which had grown old, had become aged, and was near disappearing. There are many people who are old but do not look old; but when you grow old and become aged, you are both old and [p. 112] look old. The instruction at the end of chapter 8 is remarkable. A Jew at that time might have gone to Jerusalem and looked at the temple, and admired the wonderful appearance of it, etc., but to the spiritual eye the system had grown old, had become aged, and was soon to pass away.
ANW “He is able also to save them to the uttermost”.
JT It is the ability of Christ. He is able to save. You need this to the very end of the chapter, and it is a great thing to have the assurance that He is able to do this. Whatever may come in your path, or circumstances, He is able to carry you through it.
ANW Why only those “that come unto God”?
JT It is the wilderness position in view here, and would refer to the people in that position. They had a long journey before them, but then, they had God, to whom to come, in the wilderness. Saving refers to what is opposed. Those who approach God by Christ can reckon on salvation to the uttermost. He has “the priesthood unchangeable”, or intransmissible. “Whence also he is able to save completely those who approach by him to God, always living to intercede for them”. He lives to intercede for us, and will carry us through; that is to say, we are brought into the mediatorial system, and the Priest we have has the priesthood intransmissible. The Israelites, no doubt said, What will the next priest be like when Phinehas dies? There was his successor and so on, until Eli came. What kind of a man was Eli? What could he do for them? The book of Samuel shows that he could not save to the uttermost! but here you have One who has the priesthood intransmissible, and you come to Him whom you can trust, so that the salvation is complete. “He is able to save completely, ... always living to intercede for them”. Think of that! As if His whole life on high was devoted to the maintenance of the saints [p. 113] down here. Presently, He will be ruling the world; but for the moment He is “always living to intercede”. A most comforting thought. So, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous”, 1 John 2: 1. We have not to engage one.
The next chapter opens, “Now a summary of the things of which we are speaking is, We have such a one high priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens; minister of the holy places and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord has pitched, and not man”, Hebrews 8:1,2. Think of what the saints, as a company, have! Judaism had its high priest; Rome has its great bishop, etc., but, “We have such a one high priest”. It does not say that God has Him, although that is true; but we have Him.
AFM Would the value to us of our reading be in that we appropriate this blessed One as presented to us in this section, including the opening verse of chapter 8?
JT Yes. See what “we have”. How well off we are The “we” refers to all Christians.
What Christians ought to see is, that we have all that is requisite to carry us through the world, and for the maintenance of the service of God. If Christians saw this, they would refuse all that exists today in Christendom. We do not need all these great dignitaries. We have a Priest who has the priesthood intransmissible, and “according to power of indissoluble life”. The testimony is, that He lives and is in heaven, as it says in chapter 8, “who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens”, Hebrews 8:1. This light received into our souls lifts us out of what exists in the religious systems around us, for it brings us into the gain of what we have got.
If a Jew and a Greek had met before Christ came, and composed notes, the Jew could have said: We [p. 114] have the temple, and its priestly service as inaugurated by Moses, direct from God Himself; and we have wonderful privileges as the people of God. The Greek would reply: We have our beautiful temples, and worship of the gods; our learning and mythology. Now when we come to Christianity, men are grouped under three heads by Paul: Jews, Greeks and the assembly of God. Had a Jew, or a Greek asked Paul what he had got, this is one of the first things he could have told them. “We have such a one High Priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens”, Hebrews 8:1. And he could have gone on to unfold the greatness of the Christian’s position, advantages and privileges. Where would Judaism, or what the Greek had, be beside that? Apply the foregoing to our day; set an enlightened Christian beside a religionist and let the latter say what he has got. What has he got? Nothing! Now the Christian knows that he has got what Paul had; and can unfold it, where there is an opening.
AFM What would be the moral effect upon us of our coming to this blessed conclusion that “we have such a one High Priest”? Hebrews 8:1.
JT The first effect would be, that if connected with any other system, one would abandon it as not any better than Judaism, which is said to have grown old, become aged and is near disappearing. The next thing is, you are independent of man’s systems. You are consciously independent of them because of the wonderful supply we have in Christ. “We have such a one High Priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens”, Hebrews 8:1.