CHAPTER 7
[p. 438] CHAPTER 7
In the previous chapter we had the thought of “fled for refuge”, that is the entrance of the soul on to new ground — the ground of divine counsel; leaving the ground of responsibility, where for the Jew all was lost, to enter on that new ground. Now we get what is exceedingly important, the new order of priest; the order of the priesthood determines everything. I do not think the priest could be beyond the people as regards his order. Aaron was taken from among men, he had honour put upon him, but he could not be beyond the people, or he could not properly have represented them; and so, if you get a change of order, it involves a great deal as to those represented by the priest, a change of order as regards them, too. The priest is not of one order and we of another. He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one. When you come to the priesthood, you are on the ground of appropriation. When Christ as Apostle is making known the mind of God, you listen; but when you come to the Priest, you appropriate, or, using the figure of John, you eat. Our entering in to our proper place according to God’s thoughts depends on our appropriation. In the measure in which we appropriate the Priest we enter into our calling.
Aaron was taken from among men; but the people then could but poorly understand the value of the priest. All was taken up after the flesh: the defect was that there was no power to appropriate, for you can only appropriate in the power of the Holy Spirit. There was no change of order then, but now this change of priesthood is consequent on a change of order as to us. The priest then was compassed with infirmity, and had to offer for himself as well as for the people. The great point is to see that the Son of God is the Priest; Melchisedec was assimilated, made [p. 439] like to the Son of God — not, of course, to the Eternal Son, but as become man. At the close of the chapter the Son is brought in again in connection with the oath. The Son is brought in to show the dignity of the Priest, but also to pave the way for showing what our calling is, that we come in with Him.
This chapter (7) ought to be taken in the succession: it shows us the new order of priest; then in the following chapters we have the new covenant, the new sanctuary, the new worshippers, and in Christ we are brought in as sons; but no one will enter into this except as he appropriates the Priest; I am certain we must begin there. What hangs on our being sons of God is that we are companions of Christ: He is Firstborn among many brethren. The only possible way in which we can enter into it is by the appropriation of the Priest. Israel will have part in the Melchisedec priesthood in the millennium when He comes out. I do not see that the Priest has anything to do with Israel in Hebrews. Chapter 7 is not a question of the wilderness only, but of leading us into the holiest. The first few chapters refer to succour and sympathy, after the pattern of the priesthood of Aaron; but Aaron had also a function as having charge of the sanctuary. He was not only for succour to the weak, but all the responsibility of the sanctuary belonged to him. I think it is miserable to limit the thought of the priesthood to grace ministered to carry us through the wilderness — that is not Christianity! We have privilege to enter now; but we must appropriate the One who has entered in, for that. Appropriation is the use of that which is placed within your reach. The High Priest is for us. He is Captain and Leader of salvation — entered in for us as Forerunner, and surely we have title to appropriate Him; He is gone into the presence of God for us.
An immense point in this chapter is to see the change of order: He is there, so our place is there [p. 440] too; if He is of another order, we are of another order, another generation. If He is of that generation, we are of it, His lineage. The commencement is when we apprehend our calling as sons of God. I think the real entering into sonship is in connection with the assembly: I doubt if there is such an idea in Scripture as a son of God — it is many sons, many brethren: the privilege of sonship is realised in the assembly: as companions of Christ you are in it in relation to the Priest.
In Galatians we get “thou art no more a servant, but a son”; but I think the apostle applies the truth there: thou art no more servant but son, is characteristic. I do not look upon it as a statement of privilege, but as application of it to the soul. Sons of God are companions of Christ, and you get at the close of this chapter “such a high priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners”, etc., that is what He is now. There is very little difference between the terms ‘children’ and ‘sons’, but sons is association with Christ where He is — children, I think, refers more to Christ’s association with us. To say “my Father” in prayer savours to me somewhat of irreverence, it is assumption: a great many others beside myself call Him Father. We speak of “a child of God”, but I do not think Scripture does.
There is much confusion in the minds of Christians between privilege and profession: if you keep the distinction clear in your mind it will help you. The house is the place of privilege, but there is also responsibility there. With true Christian privilege there is no responsibility connected, for it is simply and purely the result of the Holy Spirit’s work.
The Melchisedec order of priesthood comes in properly with the millennium; “the most High God, possessor of heaven and earth” is the title that connects itself with the millennium. It is only brought in here to show that there is another order of priesthood;
[p. 441] it is not here so much a question of the way in which it is exercised; it is a higher order of priesthood than Aaron’s, and the promise to Abraham was connected with it, and that was fatal to law. The promise to Abraham and the priesthood connected with it, existed four hundred years before law, before the Aaronic priesthood existed at all. Levi paid tithes in Abraham. Melchisedec was greater than Abraham. The apostle simply takes up what is revealed in Scripture as to Melchisedec. He is inferior to the Son of God; Melchisedec is assimilated to the Son of God, not the Son of God assimilated to Melchisedec, that would never do at all. Melchisedec was, of course, a real person; his titles, King of righteousness, and after that King of peace, indicate supremacy. It points on to the millennial day. Scripture does not care to awaken curiosity about Melchisedec; the point of the passage is that he was not under the limitations of the Aaronic priesthood — he had no genealogy. In the Aaronic order, the priests who could not prove their genealogy were disqualified.
The argument is that the introduction of this new priesthood must set law aside; this is of the greatest possible moment, for there was no drawing nigh to God under law; if there was to be such a thing as that, you must have the law set aside. You could not possibly have the assembly under law. If you think of a company having access by one Spirit unto the Father, that could not exist under law!
One thing strikes you — the utter blindness of the Jew, for he had all this in his own scriptures, he knew of the Melchisedec priesthood; and Psalm 110 long after Aaron’s day, spoke of another priest after the order of Melchisedec, and you would have thought the Jew ought to have turned that over to know what it involved. It meant that the Aaronic order was to be set aside. It shows how blind they were to their own scriptures, and that apart from the Spirit of God [p. 442] you cannot understand them. Now there is the setting aside of the law for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, but the introduction of a better hope by which we draw near to God: it is the setting aside of the one, and the introduction of the other — what is between is parenthesis. A better hope because founded on divine counsels. The law was but the shadow of good things to come. The law suffered a man to write a bill of divorcement; if a man was suffered to break part of a divine institution the law could not be part of the divine counsel. Now God is bringing many sons to glory which is His counsel. It is by the apprehension in the soul of the counsels of God and where He sets us that we draw nigh: “through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father”. Another point is that as in the previous chapter the promise was confirmed with an oath, so now the priesthood is so confirmed — the indication that there can be no revoking it — it is part of God’s counsel: those priests were made without an oath, but this with an oath because connected with the eternal purpose of God; you get stability there, and you cannot get it in any other way. The oath of eternal continuance could only have been made to the Son; the way of accomplishing the divine counsels was that He became Man, and (having died and risen), because He continueth ever, He has an intransmissible priesthood. It was totally impossible for Aaron to abide in the holiest for ever, for he had death upon him as much as anybody else. Christ goes in after death is annulled, in the power of an endless life.
The priesthood of Christ applies to us in the present, it will also be for the earthly people in the millennium. I do not quite see how it could apply to us hereafter in heaven; we are in the Father’s house then, so it could not be to bring us in, the company would be all there. “In perpetuity” means there is no changing it. The whole heavenly company in Revelation 5 are looked at [p. 443] as priests because all have access. What is unfolded in Hebrews would not apply then. He would not be Forerunner, for we are there — nor Leader of salvation, for we shall all be saved — and so “in the presence of God for us” could hardly be said when we are there.
The New Testament is the unfolding of Christianity, and Christianity is not the future but the present. The point here is, He is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God by Him. In the future He is as Son of man. In coming out as Melchisedec it is in relation to the earth, and then the church reigns with Him; you do not want to be saved then. Priesthood has nothing to do with the gospel. I know His saving to the uttermost is used as one of our standard gospel texts, but it is a misapplication; it is speaking of Christian privilege: we draw near to God, but you cannot unless you are a converted man. He is High Priest for His people, and able to save them out and out. An unconverted man does not want the Priest but the blood, when he has got the blood he wants the Priest. The salvation is in the sense of preservation, the deliverance of the soul from all that is contrary to God, that we may enter into His thoughts. We have to be set free from sin, the world, and the law.
It is a most remarkable expression that follows, “such an high priest became us” — it marks our identification with Him looked at in the light of divine counsel. He must be at the height of what we are according to the thought of God, “holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners” — that is what we are in the thought of God. It is both what we are and in a sense what we are not: practically, who would say he was without blame? but abstractly, according to the work of God he is without blame. It is not exactly as Balaam said, “He hath not beheld iniquity”, etc.; that is a question of imputation, but this is an actual state. Now the truth comes out, the Priest is [p. 444] suited to us, made higher than the heavens, separated from sinners — not simply separate from sinners, but “separated”.
The oath is contrasted with law; the oath makes the Son Priest who is consecrated (perfected) for evermore.
I believe we have a great deal to learn on the apprehension side as to entering into proper Christian privilege, and if we had faith to appropriate, my conviction is that we should be greatly helped. We are called into the place of sons that we may be companions of Christ. If He is Firstborn, you cannot ignore Him; we have no existence apart from Him; He is in heaven, and we not yet actually in, but the Spirit helps us to appropriate Him while we are not actually in; it shows the present importance of Christianity. Nine out of ten are satisfied with the light of God from the apostle, and do not take up the Priest — satisfied with things here, and what is suited to them, forgiveness, sprinkling; but in all this you do not get beyond responsibility — responsibility met, but it is not beyond responsibility: until that question is settled you cannot enter into the other. We are brought into a sphere to which responsibility does not attach, and that sphere is what I should call Christianity proper and connected with the body: “one body in Christ”, ‘in Him we stand a heavenly band’, a new creation, neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, but all one in Christ Jesus, but you can only enter into such an idea as that by the appropriation of Christ. I ask any reasonable person how you can realise “neither male nor female” except by the appropriation of Christ?
If a person is in earnest he would begin to get to God about it, and I think he would begin by the appropriation of Christ’s death. There is no reason why we should not appropriate Him; if we do not, perhaps something is allowed in ourselves which tends [p. 445] to hinder; you want the help of the word to expose some hindrance. If you eat His flesh and drink His blood, at the same time you get “he that eateth me, even he shall live by me”. It says, “who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice;” etc., because we are as completely clear of all connection with responsibility as to our calling, as Christ is, and He has done the offering work — all was settled on the cross: He was the victim there.
Aaron’s priesthood was connected with sympathy, succour, compassion. Aaron had to show them the way; they came to the priest for the judgment of God; he had a great place in Israel. Christ is perfected for ever as to His priesthood. He has gone through all necessary to exercise priesthood; He was made perfect through sufferings; He has gone through all needed to exercise His function. His service, as I understand it, is to lead us into communion with Himself.