(Chapters 5–7)
Having introduced the priesthood of Christ in chapters 2:17-18 and 4:14-16, the writer now brings it into full focus. In the next few chapters he compares the much venerated priesthood of Aaron to the priesthood of Christ. He shows, in a number of ways, that Christ’s priesthood is far superior.
A Brief Outline of Chapters 5-7
A brief outline of these chapters is as follows:
The greatness of the Person who fills the office—Christ, the eternal Son of God (Heb. 5:1-10).
Christ’s priesthood is after the order of Melchisedec’s priesthood, which was superior to Aaron’s (Heb. 7:1-28).
Christ ministers in the true sanctuary, in heaven, in connection with the new covenant, with better promises based on accomplished redemption (Heb. 8:1-13).
The “one sacrifice” Christ offered to make atonement for sin (Heb. 10:12) is infinitely greater than the continual sin-offerings that the high priests in Israel offered yearly on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:1–10:18). Christ’s sacrifice “put away” sin (judicially) before God (Heb. 9:26) and obtained “eternal redemption” for believers (Heb. 9:12). It has also effected, for believers, the present privilege of access into the immediate presence of God (Heb. 10:19). The sacrifices which the Aaronic priesthood offered did none of these things.
Qualifications for Priesthood
In this 5th chapter, the writer takes up Christ’s fitness to be our High Priest. He shows that the various qualifications necessary for one to be a priest have been fully met in Christ. In fact, due to the greatness of His Person, He far exceeds every requirement! The writer touches on three main things in connection with Christ’s fitness for this office (See The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, vol. 7, p. 259.)
The first qualification is that a priest had to be “taken from among men” (vs. 1). That is, he must be a man who has lived and walked in this world, and thus, knows from experience what it is to pass through sufferings, trials, and tribulations common to men. This is necessary because the work which a high priest is called to do, in sympathizing and helping people in their circumstances of life, requires that he would be able to relate to them by having felt similar things. Thus, the writer says, “Being able to exercise forbearance towards the ignorant and erring, since he himself also is clothed with infirmity” (vs. 2).
The second qualification is that he had to be “ordained,” or appointed, to this work (vs. 1). Thus, the office of priesthood is not something that a person chooses as a vocation in life. He has to be selected for that service by none other than God Himself. The writer states, “No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (vs. 4). Thus, a person has to be “called of God” to such a work. Israel’s history bears record that those who aspired to that office, but were not ordained of God, were judged unsparingly for their presumption (Num. 16).
The third qualification is that the priest had to have “gifts and sacrifices for sin” to offer to God (Heb. 5:1; 8:3; 9:9). This is a reference to the various kinds of offerings mentioned in Leviticus 1-6. These offerings are divided into two categories:
“Gifts” are burnt offerings, meal offerings, and peace offerings (Lev. 1-3). These are freewill (voluntary) offerings that typify worship. The Hebrew word is “Corban,” which means to present a gift (See J. N. Darby Trans. footnote on Leviticus 3:1).
“Sacrifices for sin” are sin offerings and trespass offerings (Lev. 4:1–6:7). These were obligatory offerings that typify what is necessary for a soul’s restoration to communion with God.
One marked contrast, which the writer is quick to point out among these things, is that those Aaronic priests had to make an offering “for sins” for themselves (vs. 3; Lev. 16:11). This, of course, is something that Christ did not need, for He is sinless.
Having stated these three qualifications for priesthood, the writer shows that Christ has completely met this criteria, and thus, He is more than qualified to be our great High Priest. Hence, the writer says, “So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest.”
Vs. 5—Firstly, as to being a Man, God said, “Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee.” This is a quote from Psalm 2 referring to the incarnation of Christ. It confirms that He has become a Man in every sense—spirit, soul, and body. This means that He is fully able to sympathize with us because He has felt the very things which we feel. Christ, however, was not “clothed with infirmity” as the Aaronic priests were. As “Son,” He is in the office of high priest in the competency of His own Person.
Vs. 6—Secondly, as to His appointment to the office of priesthood, the writer quotes from Psalm 110 to confirm this. God said, “Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec” (vs. 6). This statement shows that Christ has been appointed to that office by God Himself. He did not take that honour to Himself as something that He chose; God installed Him in that office upon His rising from the dead. Unlike the priests of the Aaronic order who died and the office was passed on to someone else, Christ is a priest after this Melchisedec order “forever.”
Vss. 7-8—Thirdly, as to Christ having “somewhat also to offer” (chap. 8:3), the writer answers this by stating, “Who in the days of His flesh, when He offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto Him that was able to save Him from [out of] death.” This is a reference to His prayers in Gethsemane. He did not ask to be saved from going into death, for that was the very reason for which He came in being the ultimate sacrifice for sin. His prayers had to do with being raised “out of death,” which is resurrection. The writer adds, in a parenthesis, that He “was heard in that He feared [because of His piety].” God answered His prayers and raised Him from the dead.
In becoming a Man, there were things that the Lord experienced that He never experienced before. One of which was obedience. As Son in eternity past, He was the Commander of everything in the universe. He did not know what it was to be obedient, having never been in a position to obey before. At His incarnation, He took Manhood into union with His Person, and in doing so, He accepted the subordinate position of being a Man—which involved living in obedience to God. This was a new thing to Him, and thus, He learned by experience what it was to be obedient. The writer says, “Though He were Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.” The passage teaches us that, in spite of His being the Son, in becoming a Man He had to learn obedience like every other man. This does not mean that He went through a process of trial and error in His learning experience, but rather, that He learned from experience what it was to obey. Unlike other men, His obedience was perfect; there was no trial and error in it.
Vss. 9-10—He not only offered up “prayers and supplications” that were answered in resurrection, but He also made the supreme sacrifice for sin and “offered Himself without spot to God” (chap. 9:14), whereby He “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (chap. 9:26). And “having been perfected” (raised from the dead), He “became the Author of eternal salvation” to all who “obey” His call by the gospel. Again, this is something that no Aaronic high priest ever could do.
These things show that Christ has fully met every requirement to His being our great High Priest. And thus, He has been “called of God” to that office “after the order of Melchisedec.” The writer has much to say concerning the Melchisedec priesthood of Christ, but before doing so, he feels it incumbent to digress to give another solemn warning against apostasy.
Third Warning Against Apostasy
(Chapters 5:11–6:20)
The Danger of Spiritual Immaturity
The writer pauses to give an important warning against apostasy in chapters 5:11–6:20. This digression, like the other digressions concerning apostasy in the epistle, can be viewed as a parenthesis. (See J. N. Darby’s Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, on Hebrews 6.)
Vss. 11-12—The writer realized that the subject concerning Melchisedec’s priesthood might be hard for the Hebrews to understand and traced the problem to their spiritual immaturity. They had been hindered in their spiritual growth and this brought forth a rebuke as follows: “Of whom (Melchisedec) we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles [elements of the beginning] of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.” They were slow to understand the Christian revelation of truth, and this was because they had been hindered by their old Jewish associations. They were clinging to the weak and beggarly elements of Judaism (if not in practice, at least in heart), and this made it difficult for them to enter into the simplest principles of Christianity. A governmental judgment of blindness had been cast over that earthly religion (Judaism) which had been invoked by the Lord Himself when He was on the cross (Psa. 69:22-23). For them to remain in fellowship with that religion, meant that they would inherit the blindness that came with it. This, evidently, was beginning to have its effect among them. Compare also 2 Corinthians 3:14-16.
Thus, the writer viewed the Hebrews as spiritual infants, needing to learn the basic elements of the gospel all over again. The Corinthians had been stunted in their growth and were considered “babes” on account of their carnality (1 Cor. 3:1). These Hebrews were also considered “babes,” but it was on account of their legality (Heb. 5:13). They needed to be re-instructed in things which he calls “the first principles [elements of the beginning] of the oracles of God.” These are the elementary teachings of Christ in connection with His being the King and Messiah of Israel. It is the line of truth that came out in His earthly ministry before the cross—essentially that which is found in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). W. Kelly said, “These [things] qualified as ‘the beginning of the oracles of God,’ and mean what God gave in Christ here below, short of His redemption and His heavenly place, with the gift of the Spirit, which lend Christianity its true distinctive character” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 97). He also said, “What is really meant here in ‘the word of the beginning of Christ,’ is that which was revealed in the days of His flesh and in due time recorded as His ministry in the Gospels” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 101).
The fact that the Hebrews needed to be taught these first principles “again” indicates that they had regressed. They had known and had accepted that the Lord Jesus was the Messiah, but somehow they had become confused about those things and seemed to be questioning it As a result, they needed to be taught those things all over again. This shows that if we don’t go on in the truth that God has given us, we will go back from it. If we don’t progress, we will regress. The Hebrews were hesitating, and things were getting clouded in their minds, and it would eventually cause them to go back on their previous convictions.
Vss. 13-14—The writer goes on to say, “For every one that useth [partakes of] milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat [solid food] belongeth to them that are of full age [grown].” He makes an interesting correlation here between “milk” and “meat.” If milk answers to the truth in the Gospels, as we have noted, then meat is the full revelation of the truth of Christianity, as found in the epistles. These two things (milk and meat) are distinguished by the Lord in John 14:25-26. He called the truth in His ministry “these things,” and He called the truth that would come out after the Spirit came “all things.” The latter refers to the full revelation of truth in Christianity. The writer doesn’t speak disparagingly of milk—he recognizes that it has its place in the developmental stages of growth in the soul, but it is clear from the way he speaks of meat that it is what he really desires for the saints.
Then he says, “Even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” In this statement, he alludes to how a person passes from taking only milk to being able to take in meat. That is, how one makes spiritual progress and becomes a full grown (mature) Christian. It is accomplished by the frequent handling of the truth, as he says here—“by reason of use.” This means that if we apply ourselves in the learning of the Christian revelation, we will be rewarded with an understanding of it. The Gospels present kingdom truth, but they do not unfold Christianity. Christianity did not even begin until there was a Man in heaven (Acts 1) and the Spirit of God had been sent down to indwell believers (Acts 2). See John 7:39. The epistles were written from this perspective and give us our full Christian position. This means that if a person focuses on the Gospels to the neglect of the truth in the epistles, he will be stunted in his spiritual growth. Therefore, we ought to give good heed to the truth in the epistles; it is our foundation. It is what establishes us in the Christian faith.
By adding, “To discern both good and evil,” he shows that growth and progress in spiritual things is not merely having an intellectual understanding of the truth—one’s moral discernment in practical things will develop as well. This is important; it shows that the truth ought to have a moral effect on us. Not only should we have a grasp of the truth (intellectually), but it should have a grasp on us (morally). This, he says, comes through being “exercised” about the truth that we learn.
Going on to Perfection
Chap. 6:1-3—Having addressed the danger of spiritual regression, the writer exhorts the Hebrews to “go on unto perfection.” The word translated “perfection” here, in the Greek text, is the same root word used in chapter 5:14 for “full age [growth].” Thus, by exhorting them to go on to perfection, he was referring to them getting established in the “meat” of the Christian revelation of truth. This, as we have stated, is found in the epistles—particularly Paul’s epistles.
At the same time, he discourages them from going back to the Old Testament position in Judaism, from which they had come. They needed to “go on” from the kingdom principles which the Lord taught in His earthly ministry—“the word of the beginning of the Christ”—to “full growth” in Christianity. These Hebrew believers were, so to speak, on a bridge that stretched from Judaism to Christianity. They needed to get off the bridge, not by going back to the Old Testament system of Judaism, but by going forward to the full revelation in Christianity. If they stayed where they were, on the bridge, somewhere between Judaism and Christianity, it would hinder their spiritual growth and they would remain babes. The great danger of spiritual immaturity is that a person in that state is liable to misunderstand some point of truth and assume that it is error, and reject it. This shows that there are negative ramifications to remaining simple in the truth. It is acceptable to be a babe in spiritual things if one is a new convert, but it is not God’s will for us to remain in that state (Eph. 4:14).
By saying “leaving the word of the beginning of the Christ” he did not mean that they should abandon the teachings in Christ’s earthly ministry, nor did he mean that we should give up the elementary truths of Christianity for “the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10). God would never encourage us to give up Christ’s teachings, nor would He encourage us to let go of the foundations of Christianity. The thought of “leaving,” here, is to go on from the truth that they had received in Christ’s ministry.
Six Things that Characterize Old Testament Judaism
He mentions six things that characterized Old Testament Judaism which they were not to go back to because those things had been superseded by the “good things” that had come in through the death and resurrection of Christ (Heb. 9:11; 10:1). He says, “Not laying again:”
1) “The Foundation of Repentance From Dead Works”
(vs. 1)
This is a reference to what the children of Israel did on the Day of Atonement when afflicting their souls in repentance (Lev. 16:29). He calls this “dead works,” because the whole sin question for believers has been fully settled in the finished work of Christ on the cross. The Christian’s sins have been put away forever; they are not merely covered for another year as in the Old Testament ritual on the Day of Atonement. Hence, there is no need for this practise now.
2) “Faith Toward God”
(vs. 1)
This refers to the orthodox Jewish understanding of God as the “one LORD” (Deut. 6:4). It was faith in God without knowing and distinguishing between the three Persons in the Godhead (the Trinity), for that truth had not come to light in Old Testament times. Such a revelation required the coming of Christ into the world to declare the Father (Matt. 11:27; John 1:18). To return to the partial revelation of God that the Old Testament saints had was to disregard the light that we have now in Christianity, and essentially, to denounce it as being false.
3) “The Doctrine of Washings”
(vs. 2)
This refers to the ceremonial washings that marked Judaism, which signified the holiness required to approach God in worship. All such outward cleansing is not necessary in Christianity because we have been made “holy” through the finished work of Christ (1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 1:4; Col. 1:22; Heb. 3:1). (The KJV says, “Baptisms,” but it should be translated “washings.” The writer is not speaking of the ordinance of baptism.)
4) “Of Imposition of Hands”
(vs. 2)
This refers to the ritual connected with the Judaic offerings (Lev. 1:4; 3:2; 4:4; 16:21, etc.). This practice signified the offeror’s identification with the offering that he presented at the altar. However, since Christ’s one sacrifice is the fulfilment of those Jewish offerings, they no longer need to be offered, and therefore, this practise is not needed either. (It does not refer to the laying on of hands in the early Church as recorded in Acts 6:6; 8:17; 9:17, etc.)
5) “Of Resurrection”
(vs. 2)
This refers to the limited understanding that the saints in Old Testament times had in connection with resurrection. They knew of resurrection in a general sense. This is seen in Martha’s statement to the Lord, which is considered to be the orthodox Jewish understanding of resurrection (John 11:24). However, the gospel has brought “life and incorruptibility” to light (2 Tim. 1:10), and we now know that there are two resurrections of two completely different orders (John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15, etc.). There will be a resurrection “from among the dead” of “the just,” followed by the resurrection of “the unjust”—with one thousand years between them. For these Hebrews to return to the limited understanding of resurrection as the Old Testament saints had, would be turning their backs on the truth that had been brought to light through the gospel.
6) “Of Eternal Judgment”
(vs. 2)
This refers to the Jewish understanding of judgment at the last day (Job 19:25; John 11:24). Again, the gospel has also brought to light many more details concerning eternal judgment, as found in the New Testament, and we can now speak more definitively about it. To turn ones back on what has been revealed in Christianity concerning this subject is to disregard that superior revelation.
Note: the writer does not ask the Hebrews to deny these things because they were all true and were things given by God. He was telling them to “go on” from them and to receive the fuller revelation of the truth that has come to light in Christianity. To go back to the limited revelation of truth on these subjects, as found in the Old Testament, is to question whether we have truly had a revelation from God in the gospel. It is apostasy. Hence, his word to them was not to go back, but to go on. He adds, “This will we do, if God permit” (vs. 3). God certainly “desires” that all men would be “saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), but oftentimes this does not happen because people refuse to participate with Him in exercising personal faith and being diligent.
Five Great Outward Privileges Connected With Christianity
Vss. 4-6—This leads the writer to speak more specifically of the danger of apostasy. He mentions five outward privileges that Christianity has brought into the world. He says, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.” At first glance, it may seem as though he is referring to privileges that belong to those who have received Christ as their Saviour, but really all five of these things are that which a person could partake in without being saved! By outwardly identifying oneself with the Christian company, a person without divine life (a merely professing believer) can participate in and experience these things. The point that the writer is making here is that being identified with the Christian testimony is of great advantage, but it also makes one very responsible. He speaks of certain outward privileges that such a person has:
1) Being “enlightened”
A person becomes enlightened through hearing the truth presented in the gospel; it gives him an understanding. It does not mean that he has believed the gospel and has received Christ as his Saviour. Enlightenment is not new birth and salvation. However, being enlightened makes one very responsible, for God holds a person responsible for the degree of light that he has been given, and he will be judged accordingly (Luke 12:47-48).
2) Having “tasted the heavenly gift”
This refers to the Christian revelation of truth—“the faith which was once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). It is that “good deposit” of truth that we are to hold fast (2 Tim. 1:14; Rev. 3:11). A person could come into Christian meetings where these heavenly truths are expounded and taste of those things in an outward way by hearing about them. (Note: “tasted” implies sampling something without necessarily ingesting it.)
3) Being made “partakers of the Holy Spirit”
He does not say that a person is indwelt with the Spirit, but rather that he “partakes” of the Spirit. The Spirit not only resides in believers on the Lord Jesus Christ, but He also dwells among believers in the house of God (John 14:17; Acts 2:1-4). An unbeliever, or a merely professing believer, can come in among Christians where the Spirit of God is working and in an outward way partake of the things going on among them. In this way, he partakes of the Spirit without being saved and sealed with the Spirit. Note: the word in the Greek text translated “partakers” here, is metecho, which indicates a sharing in something without specifying to what degree the sharing goes. The writer does not use koinoneo—the usual word for partaking that indicates a full common sharing in a thing. Hence, the partaking in this verse refers to a superficial or partial sharing. (Compare the use of these two Greek words in chapter 2:14.)
4) Having “tasted of the good Word of God”
This refers to hearing the Scriptures expounded in meetings without specifying whether the truth which was taught was actually received in faith. Again, tasting indicates a superficial thing. A person can hear and understand truth from the Word of God, without receiving it and believing it.
5) Having tasted of “the powers of the world to come”
This refers to the miracles that had been done in the Christian circle that a person could see, and even experience. It is quite possible for a mere professor to have been healed by these miraculous powers whilst among Christians.
Falling Away—Apostasy
Vs. 6—Having listed some of the outward privileges connected with the coming of Christ into the world (His first advent), the writer warns the Hebrews of the seriousness of slighting these things and returning to Judaism, which would be apostasy. Picking up the thread of things from verse 4, He says, “For it is impossible for those....if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.” Falling away, is apostasy (Luke 8:13; 2 Thess. 2:3; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:12). It is a formal abandoning of the faith that a person once professed. In this case, it is turning away from the Christian revelation of truth, after having embraced it.
An apostate is different from a rejecter of the gospel. A rejecter is one who has never professed to believe the gospel, but an apostate has at one time professed to have believed it. Apostatizing from the faith is something that only a lifeless, merely professing believer would do. To go back and get reinstated in the synagogue and all that it stands for, would be to agree with those in that position who have rejected and crucified the Lord Jesus. The person who does this, in essence, is crucifying the Son of God all over again! How solemn this is. Such a step is so final that there is no recovery from it! Once a person apostatizes, there is no hope of him turning around in “repentance.” F. B. Hole said, “You will notice that the word here is ‘impossible’ and not ‘improbable’.” Judas Iscariot is an example. Even though he was not exposed to the full light of Christianity, because the Spirit had not come yet, nevertheless, he saw and participated in the things outlined in verses 4-5—but sadly, he turned away from them to his own damnation.
A true believer will not apostatize. He may backslide and walk at a distance from the Lord, but he will not abandon the faith. If true believers get away from the Lord, Scripture usually speaks of their departure as “stumbling” (2 Peter 1:10 – W. Kelly Trans.; 1 John 2:10; Jude 24), rather than falling. Hence, believers may stumble, but they don’t fall, in the sense of apostatizing. W. Scott put it succinctly: “For backsliding there is a remedy; for apostasy there is none” (Doctrinal Summaries, p. 44). Many Christians don’t know the difference between backsliding and apostasy, and often confuse the two things. They will take Scriptures that refer to merely professing believers who are in danger of apostatizing and imagine that those Scriptures are referring to real believers. And thus, it has led many to the mistaken conclusion that a believer can lose his salvation if he sins and turns away from the Lord. But this erroneous idea denies the eternal security of the believer, which Scripture clearly states (John 10:28-29, etc.).
Vss. 7-8—The writer appends a figurative illustration to his warning to prove that partaking in outward blessing does not convert a person. “For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God. But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.” This illustrates the two kinds of hearts there are among men. One is likened to a good piece of ground and the other to bad ground. Both receive the rain that God gives, but one piece yields fruit and the other worthless briers—which are only useful for kindling a fire (a symbol of God’s judgment). Likewise, the “good ground” in the true child of God will bring forth fruit for God (Luke 8:15), but the bad ground in a merely professing believer will be evident by his turning away from the faith, and his end will be judgment.
Encouragement to “Go On” in the Path of Faith
Vss. 9-10—The remaining verses in this parenthesis express the writer’s confidence that the vast majority of those to whom he was writing were real believers, and therefore, are words of encouragement for them. He was persuaded that they would manifest their reality by continuing on in the path of faith. He says, “But beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.” By saying this, he assured his readers that in sounding his warning concerning apostasy, he was in no way casting doubt on the reality of their conversion. He was convinced that there had been a real work of God in them, and by saying, “But beloved...” he distinguished them from those among them who might apostatize.
The “things that accompany salvation” are those unmistakeable signs in a person’s life that give evidence of the fact that he truly has divine life—that he is really saved. These would be things such as: obedience to God, love for the Lord Jesus, love for the Lord’s people and a desire to be with them, etc. Such are the “vital signs” of divine life that prove a person has truly “passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). In this passage, the writer mentions three such things that are often found together in Scripture that accompany a person’s conversion. They are: “love” (vs. 10), “hope” (vs. 11), and “faith” (vs. 12). See also 1 Thessalonians 1:3.
The writer focuses particularly on their love for the saints. He says, “For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have showed toward His name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.” These Hebrew believers had demonstrated a genuine love for the Lord’s people, and he reminds them that God had not forgotten this and would reward them accordingly for their service for the Lord’s name. This must have been encouraging words for them.
Vss. 11-12—His desire was that they would continue on in the path with perseverance—to keep doing what they had been doing, for it was pleasing to the Lord. His concern was that “each one” of them would be exercised about this. This shows that going on for the Lord is an individual thing (Matt. 16:24 – “If any man come after Me...”). He wanted them to go on steadfastly until their “hope” in Christ was realized in their being glorified together with Him. This hope before the believer far transcends all that the Old Testament saints looked for. They were not to be “slothful” in this, but to be “followers” of those who have gone before in the path and who “through faith and patience inherit the promises.” This again shows that continuance in the path is the greatest proof of a reality.
God’s Word—A Sure Foundation on Which Faith Can Rest
Vss. 13-15—Since faith needs a solid foundation of authority upon which to rest, the writer sets before them the surest thing in the universe—God’s infallible Word. God always keeps His Word (1 Kings 8:56; 2 Tim. 2:13); faith can rest on it and not be disappointed. The writer points to the “promise” and the “oath” that God made to Abraham as an example of how surely He keeps His Word. Even though the circumstances which Abraham and his wife were in were nigh impossible—being a long time past the age of bearing children—God kept His Word by performing a miracle, and they had a son, as was promised. It shows that God will keep His Word, no matter what—even if it means that He has to perform a miracle to do it!
After receiving a son and being tested by being asked to lay him on the altar, God made an oath that He would also give Abraham a posterity through his son—Isaac. The “promise” to have a son was made in Genesis 12:1-3 and confirmed in Genesis 13:14-16; 15:1-6 and 17:15-22, but the swearing of the “oath” was made in Genesis 22:16—“By Myself have I sworn, saith the LORD.” The writer states that in making the oath, since God “could swear by no greater, He sware by Himself.” He quotes Genesis 22:17, giving the essence of the oath: “Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.” Thus, the promise was in connection with Abraham’s having a son, and the oath was in connection with Abraham’s having a posterity through his son.
Having been given the promise, Abraham “patiently endured” for many years, but at last “he obtained the promise” and received a son through Sarah—just as God had said. (Hebrews 11:13, is not a contradiction of this. It says, “All these (including Abraham) died in faith, not having received the promises.” The difference is that those promises were in connection with the inheritance, whereas this promise had to do with Abraham having a son and obtaining a posterity through him.) The application here is obvious. The Hebrew saints needed to have the same kind of faith and patience that Abraham had, and to go on in the path that the Christian revelation of truth marks out—even though it may look foolish to those who have no faith. Abraham had to endure the same.
Vss. 16-17—As to the oath, in human affairs, men swear by one who is greater than themselves. They “swear,” and thus make an “oath,” and it ends “all strife [dispute]” in matters. So “God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability [unchangeableness] of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath.” In reality, if God has given His Word, no one needs anything more, because it is “impossible for God to lie.” Giving His Word is enough; it does not need to be reinforced with an oath. But in condescending to human weakness, God added an oath for Abraham and the heir’s sake to assure them of what He had promised. Thus, Abraham had a double assurance.
Vss. 18-20—The writer then shows that these same two things (the promise and the oath) can be applied to all who are Abraham’s children by faith. Since the “heirs of promise” are not only Isaac, Jacob, etc., but all who by faith are the children of faithful Abraham (Gal. 3:7-8, 29), we too can rest on these same “two immutable [unchangeable] things” in connection with our hope in Christ.
He brings this lengthy digression to a close by stating that God has gone a step further by giving a personal guarantee for the fulfillment of the promises in that Christ Himself has entered the sanctuary above. In the Levitical economy the high priest entered the holiest only as a representative. He entered there alone, and none could follow. But Christ has entered there as a guarantee, and as a result, a whole race of men can now follow Him there. J. N. Darby said, “This assurance has received a still greater confirmation. It entered into that within the veil, it found its sanction in the sanctuary itself, whither the Forerunner had entered, giving not only a word, an oath, but also a personal guarantee of the promises, and the sanctuary of God as a refuge for the heart; thus giving, for those who had spiritual understanding, a heavenly character to the hope which they cherished; while showing, by the character of Him who had entered into heaven, the certain fulfilment of all the Old Testament promises, in connection with a heavenly Mediator, who, by His position, assured that fulfilment; establishing the earthly blessing upon the firm foundation of heaven itself, and giving at the same time a higher and more excellent character to that blessing by uniting it to heaven, and making it flow from thence” (Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, on Hebrews 6).
Four Figures Used to Describe the Sure Hope We Have in Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary
The writer uses four figures to emphasize the sure hope we have in Christ by His entry into the heavenly sanctuary. While we wait for our physical entry there when we will be glorified, we can enter that heavenly sanctuary now in spirit for worship and prayer (Heb. 10:19-22). In a coming day we will enter there bodily.
A City of Refuge
(vs. 18)
Firstly, the believer is seen as having “fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.” This is an allusion to the cities of refuge to which a guilty person could flee for shelter from judgment (Deut. 19:1-13; Josh. 20:1-9). The person would be safe there for as long as the high priest lived (Josh. 20:6). The good news for us is that Christ has “an unchangeable priesthood;” He will never die again, for He “ever liveth to make intercession” for us in the sanctuary! (Heb. 7:24-25) Thus, we are assured of our eternal safety from judgment.
An Anchor
(vs. 19)
Secondly, the “hope” we have in Christ, in the heavenly sanctuary, is as “an anchor” cast in that port to which we are travelling. It is “both sure and stedfast,” thus assuring us that we will reach that destination at last.
A Forerunner
(vs. 20)
Thirdly, Christ is our “Forerunner” who has gone ahead to make all preparations in view of us arriving there in good stead. The fact that Christ is our Forerunner guarantees that we will enter the place where He is. The entrance of our Forerunner is a pledge that where He now is, we shall also follow Him by-and-by.
A High Priest
(vs. 20)
Fourthly, Christ has gone into the heavenly sanctuary as our “High Priest” having a priesthood that is “after the order of Melchisedec.” It is an eternal priesthood with a twofold function. In history, Melchisedec brought a blessing from God to Abraham, and he took tithes from Abraham to present to God (Gen. 14:18-20; Heb. 7:1-2). This signifies the ministering of God’s blessing, not only to Abraham, but to all who are his children by faith, and it also signifies the bringing of their worship to God. Since blessing from God to the redeemed will be eternal and the worship offered to God by the redeemed will also be eternal, this necessitates having a Priest to minister these things from and to God eternally. This is what we have in the priesthood of Christ. The writer proves this by quoting Psalm 110 again: “Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec” (Heb. 5:6; 6:20; 7:17).
Upon rising from the dead, the Lord has been installed in the office of His Melchisedecian priesthood. But the present function of His priesthood today is after the pattern of Aaron. As our great High Priest, the Lord lives today in the presence of God to make intercession for us, and thus, helps us through the wilderness to our heavenly destination. However, when He appears, He will cease from this intercessory work and will enter into the function of His priesthood after the Melchisedec order. Hence, he is in that office today but is not functioning in it as such. But when He comes, our hopes in Him will be realized. We will be glorified with Him in a public display during His kingdom reign as a King and a Priest.
Thus, Christ has entered within the veil of the heavenly sanctuary in four different ways and for four different reasons—all of which are calculated to give the believer a sure hope. He is there as our Refuge from judgment, as our Anchor guaranteeing our safe arrival there, as our Forerunner preparing all for us there, and as our High Priest interceding for us on the way there. These things surely were an encouragement for these Hebrew believers to continue on in the Christian path, and they should be to us as well.
Christ’s Priesthood “After the Order” of Melchisedec’s Priesthood
(Chapter 7:1-28)
Having mentioned Melchisedec again in chapter 6:20, the thread of the writer’s argument now returns to where his digression began at chapter 5:10. His dissertation in chapter 5 had to do with the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over Aaron’s. In returning to this subject, he uses a slightly different method of argument from what he has been using in the epistle up to this point. Instead of comparing Christ to prominent personages in the Levitical system, he contrasts Melchisedec’s priesthood with Aaron’s and shows that it is superior. And then he points to Psalm 110 which states that Christ’s priesthood would be “after the order” of Melchisedec’s priesthood. The conclusion he draws is simple: if Melchisedec’s priesthood is superior to Aaron’s, then Christ’s priesthood is also superior to Aaron’s.
Melchisedec—A Type of Christ
Chap. 7—Melchisedec is only mentioned three times in Scripture—historically in Genesis 14, prophetically in Psalm 110, and doctrinally in Hebrews 5-7. The first three verses of chapter 7 form one unbroken sentence. What lies in this sentence is all that is known about Melchisedec, so far as what Scripture records of him.
These verses show that Melchisedec is a type of Christ in two ways:
Firstly, he held a double office of “king” and “priest” (vs. 1). That he was a king is indicated by his name—“being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace” (vs. 2). That he was a priest is indicated by the fact that he blessed Abraham and took tithes from him as a “priest of the Most High God.” The prophet Zechariah states that the Messiah of Israel would have both offices also. When He reigns in His millennial kingdom, He will “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” (Zech. 6:12-13; Psa. 110:1-7; Rev. 8:3-5 and 19:16).
Secondly, the way in which Melchisedec is presented in Scripture—being “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life”—also makes him an excellent type of Christ (vs. 3). The writer is not saying that Melchisedec didn't have a father or a mother, but that he is introduced without Scripture giving us any details as to his genealogy (Gen. 14). It is not recorded who his father and mother were, nor is there any mention of his birth and death. The Spirit of God portrays him in this way so as to present him (typically) as being an eternal person, and thus, an apt type of Christ, the eternal “Son of God.”
Arguments That Show That Melchisedec’s Priesthood is Superior to Aaron’s
The writer proceeds to bring forth a number of proofs that are interwoven throughout the chapter to show that Melchisedec’s priesthood is superior to Aaron’s, and at the same time, he correlates Melchisedec’s priesthood with Christ’s.
Melchisedec’s Priesthood Involved a Dual Office of King & Priest
(Vss. 1-3)
As mentioned already, Melchisedec had a unique priesthood involving two offices: he was both a king and a priest. He held both a sceptre and a censer. No Aaronic priest could claim that. In Israel these offices were always separate from each other; there was not a man among them who was great enough to have both. On one occasion, a king (Uzziah) dared to perform a priest’s work, and took a censer into the temple to offer incense—and immediately God smote him with leprosy! (2 Chron. 26:16-21) For him to assume such a role was presumptuous. Yet Melchisedec held both offices, and that, with God’s approval! This shows that he was personally greater than the Aaronic priests, and had a priesthood that was of a higher order than theirs.
Aaron’s Priesthood Paid Tithes to Melchisedec Through Abraham
(Vss. 4-5)
The writer then shows that the personal dignity of Melchisedec was such that the Aaronic priesthood paid tithes to him through Abraham. He says, “Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.” In verses 9-10, he explains how the Levitical priesthood did this. He says, “As I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.” This fact shows again that the Aaronic priests were inferior and subservient to Melchisedec.
Aaron’s Priesthood Was Blessed by Melchisedec in Abraham
(Vss. 6-10)
The writer brings forth another point: “But he (Melchisedec) whose descent is not counted from them (the Aaronic priests), received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him (Abraham) that had the promises. And without contradiction [gainsaying] the less [inferior] is blessed of the better.” The fact that Melchisedec blessed Abraham shows that he was in a position above Abraham, and thus, was greater than Abraham. Since “the sons of Levi” were, so to speak, in Abraham’s loins at that time, they were also blessed of the greater. This again shows that Melchisedec’s priesthood was greater than Aaron’s.
Aaron’s Priesthood Lacked Perfection
(Vs. 11)
The writer then points to the fact that Scripture speaks of another Priest arising with a new priesthood “after the order of Melchisedec” (Psa. 110:4). In referring to this psalm, his emphasis is on the word “order.” It pointed forward to a time when a new order of priesthood would be established. His reasoning is that if the Aaronic priesthood were perfect, there would be no need of another order of priesthood to come. He says, “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the Law), what further need was there that another Priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?” This fact proves that the Levitical priesthood lacked perfection and completeness, and shows that that system was inherently imperfect. The Levitical priesthood lacked perfection in what it could do. It could not bring those priests into the immediate presence of God—within “the holiest” (Heb. 9:7-8). Nor could the sacrifices they offered make “the comers thereunto perfect” as to their conscience, in taking away their sins judicially (Heb. 10:1-4). Thus, Psalm 110 indicates that God had a change of priesthood in mind. He would bring in another priesthood which would accomplish what the Aaronic priesthood could not do.
Aaron’s Priesthood Was Transitory, Whereas the Melchisedecian Order Is Eternal
(Vss. 12-19)
The weakness of the Aaronic priesthood demanded a change, and this meant that there would be “a change also of the law” that governed it (vs. 12). The writer mentions this because the Jews had a difficulty in accepting that Christ could be a priest because He was not from the tribe of Levi. The Law stated that the priests of that order had to be from Aaron’s family lineage. The writer recognizes this and says, “For He (Christ) of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” (Vss. 13-14) He then explains that since Christ’s priesthood is “after the similitude of Melchisedec” (vs. 15), who didn’t come into office through genealogy, so also did Christ not come into His office by family lineage. This new priesthood is not governed by that old legal requirement.
He then states that the new priesthood—which is “not after the Law of a carnal commandment” that requires that a priest must be from the family of Aaron—is “after the power of an endless [indissoluble] life” (vs. 16). Hence, the qualification for this new office in priesthood is not in a person’s having the right genealogy, but in his having an endless life. He must be eternal! To support this, the writer points to Psalm 110 again; this time with an emphasis on the word “forever.” He says, “For He testifieth, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec” (vs. 17). Who could fill this requirement but Christ? The Old Testament priests surely couldn’t; “they were not suffered to continue by reason of death” (vs. 23). Hence, the Melchisedecian order of priesthood is not passed down from ancestors, nor is it transferred to descendants, and it will not be interrupted by death. Since it is underived, untransferable, and eternal, the permanence of this priesthood is assured (vs. 24).
Thus, the bringing in of Christ’s priesthood necessitated “a setting aside of the commandment going before for its weakness and unprofitableness (for the Law perfected nothing)” (vs. 18). The commandment of Moses as to priesthood, therefore, has been set aside, but the moral import of the Ten Commandments has not; it still has its moral application to saints (Rom. 13:8-10) and to sinners (1 Tim. 1:9-10). As mentioned, there was “weakness” with that Aaronic order because the priest, being subject to death, could not continue in that office (vs. 23). It was also “unprofitable” because it could not set the comer thereunto in the presence of God with a purged conscience. In contrast, he says, “But the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God” (vs. 19). This is a reference to the new and living way by which we approach God in Christianity (chap. 10:19-22). Christianity is viewed here as a “hope,” because while we have our blessings now (Eph. 1:3), we have not yet arrived at our heavenly destiny in a glorified state. Such is still ahead for us as a hope (a deferred certainty) that will be realized when the Lord comes at the Rapture.
Christ’s Priesthood After the Order of Melchisedec Is by an Oath
(Vss. 20-23)
The writer moves along to another point—God established Christ’s Melchisedecian priesthood with the swearing of “an oath.” This was not done in connection with the Aaronic priesthood. God did not swear to Aaron that his priesthood would continue forever. He says, “And inasmuch as not without [the swearing of] an oath He (Christ) was made priest: for those (Aaronic) priests were made without [the swearing of] an oath, but this He with [the swearing of] an oath.” Psalm 110 is again quoted to prove this. This time it is with an emphasis on the word “sworn”—“The Lord has sworn, and will not repent of it, Thou art a Priest forever according to the order of Melchisedec.” Being sworn into office, there is no possibility of Christ’s eternal priesthood being revoked or superseded by another priesthood, as in the case of the Aaronic priesthood. This shows that it is of a higher order.
The writer then shows that this priesthood having come in with an oath from God also is a “surety of a better covenant” (vs. 22). The blessings of the new covenant are, therefore, certain. He will speak of this more fully in chapter 8.
The Personal Perfection and Greatness of Christ as High Priest
(Vss. 26-28)
The final point the writer touches on is the fact that Christ is perfectly suited to be our High Priest, far more so than any Aaronic priest. On account of Who He is, being both divine and human, Christ is infinitely more than able to save us from every spiritual danger and foe in the path of faith. The writer says, “Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost [completely] that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.” We can see from the context here that he is not speaking of the salvation of our souls from the penalty of our sins, but of salvation in a practical sense. This aspect of salvation flows to us from His life of unbroken intercession at the right hand of God (Rom. 8:34). Believers are held on course and kept from failing through His mighty intercession. But note, this is not an automatic thing. God wants participation from us if we are to be saved in this way. We must “come unto God by Him.” This refers to expressing our dependence upon Him in prayer. Herein lays the problem with many of us. While the Lord is well “able to save” us from these dangers, oftentimes we neglect to come to God in prayer, and thus, we don’t get His help from on high, and failure in the path results.
As to Christ’s suitability, the writer says, “For such an High Priest became us.” He became a Man, and thus knows what it is to walk here in a world that is full of trials and temptations. He is now at God’s right hand as our High Priest. This leads the writer to speak more definitively of Christ’s moral and spiritual fitness to intercede for us on high. He is:
“Holy”—His help will be consistent with all that God is in holiness. He will not compromise with sin, nor excuse it in attempting to help us in the pathway (vs. 26).
“Harmless”—He will never ask something for us that will harm us spiritually or otherwise (vs. 26).
“Undefiled”—He remains undefiled in spite of the defiling nature of some of our temptations which He handles on our behalf (vs. 26).
“Separated from sinners”—In the place where resurrection has set Him, He is set apart from sinners and is not serving as a Priest for them; He is there on our behalf (vs. 26).
“Become higher than the heavens”—He is in a position of ultimate power, above all of our spiritual enemies, and He uses that power on our behalf according to His perfect wisdom and love (Matt. 28:18). Hence, there is not a difficulty in the whole universe which He is not able to deal with (vs. 26).
He does not need “to offer up sacrifices for His own sins” as did the Aaronic priests when they erred in their priestly function because He is absolutely sinless (vs. 27). Being such, He will never make a mistake in what He asks for us.
He did not have “infirmities” as did the Aaronic priests, but stands in the presence of God to intercede for us with “the swearing of the oath” as “the Son,” and thus, is “perfected for evermore” as our great High Priest (vs. 28).
These things show how perfectly the Lord is suited to be our High Priest and to minister to us “mercy” and “grace to help in time of need” (chap. 4:16).
Thus, having established that Christ’s priesthood is after the order of Melchisedec’s priesthood, the writer has proceeded to show from the Scriptures, in a number of points, that the Aaronic priesthood is inferior to Melchisedec’s. This then leaves us with the obvious conclusion that Christ’s priesthood is therefore superior to Aaron’s.