Hebrews: Its Aim and for Whom Written
John Nelson Darby
Table of Contents
Hebrews: Its Aim, and for Whom Written? Part 1
When the will is engaged in any doctrine it leaves one but a faint hope of its being given up by him who holds it. Still, I would not abandon that hope, altogether, as regards the author of the “Remarks on the Intercession of Christ,” and at any rate the inquiry into the truth on the subject may be useful to many souls. I confess I have been surprised at the statements in the tract. If anything had been needed to convince me of the totally unscriptural and unfounded character of the doctrine, this tract would have supplied it. Scarcely a single principle or statement is scriptural or sound. But God's grace is almighty, and I can only heartily desire and pray for the clearing up the mind of one of whose Christianity I should not hear to doubt.
The theory is, that The Epistle to the Hebrews is for the remnant after the church is gone, not for us Christians. And that Christ's intercession is simply His presence before God for us in the worth of His work; nothing active. That there is no exercise of any priesthood after the pattern of Aaron's on the part of Christ. I could hardly have thought any one could have made such statements. But they are made. “The only priesthood of Christ is Melchisedec, and that is for blessing, not intercession. The intercession, as I have before said, is his maintaining us before God in all the value of His own person and work.” “Israel will be in the land of unbelief, keeping the commandments of Moses—this epistle takes them up on that ground and tells them Christ is the end of the law,” etc. “Christ is indeed on the right hand of God—He is there by right and title; but He is there also for us, and so He is there presenting Himself as the Head and the representative of the redeemed. It is His presence intercedes or avails for us.” “Some who would not say quite so much [that Christ had a double priesthood], yet say that though Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedec only, yet He exercises it at present after the character of Aaron... Thus they make the word of God of none effect by their tradition.”
Referring to Christ's work and the Spirit's, the writer says, “Still, one is a finished work abiding before God in all its finished perfectness—the other is that which is carried on from age to age in the world; and from day to day in the heart of the believer; and the two works, for they are two, are effected by different persons and differ greatly in character; one is completed, the other not; and it is because one is completed, and not to be added to, and is ever in its completeness before God, that the other is being carried on by that other person.” “And certainly if we take the testimony of the book itself, it is clear that it is the world (or, habitable earth) to come whereof we speak, and that is assuredly connected with Israel, not the church being gathered.” Again, “Melchisedec priesthood is prominently presented, and from Psa. 110 we know that to be coincident with the rod of strength out of Zion.” And, quoting from me as to this priesthood, he says, “It is blessing and refreshment after and consequent upon the destruction of all enemies it is not that which Christ the Lord now exercises.” “And the way in which they [these matters] are here treated... shows that it is not the church as being gathered that is contemplated, but that which follows after the church is caught up to meet the Lord in the air.”
My purpose is to go through The Epistle to the Hebrews sufficiently to see what its true aim and bearing is, and then I will take up particular statements to show how utterly groundless they are. But before I do this I have one remark to make, and that is, that the notion that our church position as such is the whole or even the highest we have, is quite unfounded. Mistakes connected with this I will note in their place. I only notice the principle now. Our union with Christ casts its preciousness on every part of our blessings, and the last thing I should be inclined to do is to compare these where all is sovereign grace. But in itself this is not a relationship with the Father. With Him we are individuals, we are sons. Christ owns us as brethren, is the Firstborn among many brethren. Our union with Christ, though divine, is with Him as man, as made Head over all things. See Eph. 1:22, 23, and so Eph. 2. And all our relationship with God and the Father is developed before that, and this in the epistle where church privileges are peculiarly taught, and many of the most precious exhortations to practice are on this ground. See chapter 5:1 for example.
We speak of what belongs to the church, according to the common use of language, when we really mean what belongs to those who compose it. And this has no great practical harm when it is not used to make the idea, exclusively as such, our only blessing. I might say, The corporation are very good men, when I mean the men that compose it. But when an idea newly acquired gets hold of the soul, men are apt to be exclusively full of it. It shuts out other important truths. If anyone has been filled with the sense of the importance of the doctrine of the church, I think I may say I have; but conscience is individual; justification is individual; sonship is individual; communion, in perhaps its most important and certainly necessary part, is individual. Take all the writings of the apostle John, and, unless one allusion to a local body, you would never know that a church existed. I never lose, or at any rate never should lose, the consciousness of being a member of Christ; as I have said, it throws, when have it, its light on all. I add the idea of unity in the body to union in the family. I am one with all those who are my brethren. But surely there is a vast flood of unspeakable blessing in John, in whose writings the thought or name of the church never comes. I speak of the gospel and epistles. All is individual there. Those who enjoy it belong to the church, and do not put themselves out of the church mentally in enjoying it; but it is not, for all that, the less individual.
This principle will be found to be of large application. Thus justification is not found in Ephesians. That speaks of the new creation according to God's counsels. The sinner has to be justified, not God's new creation. Yet every word blessedly confirms the doctrine of Romans—Galatians also; but the subject is taken up differently. Romans deals with man's responsibility, and the Ephesians with God's counsels. They meet in Christ and in the cross, and nothing can be more deeply instructive to heart and soul, but they are distinct.
But I turn to Hebrews. Now I fully admit, and have often stated, that the epistle has the Jews as a people in view, Christ having died for the nation; and it is interesting to inquire in its place as to the bearing of this on the remnant, after the church is gone. I will try and touch on it briefly; but our present inquiry is, Does the epistle apply to Christians?
The Epistle to the Hebrews at the time it was written was written to somebody? To whom? Either to Christians who at the same time were Jews, or to unbelieving Jews who rejected the Savior. The answer to this question is an answer to the whole theory. No doubt therefore interesting and important details to consider after it is answered. But if it was written to Christians the whole theory is proved false. I have not to inquire as to my use of it and to whom it may apply. I have learned to whom it did apply. To Christians, and though specially addressed to Jewish Christians, for such there were, Christians jealous of the law and frequenting the temple, and offering sacrifices, and adapted to their case; yet available for all Christians, in the doctrines by which it acts on these Jewish Christians, though not as to the circumstances in which they were found, for we are not in them. Though we may be in very similar ones, when the professing church has Judaized.
I repeat then my question: To whom was it addressed when written? Were the unbelieving Jews then “partakers of the heavenly calling"? If not, it applies to Christians. Had the unbelieving Jews taken joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing that they had in heaven a better and enduring substance? Had they to consider the end of the conversation of their departed rulers whose faith they were to follow? Who had an altar which they had no right to eat of, who served the tabernacle? The unbelieving Jews? Why they are in express contrast. Christians, Christian Jews, were therefore to leave the system which they up to that time had been walking with. I ask any sober person to read chapter 13 through and say, Was the epistle addressed then to Christians or not? If it was addressed to Christians, as Christians, and because they were such, the question is answered and set at rest. Most interesting for Christians to inquire its import and value for themselves, but as belonging to themselves and addressed to themselves.
But I anticipate a little the details, and will inquire now regularly what proofs the epistle gives of being addressed to Christians, though not speaking of church privileges as such. The writer places himself amongst those he writes to. This is not denied, and is clear from the beginning of the second chapter. Was the writer among the unbelieving Jews? For it was addressed to some one then. Those addressed had received the teachings of the apostles. There was danger of letting them slip; but they had heard and received them. He speaks of the world to come, but was not in it, for Jesus was sitting at the right hand of God, all things being not yet under His feet. But he speaks for himself and those he writes to: “We see Jesus... crowned with glory and honor.” This last is an important point. Besides His divinity—it is that which the first chapter insists on—it is characteristic, specifically characteristic of the whole epistle. I mean that Jesus was sitting at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens. Not after the destruction of His enemies a priesthood of blessing on His own throne. Thus, in the wonderful statement in chap. 1:3, the groundwork of the epistle, the place Christ is found in is, having “by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
The position which makes the basis of the whole epistle is Christ's present position, not his Melchisedec position, but a heavenly Christ sitting at the right hand of God on high. So when the writer has gone through his doctrine on this subject, he gives the summing up of it. “We have such an high priest who is set at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens.” When His position is considered in reference to His manhood, as we have seen, all things are not put under His feet. He sits at the right hand of God till they are. We see Him crowned with glory and honor. He suffered being tempted here, that He may be able to succor those that are tempted. Neither the position nor the service has any possible application to a Melchisedec priesthood on earth. Temptation and conflict will not exist then. The Melchisedec priesthood, the writer agrees and insists on, is, in its exercise, after the destruction of all enemies. Satan will then he bound. Antichrist's time is not the time of Melchisedec's priesthood; and the exercise of Melchisedec's priesthood is not the time of temptation. Further, the object in view is bringing many sons to glory. The remnant are not the object of this purpose. The place of Christ, the service of Christ, and the object of God all refer to the saints at this present time, not, as such, to a Jewish remnant to be blessed on earth, or to a Melchisedec priesthood in its acknowledged exercise as such.
Does the third chapter teach us any other doctrine or the same founded on the same truth of Christ's heavenly present glory? Christ is as son over God's house. That is the position in which the epistle views Him, not in a Melchisedec one. And note here, He is the High Priest of our profession, compared to Moses and Aaron; that is, according to the doctrine of chaps. i. and ii. Whose profession? The unbelieving Jews'? An unbelieving remnant when the heavenly saints are gone? A Christian, more than a Christian, we are told, writes the epistle, and says, “our profession” —and that means unbelieving Jews, or an expectant remnant.
[J. N. D.]
(To be continued)
Hebrews: Its Aim, and for Whom Written? Part 2
But I prefer at present to follow out the direct teaching of this Epistle, which makes all clear, if anything can, if there is spiritual intelligence. Further, then, in this chapter it is said, “Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.” To whom does this apply? For whom is it written? Are unbelieving Jews, however inclined to listen, the house of Christ as the exalted Son of God?
Are they to hold fast their profession, the beginning of their confidence and rejoicing of hope, firm to the end? The Jewish remnant is not, further, a partaker of the heavenly calling, but of the earthly. In a word, thus far we have Christ, not as Melchisedec priest, but as sitting at the right hand of God, the High Priest of our profession; and those addressed are “partakers of the heavenly calling,” and are to hold fast their first confidence. We, says the writer, are His house if we do. “Made partakers of Christ,” which in English might embarrass a soul, offers no difficulty, but the contrary. It is final partaking with Him in glory, according to chap. 1:9, where “fellows” is the same word. Some remarks on how far this chapter may subsequently suit the remnant in its use of the wilderness history I will make when I refer to that point.
In chap. 4 it is said, “For we which have believed do enter into rest.” Does “we which have believed” (οἱ πιστεύσαντες) apply to unbelievers? and this of the rest of sons whom God was bringing to glory? Again I read, “Seeing then that we have a great high priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.” Whose? Whose then? The unbelievers willing to listen, or even the Jewish remnant after the church is gone, have no profession to hold fast which a Christian could call “ours,” when he referred to having a high priest in the heavens. This priesthood, moreover, a present priesthood which “we have,” has nothing to do with a Melchisedec priesthood; it is a priesthood for the time of need, a priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, tempted in all points like we are, except sin; so that we can come boldly to the throne of grace for mercy and help in time of need. This is priesthood, and not Melchisedec priesthood, after enemies are destroyed; but what enables us to come boldly to a throne of grace for mercy and help.
In chap. v. the “For” of this first verse shows that the Aaronic priesthood was founded on this very principle. It is not Christ's priesthood itself, as the fifth verse very clearly and positively shows; but it takes the Aaronic priesthood as a sample of the thoughts of God in priesthood, clearly not Melchisedec priesthood. It was different from Christ's, inasmuch as the Aaronic priesthood had sympathy while in, and because they were in, the same weakness as the others who drew nigh to God; whereas Christ's priesthood is exercised in the heavens. The partaking of the sorrows, when here, fitted Him for it, as chaps. ii. 18, iv. 15, 16 show, and v. 7. But THESE took place in the days of His flesh before He became a priest. He became that when perfected on high, for “we have a great high priest that is passed into the heavens.” This makes the place and nature of His priesthood as clear as possible. He was tempted and suffered here below, as we suffer, to be fitted for it, touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but He exercises it on high. These two points are the fundamental and essential ones of the doctrine of the epistle, while it clearly states that it is for us. He is the High Priest of our profession. He is the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him. That those whom the apostle thus addresses were Christians will appear in the strongest light from what is here and afterward said of them: Christians in danger of being led away by judaism and of apostatizing.
“For the time ye ought to be teachers” (ver. 12). What had time to do if they were unbelievers or Jews? or how could the writer say to the Jewish remnant after the church was gone, that they for the time ought to be teachers? Ye ought to be teachers. Who? The unbelieving remnant?
And now let the reader remark here what lies at the root of all this question.
We have seen as clearly as Scripture could make it, a priesthood based on Christ's being exalted at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens on the one hand, and on His having been tempted, and having suffered, and having learned obedience here below in the days of His flesh on the other; the priest of our profession who has the heavenly calling, a priest, as we shall see, who is entered into the heavens as our forerunner; and able, as having suffered, to help those who are tempted; and this priest is the priest according to the order of Melchisedec. (See chap. v. 7-10). We have the whole process of His perfecting for priest and then He is saluted of God a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Is it not perfectly clear that, though, personally, the priesthood be not after the order of Aaron, but a new one, the exercise of the priesthood is not after the similitude of Melchisedec? Save what belongs to the person, not one clement of Melchisedec priesthood is here found. The priest is in heaven, and profits by sufferings experienced here below to succor a tempted and suffering people. So that we come boldly to the throne of grace. I add to this, that it is after He has perfected the work of propitiation, chap. 1:3 to chap. 2:17, where “reconciliation” should be “propitiation” (ἰλάσχεσθαι)—but His priesthood, wholly and expressly on high, and He is on no Melchisedec throne, no throne of His own at all, but on the Father's throne, on the right hand of the throne of God; not after His enemies are all subdued, but expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. His priesthood is this; not Melchisedec priesthood in its place or exercise. I remark further, that though the application of every blessing, all the work of God in good from creation on, is by the Spirit, yet that that truth is not taught here. The person who feels for us has had experience, so as to be able to feel for us. “Who is able to succor the tempted” is not the Spirit here, but Christ, and Christ as priest. And this is a most important thing. For the heart of the Christian, Christ is an object of affection, which the Spirit—though we are indebted to His working for every blessing—cannot be.
I pursue my inquiry into the contents of the epistle. They for the time ought to be teachers; and (chap. vi.) the writer will not go back to Jewish elements. How does he speak of the responsibility of those he addresses? He will go on to perfection (that is, the estate of full age: it is the same root-word as in chap. v. 14, “full age") with those he addresses. “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 to repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God.” Is that the state of Jews disposed to listen then, or of the Jewish remnant in the last days? Falling away from having enjoyed their privileges is the thing contemplated. But these two categories of persons had never enjoyed them at all. And this is the aim of the whole epistle—to guard against falling away. The nation had crucified Christ—they might be forgiven it as an act of ignorance; but these, after the enjoyment of Christian privileges, did it for themselves; then there was no help. But in spite of this so solemn warning, he hoped better things of those he addressed, for they had brought forth fruits of grace. He could not think they could fall away from their privileges; for fruits of life had been shown. Only he desired that every one of them might show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope to the end. Is that addressed to a then unbelieving remnant, or to Christians who had received all fullness of privileges, and whose fruits made their teacher fully hope they would not abandon them? What was falling away from unbelief? The best thing they could do was to give it up. What was the same diligence to be shelved to the end in unbelievers? And what was the hope that belonged to them? It entered in within the veil whither the forerunner was entered for them, even Jesus. That is not the hope of the remnant, no more than the beginning of the chapter was the state of the remnant. Their hope is deliverance. The forerunner is for us entered within the veil. We hope to be with Him in heaven. Jesus is gone in: we are to follow Him there. Yet this is He who is made a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.
The inspired writer then unfolds this priesthood of Melchisedec; but of the exercise of the priesthood not a word. All relates to His person, and the setting aside of the law by the setting up of another priest. There is large allusion to the history, or to His person and personal dignity; but not a word as to what He did. But we have the bringing in of a better hope, by the which we draw nigh to God. Who? the unbelieving Jews ready to listen? Of whom does the writer say, “We draw nigh unto God"; and “He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them"? Here we have an ever living priest, by whom we draw nigh to God, able to save through and through to the end (not because He has perfected us by His offering, infinitely precious, unspeakably precious, as that is; not because He has died for us, though that be the ground of all, a ground even for the Father's love of Him; but) because He ever lives to make intercession for us. Appearing in the presence of God for us is another thing, and otherwise expressed in this epistle (chap. ix. 24). And really “ever living to appear,” has very little sense. He is able, since He ever lives, to do something which requires activity, is plain enough; but “ever living to appear” is not a sentence which could commend itself to any sober mind taught of God.
But ἐντυγχάνειν does not mean that; it means “to intercede.” If he who has given occasion to this paper likes to take the dictionary sense given by his correspondent as a general idea, I have no objection. “Talking with, or getting to the spirit of another"; that is, activity; not appearing before another, but talking with that other, getting to his spirit, if we are so to express it. And I insist distinctly, that the use of it in Rom. 8 is a very distinct and plain proof of its meaning. The Holy Ghost in us does not appear before God for us. He is active in us, and makes us groan, and God recognizes it as His activity in us; finds the mind of the Spirit in us; for He makes intercession for the saints. This is activity. It is talking to another, even to God, in a groan; and, if I am reverently to use such an expression, “it gets to His Spirit.” God apprehends His mind when even we cannot, and recognizes it as His, accepts it. He talks to another, and it gets, as far as we may venture to use the words, it gets to His Spirit—it reaches God's mind and heart. Christ ever lives to intercede for us on high. I say “for us,” not as sitting in heavenly places, but as coming to God by Him. I say “us,” “for such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens.” “Became us” because we belong to heaven—go in spirit into heaven in our coming to God. We have not to do with a priest on a throne on earth, or on His own throne anywhere; but with one who is now made higher than the heavens.
Such is the priesthood of Christ always in this epistle, a present priesthood, a priesthood in heaven, a priesthood on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens, exercised there; a priesthood, not after the order of Aaron as to person or descent, but our Lord, priest on high after the power of an endless life, personally similar to, and after the order of, Melchisedec, but never introduced as exercising His priesthood after the pattern, or in the place of, Melchisedec; always, from chapter ii. and iii. as compared with and contrasted with Aaron's, to lift Jewish Christians (for they were Jewish Christians specifically), then from Jewish habits of association with that which was on earth, in showing a present priesthood exercised above the heavens, and to preserve them by grace from falling away from the heavenly things to what they were used to; and I may add, to bring them out from what they had hitherto staid in, the camp—outward association with Israel and a judged system, and by teaching which, for us, is based on the truth, in its continual exercise, that He ever lives to do it, now as then. It is the exercise of a continual priesthood after He had offered up Himself once for all.
It is well that the reader should remark, that though the sacrifice has been stated (it is spoken of in the very first chapter, so in the second, as it is again here), we have not one word as yet of being made perfect in fact or in conscience, but the priest's fitness for tempted exercised souls down here; a priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He is gone on high, but we have no perfecting by sacrifice, no appearing— as yet in the presence of God for us. Though the value of His priesthood for tried ones, and its fitness, is fully stated, as yet it is not our perfectness before God, but help for the feeble and tried, who need help and mercy. It is to this last that priesthood is applied, and priesthood at the right hand of God, on the right hand of the throne of Majesty on high, not at all on any Melchisedec throne. And this application of the priesthood of Christ to our infirmities and help in time of need is the more remarkable, because, when the author of the epistle comes to speak of perfectness through His offering and His appearing in the presence of God for us, he does not speak of Him as priest at all; the reference to His priesthood is wholly dropped. Though contrasted with the Jewish priesthood, infirmities, help, intercession, ever living to make it, and these alone are identified with His priesthood—save the fact of propitiation in chap. ii., which is admitted to be an exceptional case, in which the high priest represented the people (not a proper act of priesthood, though of the high priest on the day of atonement)—and on the other hand, when our perfecting by His offering of Himself, and His appearing in the presence of God for us, is spoken of, priesthood is wholly dropped. There is distinct and marked contrast. That is not priesthood, intercession is, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews.
[J. N. D.]
(Continued from page 188)
(To be continued)
Hebrews: Its Aim, and for Whom Written? Part 3
In chap. 8 we have the whole doctrine of the priesthood summed up before the unfolding of the worth of the sacrifice and His appearing in the presence of God for us are gone into. We have an high priest set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, a purely heavenly one. None of this belongs to Melchisedec. The priesthood spoken of is solely while Christ is on high. It is in the sanctuary—that is, in heaven itself—exercised in that of which the tabernacle man pitched was the shadow, made according to the pattern of things in the heavens, a heavenly priesthood in a heavenly sanctuary. This is so distinctly the case, that if He were on earth He would not be a priest (of Melchisedec's exercise of priesthood on His throne no trace or hint is found); there were priests who served to the example and pattern of heavenly things; we have to do with the heavenly things themselves. And Christ has obtained a more excellent ministry. When and where according to this chapter? What is— “But now hath he obtained?” What, as to the priesthood and ministry of Christ, “replaces here"? The heavenly things, and a heavenly service, and a heavenly sanctuary as a present thing, or a Melchisedec priesthood after all enemies are put down on earth? Is that shadow and pattern according to which it is exercised, the sanctuary set up by Moses, or the Melchisedec service? For a calm and straight-forward mind there can be but one answer. It may be said he speaks of the covenants. He does. But to what end? Solely HERE to show that the old is passing away and ready to vanish, that the Jewish Christians might not hang on to it. The new covenant is surely not made with us at all. The basis of it is laid in Christ's blood, as the institution of the Lord's Supper shows, and we have all the advantages of it; but a great deal more, and Paul was a minister of it.
But this allusion to the pattern of heavenly things has led the inspired writer to the whole order of the sanctuary; to unfold the worth of Christ's work and sacrifice. And here let me make a remark not without its importance in the study of the Hebrews. The mention of the temple is carefully excluded. That was connected with royalty; with the establishment on earth of what was practically Melchisedec rule and priesthood, the rule of the Son of David. The tabernacle only is mentioned. That was the pattern of heavenly things; the temple is never given as such, whatever analogies there may be; the tabernacle is. Even when he speaks of the system as having still its standing (chap. ix. 8), it is the tabernacle, not the temple. It is the camp they were to leave, and come outside. The analogy of Christ's service is distinctly, definitely, and declaredly after the similitude of the Aaronic service in the tabernacle, not after any Melchisedec service. The pattern is what Moses gave, but it is in heaven, and in heaven only and specifically. It is a present thing, specifically a present thing, as He is in heaven now; not a future thing as Melchisedec is. He is entered in, not come out (chap. 9:12). The veil is rent, the way into the holiest is open, and the blood of Christ purges the conscience. And the apostle speaks to those to whom the epistle is ing, and can say, He is the High Priest of our addressed, who are partakers of the heavenly call—profession. The heavenly things themselves are in question. Christ is entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. In this, as we have seen, though compared with what Aaron did, there is no mention of priesthood. It is another matter. In chap. 4:14 we have the analogy strikingly stated: “a great high priest that is passed through [not into] the heavens,” as Aaron through the court and holy place into the sanctuary. But here we have no priest but Christ appearing in the presence of God for us. He has appeared, not to restore Israel and the world, but to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He has been once offered, not to redeem Israel, but—in contrast with death and judgment, man's portion as a child of Adam—to bear the sins, not of Israel, but, of many. Does this mean that He did not die for the nation, or that the remnant will not be restored on the ground of this sacrifice? Surely not. But the passage speaks of other things.
In chap. 10, still in express comparison and contrast with the law, the application of Christ's sacrifice is gone into; but it is fact and efficacy — no priesthood now. It is application; we are sanctified. It is taught as that which is known by him that teaches it, a present thing. The position of Christ is still the opposite of that of Melchisedec. He is expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. It is not a reign and kingly priesthood after they are destroyed. It is only heavenly; He sits at the right hand of God. The sanctified ones, already spoken of, are perfected forever. He is not, as Aaronic priests were, standing ever renewing inefficacious sacrifices; but sitting at the right hand of God, because His is complete, and those having a part in it perfected forever; that is, not merely for eternity, but in uninterrupted and unbroken continuity, just as He sits there. It is those who have part in it while He is sitting there. And the Holy Ghost is a witness of it to the writer, and those he writes to, as a present possession of peace. And mark the consequence. We brethren have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. When and where? Jews under Melchisedec? And now we come back to the High Priest. Where? In the holiest in heaven, or in the house of God, whose house, we have read, are we if we hold fast, I suppose what we have got.
It will be remarked, that with chap. x. 18 the doctrine of these two chapters ends, and exhortation begins. We are to draw near with full assurance of faith into the holiest, having a High Priest over the house of God. I will suppose for the moment, what clearly could not possibly be, that this exhortation was addressed to unbelievers disposed to listen, which is the theory of the deniers of priesthood as to any present application. I ask, Was not that into which they were brought the Christian position? Those living men could not be brought into the residue position in the last days; they could be brought, if anywhere, among Christians. That, then, to which they were called, was where Christians were: a rent veil; access into the holiest by it; a purged conscience; full assurance of faith; and a great High Priest over the house of God. I do not believe that this is the position of the remnant in the latter day at all, but I leave that aside. It is the position of Christians now, for it is what the then listeners, according to the theory, were called into.
When we go on with the chapter it becomes evident, beyond all possible question, that it is the Christian position. “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith.” Does the writer of the epistle identify himself with unbelieving Jews in the profession of a common faith? What were the unbelieving Jews to hold fast? “The profession of our faith” in the mouth of a Christian must be Christian faith; and if it be “our” he must write to Christians. We (who?) are to provoke one another to love and to good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together—who is that? Was it a Jewish assembly, or Christians and unbelieving Jews together? Besides, it supposes that the knowledge of the truth had been received, and, as in chap. vi., if the Spirit, whose presence distinctively characterized Christians and Christianity, was received in vain, so here, if the one sacrifice which characterized it was departed from, there was no remedy, no room for repentance. Only judgment remained. They were Christian professors, and enjoyed the advantages of Christianity, and if they cast them away there was nothing else to come but judgment. What distinguished the remnant is that there is deliverance to come, because they have not had these privileges, and had not cast them away. What characterized any Jews disposed to listen then was the same fact, they had not had them. What characterized those to whom the writer addressed himself is that they had. They, if they departed from the faith, drew back, had trodden under foot the Son of God, counted the blood of the covenant wherewith they were sanctified an unholy thing, and done despite to the Spirit of grace, there was no remedy left. Are unbelieving Jews, however disposed, as to their position, sanctified by the blood of the covenant? What does ver. 32 mean? “After ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions"; and “knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance"? What the confidence they were not to cast away? In a word, they were not of those—the writer hoped—who drew back to perdition, but of those who believed to the saving of the soul, and certainly had the privileges from which they could draw back.
I resume the proof from these exhortations. The epistle—the practical exhortations—were addressed in fact to some one. Those to whom they are addressed are illuminated, had received the knowledge of the truth, are exhorted not to forsake the assembling of themselves together; had taken joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing they had in heaven a better and enduring substance; and even not to cast away their confidence; were not to be of those who drew back, but believing to the saving of their souls; in a word, were believers, or at least professed believers, and believers then were Christians. Profession left them in danger of drawing back to Judaism, and gave occasion to warning in this respect; but, if Christians, Christians had and therefore have a great high priest over the house of God; a priest gone into heaven, and who exercised his priesthood there, and, as here described, there only: a priest who is touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and who ever lives to make intercession for us. Our perfection by His offering, and His appearing in the presence of God for us, not being connected with his priestly service.
What remains of the epistle, after such evidence, needs not very enlarged reference. In chap. 11. I notice one passage— “God having provided [or foreseen] some better thing for us, that they [Abraham, etc.] without us should not be made perfect.” Is it for Christians or for the Jewish remnant that some better thing than Abraham's heavenly portion is provided? Is not the perfection resurrection glory, not blessing under Melchisedec?
All the exhortations in the beginning of chap. 12., if they mean anything, are addressed to Christians. They were not come to Sinai, but to the full heavenly and earthly blessing, in which the church of the firstborn and the Old Testament saints are included. Here alone we have the church in the Hebrews. They were come to Jesus. It will be said, To Jesus, mediator of a new covenant. Quite true; and I do not doubt that this refers in accomplishment to the millennial earth. But they were come to Jesus, and this is the essential point; and it is a Jesus not coming back from heaven, but speaking from heaven while He is there. Chap. 13:8, 9, clearly shows with whom they were in connection. The Christ they had been taught to know, by those whose faith they were to follow, was the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. I do not connect the verses as in the English Bible; but it is quite clear that the faith a Christian exhorts to follow, is Christian faith, and here suggests Christ as the One whose unchangeableness should guard them from strange doctrines; grace, not Jewish meats, was to be their portion.
But further, “We,” says the writer, “have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle.” Who had an altar in contrast with the Jews? the unbeliever willing to listen? Of a future remnant there is no idea or question. The writer declares that he and those with whom he was associated had, had then, an altar, a place of worship, where the food of and communion with God was, at which those who held to (now by-past and soon to be judged) Judaism had no right to partake. Who had, who could then or now have, this but Christians? Judaism as a system is then rejected as being a religion for this earth, a camp of God (now left of Him) here. Such a religion was now rejected. When the blood Was carried within the sanctuary, the body of the Victim was carried without the camp. The true sanctuary, heaven (as is expressly taught in chap. 9:11, 12, 24) is one essential element of the position spoken of; abiding rejection of and by worldly religion, made for or suited to the flesh, “outside the camp,” or the earthly holy city, is the other. That is distinctly Christianity. The remnant at the end look for and will have the restoration of an earthly' system, and the Lord's presence and throne in Jerusalem. The system into which men are called in this epistle (and, if Christians, are, and warned not to fall away from) is exclusively and uncompromisingly Christian and heavenly, in contrast with what the remnant could have at the end, founded on this same work, but established in a restored throne on earth and a holy city here, not a rejected Savior and a heavenly throne. Vers. 20, 21, are most clearly addressed to Christians, and outside all old and new covenants; and the rest, as the whole chapter, suppose that in faith, joy, hopes, interest, and warnings, the writer and those addressed are alike Christians, though the latter, Christians in danger of slipping back into Judaism, from which they are called finally to separate themselves.
The result of this survey of The Epistle to the Hebrews is, that our being perfected by the offering of Jesus Christ, and His appearing in the presence of God for us, is not referred to priesthood, but that there is a priesthood of intercession available for us because the priest can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; and, having suffered, being tempted, is competent to succor those that are tempted. That this priesthood is exercised in heaven specifically, in its whole character and nature, and only there, as here brought forward as that which became us. That the comparison and contrast of this priesthood in its exercise is wholly with the ordering and service of the tabernacle. The priest is according to the order of Melchisedec, but of the exercise of a Melchisedec priesthood there is no mention, hint, or trace. It is a priesthood exercised in heaven only, into which Christ is entered, as Aaron into the holiest made with hands. It is addressed to Christians formally and expressly in all its parts; if it reach over—as a groundwork of Israel's future hopes, as what is taught in it surely does—it has no direct application to them save as Christ's present position and His accomplished work secure these hopes; and as it does not take proper church ground, that is, our sitting in heavenly places in Christ, it can reach over in certain parts to their hopes and blessings as an accessory. But the hopes given in the epistle are not theirs, but heaven and glory. Further, it is written to Christian Jews, that is, to Christian's from among the Jews, and who in fact clung to their own old thoughts, and feelings, and system, and were in danger, if not kept of God, of falling back into Judaism, which was ready to be judged, and are warned moreover to come out and leave their connection with it; warned that the faith of Christ, which they had, and Judaism could no longer be connected as it had been, many thousand Jews, as we know, holding fast to their ancient law. J. N. D.
(Concluded from page 204)
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.