Read the passage here.
It has been several weeks now since we’ve taken a break from the letter to the Hebrews. As such, it is probably useful to do a brief review of where we’ve come so far. However, having said that, there is a lot to cover in our passage today so I don’t want to spend too much time on this.
I hope it suffices to say that the concern of the writer to the Hebrews seems to be in establishing Jesus as “greater than” – that Jesus alone (above anything else in the readers’ minds) is sufficient and necessary for life and salvation. As such, the author demonstrates – so far – that Jesus is greater than the angels and that Jesus is greater than Moses. Again, there is much to unpack and review even here, but I want to essentially leave it at that.
What we are going to see today is the idea that Jesus is the superior (i.e. “greater than”) high priest – and specifically, that Jesus as the one true High Priest is greater than the high priesthood of Aaron (the Levitical priesthood). And the author demonstrates this, or illustrates this, by placing Jesus as high priest in the line of Melchizedek.
Now just as a final, brief word of review, it’s important to remember that all of this theological discussion must be placed in the context of the authors pastoral concern, which is that the readers not lose heart, but remain faithful in the face of the challenges (whatever they are) of being God’s people in their specific where and when.
So with that said, let’s take a look at our passage today.
The main question which arises out of this passage is obviously the figure of Melchizedek. That is, why does the author bring up Melchizedek, or how does the author use Melchizedek in his larger argument. And to answer this question, we should again remember that the author’s primary concern (throughout the letter) is demonstrating the superiority and sufficiency of Jesus. And as we will see, the person of Melchizedek is used to demonstrate Jesus’ superiority to the person or position of High Priest.
Now we don’t have time to review this all now, but by way of context, we remember that Jesus as a High Priest in the order of Melchizedek is something the author has brought up earlier in the letter. And his concern seems to be in demonstrating the completeness of the work that Christ has done, and that we can have full confidence therefore of our hope and our future. A few of the previous references are:
5:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
6:8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
6:19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
And all of that leads us to our passage today begins with the verse: “7:1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything.” The author here is referring to the episode in Genesis where Abraham rescues Lot. In Genesis 14, we read:
Gen. 14:17 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley).
18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praise be to God Most High,
who delivered your enemies into your hand.”Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
From here, the author of the Hebrews goes on to assert that this episode demonstrates the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek to the Levitical priesthood. In short, Abraham gives honour to Melchizedek, and is therefore subordinate to Melchizedek. As Levi is subordinate to Abraham (by virtue of descendancy) so Levi is subordinate to Melchizedek.
And the author’s purpose here is to demonstrate that Jesus’ priesthood is greater than the priesthood of Levi. That is, Jesus as high priest is greater than the high priesthood of Levi – indeed, it is of an entirely different kind. This is what is meant in the next paragraph:
7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
The point of this is that the priesthood of Levi, that is the working of the Old Covenant Law, were not sufficient to effect the salvation of creation. If, as the author says, that “system” were sufficient, a new kind of High Priest, a new kind of sacrifice would not be necessary. However, precisely what we see is that it was not sufficient (and indeed, was never really meant to be). Jesus, not of the tribe of Levi, but of the tribe of Judah, becomes this new kind of High Priest – not of the order of Levi, but of the order of Melchizedek.
Says the author:
7:26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
Now once again, there is a lot more to be said about this passage than we have time for – but I hope that this gives us the gist. To review, the author’s larger concern with this letter seem to be centered around the theology of the superiority and sufficiency of Jesus Christ; as well, he wants to encourage his readers to remain faithful. Here, in our passage today, the author’s assumption is that the Levitical system, the priestly system, or the temple system as they knew it was insufficient to solving the problem of sin; of restoring a broken people and creation.
He doesn’t go into the specifics, but it’s not hard to imagine that the people are well aware of this. Being familiar with the story of Israel, and having witnessed firsthand what the actual temple priests had been up to (think of Caiaphas in Jesus’ time), to hear that the High Priest that was was not the High Priest that they needed, and even less the High Priest that God had intended would have come as no surprise to any of them. They would have had little or no confidence in a High Priest in the line of Caiaphas, for example.
But as the author demonstrates, Jesus was not part of this system. Jesus was not a continuation of this priestly line. Jesus was a High Priest of an entirely different sort – not of the order of Levi, but of the order of Melchizedek. And Jesus, as High Priest, is fully able to do the work for which God sent Him. Jesus was able to fulfill everything that God had intended. Jesus is able to be everything that we needed Him to be. As such, Jesus alone is worthy of our trust, of our devotion, of our worship.
Now we might say that this is an overview of the author’s theological concern – demonstrating the superiority and sufficiency of Christ. But can we say anything about his pastoral concern – that his readers might remain faithful in their specific context?
Now of course, dividing up the author’s text like this – in categories that suit our purposes – is artificial and arbitrary. Nevertheless, I think we can draw some conclusions. And for this, I want to start at v. 20:
20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:
“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.
23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completelythose who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
In short, the author here makes a distinction between Jesus’ priesthood and the Levitical priesthood, noting that Jesus’ priesthood flows out of God’s oath. What about the Levites then? Well, the Levites priesthood derives not from God’s oath, but from a system – that is, the Law.
And if I can put it this way, the priesthood that is grounded in a system is inferior to the priesthood that flows out of relationship. In other words, Jesus’ priesthood is personal. It’s personal because it is dependent entirely upon the Son’s relationship with the Father.
In like fashion, Jesus’ relationship with each of us – as our true High priest – is likewise personal. It’s not a matter of systems and statues; it’s not a matter of laws and lines; it’s purely a matter of the love that He has for us, the love that the Father has for us, of His desire that no one should perish but that all should come to repentance.
Our faithfulness then, our response to the grace of God, is not a response of merely following the rules. Our response is just as personal as Jesus’ call to be our priest. Or to put it another way, we are not faithful to a system, we are not faithful to a proposition; we are faithful to a person. We are faithful to the person of Jesus Christ, just as Jesus is faithful to each and all of us.
This precludes, then, the temptation to believe that faithfulness is merely about believing the right things. It eliminates the possibility that faithfulness is merely avoiding that which is prohibited; and likewise the endless parsing of what is and is not permissible under the law. Of course, we may need to ask those questions. We may need to seek what answers are available to us. But unless we understand that Christian faithfulness, biblical faithfulness, is first and foremost about following a person, then we will very likely wind up going the wrong way. We will pursue the wrong things and very likely wind up in the wrong place.
The author’s pastoral concern, then, inasmuch as he is encouraging us his readers to remain faithful, might be described as an encouragement to simply keep our eyes on Jesus. Keep our eyes on Jesus, that we might walk where He leads us, that we might become the people that He has called us to be.