A Study Of The Apostle Pauls Letter To The Hebrews

1
AStudyOf TheApostlePauls LetterTo The
Hebrews
How can we neglect so greata salvation?
Hebrews 23
2
Hebrews Christ Is Superior! Superior Person
(11413) Superior to Prophets
(11-3) Superior to Angels (14218) Superior
to Moses (31-19) Superior to Joshua
(41-13) Superior Priest (414728) Superior to
Aaron (414612) Superior to Melchizedek
(613710) Superior to Levi (711-28)
but Well only get to verses 11-19 today.
3
Hebrews Christ Is Superior! Superior Pact to
Moses (811018) Superior Promises
(81-13) Superior Sanctuary (91-15) Superior
Sacrifice (916-28) Superior Results
(101-18) Superior Principle (Faith) to Moses
(10191325) Superior Things (1019-39) Superio
r Actions (111-40) Superior Relationship
(121-29) Superior Way of Life (131-25)
4
In our examination of 71-10 we studi-ed Pauls
primary arguments about the eternal and therefore
superior order of Melchizedeks priesthood over
the temporal and therefore inferior order of
Aarons priesthood and Jesus, not being of the
lineage of Aaron but of God who (like Mel) has no
beginning or ending, is therefore of Mels order.
Now ?
? ?
5
In 711-19 well find that Paul showed how the
ideal priesthood is realized in Christ, an idea
which set the stage for his lengthy discussion in
chapters810 about how the Law of Christ is
greater than the Law of Moses. (Re-member, Moses
was the brother of Aaron, the first high priest
of the Levitical order).
6
Therefore if per-fection were thru the Levitical
priest-hood (for under it the people received the
Law), what further need was there that another
priest should rise according to the order of Mel
and not be called ac-cording to the order of
Aaron?
Hebrews 711 ?
7
Therefore if per-fection were thru the Levitical
priest-hood (for under it the people received the
Law), what further need was there that another
priest should rise according to the order of Mel
and not be called ac-cording to the order of
Aaron?
I.e., since Jesus has become a High Priest after
the superior order of Mel (620710), then its
evi-dent that the Leviti- cal priesthood wasnt
adequate.
8
Therefore if per-fection were thru the Levitical
priest-hood (for under it the people received the
Law), what further need was there that another
priest should rise according to the order of Mel
and not be called ac-cording to the order of
Aaron?
This comes from a term referring to the process
or act of completion of Gods plan of mans
re-storation to His fel-lowship. See ?
9
The purpose of the priesthood was/is to remove
the barrier between God and mansin, so that man
could again have access to God and, since the
Levitical priesthood could only do that typically
, a new priesthood had to be instituted which
could actually provide salvation for sinful man,
which is why Paul later wrote in verse 25 that
Jesus saves in a completed manner!
10
Later Paul wrote of the priesthood that it was
symbolic for the present time and could not make
him who performed the service perfect (99) and
he said of the Law of that priesthood that it,
having a shadow of the good things to come, can
never make those who approach perfect (101),
or, as 719 says, the Law made nothing perfect.
He also wrote, if there had been a law given
which could have given life, truly righteousness
would have been by the Law (Gal. 321).
11
Therefore if per-fection were thru the Levitical
priest-hood (for under it the people received the
Law), what further need was there that another
priest should rise according to the order of Mel
and not be called ac-cording to the order of
Aaron?
This clause actually means that the Law and the
Levitical priesthood were in- separable they
were essentially given by God at the same time,
each reinforc-ing the other, mean-ing that they
stand or fall together.
12
Therefore if per-fection were thru the Levitical
priest-hood (for under it the people received the
Law), what further need was there that another
priest should rise according to the order of Mel
and not be called ac-cording to the order of
Aaron?
There are two Greek words for another one means
another of the same kind, and the other one, the
one used here, means another of a different kind.
In other words ? ?
13
Therefore if per-fection were thru the Levitical
priest-hood (for under it the people received the
Law), what further need was there that another
priest should rise according to the order of Mel
and not be called ac-cording to the order of
Aaron?
Since the Levitical priesthood didnt bring
anything to completion (v. 19), more was needed
than just another priestan entirely different
priesthood was needed, one af-ter the order of
Mel instead of Aaron. So ? ? ?
14
The answer to the question of this verse, of
course, is that if the Levitical priesthood
couldve cleansed man of his sin, if it couldve
re-established a relationship with God, i.e. if
it couldve provided for perfection, then there
wouldve been no need for a priest of a different
order, much less the death of the Son of God.
But ? ? ?
15
Since God did promise another priest after
another order (an order different from that of
Aaron), and since the re-placed priesthood found
its authority in the Law of Moses (728), then
its obvious that God had never planned for our
salvation to be realized under the Levitical
priesthood or its law. What an argument! To deny
this, those Jewish brethren wouldve had to deny
the inspiration of Psalm 110.
16
For the priesthood being changed, of necessity
there is also a change of the law.
Hebrews 712 ?
17
Notice this present tense word in this verse
The Jewish world was being sup- planted by a new
one (25)a new world that would, of necessity,
include a new law and a new priesthood.
For the priesthood being changed, of necessity
there is also a change of the law.
18
This word is from a term which means to put one
thing in the place of another. So ?
? ?
For the priesthood being changed, of necessity
there is also a change of the law.
19
Paul wasnt just teaching that the
Mel-chizedekian priesthood was better than the
Aaronic priesthood, but that it also replaced it!
But, since the Law and the priesthood stand or
fall together, this priesthood-replacement could
only be accomplished by a replacement of the law
which governed the priesthood i.e., the Law of
Christ replaced the Law of Moses. So Why did the
law need to change in order to change the
priesthood? ? ?
20
Because He (Jesus) of whom these things are
spoken belongs to another tribe from which no man
has offici-ated at the altar.
Hebrews 713 ?
21
These things refer to the words of Psa. 1104the
prophecy of God that thered arise One who would
be a priest after the order of Mel instead of
Aaron.
Because He (Jesus) of whom these things are
spoken belongs to another tribe from which no man
has offici-ated at the altar.
22
I find it interesting that the original term for
this phrase is the same as trans-lated share in
the same in 214 where Paul wrote of Jesus taking
part in hu-manity in order to destroy him who had
the power of deaththe devil.
Because He (Jesus) of whom these things are
spoken belongs to another tribe from which no man
has offici-ated at the altar.
23
Its interesting because, as I said when we
studied that verse, this word is ac-tive and
means that Jesus volunteered to become human
(something none of us had a choice in), implying
that Jesus was/is deity. So, with reference to
this verse here, this means that not only did
Jesus choose to become human, but also He chose
to be born of the tribe of Judah instead of Levi.
24
This word is the same as the one in verse 11
i.e., not only was Jesus not of the lineage of
Aaron, He wasnt even a descendant of Levi. The
prophets were very clear on this ? ? ?
Because He (Jesus) of whom these things are
spoken belongs to another tribe from which no man
has offici-ated at the altar.
25
Speaking of the Messiah, Isaiah 1110 prophesied
that He shall be a Root of Jesse. And who was
Jesses son? God said, I will raise to David a
Branch a King shall reign and prosper and
exe-cute judgment and righteousness in the earth
(Jer. 235). So Jesus would be a branch of David
from the root of Jesse, meaning that the New
Testa-ment High Priest would actually come
through the kingly lineage, not the priestly
lineage. And what lineage was that? ? ? ?
26
For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah,
of which tribe Moses spoke nothing con- cerning
priesthood.
Hebrews 714 ?
27
Jesus was a descen-dant of Levis broth-er Judah,
whose de-scendants, including Jesus, had no
auth-ority in the least to fulfill the job of a
Levite, much less a priest or high priest! Lets
read some re-lated passages at this point ? ?
?
For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah,
of which tribe Moses spoke nothing con- cerning
priesthood.
28
Jacob, prophesying about his son, said, Judah is
a lions cub . He is as a lion and as a
lion who shall rouse him? The scepter shall not
depart from Ju-dah nor a lawgiver from between
his feet until Shiloh comes and to Him shall be
the obedience of the people (Gen. 499-10). Then,
speaking to John, an elder said of Jesus, Behold
the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David
(Rev. 55). By the way ? ? ?
29
Though folks tell us today that we cant argue
from silence, thats exactly what Paul did here
in verse 14 a perfect ex-ample of the binding of
silence with re-ference to this very subject, in
fact, is found in 2nd Chron. 2616-21 where King
Uzziah, a descendant of Judah , was struck by God
with leprosy until the day of his death because
he dared to do the work of a Levite priest.
30
And it is yet far more evident if, in the
likeness of Mel- chizedek, there arises another
priest who has come, not accord-ing to the law of
a fleshly command-ment, but accord-ing to the
power of an endless life.
Hebrews 715-16 ? ? ?
31
Whats far more evi-dent? Well, lets go back a
moment What was the point Paul was making?
And it is yet far more evident if, in the
likeness of Mel- chizedek, there arises another
priest who has come, not accord-ing to the law of
a fleshly command-ment, but accord-ing to the
power of an endless life.
32
The point is found in verses 11-12 where he
affirmed that the Levitical priesthood and the
Law had to be, and were, re-placed. To prove
this, he presented two arguments ?
And it is yet far more evident if, in the
likeness of Mel- chizedek, there arises another
priest who has come, not accord-ing to the law of
a fleshly command-ment, but accord-ing to the
power of an endless life.
33
He first presented a new argument in verse 14,
namely that according to the prophets (as well as
their own common knowledge), the Messiah,
Jesusthe One they as Christians had accepted as
Gods new High Priestwas of the lineage of
Judah, not Levi. Then here in verses 15-16 he
brought in a previously established truth to
further support his point, viz. that Jesus, being
God, is a priest who can not and therefore will
not diea type of priest Moses Law, of course,
never took into consideration. Incidentally ?
?
34
Paul probably had Christs resurrection in mind
when he chose the term aris-es i.e., since He
rose (as witnessed, 1 Cor. 153-7) and spoke of
the power to raise Himself (John 1017), His
resurrection proved His inherent virtue of
indestruc-tibilitythe power of an endless life.
And it is yet far more evident if, in the
likeness of Mel- chizedek, there arises another
priest who has come, not accord-ing to the law of
a fleshly command-ment, but accord-ing to the
power of an endless life.
35
Since this phrase is in contrast to the phrase
endless life, and since the next two verses say
what they do about the ending of the old law,
then ? ?
And it is yet far more evident if, in the
likeness of Mel- chizedek, there arises another
priest who has come, not accord-ing to the law of
a fleshly command-ment, but accord-ing to the
power of an endless life.
36
This clause evidently means that High Priest
Jesus was ap-pointed to the office of priest
based not on His ancestral line, but based on
His intrinsic superi-orityHis deity. By the way
? ? ?
And it is yet far more evident if, in the
likeness of Mel- chizedek, there arises another
priest who has come, not accord-ing to the law of
a fleshly command-ment, but accord-ing to the
power of an endless life.
37
Romans 13-4 corre-sponds to this con- text, for
in them Paul wrote of Jesus being born of David
(giving Him the authority to be a king, Heb.
714) and of His being resur-rected (giving Him
the right to be, like Mel, a priest, Heb. 71-3).
And it is yet far more evident if, in the
likeness of Mel- chizedek, there arises another
priest who has come, not accord-ing to the law of
a fleshly command-ment, but accord-ing to the
power of an endless life.
38
For He (God) testi-fies You (Jesus) are a
priest for-ever according to the order of
Mel-chizedek.
Hebrews 717 ?
39
I find it interesting that Paul quoted this Psalm
4 times in this book (56 10 and 717 21),
and he alluded to it at least 3 other times (620
and 711 15). This is interesting to me
because ? ?
For He (God) testi-fies You (Jesus) are a
priest for-ever according to the order of
Mel-chizedek.
40
Though folks tell us today that we cant base a
doctrine on one verse, thats exactly what Paul
did here Psa. 1104 is the key verse or the hub
around which the book of Hebrews revolves!
For He (God) testi-fies You (Jesus) are a
priest for-ever according to the order of
Mel-chizedek.
41
For on the one hand there is an annulling of the
former command- ment because of its weakness and
unprofitableness, for the Law made nothing
perfect
Hebrews 718-19a ? ? ?
42
For on the one hand there is an annulling of the
former command- ment because of its weakness and
unprofitableness, for the Law made nothing
perfect
Verse 18 takes up the idea of verse 16 by
speaking of the negative result of the power of
an in-destructible life tak-ing over the fleshly
ordinance.
43
For on the one hand there is an annulling of the
former command- ment because of its weakness and
unprofitableness, for the Law made nothing
perfect
This word comes from a term which meant to make
void or to do away with its the same term as
found in 926 where Paul said that Jesus appeared
in the flesh to put away sin, meaning that the
Law has been re-moved just as tho-roughly as
Jesus re-moves sin.
44
For on the one hand there is an annulling of the
former command- ment because of its weakness and
unprofitableness, for the Law made nothing
perfect
This phrase refers primarily to the law
concerning priests being from Aarons lineage
but the do-ing away with just that one rule voids
the entire Law (cf. v. 11 Gal. 53). This is
obviously true be-cause of what Paul went on to
say ?
45
For on the one hand there is an annulling of the
former command- ment because of its weakness and
unprofitableness, for the Law made nothing
perfect
The Law was weak therefore unprofit-able
because it made nothing perfect or complete,
meaning that it (as a mere shad-ow, 101) brought
no-thing to conclusion i.e., since it couldnt
produce or offer a sacrifice that would pay for
sin (104), it couldnt reconcile anyone to his
God.
46
Paul commented on this idea in Romans 83 when he
said, What the Law could not do, in that it was
weak through the flesh, God did by sending His
own Son. As a disclaimer, Paul taught in
Galatians 3 that, though the Law was unprofitable
for the purpose of pardoning sinners, it
fulfilled its primary purpose which led up to the
pardoning of sinners. In fact
47
For on the one hand there is an annulling of the
former command- ment because of its weakness and
unprofitableness, for the Law made nothing
perfect
The word former here carries with it the idea of
introduc-ing the Law, as Paul said in
Galati-ans, brought man to Christ, introducing
him to the new and eternal High Priest.
So ? ? ?
48
Its important to remember that Paul said (in
Romans 83) that the Law was weak, not totally
powerlessit did what it was meant to do (cf.
Rom. 712 14 where Paul said that the Law was
holy, just, good, and spiritual in nature). On
the other hand ? ? ?
49
there is the bringing in of a better hope, thru
which we draw near to God.
Hebrews 719b ?
50
This is the positive result of the power of an
indestructible life taking over the fleshly
ordinance.
there is the bringing in of a better hope, thru
which we draw near to God.
51
This phrase actually carries with it the idea of
bringing in upon , which takes us back to the
con-cept of replacement spoken of earlierthe
Gospel of Grace replaced the Law of Works.
there is the bringing in of a better hope, thru
which we draw near to God.
52
This is a better hope because Christs priesthood
and Gos-pel draw us near to God 86 tells us
that Jesus has received a ministry thats better
than the Levites, by creating a better covenant
between God and man, based on better promises.
there is the bringing in of a better hope, thru
which we draw near to God.
53
The hope under the old law was for
re-conciliation to God later in the coming of the
Messiah but now, under the new law, that
restoration to Gods fellow-ship is fulfilled in
Christ (John 146). Since God through Jesus has
accom-plished everything possible on His part to
open the door to man for forgiveness,
reconciliation, and salvation, the ball is in our
court to draw near to God in fact, its
commanded of us (James 48).