 |  |
translated twice "continually" and twice "for ever". "For a continuance" is a
good rendering. In the case of the type, Melchisedec, the silence of Scripture as
to his "beginning" of days or "end" of life sets him forth typically as a priest
after the power of an endless life. In the case of Christ, the antitype, the contrast
is between the priest who "standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the
same sacrifices which can never take away sins", and Christ, "Who, after He had
offered one sacrifice (in contrast with the `offering oftentimes') for sins" (in
contrast with those sacrifices which could never take away sins) "sat down for a
continuance" (instead of repeatedly going over the same ritual, "standing
daily").
Things that make for perfection.
If we take note of these opening and closing sections therefore, it becomes evident that
"perfection" cannot possibly be attained under the ministry of priests who themselves
needed an offering for their own sins, who were made after the law of a commandment
which respected their mortal condition, and whose service stood in meats and drinks and
baptisms--"carnal ordinances"--that really indicated that the way into the Holiest of all
had not been opened. Such ordinances and sacrifices failing to touch the conscience
failed altogether, and were only "shadows" and "not the very image" of the good things
to come.
To believers who were never brought up under the law, who never boasted in
"the glory, and the covenant, and the giving of the law, and the service of God", the
turning from the shadow of Aaron, his tabernacle, his priesthood and his sacrifice and the
abiding priesthood, seems a simple act of reasonable faith. To the Hebrew, cradled in the
thought that of all nations the nation of Israel alone had the oracles of God, such a turning
would be a wrench, a rupture, a counting "gain" as "loss" and as so much "refuse"
(Phil. 3: 8). Therefore God in His kindness and His condescension reasons with them
step by step, until the last ground of boasting in the law is destroyed and Christ is seen as
all in all.
We commence therefore our study with an argument:--
"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?" (Heb. 7: 11).
In David's time the service of God's house was raised to its greatest height. If David
himself did not actually build the temple, the complete revelation was made to him of that
house exceeding magnifical, with its golden vessels, its courses of priests, its wonderful
psalms, yet it is David and no other who gives us Psalm 110: saying:--
"The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies
Thy footstool. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after
the order of Melchisedec" (verses 1 and 4).
The apostle, therefore, asks a pointed question, what further need for another priest, of
another order, if perfection were attainable under the Levitical priesthood? Of all the