Alright, so as a bit of review from last time, as we began in chapter 7 verse 8, where the writer describes why the high priesthood of Melchizedek is greater than the one that derives from Levi. He says that in the one case, tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. Now the writer has been arguing that the Melchizedekian priesthood was superior because Melchizedek himself was superior to Abraham, hence the reason he offered him tithes. But then in verse 8 the writer highlights another difference, the difference in their temporal states. Now, on the one hand, he says that tithes are received by mortal men, and literally in the Greek, it's those who die off. Now, as we've already discussed, the Levite priesthood is a volatile one, as it frankly could end at any time. Now, obviously being mortal, priests could, for the lyrical line, could have died off for any number of reasons. However, their primary concern wasn't death from old age, or from sickness, or even by the hands of men. These priests' greatest fear of demise came from God himself, as we considered last time the account of Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu. These two were supposed to be the successors to Aaron who would take over the mantle as high priest. But, as Leviticus 10 accounts, they offered what is referred to as strange or unauthorized fire. And because they did, we all know the tragic event that followed, as it says that fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Now, it's important to note that this description of the fire coming out before the Lord was used previously in chapter nine, with Aaron, who offered his burnt offering sacrifice, and it says that the fire came out from before the Lord. Now, this fire before the Lord was a supernatural manifestation of God's power in which the sacrifice was consumed. But on the one hand, Aaron's offering was burnt because of the fire, but because Nadab and Abihu offered an unauthorized They were consumed themselves. So you can see a contrast here. Obedience means that God accepts your sacrifice. Disobedience means that you are the sacrifice. You will suffer for your sins is basically what is being relayed in that story. Now, Moses would later give them a reason of why this happened the way that it did. He says, the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. And again, as we stated last time, as Gordon Wenham put it quite aptly, this is because the closer a man is to God, the more attention he must pay to holiness and the glory of God. God cannot be approached in a lackadaisical manner. He is the king of the universe who is holy and righteous, and therefore we are to approach him and respect his laws. But in contrast to the mortal Levitical line, the writer says, but in the other case, tithes are received by one whom it is testified that he lives. Now again, the writer's referring to the order of Melchizedek that's not prone to genealogy or death, but rather is without successor and is eternal. But also the very nature of this eternal priesthood implies a purity as well. Now, as we know, because of unfaithfulness, the Aaronic priesthood ended, but the Melchizedekian priesthood continues in Jesus Christ. the one whom both is eternal and continues to be, the one whom the Father is well-pleased. And the reason why the Father is well-pleased is because Jesus Christ as High Priest always remains obedient and faithful to God's ways. But then in verses 9 and 10, We explore that the writer finalizes and summarizes his argument regarding the superiority of the order Melchizedek. As he says, one might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. Now, the writer of Hebrews isn't saying that Levi literally rendered tithes to Melchizedek. For at that time, not even Levi's grandfather, Isaac, was born. This statement of, one might even say, serves as a way of analogy about something that is true in principle. But what is true here? The writer is making a declaration about covenant headship. The writer's phrase, through Abraham, signifies the reality as Abraham as the covenant head of the whole nation of Israel. Therefore, he also represented Levi when he gave tithes. So what this means, as William Lane put it, the superiority of Melchizedek over the Levitical priesthood is not merely theoretical, but has a basis in history itself. Now again, for the Hebrew mind, they wouldn't have had a problem with accepting the idea of a covenant head. So it follows, then, if Abraham demonstrated his inferiority through paying tithes to Melchizedek, then this proves Levi's shared inferiority. And to make this point even more explicit, this was because Levi, as we discussed last time, was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. Now, back in verse 5, the writer described Levi as one who had received tithes from his brothers, though they, like he, also are descended from Abraham. But as we discussed, the Greek is a bit more graphic than the ESV here. The first word rendered in the ESV is descended, is derived from the Greek word, exerkomai, which literally means to come out of. But the question is, comes out of what? Well, as he says, usfos abraham, literally from Abraham's waist, which is a euphemism for his loins, in other words. Now, I'm not going to describe the biological process of procreation, but as adults we know how babies come to be, right? But it's interesting here that the writer doesn't utilize the abstract nature of the Greek language. No, instead he opts for the very earthy nature of Hebrew. And as we discussed last time, the reason for this is quite simple, because who is he talking to? He's talking to Hebrews, who had been very comfortable with Hebrew language, and he's talking to them about Hebrew history as well. So it should come to no one's surprise that the author, in order to make his point, speaks like a Hebrew, even though he speaks through the vehicle of the Greek language. But here's the point, the idea of the eternal priesthood was a thing even before Levi was conceived. So if this is true, then by nature the priestly order of Melchizedek is superior to that of Aaron, the descendant of Levi. But this is not the only place that the idea of a preexistent high priesthood is found. As we discussed last time, last year in Jake's Sunday School series on Covenant, there was a discussion about the language used regarding the perpetual priesthood of Aaron and whether or not it was truly perpetual. Because, as we know, what happened to the line of Aaron? It died off. So, was God's promise null and void? No, it's not. But here's the thing, within the declaration of Aaron's priesthood, it says something very interesting. In Exodus 40, where Aaron's priesthood line is established, it says, and their anointing shall admit them to a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations. So as you can see there, it's an admittance. There's something that was already there. But if his line had ended forever, God says that he will ensure that it will be forever. So now what changed was not the promise, but what was included in that promise. But this principle of change within God's promise isn't exclusive to the priesthood. As we discussed last time, when Abraham promised that his descendants would be blessed forever, that didn't end when the Jews rejected Christ, did it? No, as Paul says in Romans 9, for not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. Rather, as he said in Galatians 3, it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And so, likewise, the priesthood God had was the eternal one. The line of Aaron, therefore, was a mere shadow to be ultimately fulfilled in the person of Christ who would finally carry out that eternal priesthood itself. As we continue this week, the writer will make his case that since the priesthood of Aaron that came from the tribe of Levi was inferior, Therefore it was an insufficient priesthood. As he continues in verse 11, now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the law, what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek rather than one named after the order of Aaron? Now the word perfection used in this context is unique. Hebrews, because this is the only time that it's not used about Jesus Christ. Now, we have already discussed two different references to Christ's perfection, but there's actually a third one as well. Again, the reminder of Christ's perfection in this context is that when it refers to his perfection, it has overtones of being made suitable for priestly duties of anointing and mediating and sacrificing on behalf of the people. But when the writer uses perfection here in verse 11, it's not referring to Christ being made fit for his office, but rather is referring to the eschatological telos of God's people, their end. That is, the goal of God's people is to reach a state of pure holiness. But as the writer is saying, the Levitical priesthood is unable to make this happen. Why? Well, he tells us, in a parenthetical statement. He says, because for under it the people receive the law. Now this parenthetical statement says that the Aaronic priesthood was tied to giving the Old Testament law. But was there something wrong with the Old Testament law? After all, wasn't it the perfect God who gave the law to the people, right? Well, yes, God's law is forever God's law, and that doesn't change. However, as Paul states in Galatians chapter three, so then the law was our guardian until Christ came in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus, you are all sons of God through faith. Now, Paul is not saying that the law wasn't good, but rather, as he says, it was a reliable guide and it showed the people of God what it meant to be holy and therefore was obligatory. Again, it was a teacher, right? It was showing the people what it meant to be holy. However, Paul's point is the Old Testament was never meant, the Old Testament law was never meant to serve as a final revelation of God's will for his people. That is, the person of Jesus Christ, he was the fulfillment of that law. And likewise, the writer of Hebrews isn't saying that the Old Testament law is bad either, but rather that it has now served its usefulness. That is, it was to point to us God in His character. But in like manner, the Aaronic priesthood served as a way to point to God's perfection. But the Aaronic priesthood was never meant to bring God's people to the point of perfection. Now, I like the NIV's rendering of verse 11 of that parenthetical statement, as it really gets to the heart of what the writer is saying, I believe. He says, in the NIV's version, it says, the law given to the people established that priesthood. In other words, the priesthood was established by God's law for the purpose of upholding the law. Sorry, it must have not been the NIV version. I'm sorry, that is not in there. So what that says is the law given to the people established that priesthood. That's the NIV's version. So in other words, the priesthood was established by God's law for the purpose of upholding God's law. And so just as Paul argued the need for the Old Testament law had passed after Christ came, the writer of Hebrews also argues that the time of the law, Old Testament law, has passed. And he does so by actually asking a question. He asks, Did I get behind? I'm sorry. There it is. This clicker is not really reliable. I'm clicking, I'm just assuming it's going on. So if you just kind of tag me along. Okay, there it is. I did include it. I just, the clicker just didn't work. Okay. So anyway, he makes his point by asking a question. He asks, what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek rather than one named after the order of Aaron? Now Moses even knew that the mere observance of the law was insufficient, though he declared what's expected of God's people under the law. He says, and now Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? Sounds like Pastor Jack, doesn't it? but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I am commanding you today for your good. But why was Moses doubtful that the people could keep the law? Well, because Moses had seen the people, hadn't he? Right? What was their tendency? Was their tendency to do all the Lord required? Did they fear the Lord? Did they walk in all of His ways? Did they love Him? Did they serve Him? Did they do all these things? No, they didn't. They often went their own way. Right, Steve? That's right. That's right. He knew that that is a righteous and holy standard. Again, the law was already given at this point. This often gets kind of passed by, but after the giving of the law before the sin of the golden calf, the people give a pledge of allegiance to God. that they are going to keep his law. So Moses has this in mind as he's making this statement. He knows that if left to themselves, they will not be able to keep it. Right? Right, right. Right. Yeah, it was a ruckus is what it was. And basically Moses is kind of caught off guard. What is going on down there? What is Aaron allowing down there? Yeah, it does. And again, Moses, while he was the prophet of God, Aaron was supposed to be leading them in worship. And what does he do? He capitulates and gives them a God of their own making, a God that they can accept. Yes. That's exactly right, exactly right. Yeah, that's right, and it just came out like that way. Suddenly, magically, poof, yes, it came out in the Golden Isle. What do you know? Miracles never cease, right? And really, that kind of is a very similar attitude to pastors today who just say, I'm just gonna give the people what they want, right? It's a very similar attitude, rather than, again, at the end of the day, you're not gonna stand before the people. You're gonna stand before God, and you're gonna give an account of why you weren't faithful to what he had commanded you to do. It is strange fire. And we saw again with Nadab and Abihu, he is not going to put up with it. He is righteous and holy. He's a consuming fire. So he knew that the people wouldn't go, wouldn't just abide by God's law on their own terms. And so interesting, right after he makes this statement, and now Israel, what does your Lord God require you? And he tells all those things, then he makes this qualifying statement. You all know it. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart and be no longer stubborn. What is he acknowledging there? That a mere outward adherence to law is not enough. Because what needs to really change? It's not your behavior per se, it's your heart. It has to be molded and changed, right? Because while physical circumcision was a way that people could outwardly show conformity to the law, Moses knew that ultimately it was meaningless unless their heart was cleansed. But the circumcision of their hearts could not be enacted by their own power. So this is why, as the writer of Hebrews says, the Old Covenant would prove to be ultimately ineffective. Because it just revealed what God required, but it couldn't change the heart to ensure that they could obey what God required, right? And that's why a new kind of covenant would have to take place in order that it would circumcise the hearts of the people. But this new covenant could only be brought about by a new kind of priesthood, one whose office holder wasn't a sinner, yet at the same time could rightfully represent sinners. Right, David? This all throws out the idea that Jews have their own dispensation. They find their own way to heaven. They tend to mount the Christians just like the access is genetic for them. Right. That's exactly right. God had, again, have they read Jeremiah where he says there's going to be a new covenant? And again, one in which that he would write the law on their hearts. So again, that's the circumcision of the heart that Moses is taking about. It's in the new covenant where he's going to write their law on their hearts. that what that means is the desire not to obey God's law is gonna be changed, or as I love what Pastor Jack says, their willer is going to be changed, right? Their willer, yeah, it's a great term, that thing within us that wills is going to be changed, and it has to be changed because otherwise we're gonna continue just like the stubbornness of the Israelites. We're gonna continue down that path of obstinance, a path of disobedience. And so God had to make a way in order for this to take place. So things couldn't remain the same. Now, as the writer continues in verse 12, because we know that a new kind of priesthood is needed, yet he says that there's a quandary. He says, for when there is a change in priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belong to another tribe from which no one has ever served at the altar. Now, as we know in the Old Testament, the only legitimate priesthood was one that came from the descent of the tribe of Levi through the line of Aaron. But here the writer is saying the Aaronic priesthood is inferior and insufficient, though it is only possible that this priesthood could take place under the Old Testament law, because it had to come from the line of Aaron. So the question becomes, how does one establish a new high priesthood through a law that only allows one from the line of Aaron? Well, just As the law came from God Himself, God would have to make that change. It's not something that man can arbitrarily conjure up and say, well, things are not working, so we need to make a change. No, God has to declare that change, right? And interestingly, He makes that change through another prophet, right? He makes that declaration. And this change will come by way of a proclamation through the mouth of his prophet David. And we've already read this before. The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind. You are a priesthood forever after the order of Melchizedek. So here the writer is stating that while the establishment of the old covenant priesthood came through the mouth of God's prophet Moses, the establishment of the new priesthood would be established from the mouth of God's prophet David, who declared that one day there would be, when the old would be abrogated by the new. Why? Because it had served its usefulness, it's no longer effective anymore. But there's a fascinating connection between David as prophet who's prophesying about his own kingly line. His descendant would not only establish an eternal throne, but would also establish an eternal priesthood as well. Again, Jesus is prophet, priest, and king all at once, right, David? We've talked a bunch about how the contemporary That's right. Yes, yes. Right, right. And see what, you know, again, the Jews didn't really know how to take Psalm 110. When we discussed that in the first reference, it's like, man, David's just kind of going off the deep end here. He's talking about Melchizedek, this one character who's named one time in Genesis 14. And what's he talking about? I really don't know. But that's what you see with Jewish interpretations, for example, of, we talked about that on Sunday in discussion, of Isaiah 53. Who is this suffering servant? Who is this blameless one? Well, certainly not the nation of Israel, is it? No. Even though they try to make, do hermeneutical gymnastics, so to speak, in order to make that work. No, there's a blameless one who's going to suffer for our sakes. By his stripes, we are healed. In fact, what's interesting, I was talking to Josiah about that. In some Jewish Bibles, they have taken out Isaiah 53 out altogether because they can't reconcile that very thing, right? There are plenty of references. to Christ in this way, and it's very uncomfortable for the Jew. Very uncomfortable for the Jew because they're made to face this is what God had intended all along. That again, one who would come and would establish an eternal priesthood, not from the line of Aaron. Because the Jewish hope is that the priesthood of Aaron will resume. Of course, as we know by God's providence, what's standing on Mount Moriah this very day? It's the Dome of the Rock. It's preventing the Jews from blasphemy at this very moment. Because why? The ultimate sacrifice has come. So therefore, the sacrifices cannot resume. He will not allow it to happen. Yes. That's right. That's it. That's exactly right because the once for all sacrifice is here and he has fulfilled it and therefore he will not allow, he would not allow that to continue for much longer. Now, there's again that fascinating connection with David prophesying about that. He said his descendant who would not only establish the eternal throne, but also internal high priesthood. But in relation to this, as we close here this evening in verse 14, the writer says this, he says, For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe, Moses said nothing about priests. Now, it's important to note here that the Greek word rendered here as descended is actually a different word than is typically used. For example, we've heard this word descended used before, the typical word descended used before back in verse five, in the very uncomfortable verse we talked about, right? In which Levi descended or came out of Abraham's loins, right? But here in verse 14, there's a different word that's used, that's rendered here, descended. And it derives from the verb anataelo, which literally means to arise. But this rising up is not in the sense of standing up. Actually, there's a different word for that, actually. But rather, it refers to either the appearance of a heavenly body, like a sun or a star, or the springing up of a plant. Now, does that language sound familiar to you? Because the writer's choice of word echoes numerous messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. For example, in Numbers 24, what does Balaam say of the coming one? I see him, but not now. I behold him, but not near. A star shall come out of Jacob, and it shall lay. That is the rising up. And then in Zechariah 6, another messianic prophecy, declares, thus saith the Lord of hosts, behold the man whose name is the branch, enetele, the noun, and he shall branch out, enetele, from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. And perhaps one of the most famous ones is in Jeremiah 23. Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land." So what the writer is doing here, by using the word rising versus descending, is that he wishes to stress that Christ is the one whom God had promised. That is the one who will arise, who will appear, make everything right. And so he going to arise and become the final high priest, the one who will finally fulfill the order of Melchizedek. Amen? Amen. All right. Any comments or questions there as we close this evening? I find it very interesting, the writer of Hebrews, again, as he's considering messianic prophecies, intentionally using that word, that word change. And again, for us in English, it gets lost because we're thinking descended means descended, right? But no, for him, it's like he will rise up. He'll rise out of that line in order to make all things new. Amen? the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel, right? David's lineage, like, you had one family, as God had promised, one family that continued to rule and reign as a series of kings over twice the period of time, like 800 years, I think, than the other kingdom that had, like, you know, 25 or 30 different kings across like eight different dynasties and families, and over half that time. But yet God preserved that lineage as he promised to David, and he will have one on the throne, and of course that's fulfilled in Christ, like you mentioned. Also a note about the Dome of the Rock, you mentioned that, and the irony there. Also I find it ironic that during the Ottoman reign in the 16th century, Muslims put a Yeah. Right. Exactly, and again, not knowing that that high priest could raise the very bones from it, right? And he will, he will, and in fact, right after his death, you know, the imagery, it says in the gospel, the body's rising up, you know, and that's a precursor of what will be because of the work of Jesus Christ. But yet he will come in power and everyone will be raised at that time. Amen. I thought I saw another hand somewhere. I would like the verse where John was baptizing in the river, speaking of Christ and his coming, and he was saying that He's a voice in the wilderness, you know, telling of the coming of the Christ. And then on the next day or in the next few verses, John says, is what I really love. What he said, he said, when he saw Jesus coming, he said, behold, the Lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world. And that's when God, Jesus appeared, and people feel all this stuff that we're talking about that was leading to him. And there he is, you know, standing in front of John, you know, wanting to be baptized by him. Right. I mean, basically, you know, the imagery there is, you know, behold, that means look. It's almost like you're calling someone to go look at a star, something magnificent. And it brings about a state of awe, right? And that's what John experienced. Remember, John knew Jesus. John knew Jesus, he grew up with him. And yet for the first time, his eyes are open to who he really is. Behold. Also for the Jews back then, like their entire life revolved around coming back to that point of making a sacrifice and then dispersing back to the, so then to equate this dude that came over the hill to that and better. Yeah. That's right. And it was. Yeah. And again, what John was doing was in preparation for the new covenant. He was a presbyter of the New Covenant, because what is the baptism? It's a washing. It's the same imagery as a circumcision. He's showing you, he was displaying that no longer is a circumcision good enough. Because under the New Covenant, there has to be a new cleansing. A cleansing that goes far beyond the body and penetrates into the heart itself. That's right. And even though he was preparing the way, of the Lord in order for the appearing of Jesus Christ. And again, what's this beautiful imagery, and I love seeing this all, the writer of Hebrews tying this all together. He sees all these prophecies coming forth, and that's why he's very intentional in the words that he uses in order to show how, yes, this, again, if these Hebrew Christians had any doubt that Jesus was the one promised, the writer of Hebrews was gonna make sure that they knew that was not the case, that this was the one whom they were always hoping for. And so they don't have to lose hope. They don't have to go back and wait for a new Messiah. He's here and he has established their salvation. It sounds like the Lord gave the author of Hebrews the inspiration to write Hebrews to convey what special revelation he gave to John and the apostles, because it took Peter three times for the Lord to say, Peter, take and eat, and all these things he was obsoleting in the Old Covenant and the dietary laws and the sacrifices in the temple. That's right. Yes he does. It does. Yeah. Right. Well, you know, it doesn't get enough consideration, but the First Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem, was a very important event for the Church. And it really did really shape the trajectory of the message of grace and what it is. And that you were, again, like the writer of Hebrews saying, you're leaving all these other things behind. Circumcision, which was the mark of being God's family, is no longer the mark. And again, therefore, why are you requiring these Gentiles to receive a abrogated mark? Deprecated. It's no longer of use. I read in Galatians, it's actually quite graphic language, but in Galatians, it offended Paul so much that the Judaizers, they said basically, I wish they would castrate themselves. If you're going to require this, then you might as well. You know why he said that though? It wasn't just to be shocking. It's because in the Jewish law, if you were to castrate yourself, you would disqualify you for one, from being a teacher, two, from being in the assembly. So basically by calling them out to castrate themselves, that means he wouldn't have to deal with them more because they would self-disqualify themselves. So that's why he's wanting them to castrate themselves in order that they would no longer plague the church with this heresy. Yeah, like saying, if you're gonna put your hope in that, just go to the extreme. Yeah, go to the extreme. Go to the extreme. But stop. Stop. placing unnecessary burdens on the people of God, right? Amen. All right, any other comments or questions this evening? I just have one. Yeah, Mary. I was surprised at what Steve said, you know, about the Muslims believing so much that they built a cemetery because they knew the way that the priest would not cross over it. You know, and yet the Jews, I just can't understand what they believe now. put blinds over their eyes, hearts, and it's all according to his will. That's right. But it just surprised me that the Muslims, even they believe. I mean, so much that they built a cemetery. Right. We're going to thwart the return of Christ. Yeah, exactly right. And I just read a little while ago that it's, to this day, the Jews keep the Eastern Gate Yeah. That's right. Yeah, that all will be revealed in the last day, right? Exactly, where he, just imagine trying to stop the Son of Man as he parts the heavens open, like a scroll. So you think a graveyard is going to keep him out? Yeah, stones and dirt, yeah. Dead bones? No, not at all.