Hebrews Chapter Seven, Melchizedek Lives

 

Hebrews 7:8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. [9] Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, [10] for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

 

Verse 8 carries a deific flavor to it, since the writer blatantly contrasts “mortal men” with Melchizedek, who is witnessed to live on. This verse creates a connection with verse 3. When taken of itself the naturalistic explanation concerning Melchizedek can comfortably stand on solid ground.

However, coupling verses 3 and 8 creates a bit of an exegetical issue. Melchizedek is without father or mother, without genealogy (descent), having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but remains a priest of God continually. Verse 8 contributes to this already lofty imagery of Melchizedek, stating that unlike mortal men he who received tithes from Abraham still lives. The language is not suggesting Melchizedek died in faith but lives to God, as you and I will experience. No, it is more robust, and implies this man never died, “in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come…according to the power of an endless life,” Hebrews 7:15, 16.

 

If Psalm 110:4 is to be taken in the sense of Melchizedek’s order being eternal, (You are a priest forever) then only those who do not suffer death would be appointed. More than that, this implication further suggests that anyone attending to this priesthood has no beginning, either. They do not have parentage or a lineage to trace. Unlike the priesthood of Levi, whose ministry officiated only until they were prevented by their death, Hebrews 7:23. Following this line of logic it could be postulated that Melchizedek’s priesthood was never abolished; it was merely in abeyance until the Son of God presented Himself to the Father as humanity’s sin offering, John 1:29, Hebrews 7:27. I chose the word abeyance and plead its legal definition, which means, “the position of being without, or of waiting for, an owner or claimant.” The order of Melchizedek, which is described as an eternal order, was not defunct; it was simply awaiting its ultimate fulfillment in Christ Jesus.

 

Levi himself, appointed a minister of God’s tabernacle and the holy things in Israel, also paid tithes to Melchizedek. What may be derived from this statement? Verses 9 and 10 implicitly express the idea that Levi’s priesthood is inferior to Melchizedek’s. Levi’s ministerial duties meant that he could never rest. He offered the same sacrifices to God over and over again, the likes of which did not and could not remit sin. But the Law commanded them in anticipation of their accomplishment in Christ. Levi ministered, and so too did the faithful Jew offer them on the altar. But if Levi, within Abraham still, offered tithes and vicariously received the blessing in his great-grandfather then the writer is demonstrating the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood as opposed to Melchizedek’s. “Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better,” Hebrews 7:7.

 

Hebrews 7:11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

 

An important question is raised to his Jewish audience now, and one that demands a satisfactory answer. He begins with the word “if.” “If” is a subordinating conjunction. Subordinating conjunctions signal relationships of time, place, concession, condition, compariosn, manner or reason. Another function of subordinating conjunctions is to show a relationship between two clauses involving a transition of time or place. In this instance the respective priesthoods are being compared. One might say this passage begins a demonstration as to the credentials both possess. What is their origin and efficacy? What does each order represent?

 

The question is posed as to why Melchizedek’s order needed to be restored, or brought back to the fore? Before providing the answer, the author supplies a clue. The Aaronic priesthood was given to the Jews while under the Law. What was the purpose of the Law? Contrary to what legalistic Christians believe, one cannot be saved by the Law. Even the apostle Peter attests to this. When debating as to whether or not Gentiles should observe the Mosaic Law, Peter tells the Jerusalem Council, “why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” Acts 15:10. Peter defines the Law as an unbearable yoke. Scripture testifies of the Law, “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound,” Romans 5:20. The NIV translates this verse, “The law was brought in so the trespass might increase.” The HCSB renders the verse, “The law came along to multiply the trespass.” Furthermore, Paul explains to the Galatian church, “The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith,” Galatians 3:24. The Law amplified our awareness of the sin nature. It defined our guiltiness before God more than conscience could, because it expressed the holiness of the divine will. Further, the Law was an instructor or guardian to raise up young Israel until they matured. The Law, properly followed, led one to the Savior. The Law didn’t save; it merely informed you that you needed saving. But keeping it was impossible, because one infraction of it made you guilty of all, James 2:10. Jesus taught that even to indulge lust in our heart was to break the Law, making us offenders, Matthew 5:28. The Law was never meant to save. It was meant to convict us of our need of a Savior, and laboring under that conviction, prepare us for Him. The Law had no power to save because it is not merciful. Laws are not merciful; they are exacting and demand punishment for their infraction. We need the mercy of the Lawgiver, who has power to pardon the sinner that comes to Him.

 

Why then, the query continues, was Jesus called to Melchizedek’s order and not Aaron’s? Out of what necessity did God bring this to pass? What “further need” was there of Christ, if Levi already officated at the altar? Melchizdek’s order was outside the pale of Israel’s commonwealth. The priest of El Elyon ministered in a time before Israel existed, save for in the loins of one man. Melchizedek’s order therefore represents not only an eternal preisthood but the universality of God’s salvation plan. The Law and Aaron’s presthood created a singular identity in the nation of Israel: a people unique to God’s plan and His earthly, chosen kingdom. Melchizedek demonstrated God’s compassion and desire for men to be saved on a universal scale before the Jews confused their covenant with Yahweh for ownership of Him. Israel had been greatly blessed with prophets and revelations, the Shekinah glory and the giving of the Law. But the Law (and the Law’s presthood) was only, “imposed until the time of reformation,” Hebrews 9:10. God willing, we will return to this verse more thoroughly in chapter 9.