4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

THE PATRIARCHS - To them God made more ample communications than is recorded of any before their day.

When they went from one nation to another, God suffered no man to do them wrong [harm] : yea, says David,

"He reproved kings for their sakes: saying, touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm" (1 Chron. 16:16–22; Ps. 105:9–15).

The Christadelphian, Sept 1888

11 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?

Jesus was not of Aaronic descent.‭ ‬Paul expressly settles this in‭ ‬Heb.‭ vii. ‬11‭–‬16.‭ [see also v14]

‭ ‬The fact that Elizabeth,‭ ‬the mother of John the Baptist‭ (‬of the daughters of Aaron‭) ‬is styled‭ "‬cousin‭" ‬to Mary,‭ ‬the mother of Jesus,‭ ‬does not prove an Aaronic connection for Mary.‭ "‬Cousin‭" (‬sungenees in the Greek‭) ‬has not the strict and limited meaning attached to it in English.‭ ‬It expresses the idea of kindred generally.‭

The tribes intermarried‭ (‬Numb.‭ xxxvi. ‬3‭)‬,‭ ‬and in this way relationships were created between persons belonging to different tribes.‭ ‬Mary was of the tribe of Juda,‭ ‬and had no blood connection with the house of Aaron,‭ ‬but may,‭ ‬by the intermarriage of her relations,‭ ‬have become related in law to Elizabeth.

TC 10/1887

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Old Covenant of the Kingdom

The Mosaic code was the covenant of the kingdom of God for 1617 years, exclusive of the 70 years in Babylon. The Twelve Tribes received it under the Levitical Priesthood, (Heb. 7:11.) which was imperfect, and therefore destined to be changed at some future period. Hence this change would necessitate also a change of the Covenant.—verse 12.

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Sept 1851

àHere, then, are two orders of priesthood -- the Order of Melchisedec, and the Order of Aaron. Melchisedec's was contemporary with Abraham; Aaron's was not instituted until 430 years after the confirmation of the covenant.

Of Melchisedec the apostle could have said much more than he did say; but he has said enough to give us an idea of his order of priesthood. In this he was without predecessor, or successor, without sacerdotal genealogy, and without beginning of official days, or end of life: but, assimilated to the Son of God, abideth a priest continually; of whom also it is testified that he liveth (Heb. 7:3, 8).

The Aaronic priesthood was the reverse of all this. Its priests were descended from Aaron, their mothers were of the tribe of Levi, their fathers in office before them, upon which they entered at thirty years, and vacated it at fifty.

But the priesthood of Shiloh is not like this. His pedigree is royal, and not sacerdotal. He had no predecessor, nor will he ever vacate the office that another may take his place.

It is probable that Shem was the personage to whom Abraham paid tithes on his return from the slaughter of the kings. Abraham died thirty-five years before Shem reached his five hundred and second year after the flood. At this date, Isaac was one hundred and ten, and Jacob fifty; so that they were contemporary with Shem for these periods of their lives.

There is no account of Shem's death in the scripture; on the contrary, it is testified, as we have seen, that the person called Melchizedec still lives.

Now, Melchizedec is a word expressive of the character of the person who bore it. It signifies king of righteousness, or righteous king. He was the greatest king in Canaan, and reigned in Salem, which signifies peace, and afterwards called Jerusalem; so that this righteous king was King of Peace. Shem, king of righteousness, and king of peace, and priest of the Most High God, is the type, contemporary with the holder of the promises, of the Seed, or Christ, on the throne of the kingdom of God.

The word of the oath, saying,

"I have sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec,"

having changed the priesthood of the kingdom,

"there is made of necessity also a change of the law"

of the State. No revolution was more complete and radical than that necessitated by the substitution of the Melchizedec for the Aaronic priesthood of the commonwealth of Israel. Under the Mosaic code the regal and pontifical offices were divided, and held by two distinct orders of men. The regal was hereditary in the family of David, and the pontifical was hereditary in the family of Aaron; but when the new code shall be promulged, that, namely, which is to "go forth from Zion" when Christ shall give peace to the world, and judge among the nations, the kingly and priestly offices will be united, and their functions exercised by one person, even Jesus, "who is King of Righteousness and King of Peace, and Priest of the Most High God," as Melchizedec was.

Elpis Israel ii.5.

17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

It is true, Jesus had Levitical blood in his veins derived from Mary's mother; but, as ... a man's tribe is determined by the male line, and Mary's father was of Judah, therefore Jesus sprang from Judah and not from Levi.

He was not therefore a Levite, and consequently could not enter the court of the priests, nor the Holy, or Most Holy, places. His advance into the sacred precincts was bounded by the court of the Israelites.

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Apr 1851

19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

...the efficacy of a covenant depends on the virtue of the blood with which it is purged. This principle is fatal to the idea, of perfectibility by the law of Moses; for "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Hence it was weak and unprofitable, and made nothing perfect.

This defectiveness of the law which even faith in the unpurged Abrahamic covenant could not remedy, was referable to the nature of the sacrifices with whose blood it was dedicated; and to the weakness of the flesh (Rom 8: 3) which it could alone sanctify (Heb 9: 13) without reaching the inward man.

Calves and goats were as destitute of righteousness as they were devoid of sin, their blood therefore was a negative principle and could impart no virtue to a covenant by which those who were sanctified under it could obtain a title or justification to eternal redemption.

And furthermore let it be observed, that besides this defect their blood was unprofitable for everlasting results as being the blood of the dead, and not of the living. It was therefore ceremonially incommunicative of any kind of vitality.

The Mystery of the Covenant of the Holy Land Explained

Another point of resemblance between the confirmation of the Abrahamic covenant antitypically in Christ and the confirmation of ordinary covenants, was that there was a Mediator in connection with it. In this it was unlike the typical confirmation to Abraham, that is, so far as the record concerning the latter goes, there might be a mediator in that case, though not mentioned in the narrative.

The fact that Jesus Christ was the Mediator of the Abrahamic covenant is stated in several passages in the epistle to the Hebrews. For instance, in Heb. 8:6, referring to the Mosaic covenant, the apostle says that Christ "is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises;" and in Heb. 7:22, he says that "Jesus was made a surety of a better covenant," .

In many covenants between man and man, the mediator occupied an important position: for instance, where the parties had been at enmity, he would frequently, no doubt, be the means of the reconciliation. He was also a witness to the confirmatory rite; by him, no doubt, would the blood of the sacrifice be sprinkled on the contracting parties; and, in case of one of the parties afterwards denying the confirmation, he would be called upon, in the absence of a written record, and where all was left to memory, to settle the dispute by testifying to its having been duly carried out.

Then again, if one of the parties refused to carry out the terms, it would be his duty to see that he did so, or else, perhaps, to visit him with the penalty attached to the covenant. We find in this, as in other respects already noticed, that we cannot draw a complete analogy: Christ, though the Mediator, did not himself effect the reconciliation—for

"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself"

—but he was the means by which the reconciliation was effected; and thus we read, in Col. 1:19, 20, that

"It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto Himself"

Thus, by the confirmation of the covenant in Jesus, those who had previously been estranged by sin, viz., God and man, were drawn together or reconciled.

Though Jesus was not a witness of the confirmation in the ordinary sense, inasmuch as his position as the Covenant-Sacrifice precluded this, he nevertheless witnessed the slaying of himself as the Sacrifice; and he was a witness, in a higher sense than that of a mere spectator, of the confirmation-sign given by the Deity: for after his resurrection he was a living witness that the Spirit of God had passed through him, and he could point to the hole in his side and the print of the nails in his hands in proof that he was the veritable Jesus who had been slain, and he could say

"I am he that liveth, and was dead."

No wonder that with such a sign the apostles went through such hardships, and contended for the faith even unto death! No wonder, too, that when the descendants of those who slew the Covenant-Sacrifice shall see the same living witness, and look on him whom their forefathers pierced they will be convinced that the crucified Nazarene is indeed their long-expected and long-rejected Messiah!

Bro A andrew

The Christadelphian, Nov 1874

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

'...some going so far as to maintain that a single sin after baptism is fatal to a believer's prospects of eternal life.

‭ ‬If this doctrine were true,‭ ‬we should have to exclaim with the disciples,‭ "‬Who then can be saved‭?" ‬We have no hesitation in avowing our conviction that in such a case salvation would be confined to the Lord Jesus who,‭ ‬alone of mankind,‭ "‬through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God‭" (‬Heb. ix. 14.‭)

For what purpose,‭ ‬in such a case,‭ ‬is it testified that he‭ "‬ever liveth to make intercession for us‭"? (‬Heb.‭ vii. ‬25.‭) ‬He is not priest for the world,‭ ‬but for his own house only.‭ "‬Whose house are we,‭" ‬who believe,‭ &‬c.‭ (‬Heb.‭ iii. ‬6.‭) ‬If he intercedes for his house,‭ ‬it is because of the fact inferentially testified by John,‭ ‬when he says that‭ "‬If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves,‭ ‬and the truth is not in us‭" (‬1‭ ‬Jno.‭ ‬i. 8.‭) ‬It is one of the petitions the Lord himself has put into our mouths:‭ "‬Forgive us our sins as we forgive them that trespass against us.‭"

‭The Christadelphian, Oct 1894.p391

The higher we aim, the higher we reach

We put copper-plate at the head of the child's copy for the child to copy; but do we put him out of school because his imitation is poor? No; we have patience, we know he will do better by and by, and that if he makes no progress, he will punish himself in the low place he will fix for himself afterwards. So the Lord commands high things, "even our perfection," but He forgives our failings if our endeavours are in all docility and earnest perseverance.

"We have an high priest."

We must never forget this. In this both Adam and Jesus were differently placed. They had no intercessor. They were face to face with the strict demands of law, failure in which in the least would be fatal; but we have a glorified high priest,

"by whom we have access by faith into this grace (favour) in which we stand."

By grace we are saved. It is a matter of favour, and therefore of forgiveness, for Christ's sake. What we have to look to is the conditions of the favour, for favour has also its conditions. Faith is its first condition. Our faith is "counted for righteousness." Ye fearful ones, forget not that God is pleased with your faith, and esteems you righteous on this account alone. Wherein His poor, loving children fail, they sorrow and make confession, and are helped, for,

"like as a father pitieth his children, so Yahweh pitieth them that fear Him."

"Wherefore lift up the hands that hang down, and confirm the feeble knees and make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way."

Our fight with evil is only short in each individual case. It is long for the whole family, because, in the barren state of the human race, it takes a long time to develop a multitude that no man can number, who, out of great tribulation, will victoriously come at the last. But the battle of the whole exists not for any one member of the body.

We have only our own day. The head alone is contemporary with the struggles and prayers of the whole multitude of his brethren; and he is made strong for the shepherd work. The others fight their own fight and win their own race - a brief conflict of three score and ten at the outside - and then lay down their burdens and their toils, with the sweet consolation that the Lord will take care of his own glorious work, and wake them from the sound and short rest of the grave to rejoice with him on the arrival of the morning of the salvation which will usher in eternal day.

Seasons 2.68

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

If the wealthiest be impotent for the redemption of one soul, how precious must the blood of the Yahweh-Name be, seeing that it can ransom

"a great multitude which no man can number!" (Apoc. vii. 9).

The blood of Jesus was the only blood of all the generations of Adam, that had not been generated by the lust of the flesh; and which had not energized a man to the commission of sin. Jesus was an unblemished man, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; for

"he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." (Heb 7:26).

Eureka

26 For such an high priest became us, who is [indeed-OJB] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners

In the moral sense, that is, as regards character, Jesus knew no sin, and was absolutely separate from sinners; but in the physical sense, he was not separate from sinners, for "he was made in the likeness of sinful flesh."—(Rom. 8:3.)

He was "made sin" for us who knew no such thing in his character.—(2 Cor. 5:21.) He was made in all things like his brethren (Heb. 2:17), tempted like them (Heb. 4:15), and possessed their very flesh and blood.—(Heb. 2:14.) He was of the seed of David according to the flesh.—(Rom. 1:3.) Therefore he was not "separate" from them physically, but their bone, and their flesh, and their blood—Son of Man as well as Son of God.—(John 5:27.)

This being so, he was a sufferer from the hereditary effects of sin; for those effects are physical effects. Death is a physical law in our members, implanted there through sin ages ago, and handed down from generation to generation. Consequently, partaking our physical nature, he partook of this, and his own deliverance (as "Christ the first fruits") was as necessary as that of his brethren.

In fact, if Christ had not first been saved from death (Heb. 5:7)—if he had not first obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12)—there would have been no hope for us, for we attain salvation only through what he has accomplished in himself, of which we become heirs by union with him.

He overcomes and we share his victory by uniting with him, if he at the judgment seat permit. This we do in baptism, in which we are made partakers of his death, as well as his resurrection.

The orthodox and Renunciationist theory of Christ's death being substitutionary, and the payment of a debt owing by us, is another affair altogether, and destructive of the wisdom of God, as expressed in the death and resurrection of His Son; and of His mercy and loving-kindness, as manifested to us in the offer of forgiveness on approaching Him through the name of His slain and accepted Lamb, who from birth to resurrection was provided "for us,"

"the just for the unjust that he might bring us unto God."

The Christadelphian, Aug 1875

27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Jesus had no personal offences to offer for. Nevertheless, as antitype of the high priest, who

"offered first for his own sins, and then for the people's"

there must have been a sense in which he did so, even as Paul says,

"this he did once, when he offered up himself"

The sense in which he did so is obvious in the light of the foregoing answers, that the body offered on Calvary being the nature that transgressed and was condemned in Eden, was offered under a condemnation that affected both itself and those for whom the sacrifice was made.

The Christadelphian, July 1873

Paul's statement is that Jesus did once what the typical high-priest did daily. What was that? "Offered first for his own sins and then for the people's." It follows that there must be a sense in which Jesus offered for himself also, a sense which is apparent when it is recognised that he was under Adamic condemnation, inhering in his flesh.

The Christadelphian, Sept 1873

‭ ‬As to Heb.‭ ‬7:26,‭ ‬the phrase‭; "‬his own sins.‭" ‬though in the Greek plural,‭ ‬is correctly translated in the singular possessive.‭ ‬The plurality is in the sins,‭ ‬not in the priest.‭ ‬The idiom of the Greek language requires that the possessive pronoun should be in the plural,‭ ‬when it is used as a qualifying adjective to the things possessed,‭ ‬whether those things are expressed or understood.‭

You have an example in John‭ ‬1:11.‭ ‬He came to his own and his own‭ (‬ιδιοι,‭ ‬plural masculine:‭ "‬people‭") ‬received him not.‭" ‬The people were plural,‭ ‬but the possessor was of course singular though plurally expressed.‭ ‬So the sins of Heb.‭ ‬7:27‭ ‬being plurally,‭ ‬the possessor is plurally expressed but is not the less singular.

The Christadelphian, July 1874

Type and Antitype

The "Emphatic Diaglott" and another translation I have, renders that expression in Hebrews 7:27, "first for their own sins and then for the people's," as if the passage had reference to the high priests under the law. Is the original susceptible of this rendering?—(C. R.)

Answer.—Yes; but this does not divert the application of the type from Christ who was typified. See remarks this month. "For himself that it might be for us." The priests in their official capacity had to offer for themselves, apart from specific transgressions, as well as for the people. The priests, in their official capacity were types of the great high priest between God and man, the man Christ Jesus; and there must therefore be a counterpart, in his case, to their official offering for themselves.

This is not difficult to find in view of the fact that the Lord partook of our unclean and condemned nature, which had as much to be redeemed in his case by death and resurrection, as in the case of his brethen for whom he died.

Mist has been thrown over the subject by separating "life" from nature, and using the term "free" where God had imposed a "must be" of death.

The Christadelphian, March 1875

For Himself, That it Might Be for Us

—The statement of Paul in Heb. 7:27 is, that Christ did "once" in his death what the high priests under the law did daily, viz., offered

"first for his own sins and then for the people's."

But there is all the difference between the two cases that there always is between shadow and substance. Christ's "own sins" were not like the sins of the priests; they were not sins of his own committing. He was without sin, so far as his own actions were concerned. Yet as the bearer of the sins of his people—whether "in Adam" or otherwise, he stood in the position of having these as "his own," from the effects of which he had himself first to be delivered.

Consequently, he offered first for himself; he was the first delivered. He is "Christ the first fruits." He obtained eternal redemption in and for himself, as the middle voice of the Greek verb euramenoz (Heb. 9:12) implies. (The "for us" is not in the original.) He was brought again from the dead "through the blood of the everlasting covenant."—(Heb. 13:20.) But this offering for himself was also the offering for his people. The two aspects of the double typical offering were combined in one act. He had not twice to offer for himself.

"By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

Yet, though combined, the two relations of the act are visibly separate. Christ was the first saved from death (Heb. 5:9); "afterwards, they that are Christ's at his coming."—(1 Cor. 15:23.) In this way the Mosaic type has its counterpart. There is no inconsistency whatever between these facts and the constant declaration that "Christ died for us."

All that Christ was and did was "for us." It was "for us" he was born; "for us" he bore sin; "for us" he came under the curse of the law; "for us" he died; and the fact that personally he was without sin where all were transgressors, gives all the more point to the declaration. It was "for us" that he came to be in the position of having first to offer for himself. The "for us" does not deny that what he submitted to "for us" was our own position.

"He was made sin for us who knew no sin;"

and does not sin require an offering? The matter might be simplified by supposing the case were leprosy instead of sin, and the cure to be passing through fire instead of death; but that the fire should only possess the power of cure where the disease existed without the virus of the disease, and that in all other cases the effect of the fire should be to destroy.

Let the leprosy be death in the constitution, brought about by sin, and the virus, actual sin itself. By this illustration, all mankind are under the power of leprosy, which cannot be cured by the fire, owing to the presence of the combustible virus, which will catch fire and destroy the patient.

If only one could be found free from the virus, he could go through the fire and save the rest: but he cannot be found. God interposes and produces such a one among them, one in whom the leprosy exists without the virus, that the rest may be cured by joining hands with him after he has gone through the fire.

He goes through the fire "for them;" but is it not obvious that he goes through it for himself in the first instance? for if he is not delivered from the leprosy first, how will his going through the fire avail them? It is "for himself that it might be for them." He is now "separate from them," but he was not so in the first instance.

The Christadelphian, March 1875