The Weekend Word
Hebrews 5:3 – 11
**Read Hebrews 5:1-2 to pick up the context from last week. **
3 Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people.
He (the human priest) has to first offer sacrifice for himself
Look at Pastor Tom, he absolves us of our sin – but first he must deal with his own.
4 And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.
“Called” – Could a young Jewish boy grow up to be anything he wanted to be? An astronaut? A high priest?
Aaron – was from the tribe of Levi
All Priests were Levites – but not all Levites were priests.
All High Priests descended from Aaron
By Jesus’ day it had become a political position… with money passing hands.
5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”
Jesus was appointed? Who appoints Jesus?
When? In one sense at his baptism – in another sense in eternity.
It says that he did not exalt himself – he didn’t “run” for the office.
6 as he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
Priests were from Levi and Jesus was from Judah.
It wasn’t very hard for these folks to figure out – Jesus has no stake here.
How does Jesus qualify?
So the writer has to show why Jesus is worthy of this office.
From eternity
Probably one of the more strange characters. Who is this guy Melchizedek?
Well there is much or about him in chapter 7 – so (1) you will have to wait and (2) that will encourage you to come back.
The point here is that Jesus was appointed – he didn’t just make himself high priest – appointed by God.
7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.
In verse 2 we saw how the HP could identify with the people because he was one of them.
Can Jesus do the same?
Look at his earthly ministry.
8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.
There is something here – that in some way, Jesus’ suffering was for 2 reasons
(1) for himself to learn obedience
Isn’t that odd that Jesus had to learn obedience – could it be that his flesh is so real that it is rebellious by nature like ours?
(2) for us as an example how to handle suffering.
Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane – Jesus prays to be relieved of suffering.
The cup = crucifixion etc – the pain & the suffering
Note that after his time of prayer, coming to grips with the oncoming suffering – that every step after this, Jesus is in 100% control.
With the arresting soldiers, the court leaders, Pilate even on the cross and death.
Jesus was tempted in all ways like us
So, we pray “Lord, the Dr. is telling me I will suffer through this disease
I don’t want to go through it – (add your own situation.)
And then we move on – in control.
Jesus never used his divine power to get himself out of tough situations or suffering.
9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
Other translation – having been perfected – having the authority
“To all who obey him” – what are we to obey? What is the context?
Believe – Repent – Go into the entire world.
10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.
The Writer now interrupts himself to address a problem – he will continue his thought on Melchizedek in chapter 7. He will now present a warning against apostasy.
Perhaps this was just a BTW moment – or he senses something with these people during his discourse or what, did he see some dozing off? Whatever, it must be important to him.
11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.
“About this” = Melchizedek
Dull of hearing = sluggish
They are still immature
Next lesson will continue on immaturity, as he works at getting them to pay attention.
Bible study makes strange bedfellows. I was reviewing some of my old outlines from developing this section of my class notes and I see that in the early middle verses I lifted some stuff from both Steve Wright and of all places my Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible. I don’t know why that struck me as a strange combination, but it was.
So as attribution in v.4 & 6, my thanks to Steve Wright and Finis Dake.
An v 8
My study tools usually include the appropriate book commentary from the Concordia Commentary, the People’s Commentary, the evangelical standby, Frank Gaebelien’s The Expository Bible commentary, the Baptist Broadmann’s commentary and I will even peek into J Vernon McGee just to see how he will turn a phrase.
So what commentaries do you folks use when studying passages?
I hope one day I will break bread with you.
Good stuff MLD!
Pretty good, MLD!
“Priests were from Levi and Jesus was from Judah.”
Which is why I believe there is no need or command to rebuild that which has been done away with by the establishment of the new covenant priesthood, which is based on the order of Melchizedek.
A re-established Levitical priesthood offering blood (animal) sacrifices in a rebuilt temple during a literal 1,000 year reign on earth of Christ makes no sense to me based on what the writer of Hebrews himself lays out in clear and precise detail.
Can see temple rebuilt during trobulation period, whereas, God will use to usher or bring to the forefront for all the nations and people to see the antichrist, to choose,while removing the blindness of the Jews, and others. Many suffering in His name. But no temple in the thousand year period of tme, but not for animal sa sacrifice. Remember the 144,000 who will be brought forth declaring His name. Literally and not figuratively.
We should take this discussion to open blogging.
Since new earth and new Jerusalem will take place until after the years, the the temple built during or just before the Tribulation may still be standing, but during the thousand years, used for for gathering and governing purposes, but not for sacrificing to atone for sins.
“after thousand years take place”
hmmm … can one assume that the example of Melchizedek hints to God’s interaction with the human race having gone outside of and beyond those who came out of Egypt with Moses? … seems so …
he was not a descendent of Abraham … but he seems to have affirmed Abraham … so God had something going on over there then beyond Ur … and doesn’t this reference in verse 6 say that Jesus, while entering into the human race through this Jewish heritage, was not solely “Jewish?”
has anyone solved the Melchizedek mystery? there’ probably more written than i care to read on this, but i’ve never heard anyone say definitively who he was…
P.S.I was merely speculating upon the idea is that a temple would exist during the millennium. And if so there would be no purposefor animal sacrificessacrifices. never the less if the temple had been rebuilt prior to this time and God has not destroyed everything thus creating a new earth and a new Jerusalem the temple was still be standing that’s would be put to use to honor God but without animal sacrifice of this to atone for sin.as I said, if_
—
P.S.I was merely speculating upon the idea is that a temple would exist during the millennium. And if so there would be no purposefor animal sacrificessacrifices. never the less if the temple had been rebuilt prior to this time and God has not destroyed everything thus creating a new earth and a new Jerusalem the temple was still be standing that’s would be put to use to honor God but without animal sacrifices to atone for sin.as I said, if_
—
I am one who does not think there was anything special about Melchizedek. The mystery is created because no one knows his genealogy or any other facts other than the conversation in Genesis.
But he must have been a good priest to get the notoriety.
#14, That king and priest of Salem (the future Jerusalem) blessed and refreshed Abraham with bread and wine. Remind you of anyone?
A Jew reading these words (especially those of the Levitical Priesthood) must of had their minds blown by the distinction the writer of Hebrews makes as to the inferior aspect of the old order with the new.
There’s no way that the majority of them had any clue as to what was to come. I think there were a few who were looking for his coming, but even they didn’t fully comprehend what it meant and would entail.
These words are the unveiling of the mystery which had been hidden in Christ since the beginning. They are a stumbling block to Jews, and to anyone who insist on the old order of things, and foolishness to the high minded.
The Melchizedek reference has many points of emphasis, however, I think underlying is the fact Abraham would be known as a man who “believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
Righteousness was not accounted to him based on his works, origin or race.
Matthew 3:9
hmmm… come to think of it, Noah’s descendants would have carried varying degrees of faith and understanding with them… that might account for Melchizedek… dunno
was he special or unique? i guess only God knows…
whoever said the Bible was about the Jewish people. the Bible is God’s written word that speaks of him when he is His creation and the human race who we are in him and who we are apart from him.
God has not forgotten your juice nor has he forsaken Bell YML d would like to make this about something else other than what it is is beyond my understanding I only know this.that God will use Israel as well as the Jews to bring about the promises and the covenants made in the New Testament as well as the old to the Jews and to the Gentiles and to show the world who he is and always will be he had intended the used to be a witness to the world on a more positive note however even though the Jews went awry he still uses that to teach us and to warn us and to enable us to understand even more clearly why it is Jesus had to come and to die for us.
MLB takes great issue with those who ste Jews, much like Luther did, so whenever they are mention it would seem MLD goes off in a tangent, not hearing or rather reading and comprehending what has been shared,brother States. Following Luther after risk and interpreting Scripture in such a way that negates God’s plan for these whom Luther has little love care and concern towards
Positiveatheism.org
Rest of address:
/hist/quotes/Luther.htm
Also see wikipedia on luther and the Jews. How utterly insane he was and full of himself.
“Isn’t that odd that Jesus had to learn obedience – could it be that his flesh is so real that it is rebellious by nature like ours?”
____________________________________________________________________________
I don’t think so. Seems heretical to me to state that Jesus’ flesh is rebellious by nature like ours. There has got to be a better interpretation of this verse.
“Seems heretical to me to state that Jesus’ flesh is rebellious by nature like ours.”
Andrew, what kind of flesh do you understand Jesus to have had? Or, what is the orthodox view?
Jean, I think Jesus’ flesh was just like ours but without rebellion or sin. The problem I see is equating flesh with sin. Adam was also created sinless. I don’t think sin originates in the flesh but in the mind as James 1:15 states. I’m not sure what the orthodox view is.
Andrew,
This might be a rabbit trail, but we would have to consider this passage in connection with comments 23-25:
“By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Rom 8-3b-4)
Jean,
I admit that the Bible does use the term “flesh” in a metaphorical way to refer to sin at times, but this is where we need to be careful in making proper distinctions. The “flesh” I am referring to is just the corporeal body of Christ which is exactly like ours but without sin. Maybe I am off basis but this is my thinking.
Andrew,
Thanks for clarifying. Hebrews is consistent with your statement in #27 that Christ was without sin. In that sense we could see both Jesus and Adam as born without sin. Both were tempted, but Adam succumbed to temptation whereas Jesus did not.
On the other hand, Adam was born innocent, with a body and into a world untainted by the corruption wrought by sin and death. By contrast, Jesus, while without sin, was born into a world filled with evil, corruption, sin, disease and death. On a human level, one could say Jesus feared death at Gethsemane. In that sense, one could say his body was rebellious like ours.
But that may be what the author of Hebrews meant by “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.
There seems to be strong emphasis in Hebrews of the solidarity of the incarnate Christ with fallen human beings. In order to be a “sympathetic” high priest, Jesus must have experienced the same experiences and temptations that his followers face, in order to encourage us to follow him through the sufferings we face in life.
Jean, I don’t like the term rebellious. I think a better term would be vulnerable. He made himself subject to the limitations of a man. Learning obedience does not imply he was disobedient at some point before as it would with you and me. Quite the contrary. But everything else you said, I am on board with.
Yes, “vulnerable” is a better choice of words. Very good.
There is certainly something special about Melchizedek. You get the brief mention is Genesis 12, a whole order of Priests attributed to him in Psalm 110, and then the larger emphasis found in Hebrews.
He was a priest, but not in the line of Aaron. That is special.
He was a priest and a king. That is special.
My point about Melchizedek was that he was not an angelic appearance of a pre incarnate Christ as some suggest.
“My point about Melchizedek was that he was not an angelic appearance of a pre incarnate Christ as some suggest.” while not disagreeing with that statement, i do wonder how you came to your conclusion
em, because I think Mel was a real person who held a real priesthood.
Jesus not a real person with a real priesthood?
Anyway, I don’t necessarily think Melchizedek is the pre-incarnate Christ, but he could be, I guess. Without a doubt, he is an Old Testament picture of Jesus.
Ok, then the statement would be; “as he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, like the time you played the character of Melchizedek.” 🙂
Eh, I have no dogma for or against. I’ve read good arguments in both directions, but really find it to be a bit of a side-track.
aren’t angels always identified as such in the O.T? Melchizedek’s priesthood is an interesting ponder, tho….
a sidetrack? probably, but just what is the significance as it wasn’t mentioned “in passing,” i don’t think – dunno, tho
Oddly enough, the Genesis mention, does seems to be in passing. (Earlier, I said Gen 12. Obviously, it is Genesis 14.) If that was the only mention, I would find it fairly unimportant. (Though the fact that he presents bread and wine is rather striking).
But then David makes a big deal about him in Psalm 110. And the writer of Hebrews goes on and on about Melchizedek. The side note to me is not discussing Melchizedek, but arguing over whether he was an preincarnate appearance of Christ.
Andrew,
Yes, in all that you shared.
We were given a mind to enable us to choose between good and evil. It is not the body that rules over us, but that which is seeded within one’s thoughts that is sown and reaped accordingly.
Jesus was led into the desert to be tempted. Yet, even though having nothing to eat or to drink, he did not succumbed to Satan’s lies. Jesus could have sinned only if it was in His heart to think and to do. Jesus called evil, evil, sin, sin, and never compromised one inch. Repent, He tells us to do—not to just say, “I’m a sinner.” That is not repenting nor is it taking responsibility for the choices that you are making. Choices that comes straight from an unrepentant and unchanged heart.
A person may be tempted all day, every day, but unless he or she has in their heart to desire, to do, to have, etc., that temptation will roll off them as honey on ice.