Hebrews: The New Covenant Administration of Christ Max A Forsythe (c) Anno Domini 2003

From the Pulpit at Pilgrim's Rest Presbyterian Church in America

The Importance of Melchizedek
For the Lord’s Day:  the 9^th of November 2003

Hebrews 7:  4-10

“See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils!  And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham.  But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.  It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.  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.  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. ”

Introduction:  In picking up where we left off last week, it is beyond time to make a few clarifications in the terminology being used.  Let us use a definitive statement by commentator John Brown as a beginning point:  “Melchisedec belonged to an order of priesthood where natural descent was not at all regarded – an order of things free from those artificial restrictions which formed a leading feature of the legal economy; and in this way he was a fit figure of our great New Testament High Priest, who did not belong to the family of Aaron or the tribe of Levi.”

There in that statement, the whole of which is the focus of this entire section – there is one word that we need to pick up on and it is that word “economy.”  This word has been tossed around from the series on Deuteronomy which we finished over a year ago and is still a term that shows up a surprising amount of time.  To be specific, we need to carefully define what essential differences we mean between the Old Covenant economy and that of the New Covenant.  Let us take this word at its basic level in its definition as the various means in the creation, exchange and consumption of wealth.  As we all know from our educational experience, there are several economic systems, feudal, socialistic and capitalistic.  Even though there be vast and important differences between these systems, still the focus of any economy remains the same.  There may be a revolution or evolution in the forms and processes of economic development, but by no means are the basic concepts thereby changed or eliminated.

So in that sense, when we speak of the two covenant economies, there must underlie both a common spiritual foundation and purpose which we understand to be the Covenant of Grace.  The Westminster Devines carefully crafted their Covenantal understanding of this spiritual economy from the texts of both the Old and the New Testaments.  Listen carefully to their descriptions of both economies within the overarching Covenant of Grace.

Chapter 7.5:  “This covenant [of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old Testament.”

Chapter 7.6:  “Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new Testament.”

Therefore, whenever we speak as we ought to and are instructed by the Apostles of a better administration under the direct and distinct Lordship of Jesus Christ, we are not inferring by any means any dispensational differences between the two economies.  After all, as we have considered within the last year, Circumcision and Baptism, the Seder and Communion, the Sabbath and Lord’s Day – to name a few differences are not  even two different spiritual or economic systems, but one and the same in their resting upon the final authority and revelation of Christ our Savior.

Development:  Now, we have to remember, it took the early church some years to sort out all of the peculiar and necessary differences between the two economies.  The Apostle to the Hebrews simply leads the way in urging the definitive superiority of the New Covenant economy.  And as the history of the Christian Church so amply demonstrates – too little attention is or has been paid to the Covenantal system of Grace that we find revealed in the texts of both testaments.

Now, let us return to the arguments of our Apostle as he attempts to persuade the people who came out of the Old Covenant Church into that New Covenant structure being defined and administered by Jesus Christ.

First in our order of argument of superiority is this phrase:  “See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils.”  The essential point here is this according to John Brown:  “In the person of Abraham, the whole legal economy did homage to another, a more spiritual economy, in the person of Melchisedec.”  John Owen tells us that “the Jews esteemed Abraham next to God himself.”  And therefore, if this greatest prince of the people of Israel gave homage to Melchizedek, than this must prove the superiority of his person and position.  Owen goes on to explain the patriarchal affection of the Jewish people:  “A patriarch is a father, that is, a prince or ruler of a family – a ruling father.  There were three kinds of patriarchs among the Jews.  Abraham was the only one of the first kind of patriarch.  He was the first father of all that great family.  The second type of patriarch included those who succeeded Abraham, that is, Isaac and Jacob, ‘who were heirs with him of the same promise.’ The third type of patriarch included the first leaders of the twelve tribes into which the nation was divided; that is, the twelve sons of Jacob.”

Absolutely was the primacy of Abraham advocated by the Jewish scholars.  So as Owen argues, “for anyone to be greater than Abraham, especially in Abraham’s time, he must have been given some great privilege that was above the whole nation, as it was descended from Abraham.”  And in the Gospels, when Jesus argues that “before Abraham, I am,” not only is that a declaration of Godship, but also the absolute claim to be greater than the father of the whole nation of Israel.  Of course, in hindsight, we would presume that the Priests and Sadducees hated him for His valid announcement “Ego Ami” (I am), however – it may very well be that it is in the usurpation of Abraham’s honor and thereby the whole spiritual economy descended from him that piques their passionate alienation to all of Christ’s claims.  Their professional pride must have been at stake when they argued against His supposed superiority not only to Abraham but to their office and administration as well!

Our second argument for superiority is outlined by John Brown:  “The substance of the Apostle’s argument in these verses is this: ‘It is a high honour which the Aaronical priesthood enjoy, in being acknowledged as possessed of a sacred dignity by their brethren, who equally with themselves are descended from Abraham; but it was a far higher honour which Melchisedec enjoyed, in having his sacred dignity acknowledged by Abraham himself.’”  In other words, no matter how many hundreds of thousands there were in the tribal inheritance, their admiration of the Aaronical priesthood counted less than that of their Patriarch himself, who gave his allegiance to one more esteemed than himself.  Also within this argument is the obvious insistence that Melchisedec was none of their kind: “he did not belong to their order,” as John Brown reminds us.  He continues “I rather think there is an intended contrast between the phrases used in reference to the Levitical priesthood and Melchisedec, as to the acknowledgment of dignity implied in receiving tithes.”

Brown’s further argument here implies that while the house of Israel is commanded to give tithes to the Levitical administration, Patriarch Abraham gave graciously and freely without command.  During the American Civil war the soldiers could immediately tell where the sympathy of the local population was, when the troops marched through a village.  If they were welcomed with buckets of cold water, pies and cakes and all manner of deserts, kisses and hugs – these were the home folks.  The gracious charity did not have to be commanded.  But let the opposition march through the same village and while the local clergy could very well be out in force giving cold water to the troops – nothing much more in the way of encouragement was available except for the wounded.

The third argument is related to the phrase where Melchizedek “blessed him who had the promises.”  Here commentator Brown advises us that this act of blessing given and received implies “a proof that Melchisedec was a priest of higher order than that order, all whose dignities were centered in Abraham’s person, who did homage to Melchisedec.”

In this I am reminded of my own family history, wherein the earliest known generation of Forsyth’s in the 14^th Century became stewards to the Crown of Scotland, a position that the family held until the Grand Union of England, Ireland and Scotland several centuries later.  Now I do not anticipate any pretender ever being restored to the throne of Scotland – but I am certain that somewhere within the extended forty-thousand worldwide households of Forsythe’s, that there would be some few who would scramble at the chance of a restoration to the former family dignity and glory.  However, personally - I would not be interested since I am in the service of a better and higher King of Kings.  So even though countless thousands of Forsyth descendants may appreciate the “romantic” notion of former glories – still those who understand the real spiritual insights of Scot’s history must realize the superiority in the Crown rights of King Jesus.

A fourth argument for the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood is related to the fact that his priesthood as John Brown describes it, “was not of a kind restricted to a particular family, or exercised only for a restricted period.”  In verse eight, we read: “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.”  The thing that is going on here is the ancient requirement under the law that the priests of Israel could only offer sacrifices from age thirty to fifty.  So, to take up the argument for Melchizedek’s superiority – his priesthood was not so regulated because he held the office until he died.  We cam see the same difference between our local and state judges when compared to the federal judges.  The federal judges are appointed for life, while most – if not all of the local and state ones must be elected again and again.  While there may be some expectation in liberal circles that there must be a familial loyalty to their position for a federal appointment – there are no really constitutional limits beyond the obvious qualifications wherein some judges are recognized for a better grasp of jurisprudence!  Therein hangs the apparent superiority of Melchizedek over that of the more regulated Hebrew economy and covenant.

Application:  Our fifth and last point is explained in verses nine and ten.  Again we here John Brown’s argument:  “the Apostle brings forward, more distinctly, a statement which was implied in what he had already said of Abraham’s acknowledging the priesthood of Melchisedec; but the more distinct enunciation of which was peculiarly fitted to promote his object – the showing that Melchisedec, as a priest, was superior to the order of Aaron.”

What is meant here is simply this in Brown’s own words:  “All the sacred dignity which belonged to the Israelitish people was concentrated in their ancestor, and derived from him.  Abraham was the priest of his family – the prophet of his family – the king of his family.  Aaron and his sons derived all their honour from Abraham; and therefore, when Abraham did homage to Melchisedec, they in effect did so too.”

Now it has been a long time since family honor and position within society was much thought of here in America.  However, there have remained a few pockets of families that have a solid reputation in their communities and their children are early impressed with their duty – honor – family: if I may paraphrase the West Point motto.  In fact, when I was young, before I knew of the family heritage abroad, I created a family coat-of-arms and painted it on the barn door.  “God, County, Home” it read simply and to the point.  And when my three sons were small I did my best to imbue them with the same family traditions with which my relatives had continually impressed upon on me.  Their behavior reflected not only upon themselves, but also upon the family standing and honor within the extended community. 

Conclusion:  You see – just as in the Hebrew experience a long family affiliation with the faith once given to the saints is not always an individual heritage but, by prayer, instruction and grace received: it is a hope in the promises of God given to His covenant people down through the ages.  Yet, like the Jewish people and the families that come over to America on the Mayflower – that heritage is of no guarantee.  There remains always One who is superior to all the family, tribal and religious traditions.  To Him alone, we like Abraham are called to service.  To Him alone we give our tithes, our precious little honor and our hope for those who follow after us.  A goodly number of the Jewish people at the time of Christ failed to see beyond the branches and forests of their family trees, and thereby they missed the promised Messiah.  And this is all that we are saying here today.  The priesthood of Melchizedek predated that of the tribes of Israel and was appointed to be superior by the Lord and God of Abraham.  Could the people of Israel look beyond their own traditions?  Can we look beyond our own traditions today and glory in Christ alone?  Amen.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PREACHING RESOURCES
Brown, John.  A Geneva Series Commentary:  Hebrews.
Owen, John:  Commentary on the Book of Hebrews.
The Westmisnter Confession of Faith.
The Holy Bible:  English Standard Version.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Permission granted to redistribute unedited versions with this notice.
http://www.tulip.org/tac/heb062.htm
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe go to:
http://www.four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ccrlist/