Hebrews 7:11-12

[Peters]

11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

How is the reception of the Law based on the Levitical Priesthood?

 

[SolaScriptura]

... because the Law prescribed that only Levites could serve as priests.
Thus, for there to be "lawful" priest who was not from the tribe of Levi, the law in place could not be the levitical code.

 

[Peters]

Ben,

I'm a bit confused. What "Law" is spoken of in v.11?

Thanks for responding, by the way. I completely forgot about this thread that.

 

[Peters]

:::bump:::

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The Law (of Moses) prescribed a whole form of "priesthood": the Levitical. The Law is a whole, entire thing, not a compartmentalized thing. But what allowed the people to be covenanted with God, and receive his Law, was this very instiitution of priestly mediation. Without it (or of not upon this basis) there would have to be some other mediatorial basis for an efficient covenant. That a new one is instituted proves the temporary, imperfect nature of the Levitical rite.

Now, if there is a new, or different priesthood instituted, (and the unspoken premise: it is a legitimate and true one) then the change must be accompanied by a new or different Law that prescribes the new mediatorial priesthood of Christ.

 

[Peters]

Be patient with with me, Bruce

You could paraphrase the parenthetical comment of v.11 like this...

It was on the basis of the Levitcal Priesthood that Israel received the Law of Moses.

...right?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Peters
Be patient with with me, Bruce

You could paraphrase the parenthetical comment of v.11 like this...

It was on the basis of the Levitcal Priesthood that Israel received the Law of Moses.

...right?

I don't know if the Law of Moses (i.e. the moral law, if I may suppose what you are implying by such a phrase) is in mind in Hebrews 7, as much as the ceremonial/Levitical law is.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Marcos,
Yes, that is how I would read it. The Law is shorthand for the whole covenant arrangement of the OT. It is promulgated at Sinai, when the children of Israel are constituted a nation, a body politic, and a church. But none of this is possible without mediation. And in order to have mediation, you need a priest. So, the law contains within it, in fact (as the writer to Hebrews states it) at its core or foundation, a priesthood.

What about morality? What about the very beginning, the Voice from the mountian, "And God spake all these words saying: "I am Jehovah..." followed by the 10 words? Well, the moral will of God is certainly basic, but in a completely different way. It's not basic in the way that mediation is.

Let me use the analogy of Justification. For Luther, it is basic, in the way that it is the "article of the standing of the falling of the church." Pretty basic, right? But Calvin views it slightly differently. Justification is the door, by which we come to God so that we can worship him. In other words, Justification, as basic as it is, actually serves not as an end itself, but as means.

If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained.

First, says Calvin, our great end is to glorify God. But we cannot do that until we have a Mediator.

 

[Peters]

Bruce,

Then you would say that the whole Law has undergone change, since the priesthood has changed?

I don't know if the Law of Moses (i.e. the moral law, if I may suppose what you are implying by such a phrase) is in mind in Hebrews 7, as much as the ceremonial/Levitical law is.

Gabe,

It has to be, otherwise the meaning would be that the Levitical Preisthood was given on the basis of the Levitical Priesthood.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Marcos,
Yes, the whole Law, as a whole, changed. That is not to say that either God changes or that his moral will--a reflection of his unchanging righteousness--changes. It only means that the LAW OF MOSES, as the LAW OF MOSES, is gone. As positive law, as a positive adminstration, it has disappeared, been replaced. Whatever realities stood behind the Law, dictating its presentation, have NOT changed.

The Old has been replaced by the New Covenant administration, the Mediator being Christ, a permantent, eternal priest. The positive Law of Moses has been replaced by the positive Law of Christ or Law of Love (same thing). As Total King, Absolute Sovereign, his Word and Will is Law; and our devotion to him and Sprit-born union with him governs our behavior, while the Word of God written continutes to serve as our check.

What form does the new Law-book take? We still need the Word written to guide us. The moral requirements of law have not moved an inch, if anything they stand out in sharper lines. The New Testament writers make use especially of the moral dimensions of the Mosaic administration without any embarrasment or sense of inappropriateness. It is due to this stereo presentation that the Righteousness of God behind all the administrations is revealed in even greater clarity. We understand his will for our lives all the better for having both the Old and New Testaments, than if we only had one of them.

 

[Peters]

Bruce,

The positive Law of Moses has been replaced by the positive Law of Christ or Law of Love (same thing). As Total King, Absolute Sovereign, his Word and Will is Law; and our devotion to him and Sprit-born union with him governs our behavior, while the Word of God written continutes to serve as our check.

Then why do reformed theologians press the Ten as the authority of the Christian life when it has been fulfilled and replaced by the Law of Christ? Is not law the indicative of the Christian's life now, rather than the imperative?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What is "the Law of Christ"? How do we define it? We find such phrases in the NT, but we don't find a "legal code" such as existed under the Old Covenant.

What do we find? We find moral instruction from Jesus himself in the gospels, and his teaching (doctrine and practice) as expressed by the apostolic witness to him. We have Jesus himself saying such things as "I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil" (Mt. 5:17). We have Paul in 1 Tim. 1:8-11 basically appealing to the 10 commandments as he proclaims the right use of law, to go against which is "contrary to sound doctrine."

So we have two things: 1) the end of the Law, and 2) the continuation of law. We have one and the same Law-giver. We have the continuing relevance and condemnation of humanity according to the original Covenant of Works (Rom. 1:28-32; 2:11-16).

The Moral Law is summarily comprehended in the 10 Commandments. As the Confession puts it, the original law was put into or included as integral or foundational to the Mosaic Law (19.2). So simply putting the frame of the Mosaic Law aside does not nullify or abrogate the Moral Law. Nor do the 10 Commandments cease to be a faithful summary of that more essential Moral Law simply because the Law as a whole has been set aside.

As WCF 19.5 puts it, "The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to obedience thereof." We are not bound by the 10 Commandments per se, but we are bound by the 10 Commandments as a summary of the Moral Law of God.

It is for this reason that Paul and the other NT writers turn back to the OT law without any sense of awkwardness as an expression of righteousness and judgment against sinners. There is no need for a new "code". The old one will suffice for all current purposes. For everyone who is not under the New Covenant is already (still) condemned by the Old.

And the New Covenant adminstration has no interest in abolishing the relevance either of history or of instruction in law as it pertains to its present members. As well, the law "is of great use to them, ... in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs, and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themsleves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin..." (19.6). There is additional use published in that paragraph.

The bottom line is, we only know what is the "Law of Christ" or the "Law of Love" by recourse to the whole revelatory Bible. We have no "code" precisely because this is the New Covenant Age, Christ has come, the Moral Law is being refashioned upon our hearts, and a "code" is out of place in this era. Out of place in the sense that "there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." Our union with Christ renders a "code" (eventually!) superfluous.

But in the flesh we still need an objective reference. As church governors, we still need an objective standard that holds men accountable. As individuals we still need to check ourselves. What are we going to use, if not some expression of the Moral Law?

Anyway, I hope this puts some meat on the bones...


{Edit}
Let me add, with regard to "indicative/imperative": Law is not merely an historic relic, and therefore descriptive and not prescriptive. There is still Law (the words "Law of Love" prove that!). There is still the principle of law at work forever. Where there is a God and moral, creaturely agents, there is Law as an expression of divine will. Law by definition is prescriptive where it is actively in force.

Thus imperatively the law is very much alive. How many Christians do you know who's lives are "models" of the Law, who are sinless (1 Jn. 1:8 ! ). Indicitavely, does the Law describe me? I wish! How is my "lawlessness" (1 Jn. 3:4) discovered and defined? We continually have recourse to the Bible to reveal the moral will of God.

It is "the gospel" that begins with the "triumphant indicative." This is why we need constantly go back to the gospel, after our Law-failures. For without the gospel, the heart that condemned us (1 Jn. 3:20) could never be made confident again (v. 21). We could never (v. 22) ask anything because we "keep his commandments," which is only possible (v. 23) by faith.

Law and Gospel are inseperable.

[Edited on 4-13-2006 by Contra_Mundum]