Hebrews

The High Priest II

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Conversations, Panels, and Sermons

Lesson: 9-33

Genre: Lecture

Track: 09

Dictation Name: RR198E09

Location/Venue:

Year:

Let us worship God. One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in His temple. Wait on the Lord, be of good courage, and He shall strengthen Thy heart. Wait I say, on the Lord.

Let us pray. Our Lord and our God we come into Thy presence again, mindful of how great Thy grace is, and how weak and frail we are. We need Thee every hour. Do thou oh Lord give us the things needful, that we may grow as thou wouldst have us to grow. That we may prosper as Thou wouldst have us to prosper, and that we may serve Thee as Thou dost require of us. Make us joyful in Thy service we beseech Thee, in Christ’s name, amen.

Our Scripture again is Hebrews 5 verses 1:5, The subject, the High Priest. Hebrews 5:1-5, the High Priest.

“ 1For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

 2Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.

 3And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

 4And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

 5So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.”

Verse 1 begins by telling us that first, a high Priest is taken from among men as their representatives in approaching God. He is taken, denoting a passive action on His part, because he is neither self appointed, nor if a true High Priest, or Priest, appointed by men. Second, since the priestly calling is to approach God on behalf of men, the high priest must be acceptable to God.

Well, this at once presents a major problem. The High Priest is needed to approach to God, because men are sinners, under sentence of death. But all human priests are by nature fallen men, and in the same class as those they represent. Aarons conduct in the creation of the golden calf and the fertility worship that followed without reference to any other incident, is enough to indicate that Aaron was a very sinful man. Himself in need of an intercessor. Thus any totally human High Priest was himself in need of an intercessor. Third, it was the duty of the high Priest to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. How could a sinful man offer gifts and sacrifices for sin that would be acceptable to God?

The difference here between gifts and sacrifices is worth noting. We have the same distinction made with regard to tithes and gifts, tithes and offerings. Because there is no gift to God unless it is above and over the tithe, or above and over the specified sacrifice. That is gods due, His tax. This is why there is this usual association of the two. The high Priest was a type of the great High Priest to come. He acted not in his own right or in terms of his credentials, but in terms of that true high priest whom he represented. He was a stand in with a destined High priest who was to come, who would make the true sacrifices, and would supplant him, replace him.

Until then, the priest of the high priest or anyone functioning in the temple was simply a stand in. Everything he did was prescribed, everything he wore was prescribed. He could do nothing on his own. I recall back in the early 30’s when I was visiting some friends in Pasadena, the woman was going to take me to the museum and library, Huntington Museum and Library. And she stopped by at the playhouse there where a play was in rehearsal. And I was very interested because she went back stage and I accompanied her, I was carrying something for her, I was then a high school student, and I saw chalk marks on the stage. And the director was shouting at an actor or actress, I don’t remember and was saying: “You come in there, you follow this line to where there is an X, and you stand there, and you give your lines from that point.”

And then read the actor or actress quite a lecture. What impressed me was the chalk lines and the X’s for the various actors. Why? Because they were not themselves, they were acting a part, and they had to do what the part required, not what they wanted to do. Well, this is what all the legislation about the high priest and about the High Priest is about. They are stand ins for the true priest, Jesus Christ, when he comes.

Therefore everything is prescribed by the law, just as the actor or the actress had to follow the chalk line and stand on the X, or was told which way to face and so on, so the Priests of Israel could do nothing on their own. They were stand ins until the destined High Priest arrived and made the ordained sacrifice. All the high Priests before Jesus Christ were together with their sacrifices, types of Christ. They represented the reality to come, and their efficacy rested on him. No high Priest or priest in Israel could do anything on his own.

Hebrews thus far discussed the priesthood as Israel knew it, a priest of the line of Aaron. Jesus Christ as the true High Priest was still an alien idea. We are led, logically step by step to the conclusion that the only valid High Priest can be Jesus Christ. All before him were types and stand ins for him. The High Priest must offer, or very literally, bring toward the altar and God, only that which is acceptable to and prescribed by God. But there are two aspects to this acceptability. First, the offering and second the offerer.

In the long history of Israel, if we grant that the offerings were commonly acceptable, exactly what was prescribed, the priestly offerers were often not so. (Delich?) made a note on this point which is very good and I quote: “The High Priests three confessions, the first for himself and his own family, the second for the priesthood in general, and the third for all Israel. The first for himself and his family ran thus: “Oh for Jehovah’s sake” (Or, according to another reading, “Oh Jehovah”) “Do thou expiate the misdeeds, the crimes and the sins wherewith I have done evil, and have sinned before Thee, I and my house. As it is written in the law of Moses Thy servant, On that day he shall make an atonement to cleanse you, from all your sins shall ye be clean, before Jehovah. Only as one who had been himself atoned, could the High Priest make atonement for the others. On the received principle, an innocent man must come and make atonement for the guilty, but the guilty may not come and make atonement for the innocent.”

In verse 3 we are told that a true high priest is marked by compassion for the ignorant, for those who sin ignorantly. The fall blinds man to his own sin in many areas, so that the light of Gods law is needed to make the ignorant man aware of his sin. False pastors will not proclaim Gods law, so that many people are unaware of their waywardness, in our time. The High Priest being a man himself is encompassed with infirmity, or weakness. He is a sinner like those for which he must make atonement. This was a description of High Priests in Israel, they were compassed with weakness. The contrast between these high Priests of Israel and Jesus Christ is cited in 7:28, which we will come to later. Sins of presumption are not covered by atonement, but rather sins of ignorance and weakness.

The High Priest after the order of Aaron, made atonement for themselves and for the people, on the day of atonement the High Priest made atonement for his sins, those of his family, offering a calf. And then for the sins of Israel. The words: ‘By reason hereof’ That is, because of his weakness and sinfulness, the High Priest had to make atonement first, for his own sins. He cannot make atonement for others, if his own sins are un-atoned for. Then in verse four we are told that no man can presume to have the honor of becoming a high priest, but only those called by God as was Aaron. The high Priest must be a man, but he must be called of God. No man can be presumed to fill the office except one called by God. The phrase, ‘As was Aaron’ is important. Aaron’s sin did not nullify his office as high priest. His calling came from God, and Moses as Gods servant rebuked Aaron for his sin. But it was not Moses prerogative to replace Aaron. He could not do that. We know that God himself struck down two who brought alien fire to the altar.

Jesus Christ, although God incarnate, did not glorify himself by claiming the high Priestly status. Rather, god exalted him to that office, declaring at Jesus baptism: ‘Thou art my son, today I have begotten thee.” This is a citation from psalm 2:7, where the reference is clearly to Gods royal status. But here we are told it was a sentence from heaven that made Jesus Christ the High Priest. Why?

Why in Psalms does it denote him to be God’s messiah, and then here Gods high priest? The difference is important. The Royal calling of Jesus Christ was apparent from his birth. His kingdom however, could not exist apart from his atonement. The kingdom of God, the new human race which he came to establish, and which Paul tells us: “He is the last Adam. All born of the first Adam are born into sin and death, all born of the second Adam, are born into life and righteousness, or justice.” Now, how can the King have a people, apart from the atonement and the regeneration of these dead men?

Well, there can be no messianic kingdom while sin and death reign. As a result, the very proclamation of Psalm 2:7 of Christ the cosmic king, requires atonement for that Royal realm to exist and flourish, without the atonement there is no kingdom.

Well at this point, everything looks to a logical conclusion; the priesthood of Aaron is no longer needed. It was only a stand in for the true high priest who was to come. A return to the temple and its priesthood, the apostolic company tells the Hebrews, is a apostasy. It can be compared to old Israel’s talk in the wilderness about a return to Egypt. Israel had been called to enter in to the promised land, but it refused to do so at Gods bidding. Its later attempts to conquer Canaan on its own were doomed by God.

In the church today, vast segments are content to sit in the wilderness and indulge in pious gush. They resent talk about the duty to exercise dominion in Christ’s name as unspiritual. They have equated spirituality with irrelevance. Those outside the fold sin against God. Those who see themselves as within the fold, are sinning in Christ’s name, so they add blasphemy to sin. Thus, what Hebrews is telling these Hebrew believers who wanted to go back to the temple worship, and the sacrifices: “There is no more sacrifice for sin for you.” You must have Christ not only as a messiah which the Jewish believers accepted, but as the only true High Priest. And, you have a duty to press forward into that rest, the true kingdom of God, to bring everything into captivity to Jesus Christ. You can see again why Hebrews is the least studied book in the New Testament.

It demands that the church move forward. It uses the word for faith that also means obey, that these are one. That you cannot believe if you do not obey, that there is a kingdom to be established, and this is your duty. You must enter into this world, the promised land, your Canaan, and bring everything into captivity to Jesus Christ. Let us pray.

Our Father we give thanks unto thee for this thy word. We thank Thee that we have a high priest who has made atonement for our sins, and who now as our king commands us to bring every area of life and thought into captivity to Jesus Christ. Make us faithful servants in that task, in Christ’s name, amen.

Are there any questions now about our lesson?

[Audience Member] When did the term priest come into use as a church office, and is that appropriate?

[Rushdoony] That’s an interesting question and point. The word priest, that we have in the English is not the old testament word for Priest! We would have to say something like: Hierophant, would be the proper term if someone in the church is a priest.

The word priest, P R I E S T, is a corruption of the word Presbyter. You know how the English swallow their words too often, so that Magdalene becomes Maudlin, and Bethlehem becomes Bedlam, and so on. Well, Presbyter in time became Priest. But that is the literal meaning of the English word priest. Presbyter. Now of course the question of the mass and the sacrifices is a different one, but the word Priest as it is commonly used in the English means Presbyter, and as I’ve mentioned on another occasion, the irony is that among protestants, especially the puritans, church members called each other Brother and Sister, Brother Matthew, and Sister Mary and so on, and the Pastor was called Father, Whereas is Europe, Catholics called the priest Mister, as in Italy, Don Camilio. Don means Mister! Well, when the Catholics came over here they were a bit ashamed, because they were not as respectful towards their pastor as the puritans and their successors were. So they picked up the term Father and applied it to the Priest, and immediately the protestants all dropped it. That’s the origin of those terms.

Yes?

[Audience Member] Rush, there’s some who use the citation of verse 5, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” To say that Jesus Christ was not actually the eternal son of Og, but actually was denominated a son at his incarnation, would you care to comment on that?

[Rushdoony] He was the eternal son of God. And this which was first seen as denoting His kingship, was declared by God at His baptism, so that they might know that this was the God designated one. But, all the prophecies concerning His birth, the wise men from the East coming, ‘Where is he that is born, king of the Jews?’ Everything tells us, that He was the born king, that He was the eternal son of God. But he was the High Priest only when having made atonement for sin, he was now able to be the High Priest. Because there had to be a people for the king, and as High Priest he created the people by his atonement and his regenerating power.

So that Hebrews, some say, and I think its arrogant, misuses the text to apply it to his priest hood. But God who gave the word knows its meaning. It was only with the atonement that he could assume the High Priestly post.

[Audience Member] I think even in Acts doesn’t Paul use this citation to refer to His resurrection? “My son this day have I begotten thee.”

[Rushdoony] Right, but you see it’s in Hebrews that you have the full statement. Up until this point the Hebrew believers in the church just did not see the High Priestly role. In Acts you see when Paul comes back, together with others, he goes to the temple. And all the other did, the apostles told him to go. He had made a vow, discharge your vow at the temple. So they were still clinging to the old High Priestly forms, even though God ended it when He rent the veil asunder. The temple was desecrated. Yes?

[Audience Member] A little comment on that, the ancients like Augustine said: “No Procession, No Trinity.” And one of the weaknesses if you check Calvin is the institutes, he kind of didn’t want to get into the controversy of the processions of the godhead, and he kind of downplayed it, and so Protestantism has never really gone into great depth about the times… The ancient church did on the processions of the Godhead.

[Rushdoony] That is a very important point which you made, the church became gun shy on a lot of things because well, the Catholics were doing it, therefore we’ve got to break with it. To give you a very sad example: The church at that day in Trent made use of the Old Testament sacrifice system, sacrificial system, to justify the fact that there was a continual requirement to offer un-bloody sacrifices, commemorating the bloody sacrifices, and that this also gave them justification for all kinds of feasts and festivals they added to the church calendar. Well, the attitude of the Calvinists was not to say, nor the Lutherans, not to say: “look, you are making and invalid use of the sacrificial system.” But rather to say, “All that’s over, we don’t want anything to do with it.” And to throw it out.

Well, there are important meanings of a continuing value in the whole of the sacrificial laws. And I have in another context been writing on those meanings, perhaps a dozen important points, one of which I‘ve mentioned before and I’ll bring up here: Clean and unclean sacrifices.

Meats and things could be clean, but not offered up as sacrifice. Deer meat is clean, Fish is clean, but you cannot bring that ever as a sacrifice. Why couldn’t a worshiper in Israel bring those two things, and others like them? No work went into it. A calf or a lamb or a kid that you brought represented work on your part and care. But a fish and a deer did not.

What that means today is that, what we give to God must involve a sacrifice on our part, or there is no gift. Well, there is a great deal more like that, stipulations in the laws of sacrifice which are applicable to us today. But because at the time of the reformation too many were overly concerned with trying to disprove the Catholic position, that they did it by just dropping the sacrifices from their vocabulary. And saying: “They are ceremonies that have ended.” They are not ceremonies, they are sacrifices. And there is a difference between the two. Does that help?

Any other questions or comments? Well, if not let us conclude with prayer.

Our Father, Thy word is truth. And we thank Thee that Thy word speaks plainly, and that we have the blessed assurance that we have a prophet, king, and high priest in Jesus Christ. That He, having made atonement for us, has made of us a new creation, and has given us a task, to exercise dominion over all things in his name. Bless us to this task.

And now go in peace, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, bless you and keep you, guide and protect you, this day and always, Amen.