Christ Superior to Aaron — Part 2

This post will continue tracing Paul’s thoughts as he persuades the Hebrews to stay true to their profession of faith in Christ. They must not cling to the Temple-based worship instituted by Moses but embrace the word God had now spoken through his Son. Paul presents his arguments in a straightforward and compelling structure.

We have completed our look at the first two movements in Paul’s story: Christ surpasses the angels and Moses. We are now studying Paul’s arguments for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to that of Aaron. The Apostle makes his case by presenting a series of contrasts. Our last post examined the first two: Christ’s priesthood surpasses that of Aaron because of how God established it and because it was like Melchisedec’s.

This post will examine three other contrasts Paul uses to show the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to Aaron’s:¹ 1.) between their qualifications (Heb. 7:26 – 8:5); 2.) between their covenants (Heb. 8:6–13); and 3.) between particular aspects of their ministries (Heb. 9:1 – 10:18).

Inmillennialism supports Paul’s arguments in a natural fashion other popular prophetic frameworks find difficult to match. We will show this as the Apostle draws these contrasts.

A Contrast of Qualifications

Paul says the Hebrew’s should embrace Christ as their High Priest because he possesses three superior qualifications² to those of Aaron and his descendants (Heb. 7:26 – 8:5).

Paul’s Reasoning

First, Paul compares the source of ordination for the two priesthoods. The law ordained Aaron and his sons as priests (Heb. 7:28; cp. Exod. 28:1–5). Paul has already argued at length that the law could not produce “perfection” for the people of God (Heb. 7:11–19). It could not bring them into the desired state of maturity and completion God designed for them. The priesthood ordained by the law was, therefore, inadequate to serve as the permanent link between men and God.

Christ was a priest according to God’s “word of the oath” (Heb. 7:28). This oath is part of the important prophecy God gave David: “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4).

God made this oath after he established Aaron’s priesthood (Heb. 7:28). The priesthood it establishes is, therefore, superior and designed to replace that of the law. Paul argues that, with the exaltation of Christ to heaven, the time for the replacement has arrived.

Second, the Apostle compares the term of office of the two systems. Mortal men comprised the old priesthood. It required “many priests” because they died after a short time of service. The priesthood of the Son, however, was unchangeable and would last “for evermore” (Heb. 7:23–28).

Third, how these priests relate to sin distinguishes the two priesthoods. In Aaron’s, sinful men served as priests. The priest must, therefore, “offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s” (Heb. 7:27). Jesus need not offer sacrifices for himself because he “is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Heb 7:26).

Christ’s priesthood far excels Aaron’s because of his qualifications for the office. The Hebrew Christians should not return to the inferior after embracing the more qualified High Priest.

Inmillennial Insights

Inmillennialism reinforces these arguments in several ways. First, it accommodates the verb tenses Paul uses: the Aaronic priests were ministering (present tense) because the Temple still stood. Yet, Paul says the Hebrews also now have (present tense) a Priest in heaven. These verb tenses spring from a unique historical situation that lasted for a single generation. Our prophetic model recognizes this one-time situation. Other prophetic models obscure this overlap of priesthoods, even though it was the situation that created the fundamental problems Paul addresses in Hebrews.

While speaking of verbs, we might find it interesting to notice mellō in this context. Paul says “Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make (Gk. mellō) the tabernacle” (Heb. 8:5). This is an example of the translators’ tendency to include this word in non-prophetic texts while omitting it in prophetic passages. Why would they translate it here, but not two chapters earlier when Paul speaks of “the powers of the world to come” (Heb 6:5) or two chapters later when he talks of “good things to come” (Heb 10:1)? A consistency of translation would seem to require something like “the powers of the age about to come” (Heb. 6:5) and “good things about to come” (Heb 10:1). A uniform translation of mellō would further show inmillennialism’s compatibility with Paul’s statements.

Second, Paul uses typology consistent with inmillennialism to make his points about Christ. He, as the superior Priest, is now in heaven ministering in “the true tabernacle” (Heb. 8:2; emphasis added). “The expression ‘true tabernacle’ is used in contrast not to what is false but to what is symbolical and imperfect.”³ Even though the Aaronic priests were serving (present tense) in the Temple in Jerusalem, theirs was but “the example and shadow of heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5). God had given Moses strict design instructions on how to build the tabernacle (Exod. 25:40, 26:30). The Temple reflected this design, for it also conformed to “the pattern (Gk. tupos, type) shewed to [Moses] in the mount” (Heb. 8:5). The Priest who ministers in the antitypical, or “true,” sanctuary in heaven surpasses, Paul says, those who minister in the typical Temple on earth.

Inmillennialism highlights the typology embedded in Paul’s arguments (as seen here). It accounts for how the Exodus events under Moses served as types of Christ’s redemption (1 Cor. 10:1–11). God established the tabernacle/Temple and the Aaronic priesthood as part of these typical events. Paul leverages this type-antitype relationship as he argues for the superiority of Christ over Aaron. Inmillennialism shows the prophetic framework that reinforces this appeal to typology.

A Contrast of Covenants

Paul next appeals to the contrasting covenants under which the two priesthoods function (Heb. 8:6–13). Aaron and his sons minister under the old (Mosaic) covenant, while Christ executes his priesthood under the new (Messianic) covenant.

The Apostle reasons in a simple and logical manner: Christ functions under a “better covenant” (Heb. 8:6). “The superiority of the priesthood of Christ to the Levitical priesthood [is] proved from the superiority of the covenant with which it is connected.”⁴

Paul knows the transition to the long-awaited new covenant—God had promised it in Jer. 31:31–34—is occurring in his generation.

Paul’s Reasoning

Paul provides several reasons for the superiority of the new covenant, most of which come from the promise as God gave it to Jeremiah. We will summarize them in four categories.

First, the new covenant is better because it is “established upon better promises” (Heb. 8:6). For example, the old covenant promised Israel a physical land occupied by other peoples. God said: “Mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off” (Exod. 23:23). The new covenant promises and secures a far better heavenly city and country (cp. Heb. 11:16).

Second, the new covenant is “faultless” (Heb. 8:7). The “fault” of the old covenant lay not in its moral inferiority. Paul says, “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (Rom. 7:12). The problem was in the persons with whom God made the covenant; Israel could not meet the law’s demands. God found fault “with them” (Heb. 8:8). The new covenant is better because the Person with whom God made it has met its demands in full. God no longer sees sin in his people because Christ has paid for their sins. They stand faultless in Christ before the bar of God’s justice.

Third, the new covenant is better because of its internal orientation (Heb. 8:10). We should take care at this point because God gives internal grace to his people in every age. God saved David “by faith” even though he lived under the old covenant (Heb. 11:32). Nevertheless, there was an undeniable external orientation to the way men approached God under the former covenant. Those outward rites pointed to the internal work of God in the hearts and minds of his people. The new covenant shows how he does this through Christ and the Holy Spirit. It focuses on the inward man.

Fourth, the new covenant permanently restores men to God (Heb. 8:10b–12). Failure to meet the terms of the old covenant resulted in God “regard[ing] them not” (Heb. 8:9). God cast the people out of their covenant relationship. That will never happen under the new covenant. God says, “I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more” (Heb 8:12).

The Apostle leaves no room for doubt: the covenant under which Christ serves as Priest far excels that of the Aaronic priesthood. The Hebrews should recognize the new covenant Priest.

Inmillennial Insights

Inmillennialism supports these arguments by shedding light on the status of the promised covenant change: “And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13, ESV). The old-to-new transition was underway: the old was “becoming obsolete and growing old.” In his comments on this verse, John Gill says the old was obsolete

And in fact it quite vanished away, when the city and temple of Jerusalem were destroyed, which was in a little time after the writing of this epistle; so that the apostle, with great propriety, says, it is ready to vanish away.⁵

The old covenant that ordained Aaron’s priesthood vanished when the Temple fell. Jesus said this would occur in his generation (Matt. 24:3, 34). This event would complete the transition to the new covenant under which Christ was already ministering.

That the old covenant age was about to end and that the transition to the new-covenant age was almost complete flows from an inmillennial understanding of events in Paul’s generation.

A Contrast of Particulars

Paul concludes his arguments for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to Aaron’s by contrasting particular aspects of each (Heb. 9:1 – 10:18).

Paul’s Reasoning

We will borrow the words of John Brown of Edinburgh to summarize the Apostle’s argument.

He now, I apprehend, in the paragraph on the illustration of which we are about to enter, proceeds to show directly the superiority of our Lord’s ministry to that of Aaron and his sons, by contrasting the acts in which their respective ministries consisted, and the place in which these acts were respectively performed. The facts with regard to the ministry of Aaron and his sons are stated in the first ten verses of the ninth chapter. The facts with regard to the ministry of Jesus Christ are stated in the 11th and 12th verses; and the whole of what follows, from the 13th verse of this chapter down to the 18th verse of the 10th chapter, with which the section respecting the priesthood of Christ—and indeed the whole doctrinal part of the Epistle—concludes, is occupied with showing how these facts clearly prove that Christ Jesus has indeed received “a more excellent ministry.”⁶

Inmillennial Insights

Inmillennialism provides insights into several of Paul’s statements.

Time of Reformation

The Apostle speaks of the “time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10). By this, he means the change from the Mosaic Age age—its covenant, priesthood, Temple, etc.—to the Messianic Age and its corresponding replacements. God imposed the “carnal ordinances” of the law on Israel until this transition time arrived.

Inmillennialism shows this reformation occurred during the “this generation” of which Jesus spoke in the Olivet Discourse. It came during the “last days” of the Mosaic Age. It seems this “time of reformation” plays a more prominent role in this prophetic model than any other available system.

Typology

Paul continues his appeal to typology throughout this section and in a way that inmillennialism supports. The Holy Ghost designed this “worldly sanctuary” and all its ministry to “signify” (Heb. 9:8) the heavenly sanctuary and the ministry of Jesus (Heb. 9:1–14). They were “a figure” (Heb. 9:9), or “the figures of the true” (Heb. 9:24). They were, however, “not the very image” of the “good things [about] to come” (Heb. 10:1).

Inmillennialism does not have a corner on the typological market. It may be safe to say, however, that it incorporates typology at a deeper level than other prophetic systems. Typology is the warp and woof of inmillennialism’s fabric, as an earlier post shows. This makes this prophetic system compatible with Paul’s extended use of typology in Hebrews.

Time Stamps

Inmillennialism accounts for the time stamps in this part of Paul’s letter. One could hear Paul saying Christ has become “an high priest of good things [about] to come” (Heb. 9:11) because, according to the traditional Greek text,⁷ he again uses the often-hidden word, mellō. This agrees with his other uses of this important word in Hebrews.

Paul locates the time of Christ’s suffering “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9:26). By this, Paul means, Christ “appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb 9:26, ESV; emphasis added).

Christ did not die at the end of the kosmos or physical creation, but at the end of the preparatory ages necessary to set up the Messianic Age. The Mosaic Age was the last of these preparatory ages and was “a shadow of the good things about to be”⁸ in the Hebrews’ future.

Inmillennialism illustrates this time frame well.

Verb Tenses

Christians who wish to know God’s word will appreciate how inmillennialism agrees with Paul’s verb tenses throughout this section. This is not just a matter of grammar. The inspired text’s meaning often depends on the relationship of the writer to the action he describes.

Take, for example, the verbs Paul uses in this passage:

By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (Heb 9:8–11, ESV)

The present tense dominates here: the Temple is still standing as a symbol for the present age. Gifts and sacrifices are now being offered. The “elements” of the Mosaic Age are still present, including the “baptisms” (Gk. baptismos) of which Paul spoke earlier (Heb. 6:1).

Paul wants the Hebrews to realize these present tense activities will end in their immediate future. He says God is (present tense) taking away the Mosaic Age ordinances to establish the Messianic Age (Heb. 10:9). True, the Aaronic priest is still standing (present tense) in the Temple, but his replacement has already sat down “on the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:11–12). The transition is almost complete.

We invite you to compare inmillennialism’s recognition of these verb tenses with that of other prophetic models.

Perfection

The Messianic Age is the time of “perfection.” We saw this in our last post and this theme continues here. We read of a “more perfect tabernacle” (Heb. 9:11) and forever-perfected worshippers (Heb. 10:1, 14). Christ’s priesthood operates in the mature state of completion—the Messianic Age—to which the law brought the people of God. This perfection comes through Christ.

Judgment

As Jesus did in the Olivet Discourse, Paul links the “time of reformation” events—the end of the Mosaic Age, the destruction of the Temple, the establishment of the Messianic Age, etc.—to the final judgment.

He does this in an incidental manner while discussing the death, resurrection, and return of Christ. His words are these: “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb 9:27).

Paul links men to the final judgment in a natural and unaffected manner, even while discussing the great covenant transition underway in his generation.

Second Coming

Paul connects the events of the transition generation to the “second coming”: “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time⁹ without sin unto salvation” (Heb. 9:28; emphasis added). The context links this second appearance of Christ to “the good things about to come,” the age of perfection, the installation of the new covenant, etc.

Paul emphasizes, in this context, that the purpose of Christ’s first appearance was to change the covenants: “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second” (Heb. 10:9). Christ was about to complete this covenant transformation by his second appearance. He was about to destroy the Temple and end the Aaronic priesthood.

Inmillennialism appears to be the only prophetic model that accepts these statements at face value while providing for the bodily resurrection and final judgment at the end of history.

Conclusion

Inmillennialism has accounted for all the arguments Paul uses to prove the superiority of Christ to the angels, Moses, and Aaron. We have not completed our demonstration of this systems compatibility with Hebrews, but we are far enough into our study to introduce the following diagram. In it, we overlay the basic inmillennial model with elements from this letter to the Hebrews:

We ask the reader to consider prayerfully the degree to which this prophetic model conforms to this part of God’s word.

We plan (D. V.) to complete our analysis of Hebrews in the next few posts.

1. Again, using the divisions in John Brown, Hebrews, (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1961).
2. These three antitheses are suggested by William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, vol. 47A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 194.
3. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 205–206.
4. Brown, Hebrews, 367. We are combining several of Brown’s sections to expedite our analysis.
5. John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, The Baptist Commentary Series (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), 9:427.
6. Brown, Hebrews, 376.
7. The Textus Receptus, upon which the Authorized (or King James) Version rests.
8. Kenneth S. Wuest, Expanded Translation of the Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961), 527 (Heb. 10:1–7). This translation acknowledges the presence of the verb mellō.
9. We have discussed the most common words for “coming”—parousia and erchomai. Neither appears in this verse, but this may be a good place to again state that “parousia is a word that has no plural.” [John A. T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 185.] There is no “second parousia,” but there is a “second coming.”