“Therefore he is able to save completely…”

When I went to Bible college, I can’t say it was a bastion of maturity and wisdom.  A decent sized school at the time, students were very evangelistic and fervent about what they believed.  But there was a cast of characters there, me included.  Perhaps I should say me especially.  I had dropped out of secular university 14 months before graduation, moved home, got a job (with a bunch of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but that’s another story completely), bought a car, saved my money, and when I would have been a senior, I enrolled at Bible college as a lowly transfer freshman.  I was still learning to remove foul language from my vocabulary and to trust God.  Neither were easy at the time.  Now the language is cleaner, the trust is stronger, and the character?  It’s getting better.  All by God’s magnificent grace.

One thing I heard in Bible college is, “When you see a ‘therefore’ in the Bible, ask, ‘What’s it there for?’”  It was kind of catchy, but it really missed the point.  Therefore is a linking word.  It links what precedes it with what follows.  As such, it transitions, in most cases, from point or fact to implication or consequence of point or fact.  It shows that conclusions can be drawn.  So when the writer of Hebrews states in 7:25, “Therefore, [Christ] is able to save completely those who come to God through him…” we read the implication/consequence/conclusion. And what a tremendous conclusion it is!  Save completely?  Yep.  Eternally, spiritually, practically, totally, perfectly…in a word, completely.  But what does it link to?  Why is Jesus able to save us so completely?  That’s what precedes “therefore”.

The trouble with jumping into Hebrews is that you can really miss the strengths of the writer’s arguments because the context is so tightly wound.  There are so many points and angles that without a reasonable amount of backing up, you can really miss things.  So let’s go back to verse 1 to begin.

7:1 continues the theme of Melchizedek, the “king of Salem and priest of God Most High”.  As the story goes (found in Genesis), Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating the kings that had kidnapped nephew Lot along with other residents of Sodom.  He paid tithes to Salem’s king, indicating that as important as Abraham was, Melchizedek had more clout.  After all, he was the priest of God as well.  Melchizedek appears on the Genesis record “without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever” (v. 3).  The point here is that from the reader’s point of view, Melchizedek bursts onto the scene without much background, and disappears just as quickly.  Sort of like when you visit a relative who has a 6-year-old boy.  You see them briefly, and then return home.  If you saw them next in 10 years, you’d remember him as a 6-year-old, not the strapping teenager he is now.  But there’s another point here, coming from the word “like”, as in “like the Son of God.”  The Greek word is used only here in the New Testament and means “model”.  In other words, it’s a copy of something that already exists, but doesn’t have the same quality or character.  In this case, Jesus is the original, already existing, and Melchizedek is the copy.  While some think Melchizedek is a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus in the Old Testament, I believe he is a real historical figure that was like Jesus, but not him actually.

Next, the writer makes several points.  First, like Melchizedek’s priesthood, Jesus was a priest better than the Levitical priesthood because it was based on the Law (vs. 11-19).  The Law gave commands to obey and called for (animal) sacrifices when commands were broken.  But the whole scheme depended on fallen human efforts (vs. 18-19).  In other words, it was doomed to failure because human efforts are always flawed.  Second, the Levitical priesthood was inferior because priests were chosen because of their descendency from Aaron.  They never took an oath such as, “I promise to uphold the Law of Moses and oversee and perform the necessary sacrifices becoming a priest of the nation of Israel”, etc.  But God (the Father) made an oath to Jesus (v. 21, Psalm 110:4) that he would be a priest “forever”.  Third, Jesus rose from the dead never to die again (Romans 6:9), meaning he is our priest before we were here, while we are here, and long after we’re gone.  Death can’t take him out or take him away.  It’s “permanent” (v. 24).

That’s why Jesus can save completely.  We need someone from out of this world, someone not tainted with sin, apart from the Law, not limited by death, someone like Melchizedek, the “king of peace” (v. 2).  That’s why the “therefore” is there.  Do others see in you Christ’s ability to save completely?