After the Order of Melchizedek | Hebrews 7:1-25
From Christ’s royal, superior, and permanent priesthood that resembles the priesthood of Melchizedek so long ago, we ought also to rejoice that Jesus’ priesthood is sufficient, which is clearly the glorious conclusion that the author wants us to behold: Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.
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.
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him,
“You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek.”
For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:
“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
‘You are a priest forever.’”
This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Hebrews 7:1-25 ESV
Back in the first ten verses of chapter 5, the author of Hebrews began the central point of his sermon: the superior priesthood of Jesus. As we noted, through the linking of Psalm 2 and Psalm 110, the author transitioned from speaking primarily of Jesus’ Sonship to Jesus’ priesthood. Indeed, after quoting Psalm 110’s declaration from the Father to the Son, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek,” the author indicted his intention to explain the significance of that declaration in 5:10.
However, he suddenly broke away from this explanation to give an extended exhortation to his beloved readers. First, he rebuked them for being dull of hearing and falling backward into spiritual immaturity. Then he gave them a stern and fearful warning of falling away from the faith into apostasy. Finally, he changed his tone and encouraged them to remain steadfast in the promises of God, just like Abraham did so long ago.
After that extended exhortation from 5:11-6:20, the author skillfully set us back upon his original point with 6:19-20:
We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
It is Melchizedek’s connection to Christ that is now unfolded for us in our present text.
A Royal Priesthood // Verses 1-3
As we noted previously, the identity and purpose of Melchizedek was surely one of the most perplexing pieces of the Old Testament. He appears abruptly and briefly in Genesis 14 and is then mentioned in connection with the Messiah, David’s Lord, in Psalm 110. Nothing else is said about this ancient priest-king, leaving him long shrouded in mystery. Verse 1 and the first part of verse 2 gives a succinct description of Melchizedek’s appearance in Genesis 14:
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything.
Of course, the actual text of Genesis 14:17-20 is not much longer:
After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) And he blessed him and said,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
Nothing else is said about Melchizedek. He brings Abraham (Abram at that time) bread and wine, blessed him, and received a tithe from the patriarch. Although that information is sparse, the author of Hebrews goes on to explain how each detail is significant.
First, he points out that Melchizedek’s name means king of righteousness, and he is the king of Salem, which means peace. Furthermore, he simply appears in the text without introduction or genealogy, which is particularly striking within Genesis, which is literally structured around genealogies. Finally, although he is a Gentile (Abraham being the first Hebrew), Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God, which means that he worshiped the Yahweh, the Creator of heaven and earth, in midst of the world’s collapse into paganism.
The key phrase in these first three verses, indeed of this entire chapter, is: resembling the Son of God. Although many have speculated whether or not Melchizedek was a preincarnate appearance of Jesus, this phrase seems to give us a clear answer. Melchizedek was not an appearance of Jesus; instead, he was a real, godly king who resembles Jesus. Melchizedek was a type of Jesus, a prefiguring of the Christ.
He resembles Jesus in his name and title. Like Jesus, Melchizedek is both a priest and a king, which were offices that were rarely together in the same person. Although Melchizedek’s name means king of righteousness, Jesus is the actual king of righteousness. Being the eternal Son of God, Jesus is the King of kings, and He alone is perfectly and wholly righteousness. Also, although Melchizedek was the king of Salem (that is, peace), Jesus is the true King of peace or, as Isaiah calls Him, the Prince of Peace, for He came to make peace between God and man through the sacrifice of Himself. For yet another connection, many scholars believe Salem to be the former name of Jerusalem, which would later become the city of David and of God’s temple.
He resembles Jesus in His having neither beginning of days nor end of life. Of course, the author of Hebrews is not suggesting that Melchizedek was actually immortal; rather, he is pointing to his written appearance in the text. As Richard Phillips notes,
This statement leads many to suppose Melchizedek to be some sort of celestial being, or even the preincarnate Christ. But what is in view here is not Melchizedek himself being without beginning or end, but Melchizedek as presented in Scripture. Quite in contrast to nearly everybody else of consequence in the book of Genesis, Melchizedek is not accompanied by a genealogy, but appears without any introduction or conclusion. He has no mother or father. The writer of Hebrews, following a long rabbinic tradition of interpreting passages like this, sees as much significance in what the text omits as in what it says. A. W. Pink explains: “The silence of the Old Testament Scriptures concerning his parentage has a designed significance. The entire omission was ordered by the Holy Spirit… in order to present a perfect type of the Lord Jesus.” F. F. Bruce notes this about the biblical portrayal: “In the only record which Scripture provides of Melchizedek… he appears as a living man, king of Salem, priest of God Most High; and as such he disappears. In all this—in the silences as well as in the statements—he is a fitting type of Christ…Melchizedek remains a priest continually for the duration of his appearance in the biblical narrative.”[1]
Indeed, because we are not told any of these things about Melchizedek, his priesthood appears to be perpetual, remaining a priest forever. It is to that priesthood, which is the third resemblance that Melchizedek bears to Christ, that the remainder of the chapter focuses upon.
-
Gender Confusion and the PCA
Earlier this month, the SJC’s ruling was sent to the parties. TE Stephen O’Neill was one of the faithful elders who helped present the case of RPR before the SJC and he joined the podcast to discuss the ruling of the General Assembly in this matter. The SJC is to be commended for its work on this case. The SJC clearly performed a thorough analysis of what MNY presbytery has both done and left undone. The Commission expressed awareness of steps taken already by MNY presbytery to correct the delinquencies in this matter. But the SJC also noted what the MNY presbytery has done so far is “clearly inadequate.”
On “Reformation Sunday” in 2021 a priestess in The Episcopal Church took the pulpit at Trinity PCA in Rye, New York where Craig Higgins serves as senior pastor. The lady paused after reading a portion of Scripture and promising to return to read the rest of the pericope at the end of her “teaching,” she said with a smile.
She went on “teaching” for quite some time. She talked about sin and the grace of God, she warned about self-righteousness and resentment, she asserted American Christians should pay more attention to the teachings of the “Calvinist theologian Karl Barth,” lamenting that Barth’s theology has not caught on in American Churches, and she extolled the freedom that is found in Christ alone to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
News of what had taken place at Trinity PCA in Rye, NY scandalized many in the PCA.
When a ruling elder from another presbytery raised questions as to how such a thing could be done in a PCA Congregation, the Metro New York Presbytery (MNY) investigated. The representatives of the Session and TE Higgins asserted they take no exceptions to the relevant portions of the standards related to whether a woman may preach in public worship. The presbytery then closed the investigation without finding any basis for charges.
When the Review of Presbytery Records Committee (RPR) of General Assembly examined the Minutes of MNY on this matter, many members of RPR were puzzled as to how MNY arrived at its conclusions. Accordingly and with only one dissenting vote, RPR recommended the matter be referred to the General Assembly’s Standing Judicial Commission, since there appeared to be particularly glaring violations of the PCA Constitution in this case.
Read More
Related Posts: -
It’s Not Your Body
[Your] body is not a defensive castle over which the sovereign “self” rules against the incursions of others, but a site owned by God, where he is to be served and glorified—a temple.
It seems to me there’s nothing more counter-cultural we can teach our children at the moment than the statement:
It’s not your body!
We’re (rightly) eager to teach our children the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touch. We don’t want them to be abused or to abuse others. But how do we arm them intellectually to resist such abuse? Western culture tells them to oppose abuse “because it’s your body”. In other words, what makes “abuse” so terrible is that it’s an invasion of the sovereignty of the self. But the Bible teaches exactly the opposite premise: “Don’t let people abuse you, because it’s not your body”. Your body belongs to God—as your Creator, and as your Redeemer (Gen 1:26; 1 Cor 6:19). “Abuse” is wicked not because it’s an attack on the sovereignty of the self, but on the sovereignty of God. That raises the stakes on abuse considerably—think millstones round the neck, and being thrown into the sea (Matt 18:6).
It’s important to see that these aren’t just two equal and equivalent ways of tackling the same problem; one is untrue and destructive. The other is true and, therefore, wholesome.
The Problem
Firstly, there’s the problem that the underlying logic of what our children are told is false. For example, you’ll often see the slogan “My Body My Choice” on placards at pro-abortion rallies; Amnesty International also use it. But the slogan simply isn’t true. When someone says: “You can’t tell me what to do with my body!”, the simple answer is: “Yes, we can!”. Every time you put on a seat-belt you’re showing that it’s not your body. Every person who puts on a seat-belt is recognising everyone else’s responsibility for your body. No one seriously believes the body is a strip of sovereign territory over which no politician can rule. The body is still very well policed in the UK. The body is political; it always has been and always will be. There is lots of legislation which says what you can and can’t do with your body. Try walking out of your house with no clothes on and it will quickly prove the point! So, firstly, the mantra that’s “it’s your body” is far too simplistic.
Read More -
And You Shall Never Displease Me
Whether it’s your child or parents, your husband or wife, your pastor or congregation, let them know, and then relate to them in such a way that they believe it: “Please God and please yourself, and you shall never displease me.”
So many people live with a deep sense of failure. So many people go through their lives convinced they are a constant disappointment to the ones they so naturally long to please.
Children consider their parents and feel a sense of shame, certain that in some way their parents regard them as a disappointment. Meanwhile, parents consider their children and feel that same sense of shame, sure that their children regard them with disapproval.
Husbands consider their wives and wives their husbands and, while they may not know exactly what they’ve done wrong or what standard they have failed to uphold, they are convinced their spouse looks toward them with a displeased eye.
Church members are often convinced their pastor is disappointed in them for their level of involvement in the church or for the minimal strides they have made in sanctification. Pastors, meanwhile, often feel a deep sense of disapproval from church members, perhaps because they are ordinary preachers rather than extraordinary ones or because they simply do not have enough hours in the week to accept every meeting and fulfill every request.
There are so many Christians who live under a cloud of disappointment and disapproval. And we cannot allow ourselves off the hook here. Our husbands and our wives, our parents and our children, our pastors and our congregations—all can feel that withering sense of censure from the likes of you and me.
And, if we’re honest, such censure is often real rather than imagined. It is real because we are all susceptible to expecting people to live up to our standards rather than to God’s.
Read More
Related Posts:
