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.
Read More
Related Posts:

The child of God can find confidence and assurance in the fact that the transcendent God is a relational and intimate God. He desires to lovingly dwell with his people. The storyline of the Scripture is one of God working and planning to dwell in sweet fellowship with his people (Deuteronomy 4:7, 20; 7:6; 14:7; 26:18; 2 Samuel 7:24; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 21:7). He wants to be their God, and they his people. He is Immanuel! Which is translated as ‘God with us.’

The messenger in Isaiah is exhorted to exclaim to the people: “Behold your God!” This is a call to see the majesty, splendour, and power of God, who is transcendent from all his creation, but also a call to behold the knowable, ever-present and intimately personal God. In many ways, the series on the attributes of God has served that purpose, to cause us to look at, marvel, and worship God in light of both his transcendence and immanence. 
The Lord is the mighty and infinite one, who calls himself Father, husband, and redeemer. He is seated on his throne, but he reaches out to the needy in the ashes. He dwells eternally, but comes down to comfort the lowly. These twin truths, God’s transcendence and immanence, must be held in tension for the believer’s comfort, encouragement, and soberness.
Though He Needs Nothing, God Draws Near
As Stephen R. Holmes writes: “God is both transcendent over and immanent in his world. These 19th century words express the thought that, on the one hand, God is distinct from his world and does not need it. While on the other hand, he permeates the world in sustaining creative power, shaping and steering it in a way that keeps it on its planned course.” 
The Bible speaks of God as both transcendent and immanent. For example, we read that God is holy and in his holiness he will consume sinners in wrath. Yet he is so tender that he covers us in his unending and overflowing delight (Psalm 21:8–9; 16:11).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Tuesday, July 25, 2023
When Jesus refers to the kingdom of God he is referring to the final form of God’s kingdom, which is the saving kingdom that he ushers into the world through his perfect life, atoning death, and glorious resurrection. That is to say: Jesus is not referring with the phrase “kingdom of God” to God’s universal kingship over all things in a generic sense, but to the kingdom that will be manifest in the salvation he accomplishes and then pours out on his people. It is a “spiritual” kingdom, though it has profound implications for how its citizens live in this world.

A Wall of Separation
Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the Federal government from making any laws “respecting an establishment of religion” meant that there was, and must be in America, an absolute “wall of separation between Church & State.”
Although Jefferson was only referring to establishment on the Federal level, which is indeed prohibited in the First Amendment, his phrase has come to represent for many Americans something much more expansive. It has, in fact, become a commonplace to indicate that the State can have nothing whatsoever to do with God or even the basic moral truths found in the Bible. Such an understanding has become predominant even among many Christians. But is it correct?
Separating church and state is extremely important. It is thoroughly biblical to do so, and the best thinkers in the Christian tradition have recognized the importance of doing so, although in a way very different from the modern conception of Jefferson’s wall of separation. There is a sense in which church and state must be absolutely separate and a sense in which they cannot be thought of separately at all. Each has its own unique realm of authority that must be preserved from unwarranted intrusion from the other, while neither can be sealed off completely from the other.
However, to adequately address the relationship between church and state we have to back up. The broader historical-theological concept into which the discussion of church and state falls is that of God’s “two kingdoms.” At its most basic level, the classic Protestant two kingdoms doctrine means that God rules over his spiritual kingdom, the church, in one way, and rules over the world outside the church in a different way. This is sometimes taken (wrongly) almost as if God doesn’t rule over the world outside the church at all, but it should not be understood in that way.
In this article I will introduce the doctrine of God’s two kingdoms, and then I will more briefly focus on how this idea illuminates the relationship between church and state. I’ll also explain some key biblical texts that deal with these difficult (and often fraught) relationships. The goal is to help Christians understand the divine purposes for each realm.
Defining the Two Kingdoms
As Brad Littlejohn puts it, for classical Protestant thinkers: “The two kingdoms were not two institutions or even two domains of the world, but two ways in which the kingship of Christ made itself felt in the life of each and every believer.” Referring to Christ’s comprehensive reign over all things Abraham Kuyper famously wrote that “there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’” All fine and good, but what does this mean precisely? For example, if Jesus is king over all things should church and state be merged, with the officers of the church ruling the state as well? Should the state rule over the church? Is there another way that such realms should be related? The classic Protestant doctrine of the two kingdoms helps answer these very questions.
This is not an exhaustive historical survey, so I’ll simply quote from John Calvin to illustrate this historical strand of thought:
The former [the spiritual government] has its seat within the soul, the latter [the temporal government] only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other. For there exists in man a kind of two worlds, over which different kings and different laws can preside . . . . The question . . . though not very obscure, or perplexing in itself, occasions difficulty to many, because they do not distinguish with sufficient accuracy between what is called the external forum, and the forum of conscience.
Though it is sometimes mistakenly taken as such, Calvin’s point (which is representative of classic Protestant thinking on the whole) is not that there is one realm in which Christ rules (the spiritual realm) and another with which he has nothing to do (a non-spiritual realm), but rather that the Christian always lives simultaneously in both worlds. And it is also the case that Christ rules over both worlds, though his rule looks different according to the specific nature of each realm (for the sake of clarity and consistency I will refer to the “spiritual” and “external” kingdoms in the rest of this article).
Christ rules over the spiritual realm, or kingdom, by his word. In this kingdom the consciences of believers may only be bound insofar as Scripture itself binds them, and the focus of this kingdom is eternal salvation and the spiritual well-being of the saints. The spiritual kingdom is the sum total of believers and their children.
Does this mean the external realm, or kingdom, is a moral free for all? Not at all. Christ also rules over that realm, although in a fundamentally different way. The charter of the external kingdom is not the Bible (strictly speaking) though the Bible informs life in the civil kingdom. The charter for the external kingdom is derived in different ways from the imprint of God’s law in nature, the human conscience, the voice of tradition, human law and history, and more.
Properly separating the spiritual kingdom from the external kingdom that encompasses everything outside of the spiritual is vital. The spiritual kingdom, God’s saving work in the lives of his people, must be distinguished from everything earthly and temporal. Distinguishing, however, is not the same thing as radically separating or divorcing. My leaf blower’s engine requires a precise blend of oil and gasoline to operate. Oil is not gasoline; they are distinguished. But my engine will not run without both; they cannot be radically separated. The same is true of God’s two kingdoms.
The Two Kingdoms in Scripture
So far I’ve only been giving definitions and explanations. Now we must turn to Scripture. The focus in this section will be on a variety of texts that show us the distinction between God’s two kingdoms.
The Spiritual Kingdom
God is king over all things. Of this there is no dispute: “The Lord is king forever and ever; the nations perish from his land” (Ps 10:16); “For God is the King of all the earth; sing praises with a psalm” (Ps 47:7)!
In Jesus’s earthly ministry he also proclaims his Father’s dominion over all things, for example, teaching his disciples to pray for God’s kingdom to come, and his will be done, on earth as it is in heaven (Matt 6:10). But something unique and vital is introduced into Christ’s preaching of God’s kingdom.
Read More
Related Posts: