He is Priest. As the priest was anointed to offer sacrifice (Leviticus 4:4, 5) and sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice. Christ, therefore, offered himself once-for-all putting an end to all of the typological sacrifices. Though not of the tribe of Levi, he received a special commission for this purpose (Hebrews 7:20; 8:6; 9:12, 24-26). So, Jesus Christ, having served as the anointed prophet, then completed his anointed work of priesthood, altar, and sacrifice. Nothing in the sacrificial system was left unfulfilled by him.

Remember Jesus Christ, risen out of death, arising from the seed of David, according to my gospel (2 Timothy 2:8).

In supplying the name of the one that we are to remember, he also supplies the reasons that forgetfulness in this matter is fatal. Paul supplies the name of the person who embodies the full range of truth and saving grace that counters the falsehoods, errors, and aggressive evil of fallen humanity. As he reminded the Corinthians, “As in Adam all die; even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). In the context of this letter to Timothy, Paul uses the combination “Christ Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” fourteen times. Two of these also employ the word “Lord” with the name “Jesus” and the office, “Christ.” Also, there are fifteen other uses of the word “Lord” to refer to Jesus Christ. The book is saturated with Jesus Christ, his lordship, his mercy, his purpose, his truthful word, his conquering of death, his promise of life, his salvation, his status as judge, and his personal presence with the believer. Paul aimed to make it impossible to forget either the person or the work of Jesus Christ. To forget is to deny; to deny is to give surety of an absence of grace.
Particularly Paul does not want us to forget the significance of the name and the title given to him. His name is Jesus. The angel told Joseph, calling him “son of David,” that the child with whom Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit was to be called “Jesus” (Matthew 1:20, 21). The significance of this designated name was related to the child’s office as Savior—“for he shall save his people from their sins.” The name means, “Jehovah is salvation.”
For Joshua (the same name), his name was a testimony to the promise of Jehovah in giving to Israel the land of Abraham. It signified that Jehovah was strong, mighty, faithful, the only God, and would accomplish all his promises, both of blessing and of cursing. He would work through Joshua to fulfill these promises and establish the context where the people would respond to this miraculous deliverance and strikingly clear revelation. Some of the promises were unconditional and unilateral. No alterations among the Israelites could change the ability and determination of God to carry through. Others were conditional and were, in one sense, dependent on the faithfulness of the people (2 Kings 23:26, 27).
The task of Joshua was typological; the task for Jesus was the substance and absolute. Joshua set the stage for the powerful display of divine purpose; Jesus embodied the mystery of godliness. Joshua testified of the power of God to save and called the people to follow him in serving the Lord (Joshua 24); Jesus did not merely testify to the power of God to save, but he possessed and executed his saving power by own righteous acts and perfect obedience. Not only like Joshua did he testify to the power of God to save, but he constituted the saving purpose of God. Though “Jesus” is his human name, it also is a testimony to his divine nature–”Jehovah is salvation.”
As “Christ,” the God-man Jesus is the anointed one. Every office and type established by anointing, the Christ culminated in himself. Did God give prophets to reveal and speak and write his word to his people? Jesus is the prophet promised through Moses, the “Word made flesh,” the Son through whom God “has spoken” (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18; John 1:14; Hebrews 1:2). Is he not the true Elisha, the God of supplication, anointed by Elijah (1 Kings 19: 16; Luke 1:17; 3:21, 22; Luke 23:34; John 1:29-34). Does the Lord not set forth the prophet as a special representative of his anointing? (1 Chronicles 16:22; Psalm 105:15).
Read More
Related Posts:

The simple truth is, we must ask this question and think carefully about it: What aspects or parts of OT law carry over into the NT, and which do not? Those of differing theological persuasions will answer this question differently. Theonomists, or Christian reconstructionists, for example will see almost all of the law carrying through, including the civil laws and their penalties, while other Christians will claim that only the moral law does.

Is Jesus at odds with Moses here?
In my previous article on this topic I noted how the Old Testament expresses the concept of lex talionis, or the principle of retaliation and retribution. I noted the three main passages on this, and sought to provide a larger framework by which we might understand these texts.
A major point I sought to make was that this principle was actually an improvement on that of many other ancient cultures in that it strictly limited personal revenge and sought to put crime and punishment in the context of a just social and political order. As we put it today: ‘the penalty should fit the crime.’ That is how we are to understand this biblical principle.
The Relationship Between the Old Testament Law and the New Testament
The topic of this subheading has been extensively discussed and debated over the centuries, and entire libraries exist with books on this and related matters, so I can only give the briefest of outlines here. For one short and general look at these issues, see this piece: billmuehlenberg.com/2018/10/08/the-law-and-the-christian/
The simple truth is, we must ask this question and think carefully about it: What aspects or parts of OT law carry over into the NT, and which do not? Those of differing theological persuasions will answer this question differently. Theonomists, or Christian reconstructionists, for example will see almost all of the law carrying through, including the civil laws and their penalties, while other Christians will claim that only the moral law does. And not every believer is even happy with that threefold division of the law (moral, civil and ceremonial).
Again, whole libraries have been penned on such matters. As but one helpful discussion of how OT law fit in to the NT, see the discussion by Roy Gane in his 2004 NIVAC commentary on Leviticus and Numbers, pp. 305-314. Here is just one quote from that work: “Properly viewed within a covenant framework of love and grace, God’s law is not ‘legalistic’ and obedience to it is not ‘legalism’. People are legalistic when they put his law in place of his grace as a means of salvation.”
And Gane wrote an entire book on these issues in 2017: Old Testament Law for Christians. See the details of that book and nearly 40 others I list in the article I linked to just above.
Jesus and Lex Talionis
But the Christian will immediately think of the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew 5:38-42:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

The question is, do those words nullify what the OT taught about lex talionis? I think not. A major part of understanding what Jesus was referring to here is to realise he is offering a personal ethic for the individual believer. He is NOT saying there is no place for justice to be administered by the state to punish evildoers.
That is, if I am slapped in the face, I can turn the other cheek as a Christian.
Read More

Written by T. M. Suffield |
Friday, September 6, 2024
Christians need to go to church. We grow to be more like Jesus as we repeat the actions of a Sunday: hear the word read and preached, say the creed, pray, sing, take the Supper, speak in tongues, hear and receive prophetic words. We grow to be more like Jesus as we eat with other Christians in their homes and they in ours; as we serve with them to help the poor in our church community and in the wider place that we live; as we speak the gospel to each other whenever we encounter each other.

Christian Formation II
If we’re formed by what we think, what we feel, and what we do—as I’ve argued we are—how does being formed by what we do work? I think there are two components to this: community and habit.
We become what we do. James K. A. Smith’s famous ‘pedagogy of desire’ argues that rather than doing what we love, instead we love what we do. If you want to train yourself to love something, then do it. Part of the Christian life is repetition. If you want to become a person who prays, then you need to start by praying. Obviously, there must be more to it than this—and there is, all three angles of formation are present all the time—but you won’t become a person of prayer unless you actually carve out time to pray in, and then pray at those times.
Of course, the early steps are faltering; of course it’s hard; and of course you can’t do it without the Spirit’s help. Charismatics sometimes make it sound like all you need to do is wait on the Spirit to change you. While a good thing we also need to ask him to change us (please teach me to pray is a powerful prayer) and then start doing it in our lives. This is partly because of the way the Lord has made us as creatures, but it’s also because the Christian life is one of actions: as I’ve argued before hope is an action, as are love, faith, and perseverance (1 Thessalonians 1).
Sometimes we can be down on the idea of daily devotions. You won’t find a direct reference to them in the Bible, which is understandable because they largely assume that you can both read and have the Bible in your native tongue. Devotions also have an individualised sense of how to pray; assuming it’s something we do on our own. The early Christians would have gathered to pray in the mornings. The common practice of morning and evening prayer arose from this. We could probably discuss the benefits of different types of daily prayer, but practice does make perfect in the Biblical sense: it makes us mature. Whatever it is you’re doing, it’s good to do it habitually.
Note the second feature rising up in that discussion, you often see Christians praying together. If you want to love to pray, then pray with people who love to pray. Do it a lot. Habitual actions are easier, and easier to sustain, when done with others. That’s because that’s the kind of creatures we are; firstly, for the love of marriage and the immediate family, and then secondly for the love of the kingdom, for friendship.
If you keep doing something you will grow to love it. If people in your church don’t like the Lord’s Supper and seem confused by it, just start doing it weekly. You’ll find a love for it will grow.
Read More
Related Posts: