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:

If God is not sovereign, he is not God at all. If something can be decided or determined apart from, outside of, or before God, then that means that there is something out there that is greater than God. And if something is greater than God, then God isn’t God at all.

A hurdle many Christians cannot seem to get over is accepting and embracing the doctrine of election, or predestination. By nature, we don’t like the fact that God is the one who does the choosing. We want to be the masters of our fate and the captains of our soul. Yet Paul seems to make the case very clearly in Ephesians 1:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined usfor adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ.”(Ephesians 1:3–5; emphasis added)
What brings Paul to doxology is distasteful to many. R.C. Sproul accurately describes the feeling of most people towards the concept:
The very word predestination has an ominous ring to it. It is linked to the despairing notion of fatalism and somehow suggests that within its pale we are reduced to meaningless puppets. The word conjures up visions of a diabolical deity who plays capricious games with our lives.[1]
Yes, this is a hard truth to come to terms with, but such a fatalistic view tragically eclipses the beauty of God’s work for undeserving and incapable sinners like you and me. To help us grapple with and grow to love this essential aspect of the gospel, consider the following three points about election.
1. Election is a biblical doctrine.
First, the doctrine is biblical. This should seem evident enough, as it is clearly spelled out in the section of Ephesians 1 quoted earlier. Nor is this the only place we run up against the concept in Scripture. Just a few verses later on Paul will say—even more bluntly—that we have been “predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). In Romans 8:29-30 we read,
For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he predestined, these he also called; whom he called, these he also justified; and whom he justified, these he also glorified.”
These are places in which these theological terms are used explicitly, but if we broaden our radar to also pick up allusions to and themes of choosing, predetermining, and electing, the list gets longer.
There are some out there who have a false notion of predestination and election, namely, that it was the invention of some ancient French madman named John Calvin. No doubt, Calvin would mourn the fact that history has dubbed this doctrine “Calvinism,” as though it somehow belonged more to him than to God.
Read More
Related Posts:

What God did in the midst of great suffering was remarkable. God used this situation to knit together a church family, to teach them to wait upon Him, and to show them His goodness even in the midst of great loss and strain. As I talked with one of the “Jonesboro 7” he testified to how God vindicated His word that those who suffer for the sake of righteousness are indeed blessed. The men and their families learned of the sufficiency and kindness of God even in affliction.

Editorial Note: What follows will be controversial and disturbing. Reader discretion is advised. In preparing this series, official documents and public comments have been extensively used to compose the narrative. No attempt is made to assign motives to any of the parties in this case. Reference will be made to inferences drawn by the judges on the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission as they carefully reviewed the case and noted the process was “abused” and offenses “imagined” by a Temporary Session of Elders against the Jonesboro 7. Any objection to the use of the term “abused” should be directed to the SJC Judges rather than the author of this series who simply reports the judgment of the PCA General Assembly regarding the actions of the Temporary Session in this case.
They wanted to see a gospel centered PCA congregation planted in their town, Jonesboro, Arkansas. It was harder than they thought it would be. In this instance, it was especially hard.
Tucked within the thousands of pages of the 2023 General Assembly Handbook is an innocuous sounding decision from the PCA Standing Judicial Commission (SJC), Harrell, et. al. v. Covenant Presbytery.
As I reviewed the SJC Decision, I was frightened, I was angry. I was concerned that what happened to the men whom I have come to call “The Jonesboro 7” could happen to anyone in the PCA.
The SJC even stated this about what the Temporary Session, comprised of Teaching and Ruling Elders from the Independent Presbyterian Church of Memphis, did:
the failure of the Indictments to include the specificity so obviously available is  unjustifiable under BCO 32-5, and we find that the broad Indictments were abused to the prejudice of the Accused who were not adequately informed of the charges against them.1
You read correctly; the PCA General Assembly used the verb abused in reference to the actions of a Session.
The “Jonesboro 7” were subjected to treatment that the General Assembly declared was “unfair” and a violation of “the basic principles of due process as required by our Standards.”
2 Note well: it was not some ephemeral, complicated, or arcane procedure that was violated by the Session, but basic principles.3
In the next weeks, I will be publishing analysis of the case, but I want to begin with several lessons I have learned that I believe others will find beneficial. It is important to consider the lessons of the case first, lest the articles analyzing the actions, testimony, trials, and travails of the case be found too discouraging or disturbing. I am also aware I may not be able to hold all my reader’s attention to the end of the series; a man has to know his limitations.
The lessons, I believe, are what matters most now. I believe the whole of the PCA can learn at least seven things from the tribulations of the “Jonesboro 7.”
1. The Judges on the SJC are Men of Great Integrity
We all have SJC decisions with which we disagree. But even as we disagree at times with some of their decisions or with the way they reviewed (or didn’t!) a lower court’s actions, I believe we should nonetheless admire the commitment and faithfulness of the SJC judges.
The Harrell decision demonstrates the profound integrity of the 22 judges who reviewed this case and their dedication to uphold the PCA Constitution. They are clearly men who take their vows seriously and who are willing to feed Christ’s lambs. The judges on the SJC showed a clear devotion to the cause of Christ and the welfare of His people as they unambiguously repudiated the actions of the Session.
The judges on the SJC did not hesitate to point out a Session had “abused” or done what was “unfair” as shown by the record of the case. When a Session falsely charges seven of Christ’s sheep under its care for daring to disagree whether a man should be “offered to the congregation as a candidate to serve as its pastor,” the SJC will uphold justice and vindicate Christ’s lambs against their accusers.4
One SJC judge, RE Jim Eggert, went so far as to say of this Session: “Session had no lawful authority to insist that the Accused stop resisting the Session’s attempts to ‘recommend’ the minister to the congregation”5
It would have been very easy for the SJC to side with the Elders from wealthy, tall-steepled IPC Memphis and deny the appeal of seven “dirt kickers” from a small city in Arkansas. But instead, and like their King, they took up the cause of the poor and helpless simply because it was right. We should be encouraged the Judges on the SJC love to do justice.
We should be thankful to be in the PCA and we should praise God he has granted judges who serve in this way, judges for whom words and vows mean something, and judges who have pastoral hearts.
2. Process Takes a Long Time
The ordeal for the “Jonesboro 7” began in August of 2020 and did not end until March of 2023 when the SJC decision vindicating them was officially released. During that time they were suspended from the Lord’s Table and deprived of the right to vote or speak in any potential congregational meeting. Even though ordinarily an appeal has the effect of suspending a censure, their Session took the step of leaving the censure in place while the men appealed.
Many times the “Jonesboro 7” could have simply walked away from Christ Redeemer Church and the PCA because of the treatment they endured at the hands of the Session of Elders from Memphis. But these men were committed to the Church and committed to the PCA. So they stayed the course and pursued justice through the process.
It was a painful season.
But because of the pain these men were willing to endure, because these men loved the Church enough to persevere through that pain, perhaps others will learn from their experience and learn from the SJC decision and future Sessions will refrain from the actions similar to what the PCA General Assembly declared to be “unjustifiable.”
Read More
Related Posts: