Because of the great privilege of continual access into the very presence of God himself, we should look for no other city, temple, sacrifice or priesthood. The perfections of Jesus provide all we need, both for this life and for that which is to come.

Introduction

People in today’s secular world ordinarily think very little of priests and priesthoods, of sacrifice, ritual and worship. But whenever desperation strikes a man, he casts about for someone who can get aid for him from the Almighty. Sooner or later everyone wants to reach out to the resources found only in the Creator. Despair may seize him as it did King Saul, so that he resorts to a witch. Or a person may be overpowered with a sense of guilt, as was David after he had committed adultery with Bathsheba, until he acknowledges his guilt before God’s prophet (Psalm 51). Eventually everyone turns to a prophet, a priest, or a witch, or to prayer, sacrifice or ritual.

Israel was unique among peoples of the world in that God himself appointed a priesthood for the nation-with accompanying laws of sacrifice and ritual-which carefully defined the right way to approach God. The laws of the Levitical priesthood along with its festival days and sacrifices, contained touches of glamour and glory. Colorful robes, impressive ceremonies, feasts, washings, the waving of recently harvested grain and the chanting of divine benedictions all contributed to the allurement of the priestly order of the old covenant.

So it should not be surprising that throughout the centuries the Jewish people have had difficulty relinquishing these treasured ceremonies. They all contributed to making them feel right and good in the presence of God. Furthermore, when the new covenant came along with its bare essentials of minimalistic ritual, it seemed as though something significant had been lost. Following hard on the heels of the birth of Christianity was the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. Now no proper, God-appointed place existed on the face of the earth for the rituals of the old covenant to continue. This circumstance has prevailed for the past two thousand years.

Some groups of Christians and Jews have expressed the sentiment that it has been long enough. The time has come for the erection of a new temple and the reinstitution of a Levitical priesthood to function fully in the offering of sacrifices. With the repossession of the land by the Jews and establishment of the state of Israel, expectations have been rising. Sentiment has even been developing toward the idea of removing the Muslim Dome of the Rock from the peak of Mount Zion so that a third temple can be built there.

Sympathy for the plight of religious Jews who have no place to offer their sacrifices is understandable. Have these people not suffered enough? Should they not be free to worship God in their own way?

Yet the new covenant documents says something about the value of these rituals, whether or not they are renewed. Once Jesus has been acknowledged as the promised Messiah, the old covenant rituals must be reevaluated.

The letter to the Hebrews shows that its author had a special concern in this area as he interacted with the struggles of Jewish converts. He had a full appreciation of the old covenant arrangements, as displayed in his reciting the divine sanction placed on the tabernacle’s construction: “See that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mount” (Heb. 8:5). But he also had a deep understanding of the superiority of the new covenant, its new temple, priesthood and sacrifice. In particular, its priesthood was uniquely significant to him, for it had to do directly with the person and ministry of Jesus.

This interest in the priesthood of Christ and its impact on the worship practices of the people of the new covenant manifests itself throughout the book of Hebrews. But the extensive treatment of the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, as mentioned in Psalm 110:4, provides a special focal point for the writer’s analysis of this subject. The present study will concentrate on his extensive development of the implications of Psalm 110:4 regarding priesthood and worship for the new covenant as it is found in Hebrews 7, which is the climactic point of the book.

The writer begins to discuss the Messiah’s priesthood after describing the danger facing his readers, for this danger made most necessary a ready access to the Almighty. A whole generation of Israelites fell in the wilderness without entering the rest of God, and he did not want his contemporaries to have the same sad experience. They faced the same danger in their own day, and the church continues to face it today. God’s oath that the Israelites would not enter into his rest could apply to those who profess to be God’s people today. For “nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight” (Heb. 4:13). In the light of this ongoing soul-scrutiny by the Almighty, the believer today must avail himself fully of the high priesthood of Christ. Only the constant work of a priestly mediator between the sinner and his holy God can guarantee the realization of full salvation. Jesus is that priestly mediator. He has gone into the heavens, he can empathize with our weaknesses, he presents his atoning blood-sacrifice of himself, he provides grace and mercy in our time of need (Heb. 4:14-16).

From this introductory point, the writer develops the nature of Messiah’s priesthood from the old covenant perspective, bringing his discussion quickly to Psalm 110:4, which speaks of the Messiah’s priesthood “according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:1-10). But then he recognizes a major problem in proceeding any further. His readers have remained spiritual babes far too long. Their immaturity in being “slow to learn,” in failing to develop the capacity to distinguish good from evil, provides a major stumbling-block to his proceeding any further with this exalted subject. If they cannot comprehend the life-changing truth he was about to present, what point would there be in his going any further?

The same situation prevails in much of the church today. All kinds of heresies, sins and immoralities have taken up residence in the contemporary church. Because of spiritual immaturity, the church is not capable of dealing with these problems. As a consequence, many confessing Christians cannot seem to “stay out of trouble”.

So what shall the writer do? Having brought them (and us) to the tantalizing brink of initiation into the deeper truths about our messianic high priest, will he now drop the subject and move on to other things more suitable for his readers’ level of spiritual maturity? Or will he proceed to develop this most precious doctrine, knowing his readers cannot assimilate its significance despite their need for it? Will he reach out with the fond hope that somewhere along the way his readers will “catch on” to the significance of the matters he is discussing?

This wise man of God chooses to follow neither of these options. Bold man that he is, he stops right at this point and deals with the problem of spiritual immaturity that confronts him. So in chapter 6 he admonishes his readers to leave the elementary teachings behind them, and to stop their childish quibbling about the basics (Heb. 6:1, 2). God permitting, this they will do right then and there (Heb. 6:3). Turning away from childishness that obstructs spiritual growth is not something that necessarily takes a long time. Growth may take time, but one can adopt a healthier attitude right away.

Having offered his admonition, the writer then reinforces it with a warning (Heb. 6:4-8). A person cannot simply keep tasting the good things of God without properly absorbing them, or they will become a curse to him. Good soil will produce a good crop when the rains come, but the same rain will produce thorns in thorny soil. A fruitless soil faces the constant danger of being cursed. So his hearers must take heed right now so that he can move them on to more fruitful responses to the rich truths about their messianic high priest. Otherwise the very teaching they now are hearing could become the occasion for their falling into deeper sin.

To make sure that this transition to readiness for mature growth in Christ is taking place right then and there, the writer then joins a strong word of encouragement to his admonition and his warning (Heb. 6:9-20). Even though he speaks in threatening ways, he is confident of the kind of response he will get from them. God will never forget their work, their love, their continuing helpfulness toward others. They simply must be patient as was Abraham. God assured him with an oath that he would inherit all the promises, despite his long waiting. Our hope is just as sure, if not more so, since in fulfillment of the divine oath Jesus has been inducted into the high priesthood and has entered the inner sanctuary. This position he continues to hold as “a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6:20).

Now the writer is ready to proceed with the development of his principal subject.^[i] How thankful the church of today should be that he faced the problem of his contemporaries head-on so that he could move ahead with his elaboration of the significance of Messiah’s High Priesthood. Chapter 7 then becomes the pivotal point of the book; with its focus directed to an exposition of Psalm 110:4: “The Lord has sworn, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek’” (RSV).^[ii] This chapter represents one of the fullest expositions of an old covenant passage that can be found anywhere in the scriptures of the new covenant. An outline of the treatment of Psalm 110:4 by this passage is as follows:

1. This “MELCHIZEDEK” (vv. 1-10)
2. “AFTER THE ORDER OF” Melchizedek (vv. 11-15)
3. You are a priest “FOREVER” (vv. 16-19)
4. “THE LORD HAS SWORN”, you are a priest (vv. 20-25)
5. “You are a PRIEST” (vv. 26-28)

The challenge of the writer’s exposition continues into the present. The church of today must lay aside its spiritual ineptness and grow in its understanding of the significance of the high priestly work of Jesus Christ for its worship today. A verse-by-verse exposition may serve as the most effective way to recover a message that has been largely lost.

1. “This MELCHIZEDEK” (vv. 1-10)

Heb 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, the one who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him.

The opening reference to “this Melchizedek” naturally leads to the question, “Which Melchizedek?” Since only one historical person named “Melchizedek” appears in Scripture, it would seem obvious that he must be referring to Abraham’s contemporary.^[iii] However, the designation has a fuller significance than might first be imagined. For to be more precise, he refers also to the “Melchizedek” of Psalm 110:4, and not only to the historical figure that confronted Abraham in Genesis 14. In other words, this reference brings up a composite picture of Melchizedek. He is indeed the priest/king who confronted Abraham. But he also is the messianic figure celebrated by David in Psalm 110 who currently is seated at God’s right hand not only to intercede but also to rule.

This drawing together of more than one reference in the old covenant scriptures to the same item of exegetical and theological significance defines one of the major stylistic characteristics of the writer to the Hebrews. This capacity to sweep across the whole of the scriptures and order the entirety of God’s truth on a specific subject so that it illuminates the climactic state of the new covenant era is vivified in the author’s treatment of the sabbath principle in Scripture. He moves easily from God’s “rest” on the seventh day of creation, to the failure of Joshua to give Israel its “rest”, to the denial of “rest” to a rebellious people as that denial is addressed to every generation in Psalm 95, to the “rest” that still remains for the people of God (Heb. 3:11-4:11 ). To put the exegetical work of this amazing man in terms familiar to modern student of Scripture, the author may be seen in this passage as “unpacking” the full biblical-theological significance of the man Melchizedek.

Melchizedek is immediately identified by the writer as “king of Salem” and “priest of God Most High”. He combined in himself both the offices of king and priest. In later Israelite history, this combination of offices was disallowed. But the author of Psalm 110 wanted to stress that the Messiah would hold both of these offices, just like Melchizedek. The Messiah would “sit at God’s right hand” in a kingly role (Psa. 110:1) even as he functioned also as a “priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Psa. 110:4 NASB).

But not only was Melchizedek distinctive as a king-priest. He also stood out in the fact that the kingly role he filled and the priestly office he maintained both were exercised in domains of prominence. He was king of Salem, which was bound for redemptive-historical significance as (Jeru)Salem. Furthermore, among the individuals to whom he ministered was Abraham, the father of the faithful. Abraham had proven himself to be a man of distinction by overcoming the kings who had invaded their territory and had recovered all their booty. Yet mysterious King Melchizedek blessed Abraham the father of the faithful rather than Abraham’s blessing Melchizedek. Normally the conquering hero would distribute the blessings as he returned with the spoils of war.^[iv] But in this case, the already-proven warrior receives his blessing from this previously obscure person. The man Melchizedek was indeed a man of prominence, and so could serve as a fitting figure for subsequent theological development throughout redemptive history, first in the psalms and then in the scriptures of the new covenant. He also was distinctive in his day as a man of personal piety. As Calvin says:

It was doubtless no common thing that in a country abounding in the corruptions of so many superstitions, a man was found who preserved the pure worship of God; for on one side he was nigh to Sodom and Gomorrah, and on the other to the Canaanites, so that he was on every side encompassed by ungodly men.^[v]

This man also exercised the priestly office with a prophetic dimension. Several aspects of his person made him able to serve appropriately as a prophetical type of Christ, as the subsequent verses in Hebrews show.

Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham divided a tithe of all his spoils. First of all his name may be interpreted as meaning “king of righteousness”. But then he also was king of Salem, which means “king of peace”.

Abraham voluntarily paid to this man Melchizedek a tenth of the spoils he had reclaimed after his pursuit of the eastern kings that had kidnapped Lot. The writer sees this payment of the tithe to Melchizedek by Abraham as a matter of some significance. In this context, the writer exposits the significance of “Melchizedek”, the name and the person.

The name “Melchizedek” literally means “my king is righteousness,” and the writer sees significance in the designation in accord with the prominence attached to names in the biblical age. Melchizedek was a righteous king, in contrast to the oppressive kings that manifested themselves on the face of the earth from the earliest days (cf. Gen. 10:6-11).

The second designation of Melchizedek is “king of peace.” This observation concerning the man derives from the name of the city or the territory which he governed. It ultimately received the designation “Jeru-Salem”, meaning “city” or “foundation of peace.”^[vi] This designation of his place of rule as a city characterized by “peace” may be regarded as a commendation for Melchizedek. The place where he ruled was blessed with peace.

So the first aspect of this man Melchizedek to be noted is that he was a king, a believing and righteous king who brought peace to his domain. Clearly he appears as a godly leader among his people, and in the context of the history of redemption he could be appropriately considered as a forerunner of the messianic savior that the old covenant people anticipated with ever greater understanding.

Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he continues as a priest forever.

The statement that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother,” if taken literally, could lead to the conclusion that this person must have been a pre-incarnate manifestation of the second person of the trinity. But it is more likely that the writer of Hebrews is building his observations on the fact that Melchizedek appeared without any tracing of his genealogy in a book focusing on people’s origins. Since Melchizedek appears in redemptive history in this unique manner, it is appropriate that he is presented by the writer of Hebrews as having been “made like the Son of God”. In this unique way, Melchizedek in his priesthood serves appropriately as a prophetic figure depicting a perpetual priesthood. Having neither beginning of days nor end of life, he continues in unbroken fashion as one who has immediate access to God.

To this point the writer has drawn only from the historical record about Melchizedek. But he is anticipating the way in which Psalm 110:4 will present him as “a priest forever.” As a priest who “remains forever”, this Melchizedek will stand in a different category than the priesthood established under the Mosaic covenant.

Heb 7:4 Now consider just how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tithe of the best of his spoils.

Melchizedek’s greatness is measured by the respect paid to him by Abraham.^[vii] In the analysis of the writer, the great patriarch of Israel gave not merely the tithe; but the choicest, the best of the spoils. As honorable as may be the position of Abraham, this man Melchizedek ranks above him. The Jews of New Testament times might boast about having Abraham as their father. But Melchizedek is greater than Abraham and is not even a Jew. The choicest of the spoils of war Abraham turned over to him, acknowledging him to be God’s emissary on earth to receive his gifts.

Is it possible? Can it be? Could a Gentile be presented in Scripture as greater than the greatest of the Jews in the Old Testament?

Yes, it is possible. It is true. The Gentile blesses the Jew.

Considering the role of Melchizedek as a foreshadowing of Christ, a further point may be noted. If the shadow is greater than the patriarch, how much more is the reality! If the priesthood of Melchizedek was greater than the Levitical priesthood, how much greater still must Christ himself be as a priest!^[viii]

Heb 7:5, 6 Now the sons of Levi who receive the office of priest have a commandment in the law to collect a tithe from the people, even from those who are their brothers, although they are descended from the loins of Abraham. But this one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tithe from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises.

The brief historical interchange between Abraham as the father of the Levitical priesthood and the man Melchizedek indicates a superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek over Levi.^[ix] The one who was not reckoned according to the genealogy of Abraham collected tithes from Abraham himself and blessed him. Abraham had been promised that in him all the families of the earth would be blessed. Yet Melchizedek blesses the “blesser”. This fact establishes the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek over the priesthood of Levi that descended from Abraham. For Melchizedek stood outside Abraham’s genealogy, and by receiving his tithe and blessing him, he showed himself to be the contact with God that was needed by the patriarch.

This ancient fact eventually proved to have significant consequences for future generations. If ever another priest should arise that would be appointed according to the order of Melchizedek, inevitably he would stand above the Levitical priesthood of the past.

Heb 7:7 But apart from any controversy the lesser is blessed by the greater.

In one sense or another, the person bestowing the blessing must be superior to the person being blessed. A millionaire may be forced to borrow a quarter from a shiftless bum for a phone call if he has just been robbed. In that sense, the bum is better off than the millionaire. So when Abraham received a blessing from Melchizedek, he held a lesser role in God’s plan of redemption than did Melchizedek. Even though Abraham may have been the wealthier, and even the specified heir of God’s redemptive promises, yet Melchizedek blessed him. This fact indicates that in the realm of access to God through worship Melchizedek was better than Abraham.

Heb 7:8 And on the one hand men who die receive tithes, but on the other hand witness is borne that he continues to live.

One priesthood was staffed by men who died, while the other was represented by a person concerning whom it was witnessed that he lived forever. This witness is brought forward by the fact that no father, no mother and no end of life is mentioned with respect to Melchizedek. As a consequence, this man can serve well as a figure for an eternal priesthood.

Heb 7:9, 10 So it might be said that through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid a tithe, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

The reasoning of writer may seem strange to the modern mind. What is the sense behind the idea that the action of a person in one generation may be reckoned as the action of another person in a subsequent generation? As strange as it may seem, it fits the pattern of biblical representations. Adam acted as a representative man for the whole of the human race, and the high priest of Israel acted for the whole of the nation on the day of atonement. In a similar way, Abraham acted for Aaron in acknowledging the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek.

Read More