Bible, Theology & Philosophy

Read Part 1 and Part 2.

The Order of Melchizedek

The writer to the Hebrews was distressed by the spiritual immaturity of his readers. He wanted to discuss theology with them—specifically, the calling of Christ as a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:10-14). He made it clear that the Hebrews had been saved long enough (“when for the time”) that they ought to have mastered this topic (“ye ought to be teachers”). Instead, he had to rehearse certain elementary teachings of biblical doctrine (“the first principles of the oracles of God”).

The writer’s disappointment with the immaturity of the Hebrew believers was what fueled the warning passage of chapter 6. Not until chapter 7 did he return to the theme that Christ is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. When he finally got back to it, however, he penned one of the most difficult and detailed arguments in all of Scripture. This argument is highly instructive concerning the nature of Christ’s high priesthood.

Nothing in Hebrews 7 is really new. Everything in the chapter is inferred from three sources. The first source is the Genesis account of Melchizedek, a three-verse snippet of narrative (Gen. 14:18-20). The second source is a single verse (Ps. 110:4) from a Messianic psalm. The third source is a general knowledge of the history and culture of Israel. From these short sources, the writer constructs an elaborate discussion of the high priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek. So detailed is the discussion that only the outlines can be explored here.

The full length version of this article appears in the November/December issue of Voice magazine.

When we walk into a local grocery store in the U.S., we face an abundance of choices unlike anywhere else in the world. The cereal aisle alone is a great example of how companies strive to offer something for everyone. We see cereals for the health-conscious and sugary cereals with cartoon-filled boxes promising delicious taste, unique shapes and hidden toy prizes. We see cereals for those who like fruit, for those who like sweetness, for those who need fiber, and for those who just like their breakfast plain and simple.

American churches have also adopted this trend of specialization. Almost all churches strive to have something for everyone. Babies and infants have a nursery. Toddlers and preschoolers have their own class. Many churches offer Children’s Church for grade-school kids. And youth ministries have been developed to meet the needs of adolescents as they progress through junior high and high school. Many churches also offer adult women’s and men’s ministries and classes for married couples and senior saints.

But this church structure has flaws.

The gap for singles

A gap exists in this common ministry structure—one that poses a danger to the future of many churches. Churches provide ministry for children and young people from birth through high school, and beyond that age, adult ministries usually range from young married’s classes through ministries to the elderly members.

This structure would be perfect for young people who get married right out of high school; they can transition from the youth group to the young marrieds group. But what about the vast majority of high school graduates who move on to college or enter the workforce and remain single?

Read Part 1.

A Qualified High Priest

Suppose you knew that someone was hidden around a corner, but you could see the shadow. If you really wanted to know something about the person, you could learn a good bit by examining the shadow. The shadow would reveal the outline of the person, but the revelation would be limited. It would lack details and it would probably distort the form. One thing you would know, however. The head of the shadow would correspond to the head of the person, chest to chest, knees to knees, and wherever the feet of the shadow ended, the feet of the person would begin.

The Old Testament high priests functioned as shadows of Christ. They gave people a glimpse of an outline that they would never otherwise have seen, even though they distorted the particulars. How could the details not be obscure when finite and sinful men were used to foreshadow the priesthood of Jesus?

Hebrews 5 is structured like a shadow that leads to a person. The shadow—the Levitical high priests—appears in the first four verses. Point by point, the writer describes certain essentials of their priesthood. Beginning in verse five, however, the reality appears, and the reality is Jesus Christ. In a striking mirror image, the writer reverses the same points that he has already covered, using them to explain the priesthood of Jesus. Along the way, the writer teaches an important lesson about the incarnation.

The point at which the shadow switches to the reality occurs in verses 4 and 5. That comparison has to do with the authority for high priesthood. First, the writer reminds his readers of what they all knew, namely that no one takes the honor of high priesthood for himself. Only those who are called by God can be priests.

This article is republished from the archives (December, 2008).

Republished with permission from Dr. Reluctant. In this series, Dr. Henebury responds to a collection of criticisms of dispensationalism entitled “95 Theses against Dispensationalism” written by a group called “The Nicene Council.” Read the series so far.

Thesis 86

Despite the tendency of some dispensationalist scholars to interpret the Kingdom Parables negatively, so that they view the movement from hundredfold to sixty to thirty in Matt 13:8 as marking “the course of the age,” and in Matt 13:31-33 “the mustard seed refers to the perversion of God’s purpose in this age, while the leaven refers to the corruption of the divine agency” (J. D. Pentecost), Christ presents these parables as signifying “the kingdom of heaven” which He came to establish and which in other parables he presents as a treasure.

Response

It has to said that the composers of these 95 Theses have not proven themselves shining examples in rightly representing the opinions of dispensationalists. A quick perusal of several authors (e.g. Pentecost, Things To Come and the commentaries on Matthew by Toussaint and by Glasscock) revealed they believed nothing of the sort about Matthew 13:8, unless, of course, it is the standard view that the four soils represent four kinds of receptors (hearts) and their attitudes to the Word. Those whose hearts receive the Word grow in understanding (Toussaint). Is this objectionable?

On the “Mustard Seed,” Ed Glasscock wisely states, “Trying to identify the birds is useless speculation, and to build doctrine from such obscure analogy is dangerous” (292). He may well be right. Pentecost’s negative view is based upon the way the Lord used “birds” in the previous parable (13:4, 19) so it cannot be brushed aside simply because it is “negative.” Perhaps Pentecost’s interpretation is wrong? Some dispensationalists disagree with it (e.g. Toussaint and Glasscock). Christian interpreters get it wrong sometimes. What one must ask is whether they provide any decent textual and theological arguments for their view. At any rate, one would not expect to be at the pointed end of a “thesis” just because certain brethren didn’t like your “negative” explanation.

The Seed of Abraham

The epistle to the Hebrews raises an interesting problem in 2:5-8. The writer opens with the observation that God did not subject the world to angels (5). In other words, angels were not given dominion over the created order. For proof he cites Psalm 8:4-6, which clearly declares that, though God has made the human race a little lower than the angels, He has crowned it with glory and honor and has placed everything under the feet of humans. Quite reasonably (for the author of Hebrews is an able reasoner), he infers that if everything was subjected to human dominion, then nothing in the created order was left outside human control (8).

The author notes a jarring discrepancy, however. While the psalmist declares that everything is under human dominion, experience teaches otherwise. Whereas nothing is supposed to be exempted from human control, what we observe is that many things are not subject to humans. This apparent contradiction requires explanation.

The explanation consists in two parts. First, the writer uses the expression, “not yet,” when he speaks of human dominion. While humans do not presently exercise the full rulership of creation, some day they will.

Second, the writer points to Jesus Christ, who is already crowned with glory and honor (9), the very dignity that Psalm 8 confers upon all humanity. Yet he notes that it was not always so. Surprisingly, he declares that for a little while, Jesus Himself was made lower than the angels. How can this startling declaration be true? In what respect was Jesus made lower than the angels? The writer gives a clear answer: for the suffering of death. No angel can die, not even a fallen one. By taking a mortal nature into Himself, God’s Son stooped to an experience that no angel will ever share.