Skip to main content

A Priest out of Line: Hebrews 7

In Summary:

Well, Hebrews 7 continues the “wait, what is he talking about?” portion of Hebrews. Melchizedek is nearly the focus of this chapter—he’s not, Jesus is—and we just don’t know much about Melchizedek. Apart from the mentions in the Epsitle to the Hebrews, we would probably count him as a minor character from Genesis 14. Instead, we take a long, hard look at him as an important figure who is a “type” (literary example) of Christ.

The identity and heritage of Melchizedek is addressed in this chapter. Well, actually his lack of lineage. Melchizedek is spoken of as having no ancestry. Rather, he is identified as remaining a priest forever because his death is not noted in Scripture. (There’s two ways to see this: he never died, and was a theophany; he did die but it’s not recorded so he remains “listed” as a priest. Sound study does not solve this on the basis of this chapter alone.)

Melchizedek, though, is not the focus of the chapter. Neither are Abraham or Levi, who are also mentioned. Jesus is. Not just because the whole Bible is about Jesus but because the Patriarchal Age figures are brought up to show the supremacy of Christ over the Law. How so?

In Focus:

Let us make Hebrews 7:14 in focus today. Hebrews is addressing an early objection to Jesus as the One True High Priest of God. The priesthood, after all, is supposed to descend from the Levitical line. This rule goes back to Exodus and the whole golden calf problem. Levi’s descendants showed a zeal for God’s holiness that the other Israelites were disregarding and so God appointed the Levites as priests.

Jesus, though, is from the line of the tribe of Judah. For Him to be the High Priest (as Hebrews alleges,) He should have come from the Levites. Rather than resorting to all sorts of lineage gymnastics, though, the Lord provides the answer in this manner: even Levi, the great-grandson of Abraham, counted Melchizedek as a priest over him. (How? Because Abraham did, so it passed on.) Therefore, it’s possible to be a priest higher than the priestly line—and it is from this lineage that Jesus is accounted a priest. Not for biology but by the declaration of God.

In Practice:

One thing this does NOT mean, for the record, is that anybody else gets to come along and declare themselves a priest like Melchizedek. The author of Hebrews is declaring the fulfillment of that line just as much as the fulfillment of the Levitical line of priests and the Judahite line of kings. It all culminates with Jesus.

Beyond that, a few thoughts:

1. As a minister, this one speaks clearly to me: the frailty of human priests. I’m not a priest. Never have been, never will be—but just the same, if the priests needed daily sacrifices even with their insulated lives, how much more so do I need them? I’m not fit to be the priest of God’s people because I’m just as sinful. (7:26-27)

2. As a believer, stop trying to sort everyone and everything according to my own understanding. God works according to His character and His word, not according to my rationale. There will be times that this looks like I expect. And times it looks very different.

3. Furthermore, as a believer, proclaim the salvation in the great High Priest, Jesus. Not salvation according to religious traditions or spirituality, but according to the One who is perfect forever. (7:28)

In Nerdiness: 

Well, there’s plenty to nerd out about with Melchizedek, but we’ll leave it aside. You can find many viewpoints, including that he was really Jesus before the Incarnation, much like the Commander of the Army of Yahweh in Joshua 5-6. I’m not sure…check some Old Testament scholars on that idea.

And that’s actually one of the challenges about researching Melchizedek. This bears a challenge to you nerd folk: typically, we find a specialty area and pursue it. That’s great. Some concepts, though, break across those areas. Melchizedek is really an Old Testament figure. OT scholars are usually well-versed in Hebrew and other older Israelite issues. But the bulk of the Scriptural references to Melchizedek are found in Greek in the New Testament. One has to work across that divide to dig out the ideas.


In other words: build your silo, but don’t neglect the truth found in the other silos on the farm. They may interrelate more than you expect.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Independence Day 2017

I don’t know if Thomas Paine will be aggrieved that I paste his thoughts from Common Sense here, from the electronic edition. It’s a Public Domain work at this point, so hopefully none will be bothered that I am not paying for it...I think there is value in seeing the underlying reasons of Independence. I find a couple of things noteworthy in his introduction:First, he speaks of those who disagree and, while calling those out, holds the strength of his affirmative argument will be enough to straighten them out. We could do well to think more like that.Second, his final sentence should be a required view: the influence of reason and principle. Not self-interest masquerading as principle. Not party propaganda disguised as reason.That being said, not everything Paine said is right. If he and I lived at the same time, we’d argue religion over a great deal. However, the idea of “natural rights of man” follows from the idea of humanity as a special creation—that all are created equal and en…