- Jun 8, 2021
- 3,217
- 751
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Heb 7.1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
Understanding literary conventions and biblical language-types is important when dealing with passages like this. The Bible is to be literally believed, but not all that is said in the Bible is to be interpreted ultra-literally.
I agree with "X" that this is spoken to emphasize the comparison of priesthoods, Christ's priesthood with the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. The language sounds literal, but when the language is used in such an "impossible" way, it obviously draws us to conclude that the language is some kind of figure of speech.
And this is true, I believe, in this case. The author makes it sound as if Melechizedek himself is Christ/divine, but since he cannot be sinless and divine, he is only being used to depict a comparison with Christ's priesthood, which is eternal and divine.
Mel. is not without beginning and end of days--only his priesthood is commissioned without any regard to Mel.'s birth and death, which contrasts with the priesthood under the Law, which is a matter of succession within a particular tribal genealogy.
That is, Mel's priesthood, like Christ's priesthood, is not a priesthood based on succession, but rather, on God's word alone. Mel. did not inherit his priesthood from a predecessor who had died. He was simply commissioned as priest based on God's word alone, and not on any ritual succession.
Mel's priesthood did not continue after his death, but it was not contingent upon a succession of priests to extend it indefinitely into the future. It existed irregardless of Mel's mortality, and took place with no regard for the problem of human sin, which is what the Law and the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood dealt with.
The point in all this is that God provided the great father of our faith, Abraham, with an individual greater than him, whose priesthood Abraham was subjected to and who therefore acknowledged that this priesthood would be greater than anything or any priesthood that would come through him.
Such a person existing indicated that the priesthood coming from Abraham was limited, and had to pay tribute to the priesthood of Christ, whose priesthood is even greater than Melchizedek's, and not just greater than the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.
Christ's priesthood was not subject to the rules of the Law and its priesthood. His priesthood transcends the succession of priests under the Law, who are born and die, extending their priesthood indefinitely into the future. And Christ was not subject to the Law of Sin, which the Law of Moses and its priesthood dealt with.
By contrast, Christ's priesthood remains his own, without any need for succession after death. He rose from the dead, retaining his priesthood forever, just as Mel's priesthood was not subject to the terms of succession dictated by human mortality, or death.
Being sinless, Christ had no need to rely upon the Law of Moses and its remedy for sin. He provided a priesthood that liberates from sin by a person who was without sin. And so, we are liberated not by the priesthood of the Law, but only in a final way by the priesthood of the sinless Christ. There need be no successor for him since he will never die again.
Understanding literary conventions and biblical language-types is important when dealing with passages like this. The Bible is to be literally believed, but not all that is said in the Bible is to be interpreted ultra-literally.
I agree with "X" that this is spoken to emphasize the comparison of priesthoods, Christ's priesthood with the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. The language sounds literal, but when the language is used in such an "impossible" way, it obviously draws us to conclude that the language is some kind of figure of speech.
And this is true, I believe, in this case. The author makes it sound as if Melechizedek himself is Christ/divine, but since he cannot be sinless and divine, he is only being used to depict a comparison with Christ's priesthood, which is eternal and divine.
Mel. is not without beginning and end of days--only his priesthood is commissioned without any regard to Mel.'s birth and death, which contrasts with the priesthood under the Law, which is a matter of succession within a particular tribal genealogy.
That is, Mel's priesthood, like Christ's priesthood, is not a priesthood based on succession, but rather, on God's word alone. Mel. did not inherit his priesthood from a predecessor who had died. He was simply commissioned as priest based on God's word alone, and not on any ritual succession.
Mel's priesthood did not continue after his death, but it was not contingent upon a succession of priests to extend it indefinitely into the future. It existed irregardless of Mel's mortality, and took place with no regard for the problem of human sin, which is what the Law and the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood dealt with.
The point in all this is that God provided the great father of our faith, Abraham, with an individual greater than him, whose priesthood Abraham was subjected to and who therefore acknowledged that this priesthood would be greater than anything or any priesthood that would come through him.
Such a person existing indicated that the priesthood coming from Abraham was limited, and had to pay tribute to the priesthood of Christ, whose priesthood is even greater than Melchizedek's, and not just greater than the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.
Christ's priesthood was not subject to the rules of the Law and its priesthood. His priesthood transcends the succession of priests under the Law, who are born and die, extending their priesthood indefinitely into the future. And Christ was not subject to the Law of Sin, which the Law of Moses and its priesthood dealt with.
By contrast, Christ's priesthood remains his own, without any need for succession after death. He rose from the dead, retaining his priesthood forever, just as Mel's priesthood was not subject to the terms of succession dictated by human mortality, or death.
Being sinless, Christ had no need to rely upon the Law of Moses and its remedy for sin. He provided a priesthood that liberates from sin by a person who was without sin. And so, we are liberated not by the priesthood of the Law, but only in a final way by the priesthood of the sinless Christ. There need be no successor for him since he will never die again.
