|
Let Us Go On By Arlen L. Chitwood www.lampbroadcast.org
Chapter One From Aaron to Melchizedek
For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.
He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray, since he himself is also subject to weakness.
Because of this he is required as for the people, so also for himself, to offer sacrifices for sins.
And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was.
So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: "You are My Son, today I have begotten You."
As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 5:1-6)
Aaron was a minister in the sanctuary during that period when the children of Israel, under Moses, traversed the wilderness on their pilgrim journey from Egypt to Canaan. These Israelites constituted a nation that had experienced death (via a substitute) in Egypt, burial on the western banks of the Red Sea in Egypt, and resurrection on the eastern banks of the Sea in the wilderness. The first had been set aside and the second established (Hebrews 10:9); and this nation, under Moses, passed through these experiences for one central purpose. This nation was to be established within a theocracy in the land of Canaan as God's firstborn son; and, occupying this position, the Gentile nations of the earth were to be both subject to and blessed through Israel.
God had previously made certain promises to Abraham, and He had established a covenant with Abraham concerning the land wherein these promises were to be realized. Before Abraham ever left Ur of the Chaldees, God revealed His plans and purposes in relation to Abraham, his progeny, and the Gentile nations of the earth. Then, once Abraham had left Ur and entered into the land of Canaan, God established a covenant with him concerning the land itself (Genesis 12:1-3; 13:14-17; 15:18-21; 17:7, 8).
Within God's plans and purposes, a nation, separate and distinct from the Gentile nations, was to be brought into existence through Abraham. The descendants of Abraham (through Isaac and Jacob [Genesis 17:18, 19; 21:12; 27:29]), comprising this separate and distinct nation, would come under God's direct blessing; but such would not be the case with any Gentile nation. The Gentile nations of the earth were to be blessed only through the nation emanating from the loins of Abraham, the nation of Israel.
And these blessings were to be realized by and through Israel only as this nation dwelled in a particular land the land of Canaan, to which Abraham had been called when he left Ur. God, through an unconditional and everlasting covenant gave this land to Abraham and his seed (Genesis 13:14-17; 15:18-21; 17:7, 8; 26:3, 4; 28:13, 14); and the seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob has held (and continues to hold today) the title deed to this land for one central purpose, recorded in Genesis 12:1-3.
Then, in keeping with Genesis 9:26, 27 (cf. Zech. 14:21), the Gentile nations being blessed through Israel were also to be subject to Israel. Israel was to be placed at the head of the nations (cf. Genesis 22:17, 18; Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 7:6; 28:1), within a theocracy. God Himself was to dwell in the midst of His people (cf. Exodus 40:34-38; Lev. 26:11, 12; Joel 2:27-32), blessings were to be poured out on the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 28:2-14), and these blessings were to flow through Israel to the nations of the earth (Genesis 12:3). That is, the nations of the earth were to be subject to Israel God's firstborn son, a kingdom of priests and, in this manner, be blessed through Israel.
This is how it was to have been under the old covenant during the days of Moses, and later Joshua; and this is how it one day will be when God makes a new covenant with the house of Israel during the days of the Son of Man.
During Moses' day, Aaron was a minister in the sanctuary on behalf of a people who had been redeemed from Egypt for the purpose at hand. This was an earthly sanctuary, and the purpose at hand was earthly. The Israelites had been redeemed and called out from one part of the earth to occupy a particular position in another part of the earth, within a theocracy.
In the antitype, Christ is presently ministering in a heavenly sanctuary (after which the earthly was patterned), and He is ministering on behalf of a people who have been redeemed from the present world for a particular purpose. Christians are presently being called out from this world to one day occupy positions in heavenly places (paralleling Israel's earthly calling in a type-antitype framework [called to be "kings and priests," "a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people"]), within a theocracy (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 5:10; cf. Exodus 19:5, 6).
And Christ, ministering in the heavenly sanctuary today, is ministering after the order of Aaron. He is ministering on the basis of shed blood on behalf of a redeemed people removed from this world for a purpose, paralleling Israel's removal from Egypt for a purpose.
The Melchizedek priesthood though is an entirely different matter and comes into view at a later point in time. Melchizedek was a king-priest in Jerusalem, not a minister in the sanctuary as Aaron in the past or as Christ during the present time. There's nothing recorded in Scripture about Melchizedek in connection with a sanctuary and shed blood. This was the type ministry Aaron occupied, not Melchizedek. And this is exactly the same type ministry Christ presently occupies.
Thus, to associate the present high priestly ministry of Christ with the Melchizedek priesthood is not correct at all. Christ though is presently a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," but only in the same sense that Christ was also born "King of the Jews" (cf. Matthew 2:2; Hebrews 6:19, 20). Christ has yet to enter into either position; and both will be realized in that coming day when Christ comes forth as "King" in the day of His power. Or, to state matters another way, both will be realized in that coming day when Christ comes forth as the great King-Priest after the order of Melchizedek.
The latter part of Hebrews, chapter four deals with Christ's present ministry in the sanctuary (patterned after the order of Aaron); but Hebrews, chapter five is transitional. Chapter five moves the reader from Christ's present ministry in the sanctuary to that future time when He comes forth from the sanctuary and assumes a different type ministry. This chapter moves one from the antitype of Aaron (present) to the antitype of Melchizedek (future).
The Death of the Priest
In Numbers, chapter thirty-five there is the account of God instructing the children of Israel to set aside six cities to be "cities for refuge." And within this account one will find central truths surrounding that future time which we find in Hebrews, chapter five when the present high priestly ministry of Christ, after the order of Aaron, is concluded and Christ comes forth from the sanctuary as the great King-Priest, after the order of Melchizedek.
Three of the cities of refuge were to be on the east side of Jordan, and the three remaining were to be on the west side of Jordan (Numbers 35:14). The three cities on the east side of Jordan were selected by Moses prior to his death and the subsequent entrance of the Israelites into the land of Canaan (Deuteronomy 4:41-43); and the three cities on the west side of Jordan were selected by the children of Israel under the leadership of Joshua following their entrance into the land (Joshua 20:1-7).
These cities were set aside to provide a sanctuary for any man who killed another man through an unpremeditated act. The divine decree given to Noah and his sons following the Flood required the death of the slayer at the hands of man: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man." (Genesis 9:6). And God's injunction concerning capital punishment for a capital crime was later reiterated to Moses and is part of the Mosaic Economy as well (Exodus 20:13; 21:12).
The command concerning capital punishment for a capital crime was thus given to Noah and his sons 900 years before it was delivered to the children of Israel under Moses. Consequently, man not being under the Mosaic Economy today has nothing to do with the validity or non-validity of capital punishment for a capital crime, for not only does the biblical origin of this injunction precede the giving of the law through Moses but the command given to Noah and his sons (approx. 2,300 B.C.) has never been repealed.
Although capital punishment for a capital offense has never been repealed, provision was later made for a man who killed another man unintentionally. This was the divinely established purpose for setting aside the six cities of refuge (cf. Exodus 21:12, 13). These cities were to be located at points where at least one city would be easily accessible to any Israelite living in the land of Canaan. And should one Israelite kill another Israelite through accidental means unintentionally he could flee to the nearest city of refuge and be provided a sanctuary.
It fell to the lot of the near kinsman of the person slain to fulfill God's injunction concerning capital punishment for a capital crime. The near kinsman was to confront the slayer and, in turn, slay him. God's requirement in the matter was blood for blood (Numbers 35:16-21; cf. Deuteronomy 19:21).
God's previous instructions to Noah and his sons remained unchanged within the framework of God's instructions to Moses. Something though was added to these instructions within the Mosaic Economy. Provision was made for the person guilty of accidental, unpremeditated murder. And once the Israelite guilty of such an act had taken advantage of that provision once the slayer had fled to and was inside the walls of one of the six designated cities of refuge the near kinsman, so long as the slayer remained in this place, couldn't touch him.
Any individual though who fled to one of the cities of refuge must, at a later date, be returned to the area where the slaying occurred and stand before a judicial court; and at least two witnesses were required to testify against the man.
If he was found to be guilty of willful murder, he would no longer be granted sanctuary in a city of refuge. Rather, he would be turned over to the near kinsman to be slain; and the near kinsman, slaying the man, would not be guilty of blood himself. But if he, on the other hand, was found to be guilty only of involuntary manslaughter, he would be returned to the safety of the city of refuge to which he had previously fled (Numbers 35:22-28).
Then there is the matter of a ransom for the life of the one found to be guilty only of involuntary manslaughter. No ransom though was provided for the life of a person guilty of willful, voluntary manslaughter. Rather, he was to forfeit his own life (blood for blood). The ransom was a provision solely for the one committing involuntary manslaughter. But there was a stipulation: The ransom could not be used until the death of the high priest (Numbers 35:28, 32).
Once the high priest in the camp of Israel had died and the ransom had been used, the individual previously found to be guilty only of involuntary manslaughter was then free to leave the particular city of refuge where he had been provided a sanctuary and return to the land of his possession. And once this had occurred, the near kinsman no longer had any claim on the individual.
1. Israel, the Slayer
In the Old Testament (in the type) it was individual Israelites who found themselves guilty of manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) and, consequently, in a position where they would either be slain or be granted protection in a city of refuge. Today (in the antitype) it is the entire nation of Israel which finds itself guilty of manslaughter and in a position to either be slain or be granted protection.
The nation of Israel is guilty of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. The paschal lamb was given to Israel, and only Israel could slay this lamb (Exodus 12:1ff). Jesus was the Paschal Lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7), to Whom all the sacrificial lambs in the Old Testament pointed; and only Israel could have slain Jesus, which is exactly what, according to Scripture, occurred (Acts 2:23, 36; 3:12-15). But how is Israel's act to be reckoned? Was it a premeditated act or an unpremeditated act?
If it was a premeditated act, the nation would have to be cut off. No ransom could be provided (it would have to be blood for blood; the nation would have to pay with its own life); nor, if a premeditated act, could the nation ever be allowed to return to the land of her possession (which would mean, in the final analysis, that God's promises to Abraham, beginning with Genesis 12:1-3, could never be realized).
However, if Jesus was delivered into Israel's hands after a manner that would allow the nation's act of crucifying her Messiah to be looked upon as unpremeditated murder i.e., allow the nation's act to be looked upon as having been done through ignorance then Israel could be granted protection and a ransom could be provided. And beyond that, the ransom could one day be used by the nation, at which time Israel would be free to return to the land of her possession (allowing God's promises to Abraham, beginning with Genesis 12:1-3, to be fulfilled).
The biblical testimony concerning the manner in which the nation's act must be viewed was given by Jesus Himself at Golgotha; and the same testimony was later provided by Peter, following the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
Note the words of Jesus: " Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34a). Then note the words of Peter: "You men of Israel you denied the Holy One and the Just [One], and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of Life, whom God has raised from the dead And now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers" (Acts 3:12, 14, 15, 17).
Thus, Jesus was delivered into the hands of Israel (cf. Exodus 21:13; Acts 2:23) after a manner which not only allowed the Jewish people to act after the described fashion but also prevented them from acting after any other fashion as well. Consequently, Israel is to be granted protection, a ransom will be provided, and the nation will be free to return to the land of her possession after the death of the high priest at which time all of God's promises to Abraham, beginning with Genesis 12:1-3, will be fulfilled.
2. The High Priest and the Ransom
The word ransom (Numbers 35:31, 32 [translated "satisfaction," KJV]) is from a cognate form of the word for "atonement" in the Hebrew text. The underlying thought behind "atonement" is to cover; and that is the same thought expressed by the "ransom" in Numbers, chapter thirty-five. The ransom provided a covering a covering from view, a putting away, a blotting out of the previous capital act (an unpremeditated act). And once the ransom had been used, which could be only after the death of the high priest, the whole matter was put away. The person was then free to return to the land of his possession; and the near kinsman of the one slain could no longer have any claim on him whatsoever, for the matter had been put away and could never be brought up again.
The ransom for Israel's capital offense has already been paid. Jesus paid this ransom at Calvary. However, although atonement for Israel's sin has already been paid, the nation presently blinded, in part cannot avail herself of the atonement or return to the land of her possession until the death of the high priest.
In the camp of Israel there was only one high priest at any one time. At the time of the high priest's death, he was succeeded by another from the Aaronic line; and the high priestly ministry in the Aaronic line continued in this manner, after this fashion.
Aaron ministered in the sanctuary in the earthly tabernacle, with blood, on behalf of the people. Jesus, on the other hand, is presently ministering in the heavenly sanctuary, with blood, on behalf of the people. And, as evident from Hebrews, chapter five, along with other related Scripture, the Lord's present ministry after the order of Aaron will not continue indefinitely. There is coming a day when this ministry will end, and that day, along with events which will occur relative to Israel in that day, was typified by the death of the high priest in the camp of Israel and events which occurred relative to the slayer when the high priest died.
It will be in that day not before that Israel will have her national Passover (the nation will avail herself of the ransom that has already been paid) and be free to return to the land of her possession. So long as Christ occupies His present position in the heavenly sanctuary, Israel cannot avail herself of the paid ransom and return to this land. Israel must remain in her present condition (described in Romans 11:25) throughout the present dispensation; and, according to related Scripture, Israel will not be removed from this condition until a few years beyond the present dispensation, at the end of the age, the end of the Tribulation.
Israel, as the two disciples on the Emmaus road in Luke 24:13ff, must continue in a blinded condition until the resurrected Christ, by His personal presence at His second coming, opens the Old Testament Scriptures to their understanding (cf. vv. 16, 25-27, 31).
Israel's eyes will be opened, and a nation will be born in a day through Israel availing herself of the paid ransom (i.e., a nation will be born in a day through Israel having her national Passover in fulfillment of Exodus 12:7). And this will occur only after Christ terminates His present ministry, departs the heavenly sanctuary, and comes forth as the great King-Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Christ must personally be in Israel's presence, here on earth, at the time the nation avails herself of the ransom that He has already paid (cf. Zechariah 12:10-13:6; Revelation 1:7).
(Note that Christ will terminate His present ministry in the sanctuary at the end of the present dispensation, when the Church is removed into the heavens, preceding the Tribulation. However, He will not come forth as the great King-Priest after the order of Melchizedek, appearing to Israel after this fashion, until the end of the age, the end of the Tribulation.)
Only then can Israel be cleansed of her present defilement wrought through prior contact with the dead body of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Numbers 19:1ff); only then will Israel be free to return to the land covenanted to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, realizing her calling in this land; and only then will God's promised blessings flow out through this nation to the Gentile nations of the earth after the fashion that God intended when He called Israel into existence.
(Knowledge of the preceding facts reveals not only truths surrounding Christ's present and future ministries but also truths surrounding Israel's present and future status as a nation in the Middle East. Christ is still in the heavenly sanctuary, the antitype of the death of the high priest has yet to occur, and, consequently, Israel must remain in unbelief and cannot return to the land of her possession during the present day and time.
To equate the present restoration of a remnant of the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob to the land of Israel with the fulfillment of any Old Testament prophecies dealing with Israel's restoration to this land [such as the prophecy of the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37] is to ignore the fact that Israel is the slayer. And this is a biblical fact which cannot be ignored.
The present restoration of a remnant to the land has nothing whatsoever to do with the fulfillment of any one of the numerous Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel's restoration. It can't! The fulfillment (after any fashion) of such promises today, from a biblical perspective, is impossible, for Christ is still ministering after the order of Aaron in the heavenly sanctuary.
However, a remnant must be present in the land immediately preceding the end of the age for certain prophecies surrounding Israel and the nations to be fulfilled, though the existence of this remnant has nothing to do with Old Testament prophecies surrounding Israel's restoration being fulfilled. Thus, the existence of the nation of Israel [consisting of several million Jews] in the land today is neither the beginning of nor a partial fulfillment of any Old Testament prophecy concerning the matter. It is simply the existence of an end-time remnant that must be present in the land in order to bring about the fulfillment of numerous Old Testament prophecies surrounding Israel and the nations immediately preceding Christ's return.
The remnant in the land today is the remnant that will make the seven-year covenant with Antichrist. And this remnant will, in turn, later be uprooted from the land [something that will never occur after the Jewish people have been regathered in fulfillment of O.T. prophecy (cf. Isaiah 2:1-4; Jeremiah 32:37-44; Ezekiel 37:19-28; 39:25-29; Joel 2:27-32)].
In the middle of the Tribulation, when Antichrist breaks his covenant, the nation of Israel, as we know it today, will be uprooted; and the Jews dwelling in the land will either be slain or sold as slaves throughout the Gentile world [cf. Joel 3:6; Luke 21:20-24; Revelation 11:2].
During the last half of the Tribulation there will be no Jewish nation in the Middle East. Rather, Jerusalem, the capital of Jewry, will be "trodden down of the Gentiles" until the full end of Daniel's Seventy-Week prophecy, which marks the end of "the times of the Gentiles" [cf. Daniel 9:24-27; Luke 21:24; Revelation 11:2].
During this time, the entire world particularly the center of Antichrist's kingdom in the Middle East [including the land of Israel as we know it today] will become like Nazi Germany during the final six years of the Third Reich [1939-1945]. And when the holocaust of that coming day reaches its darkest hour, Messiah will return, and He Himself will effect the prophesied regathering of the nation [Matthew 24:15-31; Luke 21:20-27]. Christ must return first. Only then can Israel return.)
My Son, A Priest
There are two quotations from the Old Testament in Hebrews 5:5, 6, and both are Messianic in their scope of fulfillment. There is first the quotation from Psalm 2:7, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You" (v. 5); and then there is the quotation from Psalm 110:4, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (v. 6).
These two quotations are used together, referring to one and the same time. They refer to that time in Psalm 2 when God states, "Yet have I set my King upon My holy hill of Zion" (v. 6), and to that time in Psalm 110 when God states, "The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies!" (v. 2).
Both quotations in Hebrews are from Messianic passages in the Old Testament, leaving no room to question the time of their fulfillment. "Zion" is Jerusalem (Psalm 76:2; 126:1; Isaiah 1:26, 27), and the Old Testament quotations in Hebrews 5:5, 6 simply refer to that future day when Christ will exercise His kingly office in this city, on the earth.
1. Psalm 2:7
Psalm 2:7 is quoted three places in the New Testament. It is quoted by Luke in Acts 13:33, and it is quoted twice by the writer of Hebrews (1:5; 5:5).
The words, "You are my Son," form an allusion to 2 Samuel 7:14 in the Davidic covenant: "I will be his Father, and he shall be My son "
And to view Psalm two from the perspective of the Davidic covenant, this Psalm reveals the fulfillment of God's threefold promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:12, 13: 1) David was to have a Son (v. 12), 2) David's Son was to sit on his throne (vv. 12, 13), and 3) the kingdom, under this Son's reign, was to be established forever (v. 13).
Accordingly, God's promise to David, rather than being fulfilled through his son, Solomon, finds its fulfillment through his greater Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the One to Whom God will give "the throne of His father David"; He is the One Who will "reign over the house of Jacob forever"; and He is the One Who will possess a kingdom of which "there shall be no end" (Luke 1:31-33).
This is exactly what is in view in Acts 13:33, where Psalm 2:7 is quoted for the first time in the New Testament. Acts 13:34 goes on to state, "And that He raised Him from the dead " That is, concerning Jesus one day occupying the throne of David and reigning over the house of Jacob, fulfilling God's promises in the Davidic covenant, God raised Him from the dead. And the same verse concludes with the statement, "I will give you the sure mercies of David [lit., 'I will give you the holy things of David' (which, contextually, can only be a reference to things surrounding the Davidic covenant)]."
Psalm 2:7 must likewise be looked upon as Messianic in its two usages in the book of Hebrews. In chapter one the verse comprises one of seven Messianic quotations that make up most of the chapter, and it is used here in connection with the parallel quotation from the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7:14 (v. 5). And in Hebrews 5 the verse is used in connection with that future time when Christ will come forth from the sanctuary and exercise the Melchizedek priesthood (vv. 5, 6).
2. Psalm 110:4
Melchizedek is mentioned eleven times in Scripture two times in the Old Testament (Genesis 14:18; Psalm 110:4) and nine times in the book of Hebrews (chaps. 5-7). And the manner in which Melchizedek is presented in the Old Testament will govern the manner in which he must be viewed in the book of Hebrews.
Melchizedek first appears in Scripture when Abraham was returning from the battle of the kings (Genesis 14:18, 19). Melchizedek was the "king of Salem ['king of Jerusalem' (Psalm 76:2)]" and "priest of the most high God" (v. 18). Thus, he was a king-priest in Jerusalem.
Meeting Abraham, following the battle of the kings, he brought forth bread and wine and blessed Abraham, saying, "Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth" (vv. 18, 19).
It is evident that Melchizedek's actions in the type during the days of Abraham were Messianic in their scope of fulfillment in the antitype. Immediately prior to Christ's death at Calvary, He partook of the Passover with His disciples (Matthew 26:19ff). And at the end of the Passover feast after Jesus had participated with His disciples in the breaking of bread and drinking from the cup, along with His instructions to them concerning both (vv. 26-28) Jesus said, "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom" (v. 29).
This could only be an allusion to one thing that future day when Christ will come forth in the antitype of Melchizedek as he is presented in Genesis 14:18, 19, with bread and wine to bless Abraham and his descendants, both heavenly and earthly (cf. Genesis 22:17, 18). And this is an event that will occur following the battle of the kings (cf. Revelation 19:17-21).
Psalm 110, where Melchizedek is referred to the only other time in the entire Old Testament, as previously seen, is also Messianic in its scope of fulfillment. It must be, for this is the way Melchizedek is presented in Genesis, and there can be no change when one comes to the book of Psalms.
The Son is told to sit on the Father's right hand until such a time as His enemies are made His "footstool" (v. 1). Then, after His enemies have been made His footstool, He is going to rule "in the midst" of His enemies (v. 2). He is going to "strike through kings" and "judge among the heathen [Gentiles]" in that coming day of His "power" (vv. 3, 5, 6), a day when He will be revealed as the great King-Priest in Jerusalem, "after the order of Melchizedek" (v. 4).
Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 must be understood in the light of one another (actually, Psalm 110 draws from Genesis 14), and Hebrews 5-7 must be understood in the light of both Old Testament references. Thus, all eleven references to Melchizedek in Scripture can only be looked upon after one fashion as Messianic in their scope of fulfillment. |