 |  |
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it is "manifest" that they sought a country, and it is also clear
that if they had had an earthly country in mind, they could have found an opportunity to
have returned. As they did not, it is obvious that such pilgrims and strangers, with such
promises apparently unfulfilled, yet with such triumphant faith, must have had a heavenly
country and a heavenly city in view, for there is no other alternative.
We must now consider some of the statements made by the Apostle with reference to
Melchisedec in Heb. 7: We first meet Melchisedec as "Priest of the Most High God"
in Gen. 14: 18. Nothing more is said of him in the O.T. until we reach Psalm 110:,
where we read:
"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine
enemies thy footstool . . . . . Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec"
(Psa. 110: 1, 4).
When this Psalm was written, there was in existence the divinely appointed Aaronic
priesthood. The greatness of Melchisedec's order of priesthood is proved from several
statements made in the Book of Genesis.
(1)
The fact that Melchisedec had "no father or mother" (i.e. no "pedigree"), and no
specific end to his ministry, is in strong contrast with the law regulating the
Aaronic order. In these things Melchisedec foreshadowed the Son of God, "Who
abideth a priest continually" (Heb. 7: 3).
(2)
Gen. 14: 20 records the fact that Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec. In
Heb. 7: Paul states that "without contradiction the less is blessed of the better"
(Heb. 7: 4-8).
(3)
"If I may so say", continues Paul, "Levi, who was in the loins of Abraham, paid
tithes to Melchisedec". This shows that the Levitical order was imperfect, and that
a change in the priesthood was necessary (Heb. 7: 9-11).
(4)
This change necessitated the transfer of the Melchisedec priesthood from earth to
heaven:
"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah" (Heb. 7: 12-14).
"For if He were on earth, He should not be a priest" (Heb. 8: 4).
As we have already remarked, these features may not have been obvious to us, but to
the Apostle they were "without contradiction". He could, therefore, speak of the
heavenly calling and the heavenly priesthood without going beyond that which was
revealed in the O.T., even though these things were not expressed in so many words by
the O.T. writers. Those who would object to the Apostle's claim must, to be consistent,
criticize also the statement of Matt. 2: 17, 18 that the massacre of the innocents
"fulfilled" the prophecy of Jer. 31: 15, and the further statement of Matt. 2: 23, "He
shall be called a Nazarene"--for this actual expression is not to be found in the Law and
the Prophets. Who would have dreamed that the language of Deut. 30: 12, 13 could
possibly have referred to the gospel, or to the ascended Christ, and His death and burial?
And yet the Apostle makes no apology for using the passage in this way. The same
argument applies to the statement that some will be living at the Coming of the Lord and
will not "prevent" those that sleep. Such a statement does not go beyond the testimony of
Moses and the Prophets.