The Order of Melchizedek, A Biblical Theological Treatment

Jesus is a priest, says the writer of Hebrews.  So what does that mean?  What sort of priest?  Well, like Melchizedek, answers Hebrews.  Then of course the next question is: How then is the priesthood of Jesus connected to this obscure man named Melchizedek?

There are multiple angles by which many give an answer to this question within the book of Hebrews.  For instance, Melchizedek's priesthood has no beginning and no end (Heb 7:3).  It continues forever.  The priesthood of the Levites has an end.  Also, Hebrews discusses how Jesus' priesthood is superior to the levitical priesthood in that the one who blessed Abraham (Melchizedek) is superior to the one being blessed –the Levitical offspring (Heb 7:6-10).  Furthermore, Melchizedek is not just a priest, he is a regal priest.  He holds two offices.  He is a priest of the most High God and a king, the king of Salem (Heb 7:1-2).  A true priest in the order of Levi cannot be a king.

All these are true and faithful to the text as it is presented.  But more than these, there is also a way to see all of these reasons as connected to one big over-arching reason.  Or, not really an over-arching reason precisely, but rather connected to a bigger story.

Do you remember that dramatic scene in Les Misérables, where Jean Valjean proclaims in public court that he is actually the accused criminal instead of the one everyone assumes?  We are meant to see in this scene a beautiful connection back to the main flow of the entire story.  Namely, we are meant to see the consummation of Jean Valjean's redemption.  A redemption that began years before when a priest was merciful to him.  The same priest who said Valjean's life had been spared for God and how from this point forward he was to make an honest man of himself.  And this courtroom scene is where Jean Valjean shows he has been remarkably redeemed in the exact way the priest declared.  This is kind of what the author of Hebrews is doing.

He is not just giving us abstract theological reasons to connect Jesus to Melchizedek.  He brings us back to a story.  A story that taps us back into the main narrative current of God's big story.  And particularly to that part of the big story where the corruption and poison that entered the world (Gen 3) is beginning to be reformed (Gen 12).  God is subtly setting in motion a process to turn it all back –a project to remake his world.  And the project begins with a promise. “Through you,” God promised Abram “all the families of the earth will be blessed.”  Global blessing is coming, and it is centered on the family of this childless nomad.  The writer of Hebrews is taking us back to this moment –this part of the big story.  He intends for us to see that Jesus and his priesthood complete a narrative stream that stretches back beyond Moses and Israel.  This is not just a priesthood that reinstates the rites and rituals of Moses and the Law.  It is a priesthood that stands over the Mosaic Law, not within it.  It is a priesthood that fulfills all that Melchizedek was intending to bless in Abram.  So what was he intending to bless in Abram?  “But this man [Melchizedek]... received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises,” (Heb 7:6).  He blessed Abram because he recognized that he was the sole owner of some unbelievable promises from God.  As God's priest, Melchizedek affirms and consecrates those promises in a sense, through blessing the man who holds them.

And what does that have to do with Jesus?

The writer of Hebrews wants his readers to see that Jesus' priesthood is superior to any other priesthood.  And it is superior precisely because it is in the order of Melchizedek, not Levi.  And Melchizedek's priesthood is superior, because it is grounded on better promises.  “But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises,” (Heb 8:6).  And the ministry he means of course is priestly ministry (c.f. 8:2).  All this to say: a priesthood is only as good as the promises it uses for its interecession.  A friend of mine told me a story about the intricate plans his kids often formulate in order to get out of bed time.  First, they send the young 3 year old out first.  Because they determine he can intercede on behalf of them better.  His sad whimpering demeanor and the fact that he might not know any better will hopefully engender an empathetic change of mind from mom and dad.  But sadly this intercession fails.  It fails because it is not built on solid promises!  The real promise, so to speak, is that unless there is an emergency or a true need, everyone goes to bed at 8pm.  An effective intercessor has to build his plea on solid promises.  So do you see the argument the book of Hebrews is making?

Christ has a superior priesthood because this priesthood intercedes by using better promises.  What promises?  Its the promise to truly and ultimately draw us near to God (7:25).  It is the promise to truly and ultimately make us perfect (7:19).  It's an unconditional promise to put the law on his people's hearts and minds and to forgive our sins (8:8-12).  Melchizedek's priesthood is superior because this priesthood intercedes by means of promises that are categorically superior (8:6).  And as a consequence, the salvation this priesthood administers is categorically superior.  In his words, it is a type of priesthood that saves to the “uttermost.” (7:25).

And this is at the very center of the main narrative current of the bible.  This is what the author wants us to see!  Salvation was promised.  A type of priesthood was inaugurated around it.  Abraham, the owner of those promises, was consecrated by this priesthood.  Millennia later another priest comes on the scene.  He is not a revived old-covenant priest.  He is a part of an older order.  He is part of an order that intercedes based on more preeminent promises.  They were based on those early and more far reaching promises to Abraham.  It was a promise for global blessing.  Jesus is superior primarily because he (as priest) brings to consummate fulfillment the main redemptive story of the bible, says the writer of Hebrews.

It is true there are abstract reasons the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to other priesthoods.  The ever-enduring duration of the order of Melchizedek as well as the additional component of being a royal priest are significant parts of this order.  But the more foundational reason Jesus' priesthood stands over all other priesthoods is because it performs the one intercession promised from the beginning and the one intercession more extensive and far reaching than any other type.  These other components only stand on the periphery.  The connection to Melchizedek at its core is more about a deep connection with the story of salvation and the consummation of the long-awaited promises.

Remembering the Reformation

Today is the 500-year anniversary of Martin Luther's posting of the 95 Theses.  It is hard to imagine many events more significant in European and church history.  Here is a few of Luther's theses:

11. This abuse of changing the canonical penalty into the penalty of purgatory seems to have arisen when the bishops were asleep.

20. Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the perfect remission of all punishments, does not mean that all penalties in general be forgiven, but only those imposed by himself.

32. On the way to eternal damnation are they and their teachers, who believe they are sure of their salvation through indulgences.

65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets, with which, in times of yore, one fished for the men of mammon.

66. But the treasures of indulgences are nets, with which now-a-days one fishes for the mammon of men.

82. Why does not the pope deliver all souls at the same time out of purgatory for the sake of most holy love and on account of the bitterest distress of those souls -this being the most imperative of all motives- while he saves an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most miserable thing money, to be spent on St. Peter's Minster: -this being the very slightest of motives?

Democracy: General Confusions and Personal Fears

In an article in Christianity, Democracy, and the Shadow of Constantine, Hammerli asks a provocative question. "If individual rights are permitted to overrule the will of the people, can the society still properly be called democratic'?" (42-3).

Hammerli is asking this question in relation to an Italian Court's decision upholding the right to hang a crucifix in a public school. Subsequently, the European Commission on Human Rights disagreed, saying the crucifix violated neutrality regarding religious convictions.  The commission continued by saying, the cornerstone of democracy is based on individual rights that include a government not encouraging, establishing, or promoting particular religious convictions regardless of the majority's traditions and beliefs.  Hammerli finds it very ironic that a position claiming to be democratic must decide against the will of the majority, against the demos, the people.  That is the context of the question he asks above.

The true essence of democracy has been a fascinating question for me for a long time.  It seems to be used by many as a catch-all word for a just and free governmental system, but it seems unclear what the specifics often really mean for people.  I remember the Bush administration using the phrase "establishing democracy and freedom" as they thought about assisting troubled regions of the world.  And it seemed like democracy and freedom were virtually synonymous in those contexts.

But what is democracy?  Is it a government set up to protect a set of objective individual rights and liberties for an equitable society, or is it a government set up to insure the will and rule of the people will stand?  Of course in a perfect world those often come together, and a case could be made that historically they do.  But I remember also being forced to think about this question after reading about the 2006 Palestinian elections. In the election for the

first time the party that received the most votes was Hamas, defined by most Western countries as a terrorist organization.  Was this just an unfortunate result of the democratic process?  Can a people ever collectively choose a course for their country (via election) that is unjust, unequitable, and undermines individual rights?  Would we then be forced to say this is the consequence of "democracy?"

But on the other side can (or should) a government set itself up to protect objective individual rights and liberties even if that stands against the will of the people?

In a post-modern world, there is very little room (if any) for something to be considered as a transcultural objective individual right or individual liberty.  Even though this type of vocabulary is widely used.  Nevertheless, in a Christ-shaped world, values are foundationally non-subjective.  That allows me room to say, while democracy (as the rule of the people) might be the scaffolding most likely to lead to a just, free, and equitable society, it is not the essence of such a society.  In fact, it can be the scaffolding for something entirely the opposite. I agree with Hammerli that we seem to have lost the meaning of democracy, when it is used synonymously with whatever is labelled as a good and just government. But I worry about a day when an appeal to the traditions and values of the majority will surprisingly overule the very things Hammerli values (like the beautiful expression and meaning behind a crucifix).  What should our our public policy be then?  I fear a day true justice, freedom, and equality will be something the demos has very different ideas about.  And I wonder if we're not clear what democracy is, and the parts of it we love, whether we will have the categories to navigate such a world well.

The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

In the preface to The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis writes:

“Blake wrote the Marriage of Heaven and Hell... The attempt is based on the belief that reality never presents us with an absolutely unavoidable ‘either-or’; that granted skill and patience and (above all) time enough, some way of embracing both alternatives can always be found; that mere development or adjustment or refinement will somehow turn evil into good without our being called on for a final and total rejection of anything we should like to retain.  This belief I take to be a disastrous error.”

“I do not think that all who choose wrong roads perish; but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road.  A sum can be put right: but only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on.  Evil can be undone, but it cannot ‘develop’ into good.  Time does not heal it.  The spell must be unwound, bit by bit, ‘with backward mutters of disservering power’ –or else not at all.”

Fractional Politics

As the 81-year old Dalai Lama approaches his latter years, China announced again its claims of being able to retain the right to announce which baby will be the new reincarnated Dalai Lama. Chairman Zhu Weiqun of the Ethnic and Religious Affairs committee, which stands as a top advisory body to China's parliament, wrote "The central government has stiffened its resolve to decide on the reincarnation of 'living Buddhas' so as to ensure victory over the anti-separatist struggle."

Let me say that one more time.  The atheistic, communist, government of China says it holds the right to decide who will be reincarnated and when.   Its like a strict orthodox Jew laying out all the parameters for how worship should be offered to Athena.

Of course, this contradiction does not escape them.  China is certainly aware of it.  But noticing the irony doesn't make them hesitate for a moment!  That is because the Dalai Lama's reincarnation "is first and foremost a political matter."  Political expediency is the end game.  Everything else lines up behind that, even if it means laws that assume spiritual realities they already resolutely deny.  It is amazing how fractional and compartmental our convictions and beliefs have become, particularly in the service of political ends.

The Shack in Review

The Shack movie comes out today at the theaters.  Of course most of the theological critiques of this movie are about its fairly loose and controversial portrayals of God.  But granting some artistic license some evangelicals have found a lot of truth in the book and tell viewers to just focus on the main themes of how God is close to us in our suffering.  

David Mathis writes a very thoughful article here about how even the main theme of God in our suffering actually has huge theological distortions for Christian viewers to be aware of, just the same.

The Elusiveness of Unity

In his last State of the Union speech President Obama openly regretted how during his presidency the polarization and division of the country has gotten worse.  The suspicion and rancour between the parties is even deeper than before.

Last week in his inaugural address President Trump spoke about healing the divisions in America: "The bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity."  Then President Trump explains precisely his vision for how this unity will come about: "At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America and through our loyalty to our country we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.  When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice."

The solution to America's division is nationalism.  A total allegiance to the United States of America.  Sadly it went unnoticed that the same bible tells us not just that unity is good and pleasant, but how unity can truly be found... how the dividing wall of hostility can be torn down (Eph 2:14).  And of course this hostility and division is not because of a lack of patriotism.  In fact, nationalism was one of the main ingredients that created the dividing wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles in the first place.  I'm afraid that without war or a common enemy (which is overwhelming felt by all), this vision for healing our divisions will continue to make genuine unity elusive.