 |
| Christ chose pattern of Melchizedec's order §.
His sacrifice is unique and perfect. Therefore his priesthood is beyond
Melchisedec or Aaronic §. |
Only three priesthoods
Melchisedec's is Messiah's pattern |
¶ |
PERHAPS it may be thought that more time has been spent in
establishing the position that there never was more than three priesthoods,
than either the importance of the fact in any view, or its connection with
the object of this dissertation, will justify. A different opinion was entertained.
It was, indeed, perceived that were there a thousand priesthoods, still
Melchisedec’s is, and Aaron’s is not, the
pattern of Messiah’s. But we endeavoured to establish the fact of
there being only three priesthoods, not for the light which it casts on
passages of scripture, but because, though not essential, it is
not quite irrelevant* to our purpose. To perceive that this is
the case, let the following remarks be considered. |
|
Original: inelevant |
| Christ’s priesthood
supercedes patterns |
|
It will not be denied that if the reality, and nature, Christ’s
priesthood be perceived and admitted, all ideas of typical patterns are
superseded and useless. For the sole use of such patterns and analogies
is to prove the fact of his priesthood, and explain the nature
of his functions. |
|
|
In David's time, only two priesthoods
|
|
When, in the days of king David, Messiah was to be exhibited
to the Jewish nation as their Priest; the divine spirit had two
priesthoods, either of which might have been brought forward as a pattern,
viz. Melchisedec’s and Aaron’s. |
|
|
| Christ chose Melchisedec pattern to warn against
future error |
|
He chose the former, in preference to the latter, because
it did as well establish the fact, that Messiah should be a priest, as the
other could do—And, at the same time warned against an error, to which
that nation would one day be exposed. This idea will be fully evolved in
a subsequent part of this discourse. I will only add, that there is little
reason to doubt that in addition to the importance of Melchisedec’s
priesthood to his contemporaries, a great and an essential end of its original
institution [47] was to have in reserve a pattern, by which, when Messiah
should appear, his priesthood might be proven—while at the same time
it was distinguished from the Levitical priesthood, with which it was foreseen,
that it would be confounded. |
|
|
| Jesus' priesthood after order
of Melchisedec |
¶ |
II. THE second subject of inquiry is, in what sense Jesus
is said to be a priest after the order of Melchisedec, and not after the
order of Aaron. |
|
|
| Priests in same order have same
rights and functions |
¶ |
THE first idea the strikes one, on hearing that one priest
is after the order of another, is this—that they both have precisely
the same rights and functions; and these functions the same efficacy. Thus,
the high priests who succeeded Aaron, were of the same order with him: the
office, its duties, and its efficacy, remained immutable; and descended
pure and entire, like an estate equally incapable of waste and of augmentation. |
|
|
| Jesus sacrificed himself—unique |
|
In this sense, Jesus was neither of the order
of Melchisedec, nor of Aaron. His priesthood was peculiar: his sacrifice
was his SOUL: “neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his
own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption for [48] us.” His intercession is carried on in heaven:
he “is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are
the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, there to appear in the
presence of God for us.” Such a sacrifice neither Melchisedec nor
Aaron ever offered; for, if they had, “the worshippers once purged,
should have had no more conscience of sins.” In which event, Messiah’s
priesthood would have been unnecessary; for “where remission of sin
is, there is no more offering for sin.” |
|
Hebrews
9:12
Hebrews 9:24
Hebrews 10:2
Hebrews 10:18 |
Previous priesthods imperfect
His priesthood perfect (ended sin) |
|
It was the imperfection of the antecedent priesthoods that
rendered his necessary: and had his been the very same with them, the imperfection
must have continued. But he assumed a perfect priesthood, to which nothing
was equal; a priesthood, which finished transgression, and made an end of
sin. |
|
|
| Therefore neither Melchisedec
nor Aaronic |
|
We must, therefore, search for some other idea of order. |
|
|
| Hebrew: after the order |
¶ |
… [Gray discusses differences in Hebrew
and Greek translations of Psalm 110:4. In Hebrew it is:] “THE Lord
hath sworn, and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever, after the order
of Melchisedec.” |
|
Psalm
110:4 |
| Greek: after the similitude |
¶ |
THE chief difficulty lies in the phrase [Hebrew], “after
the ORDER.” Paul’s translation, which is also that of the Septuagint,
is [Greek]: and as to the idea which he affixed to [Greek], we collect from
his own synonim, chap. 7. 15. [Greek]. “After the SIMILITUDE of Melchisedec.”
|
|
Original
contains Hebrew and Greek characters as indicated.
Hebrews 7:15 |
| |
|
There is another phrase, in the third verse, which also goes
to fix the apostle’s idea: Melchisedec is spoken of as one, [Greek],
“made like unto the Son of God.” |
|
Hebrews
7:3 (See Hebrews 7:1–3.) |
| Melchisedec a type of the Son
of God |
|
Thus then Messiah was made a priest, [Greek] , “after
the order,”—that is, [Greek], “after the similitude”
of Melchisedec. Or, inverting the related ideas, Melchisedec, [Greek], “was
constituted a similitude, or type, of the Son of God.” TYPICAL SIMILITUDE,
then is the apostle’s idea. |
|
|
| |
¶ |
[50] BUT here we are met by a question of some apparent difficulty.
Was not Aaron, it may be asked, a type of the Son of God: was there not
a similitude between his and Messiah’s priesthood: and, if so, was
not Jesus a priest after the similitude, or order of Aaron, as well as after
the similitude, or order of Melchisedec? |
|
|
| Yes |
¶ |
THE correctness of the assumption is
admitted; viz. That Aaron was a type, or similitude of Messiah, in his priestly
character. He was “called of God:” he was “taken from
among men;” and, “ordained for men, in things pertaining to
God;” he entered once a year into the most holy place, “not
without blood;” he served “unto the example, and shadow, of
heavenly things;”— |
|
Hebrews
5:4
Hebrews 5:1 (twice)
Hebrews 9:7
Hebrews 8:5 |
| Blood
of atonement and incense of intercession |
|
The law, which had a shadow of good things to come, had not a single type
of Messiah so illustrious as the high priest entering into the holiest of
all, with the blood of atonement, and incense of intercession. |
|
|
| |
¶ |
THE literal fact is, both the priesthood of Aaron, and that
of Melchisedec, were types of [51] the priesthood of Christ: Aaron and Melchisedec,
so far as their characters coincided, were types of equal value: both of
them “priests of the most high God;” both “taken from
among men, and ordained for men, in things pertaining to God;” in
sacrifice both shedding the blood of atonement, and both making intercession
with God, and blessing his church. “So far, their typical character
is perfectly equal; and so far, Jesus is a priest after the similitude,
or, if you will, the order of Aaron as much as Melchisedec. This
is a fact, which can neither be evaded, nor invalidated. It is a miserable
species of criticism that would sacrifice fact to verb[i]age. |
|
|
| |
¶ |
BUT why then is Messiah represented as a priest after the
order of Melchisedec? The reason is as follows. Melchisedec possessed all
the typical characteristics of Aaron; but, in addition to these, he had
sundry peculiar characteristics: now the priesthood of Jesus, which
tallied exactly with all the typical characteristics of Melchisedec’s,
must be different from the priesthood of Aaron. So definitely were these
peculiarities marked, that every candid and judicious observer must, on
seeing him, exclaim, here is a priest, who is not an Aaronic priest!
This distinction of the priest-[52]hood of Jesus from the priesthood of
Aaron is a most important point: to mark that distinction was the chief,
perhaps I might say the sole end of the type, and the sole end of the apostle’s
argument. These ideas will be illustrated in the two subsequent articles. |
|
|
| |
|
Gray's
Priesthoods
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|