An exegetical marvel: Hebrews 7 expounds Psalm 110:4
Introduction
People in today’s secular world ordinarily think very little of priests and priesthoods, of sacrifice, ritual and worship. But whenever desperation strikes a man, he casts about for someone who can get aid for him from the Almighty. Sooner or later everyone wants to reach out to the resources found only in the Creator. Despair may seize him as it did King Saul, so that he resorts to a witch. Or a person may be overpowered with a sense of guilt, as was David after he had committed adultery with Bathsheba, until he acknowledges his guilt before God’s prophet (Psalm 51). Eventually everyone turns to a prophet, a priest, or a witch, or to prayer, sacrifice or ritual.
Israel was unique among peoples of the world in that God himself appointed a priesthood for the nation-with accompanying laws of sacrifice and ritual-which carefully defined the right way to approach God. The laws of the Levitical priesthood along with its festival days and sacrifices, contained touches of glamour and glory. Colorful robes, impressive ceremonies, feasts, washings, the waving of recently harvested grain and the chanting of divine benedictions all contributed to the allurement of the priestly order of the old covenant.
So it should not be surprising that throughout the centuries the Jewish people have had difficulty relinquishing these treasured ceremonies. They all contributed to making them feel right and good in the presence of God. Furthermore, when the new covenant came along with its bare essentials of minimalistic ritual, it seemed as though something significant had been lost. Following hard on the heels of the birth of Christianity was the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. Now no proper, God-appointed place existed on the face of the earth for the rituals of the old covenant to continue. This circumstance has prevailed for the past two thousand years.
Some groups of Christians and Jews have expressed the sentiment that it has been long enough. The time has come for the erection of a new temple and the reinstitution of a Levitical priesthood to function fully in the offering of sacrifices. With the repossession of the land by the Jews and establishment of the state of Israel, expectations have been rising. Sentiment has even been developing toward the idea of removing the Muslim Dome of the Rock from the peak of Mount Zion so that a third temple can be built there.
Sympathy for the plight of religious Jews who have no place to offer their sacrifices is understandable. Have these people not suffered enough? Should they not be free to worship God in their own way?
Yet the new covenant documents says something about the value of these rituals, whether or not they are renewed. Once Jesus has been acknowledged as the promised Messiah, the old covenant rituals must be reevaluated.
The letter to the Hebrews shows that its author had a special concern in this area as he interacted with the struggles of Jewish converts. He had a full appreciation of the old covenant arrangements, as displayed in his reciting the divine sanction placed on the tabernacle’s construction: “See that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mount” (Heb. 8:5). But he also had a deep understanding of the superiority of the new covenant, its new temple, priesthood and sacrifice. In particular, its priesthood was uniquely significant to him, for it had to do directly with the person and ministry of Jesus.
This interest in the priesthood of Christ and its impact on the worship practices of the people of the new covenant manifests itself throughout the book of Hebrews. But the extensive treatment of the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, as mentioned in Psalm 110:4, provides a special focal point for the writer’s analysis of this subject. The present study will concentrate on his extensive development of the implications of Psalm 110:4 regarding priesthood and worship for the new covenant as it is found in Hebrews 7, which is the climactic point of the book.
The writer begins to discuss the Messiah’s priesthood after describing the danger facing his readers, for this danger made most necessary a ready access to the Almighty. A whole generation of Israelites fell in the wilderness without entering the rest of God, and he did not want his contemporaries to have the same sad experience. They faced the same danger in their own day, and the church continues to face it today. God’s oath that the Israelites would not enter into his rest could apply to those who profess to be God’s people today. For “nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight” (Heb. 4:13). In the light of this ongoing soul-scrutiny by the Almighty, the believer today must avail himself fully of the high priesthood of Christ. Only the constant work of a priestly mediator between the sinner and his holy God can guarantee the realization of full salvation. Jesus is that priestly mediator. He has gone into the heavens, he can empathize with our weaknesses, he presents his atoning blood-sacrifice of himself, he provides grace and mercy in our time of need (Heb. 4:14-16).
From this introductory point, the writer develops the nature of Messiah’s priesthood from the old covenant perspective, bringing his discussion quickly to Psalm 110:4, which speaks of the Messiah’s priesthood “according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:1-10). But then he recognizes a major problem in proceeding any further. His readers have remained spiritual babes far too long. Their immaturity in being “slow to learn,” in failing to develop the capacity to distinguish good from evil, provides a major stumbling-block to his proceeding any further with this exalted subject. If they cannot comprehend the life-changing truth he was about to present, what point would there be in his going any further?
The same situation prevails in much of the church today. All kinds of heresies, sins and immoralities have taken up residence in the contemporary church. Because of spiritual immaturity, the church is not capable of dealing with these problems. As a consequence, many confessing Christians cannot seem to “stay out of trouble”.
So what shall the writer do? Having brought them (and us) to the tantalizing brink of initiation into the deeper truths about our messianic high priest, will he now drop the subject and move on to other things more suitable for his readers’ level of spiritual maturity? Or will he proceed to develop this most precious doctrine, knowing his readers cannot assimilate its significance despite their need for it? Will he reach out with the fond hope that somewhere along the way his readers will “catch on” to the significance of the matters he is discussing?
This wise man of God chooses to follow neither of these options. Bold man that he is, he stops right at this point and deals with the problem of spiritual immaturity that confronts him. So in chapter 6 he admonishes his readers to leave the elementary teachings behind them, and to stop their childish quibblings about the basics (Heb. 6:1, 2). God permitting, this they will do right then and there (Heb. 6:3). Turning away from childishness that obstructs spiritual growth is not something that necessarily takes a long time. Growth may take time, but one can adopt a healthier attitude right away.
Having offered his admonition, the writer then reinforces it with a warning (Heb. 6:4-8). A person cannot simply keep tasting the good things of God without properly absorbing them, or they will become a curse to him. Good soil will produce a good crop when the rains come, but the same rain will produce thorns in thorny soil. A fruitless soil faces the constant danger of being cursed. So his hearers must take heed right now so that he can move them on to more fruitful responses to the rich truths about their messianic high priest. Otherwise the very teaching they now are hearing could become the occasion for their falling into deeper sin.
To make sure that this transition to readiness for mature growth in Christ is taking place right then and there, the writer then joins a strong word of encouragement to his admonition and his warning (Heb. 6:9-20). Even though he speaks in threatening ways, he is confident of the kind of response he will get from them. God will never forget their work, their love, their continuing helpfulness toward others. They simply must be patient as was Abraham. God assured him with an oath that he would inherit all the promises, despite his long waiting. Our hope is just as sure, if not more so, since in fulfillment of the divine oath Jesus has been inducted into the high priesthood and has entered the inner sanctuary. This position he continues to hold as “a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6:20).
Now the writer is ready to proceed with the development of his principal subject.[i] How thankful the church of today should be that he faced the problem of his contemporaries head-on so that he could move ahead with his elaboration of the significance of Messiah’s High Priesthood. Chapter 7 then becomes the pivotal point of the book; with its focus directed to an exposition of Psalm 110:4: “The Lord has sworn, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek’” (RSV).[ii] This chapter represents one of the fullest expositions of an old covenant passage that can be found anywhere in the scriptures of the new covenant. An outline of the treatment of Psalm 110:4 by this passage is as follows:
1. This “MELCHIZEDEK” (vv. 1-10)
2. “AFTER THE ORDER OF” Melchizedek (vv. 11-15)
3. You are a priest “FOREVER” (vv. 16-19)
4. “THE LORD HAS SWORN”, you are a priest (vv. 20-25)
5. “You are a PRIEST” (vv. 26-28)
The challenge of the writer’s exposition continues into the present. The church of today must lay aside its spiritual ineptness and grow in its understanding of the significance of the high priestly work of Jesus Christ for its worship today. A verse-by-verse exposition may serve as the most effective way to recover a message that has been largely lost.
1. “This MELCHIZEDEK” (vv. 1-10)
Heb 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, the one who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him.
The opening reference to “this Melchizedek” naturally leads to the question, “Which Melchizedek?” Since only one historical person named “Melchizedek” appears in Scripture, it would seem obvious that he must be referring to Abraham’s contemporary.[iii] However, the designation has a fuller significance than might first be imagined. For to be more precise, he refers also to the “Melchizedek” of Psalm 110:4, and not only to the historical figure that confronted Abraham in Genesis 14. In other words, this reference brings up a composite picture of Melchizedek. He is indeed the priest/king who confronted Abraham. But he also is the messianic figure celebrated by David in Psalm 110 who currently is seated at God’s right hand not only to intercede but also to rule.
This drawing together of more than one reference in the old covenant scriptures to the same item of exegetical and theological significance defines one of the major stylistic characteristics of the writer to the Hebrews. This capacity to sweep across the whole of the scriptures and order the entirety of God’s truth on a specific subject so that it illuminates the climactic state of the new covenant era is vivified in the author’s treatment of the sabbath principle in Scripture. He moves easily from God’s “rest” on the seventh day of creation, to the failure of Joshua to give Israel its “rest”, to the denial of “rest” to a rebellious people as that denial is addressed to every generation in Psalm 95, to the “rest” that still remains for the people of God (Heb. 3:11-4:11 ). To put the exegetical work of this amazing man in terms familiar to modern student of Scripture, the author may be seen in this passage as “unpacking” the full biblical-theological significance of the man Melchizedek.
Melchizedek is immediately identified by the writer as “king of Salem” and “priest of God Most High”. He combined in himself both the offices of king and priest. In later Israelite history, this combination of offices was disallowed. But the author of Psalm 110 wanted to stress that the Messiah would hold both of these offices, just like Melchizedek. The Messiah would “sit at God’s right hand” in a kingly role (Psa. 110:1) even as he functioned also as a “priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Psa. 110:4 NASB).
But not only was Melchizedek distinctive as a king-priest. He also stood out in the fact that the kingly role he filled and the priestly office he maintained both were exercised in domains of prominence. He was king of Salem, which was bound for redemptive-historical significance as (Jeru)Salem. Furthermore, among the individuals to whom he ministered was Abraham, the father of the faithful. Abraham had proven himself to be a man of distinction by overcoming the kings who had invaded their territory and had recovered all their booty. Yet mysterious King Melchizedek blessed Abraham the father of the faithful rather than Abraham’s blessing Melchizedek. Normally the conquering hero would distribute the blessings as he returned with the spoils of war.[iv] But in this case, the already-proven warrior receives his blessing from this previously obscure person. The man Melchizedek was indeed a man of prominence, and so could serve as a fitting figure for subsequent theological development throughout redemptive history, first in the psalms and then in the scriptures of the new covenant. He also was distinctive in his day as a man of personal piety. As Calvin says
It was doubtless no common thing that in a country abounding in the corruptions of so many superstitions, a man was found who preserved the pure worship of God; for on one side he was nigh to Sodom and Gomorrah, and on the other to the Canaanites, so that he was on every side encompassed by ungodly men.[v]
This man also exercised the priestly office with a prophetic dimension. Several aspects of his person made him able to serve appropriately as a prophetical type of Christ, as the subsequent verses in Hebrews show.
Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham divided a tithe of all his spoils. First of all his name may be interpreted as meaning “king of righteousness”. But then he also was king of Salem, which means “king of peace”.
Abraham voluntarily paid to this man Melchizedek a tenth of the spoils he had reclaimed after his pursuit of the eastern kings that had kidnapped Lot. The writer sees this payment of the tithe to Melchizedek by Abraham as a matter of some significance. In this context, the writer exposits the significance of “Melchizedek”, the name and the person.
The name “Melchizedek” literally means “my king is righteousness,” and the writer sees significance in the designation in accord with the prominence attached to names in the biblical age. Melchizedek was a righteous king, in contrast to the oppressive kings that manifested themselves on the face of the earth from the earliest days (cf. Gen. 10:6-11).
The second designation of Melchizedek is “king of peace.” This observation concerning the man derives from the name of the city or the territory which he governed. It ultimately received the designation “Jeru-Salem”, meaning “city” or “foundation of peace.”[vi] This designation of his place of rule as a city characterized by “peace” may be regarded as a commendation for Melchizedek. The place where he ruled was blessed with peace.
So the first aspect of this man Melchizedek to be noted is that he was a king, a believing and righteous king who brought peace to his domain. Clearly he appears as a godly leader among his people, and in the context of the history of redemption he could be appropriately considered as a forerunner of the messianic savior that the old covenant people anticipated with ever greater understanding.
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he continues as a priest forever.
The statement that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother,” if taken literally, could lead to the conclusion that this person must have been a pre-incarnate manifestation of the second person of the trinity. But it is more likely that the writer of Hebrews is building his observations on the fact that Melchizedek appeared without any tracing of his genealogy in a book focusing on people’s origins. Since Melchizedek appears in redemptive history in this unique manner, it is appropriate that he is presented by the writer of Hebrews as having been “made like the Son of God”. In this unique way, Melchizedek in his priesthood serves appropriately as a prophetic figure depicting a perpetual priesthood. Having neither beginning of days nor end of life, he continues in unbroken fashion as one who has immediate access to God.
To this point the writer has drawn only from the historical record about Melchizedek. But he is anticipating the way in which Psalm 110:4 will present him as “a priest forever.” As a priest who “remains forever”, this Melchizedek will stand in a different category than the priesthood established under the Mosaic covenant.
Heb 7:4 Now consider just how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tithe of the best of his spoils
Melchizedek’s greatness is measured by the respect paid to him by Abraham.[vii] In the analysis of the writer, the great patriarch of Israel gave not merely the tithe; but the choicest, the best of the spoils. As honorable as may be the position of Abraham, this man Melchizedek ranks above him. The Jews of New Testament times might boast about having Abraham as their father. But Melchizedek is greater than Abraham and is not even a Jew. The choicest of the spoils of war Abraham turned over to him, acknowledging him to be God’s emissary on earth to receive his gifts.
Is it possible? Can it be? Could a Gentile be presented in Scripture as greater than the greatest of the Jews in the Old Testament?
Yes, it is possible. It is true. The Gentile blesses the Jew.
Considering the role of Melchizedek as a foreshadowing of Christ, a further point may be noted. If the shadow is greater than the patriarch, how much more is the reality! If the priesthood of Melchizedek was greater than the Levitical priesthood, how much greater still must Christ himself be as a priest![viii]
Heb 7:5, 6 Now the sons of Levi who receive the office of priest have a commandment in the law to collect a tithe from the people, even from those who are their brothers, although they are descended from the loins of Abraham. But this one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tithe from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises.
The brief historical interchange between Abraham as the father of the Levitical priesthood and the man Melchizedek indicates a superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek over Levi.[ix] The one who was not reckoned according to the genealogy of Abraham collected tithes from Abraham himself and blessed him. Abraham had been promised that in him all the families of the earth would be blessed. Yet Melchizedek blesses the “blesser”. This fact establishes the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek over the priesthood of Levi that descended from Abraham. For Melchizedek stood outside Abraham’s genealogy, and by receiving his tithe and blessing him, he showed himself to be the contact with God that was needed by the patriarch.
This ancient fact eventually proved to have significant consequences for future generations. If ever another priest should arise that would be appointed according to the order of Melchizedek, inevitably he would stand above the Levitical priesthood of the past.
Heb 7:7 But apart from any controversy the lesser is blessed by the greater.
In one sense or another, the person bestowing the blessing must be superior to the person being blessed. A millionaire may be forced to borrow a quarter from a shiftless bum for a phone call if he has just been robbed. In that sense, the bum is better off than the millionaire. So when Abraham received a blessing from Melchizedek, he held a lesser role in God’s plan of redemption than did Melchizedek. Even though Abraham may have been the wealthier, and even the specified heir of God’s redemptive promises, yet Melchizedek blessed him. This fact indicates that in the realm of access to God through worship Melchizedek was better than Abraham.
Heb 7:8 And on the one hand men who die receive tithes, but on the other hand witness is borne that he continues to live.
One priesthood was staffed by men who died, while the other was represented by a person concerning whom it was witnessed that he lived forever. This witness is brought forward by the fact that no father, no mother and no end of life is mentioned with respect to Melchizedek. As a consequence, this man can serve well as a figure for an eternal priesthood.
Heb 7:9, 10 So it might be said that through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid a tithe, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
The reasoning of writer may seem strange to the modern mind. What is the sense behind the idea that the action of a person in one generation may be reckoned as the action of another person in a subsequent generation? As strange as it may seem, it fits the pattern of biblical representations. Adam acted as a representative man for the whole of the human race, and the high priest of Israel acted for the whole of the nation on the day of atonement. In a similar way, Abraham acted for Aaron in acknowledging the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek.
It is this very factor that might create difficulties in the mind of the Jewish person today. How could their greatest forefather offer a token of submission to a Gentile? An easy escape from this problem might come through asserting that Melchizedek was a Shemite, as was Abraham. But nothing whatever is said in Scripture concerning the genealogy of Melchizedek, which is a fact that requires special notice in a book that otherwise centers on genealogies.
The point must be acknowledged. Nothing inherent in the descendants of Abraham makes them superior to other worshippers of the true God. As a matter of fact, if the text is read properly, it indicates that the relationship between Abraham the father of Israel and Melchizedek the pious Gentile should be understood as having a permanent significance. Not just in this one incident, but throughout all subsequent history, the descendants of Abraham function under the superiority of the order of Melchizedek.[x]
Conclusion on this first section, Hebrews 7:1-10
It is quite amazing to see how the writer restrains himself up to this point from going beyond the original historical record of the figure of Melchizedek in Scripture. He limits himself to matters that may be deduced from it. It is also interesting to see that even though his reasoning on the subject at first may appear quite strange, it actually makes good sense. The main point is carried with convincing weight. The person of Melchizedek stands above Abraham and his descendants. From this original deduction, a number of points will follow. But most significantly, the writer has displayed evidence from the narrative of the Old Testament which indicates that a priesthood exists in redemptive history that is superior to the priesthood of Levi. That alternative priesthood is embodied in the person of Melchizedek.
Now the question may be posed, What would happen if ever another priest should arise according to the order of Melchizedek? How would it affect the people’s approach to God? How would it affect the Levitical priesthood? The writer will consider this prospect next.
2. “AFTER THE ORDER OF” Melchizedek (vs. 11-15)
Since the reformation, protestant Christians have lost virtually all awareness of the significance of a priestly “order”. The term as it describes priesthood refers to the law or “order”, the set of rules governing a particular grouping of priests. In the present case, a comparison is being made between two priestly orders as they are found in the scriptures of the old covenant.[xi]
Heb 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, rather than one according to the order of Aaron?
The priests of the post-exilic period made it quite plain that only people who could prove their descendancy from Aaron could serve as priests (cf. Ezra 2:61-63; Neh. 7:63-65). Yet all this care was to no avail in making perfect the people of Israel.
If the Levitical priestly order had been effective in fulfilling its intended purpose, then Melchizedek, who lived 500 years before Levi, would have been regarded merely as a curious phenomenon in the ancient history of Israel. But instead, this unique person who never even fostered a line of priests himself, appears again in a psalm written by David. So why does he reappear, and this time in a context that suggests a priestly “order” to follow his priestly rule? As the writer says, “What further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?” (v. 11). Why? Because “perfection”, a totality of consecration of the people appropriate for a proper approach to God, never was achieved through the Levitical priesthood. It might have been expected that perfection would have come through the Levitical priesthood, for in connection with it the people were brought into the life ordered by divine law. Yet despite its divine origin and its comprehensive instructions, it could not bring perfection to the people. Their approach to God still was faulty. So a different priestly order had to arise. But how was it to arise? Psalm 110:4 points to the source of this second priesthood. It would come through a messianic man that could be compared to Melchizedek, the ancient priest of God Most High. David’s Lord, the Messiah who was to sit at God’s right hand, would also be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
Heb 7:12 For when a change of the priestly order occurs, of necessity a change of the law also must take place.
A change in priesthood is not a simple matter. The order of the priesthood is defined by a governing law. So if a different priestly order takes effect, by the very nature of the case a different law must be put in place to define the way in which it will function. A change in the order of the priesthood would alter the whole way in which worship is ordered.
Any person who would function as a priest in the line of Melchizedek could not assume the priestly office according to the order of Levi, for the simple reason that he was not a Levite. So if Psalm 110 anticipates the appearance of a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, then a whole new law-structure would have to be put into effect. This new law of the new priestly order presumably intends to make “perfection” possible for the people of God in a way in which it was not possible under the old law and the Levitical priesthood.
This change of the priestly order has significant implications for the worship practices of the people of the new covenant. The laws of the Levitical priesthood involved the constant offering of sacrifices in association with specified festivals and holy days. The ritual of these cultic celebrations was not complete without the accompanying sacrifices. But if a new priestly order supersedes the order of the Levitical priesthood, then the framework for the offering of the required sacrifices has come to an end. As a consequence, the festivals and holy days also cannot be carried out according to the law of the Levitical priesthood. The entire way of worship of necessity must be altered when the priestly order changes.
Heb 7:13, 14 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken is a member of another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord has descended from Judah, and concerning this tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
The evidence for the appearance of a new priestly order derives from the fact of Jesus’ origins in the tribe of Judah. If he is a priest, it must be a priesthood of a different order, for Moses said nothing whatsoever about priests coming from that particular tribe.
The writer stresses this point, since people would not be accustomed to thinking of priesthood in any other way than coming from the tribe of Levi. For the previous 1500 years since the time of its establishment under Moses, the people had known no other priesthood than the one derived from Levi. In fact, it was life-threatening for anyone but a Levite to presume to serve as a priest.
It might then be concluded that Jesus Christ could not be a priest. How could he serve as a priest if he could not be identified as arising “according to the [priestly] order” of Levi? The only possible way that Jesus could be recognized as a priest would be for God to affirm another priestly order by which his ongoing blessings would be communicated to his people. That affirmation is found in Psalm 110:4, and experiences historical fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ.
It becomes quite clear that the predicted priesthood of Psalm 110 is not according to the order of Levi. For the opening verse of this psalm speaks of the promised Messiah who was to sit at God’s right hand, and the repeated expectation of the old covenant community was that their messianic king would come from the tribe of Judah. Since this messianic king is depicted as holding the office of priest as well as king in this psalm, his priesthood cannot be Levitical.
Heb 7:15 And this fact becomes more abundantly clear, if another priest actually arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,
The writer is trying his best to contain his remarks to “self-evident” things.[xii] This idea of a new priestly order was not only a hypothetical possibility presented in Psalm 110:4. By the coming of Jesus Christ, it has become an actual fact
So a new priestly order has arisen in history. But how does this new order affect the functioning of the old priesthood? Could the two orders function side by side or does one exclude the other?
Already the writer has made the point that a new priesthood involves a new law. So if a new priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek has been established, then a new priestly law has come into effect, and the Levitical priesthood is over. This point is driven home in the next section of the writer’s argument, in which he stresses that the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek lasts forever.
3. You are a Priest FOREVER (7:16-19)
Heb 7:16 He has become a priest not by fulfilling a requirement regarding fleshly descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.
Both of these priesthoods deriving from Levi and from Melchizedek are established by God. But one of them is severely limited because it was administered by men who perished. As a consequence, there could be no long-term continuity. But the priesthood of Melchizedek does not have this limitation. In a figure, the first priest of this order never died. No record remains of his decease. But even more significantly, the second member of this priestly order of Melchizedek actually lives forever, which makes a drastic difference in terms of priestly service. He has become a priest by virtue of the power of an indestructible life. This expression is unique in the literature of the new covenant.
Because of the indestructible life of the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, never is there any interruption of his intercession. By the power invested in an indestructible life, he functions forever as priest for his people.
Heb 7:17 For the testimony is borne, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”
This quotation from Psalm 110:4 is not introduced according to the common formula found in the gospels (“that it might be fulfilled”); nor according to the formula used most regularly by Paul (“it is written”). The quotation is not even introduced according to the common formula of the writer to the Hebrews himself (“God says,” “He says,” “the Holy Spirit says”). Instead, this quotation is introduced by the unique formula, “It is witnessed” or “the testimony is borne.” What might have led the writer to use this particular phrase for introducing this quotation?
As might be expected of this author, it may be assumed that a close attention directed to the text of Scripture itself led him to the coining of this special formula. For in the context of Psalm 110, the words being quoted are introduced by a notation that they in turn represent a quotation of an oath uttered by God. So appropriately “it is witnessed” or “testimony is borne” that God has sworn these things.
According to the testimony cited, this priest is remarkable in distinction from all the Levitical priests in that by divine oath he is established as a priest forever. Because this priesthood is based on an indestructible life, it continues without ever ending. This different priestly order produces a priest who lives “forever,” as realized in the resurrected Jesus Christ whose life continues uninterruptedly so that he can intercede in an unbroken fashion as a priest for his people. Nothing less than the oath of God confirms this uniqueness.
Heb 7:18, 19 For on the one hand there is a setting aside of the former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); and on the other hand there is the introduction of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
The drastic nature of these expressions is often overlooked. The whole priestly order of Israel that had functioned for the previous 1500 years, along with its sacrifices and ceremonies, is finished. If the temple were still standing at the time of the composition of Hebrews, the writer would be saying that all the procedures of worship and sacrifice now have no significance whatsoever in bringing men to God, and never again shall have any significance.
Today devout Jews still long for a restoration of the old system. Nothing could be better, so far as some adherents to Judaism and their supporters are concerned, than the restoration of the temple, the priesthood and the sacrifices of the old order. Yet that law never could perfect the worshipper. Otherwise, sacrifices would not have needed to be offered continually.
But the resurrection and ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father brings in a better hope. Though we cannot see these realities with our physical eyes, we understand and believe that the Lord is at the right hand of God interceding for us.
By this better hope we are drawing near to God.[xiii] The vitality of this new access to God is emphasized by the use of a present tense for the verb: we “are drawing near.” We are constantly coming near to the very presence of God through Jesus Christ our priestly mediator.
The most drastic conclusion to be drawn from this perpetual priesthood of Christ is that it has the effect of setting aside all the former commandments related to the old priesthood, temple and sacrifices. The weakness and uselessness of the old way is exposed by the perfections of the new priesthood.
The significance of this point for the current scene needs to be appreciated fully. No return to the old form of temple, priesthood and ritual is possible. The perfections of Christ’s priestly ministry in the fulfillment-sanctuary of the new covenant cannot be exchanged for the weaknesses of the shadowy, temporally and spatially limited service of the old covenant. If ever a third Jewish temple were erected in Jerusalem on Mt. Zion, it would have no significance whatsoever in terms of opening a way of access to God. The priesthood of Jesus Christ in the fulfillment-temple of the new covenant is perpetual and eternal, and nothing of the forms of the old covenant can replace or supplement it.
4. THE LORD HAS SWORN, you are a priest (vs. 20-25)
Heb 7:20, 21 And clearly it did not happen without an oath. For on the one hand they had become priests without an oath; but on the other hand he (became a priest) with an oath by the one who said to him, “THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, ‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER'”;
What was it that brought about the revival of the idea of a priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek 1000 years after its appearance in the days of Abraham? [xiv] David, the author of Psalm 110, was very busy establishing the framework for the functioning of the Levitical priesthood by the composing of psalms and the collecting of building materials for the temple. Why then would he have introduced the idea of a superior priestly order that would seem to raise the question of the legitimacy of Israel’s approach to God under the Levitical order?
Psalm 110 itself may provide a clue to the answer. In the first verse of the psalm, the Covenant LORD (Yahveh) speaks to King David’s Lord (Adonai) and invites him to remain seated at his right hand until all his enemies are subdued. Clearly in this first verse of the psalm David’s LORD (Adonai) is the Messiah to come, since no other human figure would stand as Lord over David in his kingly office. But then this Messianic figure is described as a priest as well (v. 4). Perhaps in this light David came to understand that both the offices of king and priest eventually would be fulfilled by the coming Messiah. So the concept of a new order of priesthood that would be an appropriate companion to a royal Messiah naturally found its fulfillment in a revival of the old order of Melchizedek, which also combined these two offices.
The presence of a divine oath associated with this priestly order of Melchizedek firmly establishes it as a better priesthood. For although a great deal of ceremony was involved in the establishment of the Levitical priesthood, nothing is said about a divine oath. Yet as David’s kingly office was confirmed by God’s own oath, so fittingly the office of priest held by this messianic figure also is confirmed by an oath.[xv]
The divine oath is strengthened even further by the addition of the negative: “The Lord has sworn AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND.” Nothing will deter God from this intent to establish a merciful and faithful High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. A law might be changed, but this oath which included the affirmation that God never would change his mind, will last forever. As has been well noted:
It is a matter of exceptional significance that the covenant with Abraham and the declaration concerning the priestly order of Melchizedek were both confirmed by God with an oath, for under these two heads all the gracious promises and prophecies which precede the coming of Christ are gathered, and with the coming of Christ both the evangelical covenant and the evangelical priesthood burst into fulfillment.[xvi]
So the participant of the new covenant can be greatly encouraged. A divine oath has established their mediator in a perpetual office. The idea of “forever” includes the concept of “unbroken succession,” which is one of the main points the writer intends to stress. The high priest appointed by God for the new covenant intercedes for his people without interruption. No matter how great the seeming weakness of his people may be, this high priestly mediator is always at the right hand of the Father, interceding constantly for the well-being of his people. For he has been established in his office by an oath that God will never change.
Heb 7:22 by so much more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
The divine oath concerning this perpetual priesthood which confirms a perfected, unbroken fellowship between God and his people should be all the assurance that is needed. But there is still more. Jesus himself has become in himself the guarantee, the surety of this better covenant.[xvii] The name “Jesus”, indicating his human nature, is stressed by being placed at the end of the sentence. In his human nature, he was offered as a sacrifice which guaranteed the efficacy of the new covenant. Just as animals were divided to confirm the oath of the old covenant, so the body of Jesus was crucified to guarantee the acceptance of all who came to God on the basis of the new covenant.
Because of the unbroken nature of his intercession, Jesus provides in his person as high priest the guarantee of this better covenant. Under the old covenant, the high priests were continually dying. In these circumstances, the people could not help but feel some uncertainly about the mediatorial ministry of their high priest. But in the case of Jesus, he as a high priest has the power of an unbroken life. His permanence as high priest serves as a personal guarantee of the effectiveness of the new covenant.
Now for the first time the writer speaks of a “better” covenant. But he has prepared his readers for this perspective. The lesser is blessed by the better; so Melchizedek is better that Abraham and the descendants in his loins (Heb. 7:7). We now have a better hope than the law could provide (Heb. 7:19). As a consequence, the whole covenantal structure of God’s relation to men has changed, and Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant (Heb. 7:22).
So the “betters” build on one another. A better priesthood, a better law to go along with this better priesthood, and a better covenant that embraces both the better priesthood and the better law. The writer is steadily developing his case for the fact that people under the provisions of the new covenant are in a better situation than the people under the provisions of the old covenant. So although the old covenant may have more spectacular outer forms, it is far outstripped in the substance of redemptive blessing provided by the new covenant.
Heb 7:23, 24 And those priests on the one hand existed in greater numbers, but only because death kept them from continuing; but he, on the other hand, holds his priesthood permanently, because he lives forever.
The person concerning whom God swears in Psalm 110:4 is clearly a single individual. “The Lord has sworn, ‘You [sing.] are a priest…’” It is a “you” (singular) who is the recipient of God’s oath. This oath in no way anticipates a line of priests. Instead it is only one person, a singular “you” to whom God swears. So inherent in the text itself is the fact that this priesthood could be filled by only one person. The multitude of priests of the old covenant, far from showing its superiority, displays its weakness. Priests continually succeeded one another because they kept dying. But Jesus lives forever, and so can hold his priesthood permanently.
The idea behind the term “permanently” is somewhat ambiguous, but in this case the ambiguity enriches the concept. The term has been interpreted to mean either “perpetual” or “non-transferable”. The one concept is contained in the other. Because Christ’s high priesthood is “non-transferable”, no one else can occupy the office; and because it is perpetual, it must of necessity be interminable.[xviii]
Heb 7:25 So he is able to save totally those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
This is the first and only time in Hebrews in which the term “save” refers to the effect of Christ’s work for others. The other time it is used in Hebrews the term speaks of Jesus’ own salvation through his calling out to God with many tears and much crying (Heb. 5:7). Putting the two instances together, Jesus appears as one who himself needed to call on the Lord to deliver him from a great threat to his soul and body, even to the point of shedding great tears. For this very reason, he is able to function well as a high priest. On the one hand, he in his human nature knows the distress that fallen sinners feel. He continues as a human being even to the present day. On the other hand, sinners may be helped greatly by knowing that Jesus their high priest truly understands their distress. Jesus knows exactly how his people feel, just because he has existed and continues to exist in the same nature.
So the believer in Jesus should be confident. A high priest intercedes, draws near to God in an unbroken fashion. By the oath of God and by the power of an endless life, he is established permanently at the right hand of God to intercede for the needy. The participant of the new covenant is better off in every way in terms of his ability to draw on the resources of a gracious God who remains reconciled to sinners. Any returning to the older forms could only mean loss of blessing.
5. You are a PRIEST (vv. 26-28)
Now the writer comes to the last segment of his exposition. At this point he becomes quite explicit in including himself among the benefactors of Christ’ priestly work. He declares that it was fitting that “we” should have a holy high priest that is exalted above the heavens (v. 26).
Heb 7:26 For it was fitting that we should have a high priest who is holy, without evil, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;
Considering the particular needs of sinners, it becomes clear that Jesus is exactly the kind of high priest that is needed. In verses 26-28 the writer provides seven characteristics of this great high priest of the new covenant. Each of these seven attributes shows the suitability of Christ to meet the needs of his people.
First, he is holy. When standing in the presence of the thrice-holy God, he does not recoil in shame, as did the prophet Isaiah. He stands without shame to intercede with the Lord because he manifests the same holiness as God himself. As a consequence, he can enter effectively into the presence of a holy God on behalf of his people.
Secondly, this high priest is “without evil.” In addition to being consecrated to God, Jesus has no evil to which people may point. He is altogether innocent of any charge, properly comparable to the innocent lamb of the old covenant sacrifices. Jesus was separate from all evil and all its appearances. So he was fully qualified to offer himself as a sacrifice for sin in the place of others.
In relation to God, he is holy, and in relation to men, he is without evil. An evil priest works havoc among the people of God. The people trusted Aaron, and he led them in the construction of the golden calf-idol. But Jesus can be trusted. Because there is no evil in him, he can lead his people in the right way to God.
Thirdly, he is “without impurity” or “undefiled.” In relation to God, he is holy. In relation to men, he is without evil. In relation to himself, he is undefiled. These three words describing the distinctiveness of Jesus as a high priest in his sinless perfections build one on the other. He is most qualified as a high priest because of the absence of any defilement whatsoever. Therefore if he should take up our cause, which he has done, his priestly role must meet with success.
Fourthly, he has been separated from sinners-and continues to maintain that separation. Sadly one servant of the Lord after another shows the weakness of his sinful flesh. But Christ displays none of those weaknesses, which makes him most qualified for interceding on behalf of sinners. As fully man Jesus experienced every human temptation. But he yielded to none of them. In his circumstances, he is altogether identified with sinners. But in his performance he is separated from them.
Fifthly, as the great high priest of the new covenant, he has been exalted once and for all above the heavens.[xix] Jesus is not only a priest according to the order of Melchizedek; he is also the kingly figure to whom the Lord has said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet” (Psa. 110:1). Because he has heavenly as well as earthly enemies, demonic as well as human foes, his exaltation must place him “above” the heavens. All his enemies, seen and unseen, earthly and heavenly, remain under his authority.
Is not this exactly the kind of high priest needed by weakened sinners? He not only has the position that enables him to intercede continually; he also has the power to bring about the demise of all his and our enemies.
Heb 7:27 He does not have a daily necessity, as those high priests, of offering up sacrifices first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people. For he made an offering of himself once and for all.
Sixthly, he is a high priest who had to make only one offering for sins when he offered up himself. The priests of the old covenant had to make their offerings continually. Why? Because their sacrifices were not truly effective in removing sin. An animal could never substitute for a human being.
Jesus did not follow this imperfect pattern of sacrifice. As a sinless high priest, he offered himself once for the sins of others. The transaction has been completed, never needing repetition again. The offering of himself once has made the way to God perpetually open to sinners. All the sins of those who trust in him already have been removed by the single offering of the son of God.
Heb 7:28 For the law establishes men as high priests who are weak. But the word of the oath, which came after the law, establishes the son, who has been made perfect forever.
Seventh and finally, this high priest is a Son in contrast to the mere “men” appointed under the old covenant law. The many men who served as priests over the centuries all had the same characteristics, in contrast with the sevenfold strengths of Jesus. They all had weaknesses, and they were incapable of overcoming those weaknesses. When compared with the perfections of Jesus, their weaknesses become even more obvious:
*He is holy; they were unholy
*He is without evil; they were evil.
*He is separated from sinners; they were themselves sinners.
*He is exalted above the heavens where he can intercede directly with God; they are confined to earth, and cannot reach God.
*He made one sufficient offering for sin; they presented many ineffective offerings.
*He is the perfect Son of God; they were imperfect men.
No deficiency characterizes Jesus the great high priest of the new covenant. For the word of the oath which came after the law appoints a Son who has none of the limitations of the old covenant priests. As a consequence, he is able to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him.
These closing verses of the chapter have been designated as “a hymn to the high priest”.[xx] Humanity rejoices in finally finding a high priest qualified to understand its weaknesses and to come to its aid: so far above us and so near to us; himself in need of no cleansing and able to cleanse and expiate all our guilt; so different from the Levitical priests and so much more effective in the function of his sacerdotal mediation.[xxi]
Conclusion
So the writer has completed his exegesis of Psalm 110:4. Word by word, phrase by phrase, line by line he has examined the significance of this one verse of the scriptures of the old covenant to indicate its fulfillment in the new. His exegetical work can be described as nothing less than “brilliant.” Treating the passage in its full biblical-theological context, he has brought out the richness of its meaning in a way that must have communicated great blessing to its original recipients.
The exposition of this rich text by the writer to the Hebrews also should communicate significant understanding for readers in the current day. For this treatment of Psalm 110:4 not only exalts Jesus Christ as our great high priest but also shows how futile it would be to rebuild the temple and reinstitution sacrifices and a priesthood.
As the writer to the Hebrews has indicated, Jesus cannot exercise his priesthood according to the old order. For he is of the tribe of Judah. He cannot function as priest in the context of the shadowy forms of old covenant legislation. For this reason, it cannot be expected that Jesus ever will function as priest in a temple built in the earthly Jerusalem according to an order that has passed away. His priestly ministry is located in the temple of the heavenly, eternal realities. He cannot fulfill his exalted ministry in the shadowy, temporal forms of the old covenant.
As a consequence, any restoration of temple and sacrifice according to the order of the old covenant would supplant the high priestly ministry of Jesus. The idea is unthinkable. No priesthood on earth could compare with the perfected priesthood of Jesus in heaven, and it would be an insult to his perfected sacrifice to suggest that any subsequent offering by another priesthood would have significance in terms of a reconciliation of the sinner to God.
If the temple, the sacrifices and the priesthood of the old covenant have been replaced in the advances of redemptive history by the transition from the old covenant to the new, it should not be surprising that these old rituals also have been superseded. The form of worship for participants in the new covenant cannot follow the patterns of the old covenant worshippers. With the perpetual change of priesthood came also a change of the old laws of worship. The heavenly Jerusalem, the Jerusalem above, is the mother of us all, and the focus of our drawing near to God (Heb. 12:22-24; Gal 4:26). For Jesus our great high priest is there, making continual intercession for us. Into this true tabernacle he has opened a new and living way by his blood. As we approach this Jerusalem of the heavenly realities, we join with the assembly of saints and angels that shall be in God’s presence forever.
Because of this great privilege of continual access into the very presence of God himself, we should look for no other city, temple, sacrifice or priesthood. The perfections of Jesus provide all we need, both for this life and for that which is to come. As a consequence, our worship cannot conform to the old patterns associated with the previous priesthood and sacrifices. Instead, the worship of the new covenant community must celebrate in a way that indicates that the old rituals are gone and the eternal realities have come.
[i]The “unique and all-sufficient high priesthood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” is, according to Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, “central to the doctrine of this epistle, previously introduced but then interrupted at 5:10 (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], p. 236).
[ii] “The heart of the doctrinal section of the Epistle to the Hebrews lies in the discussion of the high priesthood of Christ recorded in chapter 7. All of the preceding material in this chapter [sic] is introductory” (Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984]), p. 183.
[iii] The 11QMelch document of Qumran demonstrates the fact that quite a bit of speculation concerning this mysterious figure was going on in NT times. Hughes, op. cit., p. 238, indicates that in this document Melchizedek appears as “the eschatological deliverer cast in the role of champion of the faithful Jewish remnant who have not defiled themselves by serving Belial.” In addition, the Maccabean leader Simon resembles Melchizedek in holding the two offices of priest and king, the “leader and high priest in perpetuity until a true prophet should appear” (1 Macc. 14:41ff., as cited by Hughes, op. cit., p. 239).
[iv] Says Kistemaker, op. cit., p. 187: “Abraham had reached a pinnacle in his leadership career in the southern part of Canaan” by the defeat of the kingly coalition. Yet he recognizes Melchizedek as being worthy of receiving the best of the spoils of war.
[v] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), p. 155.
[vi]For a discussion of the identity of Salem with Jerusalem, see Hughes, op. cit., p. 246. Hughes notes that Jerome indicates that all Christians of his day made the identity of the two places. But Hughes rejects the idea that the word had a hybrid etymology with Greek “holy” (hieros) preceding the Hebrew “peace” (shalom). For a full discussion of the relation of the two places and the etymology of the term, see James Calvin DeYoung, Jerusalem in the New Testament (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1960), pp. 5-25. DeYoung cautiously notes that the etymology of the term “presents very difficult and perhaps insolvable problems…” (p. 5). But he proposes that the most likely origin of the Hebrew term resides in a combination of the roots yrh and shlm, meaning “foundation of peace” (pp. 6, 7).
[vii]Rabbinical scholars introduced the idea that Melchizedek was identical to Noah’s eldest son Shem, apparently before the end of the first century. This correlation would have the effect of minimizing the significance of Abraham’s paying him the tithe, since it might be expected that he would show such respect to Shem, from whom he was descended. The tradition was endorsed by Jerome and Luther. But Calvin rejected the theory, noting that God would not have designated a man of such prominence as Shem by a different name without indicating the connection. In opposition to the theory it also has been noted that Melchizedek is presented both in the OT and the NT without genealogy, while Shem’s genealogy is thoroughly traced. For the discussion, see Hughes, op. cit., p. 244.
[viii]Hughes, op. cit., p. 251, quotes Herveus (12th century): “If Melchizedek, who was a sign and shadow, is preferred to Abraham and to all the Levitical priests, how much more Christ, who is the truth and the substance!…If a type of Christ is greater than he who has the promises, how much more so is Christ himself!”
[ix] This comparison of the two priesthoods is structured grammatically by the Greek men…de structure. “On the one hand” (men), the Levitical priesthood had the law’s authorization to collect tithes from the people. “On the other hand” (de), Melchizedek collected a tithe from Abraham, and blessed the one having the promises.
[x]Cf. Hughes, op. cit., p. 253 and note 11, who provides supporting evidence that the sequence of finite verbs in the perfect tense confirm an ongoing relationship.
[xi] The burning question for the writer is the matter of “perfection”, the teleosis achieved by these contrasting orders of priesthood. In the context of Hebrews, the term refers not so much to moral perfection as to the perfection that would be required for a person to approach God in life and worship without fear of being consumed for his corruption. After Abraham the law came, and with the law came rules and directions for sacrifice that involved the Levitical priestly mediators. This priesthood with its laws was intended to have the effect of drawing people to God, of opening the way for safe access into his presence.
[xii] prodelon is the word used in vs. 14. It occurs only here in the New Testament and means “evident.” It is evident or obvious that Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, and that tribe throughout redemptive history has been associated with kingship, not with priesthood. The word used in verse 15 is katadelon. It also occurs only here in the New Testament, and it suggests the writer’s intent to deal with self-evident facts. The writer explicitly underscores the self-evident character of the point he is making by the use of the further term perissoteron eti, meaning “more abundantly” evident. It becomes even more evident that a new priesthood has developed, if another priest actually arises after the likeness of Melchizedek. With the coming of Jesus, that is exactly what happened.
[xiii] Both the word “better” and the phrase “are drawing near” are key concepts to the writer of the book of Hebrews, as well as the term “perfect” in the previous phrase. In particular, the term “better” captures a major theme that runs throughout the letter. Of the eighteen times this adjective “better” occurs in the NT, twelve are found in Hebrews. The contrast between the covenants is not one of “bad” over against “good.” Instead, it is “good” as over against “better.”
[xiv]The structure of these verses includes a parenthesis that runs from the second half of v. 20 through v. 21. So the main thought reads, “And in view of the fact [kath’ hoson] that it [the declaration concerning a revived priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek] was not without an oath… by so much more has Jesus become the surety of a better covenant” (vs. 20b-21). That is, because an oath is involved in the establishment of the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek (which was not the case with respect to the priesthood of Levi), then the priesthood of Melchizedek is that much better due to its greater surety. For God the Almighty normally does not swear, since his word by itself is sufficient. But in this case, for the sake of the weakness of men, he took an oath. Such a solemn, rare occasion as God’s taking an oath shows the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek.
[xv] The word for “oath” occurs only four times in three verses in Hebrews, all in this immediate context: Heb. 7:20, 21, 28. It gives the idea of strengthening a commitment. Though the NT passages that refer to a divine oath are not numerous, it is plain that God intends to keep in the new covenant the oaths he took under the old covenant (cf. Lk. 1:23; Acts 2:30; Heb. 6:17). God holds to his word, particularly to his sworn oaths.
[xvi]Hughes, op. cit., p. 267.
[xvii] The word “guarantee” (enguos) is a legal term that means literally to be put “under good security”. The word occurs only here in the New Testament, and appears three times in the Septuagint (Sir. 29:15, 16; 2 Macc. 10:28).
[xviii]Cf. the discussion in Hughes, op. cit., p. 268, n. 34.
[xix] The verbal contrast is noteworthy. Jesus “has been separated from sinners” (and continues in that separation-perfect tense), and he “was made higher than the heavens” (once and for all-aorist tense).
[xx]Teodorico, as cited in Hughes, op. cit., p. 280. He also quotes Moffatt’s rather spontaneous response to the passage: “It is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody…” (n. 52).
[xxi]Hughes, quoting Teodorico, p. 280.
This excerpt is taken from O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2000), 53-83.
Image: Melchizedek receives the Tithe, Tapestry from Hampton Court of Abram and Melchizedek. It is part of a set of ten tapestries, woven by Willem de Kempaneer and acquired by Henry VIII in the 1540s (Flickr).
O. Palmer Robertson
Dr. Robertson is a teaching elder. He is the author of several books and articles, primarily viewing the scriptures from the perspective of the history of redemption.
SHARE THIS
