Your ShelfYour Projects

The Kingdom of God

3%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 7, 1874

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 44, No. 4.

Read the full edition

The Kingdom of God

By Joseph H. Waggoner

The Kingdom of God.—No. 14.

The subject of the priesthood of Christ is closely related to that of the setting up of the kingdom of God. A correct understanding of the one guides to a correct understanding of the other.
We have found in our examination of the Scriptures that the Son of God occupies, at different times, two thrones: One, the throne of his Father in Heaven; the other, the throne of his father David. The latter was cast down, overturned, and is so to remain until it is given to Him “whose right it is,” as the son of David. The throne of God in Heaven was never cast down; it could not be overturned. On the throne of his Father in Heaven he is to sit until his enemies are made his footstool, when he will “deliver up” that dominion “to God, even the Father,” and return to take vengeance on his enemies. On the throne of his father David he will sit forever, and his reign there will have no end. To apply all these declarations of Scripture to one and the same throne is utterly impossible.
On one of these thrones and in one of these dominions Christ acts as a priest. This is admitted by all. But of late years a controversy has sprung up as to which it is. The fact that this controversy is modern in its origin shall make no difference with us. We do not inquire which is the older view, or which has been commonly accepted, but which is the true one.
It has been proved that the new covenant is now of force, as it was ratified by the death of Christ. Heb. 9:16, 17. His blood is the blood of the new testament, or covenant. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25. Both covenants were dedicated with blood. Comp. Ex. 24:3–8, and Heb. 9:11–22.
Every scripture expression concerning the priesthood of Christ shows that he is now the mediator of the new covenant. “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant.” Heb. 8:6. “He is the mediator of the new testament.” Chap. 9:15. He has entered “into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” Verse 24. This is still more fully shown in those passages which speak of the nature of his priesthood.
Christ was called a priest after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron. Heb. 7:11. Although the offerings made by Aaron were typical of Christ, and Aaron himself was a type of Christ, they were not of the same order. The differences in their priesthood are so many and so great that it is not possible that they should be of the same order. In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul points out these differences, showing wherein the priesthood of Christ could not be perfectly represented by that of Aaron and his sons.
They had to make offerings for their own sins; but he is without sin. Heb. 4:15; 7:26, 27.
They continually offered the blood of sacrifices which could not take away sin; but he offered himself once, making an offering which perfects the worshipers. Heb. 7:27; 9:12–14, 25; 10:12, 13.
They could not continue by reason of death; but he ever liveth to make intercession for us. Heb. 7:23, 25.
With them the priesthood descended from father to son; but his is unchangeable. Num. 3:10; Heb. 7:24.
Their priesthood was in the earthly sanctuary; but his priesthood cannot be on earth. Heb. 8:4, 5.
And the reckoning of their genealogy was essential to their being admitted to a discharge of the duties of the office; but no priests traced their genealogy to the tribe from which he sprang. Heb. 7:13, 14.
They did not unite royalty with their priesthood; but he is both king and priest.
Now as Aaron could not typify the priesthood of Christ in these respects, Melchisedec is presented in the Scriptures to make up this deficiency. Said Paul, “For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” Heb. 7:1–3.
The record in Genesis gives us to understand that he was a real personage; as much so as Abraham, who gave tithes to him. And he can only be said to have been without parents, &c., because there is no genealogy of him given in the records, in contrast with Aaron and his sons, whose genealogy had to be carefully preserved. That this method of expression was common among the Hebrews, we have the best authority to show. Says Dr. Clarke, “He who could not support his pretensions by just genealogical evidence, was said by the Jews to be without father. . . . This sort of phraseology was not uncommon when the genealogy of a person was unknown or obscure.”
The translation of the text from the Syriac is as follows: “Of whom neither his father nor his mother are written in the genealogies; nor the commencement of his days, nor the end of his life; but, after the likeness of the Son of God, his priesthood remaineth forever.”
Wakefield renders it, “Of whose father, mother, pedigree, birth, and death, there is no account.”
The Rhemish N. T. has the following note: “Without father, &c. Not that he had no father, &c., but that neither his father nor his pedigree, nor his birth, nor his death, are set down in the Scriptures.”
Comprehensive Com. “The commentators generally agree that what is meant is, that his name is not preserved, or the names of his parents, in the sacred genealogies.”
The record in Genesis gives us no information in regard to Melchisedec further than that he was king of Salem and priest of God. Many conjectures have been put forth relative to him; some suppose he was Shem. But all such conjectures must be vain, as it was evidently the design of the Scriptures that it should not be known who he was. If it were possible to ascertain this, if his genealogy could be traced, his priesthood would no longer represent that of Christ, according to Heb. 7:1–3, &c. In his priesthood he has neither father nor son; that is, he has neither predecessor nor successor in that office. He has neither beginning of days nor end of life; that is, his office did not come to him because he was born of a certain line—it was not of descent; nor does death cause a cessation of his ministry, as was the case with all of Aaron’s order.
The apostle having shown that the priesthood of Christ is not after the order of Aaron, but of Melchisedec, pointed out the differences of the two; and having specified the peculiarities of the Melchisedec priesthood, sums up his argument in the following manner:—
“Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens.” Heb. 8:1.
Both the form of expression and the fact stated show that this applies to the present time; that the priesthood of our Saviour is in the present dispensation. “We have such an high priest”—not shall have in the future. “He hath obtained a more excellent ministry, . . . he is the mediator of a better covenant,” not will obtain, nor will become a mediator. He has entered into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. This is decisive. As surely as he has entered into Heaven itself, so surely has he gone to appear before God as our priest, or mediator.
But Paul says, We have an High Priest on the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens; and this is “the sum” of his remarks on the Melchisedec priesthood. Melchisedec was both king and priest; so our High Priest is on a throne. If not, he would not be a priest of that order.
The position or place of our High Priest in his ministry is shown in the prophecy of Zechariah. He says: “Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”
It is impossible to make this Scripture apply to the reign of Christ on the throne of David. Two persons are here spoken of: the Branch, which is Christ, the Son of God; and the Lord or Jehovah, the Father and the Son. Now if we substitute these names for the pronouns in verse 13, it will read: And the Son shall build the temple of the Father; and the Son shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon the Father’s throne; and the Son shall be a priest upon the Father’s throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. This scripture is fulfilled in the present position of our Melchisedec priest, “who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens.” Heb. 8:1. Jesus himself testifies to his position, in Rev. 3:21, “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” And as the counsel of peace is between them both, during his priestly rule on the throne of his Father, therefore he is at once “King of peace, and priest of the Most High God.” He has now “our peace,” because as mediator he reconciles us to God, and gives repentance and the remission of sins.
But none of the scriptures which we have been examining will apply to the position and office of Christ when he sits on the throne of David. Aaron had no kingship with his priesthood, and David had no priesthood with his kingship. Melchisedec united both in one. Christ is not a priest after the order of Aaron. So Paul explicitly affirms in Heb. 7:11. And he surely cannot be a priest after the order of David, for there is no such order of priesthood.
The truth so plainly stated by the apostle, that there is no genealogical reckoning in the priesthood of Christ, is fatal to the theory that he is to be a priest on the throne of David, as his genealogy as the son of David is as necessary to prove his right to that throne, as the genealogy of a Levite was necessary to enable him to occupy the priest’s office.
But we need not pursue this thought further. So far as proof is concerned there seems really to be but one side to the question. As surely as Christ is now on his Father’s throne so surely he is a priest; and as Paul says he is not called a priest after the order of Aaron, but is after the order of Melchisedec, it is positively shown that he is now a priest of that order. But it is also clearly shown that he cannot be a priest on the throne of David, as both the types and the plain declarations of Scripture forbid it.
We are inclined to think that they who argue that Christ is not now a priest after the order of Melchisedec, but that he will be such a priest on the throne of David, look more to the effect that the decision of this question will have upon other parts of their theory than to the evidences by which it is decided. At the same time, they seem to overlook the effect it must have on our relations to the gospel plan. For, as Christ is not called a priest after the order of Aaron, but of Melchisedec, if he is not now a priest after the order of Melchisedec he is not a priest at all; and then we have no priest, no intercessor, no mediator, no one to grant repentance and the remission of sins. And then it is not truth that Christ is entered into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us!
We are thus particular to notice this subject because of the conclusion which has been drawn from the position that Christ is not now a priest after the order of Melchisedec. They who thus argue, who claim that this priesthood will be on the throne of David in the future, endeavor thereby to maintain the erroneous view that there will be probation to the nations of the earth after the second advent of the Lord. But if we have succeeded in establishing our positions thus far, that view cannot be true. Indeed, the one point alone of Christ being now a priest on the throne of his Father in Heaven refutes that error.
But as many are deceived by that theory, and are led to neglect present truth and present duty, under the delusive hope of a better chance in the future, it may be well to notice this point more directly than we have yet done. We have endeavored to show that the following positions are true:—
1. The work of subduing the enemies of Christ or of making them subject to him, which they claim will be accomplished in the future age, will be done before the second advent. The Father puts them under his feet, or makes them his footstool, and he will sit at the right hand of the Father till that work is accomplished.
2. The most clear and definite prophecies point to the coming of Christ as the time when his enemies will be dashed in pieces, and “all the kingdoms of the world which are upon the face of the whole earth,” will fall in “the battle of the great day of God Almighty,” to rise no more. This battle will be fought under the pouring out of the seventh plague, under which also Christ will come. It is under that plague that the voice of God will be heard, which will shake heaven and earth. At that time “the wrath of the Lamb” will be manifested, for he will come “taking vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel.”
3. The old covenant is passed away, and cannot be renewed. And if it could be renewed it would be of no avail, as it never did take away sin, its offerings being only typical and shadowy. Compare Heb. 9:15 and 10:4.
4. The new covenant is now in force, being ratified by the death of Christ. It was dedicated with his blood; and by that blood he has entered into the sanctuary in Heaven as minister of the new covenant. And his priesthood on his Father’s throne must cease when he leaves that throne, as he then comes to take vengeance on his enemies. Hence the blessings of the new covenant can only be secured in this dispensation, while Jesus is officiating as mediator before the Father.
We have briefly noticed the objection (for it is only that) which assumes that God’s justice can only be vindicated by giving the nations of the earth, and especially the heathen, a better chance than they have in this dispensation. Of course that view makes it necessary that the heathen of past generations should have the same opportunity; and that would demand that the nations of the dead should be raised to another probation!
But every one must see that a restoration to probation under the present gospel system and gospel means would be no more effectual for their salvation than it is at present. The advocates of future probation, known as teachers of the “Age to Come,” recognize this fact also. Preachers of that doctrine have been known to state publicly that a new system of probation, under more favorable circumstances, must be established to save the nations of the earth! This, of course, is an impeachment of the present gospel plan; its failure to save all the nations is thus made the fault of the gospel, and not the fault of those who “put it from” them. A new system of probation is nothing less than “another gospel,” and that is precisely what the Age to Come is. J. H. WAGGONER.