WHEN WILL THE NATIONS BE DASHED IN PIECES?
Objection. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedec; but Melchisedec was both a priest and king, at the same time: therefore the priesthood of Christ will not cease at his coming, but will continue while he is a king on the throne of David. Paul to the Hebrews says the earthly priests "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things;" [chap. viii, 5;] but there were certain things which were not exemplified by the priests of the order of Aaron, and there were other things in their ministration to which there is nothing corresponding in the antitype. Therefore it is evident that Aaron and his sons, or the priests of that order, were not complete types of the Minister of the new covenant in the heavenly Sanctuary. They offered a multitude of offerings "year by year;" but he offered but one. Heb. vii, 27, ix, 25, 26, x, 1, 11, 12. Some have endeavored to follow the types so strictly that they have lost sight of this fact, and imbibed opinions subversive of some of the most important truths on this great subject. The points of difference in the ministration of the two orders are specified by the Apostle in his letter to the Hebrews. They could not continue by reason of death; but he ever liveth to make intercession for us. With them the priesthood descended from father to son; his is unchangeable. Heb. vii, 23-25. The reckoning of their genealogy was essential to their being admitted to discharge the duties of their office; but no priests were reckoned of the tribe from which he sprang. Chap. vii, 13, 14. They did not unite royalty with their priesthood; but he is both King and Priest. As Aaron could not typify the character and priesthood of Christ in these respects, Melchisedec is presented in the Scriptures to make up the deficiency, says Paul. "For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the king 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. vii, 1-3. The record in Genesis would give us to understand that Melchisedec was a real personage, as much as Abraham who gave tithes to him; and he can only be said to have been without parents, descent, &c., as contrasted with Aaron and his sons, whose genealogy had to be carefully preserved, otherwise they were not permitted to fill the priestly office. That this method of expression was common among the Hebrews, who were very careful in preserving such records, we have the very 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. Now the record in Genesis gives us no information in regard to Melchisedec, further than that he was king of Salem and priest of the Most High God. Many have conjectured relative to the identity of Melchisedec, and some suppose he was Shem; but all such conjectures must be vain and fruitless, as it is evidently the design of the author of the Scriptures that it should not be known. If it were possible to ascertain who Melchisedec was, further than the simple statement of Gen. xiv, 18, he would no longer stand a type of Christ's priesthood according to the declaration of Heb. vii, 1-3. All the conditions specified in that Scripture regarding Melchisedec are fulfilled in the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly Sanctuary, and no where else. He has neither father nor son; that is, he has neither predecessor nor successor in that office; for it is in regard to his priesthood that these terms are applied. 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 lineal descent; neither does death cause a cessation of his ministry, as was the case with all of Aaron's order. But the particular point at which the objection aims is that of his kingly priesthood. We have seen that all the other points specified in the type of Melchisedec apply to the ministry of Christ, at this present time, where he is officiating even in "heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." And is this point an exception? I think not, for several reasons. In the argument of the Apostle to the Hebrews he proves that Christ is superior to Aaron, constituted a priest by the oath of God after the order of Melchisedec. He points out the characteristics of his priesthood, including its royalty, and sums up in chap. viii, 1, thus, "Now of the things which we have spoken"—concerning the priesthood of Christ—"this is the sum: We have such a High Priest"—What kind of a High Priest? Such a High Priest as has been described; to wit: a priest who is holy, harmless, and undefiled; not subject to death; whose priesthood is unchangeable; not of the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec—King of Peace, and Priest of the Most High God. And where have we such a High Priest? on the throne of David?—"Who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens." He goes on to teach that the heavenly Sanctuary, where Christ ministers, must be purified with blood; also that he makes but one offering; that he offers it but once; and enters once into the perfect tabernacle to make an atonement. From these facts it is evident that the atonement must be fully made when he leaves, or ceases to minister in, the Sanctuary and true tabernacle;" and not a declaration of the whole argument will admit of his performing this work a second time in heaven, or resuming it somewhere else. The above statements of Paul relating to the Melchisedec order of priesthood, are general; and as generals comprehend the sum of the particulars unless exceptions are directly granted, each particular must be included in the summing up of the argument, as no exception is noticed. But again, the Scriptures prove that that particular specification is now fulfilled by the Minister of the new covenant, in heaven. See Zech. vi, 12, 13, which has been quoted (I might say perverted) to prove that Christ will be a priest on the throne of David. It reads, "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."194It is altogether impossible to make this scripture apply to the reign of Christ on the throne of David. It will be perceived at a glance that two persons are introduced by the prophet: 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;" that is, between the Father and the Son. This scripture is fulfilled in the position of our Melchisedec priest, "who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens." Jesus himself testifies to his position in Rev. iii, 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." Some will, perhaps, be ready to start in astonishment at the idea that Christ is a King at this present time, and has been during his whole ministry in heaven. But the word of God clearly teaches it, and therefore I believe it. Not on the throne of David, in the Kingdom of Israel, (which is cast down during his priesthood,) but on the throne of God, in the kingdom of the universe. We are taught that if we suffer with Christ we shall also reign with him; and Jesus promises a seat on his throne to the overcomers. Then if we reign as kings with Christ, sitting upon his throne, is it too much to believe, that Christ reigns as a King with the Father, while sitting on the Father's throne? It may be contrary to our ideas of Christ's position during the present dispensation, but if our ideas conflict with such plain teachings of Scripture, let them be discarded at once. The Word says he shall rule and be a priest on the throne of the LORD; and as the counsel of peace is 'between them both' during his priestly rule, therefore he is at once 'King of Peace and Priest of the Most High God.' When I read the words of the risen Saviour to his disciples, that all power in heaven and earth is given to him; [Matt. xxviii, 18;] that men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father; [John v, 23;] and learn that the Father hath highly exalted him, even to a seat on his own universal throne. My soul rejoices at the thought that 'we have such a High Priest' to make intercession for us. Surely they that put their trust in such a Saviour shall not be ashamed. It is greatly to be feared that we have not considered the Apostle and High Priest of our profession,' in all respects, in the light in which he is presented in the Word. It is necessary that we recognize his exalted position, in order that we give him that honor which the Father requires we should bestow upon the Son while in the joint occupancy of the throne of universal dominion. Another point claims our attention, which is this: As Christ is a royal priest, or king and priest at once, these offices being united in Melchisedec, it is necessary, to fulfill the type of Melchisedec, that there be no genealogical reckoning in regard to either his priesthood or kingship. We should search in vain to find who was king before Melchisedec, or who succeeded him, or from whom he, as king descended. What is applicable to him as priest, is true of him also as king. And so it is with Christ in regard to that kingship which is united with his priesthood. He is exalted to the throne of God, not by right of descent, but to fulfill his priestly work there, in which descent was not reckoned. And as he is the 'one mediator,' having neither predecessor nor successor in that office, as he is the only one that ever will enjoy the high privilege of sharing the power and honors of the throne of the Most High. This fact alone would render it certain that Christ's kingly priesthood is not upon his own throne, or on the throne of Israel, for when he takes that throne it is as the Son of David; and it is as necessary that his genealogy be traced to David in order for him to occupy that throne, as it was for the sons of Aaron to prove their descent from Levi, or from Aaron, in order to be permitted to minister in the sanctuary on earth. The objection urged on the priesthood of Christ, is clearly invalid. A correct understanding of his priestly work confirms the view that every case is decided at, or before, his coming, and that his saints will be redeemed, and his enemies, including all the unredeemed, will be 'dashed in pieces' at that time. (To be Continued.) J. H. W.