____________________________________________________ THE GOSPEL OBSERVER "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). ____________________________________________________ August 16, 1998 ____________________________________________________ Studies In Hebrews #7 by Alex D. Ogden The Greatness Of Melchizedek (7:4-10) In considering Melchizedek the writer says, ``Now consider how great this man was'' (7:4). Our author puts forth three arguments to show the supremacy of Melchizedek. 1. Abraham, the father of the Israelite people, gave tithes to Melchizedek by giving him a tenth of the chief spoils from the battle with the kings (v.4; cf. Gen. 14:13-24). The sons of Levi, who were later commanded to receive tithes of the people of Israel (v. 5), were yet in the loins of Abraham. Therefore, ``through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes'' (v. 9). Abraham recognized the greatness of Melchizedek when he gave him tithes. 2. Melchizedek, who received tithes of Abraham, ``blessed him that hath the promises. But without any dispute the less is blessed of the better'' (vv. 6,7). Since Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham and blessed him, and the lesser is blessed of the greater, then it follows that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham. It also follows that the priesthood of Melchizedek was more excellent than that of the sons of Levi who though yet unborn, were in the loins of Abraham. Since Abraham was blessed of Melchizedek we understand that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham, the father of the Israelite Nation. 3. The writer next shows the greatness of Melchizedek's priesthood to that of the Levites by showing the mortality of the Levites and the apparent immortality of Melchizedek. ``And here men [Levites] that die receive tithes; but there one [Melchizedek], of whom it is witnessed that he liveth'' (v. 8). Since immortality is better than mortality, the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater than that of the Levites. By these three arguments Melchizedek is shown to be greater than both Abraham and Levi, who was already in the loins of his father Abraham (v. 10). The priesthood of Melchizedek is, therefore, greater than the Levitical priesthood. Furthermore, since Christ's priesthood is ``after the order of Melchizedek'' (cf. 6:20), His priesthood is also greater than the Levitical priesthood. The author proceeds to develop this contrast even further. The Superiority Of Jesus' Priesthood (7:11-28) This discussion of Melchizedek being greater than both Abraham and the sons of Levi raises the question, ``Now if there was perfection [complete redemption, remission of sins] through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?'' (v. 11). Jehovah had indicated long before that the one who would sit at His right hand as king (Ps. 110:1), by an oath of Jehovah would be made priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110:4; see also Zech. 6:12,13). The writer of Hebrews has shown clearly that Jesus is both seated at the right hand of God and a priest after the order of Melchizedek (1:3,13; 5:5,6,10; 6:20; 7:17; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). Since the priesthood has been changed, ``there is made of necessity a change also of the law'' (v. 12). Our writer explains: ``For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests'' (vv. 13,14). Aaron could not serve as priest under any other law than the law of Moses, and no non-Levitical priest could serve under the law of Moses (cf. Num. 18:7). Therefore, if the priesthood has changed there has obviously been a change of law as well. To further verify the removal of the old order (priesthood, law, and imperfection) and the introduction and permanence of another, the Hebrew writer presents the following three facts: 1. The endless life of the new priest and His priesthood. ``And what we say [verses 11-14] is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life: for it is witnessed of him, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek'' (vv. 15-17). By the law of Moses each new priest had to be a descendant of Aaron and they assumed the priesthood because of the law of succession made necessary by death; that is, regardless of how personally holy or desirous his predecessor was in remaining on and on as priest, they could not continue in the office beyond death. In contrast, the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek rests on the power of His endless and sinless life. God made Him a ``priest for ever'' (cf. 5:5,6; 6:20; 7:20,21). Since He would never die in this office, His eternal priesthood would make unnecessary the appointment of another priest after Him. 2. Our priest is able to ``save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him'' (v. 25). Since the Levitical priesthood could not provide perfection [complete redemption, remission of sins], there was a need for another priest to arise (v. 11). Jesus is that priest and through Him we are able to have full and complete forgiveness of our sins. Furthermore, He ``ever liveth to make intercession for them'' who draw near to God. The priest after the order of Aaron could intercede for the people for a while but their intercession was always cut short because of death. With our High Priest, there is constant intercession available for us since He ``ever liveth.'' 3. The superiority of Christ's priesthood to the Levitical priesthood is further established by the moral perfection of our High Priest. The writer puts it thus, ``For the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore'' (v. 28). No priest after the order of Aaron was morally perfect or perfect in the office of high priest. On the other hand, the moral perfection of our High Priest was always complete, but His perfection as High Priest and as author of eternal salvation had to be accomplished through suffering. ``For it became him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings'' (2:10). In being made like His brethren, sharing their flesh which is subject to temptation, He qualified Himself to become a merciful and faithful high priest (2:17). ``For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted'' (2:18). This was furthered affirmed when he said, ``though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation; named of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek'' (5:8-10). Clearly our High Priest, Jesus Christ, and His priesthood are far superior to the Levitical priest and their priesthood. With such a great High Priest why would any Christian want to turn back unto anything else? ___________________________________________ Free Bible Courses Are Available Upon Request ___________________________________________ Humanism's Hypocrisy and Self Righteousness by Jere E. Frost I hate humanism. I do. I really do. I despise the vileness it promotes. I detest the irrational logic it employs. I abhor the way it maligns righteousness and those who are struggling to be righteous. (1) We have previously noted that humanism believes in and advocates extra-marital and sexual activity of any and all sorts. It blatantly declares that there should be no laws prohibiting sexual activity between consenting adults. ``We do [not] wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults'' (Humanist Manifesto II, p. 18). (2) We have likewise noted that they hold that marriage, and traditional religious views about marriage, are destructive and repressive. They do this by categorically saying a purely heterosexual relationship is destructive. ``Heterosexism is as real and destructive as sexism and racism'' (The Humanist, May/June, 1992, p. 4). This humanist logic and morality, simply put, reverses good and evil by calling the good evil and calling the evil good. Woe to them for that! (See Isaiah 5:20) They are now saying that it is wrong to oppose adultery, and those who do it are guilty of self-righteousness and hypocrisy. At least, that is the ground on which Geraldo Rivera (talk-show host of the national TV program) a professed libertarian, so labeled Ken Starr. The central idea of this humanistic rationale is that you cannot impose your morality on someone else. Any effort to do so, say they, is self-righteousness. And unless you are perfect, to urge a moral standard on someone else is hypocrisy. But this is sheer nonsense, and the representation of hypocrisy is backwards. Mark Fuhrman was vilified on the same program for using the ``n'' word, though he used it not in personal conversation but in a script. In the O.J. Simpson trial he was branded a liar and perjurer for denying, under oath, having used the word in the past ten years. Rivera refers to him as a liar and perjurer. Now the ``n'' word has no inherent meaning unless it is equated with Niger and/or Negro, both of which carry the dictionary definition of black. Nonetheless, I certainly agree that it is an unacceptable term forasmuch as those to whom it is applied dislike and disavow it. But why, in this humanistic view, is it perjury and a felony to lie in embarrassment about using this word, as Mark Fuhrman did in the Simpson trial, but it is understandable and even honorable to lie under oath to cover an adultery as the president is alleged to have done. Yes, the rationale is that you may lie about fornication -- that's understandable and acceptable. But you cannot lie about saying the ``n'' word -- that's a detestable felony. So their conclusion is to contemptuously scorn Mark Fuhrman as a felon because he lied under oath about using the ``n'' word. But Bill Clinton, even if it is finally determined that he lied under oath, should be whitewashed, and not be charged with perjury, because his lie was about sex. You can see the difference! (If you can, help me, because I can't.) The truth, dear reader, is that we do not have a right to make our own standard. This is where the real battle is. Humanists deny that there is even a God, and therefore there is no such thing as a word of God. The believer is of the persuasion that not only is there a God, but God has spoken and we are all answerable to Him. Therefore we must hold up His standard, judge ourselves by it, repent as we have need, and urge it upon all men for their sakes. No self-righteousness is implied. None can properly be inferred. Humanists reject divine rules and make up their own. These they apply mercilessly. On this basis they without hesitation or compunction can slay the unborn right there in their mothers' wombs. Anyone who opposes such infanticide is maligned as an extremist. Another instance is how they will condemn someone for using a politically incorrect word (polock, hymie, nigger, redneck, spic, kraut etal.). It further evidences the fact that they do have a standard. But where did theirs come from? They made it up. It is their own standard! And that, by definition, is ``self'' righteousness. Now I agree on the basis of sacred Scripture that we should treat others as we want to be treated (Matthew 7:12), and that includes using acceptable terms by which to identify them. But if we were to say, ``Speak respectfully because the Bible teaches it,'' humanists would say we are imposing our morality, are hypocrites, and ``can't legislate morality.'' When they say it, they have no compunctions against legislating their logic and morality. For example, they have legislated their morality on ``gay rights,'' same sex marriages, and no-fault divorce laws. Their logic leaves me repulsed and indignant. One more word about hypocrisy. Opposition to sin does not mean the opposer of sin has never erred. He may have had to repent many times of many sins. But he can, and should, still oppose the sin as much as ever. For example, can we -- should we -- legislate against murder? It is a moral matter. Does it mean that those who oppose murder are self-righteous hypocrites who think they have no faults? If so, then the humanist is just as guilty since this is a legislated moral on which we agree (infanticide, which they approve, excepted)! The fact that a man (boy or girl) has stolen something sometime in his life does not mean he cannot repent of it and then oppose, repudiate and condemn stealing. A condemnation of what he has come to believe is wrong is not in any way self-righteousness. The opposition to stealing is not a law created by ``self,'' nor is the opposition dependent on his never having stolen anything. Whether one has or has not ever stolen does not change the fact -- stealing is wrong. Humanists and believers do have one thing in common. They both believe there is a line somewhere as to what is acceptable human behavior. The difference? The humanist draws his own line. He is therefore ``self'' righteous for he makes and imposes his own righteousness. The Christian neither makes a standard nor claims to be perfect. He simply declares the mutual obligation that all men have to respect and obey the principles of divine authority upon which this nation was founded. ___________________________________________ NEWS & NOTES I heard last Friday from an old friend, Keith Laursen, whom I met back around 1961. His brother Neil (of Dunedin, Florida) had passed away on August 13. Let us be praying for all the family and friends. We want to also remember our young people in prayer who are beginning another year at college. We are glad to hear that all went well for Linda Poole. There was no malignancy, but she did have surgery that had her in the hospital for a few days. She is now back home and feeling much relieved. Let us pray that she will continue to heal-up well from her operation. ________________________________________ Tri-State CHURCH OF CHRIST 1314 Montgomery Avenue, Ashland, Kentucky 41101 Sunday: 10:00 A.M. Bible class 10:50 A.M. Worship 6:30 P.M. Worship Wednesday: 7:30 P.M. Bible study evangelist/editor: Tom Edwards (606) 325-9742 e-mail: tedwards@zoomnet.net Gospel Observer web site: http://www.zoomnet.net/~tedwards/go ________________________________________