Jesus: Priest and King

In the Old Testament, the roles of High Priest and King were separate from one another. It seemed to be the division of ‘church and state’, if we were to use language from today. The King led the people in the Name of God. The High Priest led the Worship in the Name of God. Melchizedek brought these two roles together into one person. As we have called him, a Mystery Man in the Bible.

One very significant difference we need to recognize between people of the Biblical times and ourselves is that we have set things up today very differently. The ‘state’ is secular, that is, beyond religions in how it runs things. The ‘church’ maintains its sacred role in our lives, but as something we have deliberately separated from the running of the state, the running of government. In the time of the Old Testament, the King ruled on God’s behalf. The High Priest led worship on God’s behalf. 

So when Jesus is following the pattern of Melchizedek, He is taking on what had been the roles of two different people in the Old Testament. Bringing them together is what Jesus does as our Savior. 

Perhaps the best known Title for Jesus is “Christ”, so well known that it is often mistaken for his family name, Jesus Christ. But it means ‘the Anointed One’. It refers to Jesus’ anointing by the Holy Spirit when this comes down from God in the form of a dove. This moment is recorded in all four gospels. In the Old Testament, both King and High Priest were also anointed to their positions before the Lord, as a way of being set apart for divine service.

It is probably easier for us to relate to Jesus as King, not that we have a king, but because we recognize the position and the role of someone with temporal authority over us. In the United States, our leader is the President. These powers are tempered and balanced by the Congress and by the Court system, but there is one person ‘in charge’. Jesus, being the Son of God, being without sin, is the ideal as our Ruler, operating only from love, not from power, nor from the corruption that comes from it.

The High Priest is out of our direct experience. The role of the priesthood in the Old Testament was marked to a great extent by the performance of the sacrificial system that was the mode of Restoration and Redemption, beginning in the time of Moses. What that means is that the people then had sin in common with us today. We recognize the need to ask for God’s forgiveness for our sins, that we have in common with the people of time of Moses. But in the law of Moses, they required a blood sacrifice, blood for blood, to pay for their sins.

We do not recognize that as an ongoing system, because this system was fulfilled in Christ. Jesus was the final sacrifice. By his death and resurrection on the cross, our sins were paid for and our relationship restored with God. It emerges from and culminates the system that was laid out in law under Moses. Jesus takes things further. He is the Final Sacrifice, but He is also the High Priest who oversees, who runs the sacrificial system. 

So there is a lot of history that finds itself fulfilled in Jesus. It is inclusive of the ‘ruling’ authority of the king and the ‘religious’ authority of the High Priest, but it is not something new. Even these roles been drawn together is seen in the figure of Melchizedek.  

Pastor Peter

Jesus and Melchizedek

While the Gospel of Matthew seems to be written with a Jewish audience in mind, connecting to the Old Testament in a deliberate manner, it is not the only book in the New Testament with such a focus. The other is the book of Hebrews (aptly named). While the gospels focus on the life and ministry of Jesus, Hebrews has a different point of view. It is written in the form of a letter that explicitly lays out the connections of Jesus to what came before, what came in the Old Testament. It might be better described as a theological treatise.  

In the book of Hebrews, Jesus is explicitly “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” It is not simply a leap from Genesis to Hebrews, but comes to us by way of Psalm 110, where David speaks of ‘the victory of God’s Priest-King’. David himself was ‘just’ a king. There was another serving as the high priest to God in his kingship. These roles were not blended. In fact, it was when King Saul blended these roles, offering the sacrifices to the Lord that were the purview of the priesthood, that he fell afoul of the Lord. 

But in this Psalm, David is looking forward to someone more powerful than himself, someone who will bring these two most powerful roles in the kingdom together, a priest-king in the order of Melchizedek.

In Melchizedek is something greater, more powerful than in David-who was not only king, but the most powerful king of the People of Israel. Jesus is of the line and family of David, he is of the Royal Line, born in the Royal City of Bethlehem, but there is more to who he is in the understanding of the Old Testament. In addition, Jesus is the High Priest, the only one who is able, once a year, to stand in the presence of God in the Holy of Holies to make atonement for the people. He who has the most power and he who stands closest to God. Such is the Order of Melchizedek, such is our Lord Jesus.  

So, if we were to look to the Mystery Magi, these strange harbingers of God who pop in and out of the life of Jesus as Melchizedek popped in and out of the life of Abraham, could God be providing to us, through Matthew, an even more significant hint at the birth of God’s only Son as to who Jesus is going to be? The Magi have power, consider not only their gifts but their ability to mount an expedition to the east to follow a star. They also have a closeness to God, being able to interpret that the star means something divine. I rather like that idea.

Pastor Peter

The Wise Men: Connections to another Mystery Man?

    In the book of Genesis, God calls Abraham from the East to settle in the land that God promises to Abraham and his descendents. A large section of the middle of Genesis is devoted to Abraham and the foundation of what will become the nation of Israel. But, as with Jesus, there is an episode that brings a mystery man into the life of the Father of God’s people.

His name is Melchizedek. He is named as the king of Salem, and also as a priest of God. Salem is generally considered to be Jerusalem, which David shall conquer as the capital for Israel and the place where the temple of the Lord will be constructed. But prior, it is referred to as a Jebusite fortress-the Jebusites being one of the peoples of Canaan that will be driven out as God brings God’s people into the Promised Land. It was the Jebusites that David drove out.

But in this moment, Melchizedek  just shows up. Abraham has just gone on campaign against certain of the Canaanites to rescue his nephew, Lot. He is successful and, on his return, this mysterious priest-king is there to meet him.. He praises Abraham in the name of God and Abraham, in response, gives him a tithe. The tithe, the granting of one-tenth, is the gift that is offered to God from the fruits of what God has granted. So Abraham is recognizing in Melchizedek the authority of God. 

Melchizedek drops into the life of Abraham for less than 5 verses. This authority of the Lord in the life of God’s Chosen One. 

It feels to me that there is a parallel to be made between Melchizedek and the Magi of Matthew 2. They come, they bless, and they disappear. Led by God and led away just as quickly. For Matthew, the gospel ‘to the Jews’ as some have called it, this is an echo of the Old Testament in a manner that is different from simply quoting something that has been fulfilled in the life and ministry of our Lord. 

Maybe this is also something of a reversal of roles. In Genesis, Abraham (Abram here as the Lord has not yet changed his name), comes from the East and receives the blessing of God in Melchizedek in the Promised Land. Jesus comes from the Promised Land, born in the City of David, and receives the blessing of God from the Magi who come out of the East. 

Cannot say for sure, but it feels right to me. Tomorrow, we will look at what Melchizedek means to Jesus in the words of the New Testament.

Pastor Peter

The Wise Men: The Mystery Magi of the Bible

  It has become such a part of the lore of Christmas that we do not even consider how odd the story of the Wise Men is in the birth of Jesus. These Magi, Wise Men from the east, unnamed, never to recur in the Biblical record, that just show up. What do we know about them?

We know they were people of means, given the gifts that they brought with them. It was enough to allow Joseph to take his family to Egypt before the Slaughter of the Innocents

.

We know they were people of some kind of importance, given that they were entertained by King Herod when they arrived in Jerusalem.

We know they were astronomers and astrologers (those two were intermingled) of some kind, interpreting the signs of the sky.

We know that, unlike pretty much every creche scene anywhere, they did not arrive with the shepherds at the stable to find Jesus in a manger. Rather, they told Herod they ‘saw the star at its rising’. I have always interpreted this as the angels rising up from where they sang to the shepherds. So there was some time lapse before they arrived. We know that, on questioning them closely, Herod went after every male child two years and under in an attempt to rid himself of this rival to the throne of Israel, which seems to give us a sense of the time gap.

We know that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem. It might have been that they considered Jesus too young to travel with, or it might have been the result of the taxation. Joseph returned to his own city, to Bethlehem. The expectation might have been then that he remain there. 

There is something else we know about the gospel of Matthew. It is the gospel with the most explicit references to the Old Testament. For example, when the Wise Men returned to their land by another road, the Lord warned Joseph and Mary to flee to Egypt ahead of Herod’s retribution. This is to fulfill Hosea 11:1, where God says, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Unpacking that is going to require its own posting.

More directly, we know that the Wise Men coming to Jerusalem lead Herod to direct his own scribes to dig up the reference to Bethlehem, where the king of the Jews is to be born, as found in Micah 5.

With this backdrop, do we have more that we can say about these mystery men, these mystery magi of Matthew 2? Were they simply a foil to allow Matthew to draw out these references to our Lord Jesus? Or do we find a forerunner to their presence in the Old Testament? Tomorrow, a theory..

Pastor Peter

Isaiah, and, Wait, Christmas in the Old Testament?

          So as we come into the Season of Advent, our focus turns to the prophet Isaiah. What? Wait! Advent, Christmas, birth of Jesus, kind of a New Testament thing, not so much Old, right? Well…

          My personal devotional time has just come through the gospel of Luke, and there was a piece after the Lord’s resurrection that comes to mind. Two men are walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus. They are grieved and probably disappointed because their religious leader, Jesus, has been executed at the hands of the Romans. And despite the rumors, they are convinced he is dead.

          Till, if you know the story-or if you don't-Jesus shows up and walks along with them. Before they know its him, Jesus offers them a masterclass in Biblical interpretation. He opens up the Scriptures (at that moment, the Old Testament) and walks them through it; where they will find Jesus throughout.

          Sidebar: Having that little piece of the bible in mind, or the piece where, after his resurrection, Jesus does a masterclass with the entire cadre of disciples, opening up the Old Testament to them, it has realigned how I have read that much larger section of our Bible. The question I keep asking is ‘Where do I see Jesus here?’ It is illuminating, speculative at times, but illuminating.

          One of the greatest treasure hoards of “Pre-Jesus” biblical writing is to be found in the prophet Isaiah. It is from Isaiah that John the Baptist speaks when he comes to 'prepare the way of the Lord'. Jesus turns to Isaiah in the synagogue one day when he comes to teach and announces how those words are now fulfilled before the eyes of the attendees of the synagogue that Sabbath (and I will leave you to google that passage).

          And if your church does a “Lessons & Carols” service or something akin, lessons of the Bible about Christmas and beloved music between, Isaiah is going to figure rather prominently. We have four Sundays in Advent and Isaiah figures in them all. Two will reflect passages prophesying the birth of Jesus, one will prophesy the plan of God as Jesus has fulfilled it, and one will be our Lessons & Carols service, where we will share Isaiah passages in our readings for the Season.

          Isaiah is the longest prophet, 66 chapters worth. The reading guide is almost as long. A fanciful coincidence is that the Bible is also 66 books long, but I have yet to find a parallel to transcend to something more conspiratorial in my biblical interpretation.

          So we are not going to get to the whole book, we are barely going to scratch the surface, but even so, Isaiah is rich in the prophecies of the coming of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. 

The British History Podcast, a consideration on 'magic' and 'faith'

          I am listening to “The British History Podcast”, offered by Jamie Jeffers. He is American raised and British born and I have very much enjoyed his take and telling of British history. I am still very early on in the cast, when he was talking about Dark Age Medicine.

          In the midst of this episode, he offered an explanation, or rather a clarification, that got me thinking. In addition to the physical treatments, the various herbs, concoctions, and dung (they really seemed hung up on dung), there was a huge magical component to the practice of medicine. Whether it was chanting or an amulet or where a particular component came from (lichen from a cross for example), there was more than simply the biological and chemical components that are the foundation of modern medicine.

          His clarification came for his Christian listeners. Jamie refers to the portions of the healing that are obviously beyond what modern medicine would practice to be “magic”. At issue is calling something like prayer or a blessing or the use of a cross to be ‘magic’. If I am understanding the situation, those objecting to his language define those practices of Christian origin to be ‘faith-based’, and not ‘magically-based’.

          As a pastor, I do understand that concern. Belief in God Almighty and the power our God provides is in contrast to magical practices that are understood to be of either ‘dark’ forces or some other supernatural origin. I have my own opinions about that. But this is a fair presentation from a faith-based point of view. But Jamie is taking a different point of view in the podcast.

          He is talking about Dark Age Medicine in contradistinction to current medicine. There are the commonalities of herbs with healing properties that are foundational to both ages of medical practice. Today, the herbs have a lot more complex names but their biological and chemical foundations are held in common.

          And I am fine with Jamie referring to the rest as ‘magic’. Maybe talking about the medical practices of the time invoking a ‘transcendent’ component would be more acceptable language. The healing practices of the Dark Ages reaching ‘beyond’ the immediate is a huge, if not the dominant, piece of the practice. That transcendent portion of the healing process is still integral to my belief today, as it is with every faith practice that I am familiar with beyond Christianity. The difference is what ends up in the medical text books.

            As we have come to understand how sickness and injury are from the 'natural' order of things, our medical and healing practices have followed. There is a scientific methodology to what we do. It does not mean that the this ‘magical’ or ‘transcendent’ component of healing has gone away. I believe it is not simply a piece of the Dark Age history in Britain, but it is universal across human experience. From a 'natural' point of view, the power of a positive mind and a calm spirit are both recognized for their contribution to success in medicine. 

            From a supernatural, a faith-based, perspective, I have seen faith-based practices accomplish some pretty amazing results. 

          Irrespective, if you have an interest in history or things British, give the podcast a listen.

Peter Hofstra

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever Spoilers Ahead

           Let me plunge right in. And I will say again SPOILERS!!!

          When Shuri took the heart shaped herb to become the new Black Panther, I was not surprised. I know that was the big secret of the film, but there was this question that always nagged at me to that moment: Supposing anyone could take the herb-even if only those exposed to vibranium-why wasn’t everyone in Wakanda so equipped?

          It was limited to the royal family, to a certain genetic line. Why? There are people far more imaginative than I who could explain that. But she was the obvious and the only choice (unless there were other branches of the royal family, which has not been indicated in canon).

          To indicate that something did not surprise me points to the possibility that something did surprise me. And something did take me completely by surprise. Killmonger showing up when she journeyed to the realm of the Ancestors. I do not know what I expected. The actor who played her father? Angela Basset? Some kind of CGI/cut up of previously unused material containing Chadwick Boseman? Maybe a final secret bit of filming he did before his death? Anything but him.

          For me, the power of that moment was how Killmonger was the ideal choice. It reinforced the detailed and realistic exploration of grief across that entire movie. This movie is as much a tribute to the memory of Chadwick Boseman as it is a next step in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, whose death touched the lives of so many of us.

          Shuri’s journey of grief into anger and revenge is certainly not a unique comic book theme. It is common enough to be a comic book trope. Consider the origin story of Batman for example. But Bruce Wayne was raised by Alfred. The influence for Shuri coming into the mantle of Black Panther was Killmonger.

          How many villain origins start from something terrible that happened that sent them down the wrong road? Something bad happened to me so I response by doing something bad it return. It is supposed to make the villain somewhere between misunderstood and sympathetic?

          And it came down to the climactic moment. The Black Panther was ready to kill Namor. Her vengeance would have been complete. She would have, in the words of Killmonger, ‘gotten the job done’. But unlike other Marvel movies, the grief was not concentrated in that finale. I am thinking of Iron Man 3, where Tony Stark watched Pepper fall to her apparent death. Grief concentrated into the shock of failure for Iron Man. We followed Shuri through her journey. We cried with her, we were angry with her, we found moments of strange peace and even humor before the grief washed back up.

          What would have been the villain’s end to this movie? The Black Panther executed vengeance on Namor. Then Shuri returned home and continued her work on the herb to allow it to work for all Wakandans (as all are exposed to vibranium). That, with vibranium technology, would have been a world-conquering combination.

          But at the end of a journey of grief, life comes back into focus. The notion of ‘closure’ is incorrect. Rather, the memories remain but the emotions return to a place where they are a part of life, instead of taking life over. That was symbolized in the ritual of burning the mourning garments. And the Easter egg, but I will leave that to be seen.

Peter Hofstra