The Prophetic & Priestly Offices of Christ

Of all the books of the Bible it is Hebrews that is consistently among my favorites. The reason for this ought to be obvious. Hebrews is arguably the most Christ exalting book in the whole Bible. If it were possible to place a sub-title for this book it would be, “You name it, Jesus is Better.” Over and over again we see Christ being compared to the Old Testament types and shadows and each time Christ is represented as the consummation and final fulfillment of each of them. What a beautiful truth it is to realize that Christ embodies what those types merely pointed to.

However, this precious truth is not clearly understood by all. In my estimation, groups such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not understand the extent of Christ’s work on the cross or the current “offices” which he possesses as the overseer of his church. My point here is not to speak negatively about Mormonism, or any other group, but to speak positively about Jesus.

When theologians speak about “The Offices of Christ” they are usually referring to his roles as prophet, priest, and king. I do not intend here to discuss Christ’s role as King since that is highly debated and often coupled with eschatological baggage. Rather, I’d like to focus on the prophetic and priestly ministries of Christ.

When we survey the Old Testament we see that God called specific men to represent himself to his people: known as prophets. Likewise, God called specific men to represent his people to himself, which were the priests. The prophets were to speak the words of God to the people and to reveal God’s purposes to them, and the priests were to perform sacrifices on behalf of the people as an offering for their sins. The beautiful thing about Christ is that he has fulfilled both of these ministries.

The book of Hebrews begins by telling us Christ is the final authoritative voice for God. Whereas God use to speak through prophets, he now speaks through his Son. There is no more need for human prophets. Since the prophetic position entailed the representing of God to the people, who would be more qualified for this position then Christ? The whole point of the first eight verses of Hebrews is that Christ is able to represent God, as prophets of old did, in the fullest sense of the term because he is God. As John states in the prologue to his Gospel, “No one has seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known (John 1:18).” He is most qualified because he is God.

Within the book of Hebrews we see a clear defense of Christ’s fulfillment of the Aaronic Priesthood and his sole possession of the Melchizidek Priesthood. Concerning the Aaronic Priesthood we know that under the old covenant, the high priest was required to enter the holy of holies each year to provide atonement for sins. Yet, under the new covenant of Christ, the atonement has been settled with his blood. We no longer need a high priest because Christ has “entered once for all into the holy places (Heb 9:12).” The former priesthood system was done away, and Christ remains our priest permanently (Heb 7:24). The former priests were required to sacrifice on behalf of their own sins as well as the sins of others. However, the author of Hebrews tells us, “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens (Heb 7:26).” Therefore, because of the perfect offering of Christ’s life on our behalf, not only do we have no need for the function of the Aaronic Priesthood through sacrifices and other rituals, but we are also imputed with his righteousness.

With regard to the Priesthood of Melchizidek we are told that Christ received this Priesthood “not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life (Heb 7:15).” No one can meet these requirements. The Aaronic priesthood required lineal descent from the tribe of Levi to Aaron, but Christ was from the tribe of Judah. Christ received the Priesthood of Melchizidek as the one that was victorious over death. The writer of Hebrews says that in light of this Christ remains a priest forever and is the mediator of a better covenant (Heb 7:21-22). Perhaps the clearest indication that Christ is the sole holder of this Priesthood can be found in verse 28, which says, “For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.” The law appointed the sons of Aaron to fulfill the temple rituals, although they were “weak.” Their weakness was in the ineptitude to fulfill the sacrificial system’s intent. However, “the word of the oath,” or the promise of his eternal office as priest, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. The idea is that the sacrificial system pointed to Christ. It is no longer that any man represents us before God, as the priests did, instead Christ is our mediator to God and the one who intercedes for us (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 7:25). He is the only one able to do this because he is the one who has an indestructible life, the one who was sworn to be a priest forever, the one who mediates the new covenant, and the one who has done away with all priestly services. He is truly the only one worthy to hold this Priesthood.

As an extension of his priestly ministry Christ also fulfills the temple. Not only did Jesus fulfill the sacrificial rituals that took place within the temple, but he fulfilled what the temple’s symbolic representation of the presence of God. However, Jesus was not just a representation or symbol of the presence of God; instead he was the presence of God. This is because the fullness of deity dwelt within his physical body (Col 1:19, 2:9). Matthew makes this clear in the opening chapter of his Gospel by calling Christ “Immanuel”, which means “God with us” (Mt 1:23). Hebrews tells us that Christ’s priestly ministry, although not being fulfilled in a literal, or earthly temple, “is in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man (Heb 8:2).” Christ has indeed fulfilled the roles of prophet and priest, yet he continues to occupy these offices before the presence of God, the true temple. He both represents God to us, and represents us to God. This indispensable truth is at the heart of the Gospel and the very work of the person of Christ.

Responsibility Amidst Sovereignty

A Look At Compatibalism

Within modern evangelicalism we often talk about a concept referred to as “free will.” Most presentations of the Gospel today are loaded with this notion of an autonomous human will. A will that is free to act and choose according to one’s own desires without any cause directing those choices. As a Calvinist, it is clear that every plot of history finds it origins in the Sovereign God. Yet, it is also equally clear that man is a responsible agent. The question is obvious. How does divine sovereignty work with human responsibility?

The term “free will” does exist within Calvinism, just not in the moral sense. We are totally depraved creatures and therefore do not possess a “free will” in the common/modern sense. Because of Adam’s transgressions, all men have inherited a sinful nature (Ro. 5:12). The corruption of the fall left man deep in his sin and separated from God. Not only is our standing before God effected, but our mind is also affected and is hostile to God (Ro. 8:7). Because of this hostility of our minds we cannot submit to God. This is what constitutes our complete inability as depraved creatures.

Although we do not have a moral free will, we are still responsible for our actions. Our responsibility is held alongside God’s sovereignty. Both are true. This idea is called Compatibalism because it says that God’s sovereignty is compatible with man’s responsibility. The other two philosophical views do not find the two to be compatible and instead emphasize one in contrast to the other. These two views are Libertarianism, which says that man is free to act and choose as he wills (this excludes any form of Sovereignty that denies free will, or denies humans the ability to be responsible), and the other view being Determinism, which says everything is pre-determined (this is so staunchly emphasized that responsibility and freedom do not exist). Compatibalism states that ultimately God is the absolute Sovereign being, yet this fact does not diminish that man makes choices and is responsible for those choices.

Biblical Evidence

Gen 5:20 "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."

In this passage, Joseph had just been reunited with his brothers after a long and crazy series of events, which originated with his brothers selling him into slavery out of their hatred for him. The amazing thing about this verse is that it teaches both God’s sovereignty over the situation and man’s responsibility for their choices. His brother’s intentions were to harm. They meant to harm him. Their choice, or “will,” was to put him into slavery. However, all along the Sovereign God meant this event for good. This verse is not implying that God had fixed this horrific situation and turned it into a happy ending, but that he intended it for good all along. Both God and man had their intentions. Yet despite the intentions to harm, God ordained all the sufferings of Joseph through the means of the evil intent of his brothers, for the overall good of saving many lives.

Acts 2:23 "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."
Acts 4:27-28 "Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen."

Here is the linchpin of Compatibalism. This passage clearly teaches that God ordained the death of Christ. There is no dispute about this, but it goes further. Even the people who committed the act were predetermined to do it! The crucifixion is something that could not have NOT happened! It is the most important part of redemptive history. However, Herod and Pilate were raised up for this very event. They did “what [God’s] power and will decided beforehand should happen.” Now, are they not responsible for this action simply because God sovereignty ordained this event? Absolutely not! This was the most sinful act in human history. Killing the God of the universe is the most horrendous of sinful acts. They are most certainly responsible, even in light of God’s sovereignty.

Now, some might say, as Paul knew many would, “How does he still find fault, for who can resist his will?” (Ro 9:19). This obviously is the starting point of the whole election debate, but it goes deeper. Because the question here is whether or not we are responsible, despite our lack of a moral “free will.” Romans 9:17 says, “For the scripture says to Pharaoh: I raised you up for this reason, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Even though Pharaoh was wicked and did terrible things against Israel, God used it to proclaim his glory. In fact, God was the one who raised Pharaoh up in the first place! The sole purpose being the proclamation of his might and strength.

So then, how are we to truly understand divine providence and human freedom? The answer is that we will never fully understand how to the two work together. However, the Bible teaches both. The Bible teaches that God is absolutely sovereign, and that man is totally responsible for his actions. Therefore, since the Bible teaches both, both are true. Although the nuances will never be fully grasped, somehow God ordains the actions and choices of men in such a way that they willingly and actually choose to do those things, and remain entirely responsible for those choices.

As far as exercising “free will” in order to believe in God, we cannot change our depraved state unless God does something first. An analogy of how free will and God’s sovereignty work together in salvation would be if someone decided they were going to ride their bike to work one morning. Unless the conditions were altered, they would actualize their desire to ride their bike to work. But if it were raining outside, they would choose not to ride their bike but instead they would choose to drive their car. This person was not forced to drive their car, but chose to because of the added external factor. In this same way we are not forced into faith, but freely choose salvation because of the added factor of God’s drawing and the Spirit’s regeneration of our lives. The man who decides to ride his bike to work will willingly choose to ride his car when he realizes that it is raining. The realization that it is raining is analogous to realizing that we need a savior. Of course we will then freely choose God. However, we will not choose the contrary, just as the bike rider will not ride his bike to work when it is pouring rain outside. This is sometimes referred to as “effectual calling” in Calvinistic circles. It is a calling that breeds a saving response every time. This idea is obviously coupled with “Irresistible Grace.” Since salvation is from God, and is initiated by God, man cannot frustrate the work of God. John 6 is the best example of this. Through the drawing of the Father (John 6:44), we are awakened to the beauty of the Gospel and become able to receive it. This idea is seen clearly through Jesus’ words when he said that not only would all whom the Father gives to him come (indicating effectual grace), but that those who come would also never be driven out (John 6:37). Therefore God’s effectual calling cannot be resisted. This is not because God over powers us, but because when we are drawn by him (John 6:44), we are able to choose and will choose.

The "L" Word

A Discussion of Limited Atonement

Perhaps nothing appears more threatening to non-Calvinists then the concept of a “Limited” Atonement. Like most Arminians, I found myself perplexed that any Christ-loving believer would ever talk about the Atonement in such terms. It seemed to me that Christ’s shed blood on the cross was sufficient for all individuals and powerful enough to save the whole world. I wondered why anyone would ever believe anything less than that. However, I realized that my original thoughts on this issue was misguided and characterized by many misconceptions. As it turns out, the “L” word wasn’t the heretical position I once thought it was.

I do not intend to give an exhaustive defense of Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption), but I have a few thoughts that may be helpful in understanding the dreaded “3rd point” of Calvinism.

The first thought deals with the exclusivity of Christ. Any cursory study of the scriptures will indicate that Christ is the only way to heaven. John 14:6 tells us that no one can get to the Father except through Christ. Likewise Acts 4:21 says that Christ is the only name given under heaven for our salvation. Clearly, the New Testament intends for us to understand that Christ is the only means to the Father. It is important to note that “coming to Christ” is an action that is preceded by the drawing of the Father. We find this concept demonstrated very clearly in John 6:37-44. We know from this passage that all people are not drawn by the Father, whether by prevenience or other means, instead those that are drawn are also those that are raised on the last day. There is a necessary link between the drawing of the Father, and the coming to Christ. No one can come (i.e. believe) unless there was a prior act of initiative on behalf of the Father. Now we are left realizing that the drawing of God necessitates salvation. For this reason alone we know that all are not drawn, otherwise all would be saved. There is no other alternative in this passage. This concept of all being saved is known as “Inclusivism.” This idea states that people practicing other faiths can be saved by Christ regardless of their personal faith in Him. However, we have seen that the Bible talks in explicitly exclusive terms. Now, if there is an “X” amount of people being described here, which most certainly are those elect individuals whom God predestined unconditionally for salvation before the foundations of the world were laid (Ro 9:11-23; Eph 1:3-11; 2 Tim 1:9; Rev 13:8), then most certainly Christ’s death was to secure the salvation of those individuals. The question then becomes, would Christ die for the “non-elect” as well?

There a few reasons as to why the answer for this question is “No”. If Christ died for every individual person’s sins then why will anyone spend eternity in Hell? The idea is simple, as a substitutionary atonement Christ took our place. He met all the necessary requirements to satisfy the wrath of God on our behalf. Now, if Christ has appeased the wrath of God on behalf of all men everywhere then everyone should ultimately end up in heaven. But we know this is not the case. Therefore, Christ did not die in the place of every individual sinner. John 17:2 says, “You have given him [Christ] authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you [The Father] have given him.” Once again we see a definite group of people being given to the Son for him to redeem. Later on in this “High Priestly Prayer” Jesus says that he is praying not for the world but for those whom [the Father] has given to him (John 17:9). There are also a few other examples that teach this idea of a Particular group of people being redeemed at the cross. Paul tells husbands in Ephesians 5:25 to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Also, we are told in Acts 20:28 that the Church of God was “obtained with [Christ’s] own blood.” Perhaps this concept is most clearly depicted in John 10:11 where Christ says that he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. Now this is important because Christ describes his sheep as ones who hear the voice of Christ, are known by Christ, and follow Christ (Jn 10:27). This is contrasted with those who are not Christ’s sheep. Christ tells those near him that they do not believe because they are not of his flock (Jn 10:26). Believing in Christ depends upon whether or not someone is one of “Christ’s sheep.” Therefore, when it says that Christ laid his life down for his sheep, he was indicating that he was doing it on behalf of them alone.

Another point is that if the Father has elected a group a people for salvation, then it would demonstrate disunity within the Trinitarian counsel for Christ to die for those whom the Father has not elected. However, we are told that there is a unified purpose between all three members of the Godhead. In Ephesians 1:11 we are told that God works “all things according to the counsel of his will.” It would not make sense for Christ to go against the immutable decrees of God.

The last point I’d like to make is this: Calvinists, if they’re honest, are willing to admit that the atonement is definitely limited in it’s intent. That is, although it is sufficient for all, it is only efficient for the elect. However, it is the Arminian who truly “limits” the atonement. The reason for this is because the Arminian position has to admit that, in reality, no one was saved at the cross. Essentially, from an Arminian standpoint, Christ merely made men “savable.” This ought to indicate that the Arminian position limits the atonement of its power, since it is not capable of saving anyone. It is inconsistent for an Arminian to talk about “Christ dying for them,” because such an idea is bound in the Calvinistic doctrine of “Limited Atonement.”

In closing I think it is necessary to quote Charles Spurgeon's response to Arminians who questioned Limited Atonement, “We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."

Replacement Theology?

It is often proposed that the Reformed position of Covenant Theology teaches the Replacement of Israel by the Church. Obviously, such a position would lead to anti-Semitism and a lack of evangelism toward ethnic Jews. But does the Bible teach Replacement theology?

The first thing that needs to be addressed is that Israel is not replaced or superseded by the Church. Neither is the “Church age” a parenthetical dispensation unknown to the prophets of Israel. God’s council and plan is immutable. The over arching theme of the covenants demonstrate that God has a unified purpose that continues into the Church age. So what are we to believe about the relationship between Israel and the Church? Are they separate economies or a unified body of the people of God?

Nobody likes to be misrepresented, but frankly this happens constantly to those who line up in the Reformed camp. It needs to be noted that Covenant Theology does not teach the replacement of Israel, but the expansion of Israel. In the new covenant, the people of God are those who belong to Christ. Galatians 3:29 tells us, “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” In this same manner, Ephesians 2:11-22 says that those who are “in Christ” are no longer excluded from the commonwealth of Israel or it’s covenants and promises. Christ has taken people from every tongue, tribe, and nation and made them into one body; the church. This church includes Israel as Romans 11 tells us that God always keeps a remnant of Israelites. Not only this, but Romans 11:17 says that Gentiles are grafted into the same olive tree. Clearly, the New Testament teaches us that both Jews are Gentiles are being made into the same body, a body whose roots are in the olive tree of Israel.

Further demonstration of the Church being included in Israel (as opposed to replacing it) ought to be noted. 1 Peter 2:9-10 teaches that the Church is “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,” and “the people of God.” Each of these assertions are exclusive to Israel in the Old Testament. Why would Peter use such language to the Church? Peter tells us the reason in verse five when he says that we are “like living stones being built up as a spiritual house” with Christ as the cornerstone. This passage then applies to all those who are built upon Christ.

Perhaps the major reason why Dispensationalists are afraid to allow the Church to be included in Israel is because they believe that the Old Testament assigns certain promises specifically to ethnic Israel. It is also believed that this present “Church age” was not foreseen by the prophets but was added parenthetically in God’s overall plan. Dispensationalists believe that eventually God will restore Israel and all the previous prophecies will be literally fulfilled to them. However, this is maintained from a failure to understand these promises being fulfilled in Christ. The promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ, as Galatians 3:16 says; “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.” All the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ.

The same can be said of the Mosaic and Davidic covenants. Christ fulfilled all the requirements of the Mosaic Law by living a perfect life without failing at all. Christ has also fulfilled the Davidic covenant. Although Dispensationalists believe that Christ is not reigning on the throne of David at the present time, but will do so during his millennial reign, the NT writers clearly portray Christ fulfilling this role. Luke 1:32 says, “And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." More importantly, in Acts 2:30-32 Peter says that David prophesied about Christ sitting on his throne.

“Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus, God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God…”

When Christ was exalted to the right hand of God, he fulfilled the Davidic promise. The present reign of Christ, though often overlooked, is one that is taught all throughout the New Testament. Now, what about the mysterious aspects of the Church? If Christ has fulfilled these things, as suggested, can it still be demonstrated that the prophets foresaw the church age?

Dispensationalists believe that the present church age is a mystery unknown to the prophets. Some have even referred to it as a “parenthesis” in God’s plan for Israel. If this were true, then the Church would have began at Pentecost, rather than starting with Abraham. Although there are significant blessings unique to the new covenant (i.e. the presence of the Holy Spirit), the prophets most certainly looked forward to this age. Acts 3:24 tells us, “And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.” The important thing about this assertion is that it is speaking of the present age since it is after Pentecost! The Spirit has already come and Peter says that the prophets foresaw this.

To reiterate, the Church has not replaced Israel, but is included into Israel. The reason for this is because Christ has bought the Church. To belong to Christ is to belong to Abraham (Gal 3:29). Christ has fulfilled all the promises that were made to Israel because he is the true Israel. He obeyed all the requirements of the Mosaic Law and is currently reigning from the right hand of the throne of God. The present age is not the result of a “parenthesis” in God’s plan, but is the fulfillment of all of the shadows and types presented from the previous Covenants that God initiated with Israel.

What about the New Covenant? At the Last Supper Jesus spoke in Covenantal terms when he said that the New Covenant was in his blood. Is the New Covenant a present reality, or something that God is postponing for a future restoration of Israel? The covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31 was said to be made to “the House of Israel” and “the House of Judah.” This leads Dispensationalists to postpone this prophecy to the millennial reign of Christ in which Israel will be fully restored, although a few Dispensationalists might contend that some of the effects of this covenant are presently felt. The author of Hebrews, however, quotes the passage from Jeremiah 31 and applies it directly to the present age. Hebrews 8:7-13 clearly teaches that Christ brought the New Covenant for the present age. It needs to be noted then that the Church is included into this prophecy, which was originally made to Israel. This is not because the Church has replaced Israel, but because Israel has expanded. Once again, although the Church exists primarily of Gentiles, ethnic Jews are also members of the same body by faith in Christ.

Before concluding, it is important to note that the Bible does teach a universal “re-grafting” of Israel at the end of the age. Paul tells us in Romans 11:11 that Israel did not stumble so as to fall. There is a partial hardening to the Gospel of Jesus Christ at this present time, but before Christ comes back, All Israel will be saved (Ro 11:25-26). This inclusion of ethnic Israel will be an eschatological event in which a lot of Jews come to faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. There is no room for Replacement Theology in the Bible, however Israel has most certainly expanded to include Gentiles. Truly this is indicative in God’s promise to Abraham that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3). It is because of the promises made to Abraham that Gentiles have been included into Israel, without replacing the foundation upon which they stand.