Featured The Pre-Tribulational Rapture

Now, how this relates to your question in the temporal sense:

Let's look at the highlighted aspect of your question and examine the question itself: you are concluding that "...if He were on earth He cannot be a Priest, hence He cannot be a Priest in the Millennial Kingdom."

The problem with that is that the text has a specific context of contrast between our Heavenly High Priest and those that were earthly (primarily the Levitical Priesthood, the "order" that was in force when Christ changed the Priesthood to His Own.

Thie following text might seem to be a lot, but it takes mere seconds to read it, and I will keep my comments as brief as I can:


Hebrews 7:19-28 King James Version

19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.


Here are the points I see to be made from this passage:

1. The Law was incomplete in regard to remission of sins, The Writer makes this statement many times in Hebrews, to the point where we cannot ignore it (v.19);

2. The "better hope (than found in the Covenant of Law) was "brought in" at a point in time (v.19). Again we see the "change" that takes place when Christ comes.

3. The Levitical Priesthood was sworn in without an oath, but Christ's Priesthood was prophesied and sworn in with the oath of God. No reference to Melchisedec (vv.20-21);

4. Jesus is the guarantee of the New Covenant (v.22);

5. Jesus is the guarantee of a better Covenant (v.22);

6. Christ's Priesthood is better than that of men (including Melchisedec) because they had to continually change from priest to priest because they died, whereas Christ's Priesthood will go on forever (vv.22-25)

7. Christ is "separate from sinners." That cannot be said of any other Priest (v.26).

8. Christ did not and does not need to continually offer up sacrifice to make men perfect/complete in regards to remission of sins (Hebrews 10:10-14) because He had only to offer Himself up once (v.27)

9. The Law instituted priests who would die, but Christ's High Priesthood is based on the declaration (oath) of God Himself (v.28).

10. Christ's Priesthood is everlasting, which cannot be said of Melchisedec's, he died.


So the first point in regards to your question in the temporal sense of the question is this: the text is not implying that Christ's Priesthood would cease if He returns to earth.

Will Christ's Priesthood cease when He returns to gather His wheat? We know it can't, because it is established forever according to God's oath.

So you will have to conclude Christ is not going to return in order for the argument to be consistent:

The "...if He were on earth" is a reference to the priests from among men, not a direct reference to where Christ is:

We will see that when we get into Chapter Eight, in the next post.


Continued...

 

Hebrews 8 King James Version

1 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;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.


Let me ask a question to put the point into context: was Christ not ministering unto us as our Great High Priest when He offered up Himself (v.3)?

Yes, because that is the point, the earthly High Priest offered up sacrifice for sin. Christ's Priesthood includes His offering up of Himself, and that took place on earth.

See how being on earth does not negate His Priesthood?

So again the primary answer to the question is this: "...If He were on earth" is not meaning He cannot be Priest on earth, it is a reference to the distinction between Christ and those who were of the earth.

In other words, Christ is not a High Priest taken from among men.

Secondly, those who were "on the earth" served under the example and shadow of Heavenly things. Christ served under the reality, the true, that those examples and shadows represented (i.e., an animal's death in the stead of the sinner versus Christ's death in the stead of the sinner).

So again some questions which I hope will make the point clear: was Christ our Great High Priest and serving as such when He offered up Himself? The answer is yes, because His role as Great High Priest is contrasted to the High Priest of the Levitical Priesthood and the offering the two made.

Was Christ's Priesthood negated because He was on earth when He made that offering? The answer is no, His Priesthood is everlasting.

Will Christ's Priesthood be negated when He returns as He describes in Matthew 24? The answer is no, His Priesthood is everlasting.

Is Christ's Priesthood exclusive to born-again believers in the Church? Yes.

When Christ returns at the end of the Tribulation will His ministry be exclusively that of the Great High Priest of the redeemed? No. He is coming back to judge. He is coming back in another role which is also said to be everlasting, that of reigning King. That is why He is both King and Priest.

Would Christ's Priesthood be negated if He reigned from earth? No, because it is everlasting.


So I think you are taking "...If He were on earth He would not be a Priest" in a separate context from that which it is given us. I think if you answer the above questions it will make sense to you.

I think we see reference to a distinction between His roles here:


Hebrews 9:25-28 King James Version

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


The Writer makes a pretty bog deal about the fact our Great High Priest only had to offer one sacrifice for our sin: Himself.

We also note that the beginning of the world is contrasted to when Christ came into the world, "...the end of the world."

Christ came the first time to Himself bear our sins, and when He appears the second time (at the end of the Tribulation, as described by Matthew 24 by Christ Himself) it will be "without sin unto salvation," which is an intriguing statement.

I will present the two most reasonable explanations for the statement:

1. it is a reference to the fact that when He returns it is in judgment (v.27), rather than for the purpose of establishing the means of remission of sins (His offering of Himself);

2. it is a reference to His return to those who are saved, who are "without sin."


I think both are to be found in the statement.

Christ"s Priesthood wouldn't cease because He came back to the earth. He did this when He was glorified and walked the earth for forty days. He became Great High Priest over the redeemed when He offered Himself up. He remained Great High Priest when He arose from the dead. He will remain Great High Priest when He returns as conquering King. He will remain Great High Priest as He rules over the Millennial Kingdom.

But let me say this: when men went to Hades in the Old Testament and were divided between just and unjust, they did not go to Heaven. But what I think as a likely probability is that the Eternal Son of God went to Hades and was among the dead just there. In other words, while men could not go into Heaven until our Great High Priest began serving and opened a way into Heaven for us (Hebrews 10:19-20), there's no reason to think He never went to visit them.

That being said, I think it is equally probable that while Christ's rule over the Millennial Kingdom will have an earthly aspect, I think He is also going to be in Heaven. I think the Millennial Kingdom will be very much like how it is today, though there will be the prophesied "regeneration/reformation" of the earth and a return to Eden-like quality. Such as long life and an end to the enmity between animals, as well as enmity between animals and man.

His Priesthood and Kingship are everlasting, and He will be both in Heaven and earth in that time.

Hope that was meaningful, lol. There is more we could look at in Hebrews 7-8 but it's about time to get ready for the morning service.

Have a blessed Lord's Day.


God bless.

 

The temporal aspect of your question is addressed directly in the last post, but I felt it necessary to point out a few things about the issue. For example, we cannot understand the beginning of Chapter Seven unless we understand the end of Chapter Six. Hebrews is a book that demands an understanding of the book as a whole. It is unique from all other books, and it is my belief that this highly doctrinal treatise was written by Paul anonymously due to his not being very popular among the Hebrews, lol.

Just look at the questions in the last post, I think they should give the answer that you were looking for. If you can answer the questions and still not see how coming to earth does not invalidate His Priesthood there is nothing more I could add to the issue to change your view.

Regardless of whether they do, I highly recommend intense study of this Book. If I was forced only to have one Book of the Bible, it would be this one. It is, in my view, probably the best way for us to gain a better understanding of the Gospel.

God bless.

 

His Priesthood, is unchangeable, not His location.

Please answer the questions:

1. Was Christ the Great High Priest on earth, when He offered Himself up?

2. Will Christ be Great High Priest when He returns (and this is a bodily return to the earth)?

3. Why would Jesus' being in Heaven change anything? He was "currently in Heaven when the Writer wrote, yet He has to come back to the earth in His Second Coming. Does that nullify Him as our Great High Priest?


God bless.

 

Sure!

If you know how to copy and paste you are halfway there: just scroll over the portion you want to respond to and highlight it. You will see Quote/Reply come up. If you hit quote it will save this portion until you go to the bottom of the page to respond. There you will see insert quotes. Click on that and the quotes will pop up.

I have done this with this:

Click on "Quote these Messages" and it will appear in the response box where you have right-clicked your cursor.

I love this function of this forum, it makes responding and breaking up the quotes very easy.

You can also just hit Reply at the bottom of the post you want to respond to. This will take you into the quote box. Just make sure your response is after all of the text that pops up. If you go into it you will have your comments in with what was quoted.

Hope that helps!


God bless.

 

Yes, the third:

The order is listed in the OP.

This is speaking about protos (first) in a sequential context. It is not the "first" resurrection (Revelation 20:1-6) we see in either Revelation or the New Testament.

I might suggest rereading the OP. Not trying to be a wise guy, lol, just pointing out you are asking a question that the OP answers in detail.

And I'll be honest, I am not sure if I saw and responded to your post or not, and if I didn't I apologize: it's been a little hectic dealing with three threads at once and some of it has gotten a little blurred, lol.

The OP makes it clear that it is not, so again, not sure why you think your statement is relevant to what it does say.

It says what it means, it is physically dead believers being raised back to life.

That's not open for debate, it is simply what is stated in the text.

Whether they are glorified or not isn't really relevant, but there are those who try to teach that this is the Rapture. They likely are glorified due to their long life and the implication none of them die in that period.

But the rich man has not yet been cast into Hell (Gehenna, the Lake of Fire).

I agree those who die outside of God's will go into everlasting torment, but we have to maintain Scripture's teaching that they will be cast into gehenna Hell at the final judgment, the Great White Throne.

And we see that there are two resurrections that are distinctly different in Revelation 20.

No, but he has to wait for the end of this creation to be cast into the Lake of Fire.

Just an incontrovertible Bible Fact.

Sure it is.

I am sorry you don't understand that.

That is why "the rest of the dead" lived not again until the Second Death is imposed. They will be resurrected at that time just as Daniel 12:11-2 taught.

But you can't see it in Revelation 20:1-6.

Sorry, but there is enough in this thread to show that is an erroneous conclusion.

I again invite you to read the thread again.


God bless.