Dennis Johnson brings his expertise in the book of Hebrews back to Office Hours this week as we work through Hebrews 6:13–7:10. What did God promise Abraham? What does it mean that the pastor to this Christian congregation turned to Abraham to help explain the nature of the new covenant? Who was Melchizedek, why did Abraham, the “father of all who believe” revere him, and why should we care? We tackled these questions and more.
I hope you’ll listen and share this episode with others.
If you’re just joining the series, here is the introduction. You can find all the episodes in this series at the Office Hours page.
Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe to Office Hours in iTunes or listen to the episode on the website.
As always, we’re taking calls at 760 480 8477. Leave a message and we may use your call in an upcoming broadcast.
Listen to all the episodes here.
Go to iTunes and write a short review. This will let others know about the program.
Go to the Office Hours page and click the “like” button.
Follow Westminster Seminary California on Twitter and Facebook
Thanks for listening!
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
An argument I heard against this non-prefigurment understanding of Melchizedek is that, since the theme of the book is ‘Jesus is better’, …than Angels, than Moses, than the levitical priests, etc; why isn’t it clearly stated that Jesus is better than Melchizedek? ….because He can’t be better than Himeself, they answer. How would you respond?
It is possible that Mechizedek was a manifestation of the Son but it isn’t certain. The writer to the Hebrews had multiple literary devices at his disposal. Comparison is one of them but not the only one. When he appeals to Melchizedek he is making an analogy. A comparison would not have served his argument as well.