Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 9
The lesson mentions Korah’s rebellion to stress that the Aaronic priesthood was tightly restricted, yet Christ becomes priest “according to the order of Melchizedek” and “abolished the old priesthood”; how should that shake up modern assumptions about who can represent God, what “ministry” is, and how seriously God takes unauthorized spiritual authority?
Another way to ask: Since the old priesthood was tightly limited, but Jesus becomes priest in a new way and ends the old one, how should that change who we think can speak for God and what “ministry” means? What does it show about how seriously God takes people claiming spiritual authority they weren’t given?

Direct Answer Chuck’s point is that God took “unauthorized” priestly claims with deadly seriousness under Moses, and Christ’s priesthood is legitimate only because God promised a new order (Melchizedek) and a new covenant. That should humble modern ideas of self-appointed spiritual authority and remind us that true access and representation before God is grounded in God’s appointment and Christ’s unique mediation.

Support from Transcript:

  • Chuck recalls Korah: when he tried “to expand the priesthood outside the direct descendants of Aaron,” God “opened up the earth and swallowed Korah…[and] obliterated the other 250.”
  • He summarizes the restriction: “the priest was limited only to the descendants of Aaron.”
  • Then he contrasts Christ: Psalm 110 says the Christ is “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
  • Christ’s work is decisive: he “offered the perfect sacrifice once for all time,” “brought in a new covenant,” and “abolished the old covenant and the old priesthood.”
  • He stresses exclusivity of mediation: Christ is “the only one who could enter the Most Holy Place…with His own blood.”
Discussion Follow-ups If God judged Korah for grabbing priestly authority, what guardrails should churches have about leadership and teaching? How does Christ’s unique priesthood reframe “ministry” as participation under Him rather than personal platform or spiritual status?