| Author | Message | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 409 Registered: 8-2008 |
I am researching more for my book. Right now I am working on the chapter(s) about Abraham. I was reading the part where Melchizedek appears to Abraham, and I checked my Bible Knowledge Commentary and discovered this: I never noticed this before. If you look at it, Abram was sort of promised great things if he would just submit to Sodom's way of thinking by taking Sodom's "forbidden fruit," if you will. On the other hand, he was offered bread and wine by Melchizedek, foreshadowing Jesus' shed blood and broken body. He was offered, without meriting it, the blessing of God given through Melchizedek. God offered Adam and Eve life, eternal life by living in His love and grace. The Serpent promised glory to Adam and Eve in exchange for eating his little poisoned fruit. Similarly, Melchizedek (the type of Christ or possibly the pre-incarnate Christ) offered eternal life, in the symbolism of Jesus Christ, with God's grace (unmerited favor) in the form of the blessing. On the other hand, the King of Sodom offered Abram wealth and greatness if Abraham would just take his money, but Abram knew there would be strings attached. Abram, unlike Adam and Eve, chose the free gift of life, and only after he had accepted the free gift of God's grace, in Jesus Christ, from Melchizedek, did he give anything at all to Melchizedek. He rejected Sodom's offer of riches and the attached personal glory, because he knew that it meant he would essentially be a slave to Sodom, a slave to sin. What happens that night? Abram gave up a chance at worldly glory and worldly riches in order to trust God. His thoughts turned to the mere material trifles he had lost, and God his Father comes to comfort him: "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward." The beauty of this moves me to tears. (Message edited by bskillet on July 02, 2009) | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 410 Registered: 8-2008 |
Also, it was that very night that we read the soteriological foundation of the New Covenant: "[Abram] believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness" (Gen 15:6). | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5153 Registered: 9-2006  |
Brent, One line you said really stuck out at me, you said: Similarly, Melchizedek (the type of Christ or possibly the pre-incarnate Christ) Now in the book of Hebrews we have this statement: Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; Hebrews 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. What do you make of this? What caught my attention is this (the type of Christ or possibly the pre-incarnate Christ) I really don't think that is a possibility that he was a per-incarnate Christ. What I am thinking is that Melchisedec was a type of the coming Christ. It says right here in Hebrews that he was a priest of the most high God, Jesus was and is God and there is only one God (not in the meaning of a oneness here, I am a trinatarian to the bone) Nothing is recorded as to the beginning or end of his life; thus he typically resembled the Son of God, whose existence is from everlasting to everlasting, who had no one that was before him, and will have no one come after him, in his priesthood. (Matthew Henry commentary) What do you think? And why would you say that there is a possibility of a pre-icarnate Christ? I have heard it stated on the forum before that Jesus appeared here or there in the OT and that is a strange idea to me. I just am wondering as to what scripture this idea is taken from. It seems to me the idea might be a leftover from Adventism and from coming out of a false teaching and might need to be addressed. Now I don't say this to argue or be argumentative in the slightest way. I am just unaware of scripture that would support Jesus as appearing before he was born in Bethlehem. Melchisedec was plainly a human being although nothing is recorded before him or after. So I guess my question is, do you all think that Christ was incarnate before he was incarnate? By reading co-incidental remarks in the past that forum members have made, that idea seems to prevail and could the idea come from being raised up under the three angels message? River | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 411 Registered: 8-2008 |
Some believe that Melchizedek was a theophany, an appearance of Christ before the incarnation. I do not hold to that, but I am recognzing the possibility. Christ was certainly not incarnate before He was incarnate. I believe the theory goes that if He were to appear as Melchizedek, He would have been human in appearance only, not in fact. Kind of like a hologram of sorts. The idea that Melchizedek might have been a theophany was discussed in the Bible Knowledge Commentary, which is Baptist and (it pains me to say) dispensationalist. They don't ascribe to it particularly, but like me they just say that some people think it is so. However, this from Wikipedia is fascinating: Jesus did appear in the OT, but not as "Jesus," in the sense of that name. He was not incarnate. He appears as the Son of God. That is to say, God appears throughout the OT, and you cannot ascribe an act to one Person of the Trinity separate from the other two, because they are never separate. God told Moses His name was, "I AM," and in John, Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." In fact, Jesus uses this name for Himself throughout John. As for Jesus being Priest, I'm sure you know from Hebrews that Jesus is both Priest of the Most High God, and Most High God Himself. He is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. (Message edited by bskillet on July 03, 2009) | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1511 Registered: 6-2006  |
Coincidentally, Melchizedek came from Salem, which means "Peace" in Hebrew. Here's another key to the mystery ~ Psalm 110. Notice in the first verse David writes "The Lord says to my Lord", as if it's the Father speaking to the Son. This chapter clearly reflects Jesus. How would David know? Melchizedek also shows up in the chapter. Psalm 110 Of David. A psalm. 1 The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." 2 The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. 3 Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth. [a] 4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." 5 The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. 6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. 7 He will drink from a brook beside the way [b] ; therefore he will lift up his head. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1512 Registered: 6-2006 |
One more interesting tidbit, Melchizedek was both a priest and a king. No other king or priest was recorded in the Bible except for Jesus... River, I don't believe this is a leftover Adventist thing. I learned about this years ago in a Bible study. Many people belive it's a possible pre-incarnate appearance of Christ, but that's as far as it goes. Of course we won't find out for sure until we meet the Lord in person!  Leigh Anne | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5155 Registered: 9-2006 |
Thanks for clearing that up, I thought maybe people thought he was 'incarnate before becoming 'incarnate' and that idea kind of threw me. I don't hold an opinion of exactly who Melchizedek was. Don't get off your thread Brent, expound some more, its quite good. River | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10096 Registered: 12-2003  |
That psalm, 110, is also quoted in Hebrews 4:4-6 identifying Jesus as the fulfillment of the words of David. The idea of appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ is fairly widely held as a possibility, actually. When we did our walk through the OT in women's Bible study there were several places that referred to the "angel of the Lord" appearing and doing things that can only be attributed to God. Elizabeth told us—and the study notes in the NIV Study Bible also say—that these appearances are considered by many theolgians to be pre-incarnate "Christophanies" or "theophanies". "Pre-incarnate" means that these appearances are not Jesus in human flesh but Jesus appearing visibly to someone for a specific purpose. One example of one of these appearances was the angel of the Lord who appeared to Manoah and his wife, foretelling the birth of their son Samson and giving instructions for raising him as a Nazarite. This angel of the Lord accepted a sacrifice, called fire from heaven to consume it, accepted worship, and disappeared into the smoke of the sacrifice. At the end of this event, Manoah referred to this angel of the Lord as "the Lord". Also, the three strangers who appeared to Abraham and Sarah and said Sarah would bear a child one year later seem to have been two angels and the "angel of the Lord". The "angel of the Lord" told Sarah that she laughed after she thought she had laughed in private, etc. So, the reason people think the "angel of the Lord" is the pre-incarnate Christ is that He always functions as God, not as an angel, and accepts worship and does divine acts. No angel accepts worship. Colleen | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 72 Registered: 12-2007 |
Would that have anything to do with JW's and SDA's referring to Jesus as "Michael the Archangel"? Maybe they feel he (Jesus) appeared at times to people in the form of an Angel ?? just wondering..... | ||
| Psalm107v2 Registered user Username: Psalm107v2 Post Number: 333 Registered: 10-2008  |
Skeeter To a certain extent yes this christophany/theophany may be used to build the Michael=Jesus stance. I debated till my head hurt with a couple of SDAs about Jesus not being Michael. They may choose to lay a foundation of the OT theophanies and angelophonies and build upon it. I personally have not heard them use Melchisadek (actually if they did try to use Melcisadek they'd have some problems prooftexting the IJ but that's another kettle of fish) but they will refer to the Captain of the Lord's Army in Joshua-my heads swirling just thinking about their arguments | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1513 Registered: 6-2006 |
Clarification: In reference to Melchizedek being both a king and a priest, what I meant to say was that there is no other person mentioned in the Bible who was both a king and a priest besides Jesus. Colleen, another story I've heard is a theophany is the story of Jacob wrestling God in Gen 32:22-31. Although it's not a Christlike figure, it's a good story just the same. Bskillit, I'm sorry - didn't mean to derail your thread! Please proceed... Leigh Anne | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1514 Registered: 6-2006 |
Psalm, like Colleen said, angels can't accept worship. The book of Hebrews expains that. Also, with Jehovah's Witnesses, they don't even believe that Jesus is God at all. In a way, the pre-incarnate appearances of Christ blows that theory out the window. Another thing, if Jesus WAS Michael, how can he appear as anything other than an angel? God can appear as anything - a cloud, a burning bush, etc. There are no verses of angels shapeshifting. Angels wouldn't be able to change their appearance any easier than humans would. (Except for maybe Michael Jackson! Haha) Ducking out again... |
