# Christophany



## Jeremy (Sep 30, 2005)

Was Melchisedec a Christophany?


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 30, 2005)

Melchizedek was definitely shadow or type of Christ... I'm not sure about whether the priest represents the _fullness of Christ_ or a _manifestation of Christ_. Maybe some other more learned theologian may have an answer. This is something that interests me, but I don't know that we can do anything except speculate. Some people would like to think Christ made an appearance in the Old Testament. Nonetheless, Christ was there from the beginning (John 1:1-3) that much is certain.


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Melchizedek was definitely shadow or type of Christ... I'm not sure about whether the priest represents the _fullness of Christ_ or a _manifestation of Christ_. Maybe some other more learned theologian may have an answer. This is something that interests me, but I don't know that we can do anything except speculate. Some people would like to think Christ made an appearance in the Old Testament. Nonetheless, Christ was there from the beginning (John 1:1-3) that much is certain.




"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." -Hebrews 7:3

This verse is interesting.


----------



## doulosChristou (Sep 30, 2005)

"In the silences as well as in the statements--he is a fitting type of Christ; in fact, the record by the things it says of him and by the things it does not say has assimilated him to the Son of God. It is the eternal being of the Son of God that is here in view; not His human life. . . In His eternal being the Son of God has really, as Melchizedek has typically, 'neither beginning of days nor end of life'; and more especially now, exalted at the right hand of God, He 'abideth a priest continually.' Melchizedek remains a priest continually for the duration of his appearance in the biblical narrative; but in the antitype Christ remains a priest continually without qualification. And it is not the type that determines the antitype, but the antitype that determines the type; Jesus is not portrayed after the pattern of Melchizedek, but Melchizedek is 'made like unto the Son of God'." (F.F. Bruce _Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews_, 138)


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 30, 2005)

According to the epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is our great high priest of the Order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6)...

All that we know about Melchizedek in the Old Testament is found in Genesis 14:18-20. 



> Hebrews 7:1-3 (King James Version)
> 
> 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;
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> "In the silences as well as in the statements--he is a fitting type of Christ; in fact, the record by the things it says of him and by the things it does not say has assimilated him to the Son of God. It is the eternal being of the Son of God that is here in view; not His human life. . . In His eternal being the Son of God has really, as Melchizedek has typically, 'neither beginning of days nor end of life'; and more especially now, exalted at the right hand of God, He 'abideth a priest continually.' Melchizedek remains a priest continually for the duration of his appearance in the biblical narrative; but in the antitype Christ remains a priest continually without qualification. And it is not the type that determines the antitype, but the antitype that determines the type; Jesus is not portrayed after the pattern of Melchizedek, but Melchizedek is 'made like unto the Son of God'." (F.F. Bruce _Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews_, 138)



This is good! Thank you.

Please expound on the significance of a priestly antitype/type.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 30, 2005)

See this thread.


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> See this thread.



My bad.


----------



## DTK (Oct 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Was Melchisedec a Christophany?


I know that some theological dictionaries have coined the term "Christophany" to refer to alleged OT preincarnate appearances of Christ, but I take exception to the term as used for such instances in the OT for the following reason. The term "Christ" is the title given to the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, an event in the history of redemption that is utterly unique - the eternal Word became what He had never been without ceasing to be what He ever was. Given the uniqueness of the incarnation, and the title of Christ (by which God designated the God-Man), I don't think it is theologically correct to employ the term "Christ" for a "preincarnate" appearance of God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. I think we should reserve the title of "Christ" for the incarnation, and the period ever after, but not before. I still prefer the older term Theophany. 

That aside, I don't think Melchizedek was a preincarnate manifestation of the second person of the Trinity. But Christ's priesthood was, to be sure, after the order of Melchizedek.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Average Joey (Oct 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



You`re right but it could also mean it is not recorded about his ancestry,life,or death.Either way the part which was recorded in scripture served a great purpose being a shadow or type of the coming Christ.


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 2, 2005)

Thank you all for your responses. I'm going to attempt now with God's help...

***NOTE*** This is only an attempt to shed light on the subject, if I am wrong at any point or out of line or in error, please let me know. My desire is the truth.

The statement about Melchisedec in Hebrews 7:3 "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" must be a LITERAL statement since Chapter 7:15-17 says that Christ's priesthood is after the order of Melchisedec "not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the POWER OF AN ENDLESS LIFE. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest FOREVER after the order of Melchisedec." 

There are so many other issues here, but Heb. 6:18 gives another reason for Christ's priesthood being after the order of Melchisedec. God wanted to show the immutability of His counsel, so He confirmed the promise with an oath. "The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec."-Heb. 7:21. Why does the Lord give so much about this subject? Because in order for our faith to be counted as righteousness, we must have the faith of Abraham found in Rom. 4:20-22 "He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being FULLY PERSUADED that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And THEREFORE is was imputed to him for righteousness." So if that is the case, the scripture is intent on laying the grounds for us to have this faith and lay hold of the hope of eternal life with confidence, giving an eternal anchor to the soul, and so be saved. (See Heb. 6:18-20)

If we follow the Spirit's leading throughout the book of Hebrews, especially up to ch. 10:39, we see the Lord giving exhortation to continue in the faith as opposed to withdrawing back to the Old Covenant. So of course, to give these Hebrews a clear understanding that Christ's sacrifice was eternal was essential to their continuance in the faith, seeing that a reluctance for their faith to "lay hold of eternal life" would actually keep them from eternal life. Andrew Murray speaks well of this,

"Now, when Scripture speaks of "eternal" life, "eternal" redemption, "eternal" joy, it means much more than to say merely they will have no end. By that word we are taught that he who has a share in eternal blessedness possesses something in which the power of an endless life is at work. It is something in which there can be no change, nor can it suffer any diminution. And therefore we may always enjoy it in the fullness of its life-bestowing blessings.
The object of Scripture in using that word is to teach us that if our faith lays hold of what is eternal, it will manifest itself in us as a power superior to all the fluctuations of our mind or feelings, with a youth which never grows old, and with a freshness which does not for a moment wither." 
From this Scripture we are taught something also about the blood of Jesus, "Who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God." Not only had the act of shedding His blood an eternally availing worth, the blood itself has Spirit and life in it. The blood is made effective by the power of an eternal life. This is why the Epistle to the Hebrews lays much emphasis on the work of Christ as being once for all and eternal." (Andrew Murray, THE BLOOD OF THE CROSS, 1981)

So if a professing Christian never puts his sin to rest forever, laying hold of eternal life by faith, he won't make it to heaven. Thus we have the exhortation in Heb. 10:39 "But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that BELIEVE to the saving fo the soul." 

So for true perseverance in the faith, it is necessary to know the eternal continuance of Christ's heavenly priesthood and how His blood will never lose it's power to save. It is after the power of an endless life. Andrew Murray gives good insight here,

"If I regard the blood, not as something which lies inactive and must be aroused to activity by my faith, but as an almighty, eternal power which is always active, then my faith becomes, for the first time, a true faith. Then I shall understand that my weakness cannot interfere with the power of the the blood. I have simply to honor the blood by exalted ideas of its power to overcome every hindrance. The blood will manifest its power in me, because the Eternal Spirit of God always works with it and in it." (Andrew Murray, THE BLOOD OF THE CROSS, 1981)

So in conclusion, the information given about Melchisedec wasn't given as something to speculate about, even though I believe it was the pre-incarnate Christ. It was given as an argument to our hearts which are prone to unbelief, as a means of understanding the eternal priesthood of Christ on our behalf. Through understanding this, we draw near to God by the blood of Jesus, in full assurance of faith, and do not draw back to perdition. But if we don't grasp this and embrace it forever, eventually we will fall into despair. 

"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." -Heb. 7:25

-J

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Jeremy]

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Jeremy]


----------



## turmeric (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> So if a professing Christian never puts his sin to rest forever, laying hold of eternal life by faith, he won't make it to heaven. Thus we have the exhortation in Heb. 10:39 "But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that BELIEVE to the saving fo the soul."
> 
> So for true perseverance in the faith, it is necessary to know the eternal continuance of Christ's heavenly priesthood and how His blood will never lose it's power to save. It is after the power of an endless life.



What does it mean to "put one's sin to rest forever"?
Doesn't saving faith involve trusting in Christ as having taken my sin on him on the cross, and his righteous life having been imputed to me?
Of course his blood is of infinite worth, far better than the blood of bulls & goats, because he is God as well as sinless man. Doesn't "the shedding of blood" in Scripture refer to "the taking of life"? So the important point is that "the Just died for the unjust" isn't it? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> ...



You're right, that's basically 2 Cor. 5:21

Put it to rest forever means you give it over to Him and receive His perfect righteousness which will never fade away. It is laying hold of eternal life. He removed the true believer's sin as far as the east is from the west when He died on the cross. See Heb. 3-4 how God wanted the Hebrews to enter into His rest. Follow the rest of the book and see how he wanted them to do it. By faith!!

Sooner or later one has to settle the question, am I forgiven or not? If you are, once and for all, then you are going to heaven and you will persevere in the faith. The power of the Holy Spirit's peace overwhelms us when we accept the blood and rest in it.

Hope that clarifies. I'm going to bed!!

-J

p.s. Please re-read my second Andrew Murray quote as to why grasping the importance of the blood is so necessary. The importance of knowing that Christ is in heaven right now, today, interceding for me with the blood that he took into the holiest once for all is key. As Murray said, this is true faith as opposed to only focusing on the historical aspect of Christ's suffering, in which we neglect to see its present power working throught the Eternal Holy Spirit. If we have true faith, we will have a present communion with the risen Christ that now sits at the right hand of God.

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Jeremy]


----------



## turmeric (Oct 2, 2005)




----------



## doulosChristou (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> ...



Pastor King,

Would you then say that it is also inappropriate to talk about the OT saints as having been "in Christ" during the pre-incarnational period?

dC


----------



## DTK (Oct 2, 2005)

> Pastor King,
> 
> Would you then say that it is also inappropriate to talk about the OT saints as having been "in Christ" during the pre-incarnational period?
> 
> dC


Given my comments, I think that this is a very fair question. After all, Ephesians 1 describes our union with Christ as having its taproots in eternity itself. My answer is yes (i.e., I do think it's appropriate to speak in that way), for I do think that the OT saints had union with Christ _in the mind of God from all eternity_, just the same as NT saints. Similarly in this respect, the second person of the Trinity was the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8).

However, I do think that from the standpoint of history (And this was my expressed concern earlier, not eternity), it would be more proper to say that they (the OT saints) were in union with the second person of the Trinity who would be manifested as the Christ in time. In other words, they were in union with the prophesied Messiah who was to come.

Blessings,
DTK

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by DTK]


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > Pastor King,
> ...




Who walked with Adam and Eve in the garden?


----------



## doulosChristou (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > Pastor King,
> ...



Well said. I agree.


----------

