Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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;
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;
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.
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)
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
See this thread.
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.Originally posted by Jeremy
Was Melchisedec a Christophany?
Originally posted by Jeremy
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.
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.
Originally posted by turmeric
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?
Originally posted by DTK
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.Originally posted by Jeremy
Was Melchisedec a Christophany?
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
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).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
Originally posted by DTK
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).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
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]
Originally posted by DTK
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).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
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