SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Order of MelchizedeK

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next Page )
PosterThread
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4794


 Re:

I hear your thoughts concerning pre-aaronic and levitical orders. You say that the order of Melchizedec ministered by Christ occurred only after Christ's death on the cross. I believe the covenant made with Abraham coexisted with the covenant made on Mount Sinai. In fact I believe the new covenant existed since Genesis 3:15. Thus 7:11 and 7:15 explain that the law is our tutor to Christ. The function of the law was to condemn not to save. The new covenant ministered by the order of Melchizedek is a continual priesthood. Verse 7:3 is very clear. Melchizedek remains a priest continually. "Here mortal men (levitical order) receive tithes, BUT THERE HE (MELCHIZEDEK) receives them, OF WHOM IT IS WITNESSED THAT HE (MELCHIZEDEK) LIVES." Hebrews 7:8.

Again the order of Melchizedek is everlasting. Which man could only satisfy this claim. Look to verse 8. " But there he receives them," Does this verse give the impression that there was a beginning or end? "Of whom it is witnessed that HE LIVES.

The law of faith sits over God's creation. The law of faith cannot be cut up into man's timelines. The law of faith needs a mediator. What did Jesus do before His incarnation?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2003/12/20 23:39Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Jeff wrote In fact I believe the new covenant existed since Genesis 3:15.

Jeff, I think you are confusing promise with covenant. Gen 3:15 is the first promise (or 'threat') of the cross but a promise does not constitute a covenant.

As regards the point at which the Son became high priest after the order of Melchizedek; this is very clear.

Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. When did the Son sit down? Clearly when He had completed His mediatorial work on the cross. This is Peter's clear exposition of Psalm 110 in Acts 2:34,35. Jesus has become both Lord and Christ. It is also the clear testimony of Hebrew 1:3 when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high

The promise of Zechariah is linked with the building of His church, which was still future in Matt 16 "I will build", Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. This is a priest upon a throne in other words a king-priest of a Melchizedek pattern. This is a revolutionary statement to a people who, for a thousand years, have been told that priests could not be kings, nor vice versa. The prophecy of Zechariah is also looking towards an event not yet accomplished at the time of the prophecy.

Hebrews refers to His Anointing. Heb 1:9 which He has received, with oil of gladness above His fellows. There is another important implication here which is that 'his fellows' have received the anointing but that Christ's is above theirs. This links with Aaronic consecration in which High Priest and all the other priests were consecrated on the same day and at the same time. We became priests when He became High Priest. A close look at Aaron's consecration will reveal that Aaron's sons were not directly 'anointed' but that they received the oil which had been used in Aaron's consecration. (Lev 8). Our priesthood is only made possible by His High Priesthood.

It was this new, changed priesthood which brought the Old Covenant to a final end. the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. That of necessity is important. The priesthoods could no co-exist, they are mutually exlusive. The Old would have to be taken away in order to establish the New. From the moment that Christ's High Priesthood began, having taken His place by His Father's side, the Aaronic priesthood was extinct, of necessity.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/12/21 6:24Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4794


 Re:

Good morning brother Ron,

You have distinguished a difference between a promise and a covenant. Would you please identify what you have learned about promises and covenants?

Secondly, Genesis 3:15... How do you distinguish that this is a promise versus covenant?

Thirdly, this is not meant as a putdown, but as a point which questions the existence of the Trinity. The Jehova Witnesses also argue that Jesus was exalted to a much higher position within God's kingdom. I hold that everyone who would believe in Jesus from Abel to the time of the finish of God's plan were saints. Nothing but the Holy Spirit can do this work. Faith cannot exist absent of the Holy Spirit. "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth,(I believe all the faithful would fit into this work), visible and unvisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.( I believe this would include Tony Blair, George Bush). All things were created through Him and for Him. And He IS BEFORE ALL THINGS, AND IN HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in ALL THINGS HE MAY HAVE THE PREEMINENCE." Colossians 1:16-18. I believe the saints who died prior to the blood of Christ were made prefect with those who have lived after His resurrection. No one had ascended into heaven but the one who had come down to save us. The resurrection of Christ brought the promises to the old testament saints to fulfillment. Heaven was now opened to all who lived, and live by faith. All the saints are part of the church.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2003/12/22 11:07Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Jeff
I'm not sure of the point you are making regarding JWs and the Trinity. If you look through other threads you will find that my Trinitariam credentials are pretty sound.

Secondly, Genesis 3:15... How do you distinguish that this is a promise versus covenant?

You will know that this verse is actually part of God's curse on the serpent. In that sense it is neither promise nor covenant but a prophetic threat issued at the point of Satan's apparent victory. A promise is a one off thing with no ongoing relationship. I might promise you a Christmas card; when I have sent the card my promise is fulfilled and completed. It does not have a necessary followup relationship. As an example of a covenant; my wife and I were married almost 40 years ago. That was not a one-off event but a relationship.

God's promises do not necessarily mean that He is entering into long term relationships. This is part of the wonder of justification that Abraham was justified before he was in covenant. I shall touch on this in my Abraham series in the not too distant future.

God's threat to Satan in Gen 3:15 was an absolute 'promise' but God certainly did not enter into covenant on the matter.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/12/22 12:56Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4794


 Re:

Hi Ron,

I am not accusing you. I am trying to focus on a teaching which exalts Christ after He has been obedient. This is a teaching of JWs. The work which Christ did on the cross was complete before the foundation of the world.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2003/12/22 13:53Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Jeff,

The work which Christ did on the cross was complete before the foundation of the world.

Before the foundation of the world there was no timeline, but as those things were worked out on the earth they have taken place in a specific time space context. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate etc.

In the outworking of them there is specific 'before' and 'after' otherwise what does this statement mean that 'He is with you and shall be in you'? Why, 'tarry, until ye be endued'?

The principle of the cross was settled from before the foundation of the world. Its retroactive power of propitiation and hence the grounds of justification is referred to in Rom 3:25. God has been just in 'passing over' sins because of His eternal commitment to provide the propitiation.

However, Jesus referred to His death as something which must be accomplished. i.e. He viewed it as a future event in Luke 12:49-50. There were things He could NOT do until it was accomplished (literally 'finished). This baptism was accomplished (finished) on the cross which made things possible which before had been impossible.

On his accession to the throne, a very important event and truth in the New Testament, a new era was inaugurated. The work on the cross was not complete until Christ said 'it is complete' John 19:30. His death was 'accomplished' when in the eternal Spirit He offered Himself to God. The event is an eternal event which took place 'in time', but it was not until it had taken place 'in time' that its full benefits and consequences were available 'in time'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/12/22 15:14Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4794


 Re:

Hi Ron,

I hear what you are saying. I believe, in what I here taught in dispensational theology, both the power and the outcome are lumped together. Sorry for the slang. I believe there are differences in the timeline in how God addressses man. I believe the covenant of Mount Sinai was given to a nation seperated by God according to His pleasure. I also see that once Christ had completed His work on earth that God for a time continued to work soley in the nation of Israel after the time of Pentecost. Then God commanded Peter to reach out to the heathen. I believe as prophesied that God would also at that time pour out His Spirit on the heathen. These timelines and people exist as you say within our understanding of time and historical events.

The point where I disagree with dispensational theology is found in the teaching that God did not indwell His Holy Spirit within man prior to Christ's resurrection. I know it is the means by which I have faith. He reveals Himself to me. I can look back before my being born from above and see that I had no understanding. I could not understand how to be faithful.

We have the greater revelation that is in Christ. Along with that revelation, we also are layed bare in His light. I know that the New Testament teaches that when I become a disciple of Jesus Christ, I will be crucified of self will. I am not talking about legal terms and words, I am talking about a real life experience with my Lord and Savior. This is how Christ fulfills the law spoken of by Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms. If one teaches dispensational theology without teaching the results of the predestined work of Christ, one diminishes the blood of Christ.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2003/12/22 15:50Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Jeff,
I don't really think of my self as a dispensationalist in the way that the term is usually employed. It became the special expertise of the brethren through Scofield and many others and produced a very precise schedule for the Second Advent.

If we take your terms that you object to the teaching God did not indwell man by His Spirit until the resurrection As with all these terms is depends what you mean by indwell and by Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God anointed, empowered, equipped, enabled men in the Old Testament in many ways. They believed God and were justified. They walked with God and knew the inspiration of His Spirit in prophecy etc. The Spirit of Christ within them testified... The key thing to notice is that all of these functions were in the nature of 'gifts'. The gifts on the Christmas tree do not identify the species of tree; the fruit do that. The gifts may show the generosity of the giver but fruit shows the essential nature of the tree in process producing its own life-likeness.

The key change in the New Covenant, which did not exist at the time of the Old Covenant, is God within; the law written on the heart, a new spirit, My Spirit... All these characteristics were characteristic of the New Covenant. They were not characteristic of the Abrahamic Covenant, nor the Sinai Covenant, nor the Davidic Kingly Covenant, they are New Covenant. The New Covenant was 'in my blood'; it could not be released until the blood had been shed.

It is this regeneration, a change in fundamental nature, that I see as the characteristic of the New Covenant, which was still future in Ezek 36 and Jer 31. The Old Covenant was inaugurated with the words 'this is the blood of the covenant' [Ex 24] Not until the sacrifice had taken place and the blood sprinkled. The New is the same.

I do not diminish the blood of Christ.
Upon a life I have not lived,
upon a death I did not die,
upon another's life,
another's death,
I stake my whole eternity.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/12/22 16:37Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4794


 Re:

Hi Ron,

In terms of what God said to Israel under the covenant of Mount Sinai, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart." Duet 6:5-6 This applied to the nation of Israel.

"...My covenant which they broke through I was a husband to them says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jeremiah 33:32-33

In both examples, God says that He will do this. He will put His word or His law in their hearts. Also please note that Israel because of unbelief broke God's covenant. The law of faith is always conditional. "For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise;" Hebrews 10:36 I do not believe in the doctrine of once saved always saved. Scripture has always pointed to man's choice to walk away from God. Adam proved this.

So again, I look for the "...evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 What evidence does the indwelling of the Holy Spirit change from the evidence of faith given to us of the old testament saints.

As a side note, most of the time when I use capitals it is meant as a means of focusing one's attention on the words.
In my reading of Scriptures, many times I have read over words. And then one day the word is illuminated. So I try to illuminate in the earthly way. However, I must confess Ron that my flesh does get in there too. Please forgive me 70 times 7.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2003/12/22 17:51Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Please forgive me 70 times 7.

when shall I start counting?

Love has good manners and does not pursue selfish advantage. It is not touchy. It does not keep account of evil J B Phillips paraphrase.

Love doesn't keep a score. Ron Bailey paraphrase!


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/12/23 5:08Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy