The Weekend Word

You may also like...

41 Responses

  1. Bible study makes strange bedfellows. I was reviewing some of my old outlines from developing this section of my class notes and I see that in the early middle verses I lifted some stuff from both Steve Wright and of all places my Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible. I don’t know why that struck me as a strange combination, but it was.
    So as attribution in v.4 & 6, my thanks to Steve Wright and Finis Dake.

  2. An v 8

    My study tools usually include the appropriate book commentary from the Concordia Commentary, the People’s Commentary, the evangelical standby, Frank Gaebelien’s The Expository Bible commentary, the Baptist Broadmann’s commentary and I will even peek into J Vernon McGee just to see how he will turn a phrase.

    So what commentaries do you folks use when studying passages?

  3. Babylon's Dread says:

    I hope one day I will break bread with you.

  4. Jean says:

    Good stuff MLD!

  5. uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Pretty good, MLD!

  6. Scott says:

    “Priests were from Levi and Jesus was from Judah.”

    Which is why I believe there is no need or command to rebuild that which has been done away with by the establishment of the new covenant priesthood, which is based on the order of Melchizedek.

    A re-established Levitical priesthood offering blood (animal) sacrifices in a rebuilt temple during a literal 1,000 year reign on earth of Christ makes no sense to me based on what the writer of Hebrews himself lays out in clear and precise detail.

  7. uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Can see temple rebuilt during trobulation period, whereas, God will use to usher or bring to the forefront for all the nations and people to see the antichrist, to choose,while removing the blindness of the Jews, and others. Many suffering in His name. But no temple in the thousand year period of tme, but not for animal sa sacrifice. Remember the 144,000 who will be brought forth declaring His name. Literally and not figuratively.

  8. We should take this discussion to open blogging.

  9. uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Since new earth and new Jerusalem will take place until after the years, the the temple built during or just before the Tribulation may still be standing, but during the thousand years, used for for gathering and governing purposes, but not for sacrificing to atone for sins.

  10. uriahisaliveandwell says:

    “after thousand years take place”

  11. Em says:

    hmmm … can one assume that the example of Melchizedek hints to God’s interaction with the human race having gone outside of and beyond those who came out of Egypt with Moses? … seems so …
    he was not a descendent of Abraham … but he seems to have affirmed Abraham … so God had something going on over there then beyond Ur … and doesn’t this reference in verse 6 say that Jesus, while entering into the human race through this Jewish heritage, was not solely “Jewish?”
    has anyone solved the Melchizedek mystery? there’ probably more written than i care to read on this, but i’ve never heard anyone say definitively who he was…

  12. uriahisaliveandwell says:

    P.S.I was merely speculating upon the idea is that a temple would exist during the millennium. And if so there would be no purposefor animal sacrificessacrifices. never the less if the temple had been rebuilt prior to this time and God has not destroyed everything thus creating a new earth and a new Jerusalem the temple was still be standing that’s would be put to use to honor God but without animal sacrifice of this to atone for sin.as I said, if_

  13. uriahisaliveandwell says:

    P.S.I was merely speculating upon the idea is that a temple would exist during the millennium. And if so there would be no purposefor animal sacrificessacrifices. never the less if the temple had been rebuilt prior to this time and God has not destroyed everything thus creating a new earth and a new Jerusalem the temple was still be standing that’s would be put to use to honor God but without animal sacrifices to atone for sin.as I said, if_

  14. I am one who does not think there was anything special about Melchizedek. The mystery is created because no one knows his genealogy or any other facts other than the conversation in Genesis.

    But he must have been a good priest to get the notoriety.

  15. Jean says:

    #14, That king and priest of Salem (the future Jerusalem) blessed and refreshed Abraham with bread and wine. Remind you of anyone?

  16. Scott says:

    A Jew reading these words (especially those of the Levitical Priesthood) must of had their minds blown by the distinction the writer of Hebrews makes as to the inferior aspect of the old order with the new.

    There’s no way that the majority of them had any clue as to what was to come. I think there were a few who were looking for his coming, but even they didn’t fully comprehend what it meant and would entail.

    These words are the unveiling of the mystery which had been hidden in Christ since the beginning. They are a stumbling block to Jews, and to anyone who insist on the old order of things, and foolishness to the high minded.

  17. Scott says:

    The Melchizedek reference has many points of emphasis, however, I think underlying is the fact Abraham would be known as a man who “believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

    Righteousness was not accounted to him based on his works, origin or race.

    Matthew 3:9

  18. Em says:

    hmmm… come to think of it, Noah’s descendants would have carried varying degrees of faith and understanding with them… that might account for Melchizedek… dunno
    was he special or unique? i guess only God knows…

  19. uriahisaliveandwell says:

    whoever said the Bible was about the Jewish people. the Bible is God’s written word that speaks of him when he is His creation and the human race who we are in him and who we are apart from him.
    God has not forgotten your juice nor has he forsaken Bell YML d would like to make this about something else other than what it is is beyond my understanding I only know this.that God will use Israel as well as the Jews to bring about the promises and the covenants made in the New Testament as well as the old to the Jews and to the Gentiles and to show the world who he is and always will be he had intended the used to be a witness to the world on a more positive note however even though the Jews went awry he still uses that to teach us and to warn us and to enable us to understand even more clearly why it is Jesus had to come and to die for us.

  20. uriahisaliveandwell says:

    MLB takes great issue with those who ste Jews, much like Luther did, so whenever they are mention it would seem MLD goes off in a tangent, not hearing or rather reading and comprehending what has been shared,brother States. Following Luther after risk and interpreting Scripture in such a way that negates God’s plan for these whom Luther has little love care and concern towards

  21. uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Positiveatheism.org

  22. uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Rest of address:
    /hist/quotes/Luther.htm

    Also see wikipedia on luther and the Jews. How utterly insane he was and full of himself.

  23. Andrew says:

    “Isn’t that odd that Jesus had to learn obedience – could it be that his flesh is so real that it is rebellious by nature like ours?”
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    I don’t think so. Seems heretical to me to state that Jesus’ flesh is rebellious by nature like ours. There has got to be a better interpretation of this verse.

  24. Jean says:

    “Seems heretical to me to state that Jesus’ flesh is rebellious by nature like ours.”

    Andrew, what kind of flesh do you understand Jesus to have had? Or, what is the orthodox view?

  25. Andrew says:

    Jean, I think Jesus’ flesh was just like ours but without rebellion or sin. The problem I see is equating flesh with sin. Adam was also created sinless. I don’t think sin originates in the flesh but in the mind as James 1:15 states. I’m not sure what the orthodox view is.

  26. Jean says:

    Andrew,

    This might be a rabbit trail, but we would have to consider this passage in connection with comments 23-25:

    “By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Rom 8-3b-4)

  27. Andrew says:

    Jean,

    I admit that the Bible does use the term “flesh” in a metaphorical way to refer to sin at times, but this is where we need to be careful in making proper distinctions. The “flesh” I am referring to is just the corporeal body of Christ which is exactly like ours but without sin. Maybe I am off basis but this is my thinking.

  28. Jean says:

    Andrew,

    Thanks for clarifying. Hebrews is consistent with your statement in #27 that Christ was without sin. In that sense we could see both Jesus and Adam as born without sin. Both were tempted, but Adam succumbed to temptation whereas Jesus did not.

    On the other hand, Adam was born innocent, with a body and into a world untainted by the corruption wrought by sin and death. By contrast, Jesus, while without sin, was born into a world filled with evil, corruption, sin, disease and death. On a human level, one could say Jesus feared death at Gethsemane. In that sense, one could say his body was rebellious like ours.

    But that may be what the author of Hebrews meant by “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.

    There seems to be strong emphasis in Hebrews of the solidarity of the incarnate Christ with fallen human beings. In order to be a “sympathetic” high priest, Jesus must have experienced the same experiences and temptations that his followers face, in order to encourage us to follow him through the sufferings we face in life.

  29. Andrew says:

    Jean, I don’t like the term rebellious. I think a better term would be vulnerable. He made himself subject to the limitations of a man. Learning obedience does not imply he was disobedient at some point before as it would with you and me. Quite the contrary. But everything else you said, I am on board with.

  30. Jean says:

    Yes, “vulnerable” is a better choice of words. Very good.

  31. Josh the Baptist says:

    There is certainly something special about Melchizedek. You get the brief mention is Genesis 12, a whole order of Priests attributed to him in Psalm 110, and then the larger emphasis found in Hebrews.

    He was a priest, but not in the line of Aaron. That is special.

    He was a priest and a king. That is special.

  32. My point about Melchizedek was that he was not an angelic appearance of a pre incarnate Christ as some suggest.

  33. Em says:

    “My point about Melchizedek was that he was not an angelic appearance of a pre incarnate Christ as some suggest.” while not disagreeing with that statement, i do wonder how you came to your conclusion

  34. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    em, because I think Mel was a real person who held a real priesthood.

  35. Josh the Baptist says:

    Jesus not a real person with a real priesthood?

  36. Josh the Baptist says:

    Anyway, I don’t necessarily think Melchizedek is the pre-incarnate Christ, but he could be, I guess. Without a doubt, he is an Old Testament picture of Jesus.

  37. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Ok, then the statement would be; “as he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, like the time you played the character of Melchizedek.” 🙂

  38. Josh the Baptist says:

    Eh, I have no dogma for or against. I’ve read good arguments in both directions, but really find it to be a bit of a side-track.

  39. Em says:

    aren’t angels always identified as such in the O.T? Melchizedek’s priesthood is an interesting ponder, tho….
    a sidetrack? probably, but just what is the significance as it wasn’t mentioned “in passing,” i don’t think – dunno, tho

  40. Josh the Baptist says:

    Oddly enough, the Genesis mention, does seems to be in passing. (Earlier, I said Gen 12. Obviously, it is Genesis 14.) If that was the only mention, I would find it fairly unimportant. (Though the fact that he presents bread and wine is rather striking).

    But then David makes a big deal about him in Psalm 110. And the writer of Hebrews goes on and on about Melchizedek. The side note to me is not discussing Melchizedek, but arguing over whether he was an preincarnate appearance of Christ.

  41. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Andrew,

    Yes, in all that you shared.

    We were given a mind to enable us to choose between good and evil. It is not the body that rules over us, but that which is seeded within one’s thoughts that is sown and reaped accordingly.

    Jesus was led into the desert to be tempted. Yet, even though having nothing to eat or to drink, he did not succumbed to Satan’s lies. Jesus could have sinned only if it was in His heart to think and to do. Jesus called evil, evil, sin, sin, and never compromised one inch. Repent, He tells us to do—not to just say, “I’m a sinner.” That is not repenting nor is it taking responsibility for the choices that you are making. Choices that comes straight from an unrepentant and unchanged heart.

    A person may be tempted all day, every day, but unless he or she has in their heart to desire, to do, to have, etc., that temptation will roll off them as honey on ice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.