Jesus is God

[Paidion]

Darin, please excuse me. My 83-year old memory fails me often now even in minor matters in my home.
Thank you for referring me to those discussions in which I had participated and forgot.

Sincerely,
Paidion

[commonsense]

So, H presents the special case of Mel to show that there is a different type of priest than the Aaronic priesthood which had served its purpose and was no longer needed. A priesthood which was based not on parentage or genealogies (not having one could be the same as saying he had none that were relevant to the Aaronic lineage). A priesthood that preceded even the Jews and derived its authority completely outside of the Jewish nation and the sacrificial system. Mel was such a person who Abraham treated as a priest even without all those trappings or national identity. Jesus has come in that same way and is that type of priest, the one with eternal authority from God apart from his Jewishness or his lineage.

So, the Jews should not be stumbled by his lineage, but should be challenged to accept this new priesthood and new system in place of the sacrificial system to maintain favor with God.

When we just turn it into another confusing proof-text for a pre-incarnate Jesus, we lose that.

Darin, I agree!

Paidion, rather than move this to a new topic, I thought I'd direct you to the latest discussion of John 8:58. Since it does come up from time to time, I moved it to its own post. Unfortunately, it did get drug off topic again, but there's a good exchange there on the subject.

Paidion, I'm going over to the old thread to add a few thoughts on the subject.

[dwight92070]

At the very least, Mel is a type of Christ, but I believe He was Christ (preincarnate), given that His attributes can be found in no other human.

I'm willing to grant that Mel is a type of Christ.

That is certainly conventional reasoning. I think it has some logical flaws we don't need to go through here (but might be an interesting separate topic), but it's at the very least a pretty round-about way of showing how you believe Mel was "clearly" a pre-incarnate Christ. You also conclude by recognizing it could well not be, so I guess your clarity has some wiggle room.

Dwight - I came to no such conclusion. Mel is a type of Christ, but He is much more than that. My "round-about way" was to provide evidence, but I don't think it sunk in, so I will try once again. I will also include more evidence that Steve provided on his verse-by-verse. Yes, he too believes that Mel is the preincarnate Christ.

Dwight - If we were to summarize the first 7 chapters of Hebrews, it would look something like this:

1. Jesus is better than the Old Testament Jewish prophets - one verse
2. Jesus is better than the angels - 11 verses
3. Jesus is greater than Moses - 4 verses
4. Jesus is greater than Joshua - 1 verse
5. Jesus is greater than all high priests - 7 verses
6. Melchizedek, a mortal man, is greater than Abraham - 28 verses !!???

Dwight - Obviously #6 is totally out of place and does not fit with what the a of H is saying in the first 6 chapters. It should read, "Melchizedek, the preincarnate Jesus, is greater than Abraham". In fact, if the a of H did not intend to present that message, then there would be no reason for Chapter 7. Especially the Hebrew believers needed to know that Jesus was greater than all the Jewish prophets, greater than the angels, greater than Moses, the lawgiver, greater than Joshua, greater than Aaron and all the High priests and last, but not least, greater than the father of all who believe, Abraham. To present #1 through #5, and then say, (#6) "Oh yeah, by the way the MORTAL man, Melchizedek, was greater than Abraham.", doesn't even make sense. It's totally out of place.
Dwight -
Mel was the King of Righteousness - only One person can claim that - Jesus
Mel was the King of Peace - only One person can claim that - Jesus
Mel was priest of the Most High God
Mel was immortal - "He remains a priest perpetually" vs. 3 - only One person can claim that - Jesus. "You are a priest forever" vs. 17
Mel had no earthly parents, no genealogy, no beginning of days nor end of life (He was eternal) - vs, 3 - we know this is literal because He STILL lives on

Dwight - If Mel was just a mortal man, then he would have to die before the priesthood could be passed on to Jesus. (Verses 16 and 23) But Mel never died, so how could Jesus become the next priest? There were not two high priests at the same time. The only explanation is that Mel and Jesus are one and the same. A Christophany, similar to what Jacob, Joshua, and Samson's parents must have seen.
Dwight - Many say that Mel was not the Son of God, but He was made "like the Son of God" - verse 3 Obviously, this is how the a of H referred to Him. Technically, the term "Son of God" had it's origin when Jesus was born to Mary, (as I have mentioned many times now) so there was no "Son of God" term in Abraham's day, so the a of H said that He was like the Son of God. But nonetheless, Mel and the Son of God were the same person.
Jesus, Melchizedek, and the Son of God are all one and the same person.
Dwight - Jesus said in John 8:56 - "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The most logical time that Jesus could be referring to here is when Melchizedek met Abraham after he defeated the pagan kings and rescued Lot and Lot's family. Obviously, Abraham was happy and grateful that God had allowed him to defeat his enemies, and filled with joy to see the Lord Himself, and to be blessed by Him.
Dwight - I would highly recommend Steve's verse-by-verse teaching on Hebrews 7. He doesn't cloud the issue - he clarifies it.

[darinhouston]

Dwight, I disagree with your outline, and neither your reason nor your rhetoric is very helpful. I continue to find your manner of response tedious and insulting but I will note that my interpretation is wholly consistent with most outlines of Hebrews, and will further note that you might consider that any interpretation that is inconsistent with your own could be seen as "clouding" the issues. I personally believe your interpretation clouds the flow in Hebrews where mine does bring clarity and consistency to the flow and objective of Hebrews. That is often in the eye of the beholder.

I could have chosen any of more than a hundred out there that are pretty similar, but just for the sake of discussion, here is an outline from DA Carson that doesn't try so hard to kludge a Christophany into the outline.... His outline is consistent with showing that Jesus is a superior High Priest to Aaron and that his was modeled after Mel.

1. I. Introduction: God’s Final Word to Us in His Son, 1:1-4
2. II. Jesus Better than the Angels, and the Ultimate Man, 1:5-2:18
   1. Jesus the Son of God Better than the Angels, 1:5-14
   2. Embedded Warning: Do Not Turn Away from the Word Spoken by God’s Son, 2:1-4
   3. The Son Temporarily Lower than the Angels, 2:5-9
   4. The Son Identifying with and Suffering for the Sons, 2:10-18
3. Jesus Better than Moses, 3:1-6
4. Jesus and the Sabbath Rest, 3:7-4:13
   1. A Moralizing Reading of Ps 95: Persevere or Perish, 3:7-19
   2. A Typological Reading of Ps 95: Understanding the Ultimate Rest, 4:1-13
      1. The Typological Chain of Events and Their Meaning, 4:1-11 (Jesus Better than Joshua)
      2. The Power of the Word of God, 4:12-13
5. Jesus the Great High Priest, 4:14-7:28
   1. Pastoral Implications of Having Such a High Priest, 4:14-16
   2. The Son’s Appointment as Unique High Priest, 5:1-7:28
      1. Survey Statement: The Son’s Unique Qualifications, 5:1-10
      2. Embedded Warning: The Danger of Apostasy, 5:11-6:12
         1. Spiritual Immaturity, 5:11-6:3
         2. Stern Warning Regarding Apostasy, 6:4-8
         3. Encouragement to Persevere, 6:9-12
      3. The Stellar Certainty of God’s Promise Our Ground of Hope, 6:13-20
      4. The Place of Melchizedek in Redemptive History, 7:1-10
      5. The Superiority of Jesus as Melchizedekian High Priest, 7:11-28
         (Jesus Better than Aaron)
6. The Superior Ministry of Jesus the Appointed High Priest, 8:1-10:18
   1. The Superior Ministry of the Heavenly High Priest, 8:1-6
   2. The Superiority of the New Covenant, 8:7-13
   3. The Superiority of the New Covenant Offering, 9:1-10:18
      1. A Study in Contrasts, 9:1-14
         The Old Covenant Sanctuary, 9:1-5 The Old Covenant Offering, 9:6-7
         The Old Covenant Approach, 9:8-10 The New Covenant Place, 9:11
         The New Covenant Offering, 9:12 The New Covenant Approach, 9:13-14
      2. Christ the Mediator of the New Covenant, 9:15-22

[darinhouston]

Interestingly, after I posted that, I went to see what Carson and the Gospel Coalition taught about Mel. Again, you try to suggest anyone who believes differently than you are novators and that your position is the only reasonable one from the text. In most cases in this area, it's pure conjecture, even if reasonable. However, it is rarely as "clear" as you suggest, and my putting meat on the alternative argument isn't "clouding the issue" but clarifying a competing interpretation, which in many cases is quite orthodox. I am not trying to say that Hebrews affirmatively denies the Trinity, only that using it as a prooftext is of no value since it is ambiguous and the subject isn't even in view. I am supported by many who believe the same thing even Trinitarians who don't deny your position on Jesus, but deny the passage is helpful to it.

So, here is one thing Carson has said on the subject speaking officially on behalf of the Gospel Coalition (a staunchly Trinitarian group). I believe this is the right approach - and it does not deny orthodoxy to say that this passage might not support it. To prevent-emotions a criticism from you I post this not as authority for my position but in defense of any suggestion it’s “fringe” or desperate. Neither TGC norDA Carson are in any way “fringe” in this area.

"In the history of the church, there have been two explanations for the figure of Melchizedek. One is this is a preincarnate visitation of Jesus. That is, before you have the God-man, Jesus of Nazareth, the eternal Son appears in bodily form, as it were, an incarnation before the incarnation, and this is Melchizedek. So Jesus is here, on that reading, explicitly in the Old Testament.

I’m sure there are many, many Christians in this room who think that’s what’s going on here. It’s possible. If you want to hold that, I won’t criticize. In fact, nothing in my argument until the rest of this sermon depends on saying that you’re wrong, but I think you’re wrong. That is, there is no direct hint that this is a divine figure in this context at all. ***. If you want to hold that this is a preincarnate appearance of the eternal Son, I’m not going to enter an argument with you, but I don’t think it’s necessary to go down that route."

I'm still reading that entire article - so far, I can affirm it all and it's an excellent read on Melchizedek (and another example of the richness of the Word that you can gain when you quit trying to shoehorn everything into a simple Trinitarian proof-text.). Though, "some" might consider it confusing the issue.

[dwight92070]

Even your response is cloudy and confusing - I guess I shouldn't be surprised that your interpretation of the Bible is the same. You should really listen to Steve on this - to hear another example of someone who thinks clearly.

[darinhouston]

Even your response is cloudy and confusing - I guess I shouldn't be surprised that your interpretation of the Bible is the same. You should really listen to Steve on this - to hear another example of someone who thinks clearly.

If you don’t understand my post, a question or two might be more productive. I have heard Steve’s teaching on this, though it’s been a while.

[commonsense]

Dwight - Many say that Mel was not the Son of God, but He was made "like the Son of God" - verse 3 Obviously, this is how the a of H referred to Him. Technically, the term "Son of God" had it's origin when Jesus was born to Mary, (as I have mentioned many times now) so there was no "Son of God" term in Abraham's day, so the a of H said that He was like the Son of God. But nonetheless, Mel and the Son of God were the same person.

Dwight, Mel and Jesus were not one and the same person but One in the same Spirit / One in the same word of God/ One in the same "body". ( a group of people who share the same beliefs)
Yes, there was a Son of God term in Abraham's day, namely Israel. Psalm 82:6 "I have said " You are gods, you are all sons of the Most High."
We may all have different stations in life: king, prophet, priest, servant etc.etc. but members of the kingdom of God are all spiritually the same.

"A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher."

If Mel was just a mortal man, then he would have to die before the priesthood could be passed on to Jesus. (Verses 16 and 23) But Mel never died, so how could Jesus become the next priest?

Mel did die. It's his priesthood, what he was teaching, that did not die.

[darinhouston]

Dwight - Many say that Mel was not the Son of God, but He was made "like the Son of God" - verse 3 Obviously, this is how the a of H referred to Him. Technically, the term "Son of God" had it's origin when Jesus was born to Mary, (as I have mentioned many times now) so there was no "Son of God" term in Abraham's day, so the a of H said that He was like the Son of God. But nonetheless, Mel and the Son of God were the same person.

Dwight, Mel and Jesus were not one and the same person but One in the same Spirit / One in the same word of God/ One in the same "body". ( a group of people who share the same beliefs)
Yes, there was a Son of God term in Abraham's day, namely Israel. Psalm 82:6 "I have said " You are gods, you are all sons of the Most High."
We may all have different stations in life: king, prophet, priest, servant etc.etc. but members of the kingdom of God are all spiritually the same.

"A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher."

If Mel was just a mortal man, then he would have to die before the priesthood could be passed on to Jesus. (Verses 16 and 23) But Mel never died, so how could Jesus become the next priest?

Mel did die. It's his priesthood, what he was teaching, that did not die.

I don't understand or necessarily agree with the first part of commonsense's post, but I do agree with his response about Mel's mortality. There's no indication Mel was immortal, but his priesthood was of a different type and not dependent on the status of the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood - the point being made is that when Jesus took that priesthood, it was permanent and of a different and "better type."

[commonsense]

I don't understand or necessarily agree with the first part of commonsense's post, but I do agree with his response about Mel's mortality. There's no indication Mel was immortal, but his priesthood was of a different type and not dependent on the status of the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood - the point being made is that when Jesus took that priesthood, it was permanent and of a different and "better type."

Darin, Mel's priesthood was permanent-"You are a priest forever...." Jesus was "in the likeness of Mel". Two different people but the same priesthood/ministry. It was better than the Levitical priesthood as Jesus said " You teach doctrines and commandments of men."

Mel's priesthood was resurrected in Jesus