Melchizedek and Michael

[MAC]

Jude 1:9 is a reference of Zechariah 3:1-3

Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Zec 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

Zec 3:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

Zec 3:3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.

• "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee".

In one passage of scripture we see Michael and His army at war with the Devil and his army, but here we see him in dispute about the body of Moses, not wanting to judge him for his accusations. Is there a contradiction? No, because God is painting spiritual pictures by using this language. There is no angel which has the power to contend with Satan. Satan is ruler of this world and of the fallen messengers and the only Messenger who could contend with him is Christ! Once Satan was defeated by the death of Christ, we then rule over him "through" Christ. Christ is the one who contended with the Devil.

The "body of Moses" is signifying the body of the law under which the congregation was burdened. Under the New Covenant with God, we are no longer burdened for Christ keeps the law for us under which we all sat condemned. When God speaks of the scriptures, He often uses the phrase or terms, "Moses and the Prophets" or "the law of Moses" or the "commandments of Moses". Of course we know that it's not Moses' law or his commands, it's God's law. But God uses these terms as a synonym for the law of God under which we sit condemned.

This is the dispute with Satan about the body of the law. He went to the cross willingly and opened not His mouth. He didn't bring against him a railing accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke thee." ..why? Because He was guilty, numbered with the transgressors for us. Laden with our sins He willingly went to the cross to atone for the transgressions of the law which "we" have broken. He couldn't say, "wrong Satan, the law doesn't condemn, because it did". Rather than accuse as Satan does, He assigned Satan's judgment (for every unrighteous thought is he judged) unto the father, and went as a lamb to the slaughter to pay the price for the sin that He had become, for us.

You will note as satan stood at the right hand of Christ to contend with Him, "The Lord" said to satan, "The Lord" rebuke thee! And so we see that argument goes right out the window because we have Joshua or Jesus clearly being called the Lord, and then clearly saying, The Lord rebuke thee. Again, instances of the three persons of the triune Godhead revealed. In both Jude 9 and Zechariah chapter 3 this is Jesus, the angel of the LORD who is resisted by Satan. It is Michael, the archangel, contending with Satan for the body of Moses.

Satan's judgment is commended unto the father, Christ would not bring accusation for He was guilty by the law, by being laden with our sins and the Father would pour out his wrath upon him for us.

 

[FreeinChrist]

And I see problems with your interpretation. One, the Angel of the Lord in Zechariah is NOT called Michael and is indicated to be the Lord Himself.
Zec 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.Zec 3:2 The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?"
No mention of a Michael here. There is a difference between the Angel of the Lord and Michael the archangel. And two, the focus of the early visions of Zechariah have to do with the coming salvation, as he goes to to propheci here:
Zec 3:8 'Now listen, Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who are sitting in front of you--indeed they are men who are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring in My servant the Branch.Zec 3:9 'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.Zec 3:10 'In that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'every one of you will invite his neighbor to {sit} under {his} vine and under {his} fig tree.'

That is why this is also prophesied:
Zec 3:3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel.Zec 3:4 He spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, "Remove the filthy garments from him." Again he said to him, "See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you with festal robes."
Compare with this:

Isa 61:10 I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.


Mat 22:11 "But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes,Mat 22:12 and he *said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless.Mat 22:13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

In contrast, Jude is not prophesying. He is not a prophet and Zechariah is. Just as he referred to the historical event of Sodom and Gomorrah, he is referring to a dispute over the body of Moses. The best explanation I have read about the dispute is that Satan probably wanted thebody so that the Israelites would build a memorial tomb...and end up worshipping the man and not the God who called him. And the israelites did have a problem with idolatry, even soon after the trip across the Red Sea.

So, to sum it up:
One, an interpretation must first look at the book overall and what type it is. Zechariah is a prophet and the book consists of the prophesy given to him by God. Zechariah 3 is part of a vision and must be understood in the context of the vision and the related visions. Jude is not prophesy.
Two, unless the name Michael is used in Zechariah 3, then the assumption that it is Michael has to be supported by scripture far more that what you have. I believe Daniel 10 contradicts your theory.




BTW - Miyka'el (Michael) means "who is like God?" It does not imply the person so name is God. Check with a Hebrew source - an unbiased, nonSDA source.

 

[MAC]

Sorry no sda but Reformed Protestant...

 

[Bastoune]

One question (not to debate, at least not on my end, but I would like to know what you guys on PRE think; I will post no more):

How do protestants view Jesus Christ's role as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek"? How do you interpret that Scripture?

Thanks!

 

[FreeinChrist]

One question (not to debate, at least not on my end, but I would like to know what you guys on PRE think; I will post no more):

How do protestants view Jesus Christ's role as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek"? How do you interpret that Scripture?

Thanks!

I have class til 10:30 tonight and so can't give much of an answer now. But Hebrews 7 - 9 and Galatians and Romans help explain this.
Basically we, as Christians, are children of Abraham by faith, not through the Law. We receive the promises of Abraham through faith. Now prior to the Law, Abraham (as Abram, I believe), comes across Melchizadek after a war. He gives Melchizedek, King of Salem (Peace), one tenth of the spoils, which is honoring Melchizedek. Melchizedek is a priest of the most high God - long before the Levitical priesthood of the Law. By Christ being a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, it means on an order before the Law, and it continues forever. I think these verses apply:
Hbr 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
Hbr 7:15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,
Hbr 7:16 who has become {such} not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.



Hbr 7:21 (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, "THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, 'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER' ");
Hbr 7:22 so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
Hbr 7:23 The {former} priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing,
Hbr 7:24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.
Hbr 7:25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Important point with the above - the Levitical Priests died. The sacrifices of the Law did not remove sin. Because Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek:
Hbr 10:11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
Hbr 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
Hbr 10:13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
Hbr 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Sorry no sda but Reformed Protestant...

Who were you quoting in post #27?

 

[MAC]

Yes, I believed is SDA.

But my agreement is in fact that Michael is Jesus in that article.
Which I am pretty sure you also have or had with other denomination!

 

[FreeinChrist]

Yes, I believed is SDA.

I am guessing, from your statement, that you had quoted Ellen White.

But my agreement is in fact that Michael is Jesus in that article.
Which I am pretty sure you also have or had with other denomination!

At various times in church history, the idea that Michael was Jesus preincarnate came up. It just didn't stick well.

 

[MAC]

No Ellen White, when Revelation was finish the Word of God was complete in the Bible for us.

 

[FreeinChrist]

No Ellen White, when Revelation was finish the Word of God was complete in the Bible for us.

So who were you quoting in post #27?

 

[MAC]

So who were you quoting in post #27?

Here:
http://www.bibleexplained.com/index.html

 

[Salvatore Gonzales]

Wow I haven't seen so many quotes and citations
since I last proofed a dissertation.

Can we keep it simple:

Melkizedek, ie, Melki Zadok

"King of Righteousness"
According to jewish tradition God
maintains the universe for the benefit
of the Zadok. There are only a few
of them in every generation that inhabits
the earth.

I'm a goy --back me up hebrew cousins!

 

[Salvatore Gonzales]

One question (not to debate, at least not on my end, but I would like to know what you guys on PRE think; I will post no more):

How do protestants view Jesus Christ's role as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek"? How do you interpret that Scripture?

Thanks!

He is the Eternal Priest King of Righteousness.

 

[Salvatore Gonzales]

BTW, the "anti-christ" as desribed in the
Dead Sea Scrolls is known as the MelkiResh,
ie, king of unrighteousness/evil.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Here:
http://www.bibleexplained.com/index.html

Thanks for posting that. I see a few problems with this:

1 ¶ In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.

Third year of Cyrus Probably 536/535 B.C., 70 years since Daniel's coming to Babylon as a youth of 17.
Thing or matter.
But the time appointed was long Probably better translated as "and it concerned a great conflict" (NRSV). Considering the "thing" or vision, and remembering the vision of chapter 8, we can see that either translation would be appropriate



He understood the thing ... the vision See vss 14, 21.
Vision Mareh which means revelation we understand to be the explanation or development of something shown in a supernatural way to a prophetda0801n. What vision? At the end of this chapter v21, Gabriel says he will explain the "scripture of truth" which we take here to be the thing that was true. So the vision is the one running through chapter 11 to the middle of chapter 12. It carries us through the centuries until Michael stands at the resolution of the trampling problem which was the focus of the 2300-day vision. In fact, all the visions of Daniel cover the conflict of the ages, each taking a different viewpoint.
# From the way the sentence is written, we may see this as an editorial note by another inspired writer, possibly Ezra. Of course Daniel could have written this way, too.

This is from that site. And I see a few problems. One, the writer assumes that "the thing" refers to Daniel 70 weeks prophecy, and then assumes that Gabriel is the one who continues to talk to Daniel. The problem? The third year of year of Cyrus mentioned in chapter 10 was 536/535 BC, that is true. But the 70 weeks vision is given in the first year of Darius, which is 539/538BC, about 2 years before chapter 10. The description of Gabriel is "a man" while the description of the being in chapter 10 is more than a man. "The thing" is like the vision that was to begin. This is how it is translated in NASB:

Dan 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar; and the message was true and {one of} great conflict, but he understood the message and had an understanding of the vision.

Two, the writer at that site goes on to point out that the one who appears to Daniel is the Messiah, a Christophany though he does not use the word:

5 - Man in linen From the description we may see this person as the glorified Messiah re0113.
We note that the vision began with the presence of the Messiah – the man in linen.
5 - Linen See ex3901f.

But then he contradicts himself by making out Michael as Christ, too:

13 - Michael one of ... Or "Michael, first of the chief heads," YLT. Michael means "one like God." The name is used in scripture for conflicts between Christ who is like God and the evil one who aspired to take over God's throne and be like God is1414. See re1207a

Either the one who is speaking in Daniel 10 – 12 is preincarnate Christ or he isn’t. If he is preincarnate Christ, as that writer thinks, and as I showed in an earlier post, then the fact that he refers to Michael as one of the chief princes that came to help him rules out Michael as Christ.

That writer also wrote this (I added the bold):
Christ is a human because He took on humanity to save us. This does not prevent Him from also being divine. We do not know very much about His relation to the angels, but He was one with them and he was their commander. We cannot rule out the possibility that He also took their nature as He has ours. Lucifer wanted Christ's job as he tried to work his way up to higher positions in the government of the universe (Isa. 14:13).

And this is directly opposite of Hebrews 2:16:
For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.
In fact, Hebrews makes it plain that Christ is above the angels, though he was made alittle lower than the angels in the Incarnation.

And there is that last statement about Lucifier....

 

[deu58]

Hello all

The problem with SDA's today is that many do not realize that the SDA pioneers were Arians,{ non trinitarian} including Ellen White. Eventually EGW did seem to at least appear to accept the Trinity. I have posted on Do the SDA'S accept the Nicine Creed thread a parts of a study done by the SDA's themselves {Adventist Biblical Research Institute} on Arianinsm past and present in the SDA church. Also here is a little piece from an Article I wrote for my own website dealing with SDA Arianism.

The English translation of the name is" Who is like God? There are those who claim that this means Michael is like God so Michael must be Jesus. But there is a serious error in assuming this. "Who is like God ?" is a question, not a statement. In other words the purpose of the name is to ask the question is there anyone anywhere, who can be like God? the obvious answer is no. The intent of the name was not to glorify the one who bore the name but to give glory to the one who gave him the name. The name Micah is a variation of Michael which translates "Who is like Yahweh?" So should we assume this Old Testament prophet was really God? Or should we consider him for what he truly was, a prophet and a servant of God. Just as Michael is a servant and Archangel of God.

I recently had some Adventist Friends at my House and we got to talking about EGW and Arianinsm. These people are Trinitarians and had no Idea that EGW had at one time supported Arian teachings. They were really surprised and doing alot of head scratching when I showed them From EGW's writings the Arian statements that she had made including the vision of Jesus with wings.

From a word to the little flock {1847}

I asked Jesus to let me see what was within there. In a moment we were winging our way upward, and entering in; here we saw good old father Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Daniel, and many like them. And I saw a vail with a heavy fringe of silver and gold, as a border on the bottom; it was very beautiful.

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[deu58]

Here:
http://www.bibleexplained.com/index.html

Hello mac

This is an Adventist site. Check out the time chart in Daniel prophecy of 70 weeks.

You will see the 2300 days end in 1844 which is the beginning of the SDA investigative judgment doctrine. Also while snooping around I noticed the EGW word for grace,PROBATION. She used the probation quite a bit when referring to Gods mercy and Grace. And yet, at least in the KJV, I can not find one time when the word is used.

It Has a completly different meaning than Mercy or Grace.

Check out the commentary on rev 7 and look at the rev time chart.

The commentary alludes to sunday keeping churchs as being those with the mark of the beast and the Time chart alludes to the three angels message.

This site is teaching pure EGW adventism with out truly revealing its sources

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[MAC]

The view of Michael been Jesus is the one I am using, not their doctrine.

 

[MAC]

I have some topics from reformed teachers that also have the same view, that Michael is Jesus.
Like in post #41

 

[deu58]

The view of Michael been Jesus is the one I am using, not their doctrine.

Hello Mac

The Idea that Michael is Christ is part of SDA doctrine. Michael is one of the Four Angels who Stand in the presence of the Lord. Micheal,Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel.

yours in Christ
deu58