Melchizedek ~ Who Was He?

[The Narrow Way]

We recently were asked who we thought Melchizedek was...and it caused us to do some real studying....after looking up from the Bible, the writings of Ellen White and the Pioneers, we've come to the conclusion that it's simply like the Bible says, he was "the King of Salem." He was not Christ or the Holy Spirit or anyone else.

Melchizedek ~
(Sometimes spelled Melchisedec)

Statements from the Spirit of Prophecy ~

Genesis Chapter 14

18-20. Melchizedek, Christ's Representative—God has never left Himself without witness on the earth. At one time Melchisedek represented the Lord Jesus Christ in person, to reveal the truth of heaven, and perpetuate the law of God (Letter 190, 1905). 1BC 1092.8
It was Christ that spoke through Melchisedek, the priest of the most high God. Melchisedek was not Christ, but he was the voice of God in the world, the representative of the Father. And all through the generations of the past, Christ has spoken; Christ has led His people, and has been the light of the world. When God chose Abraham as a representative of His truth, He took him out of his country, and away from his kindred, and set him apart. He desired to mold him after His own model. He desired to teach him according to His own plan (The Review and Herald, February 18, 1890). 1BC 1093.1


God has never left Himself without witness on the earth. At one time Melchizedek represented the Lord Jesus Christ in person to reveal the truth of heaven and perpetuate the law of God. Jethro was singled out from the darkness of the Gentile world to reveal the principles of heaven. God has ever had appointed agencies and has ever given abundant evidences that these agencies were heaven appointed and heaven sent. 20LtMs, Lt 190, 1905, par. 2


As soon as David was established on the throne of Israel, he began to plan for a more appropriate position for the capital of his realm. Twenty miles from Hebron a place was selected as the future metropolis of the kingdom. Before Joshua had led the armies of Israel over Jordan to the promised possession, it had been called Salem. Near this place Abraham had proved his loyalty to God. He had prepared an altar, and had laid upon it his only son Isaac, in obedience to the command of the Lord. Here had been the home of Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God, nearly nine hundred years before the coronation of David. It held a central and elevated position in the country, and it was barricaded by an environment of hills. On the north rose Lebanon, with its snow-crowned summits. ST June 22, 1888, par. 1


Many persons will meet all inferior demands and dues, and leave to God only the last gleanings, if there be any. If not, his cause must wait till a more convenient season. Such was not the course pursued by Abraham. Upon his return from a successful military expedition, he was met by Melchizedek, “king of Salem, and priest of the most high God.” This holy man blessed Abraham, in the name of the Lord, and the patriarch gave him tithes of all the spoils as a tribute of gratitude to the Ruler of nations. RH May 16, 1882, par. 24


It was Christ that spoke through Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God. Melchizedek was not Christ, but he was the voice of God in the world, the representative of the Father. And all through the generations of the past, Christ has spoken; Christ has led His people, and has been the light of the world. When God chose Abraham as a representative of His truth, He took him out of his country, and away from his kindred, and set him apart. ...1SM 409.3

On his return, the king of Sodom came out with his retinue to honor the conqueror. He bade him take the goods, begging only that the prisoners should be restored... PP 135.1 Another who came out to welcome the victorious patriarch was Melchizedek, king of Salem, who brought forth bread and wine for the refreshment of his army. As “priest of the most high God,” he pronounced a blessing upon Abraham, and gave thanks to the Lord, who had wrought so great a deliverance by His servant. And Abraham “gave him tithes of all.” PP 136.1

 

[The Narrow Way]

Statements from The Pioneers

“‘Who Was Melchizedek?’” The Signs of the Times, 11, 31.

E. J. Waggoner

How many times this question has been asked, and how many quires of paper have been used up in vain attempts to answer it! The number almost equals the number of those who have ever thought about the matter. Some, in answer to the question, will have that he was Shem, and others insist that he must have been our Lord in disguise. And, strange to say, when a person has one of these ideas in his mind, it is almost impossible for anyone to rid him of it. SITI August 13, 1885, page 489.9
Now to us the discussion over this question has always seemed something strange. We cannot yet conceive how it is possible for anybody with even a slight knowledge of the Scriptures, to be bothered over the matter, for the Bible tells us who Melchizedek was, in just as plain terms as could be desired. For the benefit of all who are troubled over the question, “Who was Melchizedek?” we will give a direct answer from the Bible. Turn, if you please, to Genesis 14:18-20. There you will read:- SITI August 13, 1885, page 489.10
“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the Most High God. And he blessed him [Abram], and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.” SITI August 13, 1885, page 489.11
Here we are told, not only who he was but an incident in his life. He was both king of Salem and priest of the Most High God, and in that capacity he blessed the patriarch Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the five kings. He also received from Abraham a tenth part of all the spoil. See also Hebrews 7:1-4. SITI August 13, 1885, page 489.12
If this does not satisfactorily answer the question, we do not know what would. Take other instances! Who was David? Answer, He was king over Israel, and a prophet of God. Who was Moses? He was a prophet, and the leader and commander of the children of Israel. In the wilderness of Sinai, he went up into the mount; and God spoke to him face to face. Who was Paul? He was an apostle, called of God to carry the gospel to the heathen. All must admit that these answers tell plainly who David and Moses and Paul were. And in like manner, to say that now Melchizedek was king of Salem, and priest of God, fully answers the question, “Who was Melchizedek?” SITI August 13, 1885, page 489.13
Suppose that in answer to the question, “Who was Moses?” I should say, “He was John the Baptist;” or that if some one should ask, “Who was David?” the answer should be given, “He was Hezekiah;” or that if when speaking of my neighbor Mr. Jones, I should be asked who he is, and should answer, “He is Mr. Brown;” what would be thought? People would think that my mind was wandering. To us it seems just as absurd to say that Melchizedek was Shem, or that he was Christ, as it would be to say that David was Paul, or that Mr. Jones is Mr. Brown. SITI August 13, 1885, page 489.14
To be sure, we have a more full record of Moses and David and Paul, than we have of Melchizedek, but what of that? We have by no means a complete record even of their lives. It is not necessary that we should know all of a man’s history, in order to know who he was. Of Enoch we only know that he walked with God and was translated; yet no Bible student ever raises the question, “Who was Enoch?” SITI August 13, 1885, page 489.15
“But,” some one will say, “we the parents and descent of these men, and of Melchizedek’s parentage we know nothing.” How many are there who can tell who Elijah’s parents were? or who were his descendants, and how old he was when he was translated? No one knows. We are told only his office and some of the incidents of his life, just as in the case of Melchizedek. The schoolboy, in his reading, chances to find references to a man by the name of Paulding. He will ask, “Who was Paulding?” His teacher, or the Biographical Dictionary, will answer, “He was one of the American soldiers who, in 1780, captured Major Andre.” We know nothing of his parentage, and are told only one incident of his life, yet we do not straightway conclude that he must have been Anthony Wayne. SITI August 13, 1885, page 489.16
“Yes,” says the objector, “but the Bible says that Melchizedek had no parents.” If that were so, it ought to put a stop to the folly of calling him either Shem or Christ, for we know who Shem’s father was, and we know the age of Shem when he died. Likewise, of Christ, we know that as to his earthly life he was born of the Virgin Mary, and that before he came to earth he was known, as he still is, as the “only begotten of God.” But the Bible does not say that Melchizedek had no parents. King James’ version reads, “Without father, without mother,” but this, in the Revised Version is correctly rendered, “without genealogy,” thus agreeing with the margin of the old version, “without pedigree.” His ancestry is not given, and in this he differs from the Levitical priests, in that their descent must be traced to Aaron. This was that which made his priesthood a type of Christ’s. Christ has no predecessor nor successor in his priestly office, and therefore he is set forth as the antitype of Melchizedek, who stands as the sole representative of his order. SITI August 13, 1885, page 489.17
The type and the antitype, the shadow and the substance, cannot be identical. Christ is a priest “after the order of Melchizedek,” and therefore it is impossible that they two should be one. Every attempt to go beyond the record and show the origin, descent, etc., of Melchizedek, is in reality an attempt to show that his priesthood was not a type of the priesthood of Christ. Let us give ourselves wholly to “those things which are revealed,” and not waste time in vain attempts to be wise above that which is written. E. J. W. SITI August 13, 1885, page 489.18

A Kingly Priest .—“Made an High Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedek.” Who was Melchisedek?—He was “king of Salem” and “priest of the Most High God.” Hebrews 7:1. So Christ is both King and Priest. “Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the Man whose name is The BRANCH; and He shall grow up out of His place, and 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.” Zechariah 6:12, 13. What is Christ's work as Priest?—“To make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” How much power has He to do this?—All His power as King; all the power of the throne of grace on which He sits. What more could be said to give confidence to a trembling soul? He is King of righteousness, and also King of peace. Let Him reign in your heart, “and the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” “Blessed be His glorious name for ever; and let the whole earth be filled with His glory; Amen and Amen.” PTUK December 30, 1897, page 821.2

He was “made an High Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” Taxis, rendered order, properly signifies “series, succession.” Christ, like Melchizedek, had no priestly descent of pedigree; Hebrews 7:3 (margin) i.e. He never followed nor will have a successor in office; and “because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable Priesthood,” (which passeth not from one to another; margin) verse 24. The Priesthood of Levi to be continuous had many and a succession of priests, “because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death;” verse 23. LOM, page 39.3 (Crosier)

It was directly in the carrying out of this great purpose to make him and his seed a light and blessing to all the nations, that God called Abram into the land of Canaan to sojourn there. For from only the beginnings of history which we have already studied, it is clearly seen that the country of Palestine was the center of the then known world—the country through which, whether in war or in peace, the people of other lands were constantly passing and repassing. At that point God would set the light of the knowledge of Himself, that all might see it. Melchizedek was already there, and he was the priest of the most high God. And there, before history had fairly begun, God placed Abraham the Friend of God, and the father of all that be of faith, to keep before the people the knowledge of the true God after Melchizedek should have passed away. EB 140.1 (A. T. Jones)

Some of the greatest characters of the Old Testament were types of Christ. Examples: Adam, Melchizedek, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David. TDOC 12.6 (Prescott)

We have referred to Melchizedek as the model. He was King of Righteousness and Prince of Peace, and therefore priest of the Most High God. That is all we know of him. In every nation the priesthood has been hereditary; but who can reckon his descent from Melchizedek? Everybody can. Nobody can dispute any person’s claim that he is descended from Melchizedek. He stands out as the representative of an individual priesthood. His nationality and descent are hidden, to show that he stands for every man of every age and nation. This is suggestive of the truth that every individual of right ought to be a veritable son of God, and of the truth revealed in Hebrews 5:5, 6, that every son is priest. “Christ glorified not himself to be made high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. As He saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” Christ is a priest because a son; and as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God,” and therefore priests. MEDM August 1904, page 244.2 (E. J. Waggoner)

We would by no means be understood as deprecating a spirit of investigation, or as advocating the shutting off of questions, except such as are indicated in the verse quoted. They are certain death to spirituality either in the school, the teachers’ meeting, or anywhere else. It is a lamentable fact that among any body of persons there will be some whose minds always grasp the fact that is not under consideration. A text of Scripture always conveys to them a hidden meaning, and they feel called upon to make known their doubts, or their new ideas. Others are always reaching out after the unattainable. They want to know more than is revealed. The question as to where Cain got his wife is still current. “Who was Melchizedek?” is asked with as much anxiety as though eternal happiness depended on the correct answer. The question, “How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?” is still put in spite of the fact that the inspired apostle has marked the mental ability of the questioner down to zero. SITI November 27, 1884, page 713.2

 

[The Narrow Way]

Latter SDA Writers ~

Through the years some of these Bible-minded members would advance ideas which on more careful investigation had to be given up. This was unavoidable; but it was in a way helpful toward stimulating thought. Many times questions arose to which the Spirit of prophecy gave the answer. Some years back a few among us became deeply interested in Melchizedek. Certain members thought he was Christ; others claimed that he was a visitor from another world, the first one created there, as Adam was on this earth. There are those who are in danger of making minor matters look like leading doctrines. Concerning this question Mrs. White said: {1947 LHC, FSG 416.1}

"It was Christ that spoke through Melchisedec, the priest of the most high God. Melchisedec was not Christ, but he was the voice of God in the world, the representative of the Father. And all through the generations of the past, Christ has spoken; Christ has led His people, and has been the light of the world. When God chose Abraham as a representative of His truth, He took him out of his country, and away from his kindred, and set him apart." -Ibid., p. 97. {1947 LHC, FSG 416.2}

This is but one illustration of many, many questions that are answered in the Spirit of prophecy writings, thus helping to preserve unity of faith in the remnant church. Both ministers and members will do well to bring their Bible questions to the Testimonies. {1947 LHC, FSG 416.3}

 

[The Narrow Way]

Notes from Al


“HOLY MAN”
(42 Times in Ellen White’s writings; always applied to human being, never applied to God)

PAUL—Acts of the Apostles 513
ENOCH—Patriarchs & Prophets 86
NEHEMIAH—Signs of the Times, November 29, 1883
JESUS—Early Writings 173 (Pilate’s wife calls Him that)
DANIEL—The Sanctified Life 18
ELISHA—Prophets & Kings 237
SAMUEL—Health Reformer, March 1, 1880
JOHN THE BAPTIST—Review & Herald, August 2, 1898

Ellen White, on numerous occasions quotes Numbers 23:19—“God is not a man.”


“No words can describe the scene which took place as the Son of God was publicly reinstated in the place of honor and glory which He voluntarily left when He became a man.” {Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899} (As that quote reads, obviously there was a time when Christ was NOT a man.)


“Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” {Hebrews 7:3 KJV}

“Without [any record of] father or mother, nor ancestral line, without [any record of] beginning of days (birth) nor ending of life (death).” {Amplified Bible}


“There is no record of Melchizedek’s father or mother or of any of his ancestors; no record of his birth or death.” {Good News Translation}


“Without his father or mother being written in the genealogies…” {Aramaic Bible}


“There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors...” {New Living Translation}


S Bruce: All we know of Melchisedec [Heb.vii,1-3] is what is recorded of him in the Bible; viz., that he was king of Salem, and a priest of the Most High God. See Gen.xiv,18. For this very reason he is said to be without father and without mother, without beginning of days or end of life: because we have no account of his genealogy nor any record of his life, death or posterity, save the fact above referred to. It was necessary for every one who aspired to a place in the Jewish priesthood, to be able to trace his genealogy, and show his descent from the family of Aaron. He who could not trace his genealogy and tell who were his ancestors was said to be "without father." Clarke furnishes many instances of this usage. The Jews objected to the priesthood of Christ, because he could not trace his descent from the legitimate stock, the tribe of Levi. Paul meets this objection by a reference to Melchisedec who was neither descended from the tribe of Levi, nor yet from Abraham, but was a Canaanite; and yet he was a priest of the Most High God. But the Holy Spirit has seen fit to tell us nothing of his ancestry, nor of his death or posterity. Therefore, so far as the Holy Spirit has seen fit to record, he is without father or mother, beginning of days or end of life, or cessation of priesthood. And thus the objection of the Jews is most triumphantly met; for Christ was to be a priest after the order of Melchisedec.” {Review & Herald, December 16, 1858 UrSe, ARSH 32.5}


“But the Bible does not say that Melchizedek had no parents. King James' version reads, "Without father, without mother," but this, in the Revised Version is correctly rendered, "without genealogy," thus agreeing with the margin of the old version, "without pedigree." His ancestry is not given, and in this he differs from the Levitical priests, in that their descent must be traced to Aaron. This was that which made his priesthood a type of Christ's. Christ has no predecessor nor successor in his priestly office, and therefore he is set forth as the antitype of Melchizedek, who stands as the sole representative of his order.”

“The type and the antitype, the shadow and the substance, cannot be identical. Christ is a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," and therefore it is impossible that they two should be one. Every attempt to go beyond the record and show the origin, descent, etc., of Melchizedek, is in reality an attempt to show that his priesthood was not a type of the priesthood of Christ. Let us give ourselves wholly to "those things which are revealed," and not waste time in vain attempts to be wise above that which is written.” {E. J. Waggoner, Signs of the Times, 8/13/1885}

************************

 

[The Narrow Way]

ADAM CLARKE ON MELCHIZEDEK

“A thousand idle stories have been told about this man, and a thousand idle conjectures spent on the subject of his short history given here and in Heb. vii. At present it is only necessary to state that he appears to have been as real a personage as Bera, Birsha, or Shinab, though we have no more of his genealogy than we have of theirs…”

“Melchizedek is called here king of Salem, and the most judicious interpreters allow that by Salem, Jerusalem is meant. That it bore this name anciently is evident from Ps. 76:1, Ps. 76:2… From the use made of this part of the sacred history by David, Psa_110:4, and by St. Paul, Heb_7:1-10, we learn that there was something very mysterious, and at the same time typical, in the person, name, office, residence, and government of this Canaanitish prince.” {His comments on Genesis 14:18}

“Without father, without mother” {Hebrews 7:3 KJV}

The object of the apostle, in thus producing the example of Melchisedec (verses 1 & 2) was to… (2) answer the objections of the Jews against the legitimacy of the priesthood of Christ, taken from the stock from which he proceeded.

The objection is this: If the Messiah is to be a true priest, he must come from a legitimate stock, as all the priests under the law have regularly done; otherwise we cannot acknowledge him to be a priest: but Jesus of Nazareth has not proceeded from such a stock (verse 14); therefore we cannot acknowledge him for a priest, the antitype of Aaron.

To this objection the apostle answers, that it was not necessary for the priest to come from a particular stock, for Melchisedec was a priest of the most high God, and yet was not of the stock, either of Abraham or Aaron, but a Canaanite. It is well known that the ancient Hebrews were exceedingly scrupulous in choosing their high priest… (1) God had commanded. Lev_21:10, that the high priest should be chosen from among their brethren, i. e. from the family of Aaron… it was necessary that he who desired this honor should be able to prove his descent from the family of Aaron… and that they might be well assured of all this, they took the utmost care to preserve their genealogies,

“But the wise men say if she be of the same mother, they cast her out; but if of the same father, they retain her, שאין אב לגוי shein ab legoi, “for a Gentile has no father;” i.e. his father is not reckoned in the Jewish genealogies. In this way both Christ and Melchisedec were without father and without mother; i.e. were not descended from the original Jewish sacerdotal stock. Yet Melchisedec, who was a Canaanite, was a priest of the most high God…

 

[garee]

ADAM CLARKE ON MELCHIZEDEK

“A thousand idle stories have been told about this man, and a thousand idle conjectures spent on the subject of his short history given here and in Heb. vii. At present it is only necessary to state that he appears to have been as real a personage as Bera, Birsha, or Shinab, though we have no more of his genealogy than we have of theirs…”

“Melchizedek is called here king of Salem, and the most judicious interpreters allow that by Salem, Jerusalem is meant. That it bore this name anciently is evident from Ps. 76:1, Ps. 76:2… From the use made of this part of the sacred history by David, Psa_110:4, and by St. Paul, Heb_7:1-10, we learn that there was something very mysterious, and at the same time typical, in the person, name, office, residence, and government of this Canaanitish prince.” {His comments on Genesis 14:18}

“Without father, without mother” {Hebrews 7:3 KJV}

The object of the apostle, in thus producing the example of Melchisedec (verses 1 & 2) was to… (2) answer the objections of the Jews against the legitimacy of the priesthood of Christ, taken from the stock from which he proceeded.

The objection is this: If the Messiah is to be a true priest, he must come from a legitimate stock, as all the priests under the law have regularly done; otherwise we cannot acknowledge him to be a priest: but Jesus of Nazareth has not proceeded from such a stock (verse 14); therefore we cannot acknowledge him for a priest, the antitype of Aaron.

To this objection the apostle answers, that it was not necessary for the priest to come from a particular stock, for Melchisedec was a priest of the most high God, and yet was not of the stock, either of Abraham or Aaron, but a Canaanite. It is well known that the ancient Hebrews were exceedingly scrupulous in choosing their high priest… (1) God had commanded. Lev_21:10, that the high priest should be chosen from among their brethren, i. e. from the family of Aaron… it was necessary that he who desired this honor should be able to prove his descent from the family of Aaron… and that they might be well assured of all this, they took the utmost care to preserve their genealogies,

“But the wise men say if she be of the same mother, they cast her out; but if of the same father, they retain her, שאין אב לגוי shein ab legoi, “for a Gentile has no father;” i.e. his father is not reckoned in the Jewish genealogies. In this way both Christ and Melchisedec were without father and without mother; i.e. were not descended from the original Jewish sacerdotal stock. Yet Melchisedec, who was a Canaanite, was a priest of the most high God…

Thanks
Melchisedec a theophany vision (not flesh and blood) It was used to represent the Son of man, Jesus' flesh and blood . The demonstration required flesh and blood signified as sinful (Jesus did not sin)
A vision could not provide .

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

 

[The Narrow Way]

Thanks
Melchisedec a theophany vision (not flesh and blood) It was used to represent the Son of man, Jesus' flesh and blood . The demonstration required flesh and blood signified as sinful (Jesus did not sin)
A vision could not provide .

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Where does it say he didn't have "flesh & blood"?

 

[Randy777]

Melchizedek was before Levi
Christ was before Adam

The origin of their priesthood had no beginning and has no end. Not from a father or mother. Not based on genealogy.

But by Gods appointment and the length of term of that appointment was forever.

Melchizedek was a man who was appointed by God as Priest of God most high.

Some think Jesus was Melchizedek but if that was the case why would Jesus need to be appointed a 2nd time?

The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.

 

[garee]

Where does it say he didn't have "flesh & blood"?

Hi Thanks for the reply. Other than without mother and father, without descent, without beginning of Spirt life or end thereof ?

Flesh and blood was needed to put away sin in the flesh .

 

[The Narrow Way]

Hi Thanks for the reply. Other than without mother and father, without descent, without beginning of Spirt life or end thereof ?

Flesh and blood was needed to put away sin in the flesh .

Garee, if you read the #2 post above, you will see that you have a misunderstanding on "without mother and father, without descent". Please take the time to read it...

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

In case someone rather listens than reads: here is a biblical examination of Melchizedek (and yes, he is a king and a priest of God, but not Jesus/God himself). Enjoy!

 

[garee]

Garee, if you read the #2 post above, you will see that you have a misunderstanding on "without mother and father, without descent". Please take the time to read it...

Hi thanks for the reply .

To begin with some of your quotes after hierarchy of venerable men that lord it over the faith or understanding of the non venerable.

You seem to be using Christ the anointing teacher or Holy Spirit rather than the Son of man Jesus who does have a beginning of days with a descent or geanalolgy who came clothed with flesh typified or signified as sinful.

Jesus had no sin but flesh and blood the temporal was needed for the demonstration of putting away sin in the flesh. A work of the Father not seen, and Son of man seen working together in perfect submission and harmony to bring the government of peace . The same peace that surpasses our understanding but is established by his understanding that he freely gives to us.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

God is not a man as us he has no beginning of days or end of Spirit life.

 

[The Narrow Way]

Hi thanks for the reply .

To begin with some of your quotes after hierarchy of venerable men that lord it over the faith or understanding of the non venerable.

You seem to be using Christ the anointing teacher or Holy Spirit rather than the Son of man Jesus who does have a beginning of days with a descent or geanalolgy who came clothed with flesh typified or signified as sinful.

Jesus had no sin but flesh and blood the temporal was needed for the demonstration of putting away sin in the flesh. A work of the Father not seen, and Son of man seen working together in perfect submission and harmony to bring the government of peace . The same peace that surpasses our understanding but is established by his understanding that he freely gives to us.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

God is not a man as us he has no beginning of days or end of Spirit life.

This is an Adventist Forum, those men are Pioneers of the Adventist Church .

 

[garee]

This is an Adventist Forum, those men are Pioneers of the Adventist Church .

Not sure what you mean by Adventist Church ? Seventh Day Adventists?

 

[The Narrow Way]

Not sure what you mean by Adventist Church ? Seventh Day Adventists?

Yes

 

[garee]

Yes

Thanks for the reply .I hope I do not offend your personal commentary on the word rest or sabbath. It is not a time sensitive word. And is used in two ways one as a ceremonial law and the other today as long as today is today (under the Sun)

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Thanks for the reply .I hope I do not offend your personal commentary on the word rest or sabbath. It is not a time sensitive word. And is used in two ways one as a ceremonial law and the other today as long as today is today (under the Sun)

Hi there,

The Sabbath is not a ceremonial law, it is God’s eternal law, written by the finger of God that is time sensitive according to God every seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God and God wants us to keep holy that same day that is holy to Him. The Sabbath is only defined as being on the seventh day not as “today”. Many misquote Hebrews 4 but if you look at that scripture in context “today” is talking about not hardening your heart and not obeying God. Don’t wait another day to obey God when you hear His voice obey Him “today”.

This is God’s definition of the Sabbath

Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who iswithin your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

 

[The Narrow Way]

Thanks for the reply .I hope I do not offend your personal commentary on the word rest or sabbath. It is not a time sensitive word. And is used in two ways one as a ceremonial law and the other today as long as today is today (under the Sun)

I couldn't disagree more....it has EVERYTHING to do with TIME....God says it starts at sunset Friday evening and goes until sunset Saturday evening.

 

[The Narrow Way]

Thanks for the reply .I hope I do not offend your personal commentary on the word rest or sabbath. It is not a time sensitive word. And is used in two ways one as a ceremonial law and the other today as long as today is today (under the Sun)

But I hope that you will not derail the Melchizedek thread....there are other threads to discuss the Sabbath on.

 

[garee]

But I hope that you will not derail the Melchizedek thread....there are other threads to discuss the Sabbath on.

Thanks, Sorry