It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Like other humans, Melchizedek was born and he died. However, the names of his father and mother are not furnished, his ancestry and posterity are not disclosed, and the Scriptures contain no information about the beginning of his days or the end of his life. Thus, Melchizedek could fittingly foreshadow Jesus Christ, who has an unending priesthood. As Melchizedek had no recorded predecessor or successor in his priesthood, so too Christ was preceded by no high priest similar to himself, and the Bible shows that none will ever succeed him. Furthermore, although Jesus was born in the tribe of Judah and in the kingly line of David, his fleshly ancestry had no bearing on his priesthood, nor was it by virtue of human ancestry that the offices of both priest and king were combined in him. These things were as a result of Jehovah’s own oath to him.
...
The fact remains that Melchizedek’s nationality, genealogy, and offspring are left undisclosed in the Scriptures, and that with good reason, for he could thus typify Jesus Christ, who by Jehovah’s sworn oath “has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.”—Heb 6:20.
originally posted by: whereislogic
Ah, then I guessed right what your motivation and justification for their continued use was.
originally posted by: whereislogic
Which brings us back to...
The relationship between the two covenants is that the old covenant foreshadows the new.
Thus the sanctuary established by Moses was erected, on God’s instructions, as a copy of the heavenly sanctuary into which Christ would enter (ch8 v5).
Similarly the sacrifices carried out in that sanctuary were symbolic of the death which Christ would experience (ch9).
In confirmation of this, the same sacrifice was also foreshadowed in the words of Psalm 40, “I have come to do thy will, O God” (ch10 v5).
Christ is the reality of God’s work, and the old priests were the imperfect copies which God provided for teaching purposes.
This also settles, by implication, the relative status of the two testaments.
The Old Testament system is a part, but a subordinate part, of the work of God which is made more complete and perfected in Christ.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
For the sake of completeness, we might also notice the Old Testament quotations of the last couple of chapters.
It is “the Lord” who gives discipline (ch12 vv5-6) or provides help (ch13 v6), and these are taken to be statements about the Christian God.
Or perhaps the most common, they jump right into it and start presenting their views on theological subjects (especially those related to bible texts and their interpretations of them) as if it's so. As if it's the correct view. Or as if it's an insightful view of the text. As if it's something worth reading and on ATS possibly even giving it a flag and/or star. As if it's worth paying attention to. While...
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: DayAfterTomorrow
The God of John's gospel, the God of the Old Testament
The abovementioned thread is the place where I am discussing this theme in relation to John's gospel.
In this thread, I won't be looking at texts outside the Epistle to the Hebrews.
I am definitely not interested in discussing the Tao, and never will be. You have your own threads for that purpose.
originally posted by: DayAfterTomorrow
The identity of the High Priest is the topic of the thread. If you miss this, you cannot understanding the topic.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
originally posted by: DayAfterTomorrow
The identity of the High Priest is the topic of the thread. If you miss this, you cannot understanding the topic.
I wrote the opening post, and the opening post is what defines the topic of any thread.
The topic of this thread is the continuity of the Biblical God as demonstrated by the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews.