If everyone could turn to Psalm 110, I would like to read that, and then we will go back to Hebrews for a little bit, and then return to this Psalm later on.
In Psalm 110, it is “A Psalm of David,” it says:
JEHOVAH said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. JEHOVAH shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. JEHOVAH hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.
I will stop reading there. We want to take a look at Psalm 110 because of, especially the reference to Melchizedek that we were looking at two or three weeks ago. Melchizedek is mentioned once in Genesis 14, then in Psalm 110, and then he is not mentioned again until the book of Hebrews.
And in Hebrews, God goes into a lot more detail about this mysterious priest that came on the scene in the days of Abraham. For instance, in Hebrews 5, the Lord is beginning to get into the discussion of the “high priest.” And, Hebrews is a book that, really the primary emphasis of the book is the “Son of God,” the Lord Jesus Christ, and His role as a “high priest.” In Hebrews 5, it says in verse 1:
For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
Then go down to verses 4-6:
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an 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 Melchisedec.
Now, God is joining together two references from the Psalms. The first reference was, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,” and that is found in Psalm 2:7. That is one of the verses that God has given us that teaches us about “the Son,” the Lord Jesus Christ following His Resurrection, at that time He was begotten, “the first begotten of the dead,” and He is “declared to be the Son of God.” And it is interesting here, in Hebrews 5, God gives one verse, Psalm 2:7, that Jesus is “the Son,” and follows it up with a second verse speaking of Melchisedec, as it says:
As he saith also in another place, …
So they are linked together by God. That there is something about Melchisedec that ties in with Jesus’ role as “the Son of God.”
Now, if you go a little further in Hebrews 5, it says in verse 10:
Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Now that statement, “after the order of Melchisedec” is made, I think, seven times in the book of Hebrews, and that is also in Psalm 110 where Melchisedec is a priest. And, God is just about ready to get into the discussion of the Lord Jesus who is a “high priest,” after Melchisedec, when He says in verse 11:
Of whom …
That is Melchisedec.
… we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
And that means that God wants to give us information about this mysterious figure, but we are “dull of hearing.” The word “dull” is translated “slothful” in Hebrews 6:12. That is the only two places it is found in the New Testament. So a sloth is a very slow creature, and that is the point, that God has given us in the Scriptures, but really, His people are slow to hear it because God “sealed” it up “till the time of the end.” For thousands of years we have not really understood or heard what God has to say about Melchisedec. And after saying, He has “many things to say, and hard to be uttered” because we are “ye are dull of hearing.” Then, the Lord breaks off towards the end of chapter 5 about babes regarding the word of God, and those who will obtain to “strong meat.” And it says in verse 14:
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, …
That is the word “perfect” we looked at a couple of weeks ago. The Lord has in mind obtaining a perfection of knowledge before the end of the world. That is, He has measured out a certain portion of understanding of the Scriptures that He will give His people at this time. He is opening up the Word, and He is revealing secrets that have been hidden for ages to His people. For instance, May 21, 2011 was part of this, and so too annihilation, that God will destroy the sinner that will be the full penalty that he will pay, as the Lord will just eternally cause a sinner who does not experience God’s salvation to perish.
We have gone over Hebrews 6, and leaving the first “principles,” and moving “unto perfection,” which is what is going on today. Then towards the end of chapter 6, we read about God swearing “an oath.” And He also took “an oath” in Psalm 110, about Melchisedec, He swore regarding him. And then, towards the end of Hebrews 6, God goes into these two truths. In verses 16-18:
For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, …
That means, it cannot change.
… confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable …
Or unchangeable:
… things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
What are the two things that are unchangeable? Well, number one, the person of God. He cannot lie, He cannot lie, it is not within Him to lie. And the second thing is that, He has sworn, He has taken “an oath” concerning many things regarding His Word, His Gospel. And He did not need to take “an oath,” because He cannot lie. But, again it is the second proof, or evidence, for our “consolation” that, He has sworn, that He will bring to pass all the promises that He has given in His Word. And that is the “two immutable things” that should give us tremendous confidence and security that, what God has said in the Bible will be proved perfectly trustworthy, and true, and faithful. And we are going to see the fulfillment of all things very shortly, because God has taken “an oath,” and He has sworn, and He will bring it to pass.
Well, then in verse 20 of Hebrews 6:
Whither the forerunner is for us entered, …
That is into the veil which is referring to Heaven.
… even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Melchisedec. Jesus is “after the order of Melchisedec.” Now, let us look at Hebrews 7:15, and then we are going to backup to the first three verses of Hebrews 7. It says in Hebrews 7:15:
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Now that should really get us thinking because, we just automatically think Melchisedec is a type and a figure of Christ, right? There are many types and figures of the Lord Jesus as we look at the Old Testament history. David is a type and a figure, or Solomon is a type and a figure of Christ. And Melchisedec made an appearance in history as a type and a figure of Christ, is that correct? No, No. Look at it again:
… it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Jesus is the type of Melchisedec, it is reversed. You see how it is turned around? But that cannot be right because that would mean that Jesus’ whole ministry was a tableau, that would mean it was like He was acting out a parable, that is not right is it? Yes. What have we learned? Exactly that, that what God had promised concerning His salvation plan was accomplished, it was finished “before the foundation of the world.” And Jesus just came to demonstrate, to prove what had already taken place. And this verse, this verse if we think about it, Jesus is “after the similitude,” or the order, “the similitude,” the likeness. It is a related word to when Jesus would say, “the kingdom of heaven is like,” this is speaking of Melchisedec.
So who is Melchisedec? Well, let us go back to verse 1, because in the first couple of verses, I do not know if there is a more shadowy figure on the pages of the Bible:
For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
That is taken place, or we can read about it in Genesis 14. Now we are not going to get into Genesis 14 today, but we are going to just look at this, and then we will go back to Psalm 110.
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation …
That is Melchisedec, the name.
… King of righteousness, …
The name, if you were to look in the Hebrew, because it is transliterated from the Hebrew, that is the Greek just tried to pronounce it as it was written in the Hebrew. Melchisedec means “King of righteousness.” And then it says:
… first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
So, God interprets “Salem,” it means “peace.” So Melchisedec, his name, and the fact that he ruled over “Salem,” means these two things, He is “King of righteousness” and “King of peace.” Another time maybe we will try to get into that a little bit more. Of course, Jesus is the “King of kings,” Jesus is righteousness Himself, He is peace. Right? He is the peace that He obtained for His elect people. So far, everything we read about the name of Melchisedec, we can see how it points to Christ.
Now look at verse 3:
Without father, …
This is Melchisedec, it is referring to:
… without mother, without descent, …
Now that is how we are as human beings, every one of us has a father and a mother, we have a descent, a lineage, a genealogy. We came from our forbearers. There were other generations that, as they lived their lives, we came forth. Melchisedec is not like that. God is saying that, He did not have a father, did not have a mother, and He did not have a descent. Who could we think of in the Bible that did not have a father and a mother like we have fathers and mothers? Adam and Eve, right? God created Adam, and there he was, a full grown man. He did not have to be born as we are born. He did not have to develop from a toddler to a young boy, or girl, to a teenager, to a young adult. He did not have to do any of that, God just made him, He just made him a full fledged adult male. And then He made Eve after taking Adam’s rib, and Eve also was just made a full grown adult. She did not have to go through birth and the early years like everyone else who has followed since.
When we are thinking about this new information that we have learned, that Jesus was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” the Bible tells us that in Revelation 13:8. That means He took our sin in His “body,” His “body,” is that right? “From the foundation of the world.” Did Jesus have a “body”? Well, go to 1 Peter 2:24 where it says:
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Since this verse is describing bearing sin, paying for sin, it had to be “from the foundation of the world.” It could not have been in 33 A.D., because once sin is paid for, then there is no reason to make a second payment. Once Christ bore all the sins of His elect people, and died, that is why He was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” those sins are gone forever, never to return. What sins could He possibly have borne in 33 A.D.? There were no sins left, He had already paid for the sins of His people.
1 Peter 2:24 is telling us that, Jesus bore the sins in a “body on the tree.” Now, do not get caught up with whether there was a tree from the foundation of the world, there was not, there was not any world, there was not any creatures, there was not any plant life, there was not any trees, God had not made this world. But did God make lambs from the foundation of the world? No, and yet the Bible says, Jesus was “the Lamb slain” from that point, from before the world began, even though He was not a lamb. “The Lamb” teaches us, why God says, He was a lamb, teaches us that He was the sacrificial offering. See it has a meaning that was literal, Christ was the sacrifice. The fact that 1 Peter 2:24 says He was on a tree, that teaches us He was made a curse, and He experienced a shameful death as He was slain as “the Lamb.” It does not mean that there was a literal cross or tree, just like there was not a literal lamb. But He did have a “body,” He did have a “body.” Where did He get the “body”? Where did it come from? Well, how did Adam get a body? God just gave Adam a body, and God equipped the Lord Jesus Christ with a “body” “from the foundation of the world.” He had a “body” to bare the sins to suffer under God’s wrath, and of course we know from Romans 1, if you would go there. These verses that we are really becoming more and more familiar with, Romans 1:3-4 says:
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, …
Now, read the last part of the verse:
… by [or through] the resurrection from the dead:
Christ became “the Son,” was “declared to be the Son of God” through or via “the resurrection from the dead.” And yet, He came into the world as “the Son,” He was already “the Son.” We read in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.” And yet, Romans 1 is telling us, the only way He could be called “the Son” is if He had already risen from the dead. So when we look at what Revelation 13:8 is telling us, He was “slain,” well, no one made that up, it is a verse in Revelation 13:8:
… from the foundation of the world.
And then God declares when He rose, when He was resurrected, at that point He is called “the Son of God.” And Hebrews 1 tells us that it was as “the Son,” that “he made the worlds.” Aion is the Greek word which means “age” or “ages,” “he made the worlds, he made the [ages].” And the Bible translates that word many times as “age,” and also many times as “world.” If you get a chance, look up that word, and you will see that sometimes they are practically synonymous, that when God could be speaking of an era, or an “age,” or the “world,” is also a proper translation, and it is the same word as Hebrew 11:3:
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, …
That is the same word in Hebrews 1, aion, “ages,” ages were framed. No, that is missing something. But we can understand as the “worlds,” the universe, the planets, the stars and earth and the moon, all these heavenly or celestial bodies were created by the “Son of God,” by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Let me make three points since I wrote this down, and that is about Melchisedec. Number 1, we find that there was a quote in Hebrews 5 from Psalm 2:7 which linked him. The following verse was from Psalm 110 which linked the two together, and it is also highly significant in Hebrews 7:3. Let us go back there a minute, where it says:
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but …
Now this is Melchisedec:
… made like unto the Son of God; …
Melchisedec was “made like unto the Son of God.” When? Well, the only time that happened was when Jesus rose from the dead, “from the foundation of the world.” Melchisedec then was “made like unto the Son of God.” We know that Jesus was a lamb, or typified by the sacrificial lamb. John the Baptist said, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” We also know that that “Lamb of God” had to be offered up, and that is why Hebrews in the later chapters goes into detail about Jesus being “an high priest after the order of Melchisedec,” in the offering up of Himself. He was the animal, the sacrifice, He was also the one who offered it, the “high priest,” the “high priest.” He performed both roles as He died in that tableau, as He made these things manifest, He was both “the Lamb,” and the “priest” who sacrificed “the Lamb.” Likewise, there is a lamb mentioned “from the foundation of the world.” But who offered up “the Lamb”? How did that happen? Well Melchisedec, Melchisedec is someone who God made “without father, without mother, without descent,” He had no descent. And we know that Jesus had a “body,” and He bore sins in a “body,” and Melchisedec was “made like unto the Son of God,” just as we read of the Lord Jesus in Psalm 2:7, that God says, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”
Well, anyway, we can see very interesting things about Melchisedec, that Jesus is the similitude of Him. Let me read that again:
… after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Jesus is the figure of what Melchisedec was. And that is really amazing. We would have no clue about that unless we had learned these other things about Jesus making the atonement “from the foundation of the world.”
Well, we will, Lord willing, get back to Hebrews 7, but let us go to Psalm 110, Psalm 110:1:
JEHOVAH …
When we find the word “LORD,” or “GOD,” in all capitals in the Old Testament, it is the Hebrew word, JEHOVAH, that is what it is. And it says:
JEHOVAH said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
This is quoted, Psalm 110 is quoted in Matthew 22. It is actually quoted in Matthew, Mark and Luke. But in Matthew 22, we will just look here, in verses 41-46, it says:
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
It is significant and amazing that, Jesus is referring back to that Psalm in order to show the Pharisees, to teach them, to instruct them in something they really did not want to learn, but to show them that the Messiah would be God Himself. And that is the point of referring to Psalm 110, and saying, “The LORD said unto my Lord,” and yet, they knew the Messiah had to be a “son of David.” And it is not an accident that “blind Bartimaeus” cried out when he heard Jesus was passing by, “Thou Son of David, have mercy on me,” because the Messiah was prophesied to come through the line of David. He would be a Son somewhere along the line of David, and the spiritual leaders of Israel were aware of this, and therefore it is a good point that Christ is making to them, if it is a son, a descendent of David. Why does the Bible say, or why does the Bible indicate that David says, He is my Lord? They could not answer, they did not want to answer. What is the answer? That the Messiah would be God Himself, that the Messiah would be the Lord Jesus, eternal God, who would redeem His people. And so, they avoided the question and they did not want to “ask him any more questions” after that.
You know, it is interesting that in the Greek, in Matthew 22, the word “LORD” where it is in all caps, because it was “JEHOVAH” in the Old Testament, and the word “Lord,” with just the first letter capitalized, and the rest in lower case, are the same Greek word, they are the same Greek word, it is kurios and kurio. “The LORD said unto my Lord,” kurio is the dative case of kurios, yet it is the same Greek word.
Now, I do not know how long ago, but we began trying to be more exact and more obedient to the Bible, and therefore, when we saw the name “LORD,” we would say the name, we would actually begin to pronounce the name “JEHOVAH” rather than saying “Lord,” like we always have. I have always done that, and it is a hard habit to try and stop, but to be more careful to what the Bible says, we began replacing it with what it is, in actuality, “JEHOVAH.” Yet, I said well, yes, but it is not absolutely necessary. And I still do not know if it is absolutely necessary, because Psalm 110 is quoted in the New Testament, and God did not bother to transliterate the word “JEHOVAH.” The word “JEHOVAH” from the Hebrew, is translated here as kurios. Now, the translators realized there was a quote from a word named “JEHOVAH,” so they put it in all capitals. And so I thought, well you see, we are saying “Lord,” and in the New Testament God uses the word that means “Lord,” so we are not wrong, we are not that far off. But I have learned that we cannot do that. People can continue to say “Lord,” I am not saying that, but we cannot say because the New Testament word from a quote from the Old Testament, it is translated another way, that this means that we have the privilege to translate that word back in the Old Testament in that way. Let me show you what I mean. In Psalm 8, in Psalm 8:4-5:
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
The word “angels” here in Hebrews 8:5, is ‘elohiym, it is ‘elohiym, it is the word “God,” it is the plural name for “God.” No other place in the Old Testament is it translated as “angels.” It is “God.” And yet, the translators dared to translate this word “angels” rather than “God.” It is the same word in Genesis 1:1:
In the beginning God [‘elohiym] created the heaven and the earth.
How could they do that? Where did they get the gall to do that and translate a word that is clearly ‘elohiym and means “God,” as “angels?” Well, what they did was, they went to the book of Hebrews, Hebrews 2:6-7, and it is going to quote from Psalm 8:6:
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? …
That is what we were reading in Psalm 8.
… or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Now in the New Testament, the quote from Psalm 8, the word “angels” is aggelos, “angels.” God changed it. Now that is God’s good pleasure to do. It is His privilege. It is His Word. If He wants to change “JEHOVAH” to kurios as He did with Psalm 110, that is His business, according to His purpose. But we cannot. And this is what the translators did in the King James Bible. They maybe did not understand Psalm 8, but they knew there was a quote in the New Testament which they had access to, and they looked, and they saw, the same word translated as “angels,” and then they took that and translated Psalm 8:5 as “angels.” I think that is pretty obvious that is what they did. No, we are not allowed to do that. Therefore, even though Psalm 110 is quoted, and the word “JEHOVAH” is changed, that does not give us any kind of privilege or allowance to change the Old Testament word into that Greek New Testament word. I am not saying that whoever says “Lord” is wrong, I am not going to get into that area, but the one thing I was thinking that would justify continuing to say “Lord” rather than “JEHOVAH,” I think now we can see is not permissible, God does not allow that. We cannot substitute that way.
Well, let us go back to Psalm 110:
JEHOVAH said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
This is a glorious testimony, a glorious event. “Sit thou,” JEHOVAH is saying to the Lord:
… at my right hand, [up] until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Now the question is, when did the Lord Jesus take His seat at the “right hand of God”? When did He sit at the “right hand of God”? Well, of course from eternity past. Well, yes, He is God. He is eternal God and God is three persons, distinct persons the Bible reveals, “but one God.” There is only “one God,” and there is no way of explaining that. We cannot understand that, we just know this is what the Bible teaches, and this is what we tell people. And there are many things we do not understand about the Bible, but we know it is true. Can anyone explain how God has no beginning? How He has always been, He is the great “I AM” from everlasting past. I cannot explain it, my little mind, I try to travel back sometimes, and all I can picture is space, and getting to a beginning point for God, and never even get anywhere close, because, it is impossible, we are not equipped in our current state, in this body with our limited understanding, to understand the eternal nature of God, how He has always been, He is the great “I AM.” Neither are we equipped to understand the Trinity, and to explain, or comprehend how God could reveal Himself as three, and yet One, but He does, He does. And of course, Christ has always been God, but we have learned that Jesus became “the Son” at a point where He was “declared to be the Son … by [via] the resurrection from the dead.” Now, that is just a title that teaches us something about God, like all the names of God teaches something about God. When we see “the Son” in the Bible, that is teaching us that Christ died and victoriously rose from the dead “from the foundation of the world”; that is what that means. And likewise, sitting at the “right hand of God.” If you look up the “right hand” in the Bible, you will find a lot of verses that I am not mentioning here.
Let us go to Psalm 16:8 and it says:
I have set JEHOVAH always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
Psalm 17:7:
Show thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee …
Psalm 60:5:
That thy beloved may be delivered; save with thy right hand, and hear me.
So, when God saves with His “right hand,” who do we immediately think of? Jesus, the Saviour.
Go to Psalm 138:7:
Though I walk in the midst of trouble, thou wilt revive me: thou shalt stretch forth thine hand against the wrath of mine enemies, and thy right hand shall save me.
Isaiah 41:10 says:
Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.
And one more in the Old Testament, Isaiah 63:12:
That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name?
You see, Moses’ “right hand” parted the waters, that great picture of salvation. And that is because the “right hand” points to Christ and His saving work. He will save by His “right hand.” In some places it actually appears to be a name for the Lord Jesus, and in other places, it is just describing what He has done, that He has saved His people.
Now, let us go to the New Testament, to Hebrews 1, and again we are looking for the “right hand.” It says in verses 2-3, speaking of God speaking:
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
That is the word, aion, or “ages.”
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Now, God is getting more particular. When did Christ assume His place at the “right hand of God”? Hebrews 1:3 says:
… when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on [God’s] right hand …
When did Christ purge our sins? “From the foundation of the world.”
One last New Testament verse about “right hand.” Hebrews 10, which again is continuing this whole discussion of Jesus as the “high priest,” that redeems His people. In verse 10:
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
“Once,” Jesus offered Himself “once.” And I will keep reading there, but turn the page, the previous page to Hebrews 9. Speaking of Christ offering Himself, it says in verses 25-26:
Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since [33 A.D.] …
Is how we are reading it, it is how we have been understanding it.
For then must he often have suffered since [33 A.D.] …
Right? Because God is going back to the point when He offered Himself. It would say 33 A.D. if He offered Himself, and paid for sins at that point, and it does not say that. It says:
For then must he often have suffered since …
And that is the word, apo, “from the foundation of the world.” That is where God is taking us to, the beginning, the one sacrifice. The only time Jesus paid for sins was “from the foundation of the world.” Then He confuses us because:
… but now …
“Now” in the last days, the New Testament age:
… but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
And the word “appeared,” is that word “manifest,” it is that word, He has come to make it known, or to reveal it, to demonstrate it, and show what He has done. “Once,” He died for sin “from the foundation of the world.” “Once,” He entered into the world to make it manifest, and yet we keep reading it as though, no, it is all happening in 33 A.D., No, it did not. Turn back to Hebrews 10:10-12:
… the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Again, He has a “body.” And when He offered Himself “once” was before the world began.
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Jesus offered Himself and rose, and then took His seat at “the right hand of God.” Well that is wonderful. But what does that have to do with Melchisedec? Psalm 110 is where we are finding this information:
JEHOVAH said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
And in the context, this is how the Psalm begins of Christ taking His seat. And He did that as “the Son of God,” “risen from the dead.” And Melchisedec is “made like unto the Son of God.” Jesus is “after the similitude of Melchisedec.” And in Psalm 110:4:
JEHOVAH hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
God is I think, showing us this man Melchizedek. Melchisedec, who just appeared on the scene in the days of Abraham, in about 2092BC to 2081BC, somewhere in that range. He just shows up, and he offers “bread and wine,” and Abraham gives him a “tenth of the spoils.” That man had a “body,” that man had a “body.” He did not have a mother, He did not have a father, He did not have a descent, but He had a “body.” And God is telling us that Christ had a “body” to bear sin, to die for those sins and then rose.
As we are looking at this, I think only because we are living at this time, when the Lord is opening the Scriptures, that we even have a clue as to unveiling the mystery of Melchisedec.
Questions and Answers (Paraphrased)
1st Question: Concerning Melchisedec about not having a mother or a father, I did a Family Radio Bible study, and Melchisedec was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ. Is that true?
Chris: Theologians call his appearance on the pages of the Bible a theophany. For instance, the “captain of the LORD’S host” appeared to Joshua, and the three men that appeared to Abraham, and then the two that went to Sodom. A theophany, theologians would describe as of the Lord God making a preincarnate appearance, which means like a vision, but a little bit more substance in order to interact with men. And actually, what we are seeing I think with Melchisedec, since he is a “high priest,” and the “high priest” offers up the sacrifice. And it also says of him, “having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” That means Melchisedec has been eternal, and it is Christ, it is God. Jesus has many names; Jesus, Saviour, Christ, Melchisedec, many, many names that teach us something about Himself.
Question cont: I just wanted to confirm because Jesus is the “high priest” also.
Chris: The difference here is, we used to think Melchisedec was pointing to Christ and what He would do as a priest. But actually, when God finished His salvation plan which was “from the foundation of the world,” before this world began. And it is at that time that Jesus was “the Lamb” offered, and Melchisedec would have been I think, the “high priest” who offered Him. And that is why in Hebrews 7:15:
… after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Who is that? That is Jesus who is “after the similitude of Melchisedec.” Melchisedec in this case actually has the substance, is one way of putting it. Jesus of course was real, but in offering up Himself He was not bearing sins, He was not paying for sins, and in that sense He is “after the similitude of Melchisedec.”
2nd Question: Can you look at Mark 16:19, where it says that, Jesus “sat on the right hand of God” following His ascension? Do you think Jesus left God’s “right hand” to come to earth in 7 A.D. incarnation, and then returned upon His ascension in 33 A.D.?
Chris: Let me read the verse:
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Now, if we go back to Psalm 110, there is part of that verse that we did not look at:
JEHOVAH said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
So it is indicating Christ will reign at “the right hand” of God “until” all His enemies are subdued and brought beneath His feet, they are brought low. If we go to 1 Corinthians 15:25-27, it says:
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. …
Now, that is telling us that Jesus made the sacrifice of Himself, rose, was “declared to be the Son,” created the world and the universe and all that as “the Son of God,” and all that time He is reigning at the “right hand of God” and will continue to reign until the end, until “all enemies are [put] under his feet.”
You know, a king can reign, and he does not always have to be seated on the throne. It does not mean He stopped reigning. And yet, I am not even going to try to get into how Christ could always be at the “right hand of God,” and be on earth. I do not understand God, I do not understand the complexity of God, how there is Jesus being baptized with John the Baptist’s baptism, and the Holy Spirit is descending like a dove, and the Father is speaking from Heaven, and they are all One, they are all One, I do not understand that. So, there are still mysteries concerning what Christ has done in offering up Himself. But, we do know that it is a continual reign from the point that He took His seat, until “the last enemy,” of course into eternity. But God is just using this figure that Christ will reign in that sense until death is destroyed. When is death destroyed? Well, for God’s people, May 21, 2011, and then October 21, all the enemies of God are removed.
3rd Question: Mr. Camping has been saying that total depravity is a false teaching. I even broke out Calvin Institutes. Mr. Camping uses 1 King 21:17, to the end of the chapter. Every third or fourth verse is saying, “Thus saith the LORD,” so God is speaking to Ahab through Elijah.
Chris: Is this where Ahab repents and God sees that he humbled himself?
Question cont: He puts on sackcloth and cries out to God.
Chris: I do not think Mr. Camping uses this in relationship to total depravity. He is just saying that God even heard the prayers of a wicked man like Ahab.
As far as total depravity, a good example is John 8, with the “woman taken in adultery,” and her accusers are standing all around, and “Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.” Of course, God wrote the law with His finger, the Ten Commandments. And Jesus being the Word, whatever He wrote, would have been the law of God. And then He stands up after they presented that difficult question, that dilemma, Moses said that she should be stoned. What do you say? Because if He says yes, stone her, then they run to the Roman authorities and they get Him arrested, or if He says no, do not stone her, then they run to the Jews and say He does not follow the Law of Moses. And Christ of course being perfect says, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.” And then He writes on the ground again, and “one by one” they walk away, “being convicted by their own conscience.” That is where total depravity has made a mistake. If we, man, were totally depraved, we would not care what the Bible says. We would not have a conscience about our sins. Even someone whose conscience seems to be seared. I mean we hear about incredible things, awful things that people do, they still have a conscience. There is depths of depravity, we can go down pretty low into the muck and the mire, but not total depravity, because then I guess we could say, Satan has total depravity, but he is evil through and through and has no conscience about anything. But God gave man a conscience.
Question cont: From where Elijah first appears in 1 Kings 17:1, he was caught up by the “chariot of Israel.” I have a program on my computer which shows Elijah as not having a genealogy.
Chris: It is probably because God does not tell us who his parents were. But the interesting thing about Elijah, if we go to 2 Kings where he is taken up “into heaven by a whirlwind,” the interesting thing is, look at 2 Kings 2:5:
And the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho came to Elisha, …
Now Elisha would take over Elijah’s ministry.
… and said unto him, Knowest thou that JEHOVAH will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he answered, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace.
And that happens another time at least. See, when Elijah goes up into Heaven that is very similar to the rapture. He is a believer, God is taking him up “And the sons of the prophets” knew. “Know ye not that your master is going to heaven today?” They had full information that God was going to rapture Elijah. You know that fits in with everything we know that God’s people are fully aware that May 21 will be the rapture. And we could say to a believer, “know you not that the LORD is going to take up His people on that day?”
4th Question: Does someone’s belief system make them saved?
Chris: No. That is a good question. Does what we believe save us, our understanding our knowledge? No, it does not. God gives many examples of people who knew things, they understood that Christ was the Messiah and they were not saved. The Pharisees understood the Resurrection to a certain degree, that did not save them. God gives us many examples of individuals and people in the Bible who would call themselves Christians, and they were not saved. They even believed. If we go to James 2, God tells us about this situation. In James 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
That is your “faith,” and my “faith.” I believe in Christ, I really believe the Bible is the Word of God. Well, if that is all we have, if it is “alone,” then our “faith” “is dead,” because it has to have accompanying “works.” Not doing good things, or obeying God’s law, that is not the works, the “work of Christ” has to accompany it, what Jesus did in paying for the sins of His people. If we do not have that with our “faith,” we are dead, spiritually. It goes on to say in verses 18-19:
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: …
Who is that man? Christ, He has the “works.”
… show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.
That is Christ speaking.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Now, why would God bring that up in this context? Because they do believe, when they saw Jesus. “Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” They knew who He was. They had maybe some better intellectual understanding then many professing Christians. But what is the key as far as devils and the demons? Did Jesus die for any of them? They had no “works.” They did not have the “work of Christ.” You believe and that is fine, that is a step in the right direction, but so do devils. And look at verse 20:
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Now God gives us an example, we will close after this. Verse 21:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
See how God wrote the Bible? See how He wrote it? Traps and pitfalls, it is like walking through the jungle in Viet Nam during the Viet Nam war. All these booby traps and snares, and that is how God wrote the Bible, because, look, I will give you an example of what I am talking about.
Look at Abraham, was he not “justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” Do you see the trap? Many theologians really blow this up. It was a wonderful act of obedience and faith for him to take his son up to mount Moriah, and he was going to plunge the knife into Isaac, and he was going to kill him, trusting that God would raise him from the dead. It is a great and wonderful act of obedience, but that could not save him, that could not justify him, no way. It is impossible that any work or act could justify us. So what is God saying? Well He is saying:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when …
He did this mighty act of faith, and then we are deceived by the act. Actually, we could say, we could say, was not Mary (I always pick on Mary in this) justified by works when she took out the trash? Yes, Mary was justified by works when she took out the trash. What? Well, because then, immediately we understand taking out the trash has nothing to do with justification, neither does offering your son. Because man cannot get himself justified. But if someone is a child of God, if Christ has paid for their sins, He has justified them by His works. And we can say, was not Mary, we would take a little snapshot photo of Mary’s life at any point after salvation, was not Mary justified by works when she did the laundry? Yes. Now if we say, was not Mary justified by works when she went on a tract trip and handed out 10,000 tracts? Yes, there is no difference between that and taking out the trash, or the laundry, because God has saved that person.
Same thing with Rahab. In verse 25:
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, …
God saved her, by Christ’s works at that time, and then from any point on in her life. He could make that statement at about any of His people, and they would be justified by the “work of Christ.” In other words, in order to answer the question, God of course commands us to believe, and we can believe to a certain degree, but never to the point of salvation, never where we can get our selves saved by our “faith,” because it is “alone,” and we need desperately Christ’s works to accompany it, or else it will be in “vain,” it will be dead, like we are still spiritually dead if Christ has not saved us and died for our sins.