Melchizedek Resembles the Son of God, Not the Other Way Around

 

Hebrews 7:3 presents Jesus as eternally preexistent in the past as well as eternal in the future.

Heb. 7:3 "He [i.e. Melchizedek] is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever."

The reason why Unitarians don't see the eternal preexistence of Christ in Heb. 7:3 is because they read it with their Unitarian colored glasses as teaching the Son of God was made to RESEMBLE MELCHIZEDEK. But that's the opposite of what it's saying. It DOESN'T say the Son of God was made to resemble Melchizedek. Rather it says Melchizedek was made to RESEMBLE CHRIST the Son of God. Yes, it's true that earlier in redemptive history Melchizedek was a type of Christ, while Christ was the later anti-type and fulfillment of the type of Melchizedek. Is this a contradiction to what I argued above? No, because even further back [i.e. earlier] than Melchizedek, the eternal Son of God was the archetype of Melchizedek. As the type [Melchizedek] had the appearance of having no beginning, so Jesus the anti-type who is the reality and fullness of the type ACTUALLY had "neither beginning of days nor end of life". This is why the author could say Jesus Christ is "the same YESTERDAY, today and forever" [Heb. 13:8]. And why Ps. 102 which was originally about Yehovah/Yahweh could be applied to Jesus in Heb. 1:10ff. Attributing to Him the divine prerogative and characteristics of creation, immutability, eternality, aseity. If the author of Hebrews only wanted to affirm the eternality of the Son of God moving forward in time, but not backward in time, he wouldn't have described Melchizedek [whom he says resembles the Son of God] as having the appearance of "having neither beginning of days nor end of life". Instead, the author of Hebrews would have only said Melchizedek had no apparent end of life [leaving out not having beginning of days].

The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary on Heb. 7:3 states:

//"...When Alford denies that Melchisedec was made like the Son of God in respect of his priesthood, on the ground that Melchisedec was prior in time to our Lord, he forgets that Christ's eternal priesthood was an archetypal reality in God's purpose from everlasting, to which Melchisedec's priesthood was "made like" in due time. The Son of God is the more ancient, and is the archetype: compare Heb 8:5, where the heavenly things are represented as the primary archetype of the Levitical ordinances. ..."//

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/7-3.htm

Just to make it clear, I think Melchizedek was a normal human being who did have parents and possibly even descendants. But that doesn't undermine my point. Melchizedek is said to have been made to resemble the Son of God. So, when he's described as appearing to not have had beginning of days or end of life, the author is implying that the Son of God literally had no beginning of days or end of life. Because Melchizedek was made to appear like and resemble the Son of God.

When dealing with Unitarians, it's sometimes necessary to point out the following:

When the text says, Melchizedek was made to resemble the Son of God. How does the text say he resembles the Son of God? By having the appearance [though not the reality] of having no beginning of days or end of life. Meaning, the Son of God actually had no beginning of days or end of life. Again, when you recognize that difference between X resembling Y vs. Y resembling X, you'll see that the author is saying Jesus really has what Melchizedek only had the appearance, but not the reality of. Namely, beginninglessness and endlessness.

Wayne Grudem Reverses His Views And Now Affirms that Monogenēs Usually Means "Only Begotten"

 

The Meaning of Monogenes: Is Jesus God’s “Only Begotten” Son? by Wayne Grudem

See also my blogpost: The Case for Monogenēs Meaning "Only Begotten" is Mounting

One of the translators of the LSB, Abner Chou, defends the LSB's translation of "monogenes" as "only begotten":

https://youtu.be/xnYiO9flysY

Sam Waldron on "Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?"

 

In one of David Waltz's blogs he links to Sam Waldron's series "Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?" The series addresses the Monarchy of God the Father, Eternal Generation, and the Filioque.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

Part 13

Part 14

Part 15

Part 16

Part 17

Part 18

The Arian Controversy by H.M. Gwatkin

 

R.P.C. Hanson's book The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 is considered by most scholars to be the modern classic and standard resource dealing with the Arian controversy. In the previous generation, two of the classics were Henry Melvill Gwatkin's books, Studies of Arianism and The Arian Controversy. The latter was a condensed and updated version of the earlier and fuller tome. Having read The Arian Controversy, I noticed a clear bias for the Trinitarian position. As a Trinitarian myself, I agree; but I wish he, as a historian, would have been a bit more objective and fair with the opposing views.

The Arian Controversy by H.M. Gwatkin [or Here]

Studies of Arianism by H.M. Gwatkin

Christ's Personal Preexistence Taught in Col. 1:15-20 by Abner Chou

 

Abner Chou, one of the translators of the highly anticipated upcoming Legacy Standard Bible, gives a freehand visual of how Col. 1:17-18 is sandwiched IN BETWEEN verses 15-16 that has to do with Creation, and verses 19-20 that has to do with the NEW Creation. By him demonstrating this, he proves the personal preexistence of Christ. 

On Youtube: https://youtu.be/hf0oARrteXs

On Facebook: https://fb.watch/332JFdfjO4/

Is the "Word of the Lord" ever described as a "he" or "him" in the Old Testament?

 

In a facebook group someone pasted the following assertion:

//Did you know? The word of the Lord is never described as a "he" or "him" in the OT!//

I posted the following verses in the ASV as evidence that the "Word of Yehovah/Jehovah/Yahweh" is sometimes described as a "he" or "him". At least in some English translations. Not knowing Hebrew, I can't address the Hebrew grammar.

1 Kings 19:9 [ASV] And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of JEHOVAH came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah?

Here "the word of Jehovah/Yehovah/Yahweh" seems to be referred to as a specific person who is called a "HE". Similar to 1 Samuel chapter 3.

1 Sam. 3:1 And the child Samuel ministered unto JEHOVAH before Eli. And the word of JEHOVAH was precious in those days; there was no frequent VISION.

Admittedly, the "word of Jehovah" in the OT is sometimes a reference to hearing the voice of God. However here, the arrival of the "word of Jehovah" seems to be associated with a VISION of a person. Not just something auditory. This seems to be conformed in verses 7, 10 & 21.

7 Now Samuel did not yet know JEHOVAH, neither was the word of JEHOVAH yet REVEALED unto him.

21 And JEHOVAH appeared again in Shiloh; for JEHOVAH REVEALED himself to Samuel in Shiloh BY the word of JEHOVAH.

In verse 10 the word of Jehovah is simply referred to as "Jehovah" and is said to have STOOD by Samuel. Similar to how the Angel of Jehovah is simply called "Jehovah" in Zech. 3.

1 Sam 3:10 And JEHOVAH came, and STOOD, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel said, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

Compare with Zech chapter 3.

Zech. 3:1 And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of JEHOVAH, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary.

2 And JEHOVAH said unto Satan, JEHOVAH rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, JEHOVAH that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

Notice how the "Angel of Jehovah" in verse 1 is referred again and simply called "Jehovah". Some Unitarians say that any angel can be called "Jehovah" when it's rightfully representing Almighty God. As a Trinitarian I disagree. I believe that the divine name can only be applied to someone who is truly and fully God. Since it involves the very nature and character [and by implication essence] of God. Therefore more than one person shares the nature of highest divinity God. That pluritarianism is consistent with Trinitarianism.

Similarly, in Jeremiah 1 the word of Jehovah came to Jeremiah. In verse 9 it says, "Then JEHOVAH PUT FORTH HIS HAND, and touched my mouth; and JEHOVAH said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth:"

Apparently, the Jehovah came in bodily form and touched Jeremiah and this person is also referred to as "the Word of Jehovah". Again, Similar to 1 Samuel 3 and [of the Angel of Jehovah in] Zechariah 3.

Compare Ezek. 1:3

3 the word of JEHOVAH came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; AND THE HAND OF JEHOVAH WAS THERE UPON HIM.

The Old Testament Witness to the Trinity by Anthony Rogers

 

Anthony  Rogers, my favorite debater for the Trinity, presents an ongoing video series on the Old Testament Witness to the Trinity. This is a topic that I think is VERY important and useful. When done properly, this answers and addresses many objections and objectors to Christianity. If you can prove the Trinity is taught in the Old Testament, it proves that Christianity is the heir of Judaism to Jews, disproves Islamic monotheism and Islamic objections to the Trinity, and presents evidence for the truth of Christianity that ought to make atheist reconsider whether Christianity might actually be true.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnoIhujt6A&list=PLnLlymBIRkYbgTFpgNLeyL9MnglQ3cdqp