Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Bible Observation How to's | 2 Tim 2:15 | JCrichton | 105703 | ||
Hi, mel! I just read through Makarios's postings and I would like to add the following: Firstly, I defer to the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26); I've learned that I will not always see the answers or meanings of Biblical passages regardless of how much I may strive to get it. Secondly, I employ patience and humility! and, lastly, I use a good study Bible and a concordance dictionary. An example of one of my projects is Genesis 14:18-20: These verses seem to be full of mystery; they act as a dangling participle. But they are oh so juicy! Here's Abraham coming back from a fierce battle and out of the blue this man drops in on him. Though Abraham has no discernible connection to the stranger, this man: a) blesses Abraham, b) is aware of the immediate circumstances that brought Abraham to that particular place and time, c) praises God on behalf of Abraham, d) mediates for Abraham, e) offers Abraham bread and wine, and, f) vanishes into the mystery that bore him. It would appear that Abraham just fell into more good fortune. But on the recap... The man Abraham just happened to have met is Melchizedek, who is both a priest of the Most High God and the king of Salem. A good study Bible and a concordance could shed a 2K-watt light on these three verses. The Bible and/or the concordance would expand these verses (Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 4:14 thru 5:10, 6:19 thru 10:18), clarifying the office, duties, and identity of the High Priest. The Bible's footnotes and the concordance can identify the names and titles while offering a more rounded correlation between Melchizedek and Jesus. The mystery: Melchizedek is both priest and king. Salem is Melchizedek's kingdom. He appears out of nowhere and greets Abraham with blessings and revelations, then offers him bread and wine. Abraham, on his part, offers the priest a tenth of the plunder gained from the battle. The mystery unfolds: Since Melchizedek is the priest of the Most High God, we must conclude that he is also the king that represents the Most High God (Salem being identified as Jerusalem--a kingdom that will not be established for over hundreds of years). Melchizedek demonstrates that he has both spiritual authority and intimate knowledge of Abraham (he lbesses Abraham and praises him, praises God for bringing victory to Abraham, and intercedes on Abraham's behalf by asking God for further blessings). The offering of bread and wine, on the surface, could be interpreted as simple hospitability; but this is Abraham's backyard, it is he who should offer Melchizedek hospitability. And, finally, Abraham offers Melchizedek the tithing, a religious practice that will not come into existence until hundreds of years later, when the priesthood is established. Genesis 14:18-20: These verses, in effect, highlight, in one simple encounter, a mysterious priestly king who typifies the Law, the Commandments and the Lord's Supper! God Bless! |
||||||
2 | Bible Observation How to's | 2 Tim 2:15 | EdB | 105705 | ||
JCrichton In my first post I neglected my main point. You made the statement, “(Salem being identified as Jerusalem--a kingdom that will not be established for over hundreds of years).” While that may be very true it is simply not provable. Nothing in the Bible or yet found in secular history or archeology confirms or denies that Salem is the same as Jerusalem. That is a man’s opinion, that you accepted because you read it in a study Bible. Whether it is right or wrong means little the fact that it is extensional to the Bible is the point I’m making. EdB |
||||||
3 | Bible Observation How to's | 2 Tim 2:15 | JCrichton | 105831 | ||
EdB, Many times we seek theological answers using a scientist perspective (010101...); if something is not readily crunchable or digestible we resort to the old "prove it!" method. There are many things in the Bible that are confusing. And many things that are not readily written. Some believers have a problem with the Bible's lack of clear and definitive titles, names and quotations. One particular group would say as you say that the idea of a Trinity or Three Persons in God is extensional to the Bible since not once is there a single notation of the word trinity or of God deliberating through the prophets that He is God in three Persons. When we search the Bible for the Truth we cannot just read a single passage such as the one where Jesus says that "...no one knows, not even the Son of Man, only the Father..." and seek to find understanding on this simple passage alone. Were it so, then the logical reasoning would be that Jesus is not God since God is Omniscient. We must ask why did Jesus say this? But to crealy understand we must also ask who is jesus? What is His purpose? Clearly it is not to reveal the completeness of the Truth--John the Baptist called him the Lamb of God! Then the questions begs... What is the Lamb's purpose?, to reveal the complete Truth? Further, we must listen to Jesus other statments: "the Father and I are one," "I AM," "I give my life freely and I have the power to recover it again," "I came so that all may have life, and have it abumdantly," "you believe in the Father, believe also in me," "I am the alpha and the omega..." So Ed, it is true that there is no direct Biblical text that states that Salem is Jerusalem. But we must read all of the Bible and compare the various text: Who is the Great King, the High Priest, the Great City, what was God's promise to David, what city would be forever the city of joy, of God's kingdom? Then there's the fact that Melchizedek does represent God as High Priest, that the lineage of priesthood belonging to Aaron is not that of Melchizedek and Jesus, that this High Priest is also a king, that there are two lines of authority that were never merged in Israel (the King and the High Priest), that consequently only Jesus and Melchizedek share these distinctive titles, that Abraham--moved by the Holy Spirit no dubt, offered to Melchizedek the tenth of all his plunder, and finally that that which took place happened hundreds of years before the priesthood and kingdom was brought to the people of Israel. Again, there are many truths not set in clear and precise text. But the Bible is God's tool and the Holy Spirit, who is God, guides us to understanding. We must not seek the Truth as the Jews, Greeks and the Gentiles--one time Jesus told them that there would be no other sign given to them then that of Jonah! Here's a little query: Malachi 3:1 vs. Matthew 11:10, why is there a change of expression. Why does Jesus not quote the passage word per word? Maran atha! |
||||||
4 | Bible Observation How to's | 2 Tim 2:15 | EdB | 105836 | ||
JCrichton The point I was trying to make was you stated matter of factly Salem was Jerusalem. Whether it is or not has no real importance (what is important is Melchizedek and what transpires here) it was something you read from a Study Bible or Commentary. I was using it as an illustration of how we pick things up from Study bibles or commentaries and then handle the information as fact. Your right there is some evidence that Salem is Jerusalem but nothing conclusive, yet many Study Bible commentators treat it as fact and we have a tendency to then read as fact. That was all I was trying to say. I’m not advocating throwing out our study Bibles or commentaries just be aware they often contain man’s opinion not just Biblical fact. As to your question of Malachi 3:1 vs. Matthew 11:10. Without going to a commentary to see what they might say, I did a very quick inductive study. The biggest difference I see is Malachi is written in the future “I will”. Matthew is present “I have”. A study of Bible customs reveals it was a custom for Eastern kings to send messengers before them to more or less smooth the way. Jesus was revealing that Elijah of Malachi 4:5 who was declared to go before the Lord was fulfilled in John the Baptist of Matt 3:3. Further study of scripture reveals that Jesus did not fully fulfill all prophecy in his first coming and there are some aspects that are accomplished at the second coming. Therefore the later half of passage in Malachi has yet to be fulfilled and therefore was not quoted. We can see Jesus was doing a play on words in Matthew 11:10 using the word ‘messenger’ to show the fulfillment of Mal 4:5 and the partial fulfillment of Mal 3:1 of which we know He will complete with His Second Coming. What do you see to be the differences? EdB |
||||||
5 | Bible Observation How to's | 2 Tim 2:15 | JCrichton | 106342 | ||
EdB, Hi! Though it is true that many Biblical prophecies are composed of several parts (some being fulfilled in the immidiate time line while others in the distant future), I also saw a play on the words by Jesus: a) He directs the attention to John the Baptist, and b) switches the pronoun in Malachi from "me" to "you" ("I shall send my messenger to clear the way for me."). It is just as His constant self-labeling of "the Son of man." Jesus as the Lamb of God was obidient to the end, not seeking glory onto Himself. I just wondered if anyone else saw this! God Bless! |
||||||
6 | Send My messenger before Your face | 2 Tim 2:15 | Ray | 108977 | ||
Comparison of Malachi 3:1 and Matthew 11:10: Are we looking for the messenger or the Messenger? Are we looking for a prophet or the Prophet? From the heart, Ray |
||||||
7 | Send My messenger before Your face | 2 Tim 2:15 | prayon | 108979 | ||
Greetings Ray, In both Matthew and in Malichi we are looking for the messenger who is John the Baptist. "he will prepare the way before me". (see also Matt 3:3). My bible has messenger in both passages. prayon | ||||||
8 | Send My messenger before Your face | 2 Tim 2:15 | Ray | 109038 | ||
Hi prayon, Your version of the Bible is probably the King James, so you will have to interpret for yourself who the "me" is. I agree with the NKJ and the NASB in their "Me". John the baptist was preparing the way of the Lord. So, should we not indeed be looking for the Messenger, the Prophet who was to come? I agree with the NKJ for Malachi 3:1, "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming, " Says the Lord of hosts." 1) I would go even further in the choice of Deity and upper case for the pronoun for "he" in italics, Matthew 11:10. "For it is He of whom it is [Or, Lit. has been] written: 'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.'" From the heart, Ray |
||||||
9 | Send My messenger before Your face | 2 Tim 2:15 | prayon | 109146 | ||
Hi Ray, I am not sure. My NKJ has it in italics which to me would mean the same as Me. However, when you read it it does not make sense to put the name of Jesus in there. The only name that would fit in there is John the Baptist, but why would 'he' be italisized if it were John? prayon | ||||||
10 | Send My messenger before Your face | 2 Tim 2:15 | Ray | 109179 | ||
Hi prayon, We are talking of Matthew 11:10 here. "For this is [he, He] of whom it is [Or, Lit. has been] written:..." I agree that from what we have discussed so far, that the name of Jesus doesn't necessarily fit in there. But now, let's look at the second part of my question. Are we looking for a prophet or the Prophet? Personally, I believe that we should be looking for the Prophet. That is what Jesus is saying in chapter 11: that He is the Coming One. That the people weren't out in the wilderness to see a reed shaken by the wind, but rather were looking for the coming Messiah, the Prophet. Matthew 11:9, But why did you go out? To see a *Prophet? Yes, I say to you, and *One who is more than a *Prophet. So, that is my personal interpretation, using capitalization of pronouns, for the verse. Then one can continue with verse 10, "This is the *One about whom it has been written, 'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You." Would that make more sense to you? From the heart, Ray |
||||||