How do commentators know what the shadows of Christ are?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#61
at,

we HAVE learned a lot from commentary, BUT, we have to understand that each one
comes from 'a different perspective' -
the only recipe we have been taught is to 'sift the wheat from the chaff', and to spend a lot of time
one-on-one with the Lord and with His Word......

if we do this, we will agree with SOME of the commentary whole-heartedly, and with others,
(we will disagree, vehemently) -
as it is written,
Think on these things........
The perspective is the reason I'm trying to keep up with five Dead Guys. Henry is into devotional in what he teaches. Jamieson, Fassett and Brown are into technical/scholarly. (They occasion hit criticism of others too since they once disagreed with Clark, who seemed to have been a go-to guy before them.) Gill is into history. Clark is how it applies to us. And Barnes is a cross of scholar, historian, application, and context kind of guy. (This is what I meant earlier when I was saying my background in writing helps me see what isn't always apparent to others. I get into different perspectives of writers.) Their takes are just different enough that I think, "Wait a minute. So-and-so just said that meant something else. Who's right?" That's the part that got me running here. I get confused, because they all sound right most of the time.
 
J

JesusistheChrist

Guest
#62
The perspective is the reason I'm trying to keep up with five Dead Guys. Henry is into devotional in what he teaches. Jamieson, Fassett and Brown are into technical/scholarly. (They occasion hit criticism of others too since they once disagreed with Clark, who seemed to have been a go-to guy before them.) Gill is into history. Clark is how it applies to us. And Barnes is a cross of scholar, historian, application, and context kind of guy. (This is what I meant earlier when I was saying my background in writing helps me see what isn't always apparent to others. I get into different perspectives of writers.) Their takes are just different enough that I think, "Wait a minute. So-and-so just said that meant something else. Who's right?" That's the part that got me running here. I get confused, because they all sound right most of the time.
This is bound to sound critical, but it needs to be said (I think):

Anybody who thinks that they know what the entire Bible is all about and writes a commentary on every verse of the same is either out of their mind or proud.

In my opinion, of course, but the Bible clearly teaches that none of us has the full revelation ourselves and that is why we need one another.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#63
Let me give you an example of what I am suggesting. Pick out any incident from the life of Abraham and I will show you the difference between interpretation and generalization.
I had to pick out a juicy one. Abram blessed by Melchizedek. (Gen. 14:17-24.)
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#64
Then my life differs greatly from your experience. What you deem "intellectualism" might actually be pride or man's belief that he can rightly discern the things of God apart from the Spirit of God. I never said or implied that we ought not to study or to read. Instead I suggested humbly praying for the Spirit's guidance before doing so.
She was responding to something I said. I don't think you used the word guidance, but I did. (She wasn't mocking me either. lol)
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#65
Again, how did He get through?

Let's face it...more often than not, the disciples were clueless for the 3 to 3 1/2 years that Jesus walked with them. Peter once rightly identified Jesus as the Christ, only because flesh and blood hadn't revealed it to him, but God the Father had revealed it to him...and then Jesus basically told him that he was being led by the devil shortly thereafter when He said, "Get thee behind me, Satan". The disciples were always either asking Jesus to explain things to them in private or Jesus had to interrupt them and show them how far removed from the truth they actually were. On one occasion, He went so far as to tell them that they didn't even know what spirit they were of...which leads to an interesting question:

When, exactly, did the Apostles/disciples actually receive the Holy Spirit?

Some would say in John chapter 20 when Jesus breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Ghost after He had risen from the dead and others would say not until the day of Pentecost. In either case, again, they were clueless apart from the Holy Spirit and so are we. You're actually in a good place in that you recognize that you cannot understand the things of God after so long a time because God will actually resist us until we totally rely upon His Spirit's guidance in our lives. Believe me, I've been there and I've learned this lesson the hard way myself.

This analogy may fail a bit because it involves human beings, but my mother was a language teacher for 30 years (she taught Italian, Latin, French and Spanish and she spoke some other languages as well) and my wife is a native Panamanian whose native tongue is Spanish. If I was handed a document in Spanish, a document which possibly affected my eternal destiny, then you'd better believe that I'd be asking one of these two people who are way more fluent in Spanish than I'll ever be for assistance in understanding the document.

My point?

Again, all scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, and He knows what it says and what it means. Put your reliance upon Him because He was sent unto us for this very purpose:

"These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:25-26)

When their Teacher, Jesus, left, another Comforter was sent unto them to not only teach them all things, but also to bring all things back to their remembrance in relation to what Jesus Himself had already taught them. When I became a Christian 27 years ago, this was the first scripture that I ever grabbed a hold of and I've prayed for God to do the same for me ever since. Now, there will be some who will object and say, "That promise was for the Apostles and not for you!", but this same John later wrote:

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." (I John 20:18-20)

Again, he wrote:

"These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (I John 2:26-27)

What is the average layperson's safeguard from antichrists and deceivers? It is the unction or the anointing of the Holy Spirit that teaches US all things and is truth and is no lie and even as this same anointing or this same Holy Spirit has taught US, WE shall abide in Him (Christ).

God hasn't left YOU comfortless, Lynn. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, is available to YOU to not only teach YOU all things and to bring all things to YOUR remembrance, but also to enable or empower YOU to truly abide in Christ.

That's great news.
Rhetoric question alert: What is your favorite food?

I can't really decide if mine is chocolate or raspberries so I compromise and make raspberry brownies. There's a feel to it, a taste to it, and a comfort in it. (Also too expensive to buy raspberries for most of the year, so there's a time limit on it. lol) One thing I really hate is when I get distracted while eating one, and realize that I didn't savor every moment. I mean really feel it with my tongue, have the tiny balls of raspberries explode juicy goodness and mingle with the chocolately goodness. I wasted it!

God is better than raspberry brownies. OH asked me to pick an Abraham story. I got the whole waiting around for God's miracle, maybe I didn't hear him right, maybe I should try it on my own, I'm way too old for it anyway, and all the other stuff Abraham went through just for one son. I really like God did all that in his time, instead of Abraham's time, because... well, less doubt it's a miracle then and bigger payout when he asks Abraham to sacrifice his son. That's enjoying the mouthful. (Comforting.)

Melchizedek? Knew it was something. Had to be important or it wouldn't be in the Bible, but what's the big deal about one guy, one foreigner blessing he who would be the patriarch of a people? Wasted mouthful.

I really, really hate wasting mouthfuls of something I love. Doesn't mean I was distracted. It means I missed something that was so important to God he made sure all his kids would know it. I don't want to miss anything, and... well, I'm still dense, so I miss a lot.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#66
This is bound to sound critical, but it needs to be said (I think):

Anybody who thinks that they know what the entire Bible is all about and writes a commentary on every verse of the same is either out of their mind or proud.

In my opinion, of course, but the Bible clearly teaches that none of us has the full revelation ourselves and that is why we need one another.
You're 53. (Just a little younger than I am, so not meaning that like a put down.) I've known men who spent your age of their lives studying the Bible and writing about it for 4-8 hours a day 5-6 days a week. I knew the guy who translated Jude and a few of the Psalms for the NIV. I knew a Teaching Elder who spent 35 hours a week preparing for Sunday service and then wrote 50 different works. I'm PCA. This is what many of our elders do.

Are you really that sure no one can be that dedicated that they might not know more than you or I? John Gill, the guy I have the most trouble with, was a pastor for the length of time you've been alive, took two years to write his NT commentary, and then 15 years on his OT one. Do you really think just because we can't do it, no one can? Of course they didn't know it all. They never wrote about what they didn't know. Who does? lol
 
J

JesusistheChrist

Guest
#67
Rhetoric question alert: What is your favorite food?

I can't really decide if mine is chocolate or raspberries so I compromise and make raspberry brownies. There's a feel to it, a taste to it, and a comfort in it. (Also too expensive to buy raspberries for most of the year, so there's a time limit on it. lol) One thing I really hate is when I get distracted while eating one, and realize that I didn't savor every moment. I mean really feel it with my tongue, have the tiny balls of raspberries explode juicy goodness and mingle with the chocolately goodness. I wasted it!

God is better than raspberry brownies. OH asked me to pick an Abraham story. I got the whole waiting around for God's miracle, maybe I didn't hear him right, maybe I should try it on my own, I'm way too old for it anyway, and all the other stuff Abraham went through just for one son. I really like God did all that in his time, instead of Abraham's time, because... well, less doubt it's a miracle then and bigger payout when he asks Abraham to sacrifice his son. That's enjoying the mouthful. (Comforting.)

Melchizedek? Knew it was something. Had to be important or it wouldn't be in the Bible, but what's the big deal about one guy, one foreigner blessing he who would be the patriarch of a people? Wasted mouthful.

I really, really hate wasting mouthfuls of something I love. Doesn't mean I was distracted. It means I missed something that was so important to God he made sure all his kids would know it. I don't want to miss anything, and... well, I'm still dense, so I miss a lot.
lol.

What was that all about?
 
J

JesusistheChrist

Guest
#68
You're 53. (Just a little younger than I am, so not meaning that like a put down.) I've known men who spent your age of their lives studying the Bible and writing about it for 4-8 hours a day 5-6 days a week. I knew the guy who translated Jude and a few of the Psalms for the NIV. I knew a Teaching Elder who spent 35 hours a week preparing for Sunday service and then wrote 50 different works. I'm PCA. This is what many of our elders do.

Are you really that sure no one can be that dedicated that they might not know more than you or I? John Gill, the guy I have the most trouble with, was a pastor for the length of time you've been alive, took two years to write his NT commentary, and then 15 years on his OT one. Do you really think just because we can't do it, no one can? Of course they didn't know it all. They never wrote about what they didn't know. Who does? lol
It's not a matter of knowing more than you or me. Quite frankly, I'd be happy if the whole world knew more than I do and many, many people probably do. I'm just saying that nobody and I mean nobody (apart from Christ, of course, and even He had to wait until after His resurrection to receive certain revelation) knows the full counsel of God all by themselves and that includes all Bible commentators.

Anyhow, I was merely seeking to assist you by recommending the Holy Spirit as your primary teacher. Again, that is part of the reason why He was sent.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#69
lol.

What was that all about?
Why I want to get the Bible this much. Its not so much that I need comfort. It's I want to know as much about God as I can in this body/lifetime.
 
J

JesusistheChrist

Guest
#70
Why I want to get the Bible this much. Its not so much that I need comfort. It's I want to know as much about God as I can in this body/lifetime.
Oh, okay.

When people start mentioning chocolate or brownies, my mind wanders to the refrigerator or to the cubbards because I LOVE CHOCOLATE! I had some chocolate donuts last night and some ice cream with chocolate syrup.

Did somebody mention chocolate?

lol.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
71
Alabama
#71
I had to pick out a juicy one. Abram blessed by Melchizedek. (Gen. 14:17-24.)
Ok. Here is what I want you to do. Find as many truths and eternal principles you can see in that section of scripture using any external resources you wish and post them.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#72
Ok. Here is what I want you to do. Find as many truths and eternal principles you can see in that section of scripture using any external resources you wish and post them.
That's going to take some time. My sleep cycle is in it's opposite-way part. (Went to bed at 8 AM and woke up at 2 PM.) It is predictable. Next comes sleeping less and fitfully. I'm already at the edge of not thinking straight. When that hits, I go through great effort to get from "need soda" all the way to "go to refrigerator" and then "you want a soda." My mind is all but gone then.

Fortunately, then the cycle goes back to normal for a while, so, if all systems work the way they usually do, I should be able to do that in about a week. (Then all I have to do is find this thread again. lol)

Do you mind waiting that long?
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
71
Alabama
#73
That's going to take some time. My sleep cycle is in it's opposite-way part. (Went to bed at 8 AM and woke up at 2 PM.) It is predictable. Next comes sleeping less and fitfully. I'm already at the edge of not thinking straight. When that hits, I go through great effort to get from "need soda" all the way to "go to refrigerator" and then "you want a soda." My mind is all but gone then.

Fortunately, then the cycle goes back to normal for a while, so, if all systems work the way they usually do, I should be able to do that in about a week. (Then all I have to do is find this thread again. lol)

Do you mind waiting that long?
LOL That's fine. take you time, there is no hurry.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#74
Okay, here goes!

Blessing of Melchizedek

A few weeks ago, I was asking how I can know if my commentators are right. Old Hermit said something about learning from the Bible and leaning on God. I got some of that, but not clearly. So he asked me to pick one story out about Abraham so he could teach me how to do that -- I picked the story of Melchizedek's Blessing, since I never did get why that's such a big deal that everyone knows Melchizedek's name -- and he said to give him what I've learned, so he can show me what he means. As already mentioned, it was weeks ago, I had the bad side of my insomnia then, so I told him I would once I got to the good side of it. I can't find that post, so this is me answering that request.

Everything I know about this Melchizedek follows:

The Setting

He was the high priest of the real God (called "God Most High.") He was also the King of Salem, which it seems most commentators agree is that city that would be named Jerusalem later. His name -- according to Strong, means "King of Right."

There was a war in the Valley of Siddem -- which is where Sodom and Gomorrah and the other bad cities were. Sounds like a combination of crappy land (tar pits all around -- they stink and are one of the key causes we have dinosaur bones today. The tar was thick enough to strand even beast that size and swallow them up, so not a place where you want to take your flocks to eat), but there must have been something good about that valley, because there were seven cities there, including the two we all remember by name because of how bad they were and what God did about it. You may not recognize the name of the Valley, but you know it. Now it's called the Dead Sea, most likely because it got flooded and was too salty for fish to live in. Most likely also caused by God as judgement for those seven cities. We know of one person who became a pillar of salt. If she wasn't the only one to be turned to salt, I'm thinking that's why there was an over-abundance of salt. My thoughts, not anything I've read. I could be wrong.

Anyway, it was also at the time Lot and his family was living there, the lines were drawn, and the invading kingdom took away the people, Lot's family included, but someone in Lot's group escaped and ran to Abram the Hebrew. (aka Abraham, but God hadn't even given him The Promise yet.) Abram grabbed his 318 trained men and chased the invaders all the way to the Land of Dan. No idea where that is, but fortunately he kept on going to a place I've heard of -- Damascus. (Still around. Second largest city in Syria now, so a good chase.) And he got all the people and all the stuff back.

Sounds like he may not have been alone fighting them, because when he got back some kings were with him. But the King of Sodom and the King of Salem (aka Melchizedek -- he couldn't have been named John? I have had to look up the spelling of his name every time I use it. lol) came out to meet him.

The Blessing
Melchizedek brought out the bread and wine. He also gave the famous blessing.

"Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!"

That's it! No big speech. No grandiose. No big wow! The only thing odd about it is Abram was a wanderer, so what's with he is the Possessor of heaven and earth? Did Mel (I'm going to call him Mel from now on. Not out of disrespect, but because I take a long time to remember how to spell some names), senses something there? Probably. Particularly given Abraham was the beginning of the bloodline for the Messiah.

The second sentence just seems to be stating the obvious.

The Response

Seems to me, given God gives Abram the Promise right after this, Abram's response to this blessing was important. He gave Mel a tenth of all he gained in that battle. He tithed to him even before tithing was a thing. So at least I get he respected Mel.

King of Sodom? Not so much. Not that he was disrespectful, just that Abram didn't offer him another tenth. He told that King that he would take a meal for his people, and wanted his men to get their portion. I'm going with he and his guys dropped the rest on the ground right there, but it really doesn't say what happened at that moment. (Sounds like dinner was involved, but of course, you're going to feed warriors after a big battle.) The next line was that God gave Abram a vision, which was God and Abram talking to each other about Abram's inheritance. (He was bummed because he assumed he'd be giving it all to his top hand, instead of his firstborn.)

The New Testament Angle

Now I suspect why the name is memorable is because he's mentioned twice in the Bible. OT and NT. Hebrews 7:1-3. There it says he's a foreshadow of Christ because his name means King of Righteousness and He is the King of Peace. (Salem means Peace, just in case you forgot for a minute.) And, of course, Abram gave him his first-fruits/tithe. And then is something about having no mother, father, nor genealogy, but I don't get that for a foreshadowing of the Messiah, because I'm assuming he did, it's just not included in the Bible, and Jesus did, which is included in the Bible. Surely, folks knew Jesus's genealogy and parentage by now, even if there was probably a dispute on who his father was.

And that's what I get out of Melchizedek's blessing. The only thing apart from scripture I got was where is Damascus. (I probably could have figured out where the land of Dan was, but didn't think it was that important.)
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#75
So what my Dead Guys taught me.

Matthew Henry
Sweet Guy. Always praising God through his commentary. He is how I pick which scriptures to study that day. He doesn't do line-by-line. He's more of a section by section though. If scripture was in paragraph form, (instead of verses), he'd do it by paragraphs. Because of that he just did Gen. 13:17-20, which is specifically what this is about -- Mel's blessing.

Since it's always about God with him, he just gives a little background on the meaning of Mel's name and the meaning of what his kingdom was named, before swooping right into Hebrews.

Here's the rest of what he says, along with if I do or don't agree.
"The silence of the Scriptures on this, is to raise our thoughts to Him, whose generation cannot be declared." Well, yeah, I suppose that first part is right. After all, Mel did get another mention in Hebrews. Apparently, thoughts our raised to Jesus, but that doesn't mean I think Jesus's generations can't be declared. It is declared. His earthly genealogy is included in scripture. His heavenly? Well, God's eternal, so that's the entire genealogy right there. Again. Don't get that.

"Bread and wine were suitable refreshment for the weary followers of Abram; and it is remarkable that Christ appointed the same as the memorials of his body and blood, which are meat and drink indeed to the soul." Okay? Bread and wine was what Jesus used for himself, but it was part of the Passover feast. I figured Mel brought out his good stuff for his victors. It seems respectful.

"Melchizedek blessed Abram from God. He blessed God from Abram. We ought to give thanks for other's mercies as for our own. Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, is the Mediator both of our prayers and praises, and not only offers up ours, but his own for us." This is one of those things I never would have received on my own from these verses. On the other hand, I have no idea if I agree or disagree with it.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#76
Albert Barnes
And here's a long passage from another of my Dead Guys I learned much from. Compare what I gave on what I got out of Mel's blessing compared to Barnes.

"Gen_14:18-20
An incident of the deepest interest here takes us by surprise. The connecting link in the narrative is obviously the place where the king of Sodom meets with Abram. The King’s dale is plainly adjacent to the royal residence of Melkizedec, who therefore comes forth to greet and entertain the returning victor. This prince is the king of Shalem. This is apparently an ancient name of Jerusalem, which is so designated in Psa_76:8. The other Shalem, which lay in the vicinity of Shekem (Gen_33:18, if this be a proper name) is far away from the King’s dale and the town of Sodom. Jerusalem is convenient to these localities, and contains the element Shalem in its composition, as the name signifies the foundation of peace (Shalom).
The king of Shalem, by name king of righteousness, and by office king of peace, “brought forth bread and wine.” These are the standing elements of a simple repast for the refreshment of the body. In after times they were by divine appointment placed on the table of the presence in the tabernacle Exo_25:29-30. They were the accompaniments of the Paschal lamb Mat_26:26-27, and they were adopted by the Messiah as the sacred symbols of that heavenly fare, of which, if a man partake, he shall live forever Joh_6:48-58. The Author of revelation has made all nature intrinsically good and pure. He has realized therein a harmony of the laws of intelligence and design; everything meets and matches all that comes into contact with it; and all together form a cosmos, a system of things, a unity of types and antitypes. His word cannot but correspond to His work. Bread and wine are common things, familiar to the eye, the touch, and the taste of men. The Great Teacher takes them up out of the hands of man as emblems of grace, mercy, and peace, through an accepted ransom, of the lowliest as well as the loftiest boon of an everlasting salvation, and they have never lost their significance or appropriateness.
And he was priest to the most high God. - From this we are assured that the bread and wine refreshed not only the body, but the soul of Abram. In close connection with the preceding sentence, it seems to intimate that the bringing forth of bread and wine was a priestly act, and, accordingly, the crowning part of a sacred feast. The כהן kohen, or priest, who is here mentioned for the first time in Scripture, was one who acted in sacred things on the part of others. He was a mediator between God and man, representing God holding out the hand of mercy, and man reaching forth the hand of faith. The necessity of such an orifice grew out of the distance between God and man produced by sin. The business of the priest was to offer sacrifice and to intercede; in the former making amends to the law, in the latter appealing to the mercy of God. We do not learn by express statement what was the mode of intervention on the part of Melkizedec. But we know that sacrifice was as early as Habel, and that calling on the name of the Lord was commenced in the time of Enosh. These were early forms of approach to God. The offices of king and priest were combined in Melkizedec - a condition of things often exemplified in after times.
The most high God. - Here we meet with a new name of God, El, the Lasting, the Mighty, cognate with Elohim, and previously occurring in the compound proper names Mebujael, Mahalalel, and Bethel. We have also an epithet of God, “Elion the most high,” now appearing for the first time. Hence, we perceive that the unity, the omnipotence, and the absolute pre-eminence of God were still living in the memory and conscience of a section at least of the inhabitants of this land. Still more, the worship of God was not a mere domestic custom, in which the father or head of the family officiated, but a public ordinance conducted by a stated functionary. And, lastly, the mode of worship was of such a nature as to represent the doctrine and acknowledge the necessity of an atonement, since it was performed by means of a priest.
Gen_14:18
And he blessed him. - Here it comes out clearly that Melkizedec acts not only in a civil but in a sacred capacity. He blesses Abram. In the form of benediction employed we have two parts: the former of which is strictly a blessing or asking of good things for the person in question. “Blessed be Abram.” It is the part of the father to bless the child, of the patriarch or superior to bless the subject or inferior, and of the priest to bless the people Heb_7:7. Here, accordingly, Melkizedec assumes and Abram concedes to him the superiority. The Most High God is here further designated as the Founder of heaven and earth, the great Architect or Builder, and, therefore, Possessor of all things. There is here no indistinct allusion to the creation of “heaven and earth,” mentioned in the opening of the Book of God. This is a manifest identification of the God of Melkizedec with the one Creator and Upholder of all things. We have here no mere local or national deity, with limited power and province, but the sole and supreme God of the universe and of man.
Gen_14:20
The second part of this benedictory prayer is a thanksgiving to the common God of Melkizedec and Abram for the victory which had been vouchsafed to the latter. “Thy foes.” Here Abram is personally addressed. Melkizedec as a priest first appeals to God on behalf of Abram, and then addresses Abram on behalf of God. Thus, he performs the part of a mediator.
And he gave him a tithe of all. - This is a very significant act. In presenting the tenth of all the spoils of victory, Abram makes a practical acknowledgment of the absolute and exclusive supremacy of the God whom Melkizedec worshipped, and of the authority and validity of the priesthood which he exercised. We have here all the indications of a stated order of sacred rites, in which a costly service, with a fixed official, is maintained at the public expense, according to a definite rate of contribution. The gift in the present case is the tenth of the spoils of war. This act of Abram, though recorded last, may have taken place at the commencement of the interview. At all events, it renders it extremely probable that a sacrifice had been offered to God, through the intervention of Melkizedec, before he brought forth the bread and wine of the accepted feast.
It is obvious that here we stand on broader ground than the special promise made to Abram. Melkizedec was not a partner in the call of Abram, and yet the latter acknowledges him as a priest of the Most High God. Hence, we must fall back on the covenant made with Noah - the representative of the whole race after the deluge - as the broad basis of authority on which Melkizedec acted. That covenant, then, was not a dead letter. It still lived in the heart and will of a part of the nations. Its hallowing and exalting truths had produced at least one center of pure and spiritual worship on the earth. Even Abram, the called of God, acknowledges its constituted head. And the Most High God, Founder and Upholder of heaven and earth, thereby guarantees its validity for all who in every place call on his name in sincerity and truth. And his special call to Abram is given with a view to the final removal of all obstacles to the acceptance and application of this his everlasting covenant. We are thankful for this glimpse into the comprehensive grandeur of the divine purpose concerning man, which is for some time forward cast into the shade, until it begins to break forth again in the anticipations of the prophets, and at length shines forth with imperishable splendor in the revelations of the New Testament.
The genealogy of Melkizedec seems designedly veiled in impenetrable obscurity. To lift this veil entirely is therefore hopeless. Yet we may venture to hint the possibility that here we have another Shemite chieftain in the land of Kenaan. The indefinite statement of Josephus, that he was a potentate of the Kenaanites, is no proof to the contrary, even if it were of much value. The address of Ezekiel to Jerusalem: “Thy origin and thy birth are of the land of Kenaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite” Eze_16:3, may refer to the period immediately before the entrance of Israel into the land. At and after that time the Amorite and the Jebusite seem to have been in possession of the city Jos_10:5; Jdg_1:21. But in the time of Abram, more than four hundred years before, it may have been different. We have discovered other tribes in this land that were not of the race of Kenaan. It is not likely that Kenaan would furnish a priest of the most high God. It is evident that Melkizedec was not in the confederacy of the Pentapolis with the king of Sodom. He comes out separately and suddenly to meet Abram, who was one of “the children of Heber,” of whom Shem was the father.
And he is the acknowledged head of the worshippers of the most high God, who is “the Lord, the God of Shem.” But be this as it may, it is only a secondary question here. The matter of primary importance, as has been already noted, is the existence of a community of pure worshippers of the true God in the land of Kenaan, antecedent to Abram. If this community be descendants of Kenaan, it only renders the discovery the more striking and impressive. The knowledge of the true God, the confession of the one everlasting supreme Creator of heaven and earth, the existence of a stated form of worship by means of a priest and a ritual attested by Abram the elect of God, in a community belonging to the Gentiles, form at once a remarkable vindication of the justice and mercy of God in having made known to all mankind the mode of acceptable approach to himself, and a singular evidence that such a revelation had been made to Noah, from whom alone it could have descended to the whole race, and consequently to this particular branch of it.
We have reason to believe that this was not the sole line in which this precious tradition was still preserved in comparative purity and power. Job and his companions belong to one other known line in which the knowledge of the one God was still vital. The fundamental principles of divine truth planted in the human breast by this and antecedent revelations were never afterward wholly eradicated; and from the hereditary germs of a primitive theology, cherished by contact with the Sidonians and other Phoenicians, were Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other sages of the East and West, enabled to rise to the exalted conceptions which they occasionally formed of the unity, purity, spirituality, and supremacy of the Divine Being. The idea of God, conveyed into a soul of any power and freedom, is wonderfully prolific. It bursts the bonds of the animal nature, and expands and elevates the rational to some shadowy semblance of its primeval glory. Where it has become altogether extinct, the human has sunk down under the debasing bondage of the brutal. During the four centuries that elapsed from the arrival of Abram to the conquest of the country by his descendants, this interesting relic of a pure Gentile worship seems to have disappeared. But the traces of such a purifying and elevating knowledge of God were not even then effaced from the memories, the customs, and the phrases of the people."

The only parts of this I'm not convinced is true is the stuff about Kenaans, but then he isn't sure either, and although I agree there was evidence enough of God for all the ancient teachers and philosophers to be sure there is a God, I'm not as convinced as Barnes that I'd trust their take on God. Since neither of those directly reflects the verses being studied, it doesn't take away from my learning many things I've never caught onto like Barnes did. The guy studied a lot to get all that stuff, and he didn't do it from scripture alone.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#77
Adam Clark
Verse 17 -- just some historic background, which I sorely need.
The king of Sodom went out to meet him - This could not have been Bera, mentioned Gen_14:2, for it seems pretty evident, from Gen_14:10, that both he and Birsha, king of Gomorrah, were slain at the bitumen-pits in the vale of Siddim; but another person in the meantime might have succeeded to the government.

Verse 18.
And Melchizedek, king of Salem - 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.
Brought forth bread and wine - Certainly to refresh Abram and his men, exhausted with the late battle and fatigues of the journey; not in the way of sacrifice, etc.; this is an idle conjecture.
He was the priest of the most high God - He had preserved in his family and among his subjects the worship of the true God, and the primitive patriarchal institutions; by these the father of every family was both king and priest, so Melchizedek, being a worshipper of the true God, was priest among the people, as well as king over them.
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 Psa_76:1, Psa_76:2 : “In Judah is God known; his name is great in Israel. In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.” 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. 1. In his person he was a representative and type of Christ; see the scriptures above referred to. 2. His name, מלכי צדק malki tsedek, signifies my righteous king, or king of righteousness. This name he probably had from the pure and righteous administration of his government; and this is one of the characters of our blessed Lord, a character which can be applied to him only, as he alone is essentially righteous, and the only Potentate; but a holy man, such as Melchizedek, might bear this name as his type or representative. 3. Office; he was a priest of the most high God. The word כהן cohen, which signifies both prince and priest, because the patriarchs sustained this double office, has both its root and proper signification in the Arabic; kahana signifies to approach, draw near, have intimate access to; and from hence to officiate as priest before God, and thus have intimate access to the Divine presence: and by means of the sacrifices which he offered he received counsel and information relative to what was yet to take place, and hence another acceptation of the word, to foretell, predict future events, unfold hidden things or mysteries; so the lips of the priests preserved knowledge, and they were often the interpreters of the will of God to the people. Thus we find that Melchizedek, being a priest of the most high God, represented Christ in his sacerdotal character, the word priest being understood as before explained. 4. His residence; he was king of Salem. שלם shalam signifies to make whole, complete, or perfect; and hence it means peace, which implies the making whole the breaches made in the political and domestic union of kingdoms, states, families, etc., making an end of discord, and establishing friendship. Christ is called the Prince of peace, because, by his incarnation, sacrifice, and mediation, he procures and establishes peace between God and man; heals the breaches and dissensions between heaven and earth, reconciling both; and produces glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good will among men. His residence is peace and quietness and assurance for ever, in every believing upright heart. He governs as the Prince and Priest of the most high God, ruling in righteousness, mighty to save; and he ever lives to make intercession for, and save to the uttermost all who come unto the Father by him. See the notes on Hebrews 7 (note).

Verse 19.
And he blessed him - This was a part of the priest’s office, to bless in the name of the Lord, for ever. See the form of this blessing, Num_6:23-26; and for the meaning of the word to bless, see Gen_2:3 (note).
(The following is Clarke's note in Gen. 2:3:
And God blessed the seventh day - The original word ברך barach, which is generally rendered to bless, has a very extensive meaning. It is frequently used in Scripture in the sense of speaking good of or to a person; and hence literally and properly rendered by the Septuagint ευλογησεν, from ευ, good or well, and λεγω, I speak. So God has spoken well of the Sabbath, and good to them who conscientiously observe it. Blessing is applied both to God and man: when God is said to bless, we generally understand by the expression that he communicates some good; but when man is said to bless God, we surely cannot imagine that he bestows any gifts or confers any benefit on his Maker. When God is said to bless, either in the Old or New Testament, it signifies his speaking good To man; and this comprises the whole of his exceeding great and precious promises. And when man is said to bless God, it ever implies that he speaks good Of him, for the giving and fulfillment of his promises. This observation will be of general use in considering the various places where the word occurs in the sacred writings. Reader, God blesses thee when by his promises he speaks good To thee; and thou dost bless him when, from a consciousness of his kindness to thy body and soul, thou art thankful to him, and speakest good of his name.)

Verse 20.
And he gave him tithes - A tenth part of all the spoils he had taken from the confederate kings. These Abram gave as a tribute to the most high God, who, being the possessor of heaven and earth, dispenses all spiritual and temporal favors, and demands the gratitude, and submissive, loving obedience, of all his subjects. Almost all nations of the earth have agreed in giving a tenth part of their property to be employed in religious uses. The tithes were afterwards granted to the Levites for the use of the sanctuary, and the maintenance of themselves and their families, as they had no other inheritance in Israel.

Honestly? I didn't get anything different or new from Clarke, since he's agreeing with everyone else here.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#78
John Gill
He tends to get into geography and tiny details that I don't see as very important, but I figure if he ever wrote a novel, it would be an epic -- complete with many, many characters and rich setting details.

Verse 17.
And the king of Sodom went out to meet him,.... While Abram was in pursuit of the four kings, the king of Sodom came down from the mountain whither he and those that escaped with him fled, and came to Sodom: and from hence he went out, not alone, but accompanied with his retinue, to meet Abram:

after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him; to congratulate him upon the victory he had obtained over them; and this meeting was

at the valley of Shaveh; a most plain and even valley, as the word signifies, clear of trees and everything that obstructs sight or passage, as Jarchi observes, and so a proper place to have an interview in:

which is the king's dale; some say King Melchizedek's, but one should rather think it was the king of Sodom's; the Targum of Jonathan calls it the place of the king's exercise, where he had his diversions in riding, walking, &c. it can hardly be that in 2Sa_18:18; though some are of this opinion, being near to Jerusalem, which they suppose to be the same with Salem in Gen_14:18.

Verse 18.
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine,.... Both the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem say, this is Shem the son of Noah, and which is the sense of the Jewish writers in general, and of many Christian ones; but, though it is highly probable he was living at this time, yet it is not easy to account for it why his name should be changed, or that he should reign in a country in the possession of his brother's son; or that he should meet Abram, and congratulate him on the slaughter of one of his own descendants, as Chedorlaomer was; and especially it cannot be said of him that he was without father or mother, or that those were not known, since Shem's parentage and pedigree are famous enough; some have thought him to be more than a mere man, even the Son of God himself, but he is manifestly distinguished from him in Heb_7:3; he seems to be what Josephus (k) says he was, a Canaanitish prince, a pious and religious man, eminently raised up by God, and whose genealogy was kept a secret, that he might be in this as in other things a type of Christ; but that he should be Canaan himself, as Dr. Clayton (l) thinks, a brother of Metsir, or Mizraim, the second son of Ham, being by Sanchoniatho called Sedec, is not likely, since he was cursed by Noah. Salem, of which he was king, is by the above Targums said to be Jerusalem, and which is the opinion of many writers, Jewish and Christian, and of which opinion I myself was formerly; see Gill on Heb_7:1; Jerusalem being plainly called Salem, Psa_76:2, but it seems clear from hence that it must be near to Sodom, and lay in the way between Damascus and Sodom; whereas Jerusalem was in a contrary situation, and lay nearly forty miles from Sodom; for Josephus says (m), the lake Asphaltites, where Sodom once stood, was three hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, which is about thirty eight miles; and Jerom relates (n), that Salem was a town near Scythopolis, which was so called in his times, and where was showed the palace of Melchizedek, which, by the largeness of the ruins, appeared to have been very magnificent, and takes it to be the same place with Shalem in Gen_33:18; and Salim, near to which John was baptizing, Joh_3:23, this great man "brought forth bread and wine"; not as a priest for an offering, but as a munificent king, to refresh Abram and his weary troops, and which the king of Sodom could not do, because the victuals of that place were carried off by the four kings, Gen_14:11; and as Abram had the land of Canaan by promise, and now had made conquest in it over the invaders of it, Melchizedek, sensible of his right unto it, brings forth the best fruits of it, and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes (o), tenders them to him as "livery and seisin" of it: in this Melchizedek was a type of Christ, who comforts and refreshes his hungry and weary people with himself, the bread of life, and with the wine of his love, as well as his name and title agree with him, who is a righteous King and Prince of Peace, Jer_23:5,

and he was the priest of the most high God; a priest as well as a king, as in many countries princes were both (p); and in this he was a type of Christ in his kingly and priestly offices, who is a priest upon the throne, both king and priest, Zec_6:13. Melchizedek was a priest not of any of the Phoenician deities, but of the true and living God, who is above all gods, dwells in the highest heaven, and is the most High over all the earth; by him was he called to this office and invested with it, and he ministered to him in it.

(k) De Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 10. (l) Chronology of the Hebrew Bible, p. 100. (m) Autiqu. l. 15. c. 6. sect. 2. (n) Ad Evagrium, tom. 3. fol. 13. E. (o) Works, vol. 1. p. 694. (p) "Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phoebique sacerdos", Virgil. Aeneid. l. 3. vid. Servium in loc.

(I figured he had footnotes, so I should keep them, even if I have no idea what books he references half the time. lol)

So, he gives what others say Mel's ancestry is, and then goes on to disagree with them. Okay. I simply ignore that stuff because Hebrew 7 says Mel has no known ancestry, and I take the Bible as God's word. But I do agree with him that his claim to be a type of Christ is because he was both priest of the real God and king of his country.

Verse 19

And he blessed him,.... Melchizedek blessed Abram, which was one part of his office as a priest, to wish and pray for a blessing on others, see Num_6:23, &c. and herein typified Christ, who really blesses or confers blessings on all his people, even spiritual blessings, such as redemption, remission of sins, and justifying righteousness, adoption, and eternal life:

and said, blessed be Abram of the most high God; that is, may he be blessed by him who is the most high God, with all kind of blessings, both temporal and spiritual; or he declares him to be blessed of him, as he undoubtedly was, or foretells that he would be, as was certainly his case: and another epithet of God is added, which abundantly shows he was able to bless him, since he is the

possessor of heaven and earth; is the Maker of both, and has a right to dispose of all things in them, both heavenly and earthly.

Here he gives me a clearer understanding of what exactly a blessing is.

Verse 20

And blessed be the most high God,.... Let his name be praised, and thanks be given to him for all mercies temporal and spiritual, since all flow from him, and particularly for the mercies Abram and others through him were now made partakers of; for whoever were the instruments, God was the efficient cause, and to him all the glory was to be given:

which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand; the four kings, who are called Abram's enemies, because the enemies of God and of true religion, and because they had been injurious to a relation of his; and especially they may be so called, if their intention was, as, say the Jewish writers (q) to slay him, beginning first with Lot: and those four kings, according to them, signify the four monarchies, the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman (r) who in their turns distressed his posterity, but in the latter day shall fall into their hands, as those did into Abram's, and fall by them:

and he gave him tithes of all; not Melchizedek to Abram, but Abram to Melchizedek, as appears from Heb_7:4; and these tithes were given not out of the goods that were recovered, for they were restored to the proprietors of them, but out of the spoils that were taken from the enemy, as is evident from the same place referred to; and these were given both as a return for the respect shown him by Melchizedek, and by way of thankfulness to God for the victory, whose priest he was; otherwise, as a king, he stood in no need of such a present; nor was it for his maintenance as a priest, or what Abram was obliged unto, but was a voluntary action, and not out of his own substance, but out of the spoils of the enemy, and to testify his gratitude to God: this was imitated by the Heathens in later times; so the Tarentines, having got a victory over the Peucetians, sent the tenth (of the spoil) to Delphos (s): the Jews (t) say Abraham was the first in the world that began to offer tithes; but they are mistaken, when they say in the same place, that he took all the tithes of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of Lot his brother's son, and gave them to Shem the son of Noah. Eupolemus (u) makes mention of this interview between Abram and Melchizedek by name; he says, Abram was hospitably entertained in the holy city Argarizin, which is by interpretation the mountain of the most High (but seems to be the Mount Gerizzim) and that he received gifts from Melchizedek, the priest of God, who reigned there.

(q) Pirke Eliezer, c. 27. (r) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 42. fol. 37. 1. (s) Pausan. Phocica, sive l. 10. p. 633. (t) Pirke Eliezer, c. 27. (u) Apud Euseb. Evang. Praepar. l. 9. c. 17. p. 419.

Meh! Gill really gets into what the targums and Jewish writers say. I don't. Ultimately, it feels like they do what we still do today -- write extensively to pull away from what God really said to fulfill their own versions of prove-a-points. So, skipping all that stuff about the four kingdoms and later times add in, the rest is good.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#79
Strong's Concordance on the word Melchizedek.

(My computer doesn't allow me to copy/paste Hebrew, so excuse that I don't actually use the Hebrew letters for his name.)

H4442

malkı̂y-tsedeq
mal-kee-tseh'-dek
From H4428 and H6664; king of right; Malki-Tsedek, an early king in Palestine: - Melchizedek.
Total KJV occurrences: 2

That "total KJV occurances: 2" tells me that this and Hebrews are the only two times he's mentioned in the Bible, so I don't have to go past that. (Good thing. Others have been telling me there is more to him then just this. So, whew! Less work. You know? lol)

But it does bring me face to face with that book you love and I hate -- Hebrews. Lots of talk about Mel in Hebrews 7. But whoever wrote the book was talking to Jews, and I have never understood the Jews. (Sure, I'm coming to some understanding of the Israelites from reading the NT, but they changed. It even shows that in the OT. And they fractioned so much later on all I know are Jews are descendants of some Israelites. Well, okay. I'm a descendent of the Duke of Buckingham. That doesn't mean I am him or anything like him. We simply have some DNA connection, and what he and his grandson did was the reason my mother's biological-father's family ended up in America. That really doesn't give me any understanding of who I am in connection to him. The same thing with the Jews and the Israelites.)

So, all I got out of Hebrews was much of what I learned in studying what my Dead Guys taught me in Gen. 14. And then it goes on from there to tell me that Mel wasn't a Levite and yet was still God's priest. And somehow that connects to Jesus. So Jesus is the perfected Melchizedek with all due honors as priest, king and Messiah.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#80
Old Hermit, Obviously I'm thick, but at least you know I take what you say to heart!