Page 4
This page is a new addition and will be updated regularly. We encourage input from our visitors on any topic addressed here, as well a suggestions for future topics.
________________
CONTENTS:
Did Yahshua Keep the Last Passover?
Are Yahshua and Melchizedek One and the Same?
DID YAHSHUA KEEP THE LAST PASSOVER?
"And He said unto them, 'With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." (Luke 22:15-16)
A recent trend has appeared among Sabbatarians which claims that Yahshua did not keep the Passover observance just before His crucifixion. Some say that "the last supper" which Yahshua partook of was simply that and not a Passover observance; many claim that He simply "desired" to observe the Passover, but was prevented by the events preceding the crucifixion (His arrest and trial, etc.); some state that He could not have been observing Passover because He didn't eat it at the same time that the Jews ate it; and others believe that the phrase "will not any more eat thereof" meant He would not even eat of the Passover meal before Him - that He would not eat Passover at all until it was fulfilled in the kingdom. It appears that the focus of this trend is a deep-seated belief that it was necessary for Yahshua's observance to somehow fit neatly together with the religious observances of the Jewish nation at that time.
Which of these views, if any, is true? And is it necessary - or right - to use Jewish tradition as the standard for judging Yahshua's actions during His ministry?
Let's address the last of the above viewpoints first. In the above passage in Luke, the words "not any more" come from Strong's #3765 - ouketi - "from 3756 and 2089 - not yet, no longer" - translated most often "no more" in the New Testament, otherwise translated "any more", "after that", "not as yet", "hereafter", "no longer", etc. If we consider all of these interpretations within the context of the passage, we see that Yahshua is stating His intention to eat that present Passover before His death, "for (because - #1063) I say...I will not hereafter eat of it..." The structure of the sentence tells us His meaning: He does not say that He had desired to eat it in spite of the fact that He would not eat it again, but because of the fact He would not eat of it after that until its fulfillment. Rather than suggesting Yahshua's refusal to eat that last Passover, the context almost demands the understanding that Yahshua did eat that Passover, because there would be no more after it for Him until its fulfillment in the kingdom.
However, this alone is not enough to truly clarify the issue, so we must go on to the claim that Yahshua did not truly eat the Passover because He did not eat it at the same time as the Jews. The truth is that Yahshua did not eat Passover when many of the Jews did - John 18:28 bears this out. When Yahshua was led from Caiphas to the judgment hall - after His Passover meal - this verse states that "they themselves (His captors) went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover." It is obvious that whatever observance Yahshua kept before His arrest, it did not coincide with the Jews' observance of Passover.
Is there any other support for the idea that Yahshua's Passover observance was kept early on 14 Abib, well before the Jews' observance? Yes, we can find very clear support for this in John 13. After Yahshua has given Judas the sop and Judas had left the table, verses 28-29 tell us, "Now no man at the table knew for what intent He spake this unto him. For some [of them] though, because Judas had the bag, that Yahshua had said unto him, Buy [those things] that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor." If Yahshua and His disciples had kept their Passover late on the 14th as the 15th began, the disciples would never have thought that Yahshua was sending Judas to buy anything, for the 15th is a High Day and a Sabbath wherein no buying or selling was to be done (Neh. 10:31). However, if they were observing their Passover early on the 14th, then there would be no problem with this scenario since the 14th is not an annual Sabbath. Clearly, Yahshua and His disciples kept this Passover early on 14 Abib.
So does the fact that Yahshua's Passover did not coincide with the Jews' observance mean that Yahshua's was not a true Passover meal? No. In fact, if we examine the events of the original Passover in Exodus, one fact becomes clear: Yahshua kept His last Passover at the same time the original Passover was observed. The first Passover lambs slain were slain at the beginning of 14 Abib, notwithstanding Jewish tradition of Yahshua's time or our own. Ex. 12:6 tells us, "And ye shall keep it (the Passover lamb) up until the fourteenth day of the same month (Abib): and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening" (Strong's #6153 - "dusk"). A firestorm of debate has sprung up around the meaning of phrase "in the evening", with many rightly stating that it literally means "between the evenings" - that is, between sunset and darkness of any one day: the root of the word (#6150) proves this. Although different interpretations of this phrase abound, if we look to Scripture and common sense, the truth soon emerges.
When we examine the usage of Strong's #6153 in Scripture, it becomes obvious that this phrase means after sunset but before complete darkness, i.e., dusk - see Gen. 8:11; Ex. 18:13-14; Lev. 11:24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 39; Num. 28:4 & 8 (where the specific phrase "between the evenings" is used); etc. In context, especially in Numbers 28, this phrase clearly indicates the dusk at the beginning of the night, in contrast to the twilight at the beginning of the day. If this is true, then the slaying of the very first Passover lamb (by heads of households, not priests) occurred at dusk, directly after sunset on 14 Abib, with the meal being eaten in the night time portion of that day. (Notwithstanding past or current tradition, the original lamb could not have been slain late on 14 Abib, because that would have caused the Passover meal to fall on Abib 15 - which is not Passover, but the first day of Unleavening.) With this in mind, we can see that Yahshua's observance of Passover early on Abib 14 was truly a fulfillment of the original observance of Passover in Egypt, and not merely a substitute meal forced on Him by circumstance and in contrast to the Jews' 'true' observance later on that same day.
From these facts we can clearly see that Yahshua's Passover observance early on 14 Abib did not coincide with the Jewish observance much later on that day, and that His observance did not have to coincide with the Jews' observance, because their observance was not kept according to the instructions given in Exodus. Tradition which had sprung up over time, fueled by apostasy and ignorance of God's laws (2 Kings 22:8, 10-11 &13; 2 Chron. 29:6-8; 30:1-4 & 15-17; 35:1, 10-13; etc.), had supplanted Yahweh's original Passover ordinances. Yahshua Himself rebuked the leaders of the Jews for allowing such things to happen: "Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men...Full well ye reject the commandments of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:7 & 9). All of this shows us the futility of using Jewish tradition as a standard by which to judge Yahshua's actions.
In going on to deal with Yahshua's "desire" to keep the Passover, we must ask whether He was interrupted in this desire by the events of His arrest and subsequent trial, conviction, and crucifixion. Two points immediately spring to mind: the first is that we know from the above study that Yahshua could very well have kept a valid Passover observance early on 14 Abib, well before His arrest later in the evening, therefore making His desire to keep that Passover possible. The second is that Yahshua's desire to keep the Passover presupposes the idea that His desire could be met: if He truly knew the details of His "decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem" (Luke 9:31), how could He not know that this decease was to be accomplished on Abib 14? And if He knew the details, why desire that which He knew could not be satisfied? Simple logic (and Yahshua Himself) tells us that He had looked forward to it with desire because He knew that after the comfort of sharing one last Passover observance with His disciples, He would have no other until its fulfillment.
Obviously, the last three arguments listed at the beginning of this article are not valid points when tested against Scripture and common sense. The final point to address is the first one stated: Was the meal that Yahshua ate simply His "last meal" and nothing else? In answering this question, we find a clear and simple truth stated by Yahshua Himself which addresses not only this question, but the other three as well:
"Now the first [day] of the [feast of] Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Yahshua, saying unto Him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover? And He said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, 'My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with My disciples." (Matt. 26:17-18)
"And the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover, His disciples said unto Him, Where with thou that we go and prepare that Thou mayest eat the Passover? And He sendeth forth two of His disciples...(and said) say ye unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, that I shall eat the Passover with my disciples?" (Mark 14:12-14)
"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. And He sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the Passover, that we may eat...And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the Passover with My disciples?" (Luke 22:7-8 & 11)
If it is true that in the mouth of two or three witnesses a thing shall be established (2 Cor. 13:1), then we have here three witnesses who openly testify that Yahshua by His own mouth stated that He would keep the last Passover before His death. Any attempt to read any other meaning into His words can only result in branding Yahshua as a liar - either He did keep the Passover as He stated or else the statements quoted above were lies. In the end, our simple belief in Yahshua as the embodiment of Truth, Who cannot lie, should put an end to the claims that His last meal was not His last Passover observance as well.
The most important thing we must keep in mind as we study Scripture is that the focus of Scripture is Yahshua, His truth, and His actions, not whether His actions can be forced to fit in with the traditions of an apostate nation. We are to follow Yahshua's example in all things, leaving behind the traditions of men in order to embrace His truth, for it is only in Him that we find the fulfillment of all things.
WHAT IS YOUR STUMBLINGBLOCK?
In 1 Peter 2:7 & 8, Peter tells us:
"Unto you therefore which believe [Yahshua] is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence..."
This passage is a companion passage to Isaiah 8:14-15, which says much the same thing about Yahweh (whom study has taught us became Yahshua in the New Testament). While we are all familiar with the concept of stumblingblocks and the implied test of faith which accompanies them, this passage presents that concept from a startling perspective: we are told that Yahshua Himself is to some a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. In fact, if Scripture is true, then not only can Yahshua be a stumblingblock and an offense to the very people He chose out of all nations as His own, but there also exist other stones upon which we might stumble and offenses which might overtake us as we pursue our faith in God and His word.
Ezekiel 3:20 tells us "...when a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I (Yahweh) lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die..." Another startling idea - that God Himself would lay a stumblingblock before anyone. While some may think that this contradicts James 1:13 - "Let no man say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted of God': for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man..." - in fact, these passages and others complement each other perfectly. If we know Scripture, then it is no surprise to us that God would try even the righteous in this way, because Scripture is very clear about how God treats those whom He loves - He chastises and puts them to the test in order to perfect them and draw them closer to Him.
Peter says it very well in 1 Peter 1:7: "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Yahshua the Messiah." Numerous passages tell us that our Father will test and try our faith in order to purify and refine it, much as precious metals are purified and refined by fire. He does this, not out of malice or anger towards us, but out of love - Job 23:10; Ps. 66:10-11; Prov. 17:3; Isa. 48:10-11; Dan. 12:10; Zech. 13:9; 1 Thess. 2:4; Heb. 12:6-7; etc. - these and many more passages in Scripture testify to this fact.
Some may wonder how God tries us without tempting us. The answer to this is found in the continuance of the passage in James: "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." (James 1:14-15). The completion of the passage in 1 Peter supports this: "...a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient..." (1 Pet. 2:8). It becomes clear that God may put stumblingblocks and offenses before us, but whether we stumble at them and take offense or not depends upon us. If we are weak in some point and inclined to reject a truth for purely personal reasons, we will surely stumble because of this, and then we must deal with the consequences. If we truly love God and desire to obey Him and His truth, then when we are confronted by something which may cause us to stumble or become offended, we know that it is our duty to stop and examine not only that which confronts us, but also ourselves. If that which offends us is a Scriptural truth which is only offensive because it shows us our own previous ignorance or weakness, then we can purge those things from ourselves and become stronger in the process.
Interestingly enough, many of the stumblingblocks laid down by God at which people take offense actually are nothing more than elements of God's own truth, even as James tells us. Time has proven to us again and again how people will "stumble at the word, being disobedient" even though that word is the truth straight out of Scripture. The Jews took offense at Yahshua because He said He was the Son of God, even though Scripture itself speak to this (John 19:7; 2 Sam. 7:12-14; Ps. 82:6). He also became an offense to them because of the nature of His death as a common criminal (in their eyes) by crucifixion, even though this was prophesied (Deut. 21:22-23; Ps. 22; John 3:14-15; Gal. 5:11). Many people are offended by the idea that those who have received the Holy Spirit have become sons of God, actually becoming part of the family of God (Isa. 56:3-8; Gal. 4:5-7). Others stumble over the truth that God is no respecter of persons, allowing every one of His people to serve Him according to their calling - male, female, black, white, bond, or free, and that regardless of physical or social aspect, all are not only allowed but required to "give an answer to every one that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you..." (Acts 10:34; Gal. 3:28; 1 Pet. 3:15). In like manner, those who are wedded to the idea of a structured church hierarchy and ministerial authority become offended at the truths of personal authority and ministerial servitude (Matt. 20:25-27; 1 Cor. 6:2-3; Phil. 2:12-13; etc.).
The list of potential offenses and stumblingblocks is almost endless, just as variations in individual personalities are endless. Every human being in this world holds within him- or herself prejudices, cherished assumptions and/or traditions, certain levels of selfishness and desire for power over others, and a personal "comfort zone" which is painful to push past. Every person carries his own stumblingblock within himself. In overcoming these things we are faced with a situation both ironic and glorious. The irony is that as we accept the painful responsibility of subduing our own willful personalities and substituting God's will instead, the pain diminishes after the initial pang of effort. The glory is that our Father loves us enough to subject us to that pain in order to purge us of disobedience and willfulness and bring us to a greater knowledge of His truth.
On this web site you will find many of God's truths laid out before you and proven with Scripture. Many of these truths may be hard to accept because of their unfamiliarity, their clear contrast to the accepted teachings of christianity, their conflict with your own closely held preferences and beliefs, or simply because of the means by which they are offered to you. If you find yourself offended or struggling against some aspect of God's truth as presented here, we suggest two things:
1.) Prove all things; hold fast to that which is true.
2.) Search yourself to find whether the offense arises from provable error on our part or from a stumblingblock of your own making.
Whenever faced with a hard to accept truth, everyone has a choice: either we take offense and stumble over that truth, choosing by default to travel a longer and more troublesome route to Yahshua's door, or we listen to that still, small voice within us which resonates with the truth even as it challenges us to push beyond our comfort zone. If we listen and examine ourselves, we may pass over offense and avoid the stone of stumbling, coming to a greater understanding of God's truth and emerging from that refining fire purified, and more precious to our Father than ever before.
May Yahshua and our Father continually try us, bringing us ever closer to their truth, so that we may confidently say, as David did,
"Thou hast proved mine heart; Thou hast visited [me] in the night; Thou hast tried me, [and] shalt find nothing; I am purposed [that] my mouth shall not transgress." (Ps. 17:3)
Our God Lives!
"All the Gospel writers can't be right."
"Jesus was just a man, the illegitimate son of Mary and a Roman centurion."
"He probably never believed that He Himself was God's Messiah."
"Say ye that His disciples came by night, and stole Him away while we slept...and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."
"The man Jesus was a great prophet, nothing more."
It has ever been fashionable among religious "experts" and so-called believers to call into dispute almost every aspect of Scripture, particularly the Gospel accounts and the concept of Yahshua as the actual Son of God. Many of us have heard or read the comments above or comments like them: how these wolves in sheeps' clothing love to deny God's truth while claiming to believe in Him! They deny His birth, His life, His death, His resurrection, and the truth of His Word which is Scripture.
God Himself only knows how many books have been written, either as learned treatises or as bastardized versions of Scriptural truth, which sensationalize lies and unceasingly deny Yahshua as a living man who was the very Son of God, able to perform miracles and heal the blind, crippled, insane, and demon-possessed; who knew from childhood His identity and the reason for both His life and His death; and who was resurrected three full days after His death. These writings deny the truth of Scripture, yet are offered as worthy and faith-filled material by churches, religious publishers, and christian booksellers. The writers operate under the cloak of christianity, either claiming or simply allowing others to believe that their work springs from a foundation of faith, when in fact they do not believe the inherent, non-contradictory truth of Scripture and they do not believe that Yahshua was the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied of in the Old Covenant.
Hear the words of John the beloved: "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Yahshua is the Messiah? He is anti-christ, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father" (1 John 2:22-23). John knew that grievous wolves would enter in, seeking to destroy Yahshua's flock by deception and perversity, just as Paul knew and warned in Acts 20:29-30: "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Yes, even Peter warned of these things in 2 Peter 2:1-3: "...even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them...and many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..."
Think of these deceivers, shielding themselves with the facade of religion and belief while at the same time contradicting Scripture, denying the very Messiah from whom they claim salvation, making every disgusting statement imaginable: from maligning Mary as a fornicator, Yahshua as a bastard, and Paul as an apostate power seeker - nothing is sacred or beyond the reach of their corrupt imaginations. Their motive is neither faith nor love of truth - it is money. Think of the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on these books, the vast amounts of money donated to these sons of Belial by those who have been deceived by their claims. And then think of a vengeful God, patiently watching, hearing and seeing these blasphemies, waiting for His day and the day of judgment, when these people will be brought before Him and punished for their blasphemies:
"And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun: and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give Him glory." (Rev. 16:8-9)
"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God...and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works...and they were judged every man according to their works." (Rev. 20:12-13)
Despite the disbelief, lies, and blasphemies now flooding this world, KNOW THIS NOW, fellow believers:
"...Yahweh is the true God, He is the living God, and an everlasting King: at His wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide His indignation." (Jer. 10:10)
Our Father lives, He is faithful and loving, and He sent us His Son in the flesh in order to win for us our salvation from eternal death.
Our Saviour lives - He who came in the name of His Father; who fed the hungry, healed the sick, and rebuked those who would twist God's truth for their own gain.
Our Master lives - our King who gave up His existence as God in order to be born in the flesh, to live with us and teach us our Father's truth, to die for our sins, and to be resurrected in victory over death for us.
God's Word lives, given to us as a true and non-contradictory account of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, as well as our God's rules for us and the word of prophecy given in warning for those who would deny either Yahshua or the truth of Scripture.
The Bible was not written by men as an allegory for righteousness. It is not a fiction dreamed up by a desperate, disenfranchised people in order to fulfill their wish for a perfect man or a sinful Messiah. Yahshua was not a man unaware of who He was, unable to perform miracles, speaking in riddles and meaningless parables in order to hide His own confusion. He is not the figment of any person's imagination. The works of fiction and research so popular now are not true - they are simply Satan's lies, designed to undermine the faith of as many as possible and to justify the unbelief of the vast majority who refuse to bow the knee to our Creator.
God has not abandoned us to confusion, lies, and eternal death.
OUR GOD LIVES, HIS WORD IS TRUE, AND OUR STEADFAST ENDURANCE AND BELIEF IN HIM WILL BE REWARDED WHEN OUR KING RETURNS...
and that time is near at hand.
For as it is written,
"I have sworn by Myself, the word is gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in Yahweh have I righteousness and strength; to Him shall men come, and all that are incensed against Him shall be ashamed."
(Isa. 45:23-24)
ARE YAHSHUA AND MELCHIZEDEK ONE AND THE SAME?
"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he [was] the priest of the Most High God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the Most High God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all." (Gen. 14:18-20)
In this passage we are introduced to a somewhat mysterious figure in Scripture: Melchizedek, priest of God and blesser of Abraham. Who is this man, and what can we learn about him? Some religious teachers claim that Melchizedek was a physical incarnation of the One who became Yahshua in the New Testament. Is this true, or is there some other identification we can apply to this man in order to gain a better understanding of Scripture?
There is little information to be found in the Old Testament concerning Melchizedek besides what is contained in the above passage. Psalms 110:4 tells us only this: "Yahweh hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." There are no other Old Testament references: however, we do find some very helpful information about Melchizedek in Paul's writings to the Hebrews, without which we would have no basis for conjecture at all. In Hebrews 5, 6, and 7, we find a detailed discussion about Melchizedek, with comparisons made between him and Yahshua and the nature of their priesthoods. It is in these passages that we find some clues as to the identity and function of Melchizedek.
Paul's first reference to this priest is in Hebrews 5:6 where he quotes Psalms 110:4, identifying the one referred to as "Thou" as Yahshua. Here we find two important facts which apply to all subsequent discussion of this subject: the fact of Yahshua's position as a priest and the everlasting, eternal nature of that priesthood. In ch. 6:20 we find this information repeated as a prelude to the discussion in chapter 7.
Now, in Hebrews 7, Paul supplies us with additional information about Melchizedek: "this Melchizedek...first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is King of peace; without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually" (vv. 1-3). It appears to be from this passage that many people proceed to their identification of Melchizedek as Yahshua, as they assume that lack of lineage and being "made like unto the Son of God" is an identification of Yahshua Himself. The problem with this view is that it works in direct contradiction to the passage and what we know of Yahshua's life. Yahshua did in fact have a Father - God our Father Who is over all. He also had a mother - Mary, wife of Joseph. Yahshua arguably had a beginning of days, which was His physical birth, and He definitely had end of life, which was His death by crucifixion on the stake (after which He remained dead for three days and three nights). Also, we find a comparison here - Melchizedek was "made like unto the Son of God..." - which becomes ludicrous if Melchizedek was in fact Yahshua: this would effectively be comparing him to himself, a pointless exercise at best.
If Yahshua and Melchizedek were instead two different beings, then examination of this passage should give us clues as to the true identity of Melchizedek. One telling detail of this passage is the word "made" here - Strong's #871, "aphomoioo - from 575 and 3666; to assimilate closely". Obviously this means that Melchizedek was made to closely resemble Yahshua in some way, and from the context it appears that this resemblance has to do with the nature of his priesthood, not of his existence. Paul makes in clear in subsequent verses that Melchizedek was a priest (v. 1); one who received tithes not only from Abraham, but also by extension from Levi - which places his priesthood above the Levitical priesthood (vv. 4-7 & 9-11); he is a being not subject to death (ch. 7:8,15-17, 21); and he is a priest "continually" (7:3) - that is, "into forever".
While we know that Yahshua had a beginning and end of days, we know also that the office of His priesthood is eternal, unending (Heb. 5:6, 6:20, etc.) It becomes obvious, then, that it is in the service of an unending priesthood that Melchezidek was "made like unto the Son of God". If we look to Heb. 8:4-5, we find that even the Levitical priesthood was patterned after an heavenly example: "...there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount". This tells us that there must be a heavenly priesthood after which the Levitical priesthood was patterned, and it therefore stands to reason that it is the Melchizedek priesthood - eternal and heavenly - which stands both as the example for the finite earthly priesthood of the Levites. This is the order of priesthood to which Yahshua belongs.
Paul does tell us that Yahshua and Melchizedek serve in the same order of priesthood, but there is one clear difference between their positions as priests: Melchizedek is only referred to in Scripture as "priest of the Most High God", while Yahshua is repeatedly referred to in Hebrews as a "high priest". This agrees with the arrangement of the Levitical priesthood, which tells us there can only be one high priest in God's priesthood. It is clear that Melchizedek's example had to do with the everlasting nature of his priesthood, not with any service in that priesthood as high priest.
As we analyze all the information above, an interesting scenario begins to emerge. We know that Melchizedek was not an incarnation of Yahshua for the reasons discussed above. In fact, when we look carefully at the information given us, we begin to realize that we are dealing with a created being who serves - and has always served - in the capacity of priest of God, one who exists to illustrate the eternal and unending nature of the priesthood which Yahshua would assume upon His resurrection. [We see another shadowy type of this in the priesthood of Zadok (Num. 25:11-13; 1 Chron. 6:3, 4, & 49-53; Eze. 43:19, 44:15 & 28; etc.), which is perpetual or unending as long as the line of Zadok exists; a priesthood conferred because of zealousness for and faithfulness to Yahweh; and one which will obviously be in place for some time after Yahshua's return (Eze. 43 & 44). Notice the interesting relationship between the names of these priests: Zadok (righteous) and Melchi-zedek (king of righteousness), both rooted in Strong's #6663.]
If Melchizedek has no end of life, then it follows that he exists even today, functioning in his unending role of priest of God: see how Paul says that Melchizedek "abideth a priest continually". This past, present, and continuing service is not hard to accept when we remember that even now there are seraphim, cherubim, twenty-four elders, and numberless angels in existence, serving God in their various capacities. So we see in Melchizedek a created being who resembles Yahshua in that he serves in a priesthood which exists eternally, acting as a forerunner in a priesthood of a different and greater order than Levi's or Aaron's, which points directly to Yahshua and His everlasting high priesthood as its fulfillment.
Yahshua and Melchizedek are clearly two different beings - each described differently, both serving as priests, though in different capacities. Melchizedek serves as a precursor to Yahshua as priest of the Most High God, yet he is obviously subject to Yahshua, who is now not only our high priest, but the Son of God and our chosen Messiah, alive for evermore. It is with this knowledge that we can read with greater understanding and rejoice in these words of Paul:
"Now of such things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man." (Heb. 8:1-2)
Did You Know Page 1, Page 2, Page 3
If you have any comments or questions you'd like answered, please
e-mail us at houseofyahshua@hotmail.com