The Beginning, Part 4

We continue now with the comments made by one of our forum members (Robert Dirrick) on our reply on the Seventh Day Adventist beliefs concerning the Son of God. (See Part 1)

Roberts continues: If you want a proof text that Jesus the Word with God specifically is without beginning: In Hebrews 3 Scripture is teaching that the Melchisdec that came to Abraham to bless him was like the Son of God in that he was written in Scripture: “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life…”

In reply I believe you were referring to Hebrews Chapter 7 Verse 3, unfortunately you have misconstrued the true meaning behind what the Apostle was saying here and are attempting to apply it to something which it does not.

It was not meant that Melchizedek himself, was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life…”, but rather that the priesthood which he represented was without such.

“The Apostle Paul explains in the case of Melchizedek that his priesthood had no beginning and no ending, the order of his priesthood was to be perpetuated; consequently, his priesthood did not pass away until the antitypical Priesthood came. The Apostle particularly points out that he was without father or mother in the priesthood–“he abides a priest continually,” he continued a priest to the conclusion of the type in its antitype.

He was a type of the greater Melchizedek, which is The Christ, Head and Body. Jesus was “made a High Priest forever [literally for the Age] after the order of Melchizedek.” (Heb 6:20) R5966

It would not make sense to say that Melchizedek was like the Son of God, “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life…” when we know perfectly well right “that Christ was not without a Father. Call to mind His words–“Father forgive them;” “Father, glorify Thou me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” It could not then refer to Christ in His pre-existent state, nor, can it apply to Him as “the man, Christ Jesus,” for Jesus was “born of a woman.”

“The Apostle tells us that he was without beginning of days and without end of years.

We do not understand him to mean that Melchizedek never was born or that he never died (?), but rather that as a priest he was typical, and that his priesthood did not come to him from his parents, as did the priesthood of Aaron which descended from one son to another, but that his priesthood was an original priesthood; he had no parents in this Melchizedek priesthood, and he had no children in this Melchizedek priesthood; his priesthood was without any beginning of time and without any ending of time; and thus he typified Christ whose priestly office as a priest of the new order of the Millennial kingdom is not a limited one, and does not come to him by heredity, nor pass from him to another. Thus, Melchizedek was a type.” Q485

“The NKJV, renders this text, “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like to the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”

“Some take the view that this text only means that no account was kept of his birth, death, and etc. While we may feel sure that he had a father and mother and a beginning of days, we are not sure that he died.

Heb 7:8 seems to imply that he, like Enoch and Elijah, did not die–“Here, indeed, men (the Levitical Priesthood) receive tithes, who die; but there, one (Melchisedec received tithes), of whom it is affirmed that he lives.” This is a positive statement that Melchisedec did not die. We must suppose that he was translated.”

Once again It would not make sense to say that Melchizedek was like the Son of God as it is testified here that Melchisedec DID NOT DIE, “that he lives,” but it is testified of Christ that HE DID DIE. This same Paul could say of Christ: “Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man.” We conclude, then, that as Christ, on the spiritual plane of life, had a Father, and on the earthly plane a mother, and did “die for our sins,” “even the death of the cross,” therefore Melchizedek was not like the Son of God.” (R195 Edited)

Thus, your whole argument that Heb 7:3 supports the idea that our Lord had no beginning has no credence.

Roberts continues: When someone wants to ignore all Scripture in order to come up with some special little doctrine of their own, that come up with some sort of human reasoning, that makes no sense, to impress themselves and others with.

In reply it is evident that you have felled to take your own advice here, for had you considered “the whole counsel of God”, (Acts 20:27) you would not have been led into the confusion in which you find yourself.

Roberts continues: Scripture no more is saying Jesus began in the beginning of creation and time, than Scripture is saying Jesus is the first creature of creation, when He calls Himself the first and the last…

In reply we chose to rely upon the Word of God alone as the final say in this matter, the word of our Lord, the one and only true source for truth, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD.” (Rev 3:14)

Another brother posted a response and a few comments to our first reply to Robert, which we will post shortly as they are relevant to this discussion.