Welcome to Fair Havens Church’s On-Line Bible Study! This blog/Bible Study as been designed to help each of us as we read our Bibles daily through the year, using the Daily readings. Often as we read we all have questions that come up. It is my hope that we will be able to discuss you questions through this format. As you read your Bibles and have questions, please submit them through this site. They will come to me and I will then put an answer on the blog for all to read. Then if you have a comment, or another question, you will be able to enter your comment and/or question.

Please remember this is a tool provided by the Lord for each of us to go deeper into His Word and to help one another to grow. Please make your comments concise and to the point…most importantly, GOD HONORING, GOD GLORIFYING! I am exceited to see what the Lord will do through the weeks and months ahead. Let me know what you think about the site and help us to improve it, making it even more user friendly!

now, let’s study God’s Word together.

We have a question from yesterday’s readings in Is. 60-64. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT EXACTY zION IS – I THINK IT MANY TIMES REFERS TO ISRAEL. THE BIBLE ALMOST SEEMS IN DIFFERENT PLACES IN SCRIPTURE TO REFER TO DIFFERENT THINGS WHEN IT IS TALKING ABOUT ZION. WHAT EXACTY IS ZION? IS IT ISRAEL, THE NEW JERUSALEM OR SOMETHING ELSE?

This is an excellent question and the confusion is understandable with the many references is Zion in the passage. The simple answer to your questions is “YES”. However, I will go a bit deeper than that. Before giving a full answer, it is important to remember that when studying scripture, ALWAYS consider the CONTEXT of the verses…what is being said in the verses before and after the reference and how do they come together to help us with our understanding!

Historically and geographically, Zion was therpcl escarpment on the ridge between the Kidron and the Tyropeoean Valleys of Jerusalem. Later, the term came to refer to entire western ridge of early Jerusalem. Centuries later it came to refer to the entire city of Jerusalem.

Scripturally and theologically, the term Zion has a threefold meaning as it appers in different locations. I feel that all three of these appear in some form in yesterday’s reading.

1 DAVID’S CITY — In the OT Zion refers to Jerusalem the city that David conqued and made a capital city of the United Kingdom of Israel (1 Chron. 11:5; Ps. 2:6; Is. 2:3).

2. THE MILLENNIAL CITY — In the prophetic witings, such as Isaiah, Zion referes to Jerusalem as the future capital of the nation of Israel in the Kingdom Age ( Is. 1:27; 2:3; 4:1-6; Joel 3:16; Zech. 1:16-17; 8:3-8; Rom. 11:26).

3. THE HEAVENLY CITY – In the NT Zion is refered to as the New Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22-24) and the eternal city into which the Church will be received (Rev. 21-22)

Some theologians teach that Zion is the Christian Church of this present age (today); however, this is one that is hard to prove with Scripture!

In the passages in Isaiah 6-64, it seems that some facet of each of this threefold meanings are present…God coming down from Zion to Zion (Jerusalem) and a future Zion (New Jerusalem). This is not unusual for OT prophecies. Many times a prophecy can and will refer to an even coming in the immediate future, distant future or even can be brought forward to our generation. Isaiah for example, speaks of the fall of the city of Jerusalem (which did take place with the exile); the rebuilding of Zion (Jerusalem) the coming of a messiah/redeemer/king who will restore the kingoom of God during their lifetime and the ultimate coming of the MESSIAH/REDDEEMER/KING (Christ) and the establisment of the ultimate New Jerusalem for the Church.

Blessings in your readings and keep asking questions!

tHE FLOWWING QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED REGARDING MELCHIZEDEK, READING IN GENESIS, PSALMS 110, AND HEBREWS 7. AFTER MY STUDY, I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS WAS THE PRE-INCARNATE JESUS CHRIST,; AM I OFF BASE OR DO YOU FEEL I AM CORRECT? The study of Melchizedek is an interesting one. We know very little about this seemingly mysterious person that appears in the mentioned passages. To help with this I will emploly the help of some biblical scholars and theologians.

We are first introduced toMelchizedek (king of righteousness) as a king of Salem (Jerusalem) and priest of the Most High God (Gen. 14:18–20; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5:6–11; 6:20–7:28). Melchizedek and Abraham first met after Abraham’s defeat of Chedorlaomer and his three allies. Melchizedek presented bread and wine to Abraham and his weary men, demonstrating friendship and religious kinship. He bestowed a blessing on Abraham in the name of El Elyon (“God Most High”), and praised God for giving Abraham a victory in battle (Gen. 14:18–20). Abraham then presented Melchizedek with a tenth of all the booty he had gathered. By this act Abraham indicated that he recognized Melchizedek as a fellow-worshiper of the one true God as well as a priest who ranked higher spiritually than himself. Melchizedek’s existence shows that there were people other than Abraham and his family who served the true God. In Psalm 110, a messianic psalm written by David (Matt. 22:43), Melchizedek is seen as a TYPE of Christ. This theme is repeated in the Book of Hebrews, where both Melchizedek and Christ are considered kings of righteousness and peace. By citing Melchizedek and his unique priesthood as a type, the writer shows that Christ’s new priesthood is superior to the old Levitical order and the priesthood of Aaron (Heb. 7:1–10). The writer in Hebrews 7:1-4, describes him as “without parentage and a great man”. (Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nelson’s Quick Reference Topical Bible Index. Nashville, Tenn. : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995 (Nelson’s Quick Reference), S. 408)

Many have attempted Melchizedek as an imaginary character named Shem, an angel, the Holy Spirit, Christ, and others. All are products of speculation, not historical fact; and it is impossible to reconcile them with the theological argument of Hebrews. Melchizedek was a real, historical king-priest who served as a type for the greater King-Priest who was to come, Jesus Christ. (Youngblood, Ronald F. ; Bruce, F. F. ; Harrison, R. K. ; Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville : T. Nelson, 1995)

Chapter 6 of Hebrews ends with a quote from Ps. 110:4 that Jesus is a high priest forever (eternity) after the order of Melchizedek. As we see in all of the passages under consideration, God in His sovereignity has chosen to leave us in the dark about him. Many Jewish writers, think he was Shem the son of Noah who was king and priest to their ancestors, after the manner of the other patriarchs. The difficulty here is that there is no record of Shem changing his name or moving to the land of Canaan. Many Christian writers have thought him to be Jesus Christ himself, appearing by a special dispensation and privilege to Abraham in the flesh, and who was known to Abraham by the name Melchisedec, which agrees very well to Christ, and to what is said, Jn. 8:56, Abraham saw his day and rejoiced. Much may be said for this opinion, and what is said in v. 3 does not seem to agree with any mere man; but then it seems strange to make Christ aTYPE OF HIMSLLF. The most general opinion is that he was a Canaanite king, who reigned in Salem, and kept up religion and the worship of the true God; that he was raised to be a type of Christ, and was honoured by Abraham as such.

I feel that the writer in Hebrews is trying to show us an example of THE CHRIST in a way that we might understand it, by comparing the characteristics of Christ to those of a man of the priestly order that the people of Israel would have, at least, known about. Melchizedek was a kiing; so is the Lord Jesus – a king of God’s anointing; the government is on His shoulders and He rules over all for the good of all people. Melchizedek was king of righteousness: his name signifies the righteous king. Jesus Christ is a rightful and a righteous king—rightful in his title, righteous in his government. He is the Lord our righteousness; he has fulfilled all righteousness, and brought in an everlasting righteousness, and he loves righteousness and righteous persons, and hates iniquity. Melchizedek was king of Salem, that is, king of peace; first king of righteousness, and after that king of peace. So is our Lord Jesus; he by his righteousness made peace, the fruit of righteousness is peace. Christ speaks peace, creates peace, is our peace-maker. Melchizedek was A priest of the most high God, qualified and anointed in an extraordinary manner to be his priest among the Gentiles. So is the Lord Jesus; he is THE priest of the most high God, and the Gentiles must come to God by him; it is only through his priesthood that we can obtain reconciliation and remission of sin. Melchizedek was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, v. 3. Scripture shows him as an extraordinary person, without giving us his genealogy, that he might be a type (example) of Christ, who as man was without father, as God without mother; whose priesthood is without descent, did not descend to him from another, nor from him to another, but is personal and perpetual. (6.) Melchizedek bore the image of God in his piety and authority, and stands upon record as an immortal high priest; the ancient type of him who is the eternal and only-begotten of the Father, who abideth a priest for ever.

Space and time does not allow us to go further at this point, but in Hebrews 7, we must continue to read verses 11-28. Here we see the necessity of raising up another priest after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of Aaron in order that perfection would come, not by Levitical priesthood and the Law, but through the priesthood of the Son of God, the High Priest, Jesus Christ. Therefore another priest must be raised up, after the order of Melchisedec, by whom, and his law of faith, perfection might come to all who obey him; and, blessed be God, that we may have perfect holiness and perfect happiness by Christ in the covenant of grace, according to the gospel, for we are complete in him. (Henry, Matthew: Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible : Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody : Hendrickson, 1996, c1991, S. Heb 7:1)

I would encourage further individual study through cross-referencing Scripture passages, and a good Bible commentary and dictionary. Perhaps we can pick this discussion up again as our Daily Bible Readings get us into the NT and especially the book of Hebrewsl