That is a fantastic question. I have gone back and forth on this over the years. I have finally settled that Melchizedek was a real person who was a real king of a real place called Salem (where the City of David in Jerusalem is today). He is a type or shadow of Christ, but not a theophany/christophany. The people in Salem would have had a king. Melchizedek is a title and not a proper name, meaning the King of Righteousness. As Hebrews speaks of him as a symbol or type, I think that is how we should look at him. In the past, I struggled with Jesus’ statement that Abraham saw him. But I do not believe that was fulfilled in his meeting Melchizedek, but rather when Christ as a theophany appeared with the angels in Abraham’s door before the destruction of Sodom. Ultimately, I can certainly see why others would view him as a Christophany, and it isn’t a dividing issue. Thank you so much for the question. It was a great one.
Romans 7? How about, "yes." I would agree with Dan Wallace that the present tense is gnomic (proverbial) in force. And the subject is any person who attempts to control the flesh by means of the flesh. Be that discipline, Law obedience, asceticism, anything but Spirit-filled mortification and vivication. Which we all naturally do. But we ought not do. Nor is that "the best" God has for us. We can kill sin, by the power of the Spirit. We don't perfectly do so, because we never rely on Him fully. But the problem is me. Not what God has given me to deal with sin.
👏👏👏 I have been edified! I have been encouraged!! Great job guys! Feeding the flock!!!
Thank you for watching!
Loved it ❤️ The father son combo in ministry is often not done well. You guys break the mold. Thank you. Blessings
Thank you Brother!
yes they do. love to hear both of them preach
Great video brothers
Thanks 👍
Because of text cutoff, I thought this video was called "Fruit of the Spirit Demons" at first.
I didn’t mean for that to happen. Wow. 😀
Regarding Romans 7, I'd say verses 1-13 are pre-conversion, and in verses 14-25 Paul is speaking of his present state.
I can see that argument.
Who was Melchizedek? A real king in his day or a Christophany?
That is a fantastic question. I have gone back and forth on this over the years. I have finally settled that Melchizedek was a real person who was a real king of a real place called Salem (where the City of David in Jerusalem is today). He is a type or shadow of Christ, but not a theophany/christophany. The people in Salem would have had a king. Melchizedek is a title and not a proper name, meaning the King of Righteousness. As Hebrews speaks of him as a symbol or type, I think that is how we should look at him. In the past, I struggled with Jesus’ statement that Abraham saw him. But I do not believe that was fulfilled in his meeting Melchizedek, but rather when Christ as a theophany appeared with the angels in Abraham’s door before the destruction of Sodom. Ultimately, I can certainly see why others would view him as a Christophany, and it isn’t a dividing issue. Thank you so much for the question. It was a great one.
Romans 7? How about, "yes." I would agree with Dan Wallace that the present tense is gnomic (proverbial) in force. And the subject is any person who attempts to control the flesh by means of the flesh. Be that discipline, Law obedience, asceticism, anything but Spirit-filled mortification and vivication. Which we all naturally do. But we ought not do. Nor is that "the best" God has for us. We can kill sin, by the power of the Spirit. We don't perfectly do so, because we never rely on Him fully. But the problem is me. Not what God has given me to deal with sin.
I think we are in agreement.