“Lucifer, the Not-So-High Priest”

Lucifer has been called by many names. Some of which are: the Devil, Satan, the Dragon, and the Old Serpent; but what about the king of Tyrus? (Ezekiel 28:11-13) Though many theologians will claim that this passage is calling Satan the king of Tyrus, I have to disagree. When one takes this passage in context with the rest of the chapter, one will find that the king of Tyrus was a man, as was the prince of Tyrus. (Ezekiel 28:1-2) If this passage of scripture is talking about a man, why do theologians think that the king of Tyrus is not?

On the other hand, I can see why theologians jump to the conclusion that Satan is referred to here as the king of Tyrus. It does say that he was in Eden, the garden of God. How can a man living in Ezekiel’s time be in Eden with Adam and Eve? The answer is very simple. He cannot. Because this seems to be the major conflict concerning this portion of scripture, we must refer to the rest of Ezekiel’s writing to see if we can make sense of this passage.

Further on in Ezekiel’s writings, we read a similar passage also being spoken unto another known human being, the Pharaoh, king of Egypt (Ezekiel 31:2). In verse nine of chapter thirty-one, we find another reference to Eden and, more specifically, the trees in the Garden of Eden. (Ezekiel 31:9) The trees of Eden are also referenced a few verses later in this same manner (Ezekiel 31:16- 18). If Ezekiel (or rather, God who is speaking through Ezekiel) is using symbolism here, it is safe to conclude that he was doing the same in chapter twenty eight. With the symbolism added into the equation, one must concede the point that Satan is in no way being called the king of Tyrus. This point does not mean that the passage itself is not talking about Satan, however. Just as God, through Ezekiel, used the trees of the Garden of Eden, He is also using the description of Satan to symbolize the king of Tyrus. This is similar to what Jesus did when he referred to Peter as Satan (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33; Luke 4:8). Furthermore, we can see that the same pride found within Satan is the very same pride being described within the prince of Tyrus. (Ezekiel 28:2b) Because your heart is lifted up, and you have said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas. This brings to mind the clichés, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” and “Like father like son.” It looks like the royal seat was not the only thing passed down the bloodline!

In conclusion to whether or not Satan is being called the king of Tyrus in this passage of Scripture, we find that he is not. However, we do find that Satan is the one being described here through symbolism. That being said, we can finally take a look at the main focus of this essay, the description of Satan displayed here in these verses.

(Ezekiel 28:13-15) You have been in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of your tabrets and of your pipes was prepared in you in the day that you were created. (14) You are the anointed cherub that covers; and I have set you so: you were upon the holy mountain of God; you have walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (15) You were upright in thy ways from the day that thou were created, until iniquity was found in you. I believe little needs to be said about the very first part of verse one. By now it should be common knowledge that Satan has been in the Eden. That being pushed aside, I would like to focus on the next part, “every precious stone was your covering.” It then goes on to list all of the precious stones that were placed in his breastplate at his creation.

The interesting part comes from a study of the Levitical Priesthood. In Exodus we find these same precious stones being listed in the description of the High Priest’s breastplate, that is, all but three. We know that the Levitical High Priests were pictures of that in heaven, and we can conclude that Lucifer was a High Priest in heaven because he had the breastplate himself. So why does the breastplate of Lucifer lack three of the precious stones? I believe a study of the precious stones and what they represent will help to shed some light here.

There are twelve precious stones that were to be used in the making of the ephod of a high priest of Israel; the sardius, topaz, carbuncle, Emerald, sapphire, diamond, ligure, agate, amethyst, beryl, onyx, and jasper. They were to be set in four rows of three and are listed in the same order I have listed them above. (Exodus 28:17-21) And you will set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row.  (18)  And the second row will be an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond.  (19)  And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst.  (20)  And the fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and jasper: they will be set in gold in their inclosing.  (21)  And the stones will be with the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name will they be, according to the twelve tribes. Unfortunately, it never says which tribe is represented by what stone. It does however claim that the tribes be listed in order of their birth upon the two stones that would be placed on the shoulders of his ephod. (Exodus 28:9-10) And you will take two onyx stones, and grave on them the names of the children of Israel: (10) six of their names on one stone, and the other six names of the rest on the other stone, according to their birth. Because this is the only reference to the order of the tribes of Israel, I believe it is safe to say that this order was used in kind with the twelve precious stones.

When we trace the order of birth of the twelve tribes of Israel (the twelve sons of Jacob) we find that they are listed, in order, as follows: Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin (Genesis 29:32-30:24; 35:18).  This will be important because we need to know what tribe is represented what precious stone in just a little while. Following the birth order of the tribes, and coupling them with the correct corresponding stones, we now know what tribe is represented on each precious stone. The following is a list of each tribe’s stone. We have: the sardius representing Ruben, the topaz representing Simeon, the carbuncle representing Levi, the emerald representing Judah, the sapphire representing Dan, the diamond representing Naphtali, the ligure representing Gad, the agate representing Asher, the amethyst representing Issachar, the Beryl representing Zebulun, the onyx representing Joseph, and the jasper representing Benjamin.

So far this has been an interesting study of the Jew’s high priest and his precious stones, but what does all of this have to do with Lucifer? I am getting to that right now. If we turn back to Ezekiel chapter twenty-eight and verse thirteen, we will find that there were only nine precious stones given to Lucifer; the sardius, the topaz, the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle. So where are the other three stones? Why did Lucifer not possess the ligure, agate, or amethyst? The whole third row of precious stones is missing, and with it, the three tribes of Israel its stones represent: Gad, Asher, and Issachar. For the reason they are missing, we have to venture into yet another passage of Scripture.

Though having the stones made Lucifer a High Priest of God, He wasn’t the High Priest of God. That title was to be saved for Jesus Christ. We all know that Lucifer was cast from heaven because of pride, because he claimed that he would be like the Most-High, but could it be possible that it was for that reason God did not give him three of the twelve stones? Let us look at what each missing stone represented, and maybe we can see why they were missing.

The first stone/tribe that is missing is the stone of Gad. A description of Gad can be found in Genesis chapter forty-nine. (Genesis 49:19) Gad, a troop shall overcome him: but he shall overcome at the last. It sounds like this is also a description of Jesus Christ! Could it be possible that God knew that Lucifer wanted to be like the Most-High and put limitations on his priesthood? Let us look further.

The second stone/tribe that is missing is the stone of Asher. Now let us look at his description. (Genesis 49:20) Out of Asher his bread shall be fat, and he will yield royal dainties. Again this is a description pointing only toward Jesus Christ, for who else gives the Bread of Life besides Jesus? Now let us look at the last stone.

The third and last stone/tribe that is missing is the stone of Issachar, whose description will, without a doubt, also reflect Christ. (Genesis 49:14-15) Issachar is a strong ass couching down between two burdens: (15) and he saw that rest was good and the land that it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant unto tribute. I believe that this one is the most plain to see. Lucifer has never carried two burdens, and he definitely did not willingly “bow his shoulder to bear” and become a “servant unto tribute.”

God, in His omniscience, purposefully restricted the priesthood of Lucifer, knowing that Lucifer would desire to become like the Most-High. Praise God! I serve He who is all-present, all-powerful, and all-knowing. Amen.

“The Mysterious Melchizedek”

There have been many theories as to who the mysterious King who met Abram was. This King, Melchizedek by name, is only mentioned three times in the Bible: once in the first book of the Pentateuch, or Hebrew Torah (Genesis 14:18-20); once in the Psalms (Psalm 110:4); and once in the book of Hebrews (Hebrews 7:1-22). Though the writing in the epistle to the Hebrews expounds greater understanding than those in the Old Testament Scriptures, it is from the Old Testament Scriptures that the author of Hebrews derives the origin of Jesus Christ’s Priesthood.

As did the author of Hebrews, we must first begin with the origin of Melchizedek. (Genesis 14:18-20)  And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most-high God.  (19)  And he (Melchizedek) blessed him (Abram), and said, Blessed be Abram of the most-high God, possessor of heaven and earth:  (20) and blessed be the most-high God, which has delivered your enemies into your hand. And he (Abram) gave him (Melchizedek) tithes of all. I must point out two things here: one being the translation of the name Melchizedek (also found in Hebrews), and the other being the translation of the Hebrew word “ko-hane’,” which is translated as “priest” in verse eighteen.

Melchizedek is derived from two Hebrew words: the first being “meh’-lek,” meaning “king;” and the second being “tseh’-dek,” meaning “righteousness.” Therefore, we see that Melchizedek is translated as “King of Righteousness.” The author of Hebrews even goes on further to include that since Melchizedek was the king of Salem, Salem being interpreted as “peace” in Hebrew. This makes Melchizedek “King of Righteousness,” and “King of Peace.” (Hebrews 7:1-2)  For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most-high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;  (2)  To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace.

Going back to Genesis, we get another clue as to who Melchizedek was. (Genesis 14:18)  And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most-high God. The clue is not in the fact that he was the priest of the most-high God; it is in the translation of the Hebrew word “kôhên” (ko-hane’). “Kôhên” does mean “priest,” but the complete meaning is lost in the translation. To one fluent in the Hebrew language, “kôhên” would mean: a priest or acting priest (although a layman). When we get the whole picture, it seems that Melchizedek is Jesus Christ manifest in the Old Testament. And it is this conclusion that many theologians and scholars have come too; however, there are three problems with this conclusion.

The first two arise when reading Hebrews chapter seven and verse three. (Hebrews 7:3)  Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abides a priest continually.  The first part of this verse, “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life,” cannot be referring to Jesus. There is only one who qualifies for this description, and that is God the Father. God the Son (though still God), has a lineage through both Joseph, his adoptive father, and Mary, his earthly mother. Besides that, the second problem comes just after this description.

The last part of verse three, “but made like unto the Son of God,” clearly states that Melchizedek was not Jesus Christ, but made like unto the Son of God. The Greek word “aphomoioō” (af-om-oy-o’-o), which means: to assimilate closely, is used here. It is from this assimilation that some theologians derive the conclusion that this means that Melchizedek was just a man (though mysterious in origin) who is a picture, or “type” of Christ. This perhaps makes more sense, but there is one problem with this conclusion.

If Melchizedek was “human,” he would not have been given the title of “King of Righteousness” or “King of Peace.” No human (including Jesus) has ever lived without some sort of violence and bloodshed. No human (other than Jesus) would be worthy of Abram’s tithe of ten percent of all he had. The author of Hebrews also states this. The author even goes as far as saying that because Abram is the ancestor of the Levites, they too paid tithe to Melchizedek in Abram; being yet in his loins. (Hebrews 7:9-10)  And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham.  (10)  For he (the Levitical priesthood) was yet in the loins of his father (Abram), when Melchizedek met him.

Now, in light of this, we come to the last problemof the first conclusion. If Jesus was Melchizedek, why does he not carry the same title as Melchizedek? Nowhere do I find Jesus called the “King of Peace.” Out of all the titles given Jesus Christ (and there are a lot) “King of Peace” is not among them; however, I find it interesting that Jesus, being called the Son of God, and being “after the order of Melchizedek,” is given the title of “Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)  For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, and The Prince of Peace.

Therefore, it is my conclusion that Melchizedek is none other than God the Father manifest in assimilation to Jesus Christ. Who else fits the description of Hebrews chapter seven and verse three; who else can be of a greater priesthood than the Levites; and what other king can bestow upon Jesus Christ the title of “Prince?” What a great joy it must have been for Abram to see God the Father, and to pay his tithe directly to God himself!

I thank God that we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities (Hebrews 4:15), and I thank God that our high priest (Jesus Christ) is after the order of Melchizedek! (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7:17) May God bless all who read this. Amen.

“Taking God’s Name in Vain”

 Perhaps I should open with the verse that is so familiar with the title above. It is known as the third commandment, part of the Mosaic Law. It can be found in the second book of the Pentateuch, Exodus.

(Exodus 20:7) You must not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain. Most Christians teach that this verse forbids us from using the name of God as profanity. Although this is true, I would also like to look at a deeper meaning behind this commandment. To do so requires us to look at the definition of the word “vain.” I believe that we can agree that the definition of “vain” is as follows: to do something without success, or to reverence something without respect or honor.

 The definition I would like to look at in this article is the former, “to do something without success.” Too often we, as believers, overlook that meaning of the word “vain!” Oh, we are careful not to use it profanely; but, how often, dear believer, do you walk by people and say nothing? How often do you go to church to worship Jesus and then leave and not say a word to anyone outside of church? We take the name of God as “Christians;” and yet, we fail the third commandment by not sharing the gospel of Christ with the lost. We continue to “take His name” without success. Remember, “The LORD will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain!”

 Too often I hear believers complaining that America is an un-Godly country. Why is that? Could it be that we, the believers, have taken the Lord’s name in vain? How are the people of America supposed to know how to live, when they are without Christ? We complain, yet we tell no one who God is. We have the Holy Spirit and they do not. The Holy Spirit isn’t some force that goes around and changes peoples’ lives on its own. Do we not know that The Spirit lives in us? How is He supposed to reach non-believers if we, the bearers of The Holy Ghost, do not carry Him to them? We are the salt of the earth for a reason!

(Matthew 5:13) You are the salt of the earth: but if the salt becomes insipid, how much will it salt? After that, it is good for nothing except to be thrown out and be rejected among men. Here, we see the result of taking the Lord’s name in vain. If we take His name in vain, we become insipid, that is, we lose our savor. After we lose our savor, we become good for nothing and will be rejected among men. I dare ask, “Why does America reject Christians so much?” Could it be that we have become insipid, that we have lost our savor? Why is it that believers in America are rejected among their people while believers in other countries are not so much rejected as persecuted? Could it be that they have not taken God’s name in vain, and have not lost their savor? Do you see the difference? Rejection happens when we have lost our savor; persecution happens when we are close to God. How many people do you offend by living in Christ?  If we, as believers, can live in harmony with the rest of the world around us, we have taken the Lord’s name in vain, and have lost our savor.

(Amos 3:3) Can two walk together, unless they are agreed? This is a simple question. Let me ask a similar one. Can we live beside non-believers without them being offended, unless they see us like they are themselves? Often we see that the closer a person gets to God; the more people they offend. And I dare say, most of the time without opening their mouth. The fact is, unless people see us on the same level as themselves, they are not comfortable around us. Persecution happens because Christians become so close to God that those around them can no longer stand it. And it does not only happen with unbelievers. When a brother in Christ, who is close to God, walks into a church full of those who are not; the church then becomes uncomfortable. At this point one of two things will happen. Either the church will become offended to the point of running the brother out, or the church will be moved to walk in agreement with the brother and a revival will be brought among its people.

          In America today, we find churches constantly losing pastors, and churches closing their doors. Perhaps those pastors were “too close” to God and were forced out. Perhaps church doors keep closing because the people within them have lost their savor and are now good for nothing.

Pastors, do you hear everyone complimenting you on your sermon every Sunday, or murmuring about your sermon every Sunday? If I was a pastor and heard compliments every Sunday, I would check my heart. There are two reasons that this would happen every week. Either you are getting closer to God through your studies and your congregation is as well, or you have become complacent and your preaching doesn’t move the congregation to become closer to God. On the same note, I would also check my heart if I heard murmuring about the message every week. There are also two reasons for such murmurings. Either you are getting closer to God through your studies every week and it touches their hearts, or your doctrine is wrong. I dare say that it is the former most of the time.

One last thing has come to mind. I have heard this question asked of many believers, “If someone held a gun to your head and told you to “Denounce Christ or die,” would you do it?” Most of the time, the answers I have heard have been “I don’t know.” I answer with this: when I am finally living my life so close to God that it brings someone to pull a gun and demand such as that, I will have no problem with them pulling the trigger.

Dear teachers, pastors, and fellow laborers. Let us not take the name of the Lord without success, but let us take it to those who do not believe so that it may succeed. Let us not become insipid, but let us keep our savor. Let us not live in agreement with those around us, but let us become closer to God that we might offend them by having God’s grace shine through us! And when it comes to rejection and persecution, let us be persecuted! At least then we will know that we have not become worthless!!!

“And They Call Themselves Christians…”

How many of us have heard the above statement from non-believers before? I know that I have on many occasions. I was interested in the name Christian and what it means so I did some historical research on the name “Christian.” It turns out that “Christian” means Christ-like. Surprising huh? I bet none of you knew that one! Actually, the surprising part wasn’t what it means, but how the name was originated.

First, let me say that the name “Christian” is not found in the Bible. It was a name given, in jest, to the apostles and members of the church because they acted so much like Christ. I also found that the name was bestowed upon them by non-believers. That’s right, they acted so much like Christ that non-believers named them as such! I think that this makes a great statement.

How many of us, myself included, have called ourselves Christians? How many of us, myself included, have heard non-believers call us “Christians” because we act like Christ, and not because our actions make a mockery of that name? In all honesty, every time we call ourselves Christians, we are naming ourselves as “Christ like” which is self-righteous. If non-believers cannot call us Christians without mocking the name, then we are not Christians at all!

It is non-believers who must bestow upon us the name “Christians” because we live our lives in parallel with Christ. I am but a laborer in Christ, and I am not worthy to be called a Christian until non-believers around me call me as such; not because my actions mock Christ, but because my actions are truly Chirst-like.

“Introduction”

Wasn't Jonah in the fish? So why do I see Jesus in there all the time?

     I would like to start by explaining that I am a believer in the one true God; and, through much study, I have learned so many truths about His character. I believe that He has called me to be a preacher so that I might be able to teach and share those Truths to others. I pray that you will receive many blessings from the blogs that will follow; and, through the teaching of the Holy Spirit, I pray that you will be willing to accept the Truth that He has taught me. I feel that it will surprise most that the Truth is not what is being taught in most orthodox, evangelical churches today. So many doctrines have been privily impregnated with humanism that I have been compelled to expose them for what they are, apostate teachings. I pray that you will not only learn from these blogs, but that you will also enjoy them as well. God bless everyone.