BeachCast.TV: Bible Exploration, Apologetics and Church History with Dr. Chase A. Thompson:

Today we discuss when it is proper and biblical to celebrate and when it is right to mourn and grieve. Was Jesus dour or joyful? Should Christians be always happy or always sober-minded and serious?

Today's Bible reading is Genesis 18, Nehemiah 7, Matthew 17 and Acts 17. Once again, we are faced with several thick and significant scriptural passages: Genesis 18 features three 'men' visiting Abraham and Sarah, one of whom is God Himself. It also features an incredible intercessory conversation between God and Abraham about the fate of Sodom. In Matthew 17, we see The Transfiguration of Jesus and His meeting with Moses and Elijah high atop a mountain. And in Nehemiah, well - we have an incredibly long list of Hebrew names, and I'm sure I'll butcher several of them, but especially Nephishesim and Pochereth-hazzebaim. Our featured chapter today is going to be Acts 17, because it is strongly focused on the resurrection, and I think the resurrection is the central event of our faith, and there's literally nothing I enjoy more than talking about the resurrection and rational reasons to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a literal, historical event. If that interests you too, then you might check out my book, Easter Fact or Fiction: 20 Reasons to Believe that Jesus Factually Rose from the Dead. (CLICK HERE) And yes, this podcast is absolutely my secret method for becoming the next Bill Gates 99 cents at a time by luring you into buying my books on Amazon!

Great passage, Acts 17 - so many wonderful episodes here. I would be remiss not to mention the Bereans, who eagerly received God's Word through Paul AND searched the Word of God to confirm the teachings of Paul. For this response, Paul commends them as 'of more noble character" than the Thessalonians. Many online ministries, often called 'discernment ministries,' have sought to emulate these Noble Bereans by evaluating the teaching of many Bible teachers, and judging whether or not that teaching lines up with the Bible. That's great, to a degree. As a pastor, I want the people in our church to search the Scriptures, know the Scriptures, follow the Scriptures, and measure my teaching against the Scriptures.

Discernment is wonderful and biblical. But - the Bereans EAGERLY heard the Word. They did not have the posture of professional critics. They weren't hanging on Paul's words to judge them and then go and post on their blog all the errors they perceived. They eagerly listened and then confirmed the truth of Paul's preaching with the Word. Not as professional critics, but as eager listeners who valued the Word of God. The Body of Christ does not need people who's sole purpose is to attack and tear down other ministries. People who spend all their time criticizing may not realize it, but they will slowly become monsters worse than those they criticize. When you set yourself up as the judge and arbiter of all that is biblically orthodox, you are assuming a position for yourself that is not really available in Christianity. So - yes! Call people passionately to biblical truth, but take care that you do not yourself violate God's commands on HOW to do so, and take care that you do not become a professional or hobbyist criticizer. Rather, be an encourager and an exhorter. The world is already overpopulated with critics. We need faithful biblical truth holders who walk in uncompromising doctrinal truth AND uncompromising humility and gentle love. /Soap box

In Acts 17, we see Paul bring up the resurrection of Jesus 3 times in three different circumstances: To the people of Thessalonica, the to the men of Athens, and during his message at the Aeropagus. In all three instances, we see how crucial and central the message of the resurrection is:

2 As usual, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and rise from the dead: "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah.

Acts 17:2-3

17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with those who worshiped God, as well as in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. 18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also debated with him. Some said, "What is this ignorant show-off trying to say?" Others replied, "He seems to be a preacher of foreign deities"—because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.

Acts 17:17-18

29 Since we are God's offspring then, we shouldn't think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image fashioned by human art and imagination. 30 "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has set a day when he is going to judge the world in righteousness by the man he has appointed. He has provided proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead."

Acts 17:29-31

Very little of what Paul proclaims is mentioned, but in every case, he keeps pointing back to this one central and massive truth: Jesus Christ died and was raised from the dead. This is the very center of the Christian faith - the central truth and the primary claim that everything else radiates out from. In 1 Corinthians 15 (THE resurrection chapter) we see that the entirety of Christianity falls down without the resurrection:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, "There is no resurrection of the dead"? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is in vain, and so is your faith. 15 Moreover, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified wrongly about God that he raised up Christ—whom he did not raise up, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Those, then, who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. 19 If we have put our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19

Did you catch that? If Christians are just following Jesus because He offers comfort, or because He is a good moral teacher, or something like that, then they are to be pitied more than anyone. There are many churches and denominations in the world that have drifted so far from the Bible that they have essentially humanized Jesus. Despite the fact that the message from the earliest days of the first century Christian church has been Christ crucified and raised from the dead, some church going people think that the miracles in the Bible are myths, legends, and exaggerations. They teach that the real miracle of the Feeding of the Five Thousand was that Jesus taught people to share. They teach that Jesus didn't walk on water, but that he walked on a shallow, slightly underwater shoal. They teach that Jesus didn't truly rise from the dead, but that He somehow lives on in the hearts and memories of His followers, with His natural body dying and decaying. Hogwash, all of that! Paul says that this type of attitude - a resurrectionless Christianity - is the most pitiful thing in the entire world, and I couldn't agree more! Over and over again in Acts, we have seen the earliest apostles and teachers proclaim this one primary truth: Jesus rose from the dead. Christian - let that be the center of your proclamation of the good news as well. In this is hope, in this is truth, in this is the good news to a lost and dying world!

This Jesus of Nazareth was a man attested to you by God with miracles, wonders, and signs that God did among you through him, just as you yourselves know. 23 Though he was delivered up according to God's determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail him to a cross and kill him. 24 God raised him up, ending the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by death.

Acts 17:22-24

Top Twenty Quotes on the Resurrection of Jesus (From Spiritual Giants like Spurgeon, Lewis and more!) In no particular order...

The New Testament writers speak as if Christ's achievement in rising from the dead was the first event of its kind in the whole history of the universe. He is the 'first fruits', the 'pioneer of life'. He has forced open a door that has been locked since the death of the first man. He has met, fought, and beaten the King of Death. Everything is different because He has done so. This is the beginning of the New Creation: a new chapter in cosmic history has opened.

C. S. Lewis, A Year with C. S. Lewis: Daily Readings from His Classic Works, ed. Patricia S. Klein, 1st ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2003), 172.

He died, but he vanquished death; in himself he put an end to what we feared; he took it upon himself and he vanquished it, as a mighty hunter he captured and slew the lion. Where is death? Seek it in Christ, for it exists no longer; but it did exist and now it is dead. O life, O death of death! Be of good heart; it will die in us, also. What has taken place in our head will take place in his members; death will die in us also. But when? At the end of the world, at the resurrection of the dead in which we believe and concerning which we do not doubt.

Augustine - 300s-400s AD: Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 244–245.

The whole system of Christianity rests upon the fact that "Christ is risen from the dead;" for, "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain: ye are yet in your sins." The divinity of Christ finds its surest proof in his resurrection, since he was "Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." It would not be unreasonable to doubt his Deity if he had not risen. Moreover, Christ's sovereignty depends upon his resurrection, "For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living." Again, our justification, that choice blessing of the covenant, is linked with Christ's triumphant victory over death and the grave; for "He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." Nay, more, our very regeneration is connected with his resurrection, for we are "Begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." And most certainly our ultimate resurrection rests here, for, "If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." If Christ be not risen, then shall we not rise; but if he be risen then they who are asleep in Christ have not perished, but in their flesh shall surely behold their God. Thus, the silver thread of resurrection runs through all the believer's blessings, from his regeneration onwards to his eternal glory, and binds them together.

C. H. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening: Daily Readings (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1896).

And if death was formerly strong, and on that account an object of terror, but now after the sojourn of the Saviour, and the death and resurrection of His body, it is evident that it is by the very Christ who ascended the cross that death has been brought to naught and vanquished.

Athanasius of Alexandria, Athanasius: On the Incarnation of the Word of God, trans. T. Herbert Bindley, Second Edition Revised. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1903), 95.

I want you to notice that this evidence was all the better, because they themselves evidently remained the same men as they had been. "They were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit"; and thus they did exactly what they had done long before when he came to them walking on the waters. In the interval between his death and his appearing, no change has come over them. Nothing has happened to them to elevate them as yet out of their littleness of mind. The Holy Spirit was not yet given, and therefore all that they had heard at the Last Supper, and seen in Gethsemane, and at the cross had not yet exercised its full influence upon them: they were still childish and unbelieving. The same men, then, are looking at the same person, and they are in their ordinary condition; this argues strongly for the correctness of their identification of their well-beloved Lord. They are not carried away by enthusiasm, nor wafted aloft by fanaticism; they are not even as yet upborne by the Holy Spirit into an unusual state of mind, but they are as slow of heart and as fearful as ever they were. If they are convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead, depend upon it, it must be so. If they go forth to tell the tidings of his resurrection, and to yield up their lives for it, you may be sure that their witness is true, for they are not the sort of men to be deceived

C. H. Spurgeon, "The First Appearance of the Risen Lord to the Eleven," in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 33 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1887), 220.

Now Paul is laying a foundation here that, if we're not careful, can seem pretty elementary to us. Okay, Jesus rose from the dead, and we can almost read these verses with a ho-hum sense of monotony, thinking, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, I know that." But think about that. Because there's nothing ho-hum about that. We're talking about a man who died, who died a violent death, the most violent death conceivable in that day. And then, after three days dead, He came to life and appeared to people. Can you imagine going to somebody's funeral, going to their burial, seeing their dead body placed in the ground. And then a week later that person physically walking up to you and saying, "Hello." That's crazy! It's crazy good; it's the greatest news in all the world: Death has been defeated! May this never be ho-hum for us. May we never forget that the reason we gather together every Sunday is not to hear this pastor or that pastor preach. The reason we gather together every Sunday is because for the last 2000 years, Christians have come together on the first day of the week to remember that Jesus has risen from the dead, and He is alive!

David Platt, "The Church at Brook Hills—Part 2," in David Platt Sermon Archive (Birmingham, AL: David Platt, 2014), 4522–4523.

He has changed sunset into sunrise, and through the cross brought death to life; and having wrenched man from destruction, He has raised him to the skies, transplanting mortality into immortality, and translating earth to heaven.

Clement of Alexandria 100s-200s AD: Elliot Ritzema, 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Early Church, Pastorum Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013).

Wherefore he is also said to be "firstborn from the dead," not because he died before us, since we died first, but because he suffered death for us and abolished it, and therefore, as man, was the first to rise, raising his own body for our sakes. Therefore, since he has risen, we too shall rise from the dead from him and through him.

Athanasius 200s-300s AD: William C. Weinrich, ed., Revelation, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 5.

Actually he conquered death by his resurrection. This was the day of grace's triumph: this day he showed to heaven, to hell, and to earth, that death was conquerable; yea, that this personal death was actually overcome. The blessed souls beheld it to their joy, beholding in the resurrection of their Head, a virtual resurrection of their own bodies. The devils saw it, and therefore saw that they had no hopes of holding the bodies of the saints in the power of the grave. The damned souls were acquainted with it, and therefore knew that their sinful bodies must be restored to bear their part in suffering. The believing saints on earth perceive it, and therefore see that their bonds are broken, and that to the righteous there is hope in death; and that our head being actually risen, assureth us that we shall also rise. "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him:" (1 Thess. 4:14:) and as "Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over him;" (Rom. 6:9;) so shall we rise and die no more. This was the beginning of the church's triumph. "This is the day that the Lord hath made, (even the day which the church on earth must celebrate with joy and praise, till the day of our resurrection;) we will rejoice and be glad in it." (Psalm 118:24.) The resurrection of our Lord hath, 1st, assured us of the consummation of his satisfaction; 2d, of the truth of all his word, and so of his promises of our resurrection; 3d, that death is actually conquered, and a resurrection possible; 4th, that believers shall certainly rise when their head and Saviour is risen to prepare them an everlasting kingdom, and to assure them that thus he will raise them at the last. A bare promise would not have been so strong a help to faith, as to the actual rising of Christ, as a pledge of the performance. "But now Christ is risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept:" (1 Cor. 15:20:) "for because he liveth, we shall live also." (John 14:19.)

Richard Baxter and William Orme, The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, vol. 17 (London: James Duncan, 1830), 538–539.

We are more than conquerors over death through Christ. God gives us the victory over death. But more than victory. Death is defeated by Jesus. He is bound in the chains of resurrection power so that he cannot destroy us. But more than that. More than that! Death is handed over, bound and defeated, as a servant to the church. We are more than conquerors because death is not just defeated and kept from destroying us; it is enslaved and made the servant of God's people... So death is your servant. The enemy is defeated, bound, enslaved, and delivered into the service of the saints.So it was not naïve romanticizing when Zeke Rudolf called death sweet names. It was not immature glamorizing or embellishing of death when Andrew Rivet said that he had learned more truth about God during ten days in the valley of death than in fifty years of study. Defeated death had become their servant. The terrible enemy had become the tutor of heaven. So it is with the enemies of God. Even in their destruction they are made to serve the saints.

John Piper, Sermons from John Piper (1990–1999) (Minneapolis, MN: Desiring God, 2007).

Everywhere deceit recoils upon itself and against its will supports the truth. Observe: It was necessary to believe that he died, and that he rose again, and that he was buried and that all these things were brought to pass by his enemies. Note, at any rate, these words bearing witness to every one of these facts. "We remember that that deceiver said, when he was yet alive" (he was therefore now dead), " 'After three days I rise again.' Command therefore that the sepulcher be sealed" (he was therefore buried), "lest his disciples come and steal him away." Since the sepulcher was sealed, there could be no funny business. So then the proof of his resurrection has become incontrovertible by what they themselves have put forward. For because the tomb was sealed, there was no deceitfulness at work. But if there was no sleight of hand and the sepulcher was found empty, it is clear that he has risen, plainly and incontrovertibly. Do you see how even against their will his enemies contend for the proof of the truth?

John Chrysostom 300-400s AD Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 301.

It would not have sufficed for the chief priests, scribes and Pharisees to have crucified the Lord our Savior if they had not also guarded the tomb, called in the military, sealed the entrance and, as far as they were able, resisted the resurrection. Their concern for these details serves only to advance our faith; the greater their precautionary care, the more fully is revealed the power of the resurrection. Thus he was buried in a new tomb cut from rock. If the tomb had been constructed from a mound of stones, it could have been said that his body was excavated from underneath the stones and secretly removed. That he had to be buried in a sepulcher is also shown by the prophecy which says, "He will dwell in a deep cave cut from the strongest rock," and again, two verses further: "You will see the king in his glory.

Jerome 300s-400s AD: Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 302.

So the angel became an evangelist and herald of the resurrection to the women. "Do not seek," he says, "the one who" always "lives," who in his own nature is life, "among the dead. He is not here," that is, dead and in the tomb, "but he has been raised." He has become a way of ascent to immortality not only for himself but also for us. For this reason he made himself nothing and put on our likeness, that "by the grace of God," just as the blessed Paul says, "he might taste death on behalf of all."23 And so he has become the death of death

Cyril of Alexandria, 300s-400s AD: Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 307.

"Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him." The angel here is preparing the women to take the good news to the other disciples. They are to tell of the evidence that made them believe—the empty tomb. Furthermore, "he is going before you to Galilee." He says this to relieve them from anxieties and the fear of danger, that their faith not be hindered

John Chrysostom 300-400s AD Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 308.

"CAN these dry bones live?" is still the unbeliever's sneer. The doctrine of the resurrection is a lamp kindled by the hand which once was pierced. It is indeed in some respects the key-stone of the Christian arch. It is linked in our holy faith with the person of Jesus Christ, and is one of the brightest gems in his crown. What if I call it the signet on his finger, the seal by which he hath proven to a demonstration, that he hath the king's authority, and hath come forth from God?

C. H. Spurgeon, Flashes of Thought (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1874), 360.

It is by the power of the resurrection of Christ that Thomas, who was so deep and obdurate in unbelief, was so suddenly changed, became an entirely different man, who publicly and freely confesses that he not only believes that Christ is risen, but is also enlightened by the power of Christ's resurrection so that he firmly believes and confesses that he, his Lord, is the true God and man; so he will also arise from the dead on the judgment day and live forever with him in indescribable glory and blessedness.

Martin Luther and John Sander, Devotional Readings from Luther's Works for Every Day of the Year (Rock Island, IL: Augustana Book Concern, 1915), 261.

It's one thing to "believe that" Jesus rose from the dead and is who He said He was, but it's another to "believe in" Him as Savior. Every one of us, at some point in our investigation of the claims of Christianity, has to move from "belief that" to "belief in." I can remember when this happened for me. As a rebellious, self-reliant detective, I initially denied my need for a Savior, even though I accepted what the Gospels told me about that Savior. In order to take a step from "belief that" to "belief in," I needed to move from an examination of Jesus to an examination of me. As I read the Gospels for a second and third time and explored all of the New Testament Scripture, I began to focus more on what it said about me than what it said about Jesus. I didn't like what I saw. Over and over again, I recognized the truth about my own character, behavior, and need for forgiveness; I began to understand my need for repentance. The facts about Jesus confirmed that He was the Savior; the facts about me confirmed my need to trust in Him for forgiveness. I was now ready to move from "belief that" to "belief in."

Alive by J. Warner Wallace, 2014

Then we come to the strangest story of all, the story of the Resurrection. It is very necessary to get the story clear. I heard a man say, 'The importance of the Resurrection is that it gives evidence of survival, evidence that the human personality survives death.' On that view what happened to Christ would be what had always happened to all men, the difference being that in Christ's case we were privileged to see it happening. This is certainly not what the earliest Christian writers thought. Something perfectly new in the history of the Universe had happened. Christ had defeated death. The door which had always been locked had for the very first time been forced open. This is something quite distinct from mere ghost-survival. I don't mean that they disbelieved in ghost-survival. On the contrary, they believed in it so firmly that, on more than one occasion, Christ had had to assure them that He was not a ghost. The point is that while believing in survival they yet regarded the Resurrection as something totally different and new. The Resurrection narratives are not a picture of survival after death; they record how a totally new mode of being has arisen in the Universe. Something new had appeared in the Universe: as new as the first coming of organic life. This Man, after death, does not get divided into 'ghost' and 'corpse'. A new mode of being has arisen. That is the story. What are we going to make of it?

C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, ed. Walter Hooper (HarperOne, 1994), 169–170.

Great, then, was the mercy of God the Father. He sent the creative Word, who, when he came to save us, put himself in our position, and in the same situation in which we lost life. He loosed the prison bonds, and his light appeared and dispelled the darkness in the prison, and he sanctified our birth and abolished death, loosing those same bonds by which we were held. He showed forth the resurrection, becoming himself the firstborn from the dead, and raised in himself prostrate man, being lifted up to the heights of heaven, at the right hand of the glory of the Father.

Irenaeus 100s-200s AD: William C. Weinrich, ed., Revelation, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 4–5.

Humanity must embrace death freely, submit to it with total humility, drink it to the dregs, and so convert it into that mystical death which is the secret of life. But only a Man who did not need to have been a Man at all unless He had chosen, only one who served in our sad regiment as a volunteer, yet also only one who was perfectly a Man, could perform this perfect dying; and thus (which way you put it is unimportant) either defeat death or redeem it. He tasted death on behalf of all others. He is the representative 'Die-er' of the universe: and for that very reason the Resurrection and the Life. Or conversely, because He truly lives, He truly dies, for that is the very pattern of reality. Because the higher can descend into the lower He who from all eternity has been incessantly plunging Himself in the blessed death of self-surrender to the Father can also most fully descend into the horrible and (for us) involuntary death of the body. Because Vicariousness is the very idiom of the reality He has created, His death can become ours. The whole Miracle, far from denying what we already know of reality, writes the comment which makes that crabbed text plain: or rather, proves itself to be the text on which Nature was only the commentary. In science we have been reading only the notes to a poem; in Christianity we find the poem itself.

C. S. Lewis, A Year with C. S. Lewis: Daily Readings from His Classic Works, ed. Patricia S. Klein, 1st ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2003), 139.

Today we are focused on Acts 17, and we see in that passage that in three different contexts, Paul proclaims that Jesus is risen from the dead. This puts our focus squarely on the resurrection of Jesus, which is the absolute central event in Christianity. We also offer a word of caution to discernment bloggers and discuss the dangers of being a professional or hobbyist critic.

After our question yesterday about the Old Testament and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, a promise was made that we would cover circumcision in a future episode. Well, your long time of waiting has come to an end. Today is the day we tackle the painful issue of circumcision. I'll go ahead and let you know also that this is not the last time we will discuss this issue, as it will come up again and again in both the Old and New Testament. Allow me to begin, and sum up this and every discussion we have about circumcision with a fairly amusing little ditty that you should remember, "Circumcision of the heart is the heart of the matter in circumcision." Shout out to my friend and VBC church member Dan Blair, who has often discoursed with me on the subject of the Covenant with Abram, and on the circumcision of the heart.

One of my favorite Bible preachers in the 90's told the story of Joshua 5 one time in a sermon. If you don't remember what went down in that passage, let me summarize. Joshua and the military men of Israel have crossed over the Jordan River into the Promised land and are preparing to battle many different tribes and nations for that land. Before any blow is delivered, God tells Joshua to circumcise all of the fighting men of Israel. The way this British preacher tells the story is both poignant and humorous, envisioning Joshua's telling of all of the soldiers that they would have to be circumcised, and the groans and questions that must have ensued from those thousands of FULLY GROWN AND DEVELOPED MEN. One bloke in particular asks Joshua, "What does God want with me foreskin?!" Now, I'm quite aware that the Israelites don't have British accents, but every time I think about circumcision, I think of that poor British-Israelite soldier asking that question.

Now, I need to pause and remind you that this episode is slightly P.G. Parental guidance suggested. Mainly because I have to use the 'p' word...but only one time. Some of you don't really know what circumcision is, and therefore the story from Joshua 5 is not all that funny or painful to you. So...what is circumcision, exactly? I'm glad you asked!

Not really, actually. I'm kind of embarrassed to talk about it. But - here it is. I think I'll read a definition from Medicine Net:

Circumcision: Surgery that removes the foreskin (the loose tissue) covering the rounded part at the end of the penis. Circumcision may be performed for religious, cultural or health reasons. Newborn circumcision diminishes the risk for cancer in that area and lowers the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners. It also decreases the risk of urinary tract infections and lowers the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV. The Latin "circum-" means around (or about). Circumcision is, literally, a cutting around. Circumcision dates back to prehistoric times. It is one of the oldest surgical operations known to have been performed by ancient people.

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2739

Now - me reading that might get the anti-circumcision crowd after me. Please don't - Medicinenet may be right or wrong about the benefits of that practice, but that's not what we're talking about today, so if you have a beef with them, take it up with them. :)

Now that we know the 'what' of circumcision, we get to the two most important questions: 1. WHY did God command circumcision, and 2. Should baby boys still be circumcised? Let's start with question #1

WHY in the world did command THIS strange surgery as the SIGN of the covenant? That is a phenomenally good question. Logos scholar Micheal Heiser has the best (and most succinct) answer to this question that I've ever read, so I'm just going to quote him here:

When God told Abraham to be circumcised, he was past the age of bearing children and his wife, Sarah, was incapable of having children (Gen 18:11). Nevertheless, it would be through Sarah's womb (Gen 17:21; 18:14) that God would fulfill his promise of innumerable offspring to Abraham (Gen 12:1–3). God's covenant with Abraham could only be realized by miraculous intervention. The miraculous nature of Isaac's birth is the key to understanding circumcision as the sign of the covenant. After God made His promise to Abraham, every male member of Abraham's household was required to be circumcised (Gen 17:15–27). Every male—and every woman, since the males were all incapacitated for a time—knew that circumcision was connected to God's promise. It probably didn't make any sense, though, until Sarah became pregnant. Everyone in Abraham's household witnessed the miracle of Isaac's birth. From that point on, every male understood why they had been circumcised: Their entire race—their very existence—began with a miraculous act of God. Every woman was reminded of this when she had sexual relations with her Israelite husband and when her sons were circumcised. Circumcision was a visible, continuous reminder that Israel owed its existence to Yahweh, who created them out of nothing.

https://blog.logos.com/2017/03/whats-deal-circumcision-bible/

That's a great answer, and a very clear explanation of the value and necessity of circumcision. It was a sign - not visible to everybody, but visible EVERY time a new Israelite was conceived that it was Yahweh Himself that sustained the Israelite people. Hopefully that clears things up for us, but it doesn't answer our big practical question: Must baby boys and uncircumcised men be circumcised?

Let's start with a key verse from yesterday that helped guide us to the answer of our biggest question yet: Must Christians obey the Old Testament commands? Romans 7:66 But now we have been released from the law, since we have died to what held us, so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old letter of the law.

Clearly, the Old Testament COMMANDED circumcision for the Jews - in no uncertain terms. However, because we are released from the law - according to Romans 7, our big question now is: what does the New Testament say?

Galatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written: Everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law is cursed.

HOW were they trying to pervert the Gospel?

Gal 5:2-12 2 Take note! I, Paul, tell you that if you get yourselves circumcised, Christ will not benefit you at all. 3 Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to keep the entire law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law are alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision accomplishes anything; what matters is faith working through love….12 I wish those who are disturbing you might also get themselves castrated!

Galatians 5:2-12 (selections)

1 Corinthians 7 is even more clear: Let each one live his life in the situation the Lord assigned when God called him. This is what I command in all the churches. 18 Was anyone already circumcised when he was called? He should not undo his circumcision. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? He should not get circumcised. 19 Circumcision does not matter and uncircumcision does not matter. Keeping God's commands is what matters.

1 Corinthians 7:17-19

This question for Paul gets to the very heart of the good news, which explains why he wished that the circumcision-demanding false teachers would go ahead and castrate themselves. Was the Gospel/Good News of Jesus Faith PLUS Works (circumcision is a work!) or was it Faith alone? Is salvation synergistic (our effort PLUS God's effort=salvation) or is it monergistic (God's effort alone = salvation)? And the crystal clear answer in the New Testament, over and over again, is that salvation is by FAITH ALONE, THROUGH GRACE ALONE, and NOT BY WORKS. Salvation is monergistic, not synergistic. It is God who saves, and we who are saved - we do not contribute to our salvation. And thus, circumcision is NOT salvific - it does not help bring about salvation, and neither does any other thing, such as baptism, etc.

Even in the Old Testament, it became clear that the inward reality of the heart would be more important than the outward reality of the sign of circumcision. For instance, we see in Deuteronomy:

14 The heavens, indeed the highest heavens, belong to the Lord your God, as does the earth and everything in it. 15 Yet the Lord had his heart set on your fathers and loved them. He chose their descendants after them—he chose you out of all the peoples, as it is today. 16 Therefore, circumcise your hearts and don't be stiff-necked any longer. 17 For the Lord your God is the God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awe-inspiring God,

Deuteronomy 10:14-17

Paul expands on this powerful idea in the second chapter of Romans (again, shout out to my friend Dan!)

25 Circumcision benefits you if you observe the law, but if you are a lawbreaker, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if an uncircumcised man keeps the law's requirements, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who keeps the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision. 28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, and true circumcision is not something visible in the flesh. 29 On the contrary, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart—by the Spirit, not the letter. That person's praise is not from people but from God.

Romans 2:25-29

Final question: Is it a sin for me to be circumcised, or a sin for us to circumcise our son? And the answer is: Not at all, unless you are relying on circumcision to somehow secure salvation for yourself or your child. In other words, if you believe (for whatever reason) that you or your child should be circumcised, then Romans 14 absolutely gives you the freedom to go in that direction. Make a wise and well informed decision, and don't trust in circumcision to save you - but know that you have liberty in this matter.

A discussion of the origins of circumcision and what circumcision was actually meant to communicate to the Israelite people. Must Christian men and boys still be circumcised? The New Testament clearly says, "no!" Why not, and how did the command get changed? Are Christians still at liberty to have their children circumcised?

There are so many interesting themes in today's four chapters in our daily Bible reading! The way this podcast works, for those that are new, is that I try and choose one big Bible question to discuss for each daily episode, and then one spiritually encouraging passage from a spiritual giant. My own personal goal is to try and make MOST of the shows under 30 minutes, though on deep topics that doesn't always happen. We are 15 episodes into the podcast, and I can tell you honestly that there has never been a day where I have had to really dig deep to find a topic worth talking about. In fact, almost every day, the opposite is true. There are a dozen great things to talk about in each day's reading, and I can only choose one.

Today, more so than almost any day prior to this, we have many great topics and themes to choose from. Should we talk about the rich and powerful abusing the families and poor people in Nehemiah? Should we talk about how honorable Nehemiah was, in that he did not take advantage of all of the luxuries offered to him because he was mindful of the plight of his people? Should we talk about Sarai's shameful mistreatment of her servant Hagar, and how the Angel of the Lord intervened and saved the life of Ishmael, the ancestral father of the Islamic people? (Could this early mistreatment explain some of the enmity between the Jewish and Arabic peoples?!) Should we instead talk about how the Pharisees amplified their own human traditions, and presented them as of more importance than the actual commands of God? (I almost went with this one, because the church today still has this problem in a large measure.)

All of the above would be excellent topics to consider; ultimately, however, I believe the big question we should discuss today is the same one the early church met about during the first churchwide council in Acts 15 - How much of the Old Testament are Gentiles like me and most of you bound to follow?

Before we dive into our main question today, let me say this one MASSIVE caveat: My view on this question could be very wrong. I have been in ministry for well over 25 years. I have been a student of the Bible for a long time. I have wrestled with this particular question for over a decade, and it makes me tremble. I believe that the answer I'm going to give is the proper answer biblically, but there are many, many mighty men of God whom I respect and admire tremendously that do not agree with me. Do NOT take my word on this issue as authoritative. The majority of you listeners don't know me personally, and even if you do - this is a question that you should be wrestling with in the Scripture and in prayer. All that said - and I hope it wasn't virtue signalling, but rather a warning to do your own scriptural due diligence - I believe that Christians are NOT under the Old Testament/Old Covenant commands, but are rather under the New Testament/New Covenant commands. By this I mean that I believe that the council of the apostles in Acts 15 decided this very issue and concluded that all Gentile Christians (followers of Jesus not born into ethnic Israeli families) are under New Testament commands AND the following four commands:

1. Do not consume food that you know was offered to idols before or during its preparation.
2. Do not consume blood.
3. Do not eat anything that was strangled to death
4. Do not engage in sexual immorality as defined in the Bible.

Items 1-3 all seem to be quite connected to separating Christians from the pagan practices of food preparation throughout the Roman empire. Commenting on those passages, Ben Witherington says:

"Also relevant to our discussion is the evidence that the choking of the sacrifice, strangling it, and drinking or tasting of blood transpired in pagan temples. In regard to the former, we have evidence from the magical papyri of the attempt to choke the sacrifice and in essence transfer its life breath or spiritual vitality into the idol, and in regard to the latter R. M. Oglivie points to the practice, mentioned occasionally in the literature, of the priest tasting the blood of the sacrifice. The singular reference to blood at the end of the decree would be superfluous after the reference to abstaining from things strangled or choked if the meaning was to avoid meat with the blood still in it. It is more likely that each item in the decree should be taken separately and all be seen as referring to four different activities that were known or believed to transpire in pagan temples."

Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 464.

So - I believe these commands are still binding on Christians today. We must not knowingly eat food that was prepared according to pagan practices (though see Paul's discussions of this in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians) and we must abstain from sexual immorality. Beyond that, we are no longer under the commands of the Old Testament, but the commands of the New Testament. Does that mean we are free from Ten Commandments? It does not, because 9 of the Ten Commandments are still commanded in the New Testament/Covenant.

I need to stress here that I am not at all what is known as an antinomian. I do believe that Christians are still under God's (New Testament) commands, and we must follow them. I believe that the Old Testament is still the Word of God, and we must NOT seek to be unhitched from it - but New Testament Christians are no longer under law, but under the grace of the New Covenant. Thomas Schreiner captures this quite well in his Gospel Coalition article:

"Saying that the old covenant has passed away doesn't mean the Old Testament is no longer (or somehow less) the Word of God. All of the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, are the final authority as God's infallible and inerrant word. All of the Old Testament has a revelatory and pedagogical authority for believers in Jesus Christ. We must interpret the Old Testament in terms of God's progressive revelation in his covenants in order to discern how to apply it today. New Testament writers don't decide how to apply the Old Testament based on the moral, ceremonial, and civil divisions, where the moral law continues to function as a moral norm. Such categories are actually quite useful, and there is significant truth in such divisions, but the New Testament itself doesn't apply the Old Testament law to believers based on these categories. Doing so can introduce distortions when applying the Old Testament to our lives."

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/old-covenant-response-andy-stanley/

Here are some Scriptures to consider in asking the question: Are we under the Old Testament? Consider these Scriptures, and then go read them in their wider context!

Romans 6:14-15 14 For sin will not rule over you, because you are not under law but under grace….15 What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Absolutely not!

Romans 7:6 6 But now we have been released from the law, since we have died to what held us, so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old letter of the law.

Ephesians 2:15 15 He made of no effect the law consisting of commands and expressed in regulations

Galatians 3: 24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. 25 But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 5: 5 Christ has liberated us to be free. Stand firm then and don't submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Take note! I, Paul, tell you that if you get yourselves circumcised, Christ will not benefit you at all. 3 Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to keep the entire law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law are alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace...vs 18 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

And finally, and perhaps MOST importantly:

Hebrews 7 11 If then, perfection came through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to appear, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of law as well….18 So the previous command is annulled because it was weak and unprofitable 19 (for the law perfected nothing), but a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

We will discuss some other more specific issues - like the Sabbath - at a later date.

Considering the Jerusalem Council in Acts chapter 15: Did they decide that Gentile Christians must obey the New Testament and only four commands from the Old Testament (Eat no blood, or strangled meat, or food sacrificed to idols and do not engage in sexual immorality.) Great quote from Dr. Thomas Schreiner

Today we have a fascinating situation in Genesis 15 whereby God and Abram make a covenant, some deep encouragement from Acts 14, Builders rebuilding the walls in Nehemiah with a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other (shout out to Charles Spurgeon!) and two of Jesus' most well known miracles: the feeding of the five thousand and His walking on water. Our Bible question of the day is: Why does Abram cut animals in half to make a covenant with God?

Genesis 15 is monumental in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. This is the beginning of the story of God's people - the Israelites. It is the beginning of His promise to bless the descendants of Abram and cause them to flourish. No less than three books in the New Testament refer directly back to verse 6, where it says that Abram believed God and it was counted or credited to him as righteousness. This is one of the absolute pillar and foundational verses of New Testament faith. Religion in almost every other sector of the world has always been about earning your way to God. God is on the mountain, so to speak, and religion serves as a series of rules that are designed to please the deity, and elevate our status with whatever god we might be seeking to please. Religion is about DOING ACTIONS. Do these actions and God will be happy with you - Do NOT do these actions, or God will be angry with you. To be clear there are commands and warnings in Christianity too...but the CORE of Christianity is BELIEF not WORKS. Abram believed God, and such a belief was added to his account to make him righteous in the eyes of God. What did Abram do here in this massively important covenant episode? HE FELL ASLEEP! He didn't DO anything - God alone walked through the severed animals, but, even though Abram did no action, it was still credited as righteousness to him, because he had faith in God's promise. Paul discusses this in depth in Romans 4:

What then will we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about—but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness.4 Now to the one who works, pay is not credited as a gift, but as something owed. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes on him who declares the ungodly to be righteous, his faith is credited for righteousness.

Romans 4:1-4

Amazing! Christianity is not about WORKING to make God happy with us, or DOING things to make God save us and give us life eternal in Heaven - it is about BELIEVING what has already been done for us by Jesus. And therefore, Abram/Abraham is our father - not merely because he was in the line and genealogy of Jesus, but primarily because he was apparently the FIRST to explicitly believe God in a way that it was credited to him as righteousness. Paul continues:

19 He (Abraham) did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body to be already dead (since he was about a hundred years old) and also the deadness of Sarah's womb. 20 He did not waver in unbelief at God's promise but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 because he was fully convinced that what God had promised, he was also able to do. 22 Therefore, it was credited to him for righteousness.23 Now it was credited to him was not written for Abraham alone, 24 but also for us. It will be credited to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Romans 4:19-25

This here, my friends, is the absolute CORE of the Christian faith - Heaven is for perfect people with absolutely impeccable righteousness. All humans have sinned, somehow, some way, and have therefore fallen short of being able to get into Heaven on our own merits. BUT, thanks be to God, if we believe in God and His resurrection of Jesus - that He was crucified for our sins and raised to make us right with God - then we will have that perfect righteousness credited to our account - by faith - that opens the doors to Heaven and eternal life. That is the core of Christianity. It is not what you DO to be saved, but your faith in what Jesus has done for you!

So, Abram believed God's promise, and then God went a step further, and made a covenant - as solemn a promise as there can be - with Abram. The way this is done is fascinating - Animals are cut in two and Abram waits for God, falling into a deep sleep. Suddenly, God Himself comes down (in some sort of terrifying darkness) and walks between the cut part of the animals while Abram sleeps. What is this all about?

Before we offer an answer, I want to encourage you to picture this incredible scene in your minds: God comes to Abram and makes a promise to him. We must keep in mind here that Abram did NOT come from a family of Yahweh (the God of Israel and the Bible) followers. He came from a family of polytheists who worshiped many gods! (see Joshua 24:2, "Joshua said to all the people, "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'Long ago your ancestors, including Terah, the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods. ") So, much of this would be new to Abram, but Abram believes God. And, still believing God, he asks for some kind of sign or assurance that God would keep His Word, and this is when God calls Abram to gather some animals and cut them in half. Abram does this, leaving a path through the carcasses of the animals, and he waits. And waits. And waits. Eventually some buzzards, or other similar birds, come by and tries to eat animal carcasses, but Abram drives them away. And he waits, and waits, and waits - until after the sunset, Abram falls into a deep sleep...and then - God comes down. What a mysterious way He comes down - "suddenly great terror and darkness descended on him. "! Then God, represented by a torch and smoking fire-pot, walks through the animals carcasses to seal the deal, so to speak. What a strange ritual! Fortunately, Jeremiah 34 gives us quite an important clue as to what is going on here in this ancient practice:

"As for those who disobeyed my covenant, not keeping the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat them like the calf they cut in two in order to pass between its pieces."

Jeremiah 34:18

As mentioned above - a covenant is a big, big, big deal. Some churches have membership covenants, and, as a pastor, I am honestly scared to do that - because a covenant goes far beyond a mere promise, as this incidence shows. In ancient times, when the two participants in a covenant slaughtered animals and walked between them, the meaning was clear and literally visceral: If I break this covenant - or you do - may we become as this dead, slaughtered animal. A covenant is quite literally a life or death matter. And I note here again, that only God walked through the animal parts - a declaration, of sorts, that God would keep His end of the covenant no matter what Abram's descendants did. And God has done so - He has kept and maintained His covenant with Abram. Perhaps you've heard the phrase "to cut a deal?" I believe that phrase has its origin in this ancient practice. I'm glad we don't cut deals this way anymore!

One more bit of encouragement: This is Charles Spurgeon, commenting on Acts 14:22, "We must go through many trials to enter the Kingdom of God"

"Perseverance is the badge of true saints. The Christian life is not a beginning only in the ways of God, but also a continuance in the same as long as life lasts.... He only is a true conqueror, and shall be crowned at the last, who continues until war's trumpet is blown no more. Perseverance is, therefore, the target of all our spiritual enemies. The world does not object to your being a Christian for a time, if she can but tempt you to cease your pilgrimage and settle down to [worldly pleasures.] The flesh will seek to ensnare you, and to prevent your pressing on to glory. "It is weary work being a pilgrim; come, give it up. Am I always to be mortified? Am I never to be indulged? Give me at least a break from this constant warfare." Satan will make many a fierce attack on your perseverance; it will be the mark for all his arrows. He will strive to hinder you in service: he will insinuate that you are doing no good; and that you want rest. He will endeavor to make you weary of suffering, he will whisper, "Curse God, and die." Or he will attack your steadfastness: "What is the good of being so zealous? Be quiet like the rest; sleep like others do, and let your lamp go out as the other virgins do." Or he will assail your doctrinal sentiments: "Why do you hold to these creeds? Sensible men are getting more liberal; they are removing the old landmarks: fall in with the times." Wear your shield, Christian, therefore, close upon your armor, and cry mightily unto God, that by his Spirit you may endure to the end."

C. H. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening: Daily Readings (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1896). (slightly modernized)

Reading Genesis 15, Nehemiah 4, Matthew 14 and Acts 14. Primary Bible question centers on God's cutting a covenant with Abram - why did animals have to be cut in half to in order for Abram to make a deal with God? Also includes some powerful encouragement from Charles Spurgeon.

Today we are reading Genesis 14, Nehemiah 3, Matthew 13 and Acts 13, following the Robert Murray M'Cheyne Bible reading plan. Our big Bible question of the day is all about Melchizedek, one of the most interesting and mysterious figures in the Old Testament. As of today, we are 3 chapters into Nehemiah, and we've barely talked about him! I hope to rectify that in an upcoming episode of the podcast. For now, we begin with Genesis 14, which is an action packed passage, to be sure!

When I was a kid, I thought the Bible was boring, but I don't actually remember why. I also thought Lord of the Rings was boring and inscrutable when I tried to read it in 4th or 5th grade, and honestly both of those opinions are childish rubbish. The Lord of the Rings is one of the best works of fiction ever written, and the Bible is chock full of fascinating and interesting things, and this passage is a great example of that. Military strategists and historians should study this passage because it is honestly one of the first incidents in all of recorded history that features advanced war tactics and what we now call guerrilla warfare. Considering that military tactics were much more conventional even during the times of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, I find it fairly interesting Abram was thousands of years ahead of his time in terms of strategy. Think about it: he divided his forces against the far superior forces of King Chedorlaomer and attacked them by night - Abram had military wisdom! Using the clever tactic of a night attack with his army split into two groups, he succeeded in rescuing Lot and recovering all the plunder (all the goods) seized by the partnership of the five kings. And then, on the way back from this stunning victory, Abram encounters a mysterious figure, who brings him some bread and wine and blesses him. This person is Melchizedek, and Abram gives him a tithe/tenth of all the spoils of the battle. For thousands of years since then, people have speculated about who, exactly this guy Melchizedek was.

"King and priest. None other of the house of David save our Lord Jesus Christ could claim the union of these two offices. In Christ we have a King and a priest, as also with Melchisedech of old, a great type of Jesus."

C. H. Spurgeon, "Seeing Jesus," in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 61 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1915), 47.

"Clearly, from a passage in Hebrews there is something v. special about Melchisedech, but I don't know what it is. There's lots to find out, here and hereafter, isn't there?"

Letter to Mrs. Johnson, C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 3 (New York: HarperCollins e-books; HarperSanFrancisco, 2004–2007), 608.

"WE will not enlarge upon the story of Melchisedec, nor discuss the question as to who he was. It is near enough for us to believe that he was one who worshipped God after the primitive fashion, a believer in God such as Job was in the land of Uz, one of the world's grey fathers who had kept faithful to the Most High God. He combined in his own person the kingship and the priesthood; a conjunction by no means unusual in the first ages. Of this man we know very little; and it is partly because we know so little of him that he is all the better type of our Lord, of whom we may enquire, "Who shall declare his generation?" The very mystery which hangs about Melchisedec serves to set forth the mystery of the person of our divine Lord. "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; he abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils."

C. H. Spurgeon, "First King of Righteousness, and after That King of Peace," in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 30 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1884), 121.

7 Reasons I believe that Melchizedek was actually a Christophany - an Old Testament manifestation/appearance of Jesus:

1. His name: King of Righteousness and King of Salem/Shalom. This is not persuasive, just evidential.
2. Melchizedek was a priest AND a king. This was specifically forbidden by God, and King Uzziah - who tried to be both king and priest - was struck by leprosy for doing so. There are two king-priests in the Bible: Jesus and Melchizedek.
3. Melchizedek served wine and bread to Abraham. This seems a bit on the nose, doesn't it? It doesn't have to be a nod towards Jesus serving wine and bread to the disciples - the New Testament never draws that connection - but it certainly seems significant to me.
4. As mentioned in Psalms and Hebrews, Jesus was priest in the order of Melchizedek, not the order of Aaron, as every other priest of the Jewish people were. Consider this: why in the world would Jesus - God's son and God Himself - be of the order of ANY human priesthood? That seems rather absurd, doesn't it?
5. The writer of Hebrews, in discussing Melchizedek and Jesus in depth and in parallel, seems to go out of his way to make the case that Melchizedek was significant and great, which is fairly odd considering that the Old Testament devotes a mere handful of verses to Melchizedek. But, consider these quotes from Hebrews, "Now consider how great this man was: even Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the plunder to him." (Hebrews 7:4) "But one without this lineage collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises.7 Without a doubt, the inferior is blessed by the superior. " (Hebrews 7:6 - did you catch the obvious implication that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham?)
6. Perhaps the primary function of a priest was to be a mediator between humans and God. There were many thousands of priests, but still Paul could say in 1 Timothy 2:5, "There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus. " There is only ONE priest like Jesus - who reconciles God and humanity - only ONE mediator like him. Considering how the writer of Hebrews talks about Jesus and Melchizedek in parallel - literally the only two priests in history that are in the order of Melchizedek, it would seem that these two priests are actually the same priest, with different names. (Consider Isaiah in this regard: Jesus will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.")
7. The above items are certainly weighty, but not altogether convincing, and if they were the only evidence that tied Jesus and Melchizedek together, I would be content to stay with Spurgeon and Lewis and say that there is no solid biblical proof that Jesus and Melchizedek were the same person. However, there is one more passage that we have in the book of Hebrews about Melchizedek, and I can't imagine how that description of him could possibly be about anybody but Jesus Himself. Consider:

" Without father, mother, or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever."

Hebrews 7:3

There's really only two options here: either the writer of Hebrews was simply exaggerating a lot, or Melchizedek is an appearance of Jesus. How could a human being not have a father or mother? How could a human being not have a genealogy or genetic relatives? How could a human being not have a beginning? How could a human being be immortal and NOT DIE? How could a human being be a priest FOREVER?!? The writer of Hebrews makes it crystal clear in chapter 7 vss. 23-24 that all other priests prior to Jesus died ("Now many have become Levitical priests, since they are prevented by death from remaining in office. 24 But because he remains forever, he holds his priesthood permanently. ")

So - that's my case for Melchizedek being more than simply a type of Christ, but an actual manifestation of Jesus Himself. There are other places in the Old Testament where this might have happened also, and theologians usually call this a Christophany. One prominent example is when Joshua meets the Commander of the Armies of the Lord prior to the Jericho battle, and Joshua falls down and worships, and the Commander does NOT stop him, as every other angelic being does in that situation.