God the King, Jesus the Prince
December
2th, 2001
Last week we took a couple
messages from paragraph 95 of WHO IS THIS MELCHISEDEC 65-0221E and Saturday evening we spoke of the first
part where brother Branham says, Now, the true
revelation of Melchisedec comes into view was, that He was God, the Word,
before He became flesh, God the Word. 'Cause He had to be; no one else
could be immortal like Him.
Now, that is the key we must
consider, "immortality". And that is the key that brother Branham is
guiding us to in order to understand just Who this Melchisedec was. Let's read
on…
"See, I had
father and mother; you did too. Jesus had father and mother. But this
Man had no father or had no mother. Jesus had a time He started; this
Man didn't. Jesus gave His life; this Man couldn't, because He was Life.
And it's the self same Man all the time. I hope God reveals it to you, the
self same Person all the time.
In that message which we
subtitled, "God the Word,"
we spoke of the fact that John identified God as being the Word. We even looked
at some other statements from brother Branham that are very pointed and
powerful statements concerning God as the Word, and we showed you how it is
that most people misconstrue the statements of brother Branham concerning this
and yet think they are quoting the Prophet of God.
We showed you from the
message Christ Revealed in His Own Word, particularly two
statements that most people mess up entirely because they just do not
understand the doctrine.
He said, If anybody misinterpret
Jesus Christ in the Bible of not being God Himself, make Him the second person
Now, I want you to notice
there are two negatives in this sentence. We all know that two negative
prepositions in a sentence is not correct English, and thus the second negative
negates the fist and itself. A double negative actually cancel out each other.
Therefore, if we read
brother Branham's statement correctly the way he said it, without the improper
use of a double negative, he is actually saying, "If anybody interpret
Jesus Christ in the Bible of being God Himself, make Him the second person.
Sunday we traveled further
into this paragraph 95 and found brother Branham addressing the fact that God
is known by three titles of King. Let's read, …
"Notice His
title, King of righteousness. Now, Hebrews 7:2: King of
righteousness and King of peace, He's two Kings. Now, watch, Hebrews 7:2, King of
righteousness, also the King of peace. He's two Kings there. Now, since
He has come in the flesh and received His body up, in Revelations 19:16 He's called the King
of Kings. He's all three of them together. See?
Now, before we continue, I
want you to notice that brother Branham is attributing these Kingly Titles to
the Spirit Being God, Who is Father. He has already made the claim that this
One who has two titles of King, "King of righteousness, and King of
Peace" is God who is Spirit. And He portrayed these roles while in Spirit.
Notice that brother Branham makes the case that it was not Jesus the Son, for
the Son of God had a beginning of days and an ending of Life. So we see that He
is explicitly defining this to be God Himself.
"Jesus had
father and mother. But this Man had no father or had no mother. Jesus had
a time He started; this Man didn't. Jesus gave His life; this Man
couldn't, because He was Life."
Notice again that He is
speaking of Life, the author of Life, the source of Life and that can only be
God himself, and He is called a King in the Book of Genesis, for that is the
role that Abraham sees this One playing out. He is King of Salem which is King
of Peace. And he is priest of the Most High God. Now, how many remember what
the word "of" means? O stands for Out and F stands for from, the word
of means out from, and this One who appeared to Abraham was Priest OF (out
from) the Most High God.
Now, we read where brother
Branham is identifying this One as God Who is Life in contrast to the Son of
God who gave His Life. And he lets us know that God could not give His Life for
He is Life. This lets us know that it is God Who is Immortal, and then we find
the Apostle Paul calling him the same thing when we read from …
I Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King
(Now
notice!) Eternal, (this king is Eternal, he never did begin, and
He never will end) then Paul uses another Word to describe Him, he says, immortal,(this
means He is never ending, This One can't die) and Paul gives him another word
to describe Who He is, He's invisible,
(And if He is invisible, he can not be seen and He is Spirit) then Paul says,
He's the only wise God, (There
is no other< He is solitary, and He is omniscient, all knowing) be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Now, it's apparent there is
only One King who fits the Billing. Paul calls Him the Only God. Therefore, let's continue with Brother Branham's
statement to see how he further clarifies his position that Melchisedec was not
the Son of God, but he was God Himself.
Brother Branham now calls
him, "King God," (Now,
we ought to just stop right there and rest our case) But he continues
describing Him as King Theophany, (Now,
this term let's us know that He is still talking about this invisible One that
Paul has described for us, the invisible God.) Next we find Brother Branham
say, King Jesus; (And at this point I would like to ask the
question "which Jesus, the Father or the Son? It can't be the Son he is
now talking about because he already told us in this same paragraph that this
king was not the Son.) And if this is not good enough, then let's look at sdome
other statements brother Branham uses in several other Sermons of His to define
the One who is King.
HEBREWS
CHAPTER 7, PT. 1 57-0915E 291-20 Now, I think Paul gives the right
interpretation. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem,... (King of Salem, and any
Bible scholar knows that Salem was formerly... Jerusalem was formerly called
"Salem." And He was the King of Jerusalem. Watch Him.)... priest of
the most high God,... (That's an intercessor.)... who met Abraham... (I
want to get His genealogy, this great Man, so that you'll know Who He is first,
and then we'll go on with the story.)... returning from the slaughter of the
kings, and blessed him; To whom... Abraham gave a tenth part... first... by
interpretation King of righteousness,... Now, watch: righteousness... Now, we
have self-righteousness; we have make-belief righteousness; we have perverted
righteousness, all kinds. But there's one real righteousness, and that
righteousness comes from God, and this Man was the King of righteousness. Who
could He be? Now, He was the King of righteousness, the King of Jerusalem,
the King of righteousness, the King of peace. Jesus was called the Prince of peace, and a prince is the son
of a king. So this Man was King of peace, then
He would have to be the Father of the Prince of peace. Get it?
291-22
Now, let's see, get His genealogy a little further, to see where
we're going. Without father,. Now, Jesus had a Father. You believe that?
Sure He was without mother. Jesus had a mother, but this Fellow had neither
father nor mother, without descent. He never had anyone that He come off of,
any descent. He always was. Without descent,
having neither beginning of days,. He never had any time He ever started. Nor
the end of life,. It could been nothing else but God. That's all It
could be.
292-23 Now, now if you'll notice, as we read the
next verse. See? First, being by interpretation, King of righteousness...
(That's not where I want to do. The--the 3rd verse.) ... nor end of life; but made
like unto the Son of God; Now, He was not the Son
of God…
Now, either we
believe a vindicated Prophet or we do not. Then how can these ministers preach
contrary to this? And how can Brother
Branham make it more clear then this?
Let me say it
like this. He says, Now, He was not the Son of God… and yet men
will listen to the tapes and they will say, "Say what the prophet
said, and say only what the prophet said," and then they will come right around and say what he did
not say and tell you they are saying it just like brother Branham meant it. And
that is where men's minds have gone.
Then these same men will turn right around and tell everyone who will listen to
them that we are not saying it right.
If you do not
believe me, let me share part of an e-mail written to me from another brother
Who claims to follow the message of William Branham and yet listen to his
rational.
Now, this e-mail
is in response to this brother having placed my Presence Book No. 1 on the
internet a few years ago without my permission. When I first found out it was
on his website, I wrote to him and asked him if he wanted the updated one. He
responded that he would, so I e-mailed it to him. Later when I was reading it
on his website, I saw that he had arbitrarily took the liberty to make
wholesale changes to the doctrine, and rewritten certain passages pertaining to
the Voice of Jesus raising the dead. He stated that it was the Voice in the
bride that will raise the dead, completely negating and twisting the statement
I was quoting from the Rapture sermon of Brother Branham's. I will now read to
you the dialogue between him and me concerning this matter.
My e-mail to him
is as follows: Please leave this portion as is. I
do not feel that we should go beyond what Brother Branham taught here. He said
that it is the Lord that does all three in his descent. I do not place the
Voice in the Bride because brother Branham did not. He placed it in the One Who
descended. There are several ministers who teach this but I do not agree with
that teaching. Brother Branham when asked about the voice of 1 Thessalonians 4,
said that that Voice is the same Voice that raised Lazarus from the grave. That
is good enough for me, because if the Lord does all three things Himself while
here, then we are not speaking of the lamb. Remember, it was not the man Jesus
that raised Lazarus but the God that dwelt in that man.
Now, listen to
the response I get from this man who claims to believe this message and claims
he is a teacher in it: Brother, I have taught
precisely what the Prophet taught regarding the "Voice". I could not
teach anyone what you are recommending because you have stumbled on one of
those areas like Matthew 28:19, taking the letter without the revelation.
Brother Branham said the purpose of such was to "thin-out the crowd."
Brother
Branham instructed us to "say only what the tapes say". He did not
tell us to recite the words he used. That would be the dead letter. Brother
Branham said, "Treat me like the Dutchman - take me for what I MEAN, not
for what I say". It matters not what Jesus, Brother Branham or any other
vindicated prophet said.
Then he uses the
argument that the Catholic church struggled over the Greek meaning of
Words and this is his rationale to take
it whatever way he so chooses.
He then goes on
to say, I preach what I do because I believe it
is my job to get into the same spirit as the prophet. The Voice is not and
cannot be the resurrection as you claim, quoting the letter of the message,
because the resurrection can not commence until three days AFTER the trump. (I'd
like to know where he gets that from?) So you
cannot have understood what brother Branham meant. But if you care to visit the
Teaching Sermons area of (www. and then he spells out his own
sermons on his own website) And then
he goes on to tell me his revelation of the voice in the bride calling forth
the resurrection and says, The voice under the
trump which is the manifestation of the Sons of God thus calling the
resurrection of the sleeping saints. That, briefly is what brother Branham
MEANT.
Now, can you
imagine someone who has been faithfully taught would say, It matters not what Jesus, Brother Branham or any other
vindicated prophet said. But this is what they teach, and therefore,
they believe that the holy Spirit has left them here to become arbitrators over
the real meaning of the message, and then it is ok in their system to take what
they want to take and leave what they wish, that which does not fit with their
own revelations.
Now in getting
back to what brother Branham said concerning paragraph 95 of Who is this
Melchisedec, He said, He was not the
Son of God… Now, by what authority then can men say that He was
the Son God? Does language have no
meaning? Are we to quibble and debate over the meaning of the word
"is", like Bill Clinton did? Is that where the message followers have
fallen too? Surely words have meaning, and Jesus and all God's Prophets said
what they said and meant what they said. Why else would He warn us, of having
our names removed from the book of life
if we take away one word, or receive the plagues if we ad one word.
REVELATION
22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him
the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away
from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out
of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are
written in this book.
And why would
the Apostle Paul warn us of a curse upon those who would take and pervert this
Word?
GALATIANS
1:6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so
soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another
gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would
pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach
any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any
other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
The whole
integrity of the Word of God is that He is a God who does not change, and He is
the Word. Therefore we have an unchanging Word.
And brother
Branham continued his doctrinal point by saying, …
For
if He was the Son, He had a beginning, and this Man had
no beginning. If He was a Son, He had to have both father and mother. And
this Man had neither father nor mother, but He was made like unto the Son of
God.)... abideth a priest continually. Now, Dr. Scofield tries to say that
it was a priesthood, called the Melchisedec priesthood. But I just want to take
you on that just for a few minutes. If it was a priesthood, then it had to have
a beginning, and it had to have an end. But This had no beginning or had any
end. And he did not say he met a priesthood; he met a Man, and called His Name
Melchisedec. He was a Person, not a denomination, not a priesthood or
fatherhood; He was absolutely a Man by the Name of Melchisedec, Who
was the King of Jerusalem. Not a priesthood, but a King without a father,
priesthoods don't have father. And this Man was without father, without
mother, without beginning of days or ending of life. Now, the Son of God…..
Who this was, this was Jehovah! This was Almighty God Himself. It could be
no other.
292-25 Now, notice. ... He abideth for ever... (He has a testimony
here that He liveth, He never dies. He never did... He never was nothing
else but alive.)... He abideth for ever... Now, Jesus was made liken unto Him.
Now, the reason that there's a difference between God and Jesus, Jesus had a
beginning; God had no beginning; Melchisedec had no beginning; and Jesus had a
beginning. But Jesus was made likened unto Him.
HEBREWS
CHAPTER 7 PT.1 57-0915E 305-93 Now, we want to
notice here now again, as we go on with this lesson of this Melchisedec, this
great Priest of Salem, and the Possessor of heavens and earth. Now, being
first... Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither
beginning of days, nor ending of life; but was made like unto the Son of God;
abideth a priest continually. Now, watch. He wasn't the Son of God; He was
the God of the Son. He wasn't the Son of God (Melchisedec wasn't), but
He was the Father of the Son of God.
From HEBREWS
CHAPTER 7, PT. 1 57-0915E
309-118 that same Melchisedec that met Abraham
coming from the slaughter of the kings. Certainly. The God of heaven, the
Elohim, the Great I AM, not the I was, the I AM (present tense). "And He
blessed him." Listen here just a
little further, so we can get the lesson a little closer together. Now, the 4th
verse... Now consider how great this man was,... (I just think that too.)...
consider how great this man was,... He's beyond the Son of God. The Son of God
had father and mother; He didn't. The Son of God had a beginning of time and an
ending of time; He didn't. Who was that? That was the Father of the Son.
That's Who it was.
HEBREWS
CHAPTER 7, PT. 2 57-0922 341-306 And this Melchisedec was not Jesus,
for He was God. And what made Jesus and God different, that... Jesus was the
Tabernacle that God dwelt in. See? Now, Melchisedec... Jesus had both
father and mother, and this Man never had father or mother. Jesus had a
beginning of life and He had a end of life. This Man had no father, no mother,
no beginning of days, or ending of life. But It was the self same Person; it
was Melchisedec and Jesus was One;
So which Jesus Is He talking
about? He said it was the Father who came down and lived in the Son, the Body.
Now, in getting back to paragraph 95 of Who is this Melchisedec, we hear
brother Branham continue with the doctrine of Melchisedec, saying…
He's the King of Kings. It's all met,
just like soul, body, and spirit. All comes to make one. Also He is the
Father, which was the first, Son, (Now, here brother Branham is telling us
something we need to be careful how far we take it. He just gets done telling
us that Melchisedec was not the Son of God, but he was the Father of the Son,
but then in describing this One Who is God, He says, He is the Father, and then
he says, Son, and how might I ask was God… the Son? Then only answer we could
positively give is that He dwelt in the Son and performed the things the Son
was to perform and said the things which Jesus the Son heard and then spoke,
and thus the Father was living in the Son performing the role of Son while in
the Son, that the Son might through His obedient character, do what the Father
showed Him to do, and say what the father told him to say.
That is why I believe Jesus
could make the following statements:
John 7:16 Jesus answered
them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
JOHN 5:19 Then answered
Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do
nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he
doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
JOHN 12:49 For I have not
spoken of myself; but the Father which
sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak
therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
(Now, let's get back to
paragraph 95. remember, he is speaking of the One Who is this Melchisedec, and
the roles He has played.) and Holy Ghost, the
Spirit. King of righteousness, the Spirit attribute; theophany, King of
peace, theophany; and in flesh He was King of Kings: same Person.
Now, remember, last week we
showed you that He is not called King of Kings, until God incarnates the Body
of His Son again, and then we shall crown Him.
In the First Seal Brother Branham said, 161-3 {301} Notice, and when
this Holy Spirit that we have, becomes incarnate to us, the One that's in our
midst now in the form of the Holy Ghost, becomes incarnate to us in the Person
of Jesus Christ, we'll crown Him King of king...?... That's right. See?
So the Crowing is not the
Son, but the crowing is for the God who is indwelling the Son. That is exactly
what Paul seems to also tell us in 1 Timothy 1:17 and 1 Corinthians 15:23-28. I TIMOTHY 1:17 Now unto
the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise
God, [be] honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
CORINTHIANS 15:23 But every man in
his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his
coming (Parousia). 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up
the kingdom to God, even the Father (Notice he is speaking of a
Kingdom being handed over to God the Father); when
he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he (The
Son) must reign, till he (God) hath put all enemies under his (The Son's) feet. 26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is]
death. 27 For He (God) hath put all
things under his (The Son's) feet. But
when he (God) saith all things are put
under [him (The Son), it is] manifest
that He (God) is excepted, which did put
all things under him (The Son). 28 And when
all things shall be subdued unto him (The Son), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God
His Father) that put all things under him (The
Son), that God may be all in all.