Melchizedek - who was he?

Do you think that Melchizedek was actually Jesus? Or was he merely a priest of YHWH? Or was he, dare I say it, a pagan priest making a quick buck off Abraham?

Or was he, dare I say it, a pagan priest making a quick buck off Abraham?

Sorry to ask such a mind stretching question!

Passages like the ones dealing with when Jesus was installed into the order of Melchizedek give us reason to believe that Melchizedek couldn't have been Jesus. (Hebrews 5:5-10 and Acts 13:32-34.)

You see if Jesus was born into the order of Melchizedek on resurrection day, then he couldn't have operated as such when Abraham was around.

If Melchizedek was not Jesus, but just a good guy priest, then why did God haul Abram the Chaldean up from Iraq to Israel, when there was this good guy priest in Jerusalem already?

It seems logical and reasonable therefore to conclude that Melchizedek was just a Jebusite priest making a quick buck off Abraham, as was Arab custom in those days.

Your thoughts?

It seems logical and reasonable therefore to conclude that Melchizedek was just a Jebusite priest making a quick buck off Abraham, as was Arab custom in those days.

Not sure I find it either mind strecthing nor reasonable ... it's actually arrogance.

[b]Gen 14:18 -
And Melchizedek, king of Salem[/b] - A thousand idle stories have been told about this man, and a thousand idle conjectures spent on the subject of his short history given here and in Heb. vii. At present it is only necessary to state that he appears to have been as real a personage as Bera, Birsha, or Shinab, though we have no more of his genealogy than we have of theirs.

[b]Brought forth bread and wine[/b] - Certainly to refresh Abram and his men, exhausted with the late battle and fatigues of the journey; not in the way of sacrifice, etc.; this is an idle conjecture.

[b]He was the priest of the most high God[/b] - He had preserved in his family and among his subjects the worship of the true God, and the primitive patriarchal institutions; by these the father of every family was both king and priest, so Melchizedek, being a worshipper of the true God, was priest among the people, as well as king over them.

Melchizedek is called here king of Salem, and the most judicious interpreters allow that by Salem, Jerusalem is meant. That it bore this name anciently is evident from Psa_76:1, Psa_76:2 : “In Judah is God known; his name is great in Israel. In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.” From the use made of this part of the sacred history by David, Psa_110:4, and by St. Paul, Heb_7:1-10, we learn that there was something very mysterious, and at the same time typical, in the person, name, office, residence, and government of this Canaanitish prince. 1. In his person he was a representative and type of Christ; see the scriptures above referred to. 2. His name, מלכי צדק malki tsedek, signifies my righteous king, or king of righteousness. This name he probably had from the pure and righteous administration of his government; and this is one of the characters of our blessed Lord, a character which can be applied to him only, as he alone is essentially righteous, and the only Potentate; but a holy man, such as Melchizedek, might bear this name as his type or representative. 3. Office; he was a priest of the most high God. The word כהן cohen, which signifies both prince and priest, because the patriarchs sustained this double office, has both its root and proper signification in the Arabic; kahana signifies to approach, draw near, have intimate access to; and from hence to officiate as priest before God, and thus have intimate access to the Divine presence: and by means of the sacrifices which he offered he received counsel and information relative to what was yet to take place, and hence another acceptation of the word, to foretell, predict future events, unfold hidden things or mysteries; so the lips of the priests preserved knowledge, and they were often the interpreters of the will of God to the people. Thus we find that Melchizedek, being a priest of the most high God, represented Christ in his sacerdotal character, the word priest being understood as before explained. 4. His residence; he was king of Salem. שלם shalam signifies to make whole, complete, or perfect; and hence it means peace, which implies the making whole the breaches made in the political and domestic union of kingdoms, states, families, etc., making an end of discord, and establishing friendship. Christ is called the Prince of peace, because, by his incarnation, sacrifice, and mediation, he procures and establishes peace between God and man; heals the breaches and dissensions between heaven and earth, reconciling both; and produces glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good will among men. His residence is peace and quietness and assurance for ever, in every believing upright heart. He governs as the Prince and Priest of the most high God, ruling in righteousness, mighty to save; and he ever lives to make intercession for, and save to the uttermost all who come unto the Father by him. See the notes on Hebrews 7 (note).

Adam Clarke

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]Gen_14:18-20[/b]
An incident of the deepest interest here takes us by surprise. The connecting link in the narrative is obviously the place where the king of Sodom meets with Abram. The King’s dale is plainly adjacent to the royal residence of Melkizedec, who therefore comes forth to greet and entertain the returning victor. This prince is the king of Shalem. This is apparently an ancient name of Jerusalem, which is so designated in Psa_76:8. The other Shalem, which lay in the vicinity of Shekem (Gen_33:18, if this be a proper name) is far away from the King’s dale and the town of Sodom. Jerusalem is convenient to these localities, and contains the element Shalem in its composition, as the name signifies the foundation of peace (Shalom).

The king of Shalem, by name king of righteousness, and by office king of peace, “brought forth bread and wine.” These are the standing elements of a simple repast for the refreshment of the body. In after times they were by divine appointment placed on the table of the presence in the tabernacle Exo_25:29-30. They were the accompaniments of the Paschal lamb Mat_26:26-27, and they were adopted by the Messiah as the sacred symbols of that heavenly fare, of which, if a man partake, he shall live forever Joh_6:48-58. The Author of revelation has made all nature intrinsically good and pure. He has realized therein a harmony of the laws of intelligence and design; everything meets and matches all that comes into contact with it; and all together form a cosmos, a system of things, a unity of types and antitypes. His word cannot but correspond to His work. Bread and wine are common things, familiar to the eye, the touch, and the taste of men. The Great Teacher takes them up out of the hands of man as emblems of grace, mercy, and peace, through an accepted ransom, of the lowliest as well as the loftiest boon of an everlasting salvation, and they have never lost their significance or appropriateness.

[b]And he was priest to the most high God.[/b] - From this we are assured that the bread and wine refreshed not only the body, but the soul of Abram. In close connection with the preceding sentence, it seems to intimate that the bringing forth of bread and wine was a priestly act, and, accordingly, the crowning part of a sacred feast. The כהן kohen, or priest, who is here mentioned for the first time in Scripture, was one who acted in sacred things on the part of others. He was a mediator between God and man, representing God holding out the hand of mercy, and man reaching forth the hand of faith. The necessity of such an orifice grew out of the distance between God and man produced by sin. The business of the priest was to offer sacrifice and to intercede; in the former making amends to the law, in the latter appealing to the mercy of God. We do not learn by express statement what was the mode of intervention on the part of Melkizedec. But we know that sacrifice was as early as Habel, and that calling on the name of the Lord was commenced in the time of Enosh. These were early forms of approach to God. The offices of king and priest were combined in Melkizedec - a condition of things often exemplified in after times.

[b]The most high God.[/b] - Here we meet with a new name of God, El, the Lasting, the Mighty, cognate with Elohim, and previously occurring in the compound proper names Mebujael, Mahalalel, and Bethel. We have also an epithet of God, “Elion the most high,” now appearing for the first time. Hence, we perceive that the unity, the omnipotence, and the absolute pre-eminence of God were still living in the memory and conscience of a section at least of the inhabitants of this land. Still more, the worship of God was not a mere domestic custom, in which the father or head of the family officiated, but a public ordinance conducted by a stated functionary. And, lastly, the mode of worship was of such a nature as to represent the doctrine and acknowledge the necessity of an atonement, since it was performed by means of a priest.

Gen_14:18
[b]And he blessed him.[/b] - Here it comes out clearly that Melkizedec acts not only in a civil but in a sacred capacity. He blesses Abram. In the form of benediction employed we have two parts: the former of which is strictly a blessing or asking of good things for the person in question. “Blessed be Abram.” It is the part of the father to bless the child, of the patriarch or superior to bless the subject or inferior, and of the priest to bless the people Heb_7:7. Here, accordingly, Melkizedec assumes and Abram concedes to him the superiority. The Most High God is here further designated as the Founder of heaven and earth, the great Architect or Builder, and, therefore, Possessor of all things. There is here no indistinct allusion to the creation of “heaven and earth,” mentioned in the opening of the Book of God. This is a manifest identification of the God of Melkizedec with the one Creator and Upholder of all things. We have here no mere local or national deity, with limited power and province, but the sole and supreme God of the universe and of man.

Gen_14:20
The second part of this benedictory prayer is a thanksgiving to the common God of Melkizedec and Abram for the victory which had been vouchsafed to the latter. “Thy foes.” Here Abram is personally addressed. Melkizedec as a priest first appeals to God on behalf of Abram, and then addresses Abram on behalf of God. Thus, he performs the part of a mediator.

[b]And he gave him a tithe of all.[/b] - This is a very significant act. In presenting the tenth of all the spoils of victory, Abram makes a practical acknowledgment of the absolute and exclusive supremacy of the God whom Melkizedec worshipped, and of the authority and validity of the priesthood which he exercised. We have here all the indications of a stated order of sacred rites, in which a costly service, with a fixed official, is maintained at the public expense, according to a definite rate of contribution. The gift in the present case is the tenth of the spoils of war. This act of Abram, though recorded last, may have taken place at the commencement of the interview. At all events, it renders it extremely probable that a sacrifice had been offered to God, through the intervention of Melkizedec, before he brought forth the bread and wine of the accepted feast.

It is obvious that here we stand on broader ground than the special promise made to Abram. Melkizedec was not a partner in the call of Abram, and yet the latter acknowledges him as a priest of the Most High God. Hence, we must fall back on the covenant made with Noah - the representative of the whole race after the deluge - as the broad basis of authority on which Melkizedec acted. That covenant, then, was not a dead letter. It still lived in the heart and will of a part of the nations. Its hallowing and exalting truths had produced at least one center of pure and spiritual worship on the earth. Even Abram, the called of God, acknowledges its constituted head. And the Most High God, Founder and Upholder of heaven and earth, thereby guarantees its validity for all who in every place call on his name in sincerity and truth. And his special call to Abram is given with a view to the final removal of all obstacles to the acceptance and application of this his everlasting covenant. We are thankful for this glimpse into the comprehensive grandeur of the divine purpose concerning man, which is for some time forward cast into the shade, until it begins to break forth again in the anticipations of the prophets, and at length shines forth with imperishable splendor in the revelations of the New Testament.

The genealogy of Melkizedec seems designedly veiled in impenetrable obscurity. To lift this veil entirely is therefore hopeless. Yet we may venture to hint the possibility that here we have another Shemite chieftain in the land of Kenaan. The indefinite statement of Josephus, that he was a potentate of the Kenaanites, is no proof to the contrary, even if it were of much value. The address of Ezekiel to Jerusalem: “Thy origin and thy birth are of the land of Kenaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite” Eze_16:3, may refer to the period immediately before the entrance of Israel into the land. At and after that time the Amorite and the Jebusite seem to have been in possession of the city Jos_10:5; Jdg_1:21. But in the time of Abram, more than four hundred years before, it may have been different. We have discovered other tribes in this land that were not of the race of Kenaan. It is not likely that Kenaan would furnish a priest of the most high God. It is evident that Melkizedec was not in the confederacy of the Pentapolis with the king of Sodom. He comes out separately and suddenly to meet Abram, who was one of “the children of Heber,” of whom Shem was the father.

And he is the acknowledged head of the worshippers of the most high God, who is “the Lord, the God of Shem.” But be this as it may, it is only a secondary question here. The matter of primary importance, as has been already noted, is the existence of a community of pure worshippers of the true God in the land of Kenaan, antecedent to Abram. If this community be descendants of Kenaan, it only renders the discovery the more striking and impressive. The knowledge of the true God, the confession of the one everlasting supreme Creator of heaven and earth, the existence of a stated form of worship by means of a priest and a ritual attested by Abram the elect of God, in a community belonging to the Gentiles, form at once a remarkable vindication of the justice and mercy of God in having made known to all mankind the mode of acceptable approach to himself, and a singular evidence that such a revelation had been made to Noah, from whom alone it could have descended to the whole race, and consequently to this particular branch of it.
We have reason to believe that this was not the sole line in which this precious tradition was still preserved in comparative purity and power. Job and his companions belong to one other known line in which the knowledge of the one God was still vital. The fundamental principles of divine truth planted in the human breast by this and antecedent revelations were never afterward wholly eradicated; and from the hereditary germs of a primitive theology, cherished by contact with the Sidonians and other Phoenicians, were Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other sages of the East and West, enabled to rise to the exalted conceptions which they occasionally formed of the unity, purity, spirituality, and supremacy of the Divine Being. The idea of God, conveyed into a soul of any power and freedom, is wonderfully prolific. It bursts the bonds of the animal nature, and expands and elevates the rational to some shadowy semblance of its primeval glory. Where it has become altogether extinct, the human has sunk down under the debasing bondage of the brutal. During the four centuries that elapsed from the arrival of Abram to the conquest of the country by his descendants, this interesting relic of a pure Gentile worship seems to have disappeared. But the traces of such a purifying and elevating knowledge of God were not even then effaced from the memories, the customs, and the phrases of the people.

Albert Barnes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

[b]Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek[/b]; or, "according to the word of Melchizedek" (z); that is, according to what is said of him; there being an agreement between the things said of one and of the other; so the Syriac version, "according to the likeness of Melchizedek", see Heb_7:15 of him no mention is made elsewhere, but in Gen_14:18 and in the epistle to the Hebrews. Various are the opinions of men concerning him: some think he was not a man, but an angel that appeared to Abraham: others, a divine power, superior to Christ, who were called "Melchizedecians": and others, that he was the Holy Ghost; and others, the Son of God himself, in an human form. On the other hand, some take him to be a mere man. The general notion of the Jews is, that he was Shem, the son of Noah; others, that he was a Canaanitish king, of the posterity of Ham: but others do not think it proper or lawful to inquire who he was, or from whom he descended; this being purposely hidden from men, that he might be more clearly a type of Christ. That there is a likeness between them is certain; the signification of his name, a title of office, King of righteousness, and King of peace, agrees with Christ the Lord, our righteousness and our peace: his being without father, mother, descent, beginning of days, and end of life, agree with the divinity, humanity, and eternity of Christ; and who is likewise King and Priest, as he was; and who blesses his people, as he did Abraham; and refreshes them with bread and wine, as he did Abraham's soldiers; See Gill on Heb_7:2. See Gill on Heb_7:3. Now Christ is a Priest like him; whose office is to offer sacrifice, which he has done, even himself, for the atonement of the sins of his people; to make intercession for them, which he ever lives to do; to introduce their persons to his Father, and present their petitions to him; and to call for every blessing for them, and answer all charges against them: in which office he continues for ever; there never will be any change in his priesthood, as there has been in Aaron's; nor will he ever have any successor: his priesthood is unchangeable, or does not pass from one to another, Heb_7:24, the efficacy of his blood and sacrifice always continues, and intercession is ever made by him, and the glory of his mediation is ever given him. The apostle produces this passage in proof of the change of the Aaronic priesthood, and so of the law, Heb_7:11 and about the time Christ appeared as the high priest, the legal priesthood sensibly declined, and which the Jews themselves own; for they say,

"after the death of Ishmael Ben Phabi, the splendour of the priesthood ceased (a);''

which man was made priest by Valerius Gratus, governor of Judea, under Tiberius Caesar (b),

(z) על דברתי "super meum verbum", Montanus; "juxta verbum", Vatablus. (a) Misn. Sotah, c. 9. s. 15. (b) Joseph. Antiqu. l. 18. c. 2. s. 2. Vid. ib. l. 20. c. 7. s. 8.

John Gill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And of course the remainder of Hebrews ...

Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
Heb 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=978&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]The Order of MelchizedeK[/url]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1882&forum=45#12074]Abraham, My Friend_22[/url]

Hebrews calls Jesus "another priest" that has arisen according to the order of Melchizedek. Thus, though a popularly taught doctrine, Melchizedek is not a pre-incarnate Christ. He simply is a king of a city named Salem, and is also a priest of God. He serves as a type of Christ, but is not to be confused with Christ.

There is only One who could ever serve as King of Peace and King of Righteousness, our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the High Priest who brings peace to those who deserve wrath, He is the means by which all men might know the Righteousness of God.

This is a thread that was discussed some time ago on Melchizedeck.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=978&forum=36&97

Prov. 9:10 \t“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
\tAnd the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Is. 43:14 \tThus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
\tThe Holy One of Israel:
\t“For your sake I will send to Babylon,
\tAnd bring them all down as fugitives—
\tThe Chaldeans, who rejoice in their ships.
15 \tI am the LORD, your Holy One,
\tThe Creator of Israel, your King.”

Even the fallen know whom the Holy One is...

Mark 1:24 saying, “Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”

There is only One whom serves before the foundation of the world as the Mediator between man and the Father, His name is Emmanuel...

In Christ
Jeff

The overall purpose of Hebrews 7 is to explain that for Jewish Christians, the Levitical priesthood had been superceded. To illustrate the transition of the priesthood from the Levites to Yeshua the Messiah, the writer uses Melchizedek, priest of God in the Old Testament, to typify Christ's new position as High Priest.
Christ has a lineage of man in Mary all the way back to Adam. Christ's Father was God and He was birthed long after Melchizedek. Jesus Christ the Son of God born in Bethlehem could not be The Jesus Paul is speaking about in Heb 7 if Melchizedek was Christ. He had not been born of woman and the body of Christ that was prepared for Him was not incarnet from Melchizedek. This Melchizedek can only be a type of Christ, like all the other types in the Old Testament. Abraham's ties were paid to a man, who was a king and priest of God and of Salem. He was not Jesus Christ the Son of God.

In Psalm 110, a messianic psalm written by David (Matt. 22:43), Melchizedek is seen as a type of Christ. This theme is repeated in the Book of Hebrews, where both Melchizedek and Christ are considered kings of righteousness and peace. By citing Melchizedek and his unique priesthood as a type, Paul the writer shows that Christ's new priesthood is superior to the old Levitical order and the priesthood of Aaron (Heb. 7:1-10; Melchisedec, KJV). Attempts have been made to identify Melchizedek as . . . an angel, the Holy Spirit, Christ, and others. All are the products of speculation, not historical fact; and it is impossible to reconcile them with the theological argument of Hebrews. Melchizedek was a real, historical king-priest who served as a type for the greater King-Priest who was to come, Jesus Christ (p. 819).

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary gives this interpretation of the seventh chapter of Hebrews:

Within the interpretation of Ps. 110 that occupies much of the epistle to the Hebrews, Heb. 7 builds on Gen. 14:18-20. Abraham's acknowledgment of the legitimacy of Melchizedek's priesthood becomes an argument for the priority of that priesthood over the "descendants of Levi" (vv. 4-10). The messianic ruler of Ps. 110 is, therefore, a priest of a line prior to the levitical priesthood ("after the order of Melchizedek"; Heb. 7:11-19; KJV "Melchisedec"; cf. 5:6, 10; 6:20). That the narrative of the king-priest Melchizedek is introduced so abruptly into Genesis becomes an argument for Melchizedek's being "without father or mother or genealogy," i.e., beginning or end (7:3), and so not only a predecessor but also a type of Christ as "a priest for ever" (cf. Ps. 110:4). The legitimacy of the levitical priesthood depends on its descent from Levi; as it has a beginning, so it has an end in the understanding of the author of Hebrews.

Like Melchizedek Jesus's Father has no beginning or end, father or mother or genealogy, this making Jesus Christ the literal Son of the Living God and Jesus's human mother Mary. Thus The Son of Man incarnet in Jesus Christ The Son of God. So Melchizedek could not have been Jesus Christ that was in the Mind of God before the foundation of the world to bring salvation to the world by The Grace of God and through the Faith of Jesus Christ in the believer. Melchizedek's genealogy is obscured for this reason our the assumption would be the he was Jesus Christ. Not Possible. If Melchizedek was Jesus Christ, he would have to of been born of woman and God the Father, with this genealogy, which scripture says he has none.

In Christ: Phillip

Brother Phillip wrote:

So Melchizedek could not have been Jesus Christ that was in the Mind of God before the foundation of the world to bring salvation to the world by The Grace of God and through the Faith of Jesus Christ in the believer.

Who is the Holy One of Israel?

In Christ
Jeff

One of the important words relating to Christ as a Melchisedecian High Priest is in[color=0000ff]“Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be [b]made[/b] like unto his brethren, that he might [b]become[/b] a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”(Heb 2:17 ASV)[/color] The word ‘’made/become” is the word [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=1096&page=1&flag_full=1]ginomai[/url] which really means ‘to come into being or existence’. This is telling us that an event has taken place. The one that we worship as Jesus Christ is the unchanging God the Son but events have taken place in time and history which is why the word ‘ginomai’ is used here.
There was a ‘time and place’ when Jesus Christ was not a Melchisedecian High Priest and a time when he ‘became’ such. This will help us to identify the Old Testament character of Melchisedec. Christ’s Melchisedecian Highpriesthood is tied in to his incarnation which is why the earlier verses from Hebrews say that is part of the reason why it was necessary for him to ‘become’ human (John 1:14 uses this same word ‘ginomai’; the Word became flesh. An event in time and history)[color=0000ff]“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same…” (Heb 2:14 NKJV)[/color]
Mechisedec was a real flesh and blood king of ancient times who lived long before Christ ‘became flesh’ and before God the Son ‘became’ a High Priest. He is a mysterious character who only appears for a few verses and then vanishes from the record as an individual. But a thousand years after he lived David received a prophetic song which has these cryptic words;[color=0000ff]\t“The LORD has sworn
\tAnd will not relent,
\t“You are a priest forever
\tAccording to the order of Melchizedek.”” (Psa 110:4 NKJV)[/color]We need to ask ourselves what did this mean to David and the answer is that this man Melchisedec is the only example in the Bible of a Priest-King. Israel’s priesthood and monarchy were strictly separated; the priests descending from Levi(Aaron) and the kings from Judah, but David has a revelation of another kind of king and another kind of priest, unlike his own kingship or the priests that served in his day. In his song David hears God declaring that someone is a Priest, forever, according to the order of Melchisedec. This person is one who has been enthroned as king. David is saying this person is, at one and the same time, both priest and king.

Jesus said that when David said these words he was referring to Christ. (Luke 20:41-43) The writer to the Hebrews takes up the same theme in showing that God the Son has become both King and Priest. Melchisedec himself is never referred to as a High Priest but simply ‘the priest’ whereas in Hebrews Christ is referred to as the High Priest of Melchisedec’s order; it a priest-king. Melchisedec himself was a man with unique revelations of God which he shared with Abraham.

It is stated in Hebrews 7:3 that Melchisedec had no descent, do those who believe that Melchisedec was not the Lord Himself think that this verse should not be taken literally? It comes between two other verses which I think are pretty widely accepted to be literal.

HBr 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; abideth a priest continually.

I have read through the previous threads on the subject and I find myself agreeing with Rookie's view on the subject.

Peter

Not sure I find it either mind strecthing[sic] nor reasonable ... it's actually arrogance.

I am grateful for the opportunity to come here and ask what appear to be mature Christians their views. Some of these subjects may be repeats, but it is helpful to ask these questions. I learn by them, and sometimes the answers previously given do not necessarily answer my particular questions.

If there was a simple answer to these questions there probably wouldn't be any controversy. What causes the controversy? Well, with Melchizedek, he is linked to Abraham's payment of a tenth, and that is linked to the tithing message. It is also an emotional issue because we worship Jesus, and to think that we may have been misled into thinking that Melchizedek was Jesus, when he may have been just a money grabbing pagan is offensive.

HBr 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; abideth a priest continually.

I think the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things in order that he might be a 'type' of our Great High Priest. Surely this man really lived [i]and[/i] died? Surely he was born (had a birth date). He does not abide a priest continually to this day- only there is no record of when it ended. Through silence in these areas he is afforded the ability to be a 'type' of Christ. If the details of his life and death had been filled in we had had no point of reference.

It is stated in Hebrews 7:3 that Melchisedec had no descent, do those who believe that Melchisedec was not the Lord Himself think that this verse should not be taken literally?

It is also an emotional issue because we worship Jesus, and to think that we may have been misled into thinking that Melchizedek was Jesus, when he may have been just a money grabbing pagan is offensive.

No. That is not the issue here. The issue is this idea of Melchizedek ... 'he may have been just a money grabbing pagan ' or 'a pagan priest making a quick buck off Abraham?' is absurd. There is no foundation to it at all.

RobertW wrote:

I think the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things in order that he might be a 'type' of our Great High Priest. Surely this man really lived [i]and[/i] died? Surely he was born (had a birth date). He does not abide a priest continually to this day- only there is no record of when it ended. Through silence in these areas he is afforded the ability to be a 'type' of Christ. If the details of his life and death had been filled in we had had no point of reference.

'the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things'

I know that you mean that in Genesis there is no mention of his genealogy; but the scriptures are not silent on these things, the writer of Hebrews says that Melchisedec had no father and no mother.

I understand your reasoning, that no mention was made of his genealogy so that the type could be shown but I think it is a very big leap to state positively that he was born and that he died when the scripture says otherwise, and how do you know he doesn't abide a priest continually to this day?

The next verse says 'how great this man was' but the 'was' is imposed on the text and not in the original, one or two of the more literal versions say 'is' I think.

But assuming that you are correct, and that this verse (3) should be taken purely figuratively, is it not a very odd way to express the thing? If I understand you right the writer is in effect saying:

Verses 1 and 2.

Historical/literal facts, plainly understood as such

Verse 3

'Because we are not told any details about when Melchisedec was born, or died, or who his parents were, its as though he was like the Son of God in a pictorial sense, and although he actually died, because it is not recorded, it's like he didn't, so it is as if he is still a priest continually.(though of course he isn't)'

PCB paraphrase!

compare to KJV

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Verse 4-10

Back to historical/literal facts

At best it is unwieldy logic and the only reason we would interpret this verse that way would be if we are trying to fit it into a hypothesis that Melchisidec was not the Lord Himself.

Please bear with me if I am overly pedantic, I have genuinely worked at this one from both directions (Melchisidec is/wasn't God) and am stuck at this verse when trying to decide that he wasn't.

Peter

RobertW wrote:

I think the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things in order that he might be a 'type' of our Great High Priest. Surely this man really lived [i]and[/i] died? Surely he was born (had a birth date). He does not abide a priest continually to this day- only there is no record of when it ended. Through silence in these areas he is afforded the ability to be a 'type' of Christ. If the details of his life and death had been filled in we had had no point of reference.

'the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things'

I know that you mean that in Genesis there is no mention of his genealogy; but the scriptures are not silent on these things, the writer of Hebrews says that Melchisedec had no father and no mother.

I understand your reasoning, that no mention was made of his genealogy so that the type could be shown but I think it is a very big leap to state positively that he was born and that he died when the scripture says otherwise, and how do you know he doesn't abide a priest continually to this day?

The next verse says 'how great this man was' but the 'was' is imposed on the text and not in the original, one or two of the more literal versions say 'is' I think.

But assuming that you are correct, and that this verse (3) should be taken purely figuratively, is it not a very odd way to express the thing? If I understand you right the writer is in effect saying:

Verses 1 and 2.

Historical/literal facts, plainly understood as such

Verse 3

'Because we are not told any details about when Melchisedec was born, or died, or who his parents were, its as though he was like the Son of God in a pictorial sense, and although he actually died, because it is not recorded, it's like he didn't, so it is as if he is still a priest continually.(though of course he isn't)'

PCB paraphrase!

compare to KJV

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Verse 4-10

Back to historical/literal facts

At best it is unwieldy logic and the only reason we would interpret this verse that way would be if we are trying to fit it into a hypothesis that Melchisidec was not the Lord Himself.

Please bear with me if I am overly pedantic, I have genuinely worked at this one from both directions (Melchisidec is/wasn't God) and am stuck at this verse when trying to decide that he wasn't.

Peter

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek]Melchizedek- Wikipedia Definition[/url]

This was a question that I struggled with. I worked out that it could either be one of three people
1. Shem
2. Noah
3. Jesus

Melch-Tzedic
Melchizedek name liturally does mean King , Melech means King. Tzidek means righteous. I am spelling these wrong. When I discussed this issue with my elder I did not think how long Noah lived or Shem.
Shem or Hashem means name. is not his name. I thought Melchizedek was a Theophany an Incarnation of Christ before the Incarnation, he discussed with me that he thought it was either Shem or Noah. It lasted quite a time
1.Shem
Shem was supposed to live along time after the Flood and was supposed to have even lived up to the birth of Issac.
Shem
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem]Shem[/url]
Shems name was used for the name of god in hebrew
Ha Shem the name. Shem was supposed to live in Jerusalem and what we know from Shem before he was a righteous man and renown. He may have lived in now jerusalem
2. Noah
Noah would have also lived up to then and according to Jewish Tradition handed over Adams clothes. I need to do alot more research

3. Christ
It could be this option

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek]Melchizedek- Wikipedia Definition[/url]

This was a question that I struggled with. I worked out that it could either be one of three people
1. Shem
2. Noah
3. Jesus

Melch-Tzedic
Melchizedek name liturally does mean King , Melech means King. Tzidek means righteous. I am spelling these wrong. When I discussed this issue with my elder I did not think how long Noah lived or Shem.
Shem or Hashem means name. is not his name. I thought Melchizedek was a Theophany an Incarnation of Christ before the Incarnation, he discussed with me that he thought it was either Shem or Noah. It lasted quite a time
1.Shem
Shem was supposed to live along time after the Flood and was supposed to have even lived up to the birth of Issac.
Shem
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem]Shem[/url]
Shems name was used for the name of god in hebrew
Ha Shem the name. Shem was supposed to live in Jerusalem and what we know from Shem before he was a righteous man and renown. He may have lived in now jerusalem
2. Noah
Noah would have also lived up to then and according to Jewish Tradition handed over Adams clothes. I need to do alot more research

3. Christ
It could be this option

Is the Logos Melchizedek?

This is a very good rendering of who Shem was and that He was the worshiping son of Noah. If I met my grandfather removed 10 times I would also pay homage to him. After the flood there was a new beginning, the slate was clear, there were only 8 souls on this earth left after the flood. Shem was chosen as the one to worship God in all that He was knowing where he had come from. The other two son's were a philosopher and a creative builder, as Nimrod was a son of Cush who was a son of Ham. These son's of Noah on this earth after the flood, from that date had on genealogy of time. Levi paid ties through Abraham when Melchizedek met Levi before he was born.

In that sense, Melchizedek had no beginning or end.

Here is a very good one to understand the Melchizedek was not the replica of Jesus Christ but a type of the Christ that would come. Be Born, live, die, buried, resurrected and sits at the right hand of His Father and is instilled in the believers that His Father has given Him. This is a type of Melchizedek and Jesus Christ is a priest forever after that order of priest. Not the pre-incarnate Christ being "the priest" but being a type of that priesthood, who is now the Only High Priest and Son of God who live in His brothers and sisters forever.

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/melchiz.htm

In Christ: Phillip

The issue is this idea of Melchizedek ... 'he may have been just a money grabbing pagan ' or 'a pagan priest making a quick buck off Abraham?' is absurd. There is no foundation to it at all.

Logic says that Melchizedek was one of the following:
•\tA Jebusite pagan king
•\tA righteous priest
•\tThe Son of God Himself

Historically we know that the Jebusites lived in Jerusalem. The Bible tells us that there was a pagan in Jerusalem called Adonizedek, a pagan that Joshua slew. Adonizedek and Melchizedek mean pretty much the same thing. This pagan Adonizedek worshiped a pagan deity that he called Zedek.

The principle of conservation of miracles means that you go for the least miraculous solution to a problem, before resorting to miracles to explain something away. The logical quest for a solution would first be to say that Melchizedek was a mere mortal.

Christians find it hard to believe that God could have used a pagan priest as a symbol for Jesus, and I appreciate that. But God is God. When he likens us to sheep, must we also eat grass? Types are just there to help us understand, and the neat thing about Melchizedek was that he had some very convenient titles: King of Salem, and King of Righteousness.

Why did he have authority over Abraham? He was the local king, and according to Arab custom, he deserved a tenth of the battle spoils. This tax was known as the Esretu tax. Moses had something to say about how much was to be charged on battle proceeds. He said that about 1% was it.

Why would the king of a pagan Jebusite city be a godly priest? Perhaps that could be called absurd?

The thing about Jesus being Melchizedek was controversial in the days of the New Testament too, because you’ll see the writer of Hebrews say use the expression “what we know is this” and then go through what can be said for certain. The writer clearly uses phrases like “like” and “could say” when drawing the typological implication. He never says that it IS Jesus.

The fact that Jesus was ordained as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek on resurrection day means that he could not have been Melchizedek at the time Abraham was there. Usually when Jesus showed up in the Old Testament He is called the Angel of the Lord.

The purpose of using Melchizedek in Hebrews is to teach the gospel. People have gotten saved thinking that Melchizedek was Jesus, but that doesn’t mean that he was Jesus. I know people who got saved on Christmas, another day associated with paganism. But that is a whole “nother” story! Sadly Christianity has been polluted with paganism, and perhaps that is why the western church as been so feeble in changing the western world?
One fact remains, Jesus is Melchizedek in the sense of what the name Melchizedek means, but as for historical Melchizedek, king of a pagan Jebusite city that was judged by God himself under Joshua...

Wouldn’t you say that it is absurd to say that anyone except for a pagan would be king and priest of such a city?