Milchizedek

[Nehemiah6]

The catch is: that description isn't literal, rather, it's only a picture of Mel as he appears on the pages of scripture: not as Christ, rather, as a type of Christ, i.e. an allegory.

There is no indication that Melchizedek is only a type of Christ. A type of Christ would be an ordinary human showing a resemblance to Christ, e.g. Joseph. But the Bible says that this man was no ordinary human being. And there is only one mention of him in the OT, after which he disappears altogether.

 

[notmyown]

Then Christ is disqualified because of God.

It’s not literal, Omega.

The writer is putting an end to the tradition of the exclusivity of Levitical priests, who could only be confirmed as priests after their genetic lineage is examined, and the order of Melchizedek, a greater order without lineage: all the Levites in Abraham tithed to this order.

4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

Immediately after this, the writer expounds upon the need for a new priesthood under the new covenant.

just a quick thank you for reminding us to follow the flow of the argument the author's making.

appreciate it!

 

[notmyown]

Who was Milchizedek??

i am truly sorry i made you unhappy.

you probably know this difference of opinion as to the identity of Melchizedek is a very old one in the church. some believe the man Abraham encountered was a type of Christ, and others (i think you?) believe it to have been a Christophany.

very well meaning people who love the Lord can be found proponents of either take on it. in any event, it's marvelous to be able to talk about it, so thank you for starting the thread!

i can't help but wonder if it seems unclear to give us all an opportunity to be gracious to one another.

 

[montana123]

Who was Milchizedek??

Melchizedek was a visible manifestation of God which He had no natural decent being without mother, or father, having no beginning of days, or end of life.

Which God appeared in a visible manifestation to Abraham with 2 of His angels who were a visible manifestation.

Jesus is made after the order of Melchizedek because He is a visible manifestation of God.

God also appeared to Samson's parents in a visible manifestation which Manoah said unto his wife, we shall surely die, because we have seen God, but his wife said it would not happen because of what He told them, and they asked His name, and He said why ask for my name seeing it is secret.

God also appeared to Jacob as a man and he asked Him what was His name, and He did not tell him the name, and Jacob said he had seen God face to face.

 

[Omegatime]

just a quick thank you for reminding us to follow the flow of the argument the author's making.

appreciate it!

We disagree, better than the red X. But I have to wonder what other scripture you do not take literally.

 

[Cameron143]

We disagree, better than the red X. But I have to wonder what other scripture you do not take literally.

The ones where we are called sheep. The ones Jesus is called a lamb. The ones where God is given human characteristics. The ones that call Jesus a door.
I could go on, but you get the point. The Bible is a mixture of prose and poetry with a variety of literary devices employed in its writing. God should be considered not only King of kings, but Author of authors.

 

[Aaron56]

So now we have one naysayer denying that Melchizedek is actually Christ. But the Bible says that He is (Heb 7:2-4): To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 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. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

1. Who other than Christ can legitimately be called "King of righteousness?
2. Who other than Christ can legitimately be called "King of peace"?
3. Who other than Christ had a supernatural conception and birth?
4. Who other than Christ has neither beginning of days nor end of life?
5. Who other that Christ is greater than Abraham?
6. Who other than Christ received tithes from Levi and the sons of Levi (through Abraham)?
7. Who other than Christ "abideth a priest continually"?

You forgot to underline the most important part: “…but made like unto the Son of God…”

He was not Christ but he represents Him. The same can be said for us who are in Him.

 

[Webers.Home]

~
Mormonism's priesthood order of Melchizedek has some of very serious
problems.

1) Melchizedkian priests (in the Bible) are immortal.

2) Melchizedekian priests are high priests, which (in the Bible) is a level of
priesthood that affords no equals, i.e. the office is occupied by only one
man at a time rather than by a guild of fellow priests.

3) Melchizedekian priests (in the Bible) are human beings forever; they do
not morph into divine beings at some point in time.

FAQ: Christ is reputed to be divine. How then does he qualify for the office of
Melchizedekian high priest?

REPLY: He's also reputed to be human. In point of fact, it is very easy to
trace Christ's human origin all the way back to Adam, viz: The Word per
John 1:1-14 is both human and divine simultaneously, which actually
makes him very suitable as a mediator between God and Man, i.e. he isn't
biased one way over the other.
_

 

[Nehemiah6]

You forgot to underline the most important part: “…but made like unto the Son of God…”

Yes but it also says that he abideth a priest continually.

Now if Melchizedek abideth a priest continually, then Christ is not the priest who abideth continually. You cannot have both remaining priests eternally.

But it is Christ who has the endless life: Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Heb 7:16,17)

Therefore Melchizedek is simply one of the appearance of Christ.

 

[oldhermit]

Who was Milchizedek??

By Glen Rogers

I. Jesus, a High Priest Like Melchizedek (6:20-8:6).
Who was Melchizedek?T

There have been many speculations as to who this Melchizedek may have been. Speculations range from the possible to the absurd. Here is a list of some of those speculations.
That he was the pre-incarnate Christ. This is perhaps the most popular notion. Unfortunately, it happens to be incorrect.

That he was the Holy Spirit.

That he was an angel.

That he was Enoch. This will not work because by the time Abraham meets Melchizedek, Enoch had been gone for more than a thousand years.

That he was Shem, the son of Noah.

That he was an extra-ordinary emanation of deity. (Whatever that means.)n

And, he may very well have been none of these. The problem is that there is absolutely no supporting evidence from scripture for any of these theories. They are merely speculations. All of this plays to the mystery that surrounds the man. The only one of these speculations that bears any kind of merit is that he may have possibly been Shem the son of Noah out of whose linage Abraham came. This is physically possible because Shem and Abraham were contemporaries. In fact, Shem did not die until after Isaac married. As far as any of the rest of the speculations as to the manner of being Melchizedek was, the Hebrew writer leaves no room for speculation. He was a man, and nothing more.

Melchizedek was not a proper name; it was a title. It would seem the ancient kings of pre-Israel Jerusalem were called the Tzedeks. We do not know if there were Tzedeks prior to Melchizedek, but there were certainly Tzedeks who came after him. This means that Melchizedek was part of a line of Tzedeks.

The title, Melchizedek, is from Melchi meaning King and Tzedek meaning righteousness. Thus, king of righteousness. He was the King of Salem meaning peace. This Salem would later be called Jerusalem meaning foundation of peace. More than 500 years later, in Joshua 10:1, we encounter another Tzedek of Salem called Adoni-Tzedek, meaning lord of righteousness. So, this line of Tzedeks seems to have ruled Salem for quite a number of years.

Sometime between the reigns of Melch-Tzedek and Adoni-Tzedek, Salem appears to have experienced a decline in the worship of the true God. While Melchizedek was a priest of the Most-High God, Adoni-Tzedek was the evil king who gathered the Canaanite kings in a campaign against the Gibeonites with whom Joshua had made a peace treaty in Joshua 10:1, Joshua defeated Adoni-Tzedek and the other Canaanite kings and had them executed and their bodies hung from a tree (Joshua 10:22-26).

The nature of Melchizedek: He was a man.

“Now see how great this one is....” (YLT).

“See how great this man was….” (ESV).

“See how great he is….” (NAB and NRSV)

The word man is not represented in the text by either ἄνθρωπος or ἀνήρ. The gender is however, provided by the pronoun οὗτος which is nominative masculine singular for “this one.” Technically, this does not make Melchizedek a flesh and blood man. It merely represents him in the masculine. God is also referred to in the masculine, but that does not mean he is a man.

However, the fact that Melchizedek is a High Priest of God demands that he be of the human race because in 5:1, we learn that every high priest is taken “from among men.” As a type, since Jesus was taken from among men, then Melchizedek must also be taken from among men. This is the nature of being a high priest of God.

As a man, Melchizedek had a genealogy.

This is certainly suggested by the fact that he was one of a specific line of kings. Typically, the throne is passed from father to son, though not always. Regardless, the throne had to be passed from him to some relative which means he was part of a human family unit. His priesthood on the other hand, is something else entirely. Unlike his throne, his priesthood did not pass to another. “Whose genealogy was not derived from them (the Levites).” Since this is stated in the possessive, the first thing this says about Melchizedek’s genealogy is that he had one, but that one that was not traced from the priestly tribe of Levi.

 

[oldhermit]

II. Melchizedek is Both King and Priest (vs. 1-3).

“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace.” peace,” without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”

Melchizedek is only one of many shadows or symbols of Christ in the Old Testament. It is important to remember that what serves as a symbol of a thing is never the thing itself.

Melchizedek is the example of how the function of both offices of king and priest are fulfilled in one man. The two offices of king and priest are manifestly contrary to one another in as much as the administration of the one, stands in stark opposition to that of the other. As king, he is the administrator of justice to the offender. As priest, he is the administrator of mercy. Mercy cannot satisfy the demands of justice because when mercy is extended, the sinner goes unpunished. On the other hand, the administration of justice to the sinner is a complete absence of mercy because the penalty for sin is death. So, how can both offices be affected in one man to render both justice and mercy at the same time?

As King, he renders the sentence of death to the sinner. “The soul who sins, will die” (Ezekiel 18:20) Because the demand for justice must be met for God's holiness to be satisfied, someone must die for sin. It is God's justice that protects his holiness. So, for God to allow sin to go unpunished would be a violation of his nature.

As High Priest, he must supply mercy to the sinner. This is the function of the office. The sinner is guilty, and it is imperative that the sin be punished, but as Priest, he must pardon the offender and allow him to go unpunished (4:14-16). How then does he both demand justice and extend mercy to the sinner? This suggest that there was a sacrificial system observed by Melchizedek which bore the approval of God.

Jesus himself paid the penalty for all sin for all men for all time. Calvary is the satisfaction of God to extradite the sins of humanity to his justice. Thus, as High Priest, he is able to extend mercy and pardon all who will appropriate to themselves the blood of atonement (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9).

III. Melchizedek is a High Priest Without Genealogy (v. 3).

“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most-High God… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”

In chapter seven, we are going to find both comparison and contrast. Jesus' priesthood will be compared to that of Melchizedek but contrasted to that of Aaron.

“Without father, mother, or genealogy.” In other words, with no predecessor and no successor.

Since this is typology, whatever is said of Melchizedek as high priest must also be said of Jesus as high priest. Whatever is said of Jesus as High Priest must also be said of Melchizedek as high priest. This is the nature of typology. Verse 17 informs us that Jesus was made a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. However, verse 3 tells us that Melchizedek was “made like the Son of God, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Here, the order is reversed. So, how are we to understand these rather perplexing statements?

As High Priest, Jesus was taken out of man just like every other high priest, including Melchizedek. This means he had a mother and a father, and so did Melchizedek. He had a “beginning of days and an end of life.” He was born in Bethlehem and died in Jerusalem. According to Matthew 1, he had a genealogy that was traced all the way back to Adam. Both were men, both had a mother and a father, and both had a genealogy. So, how can the writer say, “without father, mother, or genealogy?”

We must remember that the focus is not on Melchizedek the man. The focus is on the priesthood. This is the context. It was Jesus’ priesthood that had no “father, mother, or genealogy?” Just like the priesthood of Melchizedek, Jesus’ priesthood is a one-man-forever-priesthood with no predecessor and no successor.

In the Levitical system, all priests were descended through the line of Aaron (1 Chronicles 6:50-52). To the contrary, the office of the high priest was not passed on to Melchizedek by his father, nor did he pass it on to his heir. In other words, his is also a one-man-forever-priesthood “without father, mother, or genealogy.”

“Having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (v. 3) seems to offer three possibilities.

That this refers to the man Melchizedek. Some argue from this that Melchizedek was not a man but some supernatural being who was neither born of human parents nor had a beginning or end of life. Since this does not fit the reality of Jesus as the antitype, we know this explanation simply is not possible. Some view this and the preceding statement as simply a Hebraism which stresses the obscurity of his genealogy and posterity. Perhaps that is true, but since the type must always reflect the antitype, this theory simply does not reflect typology.

“Having neither beginning of days nor end of life” refers not to the man himself but to his priesthood.

This priesthood is unlike that of the Levitical system. We can look back at Sinai and see where the Levitical priesthood had its beginning of days with the anointing of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 28:1ff). We can then look forward from there to the cross and see where that priesthood saw its end of life. Now, a new and greater covenant is inaugurated in Jesus “according to the power of an endless life.” But Jesus did die and he died as a Great High Priest. This then, is not referring just to the man himself. This also may not apply to just the priesthood apart from the man. Since this is a one-man-forever priesthood, then apart from the man, there is no priesthood.

That this refers to the man as a high priest is, I believe, more to the point. As men, both Jesus and Melchizedek had a beginning of days and an end of life. Both were born and both died. As high priests however, they have neither “beginning of days nor end of life.” They remain priests continually. Death does not interrupt their status as high priest. This stands in contrast to the priests of the Levitical system whose “beginning of days” began at the age of twenty-five. As priests, they reached their “end of life” which was the end of their priestly function at the age of fifty when they completed their appointed time of priestly service (Numbers 8:24-25). Actually, this is what applied to the three families of the Levites who served the tabernacle in a variety of ways. Since the priests were also Levites of the family of Kohath, we can only assume this law applied to them as well.

“But made like the Son of God” (v. 3).

Here, the order is reversed. In 6:20, Christ is presented as a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Now, Melchizedek is said to be a High Priest who was made like the Son of God. Like everything else that is type, Melchizedek is the shadow of the reality. This is like the building of the tabernacle in Exodus 25:40 being built according to the “pattern shown to you on the mountain.” Everything that is shadow must be patterned according to the thing it represents. The substance ALWAYS precedes the type, and the type must always reflect the reality.
He “remains a priest continually” (v. 3).

His priesthood is uninterrupted even by death. He left his office to no one else. Although Melchizedek has been dead for many centuries, he remains the central figure in that one-man-forever priesthood. Like the Son of God, he carries his priesthood beyond the grave. He does not leave it to another. His priesthood, in contrast to that of the Levites, is not bound by the physical. It was “not according to the law of a fleshly commandment” (vs. 15-16). This fleshly commandment says that the Levitical priest must end his days of service at the age of fifty. The High Priest ended his days of service at his death. In contrast, the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater. He continues as the High Priest of his priesthood even though he is dead.

 

[oldhermit]

IV. The Greatness of Melchizedek (vs. 1-10).

As priest, Melchizedek was greater than the prophet and patriarch Abraham, (vs. 1-4; Genesis 20:7).

In Genesis 14, Abraham had just finished demonstrating his own greatness among men in the defeat of Chedolaomer and the three kings who were with him. No other armies had been able to stand against this king of Elam. Yet, Abraham destroyed him and his confederates with only 318 trained servants and the help of the combined forces of Mamre, Eschol, and Aner – the Amorite brothers.

The fact that Melchizedek came out to meet Abraham after his victory bringing bread and wine also speaks of Abraham's greatness. Even Melchizedek, who is the greater, pays honor to the patriarch. But as verse 7 says, “the lesser is blessed by the better.” The fact of Melchizedek's greatness is demonstrated in two ways.

Abraham was under no legal obligation to pay tithes to Melchizedek, yet he gave him one tenth of the spoils. Melchizedek did not come out for the purpose of collecting anything from Abraham. He came out to honor him and bless him. Abraham, of his own accord, gave one tenth to Melchizedek.

Melchizedek (the greater) blessed Abraham (the lesser) (Genesis 14:19-20).

He gave thanks, praise, and congratulations to Abraham for his victory. In this, Melchizedek recognized Abraham as belonging to the Most-High God.

Melchizedek gave due credit to God for Abraham’s victory.

God is the Most-High Preeminent one.

God is the possessor of heaven and earth.

God delivers the enemy into the hand of his people.

As priest, Melchizedek is greater than Levi (vs. 5-10).
The Levites had a legal right to receive tithes from their brethren.

This was properly the priest’s portion. This was needed for the support of the priests and the upkeep of the temple. It may have also been out of this that the priests provided the blood sacrifice for the poorest among the people whose poverty would only enable them to bring a tenth of an epha of fine flour as a sin offering. Since all sin offerings required the shedding of blood, it would seem that the priests supplied the bloody sacrifice from his own store, likely either a lamb or two turtle doves. This certainly befitted the typology. Jesus, as High Priest, provided his own blood.

Yet, through Abraham, Levi is represented as having paid tithes himself to Melchizedek. This shows the superiority of Melchizedek’s priestly office over that of Aaron’s for through Abraham, the one who received tithes (Levi) paid tithes to the greater priest (Melchizedek).

 

[Aaron56]

Yes but it also says that he abideth a priest continually.

Now if Melchizedek abideth a priest continually, then Christ is not the priest who abideth continually. You cannot have both remaining priests eternally.

But it is Christ who has the endless life: Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Heb 7:16,17)

Therefore Melchizedek is simply one of the appearance of Christ.

No, it just means there is no record of his death.

Today, if you are in Christ, you too are a priest and king who will never die.

 

[Blik]

~
For the record:

In other words: I strongly, and I seriously, doubt Melchizedek was a so-called pre-incarnate Christ.

** It's been proven by experience that if an idea is repeated often enough,
widely enough, and loudly enough by people held in high esteem; and/or high
authority, that pretty soon the idea is accepted by the masses as fact without
thought or question. (a.k.a. the Asch Conformity Phenomenon)

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong;
Gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
(Thomas Paine)
_

Milchezedek was both a king and a priest, as was Christ. He did not spend three days paying for our sin, only Jesus Christ did that.

 

[Webers.Home]

~
FAQ: Why isn't Melchizedek mentioned in any of Paul's letters written to the
Gentiles? I mean: wasn't Mel a Gentile? And Abraham: wasn't he a Gentile
too?

It seems to me that a Gentile high priest, who never even once that we
know of ministered to Jews, is out of place in a letter written for the specific
purpose of enlightening the mind's of Hebrew people.
_