PDA

View Full Version : Melchizedek - if you believe that he was Jesus, tell me why!



Nihil Obstat
Sep 14th 2007, 07:20 PM
In class we were put into groups and given topics that we have to debate about, and my group has to defend that Melchizedek was a man who foreshadowed Christ, and we'll be rebutting a group who is defending the stance that Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Christ. I already believe that Melchizedek was just a man who was a picture of Christ, but what are some arguments that Melchizedek was actually Jesus, much like many of "the Angel of the Lord" passages were? If you believe that Melchizedek was Jesus, would you mind posting your reasons, and giving me the opportunity to give rebuttals to your thoughts?

Steve M
Sep 14th 2007, 07:49 PM
In class we were put into groups and given topics that we have to debate about, and my group has to defend that Melchizedek was a man who foreshadowed Christ, and we'll be rebutting a group who is defending the stance that Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Christ. I already believe that Melchizedek was just a man who was a picture of Christ, but what are some arguments that Melchizedek was actually Jesus, much like many of "the Angel of the Lord" passages were? If you believe that Melchizedek was Jesus, would you mind posting your reasons, and giving me the opportunity to give rebuttals to your thoughts?
I'm personally a bit divided about this, myself, so I've heard both arguements..

Argument A: the Hebrews author refers to him as a man without beginning or end, no genealogy and no past. Since only God or Christ could be truly that, he must be Christ.

Counter-point; the Hebrews author could be saying that his genealogy is unknown, since his only point is that Melchy is NOT a Levite.

Arguement B: Abraham paid tithes to him; tithes go to God.

Counter-point; not exclusively. Nu 18:26 "Speak to the Levites and say to them: 'When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the Lord's offering.'" I.e., God had the people give a tithe to the priests, for their support. If Melchy was a priest, then he was also entitled to a tithe.

Argument 3: There was nobody else following God; how could he be a priest of God at this time without being Jesus?

Counterpoint: Jethro of Midian was also called a priest of God Most High. There were men around described as such and treated as such. We are told nothing of God's relationship to them, and how it came to be, or what they believed. It doesn't mean God didn't have followers other than Abraham...

There are many, many more, but that should get the ball rolling for now. Plenty to think about there.

Steven3
Sep 14th 2007, 07:58 PM
Hi astrongerthanhe :)

His parents may not be recorded, but his descendant may be. He was Melchi-Zedek (king-of-righteousness), king of Salem. When Joshua came into the land the king of Jerusalem was Adoni Zedek (lord-of-righteousness). Coincidence?

God bless
S

matthew94
Sep 14th 2007, 08:47 PM
Basically, the argument is that they have too much in common to be 'simply' alike

Characteristics of Melchizedek in Scripture
1. He was King of Salem (Genesis 14:18)
2. He gave bread and wine to Abraham (Genesis 14:18)
3. He was Priest of God Most High (Genesis 14:18)
4. He blessed Abram (Genesis 14:19)
5. Abram gave him ‘of everything’ (Genesis 14:20)
6. He is a Priest forever (Psalm 110:4)
7. His name means King of Righteousness (Hebrews 7:2)
8. King of Salem means King of Peace (Hebrews 7:2)
9. He was without genealogy (Hebrews 7:3)
10. He was without beginning or end (Hebrews 7:3)
11. He is greater than Abraham (Hebrews 7:7)
12. He is greater than a Levitical Priest (Hebrews 7:9)
13. He has an indestructibe life (Hebrews 7:16-17)

Characteristics of Jesus that correspond
1. He is the King of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:11)
2. He gave bread and wine to Abraham’s children (Matthew 26:26-28)
3. He is the High Priest of God (Hebrews 5:10)
4. He blesses Abraham’s descendants (Galatians 3:29)
5. Abraham’s descendants give Him everything (Romans 12:1-2)
6. He is a Priest forever, has an indestructible life (Hebrews 7:24)
7. He is the King of Righteousness (Matthew 3:15)
8. He is the King of Peace (Acts 10:36)
9. He was born of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35)
10. He is without beginning or end (Revelation 21:6)
11. He is greater than Abraham (John 8:52-58)
12. He is greater than a Levitical Priest (Hebrew 7:22)
13. He has an indestructible life (Hebrews 7:24)

Nihil Obstat
Sep 15th 2007, 05:41 PM
Yeah, it seems that the arguments made for Melchizedek being the pre-incarnate Christ is found in Hebrews 7:1-16. Our group stumbled upon a life threatening blow to the argument that Melchizedek is too much like Jesus to be separate individuals: in Heb. 7:3, when we're told that Melchizedek was "made like the Son of God," that Greek word "like" is only used here in the entire NT, and it can only mean to compare two different things. In other words, the author of Hebrews chose this word specifically in order to do away with any confusion as to Melchizedek being a created person, as opposed to Uncreated. Besides, the entire flow of the book of Hebrews is that people, things, and ordinances are compared to Jesus, and explaining why Jesus is better than all of that.

Concerning Melchizedek being "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life," I personally believe that this is because Melchizedek was a Gentile. I've heard of testimonies about Jews who were shown Matthew ch.1 (Jesus' genealogy) and became converted! There's something about a family tree that is important to their culture. We're told in Gen. 5 who begot who at what age and how old they lived to be, but never for those outside of God's chosen people are we told both of these things.

Also, Gen. 14 is very important to study when approaching this question of who Melchizedek was. Throughout the entire chapter we're told that this king from this place joined with so and so from such and such a place, and they attacked this group of kings from these certain places. We're supposed to understand that these kings were with armies of people, and that they were from well known places. Then enters Melchizedek, king of Salem. He's not just one person that comes out of nowhere holding bread and wine. No, he has an entire army with him! He's to be understood just as the other kings in Gen. 14 are understood.

But what I'd really love is to talk with someone who has come to the conclusion that Melchizedek was pre-incarnate Jesus. Not because it's a salvation issue or because I want to convert the person to what I think, but because I want to familiarize myself with the other side's reasons. Thanks so much you three who have posted so far - that was greatly helpful to us!

- luke e. leven

matthew94
Sep 15th 2007, 08:48 PM
Our group stumbled upon a life threatening blow to the argument that Melchizedek is too much like Jesus to be separate individuals: in Heb. 7:3, when we're told that Melchizedek was "made like the Son of God," that Greek word "like" is only used here in the entire NT, and it can only mean to compare two different things.

I also thought of the word 'like' as a blow to that side of the argument AT FIRST. But it's certainly not a death blow because there are numerous other ways of thinking about it...For one, it could simply mean that Melchizedek was a theophany 'like' Jesus was a theophany of God. Certainly they were 'different' incarnations (granting the conclusion), but they could still be the 'same' 2nd Person of the Trinity. Further, if the whole point of Hebrews is to show the greatness of Christ (which it seems to be), then why talk about Melchizedek's greatness if he wasn't Christ? In other words, I don't think the word 'like' is a life threatening blow.

Nihil Obstat
Sep 15th 2007, 10:00 PM
Well, they talk about Moses' greatness.

Also, I was wondering, if Melchizedek was a theophany (or a Christophany), would Hebrews be the only place in the NT that refers to a theophany? If so, would you consider that to be a point against Melchizedek being Jesus, as it would be uncharacteristic of the NT flow?

TEITZY
Sep 16th 2007, 12:14 PM
In class we were put into groups and given topics that we have to debate about, and my group has to defend that Melchizedek was a man who foreshadowed Christ, and we'll be rebutting a group who is defending the stance that Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Christ. I already believe that Melchizedek was just a man who was a picture of Christ, but what are some arguments that Melchizedek was actually Jesus, much like many of "the Angel of the Lord" passages were? If you believe that Melchizedek was Jesus, would you mind posting your reasons, and giving me the opportunity to give rebuttals to your thoughts?

Here's (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=76116) an old thread that may be helpful.

Cheers
Leigh

Steven3
Sep 16th 2007, 01:25 PM
Hi Matthew :)
Basically, the argument is that they have too much in common to be 'simply' alike

Characteristics of Melchizedek in Scripture
1. He was King of Salem (Genesis 14:18)
2. He gave bread and wine to Abraham (Genesis 14:18)
3. He was Priest of God Most High (Genesis 14:18)
4. He blessed Abram (Genesis 14:19)
5. Abram gave him ‘of everything’ (Genesis 14:20)
6. He is a Priest forever (Psalm 110:4)
7. His name means King of Righteousness (Hebrews 7:2)
8. King of Salem means King of Peace (Hebrews 7:2)
9. He was without genealogy (Hebrews 7:3)
10. He was without beginning or end (Hebrews 7:3)
11. He is greater than Abraham (Hebrews 7:7)
12. He is greater than a Levitical Priest (Hebrews 7:9)
13. He has an indestructibe life (Hebrews 7:16-17)

Characteristics of Jesus that correspond
1. He is the King of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:11)
2. He gave bread and wine to Abraham’s children (Matthew 26:26-28)
3. He is the High Priest of God (Hebrews 5:10)
4. He blesses Abraham’s descendants (Galatians 3:29)
5. Abraham’s descendants give Him everything (Romans 12:1-2)
6. He is a Priest forever, has an indestructible life (Hebrews 7:24)
7. He is the King of Righteousness (Matthew 3:15)
8. He is the King of Peace (Acts 10:36)
9. He was born of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35)
10. He is without beginning or end (Revelation 21:6)
11. He is greater than Abraham (John 8:52-58)
12. He is greater than a Levitical Priest (Hebrew 7:22)
13. He has an indestructible life (Hebrews 7:24)

We could make similar 13 point lists for Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon and Hezekiah.

Typology (from Greek "Adam who was a pattern" typos) is a useful and scriptural tool. We learn a lot about Christ by looking at his foreshadows in the OT. But no type is 100% true. Isaac was not really the true "Seed", David and Solomon were not really the true "Anointed" (Christos, Messiah), Hezekiah was not the true "Immanuel", Zerubbabel was not the true "Branch", and so on, these men are partial figures. Melchizedek too - Melchizedek (it seems) had descendants (Adonizedek), Melchizedek wasn't part of the Abrahamic promise, Melchizedek was presumably mortal, and was not raised from the dead (or Jesus would be secondfruits).

The distinction is important - a lot of rabbis argued that the Jews would have no further Messiah after Hezekiah, but all those OT men, no matter how good, could not save. Acts 4:12.

Further the comment in Heb7 about the former priests sacrificing for their "own sins as well as the people" has to apply to pre-Aaronic priests such as Enosh (Gen 4:26?) and Melchizedek as much as Aaron. Otherwise there is already a sinless sacrifice before the cross. This indicates that Melchizedek too was a sinner, therefore mortal, therefore as dependent on being justified by Christ's blood, and, one day, raised from the dead by Christ as Aaron.

God bless
Steven

Nihil Obstat
Sep 17th 2007, 06:58 PM
We are to be kings and priests (Rev. 5:10), and it doesn't matter if we're of Jew or Gentile descent. We don't have to be from the tribe of Levi, because Jesus didn't have to be from the tribe of Levi. Jesus came in the order of Melchizedek, therefore we too in Christ are priests in the order of Melchizedek. My Gentile family line wasn't dedicated as priests, yet in Christ I am a priest - how? - in the order of Melchizedek, where having a father or mother or genealogy of priests is not a requirement, as Christ is my Father in that regard (Isa. 9:6; John 13:33) - and because by Christ I have eternal life as a priest, beginning or end of days concerning the ordained time in the Aaronic priesthood (Num. 8:23-26) is a non-issue.

This is the whole reason why Melchizedek is brought up in the book of Hebrews. Because in Christ I am a priest in the order of Melchizedek, I too remain a priest continually (Heb. 7:3), though my "tribe" has never been officiated as so at any altar (7:13, 14); I too am more than a mortal man (7:8), as I have been called by a Man who came according to the power of an endless life (7:16). The point is that the lesser is blessed by the greater (7:7); the Levitical priesthood (the natural) was set aside as a type, or a shadow, of the priesthood according to Christ (the heavenly).

The Levites were all to be in the order of Melchizedek, in that each of them were to do all of their duties not by their own strength, nor out of a prideful faith in their lineage, but by the strength and order of Jesus who was both the perfect sacrifice and the great High Priest. If Melchizedek was Jesus in the flesh (Melchizedek had to have been a man in the flesh, as per context of Gen. 14), then there would have been no need for Christ to come again, because there would have been no need for the new covenant (Heb. 7:12). Melchizedek could not have been Jesus in any form - he was a Gentile man, which alone emboldens us and stirs up our faith that in Christ (and not in Levi) we are priests forever under the new and better covenant. Amen!

- luke e. leven

matthew94
Sep 17th 2007, 07:33 PM
Hi Matthew :)

We could make similar 13 point lists for Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon and Hezekiah.

We could make 13 point lists about such people, but would they be as significant as the list provided? In other words, how many of them could be called 'greater than abraham?' How many could be 'priests forever' or 'without genealogy?' Personally, I don't think he was a pre-incarnate Jesus. I just think there's good evidence on both sides, so I am open to both possibilities.

God bless :)
matthew

Steven3
Sep 17th 2007, 08:00 PM
Hi M
We could make 13 point lists about such people, but would they be as significant as the list provided? Yes!! :D Melchizedek just looks easy because in this case someone (the writer to Hebrews) has already done most of the work. But I know of a youth camp where they got to 100 points of contact between David and Christ, Joseph and Christ, not that I have the lists! ;)
S

Theophilus
Sep 17th 2007, 08:06 PM
Genesis 14

14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
15And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
16And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
17And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.
18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: 20And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Genesis 18

1And the LORD appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

Come on, people...If Melchizedek = Jesus, wouldn't Abraham have said something when he was visited by the three men on the plains of Mamre?

You know, something like, "Hey, aren't you that Melchizedek that I gave tithes to after rescuing Lot?"

Case closed.

;) (tongue firmly in cheek)

Nihil Obstat
Sep 17th 2007, 08:15 PM
how many of them could be called 'greater than abraham?'

John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11)!

walked
Sep 17th 2007, 09:05 PM
I'm not real familiar with Melchizedek and the Melchizedek priesthood yet

But, I am familiar with how many times Gods word refers to Christ second coming and nowhere does it mention a third coming and, If Christ was Melchizedek then Christ second coming would actually be His third coming and Gods written word doesn't mention a third coming but only a second coming.

I apologize if I have misunderstood the purpose of the thread.

matthew94
Sep 17th 2007, 09:58 PM
Hi M Yes!! :D Melchizedek just looks easy because in this case someone (the writer to Hebrews) has already done most of the work. But I know of a youth camp where they got to 100 points of contact between David and Christ, Joseph and Christ, not that I have the lists! ;)
S

My emphasis was on the word significant. I can make lists of points of contact between Kobe Bryant and Christ if I wanted to, but so what? There wouldn't be very much significance to the list. The writer of Hebrews, obviously, felt there was much significance to the points of contact b/w Jesus and Melchizedek. The significance is not found in the 'number' of comparisons or even that there are comparisons, but in the importance of the comparisons.

Like I said, I don't personally think Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate manifestation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, but I have to admit that the significance of the points of contact are interesting enough to leave the door open to that possibility.

Just my opinion,
matthew

PS...I have always found it somewhat interesting that this debate over Melchizedek gets so much attention. What is the significance of it? How does it matter either way? Just curious.

Nihil Obstat
Sep 17th 2007, 11:13 PM
I apologize if I have misunderstood the purpose of the thread.

Your avatar of Sonic the Hedgehog totally makes up for any and all misunderstandings! Up, down, left, right, hold down A and Start! ;)


I have always found it somewhat interesting that this debate over Melchizedek gets so much attention. What is the significance of it? How does it matter either way? Just curious.

Probably not too much; maybe the same significance as to whether Jesus had long hair or short. :)
All I know is that I have to debate on this Thursday morning!

Nihil Obstat
Sep 18th 2007, 05:27 AM
Not saying that you agree with Melchizedek being a pre-incarnate Christ, but this is worth sharing:


Argument A: the Hebrews author refers to him as a man without beginning or end, no genealogy and no past. Since only God or Christ could be truly that, he must be Christ.

Interestingly, in Heb. 7:6, the author tells us that Melchizedek did have a genealogy, just not derived from the Levites.


Arguement B: Abraham paid tithes to him; tithes go to God.

Equally interesting is that in Heb. 7:5 the author tells us that even the Levites received tithes from the people.

It's funny how sometimes just reading a few verses before or after slowly can solve the hardest of mysteries, isn't it?

Steven3
Sep 18th 2007, 10:43 AM
Hi Matt :)
My emphasis was on the word significant. I can make lists of points of contact between Kobe Bryant and Christ if I wanted to, but so what? Who is Kobe Bryant? :hmm:

Well you say that, but based on the studies I've seen even senior Youth Groups produce, I'd say the contact points between Joseph, David, etc and Christ are considerably more significant than the short list for Melchizedek. It's simply that Hebrews serves up the Melchizedek typology on a plate, wheras the other OT models require Christians to do some serious OT study. And, like me too of course, many folks prefer to get their Bible served up as fast-food and not have to put in any effort.


PS...I have always found it somewhat interesting that this debate over Melchizedek gets so much attention. What is the significance of it? How does it matter either way? Just curious.It's a basic factor of human psychology - we all love mystery. We all love a whodunnit, a locked room, a missing word. It's more entertaining to construct a world for Melchizedek from 4 or 5 verses than to wade through endless chapters of Isaiah looking for clues to the life of the original "servant" in Isaiah 53, try to reconstruct Zerubbabel's life from 4 parallel post-exilic books. Or dig in the Psalms to find clues to the life of David. Basically there's too much information on David Joseph etc to be interesting. The attraction of Melchizedek is probably that the sheer lack of information makes fertile ground for being creative ;)

God bless
Steven

Nihil Obstat
Sep 18th 2007, 06:44 PM
I have always found it somewhat interesting that this debate over Melchizedek gets so much attention. What is the significance of it? How does it matter either way? Just curious.

Having given it more thought, this is the "why" that I came up with:

We are to be kings and priests (Rev. 5:10), because we in Christ have entered “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9), where age, gender, circumcision, and race are not requirements. We don’t have to be of the tribe of Levi, nor of Judah, but only baptized into the priestly ministry as Jesus was by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:15), in the order of Melchizedek, “not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21), for this is the baptism which saves us. Jesus was another priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:11, 15), meaning that the two are separate yet similar (see also “like” in 7:3), and that all of the children of promise were to praise God “in the order of Melchizedek”, not by the letter of the law apart from the spirit of the law. I am a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, as are you, having no end of life – being more than a mortal man (7:8) – serving within a new and better covenant. This alone gives us boldness!

If Melchizedek had been Jesus, then we who are in Christ being priests “according to Melchizedek” would have much less meaning, not just for us Gentiles, but concerning the Messianic Jews that the author was writing to, the fact that they do not have to be Levites, and that just because the Levites who are born of Levi does not count toward them as righteousness, would also serve to humble them and give them gratitude. It’s those who put their faith in the Messiah and in God who are kings of righteousness and kings of peace, not those who happen to be of a certain bloodline. These are the volunteer lovers promised to Jesus in Ps. 110:3 – those few who will follow the Lamb wherever He goes (cp. Rev. 14:4), even into the winepress “in the day of His wrath.”

matthew94
Sep 18th 2007, 07:19 PM
Interestingly, in Heb. 7:6, the author tells us that Melchizedek did have a genealogy, just not derived from the Levites.

No it doesn't. You are reading that into the text. 7:6 says he didn't trace his descent from Levi. You are free to assume, from that, that he had descent from some place else, but that's not actually the point being made in 7:6. The statement is made just to prove that Melchizedek isn't from Levi. 7:3 says directly that Melchizedek was without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life. In other words, I think you'll lose your debate if you attempt to use 7:6 as proof that he had a genealogy (well, at least if the other side is paying attention!)


Equally interesting is that in Heb. 7:5 the author tells us that even the Levites received tithes from the people. It's funny how sometimes just reading a few verses before or after slowly can solve the hardest of mysteries, isn't it?

The Levites receiving tithes was part of God receiving tithes! You didn't think they sent the tithes up into the sky via rocket did you? :)

Nihil Obstat
Sep 18th 2007, 10:27 PM
No, I'm not reading that into the text - that's what the Greek for "derive" means in Heb. 7:6. And as for tithes, they were given to the Levites, and the Levites gave a tenth of that to God (Num. 18:20-26). Furthermore, tithing is not the point of this passage in Hebrews, because the author doesn't pick it back up when speaking of Jesus. The point is 7:7, and should be understood in this manner: that though Abram was called, set apart, and given promises when he had tithed to Melchizedek, he had not yet put his faith in God (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:13-22), nor was he justified yet (Gen. 22:10; Jas. 2:21). The author is saying to the Messianic Jews that were wavering and considering returning to the letter of the law that it's not enough to be of a specific bloodline, nor just to keep the law without the spirit of the law. Melchizedek was better because though he did not have the covenants, the law, or the promises, he still had faith in a coming Messiah. Therefore it's not enough to be a Jew or of Levite descent - we must all come according to the order of Melchizedek. It's not enough to keep the old covenant, because now that Yeshua has come, there has been "a change of the law" (7:12), and this is the law that they are to keep. It's the new covenant, and by God's grace they are able to keep this covenant, whereas by the old none could be saved. To say that Melchizedek was Jesus is to misunderstand the key turning point in the book of Hebrews.

FaithfulSheep
Sep 19th 2007, 12:25 AM
Just jumping in to say I'm really enjoying what I am learning in this thread. This happened to be part of my Bible study for today.

Carry on. :)

matthew94
Sep 19th 2007, 02:51 AM
No, I'm not reading that into the text - that's what the Greek for "derive" means in Heb. 7:6.

We don't disagree about what 'derive' means. But the passage says he does NOT derive from the Levites. You are reading into the text that that mandates that he DOES derive from some other human.

Nihil Obstat
Sep 19th 2007, 05:07 AM
We don't disagree about what 'derive' means. But the passage says he does NOT derive from the Levites. You are reading into the text that that mandates that he DOES derive from some other human.

So if I told you, "I have a car that isn't blue," that someone could come to the conclusion that I don't have a car of any color?


Who's reading into the text?

matthew94
Sep 19th 2007, 05:19 AM
So if I told you, "I have a car that isn't blue," that someone could come to the conclusion that I don't have a car of any color?


Who's reading into the text?

That's a false analogy. A true analogy would be if you said: "I do not have a blue car"... which would leave me unknowing as to whether you had a car at all.

But truth be told, we have MORE information than that since verse 3 specifically states: "without genealogy." So using your analogy we have a statement that there is NO CAR. And then a statement that there is no blue car. These 2 statements fit very well together.

Nihil Obstat
Sep 19th 2007, 05:48 AM
I hope that you're enjoying this as much as I am - because I would take 7:3 with 7:6 and come to this conclusion: "I don't have a blue pope-mobile." :lol:

Steven3
Sep 19th 2007, 09:46 AM
Hi Matthew, Astrongerthanhe :),
The key issue perhaps is whether Heb 7:2 contradicts Ro 5:14 or not. Personally I don't think it does.

Heb 7:2 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever

Romans 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

God bless
Steven

Nihil Obstat
Sep 20th 2007, 02:48 AM
Melchizedek was "without father" (Heb. 7:3), and therefore some conclude that he must have been Jesus. But Jesus has a Father, as it is said of Him, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You" (5:5; Ps. 2:7). Jesus came to reveal His Father (John 14:9; 17:26). So we should understand that Melchizedek being "without father" not in the literal sense, as only the Father has no Father (Isa. 40:13-14). We should instead understand 7:3 in light of 7:6, that Melchizedek had a father, but his father was not a Levite. Therefore Jesus came according to the order of Melchizedek, because Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (7:14), and He came as a forerunner (6:20) - of what? - of an entire priesthood who would be called according to the order of Melchizedek, where age, gender, and race matter not. This is you and me! Melchizedek being a man and a type brings us hope and emboldens us in our faith, as it reveals the humility of God.

Yes, without doubt, Melchizedek was a great man - we are even directed to consider his greatness (7:4). But so too are the angels (1:4), Moses (3:3), Joshua (4:8), Abraham (6:13), and Aaron (7:11)! We too in Christ, should we walk by the priestly authority given us freely, are promised greatness. We too will be kings of righteousness and kings of peace, should we be faithful in our eternal priestly role. We don't have to be Levites - we can come according to the order of Melchizedek to be separate (holy), that we would perform the work of the Lord.

The very fact that Melchizedek's identity is debated acts as a rebuke to the church, for he "is hard to explain, since [we] have become dull of hearing... need[ing] someone to teach [us] again the first principles of the oracles of God... [being] unskilled in the word of righteousness... [unable] to discern both good and evil" (5:11-14). His identity is important to us, so much so that the author follows this up with a warning against falling away from the faith (6:4-8)! Why? - because we should understand Melchizedek as divine? No! - because without understanding him as but a man, and that we too are called according to his order, our natural inclination is to accuse God of being unjust (6:10) and to lose hope, becoming sluggish and impatient (6:11-12). This will lead a man to harlot himself to other gods, and eventually sear his conscience to such a degree that he falls away from the faith (6:6).

So he being created as opposed to Uncreated is of eternal importance! Because Jesus was our forerunner (6:20), passing through the heavens (4:14), we too can come boldly before God's mercy seat (4:16) to minister before Him without being of a particular bloodline. If Melchizedek was a theophany, than we could only approach God's throne of grace in one of two ways: as the Levitical high priest, and that only once a year, or by sinless perfection, as Jesus was (4:15). Praise God that Melchizedek was but a man, as we are!

- luke e, leven

Pray for us - our debate is tomorrow morning!

matthew94
Sep 20th 2007, 03:55 AM
Hope it goes well!

It felt kind of strange arguing, in this thread, for a position I don't hold (even though I think it is more possible than you probably do). Hopefully this thread has helped sharpen your argument a bit!

Naphal
Sep 20th 2007, 06:32 AM
I'm not real familiar with Melchizedek and the Melchizedek priesthood yet

But, I am familiar with how many times Gods word refers to Christ second coming and nowhere does it mention a third coming and, If Christ was Melchizedek then Christ second coming would actually be His third coming and Gods written word doesn't mention a third coming but only a second coming.

I apologize if I have misunderstood the purpose of the thread.

The second coming refers to the coming after he ascended up to heaven and took his place next to his Father, where he is now. The second coming is the coming when he returns to the earth for the last time. There will never be another leaving nor coming.

This does not deny any coming before his ascension. I believe Jesus did come here before his human birth and I do believe Melchizedek was Jesus before being named Jesus.

Naphal
Sep 20th 2007, 06:37 AM
Interestingly, in Heb. 7:6, the author tells us that Melchizedek did have a genealogy, just not derived from the Levites.

Not quite. It does not say he has a genealogy in fact verse 3 is very clear that he does not have one.


Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hebrews 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Hebrews 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
Hebrews 7:6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

All it says is that he did not descend from Levites. It does not say that he descended from anyone else.

sulfurdolphin
Sep 20th 2007, 06:43 AM
I used to believe that the Melchizedek spoken of in Genesis was Jesus, but the more research i have done the best candidate would be Shem as Melchizedek. Here are some of my supporting views on this topic.


1. because shem was the oldest son of Noah Genesis 5:32

2.Noah blessed Shem in Genesis 9:23,26

3. Malki-Tzedek king of Shalem brought out bread and wine HE was cohen of El 'Elyon, who handed your enemies over to you." Avrah gave him a tenth of everything

in Psalms 110:4 Adonai has sworn it, and he will never retract "You are a cohen forever, to be compared with Malki-Tzedek.

4. Shem was the firstborn from Noah.

5.Even though Christ and Melchizedek have similar roles though i do not believe that they claim dependence on each other claiming that Christ was the Melchizedek (high priest). I do believe that Melchizedek was a type of Christ but not Christ himself.

6.Also in Hebrews it talks about how Abraham had to give a tenth of everything to Melchizedek also Shem was the oldest living high priest in the patriarchal period.

7.Ungers Bible Dictionary states "Without father, etc.(Heb.7:3) refers to priestly genealogies. Melchizedek is not found on the register of the only line of legitimate priests ; no record of his name is there; his fathers name is not recorded, nor his mother’s; no evidence points to his line of descent from Aaron. It is not affirmed that he had no father, that he was not born at any time, or died on any day; but that these facts were nowhere found on the register of the Levitical priesthood." (p.711 1979 ed.).

8.Messiah comes from the line of Shem.


9.Both type and fulfillment of Melchizedek are king and priest, By their being no genealogical line with no record of birth or death he prefigures Christ as the priest who continues forever. In the Old Testament no King could be a priest, no priest could function as a King. Only Christ is able to fill the office of being a Priest, a Prophet and a King Heb.7:17, 20, 24. If Melchizedek was Christ we would have to deal with two incarnations, since all priests were taken from among men. If he was Jesus who became man then his birth through Mary would be a second incarnation.


10.Melchizedek was priest and king in Jerusalem just like Jesus.

Michael

Naphal
Sep 20th 2007, 06:43 AM
Melchizedek was "without father" (Heb. 7:3), and therefore some conclude that he must have been Jesus.

Apples and oranges. The "father" means human father and neither Melchizedek nor Jesus had a human father. Furthermore it states Melchizedek had no mother. Jesus had a human mother but before he was born *if* he was known as the King of Righteousness (Melchizedek) then that would explain how he could have no human mother or father as he was not human.

Naphal
Sep 20th 2007, 06:44 AM
I used to believe that the Melchizedek spoken of in Genesis was Jesus, but the more research i have done the best candidate would be Shem as Melchizedek. Here are some of my supporting views on this topic.


1. because shem was the oldest son of Noah Genesis 5:32

2.Noah blessed Shem in Genesis 9:23,26

3. Malki-Tzedek king of Shalem brought out bread and wine HE was cohen of El 'Elyon, who handed your enemies over to you." Avrah gave him a tenth of everything

in Psalms 110:4 Adonai has sworn it, and he will never retract "You are a cohen forever, to be compared with Malki-Tzedek.

4. Shem was the firstborn from Noah.

5.Even though Christ and Melchizedek have similar roles though i do not believe that they claim dependence on each other claiming that Christ was the Melchizedek (high priest). I do believe that Melchizedek was a type of Christ but not Christ himself.

6.Also in Hebrews it talks about how Abraham had to give a tenth of everything to Melchizedek also Shem was the oldest living high priest in the patriarchal period.

7.Ungers Bible Dictionary states "Without father, etc.(Heb.7:3) refers to priestly genealogies. Melchizedek is not found on the register of the only line of legitimate priests ; no record of his name is there; his fathers name is not recorded, nor his mother’s; no evidence points to his line of descent from Aaron. It is not affirmed that he had no father, that he was not born at any time, or died on any day; but that these facts were nowhere found on the register of the Levitical priesthood." (p.711 1979 ed.).

8.Messiah comes from the line of Shem.


9.Both type and fulfillment of Melchizedek are king and priest, By their being no genealogical line with no record of birth or death he prefigures Christ as the priest who continues forever. In the Old Testament no King could be a priest, no priest could function as a King. Only Christ is able to fill the office of being a Priest, a Prophet and a King Heb.7:17, 20, 24. If Melchizedek was Christ we would have to deal with two incarnations, since all priests were taken from among men. If he was Jesus who became man then his birth through Mary would be a second incarnation.


10.Melchizedek was priest and king in Jerusalem just like Jesus.

Michael

Melchizedek wasn't Shem because Shem had a mother and a Father.

sulfurdolphin
Sep 20th 2007, 06:50 AM
7.Ungers Bible Dictionary states "Without father, etc.(Heb.7:3) refers to priestly genealogies. Melchizedek is not found on the register of the only line of legitimate priests ; no record of his name is there; his fathers name is not recorded, nor his mother’s; no evidence points to his line of descent from Aaron. It is not affirmed that he had no father, that he was not born at any time, or died on any day; but that these facts were nowhere found on the register of the Levitical priesthood." (p.711 1979 ed.).

on the other hand if shem had outlived his parents he would have no lineage technically. just like Jesus had an earthly father and mother but on the other hand they both had no records of there names being priest.

Steven3
Sep 20th 2007, 07:46 AM
Hi Naphal :)
Melchizedek wasn't Shem because Shem had a mother and a Father.

I think this is undeniable. But while Melchizedek's parents are not recorded (very differently from a Priest in AD60s, who would have his paperwork in order all the way back to Aaron), that doesn't mean his ancestor (Adam) is not recorded.

Let's step aside for a second. Who were the priests when Hebrews was written? Who exactly is the writer comparing Melchizedek with?

Hebrews is almost certainly written prior to AD70 in that it refers to the activities of the priests in the present tense. In fact if the temple had been destroyed and the writer of Hebrews failed to take advantage of that fact it would be amazing.

But, it is generally placed after the last of Caiphas' five brother-in-laws who succeeded in Annas' house (NB coincidence of the "five brothers in my fathers house" of the Rich Man and Lazarus parable). The last of Caiphas' brother-in-laws, Annas the Younger, the son of the Annas at the trial of Jesus, “followed the school of the Sadducees” (Josephus, Antiquities 20:199).

In the year 62AD Annas the Younger “convened the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the Torah and delivered them to be stoned” (Antiq. 20:200-203).

This was the last evil deed of Caiphas' and his sons, (another coincidence - fulfilling Abraham's prophecy to the Rich Man that they would not believe even if someone, or two people, Lazarus and Christ, was sent to them from the dead)

After this the Pharisees, whom Josephus, himself at that time a Pharisee, describes as the “inhabitants of Jerusalem who were considered the most tolerant and were strict in the observance of the commandments,” managed to have the high priest Annas the Younger deposed from his position due to the illegal execution of James. There then followed a period of turmoil as the Pharisee party tried to ensure that the Sadducee party (i.e. the people who had installed Annas, then his son-in-law Caiphas, then all 5 of Annas' sons in turn), didn't find another Sadducee to fill the high priestly office.

So the office of high priest was in the balance, disputed between Pharisees and Sadducees (all themselves Levites, many Aaronites), each with their own candidates for the top job. And of course the Romans interfering to try and find someone who wouldn't fan the flames of the Zealot movement - which 5 years later would cause a 3 year rebellion.

If Hebrews is written during the AD60s, which those commentators with a full-inspiration viewpoint generally conclude, then at the same time as this Melchizedek discussion is being made to Jewish converts there is dispute going on about who has the best (genealogy-based) claim to succeed the family of Annas as high priests in Herod's Temple. So the point that Melchizedek had no genealogy-book to produce is doubly damning.


However ---- back to the original post ---- Paul does give Melchizedek a genealogy in Acts17 when, to the Athenians, he claims that "all men" are descended from Adam. If Melchizedek was a man (and a priest has to be a man according to Hebrews, not an angel - therefore not a heavenly being)

We're also in danger of missing the wood for the trees here. Melchizedek doesn't just drop out of a cloud (or a UFO) into Hebrews 5 with no preparation - Hebrews 2, 3, 4, 5, is all about establishing the credentials of our Lord Jesus as a priest because he was/is "a man", with a mother, a man who was "made" like his brethren in all points (except the virgin birth obviously) and "tempted" like his brethren in all points. If that can't be said for Melchizedek then he isn't qualified to be a priest for Abraham, and the entire Melchizedek-greater-than-Aaron argument falls apart.

Conclusion - Ro5:14 refers to everyone in the Adam-Moses period, without exception.

God bless
Steven

Naphal
Sep 20th 2007, 07:58 AM
However ---- back to the original post ---- Paul does give Melchizedek a genealogy in Acts17 when, to the Athenians, he claims that "all men" are descended from Adam. If Melchizedek was a man (and a priest has to be a man according to Hebrews, not an angel - therefore not a heavenly being)

Yes but the Son of God is a man yet not human yet at that time. It can go either way for me but in faith I lean to him being Jesus.

Nihil Obstat
Sep 21st 2007, 11:45 PM
Hey Naphal, two questions I'd love for you to comment on (though I wish you would have seen this before my debate! - but that's okay):

1) If Melchizedek was of the Godhead, when we pray, should we pray to him? Like, the Angel of the Lord being Jesus in most of the passages that mention Him, even Jacob / Israel prayed to "the Angel who has redeemed me from all evil" (Gen. 48:16), so why not in the name of Melchizedek?

2) What do you have to say about my point that if Melchizedek was Jesus, then because we are also priests according to the order of Melchizedek (Jesus being our Forerunner - Heb. 6:20), then the only way that we could approach the throne of God with boldness is if we are perfectly sinless as Jesus is (Heb. 4:15)? This is what ch.6 is about, that if we misunderstand the oracle of Ps. 110:4, that we'll misunderstand who we are as priests, and naturally come to the conclusion that even though Jesus died on the cross as the perfect sacrifice, we still can't come to the throne with boldness because we are still sinners - hence accusing God of being unjust (6:10; cp. 1 John 1:9) and becoming sluggish and impatient, losing hope, causing the Messianic Jewish recipients to want to fall back to the OT ways and the Talmid. The implication of misunderstanding Melchizedek as divine can have eternal consequences, which is why the author brings up 6:4-8... the warning about falling away from the faith.

Thanks for your replies so far - I'm looking forward to more of them!

Naphal
Sep 22nd 2007, 12:01 AM
1) If Melchizedek was of the Godhead, when we pray, should we pray to him?

That name means the King of Righteousness and naturally that applies to Christ as he is the King of Kings. Since we know him now by Jesus, Christ, Yeshua then one of those names is more current as well as we have examples of people praying to him by those names. Back when he was known as Mel. then you wouldn't have to pray, you could talk to him.





Like, the Angel of the Lord being Jesus in most of the passages that mention Him, even Jacob / Israel prayed to "the Angel who has redeemed me from all evil" (Gen. 48:16), so why not in the name of Melchizedek?

You can if you would like as long as you have faith that it is the second person of the Trinity. If you don't, it might be unwise.



2) What do you have to say about my point that if Melchizedek was Jesus, then because we are also priests according to the order of Melchizedek (Jesus being our Forerunner - Heb. 6:20), then the only way that we could approach the throne of God with boldness is if we are perfectly sinless as Jesus is (Heb. 4:15)?

I don't see that as being valid. Besides when we are forgiven we are sinless until our next sin.




This is what ch.6 is about, that if we misunderstand the oracle of Ps. 110:4, that we'll misunderstand who we are as priests, and naturally come to the conclusion that even though Jesus died on the cross as the perfect sacrifice, we still can't come to the throne with boldness because we are still sinners - hence accusing God of being unjust (6:10; cp. 1 John 1:9) and becoming sluggish and impatient, losing hope, causing the Messianic Jewish recipients to want to fall back to the OT ways and the Talmid. The implication of misunderstanding Melchizedek as divine can have eternal consequences,

I totally disagree. I see no valid harm if one believes Mel. was pre-incarnate Jesus, or if the angel in the furnace was him etc etc.

undercoverdave
Sep 23rd 2007, 03:16 AM
Sidetrack:

What do you think about the other pre-incarnate Christ encounters? Like the rock in the wilderness, the extra dude in the furnace, etc? Were they really him, or is there a different explanation?

Naphal
Sep 23rd 2007, 05:50 AM
Sidetrack:

What do you think about the other pre-incarnate Christ encounters? Like the rock in the wilderness, the extra dude in the furnace, etc? Were they really him, or is there a different explanation?

We are told the Rock was Christ but some will say that's only symbolism not literal. The dude in the furnace isn't literally said to be Christ so some say it was just an angel. Some believe the tree of life in the garden was Jesus, I do. I believe he was also known as the captain of the Lord's host in the OT. It's unbelievable for me to believe the second person of the Trinity had no interactions with man before the incarnation.