Who is Melchizedek?

[jesuslover1968]

Recently it came to my attention that this question needs to be addressed. :):

This is what the Bible says about him:

Hebrews 7
1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2To 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;

3Without 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.

4Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

5And 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:

6But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

7And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

11If 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?

12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

20And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

28For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.




Genesis 14
1And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;

2That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

3All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea.

4Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.

5And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emins in Shaveh Kiriathaim,

6And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto Elparan, which is by the wilderness.

7And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezontamar.

8And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim;

9With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five.

10And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain.

11And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.

12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.

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.

21And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

22And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

23That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

24Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Psalm 110
1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

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

5The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

6He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.

7He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

[MsLibby]

So why on earth are people saying he was another Jesus? Is it because of the 'he was without father, without mother'? Is that the basis for it?

[jesuslover1968]

Well, imo, He wasn't "another" Jesus at all, but possibly a theophany, is that what they call it? I would base that on the fact that He was the only person besides Jesus who is High Priest who wasn't a Levite. Abraham paid tithes to him. He was without father or mother, etc. I could be wrong. That's why I started this thread. I want to see what other people think. If at all possible, I don't want commentary materials, I want people's own opinion of who He was, not the opinions of other people. :): Also, I would like it based on scriptures.

[jesuslover1968]

Also, Jesus was a Priest after the order of Melchizedek...not a Levite, or Aaronic, but Melchizedek...



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?

[MsLibby]

Ok, this is what I know about Mel.

Jesus was a priest after the order of Mel. My understanding of that is that Mel was outside of the Levitical Priesthood. Abraham tithed to him, and Mel blessed Abraham. I think that Mel was outside the Law paving the way for Jesus. Mel's priesthood was superior than Aaron's. The Law was never perfect and Mel's reason for being is to portray that.

Ok, that's what I believe to be true about Mel. He's a complicated person. No record of his family is a mystery, if you ask me. I don't understand what that means. But I do believe he was a type of Christ.

[MsLibby]

Theophany is the visible appearance of god to a human being. Had to look it up...

[MsLibby]

After carefully reading the Scriptures, I'm struck with how the author of Hebrews said this:

but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

He makes it clear that Mel wasn't Jesus. He's 'like' Jesus but he's not Jesus.

I'm convinced he's a mysterious guy, given to us by divine inspiration to show us the eventual perfect priesthood of Jesus which is outside of the Levitical Priesthood.

Misty, I know you didn't want commentary...but I've got to give you this link. It's not really commentary, it's my Sunday School notes. We've been studying old Mel for ages (at least it seems that way) and here are the notes. You might find them interesting. Just click on the dates that are in red, those are the ones with notes. http://www.criswellclass.org/5.html

Oops, just reread my words ~ they aren't really MY notes, they're the class notes.

[Sonja]

After carefully reading the Scriptures, I'm struck with how the author of Hebrews said this:

but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

He makes it clear that Mel wasn't Jesus. He's 'like' Jesus but he's not Jesus.

I'm convinced he's a mysterious guy, given to us by divine inspiration to show us the eventual perfect priesthood of Jesus which is outside of the Levitical Priesthood.

And not under the Law. But you already said that. :): So what do you guys think about Abraham tithing to Mel? Again, not under the Law.

[MsLibby]

And not under the Law. But you already said that. :): So what do you guys think about Abraham tithing to Mel? Again, not under the Law.

I think Abraham tithed to Him because he was a type of Christ. He was superior to Abraham. Abraham was the lesser.

[jesuslover1968]

I think Abraham tithed to Him because he was a type of Christ. He was superior to Abraham. Abraham was the lesser.


I would agree this...

[MsLibby]

I would agree this...

So ~ who do you think Mel is?

[AnyDayNow]

IMO, Melchizedek was a Theophany (appearance) of Jesus in the OT.

I'm currently going through Hebrews and just studied this. If you want my notes, I can PM you a link. :):

[jesuslover1968]

IMO, Melchizedek was a Theophany (appearance) of Jesus in the OT.

I'm currently going through Hebrews and just studied this. If you want my notes, I can PM you a link. :):


That would be great...

MsLibby, I still think he was a theophany. If he wasn't, I can't make the other verses about him make sense. I guess he could have been a type of Christ, but if he was, why wouldn't he have a mother and a father?
There is also the fact that Abraham paid tithes to him. I can't see him paying tithes to any other than God. The priesthood had not yet been set up so who else would Abraham pay tithe to? Melchizedek was a priest, but not Levitical nor Aaronic...so I am still not totally positive, but I would stick with the theophany unless someone can show me I'm wrong. I have never fully understood about him and when we were talking about him yesterday it made me decide to start this thread.

[MsLibby]

I understand what you're saying, Misty. Personally, I think he's a type of Christ, but he is an enigma, that's for certain. The reason I don't go along with him being a theophany is simply because he was the King of Salem. Which was the early Jerusalem, I know...still, he was a person, a king. He was a priest AND a king, which of course points to Jesus, but I say a type of Christ, not 'an appearance of God'. Mel was human. He lived and walked in a human body. How can that be God?

I do wish you would take advantage of the class notes I linked you to...it's a diggin in deep study.

[B A N E]

Check the timeline...
Some believe that Melchizidek was one of the son's of Noah.

[MsLibby]

Misty, you didn't put in Hebrews 5:

5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:


“ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.”

6 As He also says in another place:


“ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek”,


7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, 10 called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,” 11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

[AnyDayNow]

That would be great...

I sent a link to you in PM. Please download or print ASAP, as I will take off in a day or so. :):

[Paul]

He makes it clear that Mel wasn't Jesus. He's 'like' Jesus but he's not Jesus. I agree. If this was Jesus then it means Christ once sat on a throne but has been removed from power.

[jesuslover1968]

I understand what you're saying, Misty. Personally, I think he's a type of Christ, but he is an enigma, that's for certain. The reason I don't go along with him being a theophany is simply because he was the King of Salem. Which was the early Jerusalem, I know...still, he was a person, a king. He was a priest AND a king, which of course points to Jesus, but I say a type of Christ, not 'an appearance of God'. Mel was human. He lived and walked in a human body. How can that be God?

I do wish you would take advantage of the class notes I linked you to...it's a diggin in deep study.


I will....you know me, try to be thorough...lol.

[jesuslover1968]

I agree. If this was Jesus then it means Christ once sat on a throne but has been removed from power.


Not necessarily...


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.

according to this verse, he is still priest...

[jesuslover1968]

I sent a link to you in PM. Please download or print ASAP, as I will take off in a day or so. :):


Going to print them now....thank you.

[jesuslover1968]

12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

these words make me fear, ya know? It seems like they were expected to understand about Mel., and we don't even get it completely...Ugh!

[MsLibby]

Not necessarily...


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.

according to this verse, he is still priest...

I agree this is a dilemma. I don't understand it. But, that being said, I'm content with the rest of Scripture that gives us no indication that there would be another 'Jesus' (for lack of a better word) sitting on the throne in Jerusalem.

What I'm saying is that taken alone, this verse is a problem. But, in light of the rest of Scripture, there's no way that this Mel can be seen as a Christ. Right?? Remember, he was a real person. He was one of those kings, he was a human. How do you reconcile this with Christ?

[jesuslover1968]

Check the timeline...
Some believe that Melchizidek was one of the son's of Noah.


Yeah, I saw that on Wikipedia, but it doesn't really fit...

[MsLibby]

these words make me fear, ya know? It seems like they were expected to understand about Mel., and we don't even get it completely...Ugh!

I thought the same thing. Whew, the milk sure is smoother than the meat. :D:

However, I think the author of Hebrews helps clear it up. He, to me at least, is clearly showing that Jesus was of the order of Mel. He never says Mel was Jesus. Why not? Because he wasn't, that's why... MOO.

[jesuslover1968]

I agree this is a dilemma. I don't understand it. But, that being said, I'm content with the rest of Scripture that gives us no indication that there would be another 'Jesus' (for lack of a better word) sitting on the throne in Jerusalem.

What I'm saying is that taken alone, this verse is a problem. But, in light of the rest of Scripture, there's no way that this Mel can be seen as a Christ. Right?? Remember, he was a real person. He was one of those kings, he was a human. How do you reconcile this with Christ?


well, number one, it doesn't really say he was human, does it? Hear me out for a sec, I am gonna brainstorm for a few words...
God has always existed...yes? I know we will ALL agree on that. Is it possible that Mel. is God, ( which of course would be Jesus ) A picture of His ruling over Salem, ( Jerusalem ) from eternity...
Abraham talked to him and paid tithes to him but as far as I can think, no one else ever talked to him...
Abraham was the father of the Jews...who would live in Jerusalem...is it possible that Mel. came to Abraham because Abraham was righteous and his faith was counted to him for righteousness? Just thinking with my fingers here, trying to grasp the whole thing. Everytime I get to thinking about this, I just give up and go on to something else, but I would like to know for sure one way or the other. At least to the point where I am statisfied that I am headed in the right direction with it...

[jesuslover1968]

I thought the same thing. Whew, the milk sure is smoother than the meat. :D:

However, I think the author of Hebrews helps clear it up. He, to me at least, is clearly showing that Jesus was of the order of Mel. He never says Mel was Jesus. Why not? Because he wasn't, that's why... MOO.


Hahaha....not so fast missy jr...read my last post and see what you think...seriously, let me know your thoughts?

[HeIsEnough]

Hebrews 7
3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;

[MsLibby]

well, number one, it doesn't really say he was human, does it? Hear me out for a sec, I am gonna brainstorm for a few words...
God has always existed...yes? I know we will ALL agree on that. Is it possible that Mel. is God, ( which of course would be Jesus ) A picture of His ruling over Salem, ( Jerusalem ) from eternity...
Abraham talked to him and paid tithes to him but as far as I can think, no one else ever talked to him...
Abraham was the father of the Jews...who would live in Jerusalem...is it possible that Mel. came to Abraham because Abraham was righteous and his faith was counted to him for righteousness? Just thinking with my fingers here, trying to grasp the whole thing. Everytime I get to thinking about this, I just give up and go on to something else, but I would like to know for sure one way or the other. At least to the point where I am statisfied that I am headed in the right direction with it...

You say 'no one else ever talked to him..'

What makes you say that? This guy was one of the kings ~ he lived a human life. I would say he probably talked a lot. Guessing here, but most men do, don't they? :D:

Here's what our buddy JMac says about him...

So in chapter 4 verses 14 to 16, he introduced Jesus as a priest. In chapter 5 verses 1 to 10, he showed that Jesus was better than Aaron. He pointed out that Jesus was better than Aaron, and that was an amazing thing. And then he was going to go on and compare Melchizedek to Jesus, but he stopped in chapter 5 verse 11, and we’ve been studying that; and in 5:11 to 6:20, you have a parenthesis; and in that parenthesis, he says, in effect, “I wanna tell you about Melchizedek, but you’re too spiritual stupid to handle it.” ... http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=232040

(sorry, I know you don't want commentary, but let's face it, these guys have spent their life learning something that we are just now digging into.)

[jesuslover1968]

You say 'no one else ever talked to him..'

What makes you say that? This guy was one of the kings ~ he lived a human life. I would say he probably talked a lot. Guessing here, but most men do, don't they? :D:

Here's what our buddy JMac says about him...

... http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=232040

(sorry, I know you don't want commentary, but let's face it, these guys have spent their life learning something that we are just now digging into.)


In Genesis, when it is talking about Abraham tithing to him one second, it immediately goes on talking about the king of Sodom, I think it was, which gives me the idea that the king of sodom had no idea that Mel. was even there...

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.

21And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

[jesuslover1968]

I sent a link to you in PM. Please download or print ASAP, as I will take off in a day or so. :):


Thank you for the notes. Why don't you post them here? Very well thought out and scriptural to boot...

[MsLibby]

In Genesis, when it is talking about Abraham tithing to him one second, it immediately goes on talking about the king of Sodom, I think it was, which gives me the idea that the king of sodom had no idea that Mel. was even there...

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:


I don't see that at all, that Sodom and no idea Mel was there.

[MsLibby]

Misty, this is going to be hard for me to describe, but I'll try and see if I can get it out.

I think the fact that Mel didn't have a beginning or end is for this reason:

Jesus was not a Levite. He was from the tribe of Judah, as we know. So...maybe what the Scripture is trying to show us, or better yet, the Jews, is that Mel didn't have the Levitical lineage in order to prove to them that Jesus was better ~ being outside of Aaron's line. It's difficult to explain...but in my head it's clear. Ok, once more. Mel is portrayed without a bloodline for the precise reason of showing the Jews that the bloodline means nothing ~ and the coming Messiah would be outside of Aaron...does this make any sense? In my head, it's concise, but it's difficult to explain. The lack of ancestors is THE definitive point of Mel.

Clear as mud, I know.

[AnyDayNow]

Thank you for the notes. Why don't you post them here? Very well thought out and scriptural to boot...

I'm too modest. :lie

Remember, another thing which also gets lost concerning Melchizedek is that he was/is a High Priest and as such had to offer a sacrifice for sins. Since there was no Levitical priesthood at that time, the question needs to be asked, "In what way did Melchizedek fufill this requisite of the High Priesthood?"

When you ask that, you start to see that the sacrifice required after the order of Melchizedek could not be offered by a mere man.

[Paul]

Not necessarily...How do you escape this conclusion:

1) Melchizedek was a literal king in a literal kingdom
2) He no longer sits on his throne, nor rules over his kingdom
3) If Jesus was Melchizedek then Jesus was removed from His throne

Also, where in Scripture do we find Jesus reigning on earth before going to the cross? Not being argumentative, I just don't see these points can be explained away.

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.

according to this verse, he is still priest...This verse is saying that his genealogy was unknown yet he was still a priest. For the Jews you couldn't be a Levitical priest without proof of your decent. This is a key point because it allows Christ to act as our High Priest.

[jesuslover1968]

Misty, this is going to be hard for me to describe, but I'll try and see if I can get it out.

I think the fact that Mel didn't have a beginning or end is for this reason:

Jesus was not a Levite. He was from the tribe of Judah, as we know. So...maybe what the Scripture is trying to show us, or better yet, the Jews, is that Mel didn't have the Levitical lineage in order to prove to them that Jesus was better ~ being outside of Aaron's line. It's difficult to explain...but in my head it's clear. Ok, once more. Mel is portrayed without a bloodline for the precise reason of showing the Jews that the bloodline means nothing ~ and the coming Messiah would be outside of Aaron...does this make any sense? In my head, it's concise, but it's difficult to explain. The lack of ancestors is THE definitive point of Mel.

Clear as mud, I know.

I see what you are saying. What about no beginning or end?

[MsLibby]

This verse is saying that his genealogy was unknown yet he was still a priest. For the Jews you couldn't be a Levitical priest without proof of your decent. This is a key point because it allows Christ to act as our High Priest.

Thank you! That's what my muddled post above was trying to say. You did it better.

[MsLibby]

I see what you are saying. What about no beginning or end?

Paul explained beautifully what I meant about that. The no beginning or end refers to being outside of the Levitical line, because that was such a sticking point to the Jews. They couldn't understand that Messiah was not of the Levitical line. Hence, no end or beginning...see?

[jesuslover1968]

How do you escape this conclusion:

1) Melchizedek was a literal king in a literal kingdom
2) He no longer sits on his throne, nor rules over his kingdom
3) If Jesus was Melchizedek then Jesus was removed from His throne

Also, where in Scripture do we find Jesus reigning on earth before going to the cross? Not being argumentative, I just don't see these points can be explained away.

This verse is saying that his genealogy was unknown yet he was still a priest. For the Jews you couldn't be a Levitical priest without proof of your decent. This is a key point because it allows Christ to act as our High Priest.

well, your three points above are just opinion, in all due respect. The Bible does NOT say that he now has no kingdom.It does not say his kingdom is literal, that is assumption... It does not say that he was removed from his throne. Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world. So do you think that He doesn't really have one just because we can't see it?
I don't see Mel. as being physically Jesus at all. I see him as a theophany of Jesus before Jesus' physical birth. Scripture says that he is always a priest...
Mel. was NOT a Levitical priest. Yet he was a priest of God. How did that come about? Also, how special would one have to be that Jesus, who is God, would be a priest after his order? There is no man that Jesus would have to follow in their footsteps. God does not follow us, we follow Him. Otherwise, Jesus could have followed in the Levitical priesthood, but it wasn't good enough...neither Aaronic...so why is that? WHO could be more important?
as far as the scriptures are concerned, no one else talked to him or knew he was there. Nowhere in scripture do we see anyone else tithing to him, etc...Abraham was to follow only God... God Bless.

[jesuslover1968]

Paul explained beautifully what I meant about that. The no beginning or end refers to being outside of the Levitical line, because that was such a sticking point to the Jews. They couldn't understand that Messiah was not of the Levitical line. Hence, no end or beginning...see?

yes, I see what you are saying, I just don't agree. I am not being mean at all, I just don't see that as the conclusion. There wasn't even a priesthood yet. I think Mel. was a picture of Jesus that showed himself to Abraham as a picture of things to come. I do see the point about the Levitical priests, and that Jesus didn't come from them. He didn't come from them because He is God. They were imperfect and Jesus' priesthood is perfect in all ways.
No man would have no beginning and no end. No man has no mother and father...only God would fulfill that picture.

[MsLibby]

Ok, well, I won't argue with you. It's settled perfectly in my mind. I beleive that the author of Hebrews was basically telling them if they couldn't see that 'the ORDER of Mel' was superior to the Levitical line, then basically they weren't getting anything. That's how I read it. And, here's one more point. I looked up how many times it's said 'the ORDER of Mel.' and it's in the Bible SEVEN times! The order of something is just that, a sample, an illustration. Not the real thing.

The order of Mel:

Psalm 110:4
The LORD has swornAnd will not relent, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 5:6
As He also says in another place:“ You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek”;

Hebrews 5:10
called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,”

Hebrews 6:20
where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:11
[ Need for a New Priesthood ] Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

Hebrews 7:17
For He testifies: “ You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 7:21
(for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: “ The LORD has swornAnd will not relent,‘ You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek’”),

[Sonja]

Here, what could be more of an authority, than this:


http://www.melchizedek.com/dom/index.html

There, that settles it. :D:

[antsinmypants]

Melchizedek = King of Righteousness

[Paul]

well, your three points above are just opinion, in all due respect. The Bible does NOT say that he now has no kingdom.It does not say his kingdom is literal, that is assumption... It does not say that he was removed from his throne. Mel. was a literal person. Salem was a literal place. If this was Christ did Christ take Abraham's tithes back up to heaven? Why would we interpret his reign as being anything but that of a literal king who was simply a type of Christ?

Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world. So do you think that He doesn't really have one just because we can't see it? I think it means He doesn't have one on earth. So if I see a king on earth I know it isn't Jesus.

Also, how special would one have to be that Jesus, who is God, would be a priest after his order? There is no man that Jesus would have to follow in their footsteps. God does not follow us, we follow Him. Otherwise, Jesus could have followed in the Levitical priesthood, but it wasn't good enough...neither Aaronic...so why is that? WHO could be more important? Jesus is a priest after the order of Mel. in the sense that His priesthood is ordained by God and not based on genealogy.

[jesuslover1968]

Mel. was a literal person. Salem was a literal place. If this was Christ did Christ take Abraham's tithes back up to heaven? Why would we interpret his reign as being anything but that of a literal king who was simply a type of Christ?

I think it means He doesn't have one on earth. So if I see a king on earth I know it isn't Jesus.

Jesus is a priest after the order of Mel. in the sense that His priesthood is ordained by God and not based on genealogy.


I understand what you are saying, and where you are coming from. Use scripture to convince me...I am not being argumentative and have a real desire to know for sure, but I will base my beliefs on the Bible, not on what we surmise. Maybe there is scripture proving Salem was a real place at that time? Maybe there is historical proof in the Bible about other people in Melchizedek's kingdom? Maybe there is scripture showing someone else who tithed to him? Maybe there is scriptural proof that he is no longer a king and a priest? On the last part, I have already shown by scripture that that isn't the case. Maybe there is scripture proving Melchizedek talked to other people and was truly a physical person... God Bless.

[Paul]

Also, Jesus was a Priest after the order of Melchizedek...not a Levite, or Aaronic, but Melchizedek... This is for several reasons:

1) Levitical priest only came from the tribe of Levi. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah which wasn’t allowed to serve as priests (Heb 7:14)

2) The levitical law was unable to save. It was only able to point out our need for salvation. Jesus serving as a levitical priest doesn’t solve the root problem.

3) That’s why Hebrews 7:18-19 says, “For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.” The law couldn’t save, but Christ gives us a better hope.

I guess he could have been a type of Christ, but if he was, why wouldn't he have a mother and a father?Only those from the tribe of Levi could serve as priests. So it was necessary to present proof of your genealogy. But there was no record of Mel. genealogy yet he served as a priest because his ordination didn’t come from his earthly lineage but from God.

Hebrews is a book explaining why Christ is greater than the law. This is just another example – Christ belongs to a greater priesthood.

Does it really make sense to say, “Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, who is really Christ, even though we don’t call him Christ, but he is.”

There is also the fact that Abraham paid tithes to him. I can't see him paying tithes to any other than God. The priesthood had not yet been set up so who else would Abraham pay tithe to? Melchizedek was a priest, but not Levitical nor Aaronic...He was honoring God by tithing.

Abel made sacrifices, Noah was told to bring seven of every clean animal with him on the ark. There was obviously a system in place to approach and honor God.

well, number one, it doesn't really say he was human, does it? Come on. The foundation of your belief is based on a silly presupposition that you don’t make anywhere else when interpreting Scripture. Do you assume that unless the Bible tells us someone is human they’re otherworldly?

God has always existed...yes? I know we will ALL agree on that. Is it possible that Mel. is God, ( which of course would be Jesus ) A picture of His ruling over Salem, ( Jerusalem ) from eternity...

Abraham talked to him and paid tithes to him but as far as I can think, no one else ever talked to him...You’re reading way too much into the text and you’re close to blasphemy because you’re attributing deity to a man only mentioned in two places.

Abraham was the father of the Jews...who would live in Jerusalem...is it possible that Mel. came to Abraham because Abraham was righteous and his faith was counted to him for righteousness? Just thinking with my fingers here, trying to grasp the whole thing. Everytime I get to thinking about this, I just give up and go on to something else, but I would like to know for sure one way or the other. At least to the point where I am statisfied that I am headed in the right direction with it...
Or maybe there’s a far greater point that there’s a higher priesthood with a High Priest who is able to save us from our sins.

What fits the context of Hebrews better?

1) God came in the form of Mel. to accept tithes from Abraham
2) Christ is able to act as our High Priest because He belongs to a greater priesthood

Remember, another thing which also gets lost concerning Melchizedek is that he was/is a High Priest and as such had to offer a sacrifice for sins. Since there was no Levitical priesthood at that time, the question needs to be asked, "In what way did Melchizedek fufill this requisite of the High Priesthood?"

When you ask that, you start to see that the sacrifice required after the order of Melchizedek could not be offered by a mere man.Again there’s this assumption that people before the law had no dealings with God. If that’s true then why is Noah taking seven of every clean animal? How does he know what’s clean and unclean unless God told him? Why is he making offerings unless there was a system in place? God obviously said something to someone.

Maybe there is scripture proving Salem was a real place at that time? Why is it you doubt that Salem was a real place when I say it but you have no problem with it being a real place when you said…

A picture of His ruling over Salem, ( Jerusalem ) from eternity...

You’re the one making the assertion. You have to make the case for this. Asking questions isn’t the same as asserting a point.

Maybe there is historical proof in the Bible about other people in Melchizedek's kingdom?Again where do you apply this line of thinking in other passages of the Bible you study? If you see a king mentioned in Scripture, and the Bible doesn’t mention his subjects, you assume he doesn’t have any?

[Paul]

By the way...what denomination do you belong to?

[AnotherOldGuy]

How do you escape this conclusion:
Just throwing out stuff - not peddling a theory...yet



1) Melchizedek was a literal king in a literal kingdom
Sure? Salem is equated as being Jerusalem in Psalm 76. Maybe it was at that time. That is the only other place in the OT that mentions 'Salem'. Old "Jerusalem" was referred to as Jebus - or Jerusalem (which was the name at the time of the writing). "Salem" may be a remembrance of Mel's Salem - not necessarily the same.



2) He no longer sits on his throne, nor rules over his kingdom
3) If Jesus was Melchizedek then Jesus was removed from His throne
If we're speaking of a theophany, that statement would be true. The part of God that later became Jesus was not Jesus at that time. He was a part of God. He gave up that position - and technically does not exist anymore. When He became Jesus He was changed for eternity.


Also, where in Scripture do we find Jesus reigning on earth before going to the cross? Not being argumentative, I just don't see these points can be explained away.
He was the creator. He was Lord. That is the ultimate reign. He gave that up to become a man.

This verse is saying that his genealogy was unknown yet he was still a priest. For the Jews you couldn't be a Levitical priest without proof of your decent. This is a key point because it allows Christ to act as our High Priest.
Melchizedek was not a Levitical priest. That priesthood was established much later. The Jews did recognize Melchizedek as a priest because Moses said he was. A true priest did not have to be "Levitical".

[Paul]

Sure? Salem is equated as being Jerusalem in Psalm 76. Maybe it was at that time. That is the only other place in the OT that mentions 'Salem'. Old "Jerusalem" was referred to as Jebus - or Jerusalem (which was the name at the time of the writing). "Salem" may be a remembrance of Mel's Salem - not necessarily the same. If there was reason to think otherwise then that would be fine but I haven't heard anything close to a reason why I should even consider that.

All I see is people casting doubt. "Well it doesn't actually say this is a real place", or "it doesn't say he's a real person." People want to ascribe deity to someone based on that?

If I said make a case for Christ being God this thread would be filled with clear verses. But if I say make a case for Mel. being Jesus I get "Well, prove he isn't."

Honestly the whole Mel. is Jesus seems to be more of a case of "This is what I believe, now how can I prove it?" instead of taking the verses in context.

I know that sounds harsh, and usually I think there is room for differing opinions, but to ascribe deity to one who isn't is blasphemy.

He was the creator. He was Lord. That is the ultimate reign. He gave that up to become a man.I agree but I was referring to verses saying Jesus would rule on earth before going to the cross.

Melchizedek was not a Levitical priest. That priesthood was established much later. The Jews did recognize Melchizedek as a priest because Moses said he was. A true priest did not have to be "Levitical".Yes, and that's the point the Hebrews is making. The Law can not save us but there is a High Priest who can save us. That point should never be lost.

[Paidfor]

Only those from the tribe of Levi could serve as priests. So it was necessary to present proof of your genealogy. But there was no record of Mel. genealogy yet he served as a priest because his ordination didn’t come from his earthly lineage but from God.

Hebrews is a book explaining why Christ is greater than the law. This is just another example – Christ belongs to a greater priesthood.

This is right. The order of Melchizedek was greater than the Levitic priesthood because Levi through Abraham tithed to Mel.

Jesus is a priest after the order of Mel. in the sense that His priesthood is ordained by God and not based on genealogy.

Right again. This is the intended meaning of without parents and without beginning of days nor end of life. I believe Mel had parents and a normal birth and death but the Jews had no record of it.

This whole episode with Abraham easily defeating the armies of kings seems very supernaturally staged. I believe one of the reasons that God staged this episode was to establish the scriptuaral record of the priesthood of Mel and its superiority by having Abraham tithe to him.

So the OP asked for opinions.
Melchizedek was the earthly King of Salem (later called Jerusalem).
He was a normal fleshly human, not divine.
He was a priest ordained by God.

And a parting comment;
It was mentioned of Mel that he was a son of Noah. This comes from the apochryphal Book of Jasher. It says he was Shem.

And a related question;
In what way was Jethro called a priest of Midian?

[Paul]

I see what you are saying. What about no beginning or end?Just to go through Hebrews 7:3 one more time, the writer is contrasting Levitical priest with Christ's priesthood.

Without father, without mother, without descent,
Only Levites could serve as priests, they needed a certain genealogy. This wasn't true for the Order of Mel.

having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. The Levites could only serve from age 25-50...

"This is what pertains to the Levites: From twenty-five years old and above one may enter to perform service in the work of the tabernacle of meeting; and at the age of fifty years they must cease performing this work, and shall work no more.

But there were no limitations in Order of Mel. The text is simply showing us that Christ belongs to a greater priesthood, one that is able to save us.

[AnyDayNow]

...Again there’s this assumption that people before the law had no dealings with God. If that’s true then why is Noah taking seven of every clean animal? How does he know what’s clean and unclean unless God told him? Why is he making offerings unless there was a system in place? God obviously said something to someone...

In regards to any "system" of sacrifice existing before Noah, it was already there with Cain (Genesis 4:3-8). It's why he killed his brother, remember? And Cain undoubtedly got the idea from Adam, who in turn got the idea from God, who killed in order to cover both his and Eve's nakedness (read sin - Genesis 3:21).

What any of that has to do with Melchizedek I am not sure. My conclusion that Melchizedek couldn't have been a mere man is born out of the evidence which the author of Hebrews provides us:

- King of Righteousness (there is only One Who has ever or could ever bear that title)

- Abides perpetually. (No beginning, No end). Again, Only one Man at the time Hebrews was written could fit this.

In regards to the rest, Theophanies don't have rules. God named some Theophanies of Jesus in the OT as the Angel of the Lord. Another, like the man in the fire with Daniel's friends He gave no name to. This one He called Melchizedek. The order had to have a name.

[BHiles]

I believe He was the preincarnate Christ the One who would eventually have a Father once He was incarnate.

[Paul]

In regards to any "system" of sacrifice existing before Noah, it was already there with Cain (Genesis 4:3-8). It's why he killed his brother, remember? And Cain undoubtedly got the idea from Adam, who in turn got the idea from God, who killed in order to cover both his and Eve's nakedness (read sin - Genesis 3:21).

What any of that has to do with Melchizedek I am not sure.
The reason I brought it up is because you said this...


Remember, another thing which also gets lost concerning Melchizedek is that he was/is a High Priest and as such had to offer a sacrifice for sins. Since there was no Levitical priesthood at that time, the question needs to be asked, "In what way did Melchizedek fufill this requisite of the High Priesthood?"

When you ask that, you start to see that the sacrifice required after the order of Melchizedek could not be offered by a mere man.
What you seem to be saying is because there was no Levitical priesthood at that time then somehow Melchizedek couldn't make sacrifices like an earthly priest. But there are several examples of sacrifices being made before the Law so there's no basis for that point.


My conclusion that Melchizedek couldn't have been a mere man is born out of the evidence which the author of Hebrews provides us:

- King of Righteousness (there is only One Who has ever or could ever bear that title)Melchizedek's name translated means king of righteousness. Isaiah means "the salvation of the Lord" but you don't consider him the means of salvation, do you?

- Abides perpetually. (No beginning, No end). Again, Only one Man at the time Hebrews was written could fit this.I've explained this several times, including in the post directly above yours. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

You have to read the verses in the context of the book. You can't just pull one verse out and run with it. The writer is contrasting Levitical priest with Christ's priesthood.


Without father, without mother, without descent,
Only Levites could serve as priests, they needed a certain genealogy. This wasn't true for the Order of Mel.


having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

The Levites could only serve from age 25-50 according to Num 8:24-25...

"This is what pertains to the Levites: From twenty-five years old and above one may enter to perform service in the work of the tabernacle of meeting; and at the age of fifty years they must cease performing this work, and shall work no more."

But there were no limitations in Order of Mel.

The text is simply showing us that Christ belongs to a greater priesthood, one that is able to save us.

In regards to the rest, Theophanies don't have rules. God named some Theophanies of Jesus in the OT as the Angel of the Lord. Another, like the man in the fire with Daniel's friends He gave no name to. This one He called Melchizedek. The order had to have a name.The only proof you've offered is a misinterpretation of Hebrews 7:3.

[BHiles]

But there were no limitations in Order of Mel. The text is simply showing us that Christ belongs to a greater priesthood, one that is able to save us.

Melchizedek as the Preincarnate Christ could not save us.

He had to become man first. He had to be able to shed blood and die.

[Paul]

Melchizedek as the Preincarnate Christ could not save us.

He had to become man first. He had to be able to shed blood and die.What does this have to do with what I said?

[jesuslover1968]

By the way...what denomination do you belong to?

I'll answer this question first, but I think it has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than man's ideas of religion. I don't believe in a "religion." I have a belief in God. I believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, walked this earth as 100% God and 100% man. I believe He was crucified, died and rose again the third day. I have faith in Him. I try to obey His Words and commands. I repent of my wrong-doings, that means to change. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and Jesus IS that Word.
After my statement of faith, which is what I really think you were after, I can say that I am non-denominational. I believe denominations are divisive and do no earthly or spiritual good. :): Jesus said a house divided against itself will not stand. The true church is NOT one of divisions and different names and denominations. It is one that has a population that is 100% christians only, notwithstanding that most in the professing church do not "believe" in God. They believe in a god that they have made themselves that soothes their selfish egos and changes at their own selfish whims...
If the reason you ask this question is because you think I have learned what I believe from man, you would be in error. I believe what I believe from the Word of God. God Bless.

[BHiles]

What does this have to do with what I said?
:noidea

[jesuslover1968]

is is for several reasons:

1) Levitical priest only came from the tribe of Levi. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah which wasn’t allowed to serve as priests (Heb 7:14)

2) The levitical law was unable to save. It was only able to point out our need for salvation. Jesus serving as a levitical priest doesn’t solve the root problem.

3) That’s why Hebrews 7:18-19 says, “For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.” The law couldn’t save, but Christ gives us a better hope.

This answers nothing that I said, now does it? I already know and understand that the Levitical Priesthood wasn't good enough. My question is, what priesthood IS, was and always will be, " good enough" The answer to that would be one of deity...




Only those from the tribe of Levi could serve as priests. So it was necessary to present proof of your genealogy. But there was no record of Mel. genealogy yet he served as a priest because his ordination didn’t come from his earthly lineage but from God.
Exactly my point...it came from God as a better and more holy priesthood...which is?

Hebrews is a book explaining why Christ is greater than the law. This is just another example – Christ belongs to a greater priesthood.

I think you miss the point...

Does it really make sense to say, “Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, who is really Christ, even though we don’t call him Christ, but he is.”
You need to re-read what I wrote cause you didn't understand what I was saying.



He was honoring God by tithing.

Abel made sacrifices, Noah was told to bring seven of every clean animal with him on the ark. There was obviously a system in place to approach and honor God.
Tithing and sacrifices are not the same thing. Yes, Abraham was honoring God, but he wouldn't be honoring God if he paid tithe to any other BUT God.



Come on. The foundation of your belief is based on a silly presupposition that you don’t make anywhere else when interpreting Scripture. Do you assume that unless the Bible tells us someone is human they’re otherworldly?
I find this rather childish to attack someone verbally because they refuse to see it your way. I haven't done that to you and I don't expect you to do it to me. Coming from an admin. makes it even more of an offense.
What I do assume is that it does not say he was a real man. You said it does. I said prove it and you cannot, therefore you will resort to calling me silly. I also asked you to prove to me, from the Bible, that he was a real man, and you cannot. I do not take every person the same way as I do Mel. There is great mystery about him and very little info. Please refer to scriptures and give me an example of any other like Mel. in them.




You’re reading way too much into the text and you’re close to blasphemy because you’re attributing deity to a man only mentioned in two places.
then you are close to blasphemy as well, now aren't you? Because you suppose as well, just differently than I do. How about the man in the fire with shadrach, meshach and abednego? How many times was he mentioned? And who was that fourth man again? Thought so...



Or maybe there’s a far greater point that there’s a higher priesthood with a High Priest who is able to save us from our sins.
At least I agree with this part, even if I don't arrive at the conclusion the same way you do.

What fits the context of Hebrews better?

1) God came in the form of Mel. to accept tithes from Abraham
2) Christ is able to act as our High Priest because He belongs to a greater priesthood

How about God came as Mel. to give an example and type of THAT priesthood? Yes, Christ DOES belong to a greater priesthood, but that priesthood could not be of man, it has to be of God, now doesn't it?

[Paul]

I find this rather childish to attack someone verbally because they refuse to see it your way. I haven't done that to you and I don't expect you to do it to me. Coming from an admin. makes it even more of an offense.Well I certainly apologize for offending you. That said, I didn't say you were silly, I said your presupposition was. If you are reading this text differently from all other text there needs to be a good reason why. It's not for me to make your case for you.

I don't need to prove Mel's human and that Salem was a real place because the straight-forward reading of the text assumes this. If you want me to read the text differently you need to show why I should do this.

Now the only data that you could refer to make that point is Heb 7:3 which I've addressed I think three times now. Taken in context, and compared to other Scripture concerning Levitical preisthood, you see that Mel. isn't Christ. Those verses that seem so mysterious really aren't.

They're contrasting the limitations of the Levitical priesthood (ie. only members of one tribe can serve, they can only serve 25 years) with the unlimited Mel. priesthood (ie. membership is not restricted to a tribe, service is not limited to a few years).

[AnyDayNow]

...The only proof you've offered is a misinterpretation of Hebrews 7:3.

My only inhibition to accepting your position is that if Melchizedek started the order, then there would be the same requisites for him as there was for Jesus, Who followed after his order. Not just in his attributes, but in that if the order of Melchizedek trumps the Levitical one in a way the author of Hebrews describes, only one sacrifice would be necessary:

Hebrews 7:24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the {sins} of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

This isn't just about the Levitical Order. What I have bolded above is what the author of Hebrews stated were accomplished by a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. There is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that Melchizedek, as a mere man, could have done any of this. Thus, I am left with a Theophany.

Maybe this should be moved to Apologetics. :noidea

[Paul]

My only inhibition to accepting your position is that if Melchizedek started the order, then there would be the same requisites for him as there was for Jesus, Who followed after his order. Not just in his attributes, but in that if the order of Melchizedek trumps the Levitical one in a way the author of Hebrews describes, only one sacrifice would be necessary:



This isn't just about the Levitical Order. What I have bolded above is what the author of Hebrews stated were accomplished by a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. There is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that Melchizedek, as a mere man, could have done any of this. Thus, I am left with a Theophany.

Maybe this should be moved to Apologetics. :noidea

There were limitations to the Levitical law. It had no ability to save, only those from form Levi could serve, they could only serve for a short while, Kings could not be priests, ect.

But these limitations were not found in the priesthood of Mel. so if you put the Perfect Priest in a position where He could be both king and priest, and could serve forever, He would be able to save completely and fulfill prophecy.

Mel. is simply a shadow of something greater to come.

[Paul]

If the reason you ask this question is because you think I have learned what I believe from man, you would be in error. I believe what I believe from the Word of God. God Bless.I asked because I know Mel. is big in Mormon theology and is mentioned in their writing.

[jesuslover1968]

Well I certainly apologize for offending you. That said, I didn't say you were silly, I said your presupposition was. If you are reading this text differently from all other text there needs to be a good reason why. It's not for me to make your case for you.

I don't need to prove Mel's human and that Salem was a real place because the straight-forward reading of the text assumes this. If you want me to read the text differently you need to show why I should do this.

Now the only data that you could refer to make that point is Heb 7:3 which I've addressed I think three times now. Taken in context, and compared to other Scripture concerning Levitical preisthood, you see that Mel. isn't Christ. Those verses that seem so mysterious really aren't.

They're contrasting the limitations of the Levitical priesthood (ie. only members of one tribe can serve, they can only serve 25 years) with the unlimited Mel. priesthood (ie. membership is not restricted to a tribe, service is not limited to a few years).

well, I think they are contrasting them alright, I just don't think you see them the same as I do. Reading it like it is leads me to no other conclusion than that the whole point of Mel. was to show that he was not human and that no human could have a priesthood good enough for Jesus. Ya know, it's ok if we disagree, it isn't really a big deal, other than the fact that you think I am a blashemer, which I disagree with...:lol. If I thought for one second that I am totally wrong, I would certainly confess and repent of that sin. This is the way I understand it and I can't see it the way you see it. I can see no man forming a priesthood good enough for my Lord and Savior.
I realize that we have gone over Hebrews 7 several times, but that is how we learn, is it not? Studying the scriptures...:):

[AnyDayNow]

There were limitations to the Levitical law. It had no ability to save, only those from form Levi could serve, they could only serve for a short while, Kings could not be priests, ect.

But these limitations were not found in the priesthood of Mel. so if you put the Perfect Priest in a position where He could be both king and priest, and could serve forever, He would be able to save completely and fulfill prophecy.

Mel. is simply a shadow of something greater to come.

What is in bold above, I showed jesuslover1968 another pattern from Scripture where Jesus fulfills what was started by Melchizedek. It has to do with the bread and wine Melchizedek offered Abraham. Jesus also offered it on the eve of his inauguration to the High Priesthood (Last Supper) and at that same time promised it when He returns as King. A trifecta which only Jesus could have done. ;):

[jesuslover1968]

I asked because I know Mel. is big in Mormon theology and is mentioned in their writing.


Hahhaha....Oh come on now, you asked because you saw where I was from...if it makes you feel better, they have me on their no stop list. Those few who stray to my house usually leave angry. One left in tears because I told her that I didn't worship the same God that she did and that what she calls christianity is not, in my book. Of course, I said it in a nice way.
I also have never discussed Mel. with them, but I might ask hubby who used to be a Mormon. I actually come from Kentucky, not Utah...:laugh

[jesuslover1968]

Mel. is simply a shadow of something greater to come.

Now see, I agree with this.

[MsLibby]

I asked because I know Mel. is big in Mormon theology and is mentioned in their writing.


I can see how you'd ask ~ seeing her location and all, but the very thought of Misty being a Mormon makes me laugh out loud.

I've known Misty for years now, and the very thought of that makes me giggle. Mormons don't like her. :D:

[jesuslover1968]

Lets try looking at this a different way.

1) from what all scripture that mentions Mel. says, who is he?
2) Where did he come from?
3) where was he born?
4) where was he king and priest?
5) where is salem?
6) historical proof that Salem existed on earth at that time.
7) Who is the only worthy one to form a priesthood for Jesus Christ?
8) what is the whole point of adding Mel. to the O.T. writings concerning Abraham and why do you think he showed up at the precise time that he did?
9) Who else dealt with Mel. in the O.T.
10) Where else is his kingdom mentioned?
11) What was the main purpose of the Levitical priesthood?
12) the Aaronic?
13) what was the point of the law?
14) Where is Mel. now?
15) what does king of righteousness mean and who is the only person who is worthy of this name?
16) what does 'made like the son of God' mean?
17) If Mel. remains a priest perpetually, what does that mean?

Main Entry: per·pet·u·al
Pronunciation: p&r-'pe-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; -'pech-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English perpetuel, from Anglo-French, from Latin perpetuus uninterrupted, from per- through + petere to go to -- more at FEATHER
1 a : continuing forever : EVERLASTING <perpetual motion> b (1) : valid for all time <a perpetual right> (2) : holding (as an office) for life or for an unlimited time
2 : occurring continually : indefinitely long-continued <perpetual problems>
3 : blooming continuously throughout the season
synonym see CONTINUAL
18) If Mel. is a priest forever, how can he be human and still be alive? When a pastor dies, we don't say he is perpetually a pastor, or still a pastor, we say that he "was" a pastor....

We have already agreed on some of these questions, and disagreed, but lets try it again...And btw, I don't pull one verse out of the Bible and try to use it to prove a point. I use scripture to interpret scripture...

[jesuslover1968]

I can see how you'd ask ~ seeing her location and all, but the very thought of Misty being a Mormon makes me laugh out loud.

I've known Misty for years now, and the very thought of that makes me giggle. Mormons don't like her. :D:



:heh That is an understatement....LOL. Thank you..:hug

[Paul]

Again, why do I need to make your argument for you? Why do we need a set of questions that are slanted by you to try to make your point. Why can't you just read the text, in it's context, and compare it to scripture like I did with Heb 7:3? I made my point when I addressed that verse. I addressed that verse because it's the one upon which your case rests.

Looking at some of these...

15) what does king of righteousness mean and who is the only person who is worthy of this name?
Again we're applying a different way of interpreting the text but no reason is given why we should do that.

Isaiah means "the salvation of the Lord". Who is the only person who is worthy of this name? Why do we put so much in the meaning of Mel's name and not Isaiah's? You have to establish this point before offering it as proof.

Then you have these questions for which there's no data, so that leaves you free to fill your own data in...

2) Where did he come from?
3) where was he born?
14) Where is Mel. now?
10) Where else is his kingdom mentioned?
The writer of Hebrews is writing to Jews who were going back to the Law and the writer is explaining why this Law is inferior. One point made is his genealogy is unknown yet he was able to serve as a priest. The Levities couldn't do that.

Then there's the loaded questions...
5) where is salem?
6) historical proof that Salem existed on earth at that time.
7) Who is the only worthy one to form a priesthood for Jesus Christ?
What exactly would constitute proof to you? And just so you know I'm going to take your standard of proof and ask you to apply that standard to other place and events mentioned in Scripture.

When we study the Bible we accept the plain meaning of the text unless we have reason to view it another way. You have to show why we're to view this another way before offering it as proof.

Then there are these questions...

8) what is the whole point of adding Mel. to the O.T. writings concerning Abraham and why do you think he showed up at the precise time that he did?He's a type of the priesthood of Christ. The type isn't the fulfillment. The type was something less that pointed to something greater.

16) what does 'made like the son of God' mean?It means that Jesus doesn't have Mel. kind of priesthood it means that Mel. has Jesus’ kind of priesthood.

17) If Mel. remains a priest perpetually, what does that mean?The Levitical priests the readers of Hebrews were following only held their office for a short time. The priesthood of Mel. had no expiration. So Christ, who is eternal, is able to serve eternally. That the context of Hebrews and I have yet to see you bring the context into this discussion. If you wouldn't have a case to argue.

[jesuslover1968]

Again, why do I need to make your argument for you? Why do we need a set of questions that are slanted by you to try to make your point. Why can't you just read the text, in it's context, and compare it to scripture like I did with Heb 7:3? I made my point when I addressed that verse. I addressed that verse because it's the one upon which your case rests.

Looking at some of these...


Again we're applying a different way of interpreting the text but no reason is given why we should do that.

Isaiah means "the salvation of the Lord". Who is the only person who is worthy of this name? Why do we put so much in the meaning of Mel's name and not Isaiah's? You have to establish this point before offering it as proof.

Then you have these questions for which there's no data, so that leaves you free to fill your own data in...
The writer of Hebrews is writing to Jews who were going back to the Law and the writer is explaining why this Law is inferior. One point made is his genealogy is unknown yet he was able to serve as a priest. The Levities couldn't do that.

Then there's the loaded questions...What exactly would constitute proof to you? And just so you know I'm going to take your standard of proof and ask you to apply that standard to other place and events mentioned in Scripture.

When we study the Bible we accept the plain meaning of the text unless we have reason to view it another way. You have to show why we're to view this another way before offering it as proof.

Then there are these questions...
He's a type of the priesthood of Christ. The type isn't the fulfillment. The type was something less that pointed to something greater.

It means that Jesus doesn't have Mel. kind of priesthood it means that Mel. has Jesus’ kind of priesthood.

The Levitical priests the readers of Hebrews were following only held their office for a short time. The priesthood of Mel. had no expiration. So Christ, who is eternal, is able to serve eternally. That the context of Hebrews and I have yet to see you bring the context into this discussion. If you wouldn't have a case to argue.


In all due respect, if you had made your point, we wouldn't still be at this, would we? All you have pointed out is your opinion of what you think it means, just as I have.
The questions weren't slanted to anything other than to come to a logical conclusion about the identity of Melchizedek.
As for the bolded area above, I already gave you reason enough. No mere mortal man could form the priesthood of our Lord and Savior. Think about that very seriously for a minute...if any priesthood would have done, why not Levitical or Aaronic? God could just have easily made Jesus a Levite, but He didn't. Doesn't that give you pause at all? Don't you wonder why Salem pops up out of nowhere for a brief discussion on Mel. and then disappears again? Obviously the writer of Hebrews thought it important to bring up. The point being that a mortal human priesthood was not good enough for our Lord and Savior.
I have put in red a sentence that we need to clarify. I have put Hebrews 7, in context. Just as you have. Context will still be colored by belief, as I am sure you are well aware. The context of the passage is telling us that Jesus had to come from a better priesthood than the Levitical. It tells us that the maker of that priesthood is God. It tells us that Mel. had no beginning and no end, which is something you want to symbolize away. But that doesn't make it go away, it's still there. It tells us that he has no mother and no father. Name one person, human, in the bible who had no mother and father. You have allegorized this passage without even realizing it. You have said that what it says actually means something else, which then lends the ability to make it say what you want. In reality, it still says that he has no beginning and no end. It says that he has no mother and no father. It says that his priesthood is forever...all things you have allegorized right out of the context of that passage.

[Paidfor]

Isaiah means "the salvation of the Lord". Who is the only person who is worthy of this name? Why do we put so much in the meaning of Mel's name and not Isaiah's? You have to establish this point before offering it as proof.



And then there is Adonizedek which means Lord of Righteousness. He was the king of Jerusalem the time of Joshua. He was killed by Joshua and foreshadows the Antichrist. Or Joshua himself with basically the same name as Jesus.

[Paul]

To begin I want to apologize for how I've come off in this thread. I should have been far more gentle to you and I should have explained up front that it isn't so much your conclusion that I take issue with (though I disagree with it) but the method you used to come to it. I don't think it's consistent and I think if you applied that method elsewhere it could lead to error and I wouldn't want to see that. Still, that doesn't give me the right to show my frustration and I'm sorry for that.

Now let's look at your post.

[/COLOR]The questions weren't slanted to anything other than to come to a logical conclusion about the identity of Melchizedek. Of your 18 questions at least 4 are unanswerable because the Bible doesn't give us that data.

2) Where did he come from?
3) where was he born?
5) where is salem?
14) Where is Mel. now?

If at least 22% of your questions yield no data how does that lead you to a logical conclusion? Also wouldn't the better questions be

1) Who is the audience of Hebrews?
2) What is the context of Hebrews 7?
3) What are the related verses to this passage?

Then from these answers we begin to form an opinion.

Think about that very seriously for a minute...if any priesthood would have done, why not Levitical or Aaronic?Any priesthood would not have done. I've already pointed out the shortcomings of the Levitical Law.

God could just have easily made Jesus a Levite, but He didn't. Doesn't that give you pause at all?Not if He wanted to fulfill Messianic prophecy. The Messiah was to come from the tribe of Judah, specifically the house of David. Those from Judah could not serve as priests and those from Levi could not serve as kings.

Don't you wonder why Salem pops up out of nowhere for a brief discussion on Mel. and then disappears again? You could point to dozens of examples of people and places that are mentioned once then never mentioned again.

The Bible is about how Man relates to God. We're given sketches of people and events that either bring people closer to God or further from Him. We aren't given every detail about them, we're just given that which is relative to us. We're told what we need to know about Salem and Mel.

It tells us that Mel. had no beginning and no end, which is something you want to symbolize away. But that doesn't make it go away, it's still there. It tells us that he has no mother and no father. Name one person, human, in the bible who had no mother and father. You have allegorized this passage without even realizing it. You have said that what it says actually means something else, which then lends the ability to make it say what you want. In reality, it still says that he has no beginning and no end. It says that he has no mother and no father. It says that his priesthood is forever...all things you have allegorized right out of the context of that passage.I haven't allegorized anything. You're applying symbolic or spiritual meaning to phrases such as "no mother and no father" because you're ignoring the context.

The audience of Hebrews are Jews who are clinging to the Law to save them.

The context of Hebrews 7 is the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood (See Heb 7:11).

So there is a contrast between the Levitical priesthood and Melchizedekian priesthood. I've referred to Num 8:24-25 to establish this point. I didn't just make that up nor did I expect anyone to accept it without offering evidence.

Where you are ascribing spiritual meaning to these phrases I'm trying to hear how a 1st century Jew would take those verses. He would compare the limited office of the Levitical priesthood with the unlimited priesthood of Mel.
This completely fits the natural reading of Hebrews which is a book contrasting the Old with the New. If you want to dispute this that's fine, but show where I've mishandled the text, don't just say I did then move on.

Is it true that priests had to be from Levi? Is it true that they served only a short while? If these points are true, and relate to the text, how have I erred?

As for the bolded area above, I already gave you reason enough. No mere mortal man could form the priesthood of our Lord and Savior.

Obviously the writer of Hebrews thought it important to bring up. The point being that a mortal human priesthood was not good enough for our Lord and Savior.I saved these for last because this is a key point.


If you ignore everything else I wrote don't ignore this.


I've repeatedly said that we need to be consistent in our interpretation. I don't believe that Mel. is Christ because if we apply your reasons elsewhere in Scripture they don't hold.

I'll give you an example. If a mortal human wasn't good enough to form the priesthood (Though in reality it's God who establishes these offices) why was a mortal human prophethood good enough? Christ was just as much as prophet as a priest yet how does Scripture describe Him?

The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me [Moses] from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear.

Here is Moses saying the Messiah, Christ, the King of Kings, will be like him? So if we apply your theology to this verse Moses must be Christ because how can anyone be like Christ?

But if we apply my theology to this verse we understand that Christ is like Moses in that Moses mediated between God and Men. Moses is a prophet. Christ is THE Prophet. Moses is a type, a shadow, the lesser who points to the greater.

In the same way Christ is like Mel. in that Mel. served as both a king and a priest and there were no restrictions on his ability to serve. Mel. is a priest. Christ is THE Priest. Mel. is a type, a shadow, the lesser who points to the greater.

[waiting]

IMO, Melchizedek was a Theophany (appearance) of Jesus in the OT.

I'm currently going through Hebrews and just studied this. If you want my notes, I can PM you a link. :):

Agreed, he appeared to Joshua, as the captain of Lords host. "Take the shoes off your feet, this is holy ground". He also appeared to Abraham to talk about judgment on the cities of the plain.

[MsLibby]

Agreed, he appeared to Joshua, as the captain of Lords host. "Take the shoes off your feet, this is holy ground". He also appeared to Abraham to talk about judgment on the cities of the plain.

What makes you say it's Mel who is speaking to Joshua?

Joshua 5:
13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, a Man stood opposite him with His sword drawn in His hand. And Joshua went to Him and said to Him, “Are You for us or for our adversaries?”
14 So He said, “No, but as Commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.”
And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, “What does my Lord say to His servant?”
15 Then the Commander of the LORD’s army said to Joshua, “Take your sandal off your foot, for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so.

Not clear about your reference to Abraham...are you talking about the 3 'men' that visited him? If so, again...why do you say it's Mel?

[MsLibby]

For what it's worth, I believe the Angel of the Lord (the ones referenced, among others, in the above post) is a Theophany, or maybe a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. But I see no reason to think that Mel is this particular angel. Mel has a name. Mel lived, he reigned in Salem, as opposed to the angel of the Lord, who speaks for God, or represents Him, on various occasions.

[jesuslover1968]

For what it's worth, I believe the Angel of the Lord (the ones referenced, among others, in the above post) is a Theophany, or maybe a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. But I see no reason to think that Mel is this particular angel. Mel has a name. Mel lived, he reigned in Salem, as opposed to the angel of the Lord, who speaks for God, or represents Him, on various occasions.


I would have to agree that I don't see Mel. in these passages. If it was, it would just say it was him.
The rest I have to disagree with very respectfully cause I respect your opinions and beliefs, as you respect mine. :):

[MsLibby]

I would have to agree that I don't see Mel. in these passages. If it was, it would just say it was him.
The rest I have to disagree with very respectfully cause I respect your opinions and beliefs, as you respect mine. :):

Here's how I see it ~ as sisters in Christ, and friends to boot, we are iron sharpening iron...we help keep each other sharpened. :tighthug

[jesuslover1968]

To begin I want to apologize for how I've come off in this thread. I should have been far more gentle to you and I should have explained up front that it isn't so much your conclusion that I take issue with (though I disagree with it) but the method you used to come to it. I don't think it's consistent and I think if you applied that method elsewhere it could lead to error and I wouldn't want to see that. Still, that doesn't give me the right to show my frustration and I'm sorry for that.
Thank you, but no need to apologize. I have been known to act the same way at times. :):
What exactly is it that you don't agree with? What method do you believe I have used?





Of your 18 questions at least 4 are unanswerable because the Bible doesn't give us that data.


Quote:
2) Where did he come from?
3) where was he born?
5) where is salem?
14) Where is Mel. now?

I will have to disagree with this as we can get the answers...
2) He has no beginning and no end...who else that we know has no beginning and no end?
3) Same answer as #2.
5) The answer is that the bible doesn't tell us. It says he has a kingdom, but does not tell us where it is, only the name. It doesn't tell us the when or the where and the kingdom is not mentioned as other kingdoms of the O.T. were, which is a little odd, yes?
14) The bible tells us that he has no beginning and no end, so we are to deduce that he exists continually. Only God fits that description...
If someone were to ask you about where Peter is, or Jesus, or Moses, they could tell you that they all died, one rose again the third day.
Let me use Enoch and Elijah as examples here...we know that they did not die because God took them. We also know that they are not perpetually existing because the Bible does not tell us that they had no beginning and no end. They have geneologies...Mel. doesn't. Neither does God.


If at least 22% of your questions yield no data how does that lead you to a logical conclusion? Also wouldn't the better questions be

1) Who is the audience of Hebrews?
2) What is the context of Hebrews 7?
3) What are the related verses to this passage?

Then from these answers we begin to form an opinion.

I have already shown that they were answerable. You just chose not to answer them or were confused about my whole point of asking them.
I know that the audience of the Hebrews was the Jews. I never said it wasn't. The context of Hebrews 7 is pointing out that Levitical laws can do nothing and that there is a more holy priesthood, which I have already said and agreed with you on. I also gave you the related verses to this passage. Let me explain something. You don't want to go back to Genesis and see Mel. there. But the truth is is that we interpret scripture with scripture, especially when we don't get a clear understanding of who is who and what is what and where is where. So in context, I used every passage in the Bible that Mel. was concerned with, which also includes Psalm 110:4. and Genesis 14.




Any priesthood would not have done. I've already pointed out the shortcomings of the Levitical Law

which I am very well aware of.



Not if He wanted to fulfill Messianic prophecy. The Messiah was to come from the tribe of Judah, specifically the house of David. Those from Judah could not serve as priests and those from Levi could not serve as kings.

Which I know as well. But God could have orchestrated Him to come from both if He had so chosen to do.


You could point to dozens of examples of people and places that are mentioned once then never mentioned again.

ok, can I see some of them? And how many of them have no beginning and no end and their priesthood will last forever and they have no geneology?

The Bible is about how Man relates to God. We're given sketches of people and events that either bring people closer to God or further from Him. We aren't given every detail about them, we're just given that which is relative to us. We're told what we need to know about Salem and Mel.

I agree with this. I just disagree with the whole "why" of it.



I haven't allegorized anything. You're applying symbolic or spiritual meaning to phrases such as "no mother and no father" because you're ignoring the context.

My application was literal, in all due respect. If it says no mother and no father, has no beginning and no end, if you come to any other conclusion than what that says, you have allegorized it to mean something else. You applied it by explaining to me that it was all about the Levitical laws and missed the whole point of WHY there was a better priesthood.


Where you are ascribing spiritual meaning to these phrases I'm trying to hear how a 1st century Jew would take those verses. He would compare the limited office of the Levitical priesthood with the unlimited priesthood of Mel.
This completely fits the natural reading of Hebrews which is a book contrasting the Old with the New. If you want to dispute this that's fine, but show where I've mishandled the text, don't just say I did then move on.

I didn't spiritualize, you did. You made the text mean something other than it literally says, have you not?
As far as how first century Jews would take it is that they would know there is only one that has no beginning and no end, no father or mother and whose priesthood will last forever...GOD.

Is it true that priests had to be from Levi? Is it true that they served only a short while? If these points are true, and relate to the text, how have I erred?

In not applying the reason why. They were imperfect because the priesthood consisted of human men who have a fallen nature.


I've repeatedly said that we need to be consistent in our interpretation. I don't believe that Mel. is Christ because if we apply your reasons elsewhere in Scripture they don't hold.

Such as? They way I see it, if you do not apply Mel. as God, then it doesn't fit at all. A more perfect priesthood could ONLY be God. I am having trouble understanding why you are missing that point. There was a priesthood. It wasn't good enough, even though it was ordained BY God, it wasn't GOD, who could be the only one to form a perfect priesthood.

I'll give you an example. If a mortal human wasn't good enough to form the priesthood (Though in reality it's God who establishes these offices) why was a mortal human prophethood good enough? Christ was just as much as prophet as a priest yet how does Scripture describe Him?
These are two totally different things. Yes, Jesus was THE Prophet, not just A prophet, wasn't He? Jesus and man are not the same. He was 100% man, yes, but he is also 100% God and that can NOT change. As you can see by your own example, the human prophets weren't good enough, were they? Jesus had to fulfill every office that there was because he is perfect and men are not. :):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deut 18:15
The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me [Moses] from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear.

Here is Moses saying the Messiah, Christ, the King of Kings, will be like him? So if we apply your theology to this verse Moses must be Christ because how can anyone be like Christ?
I take this verse to mean that He will be human like Moses, so your point is not made. Notwithstanding that is all of our goals, is it not? To be like Christ?

But if we apply my theology to this verse we understand that Christ is like Moses in that Moses mediated between God and Men. Moses is a prophet. Christ is THE Prophet. Moses is a type, a shadow, the lesser who points to the greater.
All prophets brought messages to the people from God so that would be an oxymoron. But I do agree that Moses was a type and shadow. That is not what I think Mel. is. And btw, there is only one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ.

In the same way Christ is like Mel. in that Mel. served as both a king and a priest and there were no restrictions on his ability to serve. Mel. is a priest. Christ is THE Priest. Mel. is a type, a shadow, the lesser who points to the greater.
I have to disagree with this to an extent. Yes, He pointed to Jesus, but I don't think He was lesser. I think He was God. In His fullness, before Jesus was born....a theophany.

[jesuslover1968]

Here's how I see it ~ as sisters in Christ, and friends to boot, we are iron sharpening iron...we help keep each other sharpened. :tighthug

Yes we do!!