Melchizedek - who was he?

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

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

Sorry to ask such a mind stretching question!

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

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

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

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

Your thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam Clarke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albert Barnes

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Gill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ
Jeff

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ: Phillip

Brother Phillip wrote:

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

Who is the Holy One of Israel?

In Christ
Jeff

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

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

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

HBr 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

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

Peter

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

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

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

HBr 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

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

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

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

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

RobertW wrote:

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

'the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things'

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

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

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

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

Verses 1 and 2.

Historical/literal facts, plainly understood as such

Verse 3

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

PCB paraphrase!

compare to KJV

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

Verse 4-10

Back to historical/literal facts

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

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

Peter

RobertW wrote:

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

'the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things'

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

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

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

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

Verses 1 and 2.

Historical/literal facts, plainly understood as such

Verse 3

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

PCB paraphrase!

compare to KJV

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

Verse 4-10

Back to historical/literal facts

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

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

Peter

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

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

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

3. Christ
It could be this option

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

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

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

3. Christ
It could be this option

Is the Logos Melchizedek?

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

In that sense, Melchizedek had no beginning or end.

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

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

In Christ: Phillip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abraham would not have paid respect to a pagan king else he would have paid respect to the king of sodom or any other king.
Abraham would not have taken any notice of a righteous priest either.
I Think it has to be someone abit more special!!

Brother Ron wrote:

Mechisedec was a real flesh and blood king of ancient times who lived long before Christ ‘became flesh’ and before God the Son ‘became’ a High Priest. He is a mysterious character who only appears for a few verses and then vanishes from the record as an individual.

With this statement, does it mean that there exists another like Christ in God's "economy?"

In Christ
Jeff

It should be noted that just because the Jebusites were hardcore pagans at the time when Joshua fought them, doesn't mean they were corrupt nearly 500 years prior when Abraham met Melchizedek! Hebrews argues that Jesus is a high priest according to this order simply because "God says so." For under the law, one was a priest based on pedigree. But Christ was made a priest, like Melchizedek, not based upon any pedigree, but simply because, "God says so."

"Convenient titles"?

What is still absurd is that you are setting up a straw-man of an argument based on pure speculation rather than appealing to what the text states.

Forget the issue of whether or not Melchizedek was the Lord. The 'types' here is obvious enough as is explained by Hebrews. How often is the mention of the word [i]order[/i]? That is the main issue I am trying to force into the open here.

Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order (H1700) of Melchizedek.

[b]Order[/b]
H1700
דּברה
dibrâh
dib-raw'
Feminine of H1697; a reason, suit or style: - cause, end, estate, order, regard.

[b]Psa 110:4 -
The Lord hath sworn[/b] - He has confirmed the appointment of the Messiah by a solemn oath, or as by an oath. That is, It is as sure and fixed as if he had taken an oath. Compare Heb_6:13. The “time,” so to speak, if the word time can be applied to transactions in a past eternity, was that when he was designated in the divine purpose as Messiah; in the eternal counsels of God. Compare Psa_2:7.

[b]And will not repent[/b] - Will not change his purpose.

[b]Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek[/b] - The word rendered “order” here means properly a word, a thing, a matter; hence, a way or manner. The meaning here is, that he would be a priest “after the manner” of Melchizedek; or, such a priest as he was. He would not be of the tribe of Levi; he would not be in the regular line of the priesthood, but he would resemble, in the characteristics of his office, this ancient priest-king, combining in himself the two functions of priest and king; as a priest, standing alone; not deriving his authority from any line of predecessors; and having no successors. See this verse explained at length, in its application to the Messiah, in the notes at Heb_5:6 (note), Heb_5:10 (note); Heb_7:1-3 (note). The passage as it stands here, and as looked at without any reference to the use made of it in the New Testament, would imply these things:

(1) That he who was spoken of would be, in a proper sense, a priest.

(2) that he would have a perpetual or permanent priesthood - “forever.”

(3) that he would not be of the established line of priests in the tribe of Levi, but that his appointment would be unusual and extraordinary.

(4) that the appointment would come directly from God, and would not be “derived” from those who went before him.

(5) that as a priest he would “resemble” Melchizedek, according to the record which was found of Melchizedek in Genesis.

(6) that as Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God, so he would be.

(7) that as Melchizedek combined in himself the functions of both priest and king, so these would be found in him.

(8) that as Melchizedek had no successors in office, so he would have none.

How far these things were applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ, and with what propriety the passage might be applied to him, may be seen by examining the Epistle to the Hebrews, Heb. 5–7.

John Gill

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

Heb 5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the [b]order[/b] of Melchisedec.

[b]Order[/b]
G5010
τάξις
taxis
tax'-is
From G5021; regular arrangement, that is, (in time) fixed succession (of rank or character), official dignity: - order.

Besides these first two, Heb 5:10, 6:20, 7:11, 7:17, and 7:21 all state [i]after the order of Melchisedec[/i]. Except in Heb 7:15 where it is rendered;

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the [b]similitude[/b] of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

[b]Similitude[/b]
G3665
ὁμοιότης
homoiotēs
hom-oy-ot'ace
From G3664; resemblance: - like as, similitude.

If there is anything to be deduced from all of this it is in the character, in dignity, righteousness.

"Heb 7:4 [b]Now consider how great this man was[/b], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

You wish to make the Lord Jesus typified by a mere pagan priest out for a money grab? And think that is not absurd?

Blaspheme

Brother Steve wrote:

Moses is a TYPE of Christ, the same as Melchidezek is a TYPE of Christ.

The writer of Hebrews makes this distinction between Moses and Christ...

Heb. 3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, 2 who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house. 3 For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house. 4 For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God. 5 And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.

Moses was faithful in all His house, but it is Christ who built the house...

It was Christ who built the house for Moses and the children of Israel.

Has anyone ever considered who the Holy One of Israel is according to Scripture?

In Christ
Jeff

Going along with Brother Mikes thoughts...

For what pupose did God establish the "priestly order of Melchizedec?"

In Christ
Jeff

With this statement, does it mean that there exists another like Christ in God's "economy?"

You wish to make the Lord Jesus typified by a mere pagan priest out for a money grab? And think that is not absurd?
Blaspheme

A charge of Blasphemy, eh? It would only be Blasphemy, if Melchizedek was Jesus. Jesus is the lamb of God. Sheep are stupid. Yet Jesus is typified by a stupid sheep. Is that blasphemous?

The question of Order..

Assume there was this literal order of priests, and we know that Jesus was/is in it. Could there be another priest? I don't think anyone would argue that? Two eternal priests?!

So when was Jesus ordained into this order then?

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "You are my Son,today I have begotten you"; 6 as he says also in another place, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek."

Acts 13:32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, "'You are my Son, today I have begotten you.' 34 And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, "'I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.'

We can see He was ordained as priest on resurrection day, and centuries after Abraham's day.

Because the Order of Melchizedek has to only include Jesus, then the Order must be symbolic, because Melchizedek was also a priest.

The easy answer is that Melchizedek was just a pagan priest. If he were some godly person like Shem, then Shem would be in this Order of Eternal priests.

The order is merely symbolic, because Melchizedek appears to be eternal. By the way, it cannot be Shem because we know Shem's geneology, and Hebrews tells us we don't have that for Mechizedek. Another point, we have Jesus' geneology too.

I really think the easy way out is to say Melchizedek was a pagan. The stretch comes in wondering why God would chose a pagan to represent Himself. Perhaps the answer comes in the fact, that God used murderers like Moses, David and Paul to base the Bible on. It wasn't their murders that he glorified, and it isn't Melchizedek's paganism, just what his lack of geneology and his name symbolized.

God is a big God, and He can do whatever He likes. Where does the Bible say that He cannot use a pagan as a type?

The part about God Most High..

The same expression was used by pagan Nebuchadnezar. Abraham qualified it by inserting YHWH God Most High. Thus making a point about the God referred to by the king of Sodom.

God Most High to you and I is YHWH. God Most High to a Babylonian was a pagan deity - the chief deity. The Muslims worship Allah. Does that mean we have the same God? Perhaps, but not the same religion.

Does this shed any light on your challenge of Blasphemy?

I comfort myself with the thought that Jesus was called a Blasphemer. Perhaps Jesus and I are in the dog box together then?

Brother Ron wrote:

There are many 'like' Christ. The Aaronic priesthood with its anointed (Christed) priest, the Mediator of the covenant, Moses.

But, how many have served according to the order of Melchizedec?

Is there not a difference, according to Scripture, between the earthly Aaronic priesthood and the priesthood of Melchizedec?

In Christ
Jeff

[b]Pagan
PA'GAN, n.[/b] [L. paganus, a peasant or countryman, from pagus, a village.] A heathen; a Gentile; an idolater; one who worships false gods. This word was originally applied to the inhabitants of the country, who on the first propagation of the christian religion adhered to the worship of false gods, or refused to receive christianity, after it had been received by the inhabitants of the cities. In like manner, heather signifies an inhabitant of the heath or woods, and caffer, in Arabic, signifies the inhabitant of a hut or cottage, and one that does not receive the religion of Mohammed. Pagan is used to distinguish one from a Christian and a Mohammedan.

[b]PA'GAN[/b], a. Heathen; heathenish; Gentile; noting a person who worships false gods.

1. Pertaining to the worship of false gods.

The part about God Most High..

The same expression was used by pagan Nebuchadnezar. Abraham qualified it by inserting YHWH God Most High. Thus making a point about the God referred to by the king of Sodom.

God Most High to you and I is YHWH. God Most High to a Babylonian was a pagan deity - the chief deity. The Muslims worship Allah. Does that mean we have the same God? Perhaps, but not the same religion.

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Which would also mean that the writer in describing this was also under this perceived delusion?

Gen 14:22 And 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,
Gen 14:23 That 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:

Dan 5:18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:

That the same expression was used by Daniel, David, even ...

Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

Doesn't prove anything to your fallacious notions that you pour into the text.

Better exegesis can be found here, for those interested.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1838&forum=45&0]Melchizedek; time to sit and eat[/url]

Heb 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, [b]made[/b] an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; [b]but made like unto the Son of God[/b]; abideth a priest continually.

What is so glaringly appalling about all this is that the whole exercise being brought to bear by the writer of Hebrews is in the [u]comparisons[/u] to Melchisdec. "After the order", being [i]made[/i], made like, similitudes and types, character descriptions. And your usage of pagan, which in the strictest sense of the word is [i]one who [u]worships false gods[/u][/i] and if that were not enough you would also have him denounced further by the other galling idea of his motivation ("making a quick buck off Abraham") is ludicrous.

Early you stated;

Sorry to come across as arrogant! I personally found it mind bending when I first came across this question asked of me by a theologian whose PhD dissertation involved the matter.

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

And it is getting difficult to believe the sincerity, you seem more intent on an argument than a understanding. But it could just as well be me, am finding this all very disturbing spiritually and not for the assumptions you might think.

[i]Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.[/i] Heb 5:8-11

This applies more than you know.

I comfort myself with the thought that Jesus was called a Blasphemer. Perhaps Jesus and I are in the dog box together then?

Do you find this forum a mere place of frivolity? It may seem quite uncharitable of me here and difficult to be so. We know next to nothing of who you are, where you are coming from. Could but prefer it to be otherwise.

The Bible teaches us that Nebuchadnezzar came to a believing, saving faith in the God and Messiah of the Bible, and will be in heaven with us, forever:

I sat down to read my bible this morning and read:

Tts 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

I think I was being told to shut up on this one, I'll leave it to the rest of you!

Peter

It should be noted that the idea that Melchizedek was simply a local pagan priest of Jebusite stock is not an uncommon view, and many scholars these days hold to it. This is in part assumed because many pretty much would say that everybody outside of Abraham and his immediate family were pagans, especially throughout the land of Cannan and Mesopotamia in general. Some would say this is especially clear because Melchizedek uses the unusual phrase "God Most High," which according to a few commentaries I've consulted over the years, this language, if memory serves correct, especially as used in the Hebrew, looks more like something that would describe Baal, than how God's name is actually used throughout the OT.

But with that said, I disagree with the notion that Melchizedek was a pagan priest.

For in Hebrews 7, the author argues that the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater than the Levitical priesthood. He argues this on the grounds that because Melchizedek [b]blessed[/b] Abraham, in whom were the Levites, that this makes the priesthood that Christ has a greater one, because it is of the order of Melchizedek. For "without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater" (Heb 7:7). Therefore, if Melchizedek was a mere pagan priest, the Scriptures would not have argued that he was greater. Nor would they have seen Melchizedek having the authority to bless. For it is a Divinely ordained priest that has authority to bless. Therefore, Melchizedek could not have been a pagan.

In conclusion, a saving faith has always been at the heart of salvation. Our works are nothing more than filthy rags to God Almighty.

But with that said, I disagree with the notion that Melchizedek was a pagan priest.

I agree with you here Abraham would not be hanging around with a Pagan Priest

Genesis 14:21-24
21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, F75 and take the goods to thyself. 22 And 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, 23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet,

Abram does not even want to hang out with the King of Sodom for a moment. Why would he want to hang out with a Pagan Priest.

Jewish Tradition serves my idea better if it was Shem or Noah.

After his seven years of insanity, brought upon him by God (Jehovah) he finally realises there is only one God, a God that he now extols and worships.

Silly me!! I forgot the person that I think of the most!!
DOm

"I agree with you here Abraham would not be hanging around with a Pagan Priest"

Pagan Priest, = a gentile King and Priest of the most high God. Not just the exiled brother of Shem and Japheth, being Ham and of his kingdom.

Melchizedek and Abraham. God immortalizes this encounter between Melchizedek and Abraham by renaming the city in honor of them: the name Yeru (derived from Yireh, the name Abraham gives to Mount Moriah after unbinding Isaac, and explained in Genesis as meaning that God will be revealed there) is placed in front of Shalem.[14]

Yirehshalem: Jerusalem

In Christ: Phillip

I am thankful that KingJimmy gave testimony to the truth that this argument of Melchizedek being a pagan priest is not mine, but held by many scholars.

I liked the objection that KingJimmy raised concerning the blessing when he quotes Hebrews 7:7 "It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior." Okay, so it is beyond dispute that Melchizedek had authority over Abraham, we’d be wise to accept that!

Here’s one PhD’s point on this particular issue:

Melchizedek was a local king living in Jerusalem (most likely), and Abraham was not a king, therefore was under Melchizedek’s authority. The Arabs of the day, had this custom of taking 10% from their people as a tax on military conquests. The tax in question is called the Esretu. Abraham had grown up in Chaldea, and knew of this custom. He was merely paying the customary tax.

Could a pagan bless a godly man?

My irreligious neighbor stopped by to help one day, as I was removing a half fallen tree from our yard. He was half drunk, but out of the charity of his heart had decided to help me. I was really blessed by his gesture.

PCB says “Tts 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”, and I agree with him on that too. Except for one thing, for some of us, this thing of Melchizedek has been used to extort tithes from us by making us feel like that if we’re not tithing, then we’re stealing from Jesus, because Jesus is supposedly Melchizedek, and even Abraham tithed to Melchizedek.

Like my friend crsschk, I also had a brush with the prosperity church in the past. The issue of money was one that drove Jesus to anger.

It is my hope that in breaking free from the bondage that I felt to tithe, that I will remain a cheerful giver. I have given much of my wealth away as it is, and somehow we still survive, and run a ministry. I love giving, and was quite happy to tithe, but when the wheels fell off at times, I would feel bad that I couldn’t tithe. Now I realize that I don’t have to tithe, and feel free to give whatever I want. I also realize that I had most of my mishaps during my tithing years, contrary to what is supposed to happen according to the prosperity preachers who quote Malachi 3.

Crsschk, you complain that you know little about my identity. I had to smile at that. Isn’t that what we are all protesting about Melchizedek? At least one thing you can be sure of, I am not Melchizedek!

I’d like to thank Sermon Index for the great website! I have been an unregistered user over the years, and consider it one of the best Christian websites. The forum has helped me think through some of my thoughts on this, and hear the sort of objections that are out there, and to gage the kind of views people have. So, I feel that it has been a positive experience all round. If I have caused upset, sorry for that. It wasn’t my intention to do so.

Blessings on you, in the name of Jesus.

Could a pagan bless a godly man?

My irreligious neighbor stopped by to help one day, as I was removing a half fallen tree from our yard. He was half drunk, but out of the charity of his heart had decided to help me. I was really blessed by his gesture.

This is not quite the same thing as what Melchizedek did. The Bible places a great emphasis on blessings that are spoken. So much so that Jacob deceived his father into thinking that he was Esau so that he might obtain that blessing. For such blessings were looked at as being prophetic pronouncements. Speaking such a blessing wasn't exactly the same thing as "just tryin' to be a blessin" (in the good Southern hospitable/neighborly sense). To pronounce a blessing was essentially to call whatever thing one said into reality.

Likewise, when the children of Israel were wandering through the wilderness, the prophet Balaam was hired by the enemies of Israel to pronounce a curse on Israel. For just as blessings were seen as prophetic declarations, so were curses. Therefore, if Balaam could pronounce a curse on Israel, if he made such a statement, it was a prophetic declaration that essentially called whatever was said into reality.

Likewise, the Levitical priests were required to bless Israel before they went out to war, and to proclaim, "The Lord bless you, and make His face to shine upon you...". Without this blessing, the armies of Israel simply would not prosper in war.

Thus, we as Christians who have priestly authority are to "bless, and not curse."

But with that said. What Melchizedek did was more than simply "be a blessing" to Abraham. He was a person in position to actually pronounce a blessing. What he spoke was of prophetic significance. What actually motivated Melchizedek in coming out is not entirely spelled out in Scripture. Indeed, perhaps it was just due to the local Arab customs. But that doesn't change the fact that he was indeed a legitimate priest in the eyes of God. Nor does that make him greedy.

Brother Steve asked:

P.S. You comprende?

I seached each Scripture presented that contained the greek word tupos... I understand that yes, whether it is Paul asking others to follow his example, or Paul asking us to learn from the examples given to us in Scripture, we are being transformed into His image the by power of the Holy Spirit...

What I do not find in Scripture is the word "tupos" being used to describe Melchizedec as an example of Christ.

To be more concise...Scripture states that Christ functions as the High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedec." The Scriptures point to an authority not an example. And that authority was spoken of by the Father of His Son long before He became flesh...

Do you see the diffence between type and function?

God Bless
In Christ
Jeff

In Scripture we find this testimony...

Heb. 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

The word of God seeks to illuminate, to declare what is. In this section of Scripture we find that Scripture defines what Melchizedec is. As Melchizedec stood before Abraham, Abraham worshiped Him. Melchizedec's presence poured forth the understanding of "equity" with the nature of God. This King of righteousness is the sovereign source by which man might know God.

Melchizedec's presence King of peace, also poured forth the understanding of being unified, at rest, set at one again...

1515. eijrhvnh eirene, i-ray´-nay; probably from a primary verb ei“rw eiro (to join); peace (literally or figuratively); by implication, prosperity:—one, peace, quietness, rest, + set at one again.

If Scripture says that Melchizedec is the King of righteousness and the King of peace, and that he served as priest of the Most High God, then we know that He represented in both image and unity the nature of God to Abraham. This is why Abraham gave his tithe to Melchizedec.

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.

In this next description of Melchizedec we find the he "abideth a priest continually." Unlike the earthly priesthood according to the Aaronic order, Melchizedec's priesthood does not end.

Finally, Scripture is not declaring that Melchizedec is a type of Christ, rather, Christ functions "according to the order of Melchizedec.

Scripture is not pointing to a man who resembles Christ. Scripture is pointing out that Christ performs the function of the priestly order of Melchizedec.

In Christ
Jeff

Is. 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

Who is the Holy One in this Scripture?

In Christ
Jeff

Is. 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
\tA song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:
\tMy Well-beloved has a vineyard
\tOn a very fruitful hill.
2 \tHe dug it up and cleared out its stones,
\tAnd planted it with the choicest vine.
\tHe built a tower in its midst,
\tAnd also made a winepress in it;
\tSo He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
\tBut it brought forth wild grapes.
3 \t“And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
\tJudge, please, between Me and My vineyard.

Who is the Beloved that Isaiah is writing of?

According to these Scriptures, what function does the Beloved perform?

In Christ
Jeff

Now will I sing - This is an indication that what follows is poetic, or is adapted to be sung or chanted.

To my well-beloved - The word used here - ידיד yedyd - is a term of endearment. It properly denotes a friend; a favorite; one greatly beloved. It is applied to saints as being the beloved, or the favorites of God, in Ps 127:2; De 33:12. In this place, it is evidently applied to Yahweh, the God of the Jewish people. As there is some reason to believe that the God of the Jews - the manifested Deity who undertook their deliverance from Egypt, and who was revealed as "their" God under the name of 'the Angel of the covenant' - was the Messiah, so it may be that the prophet here meant to refer to him. It is not, however, to the Messiah "to come." It does not refer to the God incarnate - to Jesus of Nazareth; but to the God of the Jews, in his capacity as their lawgiver and protector in the time of Isaiah; not to him in the capacity of an incarnate Saviour.

In Christ: Phillip

Did he meet the Messiah and the Holy Spirit when he met God? The Bible doesn’t say, but Spiritual discernment leads me to believe that he is indeed saved and in Heaven, waiting for the resurrection.

As Melchizedec stood before Abraham, Abraham worshiped Him.

To say this is to say something Scripture never says.

If Scripture says that Melchizedec is the King of righteousness and the King of peace,

Be careful. This the Scriptures do not do either. It says the two-fold interpretation of his names are this. But it does not say that he actually is the King of Righteousness and King of Peace. Rather, he is the king of a city named Salem, and when one breaks down the meanings of the names mentioned, they mean thus.

I am thankful that KingJimmy gave testimony to the truth that this argument of Melchizedek being a pagan priest is not mine, but held by many scholars.

Like my friend crsschk, I also had a brush with the prosperity church in the past. The issue of money was one that drove Jesus to anger.

It is my hope that in breaking free from the bondage that I felt to tithe, that I will remain a cheerful giver. I have given much of my wealth away as it is, and somehow we still survive, and run a ministry. I love giving, and was quite happy to tithe, but when the wheels fell off at times, I would feel bad that I couldn’t tithe. Now I realize that I don’t have to tithe, and feel free to give whatever I want. I also realize that I had most of my mishaps during my tithing years, contrary to what is supposed to happen according to the prosperity preachers who quote Malachi 3.

Crsschk, you complain that you know little about my identity. I had to smile at that. Isn’t that what we are all protesting about Melchizedek? ...

[i]I am indebted to a man, now with the Lord, who once told me. 'We have got to learn to read the Bible to see what it says and not what we have been told it says. Not what we think it should say but what it actually says. To that end I have covenanted with the Lord that, although I will listen to what other men may say, He will be my No 1 teacher'.

It was almost 40 years ago I first heard that and my stand now is what it became then.

"me too, Lord".[/i]~ Philologos

I’d like to thank Sermon Index for the great website! I have been an unregistered user over the years, and consider it one of the best Christian websites. The forum has helped me think through some of my thoughts on this, and hear the sort of objections that are out there, and to gage the kind of views people have. So, I feel that it has been a positive experience all round. If I have caused upset, sorry for that. It wasn’t my intention to do so.

Would have to add some regret for my own ... choice of words here in preceding replies. Think again spiritually it was of the [i]righteous indignation[/i] sort that the equation being proposed both by assumption and more so by bringing reproach upon the Name of the Lord Jesus by all this ... [i]that[/i] indeed caused some upset. I just find the whole thing quite contrary to all that the writer to the Hebrews was expressing by way of his appealing to [i]the order of Melchisdec[/i].

It is difficult to start making more assumptions about the 'scholars' that are stating such things. Having not heard this absurd notion prior nor knowing what else they may have stated. And a PhD can mean many things both good and bad. So without applying a stereotype across the board there is a suspicion that I am sure holds true often enough; That there are some dissecting the Book without knowing the [i]Spirit[/i] of the Book. Some that wish to deride and liberalize, speculate and decimate it, have an agenda of such.

Others who will challenge and dig, contemplate and change their minds as often as need be to get to the marrow of meaning and understanding. Honesty requires it, the Lord Himself demands it of us, our honesty. If we don't know we ought to say so and not go beyond what is written. Would like to think that those here contributing are by and large of this mindset.

I also apologize if I have gone beyond proper limits. Appreciate your forthcoming here.

Your understanding of things of the spirit gives new meaning to the term carnal Christian. In the past I have always thought it applied to Christians, like those in Corinth, who were involved in sexual sin. Now, I can see that it also applies to believers that cannot see past their own skin.

Stever,

Am holding my breath awaiting your clarification here. If you [b][i]cannot[/i][/b] distinguish between discussing things with the charity of appealing to what is stated without laying some lofty charge and I do mean [i]lofty[/i], this insinuation ... There is no other alternative than for you to stop your participation here or we will do it for you.

You have been given more grace and forbearance than anyone that has any duration in these parts.

Brother Jim,

Is paying a tithe an act of obligation or an act of worship?

It says the two-fold interpretation of his names are this.

Hebrews 7:2

"...first being translated, "king of righteousness" and then king of Salem, meaning "king of peace."

What does "first being translated" mean to you according to the greek?

In Christ
Jeff

Is paying a tithe an act of obligation or an act of worship?

It's an act of worship. However, by simply paying tithes one is not worshipping the priest who receives them. For under the Old Covenant, bringing tithes to the Levitical priests did not constitute the worship of the Levitical priest. Thus, Abraham's bringing Melchizedek the tithe did not constitute the worship of Melchizedek.

What does "first being translated" mean to you according to the greek?

This simply means "by the translation of his name." It's what his name means.

Brother Jim wrote:

For under the Old Covenant, bringing tithes to the Levitical priests did not constitute the worship of the Levitical priest.

First, Abraham was not under the Covenant made on Mount Sinai. Secondly, the Levitical priest were also required to pay a tithe to whom?

Does Scripture place any significance on names?

In Christ
Jeff

First, Abraham was not under the Covenant made on Mount Sinai

That is beside the point. Such is simply an example. Priest's were mediators, acting on behalf of another person.

Secondly, the Levitical priest were also required to pay a tithe to whom?

The tithe that the Levites received was to be tithed. They did this by taking a tithe of the tithe, and simply burning it up as a sacrifice to God.

Does Scripture place any significance on names?

Sure. Adam means "earth." Eve means "mother of all." Abram means "exalted father." Abraham means "father of many nations." Jacob means "deceiver." etc. etc. In the Old Testament, a great deal of weight is placed on names. In Hebrew culture, generally speaking, a name signified something about the person, or held symbolic meaning. Such as when Hosea named his children to signify the judgments of God on the nation.

Thanks guys for the challenge to use more scripture and the point raised by KingJimmy about the blessing of Abraham by Melchizedek.

In Daniel 3, we see Nebuchadnezzar calling God by the same title that Melchizedek used, and blessing Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. This, at the point in Nebuchadnezzar’s life when he was forcing people to worship an image of himself. A pagan priest-king blessing godly people.

The whole point of Hebrews is to explain the priesthood of the New Covenant. Hebrews 8:1. The Order of Melchizedek represents the Priesthood of the New Covenant, which is filled by only one priest – Jesus the Son of God / Son of Man.

Now, Jesus was ordained into this order on Resurrection Day. This is when the New Covenant began. Hebrews 5 and Acts 13, explain the term “this day” that God uttered the oath concerning Jesus’ High Priesthood.

So let’s start assuming that the Order of Melchizedek was a literal order of priests:

If Jesus was operating in this order back in Abraham’s day as Melchizedek, then why did He need to die on a cross and be raised from the dead to initiate the New Covenant, by becoming its’ High Priest? Problems!

If Melchizedek was Shem, or any other godly person, then we have two priests in the Order of Melchizedek. This means that both are eternal priests, and Shem would be at least equal to, if not superior to Jesus, because he was in the order before Jesus, and that the New Covenant has two priests. Problems!

If Melchizedek was a pagan, then we have a pagan and Jesus in the same order of priests. Problems!

So, we are forced to conclude that the order is symbolic, not literal.

If Shem (or any godly man) was a priest, then what covenant was he operating under in order to have a whole city under his priesthood? Abraham was a priest, because he offered up sacrifices, Genesis 22:13. Abraham’s priesthood was over his family, as was the case of Noah: Genesis 8:20. So, we have evidence of a head of household priesthood prior to Moses. Thus we don’t have reason to consider a citywide priesthood covenant, other than a pagan one.

Hebrews goes after the symbolism in order to establish the priesthood of Jesus within the New Covenant. Hebrews isn’t interested in resolving our discussion of the identity of Melchizedek. However, it seems apparent that one can nevertheless identify who Melchizedek isn’t, and the kind of priest that he is. He’s like Nebuchadnezzar, pagan priest king over Babylon.

I admit that it’s hard to swallow Hebrews 7:7, as you point out KingJimmy, but the Order of Melchizedek is where I end up going back to the pagan Melchizedek solution.

Once one accepts this, then names like Adonizedek, and the Jebusite history seem to add up. We also have the Babylonian tithe – the Esretu, which is the counterfeit to the Biblical agricultural tithe. So, it seems to work, although it is radical.

I'm okay with radical.
Blessings!

Stever,

You call out Ron as a person who gives new meaning to the term Carnal Christian and he needs to be born again so that he can see! Yikes, I wish I was as blind as Ron is! Did you ever read in the scriptures about treating older men as Fathers, and then there was that commandment about honouring Fathers and Mothers.

It is one thing to disagree...

Jimbabwean,

By the way, it is totally inconsistent with the scriptures to allude to the fact that Melchizedek was a money grubbing pagan who pulled one over on Abraham! We may not know alot about him, but come on!

Murray

Brother Jim wrote:

They did this by taking a tithe of the tithe, and simply burning it up as a sacrifice to God.

So the Levitical priests worshiped God by offering a tithe...is this then consistent with what I said when Abraham worshipped Melchizedec by offering his tithe to him?

Please remember the Scripture where is says that the Levitical priesthood not yet in existence payed their tithes through Abraham...

What is most important to realize in this whole discussion is to find how God made promises to continue to provide for a "remnant" down through the generations starting with Able...

What kind of priesthood counld only bring about this "remnant?"

Allow yourself to find the treasure hidden in Scripture.

God Bless
Jeff

Brother Phillip provided this commentary...

It is not, however, to the Messiah "to come." It does not refer to the God incarnate - to Jesus of Nazareth; but to the God of the Jews, in his capacity as their lawgiver and protector in the time of Isaiah; not to him in the capacity of an incarnate Saviour.

Thankyou for this response...However, I can only quote from Scripture the glory that is found in Christ...

Colossians 1:15-17

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."

When one begins to see the High Priest at work in the remnant throughout the generations one will find a treasure that does not fade but increases without end.

Listen to the judgement on those of Israel who were not part of the remnant...

Isaiah 5:24

"Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble, and the flame consumes the chaff, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom will ascend like dust;

because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel."

Who is the Holy One of Israel?

God Bless
Jeff

The Holy One of Israel is God, who's wife Israel was. The Holy One of the Body of Christ is Jesus our Lord and Only High Priest, who only became our High Priest after the Cross. You cannot ordain a priest that is Spirit, to be a priest that becomes us. That is human in every way and also Very God also.

Hebrews 7:26-28 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who 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. For 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.

Jesus Christ was ordain to become incarnate before the foundation of the world, that was at His birth by His mother Mary and His Father God.
You cannot make Melchizedek the Incarnate Christ.
Then there would be no need for His Birth, to become a perfect human being and perfect Very God. The difference in old testament salvation is God by His mercy and by their faith God saved them and will make that manifest in the Millennium by the Christ that was promised them.

We have salvation through faith, that is through the faith of a different acknowledgement of The Will of God that we should believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and we will be saved through the Faith of this Person, Jesus Christ, not by our faith in keeping the Law of God. They sought and studied the scriptures to find salvation and could not would not receive Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God, that He would become their salvation, they crucified the Prince of Peace.

Again; Mark 12:26-27 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. God has chosen Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Moses and all those by their faith, God became the God of them living.

This is not the Christ of the New Testament.
They in the old testament were searching the scriptures and could not see Him.

This is a long read but it is the truth of the Word of God Himself, Jesus Christ who is our salvation by Grace through Faith of the Person Himself, Jesus Christ our Lord.

John 5:31-47 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

How shall ye believe His Words?

Galatians 2:16-21 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

In Christ Through Faith, His Faith.

Act 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Rom 3:30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Rom 3:30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Not by my faith, but through His Faith. Phillip

This is really not so difficult to see, I think. Christ is not Melchizedek but is 'of the order of Melchizedek. His high-priesthood is Melchizedekian and not Aaronic; that is the burden of Hebrews. He is not an heriditary high priest but is a priest of an entirely different kind. He is a king-priest... the sort of priest that Melchizedek illustrates.

He is a king-priest... the sort of priest that Melchizedek illustrates.

Indeed Ron. Hebrews 7 is simply try to show precedence in regard to Christ's ministry, and how the seemingly unreconcilable notion of a king-priest is possible.

So the Levitical priests worshiped God by offering a tithe...is this then consistent with what I said when Abraham worshipped Melchizedec by offering his tithe to him?

This is not consistent. Abraham presenting his tithe to Melchizedek correlates to somebody else in Israel bringing their tithe to one of the Levites. When one brought their tithe to a priest, it did not constitute the worship of the priest but the worship of God. Thus, when Abraham brought the tithe to Melchizedek, it constituted the worship of God, not Melchizedek.

How in the world you see Abraham bringing Melchizedek his tithe as worshiping Melchizedek as God is beyond me. It seems more like you WANT Melchizedek to be a pre-incarnate version of Christ. But this is not what Genesis 14, Psalm 110, or Hebrews 7 teaches. It is a popular teaching. But it is not based on Scripture.

In Daniel 3, we see Nebuchadnezzar calling God by the same title that Melchizedek used, and blessing Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. This, at the point in Nebuchadnezzar’s life when he was forcing people to worship an image of himself. A pagan priest-king blessing godly people.

Indeed, this would be a possible Scriptural argument for showing Melchizedek was possibly a pagan. However, it could also be argued that this was just another generic way of talking about God. As you are probably aware, the most common name used for God in the Old Testament is "El." This is also the same name that pagans used for their idols. But we would not argue that Abraham or the rest worshiped a pagan idol.

If Melchizedek was a pagan, then we have a pagan and Jesus in the same order of priests. Problems!

Indeed :)

So, we are forced to conclude that the order is symbolic, not literal.

No, we are not forced to conclude that the order is a symbolic one. Melchizedek was literally a priest and a king. And Christ is also literally, a priest and a king. If Melchizedek was not literally a priest, then neither is Christ. If he were not literally a king, then neither is Christ. The Scriptures mean what they say when Christ is a priest of the order of Melchizedek. And this order, contrary to the Levitical priesthood, did not require one to be a certain pedigree to enter into. Rather, one was a priest according to this order simply because God declared one so.

He’s like Nebuchadnezzar, pagan priest king over Babylon.

The Scriptures never see Nebuchadnezzar as being a priest.

Brother Jim wrote:

How in the world you see Abraham bringing Melchizedek his tithe as worshiping Melchizedek as God is beyond me. It seems more like you WANT Melchizedek to be a pre-incarnate version of Christ.

Scripture states that the sons of Levi paid tithes through Abraham to Melchizedec.

Hebrews 7:
7 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives."

In this Scripture where is he who receives them and is he still alive?

Now we must not forget that this section of Scripture is teaching about Melchizedec.

In Christ
Jeff

Brother Ron wrote:

His high-priesthood is Melchizedekian

Whose high-priesthood is Melchizedekian?

If you believe that it is Christ then it must be concluded then that Christ's priesthood was first exemplified by another that preceded Him...

In Christ
Jeff

Good morning all.

I've read through this thread and I believe, like Rookie and I think Mike, that Melchizedek was not a man that was born, lived and died, or at all any sort of pagan priest or any sort of priest that lived in the surrounding area(at least I think they believe that also). My opinion is that this was a Theophany, in a similar way to Genesis 18:1-2 and Exodus 34:5 for instance.

In verse 3 of Hebrews 7, the author goes well beyond suggesting that there is no record for the genealogy of Melchizedek. He goes so far beyond it as to say of this [b]man[/b], that he had

[i][b] neither beginning of days[/b][/i]

[i][b]nor end of life[/b][/i]

There was a mystery here in the Old Testament which I believe the author of Hebrews is now unfolding by the Holy Spirit according to Christ's words:

[b][color=660033]Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.[/color][/b]

I see this here as the graciousness of the Holy Spirit illuminating an obscure event in the history of redemption by giving to us knowledge which was not before revealed.

Are there not so many who come and go, that flash upon the pages of sacred history without any record of their descent? And yet of which of them was it ever said

they had...

[i][b] neither beginning of days[/b][/i]

[i][b]nor end of life[/b][/i]

I know not any.

That the [i]scribe[/i] here also unfolds for us that this Melchizedek is also called

[i][b] King of righteousness[/b][/i]

and...

[i][b] King of peace[/b][/i]

speaks also to me of his being other than a natural man. Of Whom could it be said

"He is King of Righteousness and King of Peace"?

Where do these meet?

[i]Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.[/i]

Is this not the name of the Lord which He declared unto Moses saying

"The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty..."

That He is forgiving speaks of His mercy.

That He will by no means clear the guilty speaks of His truth.

And yet are not these two met in the Lord Jesus, wherefore it is written of Him

[i]...and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.[/i]

How then can this Melchizedek have such a name, except he was in some fashion the presence of Him to Whom it belongs?

Peace be with you all in Christ.

Brother Phillip wrote:

Jesus Christ was ordain to become incarnate before the foundation of the world, that was at His birth by His mother Mary and His Father God.

You cannot make Melchizedek the Incarnate Christ.

I believe that Scripture teaches that Melchizedec was the pre-incarnate Christ.

Then there would be no need for His Birth, to become a perfect human being and perfect Very God. The difference in old testament salvation is God by His mercy and by their faith God saved them and will make that manifest in the Millennium by the Christ that was promised them.

It seems as though you argue against the doctrine of the Trinity. Scripture states that the OT saints were saved by grace...

Romans 11:5-6

"Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."

Through whom does all grace flow from?

We have salvation through faith, that is through the faith of a different acknowledgement of The Will of God that we should believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and we will be saved through the Faith of this Person, Jesus Christ, not by our faith in keeping the Law of God.

The law given on Mount Sinai condemns. No one but Christ kept the law. What other law was in place that enabled the OT saints to overcome this condmenation?

Psalm 119:1-3

"Blessed are the undefiled in the way. Who walk in the law of the Lord! Blessed are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with the whole heart! They also do no iniquity; they walk in His ways."

What law is at work in these brethren?

In Christ
Jeff

Brother Chris quoted:

Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

The words of mere men fail compared to the power that exists in Scripture alone.

You have blessed me with this Scripture, I see a greater depth then before...

God Bless
Jeff

Hebrews 7:
7 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives."

In this Scripture where is he who receives them and is he still alive?

Good question. The reason Hebrews says that "of whom it is witnessed that he lives" is because Melchizedek is presented in Scripture of as being nothing other than alive. To the author of Hebrews, what is not said about Melchizedek is just as important as what is said about him. He makes "an argument from silence." For he believes that God only gave us enough information about Melchizedek so as to give us a type of what Christ was to be in His priesthood. And since the Scriptures never mention anything of the death of Melchizedek, Hebrews 7 argues that the type that Melchizedek serves as points us to a priest that would arise according to his pattern. Since Melchizedek is always presented as being alive, then this serves as a type that the the other priest that should arise according to his order should be one that actually always lives. And this is what Christ does.

And remember, it is off this argument of silence that Hebrews 7 shows that the priesthood of Melchizedek was not one according to pedigree, as was the case with the Levites. For nothing is mentioned in Genesis 14 of Melchizedek's genealogy. Rather, one who serves as a priest in this order doesn't do so because of pedigree, but simply because God declares one such a priest. And since Christ, whose genealogy we have recorded in Matthew and Luke, isn't of Levite stock, but instead, from the tribe of Judah, this doesn't disqualify Him from being a priest.

Once again, we are not to confuse Christ as being Melchizedek. For he is not called Melchizedek, but rather, "another" priest that has arisen according to the same order. If Christ was indeed Melchizedek, then Christ could not be "another" priest. *edit* And since Christ is "another" priest according to this order, we know therefore that there have been at least two priests of this order.

If Melchizedek was really Christ pre-incarnate, then what one is essentially saying is that Jesus Christ also lived on this earth as a literal king of an actual city, prior to His incarnation.

Quote;

"I believe that Scripture teaches that Melchizedec was the pre-incarnate Christ."

Then God made two son's. One for the Old Testament and one for the New Testament. Melchizedek was not the Son of Man. Thus He could not be the Son of God, the only begotten.

Melchizedek was a Priest appointed outside of all rules and regulation and genealogies of man appointed Priestly duties. This High Priest Melchizedek was not a gentile, Jew or priest of Arron or Levitical, he was appointed by God and As Jesus would Be also birthed by God the Father, He Jesus Christ would be of the same appointment. "After the Order of Melchizedek".
"made like unto the Son of God;" but not being the Son of Man and the Son of God. Need more?
Hebrews 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. This was a man, not the Son of God.

Hebrews 7:6-8 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

This is the reason for Melchizedek; "But he whose descent is not counted". Melchizedek is the less when it comes to Jesus Christ our Lord, Savior, and High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, being the Only Begotten Son of God who's blessing is so much greater that Melchizedeks, it does not even compare, "bread and wine", to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who is the Body of Christ believers One and Only High Priest Forever. Melchizedek does not even compare to the Lord Jesus Christ who is the King of Kings and Only Begotten Son of the Most High God, who has made us His son's by becoming our Father also by the birthing of His Son in us. Born Again of Incorruptable Seed, by His death and resurrection and His coming again in the Spirit of Christ in us.

I am no a son of God by Melchizedek. I am a son of God by Birthing of God's only begotten Son, His Seed in me. Making God My Father and Jesus Christ my Brother and Lord and Savior, by His Blood and Body given for those that believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God.

The Body of Christ is The Church upon which Jesus Christ will build His Church upon this Rock, Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Melchizedek is a priest of the most High God, who would set the Priest Hood of Christ for the coming Birth of Jesus Christ and His Cross.

In Christ of the Priest Hood of Melchizedek forever, who is so much more than our High Priest, He is our Life and all that we are or ever will be. Phillip

Quote:

""If the first temple was built on Mount Moriah, beside Jeru'salem', are we talking about more than imagery? Wasn't it here that Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac? Also, wasn't the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world? By whom?""

Answer: Israel, through the Gentiles, (Romans).

We were chosen in Christ (before) the foundation of the world, not the Lamb Slain (from) foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1:1-14 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him(((before the foundation))) of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

These words were never spoken to anyone until Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected and returned to Paul that they might be spoken. Eph 1 is all that Christ is and ever will be. Abraham did not know these words and could not.

In Christ ((before the foundation of the world))
Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love:

The word "before" is not the word "from" that is in Revelations. This before is; Strong's Greek Dictionary
4253. pro
Search for G4253 in KJVSL
pro pro pro
a primary preposition; "fore", i.e. in front of, prior (figuratively, superior) to:--above, ago, before, or ever. In the comparative, it retains the same significations.

The word "From" in Revelations: Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship Him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain (((from))) the foundation of the world.
This word From is not before the foundation, but from the foundation of the world, Christ was not crucified before the foundation of the world, He was in God's plan but now crucified, since the foundation of the world.
(From) Strong's Greek Dictionary
575. apo
Search for G575 in KJVSL
apo apo apo'
a primary particle; "off," i.e. away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literal or figurative):--(X here-)after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for(-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-)on(-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.

Melchizedek could not have been the crucified Christ, as He was crucified since the foundation of the world approx 2000 years ago, so those that believe the Jesus Christ is the Son of God would be chosen in Christ, which was God's plan before the foundation of the world. Eph 1:4, before, not Rev 13:8 since or from.

Ephesians 1:22-23 And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.

There is nothing more to say, Amen.

In Christ: Phillip

Are there not so many who come and go, that flash upon the pages of sacred history without any record of their descent? And yet of which of them was it ever said

they had...

neither beginning of days

nor end of life

Hi Chris, think the meaning here is closer to the following;

[b]Heb 7:3 - Without father, &c.[/b]--explained by "without genealogy" (so the Greek is for "without descent); compare Heb_7:6, that is, his genealogy is not known, whereas a Levitical priest could not dispense with the proof of his descent.

[b]having neither beginning of days nor end of life[/b]--namely, history not having recorded his beginning nor end, as it has the beginning and end of Aaron. The Greek idiom expressed by "without father," &c., one whose parentage was humble or unknown. "Days" mean his time of discharging his function. So the eternity spoken of in Psa_110:4 is that of the priestly office chiefly.

[b]made like[/b]--It is not said that he was asbsolutely "like." Made like, namely, in the particulars here specified. Nothing is said in Genesis of the end of his priesthood, or of his having had in his priesthood either predecessor or successor, which, in a typical point of view, represents Christ's eternal priesthood, without beginning or end. Aaron's end is recorded; Melchisedec's not: typically significant. "The Son of God" is not said to be made like unto Melchisedec, but Melchisedec to be "made like the Son of God." When ALFORD denies that Melchisedec was made like the Son of God in respect of his priesthood, on the ground that Melchisedec was prior in time to our Lord, he forgets that Christ's eternal priesthood was an archetypal reality in God's purpose from everlasting, to which Melchisedec's priesthood was "made like" in due time. The Son of God is the more ancient, and is the archetype: compare Heb_8:5, where the heavenly things are represented as the primary archetype of the Levitical ordinances. The epithets, "without father," &c. "beginning of days, "nor end," "abideth continually," belong to Melchisedec only in respect to his priesthood, and in so far as he is the type of the Son of God, and are strictly true of Him alone. Melchisedec was, in his priesthood, "made like" Christ, as far as the imperfect type could represent the lineaments of the perfect archetype. "The portrait of a living man can be seen on the canvas, yet the man is very different from his picture." There is nothing in the account, Gen_14:18-20, to mark Melchisedec as a superhuman being: he is classed with the other kings in the chapter as a living historic personage: not as ORIGEN thought, an angel; nor as the Jews thought, Shem, son of Noah; nor as CALMET, Enoch; nor as the Melchisedekites, that he was the Holy Ghost; nor as others, the Divine Word. He was probably of Shemitic, not Canaanite origin: the last independent representative of the original Shemitic population, which had been vanquished by the Canaanites, Ham's descendants. The greatness of Abraham then lay in hopes; of Melchisedec, in present possession. Melchisedec was the highest and last representative of the Noahic covenant, as Christ was the highest and ever enduring representative of the Abrahamic. Melchisedec, like Christ, unites in himself the kingly and priestly offices, which Abraham does not. ALFORD thinks the epithets are, in some sense, strictly true of Melchisedec himself; not merely in the typical sense given above; but that he had not, as mortal men have, a beginning or end of life (?). A very improbable theory, and only to be resorted to in the last extremity, which has no place here. With Melchisedec, whose priesthood probably lasted a long period, the priesthood and worship of the true God in Canaan ceased. He was first and last king-priest there, till Christ, the antitype; and therefore his priesthood is said to last for ever, because it both lasts a long time, and lasts as long as the nature of the thing itself (namely, his life, and the continuance of God's worship in Canaan) admits. If Melchisedec were high priest for ever in a literal sense, then Christ and he would now still be high priests, and we should have two instead of one (!). THOLUCK remarks, "Melchisedec remains in so far as the type remains in the antitype, in so far as his priesthood remains in Christ." The father and mother of Melchisedec, as also his children, are not descended from Levi, as the Levitical priests (Heb_7:6) were required to be, and are not even mentioned by Moses. The wife of Aaron, Elisheba, the mother from whom the Levitical priests spring, is mentioned: as also Sarah, the original mother of the Jewish nation itself. As man, Christ had no father; as God, no mother.

Jameison, Fausset and Brown Commentary

Morning all.

Brother Mike, am finding it difficult to accept the explanations given with regard to the commentaries...

I looked through this from Jameison, Fausset and Brown and also some others, including Vincent's Word Studies and Robertson's Word Pictures. It seems as though, when it comes to this phrase in particular, this

[b]having neither beginning of days nor end of life[/b]

that no explanation is really given?

Here's what I mean:

From Jameison, Fausset and Brown

[i]history not having recorded his beginning nor end, as it has the beginning and end of Aaron[/i]

Robertson's Word Pictures

[i]He is not to be understood as a miraculous being without birth or death. Melchizedek has been made more mysterious than he is by reading into this interpretation what is not there. [/i]

Vincent's Word Pictures

[i]That is to say, history is silent concerning his birth and death.[/i]

Well, alright, but how does this explain such an amazing phrase as this [b]having neither beginning of days nor end of life[/b]. Doesn't such a phrase go [b]way beyond[/b] calling our attention to the lack of record for his birth and death? It does not say [b]there is no record[/b] for his birth, or his death. It says [b][u]having[/u] neither[/b].

At the first I had asked

"Are there not so many who come and go, that flash upon the pages of sacred history without any record of their descent?"

I decided to do a word search of the phrase [i]priest of[/i] to see if I could find anything similar and here is what I found:

In Genesis 41 we read of [b] Potipherah priest of On[/b]. I could find no record of his descent either, nor of his birth or of his death. Now it is plain that this was a man because he had offspirng :-)

Same with the next one. In Exodus we read of [b]Jethro, priest of Midian[/b] which in the same way, though I found no certain record of him, it is obvious that he was a man and had offspring also. But then look at this next one...

In Amos chapter 7 we read of [b]Amaziah the priest of Bethel[/b]. I find no record of him at all and I wonder why there was even a priest of Bethel to begin with but even here I would not suspect him to be anything other than a mortal man also.

But it was never said of any of these that they had neither beginning of days nor end of life. We wouldn't expect it to be. Even if there is no record given of them. I realise though that they don't have anything to do with establishing the change in the priesthood, but still.

In the commentary by Jameison, Fausset and Brown, they say

"There is nothing in the account, Gen_14:18-20, to mark Melchisedec as a superhuman being: he is classed with the other kings in the chapter as a living historic personage:"

Well, what about his name?

[i]...first being by interpretation [b]King of righteousness[/b], and after that also King of Salem, which is, [b]King of peace[/b][/i]

Is this not the name of God that He revealed unto Moses, saying

"I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee"

which name He says is

"The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."

and this revelation was given to Moses when he beseeched God, saying

"shew me thy glory"

Is this not the same glory whereof we read in the record of John

"..and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Well, is this not the name of God in this Melchisedec? Who else could be called

[b]King of righteousness[/b] and [b]King of peace[/b]

except God, and for us, God in Christ Jesus?

I suppose a mere man could have such a name. Then I consider this too though:

"Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for My name is in him."

Well, you might say, yes, but this in Hebrews is only the [i]interpretation[/i] of his name; but then I would ask, why is it interpreted at all? Why bother pointng out such things which would make us think of God Himself, at least they make me think of God? Again, I think of the words of the Lord Jesus where He said,

[b][color=660033]Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.[/color][/b]

Also, I have thought of all the times God Himself met with, or appeared unto Abraham in some form or other, in the significant and major events in his life. Does not seem unreasonable that this could be another one of those times?

Well, whatever the case, am sure we can all agree that Melchisedec gives us a wonderfull example of how the Sciprture testifies to Christ Jesus the Lord!

Brother Jim asserts;

To the author of Hebrews, what is not said about Melchizedek is just as important as what is said about him. He makes "an argument from silence."

I believe Scripture declares the opposite...

Hebrews 5:9-11

"And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek", of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing."

The author hear wishes that the Hebrew church was not dull of hearing, and because of this condition it is hard to explain the significance of our High Priest who serves "according to the order of Melchizedek."

Why does the author keep going back to Melchizedek in order to exhort and strengthen the Hebrew church?

In Christ
Jeff

Brother Jim asked:

If Melchizedek was really Christ pre-incarnate, then what one is essentially saying is that Jesus Christ also lived on this earth as a literal king of an actual city, prior to His incarnation.

I submit that Hebrews 7:2 does not speak of the Jerusalem on earth.

Paul teaches...

Galatians 4:25-26

"for this Hagar is Mount Sianai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children--

but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all."

Then Paul points to Abraham's son Isaac in verse 28

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of the promise."

Melchizedec is the King of Jerusalem that is above...

In Christ
Jeff

Brother Phillip wrote:

This High Priest Melchizedek was not a gentile, Jew or priest of Arron or Levitical, he was appointed by God and As Jesus would Be also birthed by God the Father, He Jesus Christ would be of the same appointment. "After the Order of Melchizedek".

Why is it so important for the author who is writing to the Hebrews to point to Christ as the one who serves "according to the order of Melchizedek?

I know that Scripture teaches us that Peter used the OT to convict and convert the Jews in the book of Acts chapters 2 and 3.

Jesus used the OT to strengthen the two disciples on the way to Emmaus.

Again why does this author point to Melchizedek in order to exhort and strenghten the Hebrew church?

In Christ
Jeff

Melchizedec is the King of Jerusalem that is above...

This is simply intolerable exegesis. Genesis 14 & Hebrews 7 declares Melchizedek to be the literal king of a literal city named Salem. If such an interpretation is going to be put forward, it is impossible to continue on with a serious discussion.

Brother Mike, am finding it difficult to accept the explanations given with regard to the commentaries...

Hi Chris, am actually inclined to think these explanations are more likely the case. Haven't looked beyond this instance but wonder if there are not more ... sources out there that might address this particular use of language.

But it was never said of any of these that they had neither beginning of days nor end of life.

[i]The Greek idiom expressed by "without father," &c., one whose parentage was humble or unknown. "Days" mean his time of discharging his function.[/i]

"Greek idom", maybe KingJimmy can further elucidate this.

Chris, had missed this a couple of replies back;

I've read through this thread and I believe, like Rookie and I think Mike, that Melchizedek was not a man that was born, lived and died, or at all any sort of pagan priest or any sort of priest that lived in the surrounding area(at least I think they believe that also). My opinion is that this was a Theophany, in a similar way to Genesis 18:1-2 and Exodus 34:5 for instance.

Actually no. I think that he was a real king\\priest and that he received the tithes from Abraham and that he was not a 'pagan' ... (My whole umbrage earlier) and the emphasis was on what seemed to be the great import of why the writer to the Hebrews was even using him as a 'model' if you will in the first place. The emphasis being on the [i]order[/i] as that seems to be his thrust. Think someone here had said that a great deal of these other things are arguments from silence. And I would have to agree.

It certainly doesn't make things easier, the way those words are ... worded. Wonder what a strictly Jewish (Old Testament) take on him might be.

Jeff, you are still trying to put the old Hebrew, that is Law, and all that Israel was, into the New. That is the New Body of
Christ, which is His Church, His Body.

Christ was crucified 2000 years ago, and the way of salvation is changed. Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and you will be saved. Also all things have become new, that is The Grace of God through the Faith of Christ.

A birthing that old testament believers did not have. "Born again by the Incorruptable Seed", that is "Christ in you the Hope of Glory".

Col 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence.

You cannot make Melchizedek the old testament incarnate Christ be their salvation as He is ours.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

That is "Christ in you the Hope of Glory".

You cannot get free from sin by the Law or anything in the old testament. Christ is the only way.

Romans 6:22-23 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This was hid from old testament saints. Abraham could not have Christ born again in Him. Melchizedek could not save or be birthed in you as Jesus Christ is now.

Again, again again and again.
Colossians 1:25-29 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

You too Jeff. In Christ: Phillip

During the Feast of Tabernacles Psalms 116 through 119 were read as part of the celebration. Please correct if I am wrong, I am relying on my fading memory.

In Psalm 118 we hear this...

19 \tOpen to me the gates of righteousness;
\tI will go through them,
\tAnd I will praise the LORD.
20 \tThis is the gate of the LORD,
\tThrough which the righteous shall enter.
21 \tI will praise You,
\tFor You have answered me,
\tAnd have become my salvation.
22 \tThe stone which the builders rejected
\tHas become the chief cornerstone.

Do you believe that those who worshiped the Lord with these understood salvation that comes with righteousness? Do His words come back void ? Do they have no power?

Does the Word have no power? Is He only the High Priest for the past 2000 years?

In Christ
Jeff

John 8:12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

Jesus spoke these words during the Feast of Tabernacles to the priest of the Temple. Have you ever looked at chapter 8 and contemplated what the whole lesson was about?

Do you think that the priest recognized the words of Jesus that is found in the OT?

Job 33:30 \tTo bring back his soul from the Pit,
\tThat he may be enlightened with the light of life.

Psa. 27:1 \tThe LORD is my light and my salvation;
\tWhom shall I fear?
\tThe LORD is the strength of my life;
\tOf whom shall I be afraid?

Psa. 36:9 \tFor with You is the fountain of life;
\tIn Your light we see light.

Prov. 6:23 \tFor the commandment is a lamp,
\tAnd the law a light;
\tReproofs of instruction are the way of life,

What did Jesus do in the OT? Was He idyl? Was He waiting for His turn? Was He any greater after He died on the cross for our sins?

In Christ
Jeff

John 7:37-38

"On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, [b]as the Scripture has said,[/b]out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

Jesus cried out at the height of the Feast of Tabernacles this proclamation.

What Scriptures do you think the priests thought of when Jesus cried out this promise?

In Christ
Jeff

They had no scriptures on their mind and could not, it was still a mystery yet to be revealed to Paul. All they had on their mind was "crucify Him". What did Nicodemus ask? Why did Christ tell him he must be born again? Nicodemus still did not understand.

In Christ: Phillip

Quote:

""All this doesn't make Melchizedek Jesus, but, it does make Melchizedek a type of our Lord, in the same way as many Old Testament characters were; but, I know we don't bring tithes - we bring everything - and we share bread and wine to celebrate the ultimate spiritual victory.""

I agree whole heartily or they could have been born again by Melchizedek. The only born again are through the incarnate and risen Lord Jesus Christ.

In Christ: Phillip

Brother Phillip wrote:

They had no scriptures on their mind and could not, it was still a mystery yet to be revealed to Paul.

I disagree, for Scripture says...that Jesus said...

John 7:38

"He who believes in Me, [b]as the Scripture has said,[/b] out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

Now if Jesus said it and the Holy Spirit caused John to write it then it must be so.

Here is an example found in the OT...

Jeremiah 2:13

"For My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken Me, [b]the fountain of living waters,[/b]and hewn themselves cisterns--broken cisterns that can hold no water."

Who is the fountain of living water that was forsaken during Jeremiah's time?

In Christ
Jeff

They did not understand the mystery of Christ in you the hope of Glory. Even Moses did not understand the Rock with living water flowing by just speaking to the Rock, he hit it and that kept him from entering the promised land. A picture of Christ that would be in them by drinking the water from the Rock. "Upon this Rock I will build my Church", what was the Rock? That Jesus Christ was the Son of the Living Rock.

Can you show that you understand what I am saying, if not why continue? Christ is the Rock, The Mystery of Paul is "Christ in you the hope of Glory, the born again from above that was hidden from all past, until Paul revealed this Mystery. To Paul, Mystery = Born Again.

In Christ: Phillip

Brother Phillip wrote:

Can you show that you understand what I am saying, if not why continue?

Paul writes...

Romans 15

15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

The mystery Paul points to is that He was given the stewardship of grace to proclaim Christ to the Gentiles.

Gal. 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Col. 1:27 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

1 Timothy 2:

5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Eph. 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.

In all of these Scriptures the mystery that Paul is speaking to is that God would reach out to the Gentiles and that Christ chose Paul for this ministry.

Does Paul say that he was selected to also teach the Jews the same?

In Christ
Jeff

Jeff wrote:

Quote; ""In all of these Scriptures the mystery that Paul is speaking to is that God would reach out to the Gentiles and that Christ chose Paul for this ministry.

Does Paul say that he was selected to also teach the Jews the same?""

Reaching out to Gentiles is not a mystery, Abraham was a Gentile when God called him.

Israel was supposed to reach out to the whole world. They did not.

The mystery is, "Christ in you", that by a new Gospel it might be given to all that would believe. Taking away the Law and making Jesus Christ the new nature in a new creature, a new creation race of people, Christians.

Try it, when Paul speaks of a mystery, insert born again and you will see it is the revelation of Jesus Christ to Paul by Christ being birthed in the believer. Satan out, Christ in.

Example: Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this (born again) mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the (born again) mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

1Cr 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a (born again) mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

Ephesians 1:3-14 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the (born again) mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

This is the mystery before the foundation of the world that we are predestinated to be a new person in Christ Jesus. Born Again by Spirit and Water. That is the Mystery of Being Born Again which Nicodemus did not understand, the Living Water of the Word, and the Spirit of Christ in you. 1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Ephesians 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Ephesians 5:31-32 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great (born again) mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

In Christ by the mystery: Phillip

Brother Phillip wrote:

Does Paul say that he was selected to also teach the Jews the same?""

Reaching out to Gentiles is not a mystery, Abraham was a Gentile when God called him.

Brother you are using a scatter gun here...

The Scriptures that you always point to as a means of establishing a very strong dispensational theology, these are the ones I presented to you. This mystery which Paul is speaking of was given to the OT saints who lived under the convenant of Mount Sinai...

Listen to Amos 9:11-12

"On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the Gentiles who are called by My name." Says the Lord who does this thing."

First, God is going to [b]again raise up the tabernacle of David[/b] so that they may possess [b]the remnant[/b] of Edom and all the Gentiles...

What work of God is going to be restored again? What work is Scripture here pointing too that had been destroyed? Who are the remnant?

The mystery is, "Christ in you", that by a new Gospel

I have never seen in Scripture where there is a "new gospel."

Only the Jehova Witness teach this type of dispensational theology...

In Christ
Jeff

The sower of the seed parable teaches that we must want to hear what Scripture says...are you willing to hear and seek Christ's work that exists in all of Scripture?

By what means does God preserve His remnant throughout the generation?

John 7:37-38

"On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said,out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

Jesus cried out at the height of the Feast of Tabernacles this proclamation.

What Scriptures do you think the priests thought of when Jesus cried out this promise?

In Christ
Jeff

Galatians 1:6-14 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another; ((for there is no other gospel unto salvation in Christ Jesus but Paul's gospel, which he calls my gospel.))

but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

"Unto another gospel." A gospel which destroys the grace of Christ; which proclaims salvation on other terms than simple dependence on the merits of the Lord Jesus; the Mosaic gospel which has introduced the Jewish rites and ceremonies as essential, in order to obtain salvation. The apostle calls that scheme the gospel, because it pretended to be: it was preached by those who claimed to be preachers of the gospel; who alleged that they had come direct from the apostles at Jerusalem, and who pretended to declare the method of salvation. It claimed to be the gospel, and yet it was essentially unlike the plan which he had preached as constituting the gospel. That which he preached, inculcated the entire dependence of the sinner on the merits and grace of Christ; that system had introduced dependence on the observance of the rites of the Mosaic system as necessary to salvation.

Another Gospel, yes. Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

In Christ: Phillip

Brother Phillip wrote:

The mystery is, "Christ in you", that by a new Gospel it might be given to all that would believe.

Brother there has never been more than one true gospel. Paul did not create a new gospel. Christ has always been the mediator and expediter of the true gospel.

In Christ
Jeff

Yes He has, but not revealed to man. You don't believe that Paul's gospel is different from Moses? Paul's My Gospel.

Paul did not create any gospel, it was given to him by Jesus Christ Himself. He already knew the gospel of circumcision which was given to him by man.

Galatians 1:15-16 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Rom 16:25 Now to Him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, (being born again)which was kept secret since the world began,

2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Prove these scriptures wrong. That's easy. Prove them right, that takes the Holy Spirit.

In Christ: Phillip

Brother Phillip wrote:

Yes He has, but not revealed to man. You don't believe that Paul's gospel is different from Moses? Paul's My Gospel.

There is no difference between the gospel that was revealed to Abraham and that was revealed to Paul, This gospel finds its source in Christ.

Do not confuse the covenant made on Mount Sinai with the covenant that was revealed to Abraham by God through Christ.

2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Jesus Christ is also the seed of the woman and also the seed of Abraham.

If Paul had a new gospel, why does he always teach about Abraham and always make the distinction between this covenant and the covenant made on Mount Sinai? Paul talks only of two covenants, not three.

In Christ
Jeff

John 7:37-38

"On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said,out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

When Jesus points to the OT Scripture as proof of what He said at that moment before the crowd during the Feast of Tabernacles, what is keeping us from discovering this precept?

Do we look only for text that is verbatim to the words He said that day or do we look for the evidence of His work in the OT saints?

In Christ
Jeff

philologos wrote:

The Bible teaches us that Nebuchadnezzar came to a believing, saving faith in the God and Messiah of the Bible, and will be in heaven with us, forever:

which Bible?

At the time of Daniel, there was in existence much of the same Bible that Jesus used. The Torah was available, some of the Prophets, the Proverbs, Psalms, The Song of Solomon, as well as many non-canonical texts that could be used for exposition, as there was no strict canon at the time except for the Torah.

The New Covenant of the Bible is primarily a restatement of a good deal of the Old Testament, other than the Prophecies from Jesus and the Apostles.

Please don't be misled by the term Bible. It covers a good deal more ground than Christians are generally suppose it to be about. Also, please don't forget that the translators used the term Bible rather indescriminately, whereas I can find no actual usuage of the word bible in Daniel at all.

Nebuchadnezzar actually said in Daniel 4:36-37. [color=CC3300]36. At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellers and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me. 37. Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.[/color]

Blessings,

deltadom wrote:
Silly me!! I forgot the person that I think of the most!!
DOm

Dom,

The Messiah was not known at Nebuchadnezzar's time except in concept, and most certainly not Jesus, 'the suffering servant' Messiah, but as Messiah as the King in Glory. Nebuchadnezzar was extolling the 'King of Heaven', not His Son, although the Son existed in the King of Heaven from before the beginning of time.

Blessings,

Jimbabwean wrote:

PCB says “Tts 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”, and I agree with him on that too. Except for one thing, for some of us, this thing of Melchizedek has been used to extort tithes from us by making us feel like that if we’re not tithing, then we’re stealing from Jesus, because Jesus is supposedly Melchizedek, and even Abraham tithed to Melchizedek.

Like my friend crsschk, I also had a brush with the prosperity church in the past. The issue of money was one that drove Jesus to anger.

It is my hope that in breaking free from the bondage that I felt to tithe, that I will remain a cheerful giver. I have given much of my wealth away as it is, and somehow we still survive, and run a ministry. I love giving, and was quite happy to tithe, but when the wheels fell off at times, I would feel bad that I couldn’t tithe. Now I realize that I don’t have to tithe, and feel free to give whatever I want. I also realize that I had most of my mishaps during my tithing years, contrary to what is supposed to happen according to the prosperity preachers who quote Malachi 3.

How many times have I heard this one before?

Pray, why are we not to tithe, when Jesus said, in KJV Matthew 23:[color=993300]23. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.[/color]

I don't recall Jesus being angry about money ever, merely the turning of the temple into a bank and a market. Elsewhere, Jesus was mostly sad about how hard it was for the wealthy (and by this, He meant anyone who puts their trust in something that can be taken away) to get into heaven.

I give my tithes and offerings, not to the the Levites, or the Churches, but to the ministries Christ praised.

KJV Matthew 25:[color=993300]34. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36. Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38. When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39. Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40. And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.[/color]

I do not hold with the abuse of prosperity teaching, but it is written, in the New Testament, in Luke 6:38. [color=993300] Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.[/color] This means love, concern, trust, patience, love, gentleness, and so forth, not merely money!

I give tithes because Abraham gave them to Melchezidek, and Jesus repeated our obligation, for where he spoke not to Jews, He spoke to Gentiles, in the Abrahamanic covenant, for it is there we Christians are grafted into the promises, and the obligations.

Nothing is received by those that give not out of a cheerful heart, and not to get anything, except the blessing promised in Malachi, where God allows us to test Him on the tithe. For it is said there that we will receive a blessing too big for us to hold. It doesn't say a thing about money being that blessing!

I fear that many of you will do anything to get out of paying the tenth we owe to God that proves to Him that we trust Him more than money, and that we worship Him, not the power that money gives.

Respectfully,

murdog wrote:
Stever,

You call out Ron as a person who gives new meaning to the term Carnal Christian and he needs to be born again so that he can see! Yikes, I wish I was as blind as Ron is! Did you ever read in the scriptures about treating older men as Fathers, and then there was that commandment about honouring Fathers and Mothers.

It is one thing to disagree...

Jimbabwean,

By the way, it is totally inconsistent with the scriptures to allude to the fact that Melchizedek was a money grubbing pagan who pulled one over on Abraham! We may not know alot about him, but come on!

Murray

Murdog,

Thank you for stomping on all the speculation.

We don't know a lot about Melchezidek because God did not choose that we should.

As far as Abraham giving a tithe to Melchezidek, I can only assume that as we Gentiles are grafted into Abraham, not unto Moses, that this was given purely to give the example of giving a tithe, because this is the only thing mentioned in this scripture. The portion about Jesus being ordained after the manner of Melchezidek is a seperate passage, with a seperate emphasis.

Blessings,

ChrisJD wrote:
Good morning all.

I've read through this thread and I believe, like Rookie and I think Mike, that Melchizedek was not a man that was born, lived and died, or at all any sort of pagan priest or any sort of priest that lived in the surrounding area(at least I think they believe that also). My opinion is that this was a Theophany, in a similar way to Genesis 18:1-2 and Exodus 34:5 for instance.

In verse 3 of Hebrews 7, the author goes well beyond suggesting that there is no record for the genealogy of Melchizedek. He goes so far beyond it as to say of this [b]man[/b], that he had

[i][b] neither beginning of days[/b][/i]

[i][b]nor end of life[/b][/i]

There was a mystery here in the Old Testament which I believe the author of Hebrews is now unfolding by the Holy Spirit according to Christ's words:

[b][color=660033]Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.[/color][/b]

I see this here as the graciousness of the Holy Spirit illuminating an obscure event in the history of redemption by giving to us knowledge which was not before revealed.

Are there not so many who come and go, that flash upon the pages of sacred history without any record of their descent? And yet of which of them was it ever said

they had...

[i][b] neither beginning of days[/b][/i]

[i][b]nor end of life[/b][/i]

I know not any.

That the [i]scribe[/i] here also unfolds for us that this Melchizedek is also called

[i][b] King of righteousness[/b][/i]

and...

[i][b] King of peace[/b][/i]

speaks also to me of his being other than a natural man. Of Whom could it be said

"He is King of Righteousness and King of Peace"?

Where do these meet?

[i]Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.[/i]

Is this not the name of the Lord which He declared unto Moses saying

"The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty..."

That He is forgiving speaks of His mercy.

That He will by no means clear the guilty speaks of His truth.

And yet are not these two met in the Lord Jesus, wherefore it is written of Him

[i]...and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.[/i]

How then can this Melchizedek have such a name, except he was in some fashion the presence of Him to Whom it belongs?

Peace be with you all in Christ.

Beautifully stated, particularly since Abraham, who knew God intimately, would also know Him in any incarnation, even as Abraham recognized the Angell of God (Jesus) and the other angels immediately.

Many blessings,

Brother Forrest,

Why do you think so many have such a hard time acknowledging the works of Christ in the OT?

In Christ
Jeff

There is a difference in the works of Christ in the Old Testament and the New Testament. There was no sacrifice on the Cross, There was not death, burial and resurrection in the old testament. The only sacrifice was of animals and their blood. There is no comparison in animal sacrifice and the Cross. Only as a picture of what Christ would do.

There was not a born again exchange of Life in Christ in the old testament. The old was pointing to what Christ would do. The New is giving what Christ has already done. "Ye must be born again to see the things of the kingdom".
Old testament saints were partially saved by works and sacrifice, which only covered sins, not taking sin away and dying to sin in the Life of Christ Jesus.

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Old testament Patriarchs could not be born again or from above. The could not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. They could not even know His name. They could believe that there was a coming savior, but not what Jesus Himself said He would build His Church upon. 1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

This is that picture, the older church will serve the younger. The church of God, Israel, the wife of God will serve the New Church, the Body of Christ. This story in fullness also shows how the Body of Christ and the Israel of God will work out things in the Parousia.

Romans 9:10-12 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Romans 9:6-9 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

The Seed is Christ the Promise. The Born Again have this Seed in them. The Seed is the promise prepared before the foundation of the World. Romans 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Son's of God by the birth of Christ in them, a new creation race of People. Christ-ones, Christians, only and first call Christians in Antioch. Romans 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Abraham was made a father of many nations. He was not made our Father by Jesus Christ that is born again in us.

Romans 4:17-25 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

There is a difference.

In Christ: Phillip

Brother Phillip wrote:

Old testament saints were partially saved by works and sacrifice, which only covered sins, not taking sin away and dying to sin in the Life of Christ Jesus.

J. Vernon McGee writes in his commentary of Leviticus...

"Leviticus gives the order and rules of worship in the tabernacle. The Hebrew word "Vayikrah" opens the book, and it means "and He called." God moves into the tabernacle and speaks from there rather than from Mount Sinai. He calls the people to Him and tells them how to come. This is the exact meaning of the church--ekklesia, "called out ones." The Lord Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice." (John 10:27)

"Dr S. H. Kellogg called it (the book of Leviticus), the "greatest book" in the Bible. Dr. Albert C Dudley called it "the most important book in the Bible." Dr. Parker said, "Considered as embracing the history of one month only, this may claim to be the most remarkable book in the Old Testament."

This book was given to Israel for direction in living as a holy nation in fellowship with a holy God. It was a code of law for the total well being of Israel--physical, moral, and spiritual. Sacrifice, ceremony, ritual, liturgy, instructions, washings, convocations, holy days, observances, conditions, and warnings crowd this book. All of these physical exercises were given to teach spiritual truths. Paul states that "these things were our examples" (1 Corinthians 10:16)

Leviticus reveals Christ. Tyndale, in his Prologue into the Third Book of Moses, said, "Though sacrifices and ceremonies can be no ground or foundation to build upon--that is, through we can prove nought with them--yet when we have once found Christ and His myteries, then we may borrow figures, that is to say, allegories, similitudes, and examples, to open Christ, and the secrets of God hid in Christ, even unto the quick; anc can declare them more lively and sensibly with them than with all the words of the world."

For us it gives the direction to God and instructions for spiritual worship. Worship would take on a new meaning if the average Christian properly appreciated the contents of this book. Worship for us today is no longer by ritual or in a specific place...

MESSAGE: The message is twofold:

1. Leviticus teaches that the way to God is by sacrifice.

The word atonement occurs 45 times.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." (Leviticus 17:11)

Atonement means to cover up. The blood of bulls and goats did not actually take away sin. It covered over until Christ came to take away our sins.

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." (Romans 3:25)

2. Leviticus teaches that the walk with God is by sanctification. The word holiness occurs 87 times.

"And ye shall be holy unto me; for I, the Lord, am holy, and have seperated you from other people, that ye should be mine." (Leviticus 20:26)

(end of McGee's thought)

McGee later says that if we would come to understand the book of Leviticus and see Christ in it, that would prevent us from falling into all kinds of cults and stumbling blocks that are present in todays "religion."

Do you see Christ in the OT Brother Phillip?

In Christ
Jeff