Melchizedek

Warning:

This article is full of Theology and logic ARE YOU READY

The MAN Melchizedek is one of the most mysterious characters of the bible mainly because of the words of

(Heb.7:3)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.”(Old Testament type of Christ (Typeology) He was NOT a Christophany ( The pre incarnate Christ in visible form). Melchezedek was before the Levitical priesthood.

Melchizedek is a figure in the Hebrew Bible. There is no other evidence other than the Bible record that indicates that Melchizedek was a historical figure.

the Old Testament affirms that Melchizedek was "a priest of God Most High." (Genesis 14:18) King David in the Psalms refers to the future King of kings or Messiah as a "priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Psalm 110:1-4.)

 

 

 

Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek because, like Melchizedek, Jesus was not a Levite, and thus would not qualify for the Levitical priesthood (Heb. 7:13-17).

 

The identity of the one named Melchizedek has been the subject of much debate over the centuries.

Melchizedek's mysterious identity may never be completely solved or understood. Surely it will be debated until the time that Christ takes His church to be with Him and all mysteries will be revealed

 

I personally believe that Melchizedek was a man because The Bible says so (Heb. 7:4), and He was a vessel through whom God worked. He functioned in physical appearance as a Priest and King. He only functioned as God lived through him

I’m Sure you are wonderingWhat is meant by "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days or end of life" (Hebrews 7:3)? When reading this with our western mentality it seems to indicate that Melchisedek was eternal. We must, however, put ourselves back into the eastern world 2000+ years ago to understand what the expression meant to the original readers. The expression quoted above is not peculiar to the Scripture. It was an expression that we find in secular literature of the day. The expression was used, not to indicate eternality, but to express the idea that an individual did not have a recorded genealogy, or to indicate an obscure genealogy. Adam Clarke gives such examples from actual historical documents of the day. Here are two such documents:

Senceca, in his 108th epistle, speaking of some of the Roman kings, says: "Of the mother of Servius Tullus there are doubts; and Ancus Marcus is said to have no father.

Titus Livius, speaking of Servius, says he was born of a slave, named Cornicularia,..., of no father.

This type of wording was common in the days of the writing of the book of Hebrews and did not indicate the idea of eternality, but rather lack of knowledge, or obscurity about one's genealogy.

The phrase "without descent" is translated from the Greek word agenealogetos. This word does not mean the absence of ancestors, but the absence of a traced geneology. According to Adam Clarke, the word means "a generation, a descent, a pedigree, not absolutely, but rehearsed, described, recorded." The base of agenealogetos is genealogetos. The "a" before the word changes the word into its negative, or opposite meaning, portraying the idea of "without." "Genealogetos is he whose stock is entered on record. And so, on the contrary, agenealogetos is not he who has no descent, no genealogy, but he whose descent and pedigree is nowhere recorded."

To the Jews, a traceable geneology was of utmost importance, especially for the priesthood. If one could not prove his lineage, he was barred from being a priest (Nehemiah 7:64). There is no written genealogy of Melchizedek. His descent was not important because his priesthood was not dependant on it. His lineage did not affect his right to the priesthood. The author went on to say in Hebrews 7:13-17 that the Law foretold of a day in which the Melchizedekian priesthood would arise again. Since under the Law of Moses the priesthood had to be of the Aaronic order, this gave evidence that the Law would one day be abolished in favor of a new covenant and consequently a new priest. The Law needed to be abolished because it demanded that the priests have their lineage through Aaron, not Melchizedek. After the Law was abolished through Christ's death and the New Covenant was instituted with His blood, Jesus had no need to be in the lineage of Levi to serve as a priest of God. He could be of the stock of Judah and still be a priest under the order of Melchizedek, for there was no genealogical requirement for this order. The two priesthoods were of a different sort and order, serving two different purposes, at different times.

What does the phrase "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" mean (Hebrews 7:3)? It could merely mean that the day of Melchisedek's birth and death are not recorded. This would be in stark contrast to other famous men of the Bible whose births and deaths are recorded with great accuracy. It would also be in opposition to the importance of one's age under the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. Under this priesthood one had to prove their birth date so it could be determined whether or not they were too young or too old to serve as a priest. The Aaronic priests could not begin to serve as a priest until they were thirty years old (Numbers 4:1-3, 22-23, 35, 43; 8:24-25)but they could serve until they were very old Luke 1:6-7 Age was very important to the Aaronic priesthood, but not to Melchizedek's. He served as a priest for life.

But what about the Scriptures which seem to support the idea that Melchizedek was more than a man? The main verses are (Heb. 3, 8, and 15-16)

. Verse three says Melchizedek "abideth a priest continually." The word "abideth" in the Greek is in the present tense, indicating that the action still continues. This being true, it appears that Melchisedec never died, but is still acting as a priest.

Verse eight says, "of whom [Melchizedek] it is witnessed that he liveth." Notice that "is" and "liveth" are also in the present tense. By using the present tense instead of a past tense, the author of Hebrews seems to be implying that at his time (Before Christ it was still being witnessed that Melchizedek lived.

Finally in verses fifteen and sixteen, we read that Jesus was made "after the power of an endless life." This statement arose out of the comparison the author was making between Melchizedek and Jesus. Keeping with the author's train of thought, it seems as though he was implying Melchizedek's life was also endless.

These verses may seem very problematic to those who hold to the man-view as I do, but they are equally problematic, if not more problematic to those holding to the God-view. These verses and others with them create another problem that is irreconcilable to the teaching of other Scriptures on the Godhead. Before giving Scriptural examples, let me say why they create problems.

Taking these passages of Scripture at face value, we must either conclude that Melchizedek was a mortal man and Jesus is divine/eternal, or that there are two eternal beings, both having priesthoods lasting forever. This would imply two eternal priesthoods, not one This in supported in scripture.

(Hebrews 7:3) KJV says that Melchizedek was "made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." It does not say that Melchizedek was the Son of God pre-incarnate, aChristophany, but rather he was like the Son of God. Being someone and being like someone are two entirely different things. If Melchizedek was not a man, then we have two beings who share the Melchisedecian priesthood, both being like the other, but not the same person.(Big problem)

Accordingly, (Hebrews 7:15) KJV reads, "After the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest." The Greek word translated "similitude" is homoioteta which indicates "that Jesus was similar to, but not the same as, Melchizedec." Jesus' priesthood is being compared to, or likened to Melchizedec's priesthood. The author did not say that Jesus is Melchizedek or vice versa, but rather that Jesus has a priesthood similar to Melchizedec's, meaning it was. Not Aaronic Not only so, but the Scripture declares that from the Melchizedecian order, there arose another priest. This word indicates nothing other than the existence of a second priest. One can not have another unless preceded by a first. Here again we must either conclude that Jesus is God, and Melchizedec was a man, or else we must conclude there are two priests abiding forever.( Direct contradiction of scripture.)

The last Scripture I will cite is (Hebrews 7:17) KJV which reads; "For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." Notice again that Jesus is not identified as being Melchizedek, but is identified as having a priesthood after his order. This implies that Melchizedek and Jesus were two different individuals. One can not compare one's priesthood to another's if the comparer is the compared. Likewise, the author of Hebrews could not compare the order of Jesus' priesthood to Melchizedek's if Melchizedek was Jesus. If Melchizedek was Jesus He would not have a priesthood to compare his own to, because He already possessed the only eternal priesthood that existed. If only one person has only one thing, then a comparison can not be made. Comparison's can only be made between two or more related persons or things.

How do we explain the use of the present tense in reference to Melchizedek? Some have tried to claim that it is the use of the historical present. This does not seem likely since the Greeks typically used the present in this manner only in narrative form. There is no clear-cut answer. Possibly the present is being used in a perfective sense, indicating the present effects of a past completed action. The emphasis would be on the way Melchizedek's priesthood continues to affect the world. This idea may stretch the limits of the Biblical grammar too far, however. Coupled with the fact that the present tense does not often carry this sense, only being witnessed in a few passages (Luke 1:34; Romans 10:16; Ephesians 4:8; I Timothy 5:18; I John 5:20), we should not put too much weight upon this hypothesis. Nevertheless, it is a viable option. In all honesty, I must confess that there is not an adequate response to the use of the present in these passages. It does cast some shadow upon the man-view.

Whatever the use of the present indicative in these verses means may never be discovered. I do not believe that this fact alone should allow us to get our focus off of the author's point. What we must understand and confess is the purpose for the comparison of Melchizedek and Jesus. The purpose for comparing Jesus' eternal priesthood with Melchisedec's priesthood was to show that just as Melchizedek was not limited to a term of service because of age as were the Aaronic priests, Jesus too serves as a priest for the duration of His life. Melchisedec was a priest of the Most High God all his earthly life, and Jesus is a priest of the Most High God and will be for eternity.

Another reason for the corrolation is to demonstrate that just as Melchizedek's priesthood started from his birth and ended at his death, Jesus' priesthood started at Calvary when He stood as the mediator between God and men. Once the course of this world is over, however, and eternity is ushered in, there will be no more need for Jesus' priesthood, for He will have no more souls to intercede for seeing that eternity is set and all the souls that can be saved are saved (I Corinthians 15:24-28; Hebrews 7:23-28). This interpretation would take the word "ever" in reference to Melchizedek's priesthood and make it relative, of which the Greek word can imply. The Greek word "signifies a period of indefinite duration, or time viewed in relation to what takes place in the period. Such Scriptural examples of the word having this meaning of relative time are Matthew 13:39; 21:19; 24:3; 28:20; Romans 12:2; I Timothy 6:17, and a host of others. They do not imply eternity, but a specific amount of time in relation to what is taking place in the period of time. Interpreting this word as relative does not seem out of theological context. God spoke about the Israelites observing the ordinances of the Law of Moses forever, yet we know they have been superseded by the New Covenant as God had intended all along (Exodus 31:16-17; Galatians 3:19-29; Colossians 2:13-17). The word "forever" appears some forty times in the Pentateuch in reference to statutes of the Law, yet we do not take this to mean that we must observe the Law today.

Why was Melchizedek s considered great, and even greater than Abraham? (Hebrews 7:7) To answer this question we must go back to the first mention of the story in Genesis 14. It is said that Melchizedek came with bread and wine to Abraham after Abraham had defeated Chedorlaomer and the kings who fought with him. These kings looted Sodom and Gomorrah, taking Lot, Abraham's nephew captive; therefore, Abraham went to rescue him. When Abraham and his servants returned from the battle, Melchizedek brought food and drink, apparently for the famished soldiers. Abraham then tithed the spoil and gave it to Melchisedec as was the ancient custom. Upon doing so, Melchisedec blessed Abraham. Dr. Macknight said concerning this blessing, "The blessing here spoken of is not the simple wishing of good to others, which may be done by inferiors to superiors, but is the action of a person authorized to declare God's intention to bestow good upon another." One reason Melchizedek is considered greater than Abraham was because he was authorized by God to declare His intentions of bestowing good upon Abraham.

Secondly, Melchisedec was greater than Abraham because Melchizedek was the priest of the Most High God (Hebrews 7:1, 3, 11-12, 15, 17, 21). Abraham was not a priest. He was the friend of God, but not the priest of God. Melchizedek held an office that mediated between God and men. Abraham did not hold an office of this type.

Finally, why did God need to change the preisthood from Aaronic to Melchizedekian? The answer to this question is supplied by the author of Hebrews in 7:11-28. I will elaborate upon a few of his reasons here. First of all, 1.With the changing of the law comes a changing of the priesthood (Hebrews 7:11-12). 2. Under the Law of Moses, God appointed the Levitical/ Aaronic line to serve as priests. When Jesus ushered in the New Covenant, however, He needed to change the priesthood.

3. The Aaronic priesthood was weak and unprofitable (Hebrews 7:18-19). It made nothing and nobody perfect. Jesus on the other hand could and did. (Hebrews 7:19, 22). 4. The Aaronic priests could only minister for a short time, but since Jesus lives and will die no more, He can minister as a priest forever (Hebrews 7:23-24). 5. The Aaronic priesthood had to be done away with because of its flaws and shortcomings, due to the nature of the men that served in it.

6. The Aaronic priests could not save those who came to them. Jesus on the other hand can and does save all that come to Him because He lives forevermore to make intercession for them (Hebrews 7:22-28).

Finally, The Levitical order of priests had to be replaced by another order because the former had to offer sacrifices daily for their own sins before they could offer sacrifices for other's sins. Jesus offered up His own harmless, sinless, undefiled, and separated body to God to atone for sin Once and for all. He had no need to offer up sacrifices for His own sins, but rather took other's sins upon Himself and gave us of His righteousness, and eternal life to those who come to God through Him (II Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 7:22-28).

CONCLUSION

Melchizedek seems to be an ordinary man who served as a priest and king over Salem for the duration of his life. Jesus' priesthood is compared to his priesthood to show that one need not come from the tribe of Levi to be a priest. In fact, the Aaronic priesthood was not as good as the Melchizedekian priesthood. It was full of weakness. Jesus' priesthood needed to be like Melchizedek's so that He could by-pass the weaknesses of the Levitical order and save those who come to Him. ) Like Melchizedekc

Jesus has both the office of King and Priest (which the Aaronic priesthood could not have and serves for life. Because of these reasons, God ordained for Jesus to have a priesthood in the similitude of Melchizedek's, and not of Aaron’s.

Whoever Melchizedek was, we must be careful that we do not get so caught up in the details that we lose sight of the author's teaching and purpose, which was to show that Jesus' priesthood is superior to Aaron's in All ways, especially in regards to the fact that Jesus' priesthood has saving power, while Aaron's did not. Melchizedekc was not The Pre-incarnate Chrict, but he was a Type of Christ. He only reflected an image of what Christ would be like.

FINAL THOUGHT:

the ancient priest/king Melchizadek prefigured Jesus Christ:= a type of Christ in the Old Testament.ot in the line of Aaron.

He was appointed by God The Father as His Son was, Who sits in Heaven beside The Father as our Great high priest and King (Heb. 4:14&10:12)

 

Researched and Compiled by

Rev. George Pryor Th.M.

revgp@gmail.com

09/03/15 Update12/3/23