Mel. divine or human?

[RandyPNW]

Psalm 110:4 is the first reference to Christ being a priest "after the order of Melchizedek"; which is what Hebrews was quoting. Again, It was you who made the reference to the priesthood, not the person!

Seems to me you've missed the context of most of my comment.

I guess so. I was not saying that M.'s priesthood is not comparable to Christ's priesthood, but that his priesthood itself was *not* precisely Christ's priesthood. That is, his priesthood was not identical to that belonging to Christ.

The features that made their priesthoods comparable were limited. If they were exact we would simply be saying that M\.'s priesthood was Christ's priesthood. But I don't think the Scriptures are saying that.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Heavens no! Jesus' priesthood came into existence when he came to act as a human priest. Jesus was the eternal God, but he became a man so as to serve as a human priest and sacrifice.

Melchizedek's priesthood began as an adult when he ministered on behalf of God to other people. It ended when he died. But there is no genealogy of priests in his priesthood because it is held not by inheritance and succession, but only by one man, Melchizedek.

This is what Christ's priesthood was like. It was held by only one man, Jesus. No one had the office before him, and none will have it after him. It is not inherited by succession. That is the comparison between Christ and Melchizedek.

There were other features that made M. a type of Christ. But I'm dealing only with the items that make some think he was a theophany of some kind. I don't believe he was--the account does not suggest that.

The priesthood of Melchizedek is both eternal past and future and was functioning way before Jesus incarnation.

 

[RandyPNW]

The priesthood of Melchizedek is both eternal past and future and was functioning way before Jesus incarnation.

That's okay. We can disagree on this one.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I guess so. I was not saying that M.'s priesthood is not comparable to Christ's priesthood, but that his priesthood itself was *not* precisely Christ's priesthood. That is, his priesthood was not identical to that belonging to Christ.

The features that made their priesthoods comparable were limited. If they were exact we would simply be saying that M\.'s priesthood was Christ's priesthood. But I don't think the Scriptures are saying that.

Yes, the more I think about it; the more I come to the conclusion that Melchizdec was a lot like Job; they were typologies of Christ, but they were also real people.

It’s like Michael and Gabriel also have names that are typologies of Christ; but also seems that they are in and of themselves, individual angelic beings.

 

[RandyPNW]

Yes, the more I think about it; the more I come to the conclusion that Melchizdec was a lot like Job; they were typologies of Christ, but they were also real people.

It’s like Michael and Gabriel also have names that are typologies of Christ; but also seems that they are in and of themselves, individual angelic beings.

Yes, that's how I see it too. Thanks.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That's okay. We can disagree on this one.

How do you understand this verse ???

Hebrews 7:3
He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

 

[RandyPNW]

How do you understand this verse ???

Hebrews 7:3
He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

Unlike the Levites whose genealogy qualified them to be priests, Melchizedek did not require a genealogy. He was simply appointed by God to be priest.

This is similar to Christ's priesthood. Unlike the Levitical priesthood, which required a genealogy, Christ's priesthood was given him strictly from God.

The passage, in my opinion, is not actually saying M. was without parents. It is saying that he did not require a bloodline for his priesthood--neither father nor mother. He did not receive his priesthood from birthright, and it was not spoiled by his death.

This is all a *likeness* of Jesus' priesthood, who existed from eternity, before having parents, and yet had parents. His priesthood depended solely on God giving him that priesthood. That's what M.'s priesthood was--not conditioned upon a bloodline.

M. was described in this way to show his "resemblance" to Christ. But he certainly was *not* Christ, nor another theophany from God. The Scriptures do not indicate that.

The letter of Hebrews was commenting on the story, and not re-telling it. It was just describing it in such a way as to show how Jesus would have a different kind of priesthood, not subject to the defects of a sinful priesthood, requiring a genealogy and bloodlines, sanctioned by God under the covenant of Law.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Unlike the Levites whose genealogy qualified them to be priests, Melchizedek did not require a genealogy. He was simply appointed by God to be priest.

This is similar to Christ's priesthood. Unlike the Levitical priesthood, which required a genealogy, Christ's priesthood was given him strictly from God.

The passage, in my opinion, is not actually saying M. was without parents. It is saying that he did not require a bloodline for his priesthood--neither father nor mother. He did not receive his priesthood from birthright, and it was not spoiled by his death.

This is all a *likeness* of Jesus' priesthood, who existed from eternity, before having parents, and yet had parents. His priesthood depended solely on God giving him that priesthood. That's what M.'s priesthood was--not conditioned upon a bloodline.

M. was described in this way to show his "resemblance" to Christ. But he certainly was *not* Christ, nor another theophany from God. The Scriptures do not indicate that.

The letter of Hebrews was commenting on the story, and not re-telling it. It was just describing it in such a way as to show how Jesus would have a different kind of priesthood, not subject to the defects of a sinful priesthood, requiring a genealogy and bloodlines, sanctioned by God under the covenant of Law.

Appreciate your opinion - it doesn't seem to align with the plain reading of the text.

 

[RandyPNW]

Appreciate your opinion - it doesn't seem to align with the plain reading of the text.

That's okay. I respect your opinion and position.

 

[The Righterzpen]

How do you understand this verse ???

Hebrews 7:3
He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

I thought of that verse too. And this is one where people tend to think of Melchizedek as a "theophany". Seems to me that it'd be safe to say he was a "theophoric figure" of some sort; kind of in the same venue that Job; though they were both real person, Job was also a metaphoric representation of Christ.

I was thinking about this the other day; that in history we see kings and leaders who are deemed as "very wise"; who in turn take on a mythical type cultural significance in history. Examples would be The Code of Hammurabi, or King Author, or even Alexander the Great (considered a great military leader). Scripture presents Solomon as an example of a ruler of great wisdom. Though Solomon too is also a metaphoric representation of Christ.

And often the mythos that grows up around these rulers is that they are "descended from the gods". Which culturally may have been the mythos that grew up around Melchizedek too. He was the king of Salem. "King of Peace" Which would come to be Jerusalem later in time. "King of Peace", of course is also a title given to Christ.

In the context of redemption though, I think Melchizedek was a blood bought, atoned for by Christ believer. And the reason he pays homage to Abraham is the prophetic recognition that here is the progenitor of the nation that would produce the Redeemer. Had the Holy Spirit revealed to Melchizedek that here is the fellow who'd "been called out of Ur of the Chaldees" (by God)? (Seems logical to conclude that was the case.) As the prophecy of the coming Redeemer had certainly been revealed to humans, as Job declares that he knows his Redeemer lives and that one day Job would see his Lord "in the flesh". (Meaning Job understood that a final physical resurrection was coming - at the end of time.)

So yes, Melchizedek is a priest, of a priesthood that has "no beginning of days or end of life". This fits with Revelation 1:6, Revelation 5:10, and Revelation 20:6 that all believers are "kings and priests" who "rule over the earth" with Christ.

That was the revelation that I took away from this discussion. (That Melchizedek is a believer; one of many whom all us other believers will encounter on the other side of eternity.)

 

[Carl Emerson]

OK... well here is my position...

Melchizedek was not Christ, but part of a timeless priesthood that has and will always exist.

Our Triune God from eternity past has been enthroned and worshiped by the 24 elders and living creatures of Revelation.

This does not detract from the Trinity or the status of God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Hebrews makes a clear distinction between Jesus and Melchizedek