Mel. divine or human?

[RandyPNW]

Heb 7.1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

Understanding literary conventions and biblical language-types is important when dealing with passages like this. The Bible is to be literally believed, but not all that is said in the Bible is to be interpreted ultra-literally.

I agree with "X" that this is spoken to emphasize the comparison of priesthoods, Christ's priesthood with the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. The language sounds literal, but when the language is used in such an "impossible" way, it obviously draws us to conclude that the language is some kind of figure of speech.

And this is true, I believe, in this case. The author makes it sound as if Melechizedek himself is Christ/divine, but since he cannot be sinless and divine, he is only being used to depict a comparison with Christ's priesthood, which is eternal and divine.

Mel. is not without beginning and end of days--only his priesthood is commissioned without any regard to Mel.'s birth and death, which contrasts with the priesthood under the Law, which is a matter of succession within a particular tribal genealogy.

That is, Mel's priesthood, like Christ's priesthood, is not a priesthood based on succession, but rather, on God's word alone. Mel. did not inherit his priesthood from a predecessor who had died. He was simply commissioned as priest based on God's word alone, and not on any ritual succession.

Mel's priesthood did not continue after his death, but it was not contingent upon a succession of priests to extend it indefinitely into the future. It existed irregardless of Mel's mortality, and took place with no regard for the problem of human sin, which is what the Law and the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood dealt with.

The point in all this is that God provided the great father of our faith, Abraham, with an individual greater than him, whose priesthood Abraham was subjected to and who therefore acknowledged that this priesthood would be greater than anything or any priesthood that would come through him.

Such a person existing indicated that the priesthood coming from Abraham was limited, and had to pay tribute to the priesthood of Christ, whose priesthood is even greater than Melchizedek's, and not just greater than the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

Christ's priesthood was not subject to the rules of the Law and its priesthood. His priesthood transcends the succession of priests under the Law, who are born and die, extending their priesthood indefinitely into the future. And Christ was not subject to the Law of Sin, which the Law of Moses and its priesthood dealt with.

By contrast, Christ's priesthood remains his own, without any need for succession after death. He rose from the dead, retaining his priesthood forever, just as Mel's priesthood was not subject to the terms of succession dictated by human mortality, or death.

Being sinless, Christ had no need to rely upon the Law of Moses and its remedy for sin. He provided a priesthood that liberates from sin by a person who was without sin. And so, we are liberated not by the priesthood of the Law, but only in a final way by the priesthood of the sinless Christ. There need be no successor for him since he will never die again.

 

[Clare73]

Heb 7.1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
Understanding literary conventions and biblical language-types is important when dealing with passages like this. The Bible is to be literally believed, but not all that is said in the Bible is to be interpreted ultra-literally.
I agree with "X" that this is spoken to emphasize the comparison of priesthoods, Christ's priesthood with the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood.

The language sounds literal, but when the language is used in such an "impossible" way, it obviously draws us to conclude that the language is some kind of figure of speech.
And this is true, I believe, in this case. The author makes it sound as if Melechizedek himself is Christ/divine, but since he cannot be sinless and divine, he is only being used to depict a comparison with Christ's priesthood, which is eternal and divine.
Mel. is not without beginning and end of days--

That is a reference to their being no mention of Melchizedek's birth and death in the Biblical record, not a statement of his eternal existence, but as a type of our eternal High Priest.
The silence of Scripture regarding Melchizedek's genealogy is used to portray him as a prefiguration of Christ.

Hebrews is about convincing the Hebrew converts that Christ was greater than the angels, Moses, the Aaronic priestly order, and the sacrifices, with a better covenant, better sanctuary and better sacrifice.

only his priesthood is commissioned without any regard to Mel.'s birth and death, which contrasts with the priesthood under the Law, which is a matter of succession within a particular tribal genealogy.
That is, Mel's priesthood, like Christ's priesthood, is not a priesthood based on succession, but rather, on God's word alone. Mel. did not inherit his priesthood from a predecessor who had died. He was simply commissioned as priest based on God's word alone, and not on any ritual succession.
Mel's priesthood did not continue after his death, but it was not contingent upon a succession of priests to extend it indefinitely into the future. It existed irregardless of Mel's mortality, and took place with no regard for the problem of human sin, which is what the Law and the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood dealt with.

The point in all this is that God provided the great father of our faith, Abraham, with an individual greater than him, whose priesthood Abraham was subjected to and who therefore acknowledged that this priesthood would be greater than anything or any priesthood that would come through him.

Such a person existing indicated that the priesthood coming from Abraham was limited, and had to pay tribute to the priesthood of Christ, whose priesthood is even greater than Melchizedek's, and not just greater than the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

Christ's priesthood was not subject to the rules of the Law and its priesthood. His priesthood transcends the succession of priests under the Law, who are born and die, extending their priesthood indefinitely into the future. And Christ was not subject to the Law of Sin, which the Law of Moses and its priesthood dealt with.

By contrast, Christ's priesthood remains his own, without any need for succession after death. He rose from the dead, retaining his priesthood forever, just as Mel's priesthood was not subject to the terms of succession dictated by human mortality, or death.

Being sinless, Christ had no need to rely upon the Law of Moses and its remedy for sin. He provided a priesthood that liberates from sin by a person who was without sin. And so, we are liberated not by the priesthood of the Law, but only in a final way by the priesthood of the sinless Christ. There need be no successor for him since he will never die again.

 

[RandyPNW]

That is a reference to their being no mention of Melchizedek's birth and death in the Biblical record, not a statement of his eternal existence, but as a type of our eternal High Priest.
The silence of Scripture regarding Melchizedek's genealogy is used to portray him as a prefiguration of Christ.

Hebrews is about convincing the Hebrew converts that Christ was greater than the angels, Moses, the Aaronic priestly order, and the sacrifices, with a better covenant, better sanctuary and better sacrifice.

Well said!!

 

[Dan Perez]

Well said!!

Well said!!

AND Melchizedek first appeared in the book of GENESIS and as many know he had no genealogy , and also appears

in the book of HEBREWS .

And without a doubt was Jesus Christ , and Christ will reign in the MILLENNIAL KINGDOM with DAVID .

dan p

 

[RandyPNW]

AND Melchizedek first appeared in the book of GENESIS and as many know he had no genealogy , and also appears

in the book of HEBREWS .

And without a doubt was Jesus Christ , and Christ will reign in the MILLENNIAL KINGDOM with DAVID .

dan p

I don't believe Mel. was Christ--I believe he is being used as an example of the kind of Christ's priesthood. It was one that was not based on the Levitical priesthood, which was conditioned upon the deaths and succession of the priests, and also conditioned upon the temporality of the Covenant of Law.

By contrast, Jesus' priesthood was not subject to his death, since he was raised form the dead and has no successor. And his covenant is eternal, and not temporary.

 

[Carl Emerson]

This raises the issue of there being a pre-creation spiritual order in eternity past.

 

[RandyPNW]

This raises the issue of there being a pre-creation spiritual order in eternity past.

How so? As temporal beings, having a beginning point way beyond the starting point in eternity, we have no idea what existed before us, nor could we possibly understand it, unless it existed as you describe, a preexistent creation like ours.

 

[Carl Emerson]

How so? As temporal beings, having a beginning point way beyond the starting point in eternity, we have no idea what existed before us, nor could we possibly understand it, unless it existed as you describe, a preexistent creation like ours.

The spiritual order of Melchizedek with neither beginning of time nor end of days...

Maybe the 24 elders bow before the throne perpetually (Rev 4) in a pre-creation eternal heaven ???

 

[RandyPNW]

The spiritual order of Melchizedek with neither beginning of time nor end of days...

Maybe the 24 elders bow before the throne perpetually (Rev 4) in a pre-creation eternal heaven ???

I can see an angelic priestly order before our time in another order of creation, but not an "eternal priesthood." Only God has that attribute. Thanks.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The spiritual order of Melchizedek with neither beginning of time nor end of days...

Maybe the 24 elders bow before the throne perpetually (Rev 4) in a pre-creation eternal heaven ???

Before God created anything, the only Entity that existed was God; Thus the only application of the priesthood of Melchizedek can only be Christ. And that priesthood (as the Redeemer) is tide to the atonement; which is tided to "time" (seeing how there needs to be a creation to redeem in the first place.

I agree with "X" that this is spoken to emphasize the comparison of priesthoods, Christ's priesthood with the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. The language sounds literal, but when the language is used in such an "impossible" way, it obviously draws us to conclude that the language is some kind of figure of speech.

I think you make a good point here, in the comparison of the priesthoods; not a comparison of "a human named Melchizedek" with Christ.

I've heard people say that Melchizedek was a theophany. (Pre-incarnate physical manifestation of Christ.) That does make sense in the context of time in relation to the incarnation; but it wouldn't make sense in the context of a comparison between Melchizedek and Christ (mortal sinner compared to sinless God) - UNLESS the comparison is their priesthood(s)!

Unless though..... taking into account that the incarnation presented a material reality to the context of God. Once the decision for the incarnation became reality; that necessitated the recreation of the material cosmos into a state of eternal life in order to.... accommodate?? God taking on material form. (If that makes sense, without "wrecking" the eternal nature of the Godhead) ???

Not that we necessarily understand that because we don't bear that capacity.

But God taking upon Himself a material dimension, did make Christ's earthly priesthood (as the sacrifice for sin) after the order of the eternal "Melchizedek" (who is pre-incarnate Christ / the 2nd person of the Trinity who is the eternal "King of Salam" (or "King of peace"). Which speaks more to the hypostatic union of God/man in one entity. Thus because he was the sacrifice he can stand (as "the lamb slain") to make intercession. Which is what the priest in the OT did. (Intercede for the sin of the people.)

Now I think you are "on to something" too, when you make the comparison to the Law, (which can't be kept by sinners) leading to the necessity of the atonement. The atonement only supersedes the law in relation to the sinner though; but because both the law and the atonement are established by "one law Giver", the law is unable to surpass the essence of the triune Personhood of God; obviously seeing how He is it's origin in the first place.

Which sort of gets into the paradox of how "the Son" can not sin, yet "the son" still be tempted and that temptation still be a real struggle of the human flesh. Assuming "the son" understood that if he did sin, that would have meant instantaneous death, seeing how "the Son" is incapable of being joined to corruption because God is incorruptible.

Thus the priesthood of "the son" is "after the order of" "the Son" (whose priesthood is eternal).

 

[The Righterzpen]

I can see an angelic priestly order before our time in another order of creation, but not an "eternal priesthood." Only God has that attribute. Thanks.

I agree that an angelic hierarchy does exist, (if that's what you are meaning here) but I wouldn't call it a "priesthood"; because the nature of a priesthood has to do with atonement and angels can't atone for anything / anyone / even for "self" because they are of "a different kind" than the material cosmos. This is why it says Christ did not take on the nature of angels.

The other thing to keep in mind here too, is that though angels were created before carbon based life was (I believe it's Job that explains angels witnessing the dawning of life); they are very much a created group "attached" to the material cosmos. For they were created to be "ministering spirits". That was their purpose, despite they came into existence before those they were to minister to did. Also assuming too that angels understand that they have a beginning, just as the rest of the cosmos has a beginning.

Which is why (as you say) they could not have an eternal "priesthood".

 

[RandyPNW]

Before God created anything, the only Entity that existed was God; Thus the only application of the priesthood of Melchizedek can only be Christ. And that priesthood (as the Redeemer) is tide to the atonement; which is tided to "time" (seeing how there needs to be a creation to redeem in the first place.

I wouldn't say that the application of Melchizekek's priesthood has to be Christ because he ministered to Abraham without being Christ. He didn't do any of the things Christ did. He didn't atone for sins. Nothing says he was sinless--Abraham certainly didn't say he was either divine or sinless.

He only lacked a need for succession, even though his priesthood ended with his own death. It just didn't require his death for his priesthood to function, and it lacked any succession.

In this way the mortal human Melchizedek is comparable to Christ, not because he did what only Christ could do, but because his priesthood stood independent of the Levitical priesthood, which depended upon succession after death, as well as on the need for atonement rituals. Melzhizedek apparently didn't require any of that?

I think you make a good point here, in the comparison of the priesthoods; not a comparison of "a human named Melchizedek" with Christ.

I was comparing the human Melchizedek with the divine Christ. I was not comparing a divine Melchizedek with a divine Christ. I see no need to deify M. He functioned as a priest, and was not an angel, or theophany. He was simply a man greater than Abraham, whose priesthood would surpass the priesthood that was to come out of Abraham, namely the Levitical Priesthood.

I've heard people say that Melchizedek was a theophany. (Pre-incarnate physical manifestation of Christ.) That does make sense in the context of time in relation to the incarnation; but it wouldn't make sense in the context of a comparison between Melchizedek and Christ (mortal sinner compared to sinless God) - UNLESS the comparison is their priesthood(s)!

Yes, Melchizedek doesn't compare as a mortal human with the divine Christ. But his priesthood, not being divine, but different from the priesthood coming from Abraham, is comparable to Christ's priesthood, which surpasses the Levitical Priesthood.

Unless though..... taking into account that the incarnation presented a material reality to the context of God. Once the decision for the incarnation became reality; that necessitated the recreation of the material cosmos into a state of eternal life in order to.... accommodate?? God taking on material form. (If that makes sense, without "wrecking" the eternal nature of the Godhead) ???

No, it doesn't "wreck" the eternal God to reveal Himself, through His Word, in time in the form of mortal flesh, ie Christ. It is His way of inserting Himself into our reality in order to redeem us, as you suggested.

Not that we necessarily understand that because we don't bear that capacity.

But God taking upon Himself a material dimension, did make Christ's earthly priesthood (as the sacrifice for sin) after the order of the eternal "Melchizedek" (who is pre-incarnate Christ / the 2nd person of the Trinity who is the eternal "King of Salam" (or "King of peace"). Which speaks more to the hypostatic union of God/man in one entity. Thus because he was the sacrifice he can stand (as "the lamb slain") to make intercession. Which is what the priest in the OT did. (Intercede for the sin of the people.)

Melchizedek's priesthood is comparable to Christ's priesthood on a basis other than on exact attributes. M.'s priesthood did not atone for sin, nor accomplish Eternal Life on our behalf. His priesthood was simply different from that which would come from Abraham, ie the Levitical Priesthood.

Now I think you are "on to something" too, when you make the comparison to the Law, (which can't be kept by sinners) leading to the necessity of the atonement.

I never said the Law couldn't be kept. Paul taught that the Law could not be kept in such a way as to obtain Salvation. But it certainly could be "kept," or God would never have given it in the 1st place.

But yes, Christ had to bring atonement in order to fulfill what the Law had been trying to do, namely keep Israel in covenant relationship with God.

The atonement only supersedes the law in relation to the sinner though; but because both the law and the atonement are established by "one law Giver", the law is unable to surpass the essence of the triune Personhood of God; obviously seeing how He is it's origin in the first place.

I'm having difficulty understanding this? The Law failed the sinner because just one sin made a record of sin, keeping a person out of Heaven. The Law, therefore, was only intended to keep Israel in temporary connection with God until Christ could come and make final atonement for their sins.

So the Atonement of Christ "supersedes" the Law in the sense that it forgives by God alone, and not through the agency of fallible priests, whose record is a record of sin, keeping them and their priestly ministry ineffective with respect to provding Eternal Life.

Which sort of gets into the paradox of how "the Son" can not sin, yet "the son" still be tempted and that temptation still be a real struggle of the human flesh. Assuming "the son" understood that if he did sin, that would have meant instantaneous death, seeing how "the Son" is incapable of being joined to corruption because God is incorruptible.

I don't find it to be a "paradox" that the Son cannot sin, since he is the revelation of Deity, and Deity cannot sin against Himself! Being tempted is an act of oppression originating from outside of a person. Jesus was "attacked" by those trying to coerce him to sin, but such a thing was fruitless. He suffered it only to identify with us, and to forgive our failures.

Thus the priesthood of "the son" is "after the order of" "the Son" (whose priesthood is eternal).

I don't think so. The Son's priesthood being after the order of the Son is a redundancy and shows no comparable attributes. It is more or less a truism, if I understand you correctly?

A sin-infected mortal human, Melchizedek, is comparable to the sinless, divine Christ not in exact equivalents, but rather, in the attributes that are comparable.

1) M.'s priesthood is different from the Levitical priesthood. The same with Christ. 2) M.'s priesthood is not a tribal inheritance, obtained through succession after death. Same with Christ. 3) M's priesthood obtained acknowledgement as greater than that of Abraham's priestly descendants. Same with Christ.

The differences don't need to be developed when comparing their similarities. M. need not be divine to compare their priesthoods, even though Christ's priesthood far exceeded that of Melzhiedek's priesthood.

Christ's priesthood atoned for sin and brought Eternal Life through his resurrection. Melchizedek died, and did not raise himself from the dead. His priesthood ended, but did not depend upon a succession after death.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I can see an angelic priestly order before our time in another order of creation, but not an "eternal priesthood." Only God has that attribute. Thanks.

Has God not been eternally enthroned ?

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Heb 7.1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

Understanding literary conventions and biblical language-types is important when dealing with passages like this. The Bible is to be literally believed, but not all that is said in the Bible is to be interpreted ultra-literally.

I agree with "X" that this is spoken to emphasize the comparison of priesthoods, Christ's priesthood with the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. The language sounds literal, but when the language is used in such an "impossible" way, it obviously draws us to conclude that the language is some kind of figure of speech.

And this is true, I believe, in this case. The author makes it sound as if Melechizedek himself is Christ/divine, but since he cannot be sinless and divine, he is only being used to depict a comparison with Christ's priesthood, which is eternal and divine.

Mel. is not without beginning and end of days--only his priesthood is commissioned without any regard to Mel.'s birth and death, which contrasts with the priesthood under the Law, which is a matter of succession within a particular tribal genealogy.

That is, Mel's priesthood, like Christ's priesthood, is not a priesthood based on succession, but rather, on God's word alone. Mel. did not inherit his priesthood from a predecessor who had died. He was simply commissioned as priest based on God's word alone, and not on any ritual succession.

Mel's priesthood did not continue after his death, but it was not contingent upon a succession of priests to extend it indefinitely into the future. It existed irregardless of Mel's mortality, and took place with no regard for the problem of human sin, which is what the Law and the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood dealt with.

The point in all this is that God provided the great father of our faith, Abraham, with an individual greater than him, whose priesthood Abraham was subjected to and who therefore acknowledged that this priesthood would be greater than anything or any priesthood that would come through him.

Such a person existing indicated that the priesthood coming from Abraham was limited, and had to pay tribute to the priesthood of Christ, whose priesthood is even greater than Melchizedek's, and not just greater than the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

Christ's priesthood was not subject to the rules of the Law and its priesthood. His priesthood transcends the succession of priests under the Law, who are born and die, extending their priesthood indefinitely into the future. And Christ was not subject to the Law of Sin, which the Law of Moses and its priesthood dealt with.

By contrast, Christ's priesthood remains his own, without any need for succession after death. He rose from the dead, retaining his priesthood forever, just as Mel's priesthood was not subject to the terms of succession dictated by human mortality, or death.

Being sinless, Christ had no need to rely upon the Law of Moses and its remedy for sin. He provided a priesthood that liberates from sin by a person who was without sin. And so, we are liberated not by the priesthood of the Law, but only in a final way by the priesthood of the sinless Christ. There need be no successor for him since he will never die again.

There really isn't enough information in scripture to form a position from other than Mel was used in Hebrews to show Abraham and thusly Levi and the O.T. laws and priest class to be subservient to Jesus. And thusly many believe Mel to be a Christophany. A longer study in itself.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think it matters. The main purpose of Melchizedek in Hebrews is symbolic, to explain the nature of Christ's priesthood.

The point in Hebrews is that Jesus Christ's priesthood isn't dependent on bloodline, but on his election and calling, just as in Melchizedek's priesthood.

If one focuses on seeing these texts through an exclusive or rigid Trinitarian lens, you might miss out on some of the nuance in the text, which is not primarily about Jesus' divinity, but his mediatorship. Being a mediator in the ancient world wasn't dependent on being divine. In the ancient world, a priest was understood first as a mediator between the gods and humanity, who upheld a sacred order or covenant through ritual actions, and not primarily as just somebody that obtains forgiveness of sins. Sacrifices were offered for all sorts of reasons, not just because one had sinned. So this is really an explanation how people that were once identified as only Second Temple Jews can now relate to God through Jesus, rather than through an earthly temple. Because Jesus offered to God his own life, rather than the life of an animal, his mediatorship is superior and has greater significance.

Interestingly enough, even though Albert Schweitzer, a leading early 20th century biblical scholar and missionary, denied most traditional Christian doctrines about Jesus (he moved from Lutheranism to Unitarianism at the end of his life), he still believed Jesus was a mediator with God, due to his willingness to live and die for his sense of divine calling and election, echoing themes found in Hebrews.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Before God created anything, the only Entity that existed was God

A priesthood (not a priest singular) without beginning of time or end of days must be eternal.

 

[RandyPNW]

Has God not been eternally enthroned ?

Yes.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So we seem to have God eternally enthroned and also an eternal plural priesthood paying Homage.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I wouldn't say that the application of Melchizekek's priesthood has to be Christ because he ministered to Abraham without being Christ.

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.

 

[RandyPNW]

So we seem to have God eternally enthroned and also an eternal plural priesthood paying Homage.

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.