Melchisedec

[Hedgehog]

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

Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed [be] Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.


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


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


Hbr 5:10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Hbr 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing


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


Hbr 7:1 For this Melchisedec,(is)
king of Salem,
priest of the most high God,
who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
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;
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.

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

Hbr 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Hbr 7:6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

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

Hbr 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he [receiveth them], of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

Hbr 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

Hbr 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Hbr 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?

Hbr 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Hbr 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

Hbr 7:14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Hbr 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

Hbr 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Hbr 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hbr 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Hbr 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Hbr 7:20 And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]:

Hbr 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

Hbr 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Hbr 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

Hbr 7:24 But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.



Ok. So most people would say this Melchisedec is Jesus/God.
Why is an actual name mentioned then " Melchisedec"?
Why dont we call Jesus that now if it was Him?
Why does it say *another* priest , after the order of Melchisedec?
and "similitude", and "after" the order?(implying "like him, but NOT him)
Why doesnt the writer of Hebrews say Jesus WAS Melchisedec.

If Melchisedec is not Jesus, then who is he in that his priesthood is CONTINUAL?

If it is Jesus, then way back in Genesis Jesus was already priest before the most high God.
Hes been a priest continually.Which means He had access into the Holy of Holies continually for believers/people of faith.

 

[ps139]

I think that Melchisedec was Jesus. Christ is the eternal priest. Christ was the only man with neither father nor mother (in that Christ, being God, is eternal, and was not a creation of humans. This does not contradict that Christ had a human nature). King of Salem means King of Peace. Who else has this title? Also, who else instituted a Supper with Bread and Wine? Astute observations Hedgehog.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Melchizedek is an example of Christophany in the OT - a preIncarnate appearrance of Christ.

Under the Law, no Levite could be a king, for one could not be a priest and a king.
Jesus is King, and is our High Priest

 

[ps139]

Christophany! I had forgotten that word, thanks!

 

[TrevorL]

Howdy Hedgehog,

Greetings. The Bible omits to tell us in Genesis the full story of Melchizedek, but he is revealed as a king-priest before the Levitical order was established and also greater than Abraham. Many other lessons can be drawn from the brief mention as does the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews. Most of these lessons point forward to Christ as king-priest after the order of Melchizedek. Nevetheless I believe he was simply a mortal man contemporary with Abraham.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Ok. So most people would say this Melchisedec is Jesus/God.
Why is an actual name mentioned then " Melchisedec"?
Why dont we call Jesus that now if it was Him?
Why does it say *another* priest , after the order of Melchisedec?
and "similitude", and "after" the order?(implying "like him, but NOT him)
Why doesnt the writer of Hebrews say Jesus WAS Melchisedec.

You have to understand the strong, emotional appeal behind the thought that they've figured it out. Pride is what supports the idea that they can see the preincarnate Christ in almost any area of scripture they choose. For instance, the three men who stood before Abraham, before walking down to Sodom to observe the evil therein, many assume they've solved the puzzle of who those men were, one of them allegedly being the preincarnate Christ since Abraham addressed one of those men as deity quite a number of times.

Many folks like to think that they've got God figured out, like the statement that allegedly grasps the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to which trinitarians hold so tenatiously. They pride themselves in the idea that they even understand that defining statement of the trinitarian doctrine, even thought their minds remain muddled as to any graphic or comprehensible representation of that relationship.

BTW

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Jesus *became* high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

I'm not sure who Melchizedek is. Jewish tradition says that it is Shem.

 

[88Devin07]

Jesus is like Melchisedec... Or rather... Melchisedec is like Jesus...
Just as Joseph was like Jesus, or Abraham/Issac relationship is like Jesus, etc...

None of them were Jesus, but they were like Jesus.

It is also how John the Baptist is "like" Elijah, but is not Elijah himself.

 

[FreeinChrist]

You have to understand the strong, emotional appeal behind the thought that they've figured it out. Pride is what supports the idea that they can see the preincarnate Christ in almost any area of scripture they choose.

You are making a huge assumption as to what is behind the motives of people who believe there are preIncarnate appearances of Christ - and it is pathetic if not flaming. Does it make you feel superior to others to do that? Is that why you are doing it?


Recognizing that Christ was from the beginning with God, is God, is a central belief in Christianity. If, while seriously studying the Bible, one beleives there are examples of Christophany in scripture, it is not because of pride as you so ridiculously assume, but a belief based on serious study.


I notice you don't counter the idea of Christ's preIncarnate appearances with any scripture or with any authority at all.

Many folks like to think that they've got God figured out, like the statement that allegedly grasps the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to which trinitarians hold so tenatiously. They pride themselves in the idea that they even understand that defining statement of the trinitarian doctrine, even thought their minds remain muddled as to any graphic or comprehensible representation of that relationship.

BTW

Apparently you don't beleive in the Trinity as you are criticizing Trinitarians. You did read the Nicene Creed and agree to it prior to posting here??

And I hope Hedgehog and other who read you post recognize you don't believe inthe Trinity

 

[ps139]

You have to understand the strong, emotional appeal behind the thought that they've figured it out. Pride is what supports the idea that they can see the preincarnate Christ in almost any area of scripture they choose. For instance, the three men who stood before Abraham, before walking down to Sodom to observe the evil therein, many assume they've solved the puzzle of who those men were, one of them allegedly being the preincarnate Christ since Abraham addressed one of those men as deity quite a number of times.

Many folks like to think that they've got God figured out, like the statement that allegedly grasps the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to which trinitarians hold so tenaciously. They pride themselves in the idea that they even understand that defining statement of the trinitarian doctrine, even though their minds remain muddled as to any graphic or comprehensible representation of that relationship.

BTW

Sorry brother, but you haven't figured me out. This is pure speculation on my part of an interesting biblical subject, no more, no less. I would never claim to have figured out the Trinity, it is a mystery to the finite human mind. Do not assume intentions in other people.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You are making a huge assumption as to what is behind the motives of people who believe there are preIncarnate appearances of Christ -

Read the words that I wrote. I said that pride is what can be seen behind the IDEA, not the motives.

and it is pathetic if not flaming. Does it make you feel superior to others to do that? Is that why you are doing it?

This diatribe of yours fails to deal with what I actually said. This emotive, knee-jerk outburst appears to serve as a cover for your inability to not only comprehend what I actually said, but also your inability to offer anything in support of whatever your position may be.

Recognizing that Christ was from the beginning with God, is God, is a central belief in Christianity. If, while seriously studying the Bible, one beleives there are examples of Christophany in scripture, it is not because of pride as you so ridiculously assume, but a belief based on serious study.

The presence and/or amount of study one may perform doesn't make something more true. There's much pride in knowledge with many people. There's nothing new about that. General statements are not necessarily all-encompassing, blanket statements.

I notice you don't counter the idea of Christ's preIncarnate appearances with any scripture or with any authority at all.

Like a verse that clearly states that it was indeed another being other than Christ? Why would I try to defend something that I'm not trying to prove? I was simply calling into question the assumptions of some concerning the example I gave. Questioning an assumption doesn't mean that I have to have something solid as a counter when the assumption itself has no real substance upon which to stand?

Apparently you don't beleive in the Trinity as you are criticizing Trinitarians. You did read the Nicene Creed and agree to it prior to posting here??

I didn't say that it's incorrect. It's sheer folly for anyone to think that a mere statement can summarize all that God is, and any interrelationships that may exist within His Person/Nature. Volumous tomes covering the surface of this entire planet couldn't begin to grasp the infinite enormity of the Most High. That creed gives a very broad, basic, possible overview, perhaps, but not an absolute foundation of infallible truth. I agree with it, but not to the extent that I would pridefully assume that our agreement with it makes it infallible. Like Paul said in 1 Cor. 13:12, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

So, please spare me the pseudo analytical hubbub of your irrational, militant tirade against the scope of what you thought I was saying.

And I hope Hedgehog and other who read you post recognize you don't believe inthe Trinity

If they're anything like you, they just might. If you wanted clarification, all you had to do was ask.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I would never claim to have figured out the Trinity, it is a mystery to the finite human mind.

Very well said, bro. Well said indeed.

BTW

 

[FreeinChrist]

Read the words that I wrote. I said that pride is what can be seen behind the IDEA, not the motives.

It isn't even pride behind the IDEA - you are assuming that and with no support for it - just opinion.

And yes, you were making ac comment about motive - you did this this statment:
"You have to understand the strong, emotional appeal behind the thought that they've figured it out."
You can deny that you are questioning motive - but it is obvious that you are.

This diatribe of yours fails to deal with what I actually said. This emotive, knee-jerk outburst appears to serve as a cover for your inability to not only comprehend what I actually said, but also your inability to offer anything in support of whatever your position may be.

Kinda funny that you complain about MY inability to offer anything when you offerred nothing except your assumptions. You assume pride - proof? You offer none. It is just your unsubstantiated opinion.
The scripture presented by Hedgehog in the OP came from me in another forum at CF and he asked that I come here.

The presence and/or amount of study one may perform doesn't make something more true. There's much pride in knowledge with many people. There's nothing new about that. General statements are not necessarily all-encompassing, blanket statements.

All I see you make is blanket statements - no support from scripture or of any authority.

Like a verse that clearly states that it was indeed another being other than Christ? Why would I try to defend something that I'm not trying to prove? I was simply calling into question the assumptions of some concerning the example I gave. Questioning an assumption doesn't mean that I have to have something solid as a counter when the assumption itself has no real substance upon which to stand?



I didn't say that it's incorrect. It's sheer folly for anyone to think that a mere statement can summarize all that God is, and any interrelationships that may exist within His Person/Nature. Volumous tomes covering the surface of this entire planet couldn't begin to grasp the infinite enormity of the Most High. That creed gives a very broad, basic, possible overview, perhaps, but not an absolute foundation of infallible truth. I agree with it, but not to the extent that I would pridefully assume that our agreement with it makes it infallible. Like Paul said in 1 Cor. 13:12, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

So, please spare me the pseudo analytical hubbub of your irrational, militant tirade against the scope of what you thought I was saying.

I think you described your own posts with this: "pseudo analytical hubbub of your irrational, militant tirade."

So considering your efforts to insult, and your assumptions about motive (whether YOU recognize it or not), I ask again:
Does it make you feel superior to others to do that? Is that why you are doing it?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Very well said, bro. Well said indeed.

BTW

Did you read the rest of his post?

 

[BeforeThereWas]

It isn't even pride behind the IDEA - you are assuming that and with no support for it - just opinion.

And yes, you were making ac comment about motive - you did this this statment:
"You have to understand the strong, emotional appeal behind the thought that they've figured it out."
You can deny that you are questioning motive - but it is obvious that you are.

The pot calling the kettle black. Oh well, you can assume whatever you like. It makes no difference.

Kinda funny that you complain about MY inability to offer anything when you offerred nothing except your assumptions.

There's no assumption in simply asking how others can prove that a being mentioned in scripture is the preincarnate Christ. There's simply no information given about the One who ate with Abraham, and many a teacher assumes it to be the preincarnate Christ. That's rather presumptuous, so it logically follows that questioning such an absolute statement is the logical outflow from such non-precise information. Each time I've asked, I got the usual fare of questions that never answer my inquiry; questions like , "Well, who else could it be?" They rely upon their assumed understanding of other doctrines that only creates further confusion. I prefer simplicity to false knowledge.

You assume pride - proof? You offer none. It is just your unsubstantiated opinion.

Assumption, perhaps, but the hit and miss method in this case was probably more on the mark than otherwise.

The scripture presented by Hedgehog in the OP came from me in another forum at CF and he asked that I come here.

So, you assumed I was talking about you?

All I see you make is blanket statements - no support from scripture or of any authority.

The burden of evidence isn't on my shoulders. I'm not the one who pridefully assumes, without any way of proving such an assumption, that the being before Abraham was the preincarnate Christ.

I think you described your own posts with this: "pseudo analytical hubbub of your irrational, militant tirade."

If you're going to engage ad nauseam reasoning, at least be original.

So considering your efforts to insult, and your assumptions about motive (whether YOU recognize it or not), I ask again:
Does it make you feel superior to others to do that? Is that why you are doing it?

Nope. It flowed from being weary from having read and hear so much assumption about so many things, all without proof. Pop christianity seems to be populated with people who seem to enjoy a myopic system of theology that appeals mostly to fleshly pride of knowledge that rests upon no more solid a foundation than the one relied upon by long-age evolutionists. The heavy reliance upon the law of second best works fine for liberals, but I prefer sticking strictly to what's written rather than to bask in the light of sensationalistic assumption that may be completely off the mark. That being was certainly some sort of manifestation of God, but a manifestation that we can't possibly know for sure without having more information upon which to rely. It simply isn't there.

So, you tell me: What else besides pride in an idea could move one be so sure about something for which they have no proof? I didn't see them sticking their tongue in cheek, or any other indication that they recognized that they were merely speculating because of a severe lack of any evidence. What else could it be? The question doesn't prove the point, but rather asks for any other possible state behind such an idea that has no backing in the text. Many people take great pride in this assumption, like so many of the socially engineered theologies I've dealt with, and the unwillingless to rethink their position speaks of pride more than anything else, unless you know of a better malady.

BTW

 

[Hedgehog]

What else besides pride in an idea could move one be so sure about something for which they have no proof?

You may be right but your responses back are less than loving which is better how?

 

[ImSoBlessed]

Melchizidak was not Jesus...he did have a mother and father but not of priestly lineage. thats why jesus was compared to him because Jesus is a high priest but he was not born of priestly lineage (earthly parents).

 

[FreeinChrist]

There's no assumption in simply asking how others can prove that a being mentioned in scripture is the preincarnate Christ.

There was assumption in declaring pride was behind the belief that there is Christophany in the OT. THAT is the assumption you made and are trying to deny. You are judging the motives of people unfairly.

There's simply no information given about the One who ate with Abraham, and many a teacher assumes it to be the preincarnate Christ. That's rather presumptuous, so it logically follows that questioning such an absolute statement is the logical outflow from such non-precise information. Each time I've asked, I got the usual fare of questions that never answer my inquiry; questions like , "Well, who else could it be?" They rely upon their assumed understanding of other doctrines that only creates further confusion. I prefer simplicity to false knowledge.

Again, you assume that the scholars who believe it is Christophany don't ask those questions or don't use good hermenuetics.
BTW, the topic is Melchizedek, not the three who visited Abraham.

And again, you don't offer any scripture or any support - just your opinion.

Assumption, perhaps, but the hit and miss method in this case was probably more on the mark than otherwise.

No, you were off the mark, but I am glad you recognize that you were assuming.

So, you assumed I was talking about you?

Have you forgotten what you posted? Let me post it - as it demonstrates your ability to insult:
"This diatribe of yours fails to deal with what I actually said. This emotive, knee-jerk outburst appears to serve as a cover for your inability to not only comprehend what I actually said, but also your inability to offer anything in support of whatever your position may be."

"whatever your position may be" - I clarified it in commenting that I am here from another thread started by hedgehog in another forum - and his OP includes the scripture I posted to him in that thread.

I think you are losing track of your posts.

The burden of evidence isn't on my shoulders. I'm not the one who pridefully assumes, without any way of proving such an assumption, that the being before Abraham was the preincarnate Christ.

Actually, you have been pridefully assuming since you started posting in this thread - from the very first sentence. And your conitinued posts just show hypocrisy.
And yeah, you should back your posts with more that your opinion.


I can see there is nothing to learn from you and so am using the ignore option after this post.

Nope. It flowed from being weary from having read and hear so much assumption about so many things, all without proof.

And you offer none, or any intellectual, scholarly support for your view. Pathetic.

Pop christianity seems to be populated with people who seem to enjoy a myopic system of theology that appeals mostly to fleshly pride of knowledge that rests upon no more solid a foundation than the one relied upon by long-age evolutionists. The heavy reliance upon the law of second best works fine for liberals, but I prefer sticking strictly to what's written rather than to bask in the light of sensationalistic assumption that may be completely off the mark. That being was certainly some sort of manifestation of God, but a manifestation that we can't possibly know for sure without having more information upon which to rely. It simply isn't there.

And you continue to babble and assume and be rude.
You offer nothing but complaining drivel that comes off as hypocritical.

Glad there is an ignore option.

 

[FreeinChrist]

You may be right but your responses back are less than loving which is better how?

Hedgehog, regarding Melchizedek I offered scripture. It is something that you need to prayerfully study yourself. Read the entire book of Hebrews in one setting because there is a persistent theme in it about how Jesus fulfiled the Law, and how He is our High Priest,and Advocate.
Unfortunately, this thread is trashed so I will not be back to it. You can pm me if you have a question about what I posted.

 

[holyorders]

Melchizedek was the OT priest who initiated the priesthood or order of the new covenant. That is why Jesus established His Church through the communion of transubstanced bread and wine. Jesus, being the High Priest (really the true and only Priest), instituted His apostles to continue that order. Melchizedek was really a prophet and prefigurement of the institution of our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist.