Melchizedek: Another View

MbiaJc · Nov 9, 2005

Quote

Originally Posted by: andy153

Does this mean you agree Lamech was the Father of Noah, and therefore Noah can't be Melchizidek?

Err no, Noah was Melchizedek.

with love and respect, andy153

You can eat crow any time now, because the Word does not back up your interpertation.

MbiaJc · Nov 9, 2005

andy153 said:
Noah had a father and a mother in the old world which was destroyed by the flood. The waters that destroyed the old gave birth to the new and Noah was given the authority over it. Noah is the only man to have stood in this earth age without being naturally born into it. Hebrews 7 clearly identifies Melchisedec as a man. I would be greatful for your opinion as to who you think this man was.

with love and respect, andy153

Some one has been feeding you with false teaching. This is the same world that was before the flood. All the flood did was kill man, and animals except what Noah had on the ark.

andy153 · Nov 10, 2005

Some one has been feeding you with false teaching. This is the same world that was before the flood. All the flood did was kill man, and animals except what Noah had on the ark.

Then you must correct me with love and show me the truth. Who was Melchisadec ?

You can eat crow any time now, because the Word does not back up your interpertation.

Ah, my favourite dish.

Where in the Bible does it say Noah has no parents?

I never said that Noah had no parents, that would be silly.

I repeat, Noah was indeed Melchizedek

with love and respect, andy153

bertie · Nov 10, 2005

does that correlate in years? to when the tithe was given to melchezidek? could noah have been around? I always thought this mechezidek had a good chance of being christ too.Whoever he was he was highly regarded.In actuality i have always thought he was rather mysterious and little by way of explanation.have i ever run across..Why would Noah change his name to melchezidek (if this thread goes on a while we gotta shorten that name!)

ischus · Nov 10, 2005

How about "Mel" from now on ?

andy153 · Nov 10, 2005

does that correlate in years? to when the tithe was given to melchezidek? could noah have been around? I always thought this mechezidek had a good chance of being christ too.Whoever he was he was highly regarded.In actuality i have always thought he was rather mysterious and little by way of explanation.have i ever run across..Why would Noah change his name to melchezidek (if this thread goes on a while we gotta shorten that name!)

Noah was certainly alive when Abraham paid his tithes.

Melchizedek is not a name it is a title (KIng of Righteousness)

Noah was found to be righteous before God. Gen 7:1

Hebrews 7 tells us that Melchizedek was a Man this rules out a pre-incarnate Christ.

with love and respect, andy153

bertie · Nov 10, 2005

a man with no father and no mother?extraterrestrial???

Wisdom's Child · Nov 10, 2005

Ok, Let's just do the math and see if it is possible that Noah is Melchezedek...

Genesis 5:32
And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Genesis 7:6
And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Genesis 9:28
And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.

We can establish Biblically that Noah lived 350 years after the flood.
We can also determine that Shem, Noah's son was 100 years old at the time of the flood.

Genesis 11:10
These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

This verifies the earlier scripture that Shem was indeed 100 at the time of the flood.
Also At 2 A.F.(after flood) Arphaxad, Noah's grandson was born.

Genesis 11:12
And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

Ok now, at 37 A.F. Salah, Noah's great grandson was born.

Genesis 11:14
And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:

And at 67 A.F. Eber was born.

Genesis 11:16
And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:

101 A.F. Peleg was born

Genesis 11:18
And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:

131 A.F. Reu was born

Genesis 11:20
And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:

163 A.F. Serug was born

Genesis 11:22
And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:

193 A.F. Nahor was born

Genesis 11:24
And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:

222 A.F. Terah was born

Genesis 11:26
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

292 A.F. Abram was born...
now we are getting somewhere...

Genesis 12:4
So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

in the year 367 A.F. Abram with his nephew Lot departed from Haram to seek their fortunes
Sadly 17 years after Noah's Death.

<snip> <snip>
Sorry everyone

andy153 · Nov 10, 2005

in the year 367 A.F. Abram with his nephew Lot departed from Haram to seek their fortunes
Sadly 17 years after Noah's Death.

Sorry you lose....

I wasn't aware I was trying to win.

Surely you don't think I would make such a claim and not be aware of the mathamatical implications. Numbers are used in different ways to show different things in scripture. Noah was alive when Abraham paid tithes. Noah was Melchizedek.

Instead of trying to prove me wrong, why don't you tell me who you think Melchizedek was.

with love and respect, andy153

ischus · Nov 10, 2005

One of the reasons that I wrote the OP was to give Mel a break. Often times we don't think that he was all that important by himself--and if it weren't for Hebrews perhaps we wouldn't even notice him--so we have to help him out. We try to equate him with some great biblical figure (e.g. Noah, or Christ) because in our minds he can't be all that great or important of a man just by himself.

What I hoped we could all see is that Mel can stand on his own. He doesn't have to be Noah or Jesus or anyone else. He is the "father" (if you will) of the greatest Priesthood and greatest Kingdom of all time. He stands alongside other OT giants like Abraham and David. Why must he be someone else? Does the bible actually call for us to take away his identity or to equate him with someone else?

- DRA - · Nov 10, 2005

Jesus a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek

The writer of the book of Hebrews presents Jesus as being a High Priest in 3:1. The writer elaborates on this in chapter five. Jesus was called to be a High Priest based on two O.T. passages -- Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4 (see Hebrews 5:4-6). Thus, we are introduced to Jesus connection to Melchizedek, which is restated again in Hebrews 5:10 and in 6:20. This brings us up to the detailed discussion in chapter 7 of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:1-3 focuses on two major points about Melchizedek:
1.) Abraham gave a tenth (tithe) of the spoils of battle to Melchizedek
2.) Melchizedek blessed Abraham
From these two points, we are presented with the writers conclusion about Melchizedeks greatness in 7:4-10. In essence, Melchizedek is presented as being greater than Abraham, the father of Levi, whom the Levitical priests descended from.

Hebrews 7:11-25 then presents the next conclusion the writers draws our attention to which is based on a necessary inference from Psalm 110:4. The Levitical priesthood was already established, yet God (the Father) swore with an oath that Jesus would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek, not of Aaron or Levi. The point? Psalm 110:4 shows us that God had a different priesthood in mind for Jesus. And, since the Levitical priesthood and the law of Moses were connected or linked together, a change in the priesthood would of necessity also mean that the law would change.

Now, lets go back and discuss the meaning of Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually (NKJV). Hmmm. Without father and mother, right? Does the writer literally mean that Melchizedek didnt have a mother and father? Or, is the writer simply putting the obvious before the eyes of the Hebrew people, whose priesthood very much depended upon who they descended from? It should be apparent that the point was that we dont have a clue about who Melchizedeks father, mother, or ancestors were. The point being that his priesthood was not based on lineage, as was the Levitical system.
The next point in the passage Having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually is similar to the previous point. There is no record or knowledge of Melchizedeks birth or death, therefore his office continues (see the later discussion in Hebrews 7:16-25 which emphasizes the word forever in Psalm 110:4).

Jesus descended from the tribe of Judah, not of Levi (Hebrews 7:14). The point? See 8:4. Jesus could NOT have been a Levitical priest -- He was from the wrong tribe. However, that was not a problem. God never had in mind for Jesus to be a Levitical priest. God intended all along for him to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Who does Psalm 110:4 apply to? The writer of Hebrews plainly declares to us that it applies to Jesus. Yet, in the original post we are told that this promise was made to Solomon. That should suggest to us all that there is a problem somewhere with this understanding of the passage.

ischus · Nov 10, 2005

DRA,

Thanks for your excellent comments.

Please take the time to read the OP and you will see that I point out that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Priesthood of Melchizedek. This means that he is the ultimate fulfillment of Ps.110.

Where we differ is that I simply interpreted Ps.110 it in its OT context first before jumping to the NT. You are right that it ultimately refers to Jesus, but Jesus is not all that it refers to.

Kelly · Nov 10, 2005

Wisdom's Child said:
Sorry you lose....

Lose the pride, remember the first part of your screen name.

- DRA - · Nov 10, 2005

ischus said:
DRA,

Thanks for your excellent comments.

Please take the time to read the OP and you will see that I point out that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Priesthood of Melchizedek. This means that he is the ultimate fulfillment of Ps.110.

Where we differ is that I simply interpreted Ps.110 it in its OT context first before jumping to the NT. You are right that it ultimately refers to Jesus, but Jesus is not all that it refers to.

Thank you.

I actually gleaned over the OP a couple of times before I sat down and read it thoroughly to understand your reasoning. I think I do. I just don't agree that the priesthood of Melchizedek came through David.

Psalm 110:4 is the easiest place to show why I disagree. Look at verse 1 of that Psalm. It is quoted in Acts 2:34-35 and Hebrews 1:13. It applies solely to Jesus ... unless you can help me see how Solomon could be the David's "Lord" in the passage -- "The LORD said to my Lord." In essence, the passage is saying that Jehovah (LORD) spoke to Jesus (Lord) -- not to Solomon. The same thing applies to verse 4 (of Psalm 110). Clearly, the context of Psalm 110:1-4 is discussing Jesus.

ischus · Nov 11, 2005

- DRA - said:
Thank you.

I actually gleaned over the OP a couple of times before I sat down and read it thoroughly to understand your reasoning. I think I do. I just don't agree that the priesthood of Melchizedek came through David.

Psalm 110:4 is the easiest place to show why I disagree. Look at verse 1 of that Psalm. It is quoted in Acts 2:34-35 and Hebrews 1:13. It applies solely to Jesus ... unless you can help me see how Solomon could be the David's "Lord" in the passage -- "The LORD said to my Lord." In essence, the passage is saying that Jehovah (LORD) spoke to Jesus (Lord) -- not to Solomon. The same thing applies to verse 4 (of Psalm 110). Clearly, the context of Psalm 110:1-4 is discussing Jesus.

DRA,

I understand what you are defending, and I will say again that I do believe this is a prophetic passage about Jesus. I am aware of Jesus' own commentary on Ps.110. I simply think that it is not only about Jesus, and that it was relevant to the historical context in which it was written.

Your view is not the only one on Ps.110. My view is not the only one. Some think that this is written about David, thus Yahweh is talking to David, the lord of the Psalmist. My view is that David (who is near death) is talking about Solomon who has been annointed by Zadok as the new King and has now taken his seat on his father's throne. Because Solomon has taken the throne, he has become David's lord in that respect.

I think you see my point. I have never heard anyone claim that all 400+ occurances of adonai (or adon) refer specifically and only to Jesus Christ. Adonai is a common word for a superior, meaning "lord" or "master" or "sir" and was often used in reference to kings. Our English translations have taken the liberty to captalize the "L" in their translation of adonai because they (correctly) see a prophetic/messianic passage. That does not mean that it is only talking about Jesus. Many messianic passages in scripture have typological or dual fulfillment (Ps.22 for example).

I would be curious to hear your explanation of Ps.110 if adonai is in fact referring to Jesus Christ. For example, how would you interpret Zion and the enemies of v2, the people, power/army, and youth of v3, the Lord and the kings of v5, the nations, rulers, corpses, and country/earth of v6, and the brook of v7 ? Feel free to go into as much depth as you like.

- DRA - · Nov 11, 2005

ischus said:
DRA,

I understand what you are defending, and I will say again that I do believe this is a prophetic passage about Jesus. I am aware of Jesus' own commentary on Ps.110. I simply think that it is not only about Jesus, and that it was relevant to the historical context in which it was written.

Your view is not the only one on Ps.110. My view is not the only one. Some think that this is written about David, thus Yahweh is talking to David, the lord of the Psalmist. My view is that David (who is near death) is talking about Solomon who has been annointed by Zadok as the new King and has now taken his seat on his father's throne. Because Solomon has taken the throne, he has become David's lord in that respect.

Rather than a your view versus my view scenario, I prefer to keep this at a what does the Bible say about this approach.

Unless Im mistaken, Jesus plainly stated that David was referring to the Christ in Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22:43-44. Do you think Solomon is the Christ?

Acts 2:34 is another quote of Psalm 110:1. Once again, the passage is used to show that Jesus is seated at Gods right hand not Solomon.

Psalm 110:1 is also quoted in Hebrews 1:13. The passage is being used to show that God was speaking to Jesus to show that He is greater than the angels.

ischus said:
I think you see my point. I have never heard anyone claim that all 400+ occurances of adonai (or adon) refer specifically and only to Jesus Christ. Adonai is a common word for a superior, meaning "lord" or "master" or "sir" and was often used in reference to kings. Our English translations have taken the liberty to captalize the "L" in their translation of adonai because they (correctly) see a prophetic/messianic passage. That does not mean that it is only talking about Jesus. Many messianic passages in scripture have typological or dual fulfillment (Ps.22 for example).

My point isnt that the word lord always refers solely to Jesus. My point is that Psalm 110:1 and 110:4 is referring solely to Jesus. Its not inherent in the word itself, but Jesus is the ONLY one that is declared to be the fulfillment of those passages.

ischus said:
I would be curious to hear your explanation of Ps.110 if adonai is in fact referring to Jesus Christ. For example, how would you interpret Zion and the enemies of v2, the people, power/army, and youth of v3, the Lord and the kings of v5, the nations, rulers, corpses, and country/earth of v6, and the brook of v7 ? Feel free to go into as much depth as you like.

Back in the first paragraph I bolded in red where you acknowledge that the passage is talking about Jesus. Now, you seem as if youre not sure. If we accept what the N.T. declares about these passages, there should be NO doubt whatsoever.

ischus · Nov 11, 2005

DRA,

Your comments in the above post were all addressed in my previous post. You are saying that there is only one type of Prophecy: a direct 1-1 correlation with a single fulfillment. I am saying that there is more than one type of Prophecy, including type-antitype, fulfillment by analogy, and of course, the 1-1 fulfillment. Ps.110 is a type-antitype fulfillment, where Solomon was a type of Christ (as were Melchizedek and David). Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of what was said about Solomon (or David, according to some). So, it can be about both of them.

And I do not ask for your commentary because I am unsure of my own interpretation. (That is not to say that a convincing argument wouldn't sway me to your view). I only ask because I believe that if you did a thorough, in-depth study you will find that your view is very difficult to justify in the OT context of Ps.110. To start with, who do you think is the speaker in this psalm, and who is being spoken to? Does the speaker change? Why or why not? Does the word "Lord" change meaning in the Psalm? Why or why not?

You will have to answer these questions and the questions of my previous post in order for your view to make sense.

MbiaJc · Nov 11, 2005

bertie said:
does that correlate in years? to when the tithe was given to melchezidek? could noah have been around? I always thought this mechezidek had a good chance of being christ too.Whoever he was he was highly regarded.In actuality i have always thought he was rather mysterious and little by way of explanation.have i ever run across..Why would Noah change his name to melchezidek (if this thread goes on a while we gotta shorten that name!)

Melchezidek was type of Christ, being a King and Priest. Noah might have been a priest, but definatly not a King.

- DRA - · Nov 14, 2005

ischus said:
DRA,

Your comments in the above post were all addressed in my previous post. You are saying that there is only one type of Prophecy: a direct 1-1 correlation with a single fulfillment. I am saying that there is more than one type of Prophecy, including type-antitype, fulfillment by analogy, and of course, the 1-1 fulfillment. Ps.110 is a type-antitype fulfillment, where Solomon was a type of Christ (as were Melchizedek and David). Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of what was said about Solomon (or David, according to some). So, it can be about both of them.

I did not say that there is one type of prophecy: a direct 1-1 correlation with a single fulfillment. I'm not sure where and how you came up with that idea.

What I am saying is that Jesus is the sole fulfillment of some O.T. prophecies. Simply stated, in some -- not all -- prophecies there can me no minor and major fulfillment, but only one fulfillment. Psalm 16:10 is an example of a prophecy of this nature. Neither David or Solomon were minor fulfillments of this passage. The passage was solely prophetic of Jesus. See Acts 2:27.

Psalm 110:1,4 are passages that I consider to be solely fulfilled in Jesus. Your original post and continuing reasoning infers that David and Solomon were also priests after the order of Melchizedek. That simply won't "fly" in light of Hebrews 7:13-14 and 8:4. Bottom line. The passages in Hebrews clearly tell us that Jesus couldn't be a priest on earth because He was from the wrong tribe. The same is true for David and Solomon. They couldn't be priests on earth for the same reason. Jesus, however, is seated at God's right hand in heaven, where He acts as our High Priest today ... a priest after the order of Melchizedek -- not Aaron or Levi.

ischus said:
And I do not ask for your commentary because I am unsure of my own interpretation. (That is not to say that a convincing argument wouldn't sway me to your view). I only ask because I believe that if you did a thorough, in-depth study you will find that your view is very difficult to justify in the OT context of Ps.110. To start with, who do you think is the speaker in this psalm, and who is being spoken to? Does the speaker change? Why or why not? Does the word "Lord" change meaning in the Psalm? Why or why not?

You will have to answer these questions and the questions of my previous post in order for your view to make sense.

The speaker of the Psalm 110 is identified in Matthew 22:43 as David. The passage (verses 42-45) also identifies the Christ as being David's Lord.

Hebrews 1:13 offers another perspective about Psalm 110:1. God (the Father) is speaking to Jesus in the passage. That means, "The Lord said to my Lord," is referring to the Father speaking to Jesus.

Two different Hebrew words are used in the expression, "The Lord [Yhwh] said to my Lord [adonai]." However, there is more to consider. Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45:6 to show that God called His Son (Jesus) God. And, Isaiah referred to the Son (Jesus )as the "Everlasting Father" i.e. 9:6.

Now, what Scriptural evidence do you have that I should consider in my in-depth study of Psalm 110:1-4. Would you have me ignore the texts of the New Testament passages that are inspired commentaries on the O.T. passage?

ischus · Nov 14, 2005

- DRA - said:
I did not say that there is one type of prophecy: a direct 1-1 correlation with a single fulfillment. I'm not sure where and how you came up with that idea.

I apologize for making this assumption. I should not have taken that leap. Thank you for clearing this up. If you don't mind, could you give some Scriptural examples of a couple other types of Prophesy-Fulfillment just so I can see where you are coming from?

What I am saying is that Jesus is the sole fulfillment of some O.T. prophecies. Simply stated, in some -- not all -- prophecies there can me no minor and major fulfillment, but only one fulfillment. Psalm 16:10 is an example of a prophecy of this nature. Neither David or Solomon were minor fulfillments of this passage. The passage was solely prophetic of Jesus. See Acts 2:27.

Psalm 110:1,4 are passages that I consider to be solely fulfilled in Jesus. Your original post and continuing reasoning infers that David and Solomon were also priests after the order of Melchizedek. That simply won't "fly" in light of Hebrews 7:13-14 and 8:4. Bottom line. The passages in Hebrews clearly tell us that Jesus couldn't be a priest on earth because He was from the wrong tribe. The same is true for David and Solomon. They couldn't be priests on earth for the same reason. Jesus, however, is seated at God's right hand in heaven, where He acts as our High Priest today ... a priest after the order of Melchizedek -- not Aaron or Levi.

This will just expand our discussion too far because I see Ps.16 in the same way that I see Ps.110. I don't think either one is a direct prophesy only about Jesus without any OT purpose. I don't see Ps.16 as having an OT "fulfillment" either--it is solely fulfilled by Jesus in the NT as you say. But in the OT context it is David's meditations on God. But this will only bring about the same argument from another verse, so we might as well not go into this one in this thread about Melchizedek.

As for Heb.7:13-14; 8:4 I don't see how that does anything other than support my case. The point is that the Priesthood of Melchizedek was not from the tribe of Levi, but from Judah, just as these verses point out. I think you may have missed the whole point that the Melchizedek Priesthood was a second Priesthood alongside the Levitcal Priesthood. I am not saying that David, Solomon, or Jesus were Levitical Priests from the line of Aaron. I am saying that they were Melchizedekan (is that a word?) Priests from the line of Judah and from the Order of Melchizedek.

The speaker of the Psalm 110 is identified in Matthew 22:43 as David. The passage (verses 42-45) also identifies the Christ as being David's Lord.

Hebrews 1:13 offers another perspective about Psalm 110:1. God (the Father) is speaking to Jesus in the passage. That means, "The Lord said to my Lord," is referring to the Father speaking to Jesus.

Two different Hebrew words are used in the expression, "The Lord [Yhwh] said to my Lord [adonai]." However, there is more to consider. Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45:6 to show that God called His Son (Jesus) God. And, Isaiah referred to the Son (Jesus )as the "Everlasting Father" i.e. 9:6.

Now, what Scriptural evidence do you have that I should consider in my in-depth study of Psalm 110:1-4. Would you have me ignore the texts of the New Testament passages that are inspired commentaries on the O.T. passage?

I would not have you ignore the NT texts. I would have you see them as a different type of fulfillment.

So, you are saying that David is quoting Yahweh (LORD), who is speaking to Jesus (Lord) ? I don't see how that can make sense in the OT context. Help me out here:

vv1-3 Yahweh (Father) tells Jesus (referred to as "you"/"your" or adonai) to sit at his right hand as a ruler.

v4 Yahweh (Father) tells Jesus ("you" or adonai) that he is a Priest forever

v5 Yahweh (still the speaker) tells Jesus ("your") that the adonai ("Lord" or "he" in the ff vv) is at his ("your" or Jesus') right hand. [And this is where I have the trouble. Who is the adonai at the right hand of Jesus?]

vv6-7 This other adonai ("he") who is at the right hand of Jesus ("you" and "your") will bring judgment.

I don't see how adonai can be the same person throughout the Psalm in light of vv5ff, unless you are trying to say that the speaker changes between v4 and v5. If so, how and why can you say that?

And I would still like you to address the questions of my former post: "...how would you interpret Zion and the enemies of v2, the people, power/army, and youth of v3, the Lord and the kings of v5, the nations, rulers, corpses, and country/earth of v6, and the brook of v7 ?..."

Melchizedek: Another View

Veteran

Veteran

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

ΙΣΧΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΜΗ

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Seek Wisdom and Understanding

Regular Member

ΙΣΧΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΜΗ

Well-Known Member

ΙΣΧΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΜΗ

Dungeon Master

Well-Known Member

ΙΣΧΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΜΗ

Well-Known Member

ΙΣΧΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΜΗ

Veteran

Well-Known Member

ΙΣΧΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΜΗ

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency