Melchizedek

[EastCoastRemnant]

Show me where the conflict is in Scripture.
What you said doesn't seem to relay what is written in Scripture.
i.e. Where is it written Melchizedek died ?

Exactly... translation/transfiguration is more likely. Most of the history between Noah and Abraham is unknown for us to say what God did for His people in that time. We do know that a preincarnate Jesus visited with Sarai and Abram.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The bread and the wine Melchizedek brought forth unto Abram in Genesis 14:18 could show in that repesentative our Lords death in it beforehand (looking forward) as the same is shown in Luke 22:19 which is done to shew his death (looking backward) 1 Corinthians 11:26 Both showing his death from the two different places. Even as God had preached before the gospel to Abraham Galatians 3:8 the scripture foreseeing that in Abraham all nations would be blessed.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Fair enough. I do think he was a man, and as a man, he is now gone. A special man to be sure, but just a man nonetheless.

I disagree, but this isn't a matter of my eternal salvation, or even of what I'm having for lunch. There is adequate reason to believe as you do, so I'm not going to arm wrestle over it.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Show me where the conflict is in Scripture.
What you said doesn't seem to relay what is written in Scripture. i.e. Where is it written Melchizedek died ?

It isn't to my knowledge. But Melchizedek is only mentioned (historically) for the one incident with Abram. He is mentioned again (in the New Testament), but not as a current character. So the mention of his death is not a big deal.

For instance, Job's three friends are never mentioned to die. Nor is Mrs. Job. However, we can reasonably suspect they died. The only reason any of us have to believe Melchizedek did not die is the reasonable argument (suspicion?) he was the pre-incarnate Christ. (Which does not apply to Job's three friends or Mrs. Job, I admit.)

However, the failure to mention the death of an otherwise presumed mortal is not grounds to believe him a Christophany.

 

[Pamelav]

I have heard the belief he is the pre incarnate Christ, but unless the translation in Hebrews is wrong, it does not say he WAS, but was made LIKE Him. That is a big difference in the use of words to try to communicate something properly.

 

[Pamelav]

Delete

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I have heard the belief he is the pre incarnate Christ, but unless the translation in Hebrews is wrong, it does not say he WAS, but was made LIKE Him. That is a big difference in the use of words to try to communicate something properly.

I do believe you are correct. As I said, "... there is a belief ..." and the matter is by no means settled and finished. Also as I said, I agree with that thought, but admit I could be wrong and the 'evidence' stops short of 'proof' in my mind.

 

[Pamelav]

I do believe you are correct. As I said, "... there is a belief ..." and the matter is by no means settled and finished. Also as I said, I agree with that thought, but admit I could be wrong and the 'evidence' stops short of 'proof' in my mind.

Yes. But I was addressing everyone who says that.
Thankyou for input!

 

[Razare]

Yes. Melchizedek is Jesus.

Hebrews 7 - 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,

Revelation 22:13 - I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Here is the definition of a similitude H1819

Which is how God says he has spoken

Hosea 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes H1819, by the ministry of the prophets.

Abraham being a prophet Genesis 20:7 Melchizedek met him (who brought forth the bread and the wine) Genesis 14:18, who was made like unto the Son of God Hebrews 7:3 so that it would be evident for that after the similitude (or likeness) of Melchizedek there arises another priest Hebrews 7:15, Psalms 110:4, Hosea 12:10, John 5:39 )

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Yes. Melchizedek is Jesus.

There is the unsubstantiated claim.

Hebrews 7 - 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,

There is a bit of what seems to be evidence, but suggestive only.

Revelation 22:13 - I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

There is an unrelated gratuity.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Here is the definition of a similitude H1819

Which is how God says he has spoken

Hosea 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes H1819, by the ministry of the prophets.

Abraham being a prophet Genesis 20:7 Melchizedek met him (who brought forth the bread and the wine) Genesis 14:18, who was made like unto the Son of God Hebrews 7:3 so that it would be evident for that after the similitude (or likeness) of Melchizedek there arises another priest Hebrews 7:15, Psalms 110:4, Hosea 12:10, John 5:39 )

Good work, Fire.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I have heard the belief he is the pre incarnate Christ, but unless the translation in Hebrews is wrong, it does not say he WAS, but was made LIKE Him. That is a big difference in the use of words to try to communicate something properly.

There are quite a number of errors that cannot be dealt with for this reason,
(and much more devastating to life and faith today,btw) but this one perhaps
is easy.
17 For it is testified, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek *2." (Psa. 110:4)
18 And the change which took place in the former law, was made on account of its weaknesses, and because it had fulfilled its usefulness3.
19 For the (Levitical) Law perfected nothing, but a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to Elohim. (Heb 10:1-4)
20 And He confirmed it for us by oath;
21 For they became priests without an oath; but this man by an oath. As He said to Him by David: "YAHWEH hath sworn, and will not lie, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of

*2 This verse again shows that Melchizedek can only be Yahshua as no other being except YHWH is eternal and immortal (1Tim 6:16)

 

[Razare]

There is the unsubstantiated claim.

If I'm wrong then we have to abandon the trinity, and substitute the quantinity (sp?)

Paul said Melchizedek was without beginning or end. God only qualifies to hold that title. Satan does not have this aspect to him even.

Paul makes a drastic claim then... that Melchizedek is uncreated, forever existing just as God is... exactly the same as God.

The only way to fit that into Biblical understanding is to have Melchizedek be God.

Or Paul did not mean what he said and wrote wrong, and Melchizedek had a natural born father. But Paul did not say that because Paul understood Melchizedek had to be greater than Abraham.

In scripture, the only one greater than Abraham is actually Jesus, if you study it out. If Melchizedek is not Jesus... then you have this strangeness...

1) Uncreated man who has qualities of God, but is a 2nd God in existence who existed forever.
2) Able to bless Abraham and greater than Abraham and also greater than Jesus... since the priesthood of Jesus is named after Melchizedek. Aaron was greater than the Levites. Melchizedek would be greater than Jesus who is God, since it's not the priesthood of Yeshua but the priesthood of Melchezidek that Yeshua belongs to.

This is why Paul states he is God.

 

[Razare]

But the problem with Melchezidek is that he appears in Hebrews 7...

Paul states, no man can understand the truth of Melchezidek unless they have passed into mature Christianity. Understanding who Melchezidek is, is impossible if you are not a mature Christian.

Hebrews 6 - Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits.

God doesn't permit everyone to understand the following chapters. You have to have some knowledge of the 6 other things, and have that knowledge be correct.

 

[Vicomte13]

So do you think Melchizedek is still alive?

Physically on planet earth, no.
His spirit is alive in Paradise, I expect.

 

[Vicomte13]

aul makes a drastic claim then... that Melchizedek is uncreated, forever existing just as God is... exactly the same as God.

The only way to fit that into Biblical understanding is to have Melchizedek be God.

There is another way. Paul's hyperbole is not to be taken literally.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Yes. Melchizedek is Jesus.

We do not know all truths, only some have been revealed. You make assumptions from the limited truths that we know to state something as factual.

Yes some details in scripture are difficult to understand correctly and require a mature faith to attempt. But, when the details are still unclear, we can't assume a certain truth. Scripture hides things, but God does not deceive us. The words chosen are the best possible words to tell the truths God wants us to know. If Melchizedek was definitely the Son of God/a preincarnate Jesus then scripture should have used clearer words instead of vague ones like in the same order as Christ.

Let me show you another place where a similar thing happened. When Jesus was asked about the prophecy of Elijah returning to earth, Jesus did not refute the truthfulness of this thinking. He actually asserted it and stated that John the Baptist IS Elijah. Further he added that he would come yet again. Now Christians do not follow to reincarnation, but here we see something like it.

My point is not to debate reincarnation. I wish to point out the specific words used in scripture and note the distinction between the words used by Jesus in Mathew compared with the words used in Hebrews. Jesus did not say John the Baptists is in the same order as Elijah. He did not say he has the same authority or power of Elijah. He said he is Elijah. All the people that argue "This is my body" should not take this distinction lightly.

We don't know how John the Baptist was Elijah just as we don't know how Jesus was in the same order as Melchizedek. But, it is a stretch to claim that Melchizedek was Jesus.

Matthew 11:14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.
Matthew 17:11 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Heb 7:3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

17 For it is declared:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.​

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

There is another way. Paul's hyperbole is not to be taken literally.

There would be no point to Hebrews 7 if Melchizedek was imaginary. Symbols and hyperbole, the words used to escape from providing understanding.

 

[giftofGod2]

Mechizedek was made like unto the Son of God, (Hebrews 7:3) which would tell me that he was not Jesus (i.e. the Son of God.)

Also it is clear to me that he did not die, as his priesthood of which Jesus partook of is after the power of an endless life. (Hebrews 7:15-17) Also it is clear from scripture that Melchizedek had neither beginning of days nor end of life (Hebrews 7:3). Now if someone wants to ignore this after it has already been mentioned, they are not accepting the autority of scripture, and while it is concerning a peripheral issue, to not accept the auhority of scripture concerning anything puts you on dangerous ground.