Melchizedek

[NazariteNation]

Who do you believe to be the true identity of Melchizedek?

 

[G12_Soldier]

I don't even know who that is...or even the correct pronunciation "Melchizedek"

 

[Kyra]

Great topic! I will cite all my verse references at the bottom of my post.

Who was Mel:
Melchizedek was a "King of Salem" and a "priest of the most high God." He first appears in the old testament and was not of the tribe of Levi- YET- he ministered to Abraham post battle and Abraham gave him a tythe or a "tenth".

Some people think he was an angel, some think he was pre-incarnate Jesus, and others think he was just a mortal man. Read Hebrews 7:1-17- you will understand what drives the mystery.

My thoughts:
I think part of Melchizedek's identity is derived from the principal of spiritual positionship in the Kingdom of God.

Think about John the Baptist and Elijah. Jesus states that John was the Elijah that was prophesied to come. This is because Elijah is more then a person, "he" is also a position in the Kingdom- a role and a purpose - assigned by God. John filled that role and was "Elijah."

Likewise, Melchizedek is established as a role (or order), not just a person in Hebrews.

Since this is a forum, I will stop there and see if anyone wants to voice disagreement.....

Verse References: Genesis 14:18-20; Psalms 110:4; Hebrews 5:6-10; Hebrews 6:20; Matthew 17:11-13 , Hebrews 7:1-17

 

[carpetmanswife]

what kyra said

 

[1still_waters]

Please don't think I'm going to ban you if you disagree with me. I'm just giving my two cents. Feel more than free to disagree.

I think you just need to look at what the scripture says.

17 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). 18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem [a] brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator [b] of heaven and earth.



This passage describes Melchizedek as...
1.King of Salem
2.Priest of God Most High



Now this passage doesn't say he was an alien or angel or demon or an apparition. If it meant to convey that he was an alien, angel or apparition it would of said so.

Rather it says he was King of Salem and Priest of God Most High.



So who was he? He was the King of Salem and Priest of God Most High.



What does Priest of God Most High mean in this situation. Well in this context Abraham was blessed by this guy in his role as priest. Instead of trying to get overly mystical and over spiritual, let's just take it for what it is. God used him as a priest to bless Abraham.

 

[1still_waters]

Building off of my reply....

Psalm 110:4



4 The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."



This is a messianic prophecy about Jesus. It says You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.

Ok now who was Melkchizedek? He was a king of Salem and Priest of God Most High who blessed Abraham.



So what does it mean to be a priest in his order?



Well Jesus is a king as is Melch. Jesus is a priest as is Melch. Jesus blesses, just as Melch. did.



So to be a priest in the order of Melch, just means Jesus is a King and Priest who will bless us.



--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Kyra]

Alien wasn't an option.

 

[1still_waters]

I know there is a tendency to try and over mystify and over spiritualize things in the Bible, but if you take it for what it says, things can be very easy to figure out.

If it says he's a king of Salem, then he's a king of Salem. If it says he functioned as a priest to bless someone, then it means he functioned as a priest to bless someone.

 

[1still_waters]

Alien wasn't an option.

Ok miss green eye

 

[Abing]

I'd say "Someone else entirely"

I definitely agree to Still this time

 

[Namaste]

Who do you believe to be the true identity of Melchizedek?

Clark Kent.

The glasses aren't fooling anyone.

 

[1still_waters]

Some might attribute super natural things to Melch. because of Hebrews 7

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

In the Bible there is no genealogy of him. So it appears to the reader as if he has no beginning of days or end of life.

There really isn't any indication in the Genesis encounter with Melch. to indicate he is anything more than a man. Abraham didn't bow or worship him.

 

[NazariteNation]

Some might attribute super natural things to Melch. because of Hebrews 7

3Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. In the Bible there is no genealogy of him. So it appears to the reader as if he has no beginning of days or end of life.

I decided to open up this thread because it is such an interesting topic. Both Kyra & Still make great points.

There are different ideas as to who Melchizedek might be. The top three being Shem - son of Noah, a descendent of Shem, or Christ Himself. All of which are reasonable.

The one option that seems to perplex people the most is the possibility of Melchizedek being Jesus Himself. However, in the book of Joshua (Chapter 5: 13- 15) you find where Joshua encounters someone who refers to Himself as "the Commander of the Army of the Lord" which goes on to read that Joshua fell to ground and worshiped Him. Now if this Commander had been an angel, it is very unlikely that an angel would have accepted Joshua's worship seeing as no other angel mentioned in scripture had ever done so before or after Joshua's encounter. This leaves us with one other option, that this Commander was indeed God in the flesh... aka Christ pre incarnate (which would fall in line with several Encounters where Abraham encountered the Lord in the flesh also).

 

[G12_Soldier]

Nah not all are reasonable,comon...

 

[onwingsaseagles]

I believe that Melchizedek is God manifested in human form, but not necessarily Jesus.

 

[Kakashi]

I'd say still has it right. But to expound of Still's point, I'd say that Melchizedek was a pre-type of Jesus( Or jesus is a type of Mel). What I mean is that how you know some people in the bible are "types" of people yet to come. Like how John the baptist was a type of Elijah by the role that he played.

Mat 17:12 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."( talking about John the baptist)

Also


Luk 1:17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous-to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." ( also talking about john)


Like Still said, Melchizedik was a king, and a priest who was great and was able to bless Abraham( or is great enough to bless the father of many nations)

As Jesus is our high priest in heaven and our king, this makes Jesus a type of Melchezidek priest, fulfilling all the roles. it also fulfills more prophacy concerning the messaiah. This is all my opinion anyway.



I'm kind of tired at the moment so I'm not sure if I'm making sense. This is an interesting question to bring up though.

 

[Josh]

I do also wish to state that teh mystery of this Melchisedek was unraveled by paul in Hebrews 7.
He says from verse 1

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
HEBREWS 7:2
2 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;
HEBREWS 7:3
3 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.
HEBREWS 7:4
4 Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

This man without a father or mother, then He couldnt be Jesus coz Jesus was born.
No begining of days no end of life, That could be only God and no one else.
Who else did not begin except God.

This Man was not Jesus nor an Angel but God in Flesh.

 

[next_step]

He is a picture. A historic person but in the same way a picuture. But he can't be Christ because the priesthood of christ is like the one of Melchizedek!

 

[Mel]

Great topic! I will cite all my verse references at the bottom of my post.

Who was Mel:
1. providing pleasure or delight, esp. in appearance or manner; pleasing; charming; alluring: an attractive personality. 2. arousing interest or engaging one's thought, consideration, etc.: an attractive idea; an attractive price. 3. having the quality of attracting.

wow Kyra your so nice

 

[SonOfAdam]

Bible encyclopedia on the topic:

Melchizedek; Melchisedec

mel-kiz'ḗ-dek, and (the King James Version in the book of Hebrews) (מלכּי־צרק, malkī-cedheḳ, “Tsedheq, or Tsidhiq is my king” (Gen_14:18 ff; Psa_110:4); Μελχισέδεκ, Melchisédek (Heb_5:6, Heb_5:10; Heb_6:20; Heb_7:1, Heb_7:10, Heb_7:11, Heb_7:15, Heb_7:17)): The name is explained in Heb_7:2 as “king of righteousness,” with “-i” as the old genitive ending; but the correct explanation is no doubt the one given above; compare Adoni-zedek in Jos_10:1, where Septuagint with Jdg_1:5-7 has Adonibezek. Melchizedek was king of Salem (= Jerusalem) and “a priest unto 'Ēl ‛Elyōn” (Gen_14:18). He brought bread and wine to Abraham after the latter's victory over the kings, and also bestowed upon him the blessing of 'Ēl ‛Elyōn. Abraham gave him “a tenth of all,” i.e. of the booty probably, unless it be of all his possessions. Gen_14:22 identifies Yahweh with 'Ēl ‛Elyōn, the title of the Deity as worshipped at Jerusalem; and so Heb_7:1 ff, following Septuagint of Gen_14:18 ff, calls Melchizedek. “priest of God Most High,” i.e. Yahweh.
Skinner (Gen, 271, where Josephus, Ant., XVI, vi, 2, and Am M Gen_6:1 are cited) points out that the Maccabees were called “high priests of God most high.” Hence, some hold that the story of Melchizedek is an invention of Judaism, but Gunkel (Genesis3, 285 ff) maintains that he is a traditional, if not a historical, character.
Psa_110:4 makes the klng-priest who is addressed there a virtual successor of Melchizedek, and the kings of Jerusalem might well, as Gunkel suggests, have been considered successors of Melchizedek in the same way that Charlemagne was regarded as the successor of the Caesars, and the latter as successors of the Pharaohs in Egypt. This leads naturally to an early date being ascribed to Psa_110:1-7.
The thought of a priest after the order of Melchizedek is taken up by the author of Hebrews. He wanted to prove the claim of Christ to be called priest. It was impossible, even had he so wished, to consider Jesus as an Aaronic priest, for He was descended from the tribe of Judah and not from that of Levi (Heb_7:14). The words of Psa_110:4 are taken to refer to Him (Heb_5:5 f), and in Heb_7:5 ff the order of Melchizedek is held to be higher than that of Aaron, for the superiority of Melchizedek was acknowledged by Abraham (a) when he paid tithes to Melchizedek and (b) when he was blessed by Melchizedek, for “the less is blessed of the better.” It might be added that Jesus can be considered a priest after the order of Melchizedek in virtue of His descent from David, if the latter be regarded as successor to Melchizedek But the author of He does not explicitly say this. Further, Aaron is only a “type” brought forward in He to show the more excellent glory of the work of Jesus, whereas Melchizedek is “made like unto the Son of God” (Heb_7:3), and Jesus is said to be “after the likeness of Melchizedek” (Heb_7:15).
Heb_7:1 ff presents difficulties. Where did the author get the material for this description of Melchizedek? (1) Melchizedek is said to be “without father, without mother, (i.e.) without genealogy”; and (2) he is described as “having neither beginning of days nor end of life”; he “abideth a priest continually.” The answer is perhaps to be had among the Tell el-Amarna Letters, among which are at least 6, probably 8, letters from a king of Urusalim to Amenophis IV, king of Egypt, whose “slave” the former calls himself. Urusalim is to be identified with Jerusalem, and the letters belong to circa 1400 BC. The name of this king is given as Abd-Khiba (or Abd-h̬iba), though Hommel, quoted by G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 14, note 7, reads Chiba. Zimmer, in ZA, 1891, 246, says that it can be read Abditaba, and so Sayce (HDB, III, 335b) calls him ‛Ebhedh tōbh. The king tells his Egyptian overlord, “Neither my father nor my mother set me in this place: the mighty arm of the king (or, according to Sayce, “the arm of the mighty king&#8221 established me in my father's house” (Letter 102 in Berlin collection, ll. 9-13; also number 103, ll. 25-28; number 104, ll. 13-15; see, further, H. Winckler, Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-Amarna; Knudtzon, Beitrage zur Assyriologie, IV, 101 ff, 279 ff, cited by G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 8, note 1).
It thus becomes clear that possibly tradition identified Melchizedek with Abd-Khiba. At any rate the idea that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother, (i.e.) without genealogy” can easily be explained if the words of Abd-Khiba concerning himself can have been also attributed to Melchizedek. The words meant originally that he acknowledged that he did not come to the throne because he had a claim on it through descent; he owed it to appointment. But Jewish interpretation explained them as implying that he had no father or mother. Psa_110:4 had spoken of the king there as being “a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” and this seems to have been taken to involve the perpetuity of Melchizedek also as priest. Melchizedek was then thought of as “having neither beginning of days” = “without father, without mother, without genealogy,” and again as not having “end of life” = “abideth a priest continually.” Hence, he is “made like unto the son of God,” having neither beginning of days nor end of life. We get another New Testament example of Jewish interpretation in Gal_4:21 ff. We have no actual proof that Melchizedek is identical with Abd-Khiba; possibly the reference to the former as being “without father,” etc., is not to be explained as above. But why should Melchizedek, and he alone, of all the Old Testament characters be thought of in this way?
Westcott, Hebrews, 199, has a suggestive thought about Melchizedek: “The lessons of his appearance lie in the appearance itself. Abraham marks a new departure.... But before the fresh order is established we have a vision of the old in its superior majesty; and this, on the eve of disappearance, gives its blessing to the new.”
On the references to Melchizedek in Philo see Westcott, op. cit., 201; F. Rendall, Hebrews, App., 58 ff; and especially (with the passages and other authorities cited there) G. Milligan, Theology of Epistle to the Hebrews, 203 ff.
The conclusions we come to are: (1) There was a tradition in Jerusalem of Melchizedek, a king in pre-Israelitish times, who was also priest to 'Ēl ‛Elyōn. This is the origin of Gen_14:18 ff, where 'Ēl ‛Elyōn is identified with Yahweh. (2) Psa_110:1-7 makes use of this tradition and the Psalmist's king is regarded as Melchizedek's successor. (3) The Epistle to the Hebrews makes use of (a) Psa_110:1-7, which is taken to be a prophecy of Christ, (b) of Gen_14:18 ff, and (c) of oral tradition which was not found in the Old Testament. It is this unwritten tradition that is possibly explained by the Tell el-Amarna Letters. See, further, articles by Sayce, Driver, and Hommel in Expository Times, VII, VIII. See also JERUSALEM.