-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I did not listen to the entire presentation but, I heard enough to know that this man does not understand what is being discussed in Hebrews 7. Let me just offer a brief synopsis of the Hebrew writer's presentation of Melchizedek then we can go from there.
What you have to understand about this text is that the Hebrew writer is not comparing Jesus with Melchizedek. He is comparing the priest hood of Jesus to the priesthood of Melchizedek. He begins this discussion in 4:14 and in 5:1 he says that "EVERY high priest is taken from among men..." Since Mel. is a high priest, he was of necessity a member of the human community. "Without father without mother" does not relate to the man himself but to his priesthood. Like Jesus, Mel. did not receive his priesthood from a predecessor. It is his priesthood who had no genealogy. In 7:6 it says of Mel. "But the one whose genealogy was not traced from them (speaking of Aaron). This tells us two things, 1) He had a genealogy. 2) His genealogy did not come through Aaron.
"Without beginning of days or end of life" also relates to his priesthood and not the man. With the priesthood of Aaron we can look at Sinai and see where the Levitical priesthood had its beginning of days with the appointment of Aaron and his sons. We can also look ahead at the cross and see where that priest had its ending of days. This cannot be said of the priesthood of Jesus nor of Melchizedek.
What you have to understand about this text is that the Hebrew writer is not comparing Jesus with Melchizedek. He is comparing the priest hood of Jesus to the priesthood of Melchizedek. He begins this discussion in 4:14 and in 5:1 he says that "EVERY high priest is taken from among men..." Since Mel. is a high priest, he was of necessity a member of the human community. "Without father without mother" does not relate to the man himself but to his priesthood. Like Jesus, Mel. did not receive his priesthood from a predecessor. It is his priesthood who had no genealogy. In 7:6 it says of Mel. "But the one whose genealogy was not traced from them (speaking of Aaron). This tells us two things, 1) He had a genealogy. 2) His genealogy did not come through Aaron.
"Without beginning of days or end of life" also relates to his priesthood and not the man. With the priesthood of Aaron we can look at Sinai and see where the Levitical priesthood had its beginning of days with the appointment of Aaron and his sons. We can also look ahead at the cross and see where that priest had its ending of days. This cannot be said of the priesthood of Jesus nor of Melchizedek.
That is an interesting prospective. But it doesn't make clear that Melchizedek was just a man, it implies he was much more than a man and perhaps a deity. We don't know a lot about Melchizedek but we do know some important things.
Melchizedek was first mentioned in the Bible in Gen 14:18. He is identified as the King of Salem in the days of Abraham. Salem later became known as Jerusalem which is probably more than a coincidence as we see the special importance the city has to God ever since. Melchizedek is also identified as the Prince of Peace.
Melchizedek was first mentioned in the Bible in Gen 14:18. He is identified as the King of Salem in the days of Abraham. Salem later became known as Jerusalem which is probably more than a coincidence as we see the special importance the city has to God ever since. Melchizedek is also identified as the Prince of Peace.
Melchisedec = Jesus Christ prior to His human birth. We also know Him as the Word (Logos)...
Heb 7:1 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;
Heb 7:2 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;
Heb 7:3 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.
Heb 7:1 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;
Heb 7:2 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;
Heb 7:3 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.
A
Genesis 14
[h=3][/h][SUP]18 [/SUP]Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. [SUP]19 [/SUP]And he blessed him and said:
“Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
[SUP]20 [/SUP]And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”
And he gave him a tithe of all.
[h=3][/h][SUP]18 [/SUP]Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. [SUP]19 [/SUP]And he blessed him and said:
“Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
[SUP]20 [/SUP]And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”
And he gave him a tithe of all.
A. Who was Melchizedek?
There have been many speculations as to who exactly this Melchizedek was. The speculations range for the possible to the absurd. Here is a list of some of those speculations.
1. He was the pre-incarnate Christ. This is a popular notion.
2. He was the Holy Spirit.
3. He was an angel.
4. He was Enoch. By the time Abraham meets Melchizedek, Enoch had been gone for more than a thousand years.
5. He was Shem, the son of Noah.
6. He was an extra-ordinary emanation of deity.
The only one of these speculation that bears any kind of merit is that he may have possibly been Shem the son of Noah. This is physically possible for Shem and Abraham are contemporaries. In fact Shem did not die until after Isaac married. As far as any of the rest of the speculation as to the manner of being Melchizedek was, the Hebrew writer leaves no room for speculation. He was a man.
B. Melchizedek in not a proper name but a title. The ancient kings of pre-Israel Jerusalem were called the Tsedeks. Melchizedek is from Meleck meaning King and Tsedek meaning righteousness. Thus, king of righteousness. He was the King of Salem meaning peace. This Salem would later be called Jerusalem meaning foundation of peace. In Joshua 10:1 we encounter another Tsedek of Salem called Adoni-Tsedek meaning lord of righteousness. The difference between these two men is the deterioration of the worship from the time of Melch-Tsedek to Adoni-Tsedek.
There have been many speculations as to who exactly this Melchizedek was. The speculations range for the possible to the absurd. Here is a list of some of those speculations.
1. He was the pre-incarnate Christ. This is a popular notion.
2. He was the Holy Spirit.
3. He was an angel.
4. He was Enoch. By the time Abraham meets Melchizedek, Enoch had been gone for more than a thousand years.
5. He was Shem, the son of Noah.
6. He was an extra-ordinary emanation of deity.
The only one of these speculation that bears any kind of merit is that he may have possibly been Shem the son of Noah. This is physically possible for Shem and Abraham are contemporaries. In fact Shem did not die until after Isaac married. As far as any of the rest of the speculation as to the manner of being Melchizedek was, the Hebrew writer leaves no room for speculation. He was a man.
B. Melchizedek in not a proper name but a title. The ancient kings of pre-Israel Jerusalem were called the Tsedeks. Melchizedek is from Meleck meaning King and Tsedek meaning righteousness. Thus, king of righteousness. He was the King of Salem meaning peace. This Salem would later be called Jerusalem meaning foundation of peace. In Joshua 10:1 we encounter another Tsedek of Salem called Adoni-Tsedek meaning lord of righteousness. The difference between these two men is the deterioration of the worship from the time of Melch-Tsedek to Adoni-Tsedek.
C. The nature of Melchizedek - He was a man. "Now consider how great this man was... ." The word man in not represented in the text either by ἄνθρωπος nor ἀνήρ. It is provided by the gender of the pronoun οὗτος which is nominative masculine singular for this one. Thus, this man.
1. The fact that he is a High Priest of God demands that he is of the human race. In 5:1 we learn that every High Priest is taken from among men.
2. As a man, he had a genealogy. "Whose genealogy was not derived from them (the Levites)." This is in the possessive which says that he had a genealogy but, that it was not traced from the priestly tribe of Levi.
By Glen Rogers
1. The fact that he is a High Priest of God demands that he is of the human race. In 5:1 we learn that every High Priest is taken from among men.
2. As a man, he had a genealogy. "Whose genealogy was not derived from them (the Levites)." This is in the possessive which says that he had a genealogy but, that it was not traced from the priestly tribe of Levi.
By Glen Rogers
Last edited:
That is very true. The same can be said of Jesus yet, he was God in the flesh. The difference is that scripture describes the nature of both the Father and Jesus as being God. Scripture never describes the nature of Melchizedek as being anything other than a man. The context of "without father or mother, without beginning of days and end of life" does not define the man, it defines his priesthood. Remember, The Hebrew writer is not comparing Jesus to Melchizedek, he is comparing their respective priesthoods. This is what chapters seven and eight are all about.
Last edited:
I see. Every time the bible is saying something crazy, we must be misinterpreting the obvious interpretation.
"Without father, without mother" doesn't make sense applied to "the priesthood", because of course no one would assume that a title or role would have parents. "Having neither beginning of days nor end of life" doesn't describe a lineage, because lineages clearly do have a beginning (and allegedly will have an end), and no one would describe a lineage as "having a life". Hebrews 7:1-4 constantly refers to a single man by the name of Melchizedek who had several roles (king of Salem, priest of the Most High God) and who was "like unto the Son of God", assuming that the son of God was an immortal right from the start who wasn't born and who never died. This is the obvious interpretation, and if the author meant it differently then he wrote very poorly. But if you have an argument against this clear meaning, then you really ought to cite it with something more than assertions.
Furthermore, there is no "priest hood" of Jesus. Nothing that Jesus did filled the role of a priest, and Jesus didn't have a lineage to continue this role that he never took on. In fact, if you believe that Jesus died as a sacrifice, then Pontius Pilate fulfilled the role of a priest and Jesus was just the lamb -- not the person who killed the lamb.
Last edited:
F
The Bible is very particular an idividuals birth, their parents and their death, even when it pertains to Jesus Christ. With Melcilzedek this is not the case. Yes we know that Enoch and Elijah were taken up without dying. The mystery is that we don't know he came from and we don't know where he went. What we do know is that it is possible to be a man and a deity at the same time, case and point Jesus Christ. Yes Melchilzedek was a man or appeared to be a man. But it is clear that there are things about him that are different than any other chaacter in the Bible. Now for those of you that are debating on this thread, if you can answer this question for me I will lean towards who you say that Melchizedek is. Here is the question. Where did he come from and where did he go? If you cannot answer this question, then we are back where we started it remains a mystery.