Melchisedec

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

This is what happens when one moves away from the grammatical structure of the text.

I have to disagree with your reasoning. ούτός is used to refer to both GOD and man.

 

[LT]

If anyone feels confident on the subject of theophany or Christophany, please make a thread for it. I would love to discuss it, but not in this thread. don't wanna derail it too far.

 

[oldhermit]

I have to disagree with your reasoning. ούτός is used to refer to both GOD and man.

That is true. But the fact remains that the Hebrew writer presents all high priest as having been taken out of man and that Melchizedek indeed had a linage. It was his priest hood that had no linage.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That is true. But the fact remains that the Hebrew writer presents all high priest as having been taken out of man and that Melchizedek indeed had a linage. It was his priest hood that had no linage.

I just don't see this. It certainly is possible, but due to what we have been given, I can only consider this to be speculation.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That is true. But the fact remains that the Hebrew writer presents all high priest as having been taken out of man and that Melchizedek indeed had a linage. It was his priest hood that had no linage.

btw, it nowhere says that Melchizedek was a high priest.

 

[oldhermit]

I just don't see this. It certainly is possible, but due to what we have been given, I can only consider this to be speculation.

Look at the grammatical structure of the verse - "But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them..." or more literally, "He who however recons not genealogy from them." This does not say that he did not have a genealogy. It merely says that his genealogy was not through Levi.

 

[Apostol2013]

You cannot just start making asumptions on ideology it to be said solidly needs strong evidence

 

[oldhermit]

btw, it nowhere says that Melchizedek was a high priest.

That is true. This is only drawn from the comparison of Christ as the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. If Melchizedek is not a HIGH priest, the where is the typology?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Look at the grammatical structure of the verse - "But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them..." or more literally, "He who however recons not genealogy from them." This does not say that he did not have a genealogy. It merely says that his genealogy was not through Levi.

But it also says he was without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That is true. This is only drawn from the comparison of Christ as the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. If Melchizedek is not a HIGH priest, the where is the typology?

Well if we want to look at this we have to consider that the high priest's main function was to enter the presence of GOD on the day of atonement. That would suggest that Melchizedek had access to the presence of GOD. The only being that had that access was the pre-incarnate logos.

 

[oldhermit]

But it also says he was without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.

This does not relate to the man but to his priesthood. The priesthood is the focus of chapter 7, not the man. He even uses the contrast of the Levitical system. The Levitical high priests received their high priest hoods from their predecessors. When they died, that office passed to their next appointed descendant. Melchizedek's and Jesus' did not. Their priesthoods have no beginning of days no end of life. Melchizedek's priestly office stands forever.

 

[oldhermit]

Well if we want to look at this we have to consider that the high priest's main function was to enter the presence of GOD on the day of atonement. That would suggest that Melchizedek had access to the presence of GOD. The only being that had that access was the pre-incarnate logos.

The presence of God was always confirmed at the altar. God told Aaron in Leviticus that when they came to the altar he would meet with them there and there he would bless them and there he would forgive their sins. This is the function of every High priest.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The presence of God was always confirmed at the altar. God told Aaron in Leviticus that when they came to the altar he would meet with them there and there he would bless them and there he would forgive their sins. This is the function of every High priest.

But you have to admit that only the high priest could enter the holiest place.

 

[oldhermit]

But you have to admit that only the high priest could enter the holiest place.

Yes. That is very true. This concept however was not revealed until the appointment of the Levitical system and then only in type. We simply do not know how this related to the priesthood of Melchizedek because scripture does not give us this information.

 

[oldhermit]

I wish the Hebrew writer had given us more information on Melchizedek. He said in 5:11 that he had much to say about this but could not because of the dullness of hearing on the part of his readers. I would love to know what else he had to share regarding this remarkable person.

 

[KAdamW]

You cannot just start making asumptions on ideology it to be said solidly needs strong evidence

true. you know me i would be the first to turn a single verse into fifteen pages of references and comments...

but alas there just isn't enough info for me to feel confident doing anything more than speculate.

 

[BananaPie]

btw, it nowhere says that Melchizedek was a high priest.

Correct. Melchizedec was "priest of the Most High God," and "King of Righteousness;" hence, double importance above the Levitical High Priest.

The Lord Jesus was born to be King, and has ascended into heave as our Great High Priest according to the order of Melchizedec. How sweet is that?

 

[Yahshua]

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.

This is exactly what my own research has lead me to believe...

If we assume for the moment that when God said to man "be fruitful & multiply and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the foul of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth", this was God giving Adam the "crown of earth", as representative of God (i.e. a priest on his earthly throne). We even read that sacrifices were made to God as early as Cain & Abel, so it's plausible Adam was High Priest & King of Earth. And if this is true, the crown must be passed on after Adam is dead...and likely it was passed on to the next eldest firstborn still alive when each previous King of Earth died.

So if we use Genesis 5 to extrapolate the ages of each firstborn when their father died (warning: this is my own research and has not been confirmed), then we get the following:

Adam dies (age 930) > Seth receives crown (age 801)
Seth dies (age 912) > Enoch receives crown (age 808)
Enoch dies (905) > Kenan receives crown (815)
Kenan dies (910) > Mahalalel receives crown (841)
Mahalalel dies (895) > Jared receives crown (831)
Jared still alive (526) > Enoch ascends to heaven (365)
Jared dies (962) > Methuselah (Enoch's firstborn) receives crown (737)
Methuselah still alive (963) > Lamech dies (777)
Methuselah dies (969) > Noah (Lamech's firstborn) receives crown (602)
Noah dies (950) > Shem receives crown (448)

Shem is then alive during the following generations of firstborns (plus other offspring):
Arphaxad > Shelah > Eber > Peleg > Reu > Serug > Nahor > Terah > Abram (Abraham)

By my extrapolation, Abram (the great, great, great, great, great, great grandson) was 7 when Noah dies and dominion was passed to Shem, but by this time they were 9 generations apart so they would've been complete strangers.

By the time Abram was 85-86 (living 10 years in Canaan and conquering the kings who enslaved Lot), Shem (527), Arphaxad (428), Shelah (394), and Eber (365) were still alive, outliving Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, and Terah. But Shem was still the eldest firstborn from Adam so he was the Crown of Earth, without (living) mother or father or any known genealogical connection to Abram.

At this point I can see Shem having the "Priestly-king" authority (as "crown of earth" / "representative of God") to bless Abram...and Abram tithing to Shem as God's representative priest.


Shem was still alive (537) when Arphaxad dies (438); Abram is approx 96
Shem was still alive (566) when Shelah dies (433); Abraham is approx 125; Isaac (firstborn by faith) is 26
Shem finally dies at 600 > Eber receives crown (438); Abraham is approx 159; Isaac is 60

Eber (454) then outlives Abraham who dies at 175; Isaac is 76

And when Eber dies (464), the crown of earth (called the "birthright") passes straight to Isaac at 86...

Then Esau (Isaac's eldest twin son) sells his future "birthright" to Jacob for pottage (God then hates Esau for rejecting his "birthright")...and later at Jacob's death, Jacob splits his "birthright" between Judah (the crown/dominion) and Joseph's sons (the blessing/fruitfulness).

Many years later, the Levitical Priesthood is established by God as a temporary ministration of the "breach in contract" only AFTER the covenant at Sinai was broken, while the Melchizedek Priesthood was maintained through Judah's crown (as David & Solomon showed; both serving as High Priest in their day, making sacrifices to God).

At least that's what I've pieced together from the records...

 

[oldhermit]

This is exactly what my own research has lead me to believe...

If we assume for the moment that when God said to man "be fruitful & multiply and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the foul of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth", this was God giving Adam the "crown of earth", as representative of God (i.e. a priest on his earthly throne). We even read that sacrifices were made to God as early as Cain & Abel, so it's plausible Adam was High Priest & King of Earth. And if this is true, the crown must be passed on after Adam is dead...and likely it was passed on to the next eldest firstborn still alive when each previous King of Earth died.

So if we use Genesis 5 to extrapolate the ages of each firstborn when their father died (warning: this is my own research and has not been confirmed), then we get the following:

Adam dies (age 930) > Seth receives crown (age 801)
Seth dies (age 912) > Enoch receives crown (age 808)
Enoch dies (905) > Kenan receives crown (815)
Kenan dies (910) > Mahalalel receives crown (841)
Mahalalel dies (895) > Jared receives crown (831)
Jared still alive (526) > Enoch ascends to heaven (365)
Jared dies (962) > Methuselah (Enoch's firstborn) receives crown (737)
Methuselah still alive (963) > Lamech dies (777)
Methuselah dies (969) > Noah (Lamech's firstborn) receives crown (602)
Noah dies (950) > Shem receives crown (448)

Shem is then alive during the following generations of firstborns (plus other offspring):
Arphaxad > Shelah > Eber > Peleg > Reu > Serug > Nahor > Terah > Abram (Abraham)

By my extrapolation, Abram (the great, great, great, great, great, great grandson) was 7 when Noah dies and dominion was passed to Shem, but by this time they were 9 generations apart so they would've been complete strangers.

By the time Abram was 85-86 (living 10 years in Canaan and conquering the kings who enslaved Lot), Shem (527), Arphaxad (428), Shelah (394), and Eber (365) were still alive, outliving Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, and Terah. But Shem was still the eldest firstborn from Adam so he was the Crown of Earth, without (living) mother or father or any known genealogical connection to Abram.

At this point I can see Shem having the "Priestly-king" authority (as "crown of earth" / "representative of God") to bless Abram...and Abram tithing to Shem as God's representative priest.


Shem was still alive (537) when Arphaxad dies (438); Abram is approx 96
Shem was still alive (566) when Shelah dies (433); Abraham is approx 125; Isaac (firstborn by faith) is 26
Shem finally dies at 600 > Eber receives crown (438); Abraham is approx 159; Isaac is 60

Eber (454) then outlives Abraham who dies at 175; Isaac is 76

And when Eber dies (464), the crown of earth (called the "birthright") passes straight to Isaac at 86...

Then Esau (Isaac's eldest twin son) sells his future "birthright" to Jacob for pottage (God then hates Esau for rejecting his "birthright")...and later at Jacob's death, Jacob splits his "birthright" between Judah (the crown/dominion) and Joseph's sons (the blessing/fruitfulness).

Many years later, the Levitical Priesthood is established by God as a temporary ministration of the "breach in contract" only AFTER the covenant at Sinai was broken, while the Melchizedek Priesthood was maintained through Judah's crown (as David & Solomon showed; both serving as High Priest in their day, making sacrifices to God).

At least that's what I've pieced together from the records...

You have done some excellent work. It is good speculation but, in the end that is all we can say about the possibility that Shem was Melchizedek. The fact that he is a contemporary with Abraham does not conclude that he was Melchizedek

 

[LT]

I was re-reading the passage trying to look at it from the perspective of Melchizedek being Jesus. The question I could not answer is:
Why would Jesus be High Priest "in the order of" Melchizedek, if Jesus was Melchizedek?

This verse is a comparison, not a definition. If they were the same person, then this statement would no longer hold any significance. If Melchizedek was Jesus, the comparison of the two is nonsensical.