Melchisedec

[popeye]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. He was the pre-incarnate Christ. This is a popular notion.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2. He was the Holy Spirit.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3. He was an angel.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]4. He was Enoch. By the time Abraham meets Melchizedek, Enoch had been gone for more than a thousand years. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]5. He was Shem, the son of Noah.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]6. He was an extra-ordinary emanation of deity.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
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 Tsedel of Salem called Adoni-Tsedek
meaning lord of righteousness. The difference between these to men in the deterioration of the worship from the time of Melch-Tsedek to Adoni-Tsedek.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The nature of Melchizedek - He was a man. "Now consider how great this man was... ." The word man is not represented in the text by either ἄνθρωπος nor ἀνήρ. It is provided by the gender of the pronoun οὗτος which is nominative masculine singular for "this one," thus, "this man."
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2. As a man, he had a genealogy. "Whose genealogy was not derived from them (the Levites)." This is in the
possessive which declares that he had a genealogy but, that his genealogy was not traced from the priestly tribe of Levi.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
A High Priest Without Genealogy, 3.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
"Without father, mother, or genealogy." Like Jesus, Melchizedek does not receive his priesthood from his a predecessor. In the Levitical system, the high priest was descended only through the line of Aaron. 1Chronicles 6:50-52. But, the office of the high priest was not passed on to Melchizedek by his father, nor did he in turn pass it on to his heir. In other words, his is a one-man-forever-priesthood.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
"Having neither beginning of days nor end of life." In this there are three possibilities.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. That this refers to the person of Melchizedek the man. Some argue from this that Melchizedek was not a man but some supernatural being who was neither born of human parents not had a beginning or end of life. But, as the text says, he was a man and as such, he had a past, 6. Some view this with the preceding statement as simply a Hebraism which stresses the obscurity of his genealogy and posterity. Perhaps.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2. That this refers not to the man himself but to his priesthood. This priesthood is unlike that of the Levitical system. We can look back at Sinai and see where the Levitical priesthood had its beginning of days with the anointing of Aaron and his sons, Exodus 28:1ff. We can then look forward from there to the cross and see where this priesthood saw its end of life. Now, a new and greater covenant is inaugurated in Jesus "according to the power of an endless life." But, this may not apply to just the priesthood apart from the man because this is a one man priesthood and apart from the man there is no priesthood. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3. That this refers to the man as a high priest. As a man he had a beginning of days and an end of life. As high priest, he has neither but remains a priest continually. This contrasts the priests of the Levitical system whose "beginning of days" began at the age of twenty-five when they began to serve as priests. They reached their "end of life" at the age of fifty when they completed their appointed time of priestly service, Numbers 8:24-25. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
"But made like the Son of God." Here, the order is reversed. In 6:20, Christ is presented as a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Now, Melchizedek is said to be a High Priest who was made like the Son of God. Like everything else that is type, Melchizedek is the shadow of the reality. This is like the building of the tabernacle in Exodus 25:40 being built according to the "pattern shown to you on the mountain." Everything that is shadow must be patterned according to the substance it represents. The substance ALWAYS precedes the type. It must reflect the reality.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]He "remains a priest continually." His priesthood is uninterrupted even by death. He leaves his office to no one else. Although Melchizedek has been dead for many centuries, he is still the central figure in the one man forever priesthood. Like the Son of God, he carries his priest beyond the grave. His priesthood, in contrast to that of the Levites is not bound by the physical - "not according to the law of fleshly commandment," 15-16. This fleshly commandment says that the Levitical priest must end his days of service at the age of 50. The High Priest ended his days of service at his death. In contrast, the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater. He continues as the High Priest of his priesthood even though he is dead, 8.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]he is greater than Levi, 5-10.[/FONT]

Good job sir.

You may have the type/antitype backwards...i dunno

 

[oldhermit]

Good job sir.

You may have the type/antitype backwards...i dunno

How so?????

 

[jaybird88]

the dead sea scrolls speak of Melchizedek as a great judge at the end age. very similar to how revelation speaks of Jesus.

 

[oldhermit]

the dead sea scrolls speak of Melchizedek as a great judge at the end age. very similar to how revelation speaks of Jesus.

Really? Which Dead Sea scroll? Which Manuscript?

 

[jaybird88]

Really? Which Dead Sea scroll? Which Manuscript?

11Q13

https://otstory.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/melchizedek-in-11q13-11qmelch/

 

[oldhermit]

11Q13

https://otstory.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/melchizedek-in-11q13-11qmelch/

That is nothing but someone's speculation about Melchizedek. There is no biblical text represented here that speaks of Melchizedek in such a way.

 

[jaybird88]

That is nothing but someone's speculation about Melchizedek. There is no biblical text represented here that speaks of Melchizedek in such a way.

the dead sea scrolls are just speculation?

 

[oldhermit]

the dead sea scrolls are just speculation?

There were all kinds of manuscripts found among the famed dead scroll collection. There were biblical manuscripts, pseudo-canonical manuscripts, legal manuscripts, non-biblical compositions, exegetical texts, historical texts, sectarian texts, and letters. These are some types of the 800 or 900 different manuscripts that were found in the Qumran caves. Just because someone cites a text from the dead sea scrolls, do not automatically assume they are citing inspired literature.
[h=2][/h]

 

[jaybird88]

There were all kinds of manuscripts found among the famed dead scroll collection. There were biblical manuscripts, pseudo-canonical manuscripts, legal manuscripts, non-biblical compositions, exegetical texts, historical texts, sectarian texts, and letters. These are some types of the 800 or 900 different manuscripts that were found in the Qumran caves. Just because someone cites a text from the dead sea scrolls, do not automatically assume they are citing inspired literature.

i guess you believe that any text that does not go through the great filter of the roman empire is not inspired. that only makes sense.

 

[oldhermit]

i guess you believe that any text that does not go through the great filter of the roman empire is not inspired. that only makes sense.

I believe that what he have as the Bible is the result of the will of God in its content regardless of whom the Lord may have used in its compilation.

 

[Depleted]

i guess you believe that any text that does not go through the great filter of the roman empire is not inspired. that only makes sense.

It was an ancient library. Does this mean you think every book in a library ought to be preapproved by the government?

And, did you miss what "inspired" means when we're talking about the Bible? Because that didn't make sense.

 

[popeye]

Oldhermit for president

 

[oldhermit]

Oldhermit for president

LOL. Not even on a bet.

 

[popeye]

LOL. Not even on a bet.

I can just see you as our president,at a press conference,calmly and matter of factly destroying liberal reporters

 

[jaybird88]

I believe that what he have as the Bible is the result of the will of God in its content regardless of whom the Lord may have used in its compilation.

what we have today was decided by roman councils of men. how did they know which books were inspired and which were not?

 

[PilgrimPassingThru]

Look at what God did among the Jews preserved things and left them in the dark, so its possible to preserve the writings even if the people be messed up no?

 

[oldhermit]

what we have today was decided by roman councils of men. how did they know which books were inspired and which were not?

What I have seen from people like you in the past is that the reason they cannot accept the Bible as the complete word of God is because there are many things in scripture with which they disagree or simply do not like so, in an attempt to justify their disagreements with scripture they appeal to extra biblical manuscripts which we refer to as pseudo-canonical writings to try to build a case against the Bible as an incomplete work. I have seen you attempt this in many of your posts in the past and if this is all you are doing then I have no interest in continuing this. When you take this position you completely remove the will of God and the power of God to preserve and codify that which he has intended. Your reasoning is completely dyadic. All you see is the involvement of the human factor of what was largely a body of godless men. What I see is the presence and the power of God to use such men for his purposes. We see this throughout scripture. If God is powerful enough to insure the integrity of what was written, do you not believe that he is powerful enough to preserve it according to his will?

 

[oldhermit]

I can just see you as our president,at a press conference,calmly and matter of factly destroying liberal reporters

I would not be president even if you held a gun to my head.

 

[oldhermit]

Look at what God did among the Jews preserved things and left them in the dark, so its possible to preserve the writings even if the people be messed up no?

This is a very valid point. Jesus gave credence to what was then accepted as the sacred scriptures which had been compiled over a number of centuries. Even when these OT books were being compiled there were many pseudo-documents that were not accepted as scripture yet, many today are trying to give credence to those pseudo-writing as inspired texts. Apparently Jesus did not agree with them because he accepted as the complete word of God that which had been selected and codified. This was not though the power of human wisdom or prejudices, but by the will of God. Now, people are attempting to do the same thing in questioning the authenticity of the Bible as God has preserved it to this day.

 

[jaybird88]

what we have today was decided by roman councils of men. how did they know which books were inspired and which were not?

What I have seen from people like you in the past is that the reason they cannot accept the Bible as the complete word of God is because there are many things in scripture with which they disagree or simply do not like so, in an attempt to justify their disagreements with scripture they appeal to extra biblical manuscripts which we refer to as pseudo-canonical writings to try to build a case against the Bible as an incomplete work. I have seen you attempt this in many of your posts in the past and if this is all you are doing then I have no interest in continuing this. When you take this position you completely remove the will of God and the power of God to preserve and codify that which he has intended. Your reasoning is completely dyadic. All you see is the involvement of the human factor of what was largely a body of godless men. What I see is the presence and the power of God to use such men for his purposes. We see this throughout scripture. If God is powerful enough to insure the integrity of what was written, do you not believe that he is powerful enough to preserve it according to his will?

i believe our Lord is powerful enough to do anything. i also believe satan can corrupt and i believe mankind can corrupt.

did our Lord inspire the roman councils when they decided which books were acceptable and which were not?
are these the same councils that gave us the crusades, the inquisitions, that put to death anyone that question official doctrines?
if there is more out there i want to know and i think a lot can be learned from text such as the dead sea scrolls. i think its insane to ignore text such as this because a council tells you to. where does Jesus tell us to put such faith in these councils?