Yes, I understand that but this does not suggest that Melchizedek was himself Christ or some emination of God. He was precisely what the Hebrew writer says he was - a man.
Hebrews does no say he was a man .His temporal form could of represented a man . We are created in His likeness not him after the likeness of man, as a god.
It does not appear to say he is a man.(flesh and blood) Looks like one possibly, but Jehovah is not a created being.
Scripture refers to that as a Theophany. A outward form of a man without DNA, ( flesh and blood) It is used of God and of the angels who also have no form.
It was only a vision used in a parable. . God is not a man as us. The description only fits Jehovah called many names, as Emanuel which when interpreted means:. God with us, not God was one of us.
He is the only Spirit being that has no beginning of days or end of Spirit life as the Father of all spirit life. He is supernatural which denotes no nature, as a beginning. He remains without mother or father.
Abram said in lieu of the
vision as to receiving the blessing from the hand of the Lord ,speaking with the king of Sodom. Abram said: I have lift up mine hand unto the
LORD, the most
high God, the possessor of heaven and earth.
The greater God blesses the lesser creation.
That does not sound like a man anymore then the next time he comes in contact with Jehovah. this time with his new name Abraham. This is when he was visited the second time by the same Theophany. This time appearing with two others spirit beings as angels , two witnesses to represent the law and the prophets . Two is the number he has set aside to represent those two witnesses .
Abraham saw the appearance of three men not having any DNA, as a vision . Again with one used to represent Jehovah. Abraham bowed down in worship to the one used to represent Jehovah. Worshiping by bowing down in regard to any other disembodied spirit as a god, other than our Father in heaven is to violate the first commandment.
I would ask what would be some reasons not to look at it as a theophany? What advantage that opposes it is ? How would that interpretation it was a theophany cause confusion with other doctrines?
.