Melchizedek

So…what do you guys think of Melchizedek? Do you think he was just a type of Christ or actually Christ Himself?

Exactly what I've been wondering!!!

Do you do Bible Bee?

Yup, I tied with you and Courtney for 40th this year. And we were in Semis together last year. :)

Oh, you are that person. XD sorry, I'm hardly ever on forums so I don't keep up with who's who around here :) well I personally think it is Christ Himself. I know the translators don't…but it says that it is "witnessed that he lives" and that he has "neither beginning of days nor end of life." Sounds like Christ to me :)

Yeah, that's how it sounds to me. Have you looked at the Greek words?

No, not yet. (hopefully I will find time:) does it seem to indicate that it is Christ?

Yeah, it does. And in both KJV and NKJV, 'king' in capitalized- "King of righteousness"- oh, that sounds so much like Christ!- and "King of Salem, meaning King of Peace".

I know! It kind of seems obvious to me…R.C. Sproul doesn't seem to think so, though XD my question is, if it's not Christ, who is it? It's not an angel, because it's a man. It almost makes Melchizedek into a god because he wasn't created. ("having neither beginning of days nor end of life")

The word used for king: basileus- means ruler, leader of the people, etc. Used 82 times for plain king, 21 times for King of the Jews, and 11 times for God or Christ.

aphomoioō- Make like- used only once in the Bible, in Heb. 7:3- to pass off into a model, to shape like, a facsimile, render similar

diēnekēs- four times in the Bible- twice as continually, twice as forever

Interesting. Yeah it seems pretty obvious then. Thanks for doing the Greek for me XD

Daddy says that it's pretty well accepted that he was a pre-incarnate Christ. Or would that be He? :)

It would be He, I guess :) I wonder why the translation doesn't capitalize it, then…

I think I've heard both ways, but the other way makes sense to me in that the author is using typology: without father and mother, descent or genealogy, beginning or end of days, because Scripture just doesn't record it. King of righteousness is the meaning of Melchisedec's name, and he was the king of the ancient city of Salem, I believe.
Hebrews also says that Christ was made a priest after Melchisedec's order. It also says that Melchisedec was made like the Son of God.
Just setting out facts that I've read here…correct me if I'm wrong! :)

Yeah…

Ok, so that means that Melchizedek is the high priest of God then. But what happens to Christ? (Hebrews 9:11)

Hey look…the three people that tied… XD

It really sounds like Christ to me… Just sayin'.

Yeah, me too. I mean, if it's not Christ, then Melchizedek is a high priest of God that's not Christ. But we know that Christ is our High Priest, interceding for us daily…so are there two high priests??? That doesn't seem to fit the biblical picture of high priest.

I think Courtney's right about Melchizedek being a type.

Then what category does Melchizedek fall under? Man who's not a man because he's immortal? XD it just doesn't make sense to me that Melchizedek is a priest if He's not Christ. It says "he remains a priest continually"…so that means that there's two priests then, Christ and Melchizedek. But the point of the New Covenant is that there is one Priest who sacrificed Himself for us—("once for all," Hebrews 9:12)—so that we could be set free from our sin AND from the Law. "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." (Galatians 5:1)

This is a very interesting topic, and I'm not sure what my opinion is. A few things to note: Melchizedek was human because he ruled over Salem. Melchizedek definitely was at least a symbol of Christ and foreshadowed Him. "Priest of God Most High", King of Righteousness, brought out bread and wine… The part that says that he had no father, mother, and beginning and end of life could mean that there is no record of Melchizedek’s parents or genealogy, or even his birth and death. He appears and disappears like a comet on the pages of Scripture. He seems like an eternal figure. The Greek term taxis (order) suggests a similar "arrangement, and the preposition kata suggests the meaning “in accordance with, corresponding to”. Thus a comparison is being drawn. One can conclude from these facts that Melchizedek was perhaps a foreshadow of Christ, but not Christ Himself.

I know…the whole Salem thing creates a problem XD but the priest problem still hasn't been solved. If there are two priests, then that kind of goes against the whole New Covenant picture that the NT paints. And I don't think anyone can get around the fact that Melchizedek is an eternal being, whatever he is. "having neither beginning of days nor end of life" (Hebrews 7:3)

Ok, nevermind. According to Wikipedia Salem refers to JeruSALEM. Since Jerusalem did not exist yet, "king of Jerusalem" would definitely be Christ. If Salem Is Jerusalem, that is :)

I would say that Melchizedek falls under an entirely different category. He may be an angelic-like being. Hebrews 7:3 specifically says that he was, "made like the Son of God". Could you show me where it says that there is one priest? Isn't the church a "kingdom of priests" (1 Peter 2:9)? I understand where y'all are coming from, but I can't see any solid evidence that Melchizedek was Christ, though it is obvious he was a mysterious and special being.
Salem literally means "peace". Its association with Jerusalem seems to be only conjecture. (see Hebrews 7:2)

Just thought I'd throw this out there…

Shem was still alive when Melchizedek is mentioned. Probably anyone who lived near him hadn't seen his parents around anywhere…he was a really old guy that just seemed to keep on living: no one who knew him could pinpoint the beginning of his days (100 years before the flood) and it seemed like he was just gonna keep on living, because he actually lived until Isaac was 130 (by that time, it is possible that Joseph had already been sold into Egypt!!!). I crunched the numbers a little while ago. :)
So, for someone described as having neither beginning of days nor end of life, Shem seems to fit the bill pretty well. His life spanned I believe ten generations that followed him!
Also, it would be pretty cool if the ancestor of Christ was like the guy who built and ruled over Jerusalem. I mean, he was around since the flood, so it would be logical that he founded Salem and was therefore its king. (btw, Salem would later be inhabited by the Jebusites, so Jebu was added to salem, resulting in Jebu/Jerusalem…).
I think considering things cyclically (the Bible is so chock full of cycles) it makes sense that Jesus' ancestor built the original Jerusalem and was both king and priest over it, just as Christ would build the spiritual Jerusalem and act as king and priest over it. And he brings forth bread and wine for Abraham (the chosen people of God) just like Jesus provides bread and wine (er, grape-juice in our church) for his chosen people, spiritually and physically.
The cycles, the typology, is there whoever you believe Melchizedek was, but I just think it would be really cool and amazing if he was actually Shem.
Of course, why did he change his name to Melchizedek (hey, maybe Mekchizedek is more of a title than a name…)?

And of course, there's absolutely no biblical explicit evidence that Shem was actually Melchizedek. I just think it would fit beautifully into biblical history. :) And ya know, it's pooossible. ;)

(You can probably guess from this that whether he was Shem or not I think Melchizedek was mere and full human…a type, a shadow, of Christ, but not Christ himself. )

Grace and peace through Christ our Lord,

ka

That has to be true… Seriously, though, that would be really cool. Thanks for bringing it up!

Easton's Bible Dictionary says this, "The question as to who this mysterious personage was has given rise to a great deal of modern speculation. It is an old tradition among the Jews that he was Shem, the son of Noah, who may have survived to this time. Melchizedek was a Canaanitish prince, a worshipper of the true God, and in his peculiar history and character an instructive type of our Lord, the great High Priest (Heb. 5:6, 7; 6:20)."

I had never heard of this interpretation before now. It is exceedingly intriguing, and it would be just like God to make an awesomely unexpected connection like that. :D

It is a neat thought, but Shem did have beginning of days and end of life.

It is a neat thought, but Shem did have beginning of days and end of life.

In all probability, so did Melchizedek. Now, before you think that I'm saying that the Bible is lying or twisting the truth, let me explain. :P When Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek "was without father or mother, having neither beginning of days nor end of life," it doesn't mean that he was never born and never died (not even like Enoch or Elijah). What it almost certainly means is merely that there was never a historical record as to the birth or death of Melchizedek. While he was alive, apparently no one knew where he had come from or who his parents were–he was just there, and had been there for as long as anyone could remember. And we can assume that his death either went unnoticed somehow, or it was never recorded and thus no one in future generations could pinpoint the time that he passed from the earth.

The author of Hebrews is not implying that Melchizedek is eternal, exactly like Christ; but that he resembles Him in that, in addition to his kingship and priesthood, the time of the beginning of his existence and the time of his death are unknown. For Christ, this fact is because He does not have a beginning or an end. For Melchizedek, it is because no one knows, or can know, his beginning or end.

I still think he (or He) was a pre-incarnate Christ.

Why would there need to be a pre-incarnate Christ? What purpose would a pre-incarnate Christ truly serve that could not have been served by Shem or another historical figure? I am just posing this as a probing question to understand your point, but I think that God Himself coming down to earth would always be an incredibly important event that does not occur for trivial or unnecessary reasons. What is truly necessary about Melchizidek being Jesus Himself?

It's not necessary, but it would be truly neat if Christ was revealed to Abraham.

It certainly would be cool. :)

It's not necessary, but it would be truly neat if Christ _was_ revealed to Abraham.

Wasn't he revealed to him later? (Or pardon me if it was before… I may be mixed up.) When the three men came to him just before Sodom was destroyed, two were angels, and one was God–in almost all probability, a Christophany.

But you may perhaps still like to say that Melchizedek could have been a Christophany as well. However, in no other place in Scripture does Christ appear on earth before his incarnation without it being obvious that it's Him–either as the angel of the LORD, or an explicit appearance of God Himself. And certainly if Melchizedek was Christ, the author of Hebrews wouldn't have said that he resembled Him, but that he was Him. Just a few arguments to burst your bubble… :P

It's not necessary, but it would be truly neat if Christ _was_ revealed to Abraham.

Wasn't he revealed to him later? (Or pardon me if it was before... I may be mixed up.) When the three men came to him just before Sodom was destroyed, two were angels, and one was God--in almost all probability, a Christophany. *Could be.* But you may perhaps still like to say that Melchizedek could have been a Christophany as well. However, in no other place in Scripture does Christ appear on earth before his incarnation without it being obvious that it's Him--either as the angel of the LORD, or an explicit appearance of God Himself. *And is it impossible?* And certainly if Melchizedek was Christ, the author of Hebrews wouldn't have said that he _resembled_ Him, but that he _was_ Him. *Figurative lanuage?* Just a few arguments to burst your bubble... :P *Thanks, I appreciate it. :D*

Okay, so probably the thing that convinces me about Melchizedek, is, in Hebrews 7, it says that Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

1. Christ would not be of an earthly priesthood.
2. Why would there be two priests in the order that Christ is in?

Ok, so pretty much have no idea now XD but yes, Dani, same thing I am thinking. That's the reason I think it is Christ

And btw, sorry I haven't been on…not abandoning y'all just was busy before the Bee :)

Okay, so probably the thing that convinces me about Melchizedek, is, in Hebrews 7, it says that Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. 1. Christ would not be of an earthly priesthood. 2. Why would there be two priests in the order that Christ is in?

Same reason it says He "resembles" Melchizedek–they both have no recorded beginning or end. ;) All the other priests (in the order of Aaron) had recorded (or at least known) births and deaths.

Guys… don't you think, if Melchizedek were a pre-incarnate Christ, the author of Hebrews would have just come out and said that? I mean, why even make the comparison, if you're talking about the same person? At least say, "I know Melchizedek is Jesus, but I'm just trying to show you several reasons why we know that to be true…" But he doesn't say that. He just uses Melchizedek as an OT example of a priest who was outside of the Old Covenant, to prove that Jesus is legitimately a priest, even though He's outside of the Old Covenant.

Except that there is no other example, as far as we know, of a priest outside the old covenant. And why would Christ be in the same category of priest as a mortal man? ^Which the author of Hebrews also indicates that Melchizedek is not.^

Except that there is no other example, as far as we know, of a priest outside the old covenant. And why would Christ be in the same category of priest as a mortal man? ^Which the author of Hebrews also indicates that Melchizedek is not.^

Lol, we've been over why the author of Hebrews doesn't say that Melchizedek is immortal. Very respected Bible scholars and commentators have arguments as to why, exegetically, you can't argue that Melchizedek has to be Christ based on Hebrews 7.

I think the whole point of the passage is that Melchizedek is unique as the only priest outside of the old covenant. We don't know much about him, but we don't need to know much about him. Apparently one of the only reasons he interacted with Abraham and was mentioned in Genesis was for the very purpose of being a shadow of Christ. But as it's been mentioned before, he was a real priest, and he was the king of a real city. So he couldn't have been a pre-incarnate Christ unless Christ came down and literally lived for several decades masquerading as this random priest/king, just so he could interact with Abraham on one occasion and then fade back into anonymity. There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that there was a time when the Son of God took on human flesh for decades at a time prior to His incarnation. In fact, I suppose we don't know how old Melchizedek was, but I've always assumed he was pretty advanced in years; so if he was really the Son of God in human form, that would probably mean that Christ lived longer on earth as Melchizedek than He did as Jesus of Nazareth. And that is absolutely ludicrous.

Except that there is no other example, as far as we know, of a priest outside the old covenant. And why would Christ be in the same category of priest as a mortal man? ^Which the author of Hebrews also indicates that Melchizedek is not.^

Lol, we've been over why the author of Hebrews doesn't say that Melchizedek is immortal. Very respected Bible scholars and commentators have arguments as to why, exegetically, you can't argue that Melchizedek *has* to be Christ based on Hebrews 7. I think the whole point of the passage is that Melchizedek is unique as the only priest outside of the old covenant. We don't know much about him, but we don't *need* to know much about him. Apparently one of the only reasons he interacted with Abraham and was mentioned in Genesis was for the very purpose of being a shadow of Christ. But as it's been mentioned before, he was a real priest, and he was the king of a real city. So he couldn't have been a pre-incarnate Christ unless Christ came down and literally lived for several decades masquerading as this random priest/king, just so he could interact with Abraham on one occasion and then fade back into anonymity. There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that there was a time when the Son of God took on human flesh for decades at a time prior to His incarnation. In fact, I suppose we don't know how old Melchizedek was, but I've always assumed he was pretty advanced in years; so if he was really the Son of God in human form, that would probably mean that Christ lived longer on earth as Melchizedek than He did as Jesus of Nazareth. And that is absolutely ludicrous.

And why couldn't He have? And why is it ludicrous?

Except that there is no other example, as far as we know, of a priest outside the old covenant. And why would Christ be in the same category of priest as a mortal man? ^Which the author of Hebrews also indicates that Melchizedek is not.^

Lol, we've been over why the author of Hebrews doesn't say that Melchizedek is immortal. Very respected Bible scholars and commentators have arguments as to why, exegetically, you can't argue that Melchizedek *has* to be Christ based on Hebrews 7. I think the whole point of the passage is that Melchizedek is unique as the only priest outside of the old covenant. We don't know much about him, but we don't *need* to know much about him. Apparently one of the only reasons he interacted with Abraham and was mentioned in Genesis was for the very purpose of being a shadow of Christ. But as it's been mentioned before, he was a real priest, and he was the king of a real city. So he couldn't have been a pre-incarnate Christ unless Christ came down and literally lived for several decades masquerading as this random priest/king, just so he could interact with Abraham on one occasion and then fade back into anonymity. There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that there was a time when the Son of God took on human flesh for decades at a time prior to His incarnation. In fact, I suppose we don't know how old Melchizedek was, but I've always assumed he was pretty advanced in years; so if he was really the Son of God in human form, that would probably mean that Christ lived longer on earth as Melchizedek than He did as Jesus of Nazareth. And that is absolutely ludicrous.

And why couldn't He have? And why is it ludicrous?

Wow, at least you're consistent. I don't think that there would be so much ambiguity in the Bible regarding the subject of Christ and Melchizedek if the latter were actually an incarnation of the Son of God who lived for at least several decades. Don't you think it would be a big deal if the second person of the Trinity had actually been on earth for a very lengthy period of time before coming as Jesus of Nazareth? Especially if that period of time outlasted the period of time that He walked the earth as Jesus?

Except that there is no other example, as far as we know, of a priest outside the old covenant. And why would Christ be in the same category of priest as a mortal man? ^Which the author of Hebrews also indicates that Melchizedek is not.^

Lol, we've been over why the author of Hebrews doesn't say that Melchizedek is immortal. Very respected Bible scholars and commentators have arguments as to why, exegetically, you can't argue that Melchizedek *has* to be Christ based on Hebrews 7. I think the whole point of the passage is that Melchizedek is unique as the only priest outside of the old covenant. We don't know much about him, but we don't *need* to know much about him. Apparently one of the only reasons he interacted with Abraham and was mentioned in Genesis was for the very purpose of being a shadow of Christ. But as it's been mentioned before, he was a real priest, and he was the king of a real city. So he couldn't have been a pre-incarnate Christ unless Christ came down and literally lived for several decades masquerading as this random priest/king, just so he could interact with Abraham on one occasion and then fade back into anonymity. There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that there was a time when the Son of God took on human flesh for decades at a time prior to His incarnation. In fact, I suppose we don't know how old Melchizedek was, but I've always assumed he was pretty advanced in years; so if he was really the Son of God in human form, that would probably mean that Christ lived longer on earth as Melchizedek than He did as Jesus of Nazareth. And that is absolutely ludicrous.

And why couldn't He have? And why is it ludicrous?

Wow, at least you're consistent. *I probably don't want to know what that means....* I don't think that there would be so much ambiguity in the Bible regarding the subject of Christ and Melchizedek if the latter were actually an incarnation of the Son of God who lived for at least several decades. Don't you think it would be a big deal if the second person of the Trinity had actually been on earth for a very lengthy period of time before coming as Jesus of Nazareth? *Of course it would be, that's why we're trying to figure it out, which we won't, by the way.* Especially if that period of time outlasted the period of time that He walked the earth as Jesus?

So what problem do you have with it's not being a big deal in the Bible? It's not the focus. And when we do know of Jesus' being on earth, it wasn't a 'huge deal', at least, not at the time. He was born in a sheep cave, after all.

Just had to jump in and say a few things.

First, the similarity of the priesthood of Melchizedek to Christ's priesthood is for one main purpose: TO SHOW THE INFERIORITY OF THE OLD COVENANT PRIESTHOOD.
I'm not angry, I'm just using caps for emphasis.
Abraham bowed down to Melchizedek. The author of Hebrews uses this fact to argue that the Levitical priestly system is inferior. Melchizedek wasn't from the tribe of Levi or even a Jew. And yet he was priest of God Most High.
Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi either and yet he was priest of God Most High.

It is in the sense that these two priests are priests outside of the old covenant levitical piesthood that they are of the same order. Another reason they are of the same order is that both are superior to Levi. A third reason is that they are priests according to oath, not according to bodily descent.
The Levitical system in the loins of Abraham bowed to Melchizedek. Melchizedeks priesthood was therefore superior. Levi couldn't save anyone. The law can't save. Goat's blood doesn't cleanse the soul.
But the FULFILMENT of this superior Melchizedekian priesthood (that is, Christ) does indeed save souls. See, Melchizedek himself or his priestly administration taken by themselves could not save anyone. Only when Melchizedek was seen rightly as the shadow of the good things to come, as a picture of Christ's superior priesthood over the old covenant, could his priestly administration be salvifically effective. His power and superiority do not stem from his person but from the Person whom he represents and shadows.
His priesthood was made like that of the Son of God to POINT AWAY FROM HIMSELF AND TO CHRIST. If he was Christ Himself, why then would he point so diligently throughout the whole book of Hebrews towards the second priest that would come of his order? The fuzziness of the details of his life tells us conclusively that he is not the focus. He's the shadow on the wall. Don't get sidetracked by the shadow - look forward away from him to the Great High Priest that he represented, look forward to the reality that he is intended to point to.
His priesthood was superior only inasmuch as he was a foreshadowing of Christ. In and of himseld he was a mere man. His importance stems from his typological role in biblical history as a shadow of Christ's superior priesthood.

Think of this common phrase in Hebrews: "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." The wording of this phrase both draws a comparison between these two men and a contrast between them. First, they are of the same order of priesthood. Non-levitical and superior. That's the similarity.
Now we have the declaration that Christ is a priest FOREVER… This beautiful phrase could have read "You are priest after the order of Melchizedek." But the author includes the word FOREVER, speaking of Christ's continuing priesthood even to this moment.
A necessary inference is that Melchizedek was not a priest forever.
The point of the phrase is, 'Christ, I'm swearing to make you a priest like Melchizedek was - not from Levi and sperior to Levi's admnistration. But I'm not just making you a priest, I'm making you a priest FOREVER after the order of Melchizedek.'

And think about this: What did Melchizedek do as a priest (in biblical records)? He gave the chosen people of God physical bread and wine and blessed them (in Abraham). What did Jesus do? He gives the chosen people of God spiritual bread and wine (himself) and blesses them with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.
What Jesus does is the fulfilment of what Melchizedek did in typological form as a priest. Christ is the substance of that priesthood. Melchizedeks actions were symbolic. Christ's are the fulfilment of that symbol.
Christ is not both the symbol and the substance.

As for Melchizedek being preincarnate Christ and living forever in the flesh - um, where is he now? Where did he go when Christ was born? You're saying that he lived forever (no beginning of days or end of life being interpreted literally) then that he was a real bodily man. But how can a man have no beginning of days if he's real and physical?
EVEN CHRIST HAD BEGINNING OF DAYS AND END OF LIFE!!!!!

Yes, He is resurrected and His physical body is now living in heaven, but you're making Melchizedek even more miraculous than Christ. A real man with a real body, but never born and never dying - even tho later on in history this same man was born of a virgin, lived a perfectly righteous life (which btw he had already been livng for centuries under the name Melchizedek) and died to redeem sinners on the basis of that perfect life as Jesus, even though technically he didn't have to come and live perfectly this second time at all because He had already done that for decades as Melchizedek…
This is ludicrous. Any Christophany, every instance of preincarnate Christ, is not accompanied by a life lived as that Christophany. Jesus came once to live perfectly for sinners. His incarnation was according to all the prophecies and from a virgin. He did have a mother.
No time that he revealed himself before his incarnation did he live as that preincarnation.

Melchizedek obviously lived several decades if not more than that. He was real, full, and mere man. He was not Christ.

Christ came once to live as a man. Not twice.

Melchizedek was a foreshadowing of Christ, but he was not Christ.

Areth,

Ka

As for Melchizedek being preincarnate Christ and living forever in the flesh - um, where is he now? *No one said he had to stay on earth.* Where did he go when Christ was born? You're saying that he lived forever (no beginning of days or end of life being interpreted literally) then that he was a real bodily man. *Hebrews 7:8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives.* But how can a man have no beginning of days if he's real and physical? EVEN CHRIST HAD BEGINNING OF DAYS AND END OF LIFE!!!!! *Um, no. Christ is eternal. Romans 9:5- Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.* Yes, He is resurrected and His physical body is now living in heaven, but you're making Melchizedek even more miraculous than Christ. A real man with a real body, but never born and never dying - even tho later on in history this same man was born of a virgin, lived a perfectly righteous life (which btw he had already been livng for centuries under the name Melchizedek) and died to redeem sinners on the basis of that perfect life as Jesus, even though technically he didn't have to come and live perfectly this second time at all because He had already done that for decades as Melchizedek... *Ah, but He didn't die as a perfect sacrifice if He was Melchizedek.* This is ludicrous. Any Christophany, every instance of preincarnate Christ, is not accompanied by a life lived as that Christophany. Jesus came once to live perfectly for sinners. His incarnation was according to all the prophecies and from a virgin. He did have a mother. *This was before those prophesies. Or at least, most of them.*

Sorry guys, I've been really uninvolved even though I started this XD but this is a really good discussion XD

And as to Hebrews coming out and saying that Melchizedek is really Christ…not necessarily. Remember the figure in Joshua that was obviously Christ? It doesn't say there that it was Christ. And yet Joshua bowed to Him, and He didn't resist like the angels do in Revelation. So why doesn't the Bible come out and say, "This is Christ!"? Idk XD but the point is, that does not mean that Melchizedek could not be Christ.