Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Was Melchizedek God? If so, was he Jesus?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00

jmt356

Member
Was Melchizedek God? If so, was he Jesus?

The Christian Courier published a piece at https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/920-questions-about-melchizedek challenging the view that Melchizedek was God. The piece suggests that it was not Melchizedek who was without father, mother and genealogy, but rather, his priesthood. It states:

“None of the expressions in Hebrews 7:3 is to be assigned a literal meaning. Rather, they are terms that depict the nature of Melchizedek’s priesthood, in contrast to the Aaronic priesthood, as such prevailed under the Mosaic regime.

“It was not that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother” literally, or that he had no genealogical background.
“No, the truth being conveyed was this. Whereas the Aaronic priesthood resulted from being a part of a family line (i.e., the descendants of Aaron, Moses’ brother) the priesthood of Melchizedek was bestowed directly by God.
“And it was precisely in this manner that the Lord Jesus was appointed as our High Priest. He did not inherit it by means of a physical lineage (cf. Hebrews 7:14).”

The view expressed by the Christian Courier is not without problems. Hebrews 7:3 does not state that Melchizedek’s priesthood was without father, mother and genealogy. Rather, it states that Melchizedek was without father, mother and genealogy:

Heb 7:3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

While the Christian Courier correctly points out that Melchizedek’s priesthood was like Jesus’ in that neither Melchizedek nor Jesus was from the line of Aaron/Levi, Hebrews also appears to indicate that Melchizedek himself was without father and mother. To state that a priesthood is without father and mother is illogical. Priests have fathers and mothers, not priesthoods.

If Hebrews 7:3 were referring to Melchizedek’s priesthood rather than Melchizedek himself, we would still need to account for Hebrews 7:8, which states:

Heb 7:8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living.

This verse is a continuation of the discussion of Melchizedek from Hebrews 7:2-6. Melchizedek, who is declared to be living, collected the “tenth.”

It may be, as the Christian Courier points out, that the reference to “beginning of days or end of life” is referring not to Melchizedek’s life, but rather, to his priesthood:

“According to the biblical record, the Levitical priests served in the tabernacle from the time they were twenty-five years of age, until they were fifty (Numbers 8:24-25), but no such limit is suggested in the scripture record regarding Melchizedek.”

Yet even we conclude that the references to being without father, mother, genealogy, beginning and end of days are referring to Melchizedek’s priesthood rather than Melchizedek himself, Melchizedek could still be immortal on the basis of other statements in Hebrews. Hebrews 7:3 states that Melchizedek “remains a priest forever.” If he remains a priest forever, then Melchizedek must be immortal. Because only God is immortal (1Ti 6:16), Melchizedek must be God.
 
The basis of the Aaronic priesthood was ancestry. The Priesthood of Melchizedek is everlasting life as there is no interruption due to his death as even after he died he still remain a priest. It is a dual reference to Christ and His Priesthood that is eternal. Because the author of Hebrews is unknown plus the place or the date it was written there is no mention of Melchizedek's parents, but he lineage of all priest came from the lineage of Aaron's priesthood. He was not the true deity, but the dual reference to Christ is deity. The author of Hebrews was making comparison to Christ and His Kingly Priesthood that has no beginning or end. This is why the author wrote, after the order of Melchizedek as in what Christ would be for us.

Christ is our eternal High Priest after the order, or in other words after the way of who and what Melchizedek presented to his people as he reigned king over Salem.

Christ identified with man in His incarnation and offered no less a sacrifice than Himself on our behave. The author of Hebrews presents Christ as the divine-human Prophet, Priest and King. His deity and humanity are asserted with equal force, and with over twenty titles are used to describe His attributes and accomplishments being Heir of all things, Apostle and High Priest, Mediator, Author and finisher of faith.

He is superior to all who went before to all who went before and offers the supreme sacrifice, priesthood and covenant.
 
Was Melchizedek God? If so, was he Jesus?
Interesting question that I have pondered upon occasionally. I'm on the fence and the experts seem to be on the same fence. If forced to chose, I would say Melchizedek is God as I try to interpret Scripture literally if possible and Hebrews 7:3 says no mother or father which fits... and 'having neither beginning of days nor end of life' which would be an eternal being and therefore God. IMO

https://www.gotquestions.org/Melchizedek.html was on the fence too.
 
(Heb. 7:3) "...but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

I believe Melchisedec was a man. No information is given of his birth or death thus his priesthood is presented as eternal.

It is interesting how people such as he are found in the Bible. I think of Moses father-in-law. (Ex. 2:15-16) They are outside of directly what God is doing, but yet are God's people, obedient to whatever revelation they have from God.

Quantrill
 
If Jesus was Melchizedek why would He need to be appointed a 2nd time?
Melchizedek was before Levi was born so His priesthood was not based on genealogy, (father and mother), but by Gods appointment.

Psalm 110
The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."
 
The basis of the Aaronic priesthood was ancestry. The Priesthood of Melchizedek is everlasting life as there is no interruption due to his death as even after he died he still remain a priest. It is a dual reference to Christ and His Priesthood that is eternal. Because the author of Hebrews is unknown plus the place or the date it was written there is no mention of Melchizedek's parents, but he lineage of all priest came from the lineage of Aaron's priesthood. He was not the true deity, but the dual reference to Christ is deity. The author of Hebrews was making comparison to Christ and His Kingly Priesthood that has no beginning or end. This is why the author wrote, after the order of Melchizedek as in what Christ would be for us.

Christ is our eternal High Priest after the order, or in other words after the way of who and what Melchizedek presented to his people as he reigned king over Salem.

Christ identified with man in His incarnation and offered no less a sacrifice than Himself on our behave. The author of Hebrews presents Christ as the divine-human Prophet, Priest and King. His deity and humanity are asserted with equal force, and with over twenty titles are used to describe His attributes and accomplishments being Heir of all things, Apostle and High Priest, Mediator, Author and finisher of faith.

He is superior to all who went before to all who went before and offers the supreme sacrifice, priesthood and covenant.
Hebrews 7:3 states “he remains a priest forever,” not “his priesthood remains forever.” It seems clear that it is talking about Melchizedek, not his priesthood. To interpret it as referring to his priesthood is to take liberties with scripture.

The same is true with respect to Hebrews 7:8, which states that Melchizedek (the one who collects the tenth), not his priesthood, “is declared to be living.”

These verses appear to indicate that Melchizedek is immortal.

Even if we interpret Hebrews 7 as stating that Melchizedek’s order was not bound by time, we cannot ignore that it is also stating that Melchizedek himself was a “priest forever” who “is declared to be living” and is thus not bound by time.

As for the translation “after the order of Melchizedek” in Hebrews 7:17, not all translations use this phrasing. The NIV states “in the order of Melchizedek.” The NKJV states “according to the order of Melchizedek.” This can be interpreted to mean not that Jesus comes “after” Melchizedek, but that they are in the same priestly order (i.e., one that transcends the genealogical order of Aaron and Levi) and that they are the same person.
 
Hebrews 7:3 states “he remains a priest forever,” not “his priesthood remains forever.” It seems clear that it is talking about Melchizedek, not his priesthood. To interpret it as referring to his priesthood is to take liberties with scripture.

The same is true with respect to Hebrews 7:8, which states that Melchizedek (the one who collects the tenth), not his priesthood, “is declared to be living.”

These verses appear to indicate that Melchizedek is immortal.

Even if we interpret Hebrews 7 as stating that Melchizedek’s order was not bound by time, we cannot ignore that it is also stating that Melchizedek himself was a “priest forever” who “is declared to be living” and is thus not bound by time.

As for the translation “after the order of Melchizedek” in Hebrews 7:17, not all translations use this phrasing. The NIV states “in the order of Melchizedek.” The NKJV states “according to the order of Melchizedek.” This can be interpreted to mean not that Jesus comes “after” Melchizedek, but that they are in the same priestly order (i.e., one that transcends the genealogical order of Aaron and Levi) and that they are the same person.
When a Priest dies, does not he remain a Priest forever, or when a Pastor dies, does not he remain a Pastor forever, when a Doctor dies, does he not remain a doctor forever, when an Apostle dies does not he remain an Apostle forever. Hope you see where I am going with that.

If Melchizedek is actually Jesus than how does Jesus be after the order of Jesus. Notice in Hebrews 7:3 it is written, but made like unto the Son of God. To my understanding he was made like Jesus who is now our High Priest.
 
Notice in Hebrews 7:3 it is written, but made like unto the Son of God. To my understanding he was made like Jesus who is now our High Priest.

If you accept this view then you cannot accept that the fourth man in the fiery furnace was Jesus because he is described as being "like" the Son of God, not being the Son of God.

The book of Daniel reports that after King Nebuchadnezzar cast Shadrach, Meschach and Abed-Nego into the fiery furnace, he witnessed a fourth man with them and “the form of the fourth is like the Son of God” (Dan 3:25):

Dan 3:23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
Dan 3:24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, "Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "True, O king."
Dan 3:25 "Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

King Nebuchadnezzar later indicated that the fourth man was the “angel” of the “God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego” (Dan 3:28). Some commentators state that the "angel of the Lord" is Jesus (the same “angel of the Lord” that appeared to Moses through a burning bush (Exo 3:2); the same "angel of the Lord" that appeared to Samson’s father Manoah (Jdg 13:22); the same "angel of the Lord" who appeared to Hagar (Gen 16:7). Moses, Manoah and Hagar all believed this "angel" to be God, leading some commentators to believe it was Jesus.

Now back to the fourth man in the fiery furnace, that Nebuchadnezzar characterized as being "like" the Son of God and being the "angel" of God. Does the fact that Nebuchadnezzar characterized the fourth man as being "like" the Son of God prohibit the possibility that he was the Son of God? Does being "like" someone prohibit being that person?
 
If you accept this view then you cannot accept that the fourth man in the fiery furnace was Jesus because he is described as being "like" the Son of God, not being the Son of God.

The book of Daniel reports that after King Nebuchadnezzar cast Shadrach, Meschach and Abed-Nego into the fiery furnace, he witnessed a fourth man with them and “the form of the fourth is like the Son of God” (Dan 3:25):

Dan 3:23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
Dan 3:24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, "Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "True, O king."
Dan 3:25 "Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

King Nebuchadnezzar later indicated that the fourth man was the “angel” of the “God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego” (Dan 3:28). Some commentators state that the "angel of the Lord" is Jesus (the same “angel of the Lord” that appeared to Moses through a burning bush (Exo 3:2); the same "angel of the Lord" that appeared to Samson’s father Manoah (Jdg 13:22); the same "angel of the Lord" who appeared to Hagar (Gen 16:7). Moses, Manoah and Hagar all believed this "angel" to be God, leading some commentators to believe it was Jesus.

Now back to the fourth man in the fiery furnace, that Nebuchadnezzar characterized as being "like" the Son of God and being the "angel" of God. Does the fact that Nebuchadnezzar characterized the fourth man as being "like" the Son of God prohibit the possibility that he was the Son of God? Does being "like" someone prohibit being that person?
What you are not understanding is the word "like" that means something is similar to another thing. I am like my mother, but I am not my mother. The fourth in the fiery furnace was "like" the Son of God who sent His angel. Jesus is not a created angel, but Deity

Don't believe all the commentaries you read just like the ones that believe the fourth angel was Jesus. Think about those scriptures you posted. If it says angel of the Lord it means a messenger of God as that is what angels are who God sends down from heaven.

Angels are essentially “ministering spirits,” (Hebrews 1:14) and do not have physical bodies like humans. Jesus declared that “a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:37-39).

Angels have no gender (Matthew 22:30) and are innumerable (Hebrews 12:22). They are incarnate in human form at times (Genesis 18:2-8) for the purpose of ministry.
 
Was Melchizedek God? If so, was he Jesus?
No, Melchizedek was not God. And no, Melchizedek was not Jesus.
Within Jewish teachings, it is universally understood without any dispute that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah.

We need to understand that the writer of Hebrews is writing to Hellenistic Jews who know some of the oral traditions, but not all. This is why he says earlier that they are slow to understand.

NIV: Hebrews 7:17 For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.

We see that this quote comes from Psalm 110:4 and it is speaking of both the Prophet and King, David who is from the tribe of Judah. God made a covenant with David that there would always be a king on the throne from Judah which culminates to Jesus, who is from the line of Judah which is exactly what Hebrews 7 is explaining.

NIV: Hebrews 7:2-3
First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

The writer of Hebrews understands that Shem is the son of Noah. However, as we see so many times that when one encounters God, one gets a new name. We see this with Abram, who becomes Abraham. We see this with Jacob, who becomes Israel and in the New Testament, we see it with Saul, who becomes Paul.

We know from Genesis 9 that Shem is elevated, even above his older brother. This seems to be a central theme as the older brother always have privilege above the younger. This is most pronounced in Genesis 9:26 Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem! ... Shem is made King of Salem (also known as Jerusalem) with his new name Melchizedek. He was not made King and Priest by any genealogy, but instead was made King and Priest by God. In other words, he was not made Priest by succession.

In this same way, Jesus replies in Mark 24:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”

Melchizedek is still living and is still a priest, forever. For as Noah declared, "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem! "
 
Last edited:
No, Melchizedek was not God. And no, Melchizedek was not Jesus.
Within Jewish teachings, it is universally understood without any dispute that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah.

This is interesting but Shem had a father and mother. The writer of Hebrews says Melchizedek is without father or mother.
 
This is interesting but Shem had a father and mother. The writer of Hebrews says Melchizedek is without father or mother.
Most people miss this. Melchizedek was not made King by succession. In other words, the Leviticus priesthood was by genealogy (who your mother and father were). The high priest was always specifically from the line of Aaron. This was not how Melchizedek ( formally called Shem) was made high priest.

Do you recall why Jesus couldn’t do many miracles in his home town?
 
Back
Top