Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Melchizedek was a king of God's righteousness found in him, but he was not God.
You need to read the full context in Hebrews 7 as Melchizedek is being compared to Jesus.
Genesis 18:1-6 The lord appeared to him by sending him three angels who are the messengers of God who speak what God gives them to speak. Same with all those other scriptures you posted as you need to read the full context and learn how God works and speaks through his angels in only He can transform them into looking like a man for the purpose of His ministry.
No one can or ever did see God face to face as God does not have a physical body as He is Spirit without form and the glory of His countenance is to brilliant for anyone to look upon and live. That is why He put Moses in the cleft of the rock as He passed by him in Exodus 33:22.
I explained all of this in post #14, but you are not seeing the full context if you are only using one or a few verses without the full.
Post #14 deals with whether we can see God’s face and live. I addressed that in post #15. I will first address the claim that Melchizedek could not have been God because no man can see God and live. I will then address the claim that Melchizedek was not God, but rather, a priest of God.
CLAIM I: MELCHIZEDEK COULD NOT HAVE BEEN GOD BECAUSE NO MAN CAN SEE GOD AND LIVE
I am not stating that Melchizedek was God in his full form and glory. I am saying he was a manifestation of God that was not total. It was a partial manifestation so that He could be seen and perceived. In this way, Melchizedek was like the “man” that wrestled with Jacob and the “Lord” that appeared to Abraham in the form of three men.
Interpreting Exodus 33:20 to mean that no one can see a manifestation of God contradicts other scriptures. For example, Exodus 24:9-10 states that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and Seventy Elders of Israel “saw the God of Israel.” Exodus 33:20 is not stating that God cannot be seen. It is stating that He cannot be see in his full glory.
When John wrote “no one has seen God” (John 1:18), he was conveying an idea that was not in conflict with the accounts of Moses, Aaron, Jacob, Abraham and other accounts of sightings of God in the Old Testament. Rather, he meant that no person had ever seen God in his totality (i.e., in all of His glory). The accounts we find in the Old Testament sightings of God are partial views of God. When God was revealed to Moses and to others, he hid his face (e.g., Exo 33:23) or took on a form other than his full, true essence:
- He appeared to Moses as an angel through a burning bush (Exo 3:2);
- He appeared to Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy elders (Exo 24:9-10);
- He appeared to Jacob as a “man” who wrestled him (Gen 32:24-30);
- He appeared to Abraham as “three men” (Gen 18:1-6);
- He appeared to King Nebuchadnezzar as “the Son of God” in the fiery furnace (Dan 3:23-28).
All of these appearances to man were not total and were not in all of God’s glory. While God has manifested himself in manifold ways throughout history, no one has seen God revealed in all His glory. If God were to totally reveal Himself to sinful humans, they would be consumed. Therefore, God transforms and appears in ways that can be seen, but that are not manifestations of God in his full glory. We can “see” him, but not with all of His glory and holiness exhibited. Moreover, God, as an omnipresent being, cannot be fully perceived with human eyes. Only portions of God that He chooses to manifest may be seen by man.
CLAIM II: MELCHIZEDEK WAS NOT GOD, BUT RATHER, A PRIEST OF GOD
The Scriptures, when read as a whole, appear to indicate that Melchizedek was God, or a member of the Godhead (most likely, Jesus). Melchizedek could not have been a human because he had “neither beginning nor end of life” (Heb 7:3). He was immortal. He “remains a priest forever” (Heb 7:3) and is “said to be living” (Heb 7:8). God “alone has immortality” (1Ti 6:16). Melchizedek is “[w]ithout father, without mother, without genealogy” (Heb 7:3). This indicates that Melchizedek must have been God, not a mere mortal man.
Melchizedek held the dual role of king and priest: He was king of Salem and priest of God (Gen 14:18). Jesus also held this dual role: he was a king (Mat 21:5) and priest (Heb 6:20).
Melchizedek was king of Salem. Salem is often used interchangeably with Zion. Consider Psalm 76:2: “His tent [i.e., temple] is in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion.” God dwelled in the temple; therefore, Salem must be Zion. Zion is in turn defined as the “City of David” (2Sa 5:7; 1Ki 8:1), which is generally considered to be Jerusalem. Therefore, Salem, Zion and Jerusalem are interchangeable. Melchizedek is thus king of Salem, the equivalent of king of Zion and king of Jerusalem.
Jesus is, figuratively speaking, king of Zion, which is His holy city Jerusalem. For example, Psalm 2 discusses the Lord’s “Anointed One” (Psa 2:2) who is installed King of Zion (Psa 2:6) and who is the Lord’s Son (Psa 2:7). “Anointed One” and “Son” have been interpreted to refer to Jesus (see, e.g., the NIV Study Bible notes), though it is possibly a reference to King David or any of David’s heirs. If it does mean Jesus, then both Jesus and Melchizedek are King of Zion, which further points to them as being the same person.
There is thus ample evidence to suggest that Melchizedek was an appearance of Jesus in the Old Testament.
for_his_glory wrote that “Melchizedek was a king of God's righteousness found in him, but he was not God.” I would point out that Hebrews states that Jesus is a priest. Specifically, Jesus is “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 5:6). Therefore, it is possible that Melchizedek could be Jesus, who is God, and at the same time, a priest of God. This is because Jesus is a person separate from God, but at the same time, He is God. The mysterious nature of the Trinity allows one of its persons to hold dual roles, just as Jesus, who is God, prayed to God in the Garden of Gethsemane.
