Melchisedec

[Dot Matrix]

Hebrews

7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

7:4 Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

I have been studying the Bible with a Pastor regularly. Just he and I going through things, and he has shared many wonderful things with me and I feel privillaged to have such personal attention.

This one thing I wanted to share with you as it sticks with me.

Who is Melchisedec? in Vs. 3 it says he was without father, mother or desent. Had neither begining of days nor end of life...

He is also recorded in

Gen 14:18 and following

17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

My friend thinks Melchisedec was the Lord - Jesus -

[jen-o]

dot,

i agree...

Melchizedek, king of Salem, was Jesus, Prince of Peace!

:)

jen-o

[bfh]

Here's another point of view:

Excerpted from "Who is Melchisedec?"

The Gospel Standard, or Feeble Christian's Support

Oxford University 1847

It does not mean that Melchisedec was literally without father mother or descent but merely that these are not recorded.

He steps, as it were, upon the scene without any mention of his worldly descent. Neither father nor mother nor pedigree is mentioned.

Herein he differed from the Levitical high priests whose father and mother were strictly named and known, being limited to one tribe,

and their pedigree or descent accurately recorded.

"Having neither beginning of days nor end of life." By this is not meant, we believe, literally that Melchisedec

had no beginning and will have no end; but that in the Scriptures, where alone he is mentioned, it is not told us when

he began to live, nor when he died. In all this he differed from the Levitical priests under the law, whose beginning of

days and end of life were distinctly known. In all these points, Melchisedec was "made like unto the Son of God,

(not the Son of God himself in human form,) and abideth a Priest continually;" that is in the record given of him in the word of God,

he still is set forth as the priest of the most high God, and will appear there as such whilst the Bible stands.

Following is the link for the whole article:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xjYEAAAAQ...hl=en#PPA252,M1

[cman]

I don't think it refers to a specific person.

But the priestness of Melchisedec, if you can see that.

even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

'after the order' seems to indicate more

without beginning and without end is not about a person imo

[Dot Matrix]

I find it curious.

I think the Pastor's take on it being Jesus is pretty cool.

I am reading the other perpectives - interesting

Why not take the things stated literally - we take many other things as literal... I don't know

[Cynic]

Following are a few comments on Hebrews 7:3 by a couple rather capable exegetes and an internet hack:

John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:3

( From http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.txt )

Homily XII...

[3.]He then adds another distinction, "Without father, without mother,

without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,

but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a Priest continually." Since

then there lay in his way [as an objection] the [words] "Thou art a

Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec," whereas he

[Melchisedec] was dead, and was not "Priest for ever," see how he

explained it mystically.

`And who can say this concerning a man?' I do not assert this in fact

(he says); the meaning is, we do not know when [2928] [or] what father

he had, nor what mother, nor when he received his beginning, nor when

he died. And what of this (one says)? For does it follow, because we do

not know it, that he did not die, [or] had no parents? Thou sayest

well: he both died and had parents. How then [was he] "without father,

without mother"? How "having neither beginning of days nor end of

life"? How? [Why] from its not being expressed. [2929] And what of

this? That as this man is so, from his genealogy not being given, so is

Christ from the very nature of the reality.

See the "without beginning"; see the "without end." As in case of this

man, we know not either "beginning of days," or "end of life," because

they have not been written; so we know [them] not in the case of Jesus,

not because they have not been written, but because they do not exist.

For that indeed is a type, [2930] and therefore [we say] `because it is

not written,' but this is the reality, [2931] and therefore [we say]

`because it does not exist.' For as in regard to the names also (for

there "King of Righteousness" and "of Peace" are appellations, but here

the reality) so these too are appellations in that case, in this the

reality. How then hath He a beginning? Thou seest that the Son is

"without beginning," [2932] not in respect of His not having a cause;

[2933] (for this is impossible: for He has a Father, otherwise how is

He Son?) but in respect of His "not having beginning or end of life."

"But made like unto the Son of God." Where is the likeness? That we

know not of the one or of the other either the end or the beginning. Of

the one because they are not written; of the other, because they do not

exist. Here is the likeness. But if the likeness were to exist in all

respects, there would no longer be type and reality; but both would be

type. [Here] then just as in representations [2934] [by painting or

drawing], there is somewhat that is like and somewhat that is unlike.

By means of the lines indeed there is a likeness of features, [2935]

but when the colors are put on, then the difference is plainly shown,

both the likeness and the unlikeness.

[Cynic]

John Calvin on Hebrews 7:3

( From Calvin's commentary on Hebrews, The John Calvin Collection, Ages Software)

3. Without father, etc. I prefer this rendering to that of “unknown father;”

for the Apostle meant to express something more emphatic than that the

family of Melchisedec was obscure or unknown. Nor does this objection

disturb me, that the reality does not correspond with the figure or type,

because Christ has a Father in heaven, and had a mother on earth; for the

Apostle immediately explains his meaning by adding without descent, or

kindred. He then exempts Melchisedec from what is common to others, a

descent by birth; by which he means that he is eternal, so that his

beginning from men was not to be sought after. It is indeed certain that he

descended from parents; but the Apostle does not speak of him here in his

private capacity; on the contrary, he sets him forth as a type of Christ. He

therefore allows himself to see nothing in him but what Scripture contains.

For in treating of things respecting Christ, such reverence ought to be

observed as not to know anything but what is written in the Word of the

Lord. Now, as the Holy Spirit in mentioning this king, the most illustrious

of his age, is wholly silent as to his birth, and makes afterwards no record

of his death, is not this the same thing as though eternity was to be

ascribed to him? And what was shadowed forth in Melchisedec is really

exhibited in Christ. It behooves us then to be satisfied with this moderate

view, that while Scripture sets forth to us Melchisedec as one who had

never been born and never died, it shows to us as in a mirror, that Christ

has neither a beginning nor an end.

But we hence also learn how much reverence and sobriety is required as to

the spiritual mysteries of God: for what is not found read in Scripture the

Apostle is not only willing to be ignorant of, but also would have us to

seek to know. And surely it is not lawful for us to allege anything of

Christ from our own thoughts. And Melchisedec is not to be considered

here, as they say, in his private capacity, but as a sacred type of Christ;

nor ought we to think that it was accidentally or inadvertently omitted

that no kindred is ascribed to him, and that nothing is said of his death; but

on the contrary, that this was done designedly by the Spirit, in order to

give us an idea of one above the common order of men. There seems

therefore to be no probability in the conjecture of those who say that

Melchisedec was Shem the son of Noah; for if we make him to be some

known individual, we destroy this third likeness between Melchisedec and

Christ.

Made like, or assimilated, etc. Not as far as what was typified required; for

we must always bear in mind that there is but an analogy between the

thing signified and the sign; for they make themselves ridiculous who

imagine that he came down from heaven, in order that there might be a

perfect similarity. It is enough that we see in him the lineaments of Christ,

as the form of the living man may be seen in his picture, while yet the man

himself is very different from what represents him. It seems not to be

worth one’s while to refute the delirious notions of those who dream that

Christ himself, or the holy Spirit, or an angel, appeared at that time; unless

indeed one thought it to be the duty of a right-minded man to dispute with

Postillus and such fanatics; for that impostor asserts that he is

Melchisedec with no less supercilious folly than those mad spirits of old,

mentioned by Jerome, who pretended that they were Christ.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Cynic

[Cynic]

Internet hack on Hebrews 7:3

(Originally posted at WayDale)

Hebrews 7:1-3

7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,

7:2 to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (being first, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is King of peace;

7:3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually.(ASV)

Another place where scriptural truth stands over and against the teachings of Wierwille, Martindale, John Lynn, et al. is the Hebrews account of Melchizedek, in which that priest is said to be "made like unto the Son of God," due to his appearance in Old Testament narrative as one having no beginning or end (eternal existence).

The Genesis narrative of the priest Melchizedek makes no mention of his birth, death or lineage. He is similar, therefore (by the aspects of that narrative), to the true high priest: the eternally existing Son of God.

*****

T__,

It is obvious from my post that I do not think Melchizedek is an eternally existing person who was with God in the beginning.

Some think Melchizedek was a Christophany, thus do deem him eternally existing. I, however, put on my underwear before I put on my pants, and hold Melchizedek as an historical person in whom Genesis shows the priesthood and eternal existence of Jesus Christ by having the priest greater than Abraham appear without birth, death or genealogy amidst its birth-death-and-genealogy-laden passages.

The teachings in Hebrews touching Melchizedek seem to be (among other things) that Melchizedek's priesthood was typological of Christ's priesthood, and that there are elements (consisting in absences) in Old Testament narratives concerning Melchizedek that represented Christ's eternal existence.

Squirm as you will, Hebrews 7:3 attests of Jesus Christ's eternal existence. It bases its declaration that Melchizedek was "made like unto the Son of God" upon a narrative representation of eternal existence rising from the Genesis account of the priest.

Making out that the Hebrews 7:3 affirmation of eternal existence (i.e. "having neither beginning of days nor end of life") is not literal concerning Christ if it is non-literal concerning Melchizedek is absurd. If eternal existence were not literal concerning Christ, there is nothing about Christ's existence of which Melchizedek's lack of birth and genealogical accounts would be representative. The Hebrews 7:3 argument would be meaningless.

Scriptural declarations of Jesus Christ's existing eternally and prior to his Incarnation are not meaninglessness. They are not metaphors for foreknowledge or ancient-speak hyperbole of flowery biblical writers. They are propositional truth.

Some--seemingly vessels (of dung?) within the Lord's own house--have tried to dismiss such declarations of scripture by sophistries that have not even well covered their sentiment that such scriptures are meaningless.

"Every word of God is pure." The arguments of such madhatters are filled with guile.

"[We] are bought with a price." Throughout the scriptures (e.g. Micah 5:2; John 1:1-3, 1:15, 1:30, 3:13, 3:31, 6:33, 6:38, 6:50-51, 6:58) words of prophets, apostles and the Lord Jesus himself declare, reveal and drip with the truth of Jesus Christ's eternal existence.

*****

M____,

The Hebrews narrative about Melchizedek concerns not only the endlessness of the Son of God's priesthood, but also the eternal existence of the Son of God. Christ's existence from past eternity--represented by Melchizedek's having no (accounted for) "beginning of days"--rises from the pages of the text, because being without "beginning of days" is an element of the very argument showing Melchizedek "made like unto the Son of God."

Being without "beginning of days" is an aspect of the eternal person of Christ, rather than an aspect of unending priesthood. Although his priesthood is unending, Christ did not possess that priesthood in past eternity, rather he took it upon himself in time. This truth Hebrews lucidly teaches us, showing: Christ taking up his priesthood through his incarnation and suffering, making atonement for sin by his own blood, and by that blood entering (having become true, merciful and faithful high priest) into the Holy of holies--where he now abides, not only as God's eternal Son, but also as ever-continuing high priest who makes intercession for us.

Jesus Christ's genealogy concerns his flesh. Before taking on (in addition to the divine nature) the nature of the sons of men, the Son of God had no genealogy. The "without genealogy" element of Hebrews 7:3 represents Christ's eternal existence prior to his incarnation, rather than anything about his flesh. To hold that before his flesh existed Christ did not exist compels one to hold that being "without genealogy" says through Melchizedek nothing about Christ at all (Martindale's apparent aim in making Melchizedek out to be an angelic being), since by his incarnation, Christ took on a genealogy (i.e. a group of predecessors) according to the flesh.

The "without father" element in Hebrews 7:3 also is part of the argument that Melchizedek was "made like unto the Son of God." It is something that one should attempt to apprehend, rather than polemically override by invoking Scriptures that refer to God as Jesus Christ's Father. It means something--it represents something about "the Son of God."

In the representation of Christ through Melchizedek, the "without father" (i.e. without a generator) element concerns the fact that Jesus Christ was ungenerated, again showing through Melchizedek that Christ always existed, and was not one who at some time was not and at another time was made to be.

Hebrews reveals, among other things, typology and representations of Christ in the Old Testament. It shows how Christ was represented in Melchizedek, in Old Testament offerings for sin, in high priests' entries into the Holy of holies. It shows that he who became the true high priest is he who is from everlasting to everlasting--"the same yesterday, and today, and for ever."

Disclaimer: The names of posters with whom the internet hack was interacting in two of the three posts have been truncated after their first letters. He regrets questioning whether those who oppose the eternal existence of Christ are vessels of dung in the Lord’s own house, and now deems it greatly improbable that those who cannot respond in faith to the biblical testimony but continue to oppose the Son’s eternal existence are vessels within the Lord's house at all).

Edited May 19, 2008 by Cynic

[jen-o]

He regrets questioning whether those who oppose the eternal existence of Christ are vessels of dung in the Lord’s own house, and now deems it greatly improbable that those who cannot respond in faith to the biblical testimony but continue to oppose the Son’s eternal existence are vessels within the Lord's house at all).

cynic,

who is this "internet hack"?

and why are you speaking for him?

[Cynic]

cynic,

who is this "internet hack"?

and why are you speaking for him?

If I don’t speak for the internet hack, who will (or even would)?

He is a sometimes caustic offender and is, always, the sibling of all my siblings.

[JeffSjo]

Very interesting thread Dot,

I don't have time to go through all that you've said, but I'd like to share some of my thoughts.

I think it's fairly evident that Melchisedec had a mother and a father. IMO he's spoken of this way to point to the priest that would once and for all be a priest aftert his order, Jesus Christ. That's how I understand it the best.

Since it doesn't say who he really was, figuring it out is a somewhat speculative consideration. As such I don't think anyone needs to argue about it.

I have not seen a definitive answer to this question.

My first choice is Noah's son Shem however. If I'm not mistaken, the years that it's written he lived through went into Abraham's journey and then some. I find this POSSIBILTY to be an exciting consideration.

Personally Dot,I don't think that it's possible that Jesus Christ's coming would or could have happened outside of all the scriptural predictions that were fulfilled when he finally did come. And why would he be called a priest after the name of his own order?

Still, IMO this point is not worth fighting over.

[sirguessalot]

a few things..

melchizadek could not have been a jew

and was obviously wiser than abraham

melchizadek may not have been his only name

and there is no clear record of where he came from

and an obvious difference between a king of peace and a prince of peace

is that one came from the other...one is the offspring and result of the other

and if the way of the king or prince of peace is some actual behaviour, or action, or lifestyle

then i would say that we can see it and recognize it...in any language or race... as a specific method, or pattern, or discipline, or modality, or otherwise WAY of doing things

how did Mel bring peace?

how did Jesus bring peace?

Edited May 19, 2008 by sirguessalot

[Dot Matrix]

Cynic interesting chit chat

I was thinking thew same thing that these scriptures may proove Christ's existance before the NT --- so where does that leave the trinity --- as truth? Or would Jesus not be God, just around before time as we know it - around spiritually

Sirguess- Do you think the reference between Prince and King could then mean MEl was actually God manifesting himself?

JEf these are all interesting, thanks for your POV. Why do you think he HAD a mother and a father - what if he were spirit making an appearance in the flesh - like an angel. I think that is also a possibility. IT is just really odd and very different wording to describe this guy

[sirguessalot]

hi Dot

Sirguess- Do you think the reference between Prince and King could then mean MEl was actually God manifesting himself?

for one...i can assume that God is never not being manifested

and we are all already always spirit being manifest in the flesh now

...and perhaps Mel was of the first 'kind' (or 'order') to have simply 'been found of himself' in this condition

and Jesus could not have embodied Christ in the new way that he did

without Mel having laid down some tracks to follow

and like the phrase, "son of man"...

... "princeness" seems to hint at an improved "product" that came out of some "first order" of God in manifestation

...like how we hope that our children are improved versions of our self...not inferior versions

even in physics, there is a notion

that from the collapse (from the natural limit) of any system (including 'a way of being')

there always arises a higher order

after the previous order

and without that collapse...

there would be no higher order

like how at one point,

Spirit only manifested as mineral

...and then vegetable...etc...

we have all already come such a long long way together

Edited May 20, 2008 by sirguessalot

[JeffSjo]

JEf these are all interesting, thanks for your POV. Why do you think he HAD a mother and a father - what if he were spirit making an appearance in the flesh - like an angel. I think that is also a possibility. IT is just really odd and very different wording to describe this guy

Well, if he was an angel then how would Jesus Christ be greater then him? I don't think Jesus Christ would be called to an order of priesthood originated with an Angel when Heb 1:4-6 shows all the angels to be called to a subjective state compared to the Son.

The scriptures say that Melchisidec was "king of Salem" (Heb 7:1) The best work I've seen indicates that this was an actual town. Most folks agree that it was where Jerusalem is now. If these things are true then I believe that it's more than reasonable to assume Melchisidec was a man, like any other, with a mother and father. After all, wasn't he right their with Abraham and the king of Sodom. To me that sounds like he was right there just like the other king and Abraham, and at least in that record even though Abraham treated the two kings very differently they were spoken of as simply two different kings.

The thing that I feels make all "spiritual being" opinions weak is that the scriptures do not SAY it. So it seems to be a much more speculative opinion than the simplest one.

(a little added for clarity)

Edited May 20, 2008 by JeffSjo

[brideofjc]

In Genesis 14, the Hebrew word that is used is really a compound word....melchi=King and zedek=be in the right, be right, have a just case. Therefore, v 18 could be translated as such:

And the king of righteousness and peace brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God.

It is interesting that this king brought forth BREAD AND WINE, a foreshadowing of the elements of communion that the Lord Jesus served at the last supper. What is going on in this passage is this king and Abraham are partaking of a covenant together and sealed with bread and wine, and this king blesses Abram, possessor of heaven and earth.

The writer of Hebrews clearly connotes that Christ is the one referred to in Psalms 110, Hebrews 5 and 7. So who is he? I think it was the pre-incarnate Christ in physical form.

[Sunesis]

Bride, again, gotta agree there. Or, Melchisedec was a "type" of the Christ to come.

I believe, the Jewish leaders of Jesus' time, the priests of the Synagogue, knew the Messiah would usher in a new priesthood - the priesthood of Melchisedec.

The Aaronic/Levitical priesthood would be replaced by the new priesthood of Melchisedec.

This is why, when Caiaphas was the high priest for that month, he was the one who delivered Jesus, the sacrificial lamb, to Pilate to have killed.

Thus, the high priest Caiaphas truly did put to death the lamb, fulfiling the OT prophecy.

But, note what Caiphas did. As Jesus was in front of Pilate, Caiaphas "rent" his priestly robes.

Under the OT law, this was prohibited - a priest could not rend his robe.

If you read about Caiphas previously, he knew there was a new priest of the order of Melchisedec coming.

As he watched Christ standing there, meek like the lamb for the slaughter - he knew.

I believe he truly knew.

He was looking at the lamb, the soon to be new Royal Priest of the new line of the order of Melchisedec.

Thus, he rent his robes, signifying the end of the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

As if to confirm this, at Christ's death on the cross, the veil in the Holy of Holies in the temple is rent in half. That fabric was almost 1/2 foot thick.

The veil (symbolizing Christ's flesh which was rent and pierced) was rent.

Through the new King/High Priest Christ, after the order of Melchisedec, all who desire can now come to God.

[Dot Matrix]

I think it was Jesus, Bride and Sun, I agree

[brideofjc]

Bride, again, gotta agree there. Or, Melchisedec was a "type" of the Christ to come.

I believe, the Jewish leaders of Jesus' time, the priests of the Synagogue, knew the Messiah would usher in a new priesthood - the priesthood of Melchisedec.

The Aaronic/Levitical priesthood would be replaced by the new priesthood of Melchisedec.

This is why, when Caiaphas was the high priest for that month, he was the one who delivered Jesus, the sacrificial lamb, to Pilate to have killed.

Thus, the high priest Caiaphas truly did put to death the lamb, fulfiling the OT prophecy.

But, note what Caiphas did. As Jesus was in front of Pilate, Caiaphas "rent" his priestly robes.

Under the OT law, this was prohibited - a priest could not rend his robe.

Well, technically, he would not have been in THE PRIESTLY GARMENTS that he would wear when he went into the holy of holies to offer the blood of the lamb every year. They were to be put on when he was already in there and taken off before he left that area to go back out into the holy place. But it is a neat concept that you noticed that and it could very well stand for the death of the priesthood. Rending your clothes was a way to publicly show that you were grieving or something vexed you. This is why the Lord Jesus said that our heart are to be rended before God and not just the outward tearing of the cloth.

If you read about Caiphas previously, he knew there was a new priest of the order of Melchisedec coming.

As he watched Christ standing there, meek like the lamb for the slaughter - he knew.

I believe he truly knew.

He was looking at the lamb, the soon to be new Royal Priest of the new line of the order of Melchisedec.

Thus, he rent his robes, signifying the end of the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

As if to confirm this, at Christ's death on the cross, the veil in the Holy of Holies in the temple is rent in half. That fabric was almost 1/2 foot thick.

The veil (symbolizing Christ's flesh which was rent and pierced) was rent.

Yes, and the veil was torn from the top to the bottom clearly indicating that it was God who had just torn it in half, thus opening the way into the new covenant.

Through the new King/High Priest Christ, after the order of Melchisedec, all who desire can now come to God.

[ckeer]

I have a more mundane theory that I can't back scripturally.

Remember that Ba lam (with the talking donkey) was a prophet of the most high God but was not a Hebrew. ( That was during the Exodus a lot later)

Also Abraham came from Chaldea (Part of present day Iran/Iraq I think) and sent back for wives for his sons. He had to have some kind of religious training and his family tribe had some kind of religious beliefs that predisposed him to recognize and accept the concept of one God.

This leads me to wonder if there was a religion in the middle east that was not "pagan". It recognized and worshiped one God which was or became the God of Abraham in the sense we understand it from the Bible.

David renamed a town called Salem (peace) Jerusalem (new peace) where he planned to build the temple.

Therefore I suspect that Melchisedec was the king of the town Salem that became Jerusalem and a priest of that preexisting religion.

A religion that Abraham recognized from his background.

[sirguessalot]

interesting theory, ckeer

to add...a snippet from this article on the "axial age"

The Axial Age may have started earlier than Jaspers thought. He was not aware of the clay tablets in Babylon which we now have that detail great activity in what might be called pre-axial times—or perhaps point to an earlier beginning of that period. Some scholars believe that similarity of ideas and similar developments are indicative of an early global civilization that existed, with contact and travel across much more of the globe than we usually think occurred at this early period. Acharya S (1999) offers arguments in her controversial book, drawing on archeology. Phoenician ships likely circled the globe at the time of Solomon (see Heyerdahl, 1978; Gordon, 1972). Gordon (1908-2001), a Jewish archaeologist and Biblical scholar (the first U.S.-born Jew to hold such a position at an American university), argued that Jews had visited the Americas in ancient times as they participated in these pioneer journeys to the far-Atlantic coastline. Jews, Phoenicians, and others, according to Gordon, had crossed the Atlantic in antiquity. He argued for a closer connection and considerable exchange between the Hebrew's world and that of the ancient Aegean world. Judaism can thus be regarded as carrying a vestige of this much larger ancient world in which Israel was situated. The library at Alexandria may have contained other information about those ancient days that has been lost for modern civilization. Babylonian writing was used internationally and even Egyptian traders and statements communicated through this medium. If this is true, then globalization is not a new phenomenon but the revival of an old one.

Edited May 31, 2008 by sirguessalot

[alfakat]

most likely he was Shem, Noah's son from whom the Semite peoples and Abraham sprang. He out-lived many of his progeny and was certainly not "known" by many after the confusion of languages at Babel. He spoke for God and was God's priest on earth when Abraham met him. Last living man who passed through the flood. Food for thought....

[WordWolf]

Genesis 14. (NASB)

14-20.

14When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

15He divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.

16He brought back all the goods, and also brought back his relative Lot with his possessions, and also the women, and the people.

17Then after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley).

18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High.

19He blessed him and said,

"Blessed be Abram of God Most High,

Possessor of heaven and earth;

20And blessed be God Most High,

Who has delivered your enemies into your hand."

He gave him a tenth of all.

======================

Psalm 110:1-4.

1The LORD says to my Lord:

"Sit at My right hand

Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

2The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying,

"Rule in the midst of Your enemies."

3Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power;

In holy array, from the womb of the dawn,

Your youth are to You as the dew.

4The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,

"You are a priest forever

According to the order of Melchizedek."

=======================

Hebrews 5: 1-11.

1For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;

2he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness;

3and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself.

4And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.

5So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him,

"YOU ARE MY SON,

TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU";

6just as He says also in another passage,

"YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER

ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK."

7In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.

8Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

9And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

10being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

11Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

=========================

Hebrews 6:19-20.

19This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,

20where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

========================

Hebrews 7:1-17

1For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,

2to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace.

3Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

4Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.

5And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham.

6But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises.

7But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.

8In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on.

9And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes,

10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

11Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

12For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

13For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

15And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,

16who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of (an indestructible life.

17For it is attested of Him,

"YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER

ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK."

Edited December 25, 2008 by WordWolf

[WordWolf]

I've heard people say Jesus=Melchizedek.

Since there's no verse that I can find that says this, a case must be made FOR or

AGAINST, as I see it.

Of course, this does take into account that an absence of a clear statement

of that as fact can be seen as supporting the case it's not true.

(There's no verse that says Jesus smoked cigarettes.

This supports the claim he did NOT smoke cigarettes.)

I just quoted all the verses that mention Mel.

18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High.

19He blessed him and said,

"Blessed be Abram of God Most High,

Possessor of heaven and earth;

20And blessed be God Most High,

Who has delivered your enemies into your hand."

He gave him a tenth of all.

Mel was King of Salem.

Mel was a priest of God.

Mel was both a secular ruler and ruler under God.

Abram gave a tithe to Mel here. This is mentioned later.

"Salem"- the name means "peace." Mel was the King of "Peace."

4The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,

"You are a priest forever

According to the order of Melchizedek."

This looks like it refers to someone with SIMILARITIES to Mel, but who is

very different from Mel HIMSELF.

The lack of detail of "the order of Melchizedek" has been exploited by

lots of people who've claimed to know what it meant-

or claimed they were in that same Order.

5So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him,

"YOU ARE MY SON,

TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU";

6just as He says also in another passage,

"YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER

ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK."

7In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.

8Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

9And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

10being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

11Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

It seems to me this obviously claims similarities between Jesus and Mel.

Hebrews 6:19-20.

19This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,

20where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Again, it seems obvious.

More information finally comes here:

Hebrews 7:1-17

1For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,

2to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace.

3Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

4Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.

5And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham.

6But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises.

7But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.

8In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on.

9And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes,

10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

11Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

12For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

13For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

15And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,

16who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of (an indestructible life.

17For it is attested of Him,

"YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER

ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK."

The inferiority of the order of Levi, the Levites, is shown with the order of Melchizedek.

Mel, it says, does not have a geneology that is traced from them.

THAT's what it seems is meant by him not having "father" "mother" "geneology", etc.

His priesthood was not based on BLOODLINE, nor descent.

it was based on an anointing from God, and obedience to God.

Moses spoke concerning priests of the tribe of LEVI, not of others.

Jesus didn't come from Levi-Jesus came from JUDAH, i.e. NOT LEVI.

Similarly, Mel didn't come from Levi.

That's the tribe that officiates from the altar.

Jesus and Mel both were obedient to God, not Levites,

were/will be secular rulers as well as priests of God.

Their priesthood isn't conditional on bloodline-and thus not subject to annulment.

I say this is clear Mel was "a type" of the Christ to come,

just as other things pointed to Christ.

However, Mel was no more Jesus HIMSELF than the brass serpent

in the wilderness was Jesus HIMSELF.

John 3:14-15.

4And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

[Watered Garden]

And he predates the Levitical priesthood.