Melchisedec: Jesus preincarnate?

[ December 25, 2002, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

Hi Sherrie,

I think that the 'without father or mother' is well explained in the 1:15 p.m. post from me yesterday where the actual translation from the Hebrew is posted. It does not mean he had no father or mother at all!

And yes, just like there were other High Priests before the final one, Christ, there were other kings of Salem -- Jerusalem -- David and Solomon were two of them...

Then there is the final one, the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ Himself.

 

Excellent point. We know who Shem's mother and father are, but Melchisedec we do not.

BTW, where is Melchisedec or Melchizedek mentioned in any genealogy? How can you say that that he is in the lineage of Jesus?

 

[ December 25, 2002, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

First, there is no definitive proof that Salem is the same thing as Jerusalem. The author of Hebrews didn't think so. If he did, he left that bit of info out. In fact, he does say that Salem is translated peace. Let us not stretch it past that, okay?

Second, the fact that the description of his geneology could be read that there is no record of it, doesn't mean that that is the intended way it should be read. Given the other descriptions of him, I believe that it is intended as the latter and not the former.

It is very interesting that Abraham broke bread and wine with Melchisedec.

 

I think he was a theophany. Can't give you hard core evidence, just do. My OT professor thinks so also.

Neal

 

Why work so hard to avoid believeing that Jesus himself stepped out of Heaven to minister to Abraham. I dissagree that the terms without descent etc. simply mean his descent is not listed. I think it is a clear indication of a supernatural being. Remember also how Abe gave Him tithes of all and was blessed by melchesidec. The account also notes that the lesser is always blessed of the greater and here is one who Abe recognizes as greater than he is. I don't think Shem or any mortal king qualifies in this fashion. Also consider the importance of this meeting and ask ourselves if God would trust this to just a king. Abe was scheduled to meet the wicked king of sodom who offered him riches, so God stepped in to minister to Abe and confirm his faith, as Abe met the wicked king he said I have lifted my hand to the most high God. I don't want to offend anyone here but I personaly feel that this is Jesus and if you are unsure just wait and we can ask him.
Murph

 

[ December 25, 2002, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

[ December 25, 2002, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

My two cents:

I believe that Melchisedec was not a theophany, My basis for this is the phrase, "similitude of Melchisedec" (KJV) in Hebrews 7:15. It would seem to be poor language to use figurative language if Christ was in reality Melchisedec.

I do not know of any doctrinal implication for believing either way. I definitely do not think it is something to break fellowship over. (you are allowed to be wrong )

 

[ December 25, 2002, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

[ December 25, 2002, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

[ December 25, 2002, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

Sherrie, I don't mean to be rude. Where are you coming up with things like this? This is an wholly un-Scriptural presupposition.

Are you confusing priesthood with genealogy?

 

I will just say this briefly (sigh of relief by all who actually read my posts):

Melchisadek is "like the Son" in the sense that they are both King-Priests. Melchisadek was not the complete person of Christ. Christ took upon himself the form of a man, Melchisadek did not. Therefore, it could be said that Melchisadek was the Son before the incarnation.

 

BrianT, I answered in the above post to clarify my position. That is all.

Christ is greater than Melchisadec because Melchisadec was a temporary king-priest. Christ is the eternal king-priest. On that basis, Jesus Christ (the God-man) is greater than Melchisadec (a theophany).

Whether you agree or not, that is a valid answer.

I think my position can anwer every objection well.

 

Actually, the Melchizedek priesthood is an eternal priesthood, not a temporal one. That is the significance of Melchizedek not having father or mother, beginning of days nor end of life. He abideth a priest forever.

Jesus is a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.