An interesting link I found that discusses BOTH the view that he was a man, and that he was a pre-incarnate Christ...I still hold to the Teophany view, but this one treats both views fairly... My contention is that we should not be dogmatic about it either way. Most fair treatments of the subject I have run across leave room for people to disagree on this one:
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/melchizedek.htm
I think there are problems (naturally) with the theophany argument presented in this article.
William Arnold III said:
First of all it calls him both a priest and a king; no one else has been called both a king and a priest except Jesus Christ.
Perhaps, that is one way in which Melchizedek was "
made like unto the Son of God." Given the law of Moses, only descendants of Aaron could be priests (Lev 1:8; Num 18:1), and the plan was that only descendants of Judah would be kings (Gen 49:8-10). No one genetically could be both. However, the mysterious Melchizedek was regarded as performing the roles of both a priest and a king; therefore, he was "
made LIKE unto the Son of God."
William Arnold III said:
Melchizedek is then called the King of righteousness. What pray tell could this possibly mean? Romans 3:10 says that "There is none righteous, no, not one." How much more to be the King (basileus - leader, ruler, king) of righteousness.
This is actually one reason I lean toward Melchizedek being Shem or a descendant of Shem. Noah was called "Zedek":
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just [Zedek] man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
I believe it is possible that Shem carried on his father's tradition of "Zedek." After all, Abraham was a Semite. Shem perhaps founded and named his city "Salem" because being "Zedek" brings about "Salem," and either he or a descendant of his led this city.
To try to make a case from Melchizedek's title "King of righteousness" as a claim to deity based on Romans 3:10 puts many other passages and people as candidates. Jesus said "there is none good but one, that is, God" (Mar 10:18) , yet Job was "was perfect and upright."
As I mentioned before, there was a later king of Salem called "Adonizedek," which means "Lord/Master of Righteousness." Does this make Adonizedek God because of Romans 3:10?
William Arnold III said:
Then we see that he is the "King of Salem, which is (or, "by interpretation," as said before), King of peace;" Now if this were talking about the geographical city of Salem, which later became Jerusalem, then why go on to explain it? This letter was written to the Hebrews. They of all people would know the meaning of the name of their holy city.
Perhaps because the writer to the Hebrews was emphasizing something they already knew to make a point. They were likely familiar with Psalm 110:4, yet the writer to the Hebrews references this passage no less than five times:
Heb 5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 5:10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec
The point was not to ascribe deity to Melchizedek but to emphasize
the superiority of his priesthood, which Jewish tradition recognized, but they were focused on the priesthood of Aaron "after a carnal commandment."
William Arnold III said:
Now the Bible tells us that he was, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;" Now, do we interpret the Bible literally or not? I realize that "descent" (genealogia), is a recorded record, or a genealogy. But that does not, in any way take away from these other statements. In fact, if "Without father, without mother" just means that there were no records of his father or mother then it would be redundant to say "without descent" immediately afterwards. The Jews of this day would call someone who did not have a written genealogy "without father", but for inspired scripture to make this claim without at least warning us by saying "apparently", or "as was supposed"(Luke 3:23) just seems to be too much of a stretch. Even John said "I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25) when using figurative language. But why point out that he was without mother, if this only means that his mother was not recorded? Women were usually not recorded in genealogies during this time anyway. We see that not even Jesus’ mother, (who is his only genuine tie to the human race), is recorded in his genealogy (Luke 3:23).
Understanding the grammar of the opening description of Melchizedek might help here:
Heb 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;
Heb 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;
Heb 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.
One could strip out the modifiers and read the subject-predicate as such:
"For this Melchisedec... abideth a priest continually."
Let's add the
appositives:
"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God... abideth a priest continually."
Notice that the emphasis is on
priesthood. How does Melchizedek "abide a priest continually"?
"Without father, without mother, without descent (pedigree), having neither beginning of days, nor end of life."
All these are qualifiers
for priesthood with which the Jews were familiar by the Levitical code. Melchizedek is regarded as a priest by tradition despite not having the written record required by the Levirate law. The fact that there is no record of Melchizedek's beginning or end leaves a legitimate priesthood open-ended. It was never dissolved, despite the fact that God did set up a Levitical priesthood. This is the case that the writer to the Hebrews uses to prove that Christ fulfilled the prophecy that He would be a "priest forever
after the order of Melchizedek."
Now, for one to be "after the order of" someone else, he would have to
succeed that person. If Melchizedek were actually God in the flesh (or Christ in the flesh), then how could Jesus Christ legitimately succeed Himself?
Melchizedek was
clearly serving the literal role of a literal king of a literal city. At one point in time people had to regard him as their literal king. If Melchizedek continued to rule over Salem and never physically died, one would think that the whole world would know of this amazing phenomenon. If Melchizedek ascended to heaven, one would think that the whole world would know of this amazing phenomenon. If Melchizedek mysteriously vanished (hid himself), one would think that the people of this city would have searched diligently to find him, and there would be some tradition or legend of this. We know that Melchizedek's role as priest-king over Salem
ended at some point because there was an "Adonizedek" who was king over Salem during the days of Joshua. There are
way too many problems with a theophany view of Melchizedek that requires an infinite appeal to
argument from silence.
William Arnold III said:
Now the first three "withouts" are translated so because of the Greek prefix "a-", meaning not, or without, but in this next statement we have the word exwn (to have or possess). So this is literally saying that he did not have a beginning or an ending. There is only One which that describes.
Of what is it said that Melchizedek "did not have a beginning or an ending"? Melchizedek was "priest of the most high God...having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." These modifiers pertain to his being "priest of the most high God," not to his ontology in general.
William Arnold III said:
If the Bible seems to state things as actual facts when they really are not, then this leaves the door wide open for the allegorical and the mystical method of interpretation.
No, it just means that we need to look closely at the grammar of sentences, not just at the lexical meanings of words.
William Arnold III said:
Next we are told that Melchizedek "abideth a priest continually." This word "abideth" is in the present indicative tense, which "action is understood as taking place at the same time as the speech."16 How could Melchizedek be a priest right now if we are told that Jesus is the high priest?
The statement is concerning the
priesthood of Melchizedek. The writer has not yet made the case about how Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that He would be "priest forever
after the order of Melchizedek." Now, if Melchizedek were
still a priest
in the same context of Jesus being a priest today, then you would have both Melchizedek and Jesus Christ being priest in this order simultaneously; yet "order of" indicates succession.
continued...
