Nebuchadnezzar was stating what he observed when he said "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God [or 'a son of the gods']." What he saw, he could only describe as something that looked god-like. Now, I would say that for Melchizedek to be "made like unto the Son of God" is quite different from Nebuchadnezzar trying to describe someone he saw as "the form... is like the Son of God."
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
WHERE is Melchisedec TODAY???
- Thread starter Gregory Perry Sr.
- Start date
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.
That is actually what we "Theophany types" do not accept....we DON'T accept what I think.....you seem overly obsessed with:
1.) Thinking of him as a literal man and simultaneously
2.) Thinking that we who DON'T see him as a mere man, must answer that we think he is a human who lived forever...we don't think that:
We think he was a Theophany, not a human...they show up all the time....They also go away too...
They show up, they beat up on Jacob a little, cripple him for life, give him a new name...and then they disappear.
They show up in furnaces of fire, save 3 Jewish boys from burning to death, then they go away.
They become burning bushes...talk to Moses a bit...then they go away.
We think "Melchizedek" was a Theophany...not a dude who lived forever.
There WAS a city known later as "Salem" and Adonizek was indeed the king thereof. That city most likely was later known to be Jerusalem, but that does not mean that they were one and the same city....some Biblical names for certain places probably refer to different places which are renamed over time...The river "Euphrates" is probably one of them....I do not think the exact same River which forked from the garden of Eden is precisely the same river which NOW bears it's name many years later. If Melchizedek was indeed the king of "Salem" (literally) as the same place that Adonizek literally ruled, then he was king of a very Pagan and non-God honoring Jebusite city which had little or no appreciation for the worship of God....In other words, if he was indeed "Priest" of it...then he was ineffective at minimum, as he had little influence on the paganism practiced by the inhabitants of Caanan at that time...
If Melchizedek was indeed Shem...than we have a perfect geneology of his ancestors and his successors. Abraham was one...and we can trace him back to Adam...and forward to Christ, so he cannot be Shem. If he was then someone else, then how was he then in any way a Spiritual Superior to Abraham???
There are REAL problems with both views...neither are easy to answer, and BOTH leave difficult questions to be answered.....I really like the "don't be dogmatic" position.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
The Answer..? Or at least part of it!
After asking the original question in the OP I got busy and didn't have time to do much over the last day or two. AresMan, you and Heir have really made this an interesting discussion. In that light I think I actually,after reading through all the posts, reasoned out an answer to the OP. IF...and I say a definite IF, Melchizedek were a theophany then I think it would be a easy to say that we can all know WHERE He is TODAY. It is simple really....He is and would be (according to Romans 8:34 and Col.3:1)at the right hand of God this very day making intercession for US...amen!? AMEN...and thank God.
Oh yeah...one other thing....Daniel...I have GOT to get a couple of copies of your new book (I checked out the weblink) and I will but I have to get a job first as I'm unemployed right now. I want a copy for me and a copy for my Pastor as well (He and I have agreed to disagree about this matter but I don't give up easy!) I appreciate the clarity of thought and your honest approach to scripture on this subject. To try to "convert" a Baptist preacher from the "traditional" tithe position is almost harder work than trying to get a "koolaid-drinking" ultra left-wing liberal democrat (like my dear sister) to vote for a conservative right-wing Tea Party candidate! As soon as I can find a job...I WANT BOOKS! In the meantime...keep up the good work and I'd appreciate your prayers as I try to find a job!
Bro.Greg:type:
No, the point of the passage is that a Levitical priest's role as priest was tied to a certain period of time during his life in which he received tithes continually for sustenance; then, he would have to pass on this role to a physical descendant. The "receives them" is not in the original text and is a translator addition. It does not mean that Melchizedek continues to receive tithes, but the "in that case" refers to the historical incident with Abram.
What does "of whom it is witnessed that he ever liveth" mean? Who is witness of this? I would like to meet him. Did someone see Melchizedek walking around recently? No, the "witness" here is the Scripture concerning Melchizedek that he was "priest of the most high God," and that there is NO record of his death. This lack of record IS "the witness" of this case. The lack of qualifiers of his order of priesthood mean that, technically, if Melchizedek were alive today, he would still qualify to be a priest.
Now, if one were to discard all my arguments above and say that Melchizedek is Christ Himself and argue that the language of the passage supports this, is it not possible that the text can be using Melchizedek as a metaphor of Christ?
1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
How many would seriously argue that Christ Himself became incarnate in the wilderness as a large boulder. Paul is clearly using a metaphor. The rock here is Christ in type because God used the rock to quench their thirst supernaturally, and He had Moses strike and speak to the rock. Why cannot Melchizedek be Christ in type rather than as a theophany?
After asking the original question in the OP I got busy and didn't have time to do much over the last day or two. AresMan, you and Heir have really made this an interesting discussion. In that light I think I actually,after reading through all the posts, reasoned out an answer to the OP. IF...and I say a definite IF, Melchizedek were a theophany then I think it would be a easy to say that we can all know WHERE He is TODAY. It is simple really....He is and would be (according to Romans 8:34 and Col.3:1)at the right hand of God this very day making intercession for US...amen!? AMEN...and thank God.
Oh yeah...one other thing....Daniel...I have GOT to get a couple of copies of your new book (I checked out the weblink) and I will but I have to get a job first as I'm unemployed right now. I want a copy for me and a copy for my Pastor as well (He and I have agreed to disagree about this matter but I don't give up easy!) I appreciate the clarity of thought and your honest approach to scripture on this subject. To try to "convert" a Baptist preacher from the "traditional" tithe position is almost harder work than trying to get a "koolaid-drinking" ultra left-wing liberal democrat (like my dear sister) to vote for a conservative right-wing Tea Party candidate! As soon as I can find a job...I WANT BOOKS! In the meantime...keep up the good work and I'd appreciate your prayers as I try to find a job!
Bro.Greg:type:
Nebuchadnezzar was stating what he observed when he said "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God [or 'a son of the gods']." What he saw, he could only describe as something that looked god-like. Now, I would say that for Melchizedek to be "made like unto the Son of God" is quite different from Nebuchadnezzar trying to describe someone he saw as "the form... is like the Son of God."
Taking note of the following verses, let me ask a question.
Verses. Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Hebrews 5:4-10 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another, Thou a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Questions.
Was the resurrection of Jesus the Christ by God the Father an absolute necessity to Jesus being a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec?
Concerning, And being perfected/matured/completed he became; How was he perfected/matured/completed?
Concerning, Who in days of the flesh of him; Would 1 Cor. 15:46 be relative to, Who in the days of the flesh of him? 1C15:46 Howbeit that not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
Assuming afterward meaning after the resurrection and Jesus being the only one to this date so resurrected.
BTW I believe Mel to have been a man and is presently dead awaiting the resurrection in which he will still be a priest.
I believe this thought carries on through chapters 6 and 7 where in 6:20 this is said; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, [even] Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
If we also are to be priest in the kingdom of God, after what order shall we be priest?
If Salem were not a city at the time of Abram and Melchizedek, I would think Moses would have had an appropriate commentary.That is actually what we "Theophany types" do not accept....we DON'T accept what I think.....you seem overly obsessed with:
1.) Thinking of him as a literal man and simultaneously
2.) Thinking that we who DON'T see him as a mere man, must answer that we think he is a human who lived forever...we don't think that:
We think he was a Theophany, not a human...they show up all the time....They also go away too...
They show up, they beat up on Jacob a little, cripple him for life, give him a new name...and then they disappear.
They show up in furnaces of fire, save 3 Jewish boys from burning to death, then they go away.
They become burning bushes...talk to Moses a bit...then they go away.
We think "Melchizedek" was a Theophany...not a dude who lived forever.
There WAS a city known later as "Salem" and Adonizek was indeed the king thereof. That city most likely was later known to be Jerusalem, but that does not mean that they were one and the same city....some Biblical names for certain places probably refer to different places which are renamed over time...The river "Euphrates" is probably one of them....I do not think the exact same River which forked from the garden of Eden is precisely the same river which NOW bears it's name many years later. If Melchizedek was indeed the king of "Salem" (literally) as the same place that Adonizek literally ruled, then he was king of a very Pagan and non-God honoring Jebusite city which had little or no appreciation for the worship of God....In other words, if he was indeed "Priest" of it...then he was ineffective at minimum, as he had little influence on the paganism practiced by the inhabitants of Caanan at that time...
Gen 14:17 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.
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Gen 14:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
It would seem to me with such parallel language that Moses intended to communicate that Bera was a literal king of a city called "Sodom" at that time, and that Melchizedek was also a literal king of a city called "Salem" at that time.
Sure, Salem was pagan when David conquered the city from the Jebusites, but that doesn't mean that it was pagan when Melchizedek was king. Eventually, Melchizedek ceased to be priest-king of Salem and Adonizedek was king during the time of Joshua. If the city of Salem did not exist until later on, then we would have a "problem" because we believe that Moses wrote the Torah and he died in the wilderness before the Israelites encountered the actual city of Salem. Now, of course, I believe that God could inspire Moses to write about a city in the future that he never encountered, but I would think a plain reading of these verses in Genesis 14 would avoid having to speculate about a lot of these things. My explanation above represents yet another of a myriad of questions that would arise with a theophany view.
In the case of the other theophanies you mentioned, the supernatural element is clear and noted. Also, these appearances seem to be in isolated situations. Moses is alone in the wilderness when he sees the burning bush. Jacob is alone when he wrestles with the angel. In the fiery furnace, it is clear that the "fourth man" appeared and Nebuchadnezzar noticed something supernatural. In Genesis 14 the narrative notes nothing supernatural or isolated. It would seem that the King of Sodom was there with Abram as he encountered Melchizedek, yet he never asked him "Who are you talking to? I don't see anyone there!" No one says that Melchizedek looks like anything unusual. There is no mention of Abram falling prostrate on the ground. There is no mention of the place being "holy ground."
Unless all the modifiers in Hebrews 7:3 have to do with record of priesthood rather than actual physical life.If Melchizedek was indeed Shem...than we have a perfect geneology of his ancestors and his successors. Abraham was one...and we can trace him back to Adam...and forward to Christ, so he cannot be Shem.
If this is a problem, I also propose a descendant of Shem as a possibility in my book. Genesis 10:21-31 does not list all the descendants of Shem. The passage lists the following direct sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram, but only gives descendants of Aram and Arphaxad.
Because Abram could have been a pagan before God called him out of Ur. Shem or one of his descendants could have continued an unbroken patriarchal priesthood of "Zedek" since the Deluge.If he was then someone else, then how was he then in any way a Spiritual Superior to Abraham???
Sure, and I hope you don't think I am being dogmatic, either. I am merely pointing out what I see as the major problems with the theophany view. I am certainly not dogmatic that Melchizedek had to be Shem or one of his descendants.There are REAL problems with both views...neither are easy to answer, and BOTH leave difficult questions to be answered.....I really like the "don't be dogmatic" position.
If Salem were not a city at the time of Abram and Melchizedek, I would think Moses would have had an appropriate commentary.
Gen 14:17 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.
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Gen 14:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
It would seem to me with such parallel language that Moses intended to communicate that Bera was a literal king of a city called "Sodom" at that time, and that Melchizedek was also a literal king of a city called "Salem" at that time.
Sure, Salem was pagan when David conquered the city from the Jebusites, but that doesn't mean that it was pagan when Melchizedek was king. Eventually, Melchizedek ceased to be priest-king of Salem and Adonizedek was king during the time of Joshua. If the city of Salem did not exist until later on, then we would have a "problem" because we believe that Moses wrote the Torah and he died in the wilderness before the Israelites encountered the actual city of Salem. Now, of course, I believe that God could inspire Moses to write about a city in the future that he never encountered, but I would think a plain reading of these verses in Genesis 14 would avoid having to speculate about a lot of these things. My explanation above represents yet another of a myriad of questions that would arise with a theophany view.
In the case of the other theophanies you mentioned, the supernatural element is clear and noted. Also, these appearances seem to be in isolated situations. Moses is alone in the wilderness when he sees the burning bush. Jacob is alone when he wrestles with the angel. In the fiery furnace, it is clear that the "fourth man" appeared and Nebuchadnezzar noticed something supernatural. In Genesis 14 the narrative notes nothing supernatural or isolated. It would seem that the King of Sodom was there with Abram as he encountered Melchizedek, yet he never asked him "Who are you talking to? I don't see anyone there!" No one says that Melchizedek looks like anything unusual. There is no mention of Abram falling prostrate on the ground. There is no mention of the place being "holy ground."
Unless all the modifiers in Hebrews 7:3 have to do with record of priesthood rather than actual physical life.
If this is a problem, I also propose a descendant of Shem as a possibility in my book. Genesis 10:21-31 does not list all the descendants of Shem. The passage lists the following direct sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram, but only gives descendants of Aram and Arphaxad.
Because Abram could have been a pagan before God called him out of Ur. Shem or one of his descendants could have continued an unbroken patriarchal priesthood of "Zedek" since the Deluge.
Sure, and I hope you don't think I am being dogmatic, either. I am merely pointing out what I see as the major problems with the theophany view. I am certainly not dogmatic that Melchizedek had to be Shem or one of his descendants.
still think it best to see him as being a type of jesus as the High priest, just as Moses was as a type of him as prophet, and David as King!
Sure, as a type, not Christ Himself.still think it best to see him as being a type of jesus as the High priest, just as Moses was as a type of him as prophet, and David as King!