Who is Melchizedek?

Melchizdek is Jesus

 

And you are very much mistaken as Scripture plainly states that he is like Jesus not that he is Jesus.

 

Melchisedec was a "type" of Christ. He wasnt Christ Himself.

This is the Seventh Day Adventist view of this subject...


It was Christ that spoke through Melchisedec, the priest of the most high God. Melchisedec was not Christ, but he was the voice of God in the world, the representative of the Father.


3 (Mark 14:53; Luke 22:54; John 18:13). A Corrupted Priesthood.-- The priesthood had become so corrupt that the priests had no scruples in engaging in the most dishonest and criminal acts to accomplish their designs. Those who assumed the office of high priest prior to, and at, the time of Christ's first advent, were not men divinely appointed to the sacred work. They had eagerly aspired to the office through love of power and show. They desired a position where they could have authority, and practice fraud under a garb of piety, and thereby escape detection. The high priest held a position of power and importance. He was not only counselor and mediator, but judge; and there was no appeal from his decision. The priests were held in restraint by the authority of the Romans, and were not allowed the power of legally putting anyone to death. This power rested with those who bore rule over the Jews. Men of corrupt hearts sought the distinguished office of high priest, and frequently obtained it by bribery and assassination. The high priest, clad in his consecrated and expensive robes, with the breastplate upon his breast, the light flashing upon the precious stones inlaid in the breastplate, presented a most imposing appearance, and struck the conscientious, true-hearted people with admiration, reverence, and awe. The high priest was designed in an especial manner to represent Christ, who was to become a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec (RH Dec. 17, 1872). {5BC 1100.8}


17 (Gen. 14:18-20; Ps. 110:4). A High Priest After the Order of Melchisedec.--The high priest was designed in an especial manner to represent Christ, who was to become a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. This order of priesthood was not to pass to another, or be superseded by another (Redemption: The First Advent of Christ, p. 14). {7BC 930.12}


..that is from the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy.

 

The writer to the Hebrews, maybe? Note that even if he were still alive there is no indication the Author knew Melchizedek. Second the context indicates a lack of record

Ummm... Melchizedek based solely on a promise made to him. So, I guess that makes two priests.

Heaven.

 

Hardly

 

Heb 7 never says "Melchizedek still liveth" but what a great text if it DID say that!!

I wonder if Melchizedek "Still liveth" while Christ was in the tomb. Does the Bible say Christ "died and rose again"??

The reason that Melchizedek is stated to have no recorded "end of days" is that he has nothing recorded about his death. This makes him a "type" of Christ - it does not make him God the Son incarnate BEFORE His FIRST coming!!

ALL OT prophesies look FORWARD to the coming of the Christ NONE declare that "HE ALREADY" came. NONE call the birth Christ his "Coming AGAIN" as they do with the 2nd coming references to His return.

the point is obvious.

 

In the Gospels Christ says that "John IS Elijah" as His way of saying that John IS NOT actually Elijah but came in the spirit and power of Elijah.

Surely an equally if not MORE explicit reference was available in Heb 7 if the intent was to say "CHRIST IS Melchizedek". Obviously it does not go even as far as the reference between Elijah and John.

When the blind man responds to the question "who healed you" and "who is the Son of man" he does not know the person by sight - Christ then says "I AM HE" - he does not say "I resemble him".

NOTHING like that is stated in Heb 7 between Christ and Melchizedek.

They are not the same person -

Christ IS the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world - but that lamb/goat caught while Abraham was at the altar with his son to slay him - WAS NOT in fact God the Son at some pre-incarnate moment!

Lets be serious.

 

But if we look at this extreme view of Melchizedek we see obvious points telling us this is in no way God the Son.

#1. When Christ comes to the first time - He is born of a virgin as predicted and saves the World from sin as predicted. All mankind - history itself is changed and Christianity is born.

But when Melchizedek comes - it is into obscurity and to rule over a small little town of Salem - a small king a small town that does not ever actually do anything but take a tithe offering from Abraham and offer a prayer of blessing. A more insignificant "mission" for God the Son could hardly be imagined!!

#2. Moses - who "speaks with God face to face" according to Numbers 6 - fails to give Melchizedek anything more than "passing mention" as an insignificant figure.

This would be like Matthew saying "we were having dinner in the upper room and a man by the name of Jesus stopped by at the door to wish us Bon apetite!" as the entire Gospel account of Christ!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, but that doesn't stop him from doing so should he desire.

As the text points out Melchizedek was not a pagan king as he is named priest of the most high, so your argument here is pointless.

Because that is how God intended it. That is all you need to know. Again this is a pointless question as it does absolutely nothing to bolster your argument.

Besides if you are going to be convincing you need to come up with a better answer to "represents" than your normal habit of ignoring the basic definition of the word. Second, being of the "order" does not mean he is a follower of a person. It only means as Hebrews explains, that His priesthood was based on an oath rather than on lineage.

 

"IS MADE LIKE" does not say "IS" and yet we find of John the baptizer "he IS Elijah" who was to come!!

The NT does NOT teach reincarnation brethren!

When God the Son came to earth - it was born of a virgin and sent to save the world from sin.

The idea that he came to be king for a few years over the tiny city of Salem so that he could pick up a tithe offering from Abraham one day - is totally bogus.

ALL OT authors point FORWARD to the coming of God the Son to earth -- NONE point backward.

ALL NT authors point to CHRIST as the Messiah - NEVER to Melchizedek.

The only thing we find is that in that story - the description of him has attributes so align him with the role of Christ IN HEAVEN!

"For IF HE where on earth He would NOT be a priest AT ALL" Heb 8:4

 

The argument made in Heb 7 is for the DESTRUCTION of all earthly priesthood!

The argument is that SINCE there is a CHANGE in priesthood (Christ as High Priest in HEAVEN not earth) then there has to be a change in law (regarding the priesthood).

Paul is pointing out that the fact that Christ is our true High Priest - abolishes the system of earthly "levitical" priesthood.

Paul CONTRASTS the Levitical model with the one Christ has IN HEAVEN!

He never claims that Melchizedek officiated in heaven as High Priest while being king in Salem!!

It just isn't there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Obviously, Eliyahu, by your own standards you either don't believe the Bible or you are twisting and distorting the Scriptures. Again you can't ignore the basic definition of 'represents.' Also the complete context of Hebrews points out that they are alike in that their priesthood is based upon an oath and not a bloodline which is why their priesthood lasts forever.