Melchizedec

I think this person has caused more pondering than anyone else in the Bible. He seems shrouded in mystery. The most baffling statement regarding him comes in Hebrews chapter 7. What do some of you serious Bible-scholars think?

Originally posted by ale1552
What do some of you serious Bible-scholars think?

That probably rules out at least 90% of us 🙂

Originally posted by ale1552
I think this person has caused more pondering than anyone else in the Bible. He seems shrouded in mystery. The most baffling statement regarding him comes in Hebrews chapter 7. What do some of you serious Bible-scholars think?

If you think he is a mystery, what about Enoch?

Melchizedek (meaning King of Righteousness.)

King of ancient Salem and “priest of the Most High God,”. (Ge 14:18, 22) He is the first priest mentioned in the Scriptures; he occupied that position sometime prior to 1933 B.C.E. Being the king of Salem, which means “Peace,” Melchizedek is identified by the apostle Paul as “King of Peace” and, on the basis of his name, as “King of Righteousness.” (Heb 7:1, 2) Ancient Salem is understood to have been the nucleus of the later city of Jerusalem, and its name was incorporated in that of Jerusalem, which is sometimes referred to as “Salem.”—Ps 76:2.

After Abram (Abraham) defeated Chedorlaomer and his confederate kings, the patriarch came to the Low Plain of Shaveh or “the king’s Low Plain.” There Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine” and blessed Abraham, saying: “Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth; and blessed be the Most High God, who has delivered your oppressors into your hand!” At that Abraham gave the king-priest “a tenth of everything,” that is, of “the chief spoils” he had acquired in his successful warfare against the allied kings.—Ge 14:17-20; Heb 7:4.

Christs Priesthood Typified. In a notable Messianic prophecy the sworn oath of God to Davids “Lord” is: “You are a priest to time indefinite according to the manner of Melchizedek!” (Ps 110:1, 4) This inspired psalm gave the Hebrews reason to regard the promised Messiah as the one in whom the office of priest and king would be combined. The apostle Paul, in the letter to the Hebrews, removed any doubt about the identity of the one foretold, speaking of “Jesus, who has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.”—Heb 6:20; 5:10

Direct appointment. God evidently appointed Melchizedek to be a priest. In discussing Jesus status as the great High Priest, Paul showed that a man does not take the honor “of his own accord, but only when he is called by God, just as Aaron also was.” He also explained that “the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by him who spoke with reference to him: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father,’” and the apostle next applies the prophetic words of Psalm 110:4 to Jesus Christ.—Heb 5:1, 4-6.

‘Received tithes from Levi.’ Melchizedeks priestly status was not linked with the priesthood of Israel, and as the Scriptures point out, it was higher than the Aaronic priesthood. One factor indicating this is the deference accorded to Melchizedek by Abraham, the forefather of the entire nation of Israel, including the priestly tribe of Levi. Abraham, “Gods friend,” who became “the father of all those having faith” (Jas 2:23; Ro 4:11), gave a tenth, or a “tithe,” to this priest of the Most High God. Paul shows that the Levites collected tithes from their brothers, who also issued from the loins of Abraham. However, he points out that Melchizedek “who did not trace his genealogy from them took tithes from Abraham,” and “through Abraham even Levi who receives tithes has paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his forefather when Melchizedek met him.” Thus, though the Levitical priests received tithes from the people of Israel, they, as represented in their ancestor Abraham, paid tithes to Melchizedek. Furthermore, the superiority of Melchizedeks priesthood is shown in that he blessed Abraham, Paul pointing out that “the less is blessed by the greater.” Such factors are among those making Melchizedek a suitable type of the great High Priest Jesus Christ.—Heb 7:4-10.

No predecessors or successors. Paul clearly indicates that perfection was unattainable through the Levitical priesthood, thus necessitating the appearance of a priest “according to the manner of Melchizedek.” He points out that Christ sprang from Judah, a nonpriestly tribe, but, citing Jesus’ similarity to Melchizedek, shows that he became a priest, “not according to the law of a commandment depending upon the flesh, but according to the power of an indestructible life.” Aaron and his sons became priests without an oath, but the priesthood conferred on Christ was ordained by an oath of God. Also, whereas the Levitical priests kept dying and needed to have successors, the resurrected Jesus Christ “because of continuing alive forever has his priesthood without any successors” and, therefore, is able “to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.”—Heb 7:11-25.

How was it true that Melchizedek had ‘neither beginning of days nor end of life’?

Paul isolated an outstanding fact respecting Melchizedek, in saying of him: “In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but having been made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.” (Heb 7:3) Like other humans, Melchizedek was born and he died. However, the names of his father and mother are not furnished, his ancestry and posterity are not disclosed, and the Scriptures contain no information about the beginning of his days or the end of his life. Thus, Melchizedek could fittingly foreshadow Jesus Christ, who has an unending priesthood. As Melchizedek had no recorded predecessor or successor in his priesthood, so too Christ was preceded by no high priest similar to himself, and the Bible shows that none will ever succeed him. Furthermore, although Jesus was born in the tribe of Judah and in the kingly line of David, his fleshly ancestry had no bearing on his priesthood, nor was it by virtue of human ancestry that the offices of both priest and king were combined in him. These things were as a result of Gods own oath to him.

A view that appears in the Targums of Jerusalem and of Jonathan and that has gained wide acceptance among the Jews and others is that Melchizedek was Noah’s son Shem. Shem was then alive and even outlived Abraham’s wife Sarah. Also, Noah specifically blessed Shem. (Ge 9:26, 27) But this identification has not been confirmed. The fact remains that Melchizedeks nationality, genealogy, and offspring are left undisclosed in the Scriptures, and that with good reason, for he could thus typify Jesus Christ, who by Gods sworn oath “has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.”—Heb 6:20.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Melchizedek (meaning King of Righteousness.)

King of ancient Salem and “priest of the Most High God,”. (Ge 14:18, 22) He is the first priest mentioned in the Scriptures; he occupied that position sometime prior to 1933 B.C.E. Being the king of Salem, which means “Peace,” Melchizedek is identified by the apostle Paul as “King of Peace” and, on the ...[text shortened]... sworn oath “has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.”—Heb 6:20.

What can you tell us about Enoch? 😉

Originally posted by whodey
What can you tell us about Enoch? 😉

Your wish is my command, oh Master!

ENOCH, (meaning One Trained Up; Inaugurated (that is, dedicated, initiated)).


The son born to Jared at the age of 162; the seventh man in the genealogical line from Adam. In addition to Methuselah, who was born to him when he was 65 years old, Enoch had other sons and daughters. Enoch was one of the “so great a cloud of witnesses” who were outstanding examples of faith in ancient times. “Enoch kept walking with the true God.” (Ge 5:18, 21-24; Heb 11:5; 12:1) As a prophet of God, he foretold God’s coming with His holy myriads to execute judgment against the ungodly. (Jude 14, 15) Likely persecution was brought against him because of his prophesying. However, God did not permit the opposers to kill Enoch. Instead, God “took him,” that is, cut short his life at the age of 365, an age far below that of most of his contemporaries. Enoch was “transferred so as not to see death,” which may mean that God put him in a prophetic trance and then terminated Enochs life while he was in the trance so that he did not experience the pangs of death. (Ge 5:24; Heb 11:5, 13) However, he was not taken to heaven, in view of Jesus clear statement at John 3:13. It appears that, as in the case of Moses body, God disposed of Enochs body, for “he was nowhere to be found.”—De 34:5, 6; Jude 9.

Enoch is not the writer of the “Book of Enoch.” This is an uninspired, apocryphal book written many centuries later, probably sometime during the second and first centuries B.C.E.

Thanks, Robbie, for the Bible lesson. It is something I am familiar with already, but it was good of you to obtain it for me again. It was the portion in Hebrews which baffles me where it says he had no father and no mother. I have wondered whether or not he may have been an epiphany....Christ in another form before he was born in Bethlehem. This is what I hoped that you, and others, might touch on.

Originally posted by ale1552
Thanks, Robbie, for the Bible lesson. It is something I am familiar with already, but it was good of you to obtain it for me again. It was the portion in Hebrews which baffles me where it says he had no father and no mother. I have wondered whether or not he may have been an epiphany....Christ in another form before he was born in Bethlehem. This is what I hoped that you, and others, might touch on.

[Quote by robbie corrobie]: "Christ is not God, never has been nor ever will be equal to Almighty God, another piece of drivel, and how is it possible that after having been acquitted of sin in this life through death are these sins supposed to be carried on to the next life, for quite clearly a sinner has paid for his sins with dearth, the wages of sin, but it is not enough for you reprobates, you would want to punish him in death also, my goodness man think about what it is you are saying!" [Unquote]

One must be cautious from whence one receiveth Bible lessons as evidenced from the above quote.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your wish is my command, oh Master!

ENOCH, (meaning One Trained Up; Inaugurated (that is, dedicated, initiated)).


The son born to Jared at the age of 162; the seventh man in the genealogical line from Adam. In addition to Methuselah, who was born to him when he was 65 years old, Enoch had other sons and daughters. Enoch was one of the “so gre ...[text shortened]... ook written many centuries later, probably sometime during the second and first centuries B.C.E.

Why is it that it must be uninspired? Is it because it is not in the cannonized Bible? In addition, just because the manuscript was dated to be before the time of Enoch, why is it the assumption is that he had nothing to do with it? In fact, I might as well throw out the entire gospels because they were all written after the time of Christ.

As for myself, I find the books fascinating. In certain sections, it appears to prophesy the coming of Christ. Also, if they are uninspired, why is it that Jude refers to it? Do you consider Jude inspired?

I just find it odd that such an influential man is only briefly referred to in the Bible. Pretty much all we know about him is his blood line and that he followed God so closely he "took him". There seems to be missing pieces of the puzzle here that the books of Enoch seem to fill.

Originally posted by dystoniac
[Quote by robbie corrobie]: "Christ is not God, never has been nor ever will be equal to Almighty God, another piece of drivel, and how is it possible that after having been acquitted of sin in this life through death are these sins supposed to be carried on to the next life, for quite clearly a sinner has paid for his sins with dearth, the wages of sin, b ...[text shortened]... ne must be cautious from whence one receiveth Bible lessons as evidenced from the above quote.

😉

Originally posted by dystoniac
[Quote by robbie corrobie]: "Christ is not God, never has been nor ever will be equal to Almighty God, another piece of drivel, and how is it possible that after having been acquitted of sin in this life through death are these sins supposed to be carried on to the next life, for quite clearly a sinner has paid for his sins with dearth, the wages of sin, b ...[text shortened]... ne must be cautious from whence one receiveth Bible lessons as evidenced from the above quote.

No, one must be careful of those who cannot even substantiate their own claims and cannot even tell the difference between Christ and Almighty God, the meaning of even basic bible words such as soul and whether it is mortal or immortal!

as yet you have failed to answer or substantiate any one of these claims and yet you have the audacity to call into question the teachings of others because they can, that my friend is hypocrisy!

Originally posted by ale1552
Thanks, Robbie, for the Bible lesson. It is something I am familiar with already, but it was good of you to obtain it for me again. It was the portion in Hebrews which baffles me where it says he had no father and no mother. I have wondered whether or not he may have been an epiphany....Christ in another form before he was born in Bethlehem. This is what I hoped that you, and others, might touch on.

you are most welcome, please ignore the statements of those who are unable to differentiate between their bums and their elbows, they are blind to their own inadequacies because of their adherence to dogma and will remain as such until they extricate themselves!

Originally posted by whodey
Why is it that it must be uninspired? Is it because it is not in the cannonized Bible? In addition, just because the manuscript was dated to be before the time of Enoch, why is it the assumption is that he had nothing to do with it? In fact, I might as well throw out the entire gospels because they were all written after the time of Christ.

As for mysel ...[text shortened]... m". There seems to be missing pieces of the puzzle here that the books of Enoch seem to fill.

why are you asking me? i am apparently a false teacher and a purveyor of untruth, please you best beware!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why are you asking me? i am apparently a false teacher and a purveyor of untruth, please you best beware!

Don't be so hard on yourself, this site is full of people like yourself. 😛

I dare say you would say the same of me since we disagree on such critical belief. Either I am a blasphemer or you are. Either Christ was God in the flesh or he was not. In fact, does the Bible not say that Christ was charged with blasphemy and later sent to the cross?

Originally posted by whodey
Don't be so hard on yourself, this site is full of people like yourself. 😛

I dare say you would say the same of me since we disagree on such critical belief. Either I am a blasphemer or you are. Either Christ was God in the flesh or he was not. In fact, does the Bible not say that Christ was charged with blasphemy and later sent to the cross?

the difference being i can substantiate my beliefs, for there is no credable biblical evidence or otherwise to suggest that Christ was Almighty God, in the spirit or the flesh. For he was a created being or have you never read Colossians chapter 1 verse 15.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

thus Christ by virtue of his being created, had a beginning, he has not always existed as has Almighty God, who has no beginning nor any end.