Melchizadek

[Gail]

Melchizadek- now that's a name that not too many mothers give their children these days...

He has always fascinated me- who is this mysterious priest/king of Salem that comes to welcome Abraham after the conquest of the valley kings at Sodom?

I didn't think there was ANY other worshippers of the Most High God in Canaan, let alone a godly king!

[Pockey]

Yes he is very interesting. Kind've pops out of nowhere in the Bible, yet a type of Christ who Abraham gives tithe too.

[olger]

I haven't seen many Aholibamah's `round neither. Or Nebuchadnezzar's. "He's a cute little Neb.." Can't you hear it?

olger

[Pockey]

lol true.

Although Nebuchadnezzar is a good name for a ship.

[there buster]

Jewish tradition says Shem was Melchizidek. If you do the math, it's at least possible.

[aldona]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

Jewish tradition says Shem was Melchizidek. If you do the math, it's at least possible.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm familiar with that view too, and it does seem to make sense.

aldona

[olger]

Henry Halley suggested that years ago. Makes sense to me.

[Amelia]

Nimrod <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/laughhard.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/laughhard.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/laughhard.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/laughhard.gif" alt="" />

[Ron Lambert]

According to the Biblical accounts, Shem should have still been alive when Abraham was alive. While that seems clever enough, the problem is that Shem does not meet all the criteria given in Hebrews 7:3 describing Melchisedec: "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."

This passage indicates that Melchisedec is still living. And Shem did have a father and mother (Noah and his wife) and a traceable geneology. Only Someone who is divine could be said to have "neither beginning of days nor end of life."

Some have suggested that Melchisedec could have been the Holy Spirit taking a personal form, or could have been Jesus Christ appearing in human form before His Incarnation.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

Some have suggested that Melchisedec could have been the Holy Spirit taking a personal form, or could have been Jesus Christ appearing in human form before His Incarnation.

OK are we talking an illusion here, an apotheosis, or a previous incarnation? Inquiring minds wanna know.

[Nicodema]

lol true.

Although Nebuchadnezzar is a good name for a ship.

or a sandwich...

[Ron Lambert]

The Son of God appeared in the form of a man of war to Joshua, and called Himself the "Captain of the host of the Lord." But since He accepted worship, instructing Joshua to take his shoes off because he was on holy ground, obviously this was Deity, and not just an angel. See Joshua 5:13-15. If Deity also chose to make a personal manifestation as King of Salem, then apparently the Bible does not tell us everything that God has been doing among humans on earth. It would certainly be interesting to know more about what was accomplished by this King of Salem.

[Nicodema]

Apotheosis then? Or incarnation?

[Joy]

Gail,

Melchizedek is an important and intriging figure in my mind. But I've come to the conclusion that the most important thing about him is not who he is but what God is trying to tell us by using him as a figure. One of the ideas that seems to make sense to me is that God is using him to tell us that salvation is *not* through legal means, but rather through faith. Melchizedek is specifically juxtaposed with the Levitical priesthood in Hebrews 7:11 - Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? NASB

Then in verse 17 it refers to Jesus as being of the order of Melchizedek. I think this is to specifically tell us that Jesus' death and ministry (priesthood) has to do with faith and is not a matter of legality. A warning, if you will, not to fall into hematolotry (making the shed blood out to be our salvation).

BTW, I believe I've heard that Ellen White stated that Melchizedek is not Christ nor the Holy Spirit. So, I've come to believe that the reference to not having a geneology is figurative in that geneologies were very important back then, and his was either unknown or unimportant. I also think he was just a righteous local king (sort of an Abrahamic type character) that was following the guidance of the Holy Spirit (with the law written on his heart) thus God saw fit to use him as a type of Himself.

Just some thoughts that I hope are fruitful.

Joy

[Ron Lambert]

Joy, then you might possibly subscribe to the view held by some that Melchisedec was Shem, the son of Noah, who was alive during much of Abraham's life, according to Bible genealogies. I would be willing to go along with this interpretation if it were not for what Hebrews 7:3 says about him: "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."

You suggest taking the "without descent" part as figurative, and you might further say that he was "without father, without mother" because Noah and his wife by that time had died. But what about the rest of it? "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

Shem was not immortal. He did have an "end of life." And he certainly had a "beginning of days." In what way could Shem have been made "like unto the Son of God"? And most importantly, how could Shem still be alive today so it could be said he "abideth a priest continually"?

[Joy]

Hi Ron,

Actually, I'd never heard this theory before - that it was Shem. I'm not sure there is anything to be gained by believing it was or was not Shem or finding out exactly who it was. My point was to share only what I personally have gained by the Bible's discussion of him and that is to contrast Jesus' priestly ministry with that of the priesthood that came to be seen as a very legalistic one.

However, I did look up on my EGW software this quote: "Melchisedec was not Christ, but he was the voice of God in the world, the representative of the Father. And all through the generations of the past, Christ has spoken; Christ has led his people, and has been the light of the world." {RH, February 18, 1890 par. 10}{1BC 1093.1}

Other quotes:

"Another who came out to welcome the victorious patriarch was Melchizedek, king of Salem, who brought forth bread and wine for the refreshment of his army. As "priest of the most high God," he pronounced a blessing upon Abraham, and gave thanks to the Lord, who had wrought so great a deliverance by his servant. And Abraham "gave him tithes of all." {PP 136.1}"

"Melchizedek, in bestowing the benediction upon Abraham, had acknowledged Jehovah as the source of his strength and the author of the victory: "Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand." Genesis 14:19, 20. God was speaking to that people by His providence, but the last ray of light was rejected as all before had been." {PP 157.3}

"God has never left Himself without witness on the earth. At one time Melchisedek represented the Lord Jesus Christ in person, to reveal the truth of heaven, and perpetuate the law of God" (Letter 190, 1905). {1BC 1092.8}

Maybe these quotes would leave room for Mechisadek to be the Holy Spirit. But is there any evidence that the Holy Spirit was ever called on to fill an incarnate roll? Far be it from me to decide that God could not. But, to me these references just sound like references to a human righteous king - another human like others (Joseph, Daniel) that in a cetain way God used to be seen as a type of him. I only figure that if it were important to know who exactly he was we'd have more information on it. I think the importance lies with the lesson.

As for the reference of "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." this still sounds figurative to me. Could that not be a reference to his personal history (circumstances of birth/death)being unknown at least at that time of writing about him? Weren't people confused about Jesus' place of birth, etc? This seems to have been an important issue. I am no Biblical linguitist and am only offering how it reads to me.

Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly am open to new information.

Joy

[Ron Lambert]

Joy, the view that Shem was Melchisedec is popular among various Jewish groups.

The Holy Spirit would not have to be incarnated in a human body to manifest Himself in a human form. Long before His Incarnation, Jesus appeared to Joshua as "a man...with his sword drawn in his hand" (Joshua 5:13). He then declared Himself to be "the Captain of the host of the Lord" (v. 14). We know he was not an angel, because He accepted Joshua's worship, and even said: "Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy." (v. 15)

[Gail]

This is all very interesting...

[Ron Lambert]

I had a guy show up in my Sabbath School class last week who said his name was Melchizadek. His wife's name was Josephine. I understand he helps with an Adventist radio program over at Andrews.

[Joy]

Ron,

I did a little bit of further reading on this. I didn't find all the things I was looking for but I did come across thing in the SDA BC for Hebrews 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."

7BC page 439-440: "3. Without father, without mother. These words have given rise to the speculation that Melchisedec was some supernatural being, as he must of necessity have been if he was actually without parents, without beginning of daya and without end of life. Such an assertion in its totality can be lierally true of the persons of the Godhead only. However, it is not necessary to take this view of the wording. The author may simply mean that there is no record of who Melchisedec's father and mother were.

Without descent. Gr. agenealogetos, literally, 'without genealogy.' The Jews were very careful to record and preserve their genealogies. This was especially true concerning the priests (see Ezra 2:61-63). No one could serve as priest unless he belonged to the family of Aaron of the tribe of Levi, and this he must be able to prove without any doubt whatever. If there was a break in the line somewhere, he would be counted out and thus lose the privileges accorded the priests. For this reason every Jew, and particularly the priests, preserved carefully their genealogical records. Of Melchisedec no genealogy exists.

Beginning of days. That is, there is no record of his birth, or of his death, as indicated by the phrase 'nor end of life.'

Made like. Or, 'resembling.' Melchisedec was a type of Christ. Nothing is known of his birth or death because there is no record of either. All this fits into the picture of Christ, who had no beginning or end of days (see on John 1:1-3).

Abideth a priest. There is no record of the termination of his high-priestly office."

[Joy]

Oops. I meant to add a discussion to the above post, but accidentally hit a button that submitted it.

The more I think about this the more I cannot go along with the idea that Melchisedec was the Holy Spirit, either.

One, EGW clearly states that it was not Christ, and it seems that the personal encounters that are referenced in the old testament were with the second person of the Godhead. It has always been Christ’s role, for lack of a better term, to be the member of the Godhead to come down to this fallen world in some form be it in human form (Immanuel), or the pillar of fire by night or cloud by day for the Israelites in the wilderness, or by fire in a burning bush for Moses, or in a Jacob’s vision of the mysterious ladder. God is a God of order, and I don’t know what would be inherent in this situation for God to change that order to have the Holy Spirit come in some human-like form as Melchisedec.

Two, as discussed above the text itself appears to be most properly read as a figure of speech for that time.

My question is what would be lost from the account if Melchisedec is not a member of the godhead? From my vantage point, nothing. And to me something is lost if it is. I like the idea that God has always had representatives here on earth even from us lowly humans. It gives me hope, kind of like it must have for Elijah in hearing that he was not alone and that 7,000 had not bowed the knee to Baal.

I hope that helps.

Joy

[Gerr]

Maybe this question if off the subject, but here it is. Why is Christ's priesthood eternal? In the new earth, there will be no sin to deal with, and there will be no temple to officiate in.

Gerry

[Joy]

Gerry,

I think that is a very important, insightful question that goes to the heart of purpose of the Melchisadec story. It seems to me that the eternal nature of Christ's priesthood also tells us that salvation is not a legal transaction. As I mentioned before Christ's role has always been to be the "intermediary" between God and His created beings. Unfortunately that idea of intermediary was twisted into a legal explanation instead of an example of God's graciousness to His creatures to meet us where we are, to provide greater understanding to our limited minds.

We will always need a priest (a minister) because righteousness does not have its origin within us. Righteousness originates with God and only as He ministers to us continually can we be righteous (note Christ's words to Peter at the footwashing). Lucifer was created perfect, but when he separated himself from God he became evil. Lucifer was no longer allowing God to minister to him (care for him). He wanted his independence and sadly God as a freedom loving God had to let him go.

And as it was prior to sin entering the universe so will it be when sin is eradicated from it. It is an issue of relationship and not legal penalty or standing. That, as I see it, is the essence of what God was trying to get us to see in contrasting himself, as figured in the person of Melchisedec, against the levitical priests who sadly came to be seen as purveyors a legal salvational transaction.

Am I making any sense?

And thanks for asking!

Joy

[Neil D]

Quote:

And as it was prior to sin entering the universe so will it be when sin is eradicated from it. It is an issue of relationship and not legal penalty or standing. That, as I see it, is the essence of what God was trying to get us to see in contrasting himself, as figured in the person of Melchisedec, against the levitical priests who sadly came to be seen as purveyors a legal salvational transaction.

Am I making any sense?

Amen, and yes, you are making good sense.

Thankyou, Joy.

[Ron Lambert]

The alternative explanations offered in the SDA Bible Commentary for Hebrews 7:3 might be correct, though the SDA BC is not always as courageous or positive in its interpretations as it could be--come have criticized it as giving the trumpet an uncertain sound at times. I am always suspicious of any theological writing that hedges its bets to the point that it may be tending toward lack of faith in the supernatural. Nonetheless, their suggestions have some reasonableness.

Note, however, that if these suggestions are true, then Shem could not have been Melchisedec, since, his parents were known, as well has his genealogy. If Melchisedec was not divine, then I think Shem was the best candidate. We do know from Biblical chronologies that Shem was alive during much of Abraham's life, and he would have been greatly revered.