SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Melchizedek - who was he?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 Next Page )
PosterThread
Jimbabwean
Member



Joined: 2007/1/29
Posts: 17
USA

 Re:

Quote:
Not sure I find it either mind strecthing[sic] nor reasonable ... it's actually arrogance.


Sorry to come across as arrogant! I [b]personally[/b] found it mind bending when I first came across this question asked of me by a theologian whose PhD dissertation involved the matter.

I am grateful for the opportunity to come here and ask what appear to be mature Christians their views. Some of these subjects may be repeats, but it is helpful to ask these questions. I learn by them, and sometimes the answers previously given do not necessarily answer my particular questions.

If there was a simple answer to these questions there probably wouldn't be any controversy. What causes the controversy? Well, with Melchizedek, he is linked to Abraham's payment of a tenth, and that is linked to the tithing message. It is also an emotional issue because we worship Jesus, and to think that we may have been misled into thinking that Melchizedek was Jesus, when he may have been just a money grabbing pagan is offensive.

 2007/2/5 11:52Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
HBr 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.



I think the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things in order that he might be a 'type' of our Great High Priest. Surely this man really lived [i]and[/i] died? Surely he was born (had a birth date). He does not abide a priest continually to this day- only there is no record of when it ended. Through silence in these areas he is afforded the ability to be a 'type' of Christ. If the details of his life and death had been filled in we had had no point of reference.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2007/2/5 12:08Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
It is stated in Hebrews 7:3 that Melchisedec had no descent, do those who believe that Melchisedec was not the Lord Himself think that this verse should not be taken literally?


Yes, it is a type and not a replica.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/2/5 12:14Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:
It is also an emotional issue because we worship Jesus, and to think that we may have been misled into thinking that Melchizedek was Jesus, when he may have been just a money grabbing pagan is offensive.



No. That is not the issue here. The issue is this idea of Melchizedek ... 'he may have been just a money grabbing pagan ' or 'a pagan priest making a quick buck off Abraham?' is absurd. There is no foundation to it at all.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/2/5 15:44Profile
PCB
Member



Joined: 2006/10/11
Posts: 13


 Re:

Quote:

RobertW wrote:
Quote:

I think the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things in order that he might be a 'type' of our Great High Priest. Surely this man really lived [i]and[/i] died? Surely he was born (had a birth date). He does not abide a priest continually to this day- only there is no record of when it ended. Through silence in these areas he is afforded the ability to be a 'type' of Christ. If the details of his life and death had been filled in we had had no point of reference.



'the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things'

I know that you mean that in Genesis there is no mention of his genealogy; but the scriptures are not silent on these things, the writer of Hebrews says that Melchisedec had no father and no mother.

I understand your reasoning, that no mention was made of his genealogy so that the type could be shown but I think it is a very big leap to state positively that he was born and that he died when the scripture says otherwise, and how do you know he doesn't abide a priest continually to this day?

The next verse says 'how great this man was' but the 'was' is imposed on the text and not in the original, one or two of the more literal versions say 'is' I think.

But assuming that you are correct, and that this verse (3) should be taken purely figuratively, is it not a very odd way to express the thing? If I understand you right the writer is in effect saying:

Verses 1 and 2.

Historical/literal facts, plainly understood as such

Verse 3

'Because we are not told any details about when Melchisedec was born, or died, or who his parents were, its as though he was like the Son of God in a pictorial sense, and although he actually died, because it is not recorded, it's like he didn't, so it is as if he is still a priest continually.(though of course he isn't)'

PCB paraphrase!

compare to KJV

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.

Verse 4-10

Back to historical/literal facts

At best it is unwieldy logic and the only reason we would interpret this verse that way would be if we are trying to fit it into a hypothesis that Melchisidec was not the Lord Himself.

Please bear with me if I am overly pedantic, I have genuinely worked at this one from both directions (Melchisidec is/wasn't God) and am stuck at this verse when trying to decide that he wasn't.

Peter



 2007/2/5 16:20Profile
PCB
Member



Joined: 2006/10/11
Posts: 13


 Re:

Quote:

RobertW wrote:
Quote:

I think the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things in order that he might be a 'type' of our Great High Priest. Surely this man really lived [i]and[/i] died? Surely he was born (had a birth date). He does not abide a priest continually to this day- only there is no record of when it ended. Through silence in these areas he is afforded the ability to be a 'type' of Christ. If the details of his life and death had been filled in we had had no point of reference.



'the scriptures were intentionally silent on these things'

I know that you mean that in Genesis there is no mention of his genealogy; but the scriptures are not silent on these things, the writer of Hebrews says that Melchisedec had no father and no mother.

I understand your reasoning, that no mention was made of his genealogy so that the type could be shown but I think it is a very big leap to state positively that he was born and that he died when the scripture says otherwise, and how do you know he doesn't abide a priest continually to this day?

The next verse says 'how great this man was' but the 'was' is imposed on the text and not in the original, one or two of the more literal versions say 'is' I think.

But assuming that you are correct, and that this verse (3) should be taken purely figuratively, is it not a very odd way to express the thing? If I understand you right the writer is in effect saying:

Verses 1 and 2.

Historical/literal facts, plainly understood as such

Verse 3

'Because we are not told any details about when Melchisedec was born, or died, or who his parents were, its as though he was like the Son of God in a pictorial sense, and although he actually died, because it is not recorded, it's like he didn't, so it is as if he is still a priest continually.(though of course he isn't)'

PCB paraphrase!

compare to KJV

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.

Verse 4-10

Back to historical/literal facts

At best it is unwieldy logic and the only reason we would interpret this verse that way would be if we are trying to fit it into a hypothesis that Melchisidec was not the Lord Himself.

Please bear with me if I am overly pedantic, I have genuinely worked at this one from both directions (Melchisidec is/wasn't God) and am stuck at this verse when trying to decide that he wasn't.

Peter



 2007/2/5 16:21Profile
deltadom
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 1826
Hemel Hempstead

 Re:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek]Melchizedek- Wikipedia Definition[/url]

This was a question that I struggled with. I worked out that it could either be one of three people
1. Shem
2. Noah
3. Jesus

Melch-Tzedic
Melchizedek name liturally does mean King , Melech means King. Tzidek means righteous. I am spelling these wrong. When I discussed this issue with my elder I did not think how long Noah lived or Shem.
Shem or Hashem means name. is not his name. I thought Melchizedek was a Theophany an Incarnation of Christ before the Incarnation, he discussed with me that he thought it was either Shem or Noah. It lasted quite a time
1.Shem
Shem was supposed to live along time after the Flood and was supposed to have even lived up to the birth of Issac.
Shem
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem]Shem[/url]
Shems name was used for the name of god in hebrew
Ha Shem the name. Shem was supposed to live in Jerusalem and what we know from Shem before he was a righteous man and renown. He may have lived in now jerusalem
2. Noah
Noah would have also lived up to then and according to Jewish Tradition handed over Adams clothes. I need to do alot more research

3. Christ
It could be this option


_________________
Dominic Shiells

 2007/2/5 17:59Profile
deltadom
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 1826
Hemel Hempstead

 Re:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek]Melchizedek- Wikipedia Definition[/url]

This was a question that I struggled with. I worked out that it could either be one of three people
1. Shem
2. Noah
3. Jesus

Melch-Tzedic
Melchizedek name liturally does mean King , Melech means King. Tzidek means righteous. I am spelling these wrong. When I discussed this issue with my elder I did not think how long Noah lived or Shem.
Shem or Hashem means name. is not his name. I thought Melchizedek was a Theophany an Incarnation of Christ before the Incarnation, he discussed with me that he thought it was either Shem or Noah. It lasted quite a time
1.Shem
Shem was supposed to live along time after the Flood and was supposed to have even lived up to the birth of Issac.
Shem
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem]Shem[/url]
Shems name was used for the name of god in hebrew
Ha Shem the name. Shem was supposed to live in Jerusalem and what we know from Shem before he was a righteous man and renown. He may have lived in now jerusalem
2. Noah
Noah would have also lived up to then and according to Jewish Tradition handed over Adams clothes. I need to do alot more research

3. Christ
It could be this option


_________________
Dominic Shiells

 2007/2/5 18:02Profile
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707
Ca.

 Re:

Is the Logos Melchizedek?

This is a very good rendering of who Shem was and that He was the worshiping son of Noah. If I met my grandfather removed 10 times I would also pay homage to him. After the flood there was a new beginning, the slate was clear, there were only 8 souls on this earth left after the flood. Shem was chosen as the one to worship God in all that He was knowing where he had come from. The other two son's were a philosopher and a creative builder, as Nimrod was a son of Cush who was a son of Ham. These son's of Noah on this earth after the flood, from that date had on genealogy of time. Levi paid ties through Abraham when Melchizedek met Levi before he was born.

In that sense, Melchizedek had no beginning or end.

Here is a very good one to understand the Melchizedek was not the replica of Jesus Christ but a type of the Christ that would come. Be Born, live, die, buried, resurrected and sits at the right hand of His Father and is instilled in the believers that His Father has given Him. This is a type of Melchizedek and Jesus Christ is a priest forever after that order of priest. Not the pre-incarnate Christ being "the priest" but being a type of that priesthood, who is now the Only High Priest and Son of God who live in His brothers and sisters forever.

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/melchiz.htm

In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2007/2/5 19:02Profile
Jimbabwean
Member



Joined: 2007/1/29
Posts: 17
USA

 Re:

Quote:
The issue is this idea of Melchizedek ... 'he may have been just a money grabbing pagan ' or 'a pagan priest making a quick buck off Abraham?' is absurd. There is no foundation to it at all.


How about this foundation:

Logic says that Melchizedek was one of the following:
• A Jebusite pagan king
• A righteous priest
• The Son of God Himself

Historically we know that the Jebusites lived in Jerusalem. The Bible tells us that there was a pagan in Jerusalem called Adonizedek, a pagan that Joshua slew. Adonizedek and Melchizedek mean pretty much the same thing. This pagan Adonizedek worshiped a pagan deity that he called Zedek.

The principle of conservation of miracles means that you go for the least miraculous solution to a problem, before resorting to miracles to explain something away. The logical quest for a solution would first be to say that Melchizedek was a mere mortal.

Christians find it hard to believe that God could have used a pagan priest as a symbol for Jesus, and I appreciate that. But God is God. When he likens us to sheep, must we also eat grass? Types are just there to help us understand, and the neat thing about Melchizedek was that he had some very convenient titles: King of Salem, and King of Righteousness.

Why did he have authority over Abraham? He was the local king, and according to Arab custom, he deserved a tenth of the battle spoils. This tax was known as the Esretu tax. Moses had something to say about how much was to be charged on battle proceeds. He said that about 1% was it.

Why would the king of a pagan Jebusite city be a godly priest? Perhaps that could be called absurd?

The thing about Jesus being Melchizedek was controversial in the days of the New Testament too, because you’ll see the writer of Hebrews say use the expression “what we know is this” and then go through what can be said for certain. The writer clearly uses phrases like “like” and “could say” when drawing the typological implication. He never says that it IS Jesus.

The fact that Jesus was ordained as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek on resurrection day means that he could not have been Melchizedek at the time Abraham was there. Usually when Jesus showed up in the Old Testament He is called the Angel of the Lord.

The purpose of using Melchizedek in Hebrews is to teach the gospel. People have gotten saved thinking that Melchizedek was Jesus, but that doesn’t mean that he was Jesus. I know people who got saved on Christmas, another day associated with paganism. But that is a whole “nother” story! Sadly Christianity has been polluted with paganism, and perhaps that is why the western church as been so feeble in changing the western world?
One fact remains, Jesus is Melchizedek in the sense of what the name Melchizedek means, but as for historical Melchizedek, king of a pagan Jebusite city that was judged by God himself under Joshua...

Wouldn’t you say that it is absurd to say that anyone except for a pagan would be king and priest of such a city?

 2007/2/5 19:42Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy