many people erroneously believed that Melchizedek was Jesus Christ and that Jesus collected tithe through Melchizedek. but that is not true. it is a big lie.

Melchizedek could not be Christ


When a person presents a hypothesis,
or affirms something that is not evident,
to another person, it is not the second
one who has to prove it false. Rather the
person who presented the hypothesis has
the obligation to demonstrate that what
he said is true.
The fact that no one can demonstrate
other person's hypothesis or affirmation as
false, is not a proof that it is true. I can say
that yesterday night I went to the moon,
and came back this morning; and
nobody can demonstrate that this is
false. It is I who has to demonstrate that
what I said is true. I also could say that
my donkey knows how to fly, but he does
not like to fly in the sight of other
people. Of course, nobody believes that,
but nobody can demonstrate that this is
false. Really nobody has to demonstrate
that this is false; it is I who has to prove
that it is true.
The same criterion must be applied to
biblical hypotheses or affirmations that
are not evident by merely reading the Bible .
It is not I who has to demonstrate that it
is false; it is he who presents such a
hypothesis or affirmation, the one who
has to prove it is true.

I don't know the bases of those who
affirm that Melchizedek was Christ. I
should not have to be the one to prove it
false; but instead, he who believes it,
should prove it right. Nevertheless, I will
demonstrate that Jesus was not
Melchizedek. If someone sees a mistake in
what I say, or if someone can
demonstrate that Melchizedek is Jesus,
please share that knowledge with me
because I love to find the truth.
In the Bible there are only five
passages that speak of Melchizedek, these
are: Gen 14: 18-20; Sal 110: 1-7; Heb 5:
5-11; Heb 6: 19-20; and Heb 7: 1-28.

From none of these passages can you
derive that Jesus was Melchizedek. Let us
see.

"18 And Melchizedek king of
Salem brought forth bread and
wine: and he was the priest of the
Most High God. 19 And he
blessed him, and said: Blessed be
Abram of the Most High God,
possessor of heaven and earth; 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:
18-20 )

In the passage we have just read we
see nothing that can be construed as
saying that Jesus is Melchizedek. Just
because he was a priest of God does not
mean that he was Christ. There were
many priests of God who were not
Christ. On the contrary, it says that at
that time Melchizedek already was a priest,
while Jesus became a priest after the
crucifixion.
In the moment that Melchizedek
appears, Jesus still was not a priest. We
know this because it is in a psalm of David
that for the first time a prophecy tells us
that the Messiah was to become a priest. In
psalm 110 we see that the Messiah was
going to be appointed priest after the
order of Melchizedek. Therefore, it
means that Melchizedek was priest
before Jesus was. Therefore, they cannot
be the same person.

"1 A Psalm of David. The LORD
said unto my Lord: Sit thou
at my right hand, until I make
thine enemies thy footstool.
2 The LORD shall send the rod of
thy strength out of Zion;
rule thou in the midst of thine
enemies. 3 Thy people shall be
willing in the day of thy power, in
the beauties of holiness
from the womb of the morning;
thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4 The LORD hath sworn, and will
not repent, Thou art a
priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek . 5 The Lord at thy
right hand shall strike through
kings in the day of His wrath.
6 He shall judge among the
heathen, He shall fill the places
with the dead bodies; He shall
wound the heads over many
countries. 7 He shall drink of the
brook in the way: therefore
shall he lift up the head ."
( Ps 110: 1-7 )

As is obvious in the former passage
there is nothing to prove, or at least to
hint, that Melchizedek was Jesus. Instead
we find data that lets us know that
Melchizedek was a priest before Jesus
was. If I say: " 'B' is going to be priest just
as 'A' was", logically, "A" acceded to
priesthood before "B" . Therefore, if
Melchizedek was a priest before Jesus
was, they are not the same person.
Now, an argument of utmost
importance. The only time Jesus was in
flesh was when he was born from Virgin
Mary. In the following passage we will
see that Melchizedek had flesh, therefore,
he was a human being. If Melchizedek
had flesh before Jesus was born, evidently
he could not be Jesus.

"5 So also Christ glorified not
himself to be made an high
priest; but he that said unto him,
Thou art my Son, today
have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith
also in another place:
Thou art a priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek. 7 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.
8 Though he were a Son, yet
learned he obedience by the things
which he suffered; 9 and being
made perfect, he became the
author of eternal salvation unto
all them that obey him; 10 called
of God an high priest after the
order of Melchizedek. 11 Of
whom we have many things to say,
and hard to be uttered, seeing
ye are dull of
hearing ." ( Heb 5:5-11)

Neither in the former passage nor in
the next passage can we find the smallest
hint that makes us suspect that Jesus and
Melchizedek are the same person. On the
contrary, in the next passage we find
again that Melchizedek was a priest
when Jesus was not.
"19 Which hope we have as an
anchor of the soul, both sure
and stedfast, and which entereth
into that within the veil;
20 whither the forerunner is for
us entered, even Jesus, made
an high priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek. "

"19 Which hope we have as an
anchor of the soul, both sure
and stedfast, and which entereth
into that within the veil;
20 whither the forerunner is for
us entered, even Jesus, made
an high priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek. "
( Heb 6:19-20

In the next passage, in verse 3 we see
that Melchizedek was made like unto the
Son of God. If he was made like unto Jesus,
it is because he was not Jesus. It is out of
logic that you and a friend stand before
your son and instead of telling your
friend: "Look, this is my son" you tell
him: "Look, this is like unto my son".

"1 For this Melchizedek, king of
Salem, priest of the Most
High God, who met Abraham
returning from the slaughter
of the kings, and blessed him; 2 to
whom also Abraham gave a
tenth part of all; first being by
interpretation King of
righteousness, and after that also
King of Salem, which is,
King of peace; 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 ."
( Heb 7:1-3

What Paul is saying in verse 3 is that
Melchizedek, who abruptly came and
abruptly disappeared from history, made
a good symbol of Christ. Melchizedek had
flesh as we have seen, so, he was a
human being. Therefore, Paul is not
trying to tell us that Melchizedek did not
have a father, mother, children, birth
day and a death day; he is not trying to
tell us this, because all human beings
have these things. What he is saying is
that because the data was not recorded, he
made a good symbol of the priesthood of
Jesus. The fact that the sacrificed lambs
were a symbol of Christ, does not mean
that the lamb and Jesus were the same
being. Same with Melchizedek.
For God's purposes it was only needed
that Melchizedek appear, get the tithes
from Abraham and disappear. That is
why no other data of his life is
registered. It does not mean that the data
did not exist, it means that it was not
necessary to register it.
We must also note that in verse 6 of
the next passage, referring to
Melchizedek, it says that his descent,
genealogy, or lineage, was not counted.
Therefore, he had a genealogy , it was just
not counted so that he could be similar
to Jesus. If Melchizedek was Jesus it would
have said that he had no genealogy, instead
of saying that it was not counted.

"4 Now consider how great this
man was, unto whom even
the patriarch Abraham gave the
tenth of the spoils. 5 And
verily they that are of the sons of
Levi, who receive the
office of the priesthood, have a
commandment to take tithes
of the people according to the law,
that is, of their brethren,
though they come out of the loins
of Abraham: 6 But he
whose descent is not counted from
them received tithes
of Abraham, and blessed him that
had the promises ."
( Heb 7: 4 - 6 )


In verse 11 of the passage we are
studying we see a reaffirmation that
Jesus became priest after Melchizedek
did. In using the word "another" ,
referring to Jesus, it is evident that
Christ's priesthood was posterior to
Melchizedek's priesthood. Therefore they
cannot be the same person.

"If therefore perfection were by
the Levitical priesthood,
for under it the people received
the law, what further need
was there that another priest
should rise after the order of
Melchizedek , and not be called after
the order of Aaron?”
( Heb 7:11


This same idea we acquire from verse
15. There it says that another priest
would arise after the similitude of
Melchizedek. If one is the similitude of
the other, they are not the same person.
Besides, it is evident that if it says
"another" is because there was a different
one before. Let us see.


"14 For it is evident that our
Lord sprang out of Juda; of
which tribe Moses spake nothing
concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident,
for that after the similitude
of Melchizedek there ariseth
another priest, 16 who is made,
not after the law of a carnal, but
after the power of an
endless life. 17 For he testifieth,
Thou art a priest for ever
after the order of
Melchizedek ." ( Heb 7: 14-17 )


Something else to notice is that if
Melchizedek was Jesus, then in the New
Testament he would not be called
Melchizedek, because by that time they
knew that his name was Jesus or at least
he would be identified clearly with Jesus

those who are thinking Melchizedek is Jesus are in error. they should get their fact right.

Abraham also pay tithe only once to melchizedek

tithe should not be out of compulsion.

I am enjoying this.

Any counter ?

TheIndustrialist:
I am enjoying this.

Any counter ?

nobody to counter me because it is true.

Ukutsgp:
nobody to counter me because it is true.

Ehmmm

Nice exposition sire.
NOBODY can kill truth nor bury it that no one would recognise the grave of the buried truth.
Mr. you have done a wonderful job. And lest I forget, I shared this to a man who is hungry for the truth and he started thanking me for what I didn't do. I rebuked him though but I have to tell you thank you too.
All thanks to Jah and then to you. More eyes to your forehead.