|
thesilent1 (m)
|
Jesus is mostly refered to as "Son of God" but would you argue that he's not God?
The bible is not just there for you to read and interpret directly.
There are prophecies and mysteries that need to be unravled. yes, i agree that we are to search, study to show ourselves, etc BUT in this case, i need some more time to come to my own conclusions. @bari_kade, this is what i am saying. are we digging a bit too deep and missing the obvious? just a question before anyone shoots me. you see i am of the belief that god does not want us to shy away from deep questions! what father would not want his child to know ALL about them but as usual, we can NOT always handle the truth. so, my view is that we are encouraged to search and learn more about our father so people, fire away! let us learn from eachother!! i will come back to that part later. |
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
@thesilent1, Digging deep is what we should encourage one another to do. God bless.  |
|
|
|
|
|
simmy (m)
|
I think the most important part of the passage about melchizedek is"he was priest of the most high God" The passage quoted from Paul is interpreted often out of context. Paul was refering to melchizedek's PRIESTHOOD!!! not he man melchizedek, i.e He was 1st born out of all the priests, and that is why his order lasts 4ever. he had no spiritual father or family which made him really very unique! He was just a guy like u & i although a very unique one
|
|
|
|
|
|
thesilent1 (m)
|
Paul was refering to melchizedek's PRIESTHOOD!!! THIS IS THE CONCLUSION I KEEP COMING TO!!!!!!!!!! office and not the man!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
TayoD (m)
|
@lafile, @All Question still remains.
Was melchisedec a member of the trinity manifested on earth or
Was melchisedec a mere man who's life was used to reflect Christ as per typology?
And what does the bible mean by saying
"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 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;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 Melchizedek is NOT a member of the trinity. The key phrase we have to look at here to understand the mystery of Melchizedek is "made like unto the Son of God". The Lord wanted Melchizedek to be a type of Christ and so ensured that the minute details about him is consistent with Jesus. Following Paul's thoughts in the Book of Hebrews, we find that he was comparing the Levitical priesthood to that of Jesus Christ. One thing common with all the levitical priest is the fact that their lineage is very much known. If your lineage cannot be traced directly to Levi, you cannot serve as a priest. Melchizedek was different because no one knew his lineage, and as such, he could be a pattern of the Christ that was to come. Paul was refering to his lineage when he said Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;. The fact that his lineage is undetermined qualifies him to be made like unto the Son of God. |
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
Priesthood. That is the one thing that made Melchizedek "great" (Heb. 7:4). Person. He is made like unto the Son of God; but he is not deity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TV01 (m)
|
Here comes TV with his spanner  What's up peeps? Greetings y'all. Not that I'm particularly agitated by this debate - or any other these days - but in one very literal sense, could someone please tell me what in all honesty the following scripture suggests? Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;. God bless |
|
|
|
|
|
TayoD (m)
|
@TV01, Where have you been? kind of missed you  . Now don't go mush-mush over that statement as I can withdraw it anytime! Anyway, the debates here have not been particular interesting to me too and my contributions have been so limited lately. Your spanner and entire tool box are totally welcomed back!! |
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
Em, guys. . . just hola me when you want me to press the switch for the engine works!! |
|
|
|
|
|
thesilent1 (m)
|
i am waiting for this one as well! should be fun |
|
|
|
|
|
lafile (m)
|
@Bari_kade, thesilent1, TayoD
If I understand correctly what y'all are saying, the "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" statement merely refers to his priesthood and not his person. Meaning His priesthood had no beginning and no end, no predecessor and no succesor right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
simmy (m)
|
sure. Paul was speaking in spiritual contexts,
|
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
@lafile, @Bari_kade, thesilent1, TayoD
If I understand correctly what y'all are saying, the "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" statement merely refers to his priesthood and not his person. Meaning His priesthood had no beginning and no end, no predecessor and no succesor right? Nope, I didn't mean it that way. Here's what I said earlier: Priesthood. That is the one thing that made Melchizedek "great" (Heb. 7:4). Person. He is made like unto the Son of God; but he is not deity. I would agree with simmy in part that Paul was definitely speaking spiritually - as I'm one of those who believes he characteristically used such expressions throughout Hebrews ( if he is the author of that epistle). Let me remind you of another: in Heb. 11:17, the author speaks of Isaac as Abraham's " only-begotten son"; but we know that Abraham already had Ishmael before Isaac was born. What I believe the author was pointing out there was that Isaac was Abraham's only begotten son in reference to the covenant that God gave unto the patriarch. Back in Genesis, even God Himself so addressed the patriarch and thrice referred to Isaac in this manner: "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac" (Gen. 22:2, 12 & 16). What was happening was that Isaac was regarded as Abraham's only son according to God's covenant with him (Gen. 17:19). Now, back to Heb. 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." First off, I would have to confess that this is one of the mysteries of the Bible that I'm still studying; so anything I say here is not to be taken as authoritative. However, why I believe that Melchizedek was not deity is because the Bible says he was made like unto - patterned after - the Son of God. Surely he is identified with a place, for he was King of Salem. That place had special significance among God's people; for later the Psalmist would say in Psa. 76:2 - "In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion." Melchizedek was also the priest of the most high God. These two things (Kingship and Priesthood) prefigured that which we find in Christ. But the problem with many of us when we read Heb. 7:3 is that Melchizedek was reported as having neither mother nor father nor descent. Hmmm. Here's what I think the author was pointing out in his characteristic language construct: " Without father, without mother, without descent" - Melchizedek was not mentioned in any genealogy as was required of any figure who was connected to preisthood. When you read the OT, you will find numerous pedigrees recorded; and it was important that both preists and those who ate of the sacrifices should have proof of their pedigrees or genealogy. If they did not, they were barred from partaking of the sacrifices; or otherwise not permitted to assume their static roles. An example: Neh. 7:61 & 64"And these were they which went up also from Telmelah, Telharesha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, nor their seed, whether they were of Israel. These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood." It was essential that genealogies were recorded, and a priest had to prove his lineage and descent before his priesthood could be recognized or acknowledged. However, the author of Hebrews uses this same argument to demonstrate rather that, since Melchizedek was a King and a Priest, but whose genealogy was not recorded, his priesthood stood as a prefigure of the timelessness of Christ's own Priesthood. That Melchizedek had no recorded genealogy, the author of Hebrews was arguing that they could not seek for a time scale to weigh the veracity of his priesthood, which the man Melchizedek was said to be made like unto the Son of God! The Son of God superceded him, for Melcizedek was only made like unto Christ! The same thing would be said in the other part of Heb. 7:3 -- "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." Please note that Christ was not made like unto Melchizedek; rather, the latter was made like unto the former who predated him. Bottomline: Melchizedek is not deity; and that verse is a characteristic langauge demontrating the timelessness of Christ's priesthood, in as much as the genealogy of Melchizedek was not given where others were clearly stated. Regards. |
|
|
|
|
|
Grouppoint (m)
|
"made like unto the Son of God".
This confirms that Melchi was a type of Christ.
However, "Having no begining of days nor end of life", is a nature of divinity. This means that he is eternal.
Angels are also eternal, this does not make them God.
The question is, What did Paul say when he stated that Melchi had no begining nor end?
Was this divine revelation, or was Paul simply stating that scripture shewed only Melchi's appearing, and not his demise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
@Grouppoint, However, "Having no begining of days nor end of life", is a nature of divinity. This means that he is eternal.
Angels are also eternal, this does not make them God. I wouldn't be so sure that the phrase "having neither beginning of days nor end of life" as appears in heb. 7:3 would mean that Melchizedek was deity. Other texts of Scripture do not give such a persuasion; rather, they prove just the opposite. Secondly, I'm not sure the Bible teaches that angels are eternal - they're not. They had a beginning; and that simply points to the fact that they're not eternal. Col. 1:16 - "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him" The question is, What did Paul say when he stated that Melchi had no begining nor end?
Was this divine revelation, or was Paul simply stating that scripture shewed only Melchi's appearing, and not his demise? Well, it was a question of having neither beginning of days ( meaning, that his genealogy was not counted from those we find recorded among the genealogical records - as in Genesis down through to I & II Chron.). The same thing would be implied by "nor end of life" - which, I agree with you, has to do with no record of his demise. |
|
|
|
|
|
TayoD (m)
|
@bari_kade, You have eloquently said the things I mentioned already. @Grouppoint, However, "Having no begining of days nor end of life", is a nature of divinity. This means that he is eternal. As bari_kade eloquently testified above, this phrase is a reference to the fact that we have no idea of Melchizedek's geneology! Think of it, when the author of Hebrews was trying to compare the Levitical Priesthood to that of Jesus', who else in scripture bears a closer resemblance than Melchizedek? Everyone else's geneology was known and that disqualifies them! Melcizedek was a type and that means he was a shadow and not the reality. If that is the case, reference to "having no beginning of days nor end of life" must be based on a shadowy thing representing the real endless life that Jesus possesses. Since we have no knowledge of anybody connected to Melchizedek, he therefore provides a good analogy to the reality that is represented in Christ. Melchizedek was just a man as Hebrews 5:1 testifies that a Priest must be taken from among men. Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Melchizedek could not have been deity because the only manifestation of deity in the scriptures have always been Jesus (as the scripture said: no man has seen God at any time). Since the scripture confirms that Melchizedek was not Jesus with the phrase: " made like unto the Son of God", the only conclusion we are left with is that Melchizedek is not God. He could not have been an Angel either because Hebrews 5:1 excludes such a possibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
thesilent1 (m)
|
has anyone asked God who this guy is?
yes, i know it sounds silly but you never know!
as for me, i will find out when "we see in full what we now see in part"
|
|
|
|
|
|
lafile (m)
|
mmhh, let me chew on this
|
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
@TayoD, We learn from one another. And you have added to my understanding on this subject with the recent outline yet again. Bless up. |
|
|
|
|
|
firstborn
|
I totally agree with the fact the Melchizedek is not God nor is he an Angel as Tayo D pointed out.
He is just a man that God deliberately leaves out his genealogy so that he can use it as an adumbration to explain the priesthood of Jesus Christ.
He was the King of Salem( a non-theocratic state at that time) which means that the people of Salem knew about him even if we don't. He was the priest of the most high God, which means that he was chosen among men. So if he was God or Angel then he wouldnt have been King of a country. Angels don't rule men and God couldnt have been the king of Salem at a time that he was dealing with Abraham and his contemporaries.
But since Abraham paid tithe to him, then it means that God had always been in contact with people apart from the covenanted Abraham. Infact i read somewhere the Job is a contemporary of Abraham. If that is true then it means that God has always had dealings with men that we don't even hear of. I am fully convinced that Melchizedek was given birth to by a woman we don't know, the son of a man we don't know and a priest of God that God chooses in His infinite wisdom to reveal nothing about his geneology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Telly B (m)
|
Hmmm. . . I'm really learning from you guys. Well done to the think-tanks on this topic.  |
|
|
|
|
|
donnie (m)
|
Melchizedek could not have been deity because the only manifestation of deity in the scriptures have always been Jesus (as the scripture said: no man has seen God at any time). Since the scripture confirms that Melchizedek was not Jesus with the phrase: "made like unto the Son of God", the only conclusion we are left with is that Melchizedek is not God.
He could not have been an Angel either because Hebrews 5:1 excludes such a possibility.
NO! That is a lie. I could have let you go ahead without stopping you if you did not start making such catergorical statements. The manifestaions of deity in scriptures have not always been Jesus. As a matter of fact Jesus was never manifested in the old testament. He could not have because there was no Jesus until He was born in bethlehem. No angel ever saw one called Jesus. That is why there was so much joy in heaven at his birth. Not becasue the one they knew in heaven had finaly come to the earth, NO! But becasue a wonder hath taken place; the Word, which was from the beginning, hath now become flesh! Before his birth, He was the Word! HE exisited as the Word in the bossom of the father and not as a seperate entity from the father. The Word from the mouth of God is what became Jesus.The manifestaions of deity in the old testament were not Jesus but the Holy Ghost- That Angel of His presence. The messenger of God's presence. The one who takes the presence of The father to where His presence is needed as the father never leaves His throne. Jesus called the Holy Ghost that which proceedeth from the father. You quoted the scriptures as saying that no man hath seen God at anytime to support your stand. Well if you will study the scriptures you will see that it must have meant: seeing God in His glory. Because there are several places in scripture where God was manifested to men, appearing in the form of a man. Genesis 32
24And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
25And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
26And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
27And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
28And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
29And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
30And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Jacob knew that that could not have been an ordinary man or angel. The lesser is blessed by the greater. This could only have been made possible by the Holy Spirit. Read Gen 18.You will find the story of three men (one of whom was the Lord Himself) who came to visit Abraham. Abraham entertained them, offered them food and they ate. When you understand what i am sharing, it will revolutionize your christian walk! It will clear a lot of doubts you might have had. You'll hear more from me later. God bless. |
|
|
|
|
|
Telly B (m)
|
@donnie, I'm sorry to observe that you use a fallacy to nullify what you perceive as a lie! Ol' boy, wetin happen to you? The Spoken Word of God is what became Jesus. This is a fallacy. You cannot defend this with a single verse of Scripture; because as far as the very Person of the Son of God is concerned, He existed as uncreated. The Logos is not the Spoken Word as if God spoke Him into existence. He is the Logos because He is the very expression of God Himself; as Heb. 1:3 calls Him: "the brightness of [God's] glory, and the express image of [God's] person". It was necessary to point that out first before bringing you back to this thought expressed earlier: As a matter of fact Jesus was never manifested in the old testament. He could not have because there was no Jesus until He was born in bethlehem. I disagree with you on both inferences. First, there were several manifestations of Jesus in the OT. Remember Paul's reference in I Cor. 10:4 -- "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." Again, Jesus actually existed before He was born in Bethlehem. Remember what He told the Jews: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58 ). He has always existed long before He was born. True, He was not called "Jesus"; but that doesn't mean that He was not in existence before His incarnation and birth. The manifestaions of deity in the old testament were not Jesus but the Holy Ghost- That Angel of His presence. The messenger of God's presence. The one who takes the presence of The father to where His presence is needed as the father never leaves His throne. Two things you would have to understand here, my dear donnie. The Holy Spirit is quite consistent in His manifestations; and He was not the One referred to as the angel of the LORD or the Angel of His Presence. It was rather the Lord Jesus in His pre-Incarnation that we find as the Angel of the LORD. Jesus called the Holy Ghost that which proceedeth from the father. That does not automatically translate into mistaking the Holy Spirit for the Angel of the LORD. When the Lord Jesus had explicated His relationship with the Father unto His disciples, they understood this very connotation as addressing Him: Joh 16:30 -- "Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God." That the Lord Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father does not mean that the Spirit quickly qualifies as the Angel of the LORD in the OT. I think that before we persuade ourselves of anything at all, it is necessary to go back to Scripture and be sure what principles we hold. I know that Pastor Chris Oyakhilome is one of those who make this serious mistake; and you're sharing his views rather than a well-rounded study of God's Word. So, I'll be waiting for what next you might come up with. However, your persuasions here are flawed. Cheers. |
|
|
|
|
|
thesilent1 (m)
|
this is a nice discussion; some strong and definite views from all sides. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58 ). He has always existed long before He was born. True, He was not called "Jesus"; but that doesn't mean that He was not in existence before His incarnation and birth. i do not want to make any comments on this yet as i want to go and read through first but the preceeding verse: 57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" so, was jesus saying he has seen abraham? in which case, this "could" mean he had to have been somewhere in the OT just a thought |
|
|
|
|
|
Telly B (m)
|
John 8:57-58 -- "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
Those verses speak volumes in simplicity to the point that even before the OT, Jesus always existed. This is what He meant by His emphatic "I am".
|
|
|
|
|
|
TayoD (m)
|
@Telly B, Thanks for taking the first step towards dispelling this error that donnie is propagating on these pages. I have always been fascinated and eventually heart broken by many men of God whose primary calling is evangelism, but are so eager to keep a following that they delve into the office of a teacher and the end result is error like this one. While I have not heard Pastor Chris teach on this subject, I am not too surprised that he has taken this view because he tends to emulate Benny Hinn a lot, and Benny Hinn's teaching is just totally wacko some times. The attention he gives to the person of the Holy Spirit goes way beyond what I see revealed in scriptures. I'll explain this further in my answers to donnie. Besides, this is not about Benny Hinn. @donnie, NO! That is a lie. What exactly is the lie? That Melchizedek was not an angel or that he was not deity? I could have let you go ahead without stopping you if you did not start making such catergorical statements. I learnt very well from my Master Jesus. The testimony He received is that He taught as one having authority. He made categorical statements based on scriptural premises. That is more than I have seen you do so far. The manifestaions of deity in scriptures have not always been Jesus. As a matter of fact Jesus was never manifested in the old testament. He could not have because there was no Jesus until He was born in bethlehem. No angel ever saw one called Jesus. That is why there was so much joy in heaven at his birth. Not becasue the one they knew in heaven had finaly come to the earth, NO! But becasue a wonder hath taken place; the Word, which was from the beginning, hath now become flesh! Please try to think about what you are saying a little bit. No one ever said the man Jesus was here in the O.T. As you rightly pointed out, the man Jesus was born by Mary in Bethlehem. The one who manifested in the O.T. is the One called the Son of God which the Bible testifies about in Micah 5:2 whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. To claim that Jesus (used loosley to mean the Word of God or the second member of the Godhead) was never manifested in the OT is the height of abysmal ignorance. While I intend to prove this more later on, I will first bring your attention to His manifestation in the Garden of Eden where He came to meet with Adam and Eve and they hid from Him. Genesis 3:8 - And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. Did you notice that it was the voice of God that was doing the walking? Who is the voice og God if not the Word of God - Jesus! Before his birth, He was the Word! HE exisited as the Word in the bossom of the father and not as a seperate entity from the father. The Word from the mouth of God is what became Jesus. Again, if you are refering to the body which the father prepared for Him, yes you are correct. However, the second member of the Godhead never had a beginning as the body which the Lord prepared for Him Hebrews 10:5 but a body hast thou prepared meThe manifestaions of deity in the old testament were not Jesus but the Holy Ghost- That Angel of His presence. The messenger of God's presence. The one who takes the presence of The father to where His presence is needed as the father never leaves His throne. Now here you are making categorical statements without any scriptures to prove it. Will you please read in full John 1:18 I quoted earlier to see the entire picture. John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.We are told here that no one has ever seen God in all His glory, but all the manifestations we see of Him is from no other but the Son who makes Him known. I will go into more depths on these different manifestations when I talk about Jesus calling Himself the "I AM" as Telly B mentioned earlier. Jesus called the Holy Ghost that which proceedeth from the father. So? That does not mean He has ever been a manifestation of God in the physical which is the bone of contention here. Jesus also came from the Father which is the same thing as the phrase "proceedeth from the Father". John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. Now do you notice the word again in bold? What does that mean to you? Doesn't that tell you that He has been in the world before and was going back as a matter of habit? Again means this is not the first time I am doing this! You quoted the scriptures as saying that no man hath seen God at anytime to support your stand. Well if you will study the scriptures you will see that it must have meant: seeing God in His glory. Because there are several places in scripture where God was manifested to men, appearing in the form of a man. I have responded to this earlier. As I noted, reading the entire verse in John 1:18 shows that while no man may have seen God in all His glory, every manifestation of God has been done by the Son of God who declares Him and make Him known. Jacob knew that that could not have been an ordinary man or angel. The lesser is blessed by the greater. No one argues with you that Jacob met with God here. This could only have been made possible by the Holy Spirit. That you cannot prove. The Holy Spirit is not the one who personifies the Godhead in the physical. It is the Son of God. Please be reminded that the fourth man in the fire with the 3 Hebrew children was no other than the Son of God (the Word). Doesn't this prove your claim that Jesus never manifested in the OT false? Who is the Liar now? Daniel 3:25 and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Unless you are trying to tell us that the phrase Son of God here refer to the Holy Spirit! You'll hear more from me later. I just can't wait. I hope you will think through scriptures yourself and not come here to regurgitate that which you have been taught! |
|
|
|
|
|
thesilent1 (m)
|
guys, telly b has already commended this discusion and let us try and keep it at that; a discussion. i do not want it said that we can not this-agree (2 agreements) in peace! lol i love you guys to bits and due to my own selfishness, i am not going to stop learning from you guys because you decideed to argue! lol so, yes i would like to learn more, discuss more so for my sake can keep it at "iron sharpens iron" and not iron cuts iron! i am feeling in a vry "loving" mood this morning! must be the toast, lol have fun kids peace! The attention he gives to the person of the Holy Spirit goes way beyond what I see revealed in scripture PS - i agree with the above. then again is it what he also learnt from the likes of katherine kulmhan (still does not make it right) |
|
|
|
|
|
Telly B (m)
|
I continue to be much blessed by the several inputs in this thread. They help me see how we reason from various perspectives; especially this mystery about Melchizedek. As the topic asks: Who Was This Man? I'm still learning; and I doff my hat for the great teachers who have proffered answers here! |
|
|
|
|
|
donduke (m)
|
I hope my Bible Study notes can help you!
The Royal Priesthood of Melchizedek
LESSON: \DOCTRINE\Melchizedek.doc
The historical pattern of Christ’s royal priesthood is found in Melchizedek, a king who was the head of his family and a priest, Heb 7:1?3. He was both a king and a priest with no emphasis on his genealogy. He was a priest as the head of his family, not by birth.
2. The superiority of this priesthood is noted by the fact that Abraham was ministered to by Melchizedek with bread and wine (Genesis 14:18-20). This means that your priesthood is far greater than the Levitical priesthood.
3. The cross is symbolized through bread and wine as the only ritual of the royal priesthood. That was the only ordained ritual then as it is now in the CA, we are all royal priests (I Peter 2:1 and Revelation 1:6).
4. The Levitical priesthood was based on natural generation while the royal priesthood is based on regeneration.
Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides a priest perpetually.
Now here is where we run into some controversy. Many people, even some of my friends, believe that this verse indicates that Melchizidek was really a throphany, a pre incarnate appearance of the the Lord Jesus Christ.
Six things are said of him:
1. No father
2. No mother
3. Without genealogy
4. Neither beginning of days nor end of life
5. Made like the Son of God
6. He abides a priest perpetually
Yet: Vs. 7:3 Without father . . . This does not mean that Melchizedek had no parents or that he was not born or did not die, but only that the Scriptures contain no record of these events so that he might be more perfectly likened to Christ.
Now while there is no doubt that at least four of these can apply to the Lord Jesus. Two cannot. He did have a mother and his priesthood was not granted until he was in heaven following His glorification and ascension.
While each of those points could be argued, I think the greater issue is that germane to the entire argument of the writer of Hebrews is that Jesus, in His humanity, became a priest who could very well represent those who believe in Him before the father.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
Wow! You guys have definitely added to my understanding on this subject. It is amazing that several people here are pointing to the same thing about Melchizedek not being deity and that Heb. 7:3 points to his not having been recorded among the genealogies of priests. Another thing that amazes me is that he seems to have been the very first priest to be mentioned in Scripture; and at a strategic connection - Gen. 14:18 - 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. I've always wondered - how did Abraham come to the understanding of giving tithes to Melchizedek - even though he was not reckoned among the genealogy of priests? And again, I wonder that the priesthood of the Lord Jesus should be patterned after Melchizedek's priesthood! Is that not saying something about our giving as Christians? Could people carefully look into this and let's have what you think? Blessings. |
|
|
|
|
|
thesilent1 (m)
|
giving tithes i think that hit the nail on the head; that he GAVE his tithes and NOT asked like i keep hearing. it is poor to try and use this verse to defend church tithes. and yes, like abraham our giving should be free and willing! |
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
i think that hit the nail on the head; that he GAVE his tithes and NOT asked like i keep hearing. it is poor to try and use this verse to defend church tithes. and yes, like abraham our giving should be free and willing! It is true that Melchizedek did not ask Abraham for tithes; but the patriarch did so in simplicity. Which makes me wonder at the mystery of how he came to that understanding; noting that the first time priesthood and tithes are specifically mentioned in the Bible are in reference to Melchizedek - whose priesthood prefigures that of our Lord Jesus Christ. Many people have their persuasions as to tithing not being a practice for NT believers; but I'm still studying this subject with reference to the priesthood of Melchizedek as a figure of the priesthood of our Lord. |
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
