Who was Melchizedek?

[1ofthechosen]

I've been reading Hebrews Chapter 7 and I am going to be honest, after all these years I still don't exactly understand it. I've heard people preach Melchizedek was a theophany. But the thing is does anyone have literature or something of historical value of what the Jews believed about this, who he was, his identity? I think this is the only way I can understand what all is being related here? Please and thank you and God bless!

[Esaias]

There is Scripture, and then there are the Jewish speculative myths (which the apostles warned us against).

Scripturally, Melchizedek was the priest-king of Salem. His genealogy, birth, ancestry, and death are not recorded. Therefore he is a type of Christ, who is both king and priest and whose origin (both as God and as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world) is from eternity and continues into eternity, who is greater than Abraham (as was Melchizedek who both blessed Abraham and received tithes from him).

Other than that, ANYTHING ELSE, is pure speculation that cannot be proven or even supported.

Some Jews believed Melchizedek was Shem, some that he was Enoch, some that he was the Archangel Metatron and the heavenly "Son of Man" seen in Daniel 7.

I say he was Melchizedek, a priest of Jehovah, king of Salem, whose geneology was not recorded by Divine Providence to make him serve as a type of Messiah.

[1ofthechosen]

There is Scripture, and then there are the Jewish speculative myths (which the apostles warned us against).

Scripturally, Melchizedek was the priest-king of Salem. His genealogy, birth, ancestry, and death are not recorded. Therefore he is a type of Christ, who is both king and priest and whose origin (both as God and as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world) is from eternity and continues into eternity, who is greater than Abraham (as was Melchizedek who both blessed Abraham and received tithes from him).

Other than that, ANYTHING ELSE, is pure speculation that cannot be proven or even supported.

Some Jews believed Melchizedek was Shem, some that he was Enoch, some that he was the Archangel Metatron and the heavenly "Son of Man" seen in Daniel 7.

I say he was Melchizedek, a priest of Jehovah, king of Salem, whose geneology was not recorded by Divine Providence to make him serve as a type of Messiah.

Ok I just wonder because of a few scriptures. Although what your saying sounds very sound, I didn't want to surf Google for this question considering I know it would bring some humdingers.

But there is a couple of verses that make me wonder if there was more to it verse 3 "Hebrews 7:3 KJVS
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." Is this saying Melchizedek is a priest continually even now? Or through the Anti Type Jesus?

Verse 8 "Hebrews 7:8 KJVS
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."

I believe after reading through just now I'm seeing that some of this is referring to Jesus not to Melchizedek the person but just as the type of this order.

[Esaias]

Ok I just wonder because of a few scriptures. Although what your saying sounds very sound, I didn't want to surf Google for this question considering I know it would bring some humdingers.

But there is a couple of verses that make me wonder if there was more to it verse 3 "Hebrews 7:3 KJVS
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." Is this saying Melchizedek is a priest continually even now? Or through the Anti Type Jesus?

Verse 8 "Hebrews 7:8 KJVS
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."

I believe after reading through just now I'm seeing that some of this is referring to Jesus not to Melchizedek the person but just as the type of this order.

Melchizedek having no mom or dad, beginning or end of days, etc means his geneology (a requirement for Levitical priests) is not recorded. Thus, he serves as a TYPE of Christ who is eternal.

The part about who is receiving tithes requires a bit more study. :)

[Esaias]

Melchizedek having no mom or dad, beginning or end of days, etc means his geneology (a requirement for Levitical priests) is not recorded. Thus, he serves as a TYPE of Christ who is eternal.

The part about who is receiving tithes requires a bit more study. :)

Reading more closely, it seems Melchizedek is the one receiving tithes, but it is "there", which I take to mean "there in the Genesis account just mentioned". It is said "of whom it is witnessed (testified) that he liveth", going back to the lack of an obituary.

I do not think it means Mel is still alive, but rather that the STORY (the account in Genesis) has a priest with no recorded birth or death, and thus he "lives eternally" within the context of the Biblical story itself, serving as a type or literary representation of Christ.

[Esaias]

Christ's priesthood is of the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4), not of Aaron.

This means that during the old covenant, it was prophesied and expected that there would be a change in the priesthood. Messiah (royal son of David, heir to the throne over the tribes of Israel, and thus heir of the whole world as Abraham's seed, see Romans 4:13, Heb 1:2) would also be a priest. This priesthood was to be modeled on that of Melchizedek:

1. Non Levitical. Thus, Jesus not being of Levi is no impediment to His being priest in the New Covenant.

2. Ministering to a "gentile". Abraham was not a Jew or even an Israelite, thus Christ's priesthood extends to gentiles, and is not limited to the circumcision.

3. Pre-Sinai. This priest was before the Sinaitic covenant, thus is not dependent on it nor limited to it.

4. No recorded natural lifetime. Thus, Christ (and His priesthood) is eternal and unlimited, extending beyond and not subject to physical death.

5. No animal sacrifice. The offering made was bread and wine (foreshadowing the Lord's Supper), not animals, thus worship is of a "fellowship meal" type rather than merely sacrificial offerings. It establishes and commemorates fellowship with God (like a peace offering) rather than a strictly judicial relationship of sinner needing atonement. This points to Christ's work of purging the worshippers once for all so they may serve God fully as children rather than as the hard hearted unsanctified, needing constant reminders of their sin.

[1ofthechosen]

I appreciate ya Brother that sounds balanced, and not way out there. I figured I was going to have to weed throigh the hyper spiritual answers even asking this question but all that sounds, solid. In reading over the passage over and over again, I see that's all that is really being said. Not a push for a theophany or that this is Shem or whatever. First person I ever heard say that was Kenneth Copeland, and well as well with everything else he says, it all ends up here anyway...

https://i.gifer.com/3S29.gif

[Esaias]

I appreciate ya Brother that sounds balanced, and not way out there. I figured I was going to have to weed throigh the hyper spiritual answers even asking this question but all that sounds, solid. In reading over the passage over and over again, I see that's all that is really being said. Not a push for a theophany or that this is Shem or whatever. First person I ever heard say that was Kenneth Copeland, and well as well with everything else he says, it all ends up here anyway...

https://i.gifer.com/3S29.gif

:thumbsup

A lot of times, the hyper spiritual types miss the actual meat of the Word, trading it for a bunch of bloated puffed up cotton candy. :)