Author Topic: Melchizidec  (Read 783 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rella

  • Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12451
  • Manna: 671
Melchizidec
« on: Fri Jan 20, 2023 - 08:20:03 »


What we know:

The priest Melchizedek appears in three sections of Scripture. He is briefly introduced in Genesis 14:18–20. In a messianic psalm (Psalm 110:4), David addresses the “order of Melchizedek” specifically: after describing the victory and glory of the Messiah, David says,
“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek’” (Psalm 110:4).

The author of Hebrews, in speaking of Christ, quotes this verse in Hebrews 7:17. So, Genesis provides background regarding the identity of Melchizedek, Psalm 110 connects Melchizedek to the Messiah, and Hebrews chapters 5, 6, and 7 describe the supremacy of Jesus as the Great High Priest, using Melchizedek’s role as an illustration of Jesus’ priesthood and kingship.

The Bible utilizes the phrase the order of to point to a lineage. An Aaronic priest would have been a priest according to “the order of” Aaron (Hebrews 7:11). These priests would have come from the lineage of Aaron, sharing a similar function and nature. So, another translation of Psalm 110:4 says that the Messiah will be a priest “after the pattern of Melchizedek”  or “after the manner of Melchizedek” .

What is suggested here gives pause for reflection:

https://appleeye.org/2019/02/18/melchizedek-the-preincarnate-son-of-god/

Quote
Melchizedek, the Preincarnate Son of God

Melchizedek, the Preincarnate Son of God
february 18, 2019 by matthew ervin 5 comments
This article is part of a series on Old Testament Christophanies.  For important background information, see An Introduction to Old Testament Christophanies–with Justin Martyr.

The King of Righteousness

There was a moment in time when the Son of God visited Abram that took place before most of the occasions covered in the previous articles in this series.  We only come to Genesis 14:18-20 now because the account is brief and best understood as one of the first places to record an Abrahamic Christophany (preceded solely by Genesis 12:7).  Reading about the visitations that followed has given us the broader context needed to help solve an enduring mystery.  Now many Godly men and women have disagreed for generations on whether or not this individual was really the preincarnate Messiah.  As you will see, a belief that He was divine, that He was actually Yahweh, dates back to at least the writing of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  And while sincere students of Scripture can disagree, it is my conviction that Melchizedek was in fact the Son of God.

Melchizedek means “king of righteousness.”  It may have well been the king’s title instead of his proper name.  It is true that theophoric names or titles were somewhat common in the ancient Near East, so some may understand this one to mean “my king is righteous.”  The writer of Hebrews, however, explicitly translates Melchizedek as “king of righteousness.”  When you see the word Melchizedek, try occasionally replacing it with king of righteousness in your mind.  This will help you see Melchizedek as the preincarnate Messiah.  And think about it; who other than Jesus could rightfully be called the king of righteousness?  Except for Jesus, no one is righteous, and all have sinned (Rom 3:10, 23).

The Priest-King of God Most High
As Abram was returning from his victory over the Mesopotamian kings, the king of Sodom went out to meet him in the valley of Shaveh (the King’s Valley)[1] (v 17).  Then, the king of righteousness suddenly appeared:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said,

“Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”

He gave him a tenth of all (Gen 14:18–20).

The next verse continues with Abram’s meeting with the king of Sodom (v. 21).  These three verses concerning Melchizedek’s appearance interrupt the natural flow of the narrative.  It is as if Melchizedek stepped into history to have a special visit with Abram.

Salem was an early name for Jerusalem (Ps 76:2).  Melchizedek was king of the same city that the Lord chose as His home, and where He will dwell forever (Ps 132:13–14).  Jesus referred to Himself when He called Jerusalem “the city of the great King” (Matt 5:35; cf. Ps 48:2).  He is the promised righteous King, who as Yahweh will reign from Jerusalem over all the earth (e.g., Jer 23:5­–6; 33:14­–16; Zech 14:9, 17).  To say that Melchizedek was the king of Salem doesn’t necessarily mean that He was physically ruling over a people there.  It could simply be a recognition of the Son of God’s rightful position as the king of Jerusalem.  Melchizedek is also the king of peace, for Salem means “peace” in Hebrew.  Jesus is the prophesied Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6).

Melchizedek was a priest of “God Most High,” translated from the Hebrew El Elyon.  He is the first priest mentioned in Scripture, and with him comes the first use of this exalted name for the Lord.  Abram quickly identified El Elyon as Yahweh (v. 22).  Melchizedek was no priest of a foreign god, but of the one true God, who is seated above the universe.  Jesus, the Son of God is our great high priest who has passed through the heavens (Heb 4:14).  Both Melchizedek and Jesus uniquely held the offices of king and priest.  The sharing of titles and roles is why so many have seen Melchizedek as the truest type of Christ, while others have seen him and Christ as one in the same.

Bread and wine were the common food and drink for royals and others in high society.  While they were apparently given to Abram and his men as refreshments, we shouldn’t overlook their greater significance.  Parties often enjoyed bread and wine together before entering into covenants in the ancient Near East.  And it wasn’t long after Abram’s meal with Melchizedek that the Lord appeared to seal the Abrahamic Covenant by passing through the bloody animal pieces (Gen 15).  Before Jesus sealed the New Covenant, the most important meal in history took place:

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood . . .” (Luke 22:19–20).

The bread and wine of the Last Supper represented Jesus’ body and blood.  His blood, that would soon pour down the cross upon His death, ratified and sealed the New Covenant.  As often as we observe the Lord’s command to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Him, we proclaim His death until He comes again (1 Cor 11:23–26).  The Abrahamic Covenant’s inextricable relationship with the New Covenant includes their meals.  As the observance of the Lord’s Supper looks back in remembrance of Jesus’ death on the cross, Abram and Melchizedek’s meal looked forward to it.  And if Melchizedek was indeed a Christophany, then Abram too enjoyed communion with the Son of God.

As a priest, Melchizedek blessed Abram and God Most High.  The Lord was able to bless Abram because He was the possessor of all things.  Melchizedek proclaimed that it was God Most High who granted Abram his recent victory over the Mesopotamian kings.  After he was blessed, Abram did something remarkable: he paid a tithe to Melchizedek.  A tenth of all the goods won in battle were given over as an act of worship.

It is hard to argue that anyone in the Bible, aside from Jesus, is greater than Abraham.  And yet, by paying him a tithe, Abram acknowledged that Melchizedek was his superior.  As impressive as Melchizedek is described, if he was only a human priest-king—who was barely mentioned in the Old Testament—then it is difficult to understand how he is greater than the patriarch of nations and the father of the faithful.  However, if Melchizedek was the Son of God, then He is unquestionably superior.     

A Priest Forever
Melchizedek is only mentioned in two places in the Old Testament; in Genesis 14 and in Psalm 110.  Most of what we know about him comes from the New Testament, namely Hebrews chapters 5–7.  While the author of Hebrews covers the Genesis account, he was primarily concerned with Psalm 110:4.  The verse prophesies that the Messiah would be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.  Melchizedek’s priestly order is central to the Epistle to the Hebrew’s overall teaching on Jesus as the perfect high priest.

We begin in Hebrews 5, where Psalm 110:4 is quoted after Psalm 2:7:

So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him,

“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”;

 just as He says also in another passage,

“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 5:5–6).

Both Psalm 2 and 110 are royal, messianic psalms.  Psalm 2 applies to David on one level, while being fulfilled by his descendant Jesus on another (see Acts 13:32–37).  Psalm 110 speaks of the Messiah as David’s descendant and Lord, a fact confirmed by Jesus Himself (Matt 22:41–45).  The psalm further prophesies that His authority and power as a king and priest will extend from Jerusalem.  It is of great interest that a verse related to the Messiah as a king and the Son of God was partnered with one related to the Messiah as a priest in the order of Melchizedek.  Jesus was only able to become a high priest, in the order of Melchizedek, because he was the begotten Son of God.

Even though He was the Son of God, as a man Jesus learned obedience through His suffering.  And having been perfected in this way, He became the source of eternal salvation for all those who obey Him.  Because of this, Jesus was appointed as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek (vv. 7–10).  After mentioning Melchizedek again, the author made an intriguing statement:

Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing (Heb 5:11).

The author continued to admonish his readers, saying that they should have been teachers by that point.  Instead, they needed to learn the elementary principles of God’s Word.  They were like infants who had to drink milk because they couldn’t digest solid foods (vv. 12–14).  And so they were exhorted to press on toward maturity (Heb 6:1).  The author had something to say about Melchizedek that would be difficult for his audience to handle.  Could it be that what he wanted to teach was that Melchizedek was Jesus in a preincarnate form?  But because his audience wasn’t mature enough to digest such a meaty teaching, he decided to help them in their understanding by instead comparing Melchizedek to Jesus?   

His Own Priesthood
Midway through Hebrews 6, the author prepared to return to the topic of Melchizedek by referring to when the Angel of the Lord called out to Abraham after he had passed his test of faith:

For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, “I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply you” (Heb 6:13–14).

Remember that it was the Angel of the Lord, on behalf of the Godhead, who promised to bless and multiply Abraham (Gen 22:15–17).  The author, then, referred to a key example of the Son of God blessing Abraham before discussing Melchizedek blessing Abraham.  Perhaps he meant to imply that the same divine person blessed Abraham on both occasions.  Melchizedek’s appearance is very much like the Angel of the Lord’s appearances in the Old Testament.

The author continued with an explanation that Abraham patiently waited and obtained the promise.  When men swear an oath, they do so by calling upon one greater than themselves. God bound Himself with an oath to give assurance that He would never change His mind.  His promise and His oath are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie.  We who have fled to Him for refuge should be encouraged to take hold of the hope set before us.  This hope is an anchor for our souls, leading us through the veil into God’s heavenly inner sanctuary (vv. 15–19).  Jesus has already passed through the veil as a forerunner for us, “having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (v. 20).  This final declaration of the chapter flows directly from the reason for why God swore an oath by Himself.  The larger point is this: As God swore by Himself, since He could swear by no one greater, so Jesus entered into His own priesthood since He could enter into none greater.  Put another way, the King of Righteousness entered into the priesthood of the King of Righteousness.  If Melchizedek was not the Son of God, then Jesus entered into the priesthood of His inferior.   

Like the Son of God
Hebrews 7 is structured as a juxtaposition of the priesthoods of Melchizedek and Jesus.  Whenever Jesus is compared to anyone else in the epistle, it is for the purpose of exalting Him as superior.  In contrast, when Jesus is compared to Melchizedek, it results in both being exalted.  This is apparent from the beginning, where Melchizedek’s brief visit with Abram was enough for the author to say that he was like the Son of God:

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace.Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually (Heb 7:1–3).

The comment that Melchizedek has no genealogy is often used to govern the statements that he had no father and mother, and that he has no beginning or end of life.  In such interpretations, it is not that Melchizedek was really eternal, it is merely that his birth and death were never recorded.  But the absence of a recorded birth is not the same as always having existed, just as the absence of a recorded death is not the same as never dying.  The more natural way to read the text is to conclude that Melchizedek has no genealogical record because he has always existed and will always exist.  Now you may be concerned that Melchizedek having no father and mother means that he couldn’t be Jesus.  Remember though, these statements are made about Melchizedek when he visited Abram.  If he was a Christophany, then as the preincarnate Son of God, he wouldn’t have had a human father and mother.  On the other hand, if Melchizedek was said to have a human parent, then he couldn’t have been a Christophany.

Throughout the epistle, the author relentlessly teaches that God’s Son is superior to the angels, Moses, the prophets, and the Levitical priests.  And yet with Melchizedek, we are told that the he is “like the Son of God.”  Translated another way, Melchizedek resembles the Son of God.  The Son of God is a member of the Godhead; He is Yahweh, the Lord.  Moses and the sons of Israel sang a song of praise to the Lord, asking, “Who is like You among the gods, O Lord?  Who is like You, majestic in holiness, Awesome in praises, working wonders?” (Exod 15:11).  The rhetorical question who is like the Lord? is repeated several times throughout the Old Testament.  The answer is always the same: there is no one.  So the only way that Melchizedek could be like the Son of God is if he is the Son of God.

Properly understood, the word “like” in Hebrews 7:3 doesn’t negate the notion that Melchizedek is a Christophany; it actually supports it.  When the apostle John beheld the Patmos Christophany, he wrote that he saw “one like the Son of Man” (Rev 1:13).  This identified the Christophany as the “One like a Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13–14.  Jesus combined this very passage with Psalm 110—the Melchizedek psalm no less, to proclaim that He would sit in glory at the right hand of God (Matt 26:64).  For Son of Man is a divine, messianic title (Acts 7:55­–56), and Jesus used it more than any other to refer to Himself.  When John said that he saw one “like” the Son of Man, it meant that he beheld Jesus, though in a different form than how He appeared as a man during the First Coming.  The author of Hebrews apparently meant something similar by using the word translated as “like” in English.  Melchizedek was the Son of God, though in a different form than how He appeared after the incarnation.

Two different Greek words were translated as “like” in Hebrews 7:3 and in Revelation 1:13 (aphomoioo and homoios respectively).  As is often the case, two different authors chose different words with similar meanings.  However, the Greek aphomoioo (af-om-oy-o’-o) in Hebrews 7:3 appears nowhere else in the New Testament.  The author used a unique word to make a specific point.  The singular use of aphomoioo makes articulating a precise definition problematic.  In general though, it conveys the idea of one thing expressing itself in or as another.  In the case of Hebrews 7:3, this would mean that the Melchizedek is an expression of the Son of God.     

Like Jesus, Melchizedek is the king of righteousness and the king of peace.  Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8; 22:13).  Like Him, Melchizedek has no beginning or end of days.  It is because Melchizedek is like the Son of God that he can remain a priest forever.  Jesus is a priest forever because He is the Son of God (Heb 5:5–6).  This leaves us with only two options: either there are two eternal priests in the same order or just one eternal high priest who visited Abram and now sits at the right hand of God.

Greater than Abraham

The reader was asked to consider how great Melchizedek was by comparing him to Abraham.  The Levities, who descend from Abraham, were required by the Law to collect a tithe from the people.  Melchizedek, who was not a Levite, collected a tithe from Abraham.  And Melchizedek blessed Abraham, the one who had been given the promises of God (vv. 4–6).  These facts led to an inescapable conclusion:

But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on (Heb 7:7–8).

Again, it is a heavy thing to say that anyone is greater than he who entered into a covenant with God, from which blessings and redemption for the world would ultimately flow.  The Levites received tithes as mortal men, while Melchizedek received tithes as an immortal.  It isn’t just his priesthood that lives on, but Melchizedek himself.

Because Levi is a descendant of Abraham, in a manner of speaking even he paid tithes to Melchizedek (vv. 9–10).  This established Melchizedek and his priesthood, and therefore Jesus and his priesthood, as superior to the Levitical priesthood.  The Levitical priesthood couldn’t achieve the perfection that God intended, requiring another priest to arise in the order of Melchizedek.  Such a change in the priesthood necessitated a change in the law.  Since Jesus is a descendant of Judah, He wouldn’t have been eligible for the priesthood according to the Mosaic Covenant (vv. 11–14).

The Likeness of Melchizedek
In the first half of Hebrews 7, Melchizedek is likened to the Son of God.  In the second half, Jesus is likened to Melchizedek:

And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life (Heb 7:15–16).

Clearer still is that the law and the priesthood have been changed.  It was never God’s plan for the Messiah to function as a Levitical priest.  The Son of God is beyond the priestly order determined by one’s bloodline.  An indestructible life is one uncorrupted by sin (Rom 5:12; 6:23), and Jesus proved His through the resurrection.  Jesus being a priest according to Melchizedek’s likeness means that Melchizedek too has just such an indestructible life.

The author went on to directly quote from Psalm 110:4 two more times.  By proving Himself to be eternal, Jesus revealed that He was qualified to be in Melchizedek’s order, fulfilling Psalm 110:4 (v. 17).  The Levitical priesthood couldn’t truly atone for sin, so it was replaced by a perfect priest who is able to bring the saints into an intimate relationship with God.  The Messiah’s priesthood is based on an oath from the Lord Himself, as prophesied in Psalm 110:4.  The basis for the Levitical priesthood lacks an oath from God, making it strictly inferior.  Jesus’ superior priesthood makes Him the guarantee of a better covenant (vv. 18–22). 

There had to be numerous Levitical priests over the centuries because they kept dying and needed to be replaced.  In contrast, because Jesus is eternal He holds his priesthood permanently.  Jesus is able to save forever because He will always live to make intercession for those who come to God through Him (vv. 23–25).  Many mortal priests were contrasted with just one immortal priest in the order of Melchizedek.   

The chapter concludes with a summary on the superiority of Jesus as high priest:

For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever (Heb 7:26–28).

This soaring statement on the work and person of our high priest continues the epistle’s theme of the supremacy of God’s Son.  The author wouldn’t have diminished Jesus by likening Him to a created being.  So taking his words to mean that the priesthood of the eternal Son of God is based on a mortal man—who only seemed to continue living because there is no record of his death—is wholly inadequate, if not inappropriate.  Mere men make for weak priests, unable to permanently pay for sins.  Jesus’ appointment to the priesthood superseded the fallible Levitical priesthood.  Since no priest could ever be greater than the Son of God, He established His own priesthood.  He did so as Melchizedek, the King of Righteousness.       

Shem?
The sages and later authors of rabbinic literature identified Melchizedek as Shem, son of Noah.[2]  The theory is rooted in Shem inheriting the righteousness of his father (Gen 6:9), and that he still would have been alive to meet Abram according to Genesis 11 in the Masoretic Text.  Now the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament, translated in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC) differs significantly with the Masoretic Text on how long the patriarchs in Genesis lived.  In Genesis 11, the Septuagint records most of the fathers being fifty or 100 years older when they each gave birth to their first son.  The chronology of the Masoretic Text has Shem living until after the birth of Jacob, while the chronology of the Septuagint has Shem dying hundreds of years before Abram was even born.  Regardless, whether the Septuagint is superior because it was translated from an earlier Hebrew text or whether the Masoretic text is correct shouldn’t matter to Christians on the question of whether Shem was Melchizedek.  Hebrews 7:3 plainly states that Melchizedek is, “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life . . .”  Not only is Shem’s extensive lineage recorded in Genesis, but he has one of the most famous fathers in history: Noah.  He has an even more famous descendant in Jesus (Luke 3:36).  Shem’s birth and death are recorded in Genesis 11:10–11.  At 100 years of age, Shem fathered Arpachshad, and then he lived for another 500 years.  Shem had a father and mother, a genealogy, and a beginning of days and end of life.  He most certainly wasn’t Melchizedek.

The claim that Melchizedek was Shem doesn’t just contradict Hebrews 7, it undermines the chapter’s argument for Jesus’s priesthood.  Abraham, and thus the Levites, descended directly from Shem (Gen 11:10, 26).  If Melchizedek was Shem, then the priestly bloodline through the tribe of Levi could be understood as flowing from Melchizedek.  Indeed, the rabbis taught that Shem passed his high priestly garments, representing the priesthood, to Abram.[3]  These were the same skin garments made by the Lord for Adam (Gen 3:21).  Adam became the first priest in that he offered sacrifices to the Lord.  He passed his garments on to Seth, who passed them to Methuselah, who passed them to Noah, and he passed them to Shem.[4]  Shem passing the garments to Abram meant that they, and the priestly office, would ultimately pass to Levi.

By identifying him as Shem, Melchizedek is made into a proto-Levitical priest.  The author of Hebrews couldn’t have used this version of Melchizedek to argue for Jesus being made a priest independent of the Levitical system.  Furthermore, Jesus’ priesthood is based on His indestructible life as the Son of God.  If Melchizedek was Shem, then he was a sinful and mortal man like the Levitical priests, and he couldn’t have served as the Old Testament basis of Jesus’ priesthood. 

If you don’t hold to the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, or are ignorant of its content, then it is understandable that you may believe that Melchizedek was Shem.  But if you hold to the epistle as being the inspired Word of God, then Melchizedek cannot possibly be Shem.

The Melchizedek Scroll
Dead Sea Scroll 11Q13, also referred to as 11QMelch or the Melchizedek Scroll, is a fragmented manuscript found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1956.  Composed circa 120 BC, the scroll concerns Melchizedek’s role in an end-times year of jubilee.  Melchizedek is presented as no less than the divine Messiah; he is both a messenger of Yahweh and Yahweh Himself.   

The jubilee was the fiftieth year following seven cycles of sabbatical years (forty-nine years).  It was a time of celebration where all debts were to be forgiven, slaves freed, and land returned to original owners.  Both the people and the land were supposed to rest for the year.  The jubilee year would begin on the Day of Atonement with the blowing of a ram’s horn (Lev 25).[5]  Michael Wise, one of the foremost Dead Sea Scrolls translators, found that the author of the Melchizedek scroll

understands the jubilee-year remission of debts as referring not merely to prosaic matters of money, but to the forgiveness of sin.  The author declares that the agent of this salvation is to be none other than Melchizedek, a mysterious figure referenced only twice in the [Hebrew] Bible, in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110.  For our author, Melchizedek is an enormously exalted divine being to whom are applied names generally reserved for God alone; the Hebrew names el and elohim.  In the author’s citation of Isaiah 61:2, which speaks of “the year of the Lord’s favor,” Melchizedek is substituted even for this most holy name of Israel’s God.  Yet more remarkably, Melchizedek is said to atone for the sins of the righteous and to execute judgment upon the wicked—actions usually associated with God Himself.  By the power of Melchizedek, dominion on earth shall pass from Satan (here called Belial) to the righteous Sons of Light.[6]

Before we look at the scroll’s text, be aware that it is heavily damaged.  Only column 2 is intact enough to provide any useful information.  The translator used brackets to identify added text (based on educated guesses), and he used ellipses to represent missing sections.  As you’ll see, Wise wasn’t exaggerating:

This word [will thus co]me in the first week of the jubilee period that follows ni[ne j]ubilee periods.  Then the “D[ay of Atone]ment” shall follow at the e[nd of] the tenth [ju]bilee period, when he shall atone for all the Sons of [Light] and the peopl[e who are pre]destined to Mel[chi]zedek. [. . .] upo[n the]m [. . .]  For this is the time decreed for “the year of Melchiz[edek]’s favor” (Isa. 61:2, modified) and for [his] hos[ts, together] with the holy ones of God, for a kingdom of judgment . . .[7]

This section follows a teaching on the jubilee year being prophetically fulfilled in the Last Days.  The requirements of the jubilee, as found in Leviticus 25:13 and in Deuteronomy 15:2, are interpreted to apply to the captives in Isaiah 61:1.  Melchizedek is said to proclaim to them the jubilee, thereby releasing the captives from their debt of sins.[8]  The proclamation will occur during the tenth jubilee period.  Jubilee periods are used in several of the scrolls to mark the passage of time.  Ten jubilee periods (490 years) are used here as an alternate way to calculate the seventy weeks of years (490 years) in Daniel 9:24.  The “end of sin” and the “atonement for iniquity” prophesied in Daniel 9:24 is, then, brought about by Melchizedek on a Day of Atonement following the tenth jubilee year.  This would fulfill Isaiah 61:2, a passage where “the year of Yahweh’s favor” was modified to read, “the year of Melchizedek’s favor.”  It would have been unthinkable for the conservative Jewish authors of the scrolls to replace the most holy name of Yahweh with Melchizedek’s unless they believed that Melchizedek was another name for Yahweh.

Another section from the scroll identifies Melchizedek as the Messiah from Daniel 9:

And “the messenger” is the Anointed of the Spir[it,] of whom Dan[iel] spoke, [“After the sixty-two weeks, an Anointed One shall be cut off” (Dan. 9:26).  The “messenger who brings] good news, who announ[ces salvation”] is the one of whom it is wrien, [“to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, the day of vengeance of our God;] to comfo[rt all who mourn” (Isa. 61:2).[9]

As the preacher who was to proclaim the jubilee to the captives, Melchizedek is understood to be the messenger who “brings good news” and “announces salvation” from Isaiah 52:7.[10]  Here, he is further said to be the Anointed of the Spirit: the Messiah.  The Messiah from Daniel 9:25–26 is prophesied to be “cut off,” meaning that He would be killed.  The citation of this passage appears to be for the purpose of connecting the Messiah’s death with the atonement He would provide.  Despite being cut off, Melchizedek was to bring a kingdom of judgement, where dominion on earth would pass from Satan and return to the “Sons of Light” (the righteous people of God).[11]   

The description of Melchizedek’s future role is analogous to the ministry of Jesus.  Jesus read Isaiah 61:1 and the first line of verse 2 aloud in the synagogue in Nazareth.  He then identified Himself as the preacher from the passage by declaring, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:16–21).  Jesus showed Himself to be the Messiah from Daniel 9:25–26 when He died on the cross.  His death paid the price for our sins (Eph 1:7).  When Jesus returns, Satan will be bound and the saints will rule with Christ (Rev 5:9–10; 20:1–6).  Perhaps most significantly, Melchizedek is portrayed as Yahweh.  As the Son of God, Jesus is Yahweh (John 8:58).

While the Melchizedek Scroll is not inspired Scripture, it does give us insight into Jewish views on Melchizedek from a time leading up to the New Testament.  Wise concluded that the

figure of Melchizedek as portrayed here is strikingly reminiscent of the New Testament reference to a heavenly figure of that name, a high priest described as follows: “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever” (Heb. 7:3).  Clearly Melchizedek was a focus of powerful salvific imagery among various Jewish groups in the period of the scrolls.[12]

Melchizedek, the Logos
Writing in the early 1st century AD, Philo recognized Melchizedek as the Logos.  As Melchizedek, the Logos is identified as a king in contradistinction to a tyrant.  A king interprets the law, whereas a tyrant is lawless.  “The tyrannical mind imposes violence and mischievous commands,” whereas the kingly mind persuades and guides as “right reason” (logos).  The kingly mind brought forth bread “full of cheerfulness and joy” and wine to bring “divine intoxication, more sober than sobriety itself.”[13]

While Philo’s allegorical treatment on the Logos as a king is intriguing, his reason for why the Logos was a priest is of special interest:  “For reason [logos] is a priest, having, as its inheritance the true God, and entertaining lofty and sublime and magnificent ideas about him . . .”[14]  Concerning this, Fred Horton explained that, “The Logos is the mind of God in which the pattern of all the visible world is conceived.  As such, the Logos has no visible or sensible antecedents . . . Melchizedek’s lack of antecedents in the priest-kingship, i.e. the fact that his priesthood is self-tutored, lends itself to Philo’s interpretation of Melchizedek as the Logos . . .”[15]  This is essentially the same argument made in Hebrews 7 for Jesus’ priesthood.  No line of priests led to Jesus; He was made a priest by virtue of being the Son of God.  Jesus has a closer connection to God than any other priest; He is the Logos, both God and the expression of God.

Do you Recognize Him?
St. Ambrose (ca. 340–397 AD) is one of the four Latin Doctors of the Church.  Becoming bishop of Milan in 374, Ambrose is known for being a staunch defender of the divinity of Christ.  He was highly esteemed by several other church leaders, including his contemporary Augustine of Hippo.  And it is traditionally believed that Ambrose baptized Augustine.

In On the Mysteries, a treatise on the rites and meaning of the sacraments, Ambrose looked to Melchizedek as a key figure in his teaching on the Eucharist.  To Ambrose, the elements of the Lord’s Supper were ancient; Melchizedek brought them forth and Abraham received them.[16]  Ambrose further taught that Melchizedek is

introduced without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days, nor ending, but like the Son of God, of Whom Paul says to the Hebrews: “that He remaineth a priest for ever,” Who in the Latin version is called King of righteousness and King of peace.[17]

Then, Ambrose posed a timeless question:

Do you recognize Who that is?  Can a man be king of righteousness, when himself he can hardly be righteous?  Can he be king of peace, when he can hardly be peaceable?  He it is Who is without mother according to His Godhead, for He was begotten of God the Father, of one substance with the Father; without a father according to His incarnation, for He was born of a Virgin; having neither beginning nor end, for He is the beginning and end of all things, the first and the last.  The sacrament, then, which you received is the gift not of man but of God, brought forth by Him Who blessed Abraham the father of faith, whose grace and deeds we admire.[18]

Each of us should answer Ambrose’s question for ourselves.  As for me, I recognize Melchizedek as the Son of God.

« Last Edit: Fri Jan 20, 2023 - 08:22:14 by Rella »

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Manna: 33
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #1 on: Fri Jan 20, 2023 - 09:56:20 »
Totally wrong on Melchizedek being the Son of God.

Hebrews 7:14-16 proves that this cannot be so.  Christ was the superior antitype fulfillment of the type presented by Melchizedek.  "...For that after the SIMILITUDE of Melchizedek, there ariseth ANOTHER priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment" (like the Levitical priesthood), "but after the power of an endless life." (similar to Melchizedek's deathless condition, but not the same identity of Melchizedek who had no end of days). 

Melchizedek is Enoch - "translated that he should not see death", making Enoch / Melchizedek to have "no end of days".  Enoch was the only individual in the entirety of history who would be destined to receive a translation body made incorruptible instead of experiencing a resurrection into that glorified condition.   As the lone individual who would ever experience this, he provided the unique type that Christ would fulfill in His deathless high priesthood.

Abraham gave tithes to honor Enoch / Melchizedek not only because of his deathless priesthood, but because Abraham was descended from him genetically.  God "took" Enoch (NOT to heaven yet, until much, much later in AD 70) and somehow preserved him through Noah's flood, introducing him later on earth as the deathless "priest of the most high God" in the location where the city of Jerusalem would emerge. 

Melchizedek was still living on earth when Hebrews 7:8 was written ("it is witnessed that HE LIVES").  But in this translated, glorified body, Enoch / Melchizedek did not marry or beget children (as being "without descent" - after his translation).  And when reintroduced on earth after Noah's flood as Melchizedek, Enoch / Melchizedek had no recorded pedigree in existence of a father or mother.

It is not disparaging to the honor of Christ that Enoch / Melchizedek should be a deathless priest pattern established before Christ Jesus the "First-begotten" became the deathless "Great High Priest".  These roles were not in competition with each other.  After all, we under the New Covenant are made kings and priests unto God also with direct access to God's throne, and this does not devalue the superiority of Christ Jesus as our "Great High Priest".   

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13927
  • Manna: 419
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #2 on: Fri Jan 20, 2023 - 11:00:06 »
A lot of assertions being made but no real proof.

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11050
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #3 on: Fri Jan 20, 2023 - 15:16:09 »
My oh my, I leave for a few weeks and come back to some very strange teaching!

Now, I must ask myself, do I really want to debate such things? I'm just not sure, I want to do so. I said to myself, I think my time is up on GC, maybe I'll rethink this.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #3 on: Fri Jan 20, 2023 - 15:16:09 »

Offline Rella

  • Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12451
  • Manna: 671
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #4 on: Fri Jan 20, 2023 - 17:31:53 »
My oh my, I leave for a few weeks and come back to some very strange teaching!

Now, I must ask myself, do I really want to debate such things? I'm just not sure, I want to do so. I said to myself, I think my time is up on GC, maybe I'll rethink this.

No reason to debate this. No one here wrote it.  It is just that people should know what others say, because other people read them ... they do not read here much anymore therefore a debate on this would fall on deaf ears.

I posted it cause it was so weird an idea that I was not thinking anyone would  think of debating....

I was right. TC called it correctly "A lot of assertions being made but no real proof."

No sweat... but was nice to see your name.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #4 on: Fri Jan 20, 2023 - 17:31:53 »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14970
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #5 on: Fri Jan 20, 2023 - 18:40:16 »
Dead Sea Scroll 11Q13, also referred to as 11QMelch or the Melchizedek Scroll, is a fragmented manuscript found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1956.  Composed circa 120 BC, the scroll concerns Melchizedek’s role in an end-times year of jubilee.  Melchizedek is presented as no less than the divine Messiah; he is both a messenger of Yahweh and Yahweh Himself.
Very interesting.

I've long heard the teaching that Melchizedek was just Old-Testament-Jesus, but I've always dismissed it because I knew of no basis for that belief in antiquity.

I guess I do now.

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11050
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #6 on: Sat Jan 21, 2023 - 05:26:23 »
No reason to debate this. No one here wrote it.  It is just that people should know what others say, because other people read them ... they do not read here much anymore therefore a debate on this would fall on deaf ears.

I posted it cause it was so weird an idea that I was not thinking anyone would  think of debating....

I was right. TC called it correctly "A lot of assertions being made but no real proof."

No sweat... but was nice to see your name.
Greetings Rella~I was speaking of 3 Resurrections strange teachings foremost. I never read the article you posted, I only glanced over it. I may come back and see if 3-R's and I can talk.
Much love to you~RB

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14970
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #7 on: Sat Jan 21, 2023 - 05:55:32 »
Totally wrong on Melchizedek being the Son of God.

Hebrews 7:14-16 proves that this cannot be so.  Christ was the superior antitype fulfillment of the type presented by Melchizedek.  "...For that after the SIMILITUDE of Melchizedek, there ariseth ANOTHER priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment" (like the Levitical priesthood), "but after the power of an endless life." (similar to Melchizedek's deathless condition, but not the same identity of Melchizedek who had no end of days). 

Melchizedek is Enoch - "translated that he should not see death", making Enoch / Melchizedek to have "no end of days".  Enoch was the only individual in the entirety of history who would be destined to receive a translation body made incorruptible instead of experiencing a resurrection into that glorified condition.   As the lone individual who would ever experience this, he provided the unique type that Christ would fulfill in His deathless high priesthood.

Abraham gave tithes to honor Enoch / Melchizedek not only because of his deathless priesthood, but because Abraham was descended from him genetically.  God "took" Enoch (NOT to heaven yet, until much, much later in AD 70) and somehow preserved him through Noah's flood, introducing him later on earth as the deathless "priest of the most high God" in the location where the city of Jerusalem would emerge. 

Melchizedek was still living on earth when Hebrews 7:8 was written ("it is witnessed that HE LIVES").  But in this translated, glorified body, Enoch / Melchizedek did not marry or beget children (as being "without descent" - after his translation).  And when reintroduced on earth after Noah's flood as Melchizedek, Enoch / Melchizedek had no recorded pedigree in existence of a father or mother.

It is not disparaging to the honor of Christ that Enoch / Melchizedek should be a deathless priest pattern established before Christ Jesus the "First-begotten" became the deathless "Great High Priest".  These roles were not in competition with each other.  After all, we under the New Covenant are made kings and priests unto God also with direct access to God's throne, and this does not devalue the superiority of Christ Jesus as our "Great High Priest".
And can you show us where in the ancient world all of this is taught?

I find it a little strange that you say he had no recorded geneaology and sired no children, when the first mention of Enoch is a literally a genealogy.

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Manna: 33
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #8 on: Sat Jan 21, 2023 - 12:37:34 »
Jarrod, when Hebrews 7:3 speaks of Melchizedek being "without father, without mother, without descent..." this is in reference to Enoch / Melchizedek's TRANSLATED condition - not to the time before his translation. 

We know that in the eternal state when a believer is resurrected into a glorified body, there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage (Luke 20:35-36), and there is no need for their procreating to replace themselves as dying members of humanity - since they cannot die anymore.  Once Enoch became translated that he should not see death, he was no longer in a married state, and did not sire any children in that translated state either.

Enoch continued to live through Noah's flood and beyond (since he could not possibly die in that glorified, translated state).  For those living on earth after Noah's flood who encountered the deathless Enoch / Melchizedek, he was a man who had no witnesses to his birth, which from their perspective made him appear "without father, without mother", and as having no "beginning of days".   

As for the Dead Sea scroll fragment above that links the name of Melchizedek with Daniel 9's Messiah that would be "cut off", this is a complete contradiction.  You cannot have a DEATHLESS Melchizedek and yet have him being "CUT OFF" out of the land of the living by his dying in the middle of the 70th week, as Messiah the Prince was going to do. 

I repeat: Melchizedek, that great man, could not possibly have been a Christophany back in the OT.  Christ was "ANOTHER PRIEST" that bore the "SIMILITUDE OF MELCHIZEDEK" in His deathless priesthood.  Melchizedek "was made LIKE unto the Son of God", but Christ Jesus actually WAS the Son of God.

Some of these same points I brought up before in another post at this link:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/apologetics-forum/who-is-melchizedek/

 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #8 on: Sat Jan 21, 2023 - 12:37:34 »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14970
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #9 on: Sat Jan 21, 2023 - 17:37:24 »
Jarrod, when Hebrews 7:3 speaks of Melchizedek being "without father, without mother, without descent..." this is in reference to Enoch / Melchizedek's TRANSLATED condition - not to the time before his translation. 

We know that in the eternal state when a believer is resurrected into a glorified body, there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage (Luke 20:35-36), and there is no need for their procreating to replace themselves as dying members of humanity - since they cannot die anymore.  Once Enoch became translated that he should not see death, he was no longer in a married state, and did not sire any children in that translated state either.

Enoch continued to live through Noah's flood and beyond (since he could not possibly die in that glorified, translated state).  For those living on earth after Noah's flood who encountered the deathless Enoch / Melchizedek, he was a man who had no witnesses to his birth, which from their perspective made him appear "without father, without mother", and as having no "beginning of days".   

As for the Dead Sea scroll fragment above that links the name of Melchizedek with Daniel 9's Messiah that would be "cut off", this is a complete contradiction.  You cannot have a DEATHLESS Melchizedek and yet have him being "CUT OFF" out of the land of the living by his dying in the middle of the 70th week, as Messiah the Prince was going to do. 

I repeat: Melchizedek, that great man, could not possibly have been a Christophany back in the OT.  Christ was "ANOTHER PRIEST" that bore the "SIMILITUDE OF MELCHIZEDEK" in His deathless priesthood.  Melchizedek "was made LIKE unto the Son of God", but Christ Jesus actually WAS the Son of God.

Some of these same points I brought up before in another post at this link:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/apologetics-forum/who-is-melchizedek/


Well, that's a throwback.  I miss some of those oldtimers - Charles SLoan, larry, HRoberson...

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that you are correct that Enoch returned as Melchizedek.  Clearly he didn't stick around.   Rella's quotation has offered us evidence that (at least some of) the Jews were expecting him to return as a messiah.  What is his role in the New Testament? Does he have one?

Jarrod

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Manna: 33
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #10 on: Sat Jan 21, 2023 - 19:43:36 »
Enoch / Melchizedek "stuck around" on earth at the very least until Hebrews 7:8 was written.  The author of Hebrews would not say about Melchizedek that "he LIVETH" unless Melchizedek was still on this earth as that book was being written down.  I believe this is why some of those prophecies of Enoch were available to the disciples (such as Jude) in the first-century; the translated Enoch / Melchizedek was present on earth and able to repeat his ancient prophecies for them to quote directly.

The translated Enoch / Melchizedek as well as the rest of the saints who had been resurrected up until AD 70's Pentecost day remained on earth in those glorified body forms.  These were the ones Paul spoke of who were "ALIVE" and who had "remained" on the earth (1 Thessalonians 4:15,17).  At Christ's bodily return, they were caught up together in the clouds with those who had just been resurrected out of their graves in AD 70, to meet the Lord in the air at that time.  They are all in God's presence today, as well as the souls of the righteous who have died since AD 70's resurrection.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14970
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #11 on: Sat Jan 21, 2023 - 22:12:20 »
Enoch / Melchizedek "stuck around" on earth at the very least until Hebrews 7:8 was written.  The author of Hebrews would not say about Melchizedek that "he LIVETH" unless Melchizedek was still on this earth as that book was being written down.  I believe this is why some of those prophecies of Enoch were available to the disciples (such as Jude) in the first-century; the translated Enoch / Melchizedek was present on earth and able to repeat his ancient prophecies for them to quote directly.

The translated Enoch / Melchizedek as well as the rest of the saints who had been resurrected up until AD 70's Pentecost day remained on earth in those glorified body forms.  These were the ones Paul spoke of who were "ALIVE" and who had "remained" on the earth (1 Thessalonians 4:15,17).  At Christ's bodily return, they were caught up together in the clouds with those who had just been resurrected out of their graves in AD 70, to meet the Lord in the air at that time.  They are all in God's presence today, as well as the souls of the righteous who have died since AD 70's resurrection.
Your argument is that he remained on earth for a thousand years or more, but somehow the Jews missed him completely, instead wrote multiple books about him being in Paradise and touring the heavens, and expected him to return at some point (though he supposedly never left)?

This doesn't pass the common sense test.

Offline Rella

  • Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12451
  • Manna: 671
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #12 on: Sun Jan 22, 2023 - 07:14:08 »
Your argument is that he remained on earth for a thousand years or more, but somehow the Jews missed him completely, instead wrote multiple books about him being in Paradise and touring the heavens, and expected him to return at some point (though he supposedly never left)?

This doesn't pass the common sense test.

 ::eatingpopcorn:

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Manna: 33
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #13 on: Sun Jan 22, 2023 - 13:43:58 »
Jarrod, here's a question I would pose to you...do you critique the biblical canon by the "multiple books" you cite that were written by the Jews, or vice versa?  Which has priority status for you?  There are many things in scripture that do not pass the "common sense test".  In fact, from beginning to end of the scriptures, our natural credulity is tested over and over by the miraculous (barren, aged Sarah giving birth to Isaac), by the ridiculous (Balaam's talking donkey), and by the upside-down cases (when we are weak, we become strong, dying to self in order to live in Christ, etc.).  None of this passes the "common sense test", really. 

More than having just a thousand years go by of Melchizedek wandering the earth, I see scripture presenting the translated Enoch / Melchizedek, the seventh from Adam, then remaining on this earth until the AD 70 rapture on that year's Pentecost day (according to Daniel's 1,335th day after Jerusalem was surrounded by armies). 

Scripture is very clear that Christ - NOT Enoch - was the very first one to stand in God's presence in heaven in a glorified human body.  This merited Jesus Christ the title of "the First-begotten". Scripture is also very clear that no one in either a glorified resurrected body (like Lazarus), or a glorified translated body (in Enoch's unique case) could enter heaven's temple and be in God's presence until the seven plagues had been fulfilled and done (Revelation 15:8).

If you want to argue that the "Melchizedek" word is more of a title ("King of righteousness") than an actual name, which descriptive title could equally apply to both Enoch / Melchizedek or to Christ Jesus, I can agree with that.  But I do not agree that this same descriptive title means we are speaking of just one person, and that one being Christ Jesus alone.   

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14970
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #14 on: Mon Jan 23, 2023 - 00:56:48 »
Jarrod, here's a question I would pose to you...do you critique the biblical canon by the "multiple books" you cite that were written by the Jews, or vice versa?  Which has priority status for you?
You said "vice versa," but there's only one thing listed, so how can I switch them around the other way?  Can you re-phrase? ???

There are many things in scripture that do not pass the "common sense test".
Agreed.

In fact, from beginning to end of the scriptures, our natural credulity is tested over and over by the miraculous.  Barren, aged Sarah giving birth to Isaac.  By the ridiculous (Balaam's talking donkey),
Genesis is confusing because someone edited all the stories together so as to read as some sort of chronological history.  However, the recording of histories hadn't even been invented during the time period in question.  The stories that were collected were originally separate.  They made separate points, that were mostly not-historical.  Maybe that answer requires a bit more than common sense, I'd certainly grant you that.

and by the upside-down cases (when we are weak, we become strong, dying to self in order to live in Christ, etc.).  None of this passes the "common sense test", really.
Paradoxical statements don't really strain credulity.  They are mostly pretty easy to figure out.

More than having just a thousand years go by of Melchizedek wandering the earth, I see scripture presenting the translated Enoch / Melchizedek, the seventh from Adam, then remaining on this earth until the AD 70 rapture on that year's Pentecost day (according to Daniel's 1,335th day after Jerusalem was surrounded by armies).
That contradicts the text.  The Bible says that he "was not."  That is the opposite of "remaining on this earth."  All of 1Enoch is about Enoch being in the heavens.

Scripture is very clear that Christ - NOT Enoch - was the very first one to stand in God's presence in heaven in a glorified human body.  This merited Jesus Christ the title of "the First-begotten". Scripture is also very clear that no one in either a glorified resurrected body (like Lazarus), or a glorified translated body (in Enoch's unique case) could enter heaven's temple and be in God's presence until the seven plagues had been fulfilled and done (Revelation 15:8).
In my Father's house are MANY mansions... not just one singular throne room.  I'm not sure why this point is so hard for you.  People can go to ONE OF the heavens without going straight into God's presence.

If you want to argue that the "Melchizedek" word is more of a title ("King of righteousness") than an actual name, which descriptive title could equally apply to both Enoch / Melchizedek or to Christ Jesus, I can agree with that.  But I do not agree that this same descriptive title means we are speaking of just one person, and that one being Christ Jesus alone.
I don't really care to make that argument.

Offline Rella

  • Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12451
  • Manna: 671
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #15 on: Mon Jan 23, 2023 - 09:26:43 »
Quote from: 3 Resurrections on Yesterday at 13:43:58
Quote
More than having just a thousand years go by of Melchizedek wandering the earth, I see scripture presenting the translated Enoch / Melchizedek, the seventh from Adam, then remaining on this earth until the AD 70 rapture on that year's Pentecost day (according to Daniel's 1,335th day after Jerusalem was surrounded by armies).

Answer from:Wycliffes_Shillelagh « on: Today at 00:56:48 »
Quote
That contradicts the text.  The Bible says that he "was not."  That is the opposite of "remaining on this earth."  All of 1Enoch is about Enoch being in the heavens.

The bible says "he was not". But there is certainly no mention that when he was gone he was anywhere else but on earth.
Not to get into that again it is said by some  The term taken away (NKJV) or translated (KJV) in Hebrews 11:5 simply means "transferred." Enoch was transferred or conveyed from one place on earth to another to escape violence aimed against him. In this other earthly place, he died like all men.  And there is no proof in the four corners of the Biblical Canon... which we know means the English word canon comes from the Greek κανών kanōn, meaning "rule" or "measuring stick".

But Jarrod. When you  make this comment....That contradicts the text.  The Bible says that he "was not."  That is the opposite of "remaining on this earth."  All of 1Enoch is about Enoch being in the heavens.

First: just because "he was not" does not mean he was removed from earth. It simply means he could not be seen or found by those that might have been looking for him.

Then you say "  All of 1Enoch is about Enoch being in the heavens."

I ask first how many translations of 1 Enoch and others there are.... for I have downloaded just one and the first chapter of
 8 verses of my 1 Enoch read....

1. The word of the blessing of Enoch, how he blessed the elect and the righteous, who were to exist in the time of trouble; rejecting all the wicked and ungodly. Enoch, a righteous man, who was (1) with God, answered and spoke, while his eyes were open, and while he saw a holy vision in the heavens. This the angels showed me.

              Comment....Saw a Holy Vision.... does not require a presence any more then the visions and prophesy
              that John  saw while on Patmos.
He opens his writing with he saw a vision.

2. From them I heard all things, and understood what I saw; that which will not take place in this generation, but in a generation which is to succeed at a distant period, on account of the elect.

3. Upon their account I spoke and conversed with him, who will go forth from his habitation, the Holy and Mighty One, the God of the world:

      Now we get to some of the important stuff. Enoch is obviously talking of and to Jesus.
     
4. Who will hereafter tread upon Mount Sinai; appear with his hosts; and be manifested in the strength of his power from heaven.

5.All shall be afraid, and the Watchers be terrified.

6.Great fear and trembling shall seize them, even to the ends of the earth. The lofty mountains shall be troubled, and the exalted hills depressed, melting like a honeycomb in the flame. The earth shall be immerged, and all things which are in it perish; while judgment shall come upon all, even upon all the righteous:

7. But to them shall he give peace: he shall preserve the elect, and towards them exercise clemency.

8.Then shall all belong to God; be happy and blessed; and the splendour of the Godhead shall illuminate them.

     Comment: This certainly is of things he was shown.... in a vision(s) not in person, for if he was in person when did 1 Enoch get written. and delivered back to earth?



Quote from: 3 Resurrections on Yesterday at 13:43:58
Scripture is very clear that Christ - NOT Enoch - was the very first one to stand in God's presence in heaven in a glorified human body.  This merited Jesus Christ the title of "the First-begotten". Scripture is also very clear that no one in either a glorified resurrected body (like Lazarus), or a glorified translated body (in Enoch's unique case) could enter heaven's temple and be in God's presence until the seven plagues had been fulfilled and done (Revelation 15:8).

Answer from:Wycliffes_Shillelagh
Quote
In my Father's house are MANY mansions... not just one singular throne room.  I'm not sure why this point is so hard for you.  People can go to ONE OF the heavens without going straight into God's presence.

It is difficult for me simply because Daniel, and John were shown things... as was Enoch. No one was needed to be taken off the earth.


Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13927
  • Manna: 419
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #16 on: Mon Jan 23, 2023 - 09:51:35 »
Genesis 5:23-24
[23]So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
[24]Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

If Enoch remained on earth, verse 23 is in error. 


Offline Rella

  • Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12451
  • Manna: 671
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #17 on: Mon Jan 23, 2023 - 10:20:05 »
Genesis 5:23-24
[23]So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
[24]Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

If Enoch remained on earth, verse 23 is in error.

Why?

Just because after 365 years Enoch was not seen anymore does not mean he was off in some heaven somewhere... it simply means that he was not known by anyone here.

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13927
  • Manna: 419
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #18 on: Mon Jan 23, 2023 - 10:48:45 »
Why?

Just because after 365 years Enoch was not seen anymore does not mean he was off in some heaven somewhere... it simply means that he was not known by anyone here.

Why?  Because I can read and comprehend.

All of the days of Enoch were 365 years. 

It's pretty simple.

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Manna: 33
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #19 on: Mon Jan 23, 2023 - 14:07:19 »
If Enoch was taken to heaven when he was translated, then there is a lie written in John 3:13.  "And NO MAN HATH ASCENDED UP TO HEAVEN, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."  As of the time the book of John was being written, NO ONE - not even Enoch or Elijah - had yet ascended to the heaven from which the Son of man had come from.   Christ Jesus was still (as of the time when John 1:14 was written), the "ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER" to ascend to heaven in a glorified human body form.   

All the days of Enoch amounted to 365 years BEFORE his translation change into an immortal form that could not die.  After that, Enoch was deathless, having no end of days in that immortal state.

Putting together all the information we have about Enoch and just when any of mankind was going to be allowed access to the heaven where God dwelt, Enoch continued to live a deathless existence in that translated form after his 365th year, but was not allowed to ascend to God's presence in heaven until those 7 plagues were fulfilled in Revelation 5:18. 

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13927
  • Manna: 419
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #20 on: Mon Jan 23, 2023 - 14:49:28 »
If Enoch was taken to heaven when he was translated, then there is a lie written in John 3:13.  "And NO MAN HATH ASCENDED UP TO HEAVEN, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."  As of the time the book of John was being written, NO ONE - not even Enoch or Elijah - had yet ascended to the heaven from which the Son of man had come from.   Christ Jesus was still (as of the time when John 1:14 was written), the "ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER" to ascend to heaven in a glorified human body form.   

All the days of Enoch amounted to 365 years BEFORE his translation change into an immortal form that could not die.  After that, Enoch was deathless, having no end of days in that immortal state.

Putting together all the information we have about Enoch and just when any of mankind was going to be allowed access to the heaven where God dwelt, Enoch continued to live a deathless existence in that translated form after his 365th year, but was not allowed to ascend to God's presence in heaven until those 7 plagues were fulfilled in Revelation 5:18.

Total conjecture on your part, there is no part of scripture that says " BEFORE his translation change into an immortal form that could not die."

I'll go with scripture that says God took him.  And vs 23 precludes somewhere else on earth. 

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Manna: 33
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #21 on: Mon Jan 23, 2023 - 15:38:55 »
How is this "conjecture" to say that Enoch's 365 years of this life applied to his mortal state in this life?   Scripture puts a line of demarcation for Enoch between the years "BEFORE his translation" and Enoch's existence AFTER that translation.   In the immortal state, such as God Himself, it is said "Thy years shall have no end" (Psalms 102:27).  We cease to tabulate the passage of years when we are changed to a glorified body in the eternal state. 

So no, verse 23 does NOT preclude Enoch living somewhere else on earth after his translation at age 365.   

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14970
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #22 on: Mon Jan 23, 2023 - 18:05:36 »
If Enoch was taken to heaven when he was translated, then there is a lie written in John 3:13.
You're doing an awful lot of mental gymnastics to preserve your interpretation of this one verse.

Generally, if one verse doesn't fit with the rest of Scripture, you should probably question your interpretation of the verse, rather than cast aside the rest of Scripture.

Jarrod

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Manna: 33
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #23 on: Mon Jan 23, 2023 - 19:42:28 »
Jarrod there is more than this single John 3:13 verse that deals with Christ being the first to ascend to the Father in a glorified human body.  All the typology of the “FIRST-born” throughout the OT pointed forward to Christ as the fulfillment of being the “First-born” of every creature.

All the Firstborn males who “opened the matrix” back under the OC provided the symbolism of Christ opening up the way of access to the Father’s presence in heaven.   Christ had to be the first to make the way possible for us to legally stand face-to-face before God in a resurrected, glorified body. 

No one else could fulfill this “First-begotten” role except Christ.  After that, God could look at us as being vicariously holy in His sight with Christ’s righteousness covering us.  This all is connected with Christ’s role as our high priesthood representative.

If Enoch had been taken to heaven before Christ, that would have taken the preeminence away from Christ.

Offline Rella

  • Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12451
  • Manna: 671
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #24 on: Tue Jan 24, 2023 - 06:29:58 »
TC.

You fail to comprehend what is written

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Yesterday at 09:51:35
Quote
Genesis 5:23-24
[23]So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
[24]Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

If Enoch remained on earth, verse 23 is in error.

Fisrt. So all the days of Enoch were 365 years

365 years before WHAT?

You say that means ... [24]Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

Butit does not say where God took him.

It is the writers and translators of Genesis who speculate that God took him to "some" heaven.

Let me ask you a question. I do not know if you have ever heard many people who have talked of a loved one who died and
were trying to explain what happened to a young person. It is not at all uncommon for someone to say " God took them" as a form of comfort.

When my neighbor died from covid 2 years ago it was up to her husband to explain to their daughter what happened to mom.
Bill simply said to the daughter. God took her. God needed her to work for him. And those simple words calmed the daughter.

As to Enoch.. NO ONE witnessed a "whirlwind: taking him skyward. we are just told he was taken when he was 365 years old but we were not told he was taken anywhere off earth, but could well have been moved somewhere for his own protect..... OR to actually write what he recoreded in 1 Enoch for even he says right there it was not an eyewitness account

Chapter 1 vs 1 The word of the blessing of Enoch, how he blessed the elect and the righteous, who were to exist in the time of trouble; rejecting all the wicked and ungodly. Enoch, a righteous man, who was (1) with God, answered and spoke, while his eyes were open, and while he saw a holy vision in the heavens. This the angels showed me.

EVEN if you are one who says someone else wrote the book... he had to have said these things to someone.

So he has these visions.... records them.... then God says come up hither my good and faithful servant???????

Why then, did God not also say that to John when he finished Revelation?

Enoch was not taken alive.

Who was the witness? And where is their account?

Offline Rella

  • Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12451
  • Manna: 671
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #25 on: Tue Jan 24, 2023 - 06:32:35 »
Total conjecture on your part, there is no part of scripture that says " BEFORE his translation change into an immortal form that could not die."

I'll go with scripture that says God took him.  And vs 23 precludes somewhere else on earth.

VS 23 says ... [23]So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. Does not preclude elsewhere on earth at all.

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13927
  • Manna: 419
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #26 on: Tue Jan 24, 2023 - 09:33:56 »
VS 23 says ... [23]So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. Does not preclude elsewhere on earth at all.

It does.  All his days were 365 years.  Then he was taken.  If he went somewhere else on earth, his days would be larger than 365 years

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14970
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #27 on: Tue Jan 24, 2023 - 09:48:37 »
If Enoch had been taken to heaven before Christ, that would have taken the preeminence away from Christ.
Christ is the first-fruits of those re-born from the dead.

Enoch was not resurrected.  He was simply taken into the heavens, still alive, and given the task of recording all the evil deeds of mankind.

Jarrod

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
  • Manna: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #28 on: Tue Jan 24, 2023 - 12:55:18 »
.
The basic requirement for a Melchizedekian priest is immortality; which effective rules out all the Mormon men who claim to be priests after the order of Melchizedek.

Secondly, the post is a High Priest position. Well; the Bible's high priests operate solo, i.e. one man at a time, viz: they do not function within a fraternity of high priests, plus; the man isn't replaced until he's dead. That, again, rules out Mormonism's Melchizedekian priests because they are too many at a time.

Thirdly, God hand-picks Melchizedekian priests, viz: no man takes this honor unto himself just because he's old enough and been a Mormon long enough. This isn't something men graduate into like a Th.D. degree.

Fourth; the order of Melchizedek isn't an order. In other words: his replacements do not have to be biologically related to him like Aaron's replacements. Anybody hand-picked by God can serve; both Jew and Gentile alike, viz: one's genealogy is irrelevant.

Fifth: Melchizedekian priests are taken from among men, i.e. they are all supposed to be bona fide human beings rather than spirit beings disguised in one of James Cameron's genetically engineered organisms, a.k.a. an Avatar.
_

Offline Rella

  • Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12451
  • Manna: 671
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #29 on: Wed Jan 25, 2023 - 08:11:54 »
It does.  All his days were 365 years.  Then he was taken.  If he went somewhere else on earth, his days would be larger than 365 years

TC.

Not if he was moved somewhere, and given a new name... or just into isolation. NO ONE would have known who he was born as
and therefore they could only witness the 365 years that "common" man had known him from birth until he was gone.

We are not told what he was doing after his initial 365 years, much less where.

Did he have an assignment such as Jarrod suggests that  he given the task of recording all the evil deeds of mankind?

He did not need to be in heaven to do that. In fact... unless he knew everyone in mankind from Adam onward... he would not be able to do so.

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13927
  • Manna: 419
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #30 on: Wed Jan 25, 2023 - 08:32:36 »
TC.

Not if he was moved somewhere, and given a new name... or just into isolation. NO ONE would have known who he was born as
and therefore they could only witness the 365 years that "common" man had known him from birth until he was gone.


We are not told what he was doing after his initial 365 years, much less where.

Did he have an assignment such as Jarrod suggests that  he given the task of recording all the evil deeds of mankind?

He did not need to be in heaven to do that. In fact... unless he knew everyone in mankind from Adam onward... he would not be able to do so.


Offline Rella

  • Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12451
  • Manna: 671
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #31 on: Wed Jan 25, 2023 - 08:40:33 »
Re: Melchizidec« Reply #27 on: Yesterday at 09:48:37 »
Quote
ReplyQuote
Quote from: 3 Resurrections on Mon Jan 23, 2023 - 19:42:28
If Enoch had been taken to heaven before Christ, that would have taken the preeminence away from Christ.

Posted by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh
« on: Yesterday at 09:48:37 »Insert Quote
Quote
Christ is the first-fruits of those re-born from the dead.

Enoch was not resurrected.  He was simply taken into the heavens, still alive, and given the task of recording all the evil deeds of mankind.

Jarrod

Jarrod  ::doh::

Can Christ Jesus lie? Apparently so.

John 1:18
King James Version
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.

OR not....

John 3:13
King James Version
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.


So it is your call... He either lied or he did not. You cannot have it both ways.

I would accept that Enoch was taken to Paradise... to wait.... but then comes that nasty argument about where Paradise is.

I am of the firm belief that Paradise is the upper Chamber of Hades. So if God wanted Enoch spared from anything... this would have been the place....

BUUUTTTTT!!!!
, then you gotta get into the one credible "book of Enoch" AKA 1 Enoch and wonder... did he write it? Did he dictate it? Was it plagiarized by someone? .... How did it came to be.... with the accuracy of things we find through out the 66 books... at the same time so many centuries apart.

Perhaps it was done before he was transferred and having done such a good job God told him that he would keep him from harm and death and hence was moved into Paradise to wait . It being his reward.

I only know he did not got to the heaven where God abides. Not before Jesus was resurrected.

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13927
  • Manna: 419
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #32 on: Wed Jan 25, 2023 - 08:44:50 »
Enoch didn't ascend.  He was taken.  You are making all of this much harder than it is.


Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Manna: 33
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #33 on: Wed Jan 25, 2023 - 14:55:07 »
For both TC and Jarrod, it takes mental gymnastics on your part to turn all these verses into a contradiction of scriptures, which is what you are both doing.  All these verses MUST reconcile, because the scriptures cannot be broken.  Enoch CANNOT have either ascended or been taken to God's presence in heaven at the very least until Christ had ascended in His glorified body to become the "First-begotten" one to stand in God's presence in a glorified body. 

The representative role of the "Great High Priest" had to first be established by Christ before any other glorified bodies of mankind could stand face-to-face with their Creator in a perfected body.  With respect to Christ's representative role, Enoch's unique translated body was no different in its glorified state than any other saint who was bodily-resurrected into this glorified state.  In other words, neither the translated Enoch nor any other glorified body of any saint could enter God's presence until Christ's imputed righteousness could provide a covering for them and render them "accepted in the beloved".

And from what I am reading from 1 Enoch, I don't see that he was granted a physical, bodily "tour" of the heavens, except in a vision, such as John had for his apocalypse.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4592
  • Manna: 98
  • Gender: Male
Re: Melchizidec
« Reply #34 on: Wed Jan 25, 2023 - 20:52:33 »
MORE ON MELCHIZEDEK:

    “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him...He is first by translation of his name, the king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem—that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever” [Heb. 7:1-3].

    In these respects he was likened to Jesus Christ—who, as to his Godhead, had neither father nor mother, beginning of time nor end of days, and has an everlasting priesthood, just as our Lord and Savior has. This is evidence enough he was not appointed according  to the carnal commandment under Moses. Simply stated, his High Priesthood resembles Jesus our High Priest.

    It is noteworthy that “King of righteousness” is the meaning of “Melchizedek.” Jesus, of course, is called “King of righteousness” as well. It seems the word may not be the name, but instead a title.

    I am not of the opinion, as 3 Resurrections is, that Melchizedek was/is Enoch. I do not see anything 3 Resurrections has presented that even comes close to Melchizedek being Enoch.

    I will close these remarks by sharing a possibility with you. That possibility—or probability—is that Melchizedek was Jesus Christ Himself who appeared to Abraham. The earmarks are identical.

Buff