Why does God Allow
Evil? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why Does God Allow Evil 0908.htm
Should God’s existence be
proven? /Apologeticshtml/Should the Bible and God Be Proven
Fideism vs WCG.htm
Does the Bible teach blind
faith? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Gospel of John Theory of Knowledge.htm
Who Was Melchizedek?
Who was Melchizedek? Melchizedek was an appearance of the One who became
Jesus. There are other appearances (or "theophanies") of
God to various individuals in the Old Testament, such as those cases in which
the Angel (meaning, "Messenger" for the Father, not a separate
created spirit being) of Jehovah turns up to be Jehovah Himself. For
example, look at the cases concerning Hagar, Abraham, Moses at the burning
bush, Balaam, and Samson and his wife (Gen. 16:7-14, 22:9-14, Ex. 3:1-15;
Numbers 22:21-35; Judges 6:3-22). I don't believe Melchizedek was an
average man who (say) lived a normal life in the flesh for years. God
took on flesh for this appearance to Abraham in Genesis 14.
Jesus serves as a high priest, so it
isn't problematic that Melchizedek would be a priest also . . . if they are
actually one and the same! Hebrews 7:3 says (RSV) Melchizedek was
one "resembling the Son of God [so] he continues a priest for
ever." Jesus described as a high priest who is much better than the
high priests under the Mosaic law later in the same chapter (verses
26-27): "For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest,
holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the
heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to off sacrifices
daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people."
Verse 28 notes that Jesus was appointed as a high priest "who has been
made perfect for ever." There can't be two high priests at the same
time, not under how the Mosaic law operated, so the sensible inference is that
Jesus was a (high) priest long before the Aaronic priesthood was set up, but
under a separate division, according to the order of Melchizedek.
Evidence for Jesus' eternal
pre-existence comes from the straightforward interpretation of
Hebrews 7:3, which describes the high priest Melchizedek: "Without
father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days
nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides [present tense!] a
priest continually." As mentioned above, Melchizedek was a
theophany (an appearance of God to man) of the One who became God the
Son. Note that Melchizedek is the "king of
righteousness." Can any average human have such a name without it
being at least presumptuous (cf. Mark 10:18)? Melchizedek is "king
of Salem," meaning, the king of peace; Christ was prophesied to be the
"Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6). Melchizedek "abides a priest
continually." If Melchizedek is still alive, yet we know the dead
know nothing (Eccl. 9:5), then Melchizedek can't be an ordinary human who died
at some point in the ancient past. Melchizedek is "without father,
without mother, without genealogy." Can this be said of any
human? The standard rebuttal to this line of reasoning claims that the
writer of Hebrews meant that the records of Melchizedek's ancestry were
lost. But consider this more carefully: If you were adopted, but
all records of your birth and adoption were lost, could you really be described
as being "without father, without mother"? It's absurd!
Now it's been argued that this terminology is a kind of Jewish idiomatic phrase
for someone whose family tree is untraceable. Only upon the production of
examples from (say) the Talmud or Midrashim should anyone
consider accepting this argument. Until otherwise so shown, a
literal interpretation of Hebrews 7:3 proves the Being who became Jesus was
self-existent, and had no father or mother at this point in His
existence. So if Jesus has no end of life after His resurrection, He
couldn't have a beginning either in the period before time itself was
created.
Several reasons arise for why Shem can’t
be Melchizedek. Notice that he was a
hundred years old when he became the father of Arpachshad, and then he lived
for five hundred years more (Genesis 11:10-11). But a man who died has an “end of life,” which contradicts the
description of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7:3.
Similarly, Shem’s father was Noah (Genesis 5:32; 9:18). If Shem had a father, he wasn’t “without
father,” which again contradicts Hebrews 7:3.
In short, there’s excellent evidence for belief that Melchizedek, the
King of Righteousness, was none other than the One who later became Jesus
Christ Himself.
Eric V. Snow
Click here to access
essays that defend Christianity: /apologetics.html
Click here to access
essays that explain Christian teachings: /doctrinal.html
Click here to access
notes for sermonettes: /sermonettes.html
Why does God Allow Evil?
Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why
Does God Allow Evil 0908.htm
May Christians work on
Saturdays? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Protestant
Rhetoric vs Sabbath Refuted.htm
Should Christians obey
the Old Testament law? /doctrinalhtml/Does
the New Covenant Abolish the OT Law.htm
Do you have an immortal
soul? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Here
and Hereafter.htm
Does the ministry have
authority? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Is
There an Ordained Ministry vs Edwards.html
Is the United States the
Beast? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Are
We the Beast vs Collins.htm
Should you give 10% of
your income to your church? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Does
the Argument from Silence Abolish the Old Testament Law of Tithing 0205 Mokarow
rebuttal.htm
Is Jesus God? Click
here: /doctrinalhtml/Is
Jesus God.htm
Will there be a third
resurrection? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Will
There Be a Third Resurrection.htm
Links to elsewhere on
this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html /sermonettes.html /webmaster.html For the
home page, click here: /index.html