Without Beginning Of Days Or End Of Life ...

[BibleScribe]

Genesis 14:18-20
[sup]18[/sup] Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, [sup]19[/sup] and he blessed Abram, saying,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.
[sup]20[/sup] And praise be to God Most High,
who delivered your enemies into your hand.”
Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
[sup]21[/sup] The king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself.” [sup]22[/sup] But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “With raised hand I have sworn an oath to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, [sup]23[/sup] that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the strap of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, ‘I made Abram rich.’


Hebrews 7:1-3
[sup]1[/sup] This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, [sup]2[/sup] and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” [sup]3[/sup] Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.


So we are taught for Hebrews 7, that Melchizedek is the incarnation of Jesus, but is this TRUE? Are there inconsistencies in this expectation, and if so, what are they?

1. Where Abraham attests to a sworn oath ...to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, [sup]23[/sup] that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the strap of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, ‘I made Abram rich', -- wasn't Jesus the creator of heaven and earth and the provider of ALL that Abraham owned?


John 1:1
[sup]1[/sup] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [sup]2[/sup] He was with God in the beginning. [sup]3[/sup] Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So if Jesus is Melchizedek, and we know that Jesus is the creator of "all things", then why does Abraham distinguish his obedience between the creator and provider of all things versus this Melchizedek?




... more to follow.

BibleScribe



PS Don't you love GOD's Word and the hidden things of Scripture???

 

[veteran]

Gen 14:21-24
21 And the king of Sodomsaid unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:
24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.
(KJV)

That was involving the "king of Sodom" Abraham said that to, NOT Melchizedek the king of SALEM.

Christ is Melchizedek that met Abraham during that time. Paul eventually confirms it in the Heb.7 chapter at verses 13-14.

Ideas that Melchizedek was a 'flesh' king is supposition, for that idea is not written anywhere in the Scripture.

 

[BibleScribe]

Gen 14:21-24
21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

Hi Veteran,

Thanks for for clarification regarding the exchange between Abraham and the king of Sodom. (I thought something seemed funny from my previous study, -- and you pegged that error. LOL)


So if you will forgive my mistake and allow a continued discussion, please consider a different aspect:


2. Where there are multiple accounts of Jesus appearing in HIS pre-carnate nature, there is no other account in which a "tithe" offering was accepted. Specifically, it wasn't accepted in the fiery furnace account in Daniel 3:25; or the two angels which came to Lot in Genesis 19:1; and other accounts in which John MacArthur attributes the phrase "the angel of the Lord".
http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/did-jesus-appear-in-the-old-testament/


This Genesis 14:20 is the ONLY instance where the person assigned by the church to be "Jesus" accepted a tithe. As such I would propose that men receive tithes to meet the needs of humanity, but the Old Testament angelic-Jesus never did.



BibleScribe

 

[veteran]

2. Where there are multiple accounts of Jesus appearing in HIS pre-carnate nature, there is no other account in which a "tithe" offering was accepted. Specifically, it wasn't accepted in the fiery furnace account in Daniel 3:25; or the two angels which came to Lot in Genesis 19:1; and other accounts in which John MacArthur attributes the phrase "the angel of the Lord".

http://gracethrufait...-old-testament/


This Genesis 14:20 is the ONLY instance where the person assigned by the church to be "Jesus" accepted a tithe. As such I would propose that men receive tithes to meet the needs of humanity, but the Old Testament angelic-Jesus never did.

BibleScribe

Melchizedek accepting tithes of Abraham still does not mean Melchizedek was some flesh king that simply existed in Abraham's days. If anything, it was an act done for the later purpose which Hebrews 7 reveals that Melchizedek was our Lord Jesus prior to His being born in the flesh. Doesn't mean our Lord Jesus packed up what Abraham tithed to Him, and took it off to Heaven.

The act of His receiving tithes of Abraham PRIOR to the Levitical priesthood's existence, is one of the ideas Hebrews 7 points out to show the giving of The New Covenant Promise by Faith prior to the law being given (which much later was when the Levitical priesthood and tithing was setup). Hebrews 7 points out that the sons of Levi were still in Abraham's loins when he tithed to Melchizedek.

 

[BibleScribe]

Hi Veteran,

I would propose that if Melchizedek accepted a tithe, and Melchizedek is Jesus, then that tithe went to heaven with HIM. However, if Melchizedek is a man, then that tithe served the furtherance of the gospel and met the needs of men.

Have you considered that Melchizedek is a man?



BibleScribe

 

[veteran]

Hi Veteran,

I would propose that if Melchizedek accepted a tithe, and Melchizedek is Jesus, then that tithe went to heaven with HIM. However, if Melchizedek is a man, then that tithe served the furtherance of the gospel and met the needs of men.

Have you considered that Melchizedek is a man?

BibleScribe

Yes, I've considered it, as one must at the first. But after looking at the symbols involved with Melchizedek regarding The New Covenant, and what the Hebrews 7 chapter reveals, I find supposition that Melchizedek was a flesh king impossible.

 

[BibleScribe]

Yes, I've considered it, as one must at the first. But after looking at the symbols involved with Melchizedek regarding The New Covenant, and what the Hebrews 7 chapter reveals, I find supposition that Melchizedek was a flesh king impossible.

Would you believe that ~hearsay testimony~ contradicts your supposition, and that Melchizedek is a man who accepted a tithe?

BibleScribe

 

[veteran]

Would you believe that ~hearsay testimony~ contradicts your supposition, and that Melchizedek is a man who accepted a tithe?

BibleScribe

If you're trying to say that testimony exists to suggest that Melchizedek was simply some flesh king of Abraham's day, then I would say that's a carnal doctrine of men, and such is impossible to relate to the Hebrews 7 Scripture about Melchizedek.

 

[BibleScribe]

If you're trying to say that testimony exists to suggest that Melchizedek was simply some flesh king of Abraham's day, then I would say that's a carnal doctrine of men, and such is impossible to relate to the Hebrews 7 Scripture about Melchizedek.

I'm saying that no one could testify to Melchizedek's parents or birth, because there was ONLY hearsay evidence, which is not allowed under the law.

Are you aware that the Jews know who Melchizedek was? (Please be aware that GOD changed his name to Melchizedek.)



BibleScribe

 

[veteran]

I'm saying that no one could testify to Melchizedek's parents or birth, because there was ONLY hearsay evidence, which is not allowed under the law.

Are you aware that the Jews know who Melchizedek was? (Please be aware that GOD changed his name to Melchizedek.)

BibleScribe

I'm aware that many orthodox unbelieving Jews treat Melchizedek as a flesh king which Abraham met, and some of their brethren that do believe on Christ Jesus are influenced by them to think Hebrews 7 when speaking of Jesus being without mother or father is only an idea that Melchizedek's supposed flesh lineage was not known.

 

[BibleScribe]

I'm aware that many orthodox unbelieving Jews treat Melchizedek as a flesh king which Abraham met, and some of their brethren that do believe on Christ Jesus are influenced by them to think Hebrews 7 when speaking of Jesus being without mother or father is only an idea that Melchizedek's supposed flesh lineage was not known.

Veteran, they know the individual who GOD re-named as "Melchizedek". And using the rule of law, Hebrews 7 correctly depicts his genealogy. Unfortunately it takes the same type of ~perception~/~wisdom~ referred to in Daniel 9:2 and Rev. 13:18 to arrive at the TRUTH of the matter, -- and not everyone is willing to consider the matter to that resolution.


BibleScribe

 

[Perspectives]

Shem son of Noah was Melchizedek. Heb.7:3 says he was made like the Son of God, not the Son of God. No genealogy because he was only one generation from the flood. The flesh argument reminds me of what wisdom is equated to, the female gender, was she flesh or not? Can't prove that either.

 

[BibleScribe]

Shem son of Noah was Melchizedek. Heb.7:3 says he was made like the Son of God, not the Son of God. No genealogy because he was only one generation from the flood. The flesh argument reminds me of what wisdom is equated to, the female gender, was she flesh or not? Can't prove that either.

Hey Big Picture,

You are correct in that Shem was the father of the ~Shemmites~ (Semites/Semitic).

The ~having neither mother or father~ is a legal argument. -- Are you familiar with the inadmissibility of ~hearsay~ in a court of law?



BibleScribe

 

[veteran]

Guess we'll have to cover Hebrews 7 line upon line then about Melchizedek...


Heb 7:1-17
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

King of Righteousness? King of Peace? Can there be TWO Christ's? No, of course not. In Isaiah 9 Christ is called "Prince of Peace". But in Jer.23 He is called, "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS". King of Peace is a direct reference to Christ as God back in the Old Testament, before He came in the flesh as Prince of Peace. He is our King of Righteousness, and there is no other.


3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

The idea of without father, without mother, WITHOUT DESCENT, neither beginning of days nor end of life... means NO LINEAGE, not even the idea of some supposed unknown or lost lineage! Only ONE has ever existed That has no lineage, and That is our Heavenly Father and His Son The Christ. This is why Christ said of Himself in Revelation 1:8 that He is the Alpha and Omega, a direct reference to God per Isaiah 44:6.


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

This Melchizedek existed before the sons of Levi were even born, and even before the giving of the law through Moses about tithes. Yet Abraham gave tithes to Him. And His descent (lineage) is not counted from Levi who was not yet born. So Who could receive tithes like that without the law? That's how Great this Melchizedek is being compared to with a Priesthood that had nothing to do with the Levitical priesthood to be established much later.


7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Those lesser are blessed by the better. Even the Levites who were flesh paid tithes, and they were still unborn in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek received tithes. Yet this One Who received tithes of Abraham still lives! Wonder who that could be?


11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

If perfection (Salvation) could come by the Levitical priesthood, why would any other Priest after the order of Melchizedek be needed?


13 For He of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

BOOM! There it is with, "For He of whom these things are spoken"; well just Who is that? Who has Paul (I consider Paul wrote Hebrews through Luke's pen), been talking about thus far other than Melchizedek?!?

NONE OTHER THAN JESUS CHRIST AS MELCHIZEDEK WHO MET ABRAHAM AND OFFERED HIM BREAD AND WINE (Gen.14).


15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
(KJV)

How did Paul mean Christ arising "after the similitude of Melchisedec" if Christ was Melchisedec Who met Abraham?

Once it's understood, it's very simple.

Just as The Promise by Faith was given first to Abraham, 430 years PRIOR to the law, likewise Melchisedec (Christ) represents the giving of The New Covenant by Faith in Abraham's day. It was symbolized by the giving of "bread and wine" to Abraham, which are sacrements of Communion per The New Covenant.

But what OFFICE was Christ in back in Abraham's days? The KING and High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek represents Christ's Office back in the Old Testament times, prior to His being born through woman's womb to die on the cross.

Christ being Prince of Peace right now symbolizes His sitting on the right hand of GOD's Throne in Heaven now, still expecting until all His enemies be made His footstool. THEN Christ will reign as KING of kings and LORD of lords over the whole earth. That is how our Lord Jesus Christ is our 'King of Righteousness' and King of Peace, especially in that future time when He will reign with His elect kings and priests on earth.

So from beginning to the end of Hebrews 7, Paul is referring to Christ Jesus as Melchizedek (King of Righteousness).

 

[BibleScribe]

Guess we'll have to cover Hebrews 7 line upon line then about Melchizedek...


Heb 7:1-17
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

The idea of without father, without mother, WITHOUT DESCENT, neither beginning of days nor end of life... means NO LINEAGE, not even the idea of some supposed unknown or lost lineage!
...

Hi Veteran,

I'm not sure why you ignore the legal inadmissibility of "hearsay". Please find that definition, and apply it to this application.


BibleScribe

 

[veteran]

Hi Veteran,

I'm not sure why you ignore the legal inadmissibility of "hearsay". Please find that definition, and apply it to this application.


BibleScribe

Hearsay is the application of some other than Christ Jesus as Melchizedek King of Righteousness, because doing that would suggest there can be more than one Christ.

And that's why the idea that Melchizedek was just some flesh king of Abraham's day is a popular idea among the orthodox unbelieving Jews, and those who listen to them.

 

[BibleScribe]

Hearsay is the application of some other than Christ Jesus ...

NO!!! "Heresay" is a legal term used in a court of law, and inherent law is established by GOD. As such if you testify either under the Old Testament law, or i a court of law, you have defined levels of acceptable testimony.

As such, these rules are employed in the Hebrews 7 text. Please follow those rules before you presume that which isn't as though it were.


BibleScribe

 

[veteran]

NO!!! "Heresay" is a legal term used in a court of law, and inherent law is established by GOD. As such if you testify either under the Old Testament law, or i a court of law, you have defined levels of acceptable testimony.

As such, these rules are employed in the Hebrews 7 text. Please follow those rules before you presume that which isn't as though it were.


BibleScribe

The rule of law changes nothing as to what Paul in Hebrews 7 revealed that Christ was Melchizedek of the Old Testament.

 

[BibleScribe]

Rules of law are based upon GOD's Word. If you deny one (the Law), you deny the other (GOD). Please comply with both, and then apply to Hebrews 7.


BibleScribe