Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • entries
    22
  • comments
    4
  • views
    11,876

Was Melchizedek The Christ?


Standing Firm In Christ

2,323 views

 Share

There is a doctrine being circulated today amongst Christians that Melchizedek of Genesis chapter 14 was actually a Christophany.  That is, a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ.

Many base this doctrine on a passage in Hebrews that states


Hebrews 7:2-3 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

They say because Melchizedek was said to have had no beginning of days, nor end of life and without descent, he must be Jesus Christ.

However, a proper study of Scripture reveals that Jesus and Melchizedek were not the same person. 

1.  Melchizedek was said in the passage above to have been “without mother, without father.”  Yet the Bible tells us Jesus had both a mother and a Father.  God was His Father, Mary was His mother.  This alone should refute the notion that Melchizedek was Jesus.  Sadly, with many it does not.

The statement that Melchizedek had no mother, nor father is simply stating that there is no record of his birth parents.  The Bible clearly gives man the record of Jesus’ birth, His parents names, His life, His death, and His subsequent ascension to His throne.

2.  The Bible says of Melchizedek that he was “without descent.”  The Greek for “without descent” is the word “
agenealogētos” and is defined as “one whose descent there is no record of, without genealogy”.  The inspired author of the book of Hebrews wrote that there is no record of Melchizedek’s descent.  But we have the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3.  Clearly, the two are not the same person.

3.  The Bible says of Melchizedek that he had “neither beginning of days, nor end of life.”  Now, if this statement were the only thing that the Bible told us concerning Melchizedek, the argument that he was Jesus might hold to be true.  But because of the facts mentioned in point #1 above, we must come to no other conclusion than that Jesus and Melchizedek could not have been the same person.  Therefore, the statement that Melchizedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life more than likely refers to what was previously said before… that there is no genealogical record of his being born or of his death.  This is not to say he never was born.  It simply means we have no record of his birth.  Since Hebrews 7:4 identifies Melchizedek as a man, it is OBvious that Melchizedek had to have been born of a woman.  This means he had a beginning.  This forfeits any possibility of him being Jesus Christ in Genesis 14.

4.  The Bible says of Melchizedek that he was “made like unto the Son of God.”  “Like unto” does not mean “is.”  If “like unto” means “is” we have a serious prOBlem.  Jesus said the kingdom of Heaven is like unto grain of mustard seed.  To say “like unto” means “is,” would mean that the kingdom of Heaven is not “like” a mustard seed, but that it is a grain of mustard seed. 

Just as Jesus was comparing the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed, the author of Hebrews was comparing Melchizedek to Jesus Christ.

And his comparison of the two shows that the two clearly are not the same person.

 

 Share

0 Comments


Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.

Guest
This sermon entry is now closed to further comments.
  • Sermon Stats

    • Total Sermons
      65
    • Total Entries
      324
  • Sermons & Devotions

  • Blog Comments

    • I don't believe anyone here has said to conduct church discipline during a communion service, and you're correct, that wouldn't be the place to conduct such an action. Usually people are notified by the pastor or the deacons concerning any action towards reconciling the offending Christian to the body (local church). There is first a call by one, then two or more, then usually brought before the church (local assembly) for a vote of notification of separation from the church because of sin. If t
    • Sorry, the New Testament usage of the word church is to local assemblies and to the one assembly we will be in Heaven - it is not regarding some universal church/assembly down here. When you look at it on a local church level, it is very easy to have church unity. There can never be universal church unity - and in fact, that would go against MANY commands in the New Testament, as there are many churches that teach false doctrine, that allow sin, that teach and preach and practice things against
    • At the first communion, Jesus had Judas Iscariot with Him.  Did Jesus not know how to discipline?  It is not the pastor's duty to discipline at the communion service.  If the pastor has issues with a "member", I hope the disciplining would be before communion.  I would think there would be a better time and place.  The pastor is not held accountable, if in ignorance, he lets someone take communion who claims to be a saved/baptized follower of Christ.  It is his duty to reiterate what Paul wrote
    • Also, in Heaven, we will be perfect, sinless and have perfect knowledge. Down here, we do not.
    • It's not a "club mentality." Many hold to the closed communion ideology, others to close, and many to open. The church is an individual cell/called out assembly, and I can fully understand those of the "closed"  communion, as each individual, called out assembly is responsible for their members and the actions of them. Closed shows that the local church has the right ideology that they should be able to discipline their own members, and help to keep their local members accountable in the matters
    • So much "club" mentality....Maybe when we get to heaven Jesus can keep us separated to our "local church" congregations.  I am sure that would make some people happy!  
    • Passover was to be eaten by the whole nation at the same time but with one lamb per household. Each household was to have its own lamb with the exception of very small homes where they could join with their neighbour. They were to eat it in hast and without leaven, with the blood applied to the door post for that household. (Exodus 12) The lord's supper is modeled after that with the exception that Christ is the lamb of our supper. 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 Purge out therefore the old leaven
    • Thanks for your attempt Bro. Jerry. In an attempt to resolve this, as well as defend my position and lesson; I would suggest that you once again go over what I wrote in that lesson in regard to its restrictions. I would point you specifically to the restriction indicated by who sat at the first Lord's Supper. It was only the twelve. There were many other disciples, possibly thousands. But only those that comprised the first church (The Apostles) ate. To me, this is instruction by example, a
    • Jim, just doing quick word searches (and not actually skimming the passages), I think Acts 20 may be the only actual reference to the Lord's Supper during Paul's ministry as recorded in the book of Acts. I am not sure if this was a church started by Paul or a gathering of people that he knew from other local churches he started, ie. whether he knew them from Troas or from other places.
×
×
  • Create New...