Was Melchizedek The Christ? By Standing Firm In Christ

[AVBibleBeliever]

I read through his teaching under his sermons and devotionals.  It is a great study. 

 

I have always thought for many years (even before coming to and understanding of the AV as the preserved word of God) that Melchisedec was actually Shem, the one of the sons of Noah.  For he would have still been alive at that time.  It was amazing but Noah still could have been alive to hold baby Abram on his knee.

 

Good Job on showing that Melchisedec was not a Christophony eh er Christophany.

[Salyan]

Interesting thought. How do you explain the 'without father, without mother', etc., part?

[Ukulelemike]

Shem, eh? Had never considered this. Do you still hold to that, and if so, what do you use as 'evidence', so to speak? I know it may just be an educated guess, and knowing that Shem would still have been alive, and, having seen the hand of God first-hand, it would certainly make him a candidate for being a high-ranking follower. But is there more than that, which brings you to this belief? Seriously curious, as I had never heard this before.

 

I never held to the idea that Melchezidek was actualy Jesus Himself, but was given as a picture of Him. And while it COULD be Shem, I suppose, that he is never named, thus, having no idea of his descent is the only way that he can be seen as a picture of Christ, as in "no father". If we KNEW he was Shem, he would fail as a picture of Christ, knowing his human parentage.

 

"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; 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." Heb 7:1-3

 

So it was necessary to NOT know anything about his family, for him to be a proper picture of Christ, being not of a human father, and not fully, or naturally, I suppose it could be considered, from a human mother, save by the power of the Holy Ghost. So maybe Shem, but we can never verify that.

[Ukulelemike]

Interesting thought. How do you explain the 'without father, without mother', etc., part?

I wrote my thoughts on it at the same time you wrote yours. Great minds, eh?

 

I think it has to do, not so much with Melshesidek having no mother or father, but none recorded-as Levitical priest had to be able to show his parentage and descent, to show his right to the priesthood, but Melchesidek had no such requirement-his family is never mentioned, nor considered important, yet his priestly authority is clearly accepted. This is how Christ could be the great High Priest, though not of the lineage of Levi-He is, like Melchesidek, a priest by Godly authority, not human lineage. For the sake of hebrew lineage importance, Melchesidek has none=no father, no mother, no descent, no beginning-none of these things are recorded about him, because they are not important-a picture of Christ, though I don't believe it was Christ Himself.

 

But of course, I give myself room to be wrong. The Lord COULD have done so, had He wanted to.

 

Though, the fact that he is also called the king of Salem, (peace), which many believe to be the same place that would become Jerusalem. So there seems to be possible evidence he was a human king and priest, again, a picture of Jesus, High Priest and King of kings.

[AVBibleBeliever]

I wrote my thoughts on it at the same time you wrote yours. Great minds, eh?

 

We are told

 

Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

 

This verse was given because Ham had seen his nakedness and after God had already blessed him and his sons Noah decided to lay the curse on Canaan his first born as not to curse him who God had blessed. 

 

And we have no scripture of Shem ruling over Canaan (as a servant) unless he were Melchisedec.

 

Under patriarchal age the oldest male was usually the priest of God but not in every case.  So this old man a priest (being the oldest) and a king (being blessed of God to have the Cannanites as his servants) fits into it being Shem.  However I wont be dogmatic about it.  I could be wrong it is just my humble opinion.  so I would never teach this as an absolute truth but as a side dish tidbit to chew on.

 

So old that no one around him knew who his father or mother was therefore they could not give him a public record of his lineage among the kings of the world.  Remember the five books were not written until Moses.  God had to reveal it to Moses.

 

The spelling in the Sermon/devotional of Melchisedec was not the AV/KJV spelling.

[Ukulelemike]

We are told

 

Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

 

This verse was given because Ham had seen his nakedness and after God had already blessed him and his sons Noah decided to lay the curse on Canaan his first born as not to curse him who God had blessed. 

 

And Shem would most definitely was ruling over  Canaan as a servant being a king there if he were Melchisedec.

 

Under patriarchal age the oldest male was usually the priest of God but not in every case.  So this old man a priest (being the oldest) and a king (being blessed of God to have the Cannanites as his servants) fits into it being Shem.  However I wont be dogmatic about it.  I could be wrong it is just my humble opinion.  so I would never teach this as an absolute truth but as a side dish tidbit to chew on.

 

So old that no one around him knew who his father or mother was therefore they could not give him a public record of his lineage among the kings of the world.  Remember the five books were not written until Moses.  God had to reveal it to Moses.

 

The spelling in the Sermon/devotional of Melchisedec was not the AV/KJV spelling.

Some good thoughts, there. And I agree-in this, while we can see good arguments, we can't be dogmatic-I am with you there. I would not try to be either in this way, or whether Melchisedec was Jesus or not. Just not enough is given. I don't believe he was, but there's a reason he's given at least as a picture. But I do enjoy postulating on such things, until people begin to get into a fight over an absolute truth to it.

[2bLikeJesus]

How do you explain Melchisedec not being included in any geneologies?

[candlelight]

A few years ago I had a conversation going on my Facebook Timeline.  I have many Jewish friends on Facebook.  The Jews say he was Shem, too.  Anyway, I looked up Melchisedec on a King James Bible site, as I always thought he was Jesus Christ.  This is what I found.
 

Melchizedek

 

"King of righteousness, the king of Salem (q.v.). All we know of" him is recorded in Gen. 14:18-20. He is subsequently mentioned "only once in the Old Testament, in Ps. 110:4. The typical" significance of his history is set forth in detail in the "Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. 7. The apostle there points out the" superiority of his priesthood to that of Aaron in these several "respects, (1) Even Abraham paid him tithes; (2) he blessed" Abraham; (3) he is the type of a Priest who lives for ever; (4) "Levi, yet unborn, paid him tithes in the person of Abraham; (5)" the permanence of his priesthood in Christ implied the abrogation of the Levitical system; (6) he was made priest not without an oath; and (7) his priesthood can neither be "transmitted nor interrupted by death: "this man, because he" "continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." "The question as to who this mysterious personage was has given rise to a great deal of modern speculation. It is an old "tradition among the Jews that he was Shem, the son of Noah, who" may have survived to this time. Melchizedek was a Canaanitish "prince, a worshipper of the true God, and in his peculiar" "history and character an instructive type of our Lord, the great" "High Priest (Heb. 5:6, 7; 6:20). One of the Amarna tablets is" "from Ebed-Tob, king of Jerusalem, the successor of Melchizedek," in which he claims the very attributes and dignity given to Melchizedek in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[Ukulelemike]

How do you explain Melchisedec not being included in any geneologies?

The geneologies were important to the Hebrews, not necessarily everyone else. He wasn't Hebrew, it doesn't matter.

[TheSword]

Interesting dicussion so far. Also keep in mind that blessings/cursings given to or about people sometimes found fulfillment in their descendents rather than the individual. We see this in the blessings that Jacob gave to Ephraim and Mannasseh in which one was subjugated to the other and the blessings he gave to his other 11 sons. I'm not saying this is definitely the case as opposed to what's been asserted above. Just some more food for thought.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

We are told
 
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
 
This verse was given because Ham had seen his nakedness and after God had already blessed him and his sons Noah decided to lay the curse on Canaan his first born as not to curse him who God had blessed. 
 
And we have no scripture of Shem ruling over Canaan (as a servant) unless he were Melchisedec.
 
Under patriarchal age the oldest male was usually the priest of God but not in every case.  So this old man a priest (being the oldest) and a king (being blessed of God to have the Cannanites as his servants) fits into it being Shem.  However I wont be dogmatic about it.  I could be wrong it is just my humble opinion.  so I would never teach this as an absolute truth but as a side dish tidbit to chew on.
 
So old that no one around him knew who his father or mother was therefore they could not give him a public record of his lineage among the kings of the world.  Remember the five books were not written until Moses.  God had to reveal it to Moses.
 
The spelling in the Sermon/devotional of Melchisedec was not the AV/KJV spelling.

actually, the spelling can be with a "c" or a "k". Genesis 14 spells it with a "k", while Hebrews 7 spells it with a "c"

Likewise, the "z" and the "s" are also interchangeable.  Genesis 14 spells it with a "z" while Hebrews 7 spells it with an "s".

[LindaR]

The spelling in the Sermon/devotional of Melchisedec was not the AV/KJV spelling.

 

actually, the spelling can be with a "c" or a "k". Genesis 14 spells it with a "k", while Hebrews 7 spells it with a "c"

Likewise, the "z" and the "s" are also interchangeable.  Genesis 14 spells it with a "z" while Hebrews 7 spells it with an "s".

AVBibleBeliever, SFIC copied those verses from the AV/KJV Bible.....quit nitpicking!

[AVBibleBeliever]

actually, the spelling can be with a "c" or a "k". Genesis 14 spells it with a "k", while Hebrews 7 spells it with a "c"

Likewise, the "z" and the "s" are also interchangeable.  Genesis 14 spells it with a "z" while Hebrews 7 spells it with an "s".

Yes I stand corrected.

[DaveW]

The difference is due to the translation from Greek vs Hebrew.
Hebrew is a "harsher" sounding language whilst Greek is a "softer" sounding language - so the harder k and z sounds for the translation from Hebrew, the softer c and s from Greek.

In the instance of names the difference is there but not important.
Same as Esaias vs Isaiah.

[beameup]

Shem makes the most sense, but the deeper understanding of the Hebrew would be necessary to really understand that Shem = Melchisedec.