 Who is Melchizedek? Is it Jesus? Is he a man? Is he an angel? Who is Melchizedek? A lot has been made about who Melchizedek is. A lot has been made though, but there's not an awful lot to go off of in the Bible. And so it leads to, when we have some character who is mentioned in the kind of prominence that he is, it can lead to speculation from people. Sometimes his speculation can be based off of the Bible and can be pretty close to accurate. Sometimes it can be far ranging. And so what we want to do is let's look at him and let's see if we can figure out who he is, who he's not, if we can eliminate one of the ideas. Again, there are those that believe that Melchizedek is either a pre-incarnate Christ or they may believe that he is an angel or they may believe that he is an actual man. So let's go and look at the first instance. One of the first instances is that we see Melchizedek shows up. This is when, in Genesis, this is after Abram, this would be Abraham, has won this battle because a lot, his kinsmen, has been caught up in this battle with these four kings. And so here we have, we see Abram coming in contact with Melchizedek. And so it says that verse 17 of Genesis 14 says that then after the defeat of the Kettler Amor and the kings who were with him, the king of Solomon went out to meet him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the valley of Sheva that is the king's valley. And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine. Now he was a priest of God Most High, which is interesting to say that he was priest of God Most High. Look what he says. 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, that is Abram giving Melchizedek a tenth of all that he had. Now one thing is certain, Abram knew who he was or at least recognized who he was. And he showed honor by giving him a tenth of his spoils. And so that is, that's kind of interesting, that's something we ought to consider. But again, there's not a lot made out of this. And so we don't get a whole lot just from reading the count discount or any other counts so far in Genesis. We also see this brought up again in Psalm 76. I'm sorry. And it says God is known in one, 76 for one God is known in Judah. His name is great in Israel. His tabernacle is Salem. His dwelling place also in Zion. And the reason why I bring this passage up is to let you know that what Salem is or where it is happens to be in Jerusalem, which makes sense. So when you see the king of Salem, you have an idea as to where this location is. Now where we get more introduction or more information about Melchizedek. And this kind of, for some may clarify, may add to or for some it may absolutely muddy the water. And when I say muddy the water, I mean that it may throw more at that doesn't really give you a whole lot that might be a little bit vague, not a lot of description, not a lot of understanding of background and what he's saying. And so for some people it might be a bit confusing. In Hebrews chapter six, we see verse 19. Let's start there. This hope we have an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil. We're speaking of Jesus now, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek. Now there is where it can kind of get confusing because how should we read what's being stated here? According to the order of more, according to the order of Melchizedek. What does that actually mean? There seems to be some sort of comparison here, or is he saying that he is? Now the verbiature doesn't seem to equate Jesus with, with Melchizedek, but it does seem to compare Jesus to Melchizedek that Jesus is of this same order as Melchizedek, a high priest. Remembering that, and by the way he's writing this, this is the book to the Hebrews. And so they understand what a priest, how the order of a priest is supposed to be. And Aaron, they come out of a certain genealogy, a certain tribe, a certain background. Clearly Melchizedek did not. Matter of fact, Melchizedek precedes Aaron or any other Levites or anyone else. And so is it saying that Jesus is a high priest like Melchizedek? That is, he's not in this priestly reign that could be? Or is this stating that he's a priest because of some other characteristics, some other traits that also Melchizedek had? Possibly both. So when we keep reading in chapter seven verse one, it says, 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, which is, he's just simply saying what the term Melchizedek means, the Hebrew word sedate, which is righteous, and then melek, which is to reign or to rule or to be king, and so king of righteous. And then also king of Salem, which is king of peace, which is what that word means as well, without father. And here's another interesting tidbit that also might either confuse, or for some clarify, 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. Now this is where some folks might want to say, is this Jesus, the pre-incarnate Christ? And there is some validity to the assumption that he could be the pre-incarnate Christ for a couple reasons. One, we're comparing Jesus, who is our high priest, out of this same order. Secondly, Jesus is kind of an intermediary, a mediator between man and God, and from God to man. And he can do that because in the flesh, as man, he represents us to God. And as God himself, he represents God to us. And so he's the perfect mediator to mediate and to bring about the concerns of both sides, to reconcile both sides. And so in this case, we can see that being brought up here as well. But then this statement that says, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. Well, the question is, does that reference him never having been born like another man that Melchizedek didn't have a mother, that Melchizedek didn't have a father, that Melchizedek didn't have a beginning nor an end? Is that what it's saying? Now, to throw something else in there, there have been finds and we find that in that date, that was also used of someone who we either simply did not know their lineage, or it was not important not to say that that's what it's saying here. But those are some of the things that we ought to think about. Remember, he's not writing to Gentiles, the person that's writing the book of Hebrews is not writing to Gentiles, but he is writing to Jews. And so this was a common statement, I should say a common statement, but this was a statement that was made at that time to reference someone who we simply don't know their genealogy or know who their mother father is, or that it's not important, it's immaterial. And so that could be, it could be that that's what he's saying about Melchizedek, that he didn't have a mother, father, or we just simply don't know, or that is immaterial. But then he makes another statement after that, but made like the son of man, he remains a priest perpetually. Now that part is interesting because now someone can say, we'll see, if he remains a priest perpetually, that would have to be one of two things, either he is some sort of angelic being. And I think personally, it's probably easy to go ahead and cast that aside, because we don't ever see anyone given any sort of homage, or paying a tithe, or a tenth, or any sort of worship to an angel that has been proposed by some people. But I don't think that that even, that there's no biblical precedence for that. And so I would probably quickly eliminate that. And so the only two, only two possibilities would be that Melchizedek was a man, or that he was the pre-incarnate Christ. And he gets, you get more out of that belief that he's a pre-incarnate Christ from this passage says that he remains a priest perpetually. So the question is going to be, how could he be a priest perpetually if he is a human being? Now it could be just that this order of priesthood that now Jesus takes on is the same way that this sort of priesthood, maybe speaking of the priesthood and not necessarily the priest, that could be also. Now to argue for the other side that this is a man, the verbiage again seems to indicate that Jesus is being compared to Melchizedek and that they are similar, but not the same. This is kind of the verbiage that you would use to compare the two, but not necessarily to equate the two. However, both are possible. Neither way is foreclosed and neither one is conclusively affirmed, meaning that if you believe that he is a human being, a man, there's reasons to believe so. But there's also reasons to believe that Jesus, the pre-incarnate Jesus, is also Melchizedek. Because we need to remember the term Melchizedek, the name Melchizedek, might not be his name, this may simply be who he is, his title. Now returning back to verse 4 of chapter 7, now observe how great this man was, whom Abraham the Patriarch gave a tenth of the choices spoils. And those indeed, the sons of Levi, who received the priest's office, have commandment in the law to collect a tenth from the people that is from their brethren, although these are descendants from Abraham, but the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one whom had the promises. But without any dispute, the lesser is blessed by the greater. In this case, mortal men receive tithes, but in the case one receives them of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. And it says, And so to speak through Abraham, even Levi who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. Now let's see if there's any other that we can glean from the next portion of verse 11. Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of it, the people received the law, what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not be designated according to the order of Aaron. Now that's still not given a whole lot of information for us to go off of to try to decide conclusively, but there's something else that's brought up as well in verse 15. Let's look at this. And this is clear steel. Well, for some it's clear steel, I guess. If another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek who has become such not on the basis of the law of physical requirements, but according to the power of an indestructible life for it is a test to him, you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Now here's why I say this is a bit interesting. When we bring this statement up according to the order of Melchizedek, notice the word here, the Greek word, in English it's order, but in the Greek it's from the Greek word tithes, or in this case tithesim, which is the order, the arrangement. But then there's another word that's used if we go back up a little bit, he didn't say the order of Melchizedek, he said of the likeness. And this is where we get the word homos, which is the same or resemblance. And so is this saying that this may very well be the very same Christ who now is at the right hand of the Father, but then the pre-incarnate Christ was also who we see in other places where God has taken on flesh. And we know this was a pre-incarnate Christ, the one that met Hagar, the one that met Jacob, the one that met Joseph, the one that met Moshev. We've seen him in the past take on flesh and could this possibly, because again this was not something, this was not out of the ordinary for God to take on flesh. And so it would not be out of the realm of possibilities to say, okay, this was the pre-incarnate Christ because we see the pre-incarnate Christ prior to the cross. And so this word right here for likeness in the in the Greek, the likeness of Melchizedek, does that seem to indicate that this is indeed the pre-incarnate Christ? Honestly, if one says one way or the other, again, I would have a problem with probably someone saying that it's an angel. But if it's, if we, if I were to hear someone say that this is definitely the pre-incarnate Christ, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If someone would say, no, this was a man, I still wouldn't have a problem with it. There's just not a lot of clarity as much as we would like, though I would probably, if I had to choose, I would probably lean towards it being the pre-incarnate Christ. But if I lean that way, not by very much, because it's just not as clear as we would like to, but he still is making a comparison between Melchizedek, who these Jews know about, and Jesus, who they also know about, and say that he's a priest like him. And again, it could be kind of a comparison or to say the same. And this word here, homoeteta, which is to say that this that they are like, I could see it going either way. So now it'd be interesting to see what you guys think about it. Let me know in the comments, but it's not totally sure. But again, I'm leaning one way. Let me know which way you guys are waiting.