Hebrews 7:3 – Is Melchizedek an Eternal Priest?

Hebrews 7:3: without father or mother, without lineage, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest in perpetuity. (Montgomery)

Some, in reading the above scripture, see something in it that is not there, that Jesus has neither beginning of days, nor end of life. They do not seem to notice that when saying that he has neither beginning of days, Paul is speaking, not of Jesus, but of Melchizedek (also often spelled Melchizedec), and not literally, but figuratively, to show the difference between the priesthood of Jesus and the Aaronic priesthood. If one reads this literally then we must believe that Mechizedek was always a priest from eterity past and that he is still now a priest. Jesus, of course, did begin his priesthood, but not with a lineage or beginning of days here on earth, but in heaven. There is no earthly lineage, no earthly beginning, from which his priesthood is attached. There is nothing here that says that Jesus existed for eternity past; such has to be read into the text.

Paul says that Melchizedek resembles the Son of God. Yes, Jesus is Son of God [He is not the God of whom is Son], and yes, Jesus does live forever, having been given such power from his God, although this is not what is being spoken of in the verse, for it is concerning the priesthood that Paul is speaking, not existence. Paul is not saying that Jesus exists “from eternity”; this has to be imagined, assumed, and read into what he said. The only reason we can see for reading such an idea into the text is to promote the idea that Jesus is Jehovah.

What Paul did say is that Melchizedek is without father or mother or genealogy and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God Melchizedek continues to be a priest for ever.

Very few believe that Melchizedek is God Almighty himself, having lived for eternity past, having no beginning, no ending, etc. Very few believe that Melchizedek literally continues to be a priest even to this day and forever. And, of course, we know that Jesus had a father. But Jesus had no earthly father from which he obtained a priesthood. To take the view that Paul is speaking literally would make Melchizedek Jehovah, and not our Lord Jesus, who is called the “only-begotten” (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9), “the Son of God” (Mark 1:1; Luke 1:32,35; John 1:34; 3:18; 5:25; 6:27; 9:35; 10:36; 11:4; 20:31; Acts 9:20, etc.), “the firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15), “the beginning of the creation of God.” (Revelation 3:14) We believe that Jesus had an existence before he came into the world, that it was in glory, and that he left the celestial glory which He had with the Father “before the world was” to partake of another glory, a the crown of terrestrial, fleshly, human glory. (John 17:1,3,5; 1 Corinthians 15:27,39-41; Hebrews 2:9) We believe the Word to teach that since “his obedience unto death, even the death of the stauros,” “God (Jehovah) has highly exalted Him (Psalm 110:1), and given Him a name above every name,” etc. (Philippians 2:9); that now “all power in heaven and earth is given unto him” by Jehovah, his God. (Matthew 28:18; Daniel 7:14) We believe that ‘of His government there is no end,’ (Isaiah 9:7) and that his kingdom is an “everlasting kingdom.” (Daniel 7:27) But we cannot suppose that he, as the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15), never had a beginning, since it is positively stated that he was “the beginning of the creation” (Revelation 3:14), the firstborn of every creature (Colossians 1:15). This, of course, involves the idea that the Heavenly Father and Son are no more one being than any earthly father and son could be one in being. There is a oneness, however, a unity, existing between them, the oneness of will, aim, etc., as it was written of Jesus, “Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God.” (Hebrews 10:7,9) We remember further that Jesus prayed for us, his followers, that we might have the same kind of unity; not unity of person, but unity of purpose, aim, and interest. He prays “That they all may be ONE, even as Thou, Father, and I are one.” (John 17:11,21,22) This shows us clearly the kind of oneness existing between our Father and our Lord. If, then, the text, “without beginning of days, nor end of years,” as applied to Melchizedek, means that he never had a beginning nor end of life, it would prove not that he was Jesus (as some have assumed), but rather the God and Father of Jesus, Jehovah the Almighty.

It would scarcely be necessary to show that Christ was not without a Father. Call to mind his words: “Father forgive them;” (Luke 23:34) “Father, glorify Thou me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” (John 17:5) It could not then refer to Christ in His pre-human state, nor can it apply to Him as “the man, Christ Jesus,” for Jesus was “born of a woman.” Wakefield’s version renders this (Hebrews 7:3) “Of whose father, mother, pedigree, birth, and death, we have no account.” There was a strict record kept of parentage, birth, death, &c., of every Levite, so that any one claiming to be a priest or Levite could prove it by the records.

It is testified of Melchizedek that he had no end of years, yet we do not see him living today; and it is testified of Christ that he did die, but he was made alive. This same Paul could say of Christ: “Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man.” (Hebrews 2:9) We conclude, then, that as Christ, in the days of his flesh, had a Father existing on the spiritual plane, and a mother who exsited on the earthly plane. Jesus did die for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:30, “even the death of the cross [stauros]” (Philippians 2:8), therefore we have to conclude that Paul is not speaking literally about either the lack of father, birth or death of either Melchizedek or Jesus in a literal sense, but rather he is illustrating the lack of genealogy of the order of the Christ’s priesthood as shown by the account of Melchizedek, and thus Jesus’ priesthood is after the order of Mechizedek, not being of Aaronic genealogy, not having any earthly beginning or end.

When is Jesus made priest after the order of Melchizedek? Has he always been such a priest? No, but while this priesthood has no earthly beginning — the scripture tells us that he could not even have been such a priest while on earth, while in the days of his flesh, nor did Jesus have an earthly father from whom he could claim a priesthood — he was made such a priest after his return to heaven. (Hebrews 8:1-4; 9:11; 10:11-12) Thus like Melchizedek, Jesus’ priesthood does have a beginning in the heavens, but it is not seen on earth, nor is it given as a result of any earthly inheritance of the law and its priesthood. Like Mechizedek, Jesus does not literally have “no beginning of days”, but his heavenly priesthood has no beginning of days on earth, but more importantly, his priesthood cannot be accounted for by human descent.

Likewise, the fact that Jesus is not made a priest after the order of Melchizedek until after his ascension proves that Melchizedek of old was not what many call a “Christophy”, an alleged appearance of Christ in the flesh in the Old Testament. (Hebrews 8:1-4; 9:11; 10:11,12) The very fact that Jesus is spoken of as having become such a High Priest after his ascension shows that he was not such a high priest from all eternity past, and thus he was not such a priest in the days of Abraham. (Hebrews 5:9,10; 6:20; 8:4) The fact that Jesus “arises” after the Old Law Covenant as a priest after the manner of Melchizedek further shows that Melchizedek of old is not a “Christophy”. (Hebrews 5:7-10; 7:15) It is only after Jesus possesses endless life so that he will never die again, that he becomes a priest after the manner of Melchizedek for all eternity; he was never such a priest back in the days of Abraham. — Romans 6:9; Hebrews 7:8,16,24,25; Revelation 1:18.

To interject a meaning into Hebrews 7:3 that Jesus is God Almighty because of the description given to Melchizedek is to derive such a meaning out of context, and detract from what Paul was actually saying.

Nor did Jesus glorify himself as priest, for we read: “Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest.” (Hebrews 5:5) It is Jehovah himself that speaks to the Messiah saying: “You are a priest forever according the order (manner, Hebrew Dibrah, Strong’s Hebrew #1700) of Melchizedek.” (Psalm 110:4) Thus Paul says that Jesus is “named by God a high priest after the order (fashion, Greek, Taxis, Strong’s Greek #5010) of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11,17,21) And it is Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus, who speaks to the Messiah, saying: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” — Psalm 110:1

Thus there is nothing in Hebrews 7:3 that proves that Jesus is Jehovah, who only has existed for all eternity past.

Objection 1

It has been claimed that we are ignoring the context of Hebrews 7:3 in our treatment as presented above, and it is further claimed that Hebrews 7:3 presents “undeniable” testimony to Christ’s eternity.

There is nothing at all anywhere in Hebrews 7:3 that is an undeniable testimony to Christ’s eternity, as the term is defined by trinitarians. Such an idea has to be read into what Paul says, as we have already shown.

However, it does in context speak of Jesus as being made by God Almighty (Hebrews 7:15,16) a perpetual priest (Hebrews 7:21), thus this, while it relates a beginning of Jesus’ priesthood, could also be seen as proof his eternal future. Even as Jesus is made a perpetual priest, Melchizedek is made by Jehovah in the prophecy of Psalm 110:4 (Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11,15.21) like the Son of God pertaining to the priesthood of the Son of God, so that Jesus becomes a priest after the likeness of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 7:15,21) It does not prove anything, however, about the definition that trinitarians would like to give to eternity (as having no beginning), for Jesus has not always been such a priest, and as the scriptures show, he certainly was not Melchizedek of old, since Jesus was not made a priest until after he ascended.

Objection 2

It has been claimed that our conclusion is not supported by the text which plainly states that Melchisedec was *like* [in type only] the Son of God Who had neither beginning of days or end of life.

Actually, the above turns the text around to make it say what is does not say. It does not say that Melchizedek was like the Son of God who had neither beginning of day or end of life, but the expression “having neither beginning of days nor end of life” applies directly to Mechizedek (the type, the shadow), not Jesus (antitype, the reality). If this is read to mean that mean that Jesus (the antitype) had no beginning, that it would most certainly also mean that Melchizedek, who is the one directly being spoken of, would have no beginning. The fact that Melchizedek is made like the Son of God does not do away with the fact that it is of Melchizedek that Paul says that he is without beginning of days and or end of life.

As has already been shown, the point is that there is no genealogical record of Melchizedek, his priesthood had no genealogical record of its beginning of days and no record of its ending of life. Paul is, of course, speaking symbolically, and not literally. Nevertheless, this is how his priesthood is a type of the priesthood of Jesus. We know that Melchizedek’s priesthood actually did have a beginning, and we know that Melchizedek himself did have a beginning, even though we do not know who his father and mother were, nor when he was born, when his priesthood began, etc. Nevertheless, his priesthood was not one that had a heritage from a lineage of priests, and in this Melchizedek is like Jesus. This is Paul’s argument in Hebrews chapters 3 through 10. “After the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest” (Hebrews 7:15), a priesthood superior to that of the Aaronic priesthood; Jesus did not receive a lineage as a priest from Aaron. Thus Melchizedek — is made, rendered similar, by the expression of Jehovah (Psalm 110:4), to the priesthood of Jesus. In saying “another priest”, the scripture lets us know that Jesus was not Melchizedek of old. We also know that Jesus was not such a priest while on earth — thus he did not become a priest after the order of Melchizedek until after he was raised from the dead. He did not become a perpetual priest until after his ascension.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=871

Although we do not necessarily agree with every statement in the following links, we recommend for futher study:

“Melchisedec and Aaron as Types”
“After the Order of Melchisedec”
“Melchisedec Priesthood”
“The Greater Context of Hebrews 6”
Melchizedek, Priest and King
A Great Priesthood Divinely Appointed
The Melchisedec Priesthood
The Melchizedek Priesthood

Originally published on March 4, 2009; edited and republished on May 4, 2014; Edited and republished November 27, 2014.

         
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Jesus and His God
Share

11 comments to Hebrews 7:3 – Is Melchizedek an Eternal Priest?

  • Cardona

    Comment #109:

    “firstborn creature” is different from “firstborn of all creation”. As well as your misquote of “the beginning of the creation.” By “firstborn creature” you mean he was created first. But the scripture says “firstborn of all creation” meaning he is Lord over everything created. This is confirmed by Col 1:18 “that in all things he might have the preeminence”. Further more, if the scripture were saying that Jesus was created first it would be an obvious contradiction of God’s holy word being that in the very next verse it says that ALL THINGS were created by Jesus.
    It’s obivious you’re a Jehova’s witness and that’s ok. But what is not ok is that you try to manipulate God’s word to make it say something that it does not say. I strongly encourage you to let God’s word be. Don’t add man’s theology to it. Let the truth of scripture stand. And when you want further understanding of the scripture, continue reading scripture. Not man’s reasoning. Because that’s exactly what it is. It is man giving reasons to believe his theology inspite of what the scripture clearly says.
    God bless you.

    • ResLight

      Cardona submitted comment #109:

      Cardona, thanks for your comments.

      “firstborn creature” is different from “firstborn of all creation”.

      “Firstborn creature” is derived from the gentitive partitive usage of the phrase “firstborn of every creature” in Colossians 1:15. This usage is demonstrated in all scriptures that use the expression “firstborn of”. In other words, the firstborn is always included in that of which he the firstborn of. In Colossians 1:15, it is “every creature”, thus, Jesus is the firstborn creature.

      See our study:
      Did Jesus Have a Beginning?

      As well as your misquote of “the beginning of the creation.”

      We are supposing this related to the reference to Revelation 3:14?

      And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write ; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God. — King James Version.

      In what way did we misquote this?

      See our study:
      Did Jesus Have a Beginning?

      By “firstborn creature” you mean he was created first. But the scripture says “firstborn of all creation” meaning he is Lord over everything created. This is confirmed by Col 1:18 “that in all things he might have the preeminence”.

      The first to be brought for is always given preeminence over all others of the same group. This is true throughout the Bible, except in a few cases in which the rights of the firstborn may be taken from the true firstborn and given to another. Even in such cases, the right of firstborn is still a part of that of which he is given the right of being the firstborn of. There is no indication in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus took the right of firstborn from another, but even if he did, it would not negate that he would still be a parf that of which is firstborn.

      See our study:
      Did Jesus Have a Beginning?

      Further more, if the scripture were saying that Jesus was created first it would be an obvious contradiction of God’s holy word being that in the very next verse it says that ALL THINGS were created by Jesus.

      Colossians 1:16 relates how the invisible God made “the all” — ta panta –by means of His son. The “ta panta” (the all) being spoken of is described as dominions, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisble, etc. It is evident that the dominion of God Himself as the only Most High is excluded in the “ta panta” spoken of, and likewise it is evident that the firstborn creature is excluded from the “ta panta” spoken of. — 1 Corinthians 15:27.

      See our study:
      Is Jesus Designated the Originator of Creation?

      It’s obivious you’re a Jehova’s witness and that’s ok.

      No, we are not associated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

      See:
      Infor Related to the Jehovah’s Witnesses

      But what is not ok is that you try to manipulate God’s word to make it say something that it does not say. I strongly encourage you to let God’s word be. Don’t add man’s theology to it. Let the truth of scripture stand. And when you want further understanding of the scripture, continue reading scripture. Not man’s reasoning. Because that’s exactly what it is. It is man giving reasons to believe his theology inspite of what the scripture clearly says.

      This is exactly what we have been endeavoring to do. We do not claim to to be perfect, and we do not claim that our conclusions contain no errors or mistakes, but it is our constant endeavor to present what the scriptures do say, as opposed to what man’s theology often assumes upon what the scriptures say. Sometimes it takes many words to untwist the theology of man’s traditions, since they have become grossly entrenched in the very way that most Christians think.
      God bless you.

  • demac:
    HI, again the reference to Melchizedek in the above text is not exactly correct, Melchizedek does not only refer to a priesthood as the article suggests. A lot of bibical scholars have a confused view on who Melchizedek was. There is no historical or bibical record of the genealogy of this Melchizedek, the bible is very clear on its description of him he had no beginning or ending of life suggesting that the one we speak of here is none other than the source of life, God himself in human flesh as strikingly as this sounds it is true. The reason that we do not hear about this person again in scripture is that he became Jesus Christ, God incarnate that is why hebrews states that HE (christ) is a priest after the order of Melchizedek forever, as Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh. Melchizedek was made like the Son of Man in that he was in flesh, please note that he ate with abraham in the plains of Mamre, he was in a body of flesh. Melchizedek is the God of the Son, the very source of life. There is one bibical scholar who held this view and scripturally I think it makes sense, please check what Rev. William Marrion Branham of the pentecostal or full gospel movement had to say on this topic “who is this Melchizedek” please google it you will find it interesting.
    Kind regards

    (to save space on the server, demac’s original post has been deleted.)

    Genesis 14:18 WEB
    Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was priest of God Most High.

    Hebrews 7:3
    apatwr ameetwr agenealogeetos meete archeen
    FATHERLESS, MOTHERLESS, WITHOUT GENEALOGY, NEITHER BEGINNING
    0540 0282 0035 3383 0746
    heemerwn meete zwees telos echwn
    OF DAYS NOR OF LIFE END HAVING,
    2250 3383 2222 5056 2192
    aphwmoiwmenos de tw huiw tou theou
    HAVING BEEN MADE LIKE FROM BUT TO THE SON OF THE GOD,
    0871 1161 3588 5207 3588 2316
    menei hiereus eis to dieenekes
    HE IS REMAINING PRIEST INTO THE CARRYING THROUGH.
    3306 2409 1519 3588 1336

    Hebrews 7:15 WEB
    This is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest,

    Hebrews 7:17 WEB
    for it is testified, “You are a priest forever, According to the order of Melchizedek.”

    Melchizedek is nowhere at all in the scriptures presented as being God Most High; the scriptures present Melchizedek as being “priest of God Most High.”

    Jesus is nowhere at all in the scriptures presented as being Melchizedek, but as the one who is in the LIKENESS (Strong’s #3665, transliterated Homoiotes) of Melchizedek; Melchizedek provides a type, a model (Strong’s #871, transliterated Aphomoioo), of the priesthood of the Son of God. Yes, in the context, the discussion is concerning the priesthood of Jesus as being in the likeness — in the manner — of the priesthood of Melchizedek.
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/homoiotes.html
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/aphomoioo.html

    Jesus is nowhere at all in the scriptures presented as being God Most High, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; one has to call upon the spirit of human imagination so form assumptions based on such, and then add those assumptions to, and read those assumption into, the scriptures.

    No scripture says that Jesus became Melchizedek; such has to be imagined and assumed.

    The scriptures do indeed present Melchizedek as having been a human being in the flesh, just as you and me.

    We read that Melchizedek stated: 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.” (Genesis 14:19,20) Did Melchizedek actually mean: “Blessed be Abraham of myself, since I am possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be myself, since I am God Most High.”? Did Melchizedek the Most of the universe bless himself as being God Most High?

    And then we read that Abraham gave to Melchizedek a tenth of all that he had. (Genesis 14:20) Abraham must have certainly not thought that Melchizedek was God Most High, else what need would God have of a tenth of what Abraham had? At any rate, we read:

    Psalm 110:1 Yahweh says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.”
    Psalm 110:2 Yahweh will send forth the rod of your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies.
    Psalm 110:3 Your people offer themselves willingly in the day of your power, In holy array. Out of the womb of the morning, you have the dew of your youth.
    Psalm 110:4 Yahweh has sworn, and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever in the order [manner, likeness – Strong’s #1700, transliterated Dibrah] of Melchizedek.”
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/dibrah.html

    Psalm 110:1,2 does not confuse Yahweh, the only Most High, with David’s Lord, nor does it confuse Melchizedek as being either Yahweh, or David’s Lord. David quotes Yahweh, the only Most High, as stated concerning David’s Lord, that David’s Lord is to be priest in the manner, likeness, of Melchizedek. Nowhere does it state that David’s Lord was or that he became Melchizedek, nor does it state that David’s Lord is Yahweh.
    See:
    The Lord of David

    In Hebrews 6:20, we read: “where as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest forever after the order [character, fashion, quality, style; Strong’s #5010, transliterated taxis] of Melchizedek.” Again, Jesus is not identified as being Mechizedek, but rather that Jesus’ priesthood is after the order, fashion, style, of Melchizedek.
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/taxis.html

    In Hebrews 7:3, it is Melchizedek who is said to be like, or a model, of the Son. Again, this is speaking of Melchizedek’s priesthood and the priesthood of Jesus. Melchizedek serves as a model of the reality that was to come. Thus, the Greek word here is used in a similar manner to the word translated as tupos (Strong’s #5179), meaning type; in this sense, the “type” is not the reality, but it represents the reality. — Hebrews 8:5.
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/tupos.html

    In Hebrews 7:15, another word is used as a synonym for Strong’s #5010, that is Strong’s #3665, which means likeness, in reference to Jesus. Like much in the Law Covenant itself, Melchizedek is the type, the foreshadowing, but Jesus is the reality. — Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 8:5; 10:1.

    Yes, Hebrews 7:3 states that Melchizedek was without mother, without father, having no genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life. Indeed, the scripture does not give any information of Melchizedek’s birth so as to tell who the father and mother of Melchizedek was, nor does it record Melchizedek’s death. Thus, Melchizedek had no genealogical inheritance as a priest, and there was no lineage to continue his priesthood, thus without such recorded information, he as priest of the Most High God is presented as figuratively having no beginning of days and no end of life.

    Branham takes Hebrews 7:3 out the context of what is being spoken of, and takes what is spoken of figuratively to be the reality. Hebrews 7:3 does not, however, state that Melchizedek became Jesus, for it distinguishes Melchizedek from Jesus, stating that Melchizedek is a model of the Son of God, not that Melchizedek is the Son of God, nor that Melchizedek is God Most High whom Melchizedek served as a priest.

    Concerning Melchizedek, we read:

    he was priest of God Most High. — Genesis 14:18.

    Melchizedek was not “God” whom he served as priest.

    Concerning Jesus, we read:

    You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. — Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:10; 7:17.

    Jesus was not Melchizedek after whose order he became priest after his ascension, for he was not such a priest while on earth. — Hebrews 4:14; 8:1,4. Jesus is thus distinguished from Melchizedek.

    having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. — Hebrews 6:20.

    after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest. — Hebrews 7:15.

    Jesus, being spoken of as “another” priest other than Melchizedek, was thus not Melchizedek.

    Jesus, in becoming a priest in the “likeness” of Melchizedek, was not Melchizedek of whom Jesus was the antitype.

    Jesus is never, ever identified as Melchizedek, whom Jesus is priest after the likeness of, and of whom Jesus is “another” priest who is not Melchizedek.

    The scriptures nowhere speak of the Messiah, the anointed of Yahweh, as being Yahweh who anointed him. God, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus is anointed [made christ, the anointed one] by Yahweh. He is not Yahweh who thus anoints him. — Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 4:27; 10:38.

    Neither is Melchizedek ever spoken of as being his God whom he served as priest.

    Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
    Hebrews 7:2 to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (being first, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is King of peace;
    Hebrews 7:3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like [Aphomoioo, likened in model to] the Son of God), remains a priest continually. — World English Bible translation.

    Does this mean that Melchizedek has always existed, that as a “man” he was never conceived and never born, that he has always existed for all eternity past, and that the man, Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God, still exists to this day? Are we to believe that Melchizedek has been living ever since the day of Abraham so as to continue to this day as priest in Salem? Is he still alive today and serving as priest in Salem, now Jerusalem? Certainly, if Melchizedek were a priest forever, someone in Jerusalem would know about him. Obviously, the author of Hebrews 1:7-3 is speaking figuratively, in that the scriptures do not say anything about Melchizedek’s birth, his mother or father, or of his genealogy, or of his death. Melchizedek did not recieve his priesthood by lineage (as the Aaronic priesthood), nor was their any record of a lineage of priest as descended from Melchizedek. His priesthood was evidently by the appointment of God, but was to serve in type as the priesthood of Jesus, which priesthood is without an end.

    Melchizedek serves as a model for the priesthood of Jesus. We are not think that the Melchizedek in the Old Testament, who met Abraham, was actually the pre-human Jesus, as some have claimed. Thus, in Hebrews 7:15 we read: “This is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest.” Here we read of two different priests: (1) Melchizedek, and “another” priest who is “after the likeness of Melchizedek.” It should be very obvious that the latter “priest” is not the first priest, as some have claimed.

    Furthermore, Jesus is classified in Colossians 1:15 as being a creature, and thus Jesus was created, and therefore is not the Most High God of whom the scripture tells that the is the Son. — Luke 1:32,35.
    See:
    Did Jesus Have a Beginning?

  • demac

    Comment #111

    Hi, I thank you for responding to my comment, however I don’t think I agree with your perspective. If you say that Melchizedek is not God, how is it that he has neither father nor mother neither does he have a beginning of life or an end of life. Is there another person beside God that has eternal life or beside Jesus Christ that has infinite life. Your premise cannot stand the test of scriptures because you would have to address the fact of who is this person that even Abraham the Patriarch paid tithes to. You comment saying what would God need with a tenth of Abraham’s goods. Yet God commanded Israel that the first of everything belongs to God. so I am not too sure why you question the fact that Abraham had to pay a tenth. Then you bring the Psalms where David says Yahweh said unto my Lord, I believe in the KJV it is the Lord said unto my lord. Again I disagree with your two Lords doctrine as it is in plain contradiction to the commandment hear o Israel the Lord thy God is one Lord.
    Again in your analogy there maybe a third important person being this Melchizedek who according to scripture has eternal life you say he is not God, I say who is he then seeing that he has endless life so obviously he could have been created else he would have to have a beginning. The scriptures you quoted state that Yahweh will rule with an iron rod in the midst of his enemies yet Jesus is the one that fulfills this scripture so much for your two lords doctrine. Psalm 110. Again with your reference to Melchizedek genealogy there is nothing in scripture that asserts that this is figurative thus such a conclusion can only be assumed or presumed. The scriptures rather seem to be stating a fact as oppose to some figure of speech. If the reference to genealogy was figurative would you be able to tell me what is figure of speech alluding to. Paul further asserts that there were things about Melchizedek that he would not yet divulge as they were to great for the Hebrews at that stage to bear. I think your argument leaves too many grey areas to be accepted as conclusive.

    • ResLight

      demac comment #111:

      Hi, I thank you for responding to my comment, however I don’t think I agree with your perspective. If you say that Melchizedek is not God, how is it that he has neither father nor mother neither does he have a beginning of life or an end of life.

      This has already been shown from scripture the study above.

      demac comment #111:

      Is there another person beside God that has eternal life or beside Jesus Christ that has infinite life.

      All that Jesus has is of the only true God, including Jesus’ life. Jesus, having been raised from the dead, now lives forever. See the above study.

      demac comment #111:

      Your premise cannot stand the test of scriptures because you would have to address the fact of who is this person that even Abraham the Patriarch paid tithes to.

      Anything anyone would claim regarding Melchizedek beyond what is written is speculation. There is nothing in the scriptures that say we need to address the fact who is this person beyond what is stated the scriptures.

      demac comment #111:

      You comment saying what would God need with a tenth of Abraham’s goods. Yet God commanded Israel that the first of everything belongs to God. so I am not too sure why you question the fact that Abraham had to pay a tenth.

      I am not sure what this is in response to as related to our study. We have no reason to question the fact that Abraham paid a tenth of his goods to Melchizedek, whether he “had” to or whether it was voluntary. Nevetheless, as with the tithes given under the Law Covenant, although the tithe is counted as being to Jehovah, the tithe was actually for the priesthood that represented and performed work necessary in the House of God. — Numbers 18:28

      demac comment #111:

      Then you bring the Psalms where David says Yahweh said unto my Lord, I believe in the KJV it is the Lord said unto my lord. Again I disagree with your two Lords doctrine as it is in plain contradiction to the commandment hear o Israel the Lord thy God is one Lord.

      Psalm 110:1 only has the Hebrew for “lord” once, not twice.

      A Psalm of David. A declaration of Jehovah to my Lord: Sit at My right hand, until I place Your enemies as Your footstool. — Psalm 110:1, Green’s Literal

      See our study:
      The Lord of David

      Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. — Deuteronomy 6:4, Green’s Literal.

      Deuteronomy 6:4 does not have the Hebrew word for lord at all.

      It is the Bible itself that speaks, not only of “two lords”, but many lords. It is the Lord Jehovah who anointed and made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ. — Isaiah 61:1; Acts

      See our study:
      One Lord, One God

    • ResLight

      demac comment #111:

      Again in your analogy there maybe a third important person being this Melchizedek who according to scripture has eternal life you say he is not God, I say who is he then seeing that he has endless life so obviously he could have been created else he would have to have a beginning.

      All of this has already been addressed in the study above. Melchizedek, I am sure, was reckoned as justified and thus should be reckoned as having eternal life.

      demac comment #111:

      The scriptures you quoted state that Yahweh will rule with an iron rod in the midst of his enemies yet Jesus is the one that fulfills this scripture so much for your two lords doctrine. Psalm 110.

      Jehovah shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion to rule in the midst of Your enemies. — Psalm 110:3, Green’s Literal

      This acknowledges Jehovah as the source of Messiah’s strength, in agreement with Micah 5:4.

      demac comment #111:

      Again with your reference to Melchizedek genealogy there is nothing in scripture that asserts that this is figurative thus such a conclusion can only be assumed or presumed.

      Melchizedek was “made like unto [a model, a likeness, a figure of] the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” — Does this mean that Melchizedek is still priest in Salem, or that Melchizedek’s preisthood provides a model, a figure of, Christ’s priesthood? Could one find Melchizedek still serving a such a priest in days of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.? Or is it speaking of Melchizedek as being made as a figure of the coming priest, the Son of God, who will be a priest continually.

      You are a priest forever, After the order [manner, character, fashion, style] of Melchizedek. — Hebrews 5:6. Melchizedek is the type, Jesus is the reality after the manner, likeness of Melchizedek. Yes, the scripture is definitely using Melchizedek’s preisthood as a figure of the priesthood of Jesus.

      Jesus is “named by God a high priest after the order [manner] of Melchizedek.” — Hebrews 5:10. Melchizedek is the type, Jesus is the reality after the manner, likeness, of Melchizedek.

      It was not until Jesus ascended that “as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest forever after the order [manner] of Melchizedek.” — Hebrews 6:20. There was no priesthood after the manner, likeness of Melchizedek until after Jesus ascended. — Hebrews 8:3-7.

      he whose descent is not counted from them. — Hebrews 7:6; yes, it is made clear that it is Melchizedek’s genalogy that is being spoken of.

      After the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest, 16 who has been made, not after the law of a fleshly commandment, but after the power of an endless life: 17 for it is testified, “You are a priest forever, According to the order of Melchizedek.” — Hebrews 7:15-17. Again, it is testified that Jesus’ priesthood is in the likeness, after the manner of, the priesthood of Melchizedek. When did Jesus “arise” as this priest? It was not until after Jesus ascended that there was “another priest to arise after the order [manner] of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron.” — Hebrews 7:11.

      demac comment #111:

      The scriptures rather seem to be stating a fact as oppose to some figure of speech. If the reference to genealogy was figurative would you be able to tell me what is figure of
      speech alluding to.

      If one has actually studied the scriptures presented, and still does not get the point, all we can say is to study the material until the point is understood, or else one will have to wait for the millennial blessings when all will be made plain.

      demac comment #111:

      Paul further asserts that there were things about Melchizedek that he would not yet divulge as they were to great for the Hebrews at that stage to bear. I think your argument leaves too many grey areas to be accepted as conclusive.

      We have found no place in Paul’s witings where he actually says that there are things about Melchizedek that he would not yet divulge. At any rate, it should be plain that the author of Hebrews, probably Paul, was not promoting the idea that Melchizedek himself is immortal, or that Melchzidek was God Almighty, or that Melchizedek is the alleged third person of a triune God in the flesh (as another has claimed). It is these latter claims that actually have to imagined, assumed and read into what is written. That Melchizedek was not God Most High can be seen in his words of blessing of Abraham: “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.” (Genesis 14:19,20) The default reasoning is not imagine and assume that Melchizedek is the Most High, or a person of the Most High, but rather to conclude that Melchizedek was not the Most High whom he served as a priest.

  • demac

    Comment #112

    I just wanted to add as well that you mention that Melchizedek was not the God of whom he was priest of, the Holy Spirit is God and yet it is also described as a gift from God, by the same token it can be said is God the gift that is given. So stating that Melchizedek cannot be God because he is the priest of God is not a good premise to defend your argument. Further the bible does not say that there was no record of his genealogy, In genesis it states that Melchizedek is the King of Salem and King of Righteousness these are titles attributable to God. As you can see Jesus is described as the prince of peace, Salem by interpretation is peace. Hence we see Melchizedek being called the King of Peace. So there is definetly a King of Peace and Righteousness if Christ is referred to as a prince then this can only mean that Melchizedek was Jesus’s Father by analogy of these scriptures hence he had to be God.

    • ResLight

      demac comment #112:

      I just wanted to add as well that you mention that Melchizedek was not the God of whom he was priest of, the Holy Spirit is God and yet it is also described as a gift from God, by the same token it can be said is God the gift that is given.

      The Holy Spirit is not directly called “God” in the scriptures, although some can read that thought into Acts 3:17,18 and 2 Corinthians 3:17,18. However, in principle, the Holy Spirit, being the personal power of God which extends from God, is essentially God, but nothing in this would mean that the Holy Spirit is a supposed “person” of God.

      God’s holy spirit is likened to God’s finger (as the power of God). (Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20) As the instrument of the revealing of truth, the holy spirit is likened to God’s “mouth”. (Deuteronomy 8:3; 1 Kings 8:24; 2 Chronicles 6:4; 36:12,21; Ezra 1:1; Isaiah 1:20; 40:5; 45:23; 48:3; 58:14; 62:2; Jeremiah 9:12,20; Ezekiel 33:7; Micah 4:4; Matthew 4:4; Mark 12:36; Acts 1:17; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7; 9:8; 10:15,16; 2 Peter 1:21) Are we to think of God’s finger or his mouth as a separate and distinct person of God (using trinitarian terminology)? Is your finger, or your mouth, a separate and distinct person of yourself?

      I have no scriptural reason to imagine, assume, add to, and read into, the Bible that God’s Holy Spirit is God, and to further imagine, assume, add to, and read into the scriptures that God’s Holy Spirit is a person of God, anymore than I would say that my finger or my mouth is me, or a person of myself.

      demac comment #112:

      Further the bible does not say that there was no record of his genealogy,

      So where in the Bible do you find a record of the genealogy of Mechizedek? Where in the Bible do we find a record of the his birth, or his death, or the end of his priesthood? We do read that Melchizedek is spoken of as though “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God), remains a priest continually,” for nothing in the Bible tells of his father, his having received his priesthood by genealogy, etc. (Hebrews 7:3) And it is stated of Melchizedek, that “his genealogy is not counted [not traced] from them (the tribe of Levi)” (Hebrews 7:6). Rather than presented this as proof that Melchizedek is God Almighty, however, we read, “Now consider how great this man was.” (Hebrews 7:4) He is considered to be greater than Levi, in that Levi, represented in Abraham, paid tithes to Melchizedek, which serves as a type of how Jesus’ priesthood, which arises after the Law Covenant, is greater than the Levitical priesthood.

      demac comment #112:

      In genesis it states that Melchizedek is the King of Salem and King of Righteousness these are titles attributable to God.

      Genesis 14:18 Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was priest of God Most High.
      Genesis 14:19 He blessed him, and said, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth:
      Genesis 14:20 and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” Abram gave him a tenth of all.

      There is nothing here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that says that the title “king of Salem” is a title that only belongs to God. The word Salem (meaning “peace”), denotes a city in Abraham’s day, evidently which later became “Jerusalem” (2 Chronicles 6:6: Psalm 76:2; Isaiah 33:20; Joel 3:17), which is said to mean, “teaching of peace”. At any rate, several are later also “king of Jerusalem” (Joshua 10:1,3,5,23; 12:10), without any thought that there was one who is eternally “king of Salem”, or Melchizedek was still living and serving as an eternal king and priest of Salem.

      The name Melchizedek (Melek – i -Zedek) means “my king is tsedeq (or as many give it, sedek, meaning justice, rightness, righteousness)”. The name itself, as applied to Melchizedek, would seem to indicate Melchizdek’s reign as king to have been in the service of righteousness, what is just, etc.
      http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/tsedeq.html

      Most definitely, the limited information given about Melchizedek in Genesis was given in such a method so as to provide a type of Christ, who does not inherit his priesthood, and whose priesthood has no end. Again, it should be noted that the Son of God did not serve as such a priest until he after his ascension, for he could not be a priest while yet in the days of his flesh. — Hebrews 5:5-8; 8:4-6; 9:8-14,23-28; 10:9-13.

      No, there is nothing in the usage of Melchizedek as type of the coming one who is anointed of Jehovah that means that either Melchizedek is Jehovah, or that Jehovah’s Christ (Isaiah 61:1) is Jehovah.

  • the Grace of God is the First Comforter, the first Holy Spirit, the second being the 144000 the bride of Christ Jesus, the second created Son of God Adam being the first but denighed God instead of joining with God, and surendering His free will and never having his femine side taken and made into his helpmate or bride, so He is unlike God the Father and Adam, Both of who took from them the woman, the Am and the Son of Man Together is the AMmen (AMEN) TheEve.ning or AMEND.ING OF MAN, taking away Sin, the Lamb of God, Halaluyah, ? its not a sausage fest in Heaven, like the mystrery of heaven is the Miss or Mrs of the Almighty, the Bussom of GOD the FATHER, HIS GRACE AND GLORY, AGAPE, THE CORONA OR HALO, THE CHRISTENING OR ANOINTING SPIRIT OF GOD, THE LIGHT OF THE FATHER THAT CLOTHES THE SON IN REIGNMENT, HE IS THE KING OF KINGS, LORD OF LORDS, THE ONLY BORN OF WOMAN OR ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, NOT GOD BUT THE SON OF GOD, OUR LORD AND KING, BUT ALL GLORY BE TO GOD THE FATHER THROUGH HIS GRACE, HIS SHECONNA LIGHT, THE LONG HAIR OF THE WOMAN IS A DESTINCTION THAT SHE HIDES HER HEAD, BECAUSE HER HEAD IS HER HUSBAND, SHOWING SUBORDINENCE

  • Brother Sherwood

    This my first time visiting your site and I believe Melchizedek is not The Most High God. You explained it very well with the scriptures. I will look continue to visit your web site. However I do have one question and that is “Why do you use the word Jehovah along side with Yahweh” History reports that about the 13th century the term “Jehovah” appeared when Christian scholars took the consonants of “Yahweh” and pronounced it with the vowels of “Adonai.” This resulted in the sound “Yahowah,” which has a Latinized spelling of “Jehovah.” The first recorded use of this spelling was made by a Spanish Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, in 1270. This change in spelling resulting in a New pronunciation I believe is dishonor to Almighty Yahweh. Psalms 20:7 Am sure you would not like anyone changing your name just because they are from another culture in a different and era. Look to hear from you.

    • ResLight

      Jehovah and Yahweh are simply linguistic variations of the same name as found in the ancient Hebrew. Martini never used the English form “Jehovah” at all; the English form “Jehovah” is based directly upon the most common form of the Holy Name as found in the Hebrew Masoretic text, whereas the English form “Yahweh” is based on a Greek form (possibly abbreviated) that has been transliterated with English vowels as IAUE, which has been coupled with the Hebrew tetragrammaton of the Holy Name to produce the form “Yahweh”.

      For more related to the Holy Name, see:
      New site:
      http://nameofyah.blogspot.com/p/on-this-site.html
      Old site:
      http://jesus-rlbible.com/?page_id=2

Categories