Acts20.com NEW Acts-Celerate

Quick thoughts in summary: Not a Christophany. They came and went. This man held down two jobs: king and priest. Jesus did not become a man until the incarnation. He is a type of Christ – not Christ. Joseph is a type of Christ. Moses is a type of Christ. David is a type of Christ. Melchizedek is also a type of Christ. He is “like” the Son of God – but not the Son of God. Hebrews shows the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood. Since Levi is a descendent of Abraham, and Abraham shows deference to Melchizedek- clearly Melchizedek was of greater stature than Abram. In Psalm 110

Please know that while, yes, I do think Melchizedek is a theophany, I am not immune to an reasonable argument to the contrary.I don’t know who wrote Hebrews. I tend to think it was Paul. But in that book it says the following in Hebrews 5:10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.This implies (to me) that there were some much deeper things to spoken of about Melchizedek…but the readers were not yet up to it.Well, I cannot imagine what might so difficult to accept…unless it is a theophany, can you?Now, I don’t make a doctrine out of this; it’s just my own take on the matter. But there were many things that we have not record of the apostles preaching–e.g., the trinity; etc. Yes, we may extrapolate from them to reach certain beliefs, but they did not teach the trinity in any way that was clearly about THAT.As for Hebrews being the only book…are you perhaps suggesting it is incorrect? not canonical? etc.? I’m not going to take you to task if you do, of course, but we tend to find the notion of saved by grace mainly (only?) in Paul’s epistles, even if it is not contradicted elsewhere. We never read of the third heaven anywhere but in Paul’s writings.

I brought up the book of Hebrews because that book of the NT deals with a very specific issue. The writer was warning the believers not to go back into dead works (aka Judaism). They were being tempted to embrace the Levitical priesthood and leave Jesus Christ. The mention of Melchizedek is used to show that there was a priesthood superior to the Aaronic priesthood and that Psalm 110shows that this priestly order would once again come into play. To be a priest under the law of Moses you had to have the pedigree. You had to produce the genealogy proving you were a descendent of Aaron. However, in a book filled with genealogies (Genesis) Melchizideks’s genealogy is omitted. This omission was not because he was a divine being, but to show that he was a priest by divine decree, not by virtue of ancestry! Melchizedek was an earthly priest and king. Jesus is the heavenly priest. When David prophesies in Psalm 110:he says that the LORD (Jesus) would be made an high priest

I don’t know of one respectable Messianic Jew who holds to this interpretation. Not one. Melchizedek lived and died. Aaron and his descendants took over the priesthood for a season. Then Jesus died, rose again, and ascended. Now He has a priesthood after the same order of Melchizedek. Christ abides a priest forever. Not Melchizedek. Further, the book of Hebrews goes to great lengths to describe how Christ is better. Better than the old order of things, which has now become obsolete with the sacrifice of Christ. There’s no way the writer of Hebrews would venerate Melchizedek or any other Old Testament figure to the detriment of exalting Christ.

I don’t know of one respectable Messianic Jew who holds to this interpretation. Not one. Melchizedek lived and died. Aaron and his descendants took over the priesthood for a season. Then Jesus died, rose again, and ascended. Now He has a priesthood after the same order of Melchizedek. Christ abides a priest forever. Not Melchizedek. I put almost zero stock in anything Messianic Jews say about theology. Mainly because, in my experience, most of them have a tendency to try to hold that certain Jewish practices should be practiced by Gentile Christians, as well. That’s not proof that they are wrong, but I have very little confidence in their take on matters.Da Sheik, it is Melchizedek whom the Bible says abideth a priest forever. Hebrews 7:3Without 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 Scriptures (inspired by the Holy Spirit) treat Jesus and Melchizedek as separate entities in Psalm 110and the book of Hebrews. If the writer of Hebrews considered Jesus as Melchizedek he would have said so. Instead, he compares the two as separate entities. Similar but distinct. Such is the nature of typology. Theophanies appeared and then disappeared such as Gen 18and the “4th man in the fire”. Melchizedek served as king and priest in Salem. Jesus did not serve a term as an earthly high priest prior to the Incarnation. I will make one last appeal from Scripture to show the chronology. If you refuse to accept, we shall agree to disagree and remain friends (just don’t let me hear of you baptizing folks in the name of Melchizedek!). Heb 7:26-28KJV – 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.Notice that last verse and the phrase “since the law”? The oath that appointed the Son as High Priest came after the law (and certainly after Melchizedek). And just to correct a factual error you made earlier, it was indeed a tenth of the spoils of the battle of the kings (and not a tithe of all Abraham owned) that Abraham tithed to Melchizedek: Heb 7:4

Same here Bro!