Melchizedek could not be Christ

    When a person presents a hypothesis, or affirms something that is not evident, to another person, it is not the second one who has to prove it false. Rather the person who presented the hypothesis has the obligation to demonstrate that what he said is true.
    The fact that no one can demonstrate other person's hypothesis or affirmation as false, is not a proof that it is true. I can say that yesterday night I went to the moon, and came back this morning; and nobody can demonstrate that this is false. It is I who has to demonstrate that what I said is true. I also could say that my donkey knows how to fly, but he does not like to fly in the sight of other people. Of course, nobody believes that, but nobody can demonstrate that this is false. Really nobody has to demonstrate that this is false; it is I who has to prove that it is true.
    The same criterion must be applied to biblical hypotheses or affirmations that are not evident by merely reading the Bible. It is not I who has to demonstrate that it is false; it is he who presents such a hypothesis or affirmation, the one who has to prove it is true.
    I don't know the bases of those who affirm that Melchizedek was Christ. I should not have to be the one to prove it false; but instead, he who believes it, should prove it right. Nevertheless, I will demonstrate that Jesus was not Melchizedek. If someone sees a mistake in what I say, or if someone can demonstrate that Melchizedek is Jesus, please share that knowledge with me because I love to find the truth.
    In the Bible there are only five passages that speak of Melchizedek, these are: Gen 14: 18-20; Sal 110: 1-7; Heb 5: 5-11; Heb 6: 19-20; and Heb 7: 1-28. From none of these passages can you derive that Jesus was Melchizedek. Let us see.


                "18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and

 wine: and he was the priest of the Most High God. 19 And he

blessed him, and said: Blessed be Abram of the Most High God,

 possessor of heaven and earth; 20 and blessed be the Most High

 God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he

gave him tithes of all."                                         ( Gen 14: 18-20 )


    In the passage we have just read we see nothing that can be construed as saying that Jesus is Melchizedek. Just because he was a priest of God does not mean that he was Christ. There were many priests of God who were not Christ. On the contrary, it says that at that time Melchizedek already was a priest, while Jesus became a priest after the crucifixion.
    In the moment that Melchizedek appears, Jesus still was not a priest. We know this because it is in a psalm of David that for the first time a prophecy tells us that the Messiah was to become a priest. In psalm 110 we see that the Messiah was going to be appointed priest after the order of Melchizedek. Therefore, it means that Melchizedek was priest before Jesus was. Therefore, they cannot be the same person.


                "1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord: Sit thou

 at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

 2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion;

rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. 3 Thy people shall be

willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness

from the womb of the morning; thou hast the dew of thy youth.

 4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a

priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.  5 The Lord at thy

right hand shall strike through kings in the day of His wrath.

 6 He shall judge among the heathen, He shall fill the places

with the dead bodies; He shall wound the heads over many

countries. 7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore

shall he lift up the head."                                ( Ps 110: 1-7 )


    As is obvious in the former passage there is nothing to prove, or at least to hint, that Melchizedek was Jesus. Instead we find data that lets us know that Melchizedek was a priest before Jesus was. If I say: " 'B' is going to be priest just as 'A' was", logically, "A" acceded to priesthood before "B". Therefore, if Melchizedek was a priest before Jesus was, they are not the same person.
    Now, an argument of utmost importance.  The only time Jesus was in flesh was when he was born from Virgin Mary. In the following passage we will see that Melchizedek had flesh, therefore, he was a human being. If Melchizedek had flesh before Jesus was born, evidently he could not be Jesus.


                "5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high

 priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today

have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place:

Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. 7 Who

in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and

 supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was

able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared.

 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things

 which he suffered;  9 and being made perfect, he became the

author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; 10 called

 of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedek. 11 Of

whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing

 ye are dull of hearing."                                       ( Heb 5: 5-11 )


    Neither in the former passage nor in the next passage can we find the smallest hint that makes us suspect that Jesus and Melchizedek are the same person. On the contrary, in the next passage we find again that Melchizedek was a priest when Jesus was not.


                "19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure

 and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

 20 whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made

 an high priest for ever after the order of  Melchizedek."

( Heb 6: 19-20 )


    In the next passage, in verse 3 we see that Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God. If he was made like unto Jesus, it is because he was not Jesus. It is out of logic that you and a friend stand before your son and instead of telling your friend: "Look, this is my son" you tell him: "Look, this is like unto my son".


                "1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most

 High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter

of the kings, and blessed him; 2 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; 3 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 )


    What Paul is saying in verse 3 is that Melchizedek, who abruptly came and abruptly disappeared from history, made a good symbol of Christ.  Melchizedek had flesh as we have seen, so, he was a human being.  Therefore, Paul is not trying to tell us that Melchizedek did not have a father, mother, children, birth day and a death day; he is not trying to tell us this, because all human beings have these things. What he is saying is that because the data was not recorded, he made a good symbol of the priesthood of Jesus. The fact that the sacrificed lambs were a symbol of Christ, does not mean that the lamb and Jesus were the same being. Same with Melchizedek.
    For God's purposes it was only needed that Melchizedek appear, get the tithes from Abraham and disappear. That is why no other data of his life is registered. It does not mean that the data did not exist, it means that it was not necessary to register it.
    We must also note that in verse 6 of the next passage, referring to Melchizedek, it says that his descent, genealogy, or lineage, was not counted.  Therefore, he had a genealogy, it was just not counted so that he could be similar to Jesus. If Melchizedek was Jesus it would have said that he had no genealogy, instead of saying that it was not counted.


                "4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even

 the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 5 And

 verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the

 office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes

 of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren,

 though they come out of the loins of Abraham: 6 But he

whose descent is not counted from them received tithes

of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises."
                                                                                      ( Heb 7: 4 - 6 )


    In verse 11 of the passage we are studying we see a reaffirmation that Jesus became priest after Melchizedek did.  In using the word  "another",  referring to Jesus, it is evident that Christ's priesthood was posterior to Melchizedek's priesthood. Therefore they cannot be the same person.


                "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,

 for under it the people received the law, what further need

 was there that another priest should rise after the order of

Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?”

  ( Heb 7: 11 )

    This same idea we acquire from verse 15. There it says that another priest would arise after the similitude of Melchizedek. If one is the similitude of the other, they are not the same person. Besides, it is evident that if it says "another" is because there was a different one before. Let us see.


                "14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of

 which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

 15 And it is yet far more evident, for that after the similitude

of  Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, 16 who is made,

 not after the law of a carnal, but after the power of an

endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever

 after the order of Melchizedek."             ( Heb 7: 14-17 )


    Something else to notice is that if Melchizedek was Jesus, then in the New Testament he would not be called Melchizedek, because by that time they knew that his name was Jesus or at least he would be identified clearly with Jesus.

Back to the index