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.