LDS Mormons faux Melchizedek

[Christian Apologist]

Melchizedek was Jesus before incarnation

Of course Jesus said he seen Abraham and Melchizedek did see Abraham. Only two persons in the Bible hold both a King and Priest, titles


John 8: 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.



Genesis 14:18 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.

Psalm 110

4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.



Zechariah 6: 13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.



Isaiah 9

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.



Hebrews 7

1 For this Melchisedec, 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.




The Mormons have reinvented a whole different Melchezedek

No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood

It is claimed by the Mormon leaders that before the church was organized Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood. Apostle LeGrand Richards admits that the exact date of this ordination is not known: "While we are a record-keeping people, as the Lord commanded, nevertheless our records are not complete.... we do not have the date that Peter, James and John conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood upon them" (Letter from LeGrand Richards, dated September 26, 1960).

"In the History of the Church, no account is given of the date when the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored." Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 3 page 95 Joseph Fielding Smith

The Doctrine and Covenants 27:12
is cited as proof that the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred at a very early date: "And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles .... "

This verse, however, did not appear in the revelation when it was published in the Book of Commandments in 1833. It was added into the Doctrine and Covenants, and therefore cannot be cited as proof that the Melchizedek Priesthood was in the church at the time the revelation was given

 

[He is the way]

Melchizedek was Jesus before incarnation

Of course Jesus said he seen Abraham and Melchizedek did see Abraham. Only two persons in the Bible hold both a King and Priest, titles


John 8: 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.



Genesis 14:18 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.

Psalm 110

4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.



Zechariah 6: 13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.



Isaiah 9

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.



Hebrews 7

1 For this Melchisedec, 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.




The Mormons have reinvented a whole different Melchezedek

No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood

It is claimed by the Mormon leaders that before the church was organized Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood. Apostle LeGrand Richards admits that the exact date of this ordination is not known: "While we are a record-keeping people, as the Lord commanded, nevertheless our records are not complete.... we do not have the date that Peter, James and John conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood upon them" (Letter from LeGrand Richards, dated September 26, 1960).

"In the History of the Church, no account is given of the date when the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored." Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 3 page 95 Joseph Fielding Smith

The Doctrine and Covenants 27:12
is cited as proof that the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred at a very early date: "And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles .... "

This verse, however, did not appear in the revelation when it was published in the Book of Commandments in 1833. It was added into the Doctrine and Covenants, and therefore cannot be cited as proof that the Melchizedek Priesthood was in the church at the time the revelation was given

You said: "Melchizedek was Jesus before incarnation"

I doubt that many of those on this thread will agree with this statement. Few Christians believe in reincarnation.

(New Testament | Hebrews 9:27)

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

 

[Christian Apologist]

You said: "Melchizedek was Jesus before incarnation"

I doubt that many of those on this thread will agree with this statement. Few Christians believe in reincarnation.

(New Testament | Hebrews 9:27)

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Do you know the difference between incarnation and reincarnation ?

Hebrews 9:27 condemns baptism for the dead why did you quote it ?

 

[mmksparbud]

You said: "Melchizedek was Jesus before incarnation"

I doubt that many of those on this thread will agree with this statement. Few Christians believe in reincarnation.

(New Testament | Hebrews 9:27)

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Just the Mormons---who believe that we all existed before being born and have to be reincarnated as humans in order to learn how to resist temptation.
Jesus was God, Melchizedek, The Son---and this one will get everyone uposet---He had one other title also, (which is not what this thread is about so don't get on your bandwagon about it and derail!) He was also, Michael.

 

[Christian Apologist]

Just the Mormons---who believe that we all existed before being born and have to be reincarnated as humans in order to learn how to resist temptation.
Jesus was God, Melchizedek, The Son---and this one will get everyone uposet---He had one other title also, (which is not what this thread is about so don't get on your bandwagon about it and derail!) He was also, Michael.

Mormons teach Adam was Michael not Jesus

The Prophet Joseph, speaking of the angels, said, "These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 168.)

 

[mmksparbud]

Mormons teach Adam was Michael not Jesus

The Prophet Joseph, speaking of the angels, said, "These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 168.)

Yah--I know. Soooo wrong!!!

 

[Christian Apologist]

Yah--I know. Soooo wrong!!!

Adam and Others helped in creation, it is true that Adam helped to form this earth. He labored with our Savior Jesus Christ. I have a strong view or conviction that there were others also who assisted them. Perhaps Noah and Enoch; and why not Joseph Smith. Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 1 p 74-75

The Bible says God did the creation alone ?

Isa. 44:24

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
And He who formed you from the womb:
“I am the LORD, who makes all things,
Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Malachi 2

10 Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?

Job 38

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Rhetorical question

 

[Peter1000]

Do you the difference between incarnation and reincarnation ?

Hebrews 9:27 condemns baptism for the dead why did you quote it ?

View attachment 256561

Way off topic. But if you would like to talk about Melchizedec is Jesus, I will be happy to discuss that topic.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

Where in Mormon literature does it say that Jesus was Melchizedek in the OT?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Melchizedek is Melchizedek, Jesus is Jesus. Melchizedekism is regarded as heresy in orthodox Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Peter1000]

Yah--I know. Soooo wrong!!!

Again, we have an idea who Michael was and is. You have an idea who Michael was and is. To tell some one that they are soooooooo wrong, is interesting because there is only 3 scriptures that I find in the OT and NT that talk about Michael.
Daniel 12:1 about a Michael that is a prince of Israel. Also see this same Michael in chapter 10.
Jude 1:9 about a Michael the archangel that is disputing satan about the body of Moses.
Revelation 12:7 about Michael and his angels fighting the war in heaven against the dragon/lucifer.

So the information that is available in the bible about Michael is limited. There is other non-bible sources such as JS as he received revelations from the Lord. I am sure there is a lot of speculation from other sources.

But to make a statement that we are so wrong is telling me you think you are so right, and I would be careful not to boast about how much you know about Michael. That information is very limited.

 

[Peter1000]

Where in Mormon literature does it say that Jesus was Melchizedek in the OT?

The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe that Melchizedek is Jesus.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

Thank you.

 

[Christian Apologist]

The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe that Melchizedek is Jesus.

Very clear from the Bible, Melchizedek was God since it say he had no Father or Mother and no beginning or end, both titles of God and not any man

 

[mmksparbud]

Again, we have an idea who Michael was and is. You have an idea who Michael was and is. To tell some one that they are soooooooo wrong, is interesting because there is only 3 scriptures that I find in the OT and NT that talk about Michael.
Daniel 12:1 about a Michael that is a prince of Israel. Also see this same Michael in chapter 10.
Jude 1:9 about a Michael the archangel that is disputing satan about the body of Moses.
Revelation 12:7 about Michael and his angels fighting the war in heaven against the dragon/lucifer.

So the information that is available in the bible about Michael is limited. There is other non-bible sources such as JS as he received revelations from the Lord. I am sure there is a lot of speculation from other sources.

But to make a statement that we are so wrong is telling me you think you are so right, and I would be careful not to boast about how much you know about Michael. That information is very limited.

It's off topic, I understand what you're saying. Can be discussed on a separate thread next time one comes up. I said it would cause a stir!! It's considered heresy by many!

 

[JacobKStarkey]

Do your commentaries, guys. Melchizedek is not Jesus.

Hebrews 7:3

Without father, without mother, without descent
Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office; nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any authentic accounts: or this is to be interpreted, not of his natural, but scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, and a mother, and a natural lineage and descent; but of these no mention is made in Scripture, and therefore said to be without them; and so the Syriac version renders it; "whose father and mother are not written in the genealogies"; or there is no genealogical account of them. The Arabic writers tell us who his father and his mother were; some of them say that Peleg was his father: so Elmacinus {d}, his words are these; Peleg lived after he begat Rehu two hundred and nine years; afterwards he begat Melchizedek, the priest whom we have now made mention of. Patricides F5, another of their writers, expresses himself after this manner

``they who say Melchizedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, and argue from the words of the Apostle Paul, asserting the same, do not rightly understand the saying of the Apostle Paul; for Shem, the son of Noah, after he had taken Melchizedek, and withdrew him from his parents, did not set down in writing how old he was, when he went into the east, nor what was his age when he died; but Melchizedek was the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Salah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah; and yet none of those patriarchs is called his father. This only the Apostle Paul means, that none of his family served in the temple, nor were children and tribes assigned to him. Matthew and Luke the evangelists only relate the heads of tribes: hence the Apostle Paul does not write the name of his father, nor the name of his mother.''


And with these writers Sahid Aben Batric F6 agrees, who expressly affirms that Melchizedek was (glap Nba) , "the son of Peleg": though others of them make him to be the son of Peleg's son, whose name was Heraclim. The Arabic Catena F7 on ( Genesis 10:25 ) , "the name of one was Peleg", has this note in the margin;


``and this (Peleg) was the father of Heraclim, the father of Melchizedek;''


and in a preceding chapter, his pedigree is more particularly set forth:


``Melchizedek was the son of Heraclim, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber; and his mother's name was Salathiel, the daughter of Gomer, the son of Japheth, the son of Noah; and Heraclim, the son of Eber, married his wife Salathiel, and she was with child, and brought forth a son, and called his name Melchizedek, called also king of Salem: after this the genealogy is set down at length. Melchizedek, son of Heraclim, which was the son of Peleg, which was the son of Eber, which was the son of Arphaxad till you come to, which was the son of Adam, on whom be peace.''


It is very probable Epiphanius has regard to this tradition, when he observes F8, that some say that the father of Melchizedek was called Eracla, and his mother Astaroth, the same with Asteria. Some Greek F9writers say he was of the lineage of Sidus, the son of Aegyptus, a king of Lybia, from whence the Egyptians are called: this Sidus, they say, came out of Egypt into the country of the Canaanitish nations, now called Palestine, and subdued it, and dwelled in it, and built a city, which he called Sidon, after his own name: but all this is on purpose concealed, that he might be a more apparent of Christ, who, as man, is "without father"; for though, as God, he has a Father, and was never without one, being begotten by him, and was always with him, and in him; by whom he was sent, from whom he came, and whither he is gone; to whom he is the way, and with whom he is an advocate: yet, as man, he had no father; Joseph was his reputed father only; nor was the Holy Ghost his Father; nor is he ever said to be begotten as man, but was born of a virgin. Some of the Jewish writers themselves say, that the Redeemer, whom God will raise up, shall be without father F10. And he is without mother, though not in a spiritual sense, every believer being so to him as such; nor in a natural sense, as man, for the Virgin Mary was his mother; but in a divine sense, as God: and he is "without descent or genealogy"; not as man, for there is a genealogical account of him as such, in ( Matthew 1:1-17 ) ( Luke 3:23-38 ) and his pedigree and kindred were well known to the Jews; but as God; and this distinguishes him from the gods of the Heathens, who were genealogized by them, as may be seen in Hesiod, Apollodorus, Hyginus, and other writers; and this condemns the blasphemous genealogies of the Gnostics and Valentinians. It follows,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;
that is, there is no account which shows when he was born, or when he died; and in this he was a type of Christ, who has no beginning of days, was from the beginning, and in the beginning, and is the beginning, and was from everlasting; as appears from his nature as God, from his names, from his office as Mediator, and from his concern in the council and covenant of peace, and in the election of his people; and he has no end of life, both as God and man; he is the living God; and though as man he died once, he will die no more, but lives for ever. It is further said of Melchizedek,

but made like unto the Son of God:
in the above things; from whence it appears, that he is not the Son of God; and that Christ, as the Son of God, existed before him, and therefore could not take this character from his incarnation or resurrection:

abideth a priest continually;
not in person, but in his antitype Christ Jesus; for there never will be any change of Christ's priesthood; nor will it ever be transferred to another; the virtue and efficacy of it will continue for ever; and he will ever live to make intercession; and will always bear the glory of his being both priest and King upon his throne: the Syriac version renders it, "his priesthood abides for ever"; which is true both of Melchizedek and of Christ.



FOOTNOTES:

F4 In Hottinger. dead skin in nether region Orientale, l. 1. c. 8. p. 269, 254.
F5 In ib. p. 305, 306, 254.
F6 In Mr. Gregory's Preface to his Works.
F7 In ib.
F8 Contra Haeres. Haeres. 55.
F9 Suidas in voce Melchisedec, Malala, l. 3. Glycas, Cedrenus, & alii.
F10 R. Moses Hadarsan apud Galatin. l. 3. c. 17. & l. 8. c. 2.

Hebrews 7:3 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

 

[mmksparbud]

Do your commentaries, guys. Melchizedek is not Jesus.

Hebrews 7:3

Without father, without mother, without descent
Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office; nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any authentic accounts: or this is to be interpreted, not of his natural, but scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, and a mother, and a natural lineage and descent; but of these no mention is made in Scripture, and therefore said to be without them; and so the Syriac version renders it; "whose father and mother are not written in the genealogies"; or there is no genealogical account of them. The Arabic writers tell us who his father and his mother were; some of them say that Peleg was his father: so Elmacinus {d}, his words are these; Peleg lived after he begat Rehu two hundred and nine years; afterwards he begat Melchizedek, the priest whom we have now made mention of. Patricides F5, another of their writers, expresses himself after this manner

``they who say Melchizedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, and argue from the words of the Apostle Paul, asserting the same, do not rightly understand the saying of the Apostle Paul; for Shem, the son of Noah, after he had taken Melchizedek, and withdrew him from his parents, did not set down in writing how old he was, when he went into the east, nor what was his age when he died; but Melchizedek was the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Salah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah; and yet none of those patriarchs is called his father. This only the Apostle Paul means, that none of his family served in the temple, nor were children and tribes assigned to him. Matthew and Luke the evangelists only relate the heads of tribes: hence the Apostle Paul does not write the name of his father, nor the name of his mother.''


And with these writers Sahid Aben Batric F6 agrees, who expressly affirms that Melchizedek was (glap Nba) , "the son of Peleg": though others of them make him to be the son of Peleg's son, whose name was Heraclim. The Arabic Catena F7 on ( Genesis 10:25 ) , "the name of one was Peleg", has this note in the margin;


``and this (Peleg) was the father of Heraclim, the father of Melchizedek;''


and in a preceding chapter, his pedigree is more particularly set forth:


``Melchizedek was the son of Heraclim, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber; and his mother's name was Salathiel, the daughter of Gomer, the son of Japheth, the son of Noah; and Heraclim, the son of Eber, married his wife Salathiel, and she was with child, and brought forth a son, and called his name Melchizedek, called also king of Salem: after this the genealogy is set down at length. Melchizedek, son of Heraclim, which was the son of Peleg, which was the son of Eber, which was the son of Arphaxad till you come to, which was the son of Adam, on whom be peace.''


It is very probable Epiphanius has regard to this tradition, when he observes F8, that some say that the father of Melchizedek was called Eracla, and his mother Astaroth, the same with Asteria. Some Greek F9writers say he was of the lineage of Sidus, the son of Aegyptus, a king of Lybia, from whence the Egyptians are called: this Sidus, they say, came out of Egypt into the country of the Canaanitish nations, now called Palestine, and subdued it, and dwelled in it, and built a city, which he called Sidon, after his own name: but all this is on purpose concealed, that he might be a more apparent of Christ, who, as man, is "without father"; for though, as God, he has a Father, and was never without one, being begotten by him, and was always with him, and in him; by whom he was sent, from whom he came, and whither he is gone; to whom he is the way, and with whom he is an advocate: yet, as man, he had no father; Joseph was his reputed father only; nor was the Holy Ghost his Father; nor is he ever said to be begotten as man, but was born of a virgin. Some of the Jewish writers themselves say, that the Redeemer, whom God will raise up, shall be without father F10. And he is without mother, though not in a spiritual sense, every believer being so to him as such; nor in a natural sense, as man, for the Virgin Mary was his mother; but in a divine sense, as God: and he is "without descent or genealogy"; not as man, for there is a genealogical account of him as such, in ( Matthew 1:1-17 ) ( Luke 3:23-38 ) and his pedigree and kindred were well known to the Jews; but as God; and this distinguishes him from the gods of the Heathens, who were genealogized by them, as may be seen in Hesiod, Apollodorus, Hyginus, and other writers; and this condemns the blasphemous genealogies of the Gnostics and Valentinians. It follows,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;
that is, there is no account which shows when he was born, or when he died; and in this he was a type of Christ, who has no beginning of days, was from the beginning, and in the beginning, and is the beginning, and was from everlasting; as appears from his nature as God, from his names, from his office as Mediator, and from his concern in the council and covenant of peace, and in the election of his people; and he has no end of life, both as God and man; he is the living God; and though as man he died once, he will die no more, but lives for ever. It is further said of Melchizedek,

but made like unto the Son of God:
in the above things; from whence it appears, that he is not the Son of God; and that Christ, as the Son of God, existed before him, and therefore could not take this character from his incarnation or resurrection:

abideth a priest continually;
not in person, but in his antitype Christ Jesus; for there never will be any change of Christ's priesthood; nor will it ever be transferred to another; the virtue and efficacy of it will continue for ever; and he will ever live to make intercession; and will always bear the glory of his being both priest and King upon his throne: the Syriac version renders it, "his priesthood abides for ever"; which is true both of Melchizedek and of Christ.



FOOTNOTES:

F4 In Hottinger. dead skin in nether region Orientale, l. 1. c. 8. p. 269, 254.
F5 In ib. p. 305, 306, 254.
F6 In Mr. Gregory's Preface to his Works.
F7 In ib.
F8 Contra Haeres. Haeres. 55.
F9 Suidas in voce Melchisedec, Malala, l. 3. Glycas, Cedrenus, & alii.
F10 R. Moses Hadarsan apud Galatin. l. 3. c. 17. & l. 8. c. 2.

Hebrews 7:3 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

Commentaries have to be taken in light of context and what the whole of the bible says and the character of God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If the commentaries go against that---then I do not adhere to therm.

 

[Christian Apologist]

Do your commentaries, guys. Melchizedek is not Jesus.

Hebrews 7:3

Without father, without mother, without descent
Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office; nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any authentic accounts: or this is to be interpreted, not of his natural, but scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, and a mother, and a natural lineage and descent; but of these no mention is made in Scripture, and therefore said to be without them; and so the Syriac version renders it; "whose father and mother are not written in the genealogies"; or there is no genealogical account of them. The Arabic writers tell us who his father and his mother were; some of them say that Peleg was his father: so Elmacinus {d}, his words are these; Peleg lived after he begat Rehu two hundred and nine years; afterwards he begat Melchizedek, the priest whom we have now made mention of. Patricides F5, another of their writers, expresses himself after this manner

``they who say Melchizedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, and argue from the words of the Apostle Paul, asserting the same, do not rightly understand the saying of the Apostle Paul; for Shem, the son of Noah, after he had taken Melchizedek, and withdrew him from his parents, did not set down in writing how old he was, when he went into the east, nor what was his age when he died; but Melchizedek was the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Salah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah; and yet none of those patriarchs is called his father. This only the Apostle Paul means, that none of his family served in the temple, nor were children and tribes assigned to him. Matthew and Luke the evangelists only relate the heads of tribes: hence the Apostle Paul does not write the name of his father, nor the name of his mother.''


And with these writers Sahid Aben Batric F6 agrees, who expressly affirms that Melchizedek was (glap Nba) , "the son of Peleg": though others of them make him to be the son of Peleg's son, whose name was Heraclim. The Arabic Catena F7 on ( Genesis 10:25 ) , "the name of one was Peleg", has this note in the margin;


``and this (Peleg) was the father of Heraclim, the father of Melchizedek;''


and in a preceding chapter, his pedigree is more particularly set forth:


``Melchizedek was the son of Heraclim, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber; and his mother's name was Salathiel, the daughter of Gomer, the son of Japheth, the son of Noah; and Heraclim, the son of Eber, married his wife Salathiel, and she was with child, and brought forth a son, and called his name Melchizedek, called also king of Salem: after this the genealogy is set down at length. Melchizedek, son of Heraclim, which was the son of Peleg, which was the son of Eber, which was the son of Arphaxad till you come to, which was the son of Adam, on whom be peace.''

Obvious this contradicts the Bible that says

Melchizedek had no Father and the pre-incarnate Jesus had no Father​

It is very probable Epiphanius has regard to this tradition, when he observes F8, that some say that the father of Melchizedek was called Eracla, and his mother Astaroth, the same with Asteria. Some Greek F9writers say he was of the lineage of Sidus, the son of Aegyptus, a king of Lybia, from whence the Egyptians are called: this Sidus, they say, came out of Egypt into the country of the Canaanitish nations, now called Palestine, and subdued it, and dwelled in it, and built a city, which he called Sidon, after his own name: but all this is on purpose concealed, that he might be a more apparent of Christ, who, as man, is "without father"; for though, as God, he has a Father, and was never without one, being begotten by him, and was always with him, and in him; by whom he was sent, from whom he came, and whither he is gone; to whom he is the way, and with whom he is an advocate: yet, as man, he had no father; Joseph was his reputed father only; nor was the Holy Ghost his Father; nor is he ever said to be begotten as man, but was born of a virgin. Some of the Jewish writers themselves say, that the Redeemer, whom God will raise up, shall be without father F10. And he is without mother, though not in a spiritual sense, every believer being so to him as such; nor in a natural sense, as man, for the Virgin Mary was his mother; but in a divine sense, as God: and he is "without descent or genealogy"; not as man, for there is a genealogical account of him as such, in ( Matthew 1:1-17 ) ( Luke 3:23-38 ) and his pedigree and kindred were well known to the Jews; but as God; and this distinguishes him from the gods of the Heathens, who were genealogized by them, as may be seen in Hesiod, Apollodorus, Hyginus, and other writers; and this condemns the blasphemous genealogies of the Gnostics and Valentinians. It follows,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;
that is, there is no account which shows when he was born, or when he died; and in this he was a type of Christ, who has no beginning of days, was from the beginning, and in the beginning, and is the beginning, and was from everlasting; as appears from his nature as God, from his names, from his office as Mediator, and from his concern in the council and covenant of peace, and in the election of his people; and he has no end of life, both as God and man; he is the living God; and though as man he died once, he will die no more, but lives for ever. It is further said of Melchizedek,

but made like unto the Son of God:
in the above things; from whence it appears, that he is not the Son of God; and that Christ, as the Son of God, existed before him, and therefore could not take this character from his incarnation or resurrection:

abideth a priest continually;
not in person, but in his antitype Christ Jesus; for there never will be any change of Christ's priesthood; nor will it ever be transferred to another; the virtue and efficacy of it will continue for ever; and he will ever live to make intercession; and will always bear the glory of his being both priest and King upon his throne: the Syriac version renders it, "his priesthood abides for ever"; which is true both of Melchizedek and of Christ.



FOOTNOTES:

F4 In Hottinger. dead skin in nether region Orientale, l. 1. c. 8. p. 269, 254.
F5 In ib. p. 305, 306, 254.
F6 In Mr. Gregory's Preface to his Works.
F7 In ib.
F8 Contra Haeres. Haeres. 55.
F9 Suidas in voce Melchisedec, Malala, l. 3. Glycas, Cedrenus, & alii.
F10 R. Moses Hadarsan apud Galatin. l. 3. c. 17. & l. 8. c. 2.

Hebrews 7:3 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

Obvious this article is wrong

 

[Ironhold]

Obvious this article is wrong

So you're presuming that anything which disagrees with your arguments must automatically be incorrect?

Do you have anything which can prove this?

 

[JacobKStarkey]

Commentaries have to be taken in light of context and what the whole of the bible says and the character of God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If the commentaries go against that---then I do not adhere to therm.

The commentary adheres to the Bible and the character of God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. No proof exists for the interpretation that Jesus was Melchizedek.