While a lot of people believe that Melchizedek was an appearance of the pre-existent Son, that can’t be established in Scripture. They may be right, but they may not be aware of the other possibilities.
Here are some reasons why Melchizedek might not have been Jesus:
- This would be a unique kind of theophany, without precedent. That alone doesn’t invalidate the idea, but we can identify a good number of probable theophanies in the Old Testament that fit a general pattern, and this would be entirely outside of that pattern. Rather than an episodic appearance, as with Moses’ burning bush, this appearance would have been long-term… and independent of the narrative of Scripture during that period.
- It’s generally believed that Abram tithed to Melchizedek because the king had allowed Abram to travel through his lands for a battle. This form of tribute, offering a tenth of the spoils of war, wasn’t unknown in the ancient world. This would suggest that Melchizedek was a regular old king of Salem… unless the Son lived as man before becoming Jesus, which would be a theologically difficult idea.
- Hebrews mentions Melchizedek around a dozen times… and only in comparison. At no point do any passages indicate that he WAS the Son… only that the two can be compared.
- In Hebrews, Jesus is not said to be Melchizedek, but a high priest “in the order of” Melchizedek. This suggests that Jesus ministry is similar to that of the old-timer, not synonymous.
- Melchizedek was said to have no mother or father, but Jesus has both.
- Melchizedek was said to “resemble” the Son of God… not to BE the Son of God.
- The New Testament talks about the incarnation, but never suggests that it had happened before. For example, John 1:18 would be a good place to read that God Himself had come to earth before, lived as a man, was a high priest, and so on. Because the only statements in the New Testament about the two are comparative, and because we have no verses that suggest Jesus’ supposed previous incarnation, we can’t clearly connect the two.
Here are some reasons why Melchizedek might have been Jesus:
- The obvious mentions in Hebrews make some connection, even though the language is comparative. It could be the author referred to Melchizedek’s legendary status, equating it with Jesus’ earthly ministry.
- His name means ‘king of righteousness, king of peace.’ That would certainly fit Jesus as well.
- He offered Abram bread and wine. This might connect to the Last Supper, where Jesus did the same.
- In Psalm 110, David mentions Melchizedek. This is possibly the most important of the Messianic Psalms, which may suggest more than an interesting connection between the two men.
It’s okay to speculate about whether the eternal Son had previously come to earth, lived and served as an earthly king, and then disappeared from the historical record. In the end, we’re just not sure.
A little more info, just for fun:
- The idea that Melchizedek was the Jewish Messiah predates the New Testament, being known in the Second Temple period.
- The Nag Hammadi library contains gnostic texts in which Melchizedek, as Jesus Christ, lives, preaches, dies and is resurrected.
Join me on Substack!
Comments