In Genesis, Abraham is chosen by God to be the father of many nations and the one through whom the covenant is established (Genesis 12:1–3; 17:1–8). However, at the same time, Genesis also introduces Melchizedek, king of Salem and "priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18–20), who is presented as a righteous and significant figure. Given that Melchizedek was already a priest of the true God, what does Scripture or Christian theology say about why God specifically chose Abraham—rather than Melchizedek or any other righteous men of that time—to make His covenant with? I'm looking for answers based on biblical evidence or theological reasoning, rather than speculation.

### Background Hebrews 7:3 makes the following startling statement about a character called "Melchizedek": > Without father, without mother, without genealogy, **having neither beginning of days nor end of life**, but resembling the Son of God, he [Melchizedek] remains a priest forever Having no beginning nor end sounds similar to language the Bible uses about God: > Before the mountains were born or You brought forth the whole world, **from everlasting to everlasting** You are God. *Psalms 90:2* The author of Hebrews also compares him to the "Son of God". ### Question Do any Christians believe that since Melchizedek has no beginning nor end that he is a divine being in some way? If so, do any Christians worship him?

Obviously Moses was not of the Aaronic Priesthood. Not only was he not a descendant of Aaron, but in fact he was greater than Aaron. God made him Moses’ prophet (Exodus 7:1-2). Was Moses of the order of Melchizedek? Or another order perhaps?

The author of Hebrews seems to think Melchizedek has no beginning or end. This is an important part of the argument, since the author is arguing Jesus is part of a higher order of priesthood that does not depend on the Mosaic law and is not subject to human mortality, and that Melchizedek is an example of this higher order. The author seems to think Melchizedek is literally immortal. > Without father or mother or genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time. - Hebrews 7:3 > In the case of the Levites, mortal men collect the tenth; but in the case of Melchizedek, it is affirmed that he lives on. - Hebrews 7:8 > And this point is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not by a law of succession, but by the power of an indestructible life. > For it is testified: > > “You are a priest forever > in the order of Melchizedek.” - Hebrews 7:15-16 The most straightforward reading of the above verses is that the author thinks Melchizedek is immortal, and that is what makes his priesthood superior to the Levitical priesthood. Furthermore, Jesus is like Melchizedek precisely because he has an indestructible life, which the author backs up with an old testament quote to the same effect. Finally, Jesus' salvific role is tied specifically to being immortal, i.e. like Melchizedek. > But because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore He is able to save completely those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to intercede for them. - Hebrews 7:24-25 In which case, is Melchizedek some kind of immortal human? Is he still alive today? Was he around when Adam and Eve were created?

The bible makes it clear that Christ Jesus' ministry is of the order of Melchizedek and not of Aaron. Christ was born from Judah and not from Levi. Christ is the High Priest of the order of Melchizedek. >So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. Heb 4:14 >That is why Christ did not honor himself by assuming he could become High Priest. No, he was chosen by God, who said to him, “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father.[fn]” Heb 5:5 >And since we have a great High Priest who rules over God's house, Heb 10:21 The bible also tells the New Testament believers that we are a nation of priests. >He has made us a Kingdom of priests for God his Father. All glory and power to him forever and ever! Amen. Rev 1:6 >And you are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple. What's more, you are his holy priests.[fn] Through the mediation of Jesus Christ, you offer spiritual sacrifices that please God. 1 Peter 2:5 So, this outline appears similar to the Levitical priesthood where there is a High Priest and then priests. We also know in the Old Testament that the High Priest changed. >The descendant who succeeds him as high priest will wear these clothes for seven days as he ministers in the Tabernacle and the Holy Place. Ex 29:30 >In future generations, the purification[fn] ceremony will be performed by the priest who has been anointed and ordained to serve as high priest in place of his ancestor Aaron. He will put on the holy linen garments Lev 16:32 My question is whether any groups teach that under the Melchizedek priesthood there are new High Priests who serve alongside Christ or here on earth? In other words, can there be more than one High Priest in the order of Melchizedek? What is an overview, specifically LDS, Catholicism, Protestantism, on this question?

Hebrews 7:12 provides: >“For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.” ‭ In Hebrews 7:11, the change in priesthood refers to a change from the order of Aaron to the order of Melchizedek. Accordingly, the change in law refers to a change from the law given during the priesthood of Aaron and back into the law given during the priesthood of Melchizedek.

I have heard people state that King Melchizedek was actually Jesus. What is the biblical basis for this idea? Where in church history did this idea begin?

Melchizedek ("King of Justice" in Hebrew) is mentioned in Genesis 14 as receiving the dime from Abraham, and breaking bread with him: > **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 depicts Jesus as a priest after the order of Melchizedek: > **4** The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Paul mentions Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 and associates Jesus to him again: > **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. > > **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. > > **7** And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. > > **8** And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, > of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. > > **9** And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes > in Abraham. > > **10** For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met > him. > > **11** 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 Melchisedec, and > not be called after the order of Aaron? > > **12** For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a > change also of the law. > > **13** For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, > of which no man gave attendance at the altar. > > **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 > Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, > > **16** Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after > the power of an endless life. > > **17** For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of > Melchisedec. > > **18** For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before > for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. > > **19** For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better > hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. > > **20** And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: > > **21** (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath > by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou > art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) So who is Melchizedek? Is he Jesus? If he is not, how could there be priests of God before God chose himself a nation and defined priesthood after the Hebrews left Egypt?

The Old Testament has 3 verses on the subject. 2 in Genesis 14:18 and 19 and Psalms 110:14. That's all. Yet Paul has given a surprising description of Melchizedek, the complete chapter of Hebrews 7 is devoted to the subject.

Melchizedek serves an important theological role in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews interprets Psalm 110 to speak of Jesus' priestly order (Melchizedek), thus resolving the potential problem that Jesus might have been suspected to be an illegitimate priest since he was not named after the order of Aaron. As I understand it in Hebrews 7, he makes the argument that because because Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, it demonstrates that Abraham was blessed in some legitimate priestly fashion by Melchizedek, and that the one who blesses is superior to the one who receives the blessing, therefore Melchizedek is even superior to Abraham, which makes it quite fitting that Jesus would be after this priestly order, not the priestly order with descendants of Aaron who are limited by their own death. One might venture to guess from this theological interpretation that Melchizedek might have even been a type of theophany of Jesus, or if not, that his priesthood was special, unparalleled, and arcane. However, the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary on the passage in Genesis 14:1-24 in dealing with the question of authenticity notes (p. 109): > Finally, the notice about Melchizedek merits a measure of confidence in its own right. He invokes an authentic Canaanite deity (see NOTE) as good Canaanite priest would be expected to do. Abraham, on the other hand, refers to Yahweh, using the Canaanite name or names in suitable apposition, which is not less appropriate in his particular case. The NOTE referenced mentions: > El-Elyon. Both elements ('el and 'elyon) occur as names of specific deities, the first in Ugaritic and the second in Phoenician; the Aram. inscription from Sujin combines the two into a compound. Though appellatives at first ("god" and "supreme" respectively), both are attested also as personal synonym for Elohim; and 'elyon occurs either separately (Isa xiv 14; Ps ix 3), or as a divine epithet (Pss vii 18, xlvii 3, lvii 3, lxxviii 56). But these are relatively late passages which conceivably could hark back to instances before us. The question, then, is how to interpret the latter. > >Now that this chapter is amply attested as a source unto itself, it is not only unnecessary but fallacious to harmonize its contents with other portions of the OT. As a Canaanite priest, Melchizedek would invoke his deity or deities by name; and this is what the above translation sought to reproduce. Abraham would just as naturally turn to Yahweh, especially in an oath. While Speiser (the author of AYB Commentary on Genesis) argues that it's fallacious to harmonize El-Elyon, it seems to be attempting to prove too much from Melchizedek's choice of deity name he invokes. Melchizedek appears upon the end of a bloody struggle between pagan kings, but was not himself involved in the battles. His words impose divine significance upon Abraham's victory, which make little sense if Abraham does not believe in his god. Further, it would seem to undermine the general message of the Pentateuch. Why would the author of the Pentateuch who bundles law about the Levitical priesthood receiving tithes, and the Canaanite deities being abominations, include Abraham acknowledging the legitimacy of the pagan Canaanite priesthood of Melchizedek by paying him a tithe? What's Speiser's argument here? Is it more than a simple reaffirmation of the source hypothesis?

I was reading about the relatively new discovery of the Apostle Phillip's gravesite in Turkey, and it briefly mentioned that the square was represented in his grave and it was significant because the square is a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Mosaics and Images from Byzantine Ravenna, Italy: I was also reading about it here: Christian iconography **Why is the square a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood? What ancient documents detail this?** **If no ancient documents, then are there Jewish or early Christian graves that somehow convey that the square represents the Melchizedek Priesthood?**

A friend of mine is part of a church that teaches that Hebrews 7 indicates that Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit. What are the arguments against this view? For reference, here is Hebrews 7:15–21 (NIV) : > **Jesus Like Melchizedek** > > 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like > Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis > of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an > indestructible life. 17 For it is declared: > > > “You are a priest forever, > in the order of Melchizedek.” >18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing > perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to > God. > > 20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any > oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: > > > “The Lord has sworn > and will not change his mind: > ‘You are a priest forever.’” It's also written in Hebrew 7:3 (KJV), > 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. I am a bit confused here. Anbody?

I was looking at the online biography (perhaps an AOL or MySpace biography) of the friend of a relative some 20 years ago. I was alarmed that my relative was associated with this person, based on some very immoral vices the person was proudly describing on their page. One point that shocked me was that this person said they were "a priest of the order of Melchizidek." It was the only religious statement on the page. Q: Do any orthodox Christian groups (perhaps defined here as affirming the Apostle's Creed) use such language to describe themselves? Or would this be some sort of cult?

In [Genesis 14:18](http://biblehub.com/genesis/14-18.htm) , there is a man, [Melchizedek](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek) , who was a priest of the Most High God: > > Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (Now he was the priest of the **Most High God**.) (NET) A few verses later, in [Genesis 14:22](http://biblehub.com/genesis/14-18.htm) : > > But Abram replied to the king of Sodom, "I raise my hand to the **LORD**, the **Most High God**, Creator of heaven and earth, ... (NET) So did Melchizedek worship the same God as Abram?