Notes from Al Roesch on WHO was Melchizedek….

Home Forums BIBLE ~ The Old Testament Genesis Chapter 14 Notes from Al Roesch on WHO was Melchizedek….


Viewing 0 reply threads
  • Author
    • #4658
      Tammy Roesch

      Notes from Al

      “HOLY MAN”
      (42 Times in Ellen White’s writings; always applied to human being, never applied to God)

      PAUL—Acts of the Apostles 513
      ENOCH—Patriarchs & Prophets 86
      NEHEMIAH—Signs of the Times, November 29, 1883
      JESUS—Early Writings 173 (Pilate’s wife calls Him that)
      DANIEL—The Sanctified Life 18
      ELISHA—Prophets & Kings 237
      SAMUEL—Health Reformer, March 1, 1880
      JOHN THE BAPTIST—Review & Herald, August 2, 1898

      Ellen White, on numerous occasions quotes Numbers 23:19—“God is not a man.”

      “No words can describe the scene which took place as the Son of God was publicly reinstated in the place of honor and glory which He voluntarily left when He became a man.” {Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899}

      “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” {Hebrews 7:3 KJV}

      “Without [any record of] father or mother, nor ancestral line, without [any record of] beginning of days (birth) nor ending of life (death).” {Amplified Bible}

      “There is no record of Melchizedek’s father or mother or of any of his ancestors; no record of his birth or death.” {Good News Translation}

      “Without his father or mother being written in the genealogies…” {Aramaic Bible}

      “There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors…” {New Living Translation}

      S Bruce: All we know of Melchisedec [Heb.vii,1-3] is what is recorded of him in the Bible; viz., that he was king of Salem, and a priest of the Most High God. See Gen.xiv,18. For this very reason he is said to be without father and without mother, without beginning of days or end of life: because we have no account of his genealogy nor any record of his life, death or posterity, save the fact above referred to. It was necessary for every one who aspired to a place in the Jewish priesthood, to be able to trace his genealogy, and show his descent from the family of Aaron. He who could not trace his genealogy and tell who were his ancestors was said to be “without father.” Clarke furnishes many instances of this usage. The Jews objected to the priesthood of Christ, because he could not trace his descent from the legitimate stock, the tribe of Levi. Paul meets this objection by a reference to Melchisedec who was neither descended from the tribe of Levi, nor yet from Abraham, but was a Canaanite; and yet he was a priest of the Most High God. But the Holy Spirit has seen fit to tell us nothing of his ancestry, nor of his death or posterity. Therefore, so far as the Holy Spirit has seen fit to record, he is without father or mother, beginning of days or end of life, or cessation of priesthood. And thus the objection of the Jews is most triumphantly met; for Christ was to be a priest after the order of Melchisedec.” {Review & Herald, December 16, 1858 UrSe, ARSH 32.5}

      “But the Bible does not say that Melchizedek had no parents. King James’ version reads, “Without father, without mother,” but this, in the Revised Version is correctly rendered, “without genealogy,” thus agreeing with the margin of the old version, “without pedigree.” His ancestry is not given, and in this he differs from the Levitical priests, in that their descent must be traced to Aaron. This was that which made his priesthood a type of Christ’s. Christ has no predecessor nor successor in his priestly office, and therefore he is set forth as the antitype of Melchizedek, who stands as the sole representative of his order.”

      “The type and the antitype, the shadow and the substance, cannot be identical. Christ is a priest “after the order of Melchizedek,” and therefore it is impossible that they two should be one. Every attempt to go beyond the record and show the origin, descent, etc., of Melchizedek, is in reality an attempt to show that his priesthood was not a type of the priesthood of Christ. Let us give ourselves wholly to “those things which are revealed,” and not waste time in vain attempts to be wise above that which is written.” {E. J. Waggoner, Signs of the Times, 8/13/1885}

Viewing 0 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.