Posts Tagged ‘King of Peace’

Finding Jesus in Genesis—Lesson Six

Finding Jesus in Genesis—Lesson Six

© C. O. Bishop

Introduction:

We have been studying the book of Genesis, specifically looking for Old Testament evidences of the Person of Christ, just as Jesus taught in Luke 24:27. We have seen a few “pictures” or object lessons regarding the Christ, as well as at least a few personal appearances. We have also seen at least one clear prophecy regarding His coming Person and work. In Genesis 14 we see two pictures of Christ, I think. One is in Abram himself, the other is in the mysterious person called Melchizedek.

Genesis 14—Melchizedek

In Genesis 14 there is a small war. Four confederate kings attacked five neighboring kings (Each city was its own little “nation,” apparently) and captured them, along with Lot, who by that time was living in the city of Sodom. (Incidentally, these five little city-nations are the same five God proposed to destroy, in Genesis 19.) Abram heard about the raid and took 318 trained fighters from his own household, and went after them, in company with several of his neighbors, Mamre, Eschol and Aner. They caught up, and slaughtered the opposition, and recaptured all the people and all the loot.

In those days, the phrase “to the victor go the spoils” really meant something. If Abram and his associates had chosen to do so, they could have kept the people as slaves, kept all the animals and possessions, and released nothing. Nothing was said to indicate what their intent was, until the end of the chapter. But both the King of Sodom and the King of Salem showed up nearly simultaneously.

Salem versus Sodom

Melchizedek ( meaning “king of righteousness”), identified as the king of Salem, and as the priest of the Most High God (Hebrew, El Elyon) showed up and offered Abram bread and wine (which is interesting, all by itself.) Melchizedek blessed Abram, and blessed God for blessing Abram. Abram gave a tenth of the spoils (physical loot) to Melchizedek, evidently as a recognition that it was his God who had made possible the total victory over the enemy.

The king of Sodom (who had been conquered, and who had lost everything—his kingdom—his city, and his populace) also showed up and “offered” Abram all the goods, if he could have his people back. Abram didn’t owe him anything at all. In fact, had he been an opportunist, he could certainly have captured him on the spot and said, “One more slave!” But he flatly rejected the offer, not on the basis of its being invalid (it was), but because it did not honor God.

He said “I’m taking nothing! I don’t want you to ever be able to say that I “got rich” at your expense!” Further, he stated that he had already made a vow to God, to that effect. He was also careful to add that his decision did not affect his confederates, and that they would have to make their own decisions regarding the loot.

I think it is at least an interesting comparison, to see that, like Christ, Abram was offered a “short-cut.” Satan offered Jesus the worship and pomp of the World, in Matthew 4:1-11. Satan had very limited authority, as we can see in the Book of Job, and certainly did NOT have the “title to planet Earth,” as many commentators suggest—God does, and He always did.  Psalm 24:1 states that “The Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein!” Also, in Daniel 4:17, God says that “The Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will…”) God is the ruler on planet Earth, and always has been!

Satan claimed that the whole world had been given to him and that he could give it to whomever he chose. It was a lie, which should not surprise us: Jesus said that Satan is a liar and the father of lies. Satan offered that which was not his to offer. Jesus did not argue the validity of the offer, but simply rejected him completely. The king of Sodom offered Abram that which was not his to offer. Abram did not argue the point, but, rather pointedly, rejected him completely.

Remember, too, that Lot had been very rich when he left Abram, but he was one of the people kidnapped in the raid. He could have asked Uncle Abram if he could rejoin him, but evidently nothing of the sort was mentioned. Sodom went back to being Sodom, and Lot went with it. The next time it is mentioned is just before it was destroyed. And Lot lost everything in that destruction, but he himself was “saved, yet so as by fire”. Does that sound familiar? How “tight” is your connection with the world? See 1st Corinthians 3:11-16. We, as Christians, can be so tied to the world that we have none of the eternal treasures of God, and when our works are judged, we can lose everything, though we ourselves will be saved—yet so as by fire.

Abram rejected the offer of the King of Sodom, and seized upon the promise of God. I think we need to follow his lead, looking at our choices carefully as to whether they honor God, or serve self, in keeping with the World’s thinking.

Melchizedek himself

But, what can we learn about Melchizedek? Who is he? Where does he fit into history? Why is it that he is even mentioned here? What is the significance of this short passage? We find him referred to again, very briefly, in Psalm 110:4 and finally, more extensively, in Hebrews 6:20-7:22. He is either a very pointed picture of Christ, or, possibly, a true Christophany—a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ himself. Most scholars believe that he was simply a gentile priest-king, presiding over the city of Salem (meaning “peace”), and that he is is just a handy illustration of some things about Christ. Let’s look, though: what does the scripture actually say?

Psalm 110:1, 4 says “The LORD said unto my Lord…” (God speaking to God—God the Father speaking to God the Son) “…Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” That is the prophet David speaking, regarding the Christ, but also a statement by God about both Christ and Melchizedek.

Hebrews 6:20 quotes Psalm 110:4, and then sweeps directly into the only actual commentary we have from God about Melchizedek: Hebrews 7:1-22.

Facts about Melchizedek:

  1. King of Righteousness (meaning of his actual name)
  2. King of Peace (his office)
  3. THE priest of the most High God (his job)
  4. Without father (Really? Or just not known?)
  5. Without mother (Really? Or just not known?)
  6. Without descent (Really? Or just no genealogy listed?)
  7. Having neither beginning of days nor end of life (Really? Or just not listed?)
  8. Made like to the Son of God (At least very similar…maybe too similar!)
  9. Abideth a priest continually. (Present tense!)

That ninth fact puts a different perspective on who Melchizedek really is, in my mind. By the way, this is all given in what is called “indicative” mode…the assurance that all the statements made are definitely so. It is not allegory. It is not supposition or conditional, or anything like that. It says he “abides a priest continually”. In what sense can it be said that Melchizedek still is functioning as a priest? Where does he offer sacrifices, or prayers? For whom does he intercede before God? Give that some thought!

We are further told that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham, and that his priesthood is therefore greater than that of Levi who was a great-grandson of Abraham. It is stated that Levi paid tithes through Abram, to Melchizedek. Levi would not be born for maybe two hundred years yet, and God said he paid tithes to Melchizedek. Interesting.

God compares the two priesthoods, and says that because the priesthood of Levi (Aaron—Levi’s Great-g-g-grandson) is constantly interrupted by death (and that of Melchizedek is not), the final priest had to be after the order of Melchizedek, and not Aaron. Good logic: one priesthood was flawed, through death and human frailty; the other was not.

But if Melchizedek is still functioning as the priest of the Most High God, where does Jesus fit in, as High Priest? And why would we say that he was “after the order of” (under the auspices of) a gentile priest-king, who, though we know little about him, must have lived and died almost 4000 years ago? How can that be? Why would Jesus, the Prince of Peace, and the ultimate source of Righteousness, be listed as being “after the order of” a dead guy from 4000 years ago, who somehow is also still a priest…Unless they are somehow one and the same? Because it could also be said that, since Jesus is a g-g-g-g-great grandson of Abraham, that He also paid tithes to Melchizedek, and thus was also “lesser,” just like Levi…and he is certainly not. But he may be equal, in which case there is no problem.

If Melchizedek was The priest of the Most High God, in the strictest sense—the one and only—the eternal Priest (and it seems he apparently is), then all the rest makes perfect sense. And it rejoices my heart to think that before God brought judgment to Canaan, he had offered His Grace to that region. The King of Righteousness and King of Peace had actually visited them, lived among them, and offered them a way to God. And, in reality, that is all we know about Melchizedek. We also know that it was immediately after this that the land was again promised to Abram—specifically naming the places, borders, and current inhabitants—but it was another 400 years before God evicted the Canaanites and all the other “-ite brothers.”

I can’t say with assurance that “Melchizedek was definitely Christ”, but I tend to lean that way in my thinking. There are too many things that otherwise don’t add up. If he simply appeared among the people, and eventually disappeared, then the “no father, no mother, etc” makes sense completely. A christophany is not born, and does not die—he is Christ, the eternal Son of God, the Living Word, who shows up periodically in Old Testament History, and then simply vanishes, leaving only the memory of his presence, and some sort of message from God. If that is what happened in Genesis 14, then He was the most intense and Personal christophany of them all. If it is not what happened, there, and he really was just a “gentile Priest-King” who happened to form a very good picture of the coming Messiah, then the story is just somewhat puzzling and mysterious…which, given the source, is not terribly unusual: there are many things we don’t understand, in God’s Word.

Application

But, what can we do with all of the above? The most obvious thing is to remember that, no matter who Melchisedec turns out to be, we will constantly be offered choices that fall into the “Sodom versus Salem” category, and we need to watch for them carefully, so as to make decisions that honor God, even if they do not seem to offer us the same “profit-margin” as the World offers.

There are many examples of people in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, who had a similar choice, and grabbed for the profit. Lot, in this immediate context, was a prime example, and it eventually cost him everything he had, leaving a permanent stain on his progeny, as well. He was a believer, according to 2nd Peter 2:4-9. But he left a terrible legacy, as we will see in Genesis 19.

Abram made what seemed to be a costly decision, here in chapter 14, turning away from an apparent windfall; but it was ultimately a very wise choice. He honored God with his words and deeds, and he is remembered as “the friend of God.” And God eventually blessed him in return.

Balaam, on the other hand, in the book of Numbers, was a genuine prophet of God, and, initially, was at least superficially obedient. But he strongly desired the rewards offered by the enemies of God, and eventually, on his own, he went and suggested how the Midianites and Moabites might cause Israel to stumble and fall, and be condemned by God. Incidentally, both these tribes were cousins to Israel, but are also bitter enemies, in spite of the family link.

The rest of that story is somewhat of a mixed blessing. It is in Numbers 22-25, culminating in Numbers 31:8. As we read that account, we can see that Israel’s position with God was secure forever, and that only their condition could ever be changed. Yes, they got in serious trouble, because of Balaam’s advice to their enemies: but God chastened them and brought them through, as a nation…and they were later sent to destroy their enemies, including Balaam. Today, Balaam is only remembered for his treachery, and is frequently referred to as a “false prophet.” But the truth is, he was a real prophet who sold out! He “bargained with Sodom,” instead of Honoring God. It’s a sad story, for sure.

We need to maintain a close walk with God, reading His Word, and seeking to obey Him, so that when that sort of choice presents itself, we can see it coming, and be prepared to make a Godly choice. We don’t want to follow the “Doctrine of Balaam”, and make choices that dishonor God.

Lord Jesus, teach our hearts; correct our thinking, and draw us close to your side, so that when the World makes an offer, of options that look like great opportunities, we will see through the lies, and see the opportunities for the traps they really are. Help us to know the difference between your hand of sustenance and the hand of the enemy who seeks to ensnare us.

 


Who is Melchisedec?

What about Melchisedec?

© C. O. Bishop 6/6/17; THCF 7/2/17

Hebrews 6:19, 20; 7:1-28; Psalm 110; Genesis 14

Introduction:

We left off at the end of Hebrews chapter six, last time, with Jesus entering into the Holy Place on our behalf, as our High Priest.

We are told, in that passage, to anchor our own souls with the same hope that Abraham had:

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 Melchisedec.

A High Priest entered the temple, approaching God with a sacrifice, on behalf of Man. Jesus is our High Priest, and has entered in permanently, on our behalf, with His own blood as the eternal sacrifice. And…God likens him to Melchisedec. (Why??)

There is a lot of speculation about Melchisedec, for very good reason: Not much is given to us on which to build a clear understanding. He is mentioned in just three places: Genesis 14; Psalm 110; and the extended passage we have been reading, in Hebrews 5, 6, and 7.

It seems odd that Jesus would be called a high priest “after the order of” Melchisedec. A king was frequently referred to as the son of someone, with the intent that he gained more authority or possibly more legitimacy by being from that lineage. All of the kings in Judah were called out as being of David’s lineage, for instance. In fact, Jesus is to inherit the throne of David. But he does not inherit the priesthood of Aaron, or of Levi. He inherits the priesthood of Melchisedec… someone, apparently, to whom he is not even related. Why??

We need to give this some thought: Who is Melchisedec? And, why does God compare Jesus to him, and, for the first and only time in this epistle, not conclude that, “Jesus is better!”

I’m sorry to say that I do not have a good, solid answer for the questions we will address today, though I will try to present all the scriptural evidence. This message will be mostly informative and thought-provoking… not life-changing doctrine, perhaps.

Hebrews Chapter Seven

1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
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;
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.

 

Ten Statements about Melchisedec

This is where it gets fascinating, to me: Melchisedec is

  1. King of Righteousness
  2. King of Salem (King of Peace)
  3. Priest of the Most High God
  4. Without father
  5. Without mother
  6. Without descent (no genealogy)
  7. No Birth
  8. No death
  9. Like the Son of God…And
  10. He abides a priest continually!

All of the above statements regarding Melchisedec are in what is called “declarative indicative” mode/mood…meaning it is definitely true. This is not allegorical. All these statements are apparently literally true of Melchisedec.

This individual to whom Abraham voluntarily gave tithes was not in any way related to the Levitical priesthood which was, in any case, still roughly 500 years in the future. Melchisedec brought out bread and wine to Abraham. (Interesting choices!) Abraham clearly recognized him as the priest of the Most High God, and made an offering (not a sacrifice) to him.

Nothing much more is said about Melchisedec at that point. In fact, he is not even mentioned again in scripture until nearly 900 years later, when David invoked his name in Psalm 110:4, (read it) where he stated that the one whom David called “My Lord”, and to whom God said “sit at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool”, was and is ordained a “priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec!” After that, Melchisedec is not mentioned again at all, until over 1000 years later, in the book of Hebrews, where the writer addresses both of the above passages, and where we receive some concluding points about him.

If I had only the passage in Genesis to go on, I could only conclude that God had a witness in the world other than Abraham (that’s not surprising) and that there was a way to approach God through that priesthood. (Even that would be making some speculations, though, as the scripture does not tell us anything specific about the ministry of Melchisedec while he was on earth.)

Without the passage in Hebrews, the passage in Psalms would have to remain an enigma, as well, as we would have no clue as to how that prophecy regarding the Messiah was to be fulfilled. But the passage in Hebrews is so powerful as to make me very suspicious that Melchisedec was not just a man, but rather a Christophany; that is, “God appearing in human form in a way to specifically prefigure the person of the Christ.” That he was, in fact, Christ himself, in a pre-incarnate form.

Most commentators disagree, and I know that: I would be happy to be corrected from scripture, but, so far, I have seen nothing to do so. They all simply state their opinion, frequently without scriptural backing.  One verse they do frequently underscore is the phrase that Melchisedec was made “like unto the Son of God…”, (their contention being that he was therefore not really Him.) To this I would respond that all the Christophanies were “like” the son of God, in one respect or another, but all lacked one essential ingredient: “a body thou hast prepared me”…a fully human body, “born of Woman” and, more specifically, the “Seed of Woman”. Yes, Melchisedec lacked that ingredient (no mother!), even if all the other things were literally true: and so did the “Angel of the LORD”—who invariably turned out to be the living God, revealing himself in the form of a man (example: Genesis 18).

From John 1:18, we deduce (since “no man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared him”) that all these were Christophanies, and really were Jesus in pre-incarnate appearances.

When I look over the list of things God says are true of Melchisedec, especially including the fact that he “abides a priest continually,” I am drawn to believe that it may have actually been Jesus, in a pre-incarnate appearance, just as he appeared in those other places.

Another point that would trouble me, if Melchisedec was just a man, is that God declared his priesthood greater than that of Aaron, and ordained Jesus to that priesthood. Whose ministry is so great that the Son of God should be ordained to the priesthood of one of his created beings? A sinner; part of the fallen race of man? That does not ring true. It would seem to me that Jesus would have to establish a perfect priesthood from outside the race, in order to be ordained part of a perfect priesthood. And who else could do it? God never declares Jesus to be “better than” Melchisedec, but rather, to be like him, and an eternal priest after his order.

We remember Jesus being called the “Son of David”, but we also remember that David called Jesus his “Lord”. Jesus does not look up to David, and revere him as his great-great grandpa: He sees him fondly as a special servant who honored him during his lifetime. I don’t think Melchisedec is in that class, at all. Jesus does inherit the throne of his father David, as predicted, but He himself is the eternal King predicted; and David sees HIM as the Master. Jesus is better!

 

Jesus is better than the Levitical Priesthood

Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
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:
But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

 Here we have the facts of the above treatise confirmed :

  • Melchisedec was great enough that Abraham gave him a tithe of all the spoils of war that he had gained in the battle of the five kings.
  • The Levites who are the descendants of Abraham, receive tithes from all their relatives, the rest of the descendants of Abraham (more specifically, of Jacob).
  • Melchisedec was not even related, but he received tithes from Abraham…and authoritatively blessed him in return.
  • The writer points out that the greater blesses the lesser…not the other way around.
  • The priesthood currently receiving the tithes in the temple (at that time) would all die; they were mortal men. The Writer points out that this is not true of Melchisedec. Melchisedec still lives! (Oops! Did he really say that? Compare verse 16!)

This is a pretty incredible statement! It still gives me chills when I read it. But the writer isn’t done yet!

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.

Here are six more vital points the writer laid out for us to consider:

  1. Levi, the distant descendant of Abraham (the argument continues), therefore gave tithes through
  2. If the Levitical (Aaronic) priesthood was the pinnacle of perfection (and it wasn’t—not even close—consider all the messes that Aaron got into personally, and many of the priests after him. By the time Jesus walked the earth, the priesthood was quite corrupt as a whole.)—but if it had been perfect, or even “perfect” in the sense of completion (and it wasn’t because the priests kept dying, and the sacrifices had to be repeated every year anyway), then there would be no need for an upgrade…no need for a change, from the Levitical order, to the order of Melchisedec.
  3. But there was such a need…and it also necessitated a change in the Law—under the Law the priests could ONLY come from the tribe of Levi…no exceptions. There was nothing said about there even being the possibility of a priest coming from Judah.
  4. But the prophecy did say that there would arise such a priest in the similitude of Melchisedec…it just didn’t specify from where.
  5. His priesthood was not by carnal commandment, but by the power of an endless life! (There He goes again! What is he saying here about Melchisedec? Jesus is the one regarding whom the writer says he has eternal life in this verse, but he is comparing him to Melchisedec in that regard)
  6. And then, he called out a particular individual (Messiah) and said “You are a priest forever, 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.

 

The Law Was Weak and Unprofitable

This is something to remember, on the occasions when we are confronted by those who want to return to legalism at any level: God says the Law was “weak and unprofitable”, in the sense that the law alone could not improve the person, but could only condemn. It has value, because it points to the righteousness and holiness of God, but it can do nothing toward perfecting the hearer, outside of the Grace of God which can change hearts.

We approach God through the Grace He extended through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17 says “the Law came through Moses, but Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ”) Romans 5:2 says that we only have access to that Grace through faith in the person of Christ. (Not by adherence to the regimen of Law, or recitation of a creed, or church attendance, or anything else we can do to acquire merit. The very meaning of “Grace” forbids works: it means “unmerited favor… unearned favor”. When a person insists that they must earn God’s favor, they are rejecting Grace as completely as if they simply rejected the Person of Christ. And, to reject Grace is to reject Christ, even if they had no intention of doing so.

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:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

It is interesting to me that the Aaronic priesthood was established and maintained without an oath, either from God or Man. We have oaths of office for everything from President to police officers to union halls, most of which are very solemn, and all of which are enthusiastically broken by at least some of those who take the oaths. But the most solemn responsibility ever given to a mortal human—that of High Priest—was given without any oath…how strange!  But Jesus was made a priest after the order of Melchisedec, by an oath from God.

23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Remember that, though this is speaking unquestionably about Jesus, he is being compared to Melchisedec in this regard. And it is a favorable comparison…both are being recognized as not having died.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

 

Grace is Perfect and Complete

The conclusion, then, is that the priesthood Jesus inherited is a perfect, eternal priesthood… a priesthood completely supplanting the Levitical priesthood, and rendering it obsolete. The result is that He alone is the author of eternal salvation: His ministry is perfect and eternal: therefore the result of his ministry (our salvation) is perfect and eternal.

Think about the character of Jesus (from verse 26) compared to that of the high priests, (for example) in Jesus’ time on earth.

  • Holy? Yes! Jesus is utterly holy. Those high priests? Not so you’d notice.
  • Harmless? Obviously, Jesus was and the priests were not. They had him killed!
  • Undefiled? Yep, Jesus certainly was. Those priests? Not so you’d notice.
  • Separate from sinners? Well, the odd thing was, that the priests thought they were separate from sinners, but in fact they were vile sinners themselves, and in deep denial. They thought Jesus was not separated from sinners, but he really was, by definition. He was without sin.
  • Made higher than the heavens? No contest! Jesus stands alone.

And what about the character of His ministry?

  • No need for further, daily sacrifices. The one sacrifice completed the whole job. “It is finished!” Grace, in the person of Jesus Christ, completed the work of Salvation.
  • No infirmity, and no death, so no lack of continuity. The result is our eternal security.
  • The oath of God makes him eternally our High Priest.

Jesus eternally intercedes before God on our behalf. Our salvation is secure in Him…we have been saved “to the uttermost” by his once-for-all sacrifice. And all of this is by His Grace.

Now, the question many will have at this point, regarding Melchisedec, is: “Was Melchisedec really Jesus??”  But the answer remains the same: “I don’t know!” The only thing that really gives me pause is the fact that Melchisedec was the “King of Salem.” If he really was a Christophany, a pre-incarnate manifestation of God the Son, then he seems to be the only one who stuck around and took part in Human government. On the other hand; if he wasn’t, then I can’t explain all the comments made, here in Hebrews chapter seven, concerning him.

I can certainly understand why theologians back off and declare him to simply be a “Gentile Priest-King whose story was just a convenient prefiguring of Christ.” But: the statements made in Hebrews 7:1-8 are incredibly strong, and couched in terms of certainty, not allegory, so I can’t comfortably state that he was just a Man without feeling that, to some degree, I would be denying the truth of these verses.

You’ll have to make your own choice.
Lord Jesus, give us the wisdom to understand your word, and to rightly apply it to our lives, appropriating your precepts and making them our own, so that we are partakers of your nature. Make us able workmen, and ambassadors of your Grace.