I honestly think that Melchisedec is Melchisedec and no one else. I don't think Shem makes a whole lot of sense, but I don't think the description quite fits Jesus either. It certainly looks like it is Him because of the capital K's, but consider the following: - Jesus did have a mother and a Father even though He's an eternal being with no beginning or ending (mystery of godliness) - Heb. 7:4 says "Now consider how great this MAN was..." Jesus was not yet an incarnate man in the OT - Heb. 7:3 says "...but MADE LIKE unto the Son of God" this might be a stretch, but it almost sounds like he was changed to be like the Son of God - Notice also that in Heb. 7:1 he is referred to as the lower case k king of Salem as well, which is even more perplexing - Notice in Heb 7:11 it says, "what further need was there that ANOTHER priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec,...", and verse 15 says Jesus arose after the "similitude" of Melchisedec. The more I look at it, the more my brain hurts because there are arguments for and against the notion that Melchisedec is OT Jesus. Other comments also have some interesting inputs as well. We'll understand it when we meet the Lord. P.S. Anyone calling Brother Ruckman delusional or "spoiled" because he doesn't know the answer to one of the most enigmatic questions of the Bible is just silly. I don't understand why we need to label each other over small disagreements. Brother Ruckman once said that, "If you understood everything in that Bible, it wouldn't be worth reading because you'd know that the One who wrote it didn't have any more sense than you."
Ruckman said that no one will ever understand the bible completely . How could we , we are finite beings and the AV is the product of an infinite God dealing with infinity.
I firmly believe that Mechizedek is the Lord Jesus Christ. Notice that in verse 2 of Hebrews 7, Melchisedec is given the title of _King_ spelled with a capital _K._ The word _King_ with a capital _K_ occurs 70 times in the Bible, 67 of which refer to either God the Father or the Lord Jesus Christ: Psa. 5:2; Psa. 10:16; Psa. 24:7-10; Psa. 29:10; Psa. 44:4; Psa. 47:2,6-7; Psa. 48:2; Psa. 68:24; Psa. 74:12; Psa. 84:3; Psa. 95:3; Psa. 98:6; Psa. 149:2; Song 3:9; Isa. 6:5; Isa. 41:21; Isa. 43:15; Isa. 44:6; Jer. 10:7; Jer. 23:5; Jer. 46:18; Jer. 48:15; Jer. 51:57; Dan. 4:37; Zec. 9:9; Zec. 14:16-17; Mal. 1:14; Matt. 2:2; Matt. 5:35; Matt. 21:5; Matt. 25:34,40; Matt. 27:11,29,42; Mark 15:2,9,12,18,32; Luke 19:38; Luke 23:2-3; John 1:49; John 12:13,15; John 18:33,39; John 19:3,14-15,21; 1Tim. 1:17; 1Tim. 6:15; Heb. 7:2; Rev. 15:3; Rev. 17:14. The remaining 3 instances of the word _King_ are in reference to _king Darius_ and _king Agrippa,_ *_but only because the word King is used as the beginning word of a spoken statement or is the first word of a verse:_* Dan. 6:6; Acts 25:24; Acts 26:27. So whenever you see _King_ spelled with a capital _K,_ it's always in reference to *_God._* In Heb. 7:2, the word _King_ with a capital _K_ is *_not_* used as the beginning of a spoken statement or as the first word of a verse. And we know that Jesus Christ is _"a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec"_ (Psa. 110:4; Heb. 5:6,10; Heb. 6:20; Heb. 7:11-28), and we know that Melchisedec was the _"priest of the most high God,"_ and that he brought forth *_bread and wine_* (Gen. 14:18). This therefore can only mean one thing: Melchisedec is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 7:3 cross referenced with Daniel 3:25 proved it for me. Heb 7:3 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. Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙝 𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙎𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙂𝙤𝙙.
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 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. This is not about Shem ☝🏻
If you look at what the entire point of Hebrews is saying, his identity is clear: the entire point of comparing the Levitical priesthood to Melchizedek is to point out how Jesus is better. If it isn’t Jesus then he mixes in a third party. Also in these passages about Melchizedek, Jesus is continually reffed back to, then it goes on to say: 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 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. The context is Jesus, not some mysterious phantom
Dispensations may be expansive. Just like we know Jesus did more while on earth than was written in scripture then there was more done in OT times than can be written. God's grace is extensive!
So sad that he did not see the changes in the k j bible and did not expose them to the sheeple. No one is awake to see these corrupt changes. Only one percent see them.
@@jakefranklin89 I don't remember, as I watched this 3 months ago and I cannot be bothered to watch it again. It is clear Melchizedek was Jesus before being born through Mary.
Think about this: When Adam and Eve sinned, God made them coats of skin to cover them did He not? So God sacrificed an animal, this is the duty of a high priest. Seeing as this is before the law and the levitical priesthood, and Melchizedek is a priest without beginning or ending, could not this have been the first duty preformed by Melchizedek? And the fact that the first shedding of blood to cover sin was the prototype of what Jesus would do seems to connect them, just some thoughts I had 🤔🤓
“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” [Genesis 3:21] Yep. Greetings, Dr.ApedUp [and blessings in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ] jaja :) Your 'food' for thought is inspired. That's the first time I've listened to Dr. Ruckman and after reading your comment it really struck a chord; well worth the time to give it some thought! Hallelujah [Yshua ha Moshiach] Jah Bless
A careful reading of all the Bible references will show you that there are times when the Father walked on earth: Theo-phanies. There are times when Pre-incarnate Jesus was on earth: Christophanies. Most likely THE HOLY SPIRIT APPEARED ON EARTH: MELCHIZIDEC: PNEUMN-OPHANIES!? I have taught & preached about it at Gateway Anabaptist church.
Clearly can’t be Shem as Shem had both a father and a mother and descendants including Jesus Christ why would commentaries say it’s him? He clearly had an earthly start of days? I understand his priesthood has no beginning and end as it’s not documented but Shem being him doesn’t make sense. Makes the most sense that it’s Jesus Christ or an angel of the Lord but the mystery is fun isn’t it
The Book of Hebrews, being written to the Hebrews is full of abstract Hebrew Reasoning, regarding Jesus. Jesus is said (in the Book of Hebrews, to the Hebrews) to be a better priest then those given by Moses. Melchizedek is said to be better then the Mosaic priesthood also... And this superiority is emphasized by the fact that Scripture gives Melchizedek has no mother or father listed. This means nothing to us gentiles, but people (Hebrews) who believe in gamatria and numerology, both of which are irrational, HAVE FAITH in other irrational things. So I don't think this part of Hebrews is supposed to be taken literally. Except to the extent that >Mechizedek is simply who he was... Abrahams Priest. >Faith is a irrational thing... IMHO (Or maybe Melchizedek was Shem? No, because Shem had a father listed in Genesis, and Noah had a wife listed... So Melchizedek was not Shem...)
Amen my favorite pastor
Great teaching
I honestly think that Melchisedec is Melchisedec and no one else. I don't think Shem makes a whole lot of sense, but I don't think the description quite fits Jesus either. It certainly looks like it is Him because of the capital K's, but consider the following:
- Jesus did have a mother and a Father even though He's an eternal being with no beginning or ending (mystery of godliness)
- Heb. 7:4 says "Now consider how great this MAN was..." Jesus was not yet an incarnate man in the OT
- Heb. 7:3 says "...but MADE LIKE unto the Son of God" this might be a stretch, but it almost sounds like he was changed to be like the Son of God
- Notice also that in Heb. 7:1 he is referred to as the lower case k king of Salem as well, which is even more perplexing
- Notice in Heb 7:11 it says, "what further need was there that ANOTHER priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec,...", and verse 15 says Jesus arose after the "similitude" of Melchisedec.
The more I look at it, the more my brain hurts because there are arguments for and against the notion that Melchisedec is OT Jesus. Other comments also have some interesting inputs as well. We'll understand it when we meet the Lord.
P.S. Anyone calling Brother Ruckman delusional or "spoiled" because he doesn't know the answer to one of the most enigmatic questions of the Bible is just silly. I don't understand why we need to label each other over small disagreements. Brother Ruckman once said that, "If you understood everything in that Bible, it wouldn't be worth reading because you'd know that the One who wrote it didn't have any more sense than you."
Ruckman said that no one will ever understand the bible completely . How could we , we are finite beings and the AV is the product of an infinite God dealing with infinity.
I firmly believe that Mechizedek is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Notice that in verse 2 of Hebrews 7, Melchisedec is given the title of _King_ spelled with a capital _K._
The word _King_ with a capital _K_ occurs 70 times in the Bible, 67 of which refer to either God the Father or the Lord Jesus Christ:
Psa. 5:2; Psa. 10:16; Psa. 24:7-10; Psa. 29:10; Psa. 44:4; Psa. 47:2,6-7; Psa. 48:2; Psa. 68:24; Psa. 74:12; Psa. 84:3; Psa. 95:3; Psa. 98:6; Psa. 149:2; Song 3:9; Isa. 6:5; Isa. 41:21; Isa. 43:15; Isa. 44:6; Jer. 10:7; Jer. 23:5; Jer. 46:18; Jer. 48:15; Jer. 51:57; Dan. 4:37; Zec. 9:9; Zec. 14:16-17; Mal. 1:14; Matt. 2:2; Matt. 5:35; Matt. 21:5; Matt. 25:34,40; Matt. 27:11,29,42; Mark 15:2,9,12,18,32; Luke 19:38; Luke 23:2-3; John 1:49; John 12:13,15; John 18:33,39; John 19:3,14-15,21; 1Tim. 1:17; 1Tim. 6:15; Heb. 7:2; Rev. 15:3; Rev. 17:14.
The remaining 3 instances of the word _King_ are in reference to _king Darius_ and _king Agrippa,_ *_but only because the word King is used as the beginning word of a spoken statement or is the first word of a verse:_*
Dan. 6:6; Acts 25:24; Acts 26:27.
So whenever you see _King_ spelled with a capital _K,_ it's always in reference to *_God._*
In Heb. 7:2, the word _King_ with a capital _K_ is *_not_* used as the beginning of a spoken statement or as the first word of a verse.
And we know that Jesus Christ is _"a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec"_ (Psa. 110:4; Heb. 5:6,10; Heb. 6:20; Heb. 7:11-28), and we know that Melchisedec was the _"priest of the most high God,"_ and that he brought forth *_bread and wine_* (Gen. 14:18).
This therefore can only mean one thing:
Melchisedec is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Very convincing my brother 👍
Thank you for the edification
@@KingjamesAV1611 No problem, God bless you brother.
Hebrews 7:3 cross referenced with Daniel 3:25 proved it for me.
Heb 7:3 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.
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙝 𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙎𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙂𝙤𝙙.
@@kingjamesbiblebeliever8387 Amen!
@@AnthonyTuminello I believe so too, brother.
Very good. Leaning heavily toward Shem. Seems to be speaking of a Preist. Just as we today who are saved becomes Preists of God.
Priests
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
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.
This is not about Shem ☝🏻
What is your position Brother Lotan?
If you look at what the entire point of Hebrews is saying, his identity is clear: the entire point of comparing the Levitical priesthood to Melchizedek is to point out how Jesus is better. If it isn’t Jesus then he mixes in a third party. Also in these passages about Melchizedek, Jesus is continually reffed back to, then it goes on to say:
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
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.
The context is Jesus, not some mysterious phantom
it's Jesus, CLEARLY
@3:40 Woe unto those who say SHALOME, SHALOME, when there is no Shalome...
Sad
IMHO
Dispensations may be expansive. Just like we know Jesus did more while on earth than was written in scripture then there was more done in OT times than can be written. God's grace is extensive!
So sad that he did not see the changes in the k j bible and did not expose them to the sheeple. No one is awake to see these corrupt changes. Only one percent see them.
It was Jesus. Jesus had an earthly mother but in the eternal sense he did not. Shem had an end of days. Heb 6:20 says it is Jesus.
Ruckman was spoiled by philosophy in this regard.
@@RememberGodHolyBibleHow so?
@@jakefranklin89 I don't remember, as I watched this 3 months ago and I cannot be bothered to watch it again. It is clear Melchizedek was Jesus before being born through Mary.
yes it does.
heb:6:20!!!!!!!!
It doesn’t say “end of his priesthood” it says “end of life”
Think about this: When Adam and Eve sinned, God made them coats of skin to cover them did He not? So God sacrificed an animal, this is the duty of a high priest. Seeing as this is before the law and the levitical priesthood, and Melchizedek is a priest without beginning or ending, could not this have been the first duty preformed by Melchizedek? And the fact that the first shedding of blood to cover sin was the prototype of what Jesus would do seems to connect them, just some thoughts I had 🤔🤓
“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” [Genesis 3:21] Yep.
Greetings, Dr.ApedUp [and blessings in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ] jaja :)
Your 'food' for thought is inspired. That's the first time I've listened to Dr. Ruckman and after reading your comment it really struck a chord; well worth the time to give it some thought!
Hallelujah [Yshua ha Moshiach]
Jah Bless
A careful reading of all the Bible references will show you that there are times when the Father walked on earth: Theo-phanies. There are times when Pre-incarnate Jesus was on earth: Christophanies. Most likely THE HOLY SPIRIT APPEARED ON EARTH: MELCHIZIDEC: PNEUMN-OPHANIES!? I have taught & preached about it at Gateway Anabaptist church.
Melchizedeck was God
@@ryanmozert that sounds about right.
Anabaptists are they not the ones who a few centuries ago wanted to hunt down and kill roman catholic priests?
@ricdavid7476 ❤️
Clearly can’t be Shem as Shem had both a father and a mother and descendants including Jesus Christ why would commentaries say it’s him? He clearly had an earthly start of days? I understand his priesthood has no beginning and end as it’s not documented but Shem being him doesn’t make sense. Makes the most sense that it’s Jesus Christ or an angel of the Lord but the mystery is fun isn’t it
The Book of Hebrews, being written to the Hebrews is full of abstract Hebrew Reasoning, regarding Jesus. Jesus is said (in the Book of Hebrews, to the Hebrews) to be a better priest then those given by Moses. Melchizedek is said to be better then the Mosaic priesthood also...
And this superiority is emphasized by the fact that Scripture gives Melchizedek has no mother or father listed. This means nothing to us gentiles, but people (Hebrews) who believe in gamatria and numerology, both of which are irrational, HAVE FAITH in other irrational things.
So I don't think this part of Hebrews is supposed to be taken literally. Except to the extent that >Mechizedek is simply who he was... Abrahams Priest. >Faith is a irrational thing...
IMHO
(Or maybe Melchizedek was Shem? No, because Shem had a father listed in Genesis, and Noah had a wife listed... So Melchizedek was not Shem...)