You are on page 1of 4

Melchizedek, A god greater

than Jesus?
In the Bible we can read about another god. His name is
Melchizedek (or Melchisedec). He is first mentioned in Genesis

"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:

and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed
him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God,
possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high
God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he
gave him tithes of all."

Genesis 14:18-20

This in itself may not be all that significant until we read


"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; 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. Now consider how great
this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the
tenth of the spoils."
Hebrews 7:1-4

Is this God's brother? Is this God's cousin? Is this a completely

different God? For these are certainly divine attributes.
According to the Bible in our hands today, Jesus (pbuh) had a
beginning (he was "begotten"), and an end "he gave up the
ghost" (Luke 23:46). This mighty being, however, is alleged to
have had neither. It is stated plainly here in the Bible, that he
was "made like unto the son of God." Why do they not worship
him then? The church now will allege that Jesus peace be upon
him was "begotten" by God. Tell us what you mean when you
say "begotten." What did God Almighty do to "beget" Jesus
(pbuh)? Further, if Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten," but
Melchisedec who was "made like unto the Son of God," was
not, then does this not make Jesus (pbuh) a "son of God" but
Melchisedec an independent god with neither offspring nor
parents? Is a god with no parents not greater than one who
needs parents? Where is Melchisedec now?

From these verses we get the following picture:

Melchizedec is equal to the Son of God

Melchizedec's ministry is eternal
Melchizedec, unlike Jesus (pbuh), is an independent god, with
neither father nor mother.
Melchizedec, unlike Jesus (pbuh), was never "born" or
"begotten" but was ever present.
Melchizedec, unlike Jesus (pbuh), will never die but is eternally
without death.
Everything but God has a beginning of days. Even air, water,
and food have a beginning of days. Melchizedec, however, does
not. Therefore, he is claimed to not need God nor water, food,
nor air to breathe.
Does this not sound preposterous? Notice how when Jesus
(pbuh), a man, is preached as being a god most people have no
trouble with that. They are willing to see proof of his godhead
even where it can not be found . This is because this is a well
established doctrine in Paul's church. However, when the same
Bible tells them in no uncertain terms that another man,
Melchisedec, is a god, then they are willing to "interpret" the
verses fifty different ways and attach to them all manner of
abstract interpretations to disprove this claim since Melchisedec
"cannot possibly" be a god. Why? Because the church has not
told us to worship Melchizedec?. If the Bible remains the word
of God then why should we place the words of men (the
church) above the words of God?

Some people will object that: "Melchizedec was an imaginary

character and not real." Once again, a valid possibility, so let us
study this claim. Let us go back and read the above verses. Was
prophet Abraham (pbuh) an imaginary character? Of course
not! Well then, did Abraham "meet" a figment of his
imagination upon returning from the "slaughter of the kings"?
Was Abraham blessed by a figment of his imagination? Did he
give a tenth of his spoils to a figment of his imagination?

I have searched far and wide in my quest for a logical answer to

this dilemma. Many interpretations have been presented,
however, these interpretations always attempt to either
completely side-step the above issues, or when they do actually
attempt to deal directly with them they say "of course it can not
possibly be that the words are meant to be taken literally," with
no valid explanation whatsoever. It is simply left up to the
reader to have "faith" and only take the literal meanings of such
words when they are applied to Jesus (pbuh), but when they are
applied to others then they "can not possibly" be understood to
be taken literally. Why?

It is easy to make excuses. It is much harder to keep an open

mind. Many people have a tendency to quote only part of the
command of the Bible. They read "Jesus said unto him, Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul" and stop!. Well what about the rest of the verse? What
about "…and with all thy mind." I don't know about you, but
my salvation is too precious a commodity to allow someone to
dictate to me blind faith in doctrines they have inserted in the
book of God, resulting in countless discrepancies. A truly
unchanged religion of God must be able to convince me fifty
ways from Sunday that it is faultless and unchanged by the
hands of men. It should not need it's propagators, and
"correctors" to demand blind faith and my having to continually
make excuses for it even though they themselves bear witness
to the continuous and unrelenting attempts of the church to
"correct" and "clarify" the Bible over so many centuries.