Some, in reading the above scripture, see something in it that is not there, that Jesus has neither beginning of days, nor end of life. They do not seem to notice that when saying that *he* has neither beginning of days, Paul is speaking, not of Jesus, but of Mechizedek, and not literally, but figuratively, to show the difference between the priesthood of Jesus and the Aaronic priesthood. If one reads this literally then we must believe that Mechizedek is still now a priest. Jesus, of course, did begin his priesthood, but not with a lineage or beginning of days here on earth, but in heaven, but there is no earthly lineage, no earthly beginning, from which his priesthood is attached. There is nothing here that says that Jesus existed for eternity past; such has to be read into the text.

Paul says that Melchizedek resembles the Son of God. Yes, Jesus is Son of God [He is not the God of whom is Son], and yes, Jesus does live forever, having been given such power by God, although this is not what is being spoken of in the verse, for it concerning the priesthood that Paul is speaking, not existence. Paul is not saying that Jesus exists "from eternity"; this has to be read into what he said. The only reason I can see for reading this into the text is to promote the idea that Jesus is Yahweh.

What Paul did say is that Melchizedek is without father or mother or genealogy and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God Melchizedek continues to a priest for ever.

Very few believe that Melchizedek is God Almighty himself, having lived for eternity past, having no beginning, no ending, etc. Very few believe that Mechizedek literally continues to be a priest even to this day and forever. And, of coure, we know that Jesus had a father. But Jesus had no earthly father from which he obtained a priesthood. To take the view that Paul is speaking literally would make Melchizedek Yahweh, and not our Lord Jesus, who is called the "only-begotten" (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9), "the Son of God" (Mark 1:1; Luke 1:32,35; John 1:34; 3:18; 5:25; 6:27; 9:35; 10:36; 11:4; 20:31; Acts 9:20, etc.), "the beginning of the creation of God." (Revelation 3:14) We believe that Jesus had an existence before he came into the world, that it was in glory, and that he left the glory which He had with the Father "before the world was" to partake of another glory, a the crown of human glory. (1 Corinthians 15:27; Hebrews 2:9) We believe the word to teach that since "His obedience unto death, even the death of the stauros," "God (Yahweh) has highly exalted Him (Psalm 110:1), and given Him a name above every name," etc. (Philippians 2:9); that now "all power in heaven and earth is given unto him" by Yahweh, his God. (Matthew 28:18; Daniel 7:14) We believe that 'of His government there is no end,' (Isaiah 9:7) and that his kingdom is an "everlasting kingdom." (Daniel 7:27) But we cannot suppose that He never had a beginning, since it is positively stated that He was "the beginning of the creation." (Revelation 3:14) This, of course, involves the idea that the Heavenly Father and Son are no more one being than an earthly father and son could be one in being. There is a oneness, however, a unity, existing between them, the oneness of will, aim, etc., as it was written of Jesus, "Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God." (Hebrews 10:7,9) We remember further that Jesus prayed for us, His church, that we might have the same kind of unity; not unity of person, but unity of purpose, aim, and interest. He prays "That they all may be ONE, even as Thou, Father, and I are one." (John 17:11,21,22) This shows us clearly the kind of oneness existing between our Father and our Lord. If, then, the text, "without beginning of days, nor end of years," as applied to Melchizedek, means that he never had a beginning nor end of life, it would prove not that he was Jesus (as some have assumed), but Yahweh the Almighty.

It would scarcely be necessary to show that Christ was not without a Father. Call to mind his words: "Father forgive them;" (Luke 23:34) "Father, glorify Thou me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was." (John 17:5) It could not then refer to Christ in His pre-human state, nor can it apply to Him as "the man, Christ Jesus," for Jesus was "born of a woman." Wakefield's version renders this (Hebrews 7:3) "Of whose father, mother, pedigree, birth, and death, we have no account." There was a strict record kept of parentage, birth, death, &c., of every Levite, so that any one claiming to be a priest or Levite could prove it by the records.

It is testified of Melchizedek that he had no end of years, yet we do not see him living today; and it is testified of Christ that He did die, but was made alive. This same Paul could say of Christ: "Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man." We conclude, then, that as Christ, on the spiritual plane of life, had a Father, and on the earthly plane a mother, and did "die for our sins," "even the death of the cross," therefore we have to conclude that Paul is not speaking literally about either the lack of father, birth or death of either Melchizedek or Jesus in a literal sense, but rather he is illustrating the lack of genealogy of the order of the Christ's priesthood as shown by the account of Melchizedek, and thus Jesus' priesthood is after the order of Mechizedek, not being of Aaronic genealogy, not having any earthly beginning or end.

When is Jesus made priest after the order of Melchizedek? Has he always been such a priest? No, but while this priesthood has no earthly beginning -- he could not be such a priest while on earth, nor did Jesus have an earthly father from whom he could claim a priesthood -- he was made priest after his return to heaven. (Hebrews 8:1-4; 9:11; 10:11-12) Thus like Melchizedek, Jesus' priesthood does have a beginning, but it is not seen on earth, nor given as a result of any earthly inheritance of the law. Like Mechizedek, Jesus does not literally have "no beginning of days", but his priesthood has no beginning of days on earth, nor can be it be accounted for by human descent.

Jesus, now possessing endless life that will never die again, will be a priest for all eternity. -- Romans 6:9; Hebrews 7:8,16,24,25; Revelation 1:18.

To interject a meaning into Hebrews 7:3 that Jesus is God Almighty because of the description given to Melchizedek is to derive such a meaning out of context, and detract from what Paul was actually saying.

Nor did Jesus glorify himself as priest, for we read: "Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest." (Hebrews 5:5) It is Yahweh himself that speaks to the Messiah saying: "You are a priest forever according the order of Melchizedek." (Psalm 110:4) Thus Paul says that Jesus is "named by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11,17,21) And it is Yahweh who speaks to the Messiah, saying: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." -- Psalm 110:1

Thus there is nothing in Hebrews 7:3 that proves that Jesus is Yahweh, who only has existed for all eternity past.

Objection 1

It has been claimed that we are ignoring the context of Hebrews 7:3 in our treatment as presented above, and it is further claimed that Hebrews 7:3 presents "undeniable" testament (testimony?) to Christ's eternity.

There is nothing at all anywhere in Hebrews 7:3 that is an undeniable testament (testimony} to Christ's eternity, as the term is defined by trinitarians. Such an idea has to be read into what Paul says, as we have already shown.

However, it does in context speak of the Jesus as being made by God Almighty (Hebrews 7:15,16) a perpetual priest (Hebrews 7:21), thus this could be seen as proof his eternal future. Even as Jesus is made a perpetual priest, Melchizedek is made by Yahweh in the prophecy of Psalm 110:4 (Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11,15.21) like the Son of God pertaining to the priesthood of the Son of God. so that Jesus becomes a priest after the likeness of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 7:15,21) It does not prove anything, however, about the definition that trinitarians would like to give to eternity (as having no beginning), for Jesus has not always been a priest.

Objection 2

It has been claimed that our conclusion is not supported by the text which plainly states that Melchisedec was *like* [in type only] the Son of God Who had neither beginning of days or end of life.

Actually, the above turns the text around to make it say what is does not say. It does not say that Melchizedek was like the Son of God who had neither beginning of day or end of life, but the expression "having neither beginning of days nor end of life" applies directly to Mechizedek (the type), not Jesus (antitype). If this is read to Imean that mean that Jesus (the antitype) had no beginning, that it would most certainly also mean that Melchizedek, who is the one directly being spoken of, would have no beginning. The fact that Melchizedek is made like the Son of God does not do away with the fact that it is of Melchizedek that Paul says that he is without beginning of days and or end of life.

As has already been shown, the point is that there is no geneological record of Melchizedek, his priesthood had no genealogical record of its beginning of days and no record of its ending of life. Paul is, of course, speaking symbolically, and not literally. Nevertheless, this is how his priesthood is a type of the priesthood of Jesus. We know that Melchizedek's priesthood actually did have a beginning, and we know that Melchizedek himself did have a beginning, even though we do not know who his father and mother were, nor when he was born, etc. Nevertheless, his priesthood was not one that had a heritage from a lineage of priests, and in this Melchizedek is like Jesus. This is Paul's argument in Hebrews chapters 3 through 10. "After the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest" (Hebrews 7:15), a priesthood superior to that of the Aaronic priesthood; Jesus did not receive a lineage as a priest from Aaron. Thus Melchizedek -- is made, rendered similar, by the expression of Yahweh (Psalm 110:4), to the priesthood of Jesus. We also know that Jesus was not such a priest while on earth -- thus he did not become a priest after the order of Melchizedek until after he was raised from the dead. He did become a perpetual priest after his ascension.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=871

See also (we do not necessarily agree with every statement in the following links):

"Melchisedec and Aaron as Types"
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r4759.htm

"After the Order of Mechisedec"
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r3951.htm

"Melchisedec Priesthood"
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r86.htm

"The Greater Context of Hebrews 6"
http://www.heraldmag.org/literature/doc_8.htm

Updated: December 14, 2003