In the series “10 reasons why Melchizedek was actually the pre-incarnate Word of God” the following article is reason # 4.
Melchizedek has no beginning of days, nor end of life (this means He is immortal).
One thing that becomes increasingly clear when reading the many bible commentaries on Melchizedek is that a whole bunch of “theologians” do not really believe that the bible was written by the Holy Spirit. For example, regarding Hebrews 7:1-3, the ISBE (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) asks the following question:
Where did the author get the material for this description of Melchizedek?
The ISBE then goes on to cite the uninspired accounts of the “Tell el-Amarna Letters” and then concludes by stating: “It thus becomes clear that possibly tradition identified Melchizedek with [King] Abd-Khiba.”[ISBE on Melchizedek] It is therefore no wonder that all these commentaries struggle to adopt the bible’s inspired words into their preconceived notion that the bible’s author relied upon uninspired sources. Such naturalistic reasoning veers them away from the obvious and straight path of the divine words into irrational quagmires that are founded upon absurd speculation. Fourth grade Sunday school children know Who authored every word in the bible, yet these seminary educated scholars are combing through the “Tell el-Amarna Letters” struggling to identify an omniscient Author’s source of knowledge.
Taking the Holy Spirit seriously, we find Hebrews 7:3 saying that Melchizedek has no beginning of days nor end of life; this tells us that he is immortal. As creatures of God, angels and men have “beginning of days” therefore it follows that Melchizedek could have been neither. If Melchizedek is immortal then why does Hebrews 7:4 tell us that He was a man. How could a mere man be immortal? Yet, Hebrews 7:8 clearly repeats the idea that Melchizedek being impervious to death is still alive. This paradox can only be solved by invoking a theophany. As such, when we consider Melchizedek’s other attributes, we are forced to conclude by good and necessary consequence that He was none other than the pre-incarnate Yeshua Ha Mashiac, being by interpretation, Jesus the Messiah. John 1:1-3 reveals that the Word of God is eternal and is also a Person while John 1:14 reveals that this Person is in fact Christ Himself. Therefore, Christ as the Word of God did not have parents nor did He have begining of days nor did He have end of life. Yet amazingly, some bible commentaries arrogantly suggest that the Holy Spirit in the book of Hebrews was looking back at Genesis and trying but failing to accurately derive facts. As harsh as this accusation may sound, this is the conclusion that must be reached when one examines the statements below.
For example, Charles Simeon’s Horae Homeleticae states:
Melchizedec, like other men, was doubtless born of human parents, and in due season cut off by death from this present state of existence. But there is no mention made of his birth, or parentage, or death: nothing is said of any predecessor, whom he followed in his office, or of any successor to whom he resigned his office. These omissions, which might have been well accounted for from the brevity of that part of the Mosaic history, we are assured were ordered of God, on purpose that, by appearing “not to have beginning of days or end of life,” he might, as far as a mortal man could do, shadow forth the eternity of Christ’s priesthood.[Homeleticae]
Here is some more of the same from other commentaries:
That is to say, history is silent concerning his birth and death.[VWS Heb 7:3]
Nothing is recorded of the death or successor of Melchisedec. But Christ alone does really remain without death, and without successor.[Wesley H7:3)
It “cannot” be that he meant to say that Melchizedek had “no beginning” of days literally, that is, that he was from eternity; or that he had “no end of life” literally, that is, that he would exist forever – for this would be to make him equal with God.[Barnes H7:3]
In this passage much of the writer’s argument is fanciful, the narrative in Genesis being handled after a Rabbinic fashion, and the parallel drawn between our Lord and Melchizedek being largely based on the mere omission, in the OT record, of certain particulars about the latter, which, for the historian’s purpose, were obviously irrelevant.[Hastings on Melchizedek – G. W. Wade.]
The eisegesis above defies the idea that Hebrews was written by God and is a good example of how to completely ignore the biblical text pertaining to Melchizedek and surmise inappropriate conjecture that antagonizes the words of God. Yet many (if not most) bible commentaries that I have read state something similar to the above. Some commentaries state that Melchizedek was the biblical Shem all the while using uninspired Targums as their referent. Others quote Josephus, Jerome, Origen or some other ancient but uninspired writer as if doing so can supersede what has already been provided by the Holy Spirit. If the writer of Hebrews is wrong about Melchizedek being immortal then we might as well jettison the idea that the Scriptures are God-breathed and thus inerrant.
However, in Dr. Henry Morris’ Defenders Study Bible we have an example of one who lets the Scriptures guide his reasoning for he states:
This unique description surely implies far more than a mere failure to mention Melchizedec’s genealogy, as the standard naturalistic explanation of this passage has it. The only one of whom these statements could actually be true is God Himself, appearing to Abraham in a pre-incarnate theophany. God appeared to Abraham on other later occasions (e.g., Gen_17:1; Gen_18:1), but on this occasion, almost overwhelmed by the hostile, ungodly world around him, Abraham needed special comfort and encouragement from God. Thus the Lord (actually God the Son), appearing as the King of Righteousness (Rev_19:11, Rev_19:16), the King of Peace (Isa_9:6), and the Mediator between God and Man (1Ti_2:5), came to give Abraham His blessing (Gen_14:19).
See notes on Hebrews 7:3, The DEFENDER’S Study Bible, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., LL.D., Litt.D.