What did Paul really mean when he said Melchizedek had not "beginning of days"? Was Melchizedek literally fatherless and motherless?
Heb. 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, that is, “King of Peace.” 3 In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but being made like the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time.
4 See how great this man was to whom Abraham, the family head, gave a tenth out of the best spoils. 5 True, according to the Law, those of the sons of Levi who receive their priestly office have a commandment to collect tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, even though these are descendants of Abraham. 6 But this man who did not trace his genealogy from them took tithes from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. 7 Now it is undeniable that the lesser one is blessed by the greater. 8 And in the one case, it is men who are dying who receive tithes, but in the other case, it is someone of whom witness is given that he lives. 9 And it could be said that even Levi, who receives tithes, has paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still a future descendant of his forefather when Melchizedek met him.
Let me make a stab at it if you do not mind....
Paul/or who actually wrote Hebrews was relating Melchizedek to Jesus Christ for one important note - being a legitimate priest under the Law.
These two were priests with a common background and yet legitimate priests under God and not under the Law.. Why, may you ask...
Many in the audience knew of the Law of Moses in the OT. They knew that to become a priest, one had to show proof of a genealogy/lineage of a priestly line starting from Aaron of the tribe of Levi. This was a major point for being qualified as a priest under the Law/OT.
You see the Jews/Judeans did not believe that Jesus could be a high priest. The Law of Moses demanded that priests be descendants of Aaron and of the tribe of Levi. Of course, Jesus Christ came from the tribe of Judah. This “problem” is actually clearly set forth in the book of Hebrews itself: “For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests” (verse 14).
The solution is simple. This section of Hebrews shows that if Melchizedek can be a priest recognized by Abraham, and he had no priestly genealogy, then Christ can be a priest when he has no priestly genealogy.
As Ezra 2: 62 states:
"These sought their place among those who were registered by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood."
Thus the Jews were very aware of the “qualifications” for the priesthood, and if someone claimed to be a priest but could not produce the required genealogy, he was disqualified.
And thus in Hebrews, when this verse says Melchizedek had no genealogy or beginning or end, the Jews understood perfectly that it meant he did not come from a line of priests. They never thought, nor would they believe, that he had no father or mother or birth or death.
BL: They understood that
if Melchizedek could be a priest to Abraham without being a descendant of Aaron, the first priest, then so could Jesus Christ.
Oh, and for those folks who also believe that Jesus was actually be Melchizedek
Heb 7:3 states that Melchizedek was without Father or mother and without genealogy - none found in scripture. However, Jesus did have a father, God, and a mother, Mary. He also had a genealogy, in fact, two; one in Matthew and one in Luke.
And finally, this verse says that Melchizedek was “like the Son of God.” If he was “like” the Son, then he could not “be” the Son of God.
