Most High God

Abraham is the father of three major world religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Could these “children” be related? Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God. Who is the Most High God? Could this Most High God be the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? What happens when a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim all pray to God? Do they all pray to the same God, and does He hear all their prayers? God undoubtedly does hear all their prayers. However, that does not necessarily mean they all pray to the same God.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus only met the messianic criterion of Priest by being of the order of Melchizedek and thus a priest of the same Most High God – not a priest of one people, the Israelites, but a priest of all people. I believe many Christians fail miserably in recognizing this point, believing they have a monopoly on God.

But how does that put Jews - God’s chosen people - in His eyes? Has He abandoned them like yesterday’s garbage for something newer and more exciting, like a new and flashy sports car? I believe the Jews and Hebrews and Israelites of the Old Testament should have a very symbolic attachment to the Virgin Mary. Israel gave birth to the Messiah. That was “God’s chosen people’s” roll. They were to usher Him into the world.

Most Christians will tell you that the “Jews” (Hebrews or Israelites of the Old Testament) were saved by Jesus’ atoning death in a kind of temporal retribution that extended backwards through time… but this does not count for the Jews today. After all, the Jews today have the choice to accept Christ (and salvation) or to reject Him. Is not our job to be Christ’s ambassadors? Is not our job to “sell” this? Maybe it isn’t the Jews we should be worried about. Maybe we should be more worried about the security of our “jobs” as “salesmen”. Are we like stereotypical bad used car salesmen? Are we using very poor sales techniques? Are we guilt of using the “my way or the highway” line? Are we looking to completely assimilate others rather than accept them? Are we using fear tactics? You’ll burn in hell unless you believe and do things my way? C.S. Lewis made an incredibly good point in Mere Christianity when he stated:

We know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.

We may very well be off the mark. In Luke 2:29-32 it clearly states that this Saviour is not exclusively for Israel only, but for all people – again tying into the idea of Jesus being a priest of the order of Melchizedek – a priest for all people.

Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for the glory to your people Israel.

But this passage from Luke also states that He is to be “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” which is showing them the correct way and not necessarily representing them. However in John 10:11-18 (specifically 16) Jesus states something interesting:

”I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. A hired hand will run when he sees a wolf coming. He will leave the sheep because they aren't his and he isn't their shepherd. And so the wolf attacks them and scatters the flock. The hired hand runs away because he is merely hired and has no real concern for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice; and there will be one flock with one shepherd. The Father loves me because I lay down my life that I may have it back again. No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again. For my Father has given me this command."

This most definitely states that Jesus’ purpose is beyond that of only the Jews (and beyond that of what will become only the Christians). He is not just the Son of God, but the Son of the Most High God. Like Melchizedek, He is a priest (representative and mediator) of the “Most High God” – the God of all humanity. (Hebrews 7:1-28)

However the story of Jesus and the Faith of the Cananite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28) would seem to suggest quite the opposite. In verse 24 Jesus quite specifically states that “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”. Which would seem to contradict this. How can we make sense of these statements? I find that in the analogy of the vine (John 15:1-2) can we make some sense:

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. “

“…while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.” The use of the word “every” is more than suggesting a plurality. Is Jesus saying that there could be more than one branch? Most definitely, but is He saying that these are individual people or possibly various “ways” or beliefs? Is He identifying multiple faiths and religions? Again, this is not clear. However, if we take this vine analogy and view it in the context of a family tree we find some interesting results.



When we view the “family tree” of Israel, Jesus’ statement from Matthew 15:24 (“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”) takes on new meaning. The “lost sheep” of Israel becomes Jews (and eventually Christians) as both are from the “branch” of Israel. However, with this train of thought Muslims are not of the “branch” of Israel, but of Ishmael. But are not both children of Abraham? Could this be the “other sheep not of this sheepfold” (John 10:16)? It must also be noted that Muhammad’s revelation, the Qur’an, and Islam were more than 600 years into the future. The same may be said of Christianity. At the time of this saying Christianity did not yet exist. And as discussed in The Evolution of the Logos Jesus may not have known what the future would hold.

Ultimately it becomes an issue of whether the importance lies with a “religion” or faith being of “Israel” or of Abraham. There would seem to be evidence to support the value of being a monotheistic Abrahamic “faith”. Jesus cannot meet the criteria of the Messiah being Priest within the Jewish faith. Jesus was not of the Tribe of Levi and could not be a Leviticus (Aaronic) priest. He however met this messianic criterion by being a priest of the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7), yet Melchizedek only encountered, dealt with, and blessed Abraham, not Jacob (Israel).
I believe Jesus, being a priest of the order of Melchizedek and representing man to the Most High God includes Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. That does not necessarily mean I believe these three religions are all okay and all correct. I believe all have suffered serious corruption by the hand of man over the centuries. Islam believes in the Torah and the Gospel but also states that they are not the absolute Word of God but have been corrupted by man. This I would agree with. Islam believes that the Qur’an was given to Muhammad to clarify what was true and what was man’s corruption – that only the Qur’an is absolutely the Word of God. This I would not agree with. The very fact that Muhammad incorporated parts of the Torah and Jewish history into his writings as he became aware of them strongly suggests he was attempting to create a religion.

Is this enough evidence to disown Islam, throw out the Qur’an, and completely write off Muslims? Let’s be very careful here. In 1 John 5:7 (NLT)

”So we have these three witnesses in heaven – the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,
and these three are one. “

It is the only scriptural reference that most specifically states the Triune nature of God, yet this is not found in any Greek manuscript before the 16th century. It is recognized as being inserted by the Church and all recent versions of the Bible (RSV, NRSV, NAS, NEB, NLT, NIV, etc.) have footnoted this or expunged it. So why was it there? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:

This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious.

If we are to disapprove of the Qur’an, Islam, and Muslims, then by this same standard of judgement we must also disapprove of the Bible. Biblio-odoltry (a literal and exclusive interpretation of God within the Bible only) is a blatant form of idolatry to me.

But once again, let’s be very careful here. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. These points are not to say everything is corrupt. This is not to say we can trust nothing. It is to say that we must be intelligent, open-minded, and tolerant. We (Christians) must seek and search out the truth wherever it lies. We do not have all the answers. We do not know all of the truth. We do not own God.

He [Celsus, a pagan philosopher] found it appalling that the Christians should claim a special revelation of their own: God was available to all human beings, yet the Christians huddled together in a sordid little group, asserting: “God has even deserted the whole world and the motions of the heavens and disregarded the vast earth to give attention to us alone.”
Karen Armstrong, The History of God

I cannot help but agree with this pagan philosopher. Many Christians even today erroneously believe that God is exclusively ours.