Was Melchizedek Actually Christ?

[Alive]

He is an interesting character and I have often wondered about him, but scripture doesn't give us much. I have always preferred to see him as a 'type' of Christ....having neither beginning of days nor end of life

[PATrobas]

31 minutes ago, Mr. M said:

No problem. I already dismissed the notion if you take a closer look at the final sentence of my response. Also, the scriptures say that he was a man, so there is that...

Hebrews 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 

Yep. Good word. Hadn't thought of that either. Thanks.

[TheBlade]

wow the train really left the station or tracks  or looks like a home run but its a foul ball.. way out there. It does explain now things I wondered about....others

Edited May 14, 2023 by TheBlade

[Roymond]

18 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Genesis 14:18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine;

he was the priest of God Most High. 

19 And he blessed him and said:

“Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
20 And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”

And he gave him a tithe of all.

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham

returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 

2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,”

and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 

3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,

but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.

@George,

I would greatly appreciate you weighing in on this matter.
 

This was a fascinating passage when we got to it translating our way through the Old Testament because we had the Hebrew text without vowel pointings.  When read with just the consonants -- as it was originally written -- the verse reads "And (the) king of righteousness, king of peace, brought out bread and wine...."  Making the first clause into a name by merging the two words into one and just pronouncing them as "melki-zedek" had to be a strong tradition because it doesn't naturally read that way.  The same is true of the next clause, where changing the vowels from the natural reading (plus changing a consonant by moving a dot!) makes it "king of Salem".

In its "raw" form it certainly sounds like Jesus, and more than a few down the centuries have held that identity.

For myself, that's one of the questions I want answered when I get to heaven!

[Roymond]

15 hours ago, PATrobas said:

One other reason I don't think Melchizedek was a manifestation of the Word is that he was named. None of the other "angels of the Lord" or manifestations of God in the OT was named.

Except "Melchizedek" isn't actually a name, it's a title:  "King of Righteousness".  Various scholars through the centuries have noted that we don't actually know the name of this king, and some have indulged in all sorts of speculation about who it was.  The proposal that this was Abraham's great-grandfather appears as far as I can tell out of nowhere; the idea that perhaps it was Shem, Noah's son, is only somewhat less odd.  It's actually written as two separate words in the Hebrew text, which rarely happens with names.

[Roymond]

14 hours ago, other one said:

When God divided up the people at the tower of babel, he assigned angels to foster each group.   Most of them went over the edge and started demanding worship and became the little gods of pagan worship.   Melchizedek was one of these angels that remained faithful to the Father and the preincarnate Jesus (Yehweh).

Of course this is my personal belief and would take a book to express why....   and that's not happening so I just post it for something for others to ponder.

That bit of speculation pops up a fair amount over the centuries, but it's generally agreed that this "King of Righteousness" was human

The idea of God assigning angels to "foster each group" seems vaguely familiar.  Does that have anything to do with "the Watchers" and the stories around them?

[Dave-regenerated]

19 hours ago, PATrobas said:

I believe the term is Theophany and is a visible manifestation to humankind of God.

Yes, sorry I confused the terms.  I have read that it was a Theophany somewhere before.

[Mr. M]

17 hours ago, Alive said:

He is an interesting character and I have often wondered about him, but scripture doesn't give us much. I have always preferred to see him as a 'type' of Christ....having neither beginning of days nor end of life

This notion of 'types of Christ' is definitely something I wanted to explore with this thread, so I am glad that you brought it up. First, I wanted to establish some key points about THE Christ as a reference to the 'types'.

John 3:

34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. 

35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.

Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 

10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

2 Peter 1:

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

In summary, the Father has given all things unto the Son, and through Him, all who belong to Him receive a PORTION by measure. All who receive of Him by faith are PARTAKERS.

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. 

Since all who partake of Him receive only in measure, is Melchizedek a type of Christ, or an early type of those who are in Christ? No man can be a full embodiment, only the man Christ Jesus. The rest are members of His Body.

And what do we know about the Body? 

Ephesians 2:

19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 

20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 

21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 

22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

[Dennis1209]

Every jot, tittle, word, and name in our Bible is important.

Melchizedek (mel-kiz’-e-dek) = King of righteousness; (roots = [1] king; [2] righteousness; rectitude; justice; [3] to be right; to be just; to justify). My King of righteousness.^[1]

Scholars and theologians have debated this question for centuries without consensus, and it remains a mystery. Most of our information on Melchizedek is gleaned from Genesis 14:18, Hebrews 7, and Psalm 110:4.

My following notes are lengthy but interesting, and I have the same question as everyone else:

The Mysterious, Mesmerizing Melchizedek, PART I

Randy Nettles

He is mysterious because there is not much that is known about him in the Old Testament, where he is introduced, other than two verses in Genesis 14 (vs. 18-20) and one verse in Psalm 110 (vs.4). He is mesmerizing because there is a whole chapter devoted to him in the New Testament book of Hebrews (ch.7) and how he is a typology of Jesus Christ.

The events and appearance of Melchizedek in Genesis 14 is significant because it occurs in the lifetime of Abram (Abraham) and specifically between two great godly events in his amazing life. The first event was when God made a covenant with Abram giving ownership of the land of Canaan to him and his offspring forever, as described in Genesis 13:14-17. This occurred, according to my calculations, in approximately 1876 BC. The second great godly event occurred in 1852 BC when God confirmed the covenant with Abram, as described in Genesis 15:9-21.

The backdrop of Genesis 14 is the Battle of the Vale of Siddim, also called the War of Nine Kings or the Slaughter of Chedorlaomer. The Vale of Siddim (Salt Sea) was the battleground for the cities of the Jordan River plain revolting against Mesopotamian rule. The five city-states of the plains and their kings were: Bera, king of Sodom; Birsha, king of Sodom; Shinab, king of Admah; Shemeber, king of Zeboyim; and the king of Bela (Zoar). The four kings of Mesopotamia were Chedorlaomer, king of Elam; Tidal, king of Goyim; Amraphel, king of Shinar; and Arioch, king of Ellasar.

Genesis 14:10-12 describes the results of the war and how the four kings defeated the five kings. “Now the Valley of Siddim was full of asphalt pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled; some fell there, and the remainder fled to the mountains. Then they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way. They also took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.”

A man of the plains who had escaped came and reported all that had transpired, including the capture of Lot, to Abram the Hebrew (first mention of Hebrew in the Bible). Abram called out 318 of his household trained in the art of war and pursued the armies of the four kings as far north as Dan. Abram surprised the Mesopotamian forces when he divided his men and attacked them at night when they were sleeping. Abram and his elite fighting men routed them and pursued them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus. Abram recovered all the stolen goods and brought back Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people.

Two kings came out to meet Abram in the Valley of Shaveh (King’s Valley) when he returned from his great victory. The first king to meet Abram on that fateful day was the king of Salem, Melchizedek. “Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said: ‘Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.’ And Abram gave him a tithe of all” (Genesis 14:18-20).

The second king to meet Abram was the king of Sodom, who told Abraham he just wanted his people back and for Abraham to keep the goods for himself. Abram replied, “With raised hand I have sworn an oath to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, that I will take nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that is yours, lest you should say, I have made Abram rich except only what the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me: Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion” (Genesis 14:22:24).

In this account of Abraham and Melchizedek’s meeting, we are only given a few facts concerning this mysterious king. 1) His name. 2) He was a priest as well as a king. 3) He was a believer and priest of the same God that Abram worshipped, El Elyon (translated as Most High God). He was not a worshiper of false gods/idols as the surrounding nations were.

Melchizedek’s name in Hebrew is Malki Tzedek (sedeq) which means “king of righteousness,” and he is the king of Salem (later named Jerusalem). Salem or ‘shalom’ means ‘peace,’ so Melchizedek is also a “king of peace.” The words righteousness and peace are associated with Jesus Christ. In Jeremiah 33:15, Jesus is described as a Branch of righteousness, and in Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called Prince of Peace.

So how is it that a king of a Canaanite city is a worshiper and priest of the one true God and not of Baal, Anath, Moloch, or some other heathen god? In John Calvin’s commentaries, he points out that it is remarkable that Melchizedek lived with Sodom on one side and the Canaanites on the other; yet, he was a righteous king and priest. This shows that God can raise up a godly witness for Himself when and where He pleases. The other question is why did Abraham pay a tithe (first mention of a tithe in the Bible) to Melchizedek? More on this later.

“Everything we know about Melchizedek comes from Genesis 14:18-18, Psalm 110:4, and Hebrews 7. The first text is historical, the second is prophetic, and the third is theological.” {1}

We have discussed the historical aspect of Melchizedek in Genesis, so now let’s look at the prophetic passage in Psalm 110. This chapter was written by David and is referring to the Messiah’s future reign. The first verse is a conversation between the Lord (God the Father) and the Lord (God the Son, Yahweh, Jesus) where God tells Jesus to “sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” In verse 2, the Lord Father is discussing the Lord Son’s future rule as king of Israel. “The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies!” It is in verse 4 that David prophesies Jesus’ future role as priest of the Most High God, “The Lord has sworn and will not relent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” In this Psalm, David is prophesying that the Lord (Jesus) will be both a king and a priest (according to the order of Melchizedek) forever.

Of course, Melchizedek is only a foreshadowing of Jesus in this regard. In David’s time (and Moses before him), a priest could only come from the tribe of Levi (the great-grandfather of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam). Aaron was the first High Priest of Israel. This Levitical ‘law’ continued until the time of Jesus and afterward. In ancient Israel, a king could not also be a priest, according to the Lord’s own law.

Take, for instance, the case of King Uzziah, who by all accounts was a good king and “did what was right in the sight of the Lord” (2 Chronicles 26:4). However, “when Uzziah was strong, his heart was lifted up, to his destruction, for he transgressed against the Lord his God by entering the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense” (2 Chronicles 26:16). Only a priest was allowed to burn incense according to God’s law which He gave to Moses. For Uzziah’s disobedience, God struck King Uzziah with leprosy, and he remained a leper until the day of his death.

Regarding the prophecy of Psalm 110:4, it must have been quite a shock to David when he received this word to learn that the future Jewish Messiah would not be of the priestly order of Aaron and the Levites but of the priestly order of Melchizedek (who had no recorded genealogical background).

Now, let us look at the theological aspect of Melchizedek and his relationship to Jesus Christ. The anonymous writer of the book of Hebrews (possibly Paul, Barnabas, etc.) discusses Melchizedek in the entire 7th (number for spiritual perfection) chapter of Hebrews. The first and second verses talk about the historical context of Melchizedek, as we have already discussed.

The 3rd (number for divine perfection) verse gets into the theological aspect of Melchizedek and gives new information about him. Melchizedek was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, and remains a priest continually” (Hebrews 7:3). Now, this is a truly amazing revelation. Is this chapter and verse, 7:3, telling us this man was Yahweh/Jesus, a theophany, an angel, or just a man without any kind of background or record of birth and death? We will try to answer this question in the remainder of this article.

If this priest/king was a mere man, it’s amazing that there are no records or genealogy regarding him, especially with all the genealogies listed in Genesis (as I wrote about in The Genealogy/s of Jesus of Nazareth :: By Randy Nettles – Rapture Ready. Genesis emphasizes genealogies and the number of years that the patriarchs lived and when they were born.

As I mentioned before, in Israel, all priests came from the tribe of Levi. If you could not establish your family heritage, you were not able to become a priest, so genealogies were especially important in the ancient world. Even Jesus’ human lineage is given in scripture, yet none is given for Melchizedek. This is rather remarkable, especially with the importance that the authors of Genesis, Psalm, and Hebrews ascribe to Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:4-10 describes how great this man, Melchizedek, was that even the patriarch Abraham, whom God made promises to, gave a tenth of the spoils to as a tithe. Hebrews 7:7 says, “now beyond all contradictions the lesser is blessed by the better.” This verse is saying that Melchizedek was greater even than God’s faithful servant and friend, Abraham.

Hebrews 7:11-18 explains the need for a new priesthood that is superior to the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament that was instituted by the law of Moses. The fact that God describes a priest according to the order of Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4 shows there is something lacking in the priesthood according to the order of Aaron. Levitical priesthood is associated with the law of Moses. The priesthood of Melchizedek is associated with the faith of Abraham, not with Moses or the law.

The very mention of the order of Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:11 shows that God wanted the priesthood to be changed (as well as the law of Moses). “For He [Jesus] of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe [other than Levi/Aaron], from which no man has officiated at the altar” (Hebrews 7:13). Hebrews 11:14 explains that the Lord Jesus came from the lineage of Judah, “of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.”

According to Hebrews 11:15-17, “Jesus, in the likeness of Melchizedek (a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek), has not come to be our high priest by the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.” The saying, “you are a priest forever,” could never be said of a priest according to the order of Aaron, none of whom were immortal, and each one only served a limited time as priests.

Melchizedek is said to have no end of life (either as a pre-incarnate Jesus/Yahweh or as a believer in the Lord who will live forever because of his faith). And, of course, Jesus showed His priesthood was superior when He was resurrected and triumphed over death. Because of the weakness and unprofitability of the law and the Levitical priesthood, it has been annulled and replaced by a new and perfect priesthood and covenant. It is the covenant of faith (by the grace of God) in our High Priest and King Jesus Christ.

The Levitical priest became priest without an oath by God, but Jesus and Melchizedek were declared priests forever by God, as declared in Psalm 110:4. Because Jesus continues forever, He has an unchangeable priesthood, unlike his human counterparts. “Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25).

As believing Christians, we are considered undefiled and do not need daily sacrifices by high priests who have to offer sacrifices for their own sins. Our High Priest, Jesus, offered up Himself as a sacrifice for our sins once and for all. His sacrifice only had to occur one time, for His blood doesn’t merely atone (cover over) for our sins but cleanses us from all sins, past, present, and future. “The word of the oath, which came after the law appoints the Son who has been perfected forever as our High Priest” (Hebrews 7:28).

In part II, we will examine the three main theories of the identity of Melchizedek, and I will include a new lineage.

Randy Nettles

PART II

There are three main theories on the identity of Melchizedek. The first theory is one we have briefly touched on. Many theologians believe Melchizedek was a theophany of the pre-incarnate Jesus/Yahweh, which is called a Christophany (see The Angel of the Lord: Part 1 :: By Randy Nettles – Rapture Ready). Psalm and Hebrews both compare Melchizedek with Jesus when they point out that Jesus has become a High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Melchizedek was called a king of righteousness and a king of peace. Only a divine being would appropriately bear these awesome titles, according to the adherents of this theory regarding Melchizedek. Also, the combination of the two offices of king as well as priest was to be a distinguishing characteristic of the Messiah. They believe Melchizedek is immortal (having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the son of God and remains a priest continually).

Hebrews 7:3 mentioned Melchizedek was without father, without mother, without descent. Does this suggest he had no earthly parents or children? Even Jesus had an earthly mother and stepfather, who had human lineages. They believe Melchizedek was “made like” the son of God because he was the eternal preexistent Word of God who later became Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of the Father, through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

In my opinion, seeing Melchizedek as a Christophany or some other heavenly being has a few flaws. When the pre-incarnate Lord/Yahweh/Angel of the Lord made appearances in the Old Testament, it was always for a temporary time period and never for a long duration (especially a lifetime). To be king of Salem, one would require a background and lineage. You couldn’t just appear one day and become king.

Just because the author of Hebrews wrote “without father or mother or genealogy, neither beginning of days, nor end of life” doesn’t necessarily mean he was a heavenly being. It could mean that there wasn’t any documentation that was recorded of his birth, death, or family lineage. God could have intentionally chosen to omit any of these details when the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of Hebrews to pen those particular words. If Melchizedek was made like the Son of God (Jesus), why didn’t he have an earthly mother at least?

The text in Hebrews 7:3 simply states Melchizedek was made like the Son of God, not that he was the Son of God. The statement of Psalm 110:4 calls Messiah “a priest after the order of Melchizedek.” If Melchizedek were Christ, this text would literally mean Messiah was a priest after the order of himself. “Historical and archaeological data indicate good reason to understand compounds with ‘zedek’ as reflecting a dynastic title for Jebusite (descended from Ham and Canaan) kings of the areas. We have the Biblical example of Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem, in Joshua 10:1; yet it can hardly be suggested that this wicked king was a theophany.” {1}

The second theory regarding the identity of Melchizedek originates mostly in rabbinical teaching. Most rabbis and teachers of Judaism believe Melchizedek was no other than Shem, the youngest son of Noah. It’s strange to think that Melchizedek could have been Abraham’s great, great, great, great, great, great, great (naturally, that’s 7 greats) grandfather. Is that even possible as far as the genealogical records that we have in the Bible? Let’s take a closer look at these genealogies in Genesis with special emphasis on the deaths of Noah and his sons and their descendants after the flood. This will give us the lifetimes of all Abraham’s ancestors.

Birth of Noah – Year 1056 from creation – 2904 BC – Genesis 5:28-29

Birth of Japeth – Year 1556 from creation – 2404 BC – Genesis 5:32, 10:21. Note: Noah was 500 years old.

Birth of Ham – Year 1556-1559 from creation – 2404-2402 BC

Birth of Shem – Year 1559 from creation – 2401 BC – Genesis 11:10

Noah and family exit the ark – Year 1657 from creation – 2303 BC – Genesis 8:13-16 Note: Shem was 100 years old and died 500 years later – Genesis 11:10-11

Birth of Arphaxad – Year 1659 from creation – 2301 BC – Genesis 11:10

Birth of Salah – Year 1694 from creation – 2266 BC – Genesis 11:12

Birth of Eber – Year 1724 from creation – 2236 BC – Genesis 11:14

Birth of Peleg – Year 1758 from creation – 2202 BC – Genesis 11:16

Birth of Reu – Year 1788 from creation – 2172 BC – Genesis 11:18

Birth of Serug – Year 1820 from creation – 2140 BC – Genesis 11:20

Birth of Nahor – Year 1850 from creation – 2110 BC – Genesis 11:22

Birth of Terah – Year 1879 from creation – 2081 BC – Genesis 24

Death of Peleg – Year 1997 from creation – 1963 BC – Genesis 11:19

Death of Nahor – Year 1998 from creation – 1962 BC – Genesis 11:25

Death of Noah (950 years old) – Year 2006 from creation – 1954 BC – Genesis 9:28 Note: Noah died 3 years before Abraham was born.

Birth of Abraham – Year 2009 from creation – 1951 BC – Genesis 12:4, Genesis 11:27

Death of Reu – Year 2027 from creation – 1933 BC – Genesis 11:21

Death of Serug – Year 2050 from creation – 1910 BC – Genesis 11:23

Death of Terah – Year 2084 from creation – 1876 BC – Genesis 11:32

God makes a covenant with Abram giving him the land of Canaan to Abram and his descendants forever – Year 2084 from creation – 1876 BC – Genesis 12:7

Birth of Ishmael – Year 2095 from creation – 1865 BC – Genesis 16:3-4; 16:16

Death of Arphaxad – Year 2097 from creation – 1863 BC – Genesis 11:13

God confirms land covenant with Abram – Year 2108 from creation – 1852 BC – Genesis 15:9-21, 17

Birth of Isaac – Year 2109 from creation – 1851 BC – Genesis 21:5

Death of Salah – Year 2127 from creation – 1833 BC – Genesis 11:15

Death of Sarah – Year 2146 from creation – 1814 BC – Genesis 25:26

Death of Shem (600 years old) – Year 2159 from creation – 1801 BC – Genesis 11:11. Note: Abraham was 150 years old when Shem died and Isaac was 50 years old.

Birth of Jacob and Esau – Year 2169 from creation – 1791 BC – Genesis 25:26

Death of Abraham (175 years old) – Year 2184 from creation – 1776 BC – Genesis 25:7 Note: This year from creation (2184) is a correction of a typo error contained in Chronology of Mankind: 6,000 Years of History Pt 1 :: By Randy Nettles – Rapture Ready

Death of Ebber – Year 2188 from creation – 1772 BC – Genesis 11:17 – Note: Eber died 4 years after the death of Abraham. In other words, Abrahams’ great, great, great, great grandfather lived longer than he did (and Abraham lived a long time).

Birth of Joseph – Year 2260 from creation – 1700 BC – Genesis 30:27-29

Death of Isaac – Year 2291 from creation – 1671 BC – Genesis 35:27-29

As I mentioned in part I, the appearance of Melchizedek occurred between the two great events of Abram’s life; God’s land covenant (promised land of Canaan) with him (1876 BC) and God’s confirming the covenant with him (1852 BC). Shem lived until 1801 BC (according to my calculations), so he was certainly still alive when Melchizedek met and blessed Abram. For that matter, Eber lived until 1772 BC, 29 years past Shem’s death. He could have been Melchizedek just as easily as Shem.

According to Gotquestions.org (Who are the Hebrews), the origin of the word ‘Hebrew’ is thought to have come from the proper name ‘Eber’ as the great-grandson of Shem and an ancestor of Abraham. Another etymology traces the original root word back to the phrase “from the other side”—in that case, Hebrew would be a word designating an ‘immigrant,’ which Abraham certainly was (Genesis 12:1, 4-5).

Eber’s sons were Peleg and Joktan. 1 Chronicles 1:19 says that the earth was divided in the days of Peleg. This division was one of physical separation. It occurred during the Tower of Babel when God created different languages between the sons of Noah (and their descendants), and scattered the peoples throughout the earth.

The scholar Mr. Gregory of Oxford tells us that the Arabic Catena, which he believes is authoritative, gives this account of the mysterious Melchizedek: Melchizedek was the son of Heraclim, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, and that his mother’s name was Salathiel, the daughter of Gomer, the son of Japeth, the son of Noah. Archeological remains suggest that there was evidence that a Shemite (Semite) tribe inhabited the area of Salem (Jerusalem) before the Jebusites arrived there and took control of the city-state. The Jebusites were descended from Noah’s son Ham through his son Canaan. This lineage always worshipped pagan gods and idols.

I don’t buy into this theory, as it has several flaws. Shem, Eber, Salah, and possibly Arphaxad could not have been the infamous Melchizedek because they all had a recorded genealogy. These forefathers of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were ancestors of Jacob’s son Levi and not descendants of his. In the law of Moses, a priest could only derive from the descendants of Levi, whom Moses and Aaron descended from, but it doesn’t say anything about Levi’s ancestors, such as Shem or Eber.

Does being an ancestor of Levi disqualify them from being “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” as it does for his descendants (for they are of the order of Levi)? It is a bizarre question and is only possible because of the longevity of life during the days immediately after (and before) the flood. Jesus was a descendant of Jacob (through his mother and stepfather) but was not of the tribe of Levi (they were of the tribe of Judah), so he couldn’t be a priest in the time he lived. The Levitical law of Moses would have prohibited him from this position.

I believe Melchizedek was not an ancestor of Levi (Shem, Eber, etc.), for God needed to create another priesthood (and covenant) from which Jesus could derive. More on this later in the article. Many scholars believe Melchizedek was a Canaanite (possibly a Jebusite) king who was also a High Priest for his people. This is the third theory concerning the identity of Melchizedek and the one I prefer. Melchizedek was a righteous man who worshipped the one true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the sons of Israel. His faith and obedience to the Lord could be compared to Enoch, Noah, or Job, none of whom were Hebrews (although some of them were ancestors of the Hebrews). Like Enoch and Noah, Melchizedek was surrounded by evil and unrighteous neighbors but never lost his faith (for he is a High Priest forever ordained by God Himself).

There is no account available that addresses where Melchizedek obtained his knowledge regarding God. Both Abraham and Melchizedek called Him by the same name, Lord (Yahweh) God (El) Most High (Elyon). Perhaps Melchizedek learned from one of Abram’s ancestors, or the Angel of the Lord visited him as He did with Abraham. Like Job, no lineage is given for him, so in a way, one could say he had no father, mother, birth or death date because it wasn’t documented. Melchizedek was a very unusual priest in that he did not inherit his priesthood. It was given to him by appointment from God, for the Lord raised up for Himself a High Priest, not a temporary one, but one for eternity. His priesthood was based not on genealogy or inheritance but of faith. That is why God arranged for events to unfold as they did, so these two men of faith could meet. The greater of the two, Melchizedek, would receive a tithe from the lesser, Abraham, and God’s High Priest would give God’s servant/friend, Abraham, a blessing and would then bless their great God.

A Prophecy of King David

The word of the oath (by God the Father), which came after the law (during King David’s time), appoints the Son (Jesus) who has been perfected forever. “The Lord has sworn and will not relent, You (Jesus) are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4).

The New Priestly Service

“Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest (Jesus), who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore, it is necessary that this One (Jesus) also have something to offer. For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law, who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle.

“For He said, ‘See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.’ But now He [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He [Jesus] is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises” (Hebrews 8:1-6).

A New Covenant

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.’ In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:7-13).

Melchizedek was a typology/foreshadowing of Jesus Christ, the true King and High Priest forever. Abraham was a typology of the faithful remnant of Israel that place their faith in El Elyon, the Lord (Yahweh/Jesus) God Most High (God, the Father and Holy Spirit). Jesus Christ is the High Priest for all believers, both Hebrews and Gentiles, and is now sitting at the right hand of God, making intercession on our behalf before the Father. I’m sure Melchizedek is there as well and is performing his job as “a priest forever.”

Randy Nettles

nettlesr@suddenlink.net

Who Was Melchizedek?

Melchizedek was a Canaanite, but he is called a “priest of God Most High.” In addition to his office of priest, he also is described as the king of Salem, apparently a reference to the shortened name for Jerusalem, which at that time was occupied by the Canaanites.

This Gentile, about whom we have had no previous notice, either in the text or anywhere else for that matter, comes forward to pay homage to Abram. He brings with him bread and wine as he goes out to meet Abram on his return from the amazing victory by the 318 servants of the patriarch over four Mesopotamian kings. In so doing, the priest-king pays respect to Abram, yet he acknowledges that what has been accomplished could only be attributed to God Most High.

This is a most unexpected turn of events, for out of the grossly pagan world of the Canaanites emerges not only one who shares belief and worship in the same God as the Semitic Abram but one who pronounces the blessing on the patriarch whom God had already blessed. Abram also acknowledges the priestly dignity of this Canaanite priest-king by giving him a tithe.

This situation is very similar to that of Jethro in Exodus 18. He too was a priest who worshiped the same God Moses did, yet he too was a Gentile Midianite (Ex 2:16; 3:1; 18:12). Evidently God was also calling out a people for his own name from among the Gentiles even though the text rarely pauses in its pursuit of the promise-plan of God through the Hebrew people to reflect on this phenomenon.

Who then was Melchizedek? Was he an early preincarnate appearance of Christ or, as theologians label this type of happening, a christophany? Or was he a type of Christ, since Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 6:20–7:21 link Christ’s priesthood not to Aaron and the famous Levitical priestly line in Israel, but to Melchizedek?

The sudden and almost mysterious appearance of Melchizedek is what gives him that quality of timelessness and uniqueness. There can be little doubt that the text treats him as if he were a real historical character who touched the life of the biblical patriarch at a very crucial time in his service for God.

But Melchizedek also has a typological aspect to his character, not in all aspects of his person and character, but most significantly in the fact that we know absolutely nothing about his parentage or his age. This fact sets him apart from all other priests we are told about in the biblical narrative. Thus the author of Hebrews likens Melchizedek to Jesus: “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever” (Heb 7:3).

What is intended, of course, is that the biblical record does not mention Melchizedek’s parents, his ancestry, his birth or his death. In that sense he was different from any other individual found in the biblical narrative. This fact uniquely fits him to be a type of Christ. As such, he functions as a symbol of eternity. His unique priesthood offers a picture of the eternal and universal priesthood of Jesus Christ.

This explains how the Messiah could come from the promise line of Abram and eventually from the tribe of Judah and could also be a priest as well as a prophet and a king. Messiah could not come from two tribes at once, both from Judah (as king) and from Levi (as priest). But he solved the dilemma by becoming a priest “not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry [that is, a legal requirement concerning bodily descent] but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life” (Heb 7:16).

One more point needs to be made: Abram gave a tenth to this priest-king, not the other way around. The “everything” of which Abram gave a tithe was the spoils Abram had taken in battle. This was Abram’s response to Melchizedek’s offer of bread and wine and the blessing which Melchizedek had offered—a blessing which normally comes from the greater person to the lesser. Strangely enough, as the author of Hebrews points out (Heb 7:10), in this sense Levi paid tithes and recognized a priesthood which would supersede his own line even before he was born, because “Levi was still in the body of his ancestor” when Abram offered the tithe to Melchizedek.¹

¹ Walter C. Kaiser Jr. et al., Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 120–121.

King of Salem: Salem was the original short name for Jerusalem.

 

 

---

^[1] Smith, Stelman, and Judson Cornwall. The exhaustive dictionary of Bible names 1998: 170. Print.

[AnnaGrace]

40 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

Yes, sorry I confused the terms.  I have read that it was a Theophany somewhere before.

The word theophany doesn’t appear in scripture is a concept/phenomenon made through/by the finite knowledge of mortal man, not God. If it was the sound knowledge of God, he’d have included the word in His living word as well as defined it/made it clear for all to understand. He is not a God of confusion. His word is transparent and speaks for itself. The distortion and perversion of scripture occurs when man thinks it’s his place to expound on/interpret the word using words, concepts, and knowledge that aren’t found in the Bible (but in commentaries of man, words of a pastor or theologian, etc.).