Who was Melchizedek King of Salem?

[Mark777]

Here is a link to an article about Melchizedek on Wikipedia online:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek

After surveying online resources, I think it is generally believed that Salem was ancient Jerusalem. And OC, I think it is generally held by Rabbinical sources that Melchizedek had an actual kingdom. I will keep on looking.

Mark

[Openly Curious]

Here is a link to an article about Melchizedek on Wikipedia online:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek

After surveying online resources, I think it is generally believed that Salem was ancient Jerusalem. And OC, I think it is generally held by Rabbinical sources that Melchizedek had an actual kingdom. I will keep on looking.

Mark

Hello Mark777

That was a very insightful link you gave some of it only brought out my own views and some of the things earlier in the article I didn't agree with. I did find it interesting that the article related King Melchizedek role of priest as a minister or servant to his earthly kingdom it was referring to his role or authority of king. So was our Lord and Savior in this way for His kingdom was not of this world yet he humbled himself as a man and became servant to all as he travelled and ministered unto the needs of mankind sharing the things of the heavenly kingdom. that will be a reality one day in the near future. Jesus taught us the things of the Father in heaven and did not do his own will but submitted to the Father's will when he walked this earth.

I don't deny that Salem could have been a precursor to the holy city of Jersusalem that King David had to fight battles for that land which had been promised to Abraham for heritage. As

King David's son Solomon built the temple their with great wealth and beauty even it is an amazing read in the bible on this construction of the temple in all of it's glory and splendor.

I think that the kingdom of Melchizedek was forshadowing these things to us to come in the future. As Jerusalem is the holy city chosen by God himself to bear his name that is why God got so mad when they profaned his holy temple at Jersusalem and judgment came because they defiled His name. So it will be in the latter times when the anti-christ will desecrate the temple and God will once again destroy him as God's wrath will be once again rekindled as he will remember the holy city in which He chose to call after His own name.

But thanks for the input and your research it all makes for a very uplifting thread it's amazing the turn it has taken us. blessings

OC

[Mark777]

OC,

You will like this. The Commentary on Genesis by John Calvin agrees largely with you.

I am wondering if anyone knows a church father that thought Melchizedek was Christ?

Well anyway here is the section on Melchizedek by Calvin:

-------------------------------------------------------

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth. This is the last of the three principal points of this history, that Melchizedek, the chief father of the Church, having entertained Abram at a feast, blessed him, in virtue of his priesthood, and received tithes from him. There is no doubt that by the coming of this king to meet him, God also designed to render the victory of Abram famous and memorable to posterity. But a more exalted and excellent mystery was, at the same time, adumbrated: for seeing that the holy patriarch, whom God had raised to the highest rank of honor, submitted himself to Melchizedek, it is not to be doubted that God had constituted him the only head of the whole Church; F360 for, without controversy, the solemn act of benediction, which Melchizedek assumed to himself, was a symbol of preeminent dignity. If any one replies, that he did this as a priest; I ask, was not Abram also a priest? Therefore God here commends to us something peculiar in Melchizedek, in preferring him before the father of all the faithful. But it will be more satisfactory to examine the passage word by word, in regular order, that we may thence better gather the import of the whole. That he received Abram and his companions as guests belonged to his royalty; but the benediction pertained especially to his sacerdotal office. Therefore, the words of Moses ought to be thus connected: Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and seeing he was the priest of God, he blessed Abram; thus to each character is distinctly attributed what is its own. He refreshed a wearied and famishing army with royal liberality; but because he was a priest, he blessed, by the rite of solemn prayer, the firstborn son of God, and the father of the Church. Moreover, although I do not deny that it was the most ancient custom, for those who were kings to fulfill also the office of the priesthood; yet this appears to have been, even in that age, extraordinary in Melchizedek. And truly he is honored with no common eulogy, when the Spirit ratifies his priesthood. We know how, at that time, religion was everywhere corrupted since Abram himself, who was descended from the sacred race of Shem and Eber, had been plunged in the profound vortex of superstitions with his father and grandfather. Therefore many imagine Melchizedek to have been Shem; to whose opinion I am, for many reasons, hindered from subscribing. For the Lord would not have designated a man, worthy of eternal memory, by a name so new and obscure, that he must remain unknown. Secondly, it is not probable that Shem had migrated from the east into Judea; and nothing of the kind is to be gathered from Moses. Thirdly, if Shem had dwelt in the land of Canaan, Abram would not have wandered by such winding courses, as Moses has previously related, before he went to salute his ancestor. But the declaration of the Apostle is of the greatest weight; that this Melchizedek, whoever he was, is presented before us, without any origin, as if he had dropped from the clouds, and that his name is buried without any mention of his death. (<580703>Hebrews 7:3.) But the admirable grace of God shines more clearly in a person unknown; because, amid the corruptions of the world, he alone, in that land, was an upright and sincere cultivator and guardian of religion. I omit the absurdities which Jerome, in his Epistle to Evagrius, heaps together; lest, without any advantage, I should become troublesome, and even offensive to the reader. I readily believe that Salem is to be taken for Jerusalem; and this is the generally received interpretation. If, however, any one chooses rather to embrace a contrary opinion, seeing that the town was situated in a plain, I do not oppose it. On this point Jerome thinks differently: nevertheless, what he elsewhere relates, that in his own times some vestiges of the palace of Melchizedek were still extant in the ancient ruins, appears to me improbable.

It now remains to be seen how Melchizedek bore the image of Christ, and became, as it were, his representative, ajnti>tupov (avtitupos. F361) These are the words of David,

[Mark777]

Here is a link to a list of historical documents that refer to Melchizedek:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/med_melchizedek.html

I am going to search the church fathers. I will be a while doing it.

Mark

[Openly Curious]

Hello Mark777,

The commentary by calvin on Melchizedek was a very nice read indeed. And our opinions are very closely related regarding this subject. I have never read any of the writings of calvin before at all. So it was my first I've known from my own observations that alot of people think that Melchizedek gave to Abraham a tenth but it is exactly the opposite Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils unto Melchizedek. Calvin put in nicely in words and very eloquently put. I would like to converse with him more on the subject but it is not possible.

It does make me feel good in the fact that my heavenly Father is giving me a good education in his word. And as I was reading through what calvin wrote on the subject and was taking it in. These scriptures kept going through my mind especially one of them that been in my head a while twirling around for some reason. But I'll list them so you can read them as it all relates to what we have been discussing.

Isaiah 61:6 (the whole chapter really) and chapter 62

I Corinthians 4

2 Corinthians 3:6 (which is the one that been in my head for a while now) and chapter 6:4

1 Peter 2:5-12

Revelation 1:6-7 (I like the wording in this passage that was used) "And has made us kings and priest unto "God and "his" Father."

Revelation 5:4-5, 7-10, 11-14

blessings

oc

[Openly Curious]

Here is a link to a list of historical documents that refer to Melchizedek:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/med_melchizedek.html

I am going to search the church fathers. I will be a while doing it.

Mark

I did not agree at all with the things mentioned in this link pertaining to Melchizedek and do not find a biblical hint of ideaology towards the kingdom of Salem having a cult desent in reference to it and actually I found that offensive in light of God's feelings toward the holy city of Jerusalem in light of what is in the words regarding it and those who have studied would know what I am referring to as God was offended when they profaned the holy city Jerusalem in the temple after all of what God had done for the people of Israel from the time they came up out of Egypt. So if you understood God's feelings on it then it would be more offensive than if one was ignorant on the subject but for the writer of the article to relate Salem to cult dessent I found the writer to be in ignorance and thus his article no good IMO of course each to his own in this regards. blessings

OC

[Mark777]

OC,

That is not the right attitude to have when doing research. The authors opinion is secondary to the source information. Use it to find other pertinent source documents. Take things with a grain of salt until you develop a complete historical picture.

Mark

[Mark777]

Here is a link that I found that explains the "Argument from Silence" theory about Melchizedek.

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/melchiz.htm

I don't buy it at all. I think it is slight of hand in the linguistical sense. But it is the most accepted scholarly position. You will learn from it that at Qunran they found some gnostic fragments about Melchizedek - which point to a gnostic belief that he was Christ.

Mark

[Openly Curious]

OC,

That is not the right attitude to have when doing research. The authors opinion is secondary to the source information. Use it to find other pertinent source documents. Take things with a grain of salt until you develop a complete historical picture.

Mark

I read it with an open mind and a right attitude and still have a good attitude but do not accept the authors opinions on the subject to be of any value regarding the subject even if it is secondary to the source of information. And even if I had the whole historical complete picture I would still find this authors writings to be done in total ignorance on the subject and off in left field. And I do take things with a grain of salt and do not except everything that comes down the pike either. blessings

OC

[Openly Curious]

Here is a link that I found that explains the "Argument from Silence" theory about Melchizedek.

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/melchiz.htm

I don't buy it at all. I think it is slight of hand in the linguistical sense. But it is the most accepted scholarly position. You will learn from it that at Qunran they found some gnostic fragments about Melchizedek - which point to a gnostic belief that he was Christ.

Mark

I had no problem with this link as it was pertinent to the subject and very interesting read at that.

The scripture I gave for you to read back a few post in Revelation 1:6-7 told us in the wording of that passage of text

"And has made us kings and priest unto God and His Father"

Now notice the wording of this verse cafefully as it says, unto God and his Father. so let look at this for a moment God has a father is that what it is saying "NO" it is not so what does it mean.

I think that Melchizedek served as a type representing the eternal Son of God. who according to the book of John chapter 1:1-3, 12-13, 14, 17-18 Jesus was the word from the beginning that was in the bosom of the Father John 1:18 but Jesus is God in the flesh at the same time. So that's how God can have a Father as Jesus was the Word from the beginning that was in the bosom of God the Father as God would just speak His word forth and life existed by that word that came out of the bosom of the Father. And it is that same word that births us into the kingdom of God to the church of the first born also mentioned in Hebrews the heavenly city as I mentioned earlier in one of my post.

John chapter one tells us that we as the saints of God are not born of flesh and blood nor by the will of man but it is the word of God his will that birthed us into the family of God.

So Melchizedek serves as a figure or type of the Son of God the only begotten Son of God who is eternal as He was God in flesh. And the eternal God or Creator we know in Genesis has no origin for He is alpha and omega the beginning and the end. Hence no beginnings of days nor length of days for He has always been and always will be throughout eternity. The Godhead bodily the Word made flesh. The eternal Son of God the creator of everything visible and invisible. Yet in Genesis chapter 14 the creator and giver of life was yet still within the loins of Abraham the promised seed of God the Word made flesh from the beginning.

blessings

OC