How could Melchizedek be priest of God Most High(Genesis 18-20)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter harshcshah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

harshcshah

Guest
How could Melchizedek be priest of God Most High (Genesis 18-20)?

The Temple had not yet been built and from my reading of Genesis there seems to me to be very little indication of the, as I understand it, pagan Canaanites worshipping the God of Israel.

The explanation given by Encyclopedia Britannica is highly insufficient for me, it says:
"The god whom Melchizedek serves as priest is “El ʿElyon,” again a name of Canaanite origin, probably designating the high god of their pantheon. … For Abraham to recognize the authority and authenticity of a Canaanite priest-king is startling and has no parallel in biblical literature."
link-Melchizedek | Story, Meaning, Priesthood, & Bible Verse | Britannica

Here is the passage:
’ 18 And Melchiz′edek[a] king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. 19 And he blessed him and said,

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
maker of heaven and earth;
20 and blessed be God Most High,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”

And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.’
link-Genesis 14:18-20 RSVCE - And Melchiz′edek king of Salem - Bible Gateway
 
Last edited:
The passage that speaks of Melchizedek is only 1 and we know of him because Abram visited him.
How he became a priest of GOD is not revealed to us in the passage. Perhaps we will find out after we leave this life.
It is perhaps relevant because he did not offer animal sacrifices like was the custom, and it foreshadow the sacrifice we offer at the mass now. Perhaps this is why it was put there in the first place.
Peace!
 
One thing you are forgetting is that ‘I AM’ was the only God at the beginning and the One God whom Noah worshipped before the Times of Babel.
Then there was the corruption of religion and corruption in peoples’ thinking about God into their defective ideas and practices.
Thus the canaanite religions and “gods”.
Yet without needing to publicize it, there still came one faithful who realized the imagination gods were just imaginary and he lived in Salem, where he worshipped this Only God.

‘Melchi’-‘Zedek’ My King is Righteousness.
 
Melchizedek is mentioned only twice in the OT, first in this brief passage in Genesis and then in Psalm 110.

The editors of the Jerusalem Bible describe Genesis 14:18-20 as a later insertion or interpolation, serving to set an Abrahamic precedent for the Levitical priesthood, while Ps 110:4 is intended as a flattering reference to David as a new Melchizedek. David is, in fact, once glimpsed performing a sacred ritual, normally the prerogative of a duly qualified priest. When the Ark of the Covenant is ceremonially installed in the newly erected Tabernacle, “David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord” and “blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts” (2 Sam 6:17-18).
 
I think that this will have to be one of those we don’t know things.
 
Good also to recall that Melchizedek was Priest and King. He was Priest and King of (Jeru)Salem - see the connection? He, by bringing out bread and wine - bread and wine - foreshadows the Messiah. He is a “type” of Christ, and our Lord is a Priest forever, in the line of Melchizedek (Letter to the Hebrews).

Who would come almost three millennia later who could fulfill that dual-concept - Priest and King - entering Jerusalem as King; riding a donkey; bringing out bread and wine?

There is more connection than we may at first realize, with some moments of pondering. But, there is also mystery, as God is wont to leave us with.

From the Rev. George Leo Haydock Commentary:
“Ver. 18. Melchisedech was not Sem: for his genealogy is given in Scripture. Hebrew xii. 6.; nor God the Son, for they are compared together; nor the Holy Ghost, as some have asserted; but a virtuous Gentile who adored the true God, and was king of Salem, or Jerusalem, and Priest of an order different from that of Aaron, offering in sacrifice bread and wine, a figure of Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass; as the fathers constantly affirm. H. — See Pererius. S. Jerom ep. ad Evagrium, says, “Melchisedech offered not bloody victims, but dedicated the sacrament of Christ in bread and wine…a pure sacrifice.” See S. Cyp. ep. 63, ad Cæcil. S. Aug. de C. D. xvi. 22. &c. Many Protestants confess, that this renowned prince of Chanaan, was also a priest; but they will not allow that his sacrifice consisted of bread and wine. In what then? for a true priest must offer some real sacrifice. If Christ, therefore, be a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, whose sacrifice was not bloody, as those of Aaron were, what other sacrifice does he now offer, but that of his own body and blood in the holy Mass, by the ministry of his priests? for he was the priest: this is plainly referred to bringing forth, &c. which shews that word to be sacrificial, as in Judges vi. 18. The Hebrew may be ambiguous. But all know that vau means for as well as and. Thus the English Bible had it, 1552, “for he was the priest.” W. — If Josephus take notice only of Melchisedech, offering Abram and his men corporal refreshment, we need not wonder; he was a Jewish priest, to whom the order of Melchisedech might not be agreeable. It is not indeed improbable, but Abram might partake of the meat, which had been offered in thanksgiving by Melchisedech; and in this sense his words are true. But there would be no need of observing, that he was a priest on this account; as this was a piece of civility expected from princes on similar occasions. Deut. xxiii. 4. 2 K. xvii. 27. H.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
harshcshah said:
How could Melchizedek be priest of God Most High (Genesis 18-20)?

The Temple had not yet been built
Click to expand...
Is it just an assumption that there were no priests of God Most High before the construction of the Temple?
 
harshcshah said:
The explanation given by Encyclopedia Britannica is highly insufficient for me, it says:
" The god whom Melchizedek serves as priest is “El ʿElyon,” again a name of Canaanite origin, probably designating the high god of their pantheon. …
Click to expand...
Another thing to remember is that Abram didn’t speak Hebrew, he spoke Proto-Hebrew, an offshoot of one of the Canaanite dialects. Given the development of the language at the time, and the fact that there’s nothing in Scripture that says Hashem declared His Name to Abram, it’s reasonable to assume that “El Elyon” was not used as a name but as a title. Since Melchizedek offered bread and wine as sacrifice rather than a bull or calf, Abram undoubtedly accepted that the “El Elyon” that Melchizedek served was not one of the Canaanite gods, but the God who had called Abram out of Ur into Canaan.
 
JerryZ said:
and it foreshadow the sacrifice we offer at the mass now. Perhaps this is why it was put there in the first place.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, the connection with the Eucharist is the key. This is why Jesus is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
 
The author of Hebrews has your answer.
This “Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High,” “met Abraham as he returned from his defeat of the kings” and “blessed him.” And Abraham apportioned to him “a tenth of everything.” His name first means righteous king, and he was also “king of Salem,” that is, king of peace. Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. – Hebrews 7:1-3
Click to expand...
Genesis is highly symbolic. The author of Hebrews is providing some guidance on how to understand the passage.

Melchizedek had no father and no mother, and he was/is not only immortal (having no death) but also timeless (having no beginning).

It’s obvious we’re not talking about an ordinary man here, but someone who already dwells in the Kingdom of God.
Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. – Matthew 11:11
Click to expand...
Melchizedek was not born of woman. Nor was he king of a physical place called “Salem,” as the author of Hebrews tells us. The title “King of Salem” meant he was “King of Peace.”

So the question is, why should someone like that not be a priest of God?
 
AlbMagno said:
40.png
BartholomewB:
The editors don’t name their sources.
Click to expand...
That’s a problem for textual criticism…
Click to expand...
Melchizedek (to me) is quite mysterious. This is a [long] quote of information and speculation from ‘The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition’ (2003)
Prt1.
MELCHIZEDEK
Speculations surrounding this name in pre-Christian
times have been found in a number of Dead Sea Scrolls
fragments. In 1965, A. S. van der Woude published a fair-
ly complete column of Hebrew text (11Q Melchizedek
text from Qumran Cave 11) which, with a few small frag-
ments, is what remains of a manuscript of the (?mid-) 1st
century B.C. The text features a contest at the end of time
between Melchizedek and Belial, thought of as leaders of
opposing military camps, angelic forces each of which
can claim a portion of mankind as their ‘‘lot.’’ The pat-
tern is a familiar one. At Qumran, it is the conflict be-
tween the ‘‘sons of light’’ and the ‘‘sons of darkness,’’
each group with its own angelic princely leader; in Chris-
tian legend, that between Michael and Lucifer. Melchize-
dek, so understood, is no longer the mysterious human
figure of Gn 14.18–20, alluded to again in Ps 110.4, upon
whom the discussion of Christ’s priesthood in Heb 5–7
is based.
 
Prt2.
Seemingly the oldest text that presents an angelic
figure named Melchizedek is the ‘‘Visions of Amram’’
(the father of Moses). J. T. Milik (see bibliography) has
published the pertinent passages; he dated the work to the
2d century B.C. or earlier. The extant Aramaic fragments
tell of a dispute of two angelic beings, who between them
have power over all mankind, as to which of them
Amram must accept. Each of the two has three names;
only one name is preserved directly, but that is Mel-
chireshac, ‘‘king of wickedness,’’ the opposite of Mel-
chizedek understood as ‘‘king of justice.’’ Other
evidence makes it easy to equate the two with Belial and
Michael, respectively. The Qumran sect, in its communi-
ty rule (1QS Serek Hayyahad [Rule of the Community,
Manual of Discipline]), in the ‘‘War’’ scroll (1QM Mil-
hâmâh [War Scroll]), and in various liturgical blessings
and curses only partially published (4Q280 ff., described
by Milik), each year on the occasion of its ‘‘renewal of
the covenant’’ at Pentecost formally execrated Belial and
aligned themselves with his adversary. These texts are in
Hebrew. A curse in 4Q280 names Melchireshac; and
Milik restores the name Melchizedek in a broken line of
the ‘‘War’’ scroll (at 1QM xiii, 10), though elsewhere in
that composition the two leaders appear as Michael
(1QM xvii, 5–8) and Belial (frequent).
 
The ‘‘Visions of Amram,’’ which was known to Ori-
gen, underlies a variety of later Jewish, Gnostic, and
Christian presentations of Melchizedek as a superhuman
figure. In a different direction, it became the prototype of
the story reflected in Jude 9, with Michael and the devil
disputing over the body of Moses. That these specula-
tions were known to the author of the Epistle to the He-
brews can hardly be doubted. The latter, however, has
carefully kept his portrayal of Melchizedek as a type of
Christ within the framework provided by Gn 14 and Ps
110, and has not used the angelic figure Melchizedek as
far as can be determined. From the known interest of the
Qumran Essenes in a heavenly temple with an angelic lit-
urgy (see Strugnell) scholars have inferred that the angel-

ic warrior Melchizedek may also have been thought of as
the high priest of the heavenly temple. Such a representa-
tion could have had a concealed influence on the develop-
ment in Hebrews; but it remains unproved. The first text
cited above (11Q Melch) is seen by Milik as forming part
of a ‘‘Commentary on the Book of the Periods,’’ from
about 120 B.C. ; the beginning of this was badly published
by J. M. Allegro (as 4Q 180–181). Dependent on earlier
sources for both its angelology and its division of world
history into periods, this work modified its borrowings in
an effort to bring them into line with the canonical Old
Testament, including Daniel, which it quotes. In the pro-
cess, the figure of Melchizedek underwent a further trans-
formation; and while Belial remains a fallen angel, the
victorious Melchizedek is now a name applied to the Al-
mighty himself, intervening on behalf of his people at the
end of time. A human figure, the ‘‘anointed of the spirit,’’
serves as his herald.

Bibliography: A. S. VAN DER WOUDE , ‘‘Melchisedek als him-
mlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Mi-
draschim aus Qumran Höhle XI,’’ Oudtestamentische Studiën 14
(1965) 353–373, plates 1–2. M. DE JONGE and A. S. VAN DER
WOUDE , ‘‘11Q Melchizedeq and the New Testament,’’ New Testa-
ment Studies 12 (1965–66) 301–326. J. A. FITZMEYER , ‘‘Now This
Melchizedek . . . (Heb 7,1),’’ The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25
(1963) 305–321; ‘‘Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran
Cave 11,’’ Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967) 25–41. J.
STRUGNELL , ‘‘The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran . . . ,’’ Vetus Testa-
mentum Supplement 7: Congress Volume (Oxford 1959, Leiden
1960) 318–345. J. T. MILIK , ‘‘4Q Visions de c Amram et une citation
d’Origène,’’ Revue biblique 79 (1972) 77–97, plates I–II;
‘‘Milkîs ¸edeq et Milkîres ˇa c dans les anciens écrits juifs et chré-
tiens,’’ Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972) 95–144.
[P. W. SKEHAN]
 
Thank you, @_thaddeus. That’s fascinating. It’s remarkable that so much attention is paid to Melchizedek in Jewish circles, as well as among Christian academics, and that this interest dates as far back as Qumran. Back in the sixties Edmund Wilson wrote a book on the Dead Sea scrolls, in which he briefly mentions Jan de Waard, a Dutch academic, who reached the conclusion in one of this books that the author of Hebrews must have been familiar with the Qumran literature.
 
Some interesting comments from the Stone Edition Chumash (A Jewish translation / commentary, leaning heavily towards Orthodox Judaism) regarding Melchizedek. I don’t find this answer satisfactory, but it adds to the discussion…

“After meeting Abraham at the Valley of Shaveh, the king of Sodom escorted him to the city of Salem [= Jerusalem] where they were met by Malchizedek, whom the Sages identify as Shem, son of Noah. He was called Malchizedek because he was the king [מלך] of the future site of the Temple, the home of righteousness [צדק]. As the most honored of Noah’s children, Shem was made the priest of God in Jerusalem. (Ramban )”

“Unlike the priests of the other nations who served angels, Malchizedek served Hachem. (Ramban)”

“The Sages derive that Malchizedek did not pass on the priesthood to his heirs; it was stripped from him and given to Abraham (Nedarim 32). Even though Abraham himself was a descendent of Malchizedek, I.e. Shem, he won the priesthood through personal merit, not through inheritance. (Ran , ibid.)”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top