Melchizedek: Angel or Shem, son of Noah?

[Deacon_Joseph]

Hi all,
I’m new to this site. I hope to have interesting conversations with you all. I was wondering What some of you thought about Melchizedek.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a sectarian text in which Melchizedek is understood to be an angel. In the Bible he is mentioned twice: Genesis 14:18-20 and Psalm 110:4. In Hebrews 7 Paul draws some parallels between Jesus and Melchizedek. I found some of these statements at salvantionhistory.com, Dr. Scott Hahn’s website.

There is another theory that he was Shem, the son of Noah. Shem received his father’s blessing at the end of Chapter 9 of Genesis. The dates in Genesis 11 indicate that Shem lived 500 years after the flood, and beyond the time of Abram. From Adam until the Levites of Exodus, the first born son acted as priest of the extended family. Could this be part of God’s plan, to have the first born son of Noah, the 2nd Adam, pass his blessing directly to Abram? Any insight on this topic would welcomed.

 

[runandsew]

The only information I have on this issue is also from Scott Hahn, where he mention that in the Rabbitic writings and the Aramaic Targums, Melchizedek is shown to be none other than Shem. Which would make sense if you are trying to have all the blessings being passed on from Adam to Jesus.

Here is some verses from Genesis 12-17 from the Targums:

here is the main page link to the targum text.

And Malka Zadika, who was Shem bar Noah, the king of Yerushalem, came forth to meet Abram, and brought forth to him bread and wine; and in that time he ministered before Eloha Ilaha. [JERUSALEM. And Malki Zedek, king of Yerushalem, who was Shem, who was the great priest of the Most High.] And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the Lord God Most High, who for the righteous possesseth the heavens and the earth. And blessed be Eloha Ilaha, who hath made thine enemies as a shield which receiveth a blow. And he gave to him one of ten, of all which he brought back.

Here is the wikipedia article on the Targums.

 

[BlestOne]

I know that Jeff Cavins also mentions the possibility that he was Shem too… It does seem to make sense the way it was presented to me in the Great Adventure Bible course.

 

[thistle]

In the D-R Bible the Haydock commentary on Gen 14:18

Melchisedech was not Sem: for his geneology is given in Scripture, Heb 7, nor God the Son, for they are compared together; nor the Holy Spirit, 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 Aaro, offering in sacrifice bread and wine, a figure of Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass; as the Fathers constantly affirm.

Commentary on Heb 7:

The excellency of this personage was so transcendent, that some of the ancients took him to be an Angel, and some the Holy Spirit. This the Fathers condemn; for had he not been a man, a king, and a priest, he would not havebeen so worthy a type of our Saviour.

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

Thank you to everyone. All the opinions were interesting and informative. Thank you for all the links, data, Biblical Commentarys, etc. You can be sure I’ll check them all out.

If anyone runs across this thread and has some more (name removed by moderator)ut, I would love to hear it. Thanks again all.

 

[runandsew]

In the D-R Bible the Haydock commentary on Gen 14:18

Melchisedech was not Sem: for his geneology is given in Scripture, Heb 7, nor God the Son, for they are compared together; nor the Holy Spirit, 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 Aaro, offering in sacrifice bread and wine, a figure of Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass; as the Fathers constantly affirm.

Commentary on Heb 7:

The excellency of this personage was so transcendent, that some of the ancients took him to be an Angel, and some the Holy Spirit. This the Fathers condemn; for had he not been a man, a king, and a priest, he would not havebeen so worthy a type of our Saviour.

Hebrews 7:3
He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever

Hebrews 7:3 is a very interesting Passage, but I don’t think it excludes that He might have been shem, I think that the author in Hebrews is trying to make a point, comparing him to Jesus. In the Hebrew Bible, Melchisedec just appears from nowhere in the Bible, in the Aramaic version, it includes what would have been oral tradition.

 

[thistle]

Hebrews 7:3
He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever

Hebrews 7:3 is a very interesting Passage, but I don’t think it excludes that He might have been shem, I think that the author in Hebrews is trying to make a point, comparing him to Jesus. In the Hebrew Bible, Melchisedec just appears from nowhere in the Bible, in the Aramaic version, it includes what would have been oral tradition.

I don’t know if he was Shem or an Angel but if the Church Fathers say he was neither then I accept that.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

No, I don’t know of any Jewish scholars who have identified Melchizedek as an angel.

Melchizedek’s Jubilee

(And con)cerning his saying (Lev 25:13):
–“In this year of ju(bilee you shall restore a man to his inheritance”):
(Unraveled, this is…?)
(And concerning his saying (Deut 15:2)
–“Every master [ba’al] (shall relea)se his hand concerning his claim (upon his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because he has declared the) release.”
(Unraveled, this is for the en)d of days.
(It is) about the captives which (?..Belial) bound
(?..?) and from the inheritance of Melchizedek
(?..Melchize)dek, who will restore them;
and he will declare freedom [deror]* for them
to release them (and to atone) for their sins
(and…?) this word, in the la(s)t year of jubilee (?..?)
(?..?) the (t)enth (ju)bilee (?..?),
in which to atone for all the sons (of light)
(and the) men of the (l)ot of Mel(chi)zedek
(?..?) over (th)em (?..?) because that is the end [qetz]**
to the acceptable year of Melchize(dek…?)
(?..?) and the holy ones of God to the realm of judgment;
as it is written about him in the Songs of David, who says (Ps 82:1):
–“God [Elohim] (stand)s in the coun(cil of God [El]);
in the midst of the gods [elohim] he judges.”
And (David) says about him (Ps 7:7f):
– “Return to the height (a)bove them.
God [El]*** will judge the peoples.”
And as he sa(ys; Ps 82:2):
–"(How long will) you judge falsely
and li(ft up) the face of the wick(ed? Se)lah."
Unraveled [pishru], this is about Belial and his lot of spir(it)s,
who (?..?). And Melchizedek will exact
the ven(ge)ance of the judg(me)nts of G(od);
(?..from the hand of Be)lial and the hand of all the (spirits of his lot).
And in his aid are the gods [eli(m)] (on high).
He (?..al)l the sons of Mi(gh)t and the (?..?) this.
That is the day of (destruction).
(And wh)at is written (for the end of days by Isai)ah the prophet,
who say(s) (Isa 52:7):
–"(How) beautiful upon the mountains
are the feet of him who bears good n(ews),
(he who) proclaims peace, who be(ars good news of good),
(he who proclaims salva)tion,
who says to Zion: Your God (is king [melek])****"
This is unraveled:
–“the mountain(s”: these are…?) for all (?..?).
–“he who bears good news”: h(e is the one an)ointed by the Spir(it);
of him he says:
–"(?..who bears good news of) good, he who proclai(ms salvation)."
That is what is w(ritt)en about him, where he (says):
–"(?..?) to com(fort all who mourn" Isa 61:2).*****
(?..?) he will make them wise in all the times (of wrath)
(?..in) truth (?..?)
(?..she) turns away from Belial and (?..?)
(?..?) by the judgment(s) of God,
as it is written about him (Isa 52:7):
–"(He who says to Zi)on: Your God is king!"
(“Zi)on”: th(at is…?)
(?..those) who establish the covenant,
those who turned away from walking (in the w)ay of the peoples.
“Your G(o)d”: that is (?..from) Belial.
And where he says:
–"You shall direct the trump(et to sound) in the (seventh) mo(nth…?)
— Dead Sea Scrolls, Melchizedek Fragment (11Qmelch)

[NOTE: This text was originally a good example of messianic exegesis at Qumran. But the poor condition of the ms. fragment delayed its publication and prevented its inclusion in the popular collections of the Dead Sea scrolls. Wording that is decipherable, printed in boldface, though often lacking coherence, offers important points of comparison with messianic passages in the NT. So it is presented here, despite the difficult reading caused by the frequent sizeable lacunae (?..?), which prevent a complete and exact reconstruction. The conjectural portions of the translation (text in parentheses), follow the readings suggested by M. deJonge and A.S. vander Woude (NTS 12, 1965-66). ]

• deror: or “pardon.”

** qetz: or “time.” Hebrew word has same connotations of English “term.”

*** El: ms. varies from Massoretic text, which has here: YHWH (“Lord”).

**** lit: “Melek is your God.” While this verse is clearly the source of the author’s identification of Melchizedek with passages in the Psalms referring to “God,” it is unclear whether he read it as a proclamation that God is king or that Melchizedek is divine.

***** Isa 61:2: com(fort all who mourn) is this translator’s tentative reconstruction, made likely by the fact that the author has just identified the herald of Isa 52:7 was “anointed by the Spirit,” a characteristic not mentioned in that passage but invoked in Isa 61:1.

virtualreligion.net/iho/eschaton.html#Melchizedek

 

[runandsew]

I don’t know if he was Shem or an Angel but if the Church Fathers say he was neither then I accept that.

Looking at that commentary that you provided, it looks like the fathers condemned the belief that he was and angle or holy spirit, since he was a man. It didn’t mention, from the fathers, about their opinion about him being shem.
I don’t think Scott Hahn would be teaching this if the Church Fathers were against it, he is kind of funny that way, he loves to bring up what the fathers did teach and believe.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I might be wrong but somewhere in the book of Hebrews when it talks about Melchizedek doesn’t it say that “He was without father or mother”?

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

I might be wrong but somewhere in the book of Hebrews when it talks about Melchizedek doesn’t it say that “He was without father or mother”?

That might be due to the fact that his ancestry was unknown when Hebrews was written, or possibly it may also be due to the fact that he was so old when Abram encountered him, if indeed it was Shem.

 

[NotWorthy]

That might be due to the fact that his ancestry was unknown when Hebrews was written, or possibly it may also be due to the fact that he was so old when Abram encountered him, if indeed it was Shem.

If Hebrews was inspired, wouldn’t the author have known?

 

[NotWorthy]

Hebrews 7:1-4:

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. See how great he is to whom the patriarch “Abraham (indeed) gave a tenth” of his spoils.

This comes from the NAB:

Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life: this is perhaps a quotation from a hymn about Melchizedek. The rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. Consequently, since the Old Testament nowhere mentions Melchizedek’s ancestry, birth, or death, the conclusion can be drawn that he remains . . . forever.

 

[thistle]

Looking at that commentary that you provided, it looks like the fathers condemned the belief that he was and angle or holy spirit, since he was a man. It didn’t mention, from the fathers, about their opinion about him being shem.
I don’t think Scott Hahn would be teaching this if the Church Fathers were against it, he is kind of funny that way, he loves to bring up what the fathers did teach and believe.

You might be right. I just don’t know but the commentary says he is not Shem.

In the D-R Bible the Haydock commentary on Gen 14:18

Melchisedech was not Sem: for his geneology is given in Scripture, Heb 7, nor God the Son, for they are compared together; nor the Holy Spirit, 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 Aaro, offering in sacrifice bread and wine, a figure of Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass; as the Fathers constantly affirm.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi all,
I’m new to this site. I hope to have interesting conversations with you all. I was wondering What some of you thought about Melchizedek.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a sectarian text in which Melchizedek is understood to be an angel. In the Bible he is mentioned twice: Genesis 14:18-20 and Psalm 110:4. In Hebrews 7 Paul draws some parallels between Jesus and Melchizedek. I found some of these statements at salvantionhistory.com, Dr. Scott Hahn’s website.

There is another theory that he was Shem, the son of Noah. Shem received his father’s blessing at the end of Chapter 9 of Genesis. The dates in Genesis 11 indicate that Shem lived 500 years after the flood, and beyond the time of Abram. From Adam until the Levites of Exodus, the first born son acted as priest of the extended family. Could this be part of God’s plan, to have the first born son of Noah, the 2nd Adam, pass his blessing directly to Abram? Any insight on this topic would welcomed.

He is probably to be understood as priest-king of Salem. “God most High” is “El Elyon” - a title for which there are Canaanite analogies; see also Gen 14:18:​

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he [was] the priest of the most high God.

As for the name Melchi-zedek, it means “[the god] Zedek is my king” - which ties in with the name of the later ruler Adoni-zedek, “Zedek is my lord”, who was subdued & mutilated by the Israelites.
All of which fits more or less neatly into the period 1800 to 1200 BC; which also represents the possible range of dates for Abraham - different parts of the Abraham narratives fit different dates: partly because of the Biblical data.

The later texts don’t explain Gen 14.18-20; they presuppose it, without giving any reliably historical information. The interpretation of his name as “king of righteousness” in Hebrews is probably due either to a variant text - perhaps one sanitised to avoid mentioning other gods, as often happens in the OT - or to a spiritualising exegesis.

To identify him with Shem causes needless difficulties, and is in any case wholly without foundation. It implies that the age of 600 years ascribed to Shem is to be taken as historically accurate information; which in turn implies that the ages ascribed to the other Patriarchs are also soberly historical. This in turn implies that the Flood happened in 2348 BC - which is an impossibility.

The significance of the ages from Adam to Joseph is that they imply a theology of history - P (= the “priestly” source of the relevant parts of Genesis) is very interested in time, whether of lifespans or of the Sabbath

It is most unlikely that the more or less historical Patriarchs (= those beginning with Abraham) would have had any idea of their true ages. Their contemporaries lived a normal span, so far as can be judged - so it would have been very odd if they had lived three or four times as long. Gradual decline in age (sometimes after a flood) is a familiar idea - early generations were thought to have been exceptional in bodily strength, lifespan, wisdom: one finds this motif elsewhere in the Bible, & outside it.

 

[runandsew]

To identify him with Shem causes needless difficulties, and is in any case wholly without foundation. It implies that the age of 600 years ascribed to Shem is to be taken as historically accurate information; which in turn implies that the ages ascribed to the other Patriarchs are also soberly historical. This in turn implies that the Flood happened in 2348 BC - which is an impossibility.

But all the dating of the events of the old testament would be based on the ages written in the old testament. So that age issue wouldn’t be an issue unless you knew that exact time of Abraham, and the exact time when the flood occured, and they proved that it was impossible. If the ages recorded in the Bible are not their real ages it really wouldn’t matter in any case, because they overlap. So if the long ages recorded just mean that they were very important men, or that they lived a really long life, again the age issue wouldn’t rule this possibility out because the ages overlap.
And to say that it is without foundation is wrong, because the foundation would be the oral tradition which was finally written down in the Targums.