Melchizedek

  • Thread starter Thread starter redrosetea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CHAPTER XXI3.
OF MELCHIZEDEK4.

NEITHER the father nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents5, but that p. 34 they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shâlâh and Mâlâh, Shâlâh was written down in the genealogies; but Mâlâh was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies.
I’m curious where the author got this information. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Melchizedek was from the seed of Shem.

Also, the preface to this writing, The book of the Bee, claims that the author was an Nestorian!!! Am I confused, or are you citing text from a heretic???
 
If you look at the chronology of the Bible you will see that it could possibly be Shem- he lived long enough to encompass Abraham’s life- and that his name means “name” in the old Hebrew. He also was the King of Salem (peace) that became Jerusalem.As God said "I will give you a name (shem).
 
I’m curious where the author got this information. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Melchizedek was from the seed of Shem.
I can’t believe I wrote this!!!

I meant, I’ve never heard anyone claim that **Melchizedek was from the seed of Canaan, **as the author of “The Bee” claims.

I am such an idiot! :doh2:
 
Melchizedek was probably a Jebusite ruler of Salem.
Thank you. Any thoughts on why you think this? Or where the earlier traditions are wrong?

Why would Abram give tribute to this King, when Abram was not under any kingship but God’s?
 
I recall a Pentecostal pastor telling me (what, about 20 years ago) that Melchizedek was an Old Testament manifestation of God. The reasoning was that Jesus was not necessarily the first and only time that God took on human form. He could have done it many times (to help, to have a look around, to do some “prior research into the human condition, leading up to you-know-who”); he could have conjured himself a human body and vanished just as quickly, as often as he liked.

Just remembering, that’s all.
 
Thank you. Any thoughts on why you think this? Or where the earlier traditions are wrong?

Why would Abram give tribute to this King, when Abram was not under any kingship but God’s?
Well, The Jebusites controlled Salem (later called Jerusalem) until the time of David:

Josh 15:63 The men of Judah were unable to conquer the Jebusites living in Jerusalem. The Jebusites live with the people of Judah in Jerusalem to this very day.

Judg 1:21 The men of Benjamin, however, did not conquer the Jebusites living in Jerusalem. The Jebusites live with the people of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this very day.

2 Sam 5:6 Then the king and his men advanced to Jerusalem against the Jebusites who lived in the land…5:7 But David captured the fortress of Zion (that is, the city of David)…5:9 So David lived in the fortress and called it the City of David. David built all around it, from the terrace inwards.

So, Jebusites control Jerusalem until David. This would seem to mean that when Melchizedek is the priest-king of [Jeru]Salem when it is under control of the Jebusites. Secondly, there is another mention of a ruler of Jerusalem around the conquest of Joshua (remember, Joshua explicily says in ch 15 that it was Jebusites in Jerusalem) that shares a common thing with Melchizedek:

Josh 10:1 Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem…10:3 So King Adonizedek of Jerusalem sent this message to King Hoham of Hebron

Adonizedek (‘my lord is righteousness’) is a theophoric name of the Jerbusite king of Jerusalem. You can easily see the affinity with the theophoric name “Melchizedek” (‘my king is righteousness’). It may even be that Adonizedek and Melchizedek are titles of the king of Salem (but I’m not sure about that part)?

In any case, since the Jebusites control Jerusalem before David and since Melchizedek shares theophoric elements with another known Jebusite ruler of Jerusalem, I think it’s safe to say Melchizedek himself was a Jebusite.

The author of Hebrews picks up on this anamoly. Melchizedek has no listed genealogy in Genesis, which is extremely important for priesthood legitimacy in the second temple period, and yet Genesis considers him a valid high priest before God. Abram even gives him tribute (and I would say it appears they offer sacrifices together as well). Jesus is not connected to the tribe of Levi yet Jesus performs a high priestly function. When reflecting on what kind of High Priest Jesus is, Hebrews points out that Jesus is one like Melchizedek.
 
Well, The Jebusites controlled Salem (later called Jerusalem) until the time of David:

The author of Hebrews picks up on this anamoly. Melchizedek has no listed genealogy in Genesis, which is extremely important for priesthood legitimacy in the second temple period, and yet Genesis considers him a valid high priest before God. Abram even gives him tribute (and I would say it appears they offer sacrifices together as well). Jesus is not connected to the tribe of Levi yet Jesus performs a high priestly function. When reflecting on what kind of High Priest Jesus is, Hebrews points out that Jesus is one like Melchizedek.
Do we know which of Noah’s sons (Ham, Japheth or Shem) the Jebusites descended from?

Did they worship the same God as Abraham (God Most High, the creator of heaven and earth)?
 
Do we know which of Noah’s sons (Ham, Japheth or Shem) the Jebusites descended from?

Did they worship the same God as Abraham (God Most High, the creator of heaven and earth)?
I think the Jebsute lineage is given as:

Ham-Canaan-Jebusites.

I don’t think we are told much about their worship patterns or particular beliefs. When the Jebusites are mentioned, they are usually mentioned in conjunction with other Canaanite tribes and are targeted for war/defeat with the other Canaanites. They aren’t mentioned too much though and not much information is given about them.
 
I think the Jebsute lineage is given as:

Ham-Canaan-Jebusites.

I don’t think we are told much about their worship patterns or particular beliefs. When the Jebusites are mentioned, they are usually mentioned in conjunction with other Canaanite tribes and are targeted for war/defeat with the other Canaanites. They aren’t mentioned too much though and not much information is given about them.
I guess I’m trying to figure out how these alliances were working in Gen 14. They are confusing. The alliance of kingdoms in verse 1 is Shinar (Ham), Ellasar (not sure), Elam (Shem), Goiim (Japheth) against the alliance of kingdoms in verse 2, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim (all Ham). The first alliance beats the second one, then Abraham (Shem) defeats the first alliance.

Why does Melchizedek king of Salem show up all of a sudden?

What is his association with Abraham? especially if Melchizedek is Jebusite (Ham).
 
Well, The Jebusites controlled Salem (later called Jerusalem) until the time of David:

Josh 15:63 The men of Judah were unable to conquer the Jebusites living in Jerusalem. The Jebusites live with the people of Judah in Jerusalem to this very day.

Judg 1:21 The men of Benjamin, however, did not conquer the Jebusites living in Jerusalem. The Jebusites live with the people of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this very day.

2 Sam 5:6 Then the king and his men advanced to Jerusalem against the Jebusites who lived in the land…5:7 But David captured the fortress of Zion (that is, the city of David)…5:9 So David lived in the fortress and called it the City of David. David built all around it, from the terrace inwards.

So, Jebusites control Jerusalem until David. This would seem to mean that when Melchizedek is the priest-king of [Jeru]Salem when it is under control of the Jebusites. Secondly, there is another mention of a ruler of Jerusalem around the conquest of Joshua (remember, Joshua explicily says in ch 15 that it was Jebusites in Jerusalem) that shares a common thing with Melchizedek:

Josh 10:1 Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem…10:3 So King Adonizedek of Jerusalem sent this message to King Hoham of Hebron

Adonizedek (‘my lord is righteousness’) is a theophoric name of the Jerbusite king of Jerusalem. You can easily see the affinity with the theophoric name “Melchizedek” (‘my king is righteousness’). It may even be that Adonizedek and Melchizedek are titles of the king of Salem (but I’m not sure about that part)?

In any case, since the Jebusites control Jerusalem before David and since Melchizedek shares theophoric elements with another known Jebusite ruler of Jerusalem, I think it’s safe to say Melchizedek himself was a Jebusite.

The author of Hebrews picks up on this anamoly. Melchizedek has no listed genealogy in Genesis, which is extremely important for priesthood legitimacy in the second temple period, and yet Genesis considers him a valid high priest before God. Abram even gives him tribute (and I would say it appears they offer sacrifices together as well). Jesus is not connected to the tribe of Levi yet Jesus performs a high priestly function. When reflecting on what kind of High Priest Jesus is, Hebrews points out that Jesus is one like Melchizedek.
But Abram wasn’t a “vassal” of Melchizedek’s. All of Abram’s actions indicate that he does not want to be a vassal of anybody’s (for instance, you look at how he handles the acquiring of the tomb for his wife).

Secondly, all the tribes back then used animal sacrifice… the sacrifice of bread and wine was most unique.
 
I’m curious where the author got this information. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Melchizedek was from the seed of Shem.

Also, the preface to this writing, The book of the Bee, claims that the author was an Nestorian!!! Am I confused, or are you citing text from a heretic???
So what if Mar Solomon was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East? The book was not really an original work: it was more a compilation (hence the name; as a ). It may have been ‘tainted’ by Nestorianism, but the Melchizedek part does not seem to have any problematic area in it.

Now, based on what I’ve found out, the legend recounted in the Book of the Bee is apparently one of the stories that was circulated in order to counter claims, common in some circles before and during the time this tome was written due to a selective reading of passages mentioning him in the Bible, that Melchizedek was actually divine. Another (earlier) Syrian work, the Cave of Treasures also provides an apologetic against this misconception - in fact, it seems the Book of the Bee drew upon this work!

And after the death of Noah Shem did as his father had commanded him. And he went into the Ark by night, and brought out the body of Adam therefrom, and he sealed the Ark with his father’s seal, and no man perceived [what he had done]. And he called Ham and Japhet, and said unto them, “My brethren, my father commanded me to go up and travel over the earth, even to the sea (i.e. the Mediterranean), and I am to see what the rivers are like, and then return unto you. And behold, my wife and the children of my house are with you (i.e. in your care); let your eyes be upon them.” And his brethren said unto him, “Take with thee a company of men from the camp, for the land is a desert waste, and is shorn of inhabitants, and there are wild beasts therein.” And Shem said unto them, “The Angel of the Lord shall go up with me, and he shall save me from every evil thing”; and his brethren said unto him, “Go in peace, and may the Lord God of our Fathers be with thee.” And Shem said unto Mâlâkh (the brother of Shâlâh (Salah), the son of [Cainan] and [grand]son of Arphaxad), the father of Melchisedek, and Yôzadhâk, his mother, “Give ye me Melchisedek, that he may go up with me, and be a consolation for me on the road.” And Mâlâkh and Yôzadhâk, his mother, said unto Shem, “Take [him] and go in peace.” And Shem gave commands unto his brethren, and said unto them, “My brethren, my father made me swear that neither I, nor any of your descendants, should go into the Ark,” and he sealed the Ark with his seal, and said unto them, “Let no man go near it.”…

[Shem and Melchizedek go into what would be the site of Golgotha and bury Adam’s body there]

…And Shem said unto Melchisedek, “Thou shalt be the priest of the Most High God, because thou alone hath God chosen to minister before Him in this place. And thou shalt sit (i.e. dwell) here continually, and shalt not depart from this place all the days of thy life. Thou shalt not take a wife, thou shalt not shave thy head, and thou shalt not pour out blood in this place. Thou shalt not offer up wild beasts nor feathered fowl, but thou shalt offer up bread and wine always; and thou shalt not build a building in this place. And behold, the Angel of the Lord shall come down to thee and visit thee continually.” And Shem embraced and kissed Melchisedek, and blessed him, and he returned to his brethren. And Mâlâkh, the father of Melchisedek, and Yôzâdhâk, his mother, said [unto Shem], “Where is the young man?” And he said, “He died on the journey, and I buried him there” (i.e. where he died); and they mourned for him greatly.

And when Shem had lived six hundred years he died, and Arphakhshar, his son, and Shâlâh (Salah), and `Abhâr (Eber), his sons, buried him.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

A singular story is told of Melchizedek in the Ethiopian Book of Adam and Eve, which, before it was turned into a Christian work, seems to have presented a strange combination of Jewish and Egyptian elements emanating from a sect afterward known as the Melchizedekites. There (iii. 13-21) Noah tells his son Shem before his death to take “Melchizedek, the son of Canaan, whom God had chosen from all generations of men, and to stand by the dead body of Adam after it had been brought from the ark to Jerusalem as the center of the earth and fulfil the ministry before God.” The angel Michael then took away Melchizedek, when fifteen years of age, from his father, and, after having anointed him as priest, brought him to (Jerusalem) the center of the earth, telling his father to share the mystery only with Shem, the son of Noah, while the Holy Spirit, speaking out of the ark when the body of Adam was hidden, greeted Melchizedek as “the first-created of God.” Shem went, carrying bread and wine, and, assisted by the angel, brought the body of Adam to its destination. Melchizedek offered the bread and wine upon the altar they built near the place where Adam’s body was deposited, and then Shem departed, leaving the pure lad in his garment of skins under the sole protection of the angel, no one on earth knowing of his whereabouts until, at last, Abraham met him.
 
By presenting Melchizedek with a visible mother and father, any interpretation that presents him as a divine being is countered. Some claim that the Jewish version of the story that he was Shem himself also served a same purpose: it also dispels notions that he was literally without mother or father.

It is even said that the Melchizedek=Shem identification was actually a polemic against Christianity: remember that Jewish legen mentioning how Melchizedek lost his priesthood because he blessed Abraham first before God? And as for the ‘Melchizedek born already circumcised’ story: St. Justin Martyr once elaborated on how Melchizedek was a “priest of those who were in uncircumcision”, thereby foreshadowing the eternal Priest who would also become priest of those in uncircumcision (Dialogue with Trypho 33). In this idea, whereas early Christians tended to exalt Melchizedek - sometimes to the point of verging into outright heresy - the Jews had a twofold response to this enigmatic figure and the way Christians treated him: they either relocated him well within Judaism or downplayed his importance.
 
But Abram wasn’t a “vassal” of Melchizedek’s. All of Abram’s actions indicate that he does not want to be a vassal of anybody’s (for instance, you look at how he handles the acquiring of the tomb for his wife).

Secondly, all the tribes back then used animal sacrifice… the sacrifice of bread and wine was most unique.
I never said anything about Abram being Melchizedek’s vassal; I never disputed anything about sacrifices.

I’m not sure why it appears you are trying to debate those things…

I really have only said that Melchizedek was a Jebusite.
 
I’m curious where the author got this information. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Melchizedek was from the seed of Shem.

Also, the preface to this writing, The book of the Bee, claims that the author was an Nestorian!!! Am I confused, or are you citing text from a heretic???
If it is the Nestor that I am thinking about he was a heretic…I can’t recall which dogma he tried to change or interpret in another way…but I have heard Fr Groeschel talk about it
 
There was a St Nestor and it could be him

St. Nestor
Feastday: February 26

Bishop of Magydos. Pamphylia, and martyr. He was arrested during the persecution under Emperor Trajanus Decius and was put to death when he refused to make sacrifices to the gods. The local governor, Pollio, condemned Nestor to death.
 
It make more sense to me that Melchizedek is Shem or one of his descendants. After all the fighting of Chapter 14 Abraham (descendant of Shem) ruled over the descendants of Ham and Japheth - just as Noah had prophesied.

When Noah woke up from his drunkenness and learned what his youngest son had done to him, he said: “Cursed be Caanan! The lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” He also said: “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! Let Canaan be his slave. May God expand Japheth, so that he dwells among the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.” (Gen 9:24-27)

Then all of a sudden Melchizedek appears and pronounces a blessing over Abraham that sounds like the blessing that Noah pronounced over Shem

Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your foes into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. (Gen 14:19-20)

If Melchizedek is really Shem, then it means that the blessing God gave to Noah and Noah in turn gave to Shem is now being passed on to Abraham unbroken. And it means that Abraham is being consecrated a righteous first-born son and a priest of God Most High. This would make perfect sense for the plot and meaning of the rest of the Bible, because the nation of Israel is conceived as God’s “first-born son” and a “kingdom of priests.” And later David and Solomon are called “first-born” sons who are kings and priests.

**A psalm of David. The LORD says to you, my lord: “Take your throne at my righthand, while I make your enemies your footstool.” The scepter of your sovereign might the LORD will extend from Zion. The LORD says: “Rule over your enemies! Yours is princely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendor before the daystar, like the dew I begot you.” The LORD has sworn and will not waver: “Like Melchizedek you are a priest forever.” (Psalm 110:1-4) **
 
There was a St Nestor and it could be him

St. Nestor
Feastday: February 26

Bishop of Magydos. Pamphylia, and martyr. He was arrested during the persecution under Emperor Trajanus Decius and was put to death when he refused to make sacrifices to the gods. The local governor, Pollio, condemned Nestor to death.
Nope! We’re talking about Nestorius the Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 386–c. 451) here and the heresy which bears his name.

Just to supplement my last post, the works which list the “Melchizedek=Canaan’s descendant” story:

The Book of Adam and Eve, aka The Conflict of Adam and Eve (Arabic/Ge’ez): a 5th or 6th century work probably first written in Egypt.

The Cave of Treasures (Syriac): Traditionally attributed to St. Ephrem the Syrian (ca. 306 – 373), though most likely written in the 6th century AD or later by someone who belonged to Ephrem’s school, probably in Mesopotamia.

The Book of the Bee, aka The Book of Gleanings called ‘The Bee’ (Syriac): A 13th century work containing, according to E.A. Wallis Budge, “a full history of the Christian Dispensation according to the Nestorians.” It was written by the Nestorian Mar Solomon of Perâth Maishân (aka Al-Basra or 'Basorah). Solomon apparently used the Cave of Treasures as one of his sources for many of the legends of the early Patriarchs.

From what I can see, it would seem that the author of The Cave of Treasures either drew upon The Book of Adam and Eve or at least, from the same source/s the author of the latter used; Solomon then used The Cave as one source for his Book of the Bee.
 
But Abram wasn’t a “vassal” of Melchizedek’s. All of Abram’s actions indicate that he does not want to be a vassal of anybody’s (for instance, you look at how he handles the acquiring of the tomb for his wife).

Secondly, all the tribes back then used animal sacrifice… the sacrifice of bread and wine was most unique.
What about if Malkitzedek is an ‘ally’ of sorts to Abram?
By the way, I was just reminded of that footnote from the NAB (the present edition, mind):

Salem: traditionally identified with Jerusalem (Psalm 76:3), but the Hebrew text is not certain; instead of the present melek shalem (“king of Salem”), the original may have been melek shelomo (“a king allied to him”). In Hebrews 7:2 “king of Salem” is interpreted as “king of peace” (shalom).

Just to elaborate on that, the person who theorized this is Prof. William Albright. According to him, the reading “king of Salem” is actually the result of a haplography. The current Hebrew text for verse 14 reads:

‏וּמַלְכִּי־צֶ֙דֶק֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ שָׁלֵ֔ם הוֹצִ֖יא לֶ֣חֶם וָיָ֑יִן וְה֥וּא כֹהֵ֖ן לְאֵ֥ל עֶלְיֽוֹן׃

ûmaləkî-ṣeḏeq meleḵə šālēm hwōṣî’ leḥem wāyāyin wəhû’ ḵōhēn lə’ēl ‘eləywōn

Albright proposed that the letter he in שלמה shlomo (‘his peace’) was accidentally dropped - note that the next word after shalem is הוֹצִ֖יא hotzi ‘brought out’. Hence, the resulting phrase according to Albright’s reconstruction was melek shlomo, “king of his [Abram’s] peace” or more loosely, “king of his alliance”.

He thought that the identification of ‘šālēm’ with Jerusalem here was based on a later (yet apparently still ancient) tradition, which is already reflected in Psalm 76:2. We do not know when exactly it arose, but it is apparently so current in the 1st century AD that it is mentioned in Josephus (Antiquities 1.10.2) and various Targumim. The other, less Palestinian-centric interpretation connecting salem with shalom is reflected in Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews: ‘king of peace’.

IMO, since the Septuagint records melek salem as βασιλεὺς Σαλημ, this omission might have happened early - if Albright’s theory is correct.
 
I never said anything about Abram being Melchizedek’s vassal; I never disputed anything about sacrifices.

I’m not sure why it appears you are trying to debate those things…

I really have only said that Melchizedek was a Jebusite.
I’m just questioning the validity of this reasoning.

One offers sacrifice to one’s superior. For Abram to offer sacrifice to a Jebusite king implies that Abram owed fealty to that king. As I mentioned, Abram didn’t want to owe anything to the Canaanites in any way, shape, or form. That’s why he went back to his homeland to find a wife for Isaac. That’s why he was so adamant not to owe any favors to the Canaanites when he was trying to get a burial plot for Sarah.

Melchizedek, if he was Shem, was Abraham’s superior and would not be a Jebusite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top