Question for my Jewish brethren about Shem and Melchizedek

[ryanoneil]

I was doing an online Catholic Bible study and came across an interesting part of the lesson. According to a long tradition - Jewish and Christian - the mysterious Melchizedek is actually Shem, the great patriarch, the righteous inheritor of the blessings promised by God after the Flood. Here is some of the text and a link to it. I wonder if anyone can add to the text or comment on its validity? salvationhistory.com/online/intermediate/class1_lesson3_1.cfm

d. Shem’s Blessing

God promises to bless Abraham. And we know that those blessings come in his descendants, especially in Jesus. But during the course of Genesis, the only actual blessing that Abraham receives is from the mysterious king-priest, Melchizedek (see Genesis 14:18-20).

We have to do a little background, and even a little math, to understand what that’s all about.

Shem receives a cosmic blessing from Noah - “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem!” - which marks the first time in Scripture that God is identified with any one human being (see Genesis 9:26-27). God is designated as “the God of Shem” - a sign of Shem’s great righteousness and stature before God.

However, then Shem disappears. Unlike the other first-borns - Adam, Cain, Noah - we don’t see him fall into disgrace. In fact, we don’t hear anything more about him - except that he has sons and that ten generations later one of his descendants, Terah, gives birth to three sons, the first-born of which is Abraham (see Genesis 11:26-27). It is very curious, though, that we never see Shem - heralded as the most righteous of the men born after the Flood - handing on his blessing to his first-born or to any one of his children.

This is where the math comes in: Add up the numbers given in the account of the descendants of Shem’s line (see Genesis 11:10-26): Abraham is born 290 years after Shem’s first-born, Arpachshad. Now, if Shem is 100 years old when Arpachshad is born, that means that he’s 390 when Abraham is born. And, if Shem lived five hundred years after Arpachshad’s birth, and Abraham lived to be 175 years old (see Genesis 25:7), that means that Shem outlived Abraham by 35 years.

Who cares? Why does it matter? Well, for the ancient rabbis and for centuries of early Christian interpreters, including probably the author of the Letter to Hebrews, it mattered a great deal. It’s also the key to figuring out what’s happening between Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis 14.

If Melchizedek, a name which means “king of righteousness” (see Hebrews 7:2), is really Shem, the great son of Noah, then it means that the blessing God gave to Noah and Noah in turn gave to Shem is now being passed on to Abraham. The blessing of the righteous first-born will pass from Abraham on to Isaac (see Genesis 25:5) and to Jacob (see Genesis 27:27-29).

But with Melchizedek this blessing of the first-born becomes something royal and something priestly. And this becomes something crucial for the plot and meaning of the rest of the Bible.

Melchizedek is a high priest and a king. If he’s also the first-born son of Noah, then his blessing upon Abraham is a sort of “ordination,” a consecration, by which Abraham too becomes, not only a righteous first-born son, but a priest of God Most High.

There is probably twice as much material, on this subject, on the link above. I think this is fascinating and would love to have someone add more background to this topic.

Thank You,

Ryan

 

[Valke2]

there are a few talmudic references that suggest they were the same persion. I"ll see if I can get more information for you.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As I understand it, Shem, as the first born of Noah, would have been the family priest.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

this is a quote from the 1859 Haydock commentary of the Douay-Rheims, Genesis chapter 14 verse 18:

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. (Haydock) — See Pererius. St. Jerome, ep. ad Evagrium, says, “Melchisedech offered not bloody victims, but dedicated the sacrament of Christ in bread and wine…a pure sacrifice.” See St. Cyprian ep. 63, ad Cæcil.; St. Augustine, City of God 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.” (Worthington) — 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. (Deuteronomy xxiii. 4; 2 Kings xvii. 27.) (Haydock)

 

[ryanoneil]

this is a quote from the 1859 Haydock commentary of the Douay-Rheims, Genesis chapter 14 verse 18:

Thank you. I’m glad there is some sources of commentary out there. I’m interested to see more. It would be interesting if there were some documents backing the “long tradition” idea.