Who exactly is Melchizedek?

[ryanoneil]

Why do people have a problem with Melchizedek not being man nor angel? The bible says he had no father or mother so he couldn’t be Shem. If his priesthood endures forever he’s not a man.

I guess he could be an angel but why does he have to be?

Look people–God can create Melchizedek without him being man or angel.

He serves God and Jesus is in his order of priesthood–look if Jesus is in his order then Melchizedek has to be pretty special–I think that rules out him being just a man and if he were King of Salem I think that rules out him being an angel also.

I think the same people that can’t conceive of animals being in heaven are the same people that can’t conceive of Melchizedek being neither man nor angel.

They have on track narrow minds–God is bigger than that!

All things are possible with God, but “being without father or mother” may be the authors way of contrasting the genealogy requirements of the Levitical priesthood (which neither Jesus nor Melchizedek had). And “priesthood forever” maybe contrasting the 20 year limit placed on the Levitical ministry (which the two were not subject to).

 

[inkaneer]

The “genesis” if you will, of Melchizedek being some sort of divine being seems to have come from the Letter to the Hebrews:

Hebrews 7:1-4
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

“For this Melchisedech was king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him: To whom also Abraham divided the tithes of all: who first indeed by interpretation, is king of justice: and then also king of Salem, that is, king of peace: Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest for ever. Now consider how great this man is, to whom also Abraham the patriarch gave tithes out of the principal things.”

I always thought that he was The Word, second person of the Trinity, in human form appearing to Abraham. It’s that term, ‘without genealogy’ that indicates that whoever Melchisedech was he always existed and that can only mean God.

 

[po18guy]

I always thought that he was The Word, second person of the Trinity, in human form appearing to Abraham. It’s that term, ‘without genealogy’ that indicates that whoever Melchisedech was he always existed and that can only mean God.

One of the mysteries of a mysterious God.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks, I’d be interested in seeing it. I’m not knowledgable about the different text, but according to the NABRE the math adds up. (Gen 11:10-26) says Shem was 100 at the birth of Arpachshad and lived another 500 years after that. Abram is born 290 years after the birth of Arpachshad, making Shem 390. And (Gen 25:7) says Abraham lived to be 175, meaning Shem actually outlived him by 35 years.

Before we go there, here is the chart I posted earlier in this thread:



Note that many of the ages don’t match up with each other.

1.) The Masoretic and the Samaritan generally agree with one another over the ages of many of the antediluvian patriarchs when they begat children and when they died, with the exception of Jared (who according to the Samaritan text, was at the modest age of 62 when he first had offspring and died at the age of 847 - in contrast to the Masoretic and Septuagint’s age 162 and 962), Methuselah (was 67 when he had children and 720 when he died), and Lamech (aged 53 when he begat offspring and 653 at the time of his death). The result of this is that in the Samaritan OT, Methuselah is no longer the one who has the longest lifespan at the time of his death, but Adam (at age 930).

2.) When compared to the Masoretic, the Septuagint has a tendency to push the antediluvian patriarchs’ ages when they bore children by a hundred years. Again, the exception to this is Jared (both the Masoretic and the LXX agree that he begat during age 162 and died 800 years later) and Lamech (the Septuagint has 188/753 in contrast to the 182/777 of the Masoretic).

3.) All three agree in saying that Noah had children when he was 502 years old (although the Samaritan text has him die fifty years earlier than both the Masoretic and the Septuagint at age 900), and that Shem begat when he was 100 and died at age 600. Arphachshad is where the Septuagint and the Samaritan begin again to diverge from the Masoretic text.

4.) The Septuagint inserts an extra patriarch in between Arphachshad and Salah, Cainan, not found in both the Samaritan or the Hebrew. (For the record, Cainan can also be found in Luke 3:36)

…the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

5.) Aside from the aforementioned Cainan, both the Septuagint and the Samaritan texts tend to add a hundred years into the ages in which most of the postdiluvian patriarchs had children: the Septuagint does so from Arphachshad to Nahor, with the Samaritan from Arphachshad to Serug (Nahor gets an extra fifty years).

6.) The Samaritan mostly agrees with the Hebrew concerning the ages in which the postdiluvian patriarchs died, with the exception of Eber (died age 404 in Samaritan and Septuagint, fifty years earlier than the Hebrew) and Terah (died age 145, sixty years earlier than the Masoretic’s and Septuagint’s 205).

If we do the math, in the Septuagint version, Shem would have already apparently been dead 19 years before Heber fathered Peleg.

As for Josephus, he generally follows the Septuagint version of the ages, but with a few differences, in that here Shem fathers Arpachshad twelve years after the flood at age 112,
Serug fathers Nahor at age 132, and Nahor fathers Haran at age 120.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

All things are possible with God, but “being without father or mother” may be the authors way of contrasting the genealogy requirements of the Levitical priesthood (which neither Jesus nor Melchizedek had). And “priesthood forever” maybe contrasting the 20 year limit placed on the Levitical ministry (which the two were not subject to).

The lack of the genealogy requirements is what I heard several years back when I heard that he was Shem.

 

[donsnow]

Again, main problem with this is, Shem can only be alive in Abram’s time if we take the ages of the patriarchs in the Masoretic text to be accurate - which puts us in a dilemma when we compare the ages as they found in the Septuagint and the Samaritan Torah. So the question is: which of these three textual traditions - all of whom disagree with one another on this point in places - represent accurately the ‘original’ version and which is ‘corrupt’?

FTR I’ve written a series of posts about this actually and would dig them up later.

Good evening, Patrick,

I go by the English translation from the Masoretic text, because I consider the Masoretic text as the original text, and the others revised copies of the Masoretic scriptures.

God loves you,
Don

 

[patrick457]

Thanks, I’d be interested in seeing it. I’m not knowledgable about the different text, but according to the NABRE the math adds up. (Gen 11:10-26) says Shem was 100 at the birth of Arpachshad and lived another 500 years after that. Abram is born 290 years after the birth of Arpachshad, making Shem 390. And (Gen 25:7) says Abraham lived to be 175, meaning Shem actually outlived him by 35 years.

As promised, here you go: a quick review of the various conflicting stories and ideas about Melchizedek.

 

[Crumpy]

The previous posts seem to do a good job of conveying the major points in the Ignatius Study Bible about Melchizedek.

If it’s been said already, I apologize for repeating a certain point. Christ’s priesthood is an eternal priesthood, on the “order” of M. who likewise seems to have had no particular beginning or end. I think it’s Hebrews itself which points out that the Levitical priests were mortal and died, hence who priesthood was limited, unlike Christ’s.

M. might not be an actual personal name, but a title. There was a Caanite god referred to in late writings as Sydyk, who was a sun god and whose character was related to righteousness or justice. M. is one of several known names that incorporate the name of a this pagan god. It may have been a favorite title for kings of Jerusalem.
(Jewish Publication Society Commentary on Genesis, Rabbi Nahum Sarnu)

 

[Bookcat]

Melchizedek

 

[figs]

I always thought that he was The Word, second person of the Trinity, in human form appearing to Abraham. It’s that term, ‘without genealogy’ that indicates that whoever Melchisedech was he always existed and that can only mean God.

Me too! …Especially since the three men/ angels that appeared to Abraham are believed to be the God head / Trinity.

 

[patrick457]

Me too! …Especially since the three men/ angels that appeared to Abraham are believed to be the God head / Trinity.

(18:1) And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth (…) And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah (…) And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate. (…)

Then the men set out from there, and they looked down toward Sodom. And Abraham went with them to set them on their way. (…) So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. … And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. (19:1) The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth…

There are two ways of reading this passage. St. Augustine believes that yes, the three men here are supposed to be the three persons of the Trinity, seeing no indication that the visitors were unequal (Lot for instance seems to speak to them in the singular in Genesis 19:18). St. Justin Martyr, on the other hand, supposed that it was God - more specifically, the second person of the Trinity - and two angels.

 

[patrick457]

Good evening, Patrick,

I go by the English translation from the Masoretic text, because I consider the Masoretic text as the original text, and the others revised copies of the Masoretic scriptures.

God loves you,
Don

A slightly not-too-related picking of nits, hope you don’t mind.

The Masoretic Text per se achieved its final form around the Middle Ages. Its oldest extant manuscripts date from approximately the 9th century, and the Aleppo Codex (once the oldest complete copy of the MT, but now missing its Torah section) dates from the 10th century, with the Leningrad Codex dating a few decades later, well into the early 11th century. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries.

Now the majority of Biblical fragments found in Qumran and Masada are close to the MT (in the sense that the consonants differ little - vowel points or niqqud were not invented yet), suggesting that its ancestor was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BC. (For convenience, we’ll call this ancestor ‘Proto-Masoretic’.) However, a few other texts differ substantially: some (Hebrew) fragments agree with the Septuagint, others reflect the text of the Samaritan Torah (‘Proto-Samaritan’), still others are apparently based on the Proto-Masoretic but have a few distinctive characteristics of its own (called by some ‘Qumran style’), yet others could not be clearly classified - since, for instance, they show no consistent alignment with any of the other text-types. All this shows that all three texts - Masoretic, Septuagint and Samaritan - have ancestors of nearly-equal antiquity, that there was not always the scrupulous uniformity of text that was so stressed in later centuries, and that even within textual families there could be variation.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If Shem were Melchizidek exactly how old would he have been when he met Abraham–best case youngest scenario of whatever translation would have him at his youngest point?

Wouldn’t he have been very very old?

Is the Shem hypothesis pro Jewish and anti Christian? Were its earliest proponents Jews or Christians?

 

[patrick457]

If Shem were Melchizidek exactly how old would he have been when he met Abraham–best case youngest scenario of whatever translation would have him at his youngest point?

Wouldn’t he have been very very old?

As ryanoeil had mentioned, in the Masoretic text Shem would have been around 390 when Abram was born. Abram was around 75 years old when he left Haran (Shem would have been 465) and had a son when he was age 100 (Shem’s age would have been 490); since the Battle of Siddim occurs in between those two events, Shem would have been in his late 400s.

Is the Shem hypothesis pro Jewish and anti Christian? Were its earliest proponents Jews or Christians?

Some have the opinion that the identification of Melchizedek with Shem was formulated in a Jewish context as a response to the idea that Melchizedek lacked any connection to the Jewish people or the later levitical priesthood, which Christians exploited. (We can also see this in another example: some of the Fathers, such as St. Justin Martyr and Tertullian, were of the idea that Melchizedek was uncircumcised, using it as proof that circumcision was not important - guess what? The rabbis say that no, he was definitely circumcised, or at least came out of the womb already without his foreskin.) By identifying the priest-king as Abraham’s relative and a distant ancestor of the Hebrews, Melchizedek is thus ‘domesticated’ and is made a less problematic figure, less of a Christian ‘poster boy’ (man). However, it is also possible that this identification was one which came about before any such Christian arguments came to the fore, and before the time when such arguments seemed to Jews to require refutation.

And: we first begin to hear of the Shem hypothesis from rabbinic sources. As mentioned, it all adds up perfectly if you use the Hebrew text, but not if you use the Septuagint (which incidentally, was the one used by most Christians at that time). We then hear of some Christians (such as St. Ephrem, St. Jerome, and St. Nicolas of Lyra, all of whom have access to the Hebrew or derived versions) begin to report about or adopt this hypothesis.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Me too! …Especially since the three men/ angels that appeared to Abraham are believed to be the God head / Trinity.

There is an icon of Abraham and the three sometimes titled The Old Testament Trinity, otherwise Abraham’s hospitality. I think there is disagreement on whether it intends to actually portray the Trinity, or only a type for the Trinity.

 

[figs]

There is an icon of Abraham and the three sometimes titled The Old Testament Trinity, otherwise Abraham’s hospitality. I think there is disagreement on whether it intends to actually portray the Trinity, or only a type for the Trinity.

Thank you for the info, I am familiar with that icon!

 

[figs]

(18:1) And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth (…) And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah (…) And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate. (…)

Then the men set out from there, and they looked down toward Sodom. And Abraham went with them to set them on their way. (…) So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. … And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. (19:1) The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth…

There are two ways of reading this passage. St. Augustine believes that yes, the three men here are supposed to be the three persons of the Trinity, seeing no indication that the visitors were unequal (Lot for instance seems to speak to them in the singular in Genesis 19:18). St. Justin Martyr, on the other hand, supposed that it was God - more specifically, the second person of the Trinity - and two angels.

Thank you, Patrick

 

[donsnow]

A slightly not-too-related picking of nits, hope you don’t mind.

The Masoretic Text per se achieved its final form around the Middle Ages. Its oldest extant manuscripts date from approximately the 9th century, and the Aleppo Codex (once the oldest complete copy of the MT, but now missing its Torah section) dates from the 10th century, with the Leningrad Codex dating a few decades later, well into the early 11th century. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries.

Now the majority of Biblical fragments found in Qumran and Masada are close to the MT (in the sense that the consonants differ little - vowel points or niqqud were not invented yet), suggesting that its ancestor was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BC. (For convenience, we’ll call this ancestor ‘Proto-Masoretic’.) However, a few other texts differ substantially: some (Hebrew) fragments agree with the Septuagint, others reflect the text of the Samaritan Torah (‘Proto-Samaritan’), still others are apparently based on the Proto-Masoretic but have a few distinctive characteristics of its own (called by some ‘Qumran style’), yet others could not be clearly classified - since, for instance, they show no consistent alignment with any of the other text-types. All this shows that all three texts - Masoretic, Septuagint and Samaritan - have ancestors of nearly-equal antiquity, that there was not always the scrupulous uniformity of text that was so stressed in later centuries, and that even within textual families there could be variation.

Good afternoon, Patrick,

Well, I’m glad you “nit-picked” . I’m willing to learn more about the Holy Bible. And, I think the information you gave me is germane.

So, Thank you.

God loves you,
Don