Who is Melchizedek?
Who is Melchizedek? The OT mentions him in only two passages (Gen. 14:18-20; Ps 110:4) and six times in the NT. Is he a divine being? In short, what about him is so important for today's Christian? CM
Comments
-
The passage in Gen 14:18-20 mentions all there is to know about Melchizedek ... he was "king of Salem", he was "priest of God Most High". These 2 descriptions indicate that he was a human being. The designation of "priest" emphasizes this truth even more, since priests are not gods or God but always human beings.
Furthermore, one should note that there is no mention of any ancestry (no father, no mother) to establish his priesthood, as was the case with the Levitical priests later on. Thus, Christ's priesthood is compared to and said to be after the manner of Melchizedek's priesthood (and not the Levitical priesthood),I see no particular importance about him for today's Christian, his importance is in what he did during his life and how his priesthood served as type of Christ's priesthood.
-
Whatever assertions and arguments we make for whether Mel was Jesus or not, there remains some mystery about him. Certainly, Mel is a type of Christ and possibly Christ Himself.
-
@GaoLu said:
Certainly, Mel is a type of Christ and possibly Christ Himself.A type of someone can NOT be himself that someone, one is never a type of oneself.
-
According to Jewish tradition, Mel was the same person as Shem.
Not that this would be in any way plausible, but since we're discussing all options, this claim should not be missing. -
@Jan said:
According to Jewish tradition, Mel was the same person as Shem.In the middle ages, this was definitely the most popular understanding see 46:7 בראשית רבה (Genesis Rabbah), the Talmud ( 32B מסכת נדרים /Masekhet Nedarim 32B) and as well as the comments given by the Rishonim( ראשונים ) you find in the standard editions of the Miqraot Gedolat מקראות גדולות. And that understanding probably comes from the Targums interpretative translation of the Masoretic text were it states:
..ומלכא צדיקא הוא שם בר נח מלכא דירושלים
Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch. Hebrew Union College, 2005. Print.
And the King of Righteousness he Shem son of Noah king of Jerusalem...
(Translation mine. The above is an over-literal translation for the sake of illustration only)However, there are of course other Jewish traditions and interpretations as to the identity of מלכי־-צדק (King of Righteousness/Melchizedek). For example, take a look at this blog post that contains a discussion and a translation of 11Q13 from the dead sea scrolls:
https://otstory.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/melchizedek-in-11q13-11qmelch/ -
Here is a more modern and progressive Jewish understanding of Melchizedek:
The king of Salem, whose name may mean “The King Is Justice,”31 intrigues subsequent generations and has been the subject of much scholarly investigation. The reason for this interest is the ambiguity of 14:18, which speaks of the king being a priest either to Abram’s God or to El Elyon, El being the chief deity in the Canaanite pantheon (see comment on 14:18; but see also under Gleanings, p. 114, “The Language of Prayer,” for a third way of reading the text). Our translation adopts the first interpretation, which is also favored by Jewish tradition: Melchizedek and Abram worship the same God.
Because of this, the king later on was said to have belonged to those righteous Gentiles who, like Job and Jethro, acknowledged the Eternal as their God. The Jews of Alexandria, who were interested in proselytizing the Gentiles, considered Melchizedek a monotheist whom Abram admired and whose example other Gentiles followed. Thus, Melchizedek became a subject of speculation in Jewish and Christian traditions. Already in Psalms he is called the prototype of the ideal king who will spring from the line of David: “You are a priest forever, a rightful king (malki-tzedek) by My decree” (Psalm 110:4).
The Christians’ New Testament developed this tradition further and called Jesus the “high priest after the order of Melchizedek” [61]; the ancient king was also said to have resembled the Son of God [62] and to have been superior to Abram. Melchizedek’s merit is recalled in the Christian Mass, and the entire communion tradition of bread and wine is traced to this story.
The original importance accorded Melchizedek most likely arose from the fact that he was king of Salem and that Salem was identified with Jerusalem (Psalm 76:3) [63]. In this way tradition established a link between Abram and the Holy City, for Abram was thought to prefigure his people, who in the centuries to come would pay their tithes to the Temple on the very spot where Abram made his first covenant [64].W. Gunther Plaut and David E. S. Stein, The Torah: A Modern Commentary Revised Edition Copyright 2005, 2006 by URJ Press. Electronic edition; Accordance Bible Software
-
Scholars cannot agree on the mystery of Melchizedek in Genesis chapter 14. Melchizedek has become somewhat of a mystery. He is mentioned in three separate books of the Bible, but none of them go into detail about who he is, or where he came from. However, several scholars have theories on the man known to us as Melchizedek.
A.P. Ross in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, explains that Melchizedek means “Righteous King.” He explains the importance of Melchizedek is that he was not a Levitical priest. He also points out that in Psalm 110 David claimed that the Messiah would be of the order of Melchizedek and that would come outside of the Levitical Priesthood. Ross mentions that some believe Melchizedek was a Christophany, but he does not seem to agree with this point of view and merely states Melchizedek to be a ruler and representative of God sent to Abram.
Ross takes a very conservative approach in his interpretation of the person of Melchizedek. He strictly goes with the actual text of the Scripture and does not make any assumptions. To him, Melchizedek is exactly what the Bible says, the Ruler of Salem.
H.L. Willmington in Willmington’s Bible Handbook, gives three popular theories on who Melchizedek was. Those theories are that he could be Shem, the son of Noah, a preincarnate appearance of Christ Himself, or simply the king of Jerusalem. Willmington appears to lean towards Melchizedek being an appearance of Christ. He draws similarities between the two figures. Both were prophets, priests, and kings. He also points to the fact that Abram tithes to Melchizedek showing that Melchizedek was greater than the entire Levitical Priesthood just as Christ is the ultimate High Priest.
Willmington is more outgoing than Ross in his assessment of Melchizedek. At first glance, it appears that he is reading into the text. However, when compared with Hebrews chapter 7, it begins to become clearer as to the reasoning for his assertions about Melchizedek being the Person of Christ Himself.
W. W. Wiersbe in Be Obedient, also connects Melchizedek with the Person of Christ. He points out that that Melchizedek means “King of Righteousness,” just as Ross did in his work. However, he also points out that Melchizedek is the King of Salem, which literally means peace. The connection is made that Christ is also the “Prince of Peace” connecting him with Melchizedek. Wiersbe also points out that Jerusalem is the decedent city of Salem. Just as Melchizedek was the King of Salem, Christ will be the King of Jerusalem.
Like Willmington, Wiersbe draws on Hebrews and Psalms to compare Melchizedek to Jesus Christ. His interpretations seem to also point to Melchizedek actually being the person of Christ Himself. He also points that by Abram bringing gifts to Melchizedek, he is actually bringing gifts to Christ.
Many of the interpretations are compelling. However, it seems to be reasonable to conclude that Melchizedek was actually Christ Himself. It would not be abnormal for Christ to present himself as another as He did several times throughout the book of Genesis and also throughout the Old Testament. In short, Melchizedek shows a wonderful picture of who Christ is and what His purposes are. He is to bring peace and Righteousness to all and to be our king. -
@davidtaylorjr said:
However, it seems to be reasonable to conclude that Melchizedek was actually Christ Himself.?? what is reasonable about making such a conclusion? It makes no sense at all to anyone who simply reads what the text passages mentioning Melchizedek do say.
@davidtaylorjr said:
It would not be abnormal for Christ to present himself as another as He did several times throughout the book of Genesis and also throughout the Old Testament.?? where is Christ said to have presented himself as another throughout Genesis and throughout the OT ? It seems more that some interpreters read such ideas into the text, rather than from the text ...
@davidtaylorjr said:
In short, Melchizedek shows a wonderful picture of who Christ is and what His purposes are. He is to bring peace and Righteousness to all and to be our king.Indeed, Melchizedek provides a type of Christ, in particular of Christ's priesthood. Now, as mentioned already, a type of someone can NOT be that someone himself. Therefore, Melchizedek as a type of Christ was not Christ himself, just as Joseph was not Christ himself even though displaying certain characteristics later seen in Christ.
-
It makes no sense at all to anyone who simply reads what the text passages mentioning Melchizedek do say.
But, we already know much more of the surrounding story. Context.
Now, as mentioned already, a type of someone can NOT be that someone himself.
Yes, you have mentioned that before, so can you now tell us, in a case like this, why not?
-
@GaoLu said:
It makes no sense at all to anyone who simply reads what the text passages mentioning Melchizedek do say.
But, we already know much more of the surrounding story. Context.
No, the point is that we do not know much more from the context, because -- as is commonly acknowledged and mentioned in commentaries, etc -- the context of the passages does not really provide any further information concerning the person Melchizedek.
@GaoLu said:
Now, as mentioned already, a type of someone can NOT be that someone himself.
Yes, you have mentioned that before, so can you now tell us, in a case like this, why not?
for reason that
(a) it would no longer by "A TYPE of ..." but it would be that someone himself,
(b) that would make for 2 Christs, or
(c) Melchizedek was re-incarnatedReason (a) shows the linguistic problem with such an assumption, reasons (b) and (c) are contrary to overall Biblical truth.
Post edited by [Deleted User] on -
Or it could mean Brother Mel was in fact Jesus. That would also solve the riddle. You know, a LOT of peopel think that. (For the record I lean strongly away from Mel actually being Jesus, but just for the sake of reason I discuss this).
-
@GaoLu said:
Or it could mean Brother Mel was in fact Jesus.On what ground could it mean that? Do you realize, that IF that were the case, Jesus could not really have been a human being, Biblically speaking (since humans do not exist centuries prior to their conception and birth as some other human being or any kind of other living being)?
@GaoLu said:
That would also solve the riddle.solve which riddle? I do not see any riddle regarding Melchizedek in the Bible ...
@GaoLu said:
You know, a LOT of peopel think that. (For the record I lean strongly away from Mel actually being Jesus, but just for the sake of reason I discuss this).Well, something is not true, just because a lot of people think it is true ... and in this case, it is very obvious that the lot of people are plain wrong, because their idea contradicts reason and logic as applied to what is actually written in Scripture concerning Melchizedek.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@GaoLu said:
Or it could mean Brother Mel was in fact Jesus.On what ground could it mean that? Do you realize, that IF that were the case, Jesus could not really have been a human being, Biblically speaking (since humans do not exist centuries prior to their conception and birth as some other human being or any kind of other living being)?
You continue to put limits on God. Jesus BECAME human yet fully retaining His Deity.
@GaoLu said:
That would also solve the riddle.solve which riddle? I do not see any riddle regarding Melchizedek in the Bible ...
The riddle of, who is he?
@GaoLu said:
You discern, a LOT of peopel think that. (For the record I lean strongly away from Mel actually being Jesus, but just for the sake of reason I discuss this).Well, something is not true, just because a lot of people think it is true ... and in this case, it is very obvious that the lot of people are plain wrong, because their idea contradicts reason and logic as applied to what is actually written in Scripture concerning Melchizedek.
No, actually it doesn't. You just are closed minded to the fact Jesus is Deity and existed well before the virgin birth even though the Bible plainly says he was in the beginning.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
