Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ the Redeemer Church of Manhattan, KS, 24 Feb. 2019
Today we finally get to Melchizedek!
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a scroll written around the time of the book of Hebrews commenting on Jewish thinking about Melchisedek. It reads, in part, “Melchizedek… will make [his inheritance] return. And liberty will be proclaimed for them, to free them from [the debt of] all their iniquities. And this will happen in the first week of ... the tenth jubilee in which atonement shall be made for all the sons of light and for the men of the lot of Melchizedek… it is the time for the ‘year of grace’ of Melchizedek, and of his armies, the nation of the holy ones of God… But, Melchizedek will carry out the vengeance of God’s judgments, and on that day he will free them from the hand of Belial… This… is the day of peace about which he said… through Isaiah the prophet… ‘How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace... who announces salvation… And the messenger is the anointed of the spirit...”1
Although this does not carry the authority of God’s word, it does gives us a window into what at least some Jews were thinking about Melchizedek at the time that the book of Hebrews was written. He was clearly thought much of, and was associated with God’s eschatological messiah, judge, and savior from sin. It’s no wonder, therefore, that the writer of Hebrews appropriates this character to point to Jesus Christ!
Different translations of the Bible spell the name slightly differently because of the differences between the Hebrew alphabet (with the original spelling of his name) and the Greek alphabet (used for the original book of Hebrews) and the English alphabet we use2. The difference in spellings is not significant, so if you see me going back and forth on the spellings, I don’t mean anything by it, so don’t look for hidden meanings!
The first three verses of chapter 7 re-introduce the character of Melchizedek using a string of about a dozen nominative masculine singular words which together form the subject of a single verb at the end of verse 3. I want to use these 12 descriptors to introduce the character of Melchisedek and show how he points us to Jesus Christ and how his life also teaches us to point others to Christ.
Kings during Abraham’s time tended to have dominions about the size of what we today would call a neighborhood or a township, not over whole countries, like later kings.
Melchisedek is the king of “Salem,” which may or may not be the same as “Jerusalem.”
The only other place in the Bible that perhaps this same city of Salem appears is Psalm 76:2, where it seems to be equated with Jerusalem3.
Jerusalem was developed by a Canaanite tribe called the Jebusites. Genesis 10 traces their genealogy back to Ham, the son of Noah.
God promised to give the Israelites the land of the Canaanites, specifically mentioning over and over again that they were to conquer the Jebusites and take possession of their cities4.
Joshua 10:1 describes Joshua’s campaigns with the Israelite army to take possession of the promised land, and how one “Adonai-zedek, king of Jerusalem” [אֲדֹֽנִי־צֶ֜דֶק מֶ֣לֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלִַ֗ם], lead an alliance of Caananite kings against the Israelites but lost the battle and was put to death. This left Jerusalem without an army or a king to defend itself, but Joshua did not lead Israel in taking possession of that city.
Instead, Joshua assigned Jerusalem to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and left them to conquer that city for themselves. They managed to destroy parts of the city and bring the Jebusites into some semblance of control, but they never took full possession of Jerusalem5, so it remained a pagan city and it exerted a pagan influence on the Jews.6
It wasn’t until King David’s time that Jerusalem was finally taken possession of.7
Melchizedek was a king, but he also was a priest:
“[T]he adherents of the Dead Sea Sect looked for the coming of two messianic figures, a lay, royal (Davidic) personage and a priestly (Aaronic) personage. If indeed our author has the Qumran teaching in mind, his instruction here and in the chapters that follow demonstrates… that they were wrong in two important respects: first, because there is only one messianic personage, both King and Priest, and second, because his priestly category is that of Melchizedek, not Aaron. Of course, under the Qumran scheme, a descendant of David, who belonged to the tribe of Judah, and a descendant of Aaron, who belonged to the tribe of Levi, could hardly be expected to coincide in one person. It is especially significant, then, that in the one person and category of Melchizedek, who was both king of Salem and priest of God Most High… there is a union of the royal and priestly functions.” ~P.E. Hughes
This title of “God Most High/The Highest God” is never used in the Bible as a title for God before Melchizedek in Genesis 14. Perhaps it was coined by Melchizedek, or perhaps it was revealed to him through supernatural sources (for, most of the times that demons in the New Testament referred to God, they used that same title “God Most High.” ~Mark 5:7, Luke 8:28, and Acts 16:17). At any rate, Melchizedek is the first person on record to refer to God as “God Most High,” and he uses the title twice in his speech with Abraham.
Abraham, then starts using the same title to refer to God when he talks to the king of Sodom!
It’s also interesting that this is the title used by others who lived near Melchizedek, including Job (31:28),
and, a few hundred years later in the same area, Baalam (Numbers 24:16),
and a few hundred years later in the same area David (Psalm 57:2, 9:3, etc.),
then a few hundred years later in the same area Micah (6:6).
It’s also the title that Jews exiled from the same area apparently used to describe their God to the King of Babylon (Daniel 3:26 “Then Nabuchodonosor drew near to the door of the burning fiery furnace, and said, ‘Sedrach, Misach, and Abdenago, ye servants of the most high God... come hither.’ So Sedrach, Misach, and Abdenago, came forth out of the midst of the fire.” ~Brenton).
Could it be that the way you talk about God with others could shape the way everybody in your area thinks about God for centuries? It’s worth considering.
Now, another question that arises is, How could a Caananite be a legitimate priest?
Well, about ten generations previous to Abraham, they were all descended from Noah, so it is possible that some true information about God was passed down from father to son. We know that Job and Baalam from around the same time period knew something of the one true God, although they were not Jews.
Of course, it is also possible that this guy was not a Caananite but was merely ministering as a priest among Caananites. Puritan commentator Matthew Henry mentioned that “Mr. Gregory of Oxford tells us that the Arabic Catena, which he builds much upon the authority of, gives this account of Melchizedek, That he was the son of Heraclim, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, and that his mother's name was Salathiel, the daughter of Gomer, the son of Japheth, the son of Noah.” So there’s a source of unknown certainty that would vouch for him not being a Canaanite.
But at any rate, priests served as an intermediary between God and Mankind, bringing messages from God to Man, and helping Men reconcile with God.
The next nominatives8 locate the person of Melchizedek in history:
This is a summary of the only other passage in the Bible which speaks of Melchizedek, containing abbreviated quotes from the Greek translation of Genesis 14:17-20 “And the king of Sodom went out to meet him [Abraham] at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley), after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him. Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said: ‘Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.’ And he gave him a tithe of all.” (NKJV, correspondence with Heb.7 in bold.)
Could I mention in passing that God gave the King of Sodom all the revelation he needed in the person of Melchizedek in order to get right with God, but Sodom didn’t take hold of it.
The invasion of Sodom by four foreign kingdoms should have woken the King of Sodom up to his need for repentance, but he was heedless.
Furthermore, Abraham’s miraculous rescue of the people of Sodom and his thanksgiving to God afterwards should have turned the heart of the King of Sodom to worship this God too, but he didn’t turn.
So, when we read of the terrible judgment that fell from heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah five chapters later in Genesis, we should keep in mind that this was not a harsh judgment from a capricious Old Testament deity; this was justice for conscious rebellion against God despite the graces He had already offered them.
This is the very sort of warning of the book of Hebrews. You who know about God and have experienced graces from Him will be held to a higher standard of accountability and a stricter judgment, so it is all the more important that we throw ourselves upon Christ and receive eternal mercies. The stakes are awfully high.
Turning back to what Melchizedek did for Abraham, he performed the priestly function of speaking a message of peace between God and Abraham.
Then he offers Abraham and his soldiers a meal.
What is curious is that it is a meat-less meal; he does not offer an animal sacrifice, as you might expect from an Old Testament priest. Is it possible that even in this circumstance, Melchizedek pointed to a future relationship with God which would be free from animal sacrifices?
There is a lot of speculation among Bible scholars as to why Melchizedek served bread and wine to Abraham, but the serving of this food is not mentioned here in Hebrews. I suspect the reason it is not mentioned is that it may have too-easily distracted readers from the main point (just as Christians throughout history have been distracted by endless speculation on this point), so I will follow the example of the Apostle of Hebrews and refrain from comment and move on to...
the 4th word is technically not a nominative, but at least another masculine singular referring to Melchizedek:
The NASB adds a little commentary to its translation that it was the “spoils” of the war which Abraham tithed from, although this is not explicitly stated in Genesis.
Four city-kingdoms had formed an alliance and attacked 11 other city-kingdoms and carried off loot from every one of them, so Abraham and his 318 servants went after that army and conquered them – mostly because they had captured his relative Lot. Now Abraham is returning home after recovering all the stolen loot – clothes, tools, money & even captives from 11 towns.
It appears that he calculated a tenth of this booty and gave that as a tithe to Melchizedek in the manner that a church member would give to church leadership to support the work of the church and to pledge devotion to God. It seems then that a tithe of what was stolen from Sodom and recovered was given to Melchizedek, and then Abraham gave the other 90% of the recovered stuff back to the King of Sodom. (Perhaps he went around to the other towns and restored their possessions in the same way.)
But by tithing to Melchizedek, Abraham was connecting his amazing military victory with the God that Melchizedek served as priest, demonstrating that Melchizedek’s God was the God whom Abraham served and was the God who had given Abraham this victory.
This is a good example for us. Are you demonstrating your devotion to God by giving back to Him a portion of the blessings He has given to you?
Now the descriptive words take a turn from historical re-telling to the somewhat-more-mystic meaning of Melchizedek’s names:
First, as for the name “Melchizedek,” it is a compound of two Hebrew words: Melech (the Hebrew word for “King”) and Tsedek (the Hebrew word for “righteousness”).
Perhaps this was a title bestowed upon a Canaanite king because he was particularly just as a ruler. (The way these words are used in the Greek version of 1 Samuel 8:9-11, & 10:25 & 2 Kings 17:8 to describe bad kings indicate that dikaiosune did not necessarily mean conformity to what God says is right.)
It’s interesting that the name of the king of Jerusalem in Abraham’s day was Melchizedek (“King of Righteousness”), and the name of the king of Jerusalem in Joshua’s day was Adonai-zedek (“Lord of Righteousness”)9. Perhaps the -zedek suffix was a title that all the kings of Jerusalem carried; I don’t know.
But the book of Hebrews indicates that this title also pointed to Christ. Consider how many prophecies focused upon the Messiah being a King who would be just and righteous:
Psalm 45:4a “And in Your majesty ride prosperously because of truth, humility, and righteousness...” (NKJ)
Zechariah 9:9 “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion... behold, the King is coming to thee, just, and a Saviour; he is meek and riding on an ass, and a young foal. (Brenton)
Isaiah 32:1 “For, behold, a righteous king shall reign...” (Brenton)
Jeremiah 23:5 “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will raise up to David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and understand, and shall execute judgment and righteousness on the earth.” (Brenton)
“Righteousness” is also associated consistently throughout the New Testament with the “Kingdom” of God the Father and the Holy Spirit10.
Does the thought of a “righteous king” make you long for Jesus to return? It should.
Now, immediately following the name “Melchizedek” in the Genesis 14 account is the title “King of Salem,” and that is our next nominative phrase:
The Genesis account is ambiguous as to whether “Salem” was
merely a city in the area named “Salem,”
or whether it was shorthand for “Jerusalem,”
or whether it was not intended to refer to a physical location at all but rather to an emotional state of peace.
Whatever the original meaning was, the author of Hebrews takes it in a decidedly Christological direction by calling our attention to the fact that “Salem” means “Peace.”
It recalls passages which refer to Jesus as the ultimate source of peace:
Isaiah 9:6 “For a child is born for us, a son is given for us, and the government is on His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of His empire's increase and of peace there will be no end. On David's throne and over his kingdom to cause it to be established and to uphold it in justice and righteousness, from now until eternity.” (NAW)
Luke 19:38 "`Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the LORD!' Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" (NKJ)
Romans 14:17 “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (NKJ)
Does the mention of a King of Peace and the reminder of God’s promises of peace make you long for their fulfillment in Jesus? It should!
The next three nominative descriptors of Melchizedek are one-word adjectives, each of them alpha-privatives:
Once again, we have to decide whether to take this literally or figuratively.
If we take it literally, the conclusion would have to be that this is a spirit – or even God Himself, because every human has a father and a mother.
Even in the cases of the two exceptions to this rule (Adam and Jesus),
the genealogy of Luke 3:38 tells us that Adam was “son of God,” so he had a father,
and the genealogy in Matthew 1:16 says that Jesus was “born of Mary,” so it would be hard to argue strictly that Jesus was “motherless.”
But Jesus was accused of being illegitimate, and that might be a valid way to interpret these words figuratively.
People back in Jesus’ day knew how long human gestation was, and they could tell that Jesus was born long before Joseph and Mary had been married 9 months.
How many people do you think really believed Mary and Joseph when they said that Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit and not by a man? Yeah, likely story! (Do you see why we affirm this in our creeds?)
It has been suggested that the Messianic interpretation of Psalm 69:1211 is that Jesus had to face the shame of everybody – from the city elders down to the town drunks – making fun of Him by trying to guess who his real father was. “Hey Jesus, was it the appliance repairman? Come on; tell us for real! Just who do you think you are, anyway, trying to be a spiritual leader? You’re nothing; you don’t have a reputable family.”
But if God said Melchizedek was a priest, maybe it doesn’t matter, for nobody knows who Melchizedek’s Mama and Papa were either.
Another figurative interpretation could work along the lines of Jesus’ comments about engagement in a ministry calling that requires living away from parents:
Matthew 19:29 “...everyone who left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields [or farm-lands] for the sake of my name, will receive a hundred times as many, and will inherit eternal life." (NAW)
If that’s the case, it might strengthen the theory that Matthew Henry mentions in his commentary based on an ancient Arabic tradition that Melchizedek was not a Canaanite, but rather had moved away from his family and into Canaan in order to bring God’s blessing to those in darkness.
This is, of course, all conjecture, so I don’t want to take it any farther than this.
The point has to be what the book of Hebrews is driving at, namely that Melchizedek points our attention away from the Levite priests and toward Jesus because Melchizedek proves that there was a priesthood in existence before the Levites that was
different from the Levites (not sharing their parentage or genealogy) and
longer-lasting than the Levites (not based on human lifespans but on something eternal),
and that sets the stage for Jesus to be our great high priest to make us right with God!
The next, related nominative is:
Genealogies were extremely important in the Mosaic law for priests.
That’s why the book of Numbers lists so many “so-and-so begat so-and-so’s”
If you were a Levite, you got your paychecks (as it were) out of the temple treasury. If you could not prove that your Daddy was descended in a direct line from Levi, you could not get the free food. You had to get a different job and grow – or earn – your own food.
2 Chronicles 31:16 “Besides those males from three years old and up who were written in the genealogy [of priests], they distributed to everyone who entered the house of the LORD his daily portion for the work of his service, by his division...” (NKJV)
Later on, when Ezra & Nehemiah started the nation of Israel back up after the exile, they went back to those genealogies in the book of Numbers to figure out who would qualify as priests to help lead the temple worship. Ezra 2:62-63 even records that some guys who weren’t Levites tried claiming to be Levites: “These sought their listing among those who were registered by genealogy, but they were not found; therefore they were excluded from the priesthood as defiled. And the governor said to them that they should not eat of the most holy things...” (NKJV)
Do you see how strong an argument it would have been to a Jew to say that Jesus was ‘without genealogy’? It would have meant that it was out-of-the-question to consider Him in any way qualified to handle anything holy, much less reconcile mankind with God!
Now, there is debate among Bible scholars as to whether the author of Hebrews meant to say that Melchizedek has no genealogy because he was supernaturally begotten (like Jesus or Adam) or whether the Greek word a-genea-logetos simply means that his parentage was not recorded in a Biblical genealogy.
The other other uses of this word in the Greek Bible do not force the conclusion that he was supernaturally-begotten, because, in every other use of the word in the Greek Bible, the context is the writing of a genealogical record, not the absolute presence or non-presence of ancestors.
The most telling example of this is 1 Chronicles 5:1 “And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-born; but because of his going up to his father's couch, his father gave his blessing to his son Joseph... and he was not reckoned [genealogized] as first-born).” (Brenton) So you see in 1 Chronicles 5 that this Greek word for “genealogy” refers – not to actual birth order but rather – to what was written down in the genealogy.
Although I don’t think this Greek word can be used to prove that Melchizedek was not human, we need to read it in the context of what the author of Hebrews was trying to prove, so we have to put it together with v.6: “But the one who was not genealogically-recorded among them [the Levites] has collected a tithe from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises!”
The point is that, even though it was essential for a man to be able to prove that he was a descendant of Levi in order to collect tithes (and in order to serve as a priest in the temple), Melchizedek proves that another legitimate kind of priesthood exists outside of the Levitical one, making it possible – and even preferable, for us to seek to be made right with God through Jesus, who, like Melchizedek, was not a descendant of Levi.
Our 10th nominative is a participle that verbalizes a denial of two things:
Whether or not Melchezidek actually had a beginning or an end could be debated forever because we just don’t know because the Bible doesn’t say anything more.
But, since there is no record in the Bible of when or where Melchizedek was born, and since there is no record in the Bible of how he died, it made the author of Hebrews think of Jesus who has no beginning of days and no end of life, because Jesus is the eternal God, as the prophet Micah affirmed:
Micah 5:2 “And thou, Bethle[h]em, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity.” (Brenton)
Jesus is also the Lord and giver of eternal life. He said in John 10:28 “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish...” (NKJV, cf. Psalm 16:11)
Are you looking to Jesus who has no end to life to give you life without end?
Our next nominative is a word that occurs nowhere else in the Bible:
The book of Hebrews started out introducing Jesus as the “Son,” and it appears that the title “The Son of God” was used especially by New Testament Christians as a synonym for the Messiah12.
John the Baptizer: “I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.” (John 1:34)
Nathaniel: “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:49)
Peter: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)
Martha: “...I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” (John 11:27, NKJV).
The Son of God was “made like His brothers” it said back in Hebrews 2:1713, but here in 7:3, Melchizedek was “likened after the Son of God. Here the word “likened” has a preposition added to it which means “away from/after,” and the root word “homoi” also denotes a likeness which is not entire (there is a different word for “exactly alike” in Greek).
Another way to express it in English is that Melchizedek is a “strikeoff” made to look like the original brand, but if you look closely, you’ll notice differences here and there. The resemblance, however, is intentional and easy to see.
This is one of the main points used by Bible scholars over the centuries to argue against Melchizedek actually being the Son of God. If He was the Son of God, why would it say he was merely “from a likeness” of the Son of God?
I think that the wording of Hebrews 3 leads toward thinking of Melchizedek as a type of Christ, and, as such, our focus should not be on Melchizedek (to discover all his obscure mysteries); rather we should use him to point our attention to Christ,
just as, in a fashion contest, it would be a waste of time to consider a Calvin Klein-strikeoff pair of jeans when the real thing is right there.
The strikeoff points you to the real thing.
Our text doesn’t say explicitly who likened Melchizedek after the Son of God, but
our theology informs us that God created human types14 throughout history to point us to Jesus (Rom. 5:14; Heb. 11:19),
and our tradition tells us that we ourselves are “Christians” - “little Christs,” who point our fellow human beings toward Jesus as we imitate Him in every way we can (Rom. 8:29, 1 Thess. 1:6).
Finally we get to the main verb for the entirety of verses 1-3. This Melchizedek...
The Levitical priesthood has ended. They don’t sacrifice animals in the temple anymore.
But the appearance of a timeless priest in Melchizedek points us toward Jesus as the ultimate priest for all time.
Later in the chapter we will see more of how this all points to Jesus: Verse 21 “The Lord swore… You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” and v.24 “because He remains forever He holds the priesthood uninterruptably, by which means He is also able to save to all ends those who come through Him to God, as He is always living for the purpose of petitioning on their behalf” (NAW).
There are many other positions which Christians have held on the identity of Melchisedek (see appendix 2), and there is not time to go into them all, but the over-arching message of Hebrews is that Melchisedek pointed to Christ
My applications are simple:
Be like the apostle who wrote the book of Hebrews: when you see or read about someone with Christlike qualities, let your mind be quickly reminded of Jesus. Look for things that remind you of Him!
Be like Melchizedek in that you point people to Jesus because you have become so much like Him that you make people think of Him.
Greek NT |
NAW |
KJV |
1 Οὗτος γὰρ ὁB Μελχισεδέκ, βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ, ἱερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου, ὁ συναντήσας ᾿Αβραὰμ ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆςC τῶν βασιλέων καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτόν, |
1 Now, this Melchisedek, king of Salem, priest of The Highest God, who met up with Abraham while he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and [who] blessed him, |
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; |
2 ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντωνD ἐμέρισε ᾿Αβραάμ, πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμηνευόμενος βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ, ὅ ἐστι βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης, |
2 to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth from all [the] things, first being translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also King of Salem, which is “King of Peace.” |
2
To whom also Abraham |
3 ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητοςE, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκέςF. |
3 fatherless, motherless, genealogy-less, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but having been likened after the son of God, he remains a priest in perpetuity. |
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. |
Based on Phillip E. Hughes’ Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, compiled by Valley Scharping
Who is Melchizedek? |
Normal Historical Figure |
Priest of Uncircumcision |
Priest of the Eucharist |
Shem |
Perfect Man |
Angel |
Archangel |
Holy Spirit |
Son of God |
Type of Christ |
Elaboration |
Concrete person and may-be sym-bolic, but not able to be endless-ly specu-lated about |
Kept the circumcised from boasting in circum-cision (he was uncircum-cised); prefig-ured the im-permanence of Levitical order |
Instituted the Catholic sacrifice of the mass |
Eldest son of Noah, Ancestor of Abraham |
Sinless and Perfect, like a few other Biblical figures according to Pelagianism |
Blesser of Abraham who could only be blessed by someone more than human |
Chief of the Heavenly hosts and Eschatological deliverer |
Manifestation of Holy Spirit in guise of a man; Greater than Christ |
Manifestation of the Logos, Pre-incarnate theophany |
Holy man, Priest-King of God, Type and Prefiguration of Christ |
Problems |
Lacks belief in Christian canon; he is holy and able to bless Abraham; worthy of a tithe. |
Lacks perspective of Hebrews 7; Abraham was also uncircumcised in Gen. 14. |
Melchizedek did not sacrifice the bread, did not offer it to God; there is no mention of transubstantiation nor mention of any symboli-zation in Gen. 14; author of Hebrews didn't even mention it. |
Shem's genealogy is well-known, but Hebrews claims he has none; Why would God obscure his identity as "Melchizedek" when Shem is the more well known? |
Based on the Pelagian heresy that there is no original sin and the human will is capable of living a sinless life. |
Abraham was not de facto unable to be blessed by another human; John 3:13 |
Based only on non-Christian traditions; John 3:13 |
No evidence the Spirit assumes flesh or appears in theophany; John 3:13 "No one has ascended into Heaven but he who descended from Heaven." |
He is described as "being made like the Son of God." This seems incompatible with being the eternal Son of God. |
"Without father, without mother, without genealogy, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life" seems greater than any human. |
Adherents |
Josephus
(100) |
Justin
Martyr (165) |
Clement
of Alexandria (215) |
1st
Century Jews reacting to Christians, |
The Pelagians (450) |
Origen
(254), |
Essene
Jews (Dead Sea Scrolls), |
Hierax
(400), |
Latter
Melchizedekians,
Ambrose
(397), Petrus Cunaeus (1638), |
Irenaeus |
1Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 11Q13, eds.García Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, 1209
2The sibilant phoneme in the middle of Melchizedek was originally the Hebrew letter tsade, which makes the sound “ts,” but neither Greek nor Latin nor English have a letter like that in their alphabets. So, the Greeks rendered the sound with the sigma letter from their alphabet (and the Latins did similarly), therefore, English translations from the Greek Septuagint (Brenton) and Latin Vulgate Old Testament (Wycliffe, Douay-Rheims) read with an “s” in the middle of Melchisedek. But when English reformers in the 16th Century started translating the Old Testament from Hebrew instead of from the Latin Vulgate, they chose the English letter “z” to stand for the Hebrew letter tsade, which meant a “z” in the middle of Melchizedek, and that is what we see in the modern English versions of the book of Genesis all the way back to the King James and Geneva Bibles. But, when they got to the book of Hebrews in the New Testament, which spelled the name with an “s” in the middle because it was Greek, translators had to decide whether to stick with the actual Greek spelling, or to depart from the Greek New Testament to conform the spelling to the way they had rendered it back in Genesis. The Geneva Bible and the King James, spelled Melchisedek with an “s” in the middle of it in the book of Hebrews, even though they spelled it with a “z” in the book of Genesis, but translators since then have agreed to normalize the spelling with a “z” so that the old and New Testament spellings would be the same. The final letter in Melchisedek has a similar history, whether spelled with a “k,” a “c,” or a “ch,” since there are multiple letters in the alphabets of Hebrew, Greek, and English that can make that “k” sound. Anyway, this kind of thing is par for the course with translating proper names across languages.
3Actually, it does occur in the LXX of Genesis, where the Hebrew “Shechem” appears to have been mistakenly spelled “Salem” in Greek. (Gen. 14:18, 33:18)
4Gen. 15:21, Ex. 3:8&17, 13:5, 23:23, 33:2, 34:11, Num. 13:29, Deut. 7:1, 20:17, Josh. 3:10
5Joshua 15:63 “And the Jebusite dwelt in Jerusalem, and the children of Juda could not destroy them; and the Jebusites dwelt in Jerusalem to this day.” (Brenton)
Judges 1:1-8 “Now after the death of Joshua... Judah said to Simeon his brother, ‘Come up with me to my allotted territory, that we may fight against the Canaanites... and the LORD delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand; and they killed ten thousand men at Bezek... Then Adoni-Bezek fled, and they pursued him and caught him and cut off his thumbs and big toes. And Adoni-Bezek said, ‘Seventy kings with their thumbs and big toes cut off used to gather scraps under my table; as I have done, so God has repaid me.’ Then they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died. Now the children of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it; they struck it with the edge of the sword and set the city on fire.” (NKJV)
Judges 1:21 “But the children of Benjamin did not take the inheritance of the Jebusite who dwelt in Jerusalem; and the Jebusite dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem until this day.” (Brenton)
6Judges 3:5-6 “Thus the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons; and they served their gods.”
Judges 19:10-12 “However, the man was not willing to spend that night; so he rose and departed, and came to opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). With him were the two saddled donkeys; his concubine was also with him. They were near Jebus, and the day was far spent; and the servant said to his master, ‘Come, please, and let us turn aside into this city of the Jebusites and lodge in it.’ But his master said to him, ‘We will not turn aside here into a city of foreigners, who are not of the children of Israel; we will go on to Gibeah.’" (NKJV)
71 Chron. 11:4-8 “And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is Jebus, where the Jebusites were, the inhabitants of the land. Then the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, "You shall not come in here!" Nevertheless David [with the help of his nephew Joab] took the stronghold of Zion (This is the first mention of “Zion”)... therefore they called it the City of David. And he built the city around it...” ~NKJV, || 2 Sam. 5:6-9
8A definite article translated “the one who,” with two nominative participles linked with it, so I’ll treat them together.
9Another nearby king mentioned shortly after the time of Joshua was called Adonai-bezek, which might suggest that the title Adonai (“Lord/Master”) had replaced the title Melech for kings in that part of Canaan by the time of Joshua, although this was by no means a universal pattern for Canaanite royal titles.
10 Matt. 5:10&20, 6:33, 13:43, Rom. 5:17&21, 14:17, 2 Thess. 1:5, Rev. 15:3
11 Psalm 69:12 “Those who sit in the gate speak against me, And I am the song of the drunkards.” (NKJV)
12 It also shows up frequently as a title in the mouths of spiritual beings who know of Jesus’ relationship with God (Mark 3:11-demons, Matt. 4-Satan, Luke 1:35 -Gabriel, and Matt. 3:17 – God the Father.)
13“...it was necessary to be made like His brothers concerning all things, in order that He might be a merciful and faithful high-priest concerning these things in front of God for the purpose of the propitiation of the sins of the people” (NAW)
14 Consider the many times this Greek word without the apo- prefix occurred in the introductions to Jesus’ parables: “Then the kingdom of the heavens will be similar to ten virgins which went out to meet the bridegroom, having brought their own lamps. (Matt. 25:1) "The kingdom of the heavens is like a man – a king – who put on wedding festivities for his son (Matt. 22:2), "The kingdom of the heavens is like a man sowing good seed in his field. (Matt. 13:24), "But, to whom am I going to compare this generation? It is similar to children sitting at the malls, calling to the others...” (Matt. 11:16), “Everyone therefore who is hearing these words of mine and doing them will be likened to a smart man who built his house upon the rock...” (Matt. 7:24, NAW)
AThe
Greek is the Majority text, edited by myself to follow the majority
of the earliest-known manuscripts only when the early manuscript
evidence is practically unanimous. My original document includes
notes on the NKJV, NASB, NIV, & ESV English translations, but
since they are all copyrighted, I cannot include them in my online
document. Underlined words in English versions indicate a
standalone difference from all other English translations of a
certain word. Strikeout usually indicates that the
English translation is, in my opinion, too far outside the range of
meaning of the original Greek word. The addition of an X indicates a
Greek word left untranslated – or a plural Greek word
translated as an English singular. [Brackets] indicate words added
in English not in the Greek. Key words are colored consistently
across the chart to show correlations.
BFour of the six oldest known mss read oV (i.e. “this one ‘which’ [is] Melchisedek...” instead of “This [is] the Melchizedek….”). It makes no difference in meaning.
CThis word literally means “chop up” and is a pretty intense word used only to describe the massacre of Caananites, and only in two other places in the Greek Bible Gen. 14:17 (the original account referred to in Hebrews) & Josh. 10:20.
DCompare with the LXX of Genesis 14:17-20 Ἐξῆλθεν δὲ βασιλεὺς Σοδομων εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῷ--μετὰ τὸ ἀναστρέψαι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς τοῦ Χοδολλογομορ καὶ τῶν βασιλέων τῶν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ--εἰς τὴν κοιλάδα τὴν Σαυη (τοῦτο ἦν τὸ πεδίον βασιλέωσ). καὶ Μελχισεδεκ βασιλεὺς Σαλημ ἐξήνεγκεν ἄρτους καὶ οἶνον· ἦν δὲ ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου. καὶ ηὐλόγησεν τὸν Αβραμ καὶ εἶπεν Εὐλογημένος Αβραμ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ, ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος, ὃς παρέδωκεν τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποχειρίους σοι. καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων. I bolded the words which correspond exactly between the two accounts.
ENone of these three alpha-privatives are found anywhere else in the Greek Bible. Non-privative forms of “Father” and “Mother” are, of course common, but the root word for geneaology only occurs in 4 other places: 1 Tim. 1:4 & Tit. 3:9 (which are warnings against undue attention paid to geneaologies – noun form), and 1 Chr. 5:1, & Heb. 7:6 (verb forms denoting the writing of a genealogy).
FThis root, based on the perfect form of ferw (enegka), is not used in the Greek Bible outside of Hebrews. It occurs 3 other times in ch. 10 to indicate offering of animal sacrifices (10:1), the efficacy of Christ’s single sacrifice (10:12), and the perfection of those He sanctifies (10:14).