GOT MELCHIY?

JUST WHO IS THIS MELCHIZEDEK?

CONTENTS:
Introduction: Who is Melchizedek? .... 1
Was he Mythical Mel? ....... 2
Was he Shem-ply Melchizedek? .... 5
Could he be the Mel-siah? ..... 7
Conclusion ... 11
Bibliography .... 12

BY: J. ERIC LEWIS

INTRODUCTION: WHO IS MELCHIZEDEK?

Melchizedek appears without warning in the narrative of Scripture, he departs just as
suddenly, and along the way, and with only a few verses dedicated to him he somehow captures
the imagination of countless thousands along the way. Like a periphery character of the silver
screen whose sheer charisma unexpectedly steals the show, Melchizedek comes on as en extra
but leaves as a star. His entire scene lasts only three verses (Genesis 14:18-20) and in it he
speaks fewer than thirty words. It begins with a light snack Melchizedek king of Salem
brought out bread and wine (v. 18) culminates in an astonishing tribute Abram gave
Melchizedek a tenth of everything (v. 20), and just like that quickly the King of Salem recedes
from historys landscape.1 From this brief encounter, however, the theological terrain is forever
shaken.
The Psalmist gives our first indication that something truly epic has taken place: he reads
the account in Torah and concludes from that brief periscope the existence of a secret priestly
order, an order having nothing to do with the sons of Aaron (Psalm 110:4). Intertestamental
thinkers joined the chorus, tying him with Messianic expectation. However, it is the writer of
Hebrews, penning his words under New Covenant inspiration, who really advances the dialogue.
He thrice assigns the Psalmists conclusion to the person of Christ (Heb. 5:6, 5:10, 6:20), and
then writes his own exegetical commentary on Genesis 14:18-20, revealing astounding
Christological implications! Now, lest anyone assumes that these writers simply made a
mountain out of a Melchizedek hill, that a simple story was overblown by zealots with an
agenda, it should be pointed out that they were not the only ones talking about itnot by a long
shot!

Unless otherwise indicated all direct quotations from Scripture within this paper are taken from the New English
Translation ( https://netbible.org/ ).
1

Who is this Melchizedek, history asks, who "crosses the sky like a meteor"2 and
disappears into the morning mists. Not surprisingly, the suggestions cross the board. Was he
simply a myth, a legend created by priestly redactors who edited the Abrahamic narrative?3
Contrariwise, could he have been a real historical figure in disguise, one who turns to be the
sudden reappearance of a much earlier scriptural hero?4 Perhaps he was a heathen, despite the
obvious interpretation otherwise, produced by a prima-facie reading of the Genesis text, a pagan
priest-king acting in the name of his own favored local deity.5 Then again, perhaps he was just
what he seemed to be, i.e. a loyal but heretofore obscure servant of Yahweh in a powerful
position who encountered the patriarch and blessed him. Is it not possible, though, that he was
something far beyond than any of these ideas? We say, yea, and even much more! Though
many theories have been put forth, and much speculation persists on all sides, in the end there
can be little doubt that in encountering the ancient King of Salem, the community of faith is
treated to an encounter with no less a person than the eternal King of Kings, briefly interloping in
the event of Palestine, many centuries prior to his actual incarnation.
WAS HE MYTHICAL MEL?
The short periscope involving Melchizedek faces the exact same danger as does every
other religious document claiming to reveal God namely the risk that it will be rejected out of
hand as spurious fiction precisely because of the kinds of truth claims that it makes. It is no

M. Delcor, Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Journal for the Study
of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 1, no. 2 (1971): 115-35,
http://rx9vh3hy4r.search.serialssolutions.com/ (accessed October 6, 2012), p. 115.

Ibid., 119.

4 John H. Walton, Genesis (the NIV Application Commentary) (Kindle edition, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010),
Kindle Locations 9673-74.
5

Delcor, Melchizedek from Genesis, pp. 115ff

surprise, therefore, to find the higher critics hard at work on this one, deconstructing the
historicity of the tale. It should be admitted right up front that from a certain point-of-view the
text does leave itself open to these conjectures. There is certainly something disjointed about
verses 18 20, something that the skeptical eye will be quick to judge as simply not meshing
with the larger context.
Robert Smith defines the problem. There are tremendous similarities between Abrams
meeting with the king of Sodom (vv. 17, 21-24) and his encounter with Melchizedek: both
feature Abram meeting with royalty shortly after victory in combat, both deal in some fashion
with the division of the spoils, and both use the rare divine name El Elyon. Consider one
writers take on the disjointedness:
The fact that Abram is shown as having completed some sort of military engagement
successfully is inconclusive since there is nothing which indicates that the same victory
underlies the two stories. The presence of a king who meets Abram in each episode is
not a convincing correlation, since two different kings are involved. The nature of the
transfer of good in the stories also differs, and one cannot be sure that the tithe of
everything mentioned in the Melchizedek story necessarily refers to the spoils which
figure in the subsequent scene. Neither are the references to God Most High necessarily
evidence of a unitary tradition; in the Melchizedek episode the name appears
unexpectedly and nothing is said about Abrams use of it, whereas in the story of the king
of Sodom Abram uses the term himself and alludes to an oath to the Lord God Most High
which the story has not previously mentioned. Together these differences of detail
convey the impression that the contact between Melchizedeks story and its immediate
context is somewhat artificial. To these considerations one may add the fact that the
episode breaks into the story of Abram and king of Sodom abruptly, introducing the
person of Melchizedek without any preparation elsewhere in the chapter or in Genesis.
The story of Abram and the king of Sodom in v. 21, continuing the train of thought which
had been interrupted at the end of v. 17. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that
the episode of Abram and Melchizedek was not originally part of the story of Abrams
meeting with the king of Sodom, and presumably not an integral part of the larger
account in Genesis 14.6

Robert Houston Smith, Abram and Melchizedek (gen 1418-20), Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 36, no. 2 (1965): 129-52, http://rx9vh3hy4r.search.serialssolutions.com/ (accessed October 7, 2012),
p. 129-30.
6

Some, of course have specifically tallied the problem up to the documentary hypothesis,
asserting that the priests of Jerusalem, in order to strengthen their own position, editorially
inserted the Melchizedek passage at a later, probably post-exilic date.7 Others believe the
editorial work was done by no less than the House of David, in order to lend the weight of Torah
to the throne occupying Jerusalem.8 All this assumes a very low view of large swaths of
individuals who have made it their life pursuit to promote righteousness.
Despite such arguments against the unity of the text, there is nothing present which is
actually out of place. Taken individually, Smiths arguments above suggest little and prove
nothing. For instance, there may be nothing to suggest that the references refer to the same
battle, but there is certainly nothing proving them to be different battles. The same can be said of
the nature of the battle booty and of the name El Elyon: there is nothing in the story, despite its
general disjointedness, suggesting they are not of one and the same tradition throughout the text.
Certainly the texts flow is a bit uneven, however, in addressing that particular problem,
there is another possibility, one which satisfies and explains that feeling of disjointedness.
Abrams two encounters with kings in Genesis 14 may be fragmented precisely because the
passage is intended to set the royals in juxtaposition to one another. When Melchizedek speaks
Bera is silent; when Bera speaks Melchizedek is silent. The reader sees each man on his own
terms. It makes the flow of the narrative a bit awkward perhaps, but by setting side-by-side
Abrams dealings with the pagan Bera and the righteous Melchizedek, the reader gains insight
into the differences inherent in the ways of God Most High. Is this not precisely the type of thing

Ibid., 130.

Ibid.

Genesis was written to teach? In the end, there is no solid evidence whatsoever that the
encounter was somehow inauthentic.
WAS HE SHEM-PLY MELCHIZEDEK?
A long time trope of story-telling is that some mysterious character will turn out,
abruptly, to be a well-known one. The childrens cartoons with Scooby Doo were practically
based on this concept. That said, one of the most entertaining proposals regarding the King of
Salem is that he actually held onto a secret identity, and not in a theological sense either, but in a
very historical one. The specific idea is that Melchizedek is none other than Shem, the middle
born son of Noah.9
By taking the genealogy of Genesis 11 at face value and doing a bit of basic arithmetic
one quickly discovers that the lifetime of Shem significantly overlapped that of Abraham. By the
numbers Shem died 502 years after the flood; Abraham, on the other hand, was born only 292
years following the deluge, or in other words when Abram was born, Shem still had 210-years
left to live. Since Abraham was 175 years old at the time of his death (Ge. 25:7), the son of
Noah actually outlived the patriarch by 35 years! Taking an even closer look, Abram set out on
his pilgrimage when he was 75 years old, 367 years following the flood. At that time Shem was
a wobbly-kneed 467, an elderly man by just about any reckoning. The next update on Abrams
age in Scripture is eleven years later when Ishmael is born (Ge. 16:16). It was during this
interim period, between the beginning the journey into Canaan and Ishmaels birth, that the
future patriarch met Melchizedek.
In a passage from the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Ishmael paints Melchizedek with darker
colors than are normally used. The priest king blesses Abram, and then blesses God except, in
That Shem was middle born can be reasonably extrapolated from the biblical text itself by comparing Ge. 10:21
with Ge. 9:24. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/02/02/contradictions-my-three-sons for a full
discussion.
9

the rabbis rendition, Abram is less than impressed: Said Abraham to him: Does one place the
blessing of a servant before that of his master? Immediately (the priesthood) was given to
Abraham...10 Of course, the implications are stunning! Far from the view presented in
Hebrews, by this reckoning when God tells the Davidic king that his priesthood is in the order
of Melchizedek he does not speak highly of the latter, after all. Contrariwise, by making this
comparison the psalmist simply means that just as Melchizedek was a priest without any
succession to his posterity, even so the subject of Psalm 110 would be a priest of a single
generation. Petuchowski points out that this Talmudic passage, designed to degrade Melchizedek
in the eyes of the people, accepts Melchizedeks equivalence with Shem as a given.11 How is
this important? Because, when Abraham paid tribute to the man, it subtly implied his own
subservient stature, i.e. the patriarch would never have given a tithe to one beneath his own
station. However, if it could be shown that Abrahams tithe was simply rendering obeisance to
an honored ancestor, someone like Shem, then the problem would be solved.
With the advent of the new Christian faith emerging from the soil of Judaism both
religions quickly became eager to grasp the upper hand. Therefore, when the writer of Hebrews
successfully used the Torah to show that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, implying a
foreshadowing or even an equivalency with Christ Himself, the Jews were quick to distance
themselves from the King of Salem. Some even believe that it was the avoidance of just such a
scandal that made Rabbi Ishmael so willing to turn Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 on their very
heads, even recasting Melchizedek as a quasi-villain in the process.12

As quoted from the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Nedarim 32b, by Jacob Petuchowski, The Controversial Figure
of Melchizedek, Hebrew Union College Annual 28 (January 1, 1957): 127-36, ATLASerials, Religion Collection,
EBSCOhost, (accessed October 07, 2012), p. 127.

10

11

Ibid., p. 128, 130.

As we have seen, such priorities the preservation of the prominence of Abraham at any
cost explains Melchizedeks identification with Shem. Ironically then, it should be observed
that whoever Melchizedek was, unknown Canaanite royalty, or an ancient sailor who rode the
boat with Noah, Abram was still paying tribute and still humbly acknowledging superiority of
place to the king of Salem. Of course, without hard evidence, such assertions remain impossible
to disprove. Indeed, why should we wish to do so in the first place? Little changes for the reader
whether Melchizedek and Shem are one and the same or whether they are as different as
asparagus and Cincinnati. Such speculation amounts to a fun diversion to be considered with a
shrug before moving on to more important matters.
COULD HE BE THE MEL-SIAH?
Explains Catholic pen Joseph Fitzmyer: with the seventh chapter of Hebrews, the writer
of that epistle has actually produced an excellent example of a Christian Midrash.13 It is a
thorough examination of the three-verse pericope, applied to the vital contemporary issue of the
priesthood of Christ, and tightly focused on the biblical view of the subject without becoming
distracted by other sources.14 If there are genuine answers to the questions of the ancient mans
identity, they will likely be discovered right here.
Now this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, met Abraham as he
was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him. To him also Abraham apportioned a
tithe of everything (Heb. 7:1, 2). The writer sets the stage by opening his rhetoric with a series
of allusions to the Genesis passage; he is most interested in those specific portions which his

Ibid., 128.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Now This Melchizedek, Catholic Bible Quarterly 25, no. 3 (1963): 305-21, ATLASerials,
Religion Collection, (accessed October 08, 2012), p. 305.
12
13

14

Ibid.

apology will rest upon.15 He translates the name, , Malkiy-Tsedeq16 in simple

straightforward terms: king of righteousness (v. 2). This is in opposition to others who insist
that the names etymology must go in another direction entirely. They would prefer My king is
righteousness or even My king is Sedeq where the latter is a reference to a pagan god.17
However, for the Christian exegete, Scholarly opinion must give place to Holy Spirit inspiration.
Inasmuch as the writer of Hebrews reported
the Christian can be certain that there is no error in the divinely inspired quasi-translation. This
is imminently important for the believer who is encouraged to read the OT Christologically
(Luke 24:25-27; John 5:45-47).18 If Melchizedeks name means My king is Sedeq he may be
a pagan, and if it means My king is righteousness he may be a true worshipper, but if it means
king of righteousness he is something altogether higher and more majestic.
The title, king of Salem, the reader is told, should also be understood according to its
linguistic meaning, or in other words it is not so much concerned with a geographic provenance
as it is with a particular character quality. For king of Salem means king of peace (NIV).
Significantly another prophetic portion of Scripture foretells the coming messiah in very similar
terms: For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility
and is called . . . Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6). One might be tempted to use this title of rank -King

See the New English Translation study notes (sn) of Hebrews 7:1, 2, https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Hebrews+7 . An
examination of the passage will quickly reveal that these selections were not haphazard but handpicked for the
arguments to follow.
15

Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for Malkiy-Tsedeq (Strong's 4442)". Blue Letter Bible. 19962012. 8 Oct 2012. < http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?
Strongs=H4442&t=NIV >
16

17

Fitzmyer, Now this Melchizedek, p. 311.

Of course, this task ought not be carried out haphazardly, but with careful strides allowing Christ to rise out of the
text rather than reading Him into it. Even so, while not trying to see Christ under every rock, we should remember
the strong interpretive words of Paul, and the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4).
18

of Salem -to object to Christophany, the notion that Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Christ. If
he was the literal king of Jerusalem in those days, then he could not have been Christ since it is
doubtful that any pre-incarnational visit would have been nearly so thorough as to involve a day
job. To begin with, from the eternal perspective Christ is the king of (Jeru)salem since it is
written in Isaiah (indeed, in the very same passage alluded to above), He will rule on Davids
throne and over Davids kingdom (Is. 9:7). Furthermore, as already discussed, the writer of
Hebrews has shown that ultimate significance of this statement is the quality of the rule rather
than the site of the rule: Melchizedek was a king dedicated to the proposition of peace.
Temper Longman denies the presence of Christophany, preferring to understand the
relationship to be one of convenience. The writer of Hebrews simply used Melchizedeks
sudden appearance, unknown origin, and subtle similarities with the NT Christ to paint a picture
of Jesus.19 This is a safe, reasonable speculation to be sure, but could there not be more? Isnt it
possible that the sudden appearance, unknown origin, and similarities to Christ are more than
historical accidents which God used typologically? Can the modern reader not suppose in a very
realistic fashion that Melchizedek was Jesus Christ?
In this (post)modern, scholarly, world there is little room left for those things which do
not conform to the scientific method. The mystical and otherworldly have been exorcised with a
good riddance and a nasty warning about side stepping the swinging door on the way out.
Modern exegetes are less and less willing to suppose that something actually supernatural may
be occurring in the pages of the Bible. Its not a miracle; its a weather pattern. Shes not a
virgin, but a young unwed woman. And less we think the problem is all on the side of liberal
interpreters, how many modern churches are willing to teach that God somehow saved the
human soul with a Roman stick, but not willing to assert that God can heal the human body by
19

Tremper Longman, How to Read Genesis, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2005), p. 172.

the laying on of hands. Occams razor rules the pulpit: if there is a simple explanation that does
not task our faith, then take it. Who needs zebras when you have horses? Let Melchizedek
remain just a man if he had any literal existence at all.
But of a truth Melchizedek was more than just a man! In the incomprehensible
sovereignty of God, he pre-figured Christ in astonishing detail. Of all possible combinations, the
King of Salem enters the meeting carrying with him bread and wine, a communion meal which
the audience curiously never sees the players eat.20, 21 It is as if the elements themselves were
meant to be seen by those who at the right time would understand the imagery. For all intents of
purpose, Melchizedek was Christ Jesus. There is no other reason that this man, under these
circumstances would appear alongside Abram, the father of all those who believe (Rom.
4:11). It is the father of faith and the object of faith clutching the very emblems of the faith, all
found together in one Old Testament scene cozy as apple pie and vanilla ice cream. The
representative of those who live by faith is blessed by the pre-figurer of Christ, while the former
offers real obeisance to the later. This is no accident.
Consider also that during this iconic meeting, the king of Sodom stands by and says not a
word. Remember, the discussion about disjointedness above? Well, surely this non-interaction
between the two royal parties is a major contributor to that sentiment. It is quite premature and
not at all necessary, though, to conclude that Genesis 14:18-20 is an interpolation upon the
Certain Jewish sources such as Philo do include a tradition of Melchizedek serving the bread and wine to Abrams
318 retained army. For a fuller discussion see S. E. Robinson, The Apocryphal Story of Melchizedek, Journal for
the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period (1987): 26-39,
http://rx9vh3hy4r.search.serialssolutions.com/ (accessed October 8, 2012), p. 34, 35. Of course, even if this could
be shown to be absolutely historical it would not change the argument at hand in any significant way since it is
ultimately the presence of the emblems and not their purpose which is here most important.
20

Objections that bread and wine were the elements of a normative ancient Canaanite sacrifice are ultimately
irrelevant, since even that historical-cultural scenario may well be seen as a subtle foreshadowing of the far great
sacrifice which alone could bring peace between God and man. See Delcor, Melchizedek from Genesis, p. 118,
119 for a brief discussion of the historical situation.
21

10

original text. If Melchizedek is the pre-incarnate Christ, then his meeting with Abram may
simply not have included Bera, the king of Sodom. In other words, somehow mystically Abram
may have stood before two men, while Bera, so far as he knew, stood only before one. If
Melchizedek, as a heavenly being, is there to meet with Abram only, then the king of Sodom, not
being invited would have remained unaware of the entire encounter.22
CONCLUSION
Other than Jesus Christ, Abraham is arguably the single main character of all JudeoChristian Scripture. He is a hero to millions of worshippers around the world and across
thousands of years. Yet standing next to Melchizedek he is the inferior who is blessed and who
pays tribute to his blesser. For this reason some have sought to devalue the King of Salem,
suggesting that he is an elderly Shem who despite (presumably) a lifetime as a priest blunders so
terribly that God punishes him by giving the priesthood to Abram instead. Others see the
oddness of the tale as an anachronistic power grab by one group or another from well later in
Israels history. Only the church possesses the eyes of faith to see that the story is actually about
the true King of Righteousness and Eternal Priest then foreshadowed but now revealed as Jesus
Christ, the Son of God.

My mind turns to 2 Kings 6:17 where the prophet Elisha prayed that his servants eyes be open to see the
supernatural protectors in the hills. The prophet himself had apparently seen them as a matter of course.

22

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Delcor, M. Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 2
(1971): 115-35. http://rx9vh3hy4r.search.serialssolutions.com/ (accessed September 8,
2012).
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Now This Melchizedek. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25, no. 3 (July 1, 1963):
305-21. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost.
12

Longman, Tremper. How to Read Genesis. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2005, Kindle
Edition.
New English Translation. https://net.bible.org/ (accessed October 08, 2012).
Petuchowski, Jacob Josef. The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek. Hebrew Union College
Annual 28 (January 1, 1957): 127-36. ATLASerials, Religion Collection.
Robinson, S. E. The Apocryphal Story of Melchizedek. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the
Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 18, no. 1 (1987): 2639. http://rx9vh3hy4r.search.serialssolutions.com/ (accessed September 8, 2012).
Smith, Robert Houston. Abram and Melchizedek. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 36, no. 2 (1965): 12953. http://rx9vh3hy4r.search.serialssolutions.com/ (accessed September 8, 2012).
Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan,
2001, Kindle Edition.

13