Melchizedek?
Who Was Melchizedek? - Centre Place
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bpeYIsSFKg
Transcript:
The Obscurity of Melchizedek
(00:04) Our topic this evening is who was Melzdc and a lot of people might be asking that since this is a pretty obscure figure. Why are we even thinking about this? So it is um one of the more obscure figures in the Bible. But as a result of that um because as a result of the just a couple of intriguing passages it's caused all kinds of speculation.
(00:31) And we have sort of the same kind of figure in this sense as a figure like Enoch who exists in just one verse of Genesis and the anti- Deluvian uh line of the patriarchs descendants between um between Adam and Noah with the kind of intriguing line you know that Enoch uh lived a certain number of years and then was no more because God took him.
(00:59) And so based on that just one little mention um that ended up creating an entire uh Enochian literature and a whole uh community within second temple Judaism that was really focused on Enoch as um the the main kind of apocalyptic intercessor between humanity and uh and God and all sorts of visions about how heaven and heaven 's work and everything like that are revealed in multiple uh pseudographical books of Enoch.
The Epistle to the Hebrews and Early Christian Theology
(01:35) And so Melzdc is another uh figure that's almost exactly as obscure as that um and has also uh led to a lot of different interesting speculation as a result as we'll see tonight. So, the New Testament text that now bears the title the Epistle to the Hebrews. Um, it's an anonymous book. Uh, we don't know who wrote it.
(02:04) Um, it may not have been called that. It may not even be an epistle. um that doesn't nothing in it indicates that it is a a letter the way the letters of Paul for example have formal greetings and so forth saying Paul writing to so and so the uh book that's called that now the epistle to the Hebrews has a lengthy discussion of why Christians no longer need to look to the high priests of the Jerusalem temple or to the traditional Judeian uh priesthood his Levitical priesthood and uh the Aaronite priesthood as the risen Christ has now become
(02:45) for all the world really but for Christians in particular as are aware of it the eternal high priest and so Christianity emerges as a sect of second temple Judaism. Second temple Judaism is called that because of this focus on the temple and its sacrifices, its rituals and so on which are are controlled by the priesthoods.
(03:10) But now Christians can detach from all that because as we read in Hebrews chapter 6, we have this hope, a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul. A hope that enters the inner shrine behind the curtain where Jesus a forerunner on our behalf has entered having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melzdc. So what does the author of Hebrews mean by by any of that? Well, this phrase entry into the in inner shrine behind the curtain, this is a reference to the activity of the Judeian high priest, the high priest of the Jerusalem temple, who
The Jerusalem Temple and the Holy of Holies
(03:58) would enter into the innermost precinct of the temple, the holy of holies, which was covered by a curtain or a veil. And he he himself is forbidden for anybody to go back in there except for the high priest. And he himself would only go there on the day of atonement in order to um uh to enter the divine presence to offer uh atonement and sacrifice.
(04:27) And um and in going uh the tradition is that he would have a rope tied around him because if he, you know, accidentally died while he was in there, no one's allowed to go in there. So they could pull him back out um by the rope. So the the um author of Hebrews here is talking about this process of entering into the shrine behind the curtain.
(04:46) So the temple the Jerusalem temple like all sort of ancient temples is envisioned as an actual house for the the deity. So the parthonon in Athens is a house for Athena uh Parthanos. So she uh there she has a inner sanctum within there which is where her presence dwells. And in you know the difference between the Jerusalem temple and the parthonon is that within the inner sanctum of all these other temples there is a cult statue.
(05:27) But because the um uh Judeian religion forbids making graven images, making uh idols as they understood them, um there is nothing inside the the inner sanctum in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple. But in any event, it's where God's presence is understood to dwell. So it is a literal house of the Lord, the temple. The idea then in Hebrews that we just read about of Jesus uh entering in here align with the Christian theological proposition.
Jesus' Death and the Symbolism of the Veil
(06:00) It's also found in the gospels that with Jesus death on the cross the divine presence is no longer going to be confined within any place on earth even the holy of holies of the Jerusalem temple itself. and instead uh God's spirit is being poured out everywhere and can be experienced everywhere. And so there is this idea at Jesus's death as presented in the Christian gospels that that veil that separated um the space of the divine hol of the holy presence the holy of holies from everywhere else that the veil is torn from uh floor to ceiling and that
(06:38) uh symbolically ends uh the the the reutility of the temple. So the idea is so important that at the climax of the passion narrative uh the Easter story the passion narrative dominates the gospels and our earliest narrative gospel the gospel of Mark takes about a third of the overall um writing uh the rending of the veil story in Mark immediately follows Jesus' death on the cross.
(07:13) So we read in Mark 15, then Jesus gave out a loud cry and breathed his last breath and the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And then back at the cross, the centurion who stood facing Jesus saw him. I'm sorry, saw that in uh this way he breathed his last. The centurion said, "Truly this man was God's son." So this is something that accompanies Jesus's death, the rending of the temple veil.
(07:44) And so for Christians, the temple's function ceases here. So they've been a sect of Judaism, a part of second temple Judaism, looking to the temple. Now that's no longer uh going to be operative. So if we follow this theological proposition that argument that's being made in Hebrews, Jesus now for all times has taken over the function of the high priest of the Jerusalem temple.
(08:13) That is um Jesus is now entering the real the divine holy of holies and he is offering sacrifice on the day of atonement. In other words, not not literally doing that on the day of atonement on earth temporarily in the uh in the physical temple. So that's now spiritually happened in a cosmological sense. But what does he mean when he says you've become a high priest forever according to the order of Melzdc? Well, the author of Hebrews is a very sophisticated early Christian thinker.
Hebrews' Use of the Septuagint
(08:47) is both well-versed in the Hebrew Bible and also also a skilled Greek rhetorician. And so they explain their thinking by quoting two different passages in the Septuagent that is the Greek version, the ancient Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. So the first comes from Genesis. So in Hebrews chapter 7 quoting from Genesis uh they write this Melchzdc king of Salem priest of the most high God met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and Melzdc blessed Abraham and to him that is to Melzdc Abraham aortioned onetenth of everything
(09:35) his name Melzdc in the first place means king of righteousness. Next, he is also in Genesis called king of Salem. That is king of peace. That's how that should be translated according to the author of Hebrews. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, uh Melchazdc therefore resembles the son of God and he remains a priest forever.
Genesis 14 and the Introduction of Melchizedek
(10:04) So the author of Hebrews here is drawing upon a relatively obscure and difficult to understand passage in the book of Genesis, chapter 14 of Genesis, where we are introduced completely out of the blue to a character called Melchazdc, king of Salem. So as the author of Hebrews here is pointing out unlike other characters in Genesis like Abraham who are provided genealogies.
(10:33) So we have this whole thing that Adam begget Seth who begget so and so and all the way down to um Enoch and then Methuselah and and Noah and so forth. So Shem, Ham, and Jacob and so forth and going all the way down to Abraham. Um we don't hear anything like that for mec. have no idea who his father was or what his lineage was, how is he related to Noah and so forth.
(10:58) Um, Mckazdc just appears out of the blue. Um, the author of Hebrews also talks about what his name means. What does MelzDC mean? So, in Genesis, the authors like puns and that's especially true for the J source or the Yahwist voice within uh, Genesis. Genesis is written by multiple different authors and one of them especially the J source likes to make puns by using folk etmologies for the names.
Etymology and Puns in Genesis
(11:31) So for example very famously um you know this is also true for the same authors wrote Genesis and Exodus and so forth. So this is true in Exodus for Moses. So, the daughter of Pharaoh, when she finds uh the baby Moses floating in a basket, she picks it out of the water and she names him Moses and she says, "I called him Moses because I drew you from the water.
(11:54) " And so, there's a Hebrew word apparently, Mishu or Mishu and and means draw him out. And so, that sounds like Moses. And so the um the author here is creating a folk etmology or false etmology of what the name Moses means. In fact, the more likely etmology for Moses is from the Egyptian word mess means son of Moses.
(12:21) I'm sorry means son of not Moses. So Moses is like um you can think see that in all kinds of uh names of pharaohs and other Egyptians where they're named things like Tutmos uh where you know the mosa there is son of tut that kind of thing. Um so Genesis doesn't give any kind of folk etmology for either the word Melchazdc or for the word Salem.
(12:47) And so as the author of Hebrews is is giving those names, they are the ones that are translating those and the author of Hebrews is giving a potentially correct um meaning as opposed to a folkmology. So for example, the name Melchazdc, you know, working back originally, you know, so they're working from the Greek, but it is actually composed from two Hebrew words, Melik and Shedek.
(13:14) And so that can be translated as king of righteousness uh as the author of Hebrews translates it. Similarly, the place where um Genesis says Melzdc is king of he's king of Salem. Shalom in the in the Hebrew that means complete or whole or sound. But it shares the same Hebrew root with the word shalom which means peace.
(13:42) And so it's a you know not exact translation but the author of Hebrews clearly knows some Hebrew and is using that in order to explain to you the audience you know this is what the name Melzdc means. This is what it means to be king of Salem. You're king of righteousness. You're king of peace. The author of Hebrews then goes on to you know really point out some remarkable things that happen in this obscure story in Genesis.
The Argument for Melchizedek's Superiority
(14:17) So we read in um Hebrews chapter 7 see how great he that is you see how great Melzdc is even Abraham the patriarch gave him a tenth of the spoils. So, and those who are descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office, the Levites in other words, they have a commandment in the law in Mosaic law to collect tithes from the people that is from their kindred though they are also descended from Abraham.
(14:48) So, all of the Israelites are descended from Abraham through Israel and of these uh the priests, the Levites are descended through one of Israel's sons, Levi. But this man Melzdc who does not belong to their ancestry collects tithes from Abraham himself and blesses him who had received the promises. So that's pretty wild stuff.
(15:12) Abraham the patriarch, the head of the entire um you know the biblical family and story, the patriarchal family, he is the one who's paying ti Melzdc. So it's beyond dispute. The author of Hebrew says that the inferior is blessed by the superior. So Melchazdc's blessing Abraham. So that means Melzdc is superior to Abraham.
(15:34) In the one case, tithes are received by those who are mortal. In the other, by one whom it is testified that he lives. One might even say that Levi himself who receives tithe paid tithe through Abraham for Levi was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melzdc met him. So in other words all Levi Levi the Levites look back the Levite priests in um the Judean religion they all look back to their aonomous mythic ancestor Levi.
(16:10) Levi is uh great great great you know whatever grandson of Abraham. So in other words, he's not even there yet as Abraham is indicating uh the superiority of Melchazdc by paying tithes to him. So like I say, Abraham's the key figure at the very beginning of the line of the patriarchs. This is the guy that God chooses to out of all the world to make a covenant with and to uh say, you know, your your posterity will be greater than the sands of the of the beach or the andor the stars of the sky.
(16:41) But as the author of Hebrews points out, Abraham seems to be giving religious deference to this Melzdc guy, whoever he is. The clear implication then Abraham paying tithes is that Melzdc is Abraham's religious superior. And so by extension, the argument here is Aaronite and Levite priesthoods, the priesthoods of second temple Judaism, first and second temple Judaism, since they're named according to the Bible anyway, for descendants of Abraham, Aaron and Levi.
Levitical, Aaronite, and Zadokite Priesthoods
(17:16) They have to be inferior to a Mazdcite priesthood if there is such a priesthood, a priesthood after the order of Melzdc. So Melazedcite priesthood is not something that exists in the contemporary world of the author of Hebrews. Instead, that author is reading about it in two different passages, brief little passages that exist in the Hebrew Bible.
(17:43) So that's something that that they're making this argument from biblical text for. But there were contemporary Judeans who were part of the Levite and Aaronite priesthoods. So the Levites are one of the um understood to be one of the 12 tribes of Israel and they understand themselves to be descendants of a guy named Levi who is a mythic aonomous ancestor anyway of uh the Levites.
(18:14) they are actually distinct. Sometimes um sometimes modern Christians especially who just read this kind of casually um misunderstand and think Levites and and Aaronite priests are identical that there's um uh ironic or Levitical priesthood are the same. But Aaronite priests actuallyite priests are Levites.
(18:37) So they understand themselves though to be descendants of Aaron the brother of Moses both of whom are biblically identified as Levites. So Aaron and Moses are Levites. So, Aaronite priests are Levites, but they are a subset of the overall larger Levite priestly tribe. And indeed, they are the higher group, the more uh the superior group, the superior lineage in the practice and the understanding in second temple Judaism.
(19:07) So, the distinction between you know Aaronites and and Levites is actually understood in a lot of Christian texts. So for example, if you remember the parable of the Samaritan, so there is um a fellow who's on the road to uh Jericho and he gets um set upon by robbers and he's left uh wounded and hurt on the side of the road and there are all these people that come by and ignore the injured traveler.
(19:33) One of those people that comes by is called a priest. So in other words, he is a person who uh considers his ancestor to be Aaron, the literal descendant of Aaron. And a second person who ignores him is a Levite. So a priest comes and then a Levite. And you might think, well, aren't Levites priests? But this is the distinction.
(19:51) So it's Aeronites, like I say, um, they're also descended by, I'm sorry, also identified themselves by their descent from another Aeronite high priest, specifically the high priest at the time of King David and Solomon, Zaduk. And so they called themselves Zatakites. And so we also hear of them as the Sadducees in the New Testament.
(20:15) And so the Sadducees form a distinct group from uh the other Levites, the lesser Levites. So they're the Cohen, the the uh the priests, Sadducees, and then the the Levites, Levines. So um and this is a picture of the high priest Zaduk anointing Solomon as king. So one of the functions of the high priest is to do the anointing of the um king as a messiah an anointed one and that exists in the the biblical text.
(20:48) All right. So while um therefore aronite or zedite priesthood and then on the other hand Levite priesthoods are distinct the author of Hebrews concludes that both both of them have to be inferior to the priesthood of Melchazdc. So, um we read uh um so both of these two lineages um you know belong to I'm sorry uh I'm missing a little bit of the phrase here.
(21:21) So what I'll just say is what's happening is it's evident that our Lord if we begin at verse 14 it's evident that our Lord in other words Jesus is descended from Judah. So according to Christian understanding um you know of course Jesus is is a Judeian. He's descended from Judah. They believe, you know, Christians believe that he's descended from the royal line.
(21:40) So the house of David, but the house of David is not priest. He's not a Levite. He's not a histo. So it's evident that Jesus is a Judahite. And in connection with that tribe, with the Judahite tribes, Moses, that is to say, the Torah says nothing about priests. No, there is nothing in the Torah that says that people from David's line get to be priests.
(22:04) Instead, you know, it talks about them being kings and having the scepter forever. So, it's even more obvious when another priest arises, the author of Hebrews says, resembling Melzdc, one who has become a priest, not through legal requirement concerning physical descent. In other words, Aaronite priests, Zedekite priests, Levite priests, they are that because they are descendants of Aaron, Levi, uh, Zedok.
(22:33) But now one has become a priest not through physical descent but through the power of an indestructible life. So Jesus has led an indestructible life. He is not a Mosaic priest according to lineage but instead um has priesthood a different way. And so the author of Hebrews says it is attested of him of Jesus as the Christ as the Messiah.
(22:57) Quote, you are a priest forever according to the order of Melzdc. So there is on the one hand in saying this the abrogation of the earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual for the law made nothing perfect. So he's saying here Mosaic law, the Mosaic understanding of uh commandment law and and the covenant and so forth are weak and ineffectual.
(23:24) And so there is on the other hand, he says the introduction of a better hope through which we approach God now in the new covenant. So it's a little bit complicated here, but the author of Hebrews is pointing out that Aaronite and Levite priesthoods under the Mosaic law, they're based on lineage. And since Jesus is a Judahite, for him to be a priest, it can't be related to lineage since Judahites are not priests.
(23:52) Instead, there is some other kind of priesthood operating here, this Melchazdc priesthood. You know, one possible answer to this would be, well, you know, then maybe Jesus is not a priest at all. You know, despite that he lived an indestructible life. Where is this idea that he is a priest of Melzdc coming from? And so this is where the author of Hebrews pulls out his second quotation about Melchazdc that exists in the Hebrew Bible.
Psalm 110 and the Melchizedekian Order
(24:21) This is the only other reference to this obscure figure in the what becomes the Christian Old Testament. And this is from Psalm 110. So in Psalm 110 verse4 we read, "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind. You are a priest forever according to the order of Melzdc." So that's the only second that's the only two things that we have about uh Melzdc in the Old Testament.
(24:49) So whatever the original meaning that the author of the 110th psalm might have had in his mind. So that's not really particularly relevant to the author of Hebrews like other messianic Judeian groups like all early Christians. words of the Psalms, words written by the prophets in the Hebrew Bible, they're all understood to prefigure the Messiah.
(25:17) So they interpret these messianically. And so when the psalmist says something like this, this reference must mean that Christ, that the Messiah is a priest forever. So uh the early Christians are all reading scripture not literally but typologically that um that they're prefiguring that they're understanding how the Messiah will be.
(25:41) So um so we read here then this on the one hand the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and effectual but the law made nothing perfect. There is on the other hand hope of a better hope for which we approach God. So though anonymous Hebrew the book of Hebrews the epistle to the Hebrews was traition traditionally ascribed to Paul and while consensus now holds that Paul didn't actually write it um that the the uh even in ancient times writers like origin notice that uh that none of the Greek matched up that they're not using
(26:19) Paul's kinds of phrases that it's written by somebody else. Nevertheless, the author does share Paul's view that the Mosaic law that the Mosaic covenant are inferior to the new covenant in Christ. And the author of Hebrews concludes that this then clearly applies to priesthood as well. So we read in chapter 7 of Hebrews, accordingly Jesus has become the guaranter of a better covenant.
The New Covenant and Eternal Priesthood
(26:48) Furthermore, the former priests, Levite and Zatakite priests, those they're many in number because they were prevented in by death from continuing in office. There's a whole succession of high priests that begin going all the way back to um uh the the the making the second temple again. So once that was rebuilt, there's a succession all the way up to uh the year 70.
(27:14) But Jesus holds his priesthood permanently because he continues forever. So consequently, he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
(27:38) So unlike other high priests, unlike the physical human high priests, the mortal high priests, Jesus has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins. In other words, uh on the day of atonement and so forth, and then for the his people. This he did once and for all when he offered himself as a sacrifice.
(28:03) For the law appoints as high priests humans who are subject to weakness, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a son who has been made perfect forever. So essentially I'd say that this is kind of an artful theological argument where the author of Hebrews is presenting Jesus not only as an eternal high priest but also as the internal enduring sacrifice which also then ends animal sacrifice.
(28:38) So up until now um second temple Judaism of which Christianity began as a sect of this like I say a focus has been on the temple including the priesthood structure there which is providing daily uh animal sacrifices and especially uh at the uh day of atonement the sacrifice that is and also the atonement that occurs within the holy of holies.
(29:01) Jesus now instead of having that daily kind of grind practice Jesus has now become the intercessor the direct intercessor uh and eternally that way and in addition um you know Jesus is the sacrifice and so that's obvious the need for any more animal sacrifice so just as the rending of the temple veil at the moment of Jesus' death ended the need for temples so the divine in presence is not to be confined to an earthly house. It's now felt everywhere.
(29:37) So too, Jesus role as the eternal high priest ends any need for earthly priests as mediators between the body of God's children and God as the author of Hebrews says. So now the main point in what we are saying is this. We have such a high priest, eternal high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle that the Lord, not any mortal, has set up.
(30:12) So, we're not just talking about a uh a a small human uh imitation of the heavenly temple and our human imitation of a true intercessor. We have um a the you know a true divine intercessor that is there in the true heavenly temple. For every priest is sorry every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. Hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.
(30:38) Now if he were here on earth he would not be a priest at all since they're already those who offer gifts according to the law. So the Aeronite and Levite priests are doing that. They offer worship in a sanctuary, the Jerusalem temple. That is just a sketch and a shadow of the heavenly one. You know, just as Moses was warned when he was about to erect the tabernacle, the precursor of the temple that the Israelites carried around with them where they uh had a holy of holies and put the ark of the covenant as they were
(31:12) wandering 40 years in the wilderness. according to the Exodus story, the tabernacle where God said, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." And so, um, you know, the story of the Exodus is old, but now it's being read in light of, um, Platonism that has entered into the Henistic Jewish scene.
(31:41) And and so essentially whenever you're talking about that there's a divine pattern for things, you can't help but think of uh Plato's idea of the perfect forms, the form of a table of which our earthly tables are mere shadows. The same way here we're seeing that um the tabernacle that they built or the Jerusalem temple, these are just mere sketches and shadows of the heavenly divine eternal tabernacle, the eternal temple that exists in heaven.
(32:08) So essentially um he's making this kind of argument. We can now dispense with these material imitations because we now have this direct divine access to a direct divine intercessor in Christ. Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry. The author of Hebrews concludes and to the degree that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant which has been enacted on the basis of better promises.
(32:38) For if the first covenant, if Mosaic law, the Mosaic covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one. So, we wouldn't if the Old Testament was any good, we wouldn't need a New Testament. So, that's the the Christian argument here. So, the author of Hebrews here, following Paul's ideas, um he shows that the the New Testament, I'm sorry, the New Covenant is necessary.
(33:00) the fact that a new testament or new covenant is necessary. That alone should be proof that the old covenant was flawed and inferior. And so both Paul and Hebrews here are arguing that Christians should not follow Mosaic law. Uh it's wrong for modern Christians to quote Leviticus and to say that, you know, this and that is an abomination or whatever it is that they're misunderstanding.
(33:23) Uh if they do that and they don't live those laws anyway. And if they if they are quoting them then then as Paul says then Christ died for nothing because what uh Hebrews the author of Hebrews is saying here is Christ is our mediator and that obviates the need for human priests. Of course, um, one of the complexities here is that as Christianity, early Christianity, um, began to evolve in its different diversities.
(33:51) um uh the ideas that are being presented here that Christ's eternal priesthood obviates the need for any kind of human priests that comes to be in odds at odds with the fact that early Christianity quickly developed a tradition of ordaining human priests and that these unfortunately modeled on the Aronite Levite tradition.
(34:12) They don't have they're not lineagebased at least, but they did make them male only, even though that doesn't really have any basis written anywhere. Um, and um, again, this whole idea of doing this is is flawed according to anyway what the author of Hebrews would have. Luke Timothy Johnson, who's one of my favorite biblical scholars, he's written a whole uh, commentary on Hebrews.
(34:37) That commentary begins with his assessment with his assessment that Hebrews is one that Hebrews is one of the most of the most beautifully written, most beautifully written, most powerfully powerfully argued and theologically argued and theologically profound profound writings in the whole New writings in the whole New Testament.
(34:46) Um, Testament. Um, and he kind of laments and he kind of laments that it's not that it's not actually looked at or actually looked at or quoted very often. quoted very often. And part of the And part of the reason he says that that reason he says that that happens is that happens is that kind of like I just did, kind of like I just did, you can't just you can't just quote like one little quote like one little phrase out of it.
(35:00) phrase out of it. That commentary begins If you're going to explain this kind of theological argument that the author of Hebrews, for example, is making about um uh Jesus being a priest after the order of Melzdc, an eternal priest who has now obiated the need for for priesthood and so on.
Authorship and Dating of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(35:18) You have to kind of read a whole long passage and argument in order to understand how it all fits together piece by piece and you're persuaded by the end. Um so who who was this author? So because um this represents kind of a very high christologology um scholars argued well maybe this is that argues for a later date but actually that has more or less uh fallen out of um currency now because people have have sort of seen that really Paul already has a very high christologology early on.
(35:54) So high christologology is emphasizing Jesus divinity as we were just even reading in those passages from Hebrews. We're talking about Jesus as a eternal meditator I'm sorry mediator sitting at the you know the right hand of God eternally and so that's already very very developed. Um the text is known by early Christians like Clement of Rome who's active in the '9s.
(36:17) So it already is written uh you know and is well circulating by then. The passage we just read kind of seemed to imply that the Jerusalem temple is still existing. The high priests in Jerusalem are still operating. And if that's true that would make the writing date of the text prior to the year 70 when the Romans destroy that uh temple and exterminate or end uh those sacrifices forever.
(36:46) Although, you know, it's not clear if if they're just remembering that that had happened recently or if uh if they aren't aware that that such an end of the temple will happen. So, people still argue that it might be after 70, but it may well be somebody who is a direct disciple of of Paul who has written the uh epis what we now call the epistle to Hebrews.
(37:11) Okay. So Christians have been interested in Melchazdc because they really think about this character through the lens uh of the Epistle of Hebrews and they're seeing Melchazdc then typologically as an antitype for Jesus. So this is a a an antitype of which Jesus is the type. That is to say there is someone someone who is prefiguring uh Jesus in the Old Testament text.
Critical Analysis of Genesis 14
(37:41) But of course, you know, that's not the original intent of the compiler of Genesis, someone who's writing many centuries before Jesus and is ignorant of Jesus. Um, and so let's look at the story um that the author of Hebrews is is drawing from and see what it actually is saying in chapter 14 of Genesis. So, um, Richard Elliot Freeman, who is a biblical scholar and advocate for the documentary hypothesis for the construction of the Torah and Pentatuk, um, as he's looking at Genesis 14, he says that, um, this chapter has none of
(38:19) the characteristics of the other major Torah voice voices. And so, uh, the D voice is the voice that is responsible for writing Deuteronomy. And then we have the very evident and different voices of the J voice, the Yahwist and the priestly voice. The priestly voice can almost always be identified um you know by its characteristics.
(38:43) You know even if you're even if you're not reading it if you're just reading it in English because of u the way it talks, its priestly concerns and so forth. So whether or not uh the documentary hypothesis holds or a supplementary hypothesis hypothesis holds for how the different voices kind of came together to create the Torah Pentatuk as we now have it.
(39:09) Um apparently this chapter 14 is not really having sharing characteristics of any of those voices. So Freriedman concludes therefore that this has to be part of an entirely separate narrative document. So probably some earlier text that a redactor has added into the story. So another example of an earlier text like that that isn't related to one of the major voices is something that scholars call the book of generations and that is the um the kind of king list or patriarch genealogy list that the redactor has used to craft Genesis and make it look like um uh all the stories
(39:49) are related. So you know this is like Adam knew Eve and begat you know a son Seth and so forth. the begat lists. So that's a a different source as well. And so too is this Genesis chapter 14. So let's take a look at it. Genesis chapter 14 says, "In the days of King Amrafel of Shinar, of King Arch of Elisar, of King uh Chedeloamar, of Elam, of King Tedall of These kings made war with King Barah of Sodom, King Bersa of Gomorrah, King Shinab of Adma, King Shemember of Zibboam and King Bel and the king of Bella that is Zoir.
(40:35) All of these joined forces in the valley of Sidim that is the Dead Sea. So this story is placed after the flood, after the Tower of Babel and of course it's contemporaneous to the beginning of the Abram or Abraham story as Abraham is going to figure into it. And so we have a coalition here of kings, two different coalitions of kings and they're making war the valley of Sidim uh the Dead Sea.
(41:01) So the battle of Sidum in the Dead Sea Rift Zone on the one side here are four kind of historic or quasihistoric kings of quasi historic places. And so these are Shinar and Shinar is listed about seven or eight times in the Bible. It's a biblical name for the lower part of Mesopotamia of Iraq area around Sumer but also extending to include Babylon.
(41:29) So the city of Babel, the tower of Babel story is taking place in the plains of Shinar. So the king of Shinar, then Elilam. So Elilum is an actual ancient kingdom in southwestern Iran. Then we have other two other places that are not really identified or identifiable. So Aryokch, it's unknown. Different um different places have been um postulated about where this might be.
(41:53) So either northern Mesopotamia, parts of Anatolia, or maybe even Cyprus. And then the fourth king is the king of the That means the nations. And based on um based on his name, people have suggested well maybe that's the uh king of the Hittites and their allies. So another um major foreign power in the Anatolia in what's now Turkey.
(42:15) So those four kings of kind of like I say quasi historical kingdoms, they are facing off against kings of the five cities of the plain. These are king. These are cities in the Dead Sea region presumably before it becomes dead. And so presumably this might be um part of a Genesis myth that it's explaining why the Dead Sea is dead, why there's uh pillars of salt all around it and so forth.
(42:46) So these kind of mythic cities that the book of Genesis talks about Sodom, Gomorrah, Adma, Zeboam and Bailah uh are called the five cities of the plain. So, Genesis, the Genesis 14 story here occurs prior to the more famous story of Sodom and Gomorrah where uh Abraham's nephew Lot is living in the city of Sodom when some angels come uh and the men of Sodom uh do not offer hospitality.
(43:19) They break the hospitality code and as a result they're uh worse than that, they want to gang rape and so forth. um as a result of all of uh that they are destroyed along with the other cities of the plane, but that's later in the in the text. This is Genesis 14 before that. So when we're looking at this battle between four and five kings, the four big foreign kings of Mesopotamia and elsewhere, they are obviously much more powerful.
(43:49) And the five, I'm sorry, the kings of the five cities of the plains have been actually according to Genesis 14 been paying tribute to the kingdom of Elum. But they've now rebelled. And so we read in verse 8 and beyond. Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Adma, the king of Zeboam, and the king of Bella, that is Zor.
(44:11) In other words, the kings of the five plains. They went out and they joined battle in the valley of Sidim, the Dead Sea Valley with King uh Chelodomar of uh Elilam, King Tidal of the Goyam, King Amrafel of Shinar, and King Ario of Elisar. Four kings against five. Now the valley of Sidim was full of bumen pits and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and some fell into them and the rest fled into the hill country.
(44:43) So the enemy took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their provisions and went their way. And they also took Lot, the son of Abraham's brother, who lived in Sodom and all his goods, and they departed. So the large foreign coalition thus fairly easily defeats these rebel kings who rule the five cities of the plain. However, uh the text now gets to the reason why is this battle relevant in a story about the patriarchs.
(45:12) So Abraham's nephew Lot makes his home in the five cities and as a result of this battle he's on the losing side and he's taken away with all the prisoners and booty and everything as the uh foreign kings have desoiled the uh five cities. The captivity of Lot now comes to Abraham's attention. So one who had escaped from the four kings came and told Abram the Hebrew.
Abraham’s Coalition and the Rescue of Lot
(45:41) So probably remember in the u the Abraham story Abra Abram Abraham's name originally begins Abram and then later when he makes the covenant with God God changes his name. So that covenant is coming in the next chapter. So here he's still called Abram. So uh somebody one of these uh escapes told Abram the Hebrew who was living by the oaks of Mamry the Amorite the brother of Escal and Annor.
(46:09) These were the allies of Abram. When Abram heard that his nephew had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, men born in his house, some 318 of them, and went in pursuit of the uh retreating victorious foreign kings as far as the place of Dan, which is um up at the top of the Jordan River Valley. Abram divided his forces against them by night.
(46:38) He and his servants and he routed them and he pursued them to Hoba, that is north of Damascus. So they flee across the Golan Heights. And so then he brought back all of the goods and also brought back his nephew Lot with his goods and the women and the people. Okay. So in Genesis, although Abraham is not described as a king himself, you know, we're able to see he and his allies, the Amorites, Bedawins, they're able to pursue this victorious coalition of four foreign kings led by, you know, Cedalomar of Alam. He defeats them.
Melchizedek in Genesis 14
(47:12) He rescues Lot along with all the goods, women, and people. And so now this brings us to Melzdc. Uh what is Melzdc doing in this chapter? So after Abraham returns from the defeat of Chedle Omomar and the kings who are with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the valley of Chave, that is the king's valley.
(47:38) And King Melzdc of Salem brought out bread and wine. He Melzdc was priest of God most high. He blessed Abraham and said, "Blessed be Abram by God most high, maker of heaven and earth, and blessed be God most high, who has delivered your enemies into your hand." So again, out of nowhere, Melzdc appears and is described as the king of Salem.
(48:03) This is a place that's otherwise unmentioned anywhere else in Genesis. And he's also being called here a priest of Elleon. That is to say, it's translated here, God. most high. It could also be translated as most high l since uh the name of a god l is also becomes the word for god in Hebrew. So um uh so then what ends up happening is after um uh after Melzdc appears and gives this blessing, Abraham continues to have a conversation uh with the king of Sodom.
(48:46) And so what uh the king of Sodom says, let's uh go ahead and make a division. you go ahead and keep all of the spoils, all of the property, and I will take all of the people. And Abraham says, um, no, I don't want to take anything. I don't want to have it said that I, Abraham, was made rich because of, uh, of you, the king of Sodom.
(49:09) And so therefore, I I'm not taking any of the spoils. But my allies here, the Amorite, Bedawins, Anner, Echel, and Mamry, let them, you know, take their share. uh and they can go but I'm not going to. So that's the whole story. And again, the um the part about Mckazdc is is actually just a tiny part in the middle.
(49:31) So this this story is weird. This is actually um one of the things that I always like about uh Genesis especially, but really all of the Pentatuk, all of the Torah because you can really see it as an ancient document because nobody would have um nobody would have written it this way. Now, you know, this is not um because it's not unc it's not comprehensible and things that happened, you know, don't don't make any sense in how we would would write things with our modern theological conventions.
(49:59) So, what we have here is Abraham to rescue a kinsman making common cause with some Bedawins. Often Amorites are often the enemies of the um of the Israelites in later stories. And he's also sort of the ally of all of these local kings of the plain, the five cities of the plain in the Levant.
(50:21) And he makes a common cause against foreign invaders from Shinar and Mesopotamia and beyond. So it is really strange to have Abraham fighting alongside or at least in an alliance with the king of Sodom, even if this is only an alliance of convenience. So, like I say, there's very few clues about what's going on here in this passage. So, if it is um as other scholars have suggested, as Freriedman suggested, just a a fragment and we don't have the rest of whatever the story is and it's just been placed um by a redactor into this part of Genesis. It's been taken out of
(50:57) its context. It's been embedded into the Torah's Abraham Abraham narrative story and it's hard to understand how it really fits. you know, the later tale of the angels of the Lord visiting Lot in Sodom and telling it it him to flee. That's a a a Yahweh story. That's from the J source.
(51:20) Um so in this fragment though, uh the five cities are simply rebelling against a foreign domin uh dominion. So the king of Elim has been um lording it over them. They rebel. We don't hear anything then about the king of Sodom breaking any any hospitality codes. The only kind of negative factor, he's on he's on Abraham's side.
(51:38) The only negative factor here is Abraham just doesn't doesn't want to be seen as being um beholden to him in any way. Um but Abraham is kind of an independent guy and doesn't want to be seen as being beholden to anybody. So it's not necessarily a negative quality about him. In addition, Melzdc really plays no part in the rest of the story.
(51:59) And so and so in other words, there's all the five kings and the four kings. They're fighting. um they have the spoils eventually there's this moment where Melzdc just appears and then he's gone and then the conversation continues with Abraham and the king of Sodom and so some scholars have suggested therefore that these few verses that include Melzdc that may actually be an interpolation that may not be in the original text since Abram is dealing with the aftermath of the fight before the passage he's speaking to the kings
(52:30) involved afterwards and there's no reference to Melzdc either before or after and so it's completely possible that this brief passage about Melzdc is actually an interpolation of you know within this all fragment so what could we try to say just within it so Melzdc is portrayed here as a priest of Elleon and so as we said L became the generic word for god in Hebrew and L the god from a Canaan Canaanite pantheon sort of like a father god or or or like Saturn ultimately merges with Yahweh in the Judean understanding of
Traces of Polytheism and Theophoric Names
(53:14) God in biblical texts. So ultimately L and Yahweh merge to become the L lord of Israel. There's initially kind of a period where we where um people talk about uh Yahweh and his Asher. So the consort of L becomes the consort of Yahweh. The other sons of L which are mentioned in the Bible, they become sort of part of the heavenly court and are eventually demoted into angels.
(53:41) And so this is sort of maybe how they how the pantheon develops. And maybe therefore the emphasis on on Melchazdc as a priest of Elleon of God, I'm sorry, of the mo of most high L might be like an archaic uh fragment that's giving us a trace of this earlier Israelite polytheism lingering in the Pentatuk.
(54:06) So that's certainly a possibility. Um, you know, we're seeing here a kind of a window to this earlier Israelite Canaanite uh polytheism. It's also possible that Zedek is a theophoric name. So, while um the author of Hebrews is right that you can translate Melchazdc as king of righteousness, it's also to possible to understand that the name is theophoric where it's saying things that Zedic is my king.
(54:36) So there is a um a god who's named Zedic whose name essentially means righteousness. Um and so then the the name Melzdc is a theophoric in the same way that we have you know theophorics for Bal like Hannibal or Jezebel and we have theophorics for Yahweh like Jehoshaphat and so forth. So the book of Joshua records another potentially theophoric zetic name for a pre-Israelite king of Jerusalem.
(55:11) So in Joshua we talk there's um a king called Adonis Zedetic. And so that could be translated as Zedic is my lord. And so again, sometimes people have argued certainly in antiquity there the argument was made that Salem, so Melzdc is king of Salem. Adonis Adonisedc is king of Jerusalem. If they're the same, then really two of only a handful of um of pre-Israelite kings of uh Jerusalem have u zedic theophoric names.
(55:48) And so the idea is it could be there is a god zedic and Jerusalem was a cult center for the god zedic. So that's another possible um um pre monolitry pre uh hentheist uh traces that are in this fragment of a story. Nevertheless, although readers were already, like I say, making associations between the Salem ruled by Melzdc and Jerusalem, um, and there's a big tendency to want to, um, to emphasize the site that becomes the temple site.
Competing Traditions: Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim
(56:28) So because the temple site becomes so incredibly important um by uh by the end of first temple Judaism especially in second temple Judaism um you know tradition starts assigning all kinds of things to have happened there. So for example uh the story of the sacrifice of or near sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham um that gets associated with that's you know by tradition is also takes place at that same place that would become the allimportant temple site but um you know this is again a later tradition that that is emphasizing the importance of
(57:01) that site and simultaneously for example um the Samaritans who represent a different Israelite tradition during the second temple period period. Um they um their tradition argued that Salem, Melzdc, king of Salem, that Salem was located on the slopes of Mount Gerism, which is to say it's related to their temple site.
(57:27) And so Abram is visiting uh a priest who is uh indicating that the Samaritan temple site is so important. them. Anyway, there's count contradictory ideas about whether um uh these are related. And indeed um even though uh Hebrews uh is giving an etmology for king of Salem and equating the word Salem with peace uh and Jerusalem is often given a folk etmology uh where Salem there is associated with peace and so it's called city of peace.
(57:59) Um most scholars think that the true etmology is not city of peace but rather an earlier thing again uh showing kind of a Canaanite um uh polytheist roots where there is a god Shalam uh who is the god Canaanite god of the dusk and that the city's name maybe means foundation or you know of shalam as opposed to you know shalom peace.
(58:28) So in some then the fact that so little can definitively be said about what the author of this Melzdc fragment might have meant and who they might have thought this character to be you know like I say that's only increased the mystery and interest and so that's caused everyone to endlessly speculate similar to um the fragment or the little line one-off line we have about Enoch and so for Christians for sure um they've continued to see Melzdc as an antitype for Christ, prefiguring Christ.
(59:01) And the fact that Melzdc um uh blesses Abraham and also brings bread and wine uh is also seen as prefiguring uh the eukarist, the Christian tradition of communion. And so we have here in in Revena, beautiful uh 6th century mosaic that's showing uh the sacrifice of Abel and the sacrifice of Melzdc together um as prefiguring essentially Christian communion.
(59:32) Okay. The only other reference to Melzdc in the Hebrew Bible comes from the 110th Psalm. And so we saw that quoted by the author of the Epistle to Hebrews as an antitype for Christ. And so um this is one of the psalms that is given the superscription a psalm of David and it's only seven verses long.
(59:54) So we'll go ahead and go ahead and read it. And so the psalm says the Lord says to my lord that is God says to the king sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your foottool. The Lord sends out from Zion that is Jerusalem your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your foes. Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day you lead your forces on the holy mountains.
(1:00:22) From the womb of the morning like dew, your youth will come to you. The Lord has sworn and he will not change his mind. You are a priest forever according to the order of Melzdc. The Lord is at your right hand. He will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses.
(1:00:44) He will shatter heads over the wide earth. He will drink from the stream by the path. Therefore, he will lift up his head. So, very very pleasant imagery here of of God killing everybody's en you know all the king of uh Judah's enemies uh shattering them all and so forth, filling them with corpses. So, that's the entire text of the psalm.
(1:01:08) Like I say, it reads essentially like a song that's being sung to the king of Judah. And in it, God is essentially promising, you know, the king's youth is going to be vigorous. He's going to have victory over all of his enemies and so on. Uh in part because he God is not going to change his mind.
(1:01:30) You're a priest forever according to the order of Melzdc. Okay. So what are we dealing with here? Is it possibly that this is kind of like a royal liturgy? Something that is said in the um priests are singing to the king during certain ritual times. So um you know so where is this coming from? So it's described to David like I say David is largely a mythic figure who's constructed as the aonomous ancestor of the kings of Judah.
(1:02:00) So the kings of Judah were known as the house of David. So they must have had an ancestor named David. And this is uh the source of people wanting to make stories about that. So that doesn't mean and in part of the stories is that David is a a psalmist harpist who plays and sings songs to soothe the preceding king Saul's madness.
(1:02:20) But um it's unlikely that any of the psalms date back to a historic David if um if there was a historic David. Nevertheless, this one Psalm 10 110 is thought to be one of the older texts in the corpus of the Psalms and um most scholars think it's pre-exil. So it is before the destruction of the kingdom of Judah. It's part of then of the of the first temple period.
(1:02:47) And so the word, you know, Messiah means anointed. And that's a synonym for the king because the king is anointed in the same way that um uh Zatakite priests are anointed. And so as kings are anointed, it's possible that this is something that priests are singing to the king at rich certain ritual times like for example if during an anointing.
(1:03:08) So if in toning you are a priest forever according to the order of Melzdc, according to the order of righteous kings, if that's a royal liturgy here, then perhaps the order of priests here refers to essentially the priestly sacral qualities held by the kings of Judah themselves. And so essentially the order of the righteous kings is the kings of Judah who are anointed as uh messiahs.
(1:03:37) So like I say, Zatakite priests, not the Levites, uh, but the Zadakite priests, the Davidic king, I'm sorry, the, um, ironic kings, uh, priests, they are also anointed. And so calling the king's order mazes, that might explain their relationship to the Sadducees, to the Zadakite anointed kings. So they're both messiahs.
(1:04:00) They're both have a quality of being priests, but the one are the priests of righteous kings and the other are priests after the order of of Aaron and the brother of Moses. So, you know, we might speculate then, we can't say, but uh the royal supporters created the Melzdc, King of Salem story as a way to illustrate the antiquity and priority of this understanding of royal priesthood.
(1:04:32) So in other words that um that they're they're creating a story set in the time of Abraham of the antiquity then of you know essentially the priestly line of of having um kings having this sacral quality. But again even if that may be a great guess or a best guess it's still always going to be a guess because we we just don't have the evidence to show any of this.
(1:04:55) So in any event, whatever was the case, the destruction of the kingdom of Judah when the Babylonians destroyed it in 587 and then a few generations later when the house of David went extinct, you know, that left it all for speculation because it in some some sense then didn't matter anymore.
Hasmonaean Dynasty and Josephus
(1:05:16) And so then since that time, Melzdc has been a source for incredible speculation uh for all of antiquity and all the way up until the present. And that's what we can deal with now with the rest as we look at all the ideas that people had. So the Mcabes, the Hasminian dynasty who um end up leading a successful Judeian revolt uh from the Henistic monarchs that had ruled um uh uh that had ruled Judea from the time when Alexander the Great overthrew the Persian Empire.
(1:05:50) uh they created a very short-lived um independent Judeian kingdom and the Hasminians because they are not Davidic kings, they're not descendants of David and because they are not uh Sadducees, they're not descendants of Zaduk. Um they nevertheless claimed to be kings of Judea and they claimed also to be high priests.
Philo of Alexandria's Allegorical Interpretation
(1:06:16) Uh and so how can that work when when the [clears throat] priesthoods were and kingship were understood through lineage? Well um the Hasminian said well look at look at this u Melzdc king of Salem was also priest after the order priest of of of the god most high. So this is the priest after the order of mazdc and that's how we are as well.
(1:06:38) In other words, we can have our own priest kingship that's not based on lineage. Um and so that's one of the ways that this was made use of by the Mcabes who um referred to themselves as priests of God most high. So following um other other uses of this so Josephus this really important first century uh Judeian Roman historian he's following in the work of ancient Greek historians Henistic historians whose real program would historicize Greek myths by maybe thinking of naturalistic explanations for how you explain kind of these stories for seeing that historic
(1:07:22) humans are later remembered as gods. So maybe um you know maybe there was actually a human guy who was named Zeus who's remembered this way and so on. Josephus similarly historicizes biblical mythology and at some point or other as he's telling you know uh the story of Jewish history he talks about Abraham encountering Melzdc who he labels as a Canaanite chief.
(1:07:50) Um by contrast um the first century henistic Jewish philosopher and theologian Pho of Alexandria who we like to talk about he himself is known for allegorical interpretation of scripture and so of course he applies that lens to Melzdc. It's not a surprise that Henistic historian applies Henistic history lens to Melzdc and um a philos philosopher theologian um Platonist in terms of if Pho is applying that lens and so Pho seeing Melzdc as a historical king identifies Melzdc as the embodiment of the divine logos.
(1:08:33) um which is a very important concept that um that Christians later build on this idea that uh God's word um is a distinct and uh experiencable hypo hypo hypothesis uh from the invisible creator. And so Melzdc the story of Melzdc showing the um divine logos embodied who brings wine and bread to Abraham.
Melchizedek in Enochian Tradition
(1:09:04) In other words, the the logos brings God's grace to Abraham in Pho's interpretation, allegorical interpretation of the Melzdc story. Other second temple Judeans had different um interpretations. So the whole Enochian community that we've talked about when we've looked at the many citigraph books of Enoch also saw in Melzdc another special figure like Enoch.
(1:09:31) So for example, the second book of Enoch devotes its entire final section to telling a story of Melzdc. Um it says in that book that Melchazdc was born uh had a to a virgin. So there's a virgin birth. Woman named Sophonium gives birth uh to a child who already at birth can immediately speak um and is already has the signs of priesthood. Melchazdc.
(1:10:00) Um he is uh although you know she she was a virgin she's married to Mo Noah's brother near according to the second book of Enoch and when the flood comes uh the archangel Gabriel takes Melchazdc brings him to the garden of Eden where he lives for a while and I guess eventually he makes it back to the regular um saved world so that he can interact with Abraham.
Melchizedek in the Dead Sea Scrolls
(1:10:24) Mazdc also shows up in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So the Kumran community, the Essenes have their own understandings. So this is a apocalyptic group who um is definitely looking forward to end times and uh and messianic figures. And so Melzdc in a couple different documents is is mentioned and is one of these powerful divine beings that are uh involved in kind of end times things.
(1:10:52) And specifically uh Melzdc is uh arrayed against the negative force bial. So in the melazdc document which is one of the particular scrolls we read the day of atonement is the day of atonement is the end of the 10th jubilee when all the sons of light and all the men of the lot of melazdc will be atoned for and a statue concerns them to provide them with their rewards.
(1:11:25) For this is the moment for the year of grace from Melzdc. And he will by his strength judge the holy ones of God executing judgment as it was written concerning him in the songs of David who said Elohim has taken his place in the divine counsel in the midst of gods the gods he holds judgment.
(1:11:47) And Melzdc will avenge the vengeance of the judgments of God. And he will drag them from the hands of Bille, this negative evil cosmic force, and from the hand of all the spirits of his lot. And all the gods of justice will come to his aid and attend to the destruction of Bile. And Zion is those who uphold the covenant, who turn from walking in the way of the people.
(1:12:14) And your Elohim is Melzdc, who will save them from the hand of Bile. And so again, this is like seeing um in Melzdc a really important divine being. Elohim word for God in the plural is normally reserved for uh talking about the God of Israel, but it's associated here with Melzdc and and so there's other ideas here of just cosmic forces that are important.
(1:12:39) Melazedc being one of them. Other dead sea scrolls contra that contrast Melchazdc with Bille call Bial Melia the king of wickedness. In other words, a title that is kind of made, you know, made up and made to contrast Melchazdic, the king of righteousness. And this scroll that's kind of talking about this um identifies Melzdc with Michael the archangel.
Rabbinic Interpretations: Identifying Melchizedek as Shem
(1:13:05) So, another powerful um kind of cosmic figure in this uh apocalyptic worldview. What about the rabbis? So, the rabbis did the math uh when they're reading all of that book of generations and you're seeing how long um people like Adam, Eve, especially Methuselah live and all the patriarchs down to Noah who mostly all live almost a thousand years.
(1:13:34) And then it falls off rather quickly, but it doesn't fall off immediately to um to normal human length. So Abraham himself lives 175 years or so in the way that the way that works. But because um because the uh the age range is falling off so fast um people like Shem who's living only 600 years, Noah's son Shem um he's living actually he outlives Abraham if you do the math that's given in Genesis.
(1:14:06) And so the rabbis made those calculations and they realized, well, wait a second. As Abraham, all the years he's running around and alive, you know, his great great great greatgrandfather Shem is still alive. And maybe they would have interacted. And so um many of the rabbis then concluded that in fact Melchazdc who isn't given a lineage or birth or death or anything like that maybe that's because what but he's actually Shem and so um identifying Melzdc with Shem as a lot of the rabbis did counters you know both of those arguments that uh this
(1:14:48) early Christian writer is making in the epistle of the Hebrews. So, not only does the king of Salem, you know, since he lacks a genealogy, now he doesn't lack a genealogy because we know how fits in. He's um Noah's son. He's uh part of an exalted line. He's Abraham's uh seven times greatgrandfather. Um and similarly, it's no longer a pri problem that Abraham is is deferring or is religiously um inferior to Melzdc.
(1:15:20) If Melzdc is Shem, I mean, of course, that comes as no surprise. Shem has got great antiquity and authority and so forth. Um, there's only a couple problems in making that. So, the Bible also in the Noah story talks about uh the inheritances of Noah's three sons, Ham, Shem, and Japth. And um and Salem in the whole area in that whole area where Canaan and so forth that falls into Ham's inheritance.
(1:15:48) And so it would make a lot of sense that Shem would be the king of Salem, Melzdc. Uh and similarly, it it's not as much of an important to the rabbis, but it would have been really important to the uh the priests that came before. Um, the idea that um that that Shem is a is a priest goes against what uh the Torah says, which is essentially that there's not to be any especially the priestly author of the Torah, that there's not to be any priests until um until uh Aaron is made a priest because that's so critically important to the priestly author who's
(1:16:23) one of the major writers of the of the Torah. It doesn't hurt the rabbis. the rabbis were able to say, well, this is kind of like a um a proto priest, an priest, a natural, you know, Shem is having a natural priesthood that comes before the um the no Mosaic covenant, before the Mosaic law. U but in any event, this is an identification that um that has been very very popular and and and then is figures into lots of uh rabbitic and later uh Jewish literature.
(1:16:53) So for example there's a book the book of Jasher which is uh written in the middle ages uh an expansion of Genesis of Midrush um it just just identifies Melzdc with Shem as a matter of course that's what everybody understands and so for example in this expansion of the Abraham story Abram's father Terara is an official in the court of King Nimrod so Nimrod is uh Just again a guy who's barely mentioned in Genesis, but he's a mighty hunter before the Lord.
(1:17:28) He's king of Shinar where the um lower Mesopotamia where the tower of Babel is built. And so in this expansion, Tara is a court official and he has succumbed to Nimrod's uh the culture of his court where they're all idolattors. And so Tara has a whole house full of idols. Uh Abraham is opposed to this practice and he comes and he destroys all of his father's idols and has to then flee and take and when he does to get away from King Nimrod and his dad, he takes refuge with Shem in the house of Noah.
(1:18:03) And so this is a place where he's learning essentially his um you know the truth and and how to be a prophet and so forth. So Christians of course um follow the lens of Hebrews. They continue to interpret Melchzdc as an antitype of Christ, prefiguring Christ. And like I say, it's kind of a um the fact that in this tiny little fragment uh one of the parts of Melkazedc's blessing is to offer bread and wine.
Melchizedek in the Latter-day Saint Tradition
(1:18:36) It ends up just fitting the eucharistic image beautifully. And so um that's a nice uh either worked really well for Christians. However, if you want to think it as a coincidence or not, but anyway, it's something that fits into the imagery very very well. There is and then one more um modern interpretation of Melzdc that I want to touch on here and that is um the very unique understanding of Melzdc priesthood in uh the latter-day saint tradition.
(1:19:10) So in the 1830s in the um Joseph Smith's restoration um Latter-day Saints developed their own very unique understanding of priesthoods and specifically priesthood after the order of Melzdc. These are um pulpits from the original Mormon temple in Kirtland, Ohio. And each of them are labeled with initials and the M's that are happen on these pulpits in the middle that that refers to Melchazdc.
(1:19:35) And so there are um two sets of pulpit in the sanctuary uh facing off each other. On the one hand there are the MZDC pulpits and the Aaron pulpit. Um I'll just say in the Latter-day Saint tradition the priesthoods are called Melzdc priesthood and ironic priesthood. And this refers to priesthoods of Melzdc and priesthoods of Aaron.
(1:20:00) But if these were going to be parallel usages, the one would be Melzdcic priesthoods and they both end in but they they shouldn't. So it should be either Melzdcite priesthood and Aronite Aronite priesthood or Aaronic and Melzdcic. But anyway, it's not how it's used. So they're they're said that way. So, like I say, in in the early 1830s, Joseph Smith was trying to um restore the primitive Christian church, how things would have been uh by the Christians as they read about in Acts.
(1:20:33) And over the course of really uh the first decade, that evolution evolved as Joseph Smith continued to restore different priesthood offices. So originally they started with just um elders and priests and teachers and they only later um came to the idea that they needed to have a high priesthood and that later became an office of high priest and later they understood the different offices that they had all uh started having deacons, teachers, priests, elders, high priests, apostles and so forth that these um fell broadly
(1:21:15) under two orders. Order of Aaron, the order of Melchazdc. And that again is because of um reading Hebrews which talks about priests priesthoods of those orders. Um, but I mean, as we've just read, this is really obviously clearly a misreading of Hebrews because Hebrews isn't saying that um that this is why Christians have both ironic priests and mazesic priests.
(1:21:45) What what uh what Hebrews is clearly saying is we no longer need priests after the order of Aaron. that's been dispensed with and there is only one uh eternal priest after the order of Melzdc who is Christ. Not that uh anybody else should be under that, but this is how um this has evolved and continued to function, you know, throughout the Mormon church and other churches of Latter-day Saint movement, including Community of Christ, which maintains um you know, essentially these priesthood orders and offices. Um you know, despite
(1:22:19) presumably having gone through the the uh like I've done anyway, that that doesn't really make any historical sense or or any of that. There's just simply things that we've inherited. And so this is really my look and my deep dive at both uh Melzdc as Melzdc actually exists in the sources in the Old Testament, the two little passages in the uh understanding of it, the theological argument that early kind of brilliant Christian makes, the author of Hebrews, and then all of the uh fanfiction and legends that everybody
(1:22:52) have had ever since up to the present day. So going to um get a glass of water and Landra is going to start sharing your questions and comments and so forth. Uh um Ted Gamberling, thank you so much for your support. Uh and also Fire Living, thank you. Uh, natural philos natural philosophy, thank you for your support.
Audience Questions and Discussion
(1:23:30) Um, natural philosophy says, "The first time I heard of Melchzdc was in the Urantia book. Have you heard of it? And have you u do you have any thoughts?" So I I have heard of the Urantia book. I have not read it. Um um and so I didn't know that Melzdc was in there. if I had known that.
(1:23:48) Um that would that would have been interesting to include because it is different people have uh gone back to this. Well, and I'm interested to hear about that one. So anyway, that's very interesting. Um Kmpus Bradford or sorry, Fred Church, thank you sir for your support. Uh Kate Tempest Bradford asks, um other priests died and such. Jesus didn't die but he went directly to heaven but he's in heaven.
(1:24:11) That's just like being dead. He's not here. So how is that different? Well, so essentially um you know we're I think that we're talking about the a difference between the a kind of a um you know what was the older material physical uh cycle of you know how um it was necessary to essentially for humans to do rituals in order for the cosmos to continue to exist.
(1:24:40) But now um we are having a uh kind of now we've come to a different understanding in antiquity where um where people are are spiritualizing things. And so um the idea of it here is we previously had law and rituals and all these kind of things. That was our our original understanding of the covenant. But now we have a new understanding of the covenant which is which is more spiritualized. It's more about meaning.
(1:25:06) And so it's different because um because we are always connected uh so the as an intercessor before we weren't allowed to have any connection with God. God is God's presence is behind the veil. You can't go in there. The only one who can go in there is a human intercessor. The difference now in the Christian understanding is God's spirit is completely um poured out in upon all of us.
(1:25:32) So we can we can't see the unknowable creator because he's beyond. But we can communicate directly with God's word uh Christ who is is within us and so on as we understand it. So he's this bridge between us and and God. So that's how that's essentially how it's different. We need no intercessor to be able to communicate with uh with God in terms of the argument theologically here.
(1:25:59) Uh Ted Gimberling says,"Wh uh would the author of Psalm 110 mention this obscure figure?" So um so I was trying to argue that the idea of it is that um it it may not be obscure for the um let's say within the royal rituals. So if this psalm is so the psalms are not just like written by one guy and they're not written by David even though they say a psalm of David and some of them are more archaic than others and so this could be a a very archaic um um text that is like a a song that is in toned during rituals of the um the kingdom of
(1:26:45) of Judah. And so they're when they're saying the figure here, Melzdc, they're not they're not actually referring to a human being, anybody that ever existed. What they're saying is that the king himself is is a priest. He's now anointed. He's part of the order of righteous kings. And so it's in fact a u like a title that's given to the kings themselves understanding their sort of sacral their sort of sacral character.
(1:27:13) That would be my interpretation anyway of what um what Psalm 10 110 maybe means. Um if it's if it's not that if it's if it's mentioning you know if it has some other meaning and it is trying to refer to an obscure figure it is um yeah you'd have to ask why is why are they doing that? Um so K Tempest Bradford says if Hebrews says we don't need priests why the heck do we have priests? Well, um there's all kinds of things that or ideals that exist in uh in the early Christian texts and we haven't necessarily um followed
(1:27:51) all of the ideals. In fact, you can't follow all of them because they're contradictory with each other. So, the point of um biblical texts is that they're a conversation and they're in conversation with each other. um you know as we've seen again and again you know Paul's ideas about uh adherence to Mosaic law his ideas about um uh you know being made uh you know saved through through faith alone are very much at odds with the contrary authors that of the author of James and the other faction. So they can't both you
(1:28:26) know uh we can't have follow both fully and literally in the same way that some of the there are different um ideas about priesthood in the New Testament. So so Hebrews here has kind of a um uh let's say you know like the most kind of cosmic idea of priesthood. We don't need priesthood anymore because Jesus is the is the priest.
(1:28:51) Uh there are other ones that uh are more like uh in the epistle of Peter where the epistle of pe Peter are arguing um we all in the Christian community as we've all come together we've become a a nation of priests. So then we're a priesthood of all believers. And then there are other uh uh voices in the New Testament like the continuers of Paul who are writing letters like Titus uh uh where they're talking about the need to have you know elders and overseers you know who can um you know keep the flock in order.
(1:29:27) And so uh essentially what happens is is that um from a uh from a community that is initially centered around essentially mendicant prophets and apostles who are wandering around um uh having given away all property and taken essentially vows of voluntary poverty um and preaching by the spirit from having that sort of a a structure.
(1:29:55) Now um the the functioning Christian communities have seen the need well they've got to have some kind of an organization. We need uh to appoint deans or deacons over some of the temporal affairs. We need to have uh overseers to and elders to um operate how the community works since it's structured and this evolves into um a priesthood structure of bishops and priests uh that that ends up existing in the early church.
(1:30:22) So that's why we have priests even if some of the early Christians felt we didn't need them. Chris uh Preston Emperor Kersonen says, "Could Melzdc be a priest from another religion like how the wise men were Zoroastrians or maybe he was priest of another Canaanite god and he's maybe misinterpreted." So it's yeah that's possible.
(1:30:42) So I was even saying here how um you know one of the other interpretations one of the other etmologies for Melchazdc is that he it it could mean that um um Zedc the god Zadc is my king. So it could be a theopheric. So he could actually be you know that's where the the name might have come from.
(1:31:02) or uh like I say since he's constantly being talked about as a priest of of not of Yahweh but of Elon Lon so of lost most high maybe it is a priest from um you know the Canaanite religion of the priest of L um but in any event we you know it's not how it's meant by the time the editors have brought it together this seg this um segment and is being brought together by redactors into the Bible where L is already equated with with the L the God of Israel with Yahweh.
(1:31:38) Um Pasel Plakes, thank you for your support. Um Pabs uh G says, "Are there any mythical stories outside the Torah that have a similar archetype, i.e. a wandering king priest with almost godlike qualities. Uh who to whom tribute is paid. Um so I don't know if you mean you mean so if you mean outside the Torah but the rest of the Bible I'm not I'm not sure of any uh like that.
(1:32:11) Of course in in other kinds of um uh there are other kinds of mythologies maybe where um you know where there you know other kings in Greek mythology who go around and and ultimately are looking for a place to set up a kingdom and are ultimately led to the place where it's going to be. Um there are there are myths for that about how um how Romulus fights picks the sight of Rome or how Daido picks the uh the sight of Carthage.
(1:32:42) There's stories about that for thieves. So in a lot of cases when there is a kind of a mythic king founder that might might be sort of like that um in terms of godlike qualities. you know, there's sometimes, you know, sometimes um yeah, kings are a transition from older types of gods. Sometimes gods are sort of like kind of like half like titans as opposed to being the kind of the Olympian gods.
(1:33:07) And so, so I would say so, you know, we would just have to kind of look through all of, you know, mythology in antiquity to have that. So I don't think it's um you know it's not necessarily clear that um that you know in the original fragment that Mckzd has any god-like qualities. He's he assumes godlike qualities in the um in the retelling of his tale by the um the Enochian apo apo apocalyptic um Judeans and also in the um in the stories of the of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
(1:33:42) And in those cases, what they're probably drawing on is more things like Zoroastrianism where they're where there's this apocalypse that's coming. There's this series of of saviors that are uh the divine figures on the side of the light as opposed to the the side of darkness and this cosmic battle that's going to end with uh an apocalypse.
(1:34:05) Uh Dark Sarian says, "Where is Mount Garism? Is it in the north somewhere?" So it is um yeah so it's up by uh Sheckchim in Samaria which is the um in the West Bank just a little bit uh north of Jerusalem. Uh says Robert uh Cargle's do I have any thoughts on Robert Cargle's work regarding Salem being a retcon later? um that initially he was the new king of Sodom after his father uh the earlier king died in the narrative.
(1:34:44) Um so I don't I haven't I haven't read that and so I don't necessarily know. It's it's um so like I said the problem with this fragment is it's so tiny that we we're it's not clear what we can make of it. And so there's all kinds of different theories that we can add which like I say almost have to be entirely speculative.
(1:35:04) And so so I made the case that maybe you know some scholars have said well maybe this whole um Melzdc king of Salem thing is just even an interpolation that this wasn't there but maybe like you're saying um what actually has happened you know another another potential speculation is that what's happened here is a um is there's been an edit and so somebody's crossed out Sodom and put Salem and so forth.
(1:35:30) Um, I don't know that that's uh that I find that convincing, but I haven't read the argument. So, you know, there's, like I said, at a certain point, we have so little I read almost the whole thing to you so that you could have the whole primary source and um whether or not you find those kinds of um you know, speculative propositions uh convincing or not.
(1:35:55) Uh so Balo Sopharaptor says I know the Abram story is a myth but isn't the Isaac thing happening on the temple mount another strike against it the city would have been uh on top of the hill all tal settlements were so um so well I wouldn't I don't know that we have to go that far to find that as the as the thing that makes the Abraham story a myth or the Isaac story a myth.
(1:36:19) Those are clearly myths. Um they're set way too far back. We don't have any um you know, we don't have any long oral tradition that brings us to them. The tradition that makes the thing happen that the Abraham story is set on on you know other words that the sacrifice is happening on Jerusalem that wouldn't we couldn't use that to disprove it because that's a tradition that's late.
(1:36:41) So I think that um uh the first time that that starts to get equated is with like the book of Chronicles which is itself a bunch of rewriting. And so it's um uh suggesting I think the original says that it that the sacrifice is taking place in the land of Mariah. Then in Chronicles it says that um it takes place on Mount Mariah and that Mount Mariah is another name for Jerusalem.
(1:37:02) But that's um so other words that's a that's a late rewrite as opposed to um something that that would indicate that the story didn't happen. We the story didn't happen for all kinds of other reasons. So, um, anyway, uh, Ron Wagner, was the city of Jerusalem created by Judeans or was it, uh, did exist before them? I've heard that the city is older than Judaism.
(1:37:32) So, um, so the Bible itself says that, um, it was populated by Canaanite people that were non-Judian. So, so the Bible narrative has um has a people called the Jebusites living there. And the reason why according to the Bible narrative anyway that David makes it his capital is that to make it be a neutral place. So, he's not in necessarily in any of the um occupied zones of any of the different tribes and he goes and he kicks out the Jebusites and then he makes that be their capital.
(1:38:02) Um I think the archaeology says that um the site is occupied uh maybe already by 3000 BCE and so it's a um you know it's definitely a a fortified city by the Bronze Age for a Canaanite city. Um but so again is it before though before you know Judans are there? So, so again the B Bible tells stories, you know, uh the create the origin myth for um Judeans.
(1:38:41) There's like two stories of um uh of where the people came from. So when you're having your your kind of origin story and you're making a myth about it, your story is either you guys came from somewhere else or you've always been there. And the the um the biblical origin stories, there's two of them essentially. Abraham has come from the land of the Chaldes.
(1:38:59) So he's come from Shinar and gone through the fertile crescent and and eventually settled in the land. And the other one is the Exodus story. So Moses has led people out of Egypt and they've come and settled in the land and and in the Joshua story, they kill everybody in order to seize the land. Um but but these are myths.
(1:39:22) um the they don't not uh they don't fit the archaeological data and and it doesn't also relate to the things that we can have like the the cultural data the the language that everybody has the the alphabet the um the pantheons and so on. So there's almost no distinction at all between um Canaanite language Phoenician Hebrew. They're all very um just little variations on each other.
(1:39:49) So it's not um foreigners that have come from someplace else. What's happened is is that there is a um an Israelite and a Ja Judean identities that emerged within uh Canaanites. So they are the Canaanites. And so um and so they wasn't necessarily before them, but it's before they considered themselves um a separate identity from their neighbors.
(1:40:13) Um WM consulting service says can Melzdc be related to the origins of Abraham in was Jerusalem a settlement of [laughter] no so so there's no in the in the story there's no sense that Salem has any connection to Jerusalem even it's just Salem in the in the mazes story itself and whether Salem is has any bearing on Jerusalem.
(1:40:44) That's a later idea that people have and it's not related to tor. So it is its own standalone fragment that's separated from um the other tellings that we have of the Abraham story which are taking place specifically especially in the uh the Yahwist or J source and then also some priestly uh peource narratives and this is its own um kind of separate little fragment and it that's not may not have anything to do with the idea that Abraham came from of the Chaldis uh says thoughts regarding the idea that later interpretation flipped on who was
(1:41:25) giving tribute that initially it was Abraham being given tribute from Melzdc. So, so some of the arguments that have been made, so people are are are definitely um let's say rabbitic sources are are aware of the criticism in in the epistle of Hebrews that this is showing that Abraham um is a uh is religiously inferior to Melzdc.
(1:41:50) And so then people point out, well, it's not clear that it's saying that Abraham paid tribute to Melzdc. The Hebrew here is um is indistinct. And so, and so it could just be the tribute is paid. And so, but um but I think that that's a weak uh counterargument. I think that it it does look like it's pretty clear that, you know, Abraham is paying the tribute to Melzdc.
(1:42:14) And so, I think the stronger argument that they made was well, Melzdc is Shem. You know, in other words, it's not not that it was, but it's that it's a it counters the counters that argument. So I don't think that there's a um the the the manuscript doesn't show that but it's something that um would it would have to involve that big edits have been made.
(1:42:34) Uh Kate Tempmpus Bradford um says uh I thought the book of Jasher was a forgery. So the book of Jasher is like I mentioned it's a medieval text. So the main book of Jasher as we have it. So there is a um there's there are references to an ancient book of Jasher that is part of the um the corpus of sources that the deuteronomic historians claim that they're have access to and are using.
(1:43:04) So that means that to say the people that are writing or composing compiling the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and uh Kings will occasionally say well isn't this all not written in the book of Jasher? Uh, so go ahead and read the book of Jasher because we're because I'm not going to talk anymore about this part.
(1:43:21) And so that's a a source that is lost and doesn't exist. But when people have a little thing that says that, then other people think, well, maybe I'll write my own book of Jasher and I'll claim that this was the original book of Jasher. And that's what this medieval um book is.
(1:43:39) So it's a medieval Jewish writer who has written a book of Jasher. And so it's a forgery in the sense that it is not the ancient book of Jasher. It's a book that is composed in the in the Middle Ages. Um JW Marino says, "I don't think I've ever seen you step off the screen enough to see the center of the spiral. Does the lion and lamb of the and the child have some special center place?" Yeah.
(1:44:03) >> Every time you've coughed, then we'll see what's behind. >> That's right. Normally, you don't get to see what's behind me, but um we've learned that me coughing on screen is not something that is enjoyable to everybody. And so what we've learned is I um I'm I can feel like a cough coming or I need a drink of water.
(1:44:19) And so then I step off the screen and Leandro is later going to edit this. And so that that makes that that segment where I'm off the screen coughing go away. But now you got to see uh the the symbol of the lion and the lamb and the child in the spiral behind me. Um and it does have a significance.
(1:44:38) So it it's a lion, lamb, and a child. And it says peace. And so this is uh the vision of of utopia uh that is expressed in um the uh the uh book of Isaiah where Isaiah says you know uh it's not doesn't immediately say the lion and the lamb shall lie down together. It talks about uh other animals and things like that but it gets it gets um shortened to have a lion and lamb will lie together and a little child shall lead them.
(1:45:10) And so the idea of it is is that this is a uh it's thinking forward of a of a of a utopia that we trying to try to achieve by um building more just communities where uh where it's not about the strong just taking advantage and abusing the weak, but rather where everyone can live in peace and harmony and justice.
(1:45:35) And so that's um sort of our vision of what we want to uh build the world towards in and that's the symbol here of centerplace and also our denominational symbol community of Christ. So thank you all so very much. I really appreciate that. Don't forget to like and share this video. Subscribe to the channel. Um if you're able uh to donate, we appreciate it.
(1:45:55) center c centerplace.ca/donate. And remember that next week, Leandro and I are going to be uh watching and commenting on The Last Temptation of Christ. Neither of us have seen it yet. We're looking forward to it. We'll tell you what we think next week. Thanks again.