Melchizedek

There exist several theories on who Melchizedek was. These theories or opinions are as follows:

 

1. A Godly Patriarch, possibly Shem (Noah’s Son) . This is typically a 7^th Day Adventist view.
2. A created person who was a type of Christ
3. An angelic Being like the Archangel Michael. These are typically adopted from passages in the Books of Jubilees and Enoch that make mention of “the prince of Israel.”
4. A real person who is unknown and who possibly somewhat of a folklore was built around him.
5. A manifestation of the Holy Spirit
6. A Gentile King or Canaanite King
7. A Theophany of Christ. A Christophany

 

Old Testament Mentions

 

See Genesis Chapter 14

See Psalms Chapter 110

 

Melchizedek as a Title / Possible Shem Connection

The Book of Genesis contains a great deal of symbolism that is delivered through a more literal nature of expression. Psalms on the other hand, is a Book of poetry / songs and while it contains literal truths, those truths are delivered through a more flamboyant (hyperbolic) and figurative (non-literal) nature of expression. We cannot read from Psalms and expect to extract its literal meaning in the same manner that we read from Genesis. It simply will not work with poetry. 

 

Melchizedek as a Title for a Priesthood?

The reason this gets interesting is because this verse says that the Messiah will be a Priest “after the order of Melchizedek”. If we use the Masoretic Text version of “dibraw “ (“suit” or “style), then it reads as if to imply that Melchizedek is a priest forever and that the Messiah will follow suit. However, if we take the Septuagint version of “taxis (“arranging in sequential order”) then it no longer implies (if it ever did) that Melchizedek was a priest forever, but rather implies that the Messiah (will be a priest forever making Christ unique) will follow the sequential order of Melchizedek. This would therefore mean that Melchizedek is not a name but instead a title for a Melchizedekian Priesthood.

 

Noah as the 8th Priest of Righteousness (Tzedek)

For example, if we look at 2 Peter 2:5 KJVS: “And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness (Tzedek), bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly”, we can clearly see that Noah was the eighth priest in a sequential line of priests that began with Adam. The lineage would have been Adam then Seth, then Enosh, then Kenan, then Mahalalel, then Jared, then Methuselah, then Noah. We remove Enoch because he was taken to heaven before his father Jared died and likewise, we remove Lamech because he died before Methuselah. Therefore, just as 2 Peter 2:5 states, Noah was the eighth priest. This means that there was an “order” (“taxis”) of priesthood even before the Levite priesthood. Furthermore, 2 Peter 2:5 clearly tells us that Noah was a priest of righteousness (Tzedek).

 

Shem as the 9^th Priest of Righteousness (Melchizedek)

If Noah, as 2 Peter 2:5 seems to clearly state, was the eighth priest in a sequential line of priests that began with Adam then it would be reasonable to assume that Shem was next in line (in the order) of priesthood. Typically, Scripture will list the sons of a father in order of eldest to youngest. For example, Shem is mentioned first in Genesis 9:18-19 ESV: “The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) [19] These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed”. However, many contend that Shem was the middle brother being younger then Ham and older then Japeth as is suggested in Genesis 10:21 ESV: “To Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, children were born”. Note that this previous verse does not say that Shem is the brother of Ham. 

Interpreters have struggled throughout history in translating the Scriptures from Hebrew and Greek into our English versions of the Bible. When we compare our various version of the Bible, we can, at times like this, see an illustration of this struggle and how it can lead to confusion and debate:

• KJV Genesis 10:21: “Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born”.
• ASV Genesis 10:21: “And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, to him also were children born”.
• NIV Genesis 10:21: “Sons were also born to Shem, whose older brother was {21 Or Shem, the older brother of} Japheth; Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber”.
• NAS Genesis 10:21: “And also to Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, and the older brother of Japheth, children were born”.
• NRS Genesis 10:21: “To Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, children were born”.
• NLT Genesis 10:21: “Sons were also born to Shem, the older brother of Japheth. <1> Shem was the ancestor of all the descendants of Eber”.
• NJB Genesis 10:21: “Shem too fathered sons, being ancestor of all the sons of Eber and Japheth’s elder brother”.

This is a reminder that whether we like to hear it or not, it is the original Scripture that is infallible and not our Bibles. Our Bibles are mere translations of the original Scripture and while they are over-all true to God’s Word, there is always the potential that something may have been lost to translation. Likewise, both the original Old Testament and New Testament (especially the New Testament) did not use grammar in the same way we are accustomed to. Therefore, it is next to IMPOSSIBLE to claim that the translators (Even in their best of intention) did not unintentionally apply grammar, without inserting their theological biases.  See  Scripture & the Bible (example of Luke 24:43)

 

With all said, and in keeping with my understanding of the typical / contextual method contained throughout Scripture that Genesis 9:18-19 indicates that Shem was the firstborn to Noah, the elder brother of both Ham and Japeth and therefore the next in line for priesthood after Noah.

 

Change from Melchizedekian Priesthood to Levitical Priesthood

Romans 5:14 ESV: “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come”. This verse obviously does not mean that people stopped dying after Moses. Instead, if we were to apply this verse to the concept of a Melchizedekian Priesthood we could ascertain that Moses was the last Melchizedek before the priesthood changed over to a Levitical Priesthood. The Book of Psalms certainly suggests that Moses was considered a priest, Psalm 99:6 ESV: “Moses and Aaron were among his priests, Samuel also was among those who called upon his name. They called to the LORD, and he answered them”. Death reigned between Adam and Moses because each of the Melchizedek Priests died. However, the “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” gains greater clarity in consideration of Romans 5:14 because Christ is a priest forever. Thus, if we were to trace (which we can) the priesthood from Shem as the 9^th Melchizedek to Moses, one could feasibly determine what number Christ was in the order of Melchizedek priesthood. If so, then that is the last and final number one could assign to the order because Christ was not a priest before His death on the Cross but after His resurrection in which He reigns forever as the High Priest, above all others before Him.   

 

Shem Alive at Time of Abraham

Many contend that Shem was already dead by the time Abraham had met Melchizedek, but Scripture says that Shem lived 35 years beyond the death of Abraham.

 

EVENTS		AGE OF SHEM
	Flood	98
Birth	of Abraham	450
Death	of Abraham	565
Death	of Shem	600

 

 

Possibility of Shem x Salem Connection

After Noah, Shem was the next in the sequential line of priesthood, a Melchizedekian Priesthood. An important piece of history as recorded in scripture in Genesis 9:20-27 ESV: “Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. [21] He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. [22] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. [23] Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. [24] When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, [25] he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.” [26] He also said, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. [27] May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.”

Scripture states that Noah apportioned the continent of Asia to Shem and his descendants. This therefore leads many to conclude that Shem did not settle in Salem or in the vicinity of Canaan. However, there is ample historical texts (Rabbinical literature, Apocryphal, Oral Tradition) that state that this inheritance included a portion of what is now Israel, but that they were later forcibly displaced from that land (Thus, may explain why Abraham sojourned in a strange land) by the Canaanite nations, who descended from Ham, Noah’s middle son. This would make some sense because how else could Canaan have been a servant of Shem? NOTE: See Targum (Cautioned Use of)

 

Shem x Mother, Father, Beginning and End

Again, if Melchizedek is a title as opposed to a name, then any reference to Melchizedek as being without mother or father and without beginning or end is not a reference to Shem but rather a reference to a Melchizedekian Priesthood. Now many will argue that even if one were to consider Melchizedek as a title for a Melchizedekian Priesthood, that priesthood had a beginning with Adam.

A possible answer for the issue of genealogy may be just a simple matter of context. Again, if Melchizedek refers to a Priesthood, then the context is a matter of juxtaposing (contrasting) Priesthoods. Contrasting Melchizedek Priesthood in comparison to Levitical Priesthood. Thus, it could be as simple as saying that those in line of succession of Melchizedek Priesthood are not listed in the Levitical genealogies and this would be because there would be no record of their parents being from Levi, (it would not have been recorded) and that is because they were not priests in the order of Levi. Shem was not without genealogy nor was he immortal, but Shem does live on in righteousness (as do all believers) in redemption. and in that same perspective so too, did Jesus but because of the redemptive work of Christ Shem does exist forever (as do all we) in the Tzedek of Christ. Remember that as Christians we are chosen to be a Holy Nation, of High Priests. Unlike the Levitical Priesthood which began at age 25 and ended at age 50, the Priesthood that believers now have is of an eternal order.

 

Change In Priesthood

 

See Exodus Chapter 32 (Mount Sinai – Law & Beginning of Levitical Priesthood)

See Levitical Priesthood

 

New Testament Mentions

 

The next mentions of Melchizedek, outside of Genesis 14 and Psalms 110, are contained to the New Testament Epistle of Hebrews. See Hebrews Study Chapter 5, 6 & 7 for those notes on Melchizedek.

 

 

The next Scriptural mentions of Melchizedek are all contained in the New Testament Book of Hebrews.

 

I personally cannot see new information contained in Hebrews Chapter 5 that would lead me to consider any new inferences or alter my interpretations than from any earlier Old Testament mentions of Melchizedek. not implying that Melchizedek is Christ (at least not yet) but rather that just as Aaron did not exalt or self-appoint himself to high priest, neither has Christ. Christ was appointed by God and in the same manner that Melchizedek was both a King and a Priest with no known lineage ties to either the tribe of Levite or Judah, so too can Christ be accepted as both. It is like saying “if you can accept that Aaron was appointed by God, you should have no issue accepting that Christ is appointed by God AND if you can accept that Melchizedek was both King and Priest, there should be no issue in accepting that Christ can be both King and High Priest regardless of the question of lineage”. God has appointed Kings and High Priests in this manner (in this order) in the past and is now appointing Christ as both King and High Priest in the order of (manner of) Melchizedek.

See Purpose of Writing

To add context to this message, we can see that the Jews were questioning the legitimacy of Christ as both King and High Priest. According to their understanding of the laws and covenants, a High Priest must be a Levite (Christ was from the lineage of Judah / King David). The writer of Hebrews tells them that they are sluggish and have not learned or grown in knowledge and understanding to the point where they should be and so the writer must explain things that they ought to know already. It is obvious that there were some who were spreading untruths and causing some to fall away into apostasy, unbelief in Christ.

 

 

 

 

Hebrews 6:13-20 ESV: “For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, [14] saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.” [15] And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. [16] For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. [17] So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, [18] so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. [19] We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, [20] where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”.

Although we do not know for certain who the author is, I am left with the impression that he or possibly she was fighting the same battles as Paul in so much that many of the new converts to Christianity were questioning Christ as per the covenants. These were a people who believed themselves to be the “Chosen” people of God. He had made covenants with them and had given them the law. Salvation was a birth rite for the Jews and yet here the ministry of Christ seemed to be replacing if not voiding those covenants and promises. It is possible that even New Gentile Christians were believing that the Jews were being replaced and so the writer is trying to move forward and showing them that the appointment of Christ is not something new but was foretold of something better that was to come and has come, just as it was promised. The writer is explaining who Christ is and how Christ can be both King and High Priest, how Christ is better than any other human Priest and how Christ has not broken any covenants or promises but upholds them.

 

Hebrews chapter 7 is where most of the debate over the possibility of Melchizedek being a theophany of Christ versus Melchizedek being nothing more than a man is hinged upon. Verse 3 is definitely a bold statement that implies Melchizedek is without genealogy (no mother or father) and is without beginning of days nor end of life and were it not for the fact that this same verse states that Melchizedek resembles the Son of God followed by verse 4 and verse 6 which explicitly state he was a man, I might easily accept that Melchizedek was some form of theophany  or appearance of Christ. However, these verses would seem to deny that concept. When I look at the context of Chapter 7 I again see that the message is not about convincing someone that Melchizedek is Christ but rather that Melchizedek had no known lineage. Melchizedek resembled Christ in so much that lineage was not important for Melchizedek to be both a King and High Priest. It is possible that the writer was expressing a divinely given revelation of Melchizedek (I cannot rule this out) but it could also be that the author was simply playing off a legend (Folklore) that the Jewish people had created around Melchizedek. It was definitely debated and argued even amongst the Jews throughout their history leaving reason to believe it was a controversial topic even prior to Hebrews being written. Without considering any other scrolls or ancient documents we are left only with two passages in the Old Testament to refer to. The reference in Genesis gives little support to either camp and Psalms must be understood as a Book of songs and poetry and thus contains hyperbolic language that must be taken in context that it is not always literal. For example, Psalm 14:4 ESV: “Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the LORD?”

Hebrews 7:1-10 ESV: “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, [2] and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. [3] He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever. [4] See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! [5] And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. [6] But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. [7] It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. [8] In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. [9] One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, [10] for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.

The context of Hebrews 7:1-10 is not of Melchizedek as a theophany  of Christ, nor is it about Aaron or tithing. The context is that Christ can be a High Priest even though He is not of the Levite lineage. Furthermore, Christ is just as David had spoken of (God incarnate), both a king and High Priest appointed by God as was promised, who gave perfect sacrifice and who lives forever to intercede on behalf of those who believe in Him. He is better than anything before, which is in keeping with the context of all chapters leading up to Chapter 7.

 

 

Jesus is compared to Melchezidek

 

Hebrews 7:11-28 ESV: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?

This verse begins with a second point, building on the conclusions from verses 1 through 10. The purpose of these next verses is to use God’s own Word to show that He intended the priesthood of Melchizedek, not the priesthood of Aaron, to be mankind’s ultimate salvation. The use of the term perfection here is mostly meant in the sense of completion. This will be better explained in upcoming Scriptures. The main argument used here is that of God’s promise to establish a priesthood in the order of Melchizedek. If the Aaronic priesthood was perfect, why would God want to use something different? Logically, then, we are to assume that God’s plan was to use the Melchizedek priesthood, not the Aaronic priesthood, as His perfect means of salvation. This is supported, later, by once again mentioning Psalm 110:4, a verse already cited in the book of Hebrews (Hebrews 5:6; 6:20). There, long after the establishment of the Aaronic priesthood, God promises to establish “forever” a Promised One in the priestly order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:17). The following verses will point out that the promises connected to Messiah require a priest, but also require one who is part of the tribe of Judah, not Levi. This, in turn, will be connected to Melchizedek’s symbolic lack of genealogy in the Old Testament: the priesthood of Jesus is endless and superior to that of the Levitical order (Romans 6:14 ESV: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.”).

[12] For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. [13] For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. [14] For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. [15] This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, [16] who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. [17] For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” [18] For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness [19] (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. [20] And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, [21] but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.'” [22] This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. [23] The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, [24] but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. [25] Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. [26] For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. [27] He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. [28] For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.”

The debate over whether Melchizedek was or was not a theophany of Christ (an appearance of Christ) is not the importance of the Old Testament or the Hebrews context. The message being delivered is that God intended the priesthood of Melchizedek (be it a symbolic Priesthood or not), not the priesthood of Aaron, to be mankind’s ultimate salvation. I need not list the reasons here because the writer of Hebrews does.

 

Notice the King of Sodom tells Abraham to take the goods but give over the people. I have heard it said that the King of Sodom symbolized Satan in as much he was not interested in gold but instead wanted Abraham soul and the souls of the people.

 

Did the Jews turn symbolism into folklore?

God does not lie but we often misinterpret the things He has said. Both the OT and the NT reveals how often we as Humans read our own ideas into God’s Word. It began as early as with Eve saying, “We shall not touch it”. Thus, for His own purposes God may have allowed folklore to build around the unrecorded (at that time / when Moses first wrote Genesis) story Melchizedek. Folklore is often an exaggeration built upon true events or people. Therefore, I ask if it is possible that folklore grew about Melchizedek?  Is it possible that because there were no written records of his birth or death, that Melchizedek came a legend among some if not many of the Jews as having no beginning and no end? This is not a difficult concept to understand nor are we without real life examples of it. After all, George Washington and Danieal Boone were both real people, but are we to believe that George Washington never told a lie or that Daniel Boone wrestled a bear and won at the age of three? Superman never existed but it does not prevent me from saying that my Dad is like Superman in order to convey a message. Is it not possible that the Jews had built up a folklore around Melchizedek, and while they would not have believed it any more than we believe George Washington never told a lie, could the writer of Hebrews not used it to convey a message? Allow me to be clear here, God does not create myths or legends or folklore, man does. Evil and sin comes from the heart of man, but God can use even Evil, for good. While this might be the premise I am working with, I must admit that this is not my favorite premise or theory. While I have yet to rule it out completely, it is one that I in many ways I argue against in my own mind and thoughts. I do after all understand that this could unintentionally lead down a proverbial rabbit hole, in so much that the question then arises, when where and how does one decide what is folklore and what is not? I do understand that Scripture does contain both hyperbolic and figurative speech but most times, these forms of speech are obvious. There is nothing that speaks of Melchizedek as an obvious folklore. One of my disciplines or rules in the study of God’s Word is that I default to taking Scripture as literal where figurative, symbolism, or hyperbole language cannot be clearly OR reasonably confirmed. At this point I can find no evidence elsewhere in Scripture where there is a clear precedent of God using folklore to deliver a message. While I could say that it is possible for God to use folklore to deliver a message, I am inclined to say that it is not probable. For this reason alone, I believe that in absence of evidence of figurative, symbolic, or hyperbole language (or the use of folklore), it is wiser to take Scripture literally, meaning that we should be very careful not to simply just dismiss the story of Melchizedek as folklore.  Therefore, I am neither subjective nor dogmatic of this theory but continue to keep my eyes and ears open to see if such a precedent does exist elsewhere in Scripture.

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Notes (Melchizedek)

 

• Melchizedek is the first priest mentioned in the Bible. He was both a King and a Priest. His parentage is unknown meaning his priesthood is not tribal.
• Many events in the OT foreshadow events in the NT and often without the participants realizing the importance of what they are saying, doing or going through. We see Melchizedek bring wine and bread to Abraham which symbolizes Passover, last super and what we now call communion. Celebration of a great victory.
• Melchizedek blessed Abraham which according to both Vines and Webster Dictionary means “make to prosper” and Abraham prospered. Abraham received his blessing by faith. And then Abraham tithed.
• The first introduction of Melchizedek takes place in a time of much paganism and idolatry. Yet we are told in Genesis 14:18 that Melchizedek worshiped El Elyon (God Most High). This is the first mention of El Elyon.

 

External textual sources range in various descriptions of Melchizedek identity:

and many are under scrutiny of authenticity.

 

 

• 11QMech (The coming of Melchizedek): “…[AND IT WILL BE PROCLAIMED AT] THE END OF DAYS CONCERNING THE CAPTIVES AS [HE SAID, TO PROCLAIM LIBERTY TO THE CAPTIVES (ISA. 61.L). ITS INTERPRETATION IS THAT HE] WILL ASSIGN THEM TO THE SONS OF HEAVEN AND TO THE INHERITANCE OF MELCHIZEDEK; F[OR HE WILL CAST] THEIR 5 [LOT] AMID THE PO[RTIONS OF MELCHIZE]DEK, WHO WILL RETURN THEM THERE AND WILL PROCLAIM TO THEM WILL PROCLAIM TO THEM LIBERTY, FORGIVING THEM [THE WRONG-DOINGS] OF ALL THEIR INIQUITIES. AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT IS THE E[ND OF THE] TENTH [JU]BILEE, WHEN ALL THE SONS OF [LIGHT] AND THE MEN OF THE LOT OF MEL[CHI]ZEDEK WILL BE ATONED FOR. [AND] A STATUTE CONCERNS THEM [TO PROV]IDE THEM WITH THEIR REWARDS. FOR THIS IS THE MOMENT OF THE YEAR OF GRACE FOR MELCHIZEDEK. [AND H]E WILL, BY HIS STRENGTH, JUDGE THE HOLY ONES OF GOD, EXECUTING JUDGEMENT AS IT IS WRITTEN CONCERNING HIM IN THE SONGS OF DAVID, WHO SAID, ELOHIM HAS TAKEN HIS PLACE IN THE DIVINE COUNCIL; IN THE MIDST OF THE GODS HE HOLDS JUDGEMENT [PS 82:1]. … AND MELCHIZEDEK WILL AVENGE THE VENGEANCE OF THE JUDGEMENTS OF GOD… AND HE WILL DRAG [THEM FROM THE HAND OF] BELIAL.”. 11QMelch or the Melchizedek document, is a fragmentary manuscript among the Dead Sea Scrolls (from Cave 11) which mentions Melchizedek as leader of God’s angels in a war in Heaven against the angels of darkness. Some use this text as proof that Melchizedek was the Archangel Michael. This text document does not mention Melchizedek as a High Priest as per Scripture.
• 2 Enoch: 2 Enoch speaks of the wife Nir (Noah’s brother) who miraculously became pregnant in her older age, died and Melchizedek was born from her dead body and later became a high priest. However, this would mean that Melchizedek did have a genealogy.
• Many of these sources post-date Hebrews and are questionable not only of their accuracy but of their intent. For example some claim that these sources would seem to be attempting to counter Christian claims by exalting Shem.

 

Levi paying the tithes while in Abraham’s loins.

This statement would surely have caught the interest of the audience in thinking that a Levite paid tithes to Melchizedek. What the writer is implying is that if like Levitical Priests, Melchizedek received a tithe but unlike Levitical Priests, Melchizedek was not of Levite lineage, then Christ cannot be prohibited from being a High Priest. The idea that Levi was in the loins of Abraham is in itself an example of hyperbole language, the language of exaggerating a truth so as to catch the attention of the audience.

 

Christ represents a major change in Priesthood and when their was a change in the priesthood it meant a change in the law/

 

Hyperbole language is an exaggeration of a truth and

 

End of Additional Notes (The Melchizedek)