Melchizedek Traditions

The topic of the Jubilee is a significant one, both in size and importance.  In the present paper, I seek to trace its emergence and evolution in the course of Scripture, from Ararat to Sinai, Jericho to Judah, Naboth’s vineyard to Jeremiah’s field, and Nazareth to the new heavens and earth.  The Jubliee is, in a nutshell, a declarative act of restoration.  It is an eschatological peak in Israel’s calendar, and, although it is typically viewed as a priestly abstraction, it actually turns out to be reflected in the ebb and flow of Israel’s history.

In terms of its theological and cultic significance, the Jubilee is grounded in three important principles:  the perfection of God’s plans, the purity of God’s person, and the sovereignty of God over the earth.  The Jubilee cycle is first initiated in the late 15th cent. BC in the aftermath of Jericho’s fall, once the land of Canaan has been divided among the Israelites.  While the land of Israel is a microcosm of God’s new Creation, it is nevertheless part of a fallen world.  As such, it is subject to the normal process of decay, decline, and pollution, and must be ‘rebooted’ (in Yom Kippur style) every seven weeks of years in order to bring the land of Israel back into line with its divine blueprint.  Aside from such reboots, Israel would go the way of the world, as is depicted in Nebuchadnezzar’s colossus.  The land would become progressively polluted, disordered, and removed from Yahweh’s Edenic ideal, until it reached a point of total de-creation and returned to dust.  Grounded in the day of Atonement, the Jubilee provides an antidote to such entropic decline.  But, of course, a reboot can never advance Israel beyond her initial condition.  The notion of a Jubilee ‘cycle’ therefore seems inherently frustrated, plagued by a kind of Qoheleth-like futility.

In the NT, Jesus cranks the notion of a Jubilee up a notch.  For Jesus, the Jubilee is not merely a reset of Israel’s initial conditions;  it is a reversion of all Creation to its initial (Edenic) condition.  As such, Jesus’ Jubilee is inextricably bound up with the defeat of Satan and the release of Israel and the nations from Satan’s dominion.  It is set against the backdrop of a chaotic wilderness, a worldwide day of atonement, and a cosmic showdown with the world’s powers and principalities, all of which notions are latent in ‘the Nazarean pericope’ (Luke 4.16-21), and are inherently connected with the person of Melchizedek and the conclusion of the Jubilee cycle in Second Temple literature.

Various views have been presented with respect to the mysterious figure in Hebrews 7:3 known as Melchizedek, but an awareness of extra-biblical sources contemporaneous with, and prior to the writing of Hebrews may shed light on his identity.

Феномен священства в ізраїльському світогляді вважали «пластичним» (плем’я Левія, назореї, народ). Його варіативність визнає і наукова спільнота. Відомо, що паралельно до функціонування священничої структури «царства священників» (Вих 19:5–6) у  богослов’я Ізраїля було впроваджено й закріплено ідею сконцентрованості в одній особі виконання різних ролей: есхатологічного царя, первосвященника і слуги (1 Сам 2:35; Пс 109; Іс 52:13 – 53:12; Зах 3:1–10; 6:9–15; 9:9). Згадані у статті тексти й уривки зі Старого Завіту не раз ставали об’єктами богословського аналізу та історико-релігієзнавчих пошуків. У цьому
дослідженні уточнено характер стосунків між Ягве-Адонаєм і Адонаєм-Мелхіседеком. Окрім цього, проаналізовано міру залученості кожного з них у протистояння з опонентами. Поза тим, присвячено увагу позитивним наслідкам есхатологічного посередництва Адоная-Мелхіседека для тих, хто узгодив свій спосіб буття із законами святості.

Ci sembra utile valutare la ricezione, nell’ambito degli studi biblici e qumranici, della nostra proposta interpretativa circa «[...] uno dei [problemi] più dibattuti nella storia recente dell’esegesi della Lettera agli Ebrei. Ma anche uno dei più complessi a causa dello stato ancora fluido che domina la ricerca e l’edizione dei testi di Qumran». Più in particolare, lo scopo che si prefigge il presente sondaggio è, anzitutto, quello di precisare gli esiti degli approfondimenti effettuati ultimamente su questo tema nei rispettivi campi specialistici e di canalizzare questo sforzo critico verso alcuni elementi di consenso. Intendiamo così riaprire il dibattito con chi si sente in grado di offrire ulteriori chiarimenti in chiave interdisciplinare.
La nostra ricerca, incentrata su Melchisedek e sugli aspetti angelologici connessi a questo personaggio, consisteva in un confronto tra due orizzonti letterari differenti, che hanno sviluppato una riflessione sul Melchisedek di Gn 14,18-20 e del Sal 109,4 (della Settanta o 110,4 del Testo Massoretico). Si tratta, su un versante, delle due pericopi di Eb 4,15-5,10 e 7,1-28 e, sull’altro, di quattro manoscritti scoperti a Qumran.

Miracles are wonderful events from holy scripture. What would it be like to witness one, to experience one in defiance of natural law?  We all have a personal decision to make regarding the miracles we find in the Bible, don’t we? We can choose to believe in miracles and the suspension of natural law, or not. We choose one path or the other. Each has its own obligations. A miracle, by definition, is a suspension of natural law and cannot be purposefully duplicated – except by God – so chances are you’ve never actually witnessed a miracle and must make a conscious decision to believe miracles actually occur.  That decision takes faith.  On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in miracles, you must then wonder what they really mean and how they function when you come across them in scripture.  Belief takes faith. No questions are asked.  Skepticism demands further inquiry...

Melquisedec es un personaje bíblico que desde hace siglos ha captado la atención de autores y grupos esotéricos y heréticos, pero del cual también se han ocupado el Nuevo Testamento y los santos Padres de la Iglesia. Este artículo comenta la visión de Melquisedec en los textos de Hipólito de Roma, Cipriano, Jerónimo, Agustín y Beda el Venerable.

Melchizedek is a biblical character who has called the attention of esoteric and heretical authors and groups for centuries, but who was also commented by the Apostol and by the Holy Fathers of the Church. This article deals on Melchizedek's vision in the texts of Hipólito de Roma, Cipriano, Jerónimo, Agustín and Beda el Venerable.

Феномен священства в израильском мировоззрении считался «пластичным» явлением (колено Левия, назареи, народ). Его многовариативность научным сообществом не оспаривается. Известно, что параллельно функционированию священнической структуры «царство священников» (Исх.19:5-6) в богословие Израиля была внедрена и закреплена идея сконцентрированности в одной персоне различных институций: эсхатологического царя-первосвященника-слуги (1Цар.2:35; Пс.109; Ис.52:13–53:12; Зах.3:1-10; 6:9-15; 9:9). Указанные нами тексты и отрывки из Ветхого Завета, неоднократно становились объектами богословского анализа и историко-религиоведческой редактуры. В нашем случае границы исследования обусловлены тематикой, вынесенной в название статьи.
Ключевые слова: Священник, Мелхиседек, воин, Мессия, чин, Ягве, Адонай

Evanjeliá výslovne nepredstavujú Ježiša ako kňaza. List Hebrejom však áno, a to ako jediný spis Nového zákona. Fascinujúci je obraz Ježiša Krista v Hebr 6,19–7,10, kde je porovnaný s Melchizedechom, ščasti tajomnou postavou Starého zákona, veľmi stroho uvedenou v Gn 14,18-20. Melchizedech, kráľ Salema a kňaz Najvyššieho Boha, stretol Abrama, ktorý sa vracal z víťaznej bitky nad Chodorlahomerom a jeho spojencami. Priniesol so sebou chlieb a víno a požehnal Abrama. Abram mu na to priniesol desiatok zo všetkého (Gn 14,20), čím patriarcha jasne uznal Melchizedechovu autoritu.
Charakteristika Ježiša ako kňaza „podľa radu Melchizedechovho“ nie je žiadne tajomné vyjadrenie, ale spresnenie druhu kňazstva Ježiša Krista. Aby sme zadosťučinili aj téme celého večera, v závere poukážeme na exemplárnosť Ježišovho kňazstva podľa radu Melchizedechovho pre novozákonného presbytera, resp. pre nášho kresťanského kňaza.
Ťažiskom štúdie je najmä problematika kňaza Melchizedecha a to: (1.) v Starom zákone, (2.) v mimobiblickom kontexte a (3.) v Liste Hebrejom. V záverečnom uvažovaní (4.) poukážeme na melchizedechovský rozmer Kristovho kňazstva.

Melchizedek is first and foremost a warrior, born before the daystar (morning star or Venus) like the dew. Revelations 22:16 reads: “I, Jesus… am the bright morning star.” 2Peter 1:19 reads: “It is like a lamp shining in a dark place until the Day dawns and the light of the morning star shines in your hearts.” Combine the passages with the description in Psalm 110:2-4 and view the image that results -- countless drops of dew (each a divine king according to the order of Melchizedek) covering the earth waiting to reflect the first light of Jesus “…the bright morning star.” He is born a prince (and future king). Having embodied the oral tradition and made learned behavior intuitive, Melchizedek is a priest forever.

For a further immersion in Melchizedekian theology, please follow The Biblical Significance of Melchizedek with The Biblical Significance of Walking on Water
(for Skeptics, Boys on the Verge of Manhood and Real Men) also on this page...

Scripture assigns to Melchizedek the distinguished title of royal priest (Gen. 14:18).  Apart from this ascription and a few details related to his encounter with Abraham, the only two references to Melchizedek included in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 14:18-20; Ps. 110) eventually furnished the source for a wide range of speculation about the mysterious priest-king. 

From the Dead Sea Scrolls through the development of rabbinic midrashim, the relative silence of the Hebrew Bible about Melchizedek gave rise to an array of Melchizedekian roles and images ranging from that of a celestial-eschatological liberator-judge to a would-be priest whose failure to properly honor the most high God resulted in his dismissal from his unique post.  The literary depiction of Melchizedek is unequivocally held in high regard prior to the rabbinic period.  The combined king-priest office as witnessed during the Hasmonean period may account for the decline in respect shown toward Melchizedek.  Further, the endorsement of Christ within the Epistle to the Hebrews as a priest after the pre-Aaronic order of Melchizedek conceivably introduced a challenge to rabbinic religious hegemony. 

This thesis provides a concise review of all extant Jewish works of the Second Temple period (e.g. Genesis Apocryphon; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice; 11Q13 [11QMelch]; Philo; Josephus; 2 Enoch; also the Pentateuchal Targums [recorded later]), early Christian writings (e.g. the Epistle to the Hebrews; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; Origen, Commentary to the Gospel of John), and rabbinic sources (b. Ned. 32b; Gen. Rab. 43.6; Lev. Rab. 25.6; Num. Rab. 4.8).  The notion that Melchizedek lost his priestly role is first witnessed among rabbinic works.  The decline in respect for Melchizedek’s priesthood appears to exhibit a response to the measure of dignity attributed to the priest-king in the Epistle to the Hebrews as well as the works of later Patristic writers (e.g. Justin; Origen). 

According to Hebrews, Melchizedek’s seniority as a priest sustains preeminence over Levitical obligations which were crucial to the maintenance of halakhic obligations.  The universality of an uncircumcised Canaanite priest most likely presented further challenges to rabbinic interests. 

An additional point of contention between the two communities may be attested in the embrace of distinct scriptural renderings of Ps. 110:3.  The vocalization of the Masoretic Text suggests a different reading of the verse than construals recorded in the earlier versions of both the Septuagint and the Syriac Peshitta.  Additional rabbinic works (e.g. y. Berakhot 5; Gen. Rab. 59.9) and an excerpt from Justin’s Dialogue are considered in support of the theory.  Thus, the marginalizing of Melchizedek appears to comprise a rabbinic response, perhaps initiated by R. Ishmael, to claims of a Christological priesthood linked to the Melchizedekian order (Ps. 110:4).

Slavonic document concerned with Noah's brother, and the birth of Melchizedek.

65 verses

A chapter of a new Christian book about Melchizedek and other prophets, placed within the book of the Lives of the Patriarchs. 

(King Melchizedek probably wrote much of the first chapters of Genesis for Abraham 1800 BC, based on the Testament of Lamech. 

Moses writes little of Genesis, and has time and energy to focus on 2 more editions of Genesis, the book of Divisions and the book of Asher.

Abraham is noted for not producing any other writings, something Lot was more known for, because he's a son of Enoch.)

The Torah structure is a LOOP.

Nonsedentary diaspora 'life is established by entering' Egypt from Canaan. 
Sedentary national 'life is established by entering' Canaan from Egypt.

=========

The LOOP reverses direction at Exodus 1:7-10 where the pharaoh is alarmed by the "numbers and strength" of the Israelites who will now suffer a reversal of fortune that leads back to Canaan.

Takeaway?

The Torah is a TRUE Pentateuch containing two establishment structures.

Hebrews has more to say about Melchizedek than what is said about him in LXX Ps 109,4 (perhaps also MT Ps 110,4) and Genesis 14. Heb 7,3 says that Melchizedek is ““without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life”” and that ““he remains a priest forever””. I discuss where the author gets this information from. Methodologically, priority should be given to an explanation made on the basis of the hermeneutical techniques that the author uses elsewhere. I argue that the surplus information found in Heb 7,3.8 stems from arguments made from silence. The author explicitly makes arguments from silence in Heb 7,14.20.

“Melchizedek was the Prophet King of Righteousness,
the first High Cohen of the Order of Yah El-Elyon,
the Most High, Power of Powers,
in the Pious Age when mankind walked upright.”

The ancient legends that surround the figure of Melchizedek are one of the greatest mysteries of religious thought.  Identifying who Melchizedek was is not an easy task because he exists outside of time and space that is commonly understood in scripture.  Different literary works attribute Melchizedek’s existence to many different time periods from before the flood, as in the case of the second book of Hanoch, all the way to Abraham.  Melchizedek is an Order of Priesthood according to Genesis and Psalms and can subsequently shed light on many complicated passages in the Hebrew Scriptures.  I hope to show that the sons of King David were priests not of the Levitical Order, but of the Order of Melchizedek.  This is crystallized in the ideology of the Messiah and his authority stemming from Melchizedek himself.  The objective of this essay is to show the importance of the “Melchizedek tradition”  in Jewish thought as an instrument in understanding the relationship between the functions of priesthood and royalty.

What can the mysterious figure Melchizedek tell us about the priestly character of the Lord? Despite his brief appearance on the scene of redemptive history in Genesis 14, as a type of Christ he can tell us much about Christ's own eternal, high priesthood. This paper will undertake to look first at who Melchizedek was, as presented in the Genesis narrative. Next, it will look at him through the pen of the psalmist in Psalm 110. Finally, it will consider how the author of Hebrews uses Melchizedek to most fully describe the unique priesthood of Jesus Christ.

The authors of the Book of Jeremiah know the Torah’s establishment structures of diaspora and nation. They know the respective theologies associated with each of those establishment structures and in the face of the nation’s destruction by the Babylonians they envision a future in which the entire dispersed population will assume the roles of both the conquered warrior class and the disappointed priestly class by returning to the pastoral theology of Genesis and “writing the Law on their hearts.”
The author(s) of Jeremiah have the Lord promise the beleaguered population that the days are coming when they will embody their oral traditions in the absence of their national institutions: the temple, the priesthood, and the written law.
The author(s) consideration of the circumstances is entirely within the framework of the Torah loop foreshadowing the theology and ministry of Jesus Christ in the Gospels as argued by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews who replicates Jeremiah's "Gospel before the Gospels" in his letter.

Note: Since the theological argument of the Letter to the Hebrews is the same theological argument of the Book of Jeremiah, and also the pastoral theology of Genesis, the Letter to the Hebrews cannot be anti-Semitic. It is an internal argument within Judaism over the abandonment of the Torah loop which prescribes "writing the Law on your heart" when the nation's institutions are destroyed and its people forced into diaspora...

In this paper I outline a research proposal for a thesis which I could have pursued, but have decided against pursuing for the moment. I attempt to survey the figure of Melchizedek in Jewish tradition before the Christian era in order to understand Melchizedek's characterization as Messiah in 11Q13, and then later in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Der Name Melchisedech hat bisher kaum Eingang in die Geschichtsforschung gefunden: Dieser Priesterkönig aus der Bibel wird vielmehr bis heute fast ausschließlich von Theologen als Schwerpunkt wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten behandelt. Die wenigen geschichtswissenschaftlichen Arbeiten über diese Person beschränken sich je auf eine oder drei bestimmte Quellen, sodass ein Überblick über die Figur im Mittelalter, insbesondere im politischen Leben und nicht nur im theologischen Bereich, unmöglich ist. Die vorliegende Masterarbeit hat zum Ziel, diese Lücke in der Geschichtsforschung auszufüllen, die eine unverzichtbare Voraussetzung für den Aufbau einer genaueren und besser problematisierten Fragestellung darstellt.

From Brill's website:

New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only presents a collection of papers from the fifth conference of the Enoch Seminar. The conference re-examines 2 Enoch, an early Jewish apocalyptic text previously known to scholars only in its Slavonic translation, in light of recently identified Coptic fragments. This approach helps to advance the understanding of many key issues of this enigmatic and less explored Enochic text. One of the important methodological lessons of the current volume lies in the recognition that the Adamic and Melchizedek traditions, the mediatorial currents which play an important role in the apocalypse, are central for understanding the symbolic universe of the text. The volume also contains the recently identified Coptic fragments of 2 Enoch, introduced to scholars for the first time during the conference.

CONTENTS:
Preface
Andrei A. Orlov and Gabriele Boccaccini

PART ONE: 2 ENOCH
No Longer “Slavonic” Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia
Joost L. Hagen

TEXT AND DATING OF 2 ENOCH
The “Book of the Secrets of Enoch” (2 En): Between Jewish Origin and Christian Transmission. An Overview
Christfried Böttrich
The Provenance of 2 Enoch: A Philological Perspective. A Response to C. Böttrich’s Paper “The ‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’ (2 En): Between Jewish Origin and Christian Transmission. An Overview”
Liudmila Navtanovich
2 Enoch: Manuscripts, Recensions, and Original Language
Grant Macaskill
The Sacerdotal Traditions of 2 Enoch and the Date of the Text
Andrei A. Orlov
Excavating 2 Enoch: The Question of Dating and the Sacerdotal Traditions
David W. Suter

CONTENT AND CONTEXT OF 2 ENOCH
2 Enoch and the New Perspective on Apocalyptic
Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis
The Watchers of Satanail: The Fallen Angels Traditions in 2 Enoch
Andrei A. Orlov
Patriarch, Prophet, Author, Angelic Rival: Exploring the Relationship of 1 Enoch to 2 Enoch in Light of the Figure of Enoch
Daniel Assefa and Kelley Coblentz Bautch
Calendrical Elements in 2 Enoch
Basil Lourié
2 Enoch and Halakhah
Lawrence H. Schiffman
Halakha, Calendars, and the Provenances of 2 Enoch
Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra

PART TWO: ADAM, ENOCH, AND MELCHIZEDEK: MEDIATORIAL FIGURES IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

ADAMIC TRADITIONS
Adam as a Mediatorial Figure in Second Temple Jewish Literature
John R. Levison
Better Watch Your Back, Adam: Another Adam and Eve Tradition in Second Temple Judaism
Lester L. Grabbe
Adamic Traditions in 2 Enoch and in the Books of Adam and Eve
Johannes Magliano-Tromp
Adamic Traditions in Early Christian and Rabbinic Literature
Alexander Toepel
Adamic Tradition in Slavonic Manuscripts (Vita Adae et Evae and Apocryphal Cycle about the Holy Tree)
Anissava Miltenova

MELCHIZEDEK TRADITIONS
Melchizedek Traditions in Second Temple Judaism
Eric F. Mason
Melchizedek at Qumran and in Judaism: A Response
Devorah Dimant
Enoch and Melchizedek: The Concern for Supra-Human Priestly Mediators in 2 Enoch
Charles A. Gieschen
Melchizedek in Some Early Christian Texts and 2 Enoch
Harold W. Attridge
“Much to Say and Hard to Explain”: Melchizedek in Early Christian Literature, Theology, and Controversy
Pierluigi Piovanelli
On Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek, and Eve
Daphna Arbel
Bibliography on 2 Enoch
Andrei A. Orlov

L’originalità dell’ermeneutica e dell’esegesi dell’autore della Lettera agli Ebrei sta nell’aver elaborato una nuova comprensione del sacerdozio, fondandola per mezzo di un’interpretazione cristocentrica dei due passi melchisedekiani dell’Antico Testamento. Pur ricorrendo a tecniche esegetiche coeve, la complessa e coerente trattazione di Ebrei 7 sul sommo sacerdozio di Cristo non è riducibile ad un semplice midrash di tipo rabbinico; ma non è neppure omologabile alle prospettive reperibili nei manoscritti qumranici che menzionano Melchisedek. Con notevole sistematicità teologica, l’autore della Lettera agli Ebrei reinterpreta le virtualità presenti nel Salmo 109 (110), 4 e in Genesi 14, 18-20 nella prospettiva della mediazione salvifica definitiva compiuta dal Figlio di Dio. Convinto della capacità rivelatrice dell’Antico Testamento - letto in senso cristologico nella Chiesa -, il predicatore mostra come la morte e la risurrezione di Cristo realizzino l’unico piano salvifico di Dio e, pur nella loro indeducibilità e misteriosità, possano essere maggiormente comprese grazie ai testi ispirati dell’Antico Testamento.

In her 2005 article, “Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text: The Arch of Titus and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Ellen Bradshaw Aitken argues that the Christology of Hebrews can be correlated with Roman imperial history, specifically with the triumph of the Flavians — Emperor Vespasian and his sons, the future emperors Titus and Domitian — and the propaganda campaign that secured their legitimacy. She concludes that Hebrews uses the details of the triumph in order to subvert imperial claims and, by juxtaposing them with the actions of Jesus, to show that Christ is the true and superior imperator.1 In this essay, I intend to build on her work by giving additional arguments for the validity of her thesis and by showing that the Melchizedek material of Hebrews also fits into the context of this connection between Jesus and the Flavians. I will show that Melchizedek, Jesus, and the Flavian emperors can be correlated in Hebrews, and that they can all be described as King and Priest of Salem. I am not arguing that Hebrews was written purely as an anti-imperial tract, but rather that Hebrews hits certain notes that would likely have raised Flavian associations for its first audience.

This article sheds light on the debates that took place in ancient Judaism between sectarian and early rabbinic interpretation of Scripture. Scholarship on 11QMelchizedek (11QMelch; 11Q13) has largely taken the scroll's harmonization of Deuteronomy's Sabbatical debt release (Deut 15:2) with the Jubilee (Lev 25:13) for granted, without examining its rationale. We provide an analysis of the hermeneutics that triggered the synthesis and argue that it was generated in part as a response to a legal-exegetical question: The Jubilee of Leviticus releases slaves, but does it require debt remission? When the separate sources of the Pentateuch were redacted into a single corpus, the compilation of originally inconsistent material into a single Torah must have posed interpretive problems for postexilic readers. After the promulgation of the Torah, Deuteronomy's Sabbatical debt law and the Jubilee were read synchronically, now for the first time as part of a unified literary composition. This had to raise the issue of their relationship. Among the questions that emerged for Second Temple readers was whether the Jubilee of Leviticus requires debt release, as Deuteronomy commands. But the absence of an explicit demand for debt release in Leviticus left the door open to argue that the Jubilee does not release debts (the position maintained in the halakic exegesis of the Sipre Deuteronomy and Sipra Leviticus). Taking a contrary stance, the author of 11QMelchizedek responded to that absence by identifying Leviticus's Jubilee with Deuteronomy's Sabbatical debt release. His synthesis of the two laws demonstrates that the often presumed opposition of legal and eschatological exegesis does not hold in the case of 11QMelchizedek.

Keywords: Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran, Pesharim, Pentateuch, Exegesis, Innerbiblical Exegesis, Synthetic Exegesis, Eschatological Exegesis, Halakic Exegesis, Legal Exegesis, Legal Hermeneutics, Implicit, Legal Interpretation, Rewritten Scripture, Harmonization, Jubilee, Debt Remission, Sabbatical Year, Manumission, qōl wa-ḥômer, qal va-ḥomer, gezerah shavah, Eschatology, Andurāru, Auslegungsgeschichte, Rechtshermeneutik, Innerbiblische Exegese

In Hebrews 7, Jesus is described as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and thus prior to and superior to the Aaronic priesthood. The author of Hebrews uses Melchizedek to build a substantial part of his argument on the superiority of Christ. This article purposes to focus on an exegetical examination of key elements in the various texts describing Melchizedek and concluding with a presentation of his identification.

This SSGM In Brief gives some background information to the recent arrest of an American national who arrived in Port Moresby carrying a briefcase of "Bougainville Kina', a pseudo-currency promoted by the notorious Ponzi fraudster Noah Musingku.

"This book, emphasizing Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, contributes to the history of composition of the patriarchal narratives in the book of Genesis and to the history of theology of the Second Temple period.
Genesis 14 was added on a late stage and in two steps: first, Genesis 14* and later, the so-called Melchizedek episode (ME, vv. 18-20). Genesis 14 is the result of inner-biblical exegesis: both Genesis 14* and the later ME originated from scribal activity in which several earlier biblical texts have served as templates/literary building blocks.
As for Genesis 14*, in particular three text groups were important: the Table of Nations, the wilderness wandering narratives and annals from the Deuteronomistic History. As for the ME, it is an example of haggadic exegesis presupposing and without any prehistory independent of its narrative framework. ME is the result of an assimilation between two texts, Genesis 14* and Psalm 110, which assumedly at one point were read as a narrative and a poetic version respectively of Abraham’s war with the kings.
Genesis 14 has no value as a source to the history of the patriarchal era and to the religion of pre-Israelite Jerusalem. In contrast, it shows how post-exilic scribes’ painstaking study of biblical texts resulted in the creation of new biblical texts.


Reviewed in:
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.5 (2011), 85-86.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123 (2011), 145-146.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 43 (2012), 93-96."

This essay is to examine the connection between the enigmatic figure of Melchizedek of Scripture and the most significant sacrament of the Church, the Eucharist. In other words, the essay examines how two basic texts from the Holy Bible (Gen 14 and Heb 7) were interpreted later in ancient Christianity, incorporated or excluded from the liturgical life of the communities. Finally, how these texts inspired the art of iconography and they have been used as depictions within Christian churches of East and West. The typological interpretation of the mysterious figure of Melchizedek dominated in the iconography during the next centuries.

The phenomenon of the priesthood in the old Israel was considered a “plastic” institution (the tribe of Levi, the Nazarene, the people). Most theologians do not question (dispute) its multivariance. Besides the priestly structure “the kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:5–6), the theology of Israel also knew the idea of concentration of various institutions in one person: the eschatological king, high priest and servant (1 Sam. 2:35; Ps.  109; Is 52:13 – 53:12; Zech. 3:1–10; 6:9–15; 9:9). These texts and pericopes often were in focus of theological analysis as well as historical and religious editing. The study specifies the relationship between Yahweh-Adonai and Adonai-Melchizedek.
The author analyzes the degree of involvement of each of them in the confrontation with opponents. Additionally, the focus is on the positive consequences of the eschatological mediation of Adonai-Melchizedek for those who harmonized their modus of life with the laws of holiness.

Many modern scholars consider the person of Melchizedek, the king of Salem and “a priest of God Most High,” as an emblematic figure. It becomes a Biblical prototype connecting together the services of a priest and of a monarch in the Christian history of the Roman Empire. Starting with the reign of Constantine the Great, the Roman monarchy is being considered sacral from the Christian point of view, and Eusebius of Caesarea made a significant contribution to it. Eusebius interprets the Biblical image of Melchizedek as a special kind of prophecy about Christ, which is noticeably different from the symbolism of post-Mosaic prophecies. The analogy between Melchizedek and Christ is not built upon coincidence of common features, but upon the common absence of the most distinctive characters of the Old Testament priesthood. This semantic strategy is suggested to be called “anti-symbolism.” Eusebius uses it to develop the opposition of “Aaronic” and “Melchizedekian” types of priesthood from the Hebr. 7, and further he extrapolates the analogy to Constantine the emperor, who combines his monarchic power with the authority of “a universal bishop appointed by God,” thus being explicitly compared with Melchizedek.


Образ ветхозаветного Мелхиседека, царя Салима и «священника Бога Всевышнего» в современной исследовательской литературе часто рассматривается как знаковая фигура, выступающая библейским прообразом соединения функций священника и верховного правителя в христианской истории Римской империи. Начиная уже с эпохи императора Константина, начинается христианское осмысление сакрального характера римской монархии, значительный вклад в который вносит Евсевий Кесарийский. Он прочитывает библейский образ Мелхиседека как пророчество о Христе, причём это пророчество построено особым образом и принципиально отличается от символического характера пророчеств периода ветхозаветной истории после Моисея. Аналогия между Мелхиседеком и Христом строится не на основе совпадения общих черт, а на основе равного отсутствия характеристик, свойственных ветхозаветным первосвященникам, как своего рода «антисимволизм». Развивая противопоставление типов священства «по чину Аарона» и «и по чину Мелхиседека» из Евр. 7, Евсевий даёт основание для экстраполяции этой аналогии на императора Константина, который не только сочетает императорскую власть с ролью «епископа внешних дел», но и эксплицитно сравнивается с Мелхиседеком.

This is a prolegomenon to a series of articles in Byzantine Catholic World on Angelomorphic Exegesis of Scripture by imitating and applying Pre-Nicene patristic methods of interpretation. I begin with a fascinating development of the "Angel of Great Counsel" (Isaiah 9) and Melchizedek (Genesis 14) as received into the early patristic and liturgical tradition devoid of philosophical and Arian preoccupation typical of post-Constantinian struggles in the empire.

There is a secret circle of events surrounding the figure known as Joshua son of Nun. The circle of Joshua is so secret that very few people even realize it exists. Very little details are recorded concerning this figure, but the details that are available reveal a hidden side that is too secret to utter. There is reason to believe that the Angel of YHWH that helped deliver the Israelites from Egypt also transformed into a cloud by day and a pillar of fire at night. Enoch knew this figure as the 'little YHWH' or Metatron. Moses may have known the human form of the Angel of YHWH as Oshea of the tribe of Ephraim. He is assigned no genealogy and little else is mentioned of his origins. Often the Glory of YHWH and the Angel of YHWH are considered almost identical; this Angel appears in the cloud surrounding the tabernacle. Moses goes up to the Mt. Sinai with Joshua son of Nun who enters the tabernacle when the cloud of the Shekinah shines upon it. Very little research has been done to establish the identity of this figure, but there has been an extensive amount of research on the Angel of YHWH. The Angel of YHWH bears a portion of the 'Name' and prepares the path through the wilderness. Carl Judson Davis provides a good resource for other parallels with this figure and he finds a connection between the Angel of YHWH and the Son of Yahweh. Davis found a reference to this angel in "Hellenistic Synagogue Prayers 1.2, the citation is in his book The Name and Way of the Lord. According to Davis a, "Christian interpolator identifies Jesus as the name God caused to 'encamp among us'" (57). The Shekinah is the Glory that resides in the Tabernacle and the Temple; perhaps it can also reside in humans. The mystics of the Unique Cherub Circle were certain that the Cherub was the Angel of YHWH and that it could assume human forms. Was Joshua one of those forms? Davis reports on the research of other specialists in the field, "Fossum suggests that Samaritanism amalgamated the angel of [the LORD] with the glory of [the LORD], and then credited him with the destruction of the Egyptian army during the exodus" (57); apparently other people saw some connection between these two figures. Davis sees the full array of figures that seem to be the same entity at work, but it is too hard to prove theologically how it can be true. He finds many parallels between Melchizedek, the Angel of YHWH, the