The Divine Rites and Rejection of the Priest-King: Melchizedek on the Margins of Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (original) (raw)
Related papers
This paper outlines the biblical physiognomy of theophoric Melchizedek as king of the ancient city of Salem and priest of the Most-High God. In fact, a vivid reference to the “king of righteousness” (מלכיצדק) is made in Gen 14: 18-24, where it is underlined the profound theological significance of Melchizedek’s encounter with patriarch Abraham. However, the enigmatic personality of Melchizedek - depicting the high Priest, J. Christ - refers to both the messianic prophetic saying of royal Psalm 109 and the apostle Paul (Heb 5: 5-6; Heb 7: 3). Also, and other references from the non-biblical realm about the mysterious Melchizedek are examined and more specifically from the book of Jubilees and the book of 2 Enoch (Jub 13: 22-28, 2 Enoch chs. 69-73). In addition, Melchizedek refers to the apocryphon work Pseudo- Eupolemus, in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers but in the Qumran texts, too, 11Q Melch and in Apocryphon of Genesis (1Q apGen). Yet, the name of Melchizedek is restored as the most probable reading in two other fragmentary works of the Essene-Qumran community: in the Amram Covenant (4Q’ Am- rambar), as well as in the Hymns for the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q ShirShabb). Even more, Philo interprets the name Melchizedek as “king of peace”, “righteous king” (Leg. 3, 79-82; Congr. 99, 4; Abr. 235, 4-5), while referring to Melchizedek is also done by Josephus (JW 6, 438; Ant. 1, 179-181). Then, the priesthood in the culture and religion of the Sumerians and Babylonians is carefully studied, but also in the culture of the Hittites as well as in ancient Egypt. In addition, extensive reference is made to the issue of the divine kingship in the aforementioned peoples of the ancient Near east. In fact, in ancient Egypt majestic kings (the pharaohs) had a divine origin; something similar is observed in Babylon where the king was described as a victorious warrior who defeated his enemies. Nevertheless, in the civilization of the Hittites as well as in that of ancient Ugarit the king was described as the son of God. Ultimately, Melchizedek’s priesthood is undoubtedly associated with the divine kingship of the ancient Near east. In other words, a genetic connection is observed between the name Melchizedek and the priesthood, the kingship and the righteousness in the realm of the ancient Near eastern societies.
Reconstitution of Melchizedek's History in Rabbinic and Christian Traditions
Journal for The Study of Religions and Ideologies, 2017
Melchizedek's meeting with Abraham in the King?s Valley (Genesis 14) would mark the history of the chosen people. As king of Salem and priest of the Almighty God, Melchizedek meets the patriarch with bread and wine and then blesses him in the name of the God they both served. Assuming this liturgical ritual Abraham offers Melchizedek a tenth of everything, by this acknowledging and accepting his sacerdotal service. Even though at a first sight their gestures are somewhat natural, we will understand going through our study that the attitude of each character implies a deeper significance. This is emphasized firstly in psalms, in the context of several Messianic sentences, which refer to an eternal priesthood that finds its origins not in the service of Aaron, but in that of Melchizedek. This text would generate and fundament later the Pauline discourse on the priesthood of Jesus Christ and implicitly of the Christians. The resemblance of Melchizedek with Jesus Christ is maximized...
Somov A. B. The Image of Melchizedek in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the Jewish Texts of the Second Temple Period // The Quarterly Journal of St. Philaret’s Institute. 2020. Is. 36. P. 230–248, 2020
Jesus’ high priesthood and its superiority over the Levite priesthood is a unique and important theme of Hebrews. The central argument in the discussion about the superiority of Jesus’ high priesthood is the Melchizedekian argument of chapter 7. In this chapter the author uses Gen 14:18–20, Ps 110, and some Jewish traditions about Melchizedek. Some of these texts portray him as a historical figure, while others depict him as an eschatological image. This article investigates the Jewish traditions about Melchizedek from the Second Temple period and explores how they are used in Hebrews. Then, the article shows how Melchizedek’s figure works in the author’s argument about the superiority of Jesus’ high priesthood. It demonstrates that the author of Hebrews is interested in Melchizedek’s figure not only as a real person of the past or the future, but rather more as the likeness of Christ and the unique biblical image of a person who is simultaneously both a king and a high priest. Such a typology plays an important role in the author’s theological chain, which also includes other Old Testament images and characters, working metaphorically and shaping a multifaceted image of Christ as both God and human, priest and sacrifice, messianic king and perfect high priest. Further study of these metaphors in the context of modern metaphor theories can be a productive continuation of this research and can help us better understand the interpretive method of the author of Hebrews.
The Superiority of Christ : the Identity of Melchizedek in Hebrews
2013
oundational to Baptist Christology is the superiority of Christ over all created beings, and foundational to Baptist ecclesiology is the headship of Christ over the church. Among the strongest biblical passages arguing for the superiority of Christ over all created beings and particularly the Levitical priesthood is Hebrews 1-10. In Hebrews 7, Jesus is described as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and thus prior and superior to the Aaronic priesthood. Who was this Melchizedek referenced in Hebrews 7?
Ecclesia orans, 2022
This article, which is divided into two parts (the second of which will appear in the next issue) attempts to demonstrate within a specific euchology the claim that Jean Daniélou made in his seminal study, The Bible and the Liturgy, namely, that liturgical texts are themselves an expression of scriptural interpretation or exegesis. This claim is explored in four key ways where the author suggests that the Epistle to the Hebrews is appropriated in the Roman Canon Missae. The first is incorporation of the phrase «eternal covenant» from Heb 13:20-21 into the Supplices te, an unusual feature that is always witnessed in the Codex Veronensis. The second is the introduction of the figure of Melchizedek into the preexisting Greek source material shared with the Alexandrian tradition, forming a triumvirate of Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek—all of whom figure in important ways in the argument of Hebrews. The third is the use of the substantive adjective maiestatis, also in the Supplices te, taken from the unique use of the term Heb 1:3 and possibly 8:1, and echoed in 1 Clem. 36:2 and T. Levi 3:9. Finally, the use of the phrase sacrificium laudis from Heb 13:15, which draws on Ps 50[49]:14 and Ps 116[115]:14-18. While the figure of Melchizedek and the phrase sacrificium laudis are found in the Old Testament but are unique to Hebrews in the New Testament, the fact that they are textually related to the other two features of the Roman Canon that are completely unique to the in the Scriptures (maiestatis and «eternal covenant» in connection with Jesus) means that there is a preponderance of evidential weight that Hebrews exercised a decisive and singular influence on much of what distinguishes the Roman Canon from other early anaphoras.
The Epistle to the Hebrews in the Roman Canon Missae: Melchizedek and Other Features, part 2
Ecclesia Orans, 2023
This article is a demonstration of Jean Daniélou’s claim that liturgical texts are themselves an expression of scriptural interpretation and exegesis by considering one euchology’s use of a single biblical book. The argument proceeds in four sections, each a thorough consideration of four ways in which the Roman Canon Missae uniquely appropriates the Epistle to the Hebrews. The first is incorporation of the phrase “eternal covenant” from Heb. 13:20-21 into the Supplices te, a singular feature in institution narratives but found in the Codex Veronensis. The second is the introduction of the figure of Melchizedek into preexisting Greek source material, which forms a triumvirate of Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek. The third is the use of the substantive adjective maetestatis to refer to God, also located in the Supplices te. The term is taken from Heb. 1:3 and echoed in 1 Clement and Testament of Levi. The final appropriation is the phrase sacrificium laudis, drawn from Heb. 13:15. While the figure of Melchizedek and the phrase sacrificium laudis are also found in the Old Testament but are unique to Hebrews in the New Testament, the fact that they are textually related to the other two features of the Roman Canon that are found nowhere else in the Bible except Hebrews (maiestatis and “eternal covenant” as applied to Jesus) means that there is a preponderance of evidential weight that Hebrews exercised a decisive and singular influence on much of what distinguishes the Roman Canon from other early anaphoras.
Melchizedek in the Sources: Things as They Really Were?
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast a select number of the available sources regarding Melchizedek and his priesthood, with the inclusion of information from two lesser known sources, which have been ignored by mainstream scholars due to their modernity and biblical orientation. The first is from the revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith in the scriptural canon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These revelations can be found in Joseph Smith's Inspired Version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, and sermons and lectures contained in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and elsewhere. The other works are euhemerist histories from the writings of John D. Pilkey and his protégé Ross S. Marshall. The comparison will involve the entwined areas of Melchizedek's (1) genealogy and identity, (2) his priesthood, (3) his alleged role in the end times, and (4) his identity in the myths and traditions of early post-diluvian patriarchs matching historical characters. Specific attention will be given to the authority behind these extra-biblical teachings about Melchizedek and the concept named by Bart Ehrman as "literary deceit" (Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics), to examine the motives that may have existed for adding new information to the diminutive Melchizedek corpus in the Bible.
The Epistle to the Hebrews in the Roman Canon Missae: Melchizedek and Other Features, part 1
Ecclesia orans
This article is a demonstration of Jean Daniélou’s claim that liturgical texts are themselves an expression of scriptural interpretation and exegesis by considering one euchology’s use of a single biblical book. The argument proceeds in four sections, each a thorough consideration of four ways in which the Roman Canon Missae uniquely appropriates the Epistle to the Hebrews. The first is incorporation of the phrase “eternal covenant” from Heb. 13:20-21 into the Supplices te, a singular feature in institution narratives but found in the Codex Veronensis. The second is the introduction of the figure of Melchizedek into preexisting Greek source material, which forms a triumvirate of Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek. The third is the use of the substantive adjective maetestatis to refer to God, also located in the Supplices te. The term is taken from Heb. 1:3 and echoed in 1 Clement and Testament of Levi. The final appropriation is the phrase sacrificium laudis, drawn from Heb. 13:15. While the figure of Melchizedek and the phrase sacrificium laudis are also found in the Old Testament but are unique to Hebrews in the New Testament, the fact that they are textually related to the other two features of the Roman Canon that are found nowhere else in the Bible except Hebrews (maiestatis and “eternal covenant” as applied to Jesus) means that there is a preponderance of evidential weight that Hebrews exercised a decisive and singular influence on much of what distinguishes the Roman Canon from other early anaphoras.
And the Sons of David were Cohens: The Priesthood of Melchitzedek
“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.