MELCHIZADEK, Harold Hunt There is probably no other Old Testament character, whose identity has left more people guessing than Melchizedek. Who was he? Where did he come from? What is his place in the grand scheme of things?
Melchizedek is a mysterious character, who appears once on the pages of history, and then disappears. The one single historical reference to Melchizedek is in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. Gen. 14:18-20, “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand, and he gave him tithes of all.”
In Psalms, chapter one hundred and ten, David points back to Melchizedek, and prophesies that Christ will be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Psa. 110:4, “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” What does he mean by the order of Melchizedek? David does not say. Paul mentions him several times in the Hebrew letter. Heb. 5:6, “As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek.” Heb. 5:10, “Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedek.” Heb. 6:20, “Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek” Heb. 7:1-7, “For this Melchisedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham. But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. Vss. 10,11, “For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedek met him. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?” Vs. 15, “And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedek there ariseth another priest.” Vs.17, “For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek.” Vs. 21, “(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek:).”
The name appears eleven times in the Bible. In seven out of those eleven times, the name appears in the expression the order of Melchizedek. Who was Melchizedek? Where did he come from? What is his significance? What is meant by the expression the order of Melchizedek?
So far as the identity of Melchizedek is concerned, the classical theologians totally fail us. Most of them think he was some obscure Canaanite (Hamitic) prince, who lived in the region of Judea. That was John Gill’s opinion. The commentaries of Matthew Poole and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown take the same position. Matthew Henry and John Calvin talk about the subject, and mention several different theories, but neither of them ventures to present any opinion of his own. They had no idea who he was.
The one thing that seems to convince those theologians that Melchizedek was a Canaanite prince is that he lived in an area which is most commonly associated with the descendants of Canaan. He was surrounded by Canaanites, so he must be a Canaanite, or so the argument goes.
But the argument does not hold. There can be no question that much of that land was associated with the Canaanites, but that does not apply to the entire region. Much of that region was also occupied by the descendants of Eber, the grandson of Shem. Eber was not a Canaanite, nor any other kind of Hamite. He was Semitic, a descendent of Shem. In Genesis chapter forty, when Joseph in an Egyptian prison was stating his plight to the butler and the baker, he told them, “For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews” (Gen. 40:15). Notice that he did not say I was stolen out of the land of the Canaanites.
Now bear in mind that at this time the descendants of Abraham had not yet come into possession of the land. At that time the entire family of Jacob consisted of only seventy people (Gen. 46:27). There were far too few of them to possess that entire land, or to give it their name.
Canaan was one of the sons of Ham; he was Hamitic. The word Hebrew indicates a descendant of Eber, the great-grandson of Shem; he was Semitic, not Hamitic.
That raises the question; who was Eber? For eight generations Eber was the only descendant of Shem who outlived him. His name became the name most commonly attached to the descendants of Shem. There were obviously enough of Shem’s Hebrew descendants living in that region for it to be commonly called the land of the Hebrews.
More than that, the one central theme with regard to Melchizedek is that Christ was made “a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” How can we imagine that the Lord of Glory was made a priest after the order of some obscure Hamitic prince, who appeared once on the pages of history, and then vanished, never to be heard from again?
How could some unknown Canaanite be such a clear figure of Christ that Paul spends so much time expounding on that connection, and yet we know nothing about him? If Christ was made a priest forever after the order of some Canaanite prince, what was that order? What was there about him that made him such a clear type of the Messiah? Gill and the others cannot produce their evidence.
Also, the descendants of Canaan were under a special curse. Gen. 9:25, “And he said, cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.” That curse fell, not on Canaan alone, but on all his descendants. Would God choose a member of that race, which was cursed above their brethren, as a figure of Christ?
No, rather, the Lord, whose very name is Blessed (Mark 14:61), came to redeem us from under the curse. He did not fashion his priesthood after the ministry of one who was himself under a curse.
Listen to the language of Paul, and see if it sounds like he was talking about some obscure person. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils,” Heb. 7:4. Paul marvels at the greatness of this man, and tells us that even the Patriarch Abraham deferred to him and gave him tithes.
That kind of homage is not usually given to some unknown, insignificant individual. Melchizedek was obviously a very prominent person, whose greatness, and whose claim to preeminence was readily recognized by Abraham.
Else, why would Abraham give him tithes? Why should it not have been the other way around? Why should Melchizedek not have rather given tithes to Abraham? Melchizedek did not give tithes to Abraham because Melchizedek was the greater of the two. Paul makes that plain enough.
Heb. 7:6,7, But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises, and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.” Abraham is the father of the nation of Israel. He is one of the most illustrious characters in all of the Old Testament, and by far one of the most notable characters in all of human history.
There is no way we can imagine that Abraham received blessing from some obscure Canaanite prince, and that in so doing “the less was blessed of the better.” We cannot imagine that some obscure Canaanite prince was superior to Abraham.
I hope to show that, not only was Melchizedek a very prominent figure, whose importance was readily recognized by Abraham, but that Melchizedek was, at that time, probably the most widely known, and the most influential, person in the world. There was no reason anybody should challenge his authority, nor that Abraham should question his right to receive tithes.
I do not like to keep people guessing; so before we go any farther, let me say that I am firmly convinced Melchizedek was another name for Noah’s middle son Shem. I hope to present those reasons which convince me that Shem and Melchizedek were the same person. If those arguments do not convince you, I hope you will not feel hard at me for being as firmly convinced as I am in the matter.
Shem was one of Noah’s three sons. It was by those three men, and their sons, that the world was repopulated after the flood. Every human being in the world is a descendant of one or the other of those three men. So Shem stands alone as the ancestor of one of the three grand divisions of the human race. I hope to show that he was one of the most prominent characters in the history of the world, and one of the most prominent figures in the lineage of the Messiah.
Shem was Abraham’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-father. Notice that he was his seven times (count them) great-grandfather. If we add those seven times to the forty two generations from Abraham to Christ (Matt. 1:17), we have forty nine generations. If seven is a significant number, forty nine— seven times seven—must be somewhat more significant.
I hope to show that Shem and Melchizedek were the same person, that Shem was a figure of Christ, and that his ministry resembled, or prefigured, the ministry of Christ as clearly as the type can ever resemble the antitype. And I hope to show that he was a figure of Christ in ways that no other person ever was or could be.
But, if Melchizedek and Shem were the same person, why does it call him Melchizedek? Why does it not just call him Shem? For whatever the reason, many of the characters in the Bible were called by more than one name. Jacob was often called Israel. Several times he was called Jeshurun (Deut. 32:15, 33:5,26, Isa. 15:26). Gideon was sometimes called Jerubbaal (Jud. 6:32); sometimes he was Jerubbesheth (2 Sam. 11:21). It would be hard to count all the characters in the Bible who had more than one name.
Melchizedek was the king of Salem. That was probably his kingly name. The suffix -zedek is also found in the name of Adonizedek (Josh. 10:1), the king of Jerusalem. We will notice later that Jerusalem and Salem were the same city. When we find two kings of the same city having the same suffix in their name, it indicates that the suffix might very well have been part of their royal title. When we read the description Paul gives of Melchizedek, it is easy to get the idea that he could not be talking about any human who ever lived, neither Shem nor anybody else.
Paul says that he was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually” Heb. 7:3. How could any man fit all of those characteristics?
Quite a few Bible students have decided that Paul could not be talking about any mere mortal, and that Melchizedek was simply another name for the Lord himself. But that idea only looks like it solves the problem. First, the text says that Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of God.”
It does not make a lot of sense to say that somebody was like himself. That expression shows that Melchizedek was not the Lord—he was only like the Lord. Second, the Lord did have a mother. Mary was the mother of his human nature, and the Bible often refers to her as his mother (John 2:1,5, 19:25, etc), and in both his divine nature and his human nature God is his Father (John 20:17).
Also, if Melchizedek was simply another name for the Lord, and the Lord is “a priest after the order of Melchizedek,” then the priesthood of the Lord is the pattern after which the priesthood of the Lord is fashioned. It does not any kind of sense to say that a person is patterned after himself. No, Melchizedek was not the Lord, but he was like the Lord.
If you will bear with me, I hope to show that Shem is unique in all of history, and that those seven expressions do describe him. He is the only man in human history who fits the description given, and it is uncanny how very well he does fit.
The key to the question is in Heb. 7:15, “And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest.” The key word is similitude. Similitude indicates appearance or likeness. Christ is a priest after the similitude—after the likeness—of Melchizedek. The priesthood of the Lord is not the priesthood of Melchizedek; but it is like it. There is a clear similitude or resemblance.
We are dealing with a type, and it is the purpose of a type to resemble the antitype. When the text says that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother,” and so on, it is not saying that he absolutely did not have a father or mother. No one who ever lived was absolutely without parents, but within the limits of the type, Melchizedek clearly resembled one who did not have a father or a mother.” He resembled one without beginning of days, or end of life, and so on. When we accept the key provided by the text itself, and apply that key to the person of Shem, the problem resolves itself.
Shem appeared to be without father, and without mother. He appeared to be without descent, without beginning of days, or end of life. He appeared to have a perpetual, unchangeable priesthood. And he had those appearances as no other person ever did. I believe that all of this will become clear as we go along, and I believe that it will become clear that the type does fit the antitype.
Those of you who have read our little booklet on The Sixteen Ancestors of All Mankind are already acquainted with the argument I am about to present, but a lot of you have either not read it, or perhaps you have forgotten most of it, so I hope you will pardon me if I simply quote verbatim from that material.
“Before the flood men lived to be very old. If you will look at Genesis chapter five, you will discover that it was not at all uncommon for somebody to live to be almost a thousand years old. Adam lived to be nine hundred and thirty years old (vs. 5). Methuselah lived to be nine hundred and sixty nine (vs. 27), and Noah lived to be nine hundred and fifty (ch. 9:29). But all of that changed after the flood. For the next several generations they still lived to be very old by our standards, but the life expectancy of each generation dropped rapidly. Genesis chapter eleven gives the ages of the first several generations after the flood.
If those life spans, which are listed, are typical of those which are not listed, and we have no reason to believe they were any different, then, one strange fact becomes evident: for the next eight generations after the flood, the life expectancy of each generation was falling so rapidly, that it was the rule, rather than the exception, for the parents to outlive their children.
And not only that, it was the rule for the grandparents to outlive their grandchildren, and for the great-grandparents to outlive their great-grandchildren, and so on. That went on for eight generations or more. Let us take just a moment to see how that worked out. Genesis chapter eleven records that ‘Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood’ (vs 10). He lived ‘after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years’ (vs 11). So Arphaxad died 502 years (2 years plus 500 years) after the flood. ‘Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah’ (vs 12) 37 years (2 years plus 35 years) after the flood. Salah lived another 403 years (vs. 15). So he died 440 years after the flood (2 years plus 35 years plus 403 years). Notice that he died 62 years before his father.
The eleventh chapter of Genesis has all the numbers. You can work out the arithmetic for yourselves, but here is a listing of the date of death of each of the patriarchs up until the time of Abraham.”
“Shem died 502 years after the flood.
Arphaxad died 440 years after the flood.
Salah died 470 years after the flood.
Eber died 531 years after the flood.
Peleg died 340 years after the flood.
Serug died 393 years after the flood.
Nahor died 241 years after the flood.
Terah died 426 years after the flood.
Abraham died 527 years after the flood.”
“Except for Eber, Shem outlived all his descendants for the next eight generations. Abraham was the first to outlive Shem, and he only outlived him by 25 years.”
Now consider, if you will, the significance of all that. Shem outlived his children, his grandchildren, his great-grandchildren, his great-great-grandchildren, and so on down to his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren. The text only lists one exception. That was his great-grandson Eber. Except for Eber, so far as the record shows, Shem outlived all his descendants until we get all the way down to his seven times great-grandson Abraham.
One of the characteristics of Melchizedek was that he had no end of life. Shem was not immortal. He did finally die. The type and the antitype never agree in every detail; else the type would be the antitype. They only look alike. But even though Shem was not immortal, he must have appeared to his descendants to be immortal. When an aged man stands all alone at the head of all his descendants, at the head of his extended family, with eight generations entirely missing between himself and his descendants, he certainly has an appearance of immortality. It looks for all the world like he is never going to die.
Bearing in mind that we are dealing with similitude—dealing with appearances— Shem exactly fits the description of one who had no end of life.
Another characteristic of Melchizedek was that he had no beginning of days. Here again, Shem fits the description. Shem had no beginning of days—not in this world, anyway. Shem had his beginning in another world. He was born in the world before the flood. The Bible consistently refers to the world before the flood as another world (spared not the old world {II Pet. 2:5}, the world that then was {II Pet. 3:6}). So Shem had no beginning of days—in this world. He had his beginning in another world, and he came (through the flood) from that world to this world. Again, Shem fits the description of Melchizedek, and he stands as a type of the Lord, who truly had no beginning of days, and who came to this world from another world. John 3:13, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven.”
At the time Melchizedek met Abraham (and it is especially at that juncture that he stands as a type of Christ) he was without father and without mother. All of Shem’s ancestors died, either in the flood, or prior to it. His grandparents were dead: his great-grandparents were dead; all his aunts and uncles were dead. He outlived his father by one hundred and fifty years (Gen. 9:6,29 11:10,11). So at the time he met Abraham, his father, and no doubt his mother, were dead.
Get the picture. Here is the man who stood at the head of a mighty family, which constituted the third part of the human race. And yet he stood all alone in the world. At the time he met Abraham, all his ancestors, including his father and mother were long since dead. His descendants for the next eight generations were dead. More than any other person in recorded history, he had the appearance of one with neither ancestors nor descendants.
Paul goes on to say that he was “made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually” (vs. 3). He was like the Son of God in any number of ways, but the one thing Paul has most in mind is his perpetual priesthood. In Shem’s day the only established priesthood was the priesthood of the head of the house. The Mosaic Law and the Levitical Priesthood did not come along for another four hundred years. The Old Testament prophets did not appear on the scene for still another four hundred years. The gospel ministry would not arrive for two thousand years. The responsibility for religious instruction rested on the father as the head of the family.
Shem was the head of his immediate family, and he stood as the head over their families. Bear in mind that the extended family of Shem (they were all his descendants) constituted the third part of the human race. Considering the long lives and the large families of that day, Shem was possibly the spiritual leader of millions of descendants.
Shem was the spiritual leader of his descendants, and in some sense, he was the spiritual leader, even of those other two families, the Japhethites, and the Hamites as well. He was their leader to the extent they had a spiritual leader. Neither Japheth nor Ham were able to give the dependable lead Shem provided. The Bible makes it clear enough that the responsibility of leadership rested on Shem, so far as the true worship of God was concerned. Gen. 9:25-27, “And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”
It is obvious that in spiritual matters, Shem was the best known and the most influential man in the world. In that, he was clearly a type of the Lord. God has never left himself without a witness. When there were only three people in the world, God sent a witness, a prophet. Read Matthew 23:29-35. In that passage the Lord complains about those who shed the blood of the prophets “from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias.” The text clearly implies that Abel was a prophet. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied (Jude 14). Notice that number seven again. Psalms 105:9,10,15 shows that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all prophets. God has always had a witness. He has always provided for some kind of religious instruction. In Shem’s day that responsibility rested on the head of the house.
Living so long as he did, he stood as the head of the family for eight full generations. His children were born; they lived, and died, and all the while, he was the only priest they knew. His grandchildren were born; they lived and died, and they knew no other priest. That went on for eight generations, and for all that time, for all they could tell, there was never going to be another priest. It appeared that the priesthood of Shem would go on forever.
We are repeatedly told that Christ was “a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” According to Webster order has to do with arrangement or succession. To all appearance, Shem was never going to have a successor. It appeared that he was going to go on forever. Again the type fits the antitype. The Lord Jesus Christ is our one and only high priest. He has no successors. His priesthood will never end.
Shem was the type; Christ is the antitype. For eight generations Shem appeared to his family to have a perpetual priesthood. He prefigured Christ who truly does have the one and only perpetual priesthood. The Levitical priests were very different to Melchizedek. Theirs was a different order; they had successors. They lived out their normal lifespans; they died, and they were replaced. But the
priesthood of Shem appeared to go on forever. He had the appearance of which Christ has the reality. Heb. 7:23-26, “And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.”
The last thing we need to notice is that Melchizedek was king of Salem. Again, in this he is a clear type of the Lord Jesus Christ. Salem is the old name for Jerusalem. David refers to Jerusalem and calls it Salem in Psalms 76:2: “In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.” Sometimes Zion referred to the entire old city of Jerusalem; sometimes it referred to a hill in Jerusalem. Either way, it has reference to Jerusalem. So Jerusalem, or Salem, was the capital of the kingdom of Melchizedek, and it was the capital of the kingdom of David, and it is also one of the names of the New Testament church. Melchizedek, with his apparently perpetual priesthood, reigning in that very ancient Jerusalem prefigured the Lord Jesus Christ with his truly perpetual priesthood reigning in that New Jerusalem which is above, which is the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26). When David claimed Jerusalem as his capital, he was simply reclaiming that old capital which had been the center of the government of Melchizedek many centuries before. And when the New Testament writers refer to the church as the new Jerusalem, the holy Jerusalem, or the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22, Rev. 3:12, 21:2,10), they connect the New Testament Church with both of those two Old Testament types, Melchizedek and David.
Psa. 110:4, “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”