The Truth About Melchizedek

[Pegg]

Yes, and he didn't mess with Abram for two reasons: First, because he was afraid to lose Jerusalem; and second, because he acknowledged in Abram the Priest of God, the Most High. And then, a pagan king, the max persona for the justice Arcane in Persona 3? Not even in his dreams!

Genesis 14:18 And Mel‧chiz′e‧dek king of Sa′lem brought out bread and wine, and he was priest (Heb., kho‧hen&#8242 of the Most High God. 19 Then he blessed him and said: “Blessed be A′bram of the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth;
20 And blessed be the Most High God, Who has delivered your oppressors into your hand!”

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben
I can find no support, in either Jewish or Christian sources, for your assertion that Melchizedek was not a priest of the Most High G-d.
If I am being deceived into thinking that he was a Priest of the Most High G-d, then it is the result of an extensive, continuing and age old conspiracy (that predates Christianity) and involves every branch of scholarship while also crossing all cultural boundaries.
Show me your source.
　
And again I ask for your source that the less may bless the better.
The befuddled thinking of guys and gals in modern day Israel is not, of necessity, a reflection of Abram's thinking.
So please refer to Scripture, or at the least to accepted scholarship, to elucidate the scripture.

nooc

You are not being deceived by anything that predates Christianity; but directly by the founder of Christianity, Paul. This is the one who fabricated the whole idea of Melchizedek as a king forever, which has been proved to be a fallacy of Paul's, because Melchizedek is gone. And his talk of a superior priesthood vis-a-vis the Levitical priesthood, had the only purpose to promote his policy of Replacement Theology. Why? Because his assertion was based on his theology of replacement that in the change of the priesthood was the necessity to change also the Law. (Heb. 7:12) Therefore, Replacement Theology that, with the change of the Law, also the Testament was surely better with Jesus, as Paul claimed. (Heb. 7:22) Whose sacrifice once and for all, made obsolete the Levitical daily sacrifices in the Temple. (Heb. 7:27) The man was on a mission of Replacement Theology indeed.

Paul needed to forge the text in Genesis 14:18 to enhance his replacemet of the Jewish People with his Christian disciples. Here is the support for the fact that Melchizedek was no priest of the Most High but of his own idols. And he was neither Prince of Peace. This word is taken from the name of the city which just happened to be salem, which means peace. He had no reason to serve Abram but his fear to be taken over by Abram.

About the less blessing the better, Thomas Mann in his book "Joseph and His Brothers," asks that following question: "Can the blessed be blessed?" Abraham was the one already blessed by God the Most High. The blessing of Melchizadek only resonated as if from an old bell, but could have no effect as to make Abram any more blessed. God had already blessed Abraham in all things. (Gen. 24:1) In Luke 19:38, we have the disciples blessing Jesus as the king who was coming in the name of the Lord. And in Matthew 21:9, we have the multitudes blessing Jesus the son of David, etc, etc. Throughout the gospels, it is always the less who bless the better; although the better would not become any more blessed for being blessed by the less. Therefore, Abram did not need the blessing of Melchizedek. On the contrary. But Abram had no reason to bless Melchizedek either, because he was a pagan king. So, he paid him generously for his serving of the bread and wine. Because Abram was too just to take favors without paying for them. And he did it rather much more generously than with just bread and wine.

Besides, in the very text, we have the proofs that usually the less blesses the better. Melchizedek (less) blessed Abram. And in verse 19 we have Melchizedek blessing God the Most High. Melchizedek was less; God was better. And so forth.

 

[Pegg]

You are not being deceived by anything that predates Christianity; but directly by the founder of Christianity, Paul.

Paul was converted to Christianity... so he could not be its founder.

 

[Ben Masada]

Genesis 14:18 And Mel‧chiz′e‧dek king of Sa′lem brought out bread and wine, and he was priest (Heb., kho‧hen&#8242 of the Most High God. 19 Then he blessed him and said: “Blessed be A′bram of the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth;
20 And blessed be the Most High God, Who has delivered your oppressors into your hand!”

My translation from the original in Hebrew does not say, "and he was priest of..." It says that Melchizedek brought out bread and wine to Abram. He was priest of God the Most High." He who, Melchizedek or Abram? Of course, Abram who had been taken from his kindred to be the father of a nation of priests and kings. Then, when Abram arrived in Canaan, there was none who worshiped the Lord of Abram. They were all Canaanite pagans. But Paul, in his Letter to the Hebrews, had to forger the text to argue that his Christ
had to be according to Melchizedek.

 

[Ben Masada]

Paul was converted to Christianity... so he could not be its founder.

That's where you err for not being aware of your own NT. Christians were called Christians for the very first time in the city of Antioch, about 30 years after Jesus had been gone, because Paul had spent a whole year there preaching about Jesus as Christ. Read Acts 11:26. Paul tried to join the Sect of the Nazarenes but was rejected because the Apostles of Jesus could not believe him due to his history of persecuter of the Nazarenes, who used to gather in synagogues and not in churches. Read Acts 9:1,2 Therefore, Christians started with Paul.

 

[Ben Masada]

One correction and one question.

It's very unlikely that Paul wrote Hebrews.

Do you have a source for the version of Psalm 110:4 that you are calling the original Hebrew that does not contain the name of Melchizedek?

מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק

Yes, "The New JPS translation according to the Traditional Hebrew text." Published in 1985 by the Jewish Publication Society. It does not contain the name Melchiedek.
Ben

 

[Thesavorofpan]

Oh! My bad. I thought you had already made of him the third person of the Trinity.

Oh...well if you look at my christian beliefs on here I don't believe in the Trinity.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Was El-Elyon the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon?

I don't know why Elyon or El-Elyon matter. The two are obviously connected.

 

[dmgdnooc]

You are not being deceived by anything that predates Christianity; but directly by the founder of Christianity, Paul. This is the one who fabricated the whole idea of Melchizedek as a king forever, which has been proved to be a fallacy of Paul's, because Melchizedek is gone. And his talk of a superior priesthood vis-a-vis the Levitical priesthood, had the only purpose to promote his policy of Replacement Theology. Why? Because his assertion was based on his theology of replacement that in the change of the priesthood was the necessity to change also the Law. (Heb. 7:12) Therefore, Replacement Theology that, with the change of the Law, also the Testament was surely better with Jesus, as Paul claimed. (Heb. 7:22) Whose sacrifice once and for all, made obsolete the Levitical daily sacrifices in the Temple. (Heb. 7:27) The man was on a mission of Replacement Theology indeed.

Paul needed to forge the text in Genesis 14:18 to enhance his replacemet of the Jewish People with his Christian disciples. Here is the support for the fact that Melchizedek was no priest of the Most High but of his own idols. And he was neither Prince of Peace. This word is taken from the name of the city which just happened to be salem, which means peace. He had no reason to serve Abram but his fear to be taken over by Abram.

About the less blessing the better, Thomas Mann in his book "Joseph and His Brothers," asks that following question: "Can the blessed be blessed?" Abraham was the one already blessed by God the Most High. The blessing of Melchizadek only resonated as if from an old bell, but could have no effect as to make Abram any more blessed. God had already blessed Abraham in all things. (Gen. 24:1) In Luke 19:38, we have the disciples blessing Jesus as the king who was coming in the name of the Lord. And in Matthew 21:9, we have the multitudes blessing Jesus the son of David, etc, etc. Throughout the gospels, it is always the less who bless the better; although the better would not become any more blessed for being blessed by the less. Therefore, Abram did not need the blessing of Melchizedek. On the contrary. But Abram had no reason to bless Melchizedek either, because he was a pagan king. So, he paid him generously for his serving of the bread and wine. Because Abram was too just to take favors without paying for them. And he did it rather much more generously than with just bread and wine.

Besides, in the very text, we have the proofs that usually the less blesses the better. Melchizedek (less) blessed Abram. And in verse 19 we have Melchizedek blessing God the Most High. Melchizedek was less; God was better. And so forth.

So, I ask you to show me your source for saying that Melchizedek was not a priest of the Most High G-d and you refer me to the NT letter to the Hebrews.
That is crazy.
The vendetta that you are pursuing against Paul has destroyed your ability to reason.
　
You charge Paul with a need to 'forge the text in Genesis 14.18' and yet a few posts later (#24) you admit that the translation of Gen 14.18 that your OP quotes is your own personal translation.
You have sunk so low in pursuing this vendetta that you are prepared to alter the Holy Scriptures, disregard the meaning of the Hebrew language, and slander a great man of the Scripture (Melchizedek), a man for whom Abram quite evidently had the highest respect and who is spoken of throughout Jewish tradition in universally glowing terms.
　
Melchizedek's purpose in bringing forth 'bread and wine' was to defuse the tense situation between Sodom and Abram through the agency of his priestly office.
Both leaders were camped with all their allies and confederates before the gates of Salem and Sodom's envy and avarice were directed against Abram, who had defeated the coalition that Sodom had fled and who now possessed the men and goods that Sodom coveted.
　
You dump the ages of Jewish tradition and exegesis in order to accept Mann's historical novel as the source for your understanding. You prefer the focus of Mann (a secular Jew whose understanding was focussed on the intellectual and artistic values and trends of Europe, Germany in particular) over the religious focus of Rabbinical tradition.
　
In Luke 19.38 and Matthew 21.9 you are confusing, conflating, the statements of recognition that Jesus was blessed by G-d with the blessing itself.
You are assuming that the blessing comes from the ones who recognise the blessing and you are ignoring the real source of that blessing.
The acclamation of the disciples recognises that Jesus had already been blessed and seeks, by invocation, that G-d continue the blessing.
　
In Genesis 14.18 you make a similar mistake but with less excuse.
It is clearly said that Melchizedek blessed Abram and then, after the blessing, Melchizedek made a pronouncement in recognition that Abram was indeed blessed by the Most High G-d saying 'Blessed be Abram of the Most High G-d'.
You have missed that the blessing and the pronouncement recognising a higher blessing are separate.
And you have missed this important fact by assuming that Melchizedek's blessing was his pronouncement.
Don't you know that to receive the blessing Abram would have bent his knee before Meldhizedek and to give the blessing Melchizedek would have layed his hands on Abram's head?
　
Abram did not pay Melchizedek 'generously' he gave him the priest's due, gave him tithes of all the spoil.
　
And you should note that the Abram of Genesis 14 is quite a different man to the Abraham of Genesis 24.1 . Great and blessed he was but greater and more blessed would he become.
　
Ben, you have given yourself away.
I ask for your sources and you refer me to your enmity against Paul and a secular Jew's historical novel.
And as you move between the two your dearth of Scriptural understanding is made evident.
Haven't you got anything better than that?

 

[Pegg]

My translation from the original in Hebrew does not say, "and he was priest of..." It says that Melchizedek brought out bread and wine to Abram. He was priest of God the Most High." He who, Melchizedek or Abram? Of course, Abram who had been taken from his kindred to be the father of a nation of priests and kings. Then, when Abram arrived in Canaan, there was none who worshiped the Lord of Abram. They were all Canaanite pagans. But Paul, in his Letter to the Hebrews, had to forger the text to argue that his Christ
had to be according to Melchizedek.

i had a look in the hebrew interlinear and found it in there as the following:

Gen 14:18
u·mlki-tzdq mlk shlm eutzia lchm u·iin u·eua ken l·al Eloliun oliun

and·Melchi-Zedek king-of Salem he-brought-forth bread and·wine and·he priest to God supreme

 

[Ben Masada]

i had a look in the hebrew interlinear and found it in there as the following:

Gen 14:18
u·mlki-tzdq mlk shlm eutzia lchm u·iin u·eua ken l·al Eloliun oliun

and·Melchi-Zedek king-of Salem he-brought-forth bread and·wine and·he priest to God supreme

The text speaks of two men. One is Melchizedek and the other is Abram. One, the first "he" (Melchizedek) brought bread and wine to Abram, and the other, the second "he" (Abram) was Priest of God the Most High. I can't see why is it so hard to understand if we consider the historical evidences of the facts.

 

[Ben Masada]

So, I ask you to show me your source for saying that Melchizedek was not a priest of the Most High G-d and you refer me to the NT letter to the Hebrews. That is crazy.The vendetta that you are pursuing against Paul has destroyed your ability to reason.

I started with Paul because he was the one who fabricated the idea of Melchizedek as a priest of God Most High with the intent to replace the Jewish Levitical Priesthood with a Christian one which in his term was superior. That's Replacement Theology. You call it vendeta of mine. So be it. If I was trying to replace Christianity with Judaism, what would you do bless me for that? Be logical for a change!
　

You slander a great man of the Scripture (Melchizedek), a man for whom Abram quite evidently had the highest respect and who is spoken of throughout Jewish tradition in universally glowing terms.

What a great respect! When did they ever meet again after Abram paid for Melchizedek's bread and wine? Never. All my life as a Jew, I have never heard that Melchizedek is spoken of throughout Jewish tradition at all. Only and exclusively in the Christian sector. Now, you are glossing at will.
　

Don't you know that to receive the blessing Abram would have bent his knee before Meldhizedek and to give the blessing Melchizedek would have layed his hands on Abram's head?

Prove that this happened between Melchizedek and Abram. You are hypothesizing.
　

Abram did not pay Melchizedek 'generously' he gave him the priest's due, gave him tithes of all the spoil.

Ten percent of the spoils was an arbitrary sum which had nothing to do with the religious duty to return the tithe, whose commandment was derived from much later. And it was connected to the Temple. First, how could Abram give tithe if there was no Temple or Levites? His generosity had nothing to do with tithe, but because he would not eat for free from the gifts of a pagan. This is proved by his answer to the king of Sodom, whom he returned everything, the men and the goods.
　

Ben, you have given yourself away.

I ask for your sources and you refer me to your enmity against Paul and a secular Jew's historical novel. And as you move between the two your dearth of Scriptural understanding is made evident.
Haven't you got anything better than that?

Yes, I have got something much better than an adulterated translation which is the one KJV is. I have the JPS translation according to the Hebrew text which neutrilizes all your false assertions above that Melchizedek is almost adored by Jewish tradition. JPS stands for Jewish Publication Society. It agrees with my researches about Melchizedek and does not even mentions the name of that pagan kink in Psalm 110:4, which the KJV forged with a Pauline fabrication of "priesthood forever after the order of Melchizedek." This forgery was meant to introduce Jesus as the one and to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Where is all the Jewsih tradition now that you claim as an embelishment of Melchizedek as a priest of the Most High? You speak of tradition which no one can prove. I speak of what is written and I can prove. Go to a library and check up on a JPS translation of the Tanakh and you will see, if you have eyes to see, what I am talking about. And good luck my friend.

 

[dmgdnooc]

From the Jewish Encyclopedia JewishEncyclopedia.com
　
King of Salem and priest of the Most High in the time of Abraham. He brought out bread and wine, blessed Abram, and received tithes from him (Gen. xiv. 18-20). Reference is made to him in Ps. cx. 4, where the victorious ruler is declared to be "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." The story is neither an invention nor the product of a copyist's error, as Cheyne ("Encyc. Bibl.") thinks, but rests upon ancient Jerusalemic tradition (as Josephus, "B. J." vi. 10, affirms; comp. Gunkel, "Genesis," 1901, p. 261), "Zedek" being an ancient name of Jerusalem (probably connected with the Phenician Συδνκ = "Zedek" = "Jupiter"; comp. Shab. 156a, b; Gen. R. xliii.; Pesiḳ. R. 20; see Baudissin, "Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgesch." 1876, i. 14-15). Hence "'ir ha-ẓedeḳ" (Isa. i. 21, 26), "neweh ẓedeḳ" (Jer. xxxi. 23, l. 7), "sha'are ẓedeḳ" (Ps. cxviii. 19). The city's first king, accordingly, was known either as "Adoni Zedek" (Josh. x. 1 et seq. ; comp. Judges i. 5-7, where "Adonizedek" is the correct reading) or as "Malkizedek." The fact that he united the royal with the priestly dignity, like all ancient (heathen) kings, made him a welcome type to the composer of the triumphal song (Ps. cx.).

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=383&letter=M&search=melchizedek#ixzz1FBGE3jWO
　
The most high God (Gen. xix. 18-20, 22, A. V.; R. V. "God most high"), as whose priest Melchizedek blesses Abraham (compare "Urusalem," in the El-Amarna tablets; Schrader, "K. B." iv. 180, 25 et seq.; 183, 14; 185). He is further characterized as the "possessor [or "creator"] of heaven and earth" (Gen. xiv. 19). As an epithet of the Deity, "'Elyon" occurs with "El", in Ps. lxxviii. 35; with "Yhwh" in Ps. vii. 18, xlvii. 3, xcvii. 9; with "Elohim" in Ps. lvii. 3, lxxviii. 56; and without additional noun in Num. xxiv. 16; Deut. xxxii. 8; Ps. ix. 3, xviii. 14; Isa. xiv. 14; Dan. vii. 18-25 (compare Hoffmann, "Phönizische Inschriften," pp.48, 50). Among the Phenicians "'Elyon" was an appellation of God. The plural, ("gods"), is found on an inscription of Eshmun'azar (Bloch, "Phönizisches Glossar," p. 12). The name is old, and analogous to "El-Shaddai," "El-'Olam," and the like. See God, Names of.EL NORA 'ALILAH


Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=112&letter=E&search=melchizedek#ixzz1FBGu84ln

 

[dmgdnooc]

From Melchizedek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
　
The Midrash and classical rabbinical interpretation
Melchizedek presents a problem for traditional Jewish teachings: he is not a descendant of Aaron, from whom all priests must be descended - in fact he pre-dates both Aaron and Levi - yet he is described as a priest. Several explanations were offered. In the Midrash, the Rabbis identified Melchizedek with Shem son of Noah, who, although also not a descendant of Aaron, was believed to have officiated as a priest. (E.g., Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 32b; Genesis Rabbah 46:7; Genesis Rabbah 56:10; Leviticus Rabbah 25:6; Numbers Rabbah 4:8.) Rabbi Isaac the Babylonian said that Melchizedek was born circumcised. (Genesis Rabbah 43:6.) Melchizedek called Jerusalem "Salem." (Genesis Rabbah 56:10.) The Rabbis said that Melchizedek instructed Abram in the Torah. (Genesis Rabbah 43:6.) Rabbi Eleazar said that Melchizedek’s school was one of three places where the Holy Spirit manifested Himself. (Babylonian Talmud Makkot 23b.) The Rabbis taught that Melchizedek acted as a priest and handed down Adam’s robes to Abram. (Numbers Rabbah 4:8.) Rabbi Zechariah said on Rabbi Ishmael’s authority that God intended to bring forth the priesthood through Melchizedek’s descendants, but because Melchizedek blessed Abram before he blessed God (in Gen. 14:19-20), God brought the priesthood forth from Abram’s descendants. (Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 32b; see also Leviticus Rabbah 25:6 (crediting Rabbi Ishamel).)
Rabbi Judah said in Rabbi Nehorai's name that Melchizedek’s blessing yielded prosperity for Abram, Isaac, and Jacob. (Genesis Rabbah 43:8.) Ephraim Miksha'ah the disciple of Rabbi Meir said in the latter's name that Tamar descended from Melchizedek. (Genesis Rabbah 85:10.)
Rabbi Hana bar Bizna citing Rabbi Simeon Hasida identified Melchizedek as one of the four craftsmen of whom Zechariah wrote in Zechariah 2:3. (Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 52b; see also Song of Songs Rabbah 2:33 (crediting Rabbi Berekiah in the name of Rabbi Isaac).) The Talmud teaches that David wrote the Book of Psalms, including in it the work of the elders, including Melchizedek (in Psalm 110). (Babylonian Talmud Baba Batra 14b-15a.)
The Zohar finds in "Melchizedek king of Salem" a reference to "the King Who rules with complete sovereignty," or according to another explanation, that "Melchizedek" alludes to the lower world and "king of Salem" to the upper world. (Zohar 1:86b-87a.)
The famed medieval French rabbi, Shlomo Yitzhaki (February 22, 1040 – July 13, 1105), better known by the acronym Rashi (RAbbi SHlomo Itzhaki), was the author of the first comprehensive commentary on the Talmud, as well as a comprehensive commentary on the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), and is considered the "father" of all commentaries that followed on the Talmud. Rashi explains that the High Priest known as "Melchizedek" who received tithes from Abraham after he defeated the four kings in battle, was Shem, the righteous son of Noah (according to the Midrash Aggada). Abraham was a descendant of Shem. Therefore, from a Jewish perspective from the Torah, if one were to say that the Melchizedek (Shem) was a progenitor of the Jewish Priesthood (Kehuna), that would also be correct, as was Adam and Noah, although Abraham won the Priesthood through his merit and not through inheritance. Thus, the Sages tell us that God stripped Melchizedek of the priesthood and gave it to Abraham because the former blessed the later first before blessing God. However, although Shem had assumed the role of High Priest in that he taught Torah to the Patriarchs well before it was physically brought into the world at Mount Sinai, the official title of High Priest was conferred upon Aaron after the construction and erection of the Tabernacle.

　
Which shows the development of traditional Jewish understanding of the legitimacy of Melchizedek's priesthood from pre-Christian times.
　
Ben, your kidding only yourself.
If you read the JPS, an English translation, then you don't even read Hebrew.
How can you make pronouncements on the Hebrew language that are contrary to Rabbinical Tradition?
　
nooc

 

[Ben Masada]

From the Jewish Encyclopedia JewishEncyclopedia.com
　
King of Salem and priest of the Most High in the time of Abraham. He brought out bread and wine, blessed Abram, and received tithes from him (Gen. xiv. 18-20). Reference is made to him in Ps. cx. 4, where the victorious ruler is declared to be "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." The story is neither an invention nor the product of a copyist's error, as Cheyne ("Encyc. Bibl.") thinks, but rests upon ancient Jerusalemic tradition (as Josephus, "B. J." vi. 10, affirms; comp. Gunkel, "Genesis," 1901, p. 261), "Zedek" being an ancient name of Jerusalem (probably connected with the Phenician Συδνκ = "Zedek" = "Jupiter"; comp. Shab. 156a, b; Gen. R. xliii.; Pesiḳ. R. 20; see Baudissin, "Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgesch." 1876, i. 14-15). Hence "'ir ha-ẓedeḳ" (Isa. i. 21, 26), "neweh ẓedeḳ" (Jer. xxxi. 23, l. 7), "sha'are ẓedeḳ" (Ps. cxviii. 19). The city's first king, accordingly, was known either as "Adoni Zedek" (Josh. x. 1 et seq. ; comp. Judges i. 5-7, where "Adonizedek" is the correct reading) or as "Malkizedek." The fact that he united the royal with the priestly dignity, like all ancient (heathen) kings, made him a welcome type to the composer of the triumphal song (Ps. cx.).

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=383&letter=M&search=melchizedek#ixzz1FBGE3jWO
　
The most high God (Gen. xix. 18-20, 22, A. V.; R. V. "God most high"), as whose priest Melchizedek blesses Abraham (compare "Urusalem," in the El-Amarna tablets; Schrader, "K. B." iv. 180, 25 et seq.; 183, 14; 185). He is further characterized as the "possessor [or "creator"] of heaven and earth" (Gen. xiv. 19). As an epithet of the Deity, "'Elyon" occurs with "El", in Ps. lxxviii. 35; with "Yhwh" in Ps. vii. 18, xlvii. 3, xcvii. 9; with "Elohim" in Ps. lvii. 3, lxxviii. 56; and without additional noun in Num. xxiv. 16; Deut. xxxii. 8; Ps. ix. 3, xviii. 14; Isa. xiv. 14; Dan. vii. 18-25 (compare Hoffmann, "Phönizische Inschriften," pp.48, 50). Among the Phenicians "'Elyon" was an appellation of God. The plural, ("gods"), is found on an inscription of Eshmun'azar (Bloch, "Phönizisches Glossar," p. 12). The name is old, and analogous to "El-Shaddai," "El-'Olam," and the like. See God, Names of.EL NORA 'ALILAH


Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=112&letter=E&search=melchizedek#ixzz1FBGu84ln

This is not Judaism at all but simply idolatry. And there is absolutely no reference to Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. Look for a JPS translation of the Hebrew text and you will understand what I mean. There is no way I will allow Christians make of the Tanakh a book of contradictions as the NT is as a result of plagiarism and pious forgery, which was blessed by the church in the 4th Century.

 

[Ben Masada]

From Melchizedek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
　
The Midrash and classical rabbinical interpretation
Melchizedek presents a problem for traditional Jewish teachings: he is not a descendant of Aaron, from whom all priests must be descended - in fact he pre-dates both Aaron and Levi - yet he is described as a priest. Several explanations were offered. In the Midrash, the Rabbis identified Melchizedek with Shem son of Noah, who, although also not a descendant of Aaron, was believed to have officiated as a priest. (E.g., Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 32b; Genesis Rabbah 46:7; Genesis Rabbah 56:10; Leviticus Rabbah 25:6; Numbers Rabbah 4:8.) Rabbi Isaac the Babylonian said that Melchizedek was born circumcised. (Genesis Rabbah 43:6.) Melchizedek called Jerusalem "Salem." (Genesis Rabbah 56:10.) The Rabbis said that Melchizedek instructed Abram in the Torah. (Genesis Rabbah 43:6.) Rabbi Eleazar said that Melchizedek’s school was one of three places where the Holy Spirit manifested Himself. (Babylonian Talmud Makkot 23b.) The Rabbis taught that Melchizedek acted as a priest and handed down Adam’s robes to Abram. (Numbers Rabbah 4:8.) Rabbi Zechariah said on Rabbi Ishmael’s authority that God intended to bring forth the priesthood through Melchizedek’s descendants, but because Melchizedek blessed Abram before he blessed God (in Gen. 14:19-20), God brought the priesthood forth from Abram’s descendants. (Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 32b; see also Leviticus Rabbah 25:6 (crediting Rabbi Ishamel).)
The Zohar finds in "Melchizedek king of Salem" a reference to "the King Who rules with complete sovereignty," or according to another explanation, that "Melchizedek" alludes to the lower world and "king of Salem" to the upper world. (Zohar 1:86b-87a.)
The famed medieval Frenchrabbi, Shlomo Yitzhaki (February 22, 1040 – July 13, 1105), better known by the acronym Rashi (RAbbi SHlomo Itzhaki), was the author of the first comprehensive commentary on the Talmud, as well as a comprehensive commentary on the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), and is considered the "father" of all commentaries that followed on the Talmud. Rashi explains that the High Priest known as "Melchizedek" who received tithes from Abraham after he defeated the four kings in battle, was Shem, the righteous son of Noah (according to the Midrash Aggada). Abraham was a descendant of Shem. Therefore, from a Jewish perspective from the Torah, if one were to say that the Melchizedek (Shem) was a progenitor of the Jewish Priesthood (Kehuna), that would also be correct, as was Adam and Noah, although Abraham won the Priesthood through his merit and not through inheritance. Thus, the Sages tell us that God stripped Melchizedek of the priesthood and gave it to Abraham because the former blessed the later first before blessing God. However, although Shem had assumed the role of High Priest in that he taught Torah to the Patriarchs well before it was physically brought into the world at Mount Sinai, the official title of High Priest was conferred upon Aaron after the construction and erection of the Tabernacle.

　

I am not a Karaite but as far as this post of yours above is concerned, I might as well become one. I don't accept anything outside of the Tanakh which contributes to contradict what is written. Why should I accept the opinions of Rabbis? According to the New Covenant, they are not supposed to die for my iniquities but myself only. (Jer. 31:30) We have a mind of our own and, according to Jeremiah 31:34 we no longer need anyone to teach us how to know the Lord. His Law is not up in Heaven or beyond the sea, so that we should wonder who will go up to heaven or accross the sea to bring it to us so that we must do it. It is in our own heart. We have only to do it. (Deut. 30:11-14) And commit this to your memory once and for all: The text is Jewish and must be interpreted Jewishly and not according to the Christian Church whose objective is to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Ben
You are disrespecting the men who preserved and developed Judaism over the past +2,000 years.
Their knowledge of the language and understanding of the meanings of the texts is an established fact accepted the world over and accepted by me.
You will not do the Law by disrespecting the great men of the Scriptures and the Elders of your people.
　
What you have said concerning Melchizedek is merely an uninformed opinion rooted in an unreasoned enmity against Paul, in particular, and Christians in general.
Such enmity cannot expand an understanding of the Scriptures; only a diminishment will occur as your pride seeks to lift yourself above these eminent worthies of the past.
　
The text is Jewish, as you say, and I listen closely to those men and women who know and understand the multi-nuanced language in which it is written and they say that your opinion is invalid.
I will continue in my appreciation of their understanding.

 

[Ronald]

I am not a Karaite but as far as this post of yours above is concerned, I might as well become one. I don't accept anything outside of the Tanakh which contributes to contradict what is written. Why should I accept the opinions of Rabbis? According to the New Covenant, they are not supposed to die for my iniquities but myself only. (Jer. 31:30) We have a mind of our own and, according to Jeremiah 31:34 we no longer need anyone to teach us how to know the Lord. His Law is not up in Heaven or beyond the sea, so that we should wonder who will go up to heaven or accross the sea to bring it to us so that we must do it. It is in our own heart. We have only to do it. (Deut. 30:11-14) And commit this to your memory once and for all: The text is Jewish and must be interpreted Jewishly and not according to the Christian Church whose objective is to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Amen, Ben, good post. I too have had many conversations concerning the king of Salem and the "Order of Melchizedek". With one mention in scripture and making this into a superhero, I don't know maybe it is "Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."
JMHO, but you give Sha'ul too much noterity, he wasn't the author of RT. this came with the destruction of all the Hebrew texts written by the apostles.
Otherwise all you have written here is very good.

Shalom

 

[Danmac]

The Truth About Melchizedek

Here is a column which I consider will crack under the building of Christianity. Who was Melchizedek? This man was a pagan Canaanite king, who happened to be the king of Salem, ancient name for Jerusalem.

Abram had just returned from a battle with five kings, and, on his way to Betshevah, he paused in Jerusalem for a repast. He and his men were tired and weary of the military campain. Melchizedek, afraid perhaps that Abram would take on him too and conquer Jerusalem out of his hands, immediately brought forth bread and wine to him and his troops. For Abram, it was a relieve. He didn't have to fight another king.

Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV. Why would Melchizedek prefer to feed Abram and his army instead of fighting him? Because he, Abram, and not Melchizedek was the priest of God most High, whose seed would be of a nation of priests and kings. (Exo. 19:6; Isa. 61:6)

Then, as Melchizedek served the food and drink, he blessed Abram. Please focus on how he blessed Abram. "Blessed be Abram of God Most High." It means that Melchizedek would recongnize that Abram was the one Priest of God the Most High. Creator of the universe." Then, for all the bread and wine, and that blessing of recognition of who Abram really was, Abram shared with him a tenth of the spoils taken from the kings in battle.

Now, let us check Psalm 110:4, which in the KJV says, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This is a Christian gloss plagiarized by Paul and grossly forged by the Church in the 4th Century under the excuse of pious forgery.

Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree." As you can see, it has nothing to do with king Melchizedek, king of Salem, but rather to David in the type level of interpretation, which points to the archetype level of Israel, the seed of Abraham as a nation of priests and kings. (Exo. 19:6; Isa. 61:6) Obviously, only the High Priest of the Most High would produce a generation of prists and kings throgh Israel.
Ben

Before the levitical priesthood, the eldest tribal member usually filled the office of family priest. Many theologians believe Melchisidec was Shem, Noahs son. Shem would have been alive at this time according to scripture. And Shem would have been the oldest living member of Abraham's tribe.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben
You are disrespecting the men who preserved and developed Judaism over the past +2,000 years.
Their knowledge of the language and understanding of the meanings of the texts is an established fact accepted the world over and accepted by me.
You will not do the Law by disrespecting the great men of the Scriptures and the Elders of your people.
　
What you have said concerning Melchizedek is merely an uninformed opinion rooted in an unreasoned enmity against Paul, in particular, and Christians in general.
Such enmity cannot expand an understanding of the Scriptures; only a diminishment will occur as your pride seeks to lift yourself above these eminent worthies of the past.
　
The text is Jewish, as you say, and I listen closely to those men and women who know and understand the multi-nuanced language in which it is written and they say that your opinion is invalid.
I will continue in my appreciation of their understanding.

What is interesting is that I do have conversed with some Rabbis about my views of the Scriptures and none of them disagrees with me. They only say that I am being too serious about dealing on this matter with Gentiles who are not even obligated to believe as we do; let alone to obey the laws as we do. Yes, I said to one of them, but they preach Replacement Theology to the whole world as they distort the image of Judaism in the process. Why do you care? he said. Just stay Jewish yourself and leave them alone.