Melchizidek: Human King or Christophany?

Exactly who Melchizidek was has been a topic of debate among various scholars and historians for at least 2000 years. He is mentioned in Genesis 14, Psalm 110 and the book of Hebrews. Scholars and theologians face what appears to be a contradiction. On the surface, Genesis 14 portrays him as a human Canaanite king of Salem, whereas Hebrews 7, if taken literally, claims he is divine, without genealogy, parents, or the beginning and end of life. Obviously, he cannot be both.

I have listened to many various scholars give their explanations, and the majority end up deciding that Melchizidek is not an appearance of the pre-incarnate Logos, a Christophany, but rather, a man who is used as a type of what Christ would be as priest and king. The argument is that there is nothing in the Genesis account to suggest that Melchizidek was divine, and therefore, Psalm 110, an obviously Messianic Psalm, and Hebrews cannot be taken literally regarding Melchizidek. 

He is also mentioned in 2nd Enoch, one of the Dead Sea scrolls, by Pliny and Josephus. Some scholars suggest that the writer to the Hebrews was using ideas from these extra-biblical writers and even quoting them. So let’s briefly examine these other references to see if they shed any light as to what others believed.

2nd Enoch is a 7-8th century AD text which is based on a Jewish writing from around the 1st century. It tells a weird story of Noah’s brother called Nir, whose wife gets pregnant without sexual intercourse, dies before giving birth and a fully grown man emerges from her womb. This is supposedly Melchizidek, and the angel Gabriel takes him to heaven to return after the flood. Frankly, if the writer to the Hebrews knew of this story he would have dismissed it as rubbish.

The Dead Sea Scroll is called Q11, written between 50BC and AD 50. In this text Melchizidek is called Eloheim (God) and is returning at the end of the world with a heavenly army. This sounds something similar to the return of Christ at the end of the age. This idea seems to be taken from Psalm 110 which we will discuss shortly.

Philo, who lived in the 1st century, described Melchizidek as the Logos, basically as the pre-incarnate Christ, a Christophany.

Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived in the late 1st century, described Melchizidek as simply a Canaanite King who established Jerusalem and built the first temple in Salem (Jerusalem). Scripture teaches that Solomon built the first Jerusalem temple, so Josephus so-called ‘history’ should be dismissed.

Here we have two accounts which strongly suggest Melchizidek was a Christophany, and two which should be dismissed completely. So what does Scripture have to say about Melchizidek, and where should we begin, in Genesis, or Hebrews. Most of the theologians I have listened to start in Genesis, decide there is nothing definitive to prove Melchizidek was divine, and then interpret Psalm 110 and Genesis with that as their foundation. 

However, the account in Hebrews gives us an explanation of the Genesis text and is very detailed, therefore, I am inclined to let the inspired writer to the Hebrews interpret how I should understand Genesis, which, by contrast, is just a few verses and for me, poses many questions which most do not ask. 

For those unfamiliar with the story in Genesis, here it is in brief. The setting is Canaan, the land promised to the Jews. There are lots of kings who are worshipping Baal and other gods. Some of them form an alliance and capture Sodom and Gomorrah where Abraham’s nephew Lot and his family are living, and they are taken captive. Abraham has 318 trained men and he pursued these kings, defeated them and brought back all of the captives and their possessions. Then, suddenly, Melchizidek appears. Genesis 14:18-20 tells us,

‘Then Melchizidek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abraham saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything’. 

The king of Sodom asks Abraham to give him the people and keep the goods for himself, but Abraham tells him that he has taken an oath with God Most High that he will not accept anything belonging to the Sodomite king, even the thong of a sandal.  

The Genesis account raises many questions.

1. Melchizidek is called the king of Salem, not the king of Jerusalem. Many presume that ‘Salem’ is just the former name of Jerusalem so we can presume that ‘King of Salem’ means king of Jerusalem. Nowhere does Scripture confirm this presumption, indeed in Hebrews the writer specifically states it means simply ‘king of peace’. Melchizidek is never called the king of Jerusalem anywhere. There is no doubt that ‘Salem and Jerusalem’ are later connected, however, this is not the case at the time of Abraham. Indeed, the archaeological evidence points to Jerusalem being occupied by Canaanites who worshipped the god of the dawn, Shalem, a pagan Canaanite deity mentioned in the tablets found in Ugarit in the 1920s dating to the Abrahamic period. Egyptian sources also confirm this. Shalem and Salem are similar sounding words, but the difference in meaning is very important to this discussion.

Therefore, the original meaning of Jerusalem may have been the city of Shalem, not the city of peace. Furthermore, the first mention of Jerusalem as a city is found in Joshua, around 450 years after the Genesis 14 account, and was ruled by Adonizedek a pagan king who allied himself with the Amorites and was killed by Joshua. Bottom line. There is no evidence that Jerusalem was ruled by a man who served Yahweh at the time of Abraham, indeed quite the opposite.

2. Why would Abraham agree to give a tithe to a king who just turned up out of the blue, and what is meant by the phrase, ‘gave him a tenth of everything’. ‘Everything’ would include everything that Abraham owned, including the people and possessions of those he had rescued. I would suggest that because he had received a blessing from God Most High, everything may mean everything needed for a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for the Lord giving him victory. Did Abraham think Melchizidek was just a king of some village 40 miles away, or did he recognize him as someone far greater? 

3. The very first words of Genesis 14:18 are, ‘then Melchizidek, king of Salem brought out bread and wine’. This person was not involved in the battles, he seems to just appear with bread and wine, the very elements that Jesus used to speak of Himself. Did they have a conversation? Did Melchizidek explain who he was, for meeting a man among Canaanite pagans who did not worship Baal would have been an extraordinary thing. 

In John 8:56 Jesus said that ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad ’. When did Abraham see it? Was this meeting with Melchizidek the day that Abraham understood the coming of Christ, the day he rejoiced at the thought of seeing the coming of Christ? Did they have a kind of communion together with the bread and wine? The blessings come after bringing out the bread and wine, and only after, Abraham gives his tithe. I appreciate that this is speculation, but there is no recorded moment when Abraham was told about the coming of Jesus Christ so when was he thinking about it and rejoicing because of it?

4. A few years later, Abraham takes his Son Isaac to Mount Moriah at God’s command to offer him as a sacrifice. Mount Moriah is just 500 -700 meters from the wall of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem, and the same place where Jesus was crucified. There is no mention of any city called Salem or Shalem being there at this time, just a few years after his meeting with Melchizidek. In the narrative Abraham believes that God will raise his son from death if he dies as he tells his servants he and the boy will return. Is this more evidence that Melchizidek and Abraham had a conversation about the future? 

Let’s now take a look at Psalm 110.

The Psalm speaks of the Lord saying to my Lord, sit at my right hand. This is obviously speaking of Christ. The Lord will extend His scepter from Zion speaking of Christ’s kingship and then states, ‘the Lord has sworn and has not changed his mind, “you are a priest forever in the order of Melchizidek”.

The reference to Melchizidek here simply confirms that Christ does not belong to the priestly order of Aaron, of men who died and were replaced, but to the priestly order of Melchizidek, an eternal priesthood. As we shall see, the writer to the Hebrews also makes this same point and makes it repeatedly.

Let’s now examine the material in Hebrews.

The letter to the Hebrews is obviously, first intended for the Hebrews. It asks two fundamental questions. 

1. Who is Jesus Christ?

2. How should the Hebrews respond to the revelation of who He is?

In the first eight chapters the author answers the first question. In chapter 1 he states that Christ is the radiance of God’s glory and exact representation of His being. After He made purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven, echoing the words of Psalm 110.

Chapter 2 begins with a warning to pay careful attention, and speaks mostly of the human nature of Christ, that He was made for a little while lower than the angels, that he tasted death for everyone and that He was made like His brothers in every way in order to make atonement for sin, therefore He is a merciful and faithful high priest (v17). Because Christ suffered when tempted, He is able to help those who are being tempted (v18).

Melchizedek is called a priest of the Most High, but not called the high priest. Some suggest that rules out his being a Christophany as Jesus Christ is our high priest. I am inclined to draw the exact opposite conclusion. Hebrews 5:1-3 tells us the role of the levitical high priest. He was selected among men to represent men before God and to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He also had to offer sacrifices for his own sins. All of this was connected to the covenant God made with Israel, the giving of the law, creation of the tent of meeting, holy of holies, ark of the covenant, etc.  

But Melchizidek appeared to Abraham 400 years before the law was given. There was no high priest or covenant nor sacrificial system, and no Israelites at this time in history. All of that system was put into effect through Moses and Aaron approximately 400 years after Abraham had died. Melchizidek could not be called the high priest as he did not appear to fulfill that role. Also, in order to be a faithful high priest, Melchizidek would need to be a mortal human being and this is the exact emphasis about Jesus in Hebrews chapter 2.  

Hebrews chapters 3 and 4 compare Jesus to Moses to show the Jews that He was and is greater than Moses. The chapter concludes with the statement that we have a high priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses, was tempted in every way as we are, but without sin.

Chapter 5 continues this theme about human priests and then has two quotes from the Psalms regarding Christ as high priest. From Psalm 2:7, “You are my Son: today I have become your Father.: and Psalm 110, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizidek”.

Again. The author is using these Psalms to compare the mortal levitical priests with Melchizidek who is a priest forever. He then speaks about Jesus’ life on earth and that He was perfected through His sufferings. He draws the two quotes from the Psalms together with these words.

‘Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered, and once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizidek’. (Hebrews 5:8-10)

Here we have the words perfect, eternal and Melchizidek in the same sentence. But one may also ask; if Melchizidek was not the human priest of the city of Jerusalem, then what was He priest of? One of the least taught passages of Hebrews is in chapter 9 which compares the earthly temple with the heavenly one. The chapter is about comparing the inadequate blood of the animal sacrifices with the perfect blood of Christ, and this theme continues into chapter 10.  

In 9:23-25 we are told that the things used in the earthly temple were mere copies of the heavenly things, and when Christ offered Himself, He did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one, but entered heaven to present Himself for us in God’s presence. This Scripture declares that the REAL sanctuary is in heaven and that the earthly temple was a mere copy of the heavenly temple. The pre-incarnate Logos was the priest of heaven, an eternal priest? This eternal priest become a man, provided a perfect sacrifice for sin, and entered that sanctuary for us as the God – man, uniting humanity and divinity in Himself so that we too might enter the heavenly sanctuary by His precious and perfect blood.

And this same theme was introduced at the end of chapter 6 verses 19-20 just immediately prior to the statements about Melchizidek. It tells us that Jesus went before us into the inner sanctuary behind the curtain on our behalf and has become a high priest forever in the order of Melchizidek.

Now we get to Hebrews 7. Verses 1-3 state the following.

‘This Melchizidek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First his name means “king of righteousness”, then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace”. Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.’

Please note the following.

1. Note that he was king of Salem, not king of Jerusalem. Nowhere is a city mentioned here, indeed the author tells us exactly what ‘king of Salem’ means, simply, ‘king of peace’. To claim that the writer to the Hebrews is speaking of a city is adding a tradition to the text. If the author meant a city, surely he would have made this clear.

2. How much clearer could the author have been to state that Melchizidek is an eternal being? He has no human parentage, he is never mentioned in any genealogy in Scripture, and was never born as a human or died as a human being. Surely, if he is just a typology as so many claim, then tell us about his human ancestry. Furthermore, when he is such an important figure in terms of Christ, he would be mentioned in a lineage somewhere so that we would know for certain he was in fact a human being. 

But there is not a single word in all of Scripture to suggest he was human, just a presumption about the word ‘Salem’. Is this not the exact challenge the writer to the Hebrews is making to his readers: ‘show me his ancestry’? We have two books in Scripture, 1st and 2nd Kings, which especially list the kings of Israel, yet Melchizidek never gets a mention. The best and worst of Israel’s kings are all listed, but very first king of supposedly Jerusalem, who met with the Patriarch Abraham, wasn’t worth mentioning? 

3. How is Melchizidek ‘like the Son of God’ as verse 3 states? In His humanity, Jesus had a genealogy, he had a mother. The only likeness is that the Son of God was also God the Son, the eternal Logos. As Philippians 2 states, He was ‘in very nature God and emptied Himself, becoming a slave and was obedient to death, even death on a cross’. He is like the Son of God in being an eternal priest, and, in my opinion, the eternal priest who became a man. In Daniel 2, we have the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego being thrown into the furnace. A fourth person is seen standing with them, and in the verse 25 the Septuagint version reads he ‘looks like the Son of God’, a very similar expression as we have in Hebrews 7:3.

But the references to Melchizidek being eternal and perfect do not end here. Throughout chapters 7-8 the author compares Jesus’ priesthood with the Levitical priesthood which could not make any person perfect, he compares the old and new covenants. From 7:4-10 he compares Levi and Melchizidek and in verse 11 asks why, if perfection could be attained through the Levitical priesthood, would there be any need for another priest in the order of Melchizidek. He explains that Jesus was not of the lineage of Levi, but Judah and concludes with these words:

‘And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizidek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of an indestructible life. For it is declared, “You are a priest in the order of Melchizidek”.’ (Hebrews 7:15-17)

Please note the following.

1. The question is how could perfection be attained (v 11). The answer is that we would need a perfect priest to offer Himself for our perfection, one in the order of Melchizidek.

2. This perfect priest did not become a priest by order of his ancestry like the Levites, but on the basis of an ‘indestructible life’. Another priest like Melchizidek appears, one who is a priest forever, an eternal priest, one with an indestructible life. Christ and Melchizidek are claimed to both be indestructible…the first because He was the pre-incarnate Logos, the second because He was the Logos who became flesh, who was killed in His humanity, and rose again, for death could not hold Him.

In Conclusion.

The entire Melchizidek as only a typology theory is based on a single false presumption that ‘Salem’ meant Jerusalem at the time of Abraham. There is no doubt that this word meaning peace was associated with Jerusalem 450 years after Abraham. However, the Igurat tablets and Egyptian sources prove that it was known as Yurushalem, the city of the dawn god at the time of Abraham and also at the time of the capture of this city by Joshua. The king ruling it at that time was a pagan Canaanite. There is not a single piece of evidence that Melchizidek was a king of a human city, indeed the author of Hebrews states his name simply means king of peace, just as Christ is the ‘prince of peace’.

Certainly, Melchizidek as a king and priest is pointing to the incarnation, but this is far deeper than a mere type, but a statement of who he is as the pre-incarnate Christ, and who He will be after joining His divinity to our humanity and entering again the heavenly temple from whence He came. 

Furthermore, Melchizidek has no recorded human genealogy anywhere in Scripture yet every other king is listed. I am yet to find a single scholar who dares to address this fact, or offer an explanation.  The author of Hebrews goes out of his way to say that Melchizidek was no ordinary human priest or king. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest he is saying ‘you have heard Melchizidek had no mother, father, beginning or end of life’, but rather stating exactly what he believed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

In my opinion, the evidence points to Melchizidek being one of several Christophanies whose purpose it was to strengthen the faith of those the pre-incarnate Christ appeared to, to reveal the plan and purpose of God, and prepare the world for the greatest event in history when God the Son became the Son of God and united divinity with humanity, so that we too, might be united with Him and become partakers of the divine nature.

Steve Copland