Judson50
New member
So in studying Jesus’ offices, in particular his priesthood, I came across something I’ve not heard; that is, Shem is Melchizedek.
The proof I came across wasn’t really telling. The only reason I found as to why, Shem was alive at the same time Melchizedek was. And Shem was the first priest?
I honestly cannot find anything in the Bible that substantiates this.
Moreover, on the second note, I came across Michael Heiser who stated (in sum) that Melchizedek stands for “my king is Sedeq” rather than King of righteousness. Because I’m the Hebrew you can have two connected nouns:
Quote
Surely that's simple! It means "king of righteousness." Well, if you're paying attention to Hebrew morphology (the spelling of the name), it shouldn't mean that. (laughs) The reason is (if you've had Hebrew you'll understand this, so for those in the audience who've had).. breaks down to malki sedeq. Now you'd think you have a simple construct chain there: noun one, noun two; X of Y. But you don't—because of the "ee" ending (the "y" ending). By rule of Hebrew grammar, you are not supposed to have an attached suffix between two nouns in the construct state, but that's what you've got here! So you can't really translate it "king of righteousness." It would be better to say "my king is righteous." They're kind of the same idea, but it's not really the same idea. "King of righteousness" and "my king is righteous." Those are two related but kind of different concepts. So even the name is controversial. In fact, if you want to be really literal, you could translate it (and many scholars do), "My king is Sedeq." That's the second noun there, that some would translate "righteous" or "righteousness." Why would scholars do something goofy like that? Why not just go with "my king is righteous?" Yes, they can be grammar nerds and say we can't say "king of righteousness" but let's just go with "my king is righteous." What's this thing with "my king is Sedeq?" That's just odd. Well, there's actually a Canaanite deity named Sedeq, and since this is pre-Israelite (this is the era before Jerusalem—"king of Salem"—before David's conquest of it), we're not in the land. We don't have the Promised Land thing yet. This is Abraham in Genesis 14. This is Canaanite turf. So Melchizedek could have been named after this non-Israelite deity. "I'm Melichizedek. My king is Sedeq, this pagan deity." Well, then why is Abraham being blessed by him? Who is Sedeq? Is this another name for Yahweh? Are Yahweh and Sedeq maybe the same in Israelite thinking? Just the name gets you into all these areas that are really gnarly. They're not easy.
END QUOTE
If you listen to his podcast, he states that Sedeq is the most high god in cannaite religion and the cannanites just called, who we know as YHWH) Sedeq. He ties it into “Sedeq” being the most high God and how people other than Jews, worshiped a Most High God but this Most High God only established the unique relationship with the Hebrews; thus only to the Hebrews he revealed his Memorial name (YHWH) and how he only blesses through Abraham’s seed etc. this the reason the Cannanite dirty blessed Abraham and the world was blessed through the Hebrew ect. He also states this is possible because Sedeq was the king of Salem; which ironically becomes Jerusalem.
While all that sounds very interesting, One would think the Hebrews would have documented that, like they did everything else. Especially something so important. Right? Also throughout all Jewish literature, there is no consistent explanation of who Melchizedek is. (Michael admits this). There are theories of Him being Elohim, michael the arch angle, another angel, YHWH ect.
So any thoughts?
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
The proof I came across wasn’t really telling. The only reason I found as to why, Shem was alive at the same time Melchizedek was. And Shem was the first priest?
I honestly cannot find anything in the Bible that substantiates this.
Moreover, on the second note, I came across Michael Heiser who stated (in sum) that Melchizedek stands for “my king is Sedeq” rather than King of righteousness. Because I’m the Hebrew you can have two connected nouns:
Quote
Surely that's simple! It means "king of righteousness." Well, if you're paying attention to Hebrew morphology (the spelling of the name), it shouldn't mean that. (laughs) The reason is (if you've had Hebrew you'll understand this, so for those in the audience who've had).. breaks down to malki sedeq. Now you'd think you have a simple construct chain there: noun one, noun two; X of Y. But you don't—because of the "ee" ending (the "y" ending). By rule of Hebrew grammar, you are not supposed to have an attached suffix between two nouns in the construct state, but that's what you've got here! So you can't really translate it "king of righteousness." It would be better to say "my king is righteous." They're kind of the same idea, but it's not really the same idea. "King of righteousness" and "my king is righteous." Those are two related but kind of different concepts. So even the name is controversial. In fact, if you want to be really literal, you could translate it (and many scholars do), "My king is Sedeq." That's the second noun there, that some would translate "righteous" or "righteousness." Why would scholars do something goofy like that? Why not just go with "my king is righteous?" Yes, they can be grammar nerds and say we can't say "king of righteousness" but let's just go with "my king is righteous." What's this thing with "my king is Sedeq?" That's just odd. Well, there's actually a Canaanite deity named Sedeq, and since this is pre-Israelite (this is the era before Jerusalem—"king of Salem"—before David's conquest of it), we're not in the land. We don't have the Promised Land thing yet. This is Abraham in Genesis 14. This is Canaanite turf. So Melchizedek could have been named after this non-Israelite deity. "I'm Melichizedek. My king is Sedeq, this pagan deity." Well, then why is Abraham being blessed by him? Who is Sedeq? Is this another name for Yahweh? Are Yahweh and Sedeq maybe the same in Israelite thinking? Just the name gets you into all these areas that are really gnarly. They're not easy.
END QUOTE
If you listen to his podcast, he states that Sedeq is the most high god in cannaite religion and the cannanites just called, who we know as YHWH) Sedeq. He ties it into “Sedeq” being the most high God and how people other than Jews, worshiped a Most High God but this Most High God only established the unique relationship with the Hebrews; thus only to the Hebrews he revealed his Memorial name (YHWH) and how he only blesses through Abraham’s seed etc. this the reason the Cannanite dirty blessed Abraham and the world was blessed through the Hebrew ect. He also states this is possible because Sedeq was the king of Salem; which ironically becomes Jerusalem.
While all that sounds very interesting, One would think the Hebrews would have documented that, like they did everything else. Especially something so important. Right? Also throughout all Jewish literature, there is no consistent explanation of who Melchizedek is. (Michael admits this). There are theories of Him being Elohim, michael the arch angle, another angel, YHWH ect.
So any thoughts?
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
= "my Master"). However, concerning your OP, what Heiser says about Melki-Tzedek possibly getting his name from the Tzedek-god of the Canaanites is poor speculation, but it does seem that the same thinking may pertain much more so to Adoni-Tzedek.
