Hello all,

I was reading my bible last night and ran across, in one of St. Paul's later epistles, references to the high priest Melchisedec (sp?), who spoke to Abraham. What does the church know about Melchisedec?

The Church sees Melchisedec (Melchizedek) as a foreshadowing of Jesus, the "high priest after the order of Melchizedek". No doubt you are reading the Letter to the Hebrews. As it is written, "(he) has neither beginning of days nor end of life." He is.

That passage from Hebrews 7:3 was one of the first passages that I couldn't make fit my JW view of Christ (as a mere creature). If Melchizedek (the shadow) was likened to Christ (the reality) in that he had no "beginning of days nor end of life" (Melchizedek's in that the lack of any record of suggested such...and Christ's in actual fact) how could he be a creature? That would mean Christ was not created as the JWs taught me but He is eternal!

Dear Friends,

Yes, Melchisedech was a priest and King of Salem (perhaps Jerusalem).

A mysterious figure certainly, he is honoured as a saintly type of the Messianic priesthood as he offered bread and wine in sacrifice and blessed Abraham while receiving his tithe.

The Coptic Church honours him on April 12th and August 26th. The Roman/Byzantine Churches honour him on May 22nd.

Alex

The church itself holds no opinion on the figure of Melchzedek in as much as he is not the subject of any declaration or official teaching and is not an item of revealed faith. The figure of Melchzedek is an item of biblical antiquities

While many notable members of the church, over time, have given varied personal opinions. Several early fathers of the church comment on the figure, and the opinions run from him having been a real person (with a traceable history) to having been an actual appearance of Jesus Christ himself - to Abraham. But the historical reality of Melchzedek is not the point of - Melchzedek.

It is a figure that appears in Genesis, which is a cosmogony, and as such the figure should not be taken too literally or historically because the spiritual meaning is primary. For example... it matters not 'where' Eden was (Northern Africa?? Iraq??) but whatEden was - an experience of the All-Providence of God.

The name Melchzedek itself means..
Melch - king
Zedek - righteous or holy

Which name was used in a way of which we might today say: “holy-king” similar to as one might say ‘The Honorable Judge So-andso’ or ‘The Right Reverend So-and-so’ … and it was associated with the belief that the kings of these early cultures were believed to be a directly ’son of god’.

The Egyptian word “Pharaoh” means ‘great-house’ or ‘royal family‘ and does not mean ‘king‘ except in the sense of his being the head of the linage of the ‘great house‘ which would be comparable to the Hebrew ‘line of David‘.

If you have seen Mel Gibson’s new movie you can hear the Aramaic used several times when the Jewish priests talk about the claim of Jesus as being the king of the Jews - a melch-zedek.

Melchzedek, of Genesis, is a personification, a figure, and to be as precise as Paul - it is pre-figure of the life of Jesus Christ who came later. IN Paul’s mind (and Paul is right) Abraham represents the Old Testament Jewish priesthood and ceremonies and Melchzedek represents the kingship and priest hood of Jesus (offering bread and wine). The priesthood of Abraham and Moses is derived from the higher priesthood of Jesus who is yet to come. And Paul is saying that now that Jesus has arrived - the shadow (the Old Testament priesthood) should give way to the reality (Jesus).

Since Paul give the figure and events of Melchezedek a spiritual interpretation, we would do well to follow him and realize that the best of what the church knows about Melchezedek is given to us by Paul himself.

This is the way I understand it.

-ray

Dear Ray,

But the East understands St Melchisedech as being BOTH an actual person who represents a spiritual reality.

This is part and parcel of the East's Eucharistic understanding between Reality and Symbol.

You truly ARE a Latin!

Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

Alex

Dear Brethren,

I checked my calendar for May 22nd, my son Isaak's birthday, and didn't find Melchizedek. I'll check some other calendars later.

I have always understood him to be like Adam and Eve, not an actual person who walked, but someone who represents a larger lesson - the new priestly order as realized in Jesus Christ.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

I got those dates from a Roman Catholic source.

As such, it could be in invincible error . . .

Or else they could have changed the dates or else they could have dropped him from the calendar.

Who knows with the Latins, anyway?

In fact, my St Hilarion Calendar of Saints shows St Melchisedec, King of Salem, under May 22nd/June 4 where June 4th is the NC date for the celebration.

It shows the Western Rite feast of St Melchisedec, priest, king of Jerusalem as February 5th/18th.

www.odox.net

Alex

Melcezdek is not an item of faith nor theology. There is nothing about the figure that the Church (East or West) has pronounced or declared. There is nothing there that we - must believe.

All speculation regarding a historical reality - is speculation and opinion and ancillary to faith. Including my own opinion.

I understand fully regarding - reality and symbol - and ikon.

I'll stand with Paul: the important thing about the figure is its spiritual meaning. It is a pre-figure of Christ - an ikon.

Melchezdek is mentioned only three times. Once in Genesis, once in Psalm 110 (where it is a pre-figure of the messiah to come) and once in Hebrews (where it is a pre-figure of Jesus Christ). So the second and third mention are used as a figure, and Paul tells us that the first is a figure also.

Paul telling us that the figure of Melchezdek is “without father or mother or genealogy” (Heb. 7:11-19) and that is a statement that no historical record of Melchezdek as a normal historical person - exists. Paul does not just mean that no record exists in the scriptures - but that no historical record exists - at all - anywhere. Having neither “beginning of days nor end of life” (birth nor death) Paul emphasis the deity nature of the figure (eternal). Everyone from Adam on had a genealogical record. No one, without pedigree - could every occupy the office of king without provable lineage in these culture at those days.

The Dead Sea Scrolls treat Melchezdek (13 fragments) as a type, a prophetic image, of the messiah to come ( which agrees with the pre-figure use of Palms 110 and Paul in Hebrews). As such, within the Dead Sea scrolls it is Melchezdek (understood as an office or title) who shall come at the ‘end of the world’.

The Gnostic writings treat Melchezdek as a real historical person and empty the ikonic nature of the figure to a fundamentalist view.

Again, the word Melchezdek is not a name, it is a position, a title and office. Melch (melek) and zdek ( tsedeq) - “Righteous King”.

Everyone is free to think what they want - I happen to agree with Paul. And that does not lessen the use of Melchedek in liturgical texts - but rather enhances it to it ture ikonic nature.

-ray

Dear Ray,

Yes, I understand that you understand!

But both the East AND the West have ancient feast days honouring the historical person of St Melchisedech the King.

If the Gnostics honoured him as such - well then there's good in everyone!

You seem to be suggesting that your understanding of Melchisedech's role as Paul discusses somehow "hinges" upon Melchisedech NOT being an historical person.

And that really doesn't follow!

We have actual icons of St Melchisedech, one adorns my icon wall. I think you Latins have dropped enough saints from the calendar in your efforts to be modern and contemporary.

Have a great day!

Alex

Now, now, Alex. Please don't accuse RayK of trying to be modern and contemporary.

In Christ,
Andrew

Um, who says that Adam is not "an actual person who walked"? What was he, a Jungian archetype? A Campbellian myth? A fundamentalist fiction? An ape-man? Or perhaps he crawled?
If thus for Adam, what about the New Adam?
And hey everyone, if you want the Latins to respect Eastern Catholics, try for starters to show some respect for Latins [at least in their more traditional forms].

Dear Iconophile,

I have the utmost respect for traditional Latins!

Do you know any?

Alex

Dear Andrew,

I did not accuse RayK personally of being modern and contemporary - I accused certain general elements of the Latin Church of being such, especially its leadership in Rome.

I've also accused you, at times, for being the same.

Every time Rome wants to "update" itself, it seems to alienate more Catholics.

Alex

Actually, he it a figure within a cosmogony. If you knew what that was you would not be talking Genesis in such a fundamentalist and literal way. But since you do not know what a cosmogony is you only see two choices ... literal history and imagined myth.

It is neither.

It is a cosmogony.

(I am not picking a fight - I am opening a discussion with you).

-ray