Difference between revisions of "Melchizedek"

<p> ("king of righteousness".) King of [[Salem]] (Jerusalem) and priest of the most high God (Elion; used by Balaam, &nbsp;Numbers 24:16. The Phoenicians so named their chief god according to [[Sanchoniathon]] in Enseb. Praep. Event., doubtless from primitive revelation. After the slaughter of [[Chedorlaomer]] [[Melchizedek]] met [[Abram]] in the valley of [[Shaveh]] (level), the king's dale (&nbsp;Genesis 14:17-20; &nbsp;2 Samuel 18:18), namely, the valley of the upper Kedron, where [[Absalom]] long afterward reared a pillar; adjoining Jerusalem. Salem was the oldest, the poetic name (&nbsp;Psalms 76:2), [[Jebus]] was the next name, and [[Jerusalem]] is the most recent name. This favors the view that Siddim, Sodom, and [[Gomorrah]] were to the S. of the [[Dead]] Sea. Abram in returning from Dan to [[Hebron]] would naturally take the route by Jerusalem (Thomson, Land and Book, 2:31). [[Adonizedek]] ("lord of righteousness") corresponds; being also the name of a king of Jerusalem (&nbsp;Joshua 10:1). </p> <p> "Brought forth bread and wine" (&nbsp;1 Samuel 25:18), hospitably to refresh Abram's weary band (which, though not referred to in Hebrew, reminds us of the Lord's supper), probably after sacrificing animals the first fruits of the spoil ''(As Philo, De Abr., Asserts, '' epinikia ethnee '')'' ; as indeed &nbsp;Hebrews 8:3 proves, for the "blessing" and "tithing," which alone are recorded, are not enough to constitute priesthood. Abram "the friend of God" recognized him ''(Probably Having [[Received]] Some [[Divine]] Intimation)'' at once as his spiritual superior, and this in a day when every patriarch was the priest of his family. Melchizedek disappears as suddenly as he came. Almost a thousand years elapse before the next notice of Melchizedek (&nbsp;Psalms 110:4.) "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou (Messiah) art a priest forever after the order (i.e. 'the similitude' &nbsp;Hebrews 7:15, the office) of Melchizedek": i.e. </p> <p> '''(I)''' Combining the kingship with the priesthood (&nbsp;Zechariah 6:9-15, especially &nbsp;Zechariah 6:13). David cannot be the king priest; he could bring wrath on, but not effect an atonement for, his people (&nbsp;2 Samuel 24:17). Uzziah, heir of his throne, incurred leprosy by usurping the priesthood (&nbsp;2 Chronicles 26:16-21). The divine (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:20) oath accompanying this priesthood, but not the Aaronic, shows its unparalleled excellency. David died, and the Aaronic priests could not continue by reason of death (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:8). The Aaronic priesthood was "made after the law of a carnal commandment," but the Melchizedek priesthood "after the power of an endless life," as is declared a thousand years later than the psalm (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:1-3; &nbsp;Hebrews 7:15-16; &nbsp;Hebrews 7:28). Melchizedek was probably of Semitic stock, for Shemites were in [[Palestine]] before the immigration of the [[Canaanites]] (Hamites). By the time that Abram arrived "the [[Canaanite]] was then (already) in the land" (&nbsp;Genesis 12:6). </p> <p> '''(II)''' Melchizedek is introduced "without father, without, mother, without descent" being recorded, whereas this was an essential in the Aaronic priesthood (see &nbsp;Ezra 2:62-63; &nbsp;Exodus 29:9; &nbsp;Exodus 29:29-30; &nbsp;Leviticus 21:13-14). This is a second peculiarity of Messiah's priesthood, that it is not derived from another before Him, and "passeth not to another" after Him (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:24 margin). The "without father," etc., refers to Melchizedek officially not naturally. Melchizedek was without father, etc., i.e. sacerdotally he was independent of his descent, unlike the Aaronic priests, who forfeited the priesthood if they could not trace their descent (see &nbsp;Nehemiah 7:64-65). Melchizedek had no fixed beginning or end of his king priesthood, such as the [[Levitical]] priests, who began at 30 and ended at 50 years of age. Christ as man had "father, mother, beginning of days and end of life, and descent" genealogically traced (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:3). </p> <p> Melchizedek therefore cannot have been absolutely without these; but officially he was without them, even as the antitypical priest [[Messiah]] was officially and sacerdotally without them. Messiah was not of Levi, but of Judah, so did not receive His priesthood by inheritance. He did not transmit it to any successor; nay, the term hiereus (Latin: sacerdos ) is never applied to apostle, presbyter, deacon, or any [[Christian]] minister in the New [[Testament]] Aaron's "end" is recorded, Melchizedek's not. With Melchizedek the king priesthood in [[Canaan]] ceased; but Melchizedek's priesthood lasts forever in the Antitype, who is from everlasting to everlasting, and to whom Melchizedek was "made like," for the archetype of Messiah's priesthood existed in the divine mind from everlasting before Melchizedek. [[Doubtless]] Melchizedek had father and mother by birth, but as king priest had no predecessor nor successor. </p> <p> '''(III)''' The Aaronic priesthood was local, temporary, and national; the Melchizedek priesthood was prior to the Levitical temporary law, and so world-wide and everlasting. The Aaronic high priest claimed no authority over other nations. Melchizedek was priest not only to his own city Salem, but is recognized as such by Abram the representative of God's church and people; and the king of [[Sodom]] tacitly acquiesces in this claim to an universal priesthood. This is the significance of the title, priest of "the [[Possessor]] of heaven and earth." Melchizedek is the first and the last who by God's appointment, and in God's name, exercised the priesthood for Shemite and Hamite alike, the forerunner of gospel universality which joins under Christ all of every race (&nbsp;Galatians 3:28; &nbsp;Colossians 3:11; &nbsp;Romans 10:12). </p> <p> '''(IV)''' Melchizedek was superior to Abram, in that he Blessed and received tithes from him (the giver's token of acknowledgment that all his property is God's), and so was superior to [[Levi]] and the Aaronic priesthood which were in Abram's loins. So Messiah is infinitely above the Antonio priests. </p> <p> '''(V)''' Melchizedek as king of "righteousness" (tsedeq ) and of "peace" (salem ) was "made like unto the Son of God," Messiah, who is both in the highest sense (&nbsp;Isaiah 9:6); the peace He brings is "the fruit of righteousness" (&nbsp;Isaiah 32:17; &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:6). As [[Balaam]] was a true prophet among the heathen, so Melchizedek was the king priest among them; but at Melchizedek's time the nations had not so far apostatized from the primitive faith as subsequently. </p> <p> Melchizedek is the first designated koheen , "priest." God Himself called him to the office, according to &nbsp;Hebrews 5:1-4; &nbsp;Psalms 110:4. As priest, Melchizedek authoritatively mediating between God and man first" blessed Abram" on the part "of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth," who would make Abram heir of the world which is His; next "he blessed the most high God" on the part of Abram for His having delivered his enemies into his hand. Reciprocal blessing, happy exchange; God making over His gift of the world to Abram, and Abram giving to God all the glory of his victory an earnest of his final universal possession (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 3:22; &nbsp;Romans 4:13). </p>

<p> '''Melchizedek,''' or [[Melchisedec]] (''Mel-Kĭz'-E-Dĕk'' ), the Greek form in the New Testament (''King Of Righteousness),'' is mentioned in &nbsp;Genesis 14:18-20 as king of Salem and priest of the Most High God, meeting Abram in the valley of Shaveh, bringing out bread and wine to him, blessing him, and receiving tithes from him; in &nbsp;Psalms 110:4, where Messiah is described as a priest "after the order of Melchizedek;" and finally, in &nbsp;Hebrews 5:6-7, where the typical relations between Melchizedek and Christ are defined, both being priests without belonging to the Levitical tribe, superior to Abram, of unknown beginning and end, and kings of righteousness and peace. The short but impressive account of Melchizedek in Genesis, and the striking though mystical applications made in the Psalms and the Epistle to the Hebrews, have given rise to various interpretations. One Jewish tradition considers him to be a survivor of the Deluge, the patriarch Shem, and thus entitled by his very age to bless the father of the faithful, and by his position as ruler of Canaan to confer his rights to Abram. Another tradition, equally old, but not so widely accepted, considers him to be an angel, the Son of God in human form, the Messiah. Modern scholars, arguing back from the expositions given in the Epistle to the Hebrews, consider him to be a descendant of Ham, a priest among the heathen, constituted by God himself; and given a title above that of the ordinary patriarchal priesthood, even above that of Abram. </p>

<p> &nbsp;Hebrews 7:1 (a) Scholars disagree on the position occupied by this priest. Some are quite sure that he was an Old Testament incarnation of CHRIST [[Jesus]] Himself. Others believe that he was a strange, unusual character who was a type of the Saviour. The evidence is not too clear, and the reader may use either conclusion that he feels the [[Scriptures]] justify. </p>

<p> (Hebrews Malki'-Tse'dek, מִלְכַּיאּצֶדֶק, ''King Of Righteousness'' , i.e. righteous king, comp. Hebrews vii 2; Sept. and N.T. Μελχισεδέκ, and so Anglicized in the N.T. "Melchisedec;" Josephus, Μελχισεδέκης, [[Ant]] . 1:10, 2), the "priest of the most high God," and king of Salem, who went forth to meet Abraham on his return from the pursuit of Chedorlaomer and his allies, who had carried Lot away captive. The interview is described as haying occurred in the "valley of Shaveh (or the level valley), which is the king's valley." He brought refreshment, described in the general terms of "bread and wine," for the fatigued warriors, and bestowed his blessing upon their leader, who, in return, gave to the royal priest a tenth of all the spoil which had been acquired in his expedition (&nbsp;Genesis 14:18; &nbsp;Genesis 14:20). BC. cir. 2080. (See Abraham). </p> <p> In one of the Messianic Psalms (cx. 4) it is foretold that the Messiah should be "a priest after the order of Melchizedek;" which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi. 20) cites as showing that Melchizedek was a type of Christ, and the Jews themselves, certainly, on the authority of this passage of the Psalms, regarded Melchizedek as a type of the regal-priesthood, higher than that of Aaron, to which the Messiah should belong. The bread and wine which were set forth on the table of show-bread, was also supposed to be represented by the bread and wine which the king of Salem brought forth to Abraham (Schottgen, Hor. ''Hebrews'' 2:615). In the following discussions respecting his person, office, and locality, we substantially adhere to the traditionary view of this character. </p> <p> There is something surprising and mysterious in the first appearance of Melchizedek, and in the subsequent references to him. Bearing a title which Jews in afterages would recognise as designating their own sovereign, bringing gifts which recall to Christians the Lord's Supper, this Canaanite crosses for a moment the path of Abraham, and is unhesitatingly recognised as a person of higher spiritual rank than the friend of God. Disappearing as suddenly as he came in, he is lost to the sacred writings for a thousand years, and then a few emphatic' words for another-moment bring him into sight as a type of the coming Lord of David. Once more, after another thousand years, the Hebrew Christians are taught to see in him a proof that it was the consistent purpose of God to abolish the Levitical priesthood. His person, his office, his relation to Christ, and the seat of his sovereignty, have given rise to innumerable discussions, which even now can scarcely be considered as settled. Hence the faith of early ages ventured to invest his person with superstitious awe. </p> <p> A mysterious supremacy came also to be assigned to him (" the great high-priest," Philo, Opp. 2:34) by reason of his having received tithes from the Hebrew patriarch; and on this point the Epistle to the Hebrews (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:1-10) expatiates strongly. But the Jews, in admitting this official or personal superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham, sought to account for it by alleging that the royal priest was no other than Shem, the most pious of Noah's sons, who, according to the shorter chronology might have lived to the time of Abraham (Bochart, Phaleg, 2:1), and who, as a survivor of the deluge, is supposed to have been authorized by the superior dignity of old age to bless even the father of the faithful, and entitled, as the paramount lord of Canaan (&nbsp;Genesis 9:26), to convey (xiv. 19) his right to Abraham. Jerome, in his Ep. lxxiii, ad Evangelum (in Opp. 1:438), which is entirely devoted to a consideration of the person and dwelling-place of Melchizedek, states that this was the prevailing opinion of the Jews in his time; and it is ascribed to the [[Samaritans]] by [[Epiphanius]] (Haer. 55:6, p. 472). It was afterwards embraced by Luther and Melancthon, by H. Broughton, Selden, Lightfoot (Chor. Marco proem. ch. 10:1, § 2), [[Jackson]] (On the Creed, bk. ix, § 2), and by many others. [[Equally]] old, perhaps, but less widely diffused, is the supposition, not unknown to [[Augustine]] (Quest. in Genesis lxxii, in Opp. 3:396), and ascribed by [[Jerome]] (l. c.) to [[Origen]] and Didymus, that Melchizedek was an angel. The fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries record with reprobation the tenet of the [[Melchizedekians]] that he was a Power, Virtue, or [[Influence]] of God (August. De Hceresibus, § 34, in Opp. 8:11; Theodoret, Hoeret. fab. 2:6, p. 332; Epiphan. Hoer. 55:1, p. 468; comp. [[Cyril]] Alexand. Glaph. in [[Genesis]] 2:57) superior to Christ (Chrysost. ''Hom'' . ''In Melchiz'' . in ''Opp'' . vi, p. 269) and the not less daring conjecture of Hieracas and his followers that Melchizedek was the Holy Ghost (Epiphan. ''Hoer'' . lxvii. 3, p. 711, and 55:5, p. 472). Epiphanius also mentions (Leviticus 7, p. 474) some members of the Church as holding the erroneous opinion that Melchizedek was the Son of God appearing in human form an opinion which [[Ambrose]] (De Abrah. i, § 3, in Opp. 1:288) seems willing to receive, and which has been adopted by many modern, critics. [[Similar]] to this was a Jewish opinion that he was the Messiah (ap. Deyling, Obs. Sacr. 2:73; Schittgen, 1. c.; comp. the book Sohar, ap. Wolf, [[Curae]] Philippians in &nbsp;Hebrews 7:1). Moder writers have added to these conjectures that he may have been [[Ham]] (Jurieu), or a descendant of Japhet (Owen), or of Shem (ap. Deyling, ''1. C'' .), or Job (Kohlreis), or Mizraim, or Canaan, or even Enoch (Deyling, ''Observat. Sacr'' . 2:71 sq.; Clayton, ''Chronology Of The Hebrews Bible'' , p. 100). Other guesses may be found in Deyling (''1. C'' .) and in Pfeiffer (''De Persona Melch'' . in ''Opp'' . p. 51). </p> <p> All these opinions are unauthorized additions to Holy Scripture-many of them seem to be irreconcilable with it. The conjecture, however, which holds Melchizedek to have been Shem (see Jerome, ad [[Isaiah]] xli), and which we find in [[Rashi]] on Genesis as well as in the Jerusalem Targum, and also that of Jonathan (ad loc. Gen.), but not in that of Onkelos, requires an explanation how his name came to be changed, how he is found reigning in a country inhabited by the descendants of Ham, how he came forth to congratulate Abraham on the defeat of one of his own descendants, as was Chedorlaomer, and how he could be said to have been without recorded parentage (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:3), since the pedigree of Shem must have been notorious. In that case, also, the difference of the priesthoods of Melchizedek and. Levi would not be so distinct as to bear the argument which the Epistle to the Hebrews founds upon it. Rejecting on such grounds this opinion, others, as we have seen, in their anxiety to vindicate the dignity of Abraham from marks of spiritual submission to, any mortal man, have held that Melchizedek was no other than the Son of God himself. But in this case it would hardly have been said that he was made "''Like'' unto the Son of God" (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:3), or that Christ was constituted" a priest" after the order of Melchizedek (&nbsp;Hebrews 6:20), or, in other words, was a type of himself. The best founded opinion seems to be that of [[Carpzov]] (''Apparat. Antiq. Sacr. Cod'' . chap. iv, p. 52) and most judicious moderns, who, after Josephus (War, 6:10), allege that he: was a principal person among the Canaanites and posterity of Noah, and eminent for holiness and justice, and therefore discharged the priestly as well as regal functions among the people; and we may conclude that his twofold capacity of king and priest (characters very commonly muted in the remote ages; see Schwebel,. De causis conjunctce olim c. regno sacerdotii dignitatis, Onold. 1769; JG. Miller, De regibus ap. antiq. populos sacerdotibus, Jen. 1746) afforded Abraham an opportunity of testifying his thankfulness to God, in the manner usual in those times, by offering a tenth of all the spoil. This combination of' characters happens for the first time in Scripture to be exhibited in his person, which, with the abrupt manner in which he is introduced, and the nature of the intercourse between him and Abraham, render him in various respects an appropriate and obvious type of the Messiah in his united regal and priestly character. The way in which he is mentioned in Genesis would lead to the immediate inference that Melchizedek was of one blood with the children of Ham, among whom he lived, chief (like the king of Sodom) of a settled Canaanitish tribe. This was the opinion ‘ of most of the early fathers (ap. Jerome, 1. c.), of [[Theodoret]] (in Genesis lxiv, p. 77), and Epiphanius (Hoer. lxvii, p. 716), and is now generally received (see [[Grotius]] in Hebr.; Patrick's [[Commentary]] in Gen.; Bleek, Hebraer, 2:303; Ebrard, Hebraer; Fairbairn, Typology, 2:313, ed. 1854). As Balaam was a prophet, so Melchizedek was a priest among the corrupted heathen (Philo, Abrah. 39; Euseb. Praep. Evang. 1:9), not self-appointed (as Chrysostom suggests, Hom. in Genesis 35, § 5; comp. &nbsp;Hebrews 5:4), but constituted by a special gift from God, and recognised as such by him. </p> <p> Melchizedek combined the offices of priest and king, as was not uncommon in patriarchal times. Nothing is said to distinguish his kingship from that of the contemporary kings of Canaan; but the emphatic words in which he is described, by a title never given even to Abraham, as a "priest of the most high God," as blessing Abraham and receiving tithes from him, seem to imply that his priesthood was something more (see Hengstenberg, Christol. Psalms 110) than an ordinary patriarchal priesthood, such as Abraham himself and other heads of families (&nbsp;Job 1:5) exercised. Although it has been observed (Pearson, ''On The Creed'' , p. 122, ed. 1843) that we read of no other sacerdotal act performed by Melchizedek, but only that of blessing [and receiving tithes, Pfeiffer]; yet; it may be assumed that he was accustomed to discharge all the ordinary duties of those who are "ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices" (&nbsp;Hebrews 8:3); and we might concede (with Philo, Grotius, ''1. C'' ., and others) that his regal hospitality to Abraham was possibly preceded by an unrecorded sacerdotal act of oblation to God, without implying that his hospitality was in itself, as recorded in Genesis, a sacrifice. </p> <p> The " order of Melchizedek," in &nbsp;Psalms 110:4, is explained by [[Gesenius]] and Rosenmuller to mean " manner" =likeness in official dignity = a king and priest. The relation between Melchizedek and Christ as type and antitype is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews to consist in the following particulars: </p> <p> '''1.''' Melchizedek was the priest of the most high God by an immediate divine constitution; so Christ was a priest after his order, and not after that of Aaron. </p> <p> '''2.''' Melchizedek derived his priestly office from no predecessor, and delivered it down to no successor; in this respect Christ also stands alone: " Our Lord sprang from the tribe of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." </p> <p> '''3.''' Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, consequently his priesthood was superior to that of Levi and his descendants. So Christ's priesthood was superior to the Aaronic. </p> <p> '''4.''' Melchizedek was ''The Priest Appointed'' to exercise his office in behalf of all the worshippers of the true God; so Christ is the universal priest, the only one appointed to make intercession for our guilty race. </p> <p> '''5.''' Melchizedek's priesthood was limited to no definite time; this circumstance is noticed just as it would have been had his priesthood had neither beginning nor end " Christ is a priest forever" (&nbsp;Psalms 110:4). 6. Each sustained the high honors of king and priest; and the significant appellations are applied to birth. "Righteous King and King of Peace" (&nbsp;Isaiah 32:1; &nbsp;Isaiah 7:6-7). In the Messianic prediction (&nbsp;Psalms 110:4), ".Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," the phrase "''Forever'' " is not to be understood in the absolute sense, either of Melchizedek's priesthood or of Christ's. Melchizedek's priesthood terminated with his life; so Christ's priestly and kingly office as [[Mediator]] will both cease when the work of redemption is fully accomplished (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:24-28). But in neither case is there any statute which limits the specified accession to office and of egress from it. To these points of agreement, noted by the apostle, human ingenuity has added others which, however, stand in need of the evidence of either an inspired writer or an eye-witness before they can be received as facts and applied to establish any doctrine. Thus J. Johnson (Unbloody Sacrifice, 1:123, ed. 1847) asserts on very slender evidence that the fathers who refer to &nbsp;Genesis 14:18, understood that Melchizedek offered the bread and wine to God; and hence he infers that one great part of our Saviour's Melchizedekian priesthood consisted in offering bread and wine. Bellarmine asks in what other respects is Christ a priests after the order of Melchizedek. Waterland, who does not lose sight of the deep significancy of Melchizedek's action, has replied to Johnson in his Appendix to "the Christian [[Sacrifice]] explained" (ch. iii, § 2, Works, v. 165, ed. 1843). Bellarmine's question is sufficiently answered by Whitaker, [[Disputation]] on Scripture (Quest. ii, ch. x, p. 168, ed. 1849). The sense of the fathers, who sometimes expressed themselves in rhetorical language, is cleared from misinterpretation by bishop Jewel, [[Reply]] to Harding, art. xvii (Works, 2:731, ed. 1847). In Jackson, On the [[Creed]] (bk. ix, § 2, ch. vi-xi, p. 955 sq.), there is a lengthy but valuable account of the priesthood of Melchizedek; and the views of two different theological schools are ably stated by Aquinas (Summa, 3:22, § 6) and Turretin (Theologia, 2:443-453). </p> <p> Another fruitful source of discussion has been found in the site of Salem and Shaveh, which certainly lay in Abraham's road from [[Hobah]] to the plain of Mamre, and which are assumed to be near to each other. The various theories may be briefly enumerated as follows: </p> <p> '''(1)''' Salem is supposed to have occupied in Abraham's time the ground on which afterwards Jebus and then Jerusalem stood; and Shaveh to be the valley east of Jerusalem through which the [[Kidron]] flows. This opinion, abandoned by Reland (''Pal'' . p. 833), but adopted by Winer, is supported by the facts that Jerusalem is called Salem in &nbsp;Psalms 76:2, and that Josephus ([[Ant]] . 1:10, 2) and the Targums distinctly assert their identity; that the king's dale (&nbsp;2 Samuel 18:18), identified in &nbsp;Genesis 14:17, with Shaveh, is placed by Josephus ([[Ant]] . 7:10, 3), and by mediaeval and modern tradition (see Ewald, ''Gesch'' . 3:239), in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem; that the name of a later king of Jerusalem, Adonizedek (Joshua x,l), sounds like that of a legitimate successor of Melchizedek; and that Jewish writers.([[Ap]] . Schottgen, ''Hor. Hebrews'' in &nbsp;Hebrews 7:2) claim Zedek= righteousness, as a name of Jerusalem. </p> <p> '''(2)''' Jerome (''Opp'' . 1:446) denies that Salem is Jerusalem, and asserts that it is identical with a town-near [[Scythopolis]] or Bethshan,'which in his time retained the name of Salem, and in which some extensive ruins were shown as the remains of Melchizedek's palace. He supports this view by quoting &nbsp;Genesis 30:18, where, however, the translation is questionable; compare the mention of Salem in &nbsp;Judith 4:4, and in &nbsp;John 3:23. </p> <p> '''(3)''' Stanley, (''S. And P'' . p. 237) is of opinion that there is every probability that Mount Gerizim is the place where Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, met Abraham. [[Eupolemus]] (ap. Eusebius, Prep. Evang. 9:17), in a confused version of this story, names Argerizim, the mount of the Most High, as the place in which Abraham was hospital bly entertained. (4) Ewald, Gesch. 3:239) denies positively that it is Jerusalem, and says that it must be north of Jerusalem on the other side of Jordan (i. 410): an opinion which Rodiger (Gesen. Thesaurus, p. 1422 b) condemns. There, too, Stanley thinks that the king's dale was situate, near the spot where Absalom fell. (See [[King'S Dale]]). </p> <p> Some Jewish writers have held the opinion that Melchizedek was the writer and Abraham the subject of Psalm cx. See Deyling, Obs. Sacr. 3:137. It may suffice to mention that there is a fabulous life of Melchizedek printed among the spurious works of Athanasius, 4:189. </p> <p> Reference may be made to the following works in addition to those already mentioned: two tracts on Melchizedek by M. J. H. von Elswick, in the Thesaurus Novus Theolog.-philologicus; L. Borgisius, Historia Critica Melchisedeci (Bern. 1706); Quandt, De sacerdotio Melch. (Regiom. 1737); Gaillard, Melchisedecus Christus (Leyd. 1686); M. C. Hoffman, De Melchisedeco (1669); H. Broughton, [[Treatise]] on Melchizedek (1591); Kirchmaier, De Melchisedecho (Rotterd. 1696); Lange, idem (Hal. 1713,1714); Danhauer, idem (Strasb.1684); Pietsch, idem (Hale, .1713); Reinhart, idem (Wittenb. 1751); Wahner, idem (Gitt. 1745); Henderson, Melchisedek (Lond. 1839); and other monographs cited in Darling, Cyclop. Bibliogr. col. 183,1607. See also J. A. Fabricius, Cod. Pseudepig. V. T.; P. Molinaeus, Vates, etc. (1640), 4:11; J. H. Heidegger, Hist. Sacr. Patriarcharum (1671), 2:288; Hottinger, Ennead. Disput.; P. Cuneus, De Republ. &nbsp;Hebrews 3:3, apud ''Crit. Sacr'' . vol. v; Ursini, ''Analect. Sacr'' . 1:349; Krahmer, in Illgen's Zeitschr. 7:4, p. 87; Auberlein, in the Stud. u. Krit. 3:1857, 453 sq.; Presb. Quar. Revelation Oct. 1861. </p>