Difference between revisions of "Melchizedek"

<p> The original meaning was probably ‘My king is Zedek’; but the name is interpreted ideally in Hebrews 7:2, where it is taken to mean ‘king of righteousness,’ and at the same time, because of Melchizedek’s rule over [[Salem]] (= ‘peace’), ‘king of peace.’ Thus the personal and the official titles point to the actual character of the man. The typical hero, first righteous and therefore self-governed and blessed with the tranquillizing consciousness of the presence of God, appears to the writer as an anticipation of Him in whom alone righteousness and peace are completely realized both in His own person and life and in His gifts to men. [[Thereupon]] the writer proceeds to develop the comparison in the interest of his conception of the supreme and permanent priesthood of [[Jesus]] Christ. </p> <p> <b> 1. The original source of the story </b> is [[Genesis]] 14:17-20, of which the literary history is still uncertain. It is not an integral part of any of the principal documents, though the chapter as a whole has a few affinities with P. At present the only safe conclusion is that it comes from an independent source, of which the special characteristics cannot yet be determined. Nor is there any real evidence of a lack of historicity. The combination of kingly and priestly offices in one person, who was invested with a sacred character as a descendant of a deity, was a not unusual feature of government in the primitive ages (see J. G. Frazer, <i> Lectures on the [[Early]] History of the Kingship </i> , 1905, p. 29 ff.), and may well have prevailed among the [[Canaanite]] tribes. Yet the writer of Hebrews need not be regarded as a witness to the historicity of the narrative, or as concerning himself with such a question. He treats [[Melchizedek]] ideally rather than historically, and interprets the picture preserved in Genesis without committing himself to any opinion as to its literal or biographical accuracy. His object is not to confirm nor to question the narrative, but to work out a conception of priesthood which he found in the priestly archives of his nation; and in so doing he makes at least as much use of the silences of [[Scripture]] as of the assertions. Accordingly, B. F. Westcott ( <i> Hebrews </i> , 1889, p. 199 f.) takes him as pronouncing no judgment on the historical problems, but as eliciting the typical and abiding value of the story. </p> <p> <b> 2. Immediate source of the exposition. </b> -The writer need not be conceived as going back through Psalms 110:4 to the original tradition in Genesis 14 and working upon it independently; for there is sufficient reason to believe that the narrative had for a couple of centuries engaged the attention of some of the religious leaders of the people, and in the interpretation an interesting development may be traced. ‘God Most High’ (Hebrews 7:1) is a phrase of frequent occurrence in the [[Apocrypha]] (for the passages see E. [[Hatch]] and H. A. Redpath, <i> [[Concordance]] to the [[Septuagint]] </i> , 1892 ff.), especially in Ecclesiasticus; and the title ‘priest of the Most High God’ was revived by the Maccabaean princes, whilst John [[Hyrcanus]] (137-105 b.c.) combined in himself the triple functions of prophet, priest, and king (see Josephus, <i> Ant. </i> XIII. x. 7, <i> Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) </i> I. ii. 8; and R. H. Charles, <i> [[Book]] of Jubilees </i> , 1902, p. lxxxviii, <i> Testaments of the Twelve [[Patriarchs]] </i> , 1908, p. li ff., with references there cited). [[Evidently]] the Melchizedek tradition was considered as pointing to the Maccabaean leaders (cf. J. Skinner, <i> Genesis </i> , 1910, on 14:20), in whose period Psalms 110 may have undergone its final liturgical revision. The <i> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs </i> is a Palestinian book; but [[Philo]] is a witness for the prevalence of a similar interest in the ancient story in Egypt. He argues in favour of an identification of Melchizedek with the Logos, whose priesthood, however, is viewed as a symbol of the action of reason in bringing righteousness and peace to men (Mangey, i. 103, 533, ii. 34). The thought in Hebrews is clearly an advance, parallel in part to that between the Philonic and the Johannine Logos, but confronting the reader with a religion instead of a philosophy, and with a supreme personal [[Helper]] instead of with a dubious process of reasoning. </p> <p> <b> 3. Significance in Hebrews. </b> -The apparent object of the writer was to mark the adequate and final character of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. As a person He is compared with Melchizedek, whose order of priesthood was confessedly above that of [[Aaron]] ( <i> q.v. </i> [Note: .v. quod vide, which see.]); while in regard to priestly acts and functions His efficiency and freedom from limitations are exhibited in comparison with the necessary defects of the Aaronic office. More particularly three features in the story of Melchizedek are singled out. ( <i> a </i> ) He was king as well as priest, and as priest-king he possessed the endowments of righteousness and peace, and was able to impart them with royal bounty. ( <i> b </i> ) He was dissociated from all the relations of time, neither qualified by priestly descent for his office, nor interrupted in its discharge by death (Hebrews 7:3). ( <i> c </i> ) Accordingly, through these timeless and regal qualities his priesthood becomes unique, incomparably above all Aaronic and [[Levitical]] institutions, and with nothing like it in human history until the Incarnate comes upon the stage and takes to Himself a [[Priesthood]] in which He admits no peer, and of which eternal and superabundant adequacy is the note (see Priest). </p> <p> <b> 4. [[Later]] developments. </b> -In the patristic literature of our period no objection appears to have been taken to the use of the story in Hebrews, though its classification among the alleged theophanies was early and had probably already begun. On the other hand, the [[Jewish]] writers adopt an interpretation of their own, either through dislike of the teaching in Hebrews, or in substitution for its application to John Hyrcanus, which had been discredited by the collapse of his influence before the end of his reign. [[Shem]] was identified with Melchizedek in early parts of the [[Talmud]] and [[Targums]] ( <i> Nedarim </i> , 32 <i> b </i> , <i> [[Sanhedrin]] </i> , 108 <i> b </i> , <i> Targ. </i> [Note: Targum.] <i> [[Jonathan]] </i> ), and the narrative was taken to mean that the priesthood was transferred to Abraham, while the rest of the descendants of Shem were excluded. Another tradition distinguishes Shem from Melchizedek, but associates them in the work of transferring the body of [[Adam]] to Jerusalem. The story survives with many embellishments in the Ethiopic <i> Book of Adam </i> ; and only for its beginnings, with mixed Jewish and [[Christian]] influences at work upon it, can a place be allowed within our century. </p> <p> R. W. Moss. </p>

<p> [[Priest]] of "God Most High" who appeared in patriarchal times, but whose significance was remembered throughout Old [[Testament]] times and eventually explained in the [[Book]] of Hebrews. </p> <p> <i> [[Melchizedek]] and [[Abraham]] </i> . Melchizedek of [[Salem]] came out to pronounce a blessing on Abraham who was on his way back to [[Hebron]] after rescuing [[Lot]] from Kedorlaomer, king of the East (Genesis 14:18-24 ). Melchizedek provided food and wine for a sacral meal. As they ate, Melchizedek pronounced a blessing on Abraham in the name of [[God]] Most High. </p> <p> The willingness with which Abraham acceded to Melchizedek as a priest of God Most High is a most interesting aspect of this narrative. This name apparently connoted the same meaningful theology to Abraham as the name "God Almighty" (Exodus 6:3 ). Abraham also equated God with "Creator of heaven and earth" (Genesis 14:22; cf. v. 19 ) in his ascription-confessional to the king of Sodom. </p> <p> <i> A Priest Forever </i> . [[Psalm]] 110:4 reads: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'" This is a royal psalm. Two significant points are made about the One who is to sit at God's right hand. First, the order of Melchizedek is declared to be an eternal order. Second, this announcement is sealed with God's oath. [[Neither]] of these affirmations applied to the Aaronic order of priesthood. </p> <p> <i> [[Jesus]] [[Christ]] as the Great High Priest after the [[Order]] of Melchizedek </i> . The Book of Hebrews presents Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, as a priest after the order of Melchizedek (4:14-7:28, esp. 5:5-11; 6:13-7:28). The author draws directly from Psalm 110:4 several crucial points to explain that the high priesthood of Christ has superseded and is superior to the priesthood of Aaron. </p> <p> First, the priesthood of Melchizedek is an "order forever" (5:10). In contrast, the priesthood of [[Aaron]] had a history of disruptions and termination. </p> <p> Second, the references to being "without father or mother" (7:3) and to being an "order forever" (7:3,16, 17,24) are to be understood as referring to the <i> kind of priestly order </i> rather than to the longevity of a particular priest of Abraham's time. Jesus even carries the longevity of his priesthood back to the [[Godhead]] (7:15,26; cf. 1 Peter 1:20 ). </p> <p> Third, the divine guarantee for the priesthood of Melchizedek rests on God's oath. </p> <p> For the writer of Hebrews to look at these Old Testament passages about Melchizedek along christological lines is in keeping with the practice of other New Testament writers. [[Early]] [[Christians]] were convinced that it was they upon whom the end of the ages had come and hence felt that the Old Testament was written in some divinely intended way to point to them. </p> <p> Harvey E. Finley </p> <p> <i> See also </i> [[Theology Of Hebrews]]; [[Priesthood Priest]] </p> <p> <i> Bibliography </i> . G. W. Buchanan, <i> To the Hebrews </i> ; M. Dahood, <i> Psalms III: 101-150 </i> ; E. A. Speiser, <i> [[Genesis]] </i> ; R. S. Taylor, <i> Hebrews-Revelation </i> . </p>

<p> Melchizedek, or [[Melchisedec]] (mel-kĭz'-e-dĕk), the [[Greek]] form in the New [[Testament]] (king of righteousness), is mentioned in [[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 Psalms 110:4, where [[Messiah]] is described as a priest "after the order of Melchizedek;" and finally, in 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> (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 (Genesis 14:18; [[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 (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]] (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 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 (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" (Hebrews 7:3), or that Christ was constituted" a priest" after the order of Melchizedek (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. 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 (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" (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 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" (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" (Isaiah 32:1; Isaiah 7:6-7). In the Messianic prediction (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 (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 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 Psalms 76:2, and that Josephus (Ant. 1:10, 2) and the [[Targums]] distinctly assert their identity; that the king's dale (2 Samuel 18:18), identified in 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 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 Genesis 30:18, where, however, the translation is questionable; compare the mention of Salem in [[Judith]] 4:4, and in 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. 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>