Who Was Melchizedek?

Examining an enigmatic biblical figure

by Troy Lacey and Lita Sanders on January 17, 2025

There is probably no more mysterious figure in all of Scripture than Melchizedek. He comes on the stage of Scripture in Genesis 14, disappears for close to 1,000 years before being mentioned again by David in Psalm 110, and then disappears off the pages of Sacred Writ for another 1,000 years before being mentioned by the writer of Hebrews. It is in Hebrews that we are confronted with some mysterious and difficult-to-understand facts about this ancient king and priest.

Historical Placement in Genesis

In Genesis 14:18–20, we get our only historical glimpse of Melchizedek. Abram became caught up in a Canaanite war because his nephew, Lot, was captured along with Sodom and Gomorrah. An escapee went to Abram with the news, and Abram joined the conflict to rescue Lot, but Abram’s later actions made it clear that he wished to avoid any formal association or alliance with the wicked cities.

This is strongly contrasted with the account of Abram’s interactions with Melchizedek, who met Abram (later Abraham) in the valley of Shaveh (also known as the King’s Valley and possibly the same location as the Kidron Valley1). He came with bread and wine; these staples may be listed as stand-ins for more comprehensive provisions for the exhausted army.2 Bread and wine also often accompanied animal sacrifice; given that he is named as a priest, he may have come prepared to sacrifice.3

It is also highly probable that Melchizedek was sent by God to mediate any potential problems between Abram and the king of Sodom over the return of people and belongings captured by Abram from a confederation of northern kings who had looted Sodom and the cities of the plain.

There are a few options for what Melchizedek’s name might mean. In Hebrew, mlk means king and tsdq means righteous, but either of those could also be a name, so it could mean “Malk is just,” “Tsedeq is my king,” or “My king is just.”4 Hebrews 7:1–3 translates the name “king of righteousness,” which we take as the authoritative translation.

Melchizedek in Psalm 110

Fast forward to the time of King David, and we read in Psalm 110:4, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

There are a number of interpretive issues in Psalm 110, and the clear Messianic overtones and heavy NT attribution of this Psalm to Jesus mean that it is well worth looking into. Is this only prophetic, or was there an understood meaning for David and his successors to be priests after the order of Melchizedek?

Psalm 110 has the heading, “A Psalm of David.” This could mean anything from David penning the psalm to David commissioning the psalm to the psalm being about or for David. It is helpful to have an authoritative word regarding this, for Jesus explicitly says that it is David speaking (Matthew 22:43). Since we have Jesus’ clear testimony that David is the one speaking in the psalm, this favors the overtly prophetic interpretation. Therefore, it is not David and his descendants generally who have a priestly role after the function of Melchizedek, who was both king and priest, but specifically the Messiah. Looking forward to a time when the Messiah would come, David is here given a prophecy that his offspring (yet also his Lord) would be both a king (vs. 1–2) and a priest (vs. 4). But being from the tribe of Judah, he could not be of the Levitical priesthood, and it would be another 1,000 years before it would be explained how a Judahite Messiah could be a priest.

Since we have Jesus’ clear testimony that David is the one speaking in the psalm, this favors the overtly prophetic interpretation.

Melchizedek in the Book of Hebrews

Hebrews 5:10 says that Christ was “designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” Since several other NT passages already apply Psalm 110 to Jesus, it is unsurprising that this is explicitly applied to him as well.

To understand the significance of Jesus’ priesthood, we have to follow the argument of the author of Hebrews. His central argument is that the salvation that Jesus offers is better than that of the Mosaic covenant and the Jewish religion, so the converts from Judaism should hold fast to their faith even through persecution. In Hebrews 1, he presents Jesus as the better revelation of God. Hebrews 2 presents him as the victorious King and Savior. Hebrews 2:17 is the first mention of Jesus’ high priesthood: “Therefore, he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

Before the incarnation, the Son of God was perfect and coequal with the Father and the Spirit, sharing glory, power, holiness, and every other attribute of God. However, to be able to save us and bring us into a relationship with God, he had to take on a human nature, with all the frailty and temptation that implies, and not sin. Because Jesus has overcome temptation, he can help us when we are tempted and make intercession for us before the Father.

In Hebrews 3, the author uses Jesus’ faithful service as high priest to exhort Christians to persevere in their faith, and in Hebrews 4, he exhorts believers to enter the true Sabbath rest. In Hebrews 4:14, the author encourages Christians to be bold in their confession of faith.

But the author presents another angle in Hebrews 5. A priest must be appointed by God like Aaron was (5:4). So how is Jesus a high priest? He is from the wrong tribe. In 5:6, the author applies the order of Melchizedek to Jesus for the first time and again in 6:20, where we are further told that this priesthood is and would be an eternal one.

Hebrews 7:3 states that Melchizedek was “without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.” Historically, there have been three main hypotheses about this verse regarding Melchizedek, with several other minor variations.

  1. The first is that Melchizedek is actually a preincarnate Christophany in Genesis. In other words, some claim that Melchizedek is Christ, having no beginning and no ending, not dying, and remaining a priest. Ambrose was one of the earliest proponents of this hypothesis. For support, they will reference such verses as Revelation 1:8 and 22:13, where Christ calls himself the beginning and the end. The mention that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham (Hebrews 7:4–7) is also used to support the Christophany position (compare John 8:53–58). However, there are some serious flaws with this position. Namely that Melchizedek is mentioned as having no father or mother, yet Christ plainly has a heavenly Father and an earthly mother. Second is that Christ is mentioned as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek, which would be akin to saying “Christ is a priest after the order of Christ,” if Melchizedek were a Christophany. This plainly makes no sense. Lastly, Melchizedek is said in Hebrews 7:3 to be “resembling the Son of God,” which again becomes nonsensical if we say that “the Son of God was resembling the Son of God.” We must consider that if Melchizedek was the king of Salem, he had to have lived, eaten, worked, interacted with his subjects, and been known by his people and also other kings (like the king of Sodom and probably the other four kings of the plain mentioned in Genesis 14:2). He had to have attained his kingship through succession or by conquest. So the idea of Melchizedek as Christ just popping into history to take over as king of Salem seems to be a phenomenal thing to not be otherwise mentioned in Scripture. It also leaves the problem of to whom did this Melchizedek (if a Christophany) leave his kingdom and priesthood when he departed back to heaven? For these (and other) reasons, this theory must be rejected.
  2. The second theory of who Melchizedek is can be called the naturalistic model. In this model, Melchizedek is referred to as without father and mother because his father died before he was born and his mother died in childbirth. Thus, he was born an orphan. Some would claim that perhaps he, like Elijah and Enoch, did not die but was translated to heaven directly; others would claim that he died, but it was not recorded, so to the reader of Scripture, it’s as if he had no end. Both subsets of this theory would claim that Melchizedek had a beginning (was physically born), but it was not recorded in Scripture. Similarly, the statement that his priesthood has no end just means it is not recorded by Moses. John Calvin may have been one of the proponents of this model (although it seems like he also supported the genealogy model) as was Johann Wettstein.
  3. The third theory of Melchizedek is called the genealogy-priestly office model. In this model, Melchizedek is referred to as without father and mother, beginning or end, and continual priesthood because nothing about his genealogy is recorded in Scripture. The language therefore in Hebrews is viewed as typological and metaphorical. For Levitical priests, genealogy was everything—those who could not prove their genealogy were barred from temple service (Ezra 2:59–63). That Melchizedek could be a priest without priestly descent shows that there is a form of priesthood that does not depend on ancestry, and his descendants not being recorded as priests shows that it is not passed on through physical descent. Melchizedek’s kingly priesthood is therefore the ideal model for Jesus’ priesthood, seeing as he is from the tribe of Judah, the kingly tribe. As F. F. Bruce noted:
Historically, Melchizedek appears to have belonged to a dynasty of priest-kings in which he had both predecessors and successors. If this point had been put to our author, he would have agreed at once, no doubt; but this consideration was foreign to his purpose. The important consideration was the account given of Melchizedek in holy writ; to him the silences of Scripture were as much due to divine inspiration as were its statements. In the only record which Scripture provides of Melchizedek—Gen. 14:18–20—nothing is said of his parentage, nothing is said of his ancestry or progeny, nothing is said of his birth, nothing is said of his death. He appears as a living man, king of Salem and priest of God Most High; and as such he disappears. In all this—in the silences as well as in the statements—he is a fitting type of Christ; in fact, the record by the things it says of him and by the things it does not say has assimilated him to the Son of God.5

This theory on Melchizedek is probably the most popular among theologians because it reinforces the literal historicity of the man but recognizes that nothing of his life is cataloged in Scripture except for his kingship, priesthood, and blessing of Abraham. He steps onto the pages of Scripture and then steps off again just as quickly. The main points emphasized by the writers of Scripture are these: he was called by God to be a priest, was a king by lineage, was greater than Abraham (and his descendant Levi), and his priesthood would endure forever. Typologically then, he is a figure of Christ who also embodies all of these characteristics.

Typologically then, he is a figure of Christ who also embodies all of these characteristics.

There are also other minority theories on Melchizedek, one of which is that he was actually Shem, the son of Noah; this hypothesis was favored by such notable Christian theologians as Jerome, Luther, and Melanchthon. This theory would be negated if the identity of Melchizedek’s parents were known (as is certainly the case with Shem whose father was Noah and his mother “Noah’s wife”) but is also highly improbable for a number of reasons. Any of the three sons of Noah, after Noah himself, would have been the most famous people alive. To believe that he could “go undercover” as a king/priest and not be recognized strains credulity. It is also not probable that Shem would change his name, especially since later genealogies record his name as Shem, not Melchizedek (1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3). Besides, we have no account of Shem settling in the land of Canaan; in fact, the land was named after the son of Ham—not Shem.

What Melchizedek Teaches Us Today

As a figure who looked forward to Christ and whose priesthood prefigured Christ’s, Melchizedek had a unique role. Melchizedek shows us that, however few, there were people after the judgment at Babel who continued to worship the true God, even when Abram’s family became idolaters until God revealed himself to Abram (Joshua 24:2). We don’t know what revelation Melchizedek had of God, but he was faithful to the knowledge he was given, and he recognized Abram as being in the line of promise.

As a ministry, AiG does not endorse any specific model but thinks the Christophany model has too many issues associated with it, most notably that no title is given, such as Angel of the Lord. Nor did the angel identify as God, or the person recognize that this angel was God (as in Genesis 32:28–30; Judges 6:21–23; Judges 13:17–23). While we lean toward the genealogy-priestly office model, there is also some merit to the naturalistic model.

Footnotes

  1. Genesis 14:17, NET Bible study notes, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2014%3A17&version=NET.
  2. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1990), p. 409.
  3. Gordan J. Wenham, Volume 1: Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Thomas Nelson, 1987), p. 316.
  4. Wenham, Volume 1: Genesis 1–15, p. 316.
  5. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1990), p. 159–160.

Newsletter

Get the latest answers emailed to you.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.

Learn more

  • Customer Service 800.778.3390