This was taken directly from Genesis 14 (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

Preface:   For many, Melchizedek seems to be a mystery figure from the Old Testament. Quite the contrary—we are told a great deal about him.

Let’s first set this up. We first learn about Melchizedek in Gen. 14. In Gen. 14, an eastern alliance of kings comes into the Salt Sea valley to put down a revolt of men from Sodom and Gomorrah (a 5 king coalition). These kings from the east are quite successful in this trip, conquering several groups of peoples, and then soundly defeating the coalition of 5 kings. The eastern alliance took all of the possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah and took these people as prisoners (they would become slaves).

Among these prisoners was Lot, Abram’s nephew. When Abram (Abraham) is told about this, he organizes and army and defeats these kings from the east in a surprise night attack, changing history for the land of Canaan for the next few hundred years.

Upon his victorious return, Abram meets both the king of Sodom and Melchizedek, the Priest-King of Salem (Jerusalem).

The passage reads as follows.

Gen.14:1–18 At that time four kings-King Amraphel of Shinar, King Arioch of Ellasar, King Chedorlaomer of Elam, and King Tidal of Goiim- went to war against five kings-King Bera of Sodom, King Birsha of Gomorrah, King Shinab of Admah, King Shemeber of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). The five kings joined forces and met in the valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea). For 12 years they had been subject to Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and his allies came and defeated the Rephaim at Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzim at Ham, the Emim at Shaveh Kiriathaim, and the Horites in the hill country of Seir, going as far as El Paran on the edge of the desert. On their way back, they came to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites and also the Amorites who were living at Hazazon Tamar. Then the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela (that is, Zoar) marched out and prepared for battle in the valley of Siddim. They fought against King Chedorlaomer of Elam, King Tidal of Goiim, King Amraphel of Shinar, and King Arioch of Ellasar-four kings against five. The valley of Siddim was full of tar pits. As the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, they fell because of the tar pits, but the other kings fled to the hills. So the four kings took all the possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as all their food, and left. They also took Abram's nephew Lot and his possessions since he was living in Sodom. Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew what had happened. He was living next to the oak trees belonging to Mamre the Amorite, a brother of Eshcol and Aner. (These men were Abram's allies.) When Abram heard that his nephew had been captured, he armed his 318 trained men, born in his own household, and pursued the four kings all the way to Dan. He split up his men to attack them at night. He defeated them, pursuing them all the way to Hobah, which is north of Damascus. Abram brought back all of the wealth that had been taken, as well as Lot, Lot’s possession, and all of the women and the people of that area who were to be enslaved. Consequently, the king of Sodom went out to meet Abram after he returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and the kings that [were] with him in the Valley of Shaveh (that [is], the Valley of the King). Also, Melchizedek, the king of Salem, came out with bread and wine. He was a priest for that city to God the Most High.

The Melchizedek Special

God spoke long ago to numerous peoples in many and diverse manners. Melchizedek, mentioned in a narrative only here, is a type of Christ. Jesus Christ is called an High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Heb. 7:2 tells us that Melchizedek means king of righteousness and that ing of Salem means the king of peace. This identifies him with Jesus Christ, our High Priest. A priest is one who represents man to God. Melchizedek is a type, not a preincarnate Christ. That is, he represents or is analogous to Jesus Christ. He foreshadows the Person of Jesus Christ.

Melchizedek is the Hebrew word Mal^ekîy Tsedeq (מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק) [pronounced mahl^e-KEE-TSEH-dek]. Tsedeq is the Hebrew word for righteousness and Melek (מֶלֶ) [pronounced MEH-lehk] means king. Salem is Shâlêm (שָלֵם), which means whole; complete, completed, finished; safe, at peace; cherishing peace and friendship; transliterated Salem. Strong’s #8004 BDB #1024. We are more familiar with shâlôwm (שָלוֹם) or shâlôm (שָלֹם) [pronounced shaw-LOHM], which varies only by a vowel point and which means peace, prosperity, safe, secure, tranquil, undisturbed, unagitated. Strong’s #7965 BDB #1022.

McGee explains this relationship quite well. With central figures of the Bible, their genealogy is sometimes of utmost importance. An entire chapter almost is spent on the genealogy of Abram. But with Melchizedek, this is a man who steps out of nowhere, is not previously mentioned, there is no genealogy to identify him, and Abram shows him great respect. The name for God here is El Elyon, a term used elsewhere in Scripture for the God of the universe. This is not just a local deity; this is the creator of the universe, and this is clearly monotheism. The author of Hebrews draws the analogy for us in Heb. 7:3: [Melchizedek is] without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides [as] as priest forever. Melchizedek comes to us in Scripture out of nowhere, with no mother or father or genealogy and no beginning and no end. As a person, he certainly had these things, but as a person in Scripture, this information is lacking; he is thereby analogous to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is eternal, who comes out of eternity into time, having no beginning and no end to His deity, fully able to be a Priest to God as He is equal to God.

We know only a small fraction of the divine revelation to the world in the Age of the Gentiles. Even though we are following Abraham, the first Hebrew into the Jewish Age, we are still in a transitional period of time. The portion of divine revelation that we know concerning behavior and the laws of worship was that which was given in Scripture as Noah and crew left the ark. We know that God appears to some people (Abram, specifically) in a manner not discussed specifically. Although it seems logical that God also must have appeared to Melchizedek, we do not know that for certain. Since Abram recognizes his priesthood, there is a portion of this story to which we are not privy. We do not know if God has revealed Himself to Abram and has told him about Melchizedek; we do not know if they have met before and God revealed to Melchizedek his function; we are not certain of any of this. However, as a priest to the world, Melchizedek, living in the holy city of the promised land before either was established as such in time, was able to require tithes, which represented obeisance and recognition of his priesthood. Melchizedek has a specific function here; Abram is to guide his own spiritual life and this fellowship and relationship with Melchizedek will help him face some very tempting rewards.

So far, this is what we have: Also, Melchizedek, the king of Salem, brought out bread and wine. It is in v. 18 that we have the first mention of the city of Jerusalem (Salem). Its existence during this time period is corroborated by the Tel el Amarna Tablets, which were found in Egypt. These tablets are letters written between the kings of Egypt and the kings of the various cities in and around Palestine during the 15^th century b.c. The general conditions of Palestine as written in the Bible agree generally with the conditions indicated by these letters.

Melchizedek Blesses Abraham by Jean-Hippolyte Flandrin" located at artscroll.ru.

In fact, as Scofield points out, Archeology again and again shows that the cities mentioned in Genesis preceded in time those cities mentioned in Joshua, which precede those cities mentioned in Kings. This may not seem that important to some, but higher critics of the Bible for centuries have accused the writing of Genesis to come quite later than the tradition time period given for it. However, if that were the case, then the author would have a very difficult time getting the cities correct as their history was no better than our history. We would see some sets of cities over a short period of time in a chronological order, but we would not see the cities in the Bible over millenniums accurately presented in the time-frame that they were presented in. This does not prove the Bible; what archeology does do is reveal that, as we should expect, that God's history of the world is more accurate and objective than any other history recorded by man.

I should mention the bread and the wine. These are similar to the communion elements (although, leaven is not a part of the communion or Passover, since it represents evil). However, this word for wine is used for the drink-offering mentioned several times in Leviticus, so we possibly have the precursor to our communion here, although the writer of Hebrews does not draw any analogies concerning this.

More than likely, this is nothing more than a meal; but it certainly does foreshadow the elements used in communion, and what illustrations communion with God any more than Abram here fellowshipping with Melchizedek, with wine and bread.

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)

We have another king now, who was not named among those at war: Melchizedek, the king of Salem.

This leads us to a most important meeting between Abram and Melchizedek, the king of Salem. Salem would be ancient Jerusalem. Salem means peace, so Melchizedek here is the King of Peace. Bear in mind, this was probably written down 2000 years before Jesus walked on this earth. Even the most liberal of historians believe this was written down hundreds of years before Christ (liberal historians are nearly always wrong about theology and history; as has been discussed before, they do not even know this history of our own country).

The name, Melchizedek, means my king is righteousness. So, Melchizedek is the king of peace and his king is the king of righteousness. He is called here, priest of the God Most High. It should not take a genius to figure out Who Melchizedek represents.

This is the first use of the word priest, which is kôhên (כֹּהֵן) [pronounced koh-HANE], which word is principally translated priest. The simplest explanation is, a priest represents man before God; a prophet represents God to man. Ideally speaking, what we would like, as men, is a mediator between God and ourselves—someone who is equal to both parties. This would incorporate the priest and the prophet into one person. There is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1Tim. 2:5). Jesus is called the great priest over the house of God in Heb. 10:19–21 and our High Priest in Heb. 9:11. Jesus was recognized as a prophet (or as the Prophet) in John 6:14 7:40 9:17 and He is said to be the fulfillment of God raising up a prophet like Moses in Acts 3:22 7:37. Therefore, the first time that we find the word priest, it is reasonable that this man, Melchizedek, is representative of our Lord.

Like much of Genesis, the idea of a priest is presented here in its most basic form. Much of the Mosaic Law associates priests with the offering up of animal sacrifices, but that is not mentioned in this context (perhaps there was an animal sacrifice and perhaps there wasn’t; we don’t know).

What Melchizedek brings out, however, is bread and wine, which are the communion elements, to remind us of our Lord’s body, which was broken for us, and of His blood, which was shed for us—and yet, this incident takes place about 2000 years before the cross. Furthermore, there is not a scholar anywhere who does not believe that this history of Melchizedek preceded the era of Jesus Christ by hundreds of years at the very least.

Throughout the Old Testament there are types of Jesus Christ. If this occurred once or twice, we could simply chalk it up to coincidence. However, these parallels between Jesus Christ and people in the Old Testament are amazing. If a person is truly open-minded, then they cannot explain how such close parallels to Jesus Christ occur in the Old Testament, again and again and again. The only reasonable explanation is, God knows the end from the beginning and God the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Scripture in the Old and New Testaments. “I am God, and there is no one like Me; I proclaim the end from the beginning and from ancient times, I proclaim things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose' ” (Isa. 46:9b–10). “The former things I declared of old; they went out from my mouth, and I announced them; then suddenly I did them, and they came to pass.” (Isa. 48:3; see also Isa. 41:22, 26 44:7 45:21). No prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2Peter 1:21) . No other explanation else makes any sense.

People do not believe in Jesus Christ because they choose not to believe in Him. It is not that there is some lack of evidence. People do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God because they choose to believe that, not because there is a lack of evidence for such an assertion.

A student in a New England university said he had an intellectual problem with Christianity and just could not therefore accept Christ as saviour. “Why can’t you believe?” I asked. He replaced, “The New Testament is not reliable.” I then asked, “If I prove to you that the New Testament is one of the most reliable pieces of literature of antiquity, will you believe?” He retorted, “NO!” “You don’t have a problem with your mind, but with your will,” I answered. From Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict; ©1972 by Campus Crusade for Christ; p. 12.

Bertrand Russell is an example of an intelligent atheist who did not give careful examination to the evidence for Christianity. In his essay, “Why I am Not a Christian,” it is obvious that he has not even considered the evidence of and for the resurrection of Jesus and, by his remarks, it is doubtful as to whether he has even glanced at the New Testament. It seems incongruous that a man would not deal with the resurrection in great detail since it is the foundation of Christianity. From Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict; ©1972 by Campus Crusade for Christ; p. 12. McDowell took this from Michael Green’s book Runaway World.

Josh McDowell wrote and rewrote a book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict (along with several incarnations of that book, including A Ready Defense (however, do not start with Evidence that Demands a verdict, Vol. II). If anyone reads this book with an open mind, they must come away with the conclusion that, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Way, the Truth and the Life; our only gate to God; and that the Bible is the Word of God. Even though we are given salvation for exercising faith in Jesus Christ, that does not mean that the Christian way of life is only based solely upon faith, where all human evidence is opposed to it. God gave us a mind capable of reason and logic, and, if you believe your faith to be weak, then get one of McDowell’s books and feast upon the logic and reason which is the Christian faith.

In McDowell’s book, he collected our Lord’s direct claims to be God, His indirect claims to Deity, and the titles given Him, which are titles of Deity. So, we cannot dismiss Jesus as someone upon whom the concept of Deity was simply overlaid.

C. S. Lewis, once an agnostic, wrote, I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict; ©1972 by Campus Crusade for Christ; p. 107, who was quoting C. S. Lewis (I believe from Is Christianity Credible?).

This is followed by a flow chart in McDowell’s book. Under “Jesus Claims to be God” we have two alternatives: His claims were true or His claims were false. Obviously, if His claims are true, then Jesus is our Lord, the Son of God. If His claims are false, then there are two logical alternatives: He knew His claims to be false or He did not know that His claims were false. In the latter case, Jesus is deluded and a lunatic. Does anyone actually believe that to be true? In the alternative, Jesus lied about Who He knew Himself to be, making Him a liar, a hypocrite and probably demonically-influenced or possessed. From Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict; ©1972 by Campus Crusade for Christ; pp. 108–109. What this logically robs a person of is, the patronizing nonsense that Jesus was a great teacher, but He was not God. Analytically, that view makes little sense.

Personally, I believe strongly in apologetics (the study of Jesus Christ and Christianity from a logical and empirical point of view), because that was the basis, at first, for the building up my own faith. Even though I believed in Jesus Christ at age 21, this did not mean that my faith was completely solid at that point. I read almost anything I could get my hands on, particularly in the realm of apologetics. The more that I read, the more difficult it was to deny that Jesus is God; that Jesus is our Savior.

Therefore, as we study Melchizedek in the next several lessons, remember that he is one of dozens of men who were shadow-images of our Lord. Again, this shadow image of Jesus does not just occur once or twice in the Old Testament; we see it again and again, in nearly every single Old Testament book. How did approximately 2 dozen independent writers, writing hundreds of years before the incarnation, know to present men in such a way that, they are clearly shadow images of Jesus Christ?

So Abram meets with “My King is My Righteousness,” who is the King of Peace, which king is a priest to the God Most High—the God worshiped by Abram—and who brings out bread and wine, the Communion elements.

Gen. 14:17–18 After Abram returned from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)

We are told in the New Testament that this Melchizedek is a type of Christ. For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and he blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is 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 (Heb. 7:1–3; Gen. 14:17–20).

Gen. 14:17–18 After Abram returned from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)

Even though Melchizedek comes to us out of nowhere, it is clear that he is a legitimate priest, because the Scripture calls him a priest of the Most High God. So, again, prior to the Mosaic Law, there was some kind of a spiritual life which was probably well-defined, with overlaps both to the Age of Israel and to the Church Age. However, we know very little about it. We find out here, suddenly, that there is a priesthood, but we find out very little about this priesthood in this context.

A priest represents man to God. Here, this very same priest, after the order of Melchizedek, Who will judge the nations as the Rod and the Power which comes out of Zion.

The passage we are studying reads:

Gen. 14:17–18 After Abram returned from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)

The priesthood of Melchizedek is a very big deal in the New Testament; particularly in the book of Hebrews.

The words above are written by 3 different authors—a bedouin rancher, a king and a man of unknown profession—all living 1000 years apart from one another, and yet these words all fit together and complement one another, the author of Hebrews explaining in detail the meaning of the priesthood of Melchizedek and testifying as to why David saw this priesthood to be so important as to document it in a psalm.

So far, we have studied Melchizedek and we ought to know from the previous lesson exactly who he is. His name occurs but once in Genesis and once in the Psalms. Yet, the writer of Hebrews, as moved by God the Holy Spirit, discusses Melchizedek in great detail, relating his priesthood to Jesus Christ, over a space of 3 chapters. He is a type of Jesus Christ and our Lord is the antitype. Melchizedek is a priest-king and, the king of Jerusalem. Jesus Christ is a priest-king and He will become the King to rule from Jerusalem.

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)

The title, the God Most High, is found several times in this passage and once in the psalms (Psalm 57:2), and it refers to Jehovah Elohim, the 1^st Person of the Trinity, Whom we know as God the Father. There are another 10 verses where Jehovah is called the Most High God (in the Psalms and the prophets).

Prior to the Mosaic Law, we have only the barest of religious structure—at least, in terms of what is revealed to us. When Noah and his family emerge from the ark, the mandate against murder is introduced. Noah offered up animal sacrifices as a priest (the term priest is not specifically applied to him, however), as does Abram. This has led many to conclude that, in the antediluvian period prior to the Mosaic Law, there was a family priesthood, where the eldest male family member acted as a priest. Although that may be the case, all we have in the Bible is anecdotal evidence, but no clear mandates from God. This does not mean that they lacked religious structure or that they did whatever felt right; it simply means that religious function mandates are not recorded for us. There were clean and unclean animals taken into the ark, and additional clean animals went with him into the ark, no doubt for sacrifice and possibly for food. So Noah exited the ark and he sacrificed some of these clean animals, but this is apart from any clear Genesis era religious structure. What they certainly did not have was a detailed Mosaic Law, as God will give Moses. Probably what they did have was a religious tradition which came out of the direct interaction between God and man. I would therefore suggest that there was more information on one’s spiritual modus operandi which is not revealed to us in Genesis. Hence, there is a man like Melchizedek, who is both a king and a priest, whose origins are separate from Abram. Did he have any direct communication with God? I don’t know. This does indicate to us that, there were pockets of believers in the God Most High.

Here is what we do know: Abram, who has spoken to God, will recognize the spiritual status of Melchizedek. There was a sharing of bread and wine. A sacrifice may have been offered to God. There appears to be a clear mutual respect and recognition between Abram and Melchizedek. And Abram will pay Melchizedek a tithe (a tenth of what he has).

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)

Jewish tradition has it that this man, Melchizedek, is Shem, the son of Noah. Shem’s life overlaps the life of Abram by about 100 years (as per the Hebrew text; this is not true according to the Greek text). In fact, according to the Hebrew text, the first 4 generations out of the ark lived about 100 years into Abram’s life. These 4 generations outlived their sons and grandsons and great grandsons. In fact, Abraham, Isaac (his son) and Jacob (grandson) would be the first ones to outlive the first 4 generations from the ark. However, because of the numbers found in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), we do not know for certain that this is true (the Greek text adds an additional 875 years to the line of Shem to Abram, which therefore separates them by three-quarters of a century).

Personally, I do not believe that Melchizedek is Shem, regardless of whether Shem is alive at this time or not. The reason for this is, the book of Hebrews, as we have studied, developed the identify of Melchizedek and his relationship to Jesus Christ (being a type of Christ), but nowhere do they entertain the idea that this man is Shem. If he was Shem, all of this stuff about him lacking a genealogy would be false, as we know Shem’s ancestors and descendants both.

On the other hand, I do believe that something very special happened when Abram and Melchizedek met, which will be discussed in the next lesson.

Here is where we have been for awhile:

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was a priest of God Most High.)

The accepted view is, Moses wrote the book of Genesis, although there is no reason to assume that he did. Although he is called the author of various portions of 4 of the books of the Bible (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), the New Testament does not attribute the authorship of Genesis to him. It is possible that he edited the book of Genesis, or edited it, when it came to a particular region or city whose name had changed, we really have no reason to directly associate Moses with Genesis.

Furthermore, there are sections of Genesis that only the participant would have known about. We have been studying Abram (later, Abraham), and nearly all of what we have read would have been information available only to him. It is far more likely that Abram recorded the information about himself. Furthermore, when we get to Jacob, there will be one verse which no one but Jacob would have written.

At some point, Abram received the Scriptures, and I believe this is where it occurred—a spiritual handoff, if you will. I doubt that you will read this theory anywhere else. Think back to Noah’s time on the ark—this was ticked off in terms of days as related to Noah’s birth—we know the very day the rains stopped, we know the day the water began to recede, we know on which days Noah let which birds fly from the ark. All of this suggests and Noah—or, at the very least, his son Shem—recorded all this information. As we have discovered, there is a complex organization to the entire flood epic, which would make it easy to learn and to memorize. So, by recording this information, I simply mean, it was committed to memory and told from generation to generation. You will recall that nearly every ancient civilization has a flood epic as a part of their history, which would tend to (1) confirm the flood narrative and (2) suggest that this history was originally passed down from generation to generation.

Here is my theory: Melchizedek, king of Salem, possessed the Holy Scriptures up to that point in time, whether they were in written form, or memorized. If Melchizedek is from one of the first 4 generations off the ark—or if he is simply in possession of this information—then this would have been an ideal time for God to have passed along the first 10 or 11 chapters of the Bible to Abram. I think that it is more likely that Melchizedek is a descendant of Shem’s—a descendant not named in the Semitic line, and that he will take the Scriptures which he received from Shem and hand them off to Abram.

The Scriptures of the first ten or so chapters of Genesis had to have come from somewhere. Abram came out of a heathen family, which will become even more clear when we study Rachel. So, it seems unlikely that his family has possession of the Word of God (although it is reasonable that they were able to trace their own genealogy back to Shem, and that would have been placed into Scripture by Abram). Just as we all today know the name of our parents and grandparents (well, most of us do), in the ancient world, it is not a stretch to think that most men, several generations after the flood, could trace their male line all the way back to Noah and one of his sons. It would have been one of the things of one’s heritage that each person would learn. Furthermore, given their ages, for several generations, it would have been common for there to be 5 and even more generations all alive at the same time.

Throughout the book of Genesis, we have many details given to us from this or that time from the life or this or that man, and these details suggest a first-hand recording of this information. I have several theories, and one of them was, at one time, man did not need to write anything down because he remembered very nearly everything that he heard, as the Bible suggests that early man was genetically superior to us (if men lived longer, that makes them genetically superior; if they were genetically superior, then their minds were probably better). Furthermore, if the record of Adam and the woman is accurate (and I believe that it is), then genetically and biologically, we would predict that man would not become superior in time but inferior in time. Man’s time on this earth decreased in each generation (Gen. 11:10–26); therefore, it is not a huge leap to suppose that there came a point in man’s de-evolution that his memory became more and more flawed, and that man therefore developed a written language in order to write things down that his memory no longer retained. The most important thing for man to record is the Word of God, which would have been the first 10 or 11 chapters of Genesis. This is all speculative, but logical and reasonable; as is the idea of the spiritual handoff from Melchizedek to Abram.

For many subsequent chapters, we are going to have an in-depth examination of Abram’s life, which information is logically recorded by Abram. The same will be true of Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. During the life of Jacob, Abram’s grandson, there will be a very personal verse that no one but Jacob would have written, indicating that Jacob wrote that verse (and, therefore, Jacob likely wrote about the period of time in which he lived). The same will be true of Joseph, Abram’s grandson—there will be information about his life recorded in Genesis that he and only he would have known about. When we find such personal information recorded, does it not make sense that the person who experienced these things, also passed them along, either verbally or in written form, to subsequent generations?

And so, from generation to generation, the Word of God was handed off, with a few chapters appended to it. In fact, from this point, the hand-off is easy to determine: from Abram, to Isaac, to Jacob to Joseph. For at least 3 of these men (Abram, Jacob and Joseph), there are very personal things recorded that only these men would have had direct knowledge of.

Let me suggest how this works. Jacob has the Word of God in his hands (or, in his mind), and in it is recorded, primarily, God’s interaction with man. Jacob meets with God on a couple of occasions, and so Jacob records these meetings, along with other material which he believes is important (as guided by God the Holy Spirit). The end result is, Jacob adds another few chapters onto the Word of God. Whether he recognizes that he is recording the Word of God, I could not tell you. But he does recognize the importance of recording these events, and he deems it necessary to record a few things from his own life—particularly his interaction with God.

In the future, several chapters from now (Gen. 27), Jacob will connive a special blessing from his father Isaac. This could have represented the next handoff. Someone had to record the book of Genesis, and there are many aspects of this book which suggest that there were several different authors. If that is the case, then this spiritual information had to be preserved from generation to generation, which not only was done orally or in written form, but, it is reasonable to assume that one man in every generation (or in every few generations) was given the solemn task of preserving God’s Word. Let me emphasize that this is just a theory, and it is based upon the very personal nature of some of the narratives in Genesis. We do not have a verse that says, and Melchizedek handed off the Holy Word to Abram; however, if Genesis is indeed a series of personal accounts, then it had to be handed off from one generation to the next. If this was done orally, then the handoff might have taken days or even weeks. That is, one believer would learn these things at the foot of his father, grandfather or whatever.

This theory does not mean that no one else knew this information. The Word of God is the Word of God; it is alive and powerful, in all generations, and it is sharper than any two-edged sword. It has always distinguished between the soul and the spirit, separating them as neatly as one would separate the joints and the marrow; and it has always discerned the thoughts and intents of the human heart. Heb. 4:12 describes the Word of God in all generations. Therefore, then, as now, there are going to be a different level of positive volition from person to person. Therefore, in any generation, there will not be just one person who knows the Word of God. However, in any generation, there would have been at least one person with the responsibility of preserving the Word of God, no matter what form it is in.

Let’s approach this from a different angle. Somehow, Melchizedek was able to establish a position of respect in the eyes of Abram. Abram does not simply blow him off saying, “Look, Mr. Priest-man, I’ve talked to God on many occasions—fact to face—so what can you tell me that I don’t know?” And had Abram said that, Melchizedek would have answered, “I can tell you Who Jehovah Elohim is, and how He created the heavens and the earth. I can tell you important information about the flood, and what happened during the flood.” I doubt seriously that this conversation took place; however, Melchizedek was afforded great respect from Abram in a way that was different from any other interaction recorded in Abram’s life.

Recall that God had Abram separate from his family. His family lived along the Euphrates and they were idolaters, so how does Abram get accurate spiritual information from his own family, if they are idolaters? It would be more logical that Abram receives accurate information from a man who is a priest to the true God, rather than from his own idolatrous family.

Additional evidence of such a spiritual handoff would be simply the fact that we are now studying the life of Abram. Abram would have appended the Word of God with incidents from his own life, as led by God the Holy Spirit, and with his actual meetings with God. In other words, it is logical that Abram, at some point in his life, was given the Word of God, because we are now studying about him.

There is additional evidence of this in Gen. 26:4–5 [God is speaking to Isaac]: “And I will make your seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto your seed all these countries; and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.” What commandments, statutes and laws are we talking about here? Where did they come from and what were they? All of this is taking place 400–500 years before the God gave His Law to Moses. These verse suggest that there was some kind of a system, some sort of law, some set of commandments which Abram was responsible for, and that he attempted to obey them. What has been recorded so far, concerning Abram, and what will be recorded in the future, is God making promises to Abram. God did not lay out a list of rules that Abram must follow in order for God to give the land to his progeny; God simply says, “I will give this land to you.” And yet, Abram obeys God’s voice, God’s charge, God’s commandment, God’s statutes and God’s laws.

Back to Melchizedek.

In this context, there is a ceremony occurring. They are eating bread and drinking wine—the very elements of the Communion—and Melchizedek will call for the blessing of Abraham by God the Most High.

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)

As we have already studied, Melchizedek is a type of Christ. His name means King of Righteousness or Righteousness [is my] King. He is the King of Salem (Jerusalem), which is from where Jesus Christ will rule in the Millennium.

He is identified as priest of the God Most High. A priest represents man before God. Somehow, Abram was able to recognize this, and not think that this man was a priest to some heathen god. As I have suggested herein, Melchizedek had to somehow establish his authority, his position and his relationship as priest to God. I believe that Melchizedek did this through the Word of God. What is most logical to me is, after Melchizedek met with Abram and said who he was, he then said, “In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim was hovering over the face of the waters. And Elohim said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. And Elohim saw that the light was good. And Elohim separated the light from the darkness. Elohim called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” Whether Abram had heard these words before or not, he would have recognized immediately their power and authority, and therefore, he would have afforded Melchizedek immediate respect. Again, this is conjecture, but what other things could Melchizedek have done to get Abram’s immediate respect so quickly? What else could be more powerful and effective than for Melchizedek to speak the Word of God to Abram?

Remember, Abram has just returned from a war where he attacked the great alliance of his time and he sent them running. He has collected all of the spoil which they left behind, along with all of the slaves taken from Sodom and Gomorrah (which would have included his nephew Lot). My point being, Abram was not interested in a chit-chat with just anyone who came along. God brought these men together and Melchizedek established who he was almost immediately.

The title the God Most High is used here for the first time. God is the Hebrew word ʾÊl (אֵל) [pronounced ALE], which means God, god, mighty one, strong, hero; and is transliterated El. Strong’s #410 BDB #42. Most High is the Hebrew word ʿEl^eyôwn (עֶלְיוֹן) [pronounced ģel^e-YOHN], which means Most High, highest, Supreme. The Phœnicians and the Carthaginians used the same word to refer to their gods. This word has a secular use, where it simply means high, higher, situated in a higher place. However, we find it used most often in connection with this title for God. Strong’s #5945 BDB #751. God is not portrayed as a local god or a god of heathen worship, but the God over all, the God Most High.

The emphasis of the title El–Elyôn is authority. We find it used in this way in Deut. 32:8, where God is said to have divided up mankind: When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. This title is associated with great authority also in Psalm 83:10 97:9. On many occasions, El–Elyôn or just Elyôn is used as a title of authority against Whom men rebel (Psalm 78:17, 56 107:11).

Most of the times that we find God the Most High or simply the Most High is in the psalms. This title is associated with hailstones and coals of fire (Psalm 18:3), with grace in Psalm 21:7, with Jerusalem in Psalm 46:4 87:5, with fear and respect in Psalm 47:2, as a God Who can be appealed to in Psalm 57:2, and with protection in Psalm 91:1, 7. In fact, we could easily put together a doctrine where entirety of God’s essence is associated with this name.

Finally, we find this name used when Satan rebelled against God: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star [= Lucifer], son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars [angels] of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' (Isa. 14:12–14). This is the event which precipitated human history. God brought mankind into the picture to reveal His perfect justice, righteousness and love.

In Gen. 14:19, we will come across a very unusual name for God—God will be called the Possessor (by purchase) of the earth.