Joseph Smith and the Genealogy of Melchizedek

David Larsen — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:33:37 +0000

Joseph Smith was a very bold individual. He made all kinds of daring religious claims and published many of them in writing for all to judge their legitimacy. In 1830, he published a book (The Book of Mormon) of nearly 600 pages of what he claimed to be additional Holy Scripture written by ancient prophets of God. Today, millions of people worldwide hold this book to be the Word of God alongside the Bible.

Claims About Melchizedek’s Genealogy

One of the more daring claims that can be made about Joseph is that through revelation he knew more about the Biblical figures than the Bible itself tells us. Examples of this are very many, however, I wish to focus on just one aspect of Joseph’s contribution to our understand of the mysterious figure of Melchizedek–his background and genealogy, which are notably absent in both the Old and New Testaments.

What the Bible Tells Us

Biographical information on Melchizedek is peculiarly limited in the Bible. In the Old Testament, besides Ps 110:4 (which mentions only the priesthood ”after the order of Melchizedek,” KJV), the only mention we have of this figure is in Gen 14:18-20:

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

In this passage, we learn that Melchizedek was king of “Salem” (probably Jerusalem), and was “priest” of the most high God (El Elyon). Melchizedek seem to have seniority over Abram as he is the one who brings out the offering and blesses Abram. The phrase “he gave him tithes of all” is rather ambiguous, and doesn’t clearly tell us who gave tithes to whom. It seems that it is Abram who would be giving tithes to the priestly Melchizedek, but this detail is not clear from the text. More to the point, we are simply not told in clear terms who Melchizedek is and how he fits into the overall narrative. He simply appears in this scene and is not mentioned again until his name/title is used in Ps 110.

In the New Testament, the only place he is mentioned is in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The main clues, as far as biographical info goes, are to be found in Heb 7:

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

The author of Hebrews makes it much more clear that it was Abraham that paid tithes to Melchizedek, emphasizing Melchizedek’s priestly authority over the great patriarch. However, we are still left quite clueless as to who this figure really is. Verse 2 gives us the strange formula about “without father, without mother, without descent…”, which makes it seem like he simply has no geneology. Did he really have no geneology, or, because the author was borrowing from Genesis 14, did he simply not know of any genealogy? That is certainly possible–however, it makes more sense to conclude that, as Joseph Smith suggested, the author is referring to the priesthood here, or at least that Melchizedek could be considered an eternal/immortal figure (“nor end of life”) by virtue of the priesthood that he held.

Joseph Smith’s Inspired Contribution

Through his translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith gave us some interesting “extra-biblical” insight into who Melchizedek was. In Alma 13:14-15, 17-18, the prophet Alma gives some background for the figure of Melchizedek, after whom the order of the high priesthood was named:

14 Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever.
15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.
• • •
17 Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness;
18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

Here we have Alma borrowing from the story in Genesis, but with much greater detail into the fact that he was a “high” priest and how he received that priesthood. Also, we get an important detail that the biblical texts weren’t willing to concede–that Melchizedek had a father.

As he was revising the Bible, Joseph felt inspired to add the following passages to the account in Gen 14, giving us much more details concerning Melchizedek’s background, from which I quote a few:

25 And Melchizedek lifted up his voice and blessed Abram.
26 Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire.
27 And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,
28 It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;

32 And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.
33 And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore he obtained peace in Salem, and was called the Prince of peace.
34 And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world;
35 And hath said, and sworn with an oath, that the heavens and the earth should come together; and the sons of God should be tried so as by fire.
36 And this Melchizedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the king of heaven by his people, or, in other words, the King of peace.

In these passages, Joseph gives us some original details concerning Melchizedek’s life, including his childhood and ordination to the high priesthood. It also emphasizes the idea that it was the priesthood that did not have beginning of days nor end of years because it was of God.

Even greater insight into the genealogy of Melchizedek comes by way of Joseph Smith’s revelations, as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. Doctrine and Covenants 84:14-17 gives us the lineage of the priesthood of Melchizedek, which priesthood was passed on to Abraham by Melchizedek himself:

14 Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah;
15 And from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers;
16 And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man-
17 Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years.

Melchizedek then, according to this passage, was part of the line of the Patriarchs, who were his fathers. This lineage extended from Adam through Abel, down to Enoch, on to Noah, and included Melchizedek, as well. Indeed this is an great insight and, again, one that the Bible does not include. This was truly a bold claim by Joseph, one that did not have support anywhere in the biblical text.

In fact, many biblical scholars would claim that Melchizedek appears to be a Canaanite king/priest of El Elyon in the non-Israelite city of Salem [1]. If this were the case, then Joseph Smith’s idealized connection of Melchizedek to the biblical patriarchs is very much misplaced. Is there no more information to be had on the origins of this mysterious figure? To answer that question, I now turn to pertinent ancient documents.

The Ancients on the Genealogy of Melchizedek

Extant documents of ancient origin which mention Melchizedek are by no means unanimous on the issue of his descent. There are a few available, however, that give great insight into the validity of Joseph Smith’s “theory.”

The Book of the Bee, a Syriac text, demonstrates that there were a number of ancient theories, making the issue complicated:

“NEITHER the fathers nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents, but that they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shâlâh and Mâlâh, Shâlâh was written down in the genealogies; but Mâlâh was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies. When Noah died, he commanded Shem concerning the bones of Adam, for they were with them in the ark, and were removed from the land of Eden to this earth. Then Shem entered the ark, and sealed it with his father’s seal, and said to his brethren, ‘My father commanded me to go and see the sources of the rivers and the seas and the structure of the earth, and to return.’ And he said to Mâlâh the father of Melchizedek, and to Yôzâdâk his mother….” (Ch. XXI, Of Melchizedek)

Amazingly, this early Christian text gives a theory very similar to Joseph’s–that Melchizedek was of the lineage of the Patriarchs through Noah.

Likewise, other “non-biblical” sources include him in the line of the Biblical patriarchs, either as a descendent of Noah or of Noah’s brother, Nir (2 Enoch 71:32-33). In the Nag Hammadi texts, he is placed in the line “of Adam [Abel], Enoch, [Noah] you, Melchizedek, [the Priest] of God [Most High]” [2]. In the Targumic and Rabbinic materials, Melchizedek is often specifically named as Shem, the Great High Priest, the eldest son of Noah [3]. The Rabbis understood that Shem-Melchizedek had received his priesthood from his fathers, the Patriarchs, and had passed that priesthood on to Abraham, from whom the Levites would eventually have claim to it [4].

This is by no means a comrehensive commentary on all mentions of Melchizedek in “extra-biblical” religious literature. Interestingly, although the biblical texts have so little to say about him, he was a very popular and intensely studied figure in the intertestamental and early Christian periods. I would venture to say that he was a very important figure in Old Testament times as well, although his significance has been obscured in our texts.

As for Joseph Smith, instead of being far off the mark or obviously inventing preposterous and unsupportable lore about the figure of Melchizedek, his contribution is very much in line with what many of the ancients believed about him. He was a descendant of Noah, Enoch, and Adam. He received the ordination to the high priesthood, as his fathers did, and passed that priesthood on to Abraham. Joseph Smith’s theory is suprisingly well supported by the ancient evidence, although this evidence is not to be found in the Bible anywhere.

References

[1] See arguments in James R. Davila, “Melchizedek: Priest, King, and God,” in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response? (Albany: SUNY Press, 1997), pp. 218-219.

[2] Birger A. Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, p. 63.

[3] See Tg. Neof. on Gen. 14:18 in M. McNamara (tr.), Targum Neofiti 1:Genesis (AB, 1A; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 92; Tg. Ps.-J. in M. Maher (tr.), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (AB, 1B; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), 58. See also Gen. Rab. 43:1, 44:7; Abot R. Nat. 2, Pirque R. El. 7, 27; b. Ned. 32b;