Sorry about the odd title, but I just wanted to post some further musings I had on the hypothesis that Melchizedek, as a translated being, could have been (along with two others) the visitor to Abraham at Mamre. I would also like to alert you to some great resources that I have found to augment your study of the Old Testament.

In my last post, on (LDS) Old Testament Lesson 8, I speculated that perhaps, as a way of mediating the problem of Abraham’s angelic visitors performing physical acts (eating, getting their feet washed), we should consider the possibility that they were translated beings, who, as Joseph Smith taught, could be called as “ministering angels.” I wanted to expound further on this idea.

Before I continue, I would like to add to the discussion the fact, as was recalled to my attention by my friend Pierre Arnaudin, that the author of Hebrews seems to refer to Abraham’s visitors when he says that “some have entertained angels unawares” (Heb. 13:2).  If this is indeed one of the episodes he is thinking of, this is quite an authoritative statement that Abraham’s visitors were angels.  We should take into account, however, that the author was likely reading from the Greek, which would have read aggelos in Gen. 19, a word which, as we discussed, does not distinguish between human and divine “messengers.” It is interesting to note that in the LDS edition of the Bible, footnote c (on the word “angels”) to Heb. 13:2 refers readers to the subject “Translated Beings” in the topical guide!

Anyways, as we were studying chapter 18 in Sunday School this last Sunday, it struck me that there were a number of other passages in Gen. 18 that could be seen as supporting this idea that the three visitors, including even the one addressed as the Lord, were translated beings.  First of all, there are the “physical activities” they engage in, that I discussed in my last post: such as letting their feet be washed, eating, etc. These actions are performed only by mortals, translated beings, and resurrected beings — and not by spirits, as the resurrected Jesus informed his apostles (Luke 24:39).

We also have the idea that Abraham seemed to recognize that they were important people, but not (acc. to Heb. 13:2) that they were angels (as in spiritual beings). D&C 129:6-7 indicates that an angel who is a spirit and not a resurrected being can only appear in glory (which would have been clearly recognizable to Abraham) and will not perform physical acts. Therefore, Abraham’s visitors could not be spirits, nor could they be resurrected beings (for reasons discussed in my last post–they were pre-Christ).

This next factor is only speculation, as there could be a number of other explanations for the issue I will discuss. However, the sequence where the “Lord” begins to discuss with Abraham the state of Sodom and Gomorrah does seem to suggest that he is possibly not God.

In Gen. 18:20-21, the Lord says to Abraham:

Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

I realize that this could very well be due to the literary style in which this narrative was written, but it does seem here that the Lord has only heard of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah, and does not know of himself (as one might imagine God would) of the veracity of such claims. He says that he must “go down” to those cities to see if what he has heard is correct. If the speaker is a translated being, such as Melchizedek, this dialogue makes sense — whereas it doesn’t seem fitting for God to say these things.

Directly after this sequence is that of Abraham’s pleading with the Lord to not destroy the cities if fifty, forty-five, thirty, etc., righteous people are found there. Why do Abraham and the Lord go through this process — wouldn’t God be able to tell Abraham exactly how many righteous people there were in the city? We does he have to go see if there are ten good people there, and if there are, he’ll change his mind? Again, this issue may be due to the literary style of the author, but as it stands it is quite peculiar.

One last point on this note — I want to look at Gen. 19:24, where it says:

Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

Doesn’t this verse seem to indicate that there was someone on the earth that was called “the Lord” that was not the same as the Lord that was in heaven? Again, I must add that this could be a literary tool used to emphasize the idea that the fire and brimstone were coming from heaven, but otherwise it does seem to speak of two Lords.¹ There seems to be one Lord who calls upon another heavenly Lord to rain fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. This supports the idea that there is an authoritative figure on the earth that the scripture is calling Lord, but his authority and power are only borrowed from the heavenly Lord.

I connect this idea now to our hypothesis that it is possibly Melchizedek (perhaps now a translated being) that is visiting Abraham and being called Lord. Gerald Smith of Joel’s Monastery made the following comment on my last post:

Melchizedek is equated to both El Elyon and Yahweh in ancient tradition (e.g., 11QMelchizedek). Since the mortal Melchizedek represented God, imagine how a translated Melchizedek would equal God!
In his journal, George Laub said that Joseph Smith explained that Enoch's City was still visible during the time of the Tower, and that Nimrod built the tower to overthrow Heaven/Enoch's City, and to toss out God - we should realize that the god of Zion was Enoch/Metatron! And when Melchizedek was translated with his people, he also became god incarnate (note the little 'g'). They both represented El and Yahweh through Divine Investiture, and so when Abraham saw the Lord, he could easily have seen Melchizedek as Lord.

Is it possible that whenever the Lord is mentioned in Gen. 18, we should imagine that it is Melchizedek that is present? Could later bible editors have replaced references to Melchizedek with the name YHWH in these passages (unless YHWH was originally understood here to refer to Melchizedek). As Gerald mentions and as scholars such as Jim Davila and Margaret Barker have argued, Melchizedek was considered an angelic figure and even a god, not only in later Judaism, but likely in the First Temple period as well (perhaps especially in this period). The more I learn about the development of the biblical text, the more convinced I am of the likelihood that later editors could have altered the original text they had to cover up such notions that they didn’t agree with theologically. Thus, an idea such as this–that Melchizedek could have been seen as representing the Lord– is quite unprecedented in the Hebrew Bible, although it does come through in occasional passages such as Ps. 45:6 (where the king seems to referred to as “God”), and Ps. 110 (where the king is addressed as “my Lord”).  The view that the king (including Melchizedek) was the representative of Yahweh, the “presence” of God on earth, is a recognized part of the ancient Israelite kingship ideology.

While some scholars (like Barker), following Christian tradition, see Melchizedek as a pre-mortal theophany of Christ, I think it makes just as much sense to place him in the context of this kingship ideology of the First Temple.  While Barker argues extensively for the “deification” of the Israelite kings and for the idea that they were the “incarnation” of Yahweh, why argue that Melchizedek was pre-Incarnation manifestation of Jesus? He could have just as easily been a mortal king who was believed to have been “deified” like the others. Personally, I have always liked the later Jewish idea² that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah.  ”Melchizedek” should be seen as a title, meaning “King of Righteousness” or something similar. According to Jewish tradition (according to Wikipedia!), Shem was the founder of Jerusalem, and so was likely seen as the first priest-king of that city.  Scholars generally consider Melchizedek to have been a Jebusite king, as the Jebusites were the inhabitants of Jerusalem before the time of David, but to me, that conclusion is founded on the fact that we don’t know exactly who was there before the Jebusites and that the existence of the biblical character Shem (along with the other patriarchs) is not taken to be historical fact.  To me, if we take the biblical narrative seriously, it doesn’t make sense to conclude that the Davidic monarchy would follow the example of Melchizedek so closely if they saw him as merely a great Jebusite (pagan) king.

Anyways, these are fun topics to muse about, but please don’t hold me to any of these conclusions! This is a very complex and muddy topic and one upon which we can only speculate — even Joseph Smith generally avoided pinning Melchizedek down to a specific historical individual.

——————————————–

As I mentioned in the beginning, I wanted to also post here some further online resources for your study of the Old Testament that I hope you’ll find useful.

I’m sure I’ve pointed this out before, but I’ve been following the adventures of BYU Professor William Hamblin as he has been living and teaching in Jerusalem for the past several months. Dr. Hamblin has done a wonderful job of taking pictures and making videos of a number of the sites he has visited with his students, and has been so gracious as to share these with us.  They are produced with and provided through the most recent technologies, making them a real treat for the eyes. These images can help you get a better feel for the places and culture of the Old Testament.

You can see his videos at his YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/HamblinOfJerusalem

(please notice especially his new series of commentaries on the text of the Bible)

Check out his most recent photos at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hamblinofjerusalem/

See also these incredible, state-of-the-art gigapans, including amazing photos of the Temple Mount that you can zoom in on: http://gigapan.org/profiles/21252/

For all his latest news and updates, check out his Hamblin of Jerusalem blog at: http://hamblinofjerusalem.blogspot.com/

1. Margaret Barker, in her book The Great Angel, uses this verse (among others) as evidence that there were two Yahwehs–the Father and the Son.
2. see e.g., B. Talmud Nedarim 32b; Genesis Rabbah 46:7; Genesis Rabbah 56:10; Leviticus Rabbah 25:6; Numbers Rabbah 4:8