Melchizedek - The Blessing & Birthright
Understand who Melchizedek was, and why he blessed Abraham, and why the apostle Paul said of him, "we have much to say, but it is hard to explain, because you have become dull of hearing". Learn what more he could have said.
James Schucker
My post content
Melchizedek the Blessing & Birthright
This article is the result of some interesting questions that were brought to my attention a few years back (about 45 at this point). I will begin by citing the scriptures, and then I will state the questions.
1. The first question comes from Hebrews 7:1-4 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. 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. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. but made like unto the Son of God; abides a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.”... “of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing."... This should make one curious and want to know more about this person Melchizedek. So, the question is: what more could the Apostle Paul have told us about Melchizedek if the Hebrews hadn’t been so dull of hearing? Especially considering that in the Old Testament Melchizedek is only mentioned two times once in Genesis 14:18 and the other in Psalms 110:4... “Without father and mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” What, is he still living?
2. The second question comes from Genesis 9:20-27 “And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son had done to him. And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” And the question becomes: why does Noah curse Canaan for something that apparently his father Ham did? This is the only place that I know of in the scriptures where the perpetrator of a crime seems to get off free, and someone else gets punished. Why would Noah do that? Does this seem like the kind of man with whom the Lord would choose to save mankind from extinction? Besides, is there really something wrong with seeing your father naked? Do we have a scripture that states that a man should not see his father naked?
3. The third question comes from 1Chronicles 5:1&2 "Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's". What does this mean? What is this genealogy, and birthright?
Believe it or not these three questions are all related to each other in a wonderful way, and when you unravel it, you begin to see that the bible tells a story of the most incredible family drama the world has ever seen. I would like to begin by having you put yourself in Noah’s shoes. Imagine if you will; the world has just been destroyed by a great flood. Only you, your three children and their wives and a Zoo have managed to survive. Your family is the only family on earth... What plan of action will you institute amongst your children to divide the land fairly amongst them?
Well, you say that's not too difficult, I will just divide it evenly amongst my sons, and they will divide it evenly amongst theirs and so on… Let's see I've got 3 sons’ Shem, Ham and Japeth. Then Shem has Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram Genesis 10:22. Now if we continue to divide the land evenly where do the Parents live? And when they die, who gets their property? As you can see, life expectancy can cause a problem. 5 ways! Seems fair enough; but wait a minute all my sons have grown now, and they have taken wives. Let's see, I think we had better figure out another way of dividing the land. I tell you what, let's divide it by the number of children in the family +1 that way the father will retain a portion for himself. And when he dies... If the first-born son is a faithful God-fearing son that has done nothing to make the father angry, he will give the fathers portion to him. Surely, he is the elder and should naturally be revered as the new head of the family and as head of the family will likely need greater resources with which he will be able to bless and take care of the rest of the family. Thus, we have the beginning of the Law of the firstborn. As latter stated by Moses in Deuteronomy 21:17 He shall acknowledge the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath:
Now let's see what happened to the genealogy. In Genesis 11:10-11 we read "These are the generations of Shem: Shem was a hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad 2 years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad 500 years and begat sons and daughters."
WHO GETS SHEM'S LAND?
So now Arphaxad inherits the land from Shem! Right -- Wrong. Why not? Well, let’s find out. In Genesis 12:13-14 we read "And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah 403 years, and begat sons and daughters." So, let’s see now Arphaxad was 35 when he had Salah, and he lived another 403 years therefore he died when he was 438 years old. But wait it was stated that Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad 500 years therefore Shem out lived Arphaxad by 62 years. So Arphaxad could not have come into possession of Shem's land! So now what are we to do?
ABRAHAM FIRST TO OUTLIVE SHEM!
You say simply give it to his first born! But wait, he dies before you, so give it to his first born! Right! But he dies before you. So, give it to his first born: But he dies before you… In fact, Shem out lives 9 generations of grandchildren. Can you imagine the difficulty in trying to figure out who to make your will out to? You’re not only going to have to figure out who your first born are for 10 generations, but there may be times that the firstborn is not worthy to be made head of the family. Now can you guess who of Shem's posterity finally did outlive him? You guessed it, Abraham was the first of Shem’s lineage to live beyond the death of Shem! Now in case you should check this out actually Eber from whom we get the term Hebrew was Shem’s third descendent and did outlive Shem, but as in the case of Jacob blessing Ephraim over Manasseh, and bypassing Joseph altogether, we see that Shem had the right to divide his land the way he saw fit even while Eber was still alive: see Genesis 48:19.
IS ABRAHAM FIRST BORN?
So, let's take a closer look at the genealogy of Abraham. In Genesis 11:12-24 We have a list of 9 generations starting from Shem to Terah Abraham’s father, and in each case the child was born when the father was around 30; until we get to Terah, Abraham’s father. Therefore, it is my thought that the genealogy probably, for the most part, did follow the firstborn lineage through to Terah Abraham’s father. If this is correct, it would make Abram richer in this world’s possessions than most others because he comes from the first-born line that inherits twice what the rest of the family inherits. Is this what we find? Yes! Genesis 13:2 "Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold." He was also probably rich in land, before he left Mesopotamia Acts 7:3 “And Stephen (the first Christian martyr) declared: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3and told him, ‘Leave your country and your kindred and go to the land I will show you.’ 4So Abraham left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. And after his father died, God brought him out of that place and into this land where you are now living.”
So then this may also be how he got so much gold and silver by selling his inherited land... Now you can see that when the Lord told Abram to leave his father’s house and go to a land that he would show him, it would take a great amount of faith, for he would already be the leader of a large family. So why give up what you already have when what you have been told about is only a possibility. But what would you do, if you knew that your great great great great... Grandfather Shem was still alive and looking for the right person to take over his inheritance, and sit as head of a much larger family, the human family.
With this thought in mind let us continue to investigate the genealogy of Abraham. Turn with me again to Genesis 11:27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran: and Haran begat Lot." So, we see here that Abram is first born, and so as long as Abram does nothing to mar his inheritance, Abraham should inherit Shem's land right?! Wrong!
ABRAHAM IS NOT TARAH’S FIRST BORN!
Let's take a closer look. Verse 26 "And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Should we assume triplets!? I think not! Terah lived to be 205 years old and died in Haran at which time Abraham was 75 see Genesis 12:4. If Abraham is 75 years old when Terah his father dies at 205, to find out how old Terah was at Abrams birth you need merely to subtract 75 from 205 and you get 130. That means Terah was 130 years old when his wife gave birth to his son Abram: And you thought Abraham was old when he had Isaac at 100!!! Now it is interesting to note that there is a 60-year spread between Abram, and the first born of Terah which we believe is Haran. This would make Abram’s nephew Lot about the same age as Abraham and also the rightful heir to the throne and the land of Shem.
Genesis 15:7 says, “And he said unto Abram, I am the LORD that brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it.” But if Lot is the rightful heir, why would Abraham take Lot with him? ------ A conniving mind would say “Hey leave Lot behind and go up and receive the inheritance yourself. Remember what Jacob did to get the blessing of Isaac? He played the deceiver to get the birthright from Esau. But that was not the character of Abraham! Abraham took the rightful heir with him, as though to say to the Lord this is the rightful heir. If you want to give this land to me and make me head of the family, then you will have to work out the circumstances to make it so. And thus, you begin to get a feel for the faith that Abraham had in the Lord. If the Lord was promising it to him, then the Lord could also work out the circumstances to bring it about according to the laws of inheritance that had likely already been established by God through Noah by that time.
There is an interesting incident that occurred that supports the idea that Abraham knew that Lot was the rightful heir. The account is found in Genesis 13:9 where Abraham and Lot separate because of the bickering among their servants. If you will recall Abraham gives Lot his choice of the land, saying "Let there be no strife, I pray between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself, I pray, from me: if you take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if you depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left." Lot then chooses the well-watered plane of Jordan where Sodom and Gomorrah were. In other words, Lot took the best of the land. Some think it was merely out of the goodness of Abraham’s heart that he gave Lot his choice, but I believe that there were really two reasons. One the goodness of Abraham, and two the right of Lot.
As time went on, there was war in the land, and Lot got taken captive. Abraham then puts together an army and rescues Lot from the enemy. Melchizedek, then the king and priest of the land sees the situation between Abraham and Lot, and I believe he decided that he should give the land to someone that was stronger than the enemy, to make and keep the land safe and secure. I believe it was not until this point in time that God would make an oath to Abraham, for it was not until this point that the circumstances had been orchestrated in such a way that Abraham had the actual right to the land through the blessing Melchizedek gave to Abraham.
BUT THE LAND OF CANAAN?
By now you are probably thinking to yourself; now come on, the land of Canaan? That was the land that Canaan Ham’s son inherited, wasn’t it? Canaan was not a descendant of Shem, and therefore why would Abraham think to go to the land of Canaan to inherit it? This brings us to our second question, where Canaan gets cursed by Noah for something that Ham his father does.
So, let's take a closer look at Canaan, by reading Genesis 9:18-27 "And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank wine and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father [Noah], and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed be the God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and He shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his [Shem’s] servant."
WHY CURSE CANAAN?
Now I think you will agree that if you read the account closely, there are some really hard questions that must be raised. Number one is why did Noah curse Canaan? The account does not say that Canaan did anything wrong. Number two is: If what Ham did was such a dastardly deed, why not curse him? Number three is: Is there really something wrong with seeing your father naked? They were all males! You have got to admit that this is a mighty strange account. You know if I didn’t know any better after reading this account, I would probably conclude that Noah was still drunk when he made this decision. Or maybe he was getting a little senile or something. You know he was likely around 700 to 900 years old when he gave this blessing (!?.) to his children.
Now personally I think the text as we have it here, is likely part of the cover-up. And when you ask these questions and try to unravel the cover-up, the answers really bring to life Genesis chapters 9-15 and have implications as far reaching as our present-day situation with the Palestinian’s. But never mind that for now, let us take one step at a time, and start with my 3rd Question: What is so wrong about seeing your father naked. The answer is the scriptures don’t say that anything is wrong with seeing your father naked! But we do find an account in Leviticus 18:6-9 that talks about uncovering your father's nakedness. There we read. "None of you shall approach any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. The nakedness of your mother, you shall not uncover she is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover it is your father's nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or daughter of your mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness you shall not uncover."... What are we talking about here?? We are talking about forbidden sexual relations! Now let's read again V.8 "The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover it is your father's nakedness." Note also another similar scripture stating this again, Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness. What we are suggesting from this is that Ham, the son of Noah didn’t just see his father naked, he uncovered his father’s nakedness by having relations with his father's wife. This resulted in producing an illegitimate son which they named Canaan! Another rendering of the account might go like this. And Ham, who became the father of Canaan, after uncovering his father’s nakedness, told his two brothers. Shem and Japheth then made plans to cover it up by getting their father drunk and having Noah’s wife come in unto him that he might think she got pregnant by him. But alas Noah found out and blessed Shem and Japeth for their good intentions. But was not willing that an illegitimate son would end up with ¼ of the world. This is why we believe the reason this chapter starts out by saying: Genesis 9:18-27 "And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan. It is possible, I would suggest, likely that Shem and Japheth were trying to deceive their father Noah into believing that Canaan was Noah’s son… Note that Canaan is singled out here while none of the other sons of any of the other three sons are even mentioned. The account is talking about the end-of-life blessings that Noah is giving to his sons. One needs to explain: (Why single out Canaan?)
WHAT DO YOU DO WITH AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD?
Now as you can see in answering the 3rd question, the other two questions I asked are automatically answered. Remember the first question was why did Noah curse Canaan when he didn't even do anything except be the son of Ham? If our thought is correct, that is precisely why he was cursed, he was the offspring of an illicit relationship between his father Ham and Noah's wife, making him the illegitimate son of Ham! You see, Noah and his sons had already worked out the laws of inheritance, but whose son is Canaan? Canaan is cursed because he has no right of inheritance, being without a legitimate father and therefore he is destined to be as is stated in the account “a servant of servants”.
So, you ask why the scriptures call it the “land of Canaan?” The answer is quite simply because it was the offspring of Canaan that populated the land. But that does not necessarily mean that they had the legal right of possession! So now that you begin to see the scope of Noah’s dilemma, what was Noah going to do? Well, I believe he did the best thing he could do for Canaan! He made him the servant of Shem whom he blessed with the promised seed, which he knew would eventually remove not only this curse, but all curses. As you can see this thought really takes the vindictiveness out of Noah's character, making him a merciful father desirous of blessing all of his sons the best way he could.
Let’s look at another reason why we believe that the land of Canaan was in fact Shem's land. We have already read in Genesis 9:27 that Canaan was to be the servant of Shem. Now when Shem gave his sons their inheritance, they would naturally go to their respective lands to possess it, and Shem would have kept a portion for himself. Canaan, having been made the servant of Shem by Noah, would have stayed with Shem. But, because Shem's sons would have gone off to receive their respective inheritance, Shem’s portion of land would become populated by the sons of Canaan. As a result, Shem’s land would become known as the land of Canaan because they dwelt there not that they necessarily owned the land. Therefore, Abraham would actually be in line to inherit it, being a legitimate offspring of Shem.
There is still another reason I believe that the land was Shem’s land not Canaan’s land. As I stated earlier, Noah blessed Shem with the lineage of the Messiah which he knew would remove all curses. Shem is getting old, and the Lord is sending Abraham to eventually inherit the land. The Lord is blessing Abraham with the promised seed. So, in a sense, he is sending the one which would remove the curse in the form of Abraham. And if that is not enough to make the point secure, the Lord gives us another rule to think about. It is found in Deuteronomy 23:2 where it states, “A bastard [one of illegitimate birth] shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation…” Well, it is no surprise then that we find out Abraham is the 10th generation from Shem. In other words, according to God’s law, the curse would end after 10 generations from Canaan were fulfilled. Well, we don’t know how to trace the 10 generations of Canaan, but we can trace Shem. And we find out Abraham is the 10th generation from Shem. This effectively means that the curse was ending for Canaan’s offspring around the time of Abraham i.e., the one bearing the promised seed to remove all curses. I suggest that this is the reason that Abraham, when looking for a burial plot for Sarah insists on paying for it instead of insisting on his legal right of ownership. It also answers why Stephen stated that he gave Abraham “no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground. but promised to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him, though he had no child.” Acts 7:5 & Genesis 23.
This is not the only place where this bastard/illegitimate birth law comes into play. It is also in the lineage of King David. King David is the 10th generation from the illegitimate birth between Judah and Tamar resulting in the birth of Pharez and Zarah Genesis 38. This is the reason there were no kings coming from Judah until King David even though it states in Genesis 49:10 “The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and the allegiance of the nations is his.” The people wanted and made Saul King. But the Lord later gave them his choice, in David when the curse of 10 generations was over.
One more place this 10 generations shows up is from the covenant with Abraham to Israel entering the promised land. I believe this is pointed out for us in the Lineage of Jesus in Matthew 1:2-5 where if you were wondering how we would know when 10 generations would be up from the time of Abraham, to entering the land, it is the time when Boaz was fathered by Salmon and Rahab (the harlot). So, then the Canaanites became legitimate owners of the land in Abraham’s day, after Shem died, but because they fell into iniquity, the Lord had them destroyed by Israel whom he had promised to give the land to. But he held Israel back from inheriting it until after the iniquity of the Amorites had come to the full Genesis 15:16. And we all know that the Lord treated Israel the same as he did the Amorites and had them cast out after they crucified Jesus. But again, the time has come as stated in Isaiah 40:2 “Speak tenderly to Jerusalem and proclaim to her that her warfare has been accomplished, that her iniquity has been paid for, that she has received from the LORD’s hand double for all her sins.”
THROUGH ABRAHAM'S EYES
I am sure that some of you caught the fact that I am suggesting that Abraham knew that the Lord was offering him the Land of Canaan before he actually entered into the Land. And therefore I'm sure that someone's thinking… wait just a minute the account the apostle Paul gives us in Hebrews 11:8 Says "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing wither he went." ??? Are we not therefore to conclude that Abraham did not know where the Promised Land was?
I would say at first glance it sounds that way, but we must somehow reconcile the Genesis account. Turn with me again to Genesis 11:31 and let's read through 12:5 "And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarah his daughter in law, his son Abraham’s wife: and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there. And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran. Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get out of the country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house, unto a land that I will show you: And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing: and I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you: and in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed. So, Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan, they came."
The point is that Terah took Abram, his son, and Lot, to go into the land of Canaan;" But Terah died on the way there. It certainly sounds to me like Terah Abraham’s father knew exactly where he was going. But on the way there Terah, the guide to the land, apparently became ill, maybe the trip was too much for him, he was, you know, over 200 years old. So, they stop on their way in a place called Haran... Haran Ah yes, I remember; Haran is Tarah’s first-born son! And the father of Lot!!! Anyway, Terah dies on his way to Canaan, and Abram makes the last leg of the journey with himself and his family and enters into the land of Canaan where his father had originally planned to take him. It certainly sounds like Abraham knew exactly where he was going.
So how do we reconcile Hebrews 11:8 which says "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing wither he went." The answer I believe is quite simple; Abraham had never been there before and may not have known how to get there except by the leading and directions of others.
The conclusion that I have come to is that Shem was probably in contact with Haran, Terah’s firstborn son, (because he was physically the closest living relative), telling him that they needed a family conference to discuss the inheritance of his portion of the land. Therefore, Haran Terah’s firstborn takes his first-born son Lot with him to get his father Terah who was living in the land of Ur. Haran dies after delivering the message to his father Terah, and Terah takes his third son Abraham and his firstborn’s firstborn son Lot with him to go to meet Shem in the land of Canaan to have their family conference. Terah goes by way of the city of his firstborn son Haran, probably to tie up some loose ends after Haran’s death and tell other close relatives of Haran that the journey had been too much for Haran and that he had died. And what happens? Terah dies while they are there as well. The journey was too much for him also.
LOT'S REDEMPTION
All this sounds reasonable and at the same time incredible. But now how did Abraham come to inherit the land? According to what we have stated so far it seems that Lot should inherit the land. We believe Abram ends up inheriting the land through a process called redemption. If you recall it was in Genesis 13:7-9 that we read about Abraham and Lot who were dwelling in the “promised land” but there was a problem with the servants and Abraham tells Lot to choose the portion of land he wanted. Lot then chooses the well-watered plane of Jordan where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were. Next, we come to chapter 14 where we read about the battle of some Kings that dwelt in the land. Briefly what happened is that the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, rebelled from their servitude to Chedorlaomer king of Elam, Chedorlaomer then waged war against them. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fall, and Chedorlaomer takes a bounty including Lot, Abram’s nephew. Then in verse 14 we read "And when Abram heard that his nephew was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he divided himself against them, he, and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his nephew Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people."
THE OATH BOUND COVENANT
It is at this point in the narrative that Melchizedek meets Abraham and blesses him with bread and wine, and the very next account is that of God giving Abraham the oath bound covenant. Now why is it that these accounts are so closely connected with this battle of the kings? I believe it is because it is at this point that Shem, whom I and many others believe is Melchizedek, realizes that God is blessing Abraham and not Lot, for did not Lot get taken captive by the enemy, and did not Abraham rescue him? If then, Abraham rescued Lot then is not Lot indebted to Abraham even for his life?
Now let’s look at it from Shem’s perspective, could Shem put Lot in control of the land when Lot was so weak that he was taken captive by the enemy? No, He would rather give it to someone that was stronger than the enemy, in order to make and keep the land safe and secure. We believe it was not until this point in time that God would make an oath to Abraham, for it was not until this point that the circumstances had been designed or come to pass in such a way that Abraham had the actual right to the land through the blessing that Shem=Melchizedek gave to Abraham.
SHEM = MELCHIZEDEK
This brings us back to the first question that we asked. What more could Paul have told us about Melchizedek if the Hebrews hadn’t been so dull of hearing? Especially considering that in the Old Testament Melchizedek is only mentioned two times once in Genesis 14:18 and the other in Psalms 110:4. We have just mentioned that we believe that Shem and Melchizedek are one and the same, and much of the foundation for this belief has already been laid. But let's go over some of the points again and add some new ones.
1 Melchizedek was a priest that even Abraham recognized and gave tithes to. The apostle Paul says in Hebrews 7:4-7 "Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law that is of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham. 6But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham and blessed him that had the promises. 7And without any contradiction the less is blessed of the greater." Here the apostle Paul is telling us that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham. How can this be? Remember we are talking about a time when greatness came from who your father was. Besides Shem, the only other person then living that I can think of that may have been greater than Abraham would be Eber, Shem’s great grandson, from which we get the term Hebrew which Abraham was called, note Genesis 14:13. Now it is possible that Melchizedek could have been Eber, but I don't think this is the case. What the Lord was promising Abraham was what Shem would still have been in possession of.
2 Now if Melchizedek were of the sons of Canaan, as were most of the inhabitants of Canaan, then he would be the son of a bastard and the Law says in Deuteronomy 23:2 "A bastard [one of illegitimate birth] shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation". We must then conclude that Melchizedek cannot be of the descendants of Canaan, for surely a descendent of Canaan could not be a priest of the Lord, for at least ten generations. Who else then would be in the vicinity of Canaan that Abraham could or would consider a priest worthy of his tithe? We have already explained that we would expect to find Shem in the same area as the Canaanites, as mentioned in the blessing that Noah gave to Shem: stated in Genesis 9:27 "God shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." Thus, Noah either made or recognized Shem as the High Priest of the Lord and made him Head of the family of earth after his own death. By the way, Noah died just two years before Abraham was born.
3 I know of only one objection that is raised against Melchizedek being Shem and that is what the apostle Paul wrote in Hebrews7:3 which states that Melchizedek is "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life." Personally, I think this is an easy objection to overcome. But let us consider further what the other side feels the scripture means when it says... "Without father, without mother…" We realize that every living human being has a mother and a father, so the reasoning they give is that there is no recorded mother or father: and since we know Shem's father is Noah it can't be Shem. And the part about having neither beginning of days nor end of life? We realize again that all humans are born, and they all die, so their reasoning is that it must mean there is no recorded birth or death and since Shem's birth and death are recorded it can't be him.
I believe the fallacy here is in thinking that Paul is talking about a scriptural record of the father & mother, birth & death of Melchizedek. I believe what the Apostle Paul is really talking about is a comparison of the Levitical Priesthood, to that of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The Levitical Priesthood had both minimum and maximum age limits, which corresponds to what Paul was talking about when he said, "having neither beginning of days nor end of life". Melchizedek, if he be Shem, was way beyond the 50-year age limit specified in [Numbers 4:3] of the Aaronic priesthood being at the time that he blessed Abraham somewhere about 560 years old. Now the Aaronic priesthood required that the priest be of the lineage of Aaron, which corresponds to what Paul was talking about when he said, "Without father, without mother, without descent." Hebrews 7:3 The fact is, that the Melchizedek priesthood was not a priesthood that was handed down from father to firstborn son the way that the Levitical priesthood was. Apparently, it was a priesthood that was not dependent upon genealogy. This is Paul’s point.
2 QUESTIONS ANSWERED 1 TO GO
So far I believe we have answered two of our original questions, first the one that comes from Hebrews 5:10-11 where we read "Called of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. I believe we have discovered a little more of what the apostle Paul would have told the Hebrews had they not been so dull of hearing. And by the way, what Melchisedec was doing with Abraham, in the serving of Bread and Wine, was what Jesus was doing with us, at the Last Supper. Jesus was adjoining us with him, into the Melchisedec priesthood. One should also note that this thought is actually a very old belief; according to Wikipedia “Chazalic literature unanimously identifies Melchizedek as Shem”. And number two which came from Genesis 9:20-27; where Canaan gets cursed by Noah for something that Ham his father does. We discovered that Noah wasn't such a bad guy after all. That in fact what he really wanted to do was to bless his sons, but Ham had brought a curse upon his son Canaan because of his illicit relation with his father Noah’s wife.
And now we have one Question to go, which is from 1Chronicles 5:1&2. "Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled is father's bed, [same thing Ham did] his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. 2For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s)" What does this mean? The Genealogy, and the birthright, and what do you mean the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright? All the genealogy that we have gone through so far from Shem to Abraham, both the birthright and the blessing of the genealogy has gone to the firstborn unless as in the case of Abraham it was obtained through Abraham’s redemption of Lot.
JACOB AND ESAU
Turn with me to the account of the two sons of Isaac, Jacob, and Esau. Genesis 25:27-34 "And the boys grew; and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents. And Isaac loved Esau because he ate his venison: but Rebecca loved Jacob. And Jacob made pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: 30And Esau said to Jacob, ‘Feed me, I pray, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: Therefore, was his name called Edom. 31And Jacob said, Sell me this day your birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? 33And Jacob said, ‘Swear to me this day; and he swore unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. 34Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus, Esau despised his birthright."
Now this is the account where Esau’s carelessness and fleshly weakness, caused him to lose his birthright. The birthright is the double portion of Land which belongs to the first born. Now as you will recall the time came that Isaac was getting up in years and he desired to give his blessing to his son Esau. But Rebecca (and apparently, the Lord) desired that Jacob have it, but because of Rebecca and Jacob’s lack of faith in the Lord, to work out what was right, Rebecca convinced Jacob to deceive his father, and thereby obtain the blessing. This act of deception cost Jacob dearly: the retribution was that he was deceived into marrying Leah instead of Rachel. –Now what was contained in this blessing for which Jacob was willing to deceive in order to get? In Genesis 27:27-29 we read "And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD has blessed: Therefore God give you the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine: Let people serve you, and nations bow down to you: be lord over your brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to you: cursed be every one that curses you, and blessed be he that blesses you." We can see from this account that the position of head of the family is transmitted through the blessing. In the case of Isaac and Jacob we are talking about the head of the whole human family. Note: “Let people serve you, and nations bow down to you”.
Now let’s go to verses 36-37 and read "And he said, is not he rightly named Jacob? For he has supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright: and behold, now he has taken away my blessing. And he said, have you not reserved a blessing for me? And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him your lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him; and what shall I do now unto you, my son?
We can see from the account of Jacob and Esau, that normally integral with the inheritance of the first born is the blessing also, but because of one’s lifestyle (or lack thereof) it can cause one to lose either one or both the blessing and the birthright. The Apostle Paul picks up on this as a warning to the Church of the firstborn in Hebrews 12:15-17 where we read "Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright, 17For you know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." Brethren, we are the antitypical first born. Let us not through lust and desires of the flesh lose our inheritance.
REUBEN, JOSEPH, AND JUDAH
Now we come to the sons of Jacob where our original question came from. Let’s turn to Genesis 49:3-4 where Jacob is giving his blessing to his sons. "Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: Unstable as water, you shalt not excel; because you went up to your father's bed; and defiled it: he went up to my couch." Here I believe Reuben did practically the same thing as did Ham the son of Noah. Though apparently without the disastrous consequences of a child being born. And it was not Jacob's wife, it was his concubine Bilhah. Nevertheless, Jacob felt that this was cause enough for him to lose his birthright. Now then who of his remaining 11 sons should get the birthright, and who should get the blessing? Seeing as how Reuben forfeited it.
In Deuteronomy 21:15-17 is the law regarding the right of the firstborn. "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he makes his sons to inherit that which he has, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he has: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his."
Now this I believe fits Jacob's case to a tee. Jacob had two wives, Leah was not loved, and Rachel was. But the problem now is Reuben the first born defiled his father's bed, and therefore forfeited his birthright to another. But should it go to his second born or the firstborn of his second wife? Or maybe it should follow the next righteous one born. This I'm sure was quite a dilemma for Jacob. Seeing as how Jacob had two firstborn sons, it seemed logical to Jacob that Joseph should get it. It was about this matter we believe that the Apostle Paul makes mention of in his list of things that were done by faith. Saying in Hebrews 11:21 "By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshiped, leaning upon the top of his staff." Here the blessing is not that of the genealogy but the giving of the birthright. As stated in Genesis 48:5 which says, "And now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto you in the land of Egypt before I came unto you into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine." In other words, Jacob was counting the two sons of Joseph as his own, giving each of them an equal portion of land thereby effectively giving Joseph a double portion as also stated in verse 22 "Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow."
But what is this that the apostle Paul says, "Jacob worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff"? I believe the thought is that Jacob saw that it was the Lord that was blessing Joseph; Joseph's staff was higher than the staff of his brethren and even his own staff fulfilling Joseph’s dream of the Sun and Moon bowing to him. Genesis 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. 10And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brethren indeed come to bow ourselves down to thee to the earth?” I believe the Apostle Paul is saying that indeed he did. Therefore, Jacob concluded that the birthright was to go to Joseph.
THE BLESSING OF THE GENEALOGY
But what was Jacob going to do with the blessing of the head of the family and the genealogy? Should he give that to Joseph as well? Well, we know from our text in 1Chronicles 5:1&2 that “the genealogy was not to be reckoned after the birthright for Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler”. But why Judah? Why not his second born Simeon? Let’s see what sort of blessing Jacob gave Simeon. Genesis 49:5-7 "Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not into their council; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not united: for in their anger, they slew a man [Shechem] and in their self-will, they digged down a wall [for Josheph]. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel." Sounds more like a curse than a blessing doesn't it. What did they do to deserve this?
If you will recall Simeon and Levi had a sister named Dinah who was defiled by lying with Shechem a Hivite, a prince of the country before they were married. Shechem wanted to do the honorable thing and marry her. Dinah consented but Simeon and Levi would have none of it; and conspired to have all the men of the city circumcised, and while they were yet in pain slew all the males of the city. Yikes.
Jacob's conclusion: Certainly, the seed could not come through such a character as these! So how about my fourth born Judah? As you will recall in Genesis 37 when the sons of Jacob conspired to slay Joseph, it was Judah that "said unto his brethren, ‘What profit is it if we slay our brother, and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelite, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh. And his brethren were content. Reuben was in this case the most noble, as he was conspiring to set Joseph free. With Reuben and Judah being more noble than the rest, I think we can probably surmise that it was Simeon and Levi that came up with the plan to slay Joseph. Levi, as you can see, was a murderer from the beginning and even to the end. As a result of the slaying of Shechem, Levi was scattered in Israel by being made the priestly tribe, and when the Messiah came, who slew him? You got it, the Levites! Although in the case of Joseph, Simeon was perhaps the most culpable, for it was he that Joseph kept in prison when he let his brothers go back to their father.
JUDAH MOST NOBLE
Now when the famine came and Jacob needed to send his sons to Egypt to buy food, and returned minus Simeon, and they needed to go back with Benjamin for more food, it was Judah that showed himself the most noble, and the one that ended up taking charge of the situation: Saying in Genesis 43:8-9 unto his father Israel, “Send the lad with me, and we will arise and go; that we may live, and not die, both we, and you, and also our little ones. I will be surety for him; of my hand shall you require him: if I bring him not unto you, and set him before you, then let me bear the blame for ever." Then when they went back to Egypt, and Joseph conspired to keep Benjamin, it was Judah who followed through with his pledge, and offered to take the place of Benjamin and become the servant of Joseph. Saying in Genesis 44:32-33 "your servant became surety for the lad unto my father, saying if I bring him not unto you, then I shall bear the blame to my father forever. Now therefore, I pray, let your servant abide instead of the lad a bondsman to my lord; and let the lad go up with his brethren." Thus, Judah showed that he had learned his lesson well, and was willing to do time to correct the mistake that he had originally caused in the selling of his brother into slavery. For he was willing to do servitude in place of the other son of the beloved wife even though in this case he was not totally at fault. Thus, we believe that in the eyes of Jacob, Judah had earned the right to inherit the position of head of the family and receive the blessing. And thus, the genealogy of the head of the family came through Judah.
CONCLUSION
So, let’s see if we have answered the questions we started with. Question one was: what more would the Apostle Paul have told us about Melchizedek if those Hebrews weren't so dull of hearing? We learned that Melchizedek was most likely Shem, Abraham’s GGGGreat grandfather that was still living during much of Abraham’s life.
Question 2 was why Canaan gets cursed by Noah for something that Ham his father does. Why would Noah do that? And our conclusion was that it was not Noah's intention to curse, but to bless; but Canaan was cursed already being the offspring of an illegitimate relationship between Ham and Noah's wife. Under the circumstances, Noah did the best thing he could for Canaan, making him the servant of Shem, through whom the seed which would remove all curses was to come.
Question 3 was: what is the difference between the blessing and the birthright? And our conclusion was that the birthright was a double portion of the father's land, which naturally went to the firstborn so long as he didn't incur the wrath of his father. But the right of the firstborn to receive the blessing is not so. It is not by right; It is earned by showing oneself fit for the position as head of the family, as was the case of both Abraham and Judah. As long as the firstborn was wise, he would naturally receive the blessing also. And if we may say so, this was the case also for Shem and Japheth; Japheth was the firstborn of Noah! And I believe he got the birthright that is the double portion. If you look at a map of where the descendants of Noah went you will find that Japheth has twice the land mass as that of the other descendants. But Jerusalem, the city of Shem, shall yet be the capital of the world. The blessing went to him! For he showed himself to be the wisest son of Noah.
And what does all of this mean to us who are desirous of being the heavenly first born (who shall inherit both heaven and earth)? The Apostle Paul says it well when he states in Hebrews 12:15-17 "Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright, 17For you know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." Let us keep in mind that whenever we find in the genealogy of the Messiah when one loses his inheritance, the reason for that loss could be applied toward us. Therefore, let us live in accordance with our faith and gain the prize.
If you enjoyed this, please contact Jim Schucker at jimschucker@gmail.com for more bible based interesting articles.
Blessings to you in Christ Jesus
James S. Schucker
Call: 808-754-8978