Blog Archives


I just went to a site that claimed that Jesus was Melchizedek.  Well, the person in the Brit Chaudesha (new testament) wasn’t named Jesus.  He had a Hebrew name not a pagan one.  Secondly Melchizedek is a title and not a name.  It means “my king of righteous”  or could be translated as “my king is righteous”  You have to understand Hebrew to know this.  Melek means King and adding the “ee” sound on the end Melek makes it possessive meaning I or My.   And of course Zedek means “righteous” .  Please read my blog on Melchizedek, Shem or Jesus.   When you add two Hebrew words together it makes them a noun phrase that usually will be translated with the word “of” between the translated words.  So we have “my king” of “righteousness”  Show me where a man couldn’t have been known as a righteous king according to Scriptures.



Melchizedek, Shem or Jesus?

Melkee Tzedek

Shem or Jesus?

          Over the years I had often wondered where Abraham got his knowledge about his Creator? Did יהוה have to reveal Himself to Abraham or did he have foreknowledge of יהוה? After reading the genealogies leading to יהושע I had often wondered if Abraham knew either Noach or Shem? If you do the numbers you’d find out that he could have met either one as they both lived well into the life of Abraham. These thoughts led me down a path that I hadn’t quite expected. The revelation of who Melchizedek was.

          I had attended a church function that featured Kenneth Copeland as it’s keynote speaker. It was there that I heard him say that Shem was Melchizedek. He didn’t offer any Scriptural proofs, only saying that it was provable, but he didn’t say how. I knew when I heard this that it seemed right and that it paralleled my thoughts about Abraham meeting or knowing either Shem or Noach. It took years(because I hadn’t really devoted any energy in finding out how to prove it) before I put enough pieces together that cleared away most doubts about Shem being Melchizedek. I’ve since studied the Scriptures for the clues and have now concluded that Shem was the Melchizedek who met Abraham.

          Is this issue vital to our redemption or salvation as some will say? On the surface it doesn’t look like it. But it very well could be. Why? Because if by believing something the scriptures doesn’t say leads you to mix true worship with false then that false worship could lead to the second death. Even the thesis of this piece is merely conjecture because there isn’t any solid Scriptural evidence for it; there is no sentence, no verses that comes out and directly says who Melchizedek really was. However, by stripping away the outright fabrications from popular belief by using the Scriptures themselves we’ll be able to see the possibility of who Melchizedek was.

Was it possible for Shem to have been alive at the same time Abraham was?

Was it possible for Shem to have been a king?

Could Shem have lived in the land of Canaan?

What does Melchizedek mean?

What is righteousness; could the word righteous be applied to anyone before Jesus?

What does Sha’ul (Paul) have to say about Melchizedek?

Was Shem alive during Abraham’s life?

          Noach was about five hundred years old when his wife gave birth to Shem Cham a Yepheth. Now it’s interesting that the scriptures give the exact time that Noah’s descendants had their children but the scriptures only say that Noach was five hundred years old when he had all three naming Shem first. Were they triplets and why was Shem mentioned first when it was actually Yepheth that was the oldest and why was Cham mentioned second when he was born last? Shem was the second oldest.

Gen 10:21 Unto Shem8035 also the father1 of all3605 the children1121 of Eber,5677 the brother251 of Yepheth3315 the elder,1419 even1571 to him1931 were children born.3205

As far as I know this is the only scripture that actually says that Yepheth was the oldest of the three. I’m fairly certain it is the first place that we find this out. This piece of scripture is important for other reasons. Maybe we’ll get to that later.

          Yepheth means ‘expansion’ Shem means ‘name’ and Cham means ‘hot’. I could understand why Noach named his first son ‘expansion’ because he expanded the family. As to the two other names I’m not sure but I have a fair idea. The scriptures are silent about it. I believe that he named his second son ‘name’ because he had יהוה in mind when he named him Shem and his last son ‘hot’ because he already knew what Cham and his descendants were going to become when he named him that. Just my impressions here.

          So Noach lived four hundred fifty years after Shem, Cham and Yapheth were born. Keep that in mind, four hundred fifty years. And it means that Shem was one hundred years old when he had his first son.

Gen 11:10 These428 are the generations8435 of Shem:8035 Shem8035 was a hundred3967 years8141 old,1121 and begot3205 (853) Arphaxad775 two years8141 after310 the flood:3999

This is important because it means that Noach was six hundred fifty years old when Shem had his first son Arphaxad.

Gen 11:12 And Arphaxad775 lived2425 five2568 and thirty7970 years,8141 and begot3205 (853) Salah:7974

Now this scripture would make Noach six hundred and eighty five years old and Shem one hundred thirty five years old.

Gen 11:14 And Salah7974 lived2425 thirty7970 years,8141 and begot3205 (853) Eber:5677

This would make Noach seven hundred fifteen years old and Shem one hundred and sixty five years old.

Gen 11:16 And Eber5677 lived2421 four702 and thirty7970 years,8141 and begot3205 (853) Peleg:6389

This would make Noach seven hundred and forty nine years old and Shem one hundred ninety nine years old.

Gen 11:18 And Peleg6389 lived2421 thirty7970 years,8141 and begot3205 (853) Reu:7466

This would make Noach seven hundred seventy nine years old and Shem two hundred twenty nine years old.

Gen 11:20 And Reu7466 lived2421 two8147 and thirty7970 years,8141 and begot3205 (853) Serug:8286

This would make Noach eight hundred eleven years old and Shem two hundred sixty one.

Gen 11:22 And Serug8286 lived2421 thirty7970 years,8141 and begot3205 (853) Nahor:5152

This would make Noach eight hundred forty one years old and Shem two hundred ninety one years old.

Gen 11:24 And Nahor5152 lived2421 nine8672 and twenty6242 years,8141 and begot3205 (853) Terah:8646

This would make Noach eight hundred seventy years old and Shem three hundred twenty years old.

Gen 11:26 And Terah8646 lived2421 seventy7657 years,8141 and begot3205 (853) Abram,87 (853) Nahor,5152 and Haran.2039

Here goes the triplet effect again. Who was the oldest? I’m not going into that here. Abram was listed first so we’ll go with that. That makes Noach nine hundred forty years old and Shem three hundred ninety years old. That means Abraham was ten years old when Noach died and Abraham died before Shem did. Shem lived two hundred ten years after Abraham was born and Abraham lived one hundred seventy five years so that means Shem outlived Abraham by thirty five years.

          Now why would I go through all the trouble of including all of the above? So that you could see that I didn’t just make it up. You can check your own Bible for the truth. I’m just trying to establish that Noach and Shem were around during the time that Abraham was. There’s no reason he couldn’t have known either one or both. What a privilege it would have been to be able to talk to someone who actually lived through one of the most important times in the history of mankind. The problem is that the scriptures are silent about the question whether Abraham actually met either one. Or is it? Heck, Isaac could have met Shem?

Could Shem be considered to be a king?

          There’s not much mention of Shem after the flood acounts, but there is one piece of important scripture I need to draw your attention to.

Gen 9:24 And Noah5146 awoke3364 from his wine,4480, 3196 and knew3045 (853) what834 his younger6996 son1121 had done6213 unto him.

Gen 9:25 And he said,559 Cursed779 be Canaan;3667 a servant5650 of servants5650 shall he be1961 unto his brethren.251

Gen 9:26 And he said,559 Blessed1288 be יהוה3068 Elohim430 of Shem;8035 and Canaan3667 shall be1961 his servant.5650

Gen 9:27 Elohim430 shall enlarge6601 Yepheth,3315 and he shall dwell7931 in the tents168 of Shem;8035 and Canaan3667 shall be1961 his servant.5650

Gen 9:28 And Noah5146 lived2421 after310 the flood3999 three7969 hundred3967 and fifty2572 years.8141

First I want to point out verse 9:24, Noach knew what Cham had done and he cursed who? He cursed Canaan the youngest son of Cham. I also want to say that I believe Cham did more than look at Noach, but that I could be wrong. To me there’s something more implied, more that just a casual look here.

          What I really want to point out is verses 9:25 – 27. Cham’s son Canaan and his descendants would be a servant of servants. Then we see that Canaan and his descendants would be the servants of Shem. Then we see that Yepheth would dwell in the tents of Shem. So let’s put it all together. Canaan and his children were to be servants to Shem. That would make Shem the king over Canaan and his children. It would also mean that since Yepheth would dwell in the tents of Shem that Shem would have some say as to what went on in those tents, making Shem the king over Yepheth. To me that means that Yepheth and his children were Shem’s servants also making Canaan the servants of Yepheth or the servant of servants. Kings rule and they have servants. Canaan was the servant of Shem so he was their king. So, to me this is of the utmost of importance. Why? Because where else would you find a kings servants but with their king?

Could Shem have been the King of Salem?

          Who were the servants of Shem? Canaan and his children. Where did the Canaanites dwell? In the land of Canaan. Where did the Canaanites king live? With his servants around him In the land of Canaan.

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek4442 king4428 of Salem8004 brought forth3318 bread3899 and wine:3196 and he1931 was the priest3548 of the most high5945 Elohim.410

Another important point: Salem was an early name for the modern city Jerusalem. Let’s see:





The same as H8003; peaceful; Shalem, an early name of Jerusalem: – Salem.

Salem was an early name for Jerusalem. Salem was in the area that was considered to be the land of the Canaanites. Obviously, the invading kings that took Lot and all the other people must have raided Salem or there wouldn’t have been any reason for this:

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek4442 king4428 of Salem8004 brought forth3318 bread3899 and wine:3196 and he1931 was the priest3548 of the most high5945 Elohim.410

Gen 14:19 And he blessed1288 him, and said,559 Blessed1288 be Abram87 of the most high5945 Elohim,410 possessor7069 of heaven8064 and earth:776

Gen 14:20 And blessed1288 be the most high5945 Elohim,410 which834 hath delivered4042 thine enemies6862 into thy hand.3027 And he gave5414 him tithes4643 of all.4480, 3605

          Since most kings keep their servants around them and Canaan was the servant of Shem; it would be reasonable to find Shem dwelling in the land of Canaan with his servants. Why was it called the Land of Canaan and not the Land of Shem? I have some theories but, I’ll leave those for a different article. So we might be able to conclude that the king lives amongst his servant regardless of the name of the land they live in.

What does Melchizedek mean?

Could Shem claim the title or name Melchizedek

          Please pay attention here because this is real important to the thesis. The name Melchizedek is a composite name made up of two words. The first is Melek meaning King. The word Melek is spelled this way in Hebrew: ךלמ. It’s a three letter word and it’s also a root word. In other words it can be included as a part in other words.

          The first half of the name Melchizedek is spelled this way in Hebrew: יכלמ. Hebrew is written from right to left which is opposite of English that is written from left to right. The third letter looks different from the third letter in the word ךלמ because it’s known as a final letter. Some Hebrew letters look different when they are the last letter of a Hebrew word and the third letter in ךלמ is one of those letters. The letter is known as a ‘Kaf’ and it looks like this ך when it occurs at the end of a word and like this כ when it appears anywhere but at the end of a word. So יכלמ looks different from ךלמ, but they are closely related words. יכלמ is a possessive singular masculine word and means ‘My King’ and is pronounce “Malkee”.

          The second half of the name Melchizedek comes from the Hebrew word קדצ meaning right or righteous and is pronounced “tsedek”. When you put two Hebrew words together they become known as a ‘word pair’ and when translating the words the English word ‘of’ is usually put between them. So putting the two Hebrew words together ‘My King’ and ‘Right or Righteous’ you should say ‘My King of Right’ or ‘My King of Righteousness’ or you can even say ‘My King is Righteous’. Melchizedek was a man who was ‘My King of Righteousness’ of the city of Salem or Jerusalem in a land that became known as the Land of Canaan. Let’s see what Strong’s Condordance has to say about the name Melchizedek:





From H4428 and H6664; king of right; Malki-Tsedek, an early king in Palestine: – Melchizedek.

          It’s my assertion, thesis, that Shem does in fact qualify to claim the title or name Malchizedek. Why? Because he was righteous and that’s one of the reasons that he was named first.

Gen 5:32 And Noah5146 was1961 five2568 hundred3967 years8141 old:1121 and Noah5146 begot3205 (853) Shem,8035 (853) Ham,2526 and Japheth.3315

We can also assume that he was righteous because of his actions and it’s also mentioned that יהוה blessed Shem while Noach cursed Canaan because of what his father Cham did to him. As for Yepheth, he had a lot of descendants. But remember: Shem is the only one mentioned as being blessed. In fact, Noach as much as said that the reason Shem was blessed because Shem worshiped יהוה.

Gen 9:21 And he drank8354 of4480 the wine,3196 and was drunken;7937 and he was uncovered1540 within8432 his tent.168

Gen 9:22 And Ham,2526 the father1 of Canaan,3667 saw7200 (853) the nakedness6172 of his father,1 and told5046 his two8147 brethren251 without.2351

Gen 9:23 And Shem8035 and Japheth3315 took3947 (853) a garment,8071 and laid7760 it upon5921 both8147 their shoulders,7926 and went1980 backward,322 and covered3680 (853) the nakedness6172 of their father;1 and their faces6440 were backward,322 and they saw7200 not3808 their father’s1 nakedness.6172

Gen 9:24 And Noah5146 awoke3364 from his wine,4480, 3196 and knew3045 (853) what834 his younger6996 son1121 had done6213 unto him.

Gen 9:25 And he said,559 Cursed779 be Canaan;3667 a servant5650 of servants5650 shall he be1961 unto his brethren.251

Gen 9:26 And he said,559 Blessed1288 be יהוה3068 Elohim430 of Shem;8035 and Canaan3667 shall be1961 his servant.5650

Gen 9:27 Elohim430 shall enlarge6601 Japheth,3315 and he shall dwell7931 in the tents168 of Shem;8035 and Canaan3667 shall be1961 his servant.5650

So we see that Shem could be considered a king and that he could be considered righteous because of his actions.

What is Righteousness?

I realize that most Christians don’t consider actions a reason to be considered righteous but, that they almost universally would consider doing wrong, like steeling, raping, lying, committing adultery, murdering and such all to be the fruit of people who are not acting in a righteous manner. Let’s take a brief look at what most people would like to ignore but that the taught one Yaakob (James) had to say on the matter of righteousness:

Jam 2:18 Yea,235 a man5100 may say,2046 Thou4771 hast2192 faith,4102 and I2504 have2192 works:2041 show1166 me3427 thy4675 faith4102 without5565 thy4675 works,2041 and I2504 will show1166 thee4671 my3450 faith4102 by1537 my3450 works.2041

Jam 2:19 Thou4771 believest4100 that3754 there is2076 one1520 Elohim;2316 thou doest4160 well:2573 the3588 devils1140 also2532 believe,4100 and2532 tremble.5425

Jam 2:20 But1161 wilt2309 thou know,1097 O5599 vain2756 man,444 that3754 faith4102 without5565 works2041 is2076 dead?3498

Jam 2:21 Was not3756 Abraham11 our2257 father3962 justified1344 by1537 works,2041 when he had offered399 Isaac2464 his848 son5207 upon1909 the3588 altar?2379

Jam 2:22 Seest991 thou how3754 faith4102 wrought with4903 his846 works,2041 and2532 by1537 works2041 was faith4102 made perfect?5048

Jam 2:23 And2532 the3588 Scripture1124 was fulfilled4137 which saith,3004 (1161) Abraham11 believed4100 Elohim,2316 and2532 it was imputed3049 unto him846 for1519 righteousness:1343 and2532 he was called2564 the Friend5384 of Elohim.2316

Jam 2:24 Ye see3708 then5106 how3754 that by1537 works2041 a man444 is justified,1344 and2532 not3756 by1537 faith4102 only.3440

Let’s ask a question: If righteousness comes by faith doesn’t faith require that we take action on our faith? Can we sit still and not do anything? Can we say that we have faith that יהוה or יהושע will do something then sit there and worry about it? Are we displaying faith when we worry? This is important. The Scriptures point out that Abraham was a righteous man and he was considered to be righteous even though he had never heard of Jesus. There is nowhere in Scripture that says he believed in Jesus, so how, according to the writings of Sha’ul, could Abraham have been considered righteous? Doesn’t being born again require us to repent? If we’re not doing something wrong then what do we need to repent of? Some would like to believe that we can go on sinning after we accept Jesus and still be saved, but does the scriptures bear this out? Repentance requires a turning, or doing the reverse of what we have already been doing?





From G3340; (subjectively) compunction (for guilt, including reformation); by implication reversal (of [another’s] decision): – repentance.





A primitive root; to turn back (hence, away) transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively (not necessarily with the idea of return to the starting point); generally to retreat; often adverbially again: – ([break, build, circumcise, dig, do anything, do evil, feed, lay down, lie down, lodge, make, rejoice, send, take, weep]) X again, (cause to) answer (+ again), X in any case (wise), X at all, averse, bring (again, back, home again), call [to mind], carry again (back), cease, X certainly, come again (back) X consider, + continually, convert, deliver (again), + deny, draw back, fetch home again, X fro, get [oneself] (back) again, X give (again), go again (back, home), [go] out, hinder, let, [see] more, X needs, be past, X pay, pervert, pull in again, put (again, up again), recall, recompense, recover, refresh, relieve, render (again), X repent, requite, rescue, restore, retrieve, (cause to, make to) return, reverse, reward, + say nay, send back, set again, slide back, still, X surely, take back (off), (cause to, make to) turn (again, self again, away, back, back again, backward, from, off), withdraw.

1Ki 8:47 Yet if they shall bethink themselves7725, 413, 3820 in the land776 whither834, 8033 they were carried captives,7617 and repent,7725 and make supplication2603 unto413 thee in the land776 of them that carried them captives,7617 saying,559 We have sinned,2398 and have done perversely,5753 we have committed wickedness;7561

I bring this point up to say that there were righteous men in the Tanak and that they were considered righteous without believing in Jesus. Face it: being righteous means acting right. Shem acted right when he covered his father’s nakedness. Was that the only reason he could be considered righteous? The scriptures don’t say anything else about Shem or whether he was a righteous man. Enough said about that. You can’t be right if you don’t do right. Is there anybody who truly believes that they can continue to break any of the Ten Commandments and still be righteous in the eyes of their creator?


1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin

2 a : morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision> b : arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality <righteous indignation>

Another thing to consider: If the law can’t declare that your acts are righteous, how could it condemn you? But, we might conclude that righteousness isn’t just acting outwardly in the right manner, it’s what’s in our hearts that indicates whether we’re righteous. Could this be the real point of the Brit Chaudesha: that righteousness is as much a matter of the heart as a matter of actions. A thief may not steal because he can’t find an opportunity, but yet he may want to steal in his heart always looking for the right opportunity to do it. His outward actions indicate a level of righteousness, but possibly not the desires of his heart.

          I feel that Shem’s actions, and the fact that Noach blessed יהוה because Shem worshiped יהוה who is the one and only Elohim, indicates that Shem was a righteous man. Enough said about this here. The subject of righteousness is a hotly debated one and shouldn’t be. So, that’s about all we know of Melchizedek from the Old Testament. What about the Renewed Testament?

What does Sha’ul (Paul) have to say about Melchizedek?

Heb 7:1 For1063 this3778 Melchizedek,3198 king935 of Salem,4532 priest2409 of the3588 most high5310 Elohim,2316 who met4876 Abraham11 returning5290 from575 the3588 slaughter2871 of the3588 kings,935 and2532 blessed2127 him;846

Heb 7:2 To whom3739 also2532 Abraham11 gave3307 a tenth part1181 of575 all;3956 first4412, 3303 being by interpretation2059 King935 of righteousness,1343 and1161 after that1899 also2532 King935 of Salem,4532 which is,3603 King935 of peace;1515

Heb 7:3 Without father,540 without mother,282 without descent,35 having2192 neither3383 beginning746 of days,2250 nor3383 end5056 of life;2222 but1161 made like unto871 the3588 Son5207 of Elohim;2316 abideth3306 a priest2409 continually.1519, 1336

Heb 7:4 Now1161 consider2334 how great4080 this man3778 was, unto whom3739 even2532 the3588 patriarch3966 Abraham11 gave1325 the tenth1181 of1537 the3588 spoils.205

Because of these verses many believe that Melchizedek was Jesus; the reason for that belief is that it says he didn’t have a father, mother, no birth, no death and was like the Son of Elohim. Let’s check it out.

          יהושע(Jesus) had a father, a heavenly father יהוה and an earthy mother Miraim(Mary). He had a beginning and an end. Yes he was also the Son of יהוה before he was יהושע so that could be interpreted to be without mother, birth or death because he was always with יהוה and always will be. But, could יהושע qualify, before he became man, as a man serving as a priest continually as pointed out in Hebrews 7: 3-4? Could there be another explanation for Hebrews 7: 3? I think so.

Heb 5:6 As2531 he saith3004 also2532 in1722 another2087 place, Thou4771 art a priest2409 forever1519, 165 after2596 the3588 order5010 of Melchizedek.3198

Here it says that יהושע is of “the order of Melchizedek” and not actually Melchizedek himself. Is there a contradiction? In chapter 7 verse 4 it says Melchizedek was a “man”. A man, with the exception of Adam, has a mother, father, a birth and a death. All men have this in common including יהושע. So why would Sha’ul(Paul) say Melchizedek was never born or died then turn around and call him a man? And why would anyone believe that Melchizedek was יהושע when Sha’ul only said that יהושע was after the order of Melchizedek and not Melchizedek himself? Somebody’s reading something into what Sha’ul said and not actually reading what he said.

          It’s interesting to note that there were eight generations between Shem and Abraham, all of which were still alive at the time Abraham was born. But these men’s lives, with the exception of Nachor who only lived one hundred forty eight years, were far longer than Abraham’s contemporaries. The life span of man was dropping sharply after the flood. In fact יהוה had pronounced before the flood that man’s life span would become only one hundred twenty years long. I think our shortened life is why most of us don’t even know who our great grandfather is let alone going back nine generations. We’re so swallowed up with our busy lives that we hardly have time for our own parents let alone considering who all of our ancestors were. Shem disappears from sight in the Scriptures shortly after the flood account. How could someone as important as Shem just disappear, but yet that seems to have happened. He’s around somewhere serving יהוה. It must have appeared to the people of Abraham’s day that this Melchizedek must have been around forever. It would have looked like Shem had been around forever also if they had even know who he was. It would appear as if Shem would have no father, mother, a birth or a death to them. But, the bottom line of Hebrews 7: 3-4 is that he was: made like unto the Son of Elohim, not that he was the Son of Elohim and that we should consider how great a MAN he was. יהושע had not yet come as a man.

But, who actually was the first Melchizedek? I can’t prove it here but I believe that Adam was the first Melchizedek and that there were many others after him including Noach and Shem and that’s why there’s “The Order of Melchizedek” to begin with. But, there could only be one who could claim the title of Melchizedek that had no mother, father, birth, death and that would have to be יהוה, but יהוה certainly wouldn’t be spending his time as a man serving as a priest to himself. Not even יהושע could claim that distinction of not having a father since he has always been the Son of יהוה and even יהושע himself said that his father was in heaven.

Mat 7:15 Beware4337 of575 false prophets,5578 which3748 come2064 to4314 you5209 in1722 sheep’s4263 clothing,1742 but1161 inwardly2081 they are1526 ravening727 wolves.3074

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know1921 them846 by575 their846 fruits.2590 Do men(3385) gather4816 grapes4718 of575 thorns,173 or2228 figs4810 of575 thistles?5146

Mat 7:17 Even so3779 every3956 good18 tree1186 bringeth forth4160 good2570 fruit;2590 but1161 a corrupt4550 tree1186 bringeth forth4160 evil4190 fruit.2590

Mat 7:18 A good18 tree1186 cannot1410, 3756 bring forth4160 evil4190 fruit,2590 neither3761 can a corrupt4550 tree1186 bring forth4160 good2570 fruit.2590

Mat 7:19 Every3956 tree1186 that bringeth not forth4160, 3361 good2570 fruit2590 is hewn down,1581 and2532 cast906 into1519 the fire.4442

Mat 7:20 Wherefore686 by575 their846 fruits2590 ye shall know1921 them.846

Mat 7:21 Not3756 every one3956 that saith3004 unto me,3427 Lord,2962 Lord,2962 shall enter1525 into1519 the3588 kingdom932 of heaven;3772 but235 he that doeth4160 the3588 will2307 of my3450 Father3962 which3588 is in1722 heaven.3772

As pointed out יהושע was a man and had a beginning. He had a mother, father, birth, death and was a man. There is nowhere in the Scriptures that יהושע or Jesus was ever known by either name before he became a man. Find where he was called by either name before he became man and I’ll stand corrected.

          I’d like to point something out here: Sha’ul was a man who went around having the early believers killed. Many people take what Sha’ul has to say about things above what יהושע has to say. It’s possible that Sha’ul is misinterpreted; for sure he’s hard to understand. It’s also possible that the modern scriptural accounts of Sha’ul are doctored and that skillful twisting of what he actually wrote has occurred.

          I know that nobody wants to believe that the Bible is in error. We are taught from the very beginning that the Bible is perfect. Maybe the Bible is perfect, in it’s original form, but its not in the forms we read today and that’s easy to prove. The most notable tampering is with the names of people, including the Meshiach, and most importantly the entire deletion of the name of our heavenly father and if that’s not tampering then there is no such thing. If the translations have been tampered with that much, that the name of our heavenly father, a name that was recorded over seven thousand times in Hebrew in the Tanak, but yet eliminated in the translations and substituted with by a pagan deities name, then what other omissions deletions and changes have there been in the translations? Most will reject this notion of tampering as an idea that came from Satan, that there is no way for what they read in their Bibles to be wrong. I’ll make it perfectly clear what the truth is: If what the apostle Sha’ul(Paul) said is in variance with what יהושע said or with what the rest of the scriptures say then Sha’ul is a false apostle. Many people claim that Sha’ul said that the laws in the old testament have been done away with by the death of Jesus, but this is in variance with what יהושע said. Am I saying that Sha’ul was a false apostle? Not at all, but I believe this next quote will show what I mean about something being in variance with what יהושע had to say on the subject of doing away the law:

Mat 5:16 Let your5216 light5457 so3779 shine2989 before1715 men,444 that3704 they may see1492 your5216 good2570 works,2041 and2532 esteem1392 your5216 Father3962 which3588 is in1722 heaven.3772

Mat 5:17 Think3543 not3361 that3754 I am come2064 to destroy2647 the3588 law,3551 or2228 the3588 prophets:4396 I am not3756 come2064 to destroy,2647 but235 to fulfill.4137

Mat 5:18 For1063 verily281 I say3004 unto you,5213 Till2193 heaven3772 and2532 earth1093 pass,3928 one1520 jot2503 or2228 one3391 tittle2762 shall in no wise3364 pass3928 from575 the3588 law,3551 till2193 all3956 be fulfilled.1096

Mat 5:19 Whosoever3739, 1437 therefore3767 shall break3089 one3391 of these5130 least1646 commandments,1785 and2532 shall teach1321 men444 so,3779 he shall be called2564 the least1646 in1722 the3588 kingdom932 of heaven:3772 but1161 whosoever3739, 302 shall do4160 and2532 teach1321 them, the same3778 shall be called2564 great3173 in1722 the3588 kingdom932 of heaven.3772

So, either Sha’ul was wrong or what people think Sha’ul said is wrong. But, either way let the warning go out here:

Mat 15:1 Then5119 came4334 to יהושע 2424 scribes1122 and2532 Pharisees,5330 which3588 were of575 Jerusalem,2414 saying,3004

Mat 15:2 Why1302 do thy4675 disciples3101 transgress3845 the3588 tradition3862 of the3588 elders?4245 (I’d like to point out that the tradition of the elders is different than the Laws of יהוה) for1063 they wash3538 not3756 their848 hands5495 when3752 they eat2068 bread.740

Mat 15:3 But1161 he3588 answered611 and said2036 unto them,846 Why1302 do ye5210 also2532 transgress3845 the3588 commandment1785 of Elohim2316 by1223 your5216 tradition?3862 (notice that יהושע is pointing out the difference between the traditions of the elders and the commands of Elohim)

Mat 15:4 For1063 Elohim2316 commanded,1781 saying,3004 Honor5091 thy4675 father3962 and2532 mother:3384 and,2532 He that curseth2551 father3962 or2228 mother,3384 let him die5053 the death.2288

Mat 15:5 But1161 ye5210 say,3004 Whosoever3739, 302 shall say2036 to his father3962 or2228 his mother,3384 It is a gift,1435 by whatsoever3739, 1437 thou mightest be profited5623 by1537 me;1700

Mat 15:6 And2532 honor5091 not3364 his848 father3962 or2228 his848 mother,3384 he shall be free. Thus2532 have ye made the commandment of Elohim of none effect208, 3588, 1785, 2316 by1223 your5216 tradition.3862

Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites,5273 well2573 did Isaiah2268 prophesy4395 of4012 you,5216 saying,3004

Mat 15:8 This3778 people2992 draweth nigh1448 unto me3427 with their848 mouth,4750 and2532 honoreth5091 me3165 with their lips;5491 but1161 their846 heart2588 is568 far4206 from575 me.1700

Mat 15:9 But1161 in vain3155 they do worship4576 me,3165 teaching1321 for doctrines1319 the commandments1778 of men.444

Mat 15:10 And2532 he called4341 the3588 multitude,3793 and said2036 unto them,846 Hear,191 and2532 understand:4920

Mat 15:11 Not3756 that which goeth1525 into1519 the3588 mouth4750 defileth2840 a man;444 but235 that which cometh1607 out1537 of the3588 mouth,4750 this5124 defileth2840 a man.444

Mat 15:12 Then5119 came4334 his846 disciples,3101 and said2036 unto him,846 Knowest1492 thou that3754 the3588 Pharisees5330 were offended,4624 after they heard191 this saying?3056

Mat 15:13 But1161 he3588 answered611 and said,2036 Every3956 plant,5451 which3739 my3450 heavenly3770 Father3962 hath not3756 planted,5452 shall be rooted up.1610

Mat 15:14 Let them alone:863, 846 they be1526 blind5185 leaders3595 of the blind.5185 And1161 if1437 the blind5185 lead3594 the blind,5185 both297 shall fall4098 into1519 the ditch.999 The emphasis is mine.

These people are blinded by the lies that have been passed down through the generations, they are the traditions of men and have no scriptural basis. But, as far as most people are concerned there is no reason to question whether the Bible is perfect and anybody who claims otherwise is in league with Satan. This attitude is understandable: people have ordered their lives around their beliefs that they inherited from birth and live their life by and they have to hang on to those traditions or possibly everything they believe in may crumble leaving them an empty husk. But, better to be an empty husk, empty of all lies, to be filled with the truth. The problem for many people: if what they already believe in is a lie, then is there any truth?

Let’s sum this up!

          But, I’m getting away from my main point here and that is that the Melchizedek that Abraham met was Shem. And I’ll say this: this notion is not unique to me. There are others who believe this is true also; after all, I got this idea from someplace. What wasn’t given to me was how it could be true. While the scriptures don’t say that the Melchizedek that Abraham met was Shem, it also doesn’t say that it was Jesus either. The only place in scripture that might allude to the notion that Jesus was the Melchizedek Abraham met is in the writings of Shaul. And even then Shaul doesn’t come right out and say it. Use some logic though, where else are a king’s servants going to be but, with their king. Canaan was to serve Shem, Canaan settled the land of Canaan, but wouldn’t have done so without their king. Shem outlived Abraham so it was most likely Shem who met Abraham. One other thing: The Melchizedek that met Abraham couldn’t have been יהושע because he hadn’t come in the flesh yet and Sha’ul clearly states that Melchizedek was a man and that he was the priest of the most high.

Heb 7:4 Now1161 consider2334 how great4080 this man3778 was, unto whom3739 even2532 the3588 patriarch3966 Abraham11 gave1325 the tenth1181 of1537 the3588 spoils.205

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek4442 king4428 of Salem8004 brought forth3318 bread3899 and wine:3196 and he1931 was the priest3548 of the most high5945 Elohim.410

There was no way that יהושע had come to serve as either a priest or a king as a man before his time and if someone could show me where יהושע had done so, I’ll stand corrected.

          But, was Shem the first Melchizedek? No, he couldn’t have been. He doesn’t fit the description according to Sha’ul. We don’t know much about Adam’s life after the initial accounts but, what else would Adam and Chawwah have been doing after they got kicked out of the Garden? I believe he served as a priest to יהוה and it was most likely Adam who was the first of the Order of Melchizedek but, that’s just conjecture and not a fact.

Some other thoughts on this subject.

Heb 7:3 Without father,540 without mother,282 without descent,35 having2192 neither3383 beginning746 of days, 2250 nor3383 end5056 of life;2222 but1161 made like unto871 the3588 Son5207 of Elohim;2316 abideth3306 a priest2409 continually.1519, 1336

I’ve puzzled over this piece of scripture for a while, years in fact, and finally I understood it. The key to understanding this piece of scripture lies in the one word “descent”. Here’s what it actually means:





From G1 (as negative particle) and G1075; unregistered as to birth: – without descent.

There is no record of Melchizedek’s birth at least not in the Torah, Breshith (Genesis). He simply was Melchizedek to Abraham. Thus there is no record of who his father or mother was, when he was born or died. That’s all this scripture is pointing out. Shaul never comes out and says the “Melchizedek was Jesus.” Shaul is pointing out that יהושע is of the order of Melchizedek and that he is worthy of being given tithes. Melchizedek wasn’t a Levite and neither is יהושע but, Melchizedek was a priest of the most high and Abraham tithed to him.

          But what about the part that says “but made like unto the son of Elohim; abideth a priest continually.”? It only says “made like unto” and not “IS”. If we check the English word “continually” as it is used in this piece of scripture we find that it came from two separate Greek words:





A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases.: – [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-) on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literallyor figuratively.






Neuter of a compound of G1223 and a derivative of an alternate of G5342; carried through, that is, (adverb with G1519 and G3588 prefixed) perpetually: – +continually, for ever.

We find that the connotation could be that “he abideth a priest continually” could mean “he abideth a priest forever” but, we also can see that it doesn’t have to mean that. The word perpetual and the word continual could mean forever but they don’t have to. It could also just mean that he “abideth a priest all his life” Look the words “continual” and “perpetual” up in the dictionary. If you want I’ll do it for you. Well, here goes, this comes out of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:


1 : continuing indefinitely in time without interruption <continual fear>

2 : recurring in steady usually rapid succession <a history of continual invasions>

– con-tin-u-al-ly adverb


1 a : continuing forever : EVERLASTING b (1) : valid for all time (2) : holding (as an office) for life or for an unlimited time

2 : occurring continually : indefinitely long- continued

3 : blooming continuously throughout the seasons

synonyms see CONTINUAL

– per-pet-u-al-ly adverb

You’ll have to be the judge of how you interpret this verse. But, here’s more evidence that Shaul was saying that יהושע was of the “order of Melchizedek” and not the one and only Melchizedek. You don’t have to read all of this but, I included it so that you could. The thing I want to point out: יהושע is of the “order of Melchizedek.

Heb 7:4 Now1161 consider2334 how great4080 this man3778 was, unto whom3739 even2532 the3588 patriarch3966 Abraham11 gave1325 the tenth1181 of1537 the3588 spoils.205

Heb 7:5 And2532 verily3303 they3588 that are of1537 the3588 sons5207 of Levi,3017 who receive2983 the3588 office of the priesthood,2405 have2192 a commandment1785 to take tithes586 of the3588 people2992 according2596 to the3588 law,3551 that is,5123 of their848 brethren,80 though2539 they come1831 out of1537 the3588 loins3751 of Abraham:11

Heb 7:6 But1161 he whose descent is not counted1075, 3361 from1537 them846 received tithes1183 of Abraham,11 and2532 blessed2127 him that had2192 the3588 promises.1860

Heb 7:7 And1161 without5565 all3956 contradiction485 the3588 less1640 is blessed2127 of5259 the3588 better.2909

Heb 7:8 And2532 here5602, 3303 men444 that die599 receive2983 tithes;1181 but1161 there1563 he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed3140 that3754 he liveth.2198

Heb 7:9 And2532 as I may so say,5613, 2031, 2036 Levi3017 also,2532 who receiveth2983 tithes,1181 paid tithes1183 in1223 Abraham.11

Heb 7:10 For1063 he was2258 yet2089 in1722 the3588 loins3751 of his father,3962 when3753 Melchizedek3198 met4876 him.846

Heb 7:11 If1487 (3303) therefore3767 perfection5050 were2258 by1223 the3588 Levitical3020 priesthood,2420 (for1063 under1909 it846 the3588 people2992 received the law,)3549 what5101 further2089 need5532 was there that another2087 priest2409 should rise450 after2596 the3588 order5010 of Melchizedek,3198 and2532 not3756 be called3004 after2596 the3588 order5010 of Aaron?2

Heb 7:12 For1063 the3588 priesthood2420 being changed,3346 there is made1096 of1537 necessity318 a change3331 also2532 of the law.3551

Heb 7:13 For1063 he of1909 whom3739 these things5023 are spoken3004 pertaineth3348 to another2087 tribe,5443 of575 which3739 no man3762 gave attendance4337 at the3588 altar.2379

Heb 7:14 For1063 it is evident4271 that3754 our2257 Meshiach2962 sprang393 out of1537 Judah;2455 of1519 which3739 tribe5443 Moses3475 spake2980 nothing3762 concerning4012 priesthood.2420

Heb 7:15 And2532 it is2076 yet2089 far more4054 evident:2612 for that1487 after2596 the3588 similitude3665 of Melchizedek3198 there ariseth450 another2087 priest,2409

Heb 7:16 Who3739 is made,1096 not3756 after2596 the law3551 of a carnal4559 commandment,1785 but235 after2596 the power1411 of an endless179 life.2222

Heb 7:17 For1063 he testifieth,3140 Thou4771 art a priest2409 forever1519, 165 after2596 the3588 order5010 of Melchizedek.3198

Heb 7:18 For1063 there is1096 verily3303 a disannulling115 of the commandment1785 going before4254 for1223 the3588 weakness772 and2532 unprofitableness512 thereof.846

Heb 7:19 For1063 the3588 law3551 made nothing perfect (which is very true, the law doesn’t make anything perfect, never did),5048, 3762 but1161 the bringing in1898 of a better2909 hope1680 did; by1223 the which3739 we draw nigh1448 unto Elohim.2316

Heb 7:20 And2532 inasmuch as2596, 3745 not3756 without5565 an oath3728 he was made priest:

Heb 7:21 (For1063 those priests2409 (3303) were1526 made1096 without5565 an oath;3728 but1161 this3588 with3326 an oath3728 by1223 him that said3004 unto4314 him,846 יהוה 2962 swore3660 and2532 will not3756 repent,3338 Thou4771 art a priest2409 forever1519, 165 after2596 the3588 order5010 of Melchizedek:)3198

Heb 7:22 By2596 so much5118 was יהושע 2424 made1096 a surety1450 of a better2909 testament.1242

Heb 7:23 And2532 they3588 truly3303 were1526 many4119 priests,2409 because they were not suffered2967 to continue3887 by reason of death:2288

Heb 7:24 But1161 this3588 man, because he846 continueth3306 ever,1519, 165 hath2192 an unchangeable531 priesthood.2420 (The emphasis is mine)

I think one of the things that Shaul is pointing out here is that the Levites weren’t the only priests nor were the Levites the only ones worthy to accept a tithe. Melchizedek came before all of that and that יהושע being “of the order of Melchizedek” is our priest and worthy of our tithes.

          I want to bring up one more point about Sha’ul(Paul): he was a learned man who was familiar with the laws as they were laid down in Torah and if he wanted to make a legal point, that Melchizedek was יהושע he would have come right out and said “יהושע is the Melchizedek that Abraham paid tithes to.” An open and shut case, no room for ambiguity.