Melchizedek is scarcely mentioned in the Old Testament. But the Genesis reference was the kind that invited speculation.
The name/title of Melchizedek ("King of Righteousness") turns out to have been an epithet of the god Ptah/Enoch, archetypal Joseph. The cult of Ptah was actually older than that of YHWH/Amen, so that may have been the basis of some special Messianic tradition associated with Melchizedek. Recall that "men first began to call upon the name of the Lord/YHWH" in the time of Enosh, well after Enoch.
The priest-king that played the role of Melchizedek in Genesis did however not precede Moses and Aaron. If you recall, the first Moses was the Patriarch Eber.
The royal family obviously didn't entirely give up roll playing (if the Arthurian/Grail legends are any indications), but there was perhaps an attempt at reform. It's comparable to the reform now needed in our precedent-based legal system. Lawyers can now argue for any outcome based on prior rulings of the court system.
Within the ancient royal family, it got to the point where murder could always be justified based on some earlier murder that had taken place within the royal family. It was kind of a philosophy of "What was, is right". Christianity must have ended certain excesses of the royal family, but it was far from a perfect solution. Although it made royal living a bit less complicatied, it didn't stop political assassinations, or pograms and wars of attrition against the people. It didn't promote progress, but did seem to keep the population in check, for what that was worth.
There's got to be a better way, but what it is I can't say!
Responses To This Message
(There are no responses to this message.)
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.