Alright history buffs, let's talk once and for all about Melchizedek, the truly Righteous and Called of God high priest and king.

 

But was he really as mysterious as these theologians and scholars claim? No. It's all right there in the Book!

 

Melchizedek is first mentioned in the Bible in Genesis 14:18, but for the sake of complete context we have to mention vs 13 which is after Abraham (then called Abram) and his nephew Lot had separated because they had too much goods to dwell together. Lot was living in Sodom which had been attacked and he was taken captive.

 

Ok..now Genesis 14:12-13 says..

 

“And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram."

 

**This is the first time we see the word "Hebrew" in the Bible. The word Hebrew denotes a spiritual covenant with God. We are taught that Hebrew meant a descendant of Eber, but if that's true - why is Abraham called the father of faith and not Eber? Why is it that nobody in scripture references Eber as their father but Abraham is referenced as their father even all through the New Testament? (Matt 3:9;Luke 3:8;John 8:39,53;Acts 3:13;James 2:21).

 

I submit to you that Hebrew began with Abraham, who ended up being called the father of faith.

 

Now back to Gen 14:12-13... notice that Abraham was living on the land of an Amorite. And Abraham, the Hebrew and the would be father of faith.. whom God would make His covenant with, was "confederate" with those Amorites. Confederate means partners, or allies. Like America is with the State of Israel today.

 

But those Amorites were Canaanites (Gen 10:15-16). Canaanites would be considered Africans...since Canaan was indeed the son of Ham. Ham's ethnicity is the most undisputed of Noah's three sons...he was black and the father of the so called “Africans”. See Noah and His Three Sons

 

I say so called Africans because we know that the original people did not call themselves “Africans“. Many get distracted by semantics. So when you see the term “African“ anywhere on this website, we are not implying that their original name was African. That‘s another conversation.

 

Just had to lay that context for a foundation... continuing....

 

After Abraham rescued his nephew Lot, vs 18-20 says:

 

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

 

Melchizedek was the king of Salem. Salem is the city that would later be called Jerusalem...which was in the Land of Canaan - the land that God promised to Abraham. Canaan IS the country of Israel today. Like we said earlier, Canaan was Ham's son.

 

The continent of Africa was originally divided up by Ham's 4 sons: Cush (Ethiopia), Mizraim (Khemet/Egypt), Phut (Phoenicia/Libya), and Canaan (Israel). Everybody agrees that Ham was what we call African. So, Canaanites would have to be Africans. Salem was a Canaanite city, and Melchizedek was king AND high priest of that African city.

 

Melchizedek was a real historical man, who was not a Hebrew.

 

He was a Canaanite....clearly.

 

Now consider what the New Testament Book of Hebrews writer said about Abraham,

 

"For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." ~ Heb. 11:10

 

Look it up and check the context for yourself... Abraham looked for a city whose builder and maker was God, and it was a city of Canaanites...or Africans. There were Africans who believed in the same Almighty God that Abraham believed in. Before this time, God called Abraham away from his people. (Gen 12:1). God chose Abraham to establish His covenant with, but he was surrounded by and covered by faithful Canaanites...who were Africans.

​

And when you think about it, they were all family anyway! Ham was Abraham's 9th great uncle. Why wouldn't they look alike or be allies?

 

Since we know that Ham was black, then it only makes sense that his brothers Shem and Japheth were black..as well as their parents Noah and his wife. Better yet, if Ham was "African", wouldn't his brothers and parents be "African" too? Even Abraham, being a descendant of Ham's brother Shem, would actually be what we would call an "African"? We think of "Africans" only as sons of Ham. But whatever Ham was, Shem and the rest of the family was too. The myth that Noah had 3 sons of 3 different ethnicities was conjured up to justify the slave trade via the curse of Ham myth. There were no 3 different ethnicities in Noah's house.

 

That is nowhere in scripture. Only African was in that house.

 

In Gen 12:1-2 God did not change Abraham's ethnicity. He just told him to leave and made a covenant with him. Hebrews are in essence Africans with a covenant. A covenant is spiritual. God called Abraham away from his African family and their African gods.

​

** Many argue that when God told Abram in vs 2 “And I will make of thee a great nation...” and when God later told Abraham’s son Isaac’s wife Rebekah in Gen 25:23 “Two nations are in thy womb...” we think the word nation means ethnicity. Even Strong’s gives a cloudy definition (H1471) of the Hebrew word “gowy“. But the context of the Bible just does not confirm this line of thinking. Read Gen 10th chapter very slowly and you will see that the notion that “nation“ means “ethnicity“ does not make any sense. A “nation“ in the Bible was the largest unit of a family.

 

Just check it out the Biblical context.. Read Joshua 7:14 and 1 Sam 10:18-21

 

For more on the word “nation“ in the Bible see "What Is A Nation" video below.

 

Now I know Africans sold Hebrews. So Africans “without a covenant” sold Africans “with a covenant” - called Hebrews. Remember, the 1st Hebrew - Abraham just believed God and that was accounted as righteousness Gen 15:6. Its like a religious hatred that has been going on for thousands of years. No different than Christians vs Muslims vs Atheists etc. Religious wars have been since antiquity.

 

Regressing back to the subject... had to deal with Abraham.

But Melchizedek was clearly an African according to the Bible and history.

 

These are little, but big details that has been left out of any sermon or scholarly discussion concerning Melchizedek that I have ever heard. We have been indirectly taught that all Africans were against God and His people in the scriptures. We even have an issue with the word African itself, when Shem and Noah were Africans too. We've had a picture shown to us that painted Hebrews as a separate ethnicity and Africans as Godless people. This causes us to subconsciously see nothing in ancient Africa except what we are mostly shown..which is voodoo and witchcraft. No, there has always been God fearing people there, and it's been in the Bible all this time!

 

Even Josephus, the first century historian who's writings historically agree with the Bible, records that it was the Righteous Canaanite king and high priest Melchisedek who first built Jerusalem and also built the first temple there:

 

"And thus was Jerusalem taken...But he who first built it. Was a potent man among the Canaanites, and is in our own tongue called [Melchisedek], the Righteous King, for such he really was; on which account he was [there] the first priest of God, and first built a temple [there], and called the city Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem. However, David, the king of the Jews, ejected the Canaanites, and settled his own people therein." ~ (Complete Works of Josephus ch10)

 

Jesus (Yahushua) the Christ is called our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek eight times in scripture, (Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11,15,17,21). Melchizedek was a real man in history. By scripture and secular history he is clearly a Canaanite king and priest whom Abraham paid his tithes to.

 

So, in summary:

 

Hebrews 7:3 (Without father, without mother...) is referring to Melchizedek's type of priesthood, not Melchizedek himself - in which he was both king and priest.

 

In Hebrew culture one was either king or priest. Nobody in Scripture was ever both king and priest.

 

What throws most people off is the fact that Melchizedek was not a Hebrew, but it is not complicated.

 

As a priest, this Melchizedek did inspire Abraham so much that Abraham paid tithes to him. Melchizedek was also king of a city in Canaan called Salem - which was a Canaanite (African) city at that time. Salem was later called Jerusalem (Strong's H8004). Canaan was a son of Ham (Gen 9:18) - Ham is undisputed and agreed among scholars as an "African". If Ham was an African, his sons would also be what we call Africans. Canaan would also be an African

 

Now, what the writer of Hebrews was stressing was that Jesus has this type of eternal priesthood - not to be compared with no other priesthood in history. This priesthood of Jesus is an eternal priesthood. Not an earthly priesthood. When you go back and read, you see that the entire book of Hebrews is mostly about the priesthood and how we have a new high priest - in Jesus Christ.

 

Above Hebrews 1:1 you also see that the book of Hebrews was written specifically to the Hebrew people. They, unlike the gentiles, operated with a priesthood. This had to be made plain to them so they would embrace the New Covenant of Jesus Christ

​

So much more but I will stop right here...

 

 

Incorrect history = incorrect theology

 

Also, how you see your history greatly impacts how you see yourself. These historical truths have to be foundational to our spiritual walk. God gives us history for a purpose.

​

With these truths we can deal with every real life issue in a much much more effective way.

 

God is truly good!

 

History

 

By Minister Rodney Jones, specializing in Biblical History