AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANITY

But become makers of the message - and not just hearers misleading yourselves For if anyone is a hearer of the message and not a maker he is like a man assessing the face of his 'Genesis' in a mirror [Jm.1:22-23]

Please note: Strict implementation of HTML prohibits the display of 8-bit Greek characters from the 'Symbol' font, as still used on this site to display unaccented Greek characters. Users of Internet Explorer should expect no problems but users of Firefox 3.x may need to install the 'Web Page Fixer +' add-on available here or here before the Greek text will display as intended.

If you find this website to be of some interest then you may also like to read:   Why Call Me God? : The Gospel Seen with a Single Eye   published by Capabel Press in September 2009. The book explains the ancient 'mystery' concealed behind the text of the gospels at the time they were first composed. The riddles of Greek scripture are soon unravelled to expose the devastating plot which must have been familiar to the Gnostic authors. Analysis then shows that the deeply challenging message of the gospels is not what the Christian churches say. It is something very different… and now explained in this groundbreaking book. For details, please click here

ISBN: 978 0 9562057 0 4

Chapter 8 : The 'Melchizedek' Puzzle

Copyright Notice
As the basis for my work I have used the Nestlé-Aland 26th Edition Greek text. Copyright on this is reserved as follows :
..... Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestlé-Aland 26th edition (c)1979, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart;
..... The Greek New Testament, 3rd edition (c) 1975, United Bible Societies, London
This is the Greek text underlying most modern English translations since 1881, including the New American Standard and New International Versions. Certain words within the Nestlé text proper are enclosed in square brackets [ ] or double brackets [[ ]]. These reflect those places where the critical text editors consider the inclusion or omission of such text to be in question.
This text is only available for NON-COMMERCIAL personal/scholarly and educational use.

I have also used the CATSS LXX editions of the Septuagint Old Testament prepared by the TLG (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae) Project directed by T. Brunner at the University of California, Irvine and made available through the Center for Computer Analysis of Texts (CCAT) at the University of Pennsylvania 'for the use of students, teachers and scholars in study and education contexts'.
This text is only available for NON-COMMERCIAL personal/scholarly and educational use.

Unless otherwise noted, the remainder of what is presented in this document is my original work. Copyright on this is reserved as follows :
..... Authentic Christianity, 4th edition : (c) 2001 - 2006, Target Technical, York, UK
All rights are reserved - except that this text is made available without charge for NON-COMMERCIAL personal/scholarly and educational use.

8.1 Introduction
Melchizedek [Hebrew: 'melek' = king; 'tsedeq' = judgement] has a meaning something like 'king of justice' - or 'king of judgement'. In Greek it is rendered 'basileuV dikaiosunhV' [as at Heb.7:2]. It is without difficulty that we can discern the name of kain (Cain) hidden here - and it may be wise not to forget the promise made by Cain at Gn.4:14: 'I shall be hidden also from your face'.

The name Melchizedek appears only twice in the texts of the 'old testament' - once in 'Genesis' at chapter 14 and once in the Davidic Psalm 110. Then in the 'new testament' letter to the Hebrews it is noted [Heb.7:11-14] that Jesus Christ does not inherit levitical priesthood from Aaron. But it is set out that he is of Judah - and that his 'priesthood' is of the 'eternal' kind, 'resurrected' - in the words of Psalm 110 : 'kata thn taxin melcisedek' - 'according to the order of Melchizedek'.

This is why the identity of Melchizedek is of key importance in understanding the claims of Christian doctrine - for if you can characterise Melchizedek then (relying upon the author of 'Hebrews') you may characterise Jesus of Nazareth, the one 'said to be the Christ'. The Judaeo-Christian scriptures are documents which carry within them more meaning than the literal. So to extract the full meaning it is necessary to 'read' with quite some care. Here (as best I may) I shall investigate Melchizedek - and draw out some implications.

In Egyptian hieroglyph writing the epithet 'mAa-xrw' ('true of voice') was added to the names of those deceased. It is sometimes translated as 'justified' - or perhaps 'judged'. It refers to the fact that the deceased person is considered to have passed the 'judgement' - and is now allowed to 'enjoy' the afterlife. The roots of the Hebrew tradition in 'Genesis' lie extensively in the religious traditions of Egypt (see Ac.7:22). So the name 'melek-tsedek' might very well be used of one who has 'passed over' - and who in this story of 'Genesis' has 'returned to haunt the earth'

8.2 Melchizedek in the 'Book of Genesis'
Here is the (LXX) text of 'Genesis' - in which this otherwise mysterious character is first mentioned :

Now, in common with much of the book of Genesis, this passage takes the form of a compound riddle and its meaning is certainly more than may at first appear.

There is too much in this text for me to deal with everything - but here are a few comments :

1. Lot has separated from his uncle (Abram) and now lives in Sodom. Cities have a bad reputation in scripture (see Gn.4:17 & Gn.11:4) - and we hear that the people of Sodom 'were wicked and sinners'. It is not immediately clear whether this description extends to Lot himself.
   
   
2. Abram goes to live at the oak of Mambre - at Hebron.
   
   
3. The 'four' kings make war with the 'five'. This story is characteristically mythical/historical - including references to the giants/kings who inherit in some way attributes both of god and of man [see Gn.6:1-4]. Attempts at detailed analysis may well leave the student confused by multiple names and multiple relationships - but it is likely that the stories do relate in some way to the dynasties of Egypt and of Babylon in which the rulers were revered also as gods. The reference at Gn.14:7 to 'the well of judgement' and to 'Kades' (perhaps equivalent to Hades, mentioned explicitly in conjunction with Sodom at Mt.11:23) implies strongly that this passage concerns the idea, common across the ancient world, of judgement at death - and of life after death. In Greek mythology a similar concept was represented as 'crossing the River Styx' - en route to the underworld.
   
   
4. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah are amongst the 'five'. These are defeated at the 'asphalt pits' - notice the character 'f' appears 6 times at Gn.14:10. It is reminiscent of 'o ofiV' (the serpent, appearing first at Gn.3:1) - and it may be worth mentioning here that the Egyptian hieroglyph equivalent to the Greek letter 'f' is itself a pictorial representation of a species of serpent, the horned asp.
   
   
5. 'Every horse' - and also Lot - is taken captive.
   
   The cities 'Sodom and Gomorrah' are mentioned together at Gn.14:11. The ariqmoV (number value) of the phrase 'sodoma kai gomorra' (Sodom and Gomorrah) = 800. The ariqmoV for the word 'kurioV' (lord) is also = 800.
   
   
6. Then Abram hears about it. At Gn.14:14 there is a clever piece of word play when lwt (Lot) appears trapped within the very word hcmalwteutai (taken captive). It is clear that there is an association between 'a horse' and 'Sodom' : I discuss this further below [#14].
   
   
7. Abram 'counts up his own who dwell with him' - and he has 310 + 8 = 318. In Greek, 318 is the ariqmoV (number value) for 'shir' (Seir) mentioned at Gn.14:6. Does the use of this number signify that Abram's group are the 'Horites' - which means that they are linked to Esau/Edom? The city of 'sauh' is mentioned in the previous verse : this is a simple anagram of 'hsau' (Esau : see Gn.25:25).
   
   

   And :

   01O 36 8 wkhsen de hsau en tw orei shir hsau autoV estin edwm

   01O 36 8 But Esau lived in the hill of Seir. Esau himself is Edom

   
   David Kahn (Ref. 1) points out that 318 is the number value for 'Eliezer' of Damascus - who then appears explicitly in the text at Gn.15:2. This value is derived in the Hebrew language as follows :
   
   

   Hebrew Script	Numerical [R->L]	Hebrew	Greek	English
   	1+30 = 31	AL	qeoV	deity
   	7+200+70 = 277	ZRY	speirw	I sow
   	1+30+10+70+7+200 = 318	ALIYZR	eliezer	Eliezer

   
   
   According to the Epistle of pseudo-Barnabas, the circumcision (??) by Abram of 318 men from his household held a mystic significance, foreshadowing Christ on the cross (for details see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10488a.htm). It must be doubtful whether the LXX authors would have anticipated this meaning. It is more probable they would have understood that in Greek 318 is the ariqmoV (number value) for a well known object which presents to the world as a circle, 'hlioV' (the sun). Moreover they should have known 318 as an intrinsic number from mathematics, a 'creation number', perhaps recognised as an aspect of the 'logos'. For the ratio of diameter to perimeter for any circle is 0.318 310. Alternatively we may say that to a precision better than 1 part in 1000 :
   
   

   (310 + 8) = 1000 / p

   
   
   Thus a circle with circumference 1000 units has diameter almost equal to 318. Much more on the significance of the number 318 can be found at http://www.jesus8880.com. This is an interesting website.
   
   Try going to http://www.jesus8880.com/chapters/gematria/theta-helios-318.htm - to see more about the Greek letter Theta (318) and Helios (318) the Sun. Here a sample from the wisdom of the ancient world is neatly laid out for you to see.
   
   
8. Abram's people attack at night - bringing back 'every horse of Sodom' - also Lot himself, belongings and people.
   
   
9. At Gn.14:17, the 'king of Sodom' goes out to meet Abram. It was at Gn.14:10 that we heard of the demise of this person in the asphalt pits. Has he 'returned from the dead' for this 'meeting with Abram'?
   
   
10. Now we come to the 'inserted' text [Gn.14:18-20] - with its mention of Melchizedek. As discussed at the beginning of this note, the name melcisedek means something like 'king of judgement'. Here he is also titled 'basileuV salhm' (king of Salem). At Heb.7:2 we are told that this means 'king of peace' - and no doubt this is true, for even today the Hebrew greeting is 'shalom' (peace). And other commentators note that 'Salem' is here a probable reference to ierousalhm (Jerusalem).
    
    Then at Rv.11:8 we find what seems to be a most useful clue :
    66N 11 8 kai to ptwma autwn epi thV plateiaV thV polewV thV megalhV htiV kaleitai pneumatikwV sodoma kai aiguptoV opou kai o kurioV autwn estaurwqh
    66N 11 8 And their corpse will be in the street of 'the great city' which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt - where also their lord was crucified.
    
    We may expect it to come naturally to the author of 'Revelation' to use the phrase 'the great city' in reference to Jerusalem. Then we notice that 'salhm ' is present in anagram within the very word 'megalhV' (great). So the 'great' city can be Salem, making it equivalent to Jerusalem - just as other commentators have reasoned by different methods.
    
    The reference to 'the city where their lord was crucified' seems to confirm that Jeru-Salem is indeed the city alluded to here. And quite explicitly it is identified 'spiritually' with Sodom.
    
    So it does appear that 'Jerusalem', 'Salem' and 'Sodom' are considered (within the tradition of scripture) to be equivalent.
    
    Now from the context we might have expected something like that - for otherwise the three 'inserted' verses (18-20) incur a textual discontinuity, a jump from the title 'king of Sodom' to the title 'king of Salem' and then back again. We may notice that the names sodom and salhm have five letters each - both starting with S and ending with M. But it is from the statement at Rv.11:8 that we can infer the equivalence of these two names.
    
    Accordingly Melchizedek = 'king of judgement' = 'king of Salem' = 'king of Sodom'. And we appreciate that 'insertion' of the three additional verses [Gn.14:18-20] serves not to confuse the original theme but to develop, and so to disclose all the better, the intent of a passage which otherwise may have proved troublesome to the reader for the obscurity of its meaning.
    
    
11. Now Melchizedek is further characterised by the statement at Gn.14:18 that "he brought out bread and wine" (exhnegken artouV kai oinon). This trait is of pivotal importance, as I hope now to explain.
    
    The scriptural origin of these foods is at Gn.1:11-12 (third day) :
    01O 1 11 kai eipen o qeoV blasthsatw h gh botanhn cortou speiron sperma kata genoV kai kaq' omoiothta kai xulon karpimon poioun karpon ou to sperma autou en autw kata genoV epi thV ghV kai egeneto outwV
    01O 1 11 And God said "Let the earth sprout a grassy plant spreading seed according to (its) kind and variety - and a fruit-bearing tree bearing fruit of which its seed (is) within it, according to (its) kind upon the earth". And it happened like this
    01O 1 12 kai exhnegken h gh botanhn cortou speiron sperma kata genoV kai kaq' omoiothta kai xulon karpimon poioun karpon ou to sperma autou en autw kata genoV epi thV ghV kai eiden o qeoV oti kalon
    01O 1 12 And the earth brought forth a grassy plant spreading seed after its kind and variety - and a fruit-bearing tree bearing fruit of which its seed (is) within it, according to (its) kind upon the earth. And God saw it as good.
    
    Now bread and wine are surely derived from this class of foods.
    
    And notice that not only does the earth bring forth these foods but so does Melchizedek.
    
    But recall also Gn.4:3 :
    01O 4 3 kai egeneto meq' hmeraV hnegken kain apo twn karpwn thV ghV qusian tw kuriw
    01O 4 3 And it happened with (the) days that Cain brought from the fruits of the earth a sacrifice for the lord
    
    Thus Melchizedek actually brings the same kind of foods as Cain, the character explicitly identified in later scripture as evil [qv. 1Jn.3:12]. The sinister nature of the scriptural subtext is beginning to emerge once again.
    
    And notice how the author of Hebrews assesses Jesus as a 'priest'. Jesus does not descend from the priesthood like the sons of Aaron, he is "another priest resurrected [alt: raised up] according to the order of Melchizedek" [Heb.7:11]. The author proceeds to emphasise this by repetition. Again at Heb.7:15 Jesus is resurrected (anistatai), "another priest according to the likeness of Melchizedek".
    
    The significance of this deepens when we recall Gn.4:8 :
    01O 4 8 ... kai anesth kain epi abel ton adelfon autou kai apekteinen auton
    01O 4 8 ... and Cain was resurrected upon Abel, his brother, and he killed him.
    
    
    Recapitulating, at Gn.1:12 (above) we heard it said of the 'fruits of the earth' that "God saw it as good". Yet there is a strong implication that, when Cain brings such foods, these are no longer good. For Cain is later identified [1Jn.3:12] as "from the evil one" - and here we are told how God (who we presume to be good) ignores both Cain and his 'sacrifices' :
    
    01O 4 4 ... kai epeiden o qeoV epi abel kai epi toiV dwroiV autou
    01O 4 4 ... and God looked upon Abel and upon his gifts
    01O 4 5 epi de kain kai epi taiV qusiaiV autou ou prosescen kai eluphsen ton kain lian kai sunepesen tw proswpw
    01O 4 5 (but) upon Cain and upon his 'sacrifices' he did not pay attention. And it grieved Cain exceedingly - and he fell to the face.
    
    By way of explanation, Cain is told (LXX) that he has made a mistake, attention being drawn also to the nature of this mistake :
    01O 4 7 ouk ean orqwV prosenegkhV orqwV de mh dielhV hmarteV ...
    01O 4 7 Did you not make a mistake [alt: did you not miss the mark, did you not sin] - if you were bringing (your sacrifices) rightly but not distinguishing rightly [alt: not dividing rightly; see Ref. 2] ? ...
    
    How could these foods be ranked by God on the third day as good - but found unacceptable (which seems to imply that they are no longer good) when brought by Cain ? Have the criteria for acceptability been altered in the interim ?
    
    The nature of Cain's mistake is considered in detail at www.authentic-christianity.org : Chapter 17. Briefly, to understand all this properly we must pay attention to the prior events from the sixth day of the creation sequence - and in particular to the assignment of foods made there. It is very important to grasp what has happened - for it is this diet which is now to play a key rôle in assisting the reader to resolve for himself the entire 'mystery' of scripture - as configured by its Gnostic authors.
    
    It is on the sixth day that God creates a new PERSON - made "according to the image of a god". Then in the subsequent texts of scripture the 'appearance' of this PERSON does indeed match that of God - and as you read on there is a real risk that you may mistake him for God. In developing the theme of scripture, the authors play upon the idea that this PERSON now attempts to exploit the situation to his own advantage, seeking for all practical purposes to substitute himself in the place of God. And we are left to realise that this PERSON must be evil - for any attempt to supplant God is wicked, ipso facto.
    
    The theme is robustly set forth at 2Th.2:3-4 :
    53N 2 3 mh tiV umaV exapathsh kata mhdena tropon oti ean mh elqh h apostasia prwton kai apokalufqh o anqrwpoV thV anomiaV o uioV thV apwleiaV
    53N 2 3 Do not let anyone deceive you in any way. Because unless the apostasy comes first, and THE PERSON of lawlessness is revealed ( the son of perdition)
    53N 2 4 o antikeimenoV kai uperairomenoV epi panta legomenon qeon h sebasma wste auton eiV ton naon tou qeou kaqisai apodeiknunta eauton oti estin qeoV
    53N 2 4 The one opposing and exalting (himself) over all that is called 'God' (or who is worshipped just like him) sits in the temple of God, demonstrating that he himself is a god.
    
    Here then is the character identified in the NT texts as Satan, the devil - the one who functions throughout the narrative of scripture as the prideful impostor for God himself. Being made in the image of a god, he may well appear to those upon the earth as if he were God. Then it is by his voice, by his actions, and finally by his distinctive diet that this impostor must be distinguished from the prime God of Gn.1:1.
    
    And look, this PERSON not only resembles God, he is directed by God to "grow and multiply and fill the earth and to lord over it". Now it is surely plausible that a PERSON who resembles God and is to act as lord over all the earth will be the same one explicitly named at LXX Gn.2:8 (and thereafter) as the 'lord god'.
    
    Yet Cain fails to draw this vital distinction. He has indeed failed to distinguish rightly ( Ref. 2 ) - just as he is told at Gn.4:7. He has confused the lord god for God, conflating the two into one. Then we may think of Cain as a convinced monotheist. And it is this conviction which lets him down. For the food which he brings is suitable for the lord god - but of course it is rejected by God.
    
    Here is some detail from the sixth day. Notice how the pattern of saying "And God saw it/them as good" is finally interrupted, being reduced instead to "And God saw everything that he had made ...". Surely the pattern is not disrupted without a good reason. This in itself may raise a suspicion that not all the events of the sixth day are to be understood as good.
    
    01O 1 25 ... kai eiden o qeoV oti kala
    01O 1 25 ... and God saw therm as good.
    01O 1 26 kai eipen o qeoV poihswmen anqrwpon kat' eikona hmeteran kai kaq' omoiwsin kai arcetwsan twn icquwn thV qalasshV kai twn peteinwn tou ouranou kai twn kthnwn kai pashV thV ghV kai pantwn twn erpetwn twn erpontwn epi thV ghV
    01O 1 26 And God said "Let us make A PERSON ACCORDING TO OUR IMAGE and according to likenesses : and let THEM rule (over) the fish of the sea and (over) the birds of Heaven - and (over) the pastoral beasts and (over) all the earth - and (over) all the creeping things which creep upon the earth"
    01O 1 27 kai epoihsen o qeoV ton anqrwpon kat' eikona qeou epoihsen auton arsen kai qhlu epoihsen autouV
    01O 1 27 And God made 'THE PERSON'. According to (the) image of a god he made HIM. Male and female he made THEM.
    01O 1 28 kai huloghsen autouV o qeoV legwn auxanesqe kai plhqunesqe kai plhrwsate thn ghn kai katakurieusate authV kai arcete twn icquwn thV qalasshV kai twn peteinwn tou ouranou kai pantwn twn kthnwn kai pashV thV ghV kai pantwn twn erpetwn twn erpontwn epi thV ghV
    01O 1 28 And God blessed THEM, saying "Grow and multiply and fill the earth and LORD over it. And rule (over) the FISH of the SEA and (over) the BIRDS of HEAVEN - and (over) ALL the pastoral BEASTS and (over) all the EARTH - and (over) all the CREEPING THINGS which creep upon the earth"
    
    01O 1 29 kai eipen o qeoV idou dedwka umin pan corton sporimon speiron sperma o estin epanw pashV thV ghV kai pan xulon o ecei en eautw karpon spermatoV sporimou umin estai eiV brwsin
    01O 1 29 And God said "Look, I have given to YOU [pl.] every grass spreading seed to propagate which is above all the earth - and every tree which has within itself fruit (having) seed to propagate. For YOU it shall be for eating.
    01O 1 30 kai pasi toiV qhrioiV thV ghV kai pasi toiV peteinoiV tou ouranou kai panti erpetw tw erponti epi thV ghV o ecei en eautw yuchn zwhV panta corton clwron eiV brwsin kai egeneto outwV
    01O 1 30 And to all the wild BEASTS of the EARTH, and to all the BIRDS of HEAVEN, and to every CREEPING THING that creeps upon the earth (and) which has within it a SOUL of LIFE, (I have given) every (kind of) GREEN GRASS for eating". And it happened like this.
    01O 1 31 kai eiden o qeoV ta panta osa epoihsen kai idou kala lian kai egeneto espera kai egeneto prwi hmera ekth
    01O 1 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and look : exceedingly good. And evening happened - and morning happened (SIXTH DAY).
    
    
    Now it is widely held in our age (as for many centuries past) that the male+female PERSON brought into being at Gn.1:27 may be identified with the male 'dust person' of Gn.2:7. What is known as the 'documentary hypothesis' (Wellhausen at al) has been embraced to support this unfortunate notion. Thus it is widely presumed that this PERSON was configured by the authors to be some kind of prototype for our species, 'homo sapiens'. Yet this is where those who embrace the Christian tradition first take a wrong turn, falling headlong into the trap which has been set for them.
    
    For each one making this identification asserts, in effect, that he (or she) is 'made in the image of a god'. Exactly this claim has provided a core element of Christian doctrine down the centuries.
    
    Yet such an assertion entails the sin of pride - and scripture, taken as a whole, provides the punishment, measure for measure.
    
    For, did they but know it, scripture has been so constructed that such persons, failing to identify the lord god as Satan, confuse him instead with the prime God - and end up (however unwitting) worshipping Satan in the place of God !
    
    

    Indeed it is worse. For mis-taking the identity of the PERSON at Gn.1:27, they now put themselves in the place of God - as we easily see from the old 'Penny Catechism' of the Catholic church [Ref. 3] which asserts as follows : Q3. To whose image and likeness did God make you ? A3. God made ME to his own image and likeness. Does it come as a surprise then to see how the same message is given by the serpent to the woman at Gn.3:4-5 ? 01O 3 4 kai eipen o ofiV th gunaiki ou qanatw apoqaneisqe 01O 3 4 And the serpent said to the woman "By death you [pl.] shall not die 01O 3 5 hdei gar o qeoV oti en h an hmera faghte ap' autou dianoicqhsontai umwn oi ofqalmoi kai esesqe ws qeoi ginwskonteV kalon kai ponhron 01O 3 5 for God knows that in the day you [pl.] may eat from it, your eyes shall be opened up, AND ... you [pl.] shall be like gods, knowing good and evil". Of course it is the message by which (in the story) she is deceived [qv. Gn.3:13]. For the proposition that "You shall be like gods", along with the promise for "eternal life", is the message of the ancient serpent - identified at Rv.12:9 as 'o kaloumenoV diaboloV kai o satanaV o planwn thn oikoumenhn olhn' (the one called a devil and Satan, the one deceiving the whole world). In the gospels it is then Jesus who repeats this same message - for example at Jn.10:34-35 and to the women at Jn.4:13-14 and Jn.11:25-26. The churches of the Christian tradition speak with the voice of Jesus. Yet this is equally the voice of the ancient 'serpent' - the voice of Satan, the deceiver of the whole world ! And you are the one at risk of being "deceived".

    
    Are you now beginning to understand what has happened ? They were clever, these gnostic authors of scripture, really very clever !
    
    It follows that a first group of their readers, embracing the 'monotheistic' doctrine still maintained by the Christian church(es), is that of those entirely deluded. They have fallen at the first hurdle which scripture presents.
    
    A second group, recognising the lord god at Gn.1:27, comprises the 'gnostic' readers of scripture. In line with the underlying meaning of the word 'gnostic', they have 'learned to know ' the who's who and what's what of scripture. They may be likened to Adam, to Abel - and to John the Baptist in the gospels. They will not be deceived - neither by Cain nor by Jesus. For they hold the keys of knowledge [qv. Lk.11:52] - so now they can work everything out for themselves.
    
    Notice, incidentally, how Jesus prays to 'the father' ( who is the lord god ), referring to himself as "the son of the PERSON" ( commonly translated 'son of man', eg. Mt.26:2). This makes Jesus alike to Cain - for equally they are the only-begotten offspring of the lord god ( as equally 'seed of the serpent' ).
    
    And it is not difficult to conclude that, for the authors of scripture, Jesus actually is Cain (resurrected) - as we may realise when we hear him identified at Col.1:15 as 'eikwn tou qeou tou aoratou prwtotokoV pashV ktisewV' ie. 'an image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation'.
    
    For, in the narrative of Genesis, the first to be born is, beyond all doubt, evil Cain [Gn.4:1; 1Jn.3:12].
    
    And now we see why Jesus too "brings bread and wine". Indeed if you read the passage at Mt.26:38-39 you will see how Jesus "becomes sorrowful" and "falls to the face". Thes are precisely the actions of Cain after he has brought his sacrifice of 'fruits of the earth' and before he is 'resurrected' upon his brother Abel [Gn.4:3-8]. The parallel could hardly be clearer.
    
    The first group above is classed in the gospels as 'the many', the second group as 'the few'.
    
    Thus at Mt.7:13 we have:
    40N 7 13 eiselqate dia thV stenhV pulhV oti plateia h pulh kai eurucwroV h odoV h apagousa eiV thn apwleian kai polloi eisin oi eisercomenoi di authV
    40N 7 13 Enter in through the narrow gate. For broad (is) the gate, and spacious the way which leads to destruction - and many are those entering in through it.
    40N 7 14 ti stenh h pulh kai teqlimmenh h odoV h apagousa eiV thn zwhn kai oligoi eisin oi euriskonteV authn
    40N 7 14 How narrow the gate and restricted the way which leads to life - and few are those finding it !
    
    Now do you understand ? Then which gate will you choose ?
    
    Deceit and evil ? Or goodness and truth ?
    
    
    But let us get back to the text of Genesis. The title lord god first crops up at LXX Gn.2:8. And there the first action of this PERSON is precisely what (recalling 1:29) we should expect. For immediately he plants a 'paradise'. This is a word used by the Medes, here adopted into Greek. It describes a cultivated plot, irrigated perhaps, and enclosed by a wall or hedge. In the Hebrew text it is just called a garden.
    
    01O 2 8 kai efuteusen kurioV o qeoV paradeison en edem kata anatolaV ...
    01O 2 8 And (the) lord god planted a paradise within Eden in the east ...
    
    This turns out to be the place where we first meet the serpent [considered to be an alternate manifestation of Satan, qv. Gn.3:1; Rv.12:9] - and where the woman is not only created but subsequently deceived [qv. Gn.3:13].
    
    There is a riddle about the two trees in Paradise. It cannot be solved until you distinguish the 'lord god' from God. If you can do this then you will realise that in the narrative Adam, the dust man, also "knows" the difference. He can tell the two 'gods' apart. Then we may think of Adam as the first 'gnostic', a consideration which explains the (otherwise curious) statement at 1Tm.2:14 :
    
    54N 2 14 kai adam ouk hpathqh h de gunh exapathqeisa en parabasei gegonen
    54N 2 14 And Adam was not deceived - but the woman was thoroughly deceived, becoming subject to deviation
    
    
    Now, as others have pointed out before me, the symbolism of Melchizedek bringing bread and wine does also link in allegory to the actions of Noah, newly emerged from the ark. For it is Noah who promptly re-establishes after the flood the corrupt behaviour for the correction of which the flood itself is said to have been incurred in the first place. His behaviour is that for which the 'city' of Sodom is now to become notorious.
    
    For at Gn.9:20-21 we have :
    01O 9 20 kai hrxato nwe anqrwpoV gewrgoV ghV kai efuteusen ampelwna
    01O 9 20 And Noah began to be a person (who was a) farmer of earth - and he planted a vineyard.
    01O 9 21 kai epien ek tou oinou kai emequsqh kai egumnwqh en tw oikw autou
    01O 9 21 He drank from the wine and became drunk. And he became naked in his house.
    .....
    01O 9 24 exenhyen de nwe apo tou oinou kai egnw osa epoihsen autw o uioV autou o newteroV
    01O 9 24 And Noah awoke from the wine, and knew what his youngest son had done to him.
    
    In the scriptural narrative this appears to be the immediate origin of the Canaanite 'city of Sodom'. Explicitly it is Melchizedek who 'brought out bread and wine'. But this same action characterises Noah, a 'tiller of earth' and a 'wine grower'. Thus Melchizedek, 'king of Salem', acts as we might expect Noah to act - and either Melchizedek or Noah may be the 'king of Sodom'. This is still consistent with the conclusion reached in the previous paragraph [#10].
    
    Next, in view of the meaning of the name Melchizedek ('king of judgement') it is interesting that at Gn.6:9 Noah is identified in similar terms :
    
    01O 6 9 autai de ai geneseiV nwe nwe anqrwpoV dikaioV teleioV wn en th genea autou tw qew euhresthsen nwe
    01O 6 9 But these are the origins of Noah. Noah (was) a 'judged' man, being perfected [alt: completed] amongst his race. Noah walked with God.
    
    As with Melchizedek, we have here the idea that Noah was 'dikaioV' (judged; right) - and that (like Enoch) 'tw qew euhresthsen' (he walked with God). This may characterise him as a demi-god - and so not subject to death. Accordingly Noah is 'eternal' - as implied of Melchizedek in the letter to the Hebrews :
    
    58N 7 17 martureitai gar oti su iereuV eiV ton aiwna kata thn taxin melcisedek
    58N 7 17 For it is testified that "You are a priest for eternity - according to the order of Melchizedek."
    
    
    Finally consider this passage from Ezekiel, an apparent reference to Gn.19:30-36, by which Lot's seed was preserved :
    
    26O 16 49 plhn touto to anomhma sodomwn ths adelfhV sou uperhfania en plhsmonh artwn kai en euqhnia oinou espatalwn auth kai ai qugatereV authV touto uphrcen auth kai taiV qugatrasin authV kai ceira ptwcou kai penhtoV ouk antelambanonto
    26O 16 49 Full (was) this, the iniquity of your sister Sodom : pride in abundance of bread, and in sqandering cheap wine. And her daughters started this with her - and from her daughters the hand of the poor and of the day-worker did not receive (any remuneration).
    26O 16 50 kai emegalaucoun kai epoihsan anomhmata enwpion mou kai exhra autaV kaqwV eidon
    26O 16 50 And they boasted greatly, and committed transgressions before me : and I picked them off as I saw fit.
    
    Thus bread and wine persist in scripture as tokens of pride - indeed of what is evil.
    
    And now we may understand the real significance of Mk.6:52 :
    
    41N 6 52 ou gar sunhkan epi toiV artois all hn autwn h kardia pepwrwmenh
    41N 6 52 For they had not understood about the breads - but for them the heart was 'Petrified'.
    
    
    
12. At Gn.14:20, God is to be blessed for 'paredwken touV ecqrouV sou upoceiriouV soi' (he delivered your enemies underhand). But who are the enemies of Abram referred to here? A conventional interpretation is that this refers to the 'five kings' whom Abram has 'struck' by night. But if Melchizedek is an alias for the 'king of Sodom' then Melchizedek himself may be 'the enemy' - delivered now under Abram's hand. And it may be worth pointing out that the ariqmoV (number value) for 'upoceiriouV' (underhand) = 1945. Remarkably this is also the ariqmoV for the word 'ewsforoV' (morning star = Venus) which then appears in connection with Melchizedek in Psalm 110. This is the only other place in the entire Old Testament canon where Melchizedek is mentioned. So it looks as though the adjective 'underhand' could be associated with Melchizedek - whose birth came 'before the morning star'.
    
    19O 109 3 meta sou h arch en hmera thV dunamewV sou en taiV lamprothsin twn agiwn ek gastroV pro ewsforou exegennhsa se
    19O 109 3 Rule (has been) with you in the day of your power : in the brilliance of the holy (ones), from the belly I gave birth to you before the morning star [alt: bringer of morn = Venus]
    19O 109 4 wmosen kurioV kai ou metamelhqhsetai su ei iereuV eiV ton aiwna kata thn taxin melcisedek
    19O 109 4 The lord has sworn (an oath) and he will not repent : you are a priest for ever of the order of Melchizedek
    
    The word ewsforoV (bringer of morn = Venus) has a variant form fwsforoV (bringer of light = Lucifer). The latter was an alternate name for 'Alpha Draconis' - which around 7000 years ago served as the pole star (the circumpolar constellation is named 'Draco', the dragon). But within scripture these two names seem to be interchangeable - for in his translation of the above verse to Latin Jerome appears to supply 'Lucifer' - as he does also for the text at Is.14:12 (this latter frequently cited to identify 'Lucifer' as satan, the fallen angel - but see also Lk.10:18 and Rv.12:9).
    
    Then the variant fwsforoV appears even in the Greek text at the second letter of Peter :
    
    61N 1 19 kai ecomen bebaioteron ton profhtikon logon w kalwV poieite proseconteV wV lucnw fainonti en aucmhrw topw ewV ou hmera diaugash kai fwsforoV anateilh en taiV kardiaiV umwn
    61N 1 19 We have more sure the prophetic 'logos' to which you do well (in) paying attention as to a lamp shining in an arid place - until the day dawns, and 'Lucifer' arises in your hearts.
    
    In all this I think we receive a clue about the identity of 'to fwV' (the light, first identified at Gn.1:3). Then commencing at Jn.1:5 we hear the witness of John to 'to fwV' :
    
    43N 1 5 kai to fwV en th skotia fainei kai h skotia auto ou katelaben
    43N 1 5 And the light is revealed within the darkness - but the darkness did not comprehend it.
    43N 1 6 egeneto anqrwpoV apestalmenoV para qeou onoma autw iwannhV
    43N 1 6 A person happened, sent from a god : his name (was) John.
    43N 1 7 outoV hlqen eiV marturian ina marturhsh peri tou fwtoV ina panteV pisteuswsin di autou
    43N 1 7 This one came as a witness that he might testify about the light - that all might believe through him.
    43N 1 8 ouk hn ekeinoV to fwV all ina marturhsh peri tou fwtoV
    43N 1 8 That one was not the light - but (he came) so that he might testify about the light.
    
    From the gospel of John, many understand Jesus to be 'to fwV' (the light) - as also 'o logoV' (the 'logos'; the saying). But who understands the further association with Adam, Cain, Melchizedek, Sodom, Noah, Jacob, Venus - and with Lucifer ?
    
    
13. Now at the end of the 'insertion' text we get : 'kai edwken autw dekathn apo pantwn' (and he gave him a tenth of all). The text fails to make clear whether the donor is here Abram or Melchizedek. But, in line with the author of the letter to Hebrews, all subsequent commentators seem to assume that it is Abram who gives 'a tenth of all' to Melchizedek - and I shall not differ on this. To give 'a tenth of all' is the act of a tax payer paying a 'tithe' (ie. a tenth) to his seigneur. But it is interesting that in the gospels 'telwnai kai amartwloi' (tax collectors and sinners) get lumped together [eg. Mt.9:10; Mk.2:15], implying that (in scripture at least) a 'tax collector' has bad associations. Now here it is Melchizedek who exacts the tax.
    
    So if Melchizedek is a 'tax collector', then is Jesus also a 'tax collector'? Certainly 'he associates with tax collectors' - as the Pharisees point out (eg. Mt.9:11; Mk.2:16).
    
    But there is more to say on this. For the ariqmoV (number value) for the 'artouV kai oinon' (bread and wine) brought by Melchizedek = 1352 - and this is also the ariqmoV (number value) for 'amartwloi' (sinners). If intended (and I recognise it's tenuous) this again associates Melchizedek with 'sinners'.
    
    Then the ariqmoV (number value) for 'dekathn' (a tenth) = 388 - and this is also the ariqmoV (number value) for the 'ponhroi' (wicked ones). So it looks almost as though Melchizedek brings with him 'sinners' - and Abram returns 'wicked ones', whilst Melchizedek is a 'tax collector'. Does that make sense ? Of course it is difficult to know how many readers in antiquity might have understood the story in this strictly arithmetic way.
    
    
14. Now we return to the main text at Gn.14:21. "The king of Sodom said to Abram 'Give me the men - but take the horse for yourself' ". The horse of Sodom has been mentioned twice before [Gn.14:11, 14:16] - but now the horse is to be exchanged for men. At Gn.1:24 (Day 6 of the creation sequence) we get :
    
    01O 1 24 kai eipen o qeoV exagagetw h gh yuchn zwsan kata genoV tetrapoda kai erpeta kai qhria thV ghV kata genoV kai egeneto outwV
    01O 1 24 God said "Let THE EARTH bring forth A LIVING SOUL AFTER A FOUR-FOOTED KIND, and reptiles and wild beasts of the earth after (their) kind" : and it happened like this.
    
    It seems quite possible that this is also a reference to 'the horse' - or to another creature known by this euphemism. It is 'a living soul' - which by virtue of being 'brought forth from the earth' would be a token of evil? Although originating in the creation sequence of Genesis, the TETRAPOD is then mentioned explicitly in the NT texts at Rm.1:23 :
    
    45N 1 21 dioti gnonteV ton qeon ouc wV qeon edoxasan h hucaristhsan all emataiwqhsan en toiV dialogismoiV autwn kai eskotisqh h asunetoV autwn kardia
    45N 1 21 Because, knowing God, they didn`t glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning and their senseless heart was darkened.
    45N 1 22 faskonteV einai sofoi emwranqhsan
    45N 1 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools
    45N 1 23 kai hllaxan thn doxan tou afqartou qeou en omoiwmati eikonoV fqartou anqrwpou kai peteinwn kai tetrapodwn kai erpetwn
    45N 1 23 ... and exchanged the glory of the imperishable God for the likeness of an image of a perishable PERSON, of birds, of TETRAPODS and of reptiles.
    
    Then where a 'tetrapod' is mentioned at Ac.10:12 & Ac.11:6, it turns out to be a reference to Paul as 'a container' for unclean things, indeed as a 'Trojan horse' against the gentile nations - as explained in detail at www.authentic-christianity.org : Chapter 16.5.
    
    The reference at Gn.14:21 could also be an allusion to the horse of Troy - in this case as a Trojan horse against Abram.
    
    
15. Next comes the (apparently trivial) mention of 'a string and a sandal strap'. But far from being trivial, it may be of considerable significance :
    
    01O 14 22 eipen de abram proV basilea sodomwn ektenw thn ceira mou proV ton qeon ton uyiston oV ektisen ton ouranon kai thn ghn
    01O 14 22 Abram said to the king of Sodom "I stretched out my hand for God the Most High who made heaven and earth.
    01O 14 23 ei apo spartiou ewV sfairwthroV upodhmatoV lhmyomai apo pantwn twn swn ina mh eiphV oti egw eploutisa ton abram
    01O 14 23 Shall I take (anything) - from a string up to (the) thong of a sandal - from all that is yours ? Lest you should say that 'I made Abram wealthy' ".
    
    This is the only mention of the word 'upodhma' (sandal) in 'Genesis'. Abram is reluctant to take anything from the 'king of Sodom'. To do so would put Abram in his debt - and it seems clear that Abram is determined to prevent this. His concern seems appropriate - for at Gn.13:13 we heard that "the people in Sodom (were) wicked and sinners - exceedingly opposed to God". The 'king of Sodom' is one with whom Abram prefers not to deal.
    
    The phrase 'apo spartiou ewV sfairwthroV upodhmatoV' (from a string up to [the] thong of a sandal) looks as if it might define a range of choices - what mathematicians would call a 'set'. Possibly it may define a set of words - perhaps all those including the character pairs 'sp' and 'sf'. To illustrate unsatisfactory association here, consider for example, in Mt.13 'o speiraV' (the one sowing) is explicitly stated to be 'the enemy' and 'the devil' [Mt.13:39]. Then at Gn.14:10 salt-pan valley was 'freata freata asfaltou' (pit by pit with asphalt) - and it is here that 'the king of Sodom' and 'the king of Gomorrah' meet with their demise. Notice also that 'sfairwthroV' (a strap) is an anagram source for the word 'ofiV' (a serpent) - which by this means goes 'hidden from your face' [see Gn.4:14].
    
    Then (at the literal level) we may do well to 'watch out' for any subsequent reference either to 'a string' or to 'the strap of a sandal' - for these may be 'tags' in the story-line which serve to identify 'the king of Sodom' made manifest in another guise.
    
    In the book of 'Ruth' [Rt.4:7] the significance of removing the sandal is explained (and a variant is evident at Dt.25:9-10). In a case of inheritance (etc) the contract is ratified by the sandal being removed from the foot of the donor and transferred to the beneficiary. The sandal is therefore a token : the one receiving it is the one whose right of inheritance is confirmed.
    
    Now this text at Gn.14:23 has significant implications when we come to the NT for - within the four gospels and 'Acts' - sandals are ten times mentioned. Of these, five contribute to 'the witness' of John the Baptist in respect of Jesus. Here is Mk.1:7 :
    
    41N 1 7 kai ekhrussen legwn ercetai o iscuroteroV mou opisw mou ou ouk eimi ikanoV kuyaV lusai ton imanta twn upodhmatwn autou
    41N 1 7 And he preached, saying "He who is mightier than me comes behind me - of whom I am not competent, stooping down, to untie the strap of his sandals".
    
    The author uses the word 'imanta' (a strap). As with the more widely used word 'imatia' (clothes), this is a single word anagram source for the word 'aima' (blood). To those familiar with Genesis it may therefore call to mind the blood shed by Cain - for at Gn.4:11 we hear that "the earth (has) opened its mouth wide to receive the blood of your brother from your hand". The same word 'imanta' is used in the corresponding Lk.3:16 and Jn.1:27. And did you notice 'cristoV' (Christ) concealed within the word 'iscuroteroV' (mightier) ?
    
    Then in the three synoptic gospels the word 'ikanoV' (competent) serves as a single word anagram source for the name kain (Cain). By contrast the author of John substitutes a word with an X in it - 'axioV' (capable) - and this is echoed at Ac.13:25.
    
    These references to sandals form a part of the 'witness' given (in the stories of the gospel) through the mouth of 'John the Baptist'. Even leaving aside their possible significance at the level of anagrammatic association, is it not clear on the basis of the 'established' convention that John, by his reluctance, by his proclaimed incompetence 'to untie the strap of his sandals', gives public witness that he shuns Jesus, he points him out but he avoids establishing any beneficial relationship with him ? If in addition we consider that this scenario in the gospels may be a particular allegory of the 'encounter' at Gn.14:17 seq, we are left with John the Baptist taking the rôle of Abram while Jesus takes the part of 'the king of Sodom'. Accordingly John seeks to avoid 'becoming enriched' by him - politely excusing himself as 'not competent'.
    
    This is not a witness of deferential approval. Instead the 'witness of John' - given in all four gospels - is a most serious warning to all who understand it.
    
    For by his witness John shuns Jesus and what he has to offer. And it appears that the gospel story casts Jesus in the rôle of the tax collector, Melchizedek - the 'king of Sodom' !
    
    However such witness ends abruptly with John being 'shut up in prison' [Mk.1:14 & Lk.3:20]. The public 'diakonia' (ministry) of Jesus can then proceed uninterrupted.
    
    The text of Matthew says : 'ou ouk eimi ikanoV ta upodhmata bastasai' - 'of whom I am not competent to carry the sandals'. Why does this author choose to say 'carry the sandals' rather than 'untie the strap of the sandals'? An alternate meaning of the verb 'bastasai' (to carry) is 'to deliberate upon' - and did you notice the 'bread/demons' [ as ] there ? (see www.authentic-christianity.org Chapters 3 & 6). Accordingly we may read
    
    ' ... I am not competent to deliberate upon his sandals'.
    
    
    The encounter with Melchizedek is called to mind once more by the contrast drawn between 'John the baptist' and the 'son of the PERSON' (alt: son of man) at Lk.7:31-35 (echoed at Mt.11:16-19) :
    
    42N 7 31 tini oun omoiwsw touV anqrwpouV thV geneaV tauthV kai tini eisin omoioi
    42N 7 31 To what then shall I liken the people of this generation? And what are they like?
    42N 7 32 omoioi eisin paidioiV toiV en agora kaqhmenoiV kai prosfwnousin allhloiV a legei hulhsamen umin kai ouk wrchsasqe eqrhnhsamen kai ouk eklausate
    42N 7 32 They are like children, those sitting in the marketplace and calling to another - who say 'We played on the flute to you and you did not dance. We sung a lament and you did not weep'.
    42N 7 33 elhluqen gar iwannhV o baptisthV mh esqiwn arton mhte pinwn oinon kai legete daimonion ecei
    42N 7 33 For John the baptist has come not eating bread and not drinking wine - and you say he has a demon.
    42N 7 34 elhluqen o uioV tou anqrwpou esqiwn kai pinwn kai legete idou anqrwpoV fagoV kai oinopothV filoV telwnwn kai amartwlwn
    42N 7 34 The son of the PERSON has come eating and drinking - and you say : 'Look, a gluttonous and wine-bibbing PERSON, a friend of tax collectors and sinners'.
    42N 7 35 kai edikaiwqh h sofia apo pantwn twn teknwn authV
    42N 7 35 But wisdom is justified by all her children.
    
    Gnostic John [alias Abram] abstains from 'bread and wine' - for he disdains that which marks out Jesus, the so-called 'son of man' [alias Melchizedek, glutton, wine-bibber, tax collector and sinner]. Perhaps the children - all unwitting - have the answer to the riddle ?
    
    
16. There is one final matter of significance to consider. At Gn.15:2-3 we have :
    
    01O 15 2 legei de abram despota ti moi dwseiV egw de apoluomai ateknoV o de uioV masek thV oikogenouV mou outoV damaskoV eliezer
    01O 15 2 But Abram said "Ruler, what will you give me ? For I am left childless but (for) the son of Masek, one born in my house" (this is Damascus Eliezer).
    01O 15 3 kai eipen abram epeidh emoi ouk edwkaV sperma o de oikogenhV mou klhronomhsei me
    01O 15 3 And Abram said "Look, to me you have not given seed - but one born in my house will inherit (from) me"
    
    In some modern English translations there is no mention of 'Damascus Eliezer' - but he does appear in both Jerome's Latin (Vulgate) and in the 'King James' bible (CE 1611). Then remember Paul's 'conversion upon the road to Damascus' ? Why Damascus ? Could there be a link between these two stories ?
    
    The modern translators who omit this passage may cite as a reason 'the obscurity of the text'. Well, obscure it may be - but perhaps we can solve it up to a point. For 'damaskoV eliezer' (Damascus Eliezer) is an anagram source for the name 'melcisedek' (Melchizedek), lacking only the character 'c' - arguably substituted in this source by the character 'z'. It was not unusual in the hieroglyphic tradition of Egypt to substitute one character in a phrase.
    
    Simon Singh (Ref. 4) writes "On other occasions a phonetically different but visually similar hieroglyph would be used instead of the correct one. For example the horned asp hieroglyph, which usually represents 'f', might be used in place of the serpent, which represents 'z'. Usually these encrypted epitaphs were not intended to be unbreakable, but rather they acted as cryptic puzzles to arouse the curiosity of passers-by, who would thus be tempted to linger at a tomb rather than moving on".
    
    Then we are told that this one is 'o uioV masek' (the son of Masek). So now I shall guess a bit. The consonants 'm.s.k' are found in each of the names 'melcisedek', 'masek', 'damaskoV'. These may therefore be just aliases for Melchizedek, 'king of Sodom'. Then 'eliezer' (Eliezer) appears to be not only his son but also 'born in the house' of Abram and so liable to inherit Abram unless Abram has a child of his own. Clearly there is more to it than this - but as yet I have not managed to work it out any further. Possibly it refers to Ishmael, born to Abram and Hagar 'the Egyptian', for as we saw in [#10] above, Sodom and Egypt are (spiritually) equivalent.
    
    
    

8.3 Melchizedek in Psalm 110
The other place in the OT (LXX) texts where Melchizedek is mentioned is Psalm 110 :

Here are some comments on this psalm. Ostensibly it is addressed to one of the Davidic kings :

1. Verse 1. "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet".
   
   In Genesis we hear the curse upon Cain :
   01O 4 11 kai nun epikataratoV su apo thV ghV h ecanen to stoma authV dexasqai to aima tou adelfou sou ek thV ceiroV sou
   01O 4 11 And now you are cursed from the earth, which opened its mouth wide to receive the blood of your brother from your hand.
   
   In Exodus, 'h dexia' (the right side) is associated with power, with glory - and once again with blood [eg. Ex.15:6 and Ex.29:20].
   
   Next, the 'ariqmoV' (number value) of the word 'ecqron' (enemy) = 834. But it is easy to 'make your enemy the footstool of your feet' - for the number value of the word 'upopodion' (footstool) is exactly the same, 834.
   
   If you want to check it out for yourself, the conventional number equivalents of the Greek characters are given in section 3.2 (Chapter 3) of this web-site at 3.2 Technical Matters.
   
   The religious culture of Egypt is manifest in Judaeo-Christian scripture and this technique - known as 'mathematical translation' - is commonplace. The particular example set out here is echoed explicitly four times in the New Testament texts - at Lk.20:43, Ac.2:35, Heb.1:13, Heb.10:13.
   
   For interest, the following phrases also have number value = 834 and may therefore be associated with 'the enemy' :
   'dwdeka' = twelve
   'dedwka' = I have given
   'braciona' = arm
   'uie dauid' = son of David
   'sarx asqenhV' = weak flesh
   'andreV duo' = two men
   'arsen kai qhlu' = male and female [as at Gn.1:27]
   
   
2. Verse 2. Moses has 'rabdon' (a rod). This is what happens :
   
   02O 4 2 eipen de autw kurioV ti touto estin to en th ceiri sou o de eipen rabdoV
   02O 4 2 But the lord said to him "What is that in your hand?". He said "A rod".
   02O 4 3 kai eipen riyon authn epi thn ghn kai erriyen authn epi thn ghn kai egeneto ofiV kai efugen mwushV ap' autou
   02O 4 3 And he said "Throw it on the earth". He threw it on the earth - and it became a serpent. And Moses ran away from it.
   
   The serpent is a token of evil. So beware of those wielding 'rods of power'.
   
   
3. Verse 3. This verse has been discussed more fully under [#12] in the previous section. The word 'ewsforoV' (morning star = Venus) is clearly associated with Melchizedek. Within scripture, a variant is 'fwsforoV' - in Latin, Lucifer. This we know as a title for satan, the so called 'fallen angel'.
   
   
4. Verse 4. 'The lord has sworn (an oath) and he will not repent : you are a priest for ever of the order of Melchizedek'.
   
   Melchizedek is mentioned only twice in the Old Testament canon : the second time is in this verse of Psalm 110. A key question is this : which oath is referred to here? The answer may lie in this.
   
   Being ' a priest for ever of the order of Melchizedek' presumably involves 'bringing out bread and wine' [as at Gn.14:18]. Then, as discussed under [#11] in the previous section, this calls to mind the Yahwistic curses first imposed at Gn.3:14-19 - and confirmed upon Cain at Gn.4:11-12. Accordingly the 'oath sworn by the lord' may refer to these curses.
   
   
5. Verse 5. This could refer to the 'crushing of the kings' at Gn.14 ?
   
   
6. Verse 6. Associated with the curses, at Gn.3:15 we have "He will watch out for your head - and you will watch out for his heel". This may account for the crushing of 'heads' in this verse.
   
   
7. Verse 7. The only mention of 'ceimarroV' (a torrent) in Genesis is in the story [Gn.32:22-24] where Jacob sends his household over the 'ford of the Jabok' - and, 'Jakob' being left alone, 'a person wrestles with him until morning'. I shall not try here to analyse this obscure (and important) story - but only to note that the reference to 'a torrent' in this verse of the Psalm is perhaps a way to create an association with Jacob.
   
   I also point out that the word 'ceimarroV' is a single word anagram source for the word 'ceir' (a hand) - and may refer to Cain's hand which (at Gn.4:11) brings forth the blood of Abel. Also the first two syllables of this word 'ceimarrou' sound similar to the word 'aima' (blood) - as well as being almost an angram source for that word too. So the subliminal associations seem to be with blood, with Cain's hand - and perhaps with Jacob's nocturnal struggle. I should mention also that this word appears only once in the NT at Jn.18:1 - when Jesus goes out 'peran tou ceimarrou tou kedrwn opou hn khpoV eiV on eishlqen' ('over the torrent of Kedron where was a garden into which he went'). This would appear to associate Jesus too with the things of the previous sentence.
   
   

Finally, as I have mentioned both Melchizedek and Cain here, I would like to quote Rv.3:12 :

66N 3 12 o nikwn poihsw auton stulon en tw naw tou qeou mou kai exw ou mh exelqh eti kai grayw ep auton to onoma tou qeou mou kai to onoma thV polewV tou qeou mou thV kainhV ierousalhm h katabainousa ek tou ouranou apo tou qeou mou kai to onoma mou to kainon
66N 3 12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my god, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my god - and the name of the city of my god, the new Jerusalem, going down out of heaven from my god - and my own new name.

Now did you get that ?

"I will write upon him the name of my god, the name of the city of my god - and my own new name".

And did you see what that name was ?

Was it not 'kain' - Cain ?

The ariqmoV value of kain = 81
The ariqmoV value of melcisedek = 919
The ariqmoV value of kain + melcisedek = 81 + 919 = 1000
The ariqmoV value of o nikwn = 1000

So Melchizedek and Cain are complementary (in the mathematical sense of the word), circumscribing the world.

Consistent with other conclusions drawn above, it also appears that Melchizedek and Cain are complementary - presumably as 'father' and 'son'.

Then at Jn.10:30 Jesus himself declares :
43N 10 30 egw kai o pathr en esmen
43N 10 30 I and the Father are one

And at 2P.3:8 the equivalence is declared between ONE and A THOUSAND :
61N 3 8 en de touto mh lanqanetw umaV agaphtoi oti mia hmera para kuriw wV cilia eth kai cilia eth wV hmera mia
61N 3 8 But in this let it not escape your notice, beloved, that ONE day with a lord (is) as A THOUSAND years - and A THOUSAND years as ONE day.

8.4 Melchizedek in the NT 'Letter to Hebrews'
Within the NT canon, Melchizedek is mentioned only in the letter to the Hebrews. But there in chapters 5-7 he is mentioned 8 times - and associated with Jesus Christ. Without going into too much detail, the following points are made :

1. [Heb.5:6 & 7:17] Christ Jesus, son of god, is the one referred to at Ps.110:4
   'su ei iereuV eiV ton aiwna kata thn taxin melcisedek'
   "You are a priest for ever of the order of Melchizedek".
   
   
2. [Heb.5:10] He is named by god ...
   'arciereuV kata thn taxin melcisedek'
   ... high priest of the order of Melchizedek.
   
   
3. [Heb.5:11] 'peri ou poluV hmin o logoV kai dusermhneutoV legein epei nwqroi gegonate taiV akoaiV'
   About whom (there is) for us much 'logos' to say - and hard to interpret, seeing you have become sluggish with the hearing.
   
   
4. [Heb.7:3] Melchizedek is fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having no beginning of days nor end of life. But made like [see Gn.1:26-27 ??] the son of God, he remains a priest for eternity.
   
   
5. [Heb.7:4-10] It was normal for a tithe to be paid to the priests (descendants of Levi). Abraham was the ancestor (precursor) of Levi - yet even Abraham paid tithes to this priest [Gn.14:20]. This indicates what a great (priest) this Melchizedek must have been - to whom even Abraham, the patriarch, "gave a tenth out of the best spoils".
   
   
6. [Heb.7:11] But Christ Jesus is not of the conventional priestly order of Aaron : he is 'a priest of the order of Melchizedek'.
   
   
7. [Heb.7:14] It is evident that 'our lord' has sprung out of Judah - in which tribe, about priests, Moses spoke nothing.
   
   
8. [Heb.8:8] 'memfomenoV gar autouV legei idou hmerai ercontai legei kurioV kai suntelesw epi ton oikon israhl kai epi ton oikon iouda diaqhkhn kainhn '
   For finding fault with them, he said "Look, the days are coming", says the lord, "And I will complete upon the house of Israel - and upon the house of Judah - a new covenant.
   
   

So this 'special priesthood' is established in a 'new' covenant - and did you see the name of kain (Cain) there?. It is inherited through Israel (alias Jacob, who in Genesis Chapter 27 lies three times to his own father) - and through Jacob's son Judah, who at Genesis Chapter 38 takes as a prostitute his own daughter-in-law, Tamar. Then this latter story is echoed at Jn.8:1-11 (the woman taken in adultery) - with Jesus taking the place of Judah. The woman (Tamar) has (still) not returned his 'string', 'seal' and 'rod' - so Jesus is forced to use his finger to write on the ground. And, like Judah before him, he is unable to condemn the woman.

Some final thoughts :

1. It may be wise to remember that "Judah is a lion's cub" [Gn.49:9].
   
   
2. [Rv.5:5] 'kai eiV ek twn presbuterwn legei moi mh klaie idou enikhsen o lewn o ek thV fulhV iouda h riza dauid anoixai to biblion kai taV epta sfragidaV autou'
   One of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Look, the lion has overcome, the one who is of the tribe of Judah - the root of David - to open the book and its seven seals".
   
   
3. [1P.5:8] 'nhyate grhgorhsate o antidikoV umwn diaboloV wV lewn wruomenoV peripatei zhtwn [tina] katapiein'
   "Remain sober : keep watch. Your adversary, a devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour".
   
   

8.5 Extraneous Information
Here are some abstracts from Microsoft's 'Encarta' Encyclopaedia [Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corp; (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnalls Corp] :

J Ralston Skinner has written on the Kabalistic significance of the characters who appear in the Genesis story. In his Key to the Hebrew Egyptian Mystery (Ref. 5) he says :

In the text quoted above, I have emphasised names which clearly link to the texts of Genesis - and of Psalm 110.

What is said in this abstract seems to be consistent at least in part with the observations which (independently) I have been able to make in the foregoing sections of this note.

Indeed one might go further than this, for then we may consider again Gn.1:26-28 :

The reference to making this PERSON to be 'in the image of a god', yet 'male and female he made them', may perhaps remind us of the qualities attributed to Ares/Mars - 'disintegrating into the modification of two opposites for production'.

8.6 PostScript
This site is still 'under construction'. So please forgive its shortcomings ! There is always more which might be done.

If you would like to make any comments (favourable or otherwise) or have any corrections to offer, then I would be delighted to hear from you - and please accept my thanks in advance. Please use this e-mail address :

8.7 References
[1] Kahn, David, 'The Codebreakers : The Story of Secret Writing', Simon & Schuster (Scribner), 1967, 1996 : ISBN 0-684-83130-9, p.92
[2] In LXX Greek we have 2nd sg. aor. subj. act. from the verb 'diairew'
    - see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2324848 ).
[3] 'A Catechism of Christian Doctrine', CTS Pocket Classics, ISBN 0851834205
    or 'The Penny Catechism : A Catechism of Christian Doctrine', ISBN 0895557525
[4] Singh, Simon, 'The Code Book', Fourth Estate, 1999 : ISBN 1-85702-889-9, p.217
[5] Ralston Skinner, J., 'Key to the Hebrew-Egyptian Mystery in the Source of Measures', Kessinger Publishing, ISBN 1-56459-519-6, p.186