The Seal of Melchizedek – Part 5

The seal of Melchizedek as seen on the entrance doors of the Salt Lake Temple

The seal of Melchizedek as seen on the entrance doors of the Salt Lake Temple. (Click for larger view)

(Continued from Part 4)

It’s been a long time coming, since September 2008 to be exact, and I’d like to finally complete this series of posts on the seal of Melchizedek.  It is probably one of the most trafficked series of posts on this website.  It’s drawn a lot of attention, and may have even been part of what compelled a BYU scholar, Alonzo L. Gaskill, to publish an article about it in The Religious Educator at BYU in 2010, which article I’d like to talk about.

But first, there are a few other artifacts related to the symbol that I’d like to share.  As I pointed out in Part 2, this seal is most prominently found as displayed in the mosaics and iconography in the basilicas of Ravenna, Italy.  Indeed, this is very likely where Hugh Nibley saw this symbol originally, as perhaps did Michael Lyon, and where he may have coined the name the “seal of Melchizedek.”  The symbol is shown on the altar cloths in these mosaics, shown next to Melchizedek, Abel, and Abraham, in making sacrificial offerings to God.  The altar cloth also shows gammadia in the corners, right-angle marks like the Greek letter gamma, which is also very interesting, and worthy of a study in and of itself.

To begin, I want to note again that to date I have not found any evidence for this symbol being called the “seal of Melchizedek” by any other scholar, historian, or historical figure in recorded history before Hugh Nibley and Michael Lyon.  That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but it is likely a conception that began with the Latter-day Saints, making a logical connection between the symbol and the Biblical figure found adjacent to it in the mosaics.

In my investigation of the seal of Melchizedek back in 2008, I came across some other depictions of this symbol anciently.  One  was in the mosaic “Theodora’s Procession with Retinue” from San Vitale, one of the same basilicas where the other seals are located.

Theodora's Procession with Retinue, San Vitale basilica, Ravenna, Italy

Theodora’s Procession with Retinue, San Vitale basilica, Ravenna, Italy.

Princess Julia Anicia garment closeup

Princess Julia Anicia garment closeup, showing the seal of Melchizedek

In addition to showing a veil being parted on the left, possibly representing the veil of the temple, and entrance to the Holy of Holies, the woman immediately to the left of Theodora is likely the royal Princess Julia Anicia.  On the lower portion of her garment is prominently seen the same seal of Melchizedek, perhaps indicating her royal status.

It is interesting that Theodora in this image is carrying a chalice, one commentator noting that it may represent Christ’s sacrificial blood, yet also notes that this is “problematic because only a priest should be so consecrated to minister herein.”

The symbol is found in more than just Christian iconography.  Another place I found this symbol prominently displayed is in the Muslim world.  There it has become known as the Rub el Hizb, and is dominantly used on many Muslim emblems and flags.  Wikipedia notes that it may be originally found in the Quran, and to mark the end of a chapter in Arabic calligraphy.  Indeed, it is even included as part of the vast Unicode family of characters, ۞ at U+06DE.  It is also noted that the symbol may have represented Tartessos, an ancient civilization based in Andalusia.

Ground plan of the Dome of the Rock

Ground plan of the Dome of the Rock

For Islam it is also known as the al-Quds star, i.e. Jerusalem star, and may have ties to the octagonal ground-plan of the Dome of the Rock.  Furthermore in Islam, this symbols is also related to Muhammad himself, in the form of the Khātam al-Nabiyyīn, or “Seal of the Prophets,” which designates him in Muslim belief as the last of the prophets to reveal God’s divine message.  It is likely that Professor Daniel C. Peterson knows much more of this symbol’s use in Muslim culture.  More can be read at

Again, the symbol is also found in Hinduism, where it is known as the Star of Lakshmi, and where it represents Ashtalakshmi, the eight forms, or “kinds of wealth”, of the goddess Lakshmi.  The geometry of the symbol is intricately noted in mathematical formulas here, a subject which Nibley explored quite a bit in his last magnum opus One Eternal Round.

Signet of Melchizedek

Signet of Melchizedek

Another place we find the eight-pointed star is none other than in Freemasonry, and this time it is directly associated with Melchizedek.  As Tim Barker has found in his post on the subject (as well this excellent overview by Tim), Henry Pelham Holmes Bromwell published a book in 1905 which extrapolates an eight-pointed star from Euclidean geometry, which Bromwell notes in the caption is called the “Signet of Melchizedek”1.  While not exactly the same as the two interlocking squares that we’ve come to know as the seal of Melchizedek, this eight-pointed star certainly approximates the same shape.  Unfortunately, Bromwell fails to explain how the shape has a connection to Melchizedek.

Likely the original source of the name “seal of Melchizedek” is the caption by Michael P. Lyon on the photo of the mosaic from the Basilica of St. Apollinaire in Classe in Ravenna, Italy, as shown in Nibley’s book Temple and Cosmos.  Since that is where the name most probably originated, speaking with Michael Lyon on the subject would possibly illuminate some things, which is precisely what Tim Barker has done, as documented on his blog LDS Studies.  Lyon recalls that it may have been Nibley who inserted the words “so-called” before the term “seal of Melchizedek,” perhaps indicating his hesitancy at the name.  Yet Lyon notes that he believes it was another scholar, sometime after the creation of the mosaics, that may have linked the symbol to Melchizedek, and called it the “seal of Melchizedek,” perhaps in a 19th century book on Catholic symbolism.  This is the missing link that no one, including Lyon, has been able to find or confirm.

Of course, where would we be without making a connection back to Egypt.  Ancient Egyptian Coptic textiles have been discovered which mirror very closely the symbols in the Ravenna mosaics.  Indeed, the Ravenna mosaics may have been the result of intermingling with Egyptian culture, or originated directly from the Christians in Egypt.  A book entitled Catalogue of textiles from burying-grounds in Egypt by Albert Frank Kendrick published in 1920 is very instructive relative to these textiles, and is freely available for download from Google Books.  What is also fascinating is that Kendrick also connects the gammadia on the Ravenna mosaic altar cloths with the gammadia found on Egyptian Coptic garments (which Tim Barker also notes well):

Early altar-coverings, as represented in mosaics and illuminated MSS., often had this form of decoration, and it is also to be found quite frequently in reliefs and stone carvings. The resemblance to the Greek letter gamma has given to cloths thus ornamented the name of gammadion, gammadije, or gammidae….

With regard to the form and decoration of the garments, comparisons with representations in mosaics, paintings, and carvings prove conclusively that those worn in Egypt were not peculiar to that country…

The two famous mosaics in the church of S. Vitale, representing the Emperor Justinian (d. 565) and his queen Theodora, with attendants, are a very valuable record of the costume and ornaments of the time… The tunics and mantles of the women on the Empress’s left have square, star-shaped and circular panels, and some are covered with small diaper patters… A mosaic in S. Vitale, representing the Sacrifices of Abel and Melchizedek, shows an altar-covering with angular ornaments, and a large eight-pointed star in the middle.  Numerous ornamental details of the mosaics at Ravenna also resemble in a remarkable way the more elaborate patterns of the stuffs from Egypt… It should also be remembered that, although none of the Ravenna mosaics are earlier than the fifth century, many of the ornamental details were survivals of patterns used at an earlier date.”2

Below is one Coptic textile that is the most striking, as it is almost identical in form to the altar cloth found in the Ravenna mosaics, shown in the frontispiece of Kendrick’s study, but includes several other eight-pointed stars as well.  It is one of the largest (approx. 9′ 6″ long and 6′ 3″ wide) and most well preserved of such cloths in existence, at least in 1922, and may be located at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.  It dates from Akhmim, 3rd-4th century, and Kendrick notes it could have served as an altar cloth, or some sort of curtain or hanging (veils?), as well as a garment to be worn:

It is the garment corresponding to the pallium that we find in Egypt. There it may even have had other uses, as a curtain or hanging. The question has been often debated whether the fine big cloths found in Egypt were really used in life as garments. They are oblong in shape, one entire specimen in the Museum (No.6), measuring 9 ft. 6 in. by 6 ft. 3 in.’ The probable explanation is that many of them served a variety of uses, like the Roman toga; and as a matter of convenience, the large cloths, whether garments or hangings, are described together here and in other sections of the catalogue. Figures and reliefs provide ample proof that cloaks were worn in Egypt over the tunic. These would be peculiarly suitable for a wrapping at burial [at burial!], and we need have no hesitation in assuming that such garments are to be identified among these cloths from the graves…

An outstanding feature of the decoration of a number of large cloths in the Museum is the characteristic border composed of four ornamental right-angles [gammadia, from the Greek letter gamma].  This ornamentation would be very suitable for floor-coverings; and it is easy to show that it was applied to curtains and hangings; but that it was also used on cloaks is made clear by the decoration of certain mummy-cases, where it is seen on the shoulder.3

Coptic Egyptian textile, with gammadia in the four corners, and eight-pointed star in the center

Coptic Egyptian textile, with gammadia in the four corners, and eight-pointed star in the center

While there appears to be little that connects Melchizedek to the eight-pointed star symbol beyond the few mosaics in Ravenna, Italy, it still remains that Melchizedek was an enigmatic figure in the Old Testament, and much remains to be learned about him.  Here are some of my thoughts as I have discussed this with others, including gleaning some from Margaret Barker’s work on Melchizedek (who, in passing, told me that she hasn’t published any thoughts about this symbol, other than considering it might be linked to “Wisdom,” which is another interesting subject I might explore in a future post).

Melchizedek is an interesting Biblical figure, and Joseph Smith certainly revealed more of this important character in this dispensation. I feel that the term may be more of a title than a name, although the historical Biblical character clearly became known by that name. It is almost as if Melchizedek is the title, or new name, of one who has become a Son of God (cf. JST Heb. 7:3). Those who become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ become Kings and Priests of Righteousness too, or just like a “Melchizedek.” Indeed, Christ is said to be after the order of Melchizedek forevermore (Hebrews 5:6). In essence, Christ has become a Melchizedek, a King of Righteousness, a King of peace, a Prince of peace, just like we can become when we obtain a fulness of the Melchizedek priesthood.

Here’s another thought, could Melchizedek have been a pre-Mosaic name for Christ, the pre-mortal Jehovah, or Yahweh? I’ve noticed that the phrase “most high God” (El Elyon) seems to be used almost exclusively in Genesis, and there only in the passage stating that Melchizedek was a priest of the “most high God” (Gen. 14:18). In earlier chapters the term “LORD God” or “Yahweh Elohim” is used, but not in this passage. It is also interesting that directly after stating that Abram gave tithes of all to Melchizedek, Abram states, “I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth…” (Gen 14:22). Did Abram give tithes and make covenants with Melchizedek, or Yahweh, or the most high God, or could they all be considered one in the same at that point?  (The phrase “possessor of heaven and earth” in this verse is also insightful as relating to the symbols of the circle and square, as explained below).  BYU religion scholar Andrew Skinner notes in his book Temple Worship that the Israelites lost the privilege of having a knowledge of the “most high God” or God the Father during the Mosaic dispensation. Could the name of Melchizedek have been lost during that time, referring only to Yahweh, God the Son? Clearly, if Melchizedek was a high priest acting in God’s stead he was acting with divine investiture of authority, and so these things are hard to determine precisely. But they are interesting to ponder.

A friend of mine, and a fantastic scholar, Jeffrey Mark Bradshaw, who wrote the tome In God’s Image & Likeness (which is remarkable in regards to temple studies), had this exquisite thought about what might be the meaning of this eight-pointed symbol that we’ve coined the “Seal of Melchizedek”:

Since we don’t have much in the way of texts we can draw on, maybe another tack is to think about the symbol itself. We do know something about gammadia in a priesthood context, and although we don’t know much about the completion and interconnection of gammadia into the eight-pointed star, we do know something about how the circle and square are combined, and their joint meaning in this context.

To me, the intersection of the circle and square are most satisfactorily explained in terms of the coming together of heaven and earth in both the sacred geometry of the temple and the soul of the seeker of Wisdom4, which might be equated to the culminating blessings that follow as an eventual consequence of having received a fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

In Buddhist thought, the center of the mandala may be seen as an undimensioned point of origin, the divine “essence” toward which the outer circumferences of the figure grasp5 (e.g., “The shape, with its focus on the circle (referring to the heavens) and the square (referring to the earth), forms the foundation of the traditional view that the cosmic ritual structure brings heaven and earth together. In this place the initiate confronts and achieves union with the divine realm”6.) The fully-rendered figures of the circle and the square manifest in their completeness what the tools of the compass and the square symbolize only in anticipation.7

Which brings us back to the article by Alonzo Gaskill in The Religious Educator on the subject of “The Seal of Melchizedek?”  Gaskill finds the symbol lacking in its explicit relationship to Melchizedek, as do I.  But I am of the opinion, as is Tim Barker and others, that symbols are what we make of them, since they are flexible representations of the people who view and use them.  As Tim noted:

If there were no ancient connection with Melchizedek and the eight-pointed star, is it wrong for us as Latter-day Saints to adopt the eight-pointed star as the seal of Melchizedek?  Brother Gaskill feels that if anything, it should only represent the Savior.  While I agree that it should represent the Savior, I personally see nothing wrong with associating this symbol with Melchizedek, who might be the person who most strongly symbolizes the Savior.  Gaskill asserts that the symbol never has “anything to do with Melchizedek or the Melchizedek Priesthood,” and that “there is nothing ancient or scholarly to support such a connection.” He stated that the “unknown artist of the murals left no known explanation of his objective,” and further declares that he has “established that there is nothing in scholarly or ancient sources to support the interpretation that this symbol represents Melchizedek or his priesthood…”8

If the Latter-day Saints want to ascribe this symbol as a representation of Melchizedek, his Priesthood, and therefore after the order of the Son of God (D&C 107:3), our Savior Jesus Christ, and call it the “Seal of Melchizedek,” then why not?  That’s what symbols are.

  1. Henry Pelham Holmes Bromwell, Restorations of Masonic Geometry and Symbolry Being a Dissertation on the Lost Knowlege of the Lodges, (H.P.H. Bromwell Masonic Publishing Company, Denver, CO, 1905), 170. []
  2. Kendrick, Catalogue of Textiles from Burying-grounds in Egypt, 32-38 []
  3. ibid., pg. 31-33 []
  4. J. M. Lundquist, “Fundamentals of temple ideology from Eastern Traditions,” In Reason, Revelation, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, pp. 666-671 []
  5. M. G. Rje, Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric Systems, p. 270 []
  6. J. M. Lundquist, Fundamentals, p. 666 []
  7. Email, September 4, 2008.  These thoughts are more thoroughly addressed by Bradshaw in his book, In God’s Image & Likeness, pgs. 571-74. []
  8. Tim Barker, “Seal of Melchizedek – Eight-pointed Star,” LDS Studies. []


  1. dan C
    Posted July 14, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    I was in the Karachi airport on a business trip and I realized I was surrounded by this symbol. It is part of the decor of the baggage claim/ customs area. I haven’t read all 5 articles but I wonder if this symbol has a specific meaning in Islam? I have a grainy cell phone picture I would be happy to send you.

  2. Posted July 14, 2012 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    Yes, this part discusses Islam.

  3. el oso
    Posted July 14, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Were there Sunstones before Nauvoo? How about the long pointed 5 stars? LDS have a rich history of making symbols in addition to discovering or reinterpreting ancient symbols. Thanks for the work on this article.

  4. dan C
    Posted July 14, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Bryce, sorry I missed that the first time through….good stuff.

  5. Posted July 15, 2012 at 12:55 am | Permalink

    My specialty is Islamic geometry and this shape is pretty much universally called the “Seal of Solomon”, soI can see where Margaret Barker may get the connection with wisdom. (Side note, the shape we call the Star of David is also sometimes the Seal of Solomon, but associations with the state of Israel have pushed that symbol into disfavour.)

    In terms of understanding the symbolism of this shape, there are few elements that should be noted.
    1. this shape is part of a family of geometry which is derived from the square, which suggests an association with transcending the limits of earth and material creation.
    2. this shape is inseparably related to the octagon and the number 8. In Islam the throne of God is borne up by 8 angels. Further geometric analysis of the Dome of the Rock floor plan will reveal that the placement of columns, etc is governed by the seal of Solomon.
    3. architecturally speaking, the octagon is a transition shape between a cube (earth) and a sphere (heaven) and therefore occupies a symbolic space which is very easily associated with prophets, Christ, and temples. Also, baptismal fonts in European churches are quite commonly octagonal.

    There are some pretty compelling reasons why LDS members could get excited about this symbol, but like Gaskill, I’m am deeply dubious that it has an ancient association with Melchizedek.

    If anyone is interested, I will be teaching a workshop on Islamic geometry at the BYU Museum of Art on September 7, 2012 and will be focusing on this shape, its symbolism in Islamic art and architecture, and how it is constructed using compass and square.

  6. Posted July 15, 2012 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Interesting thoughts Lisa. Thank you. Question, isn’t the Seal of Solomon (or Star of David) made up of of 6-pointed star (2 interlocking triangles), not eight-pointed (2 interlocking squares)? Also, since we find this symbol on the 6th century mosaics of Ravenna, right next to Melchizedek, there seems to be at least some, however minimal, connection there. Why would the Seal of “Solomon” appear in the mosaics? How does Solomon figure in? I’d be interested in attending your workshop at the MOA.

  7. Posted July 15, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    As I mentioned above, yes, the Star of David is also often designated the Seal of Solomon and I don’t have a good explanation for why the name would be applied to both symbols.

    When you get into drawing these shapes with the compass, there is close correlation between three- and six-fold designs with the circle, whereas four- and eight-fold designs are connected to the square. If I were demonstrating this visually, I’d suggest that the six-fold Seal of Solomon might be representing communication from heaven to earth, and the eight-fold Seal might be representing the transformation of the earthly into the heavenly. This same correlation of the heavenly point of view with six-fold geometry and the earthly with four-fold geometry is suggested by Ibn Arabi. (can’t remember exactly where right now) Sorry if this is unclear — I’m used to being able to draw pictures to explain this stuff rather than having to write it!

    I don’t think that the eight-pointed star is exclusively associated with Solomon, but the association is strong throughout the Islamic world. I don’t know at what point in Islamic history that the association would have been made and I certainly don’t intend to argue that the symbol that we see in the mosaics should be connected to Solomon.

    Since we don’t see this symbol associated with Melchizedek outside of Ravenna, but we do see it in many other priestly settings, I would argue that Melchizedek is being marked as having a priestly role in these mosaics, rather than the symbol being a marker of Melchizedek specifically.

  8. Posted July 15, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Lisa. Is it possible that the Islamic world originally borrowed the symbol from the Byzantines to incorporate into their theology? Where did Islam get it?

  9. Posted July 15, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    It’s possible, and you could certainly find examples throughout the Byzantine world.

    I confess that find it problematic and limiting to establish a single line of transmission since it’s such a simple symbol. It’s the sort of thing that anyone doodling would sketch. It is a shape that appears spontaneously as soon as a designer starts working with squares. (I think this is what was happening in the San Diego temple design process.) You don’t really need to have someone teach it to you. What would need to be taught would be specific meanings associated with it.

    One possible source of the esoteric associations with specific Islamic designs comes via discussions around the translations of Euclid that the Brethren of Purity were working with in Baghdad in the 10th century.

  10. Paul Justham
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    It also occurs to me that the eight points of the symbol are reminiscent of eight sets of upraised arms surrounding a central circle.
    Also interesting to note that the number 8 is often associated with new birth or rebirth. (The baptistry in Florence is octagonal, for example.)

  11. Chad
    Posted July 18, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    I think I may start a blog with an ongoing post on this symbol. It most certainly is ancient but connecting it to Melkezideck or Shem is difficult. I found this beautiful mosaic from a building built by Caesar:

  12. Posted July 20, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Some have asked me what my reaction is to Alonzo Gaskill’s article. He is certainly very negative about the connection between the symbol and Melchizedek, and even takes some shots at me, Hugh Nibley, and others. Indeed, there may have been no significant connection between the symbol and Melchizedek in ancient times, as Gaskill so readily point outs. But, we do not know for certain. History is not an open book. There may be more to be discovered. Gaskill is being very dogmatic in his assertions, and unwilling to explore further, which is a shame.

    The fact is this—today there is a significant connection between the symbol and Melchizedek as has been demonstrated by Hugh Nibley, Michael Lyon, President Hinckley, President Faust, the architects of many temples, Mormon paraphernalia, Mormon books, Latter-day Saints, myself, and many others. It is very apparent to me that the Saints want the symbol to stand for Melchizedek, his priesthood, and by implication, our Savior Jesus Christ. I see nothing wrong in that.

    Gaskill disagrees strongly, for some unapparent reasons. Maybe I need to sit down with him and talk about it. For one who has written so many books about gospel symbolism, and has such a tremendously well-educated background in religious studies, Dr. Gaskill should know better. Symbols are what we make of them; they do not stand independent of humanity, in a vacuum. The critics of the Church use similar arguments as Gaskill does to show that the pentagram is not a symbol of Christ, but a symbol of the devil, and therefore its use on our temples such as in Nauvoo is a display of our utter depravity. No.

    Dr. Gaskill, symbols are flexible instruments that reflect an understanding of a particular people in their own time, space, and culture. People make symbols, and attach meaning to them. If the Latter-day Saints want to adopt this symbol to represent Melchizedek, I see nothing wrong with that. Would not such help us to more often reflect upon the Savior, whose priesthood it is?

  13. syd james
    Posted March 26, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    I find it interesting how much the seal on the coptic clothe looks like the mirror of yata the most sacred thing in all of Japan believed to have been given to the first japanese from the creator Gods. This is the mirror cared for by the shito priest that the emporer looks into to see the face of god during the corination of the emporer.

  14. Lucy Skywalker
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    I’m not a LDS but this figure has me currently very interested. I personally think it is fine to call it the seal of Melchizedek for a whole lot of reasons I’ll start to make clear.

    We have to remember that in ancient times and even well into the Christian era, people told history with stories and pictures. Artists dedicated to God’s service (like icon painters) portrayed the numinous sense of God’s presence as well as they could by using stylised idioms and heightened imagery, to convey things that literally came from another dimension. I have no doubt that they would be inspired by dreams, day visions, and even just a sense of heightened perception. Therefore we can, with care, read into the Ravenna mosaics by using our own faculties of sensitive perception, as well as simply noting unusual facts. Like, how come both Ravenna churches portray Melchizedek in preference to lots of other Hebrew Bible characters?

    To unravel this puzzle a bit further, one might do well to investigate Procopius’ Secret History (see A.R.E. research on this) about Justinian and Theodora who both appear in Ravenna. Justinian gathered the Fifth Ecumenical Council, it seems, just to “anathematize” the saintly Origen of Alexandria, pupil of Clement. Why? It could well have been because Origen taught esoteric Christian studies like reincarnation. Perhaps, after Justinian, nobody in Christendom understood any more about the esoteric significance of this eightfold star.

    Or is that all that Google can help us track?

    Here is a suggestion that the symbol was important early on: – see Martyrium of St Philip picture

    And now, just have a look at this. Loads and loads of highly significant eightfold stars – in Christendom too:

    There is an extraordinary comment on Sioux tradition here:

    Why is it such a favourite in Islamic culture? One would do well to reflect on Islam’s inheritance, the great stargazing civilizations of Mesopotamia and Persia. Zechariah Sitchin may have had highly fanciful theories, but he does show evidence that these cultures may well have had close contact with “star beings”. Doesn’t the language used to describe Melchizedek remind one of the priest-kings of Mesopotamia? Doesn’t it suggest Melchizedek was a star-being himself? You LDS ought to be sensitive to these things! I’ve had dreams about this, and more, and am in no doubt about all this.

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *


Olark Livehelp