 |
 |
A Guys Guide to Hebrews: So who is this Melchizedek Guy Anyway?  Against the backdrop of biblical literature there are many varied and colorful characters. For many of these characters we have a plethora of information while information on others remains clouded and even mysterious. Among the pages of Hebrews emerges one of the most enigmatic of these figures, the priest-king Melchizedek. Background of Melchizedek in the Old Testament Genesis Melchizedek appears in the book of Genesis for three short verses (18-20) in chapter fourteen. He came upon the scene out of nowhere to receive tithes from Abraham as he is returning from defeating the kings who came against Sodom and Gomorrah. Essentially we learn four facts about Melchizedek from these verses: • He was a king of Salem • He brought Abraham gifts (bread and wine) • He blessed Abraham • He received tithes from Abraham. Psalms As you read your Bible you do not meet up with Melchizedek again until verse four of Psalms one-hundred ten. It is here, in this high-priestly psalm that a Jewish king is referred to as being a “priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” It is hard to tell from this lone Biblical reference to Melchizedek outside of Genesis, how prominent a place Melchizedek held in the life of the Israelites during the Old Testament times. One can only surmise from so few references that while Melchizedek was a known figure, he was not a major figure in the life of a Jewish individual and family. The name of Melchizedek is found nowhere else in the Scriptures until the epistle of Hebrews. Melchizedek Outside the Bible It is quite interesting to study the person of Melchizedek and the life that this character has taken on in extra-Biblical literature. As one writer summed up this fascination with such a character so rarely mentioned, “A great range of speculation developed in early Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic groups. It might be said that the interpretive imagination devoted to Melchizedek in extra biblical sources stands in inverse proportion to the sparsity of data found in the Bible about him.”1 The list of people and things that discuss Melchizedek is an impressive one. The person of Melchizedek receives substantial coverage by Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish historian Josephus, as well as the book of Second Enoch written in the first century B.C. He is the subject of two, and possibly three, texts from Qumran. The Person of Melchizedek in Hebrews When one reads the epistle of Hebrews it becomes readily apparent that the author is urging the recipients to go on to maturity as believers and not to return to the old law covenant after having been set free from those things through Christ. The author urges them toward maturity by showing Christ’s superiority to the old ways. He shows how Christ is superior to: the prophets, angels, Moses, the Aaronic priesthood, the Old Testament sacrifices, the tabernacle, and the Mosaic Covenant. One of ways in which the author urges the recipients of the letter to go on to maturity is by showing them that Christ is the high-priest of the redeemed believer. No longer was the Aaronic priesthood, which was tied into the Mosaic covenant, the means by which those of faith would approach God. Now each believer was a priest, with Jesus Christ acting as the high priest over all who believe. Hebrews shows that Christ as a high priest is superior to Aaron, and all those who followed Aaron as high priests, by explaining that Jesus is a high priest like Melchizedek, not Aaron. The author gives four reasons why a change of priesthood from those like Aaron to the one like Melchizedek was necessary. These four reasons make the very clear and concise case that the Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus Christ was superior to the Aaronic priesthood. Reason One: The Aaronic Priesthood produced people who lacked maturity 5:10-14 Melchizedek first appears in Hebrews in chapter five. The author there is making the point that Christ is the perfect high priest. To support his claim in 5:5-6 he quotes Psalms 110:4 and draws the comparison to Jesus being a “Priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.” He uses the phrase “according to the order of Melchizedek” again in verse 10 to further drive home his point. This repetition is important because of what follows. The author has much to say about Melchizedek, but it will be hard for him to explain since the recipients of the letter had become “dull of hearing.” The author wishes to talk about Melchizedek more, but he is somewhat restricted because the people had not matured to the point that they should have reached. The people should have been teachers themselves by this time, but they had not matured past the elementary principles of the faith. The author uses Melchizedek’s priesthood to expose the recipients of the letter of Hebrews to their own lack of maturity. The fact that this would be hard for them to understand proves his point that they were not mature and needed to continue in the faith toward maturity. This is “a reference here to the way that Melchizedek prefigures Christ. They [letter’s recipients] ought to be in a different condition. The readers of the epistle were not naturally slow learners but had allowed themselves to get lazy.”2 Reason Two: The Melchizedekian Priesthood was Without End At the end of chapter five the author leaves his discussion of Melchizedek momentarily to deal with the problem of the believer’s lack of maturity and slackness. After warning the recipients of the consequences of their immaturity, he returns to the subject of Melchizedek in 6:20. The author opens the lengthy discussion of the Melchizedekian priesthood by once again stating that Christ is a “priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” This concept, that Jesus is “priest forever,” will serve as the basis for the author’s point that the Melchizedekian priesthood is superior because it goes on forever. Melchizedek appeared to Abraham as “king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God.” He blessed Abraham and received tithes of the spoils that Abraham brought back from the battle. The author makes sure to draw several parallels making sure that the reader understands that Melchizedek was a king of righteousness and king of peace, further strengthening his comparison between the two. A positively messianic slant is given to this description, as the writer cites etymologies which interpret the name ‘Melchizedek’ and the title ‘king of Salem’ as ‘king of righteousness’ and ‘king of peace’ respectively. Commentators have long noted that righteousness and peace are qualities which have strongly messianic connotations and such associations would explain why the writer drew attention to these etymologies in the context of an exposition concerning Jesus: Melchizedek is being presented as an earthly type (or antitype) of the heavenly Son of God, the Messiah, who like Melchizedek will be a king of righteousness and peace.3 Verse three of Hebrews seven is probably one of the most interesting and debated verses in all of scripture, which is interesting because the exact meaning matters very little, so long as one understands the point that the author is trying to get across to the reader. The debate centers as to whether verse three teaches that Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ or that there were merely similarities in their appearances/priesthoods. I believe that the author is not teaching that Melchizedek was Christ, but merely that Melchizedek’s origins are a type of the origins of Christ. Melchizedek appeared in the book of Genesis with no explanation of his family origins. We know nothing from the Biblical record pertaining to his lineage, his age, or his death. It is because of this that he continues on as a priest. The author of Hebrews will drive home the point in verses twenty-three through twenty-eight that Christ is a superior priest because He will not die as the Aaronic priests; this is exactly the point of verse three. Melchizedek continues on as a priest because no one replaced him when he died as far as we know, for we do not even know when he died. “It [verse 3] has to do with the description God uses in setting Melchizedek before us…It was not that he was like the Son of God in essence, but made like Him in description and consequent typical significance.” (Newell, p. 216) Jesus Christ exists as a priest the same way. The pre-existent person of Christ had no beginning or end of days, there is no claim to the priesthood by a genealogy, but rather as a priest appointed by God He can and will exist as a priest forever. Reason Three: Melchizedekian Priesthood is Better because of Abraham’s Blessing Not only was the Melchizedekian priesthood superior to the Aaronic because of its perpetuity, but also because of the superiority of the person of Melchizedek to Abraham and thus to his descendents Levi and Aaron as well. The writer of Hebrews views Melchizedek’s priesthood as better than Aaron’s because of the fact that Abraham, Aaron’s ancestor, paid tithes to Melchizedek. The reasoning is that the lesser always pays tithes to the greater. “The basic principle seems to be that the status of the recipient determines the status of the giver, because the recipient is always superior to the giver.”4 The writer’s entire argument rests on this fact, and he is so sure of its logic that he states “without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.”(v.7) Thus, because Aaron would come from Abraham’s loins, in a sense he paid tithes to Melchizedek, making Melchizedek greater than Aaron through Abraham. “When Abraham paid Melchizedek a tithe, the author sees Levi as paying it, for ‘Levi was still in the body of his ancestor’…Levi was thus included in the payment of the tithe (and, of course, all the priests who descended from him and who the Hebrews esteemed so highly). The author wants his readers to be in no doubt about the superiority of Christ to any other priests and sees the mysterious figure of Melchizedek as powerfully illustrating this superiority.”5 Reason Four: Christ’s Priesthood could bring Maturity In the four uses of Melchizedek in Hebrews the first and fourth serve as necessary bookends. The second and third reasons for the change of priesthood focus on a change due to the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood. The first and fourth reasons focus on the change of priesthoods because of a necessity for the spiritual life. The first time (in verses 5:10-14) the author used Melchizedek was to show the recipients the necessity of the new priesthood because of their own immaturity. The last time the author makes reference to Melchizedek it is to show the people the necessity of the new priesthood because only through the Melchizedekian high-priesthood of Christ could they truly come to maturity. The author makes his case that the Levitical priesthood could not bring one to perfection or maturity. His point is that if the law and Levitical priesthood could have brought someone to maturity then there would not have been any need for a different priesthood. Because the priesthood needed to be changed then “of necessity there takes place a change of law also.”(v. 12) “The Levitical system was a special provision by which the imperfect could approach God by means of vicarious offerings. It did not possess within it the power to effect perfection in the worshippers. Law had no mandate for such a positive aim…The law could in fact do no more than reveal man’s shortcomings. The need for a successor to Melchizedek thus rests on the inability of the order of Aaron to produce perfection.”6 The real crux of this discussion is that a Jewish audience would automatically object to Christ being any sort of high priest for He was born of the tribe of Judah rather than that of Levi. There had never at any time been a priest from the tribe of Judah. An audience comprised mostly of Jews would also remember the judgment of Saul (A Benjamite) for officiating a sacrifice when he was ineligible (I Samuel 13). If Christ is going to be the high priest then there must be some sort of way around the Levitical priesthood, this is where the priesthood of Melchizedek comes in. A Jewish audience must be shown that God was instituting a new law, a new covenant, and a new priesthood all simultaneously and in unison. Jesus, according to the author of Hebrews, was qualified to be a priest, not because of his lineage, but because of His resurrection which the writer calls “an indestructible life.” (v.16) Jesus is said to have obtained his priesthood not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life. In the context of the argument of Heb 7, this is an exegesis of the phrase ‘for ever’ in Ps 110:4. The writer takes the phrase to imply that the person upon whom the Melchizedek priesthood is bestowed must be immortal or, as he himself says, indestructible (aakatalutos), since that person is to be a priest ‘for ever.’ Jesus fits this criterion perfectly, since by his resurrection he has been shown not to be subject to the normal processes of mortality and destructibility. Hence, the phrase ‘power of an indestructible life’ is a reference to his resurrection and perpetual life, which is presumably accomplished by the power of God…Jesus’ priesthood ‘by the power of an indestructible life’ (Heb 7:16) can therefore be seen as an alternative expression of the concept of priesthood by the power of the Spirit, so that in this respect too there is an important correspondence between the nature of the ancient royal priesthood and the messianic priesthood of Jesus as portrayed in Heb 7.7 The author makes his case that the old covenant was “weak and useless.” Jesus has been made a priest according to the order of Melchizedek and He has brought with Him a new covenant and a better hope.
1 Michael E. Stone. Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Trinity Press Int. Harrisburg Pennsylvania 1998 p. 182 2 Leon Morris. Hebrews: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Volume 12. Zondervan Publishing House Grand Rapids MI 1981 p. 51 3 Deborah W. Rooke. Jesus as Royal Priest. Biblica 81 no. 1 2000. p. 81-94 4 Donald Guthrie. Hebrews: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England. 1983. p. 158 5 Morris. P. 65 6 Guthrie, p. 160-161 7 Rooke, p. 91
Staff Writer: Aaron Sharp |
 |
email to a friend