|
Messiah, King and Priest Melchizedek The LORD
hath sworn, and will not repent, Carl Hagensick Little is recorded in the Old Testament about this contemporary of Abraham. In fact, so little is known of his personal life that we would be unlikely to consider him a type at all if it were not for the apostle’s dissertation about him in the book of Hebrews. The Genesis Account The only historic account of Melchizedek is found in a brief episode in Genesis 14:9-20. Chedorlaomer, king of Elam (now southwestern Iran) headed up an allegiance of four kings which took captive the inhabitants of Sodom, including Abram’s nephew Lot. Abram took a small force of 318 servants to rescue Lot. They succeeded in a battle at Hobah, sixty miles south of Damascus. On the return an individual who appears, as it were, out of the blue, met the group: Melchizedek, king of Salem (Jerusalem) and “a priest of the most high God.” Melchizedek welcomed the returning army with a refreshment of bread and wine. Abram appears to have known this person previously for he not only accepted the proffered gift, but reciprocated by giving Melchizedek one-tenth of all the spoils of victory. Jewish tradition, based on the Targums, both of Jerusalem and of Jonathan, holds that Melchizedek is a title bestowed on Shem, a son of Noah, and therefore the elder Patriarch of the Semitic tribes. Before the giving of the Law the eldest male in a family clan performed the priestly functions of a tribe. Shem, at this time, would have been about five hundred years old. It is surprising to find him ruling a city in an area controlled by the descendants of his brother Ham. While Elam is a Semitic name, it is likely that Chedorlaomer was either a Hamitic conqueror of that ancient kingdom or an idolater (that name means “the servant of the god Lagamar”). In any case, Abraham recognized Melchizedek’s right to a tenth of the spoil. It is noteworthy to observe that the ceremonial offering of bread and wine is reminiscent of the Last Supper where Jesus introduced the same two offerings as symbols of his flesh and his blood. For his footstep followers these replaced the typical Passover symbols of lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread. Melchizedek in Prophecy The only other mention of Melchizedek appears in the psalms: “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4). It is likely, in fact, that David composed this entire psalm as an ode to this priestly king (see Reprints, pp. 2935, 2936). Verse 1: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” As Abraham was the active agent in the battle of Genesis 14 and Melchizedek the passive actor in the drama, so Jehovah is ascribed the active role in this psalm (see also 1 Corinthians 15:24-28). Verse 2: “The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.” As both Abraham and Melchizedek (if he was actually Shem) were Semites dwelling in an alien land, so both God and Christ fight their foes while dwelling in a world at enmity with the principles of righteousness. Verse 3: “Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains. From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you” (RSV). As Abraham’s faithful servants freely joined in the battle to liberate the captives, so will the servants of Jehovah willingly participate in the struggle to free all earth’s captives. As reliable as the early morning dew, so Abram could count on his younger followers, just as surely can God rely on his faithful servants. The Coverdale Bible (1535 A.D.) renders this passage, “In the day of thy power shall my people offer the freewill offerings with a holy worship.” This may explain why Abram met Melchizedek to present tithes in the Genesis account. A literal translation of this text would be: “Thy people shall be free-will offerings.” Verse 4: “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” This was an oath of God to David (as a type of Christ). The word “order” need not be suggestive of a succession of priests, but is better translated “similitude,” as in Hebrews 7:15 (Gesenius’ Lexicon has “manner” or “mode”). Verse 5: “The LORD at thy right hand doth crush kings in the day of his wrath” (Jewish Publication Society version). The thought is not, as the King James might imply, that he would strike through kings (using them as his agency), but that he would strike kings through (destroying them). Jesus is used as the general of Jehovah in making his enemies his footstool, as Abram destroyed and slew the coalition of the four kings and their armies. Verse 6: “He shall judge [“rule” or “dominate”; the same Hebrew word is translated “strive” in Genesis 6:3] among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.” As Abraham strove against the invading kings and prevailed over them, so God, through Christ, shall be successful in defeating Satan and all his minions. Verse 7: “He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.” “If it was necessary for our glorious Lord from the heavenly courts to drink of the brook of experience, and gain wisdom by the things he suffered, endured, and thereby to demonstrate his confidence in God, it is equally necessary that all the members of his body should likewise drink of the brook in the way, if they would hope to share with the Lord in the kingdom blessings.”—Reprints, p. 2936. Melchizedek in the Book of Hebrews In Hebrews the Melchizedek narrative is used for a different purpose. Whereas the psalmist wrote a victory song wherein Melchizedek plays the passive role of Christ and Abram, as God, plays the active role in making a footstool of the enemies of Christ, the apostle sees Abram as the Aaronic or sacrificing priesthood acknowledging the superiority of the Melchizedek, or reigning, priesthood. The larger part of three chapters of Hebrews establishes the thesis of the supremacy of the Melchizedek priesthood over the Aaronic. First the groundwork: “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” (Hebrews 5:4-6). Since no one could presumptuously aspire to being a priest, either of the order of Aaron or of Melchizedek, even Christ could not assume such an office without a specific call. Not being of the lineage of Aaron, he could not lay claim to the office begun by Aaron. However, he could exert his right to be of a different priesthood, that of Melchizedek. In verses 10 and 11, the apostle explains that he has much to say on this subject, and that it will be hard for his readers to understand, probably partly because it is a previously little-discussed picture and partly because of the paucity of information on the subject. The gist of the apostle’s argument is found in Hebrews chapter 7. There he makes seven points to prove the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood: 1. Melchizedek was both a king and a priest (Hebrews 7:1). When God dictated the governmental arrangements, he separated the priestly, or sacerdotal functions, from the kingly or regal ones. The priest had, through the Urim and Thummim, direct contact with God in adjudging the law, while the king exercised the executive role of law enforcement. So rigid was this rule that King Uzziah was struck with leprosy for violating it (2 Chronicles 26:19-21). Only in the cases of Melchizedek and, perhaps, the high priest Joshua were the two roles combined. 2. Abram, and by extension his great-grandson Levi, paid tithes to Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:2-10). The priestly tribe of Levi was supported by a ten percent tithe from the other eleven tribes. Since Levi, and thus all the priests, were descendants of Abraham, they figuratively paid tithes to Melchizedek. The apostle states it succinctly: “Through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes” (Hebrews 7:9, NAS). 3. The Melchizedek priesthood was by appointment, not by heredity (Hebrews 7:3). What one needed to become a priest in ancient Israel was to be born of the ancestry of Aaron. In contrast the Melchizedek priesthood was a meritocracy, with appointments made on the basis of qualification. The statement that he was “without father, without mother” is not intended to mean he had no parents, but rather that he inherited neither his priestly nor his kingly office.1 4. Melchizedek was the blessor of Abraham (Hebrews 7:6). Not only did Abraham pay tithes to Melchizedek, Melchizedek, in turn, blessed Abraham. This point is summarized with the poignant statement, “Without [any] contradiction the less is blessed of the better” (Hebrews 7:7). 5. While Aaron’s priesthood was temporary. Melchizedek’s was eternal (Hebrews 7:14-16). While the Genesis account is silent on this point, Paul quotes Psalm 110:4 to show that, by God’s own oath, the Messiah, as heir of this priesthood, was to be “for ever.” 6. The Levitical priesthood failed to bring perfection, necessitating a new priesthood (Hebrews 7:11,12). Not only was the Melchizedek priesthood distinct from that of Aaron, it had to be so if perfection was to be obtained. He acknowledged that the Mosaic law needed a change to provide for this new priesthood. 7. Jesus, being of the tribe of Judah, could not inherit the hereditary priesthood of Aaron (Hebrews 7:14). Having shown the validity of the claims of Jesus as being the Messiah by his being better than the angels (chapters 1 and 2), better than Moses (chapter 3), and better than Aaron (chapters 5 to 7), he makes his final case that, though a rightful heir to the throne of David through his lineage from the tribe of Judah, that very fact precluded him from the Levitic priesthood. Therefore a way needed to be prepared for a change in the priesthood, from that of Aaron to that of Melchizedek. A Parallel Picture Only one other individual is mentioned (and that only in a prophetic sense) as both a priest and a king: the post-exilic priest, Joshua, the son of Jehozadak: “Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah; then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest; and speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the LORD.”—Zechariah 6:10-14. Here Joshua is evidently a picture of Jesus since his name is called “The Branch,” a title elsewhere used in prophecy of the Messiah (Jeremiah 33:15). The Chaldaic Targum inserts the phrase “whose name is my MESSIAH” after “the man.” The Amplified Bible correctly expresses the thought of Zechariah 6:12: “And say to him, Thus says the LORD of hosts: [You, Joshua] behold (look at, keep in sight, watch) the Man [the Messiah] whose name is the Branch, for He shall grow up in His place and He shall build the [true] temple of the LORD.” The crowns mentioned in Zechariah 6:11, or crown (singular) as Adam Clarke asserts seven ancient manuscripts as having it, were to be made from donated gold brought back from Babylon. This seems to connect the hard experiences of the Babylonian captivity with the future reign of Messiah. As Paul writes: “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him” (2 Timothy 2:12). Joshua only was to wear this crown once before it was laid up as a memorial, held in reserve, as it were, until the antitypical Joshua, the Branch, Messiah, would claim it and build his spiritual temple. While Zerubabel was of the Davidic line and governor at the time, only Joshua was to wear the crown. The object of this priesthood is given in Zechariah 6:13, “the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” Adam Clarke connects the identification of The Branch with Messiah when he writes: “As the Messiah is intended, the counsel of peace—the purpose to establish peace between heaven and earth, must be between the Father and the Son.” The Maccabees The only other instance where the kingly and priestly functions were combined was when the priest, Judas Maccabeus, led a revolt against the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes, who had defiled the temple by erecting his own statue in the Most Holy. After his victory, he founded the Hasmonean Dynasty that ruled Israel until the days of Herod the Great. God, however, never authorized this joining of the priestly and kingly functions. Even many Jews questioned the authority of this dynasty since it did not come from the line of David. The Church is also Kings and Priests The royal priesthood after the similitude is not limited to Jesus alone, but also includes his church, his body: “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years” (Revelation 20:6). It behooves all true Christians to be faithful to their consecration so they can share in the work of this priesthood in building the temple of God and bringing all mankind back into harmony with their Creator. 1. The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad (Journal of Near Eastern Studies [JNES] (1942); p. 247-306, 460-492) lists seventeen names, one underneath the other, ... (16) Uspia, (17) Apiasal, and then adds the subscription, “Seventeen kings who dwelt in tents. Then ten names with parentage, Apiasal, son of Uspia ___, son of Apiasal, ...” Then comes another subscription, “Ten kings with fathers.” From these we deduce for the first group, “Seventeen kings without fathers” [having been recorded in the list the scribe is copying from], and ten kings in the second group were now living in a city [the capital city]. One implication of the expression is that their office was not an inherited one.
On the other hand … It seems evident that Melchizedek, priest of God most high, typifies The Christ, head and body. But can Abram typify God himself? Melchizedek is not a priest of Abram, but of God most high. Abram pays tithes to Melchizedek, and in turn is blessed by him. And Abram lifts up his hand (i.e., swears) unto Jehovah God most high. God is not inferior to Christ, nor need he swear unto himself. So whom may Abram in this case typify? Perhaps Abram typifies Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Levi, Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel and the other Ancient Worthies when they are resurrected. They will rescue “Lot” (fleshly Israel) out of the nighttime of Armageddon, while the oppressors will be destroyed. Thus, the rest of the people will also be freed from the oppression of this present evil world. In Psalm 110:1, the phrase “Sit thou at my right hand” does not imply sitting still, a passive role. God made Christ “to sit at his right hand … and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body.” “He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi.” “Let the nations bestir themselves, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat; for there I will sit to judge all the nations round about.” (Ephesians 1:20-23; Malachi 3:3; Joel 3:12) The phrase “The Lord at thy right hand will strike kings through” shows that Christ, as well as God, has an active role. Melchizedek must surely not have been Shem, because we know 1) Noah was his father, 2) his genealogy back to Adam, and 3) that he lived six hundred years (Genesis 5:3-32; 11:10,11). —J. Parkinson |