As a pastor, I get asked a lot of questions about the Bible. One of the more popular questions that I get asked is this: who was Melchizedek? I have yet to figure out why people like to ask that question so much. Now, in certain contexts, I understand the question. Tomorrow night, when we have a Bible study on the book of Hebrews, that will be a good, legitimate question. But I have been asked the question when a Bible study in Hebrews was the farthest thing from anyone’s mind. When I moved into the Parsonage in Avon, one of the men there came by to install a ceiling fan for me. As he was putting it in, he asked me: “So, who do you think Melchizedek was?” It left me wondering where the question came from.
For those of you who have never heard this question before, let me say that there are two answers that you can give to this question. The first answer is that Melchizedek is a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus. The second answer is that Melchizedek was an ancient king, ruler of what would be come Jerusalem in the time of Abraham. For those of you who are still confused, let’s go back even further. In Genesis 14, Abraham’s nephew Lot is still living in the city of Sodom. Sodom and the surrounding cities are attacked, and the people of those cities are taken into captivity, probably to serve as either slaves or sacrifices. (It is hard to know which fate would be worse). Abraham is alerted to what has happened. Thus, he raises an army from his household that defeats the four kings who have attacked Sodom. Lot and all who are with him are saved. As Abraham journeys back home, he is met by Melchizedek, the King of Salem. Genesis 14:18 tells us that Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High. Genesis 14 also tells us that Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of all he had. Abraham’s tithe showed that he considered Melchizedek to be of greater importance.
In our passage today, the author of Hebrews says that Jesus is a priest like Melchizedek. Like Melchizedek, Jesus is not from the tribe of Levi, the tribe of priests. Melchizedek could not be a Levite because Levi had yet to be born. He was Abraham’s great-grandson. Jesus was not a Levite because in his humanity he was a descendant of Judah, the tribe of Kings. So neither Jesus nor Melchizedek were priests based on lineage. Instead, they were priests based on their character and their righteousness. Hebrews 7:15-16 says: “And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life” (NIV, emphasis added). One of the central points in the book of Hebrews is that the New Covenant established through Jesus is better than the Old Covenant established through Moses. In Hebrews 7, the author of Hebrews shows that the New Covenant has a greater priesthood since it is based on the righteousness of the priest not on human lineage.
So why all this discussion about whether Melchizedek is actually Jesus? I think it is because of what the author of Hebrews says about Melchizedek in verse 3. He says: “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.” If Melchizedek is described as being without father and mother and being without beginning of days or end of life, he doesn’t sound like any human being I know. That sounds pretty God-like. No wonder people have concluded that Melchizedek must be a pre-Incarnate appearance of Christ. But I think we have to be cautious here. I think the context gives a different sense to verse 3. I think the proper interpretation of verse 3 is that Melchizedek was without recorded father or mother, without recorded beginning of days or end of life. In Genesis, we get a lot of genealogy. But we don’t have any for Melchizedek. He stands out among the righteous in that we do not have a record of his parent’s name or the amount of years that he lived. Not having a recorded father or mother or a recorded beginning and end of his life, Melchizedek becomes a symbol of Christ who in His eternal nature has existed forever without having ever been created.
To me, Hebrews 7 is very clear that Melchizedek and Jesus are not the same person. Time and time again we are told that Jesus is “like” Melchizedek. In addition, we are told that Jesus is of the order of Melchizedek. This really doesn’t make a lot of sense is Jesus is Melchizedek. The language seems to suggest two different individuals. Reading Hebrews 7 and Genesis 14, I would conclude that Melchizedek is a symbol of Jesus’ priesthood. He is not, however, Jesus Himself.
There is much more that could be said on this question. This is really just a start. But next time someone asks who Melchizedek was, I think I’ll just send them here.
No comments:
Post a Comment