Who is Melchizedek?
You know what? I’m not going to go to the stake on this. I believe Christ was active in the Old Testament. He was known as God-from-God, the Divine Mediator of the Most High. Many people met Him. All faithful Israelites trusted in Him and in His future incarnate work. But none of that commits me to saying Melchizedek was one of His titles. But, having said that, I think it’s a pretty good bet!
He is a beginningless, parentless, everlasting, royal priest of God Most High. He’s the King of Righteousness, King of Peace, King of Jerusalem. Ring any bells?
“Ah but what about Hebrews 7:3?” someone will say. Indeed, what about about Hebrews 7:3?
without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, and being made like to the Son of God, doth remain a priest continually. (YLT)
Is that true? Is he really without beginning of days and end of life? And does he remain a priest continually? I’m aware of more sophisticated arguments on this point but I try to be a simple sort. In which case he’s either the pre-incarnate Jesus or there’s four members of the trinity.
Ok, but what about “being made like to the Son of God”? Well:
a) “Son of God” is a title – and a crucial one in Hebrews. So much of the book is a comparison of “Son” to other titles: “angels”, “Son of man”, “servant”, “high priest” etc. “King of Righteousness” is like “Son of God” especially when you consider Heb 1:8 – ‘the Son’ has the ‘sceptre of righteousness.’
b) The perfect passive (“being made”) is common in Hebrews for what happens to Jesus. So in Heb 1:4 He becomes superior to the angels because of the more excellent name He has inherited (i.e. “Son”). In Heb 2:9 He is crowned with glory and honour (high priest’s clothing – Ex 28:2,40). In Heb 2:17 He is made like His brothers. In Heb 3:3 He is found worthy. In Heb 5:5 He is appointed high priest, in v9 He is made perfect, and in v10 He is desgnated high priest in the order of Melchizedek. In fact it’s this verse that prompts the discussion of Melchizedek. And in Heb 6:20 it is repeated that Jesus has become high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
So Melchizedek in Genesis 14 is a type – but a type of Himself, i.e. His future incarnate work. He is indeed the King of Righteousness, the King of Peace and the eternal Priest of God Most High. And He is that as He meets Abraham.
God was not trying to deceive Abraham by having a mere man appear in such an exalted Role. So it truly was the Son of God who appeared as Melchizedek. But His appearance as Melchizedek was a foretaste of His future priestly work. This is just the same as His appearances as “The Angel (i.e. Sent One) of the LORD.” They were foretastes of His future incarnate work as Sent from the Father.
So for Melchizedek to effect His true priesthood, He would need to lay hold of the Seed of Abraham (Heb 2:16), to take flesh and perform His true priestly work. In other words, He would need to be made like “the Son of God.” You see He always has been Son of God, but the title while eternal is also inherited through His incarnate work! Get your head around that one if you can – but Heb 1:4 and 5:5 state it plainly. So Melchizedek (who is pre-incarnate Son of God) must be made like “the Son of God” in order to be a true Priest.
The argument of chapters 5-7 therefore is something like this: He’s superior to Aaron because He is also King. And He’s superior to Melchizedek because He’s also man.
You might ask why He’s in the order of Melchizedek. Well I think the real problem would be if He was in someone else’s order. Jesus is in a class of His own! He started the club (as Priest-King) and then slotted into the fullness of the Role: incarnate-Priest-King.
That’s my understanding at the moment anyway.
Of which I’m sure about 3% will make it into my Sunday sermon.
Any thoughts of your own? Tips on how to preach Hebrews 7?
.
.
Please read this site:
http://www.fromthesunrising.wordpress.com
http://www.watchtower.org
http://mindfulchristian.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/jehovahs-witness/
Let the truth be seen and known by all!
You said that Melchizedek was a type of himself. I am not sure exactly what you were saying there. I have often wondered about him. I have also have heard that Joseph ( Genesis 50:19-21) was also a “type” of Christ. I think I will read some more on”Melchizedek.
Hi Moore to ponder,
What I mean by being a ‘type of himself’ is that Genesis 14:18-20 was an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. But this appearance (under the title ‘Melchizedek’) foreshadowed His future incarnate work. If you like, this was Jesus showing us what He would do when He took flesh as Jesus.
Joseph was a type of the Christ-to-come. But He wasn’t the pre-incarnate Christ Himself.
Melchizedek was also a type of the Christ-to-come. But He Himself was also the pre-incarnate Christ. And in the fullness of time He was made like unto ‘the Son of God’ (Heb 7:3, KJV) when He took flesh.
Is that slightly less unclear? :)
I have read that account before, but I don’t think I fully grasped it. I hope it is alright if I ask another question and hopefully it will not seem like a digression. I am thinking about Genesis 32 and verse 30 in particular. Would it also be a true statement to say, “that Jacob wrestled with the pre-incarnate Christ”?
I have always found some of the special encounters with God like the burning bush, the transfiguration, the time God spoke to Samuel when he was a boy, and Eljah in 1Kings 19 fascinating. But I have had trouble differentiating the differences in terms like “The Angel of the Lord” from what you might call “The Pre-incarnate Christ).
I do believe in the Trinity, and that they are all eternal, for example, when God was creating Genesis 1:26 says “Let us”. Then in John 1 there is more about that.
Hi Moore to ponder,
Yes certainly it was the pre-incarnate Christ with Whom Jacob wrestled. Also known as “the Angel of the LORD” (Hosea 12:4).
We know that no-one has ever seen God the Father, but God the Son has made Him known (John 1:18; Col 1:15).
I’ve got plenty of stuff on these issues here if you’re interested:
http://christthetruth.wordpress.com/christ-in-ot/
in our Eternal Priest Jesus,
Glen
After I made my last comment I noticed the category at the top of the page called “Christ in OT”. I clicked on it and read a little. I am looking forward to reading more.
Thank you for replying to my comments and questions.
Looking unto Jesus,
Theresa
Glen, would be interested to see what you make of this observation: http://toliveischrist.info/coomars/so-many-covenants-so-little-time
Thanks Tim,
I’ll definitely look forward to reading that after tomorrow :)
Hey Tim, yes indeed. What an awesome truth – the blood of the eternal covenant. And to mix the terms of Hebrews with those of Galatians 3 – isn’t it true that the “new covenant” (Gal 3:6-9, 16, 29) is much older than the “old covenant” (Galatians 3:17-25).
I’ve got some diagrams on it (and an mp3 of my law seminar) here: http://christthetruth.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/ot-law-seminar/
The new covenant has ever been new, in-breaking, life-giving, inwardly-renewing, all-encompassing, unlimited. The old covenant has ever been old, shadowy, death-dealing, externally-ineffectual, partial, fading.
Are your posts closed to comments?
I have comments on them but haven’t got round to turning them on. I will do so, however, just for you! :-) If you check in about an hour they should be there…
Looking forward to hearing the mp3!
I am of the opinion that the REAL identity of Melchizedek can not be determined. To me, he cannot be Christ-preincarnate. He certainly has the titles correct. But in Hebrews 7, the Greek word is used that implies a comparison between 2 people. How can Christ be compared to Himself? Melchizedek is mentioned in the Bible as a TYPE of Christ, as you have stated. That would make the incarnate Christ Jesus the ANTI-TYPE. I am of the opinion that Melchizedek is simply a metaphor that was pointing to Jesus’ role He should have in the life of a disciple. If it were meant for God’s people to KNOW more about Melchizedek, I am confident there would have been more mentioned about him. But if you think about it, there are only 2 (TWO) core topics in God’s Word, the Bible. Those TWO main topics are God’s plan of salvation and God’s plan of service. In this life, that’s all we need to be concerned with.
Another question of the ages for you: Who wrote the book of Hebrews? Just like with who Melchizedek is, there are many theories on the author of the book of Hebrews, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. I don’t think that will ever be answered satisfactorily as far as beyond a shadow of any doubt. Again, it’s not important who wrote Hebrews; the messages given in Hebrews should be our only concern. Authorship is moot. Those who claim to be God’s people, more times than not, try to read too much into God’s Word rather than concentrating on the important things like winning souls to God and how to serve God to the best of our abilities.
Hi Rick,
On the list of “Questions that need answering” I don’t put the identity of Melchizedek high on the list. But it’s there. And every now and again it’s worth visiting those questions that are further down the list.
I don’t think I’d summarize the bible in the way you do “God’s plan of salvation and God’s plan of service.” Where do you get that idea from? The absolute centre of the bible is not a plan but a Person – the LORD Jesus Himself. Hence, identifying Him in Scripture would, I suppose, be more important for me than for you.
I agree that Hebrews 7 is making a comparison but I think it’s a comparison of ‘titles’ rather than ‘persons’. I think Mel is the pre-incarnate Christ typologically foreshadowing what He would do as incarnate High Priest. I believe that all His pre-incarnate appearances have an element of typology to them (think of the burning bush He appears in and all that this signified about His future incarnate work). So it’s not an either-or (either typology or personal appearance).
Mostly I think Mel is the Son because of how people in Scripture address and speak of Him. I don’t think Abram or David would think so highly of a creature.
But as I say – this isn’t high on my list. But it’s there, along with the whole counsel of God. And all of it is a testimony to Jesus. The more we see this, the more we are equipped to win souls to God and serve Him.
:)
I personally believe with my heart that he is a pre-incarnation of Christ but im not saying that its right or wrong but at this stage,thats what i believe.
“Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. (11) Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.” (Hebrews 5:10-11)
If Melchisedec were simply a human being without a traceable lineage, what would be so “hard” to understand about that? If Melchisedec were a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus… it is easy to see how that would be difficult to understand!