Hi Steve,
I was listening to your audio commentary on Genesis 14 about Melchizedek. I thought that Melchizedek was a type of Jesus but you said that Melchizedek is Jesus. If I understood you correctly (i.e. Melchizedek is Jesus), then what was Jesus doing in Salem? Did he actually rule a kingdom during the time of Abraham?
Hebrews 7 - Is Melchizedek Jesus? Or a type?
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
Hebrews 7 - Is Melchizedek Jesus? Or a type?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Grace and peace,
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin Ho
In my opinion, Hebrews 7 was using the physical symbolism of a king who ruled in Salem during the time of Abraham to represent Jesus, in much the same way as Isaiah 7:12-14 was an overlay of a child historically born to Isaiah but also pointed to Jesus. For instance, there's no recorded genealogy of Melchizedek which proves his right to hold his office, whereas the Levitical priests were required to have genealogies proving their descent from Aaron. In the same way, Jesus didn't need a genealogy to prove His right to be our High Priest. He wasn't descended from Aaron.
The role and purpose of Melchizedek has been greatly misunderstood down through time. Just do a web search on the term "Melchizedek" and you'll get all sorts of spaced-out opinions (literally, even!) on who or what he might have been. The LdS are well-known for claiming to have inherited the "Melchizedek priesthood" which apparently consists of ordaining twelve year-old young men for the purpose of ministry. Was this what was intended? Interestingly enough, the LdS' Book of Mormon itself seems to suggest otherwise, but let's look at the facts as we have them:
In the time of Abraham, there were various -ites living in the land of Canaan. (Canaanites, Hittites, etc.) Several Mesopotamian kings collaborated on a military campaign through Syria/Palestine which went down one side of what's now the Dead Sea and up the other, killing and taking captives and plunder as they went. Abraham pursued their army with a few hundred of his own trained men (and at the time, that was a good-sized army, probably roughly equivalent to or only a little smaller than what the Mesopotamians had) and retrieved all of the plunder and captives. He then met with the king of Sodom in "the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's valley." Melchizedek, king of Salem, also met him there.
The phrase "king's valley" only occurs one other time in Scripture, in 2 Samuel 18:18. From this verse, we can deduce that it's either in Israel or close to it. "Shaveh" also appears in Genesis 14:5, as follows: "And in the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer came together with (other) kings with him and smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim..." The Emim lived in the land of Moab before the Moabites did, according to Deuteronomy 2:10-11. So Shaveh Kiriathaim must have been a city in Moab.
There were two cities called Salem in the land of Canaan at that time. One of them we know as Jerusalem, whereas the other was near the city of Shechem (Gen. 33:18 ). It's much more likely that Melchizedek was king of Jerusalem, however, not the other Salem. The valley of Shaveh, wherever it was, must have been close to or in the land of Moab, so it's more likely that Melchizedek went a short distance - from Jerusalem to this valley - as opposed to a long distance - from the other Salem.
The consensus of biblical scholars seems to be that the valley of Shaveh was the valley now called the Kidron, immediately eastward of Jerusalem. So, the area of Shaveh apparently went from Jerusalem right through what's now the Dead Sea and out the other side into the land of Moab.
Now, here are the important questions. Why would this valley be called the "king's valley" in the time of Abraham? How did it get that name? And, why would Melchizedek be associated with this valley?
Finally, what significance did the city of Jerusalem have, up to and including the time of Abraham?
Anyone have any ideas? Because the answers to those questions will tell you who and what Melchizedek was all about.
Damon
The role and purpose of Melchizedek has been greatly misunderstood down through time. Just do a web search on the term "Melchizedek" and you'll get all sorts of spaced-out opinions (literally, even!) on who or what he might have been. The LdS are well-known for claiming to have inherited the "Melchizedek priesthood" which apparently consists of ordaining twelve year-old young men for the purpose of ministry. Was this what was intended? Interestingly enough, the LdS' Book of Mormon itself seems to suggest otherwise, but let's look at the facts as we have them:
In the time of Abraham, there were various -ites living in the land of Canaan. (Canaanites, Hittites, etc.) Several Mesopotamian kings collaborated on a military campaign through Syria/Palestine which went down one side of what's now the Dead Sea and up the other, killing and taking captives and plunder as they went. Abraham pursued their army with a few hundred of his own trained men (and at the time, that was a good-sized army, probably roughly equivalent to or only a little smaller than what the Mesopotamians had) and retrieved all of the plunder and captives. He then met with the king of Sodom in "the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's valley." Melchizedek, king of Salem, also met him there.
The phrase "king's valley" only occurs one other time in Scripture, in 2 Samuel 18:18. From this verse, we can deduce that it's either in Israel or close to it. "Shaveh" also appears in Genesis 14:5, as follows: "And in the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer came together with (other) kings with him and smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim..." The Emim lived in the land of Moab before the Moabites did, according to Deuteronomy 2:10-11. So Shaveh Kiriathaim must have been a city in Moab.
There were two cities called Salem in the land of Canaan at that time. One of them we know as Jerusalem, whereas the other was near the city of Shechem (Gen. 33:18 ). It's much more likely that Melchizedek was king of Jerusalem, however, not the other Salem. The valley of Shaveh, wherever it was, must have been close to or in the land of Moab, so it's more likely that Melchizedek went a short distance - from Jerusalem to this valley - as opposed to a long distance - from the other Salem.
The consensus of biblical scholars seems to be that the valley of Shaveh was the valley now called the Kidron, immediately eastward of Jerusalem. So, the area of Shaveh apparently went from Jerusalem right through what's now the Dead Sea and out the other side into the land of Moab.
Now, here are the important questions. Why would this valley be called the "king's valley" in the time of Abraham? How did it get that name? And, why would Melchizedek be associated with this valley?
Finally, what significance did the city of Jerusalem have, up to and including the time of Abraham?
Anyone have any ideas? Because the answers to those questions will tell you who and what Melchizedek was all about.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
If we did not have the insights given to us by the writer of Hebrews, we would have to conclude that Melchisedek was an early king associated with the Jebusite city-state of pre-Davidic Jerusalem. Somehow, this king also found a way to become a "priest of El-Elyon [Yahweh]" in an age when Yahweh had not yet established any religious order or priesthood. We would be at a loss to know why Abraham, the Hebrew, immediately recognized the spiritual superiority of this man to himself, when it was Abraham, not any Canaanite king, who was chosen to be the progenitor of the messianic race. These things are very mysterious indeed.
Jewish rabbis suggested that Melchisedek was, in fact, Shem, the last surviving son of Noah, the oldest man then living on earth, and the direct ancestor of Abraham and his kin. This suggestion is quite ingenius, as it would explain several of the enigmas mentioned above... Many, but not all.
If we take Melchisedek to be a mere mortal, then Shem is clearly the best candidate, but many questions remain unanswered, like:
1) When and how did Shem become associated with the society of the Canaanites, which were related to Ham, not Shem, and who were recipients of a profound curse uttered by Noah (Gen.9:25)?
2) Why is he here called by this name, when his name in every previous instance is given as "Shem" (Genesis, chapters 5-11)?
3) Most importantly, why does the writer of Hebrews say things about Melchisedek that could never be said about Shem?
It is the fashion among commentators to assume that Melchisedek was some otherwise unknown earthly king of Salem (short for Jerusalem), the mysterious nature of whose person served to make him a fitting "type" of Christ, suitable for the writer of Hebrews to employ for illustrative purposes.
The less-espoused view is that Melchisedek was indeed Christ Himself, in one of the many Old Testament Christophanies (appearances of Christ prior to His incarnation). Most evangelicals acknowledge that we find several such Christophanies in the Old Testament (especially the many references to "the Angel of the Lord"). But is there reason to include Melchisedek in this category?
The opening verses of Hebrews 7 summarize everything that is known of Melchisedek from Genesis 14, and also draw from the other lone reference to him in the Old Testament, Psalm 110:4. Then the writer sets about to explain every detail.
He dispenses with the idea that the man was literally the king of the earthly city of Salem. This is understood as meaning only that he was the "King of Peace" (Salem=Shalom=Peace). Also the name Melchisedek translates into "King of Righteousness." Thus, we are told that Melchisedek was king of both Righteousness and Peace. Since Jesus is elsewhere called "Prince of Peace," this information alone puts us on the author's track.
The author draws from the fact of Melchisedek's blessing and receiving tithes from Abraham the conclusion that the former is the acknowledged superior of the latter. If Melchisedek was a mere man, what could possibly have conferred this superiority to him over even Abraham? That is the very point the writer of Hebrews is raising, I think, to suggest that Melchisedek was not a mere human.
We are further told (by way of extrapolation) that Melchisedek had no parents, ancestry, beginning or end of days (Heb.7:3). Most important, we are told that Melchisedek "remains a priest continually" (Ibid.). If this man were a mortal, living in Abraham's day, how could he, 2000 years later, in the days of the writer of Hebrews, still be said to be in office?
In Hebrews 7:8, Melchisedek is contrasted with "mortal men" and we are assured that he, unlike them, "still lives." If the priests of the Aaronic order were mortals, but Melchisedek was not a mortal, it seems to rule out any identification with Seth.
Also, unlike the Aaronic priesthood, the Melchisedek priesthood is "non-transferable" --i.e., not passed down from one generation to another (Hebrews 7:23-24). Now here is a mystery! If this priesthood is not transferable from one man to another, and it was once (and still!) held by Melchisedek, how is it that Christ now possesses it? It cannot transfer from Melchisedek to Christ, since the former holds it in perpetuity (v.3), and it is not transferable from one man to another. This can only work if Christ is not "another," but is the same person as Melchisedek.
Besides, the writer speaks of Melchisedek in this way: "Now conider how great this man was..." (v.4). In all the chapters previous, in Hebrews, angels, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the prophets, etc. were brought to our attention, only to say of them, "Christ is much greater than any of these!" But now we have the author changing direction entirely. He talks about Melchisedek, and then, instead of saying, "But Christ is greater than him," the author says, "consider how great this man (Melchisedek) is!" Suddenly, Christ, who has previously eclipsed all the other Old Testament worthies, must Himself step back to be upstaged by this man Melchisedek--though scholars think him to have only been an obscure ruler of a Canaanite city! Yet, he outshines Moses, the prophets, et al, and even, seems to be Christ's equal. In the purpose of the author of Hebrews, this can only make sense if, in his mind, Melchisedek IS Christ Himself.
One may deny that Melchisedek is Christ, I suppose, but I do not think we can deny that this was the opinion of the writer of Hebrews.
Jewish rabbis suggested that Melchisedek was, in fact, Shem, the last surviving son of Noah, the oldest man then living on earth, and the direct ancestor of Abraham and his kin. This suggestion is quite ingenius, as it would explain several of the enigmas mentioned above... Many, but not all.
If we take Melchisedek to be a mere mortal, then Shem is clearly the best candidate, but many questions remain unanswered, like:
1) When and how did Shem become associated with the society of the Canaanites, which were related to Ham, not Shem, and who were recipients of a profound curse uttered by Noah (Gen.9:25)?
2) Why is he here called by this name, when his name in every previous instance is given as "Shem" (Genesis, chapters 5-11)?
3) Most importantly, why does the writer of Hebrews say things about Melchisedek that could never be said about Shem?
It is the fashion among commentators to assume that Melchisedek was some otherwise unknown earthly king of Salem (short for Jerusalem), the mysterious nature of whose person served to make him a fitting "type" of Christ, suitable for the writer of Hebrews to employ for illustrative purposes.
The less-espoused view is that Melchisedek was indeed Christ Himself, in one of the many Old Testament Christophanies (appearances of Christ prior to His incarnation). Most evangelicals acknowledge that we find several such Christophanies in the Old Testament (especially the many references to "the Angel of the Lord"). But is there reason to include Melchisedek in this category?
The opening verses of Hebrews 7 summarize everything that is known of Melchisedek from Genesis 14, and also draw from the other lone reference to him in the Old Testament, Psalm 110:4. Then the writer sets about to explain every detail.
He dispenses with the idea that the man was literally the king of the earthly city of Salem. This is understood as meaning only that he was the "King of Peace" (Salem=Shalom=Peace). Also the name Melchisedek translates into "King of Righteousness." Thus, we are told that Melchisedek was king of both Righteousness and Peace. Since Jesus is elsewhere called "Prince of Peace," this information alone puts us on the author's track.
The author draws from the fact of Melchisedek's blessing and receiving tithes from Abraham the conclusion that the former is the acknowledged superior of the latter. If Melchisedek was a mere man, what could possibly have conferred this superiority to him over even Abraham? That is the very point the writer of Hebrews is raising, I think, to suggest that Melchisedek was not a mere human.
We are further told (by way of extrapolation) that Melchisedek had no parents, ancestry, beginning or end of days (Heb.7:3). Most important, we are told that Melchisedek "remains a priest continually" (Ibid.). If this man were a mortal, living in Abraham's day, how could he, 2000 years later, in the days of the writer of Hebrews, still be said to be in office?
In Hebrews 7:8, Melchisedek is contrasted with "mortal men" and we are assured that he, unlike them, "still lives." If the priests of the Aaronic order were mortals, but Melchisedek was not a mortal, it seems to rule out any identification with Seth.
Also, unlike the Aaronic priesthood, the Melchisedek priesthood is "non-transferable" --i.e., not passed down from one generation to another (Hebrews 7:23-24). Now here is a mystery! If this priesthood is not transferable from one man to another, and it was once (and still!) held by Melchisedek, how is it that Christ now possesses it? It cannot transfer from Melchisedek to Christ, since the former holds it in perpetuity (v.3), and it is not transferable from one man to another. This can only work if Christ is not "another," but is the same person as Melchisedek.
Besides, the writer speaks of Melchisedek in this way: "Now conider how great this man was..." (v.4). In all the chapters previous, in Hebrews, angels, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the prophets, etc. were brought to our attention, only to say of them, "Christ is much greater than any of these!" But now we have the author changing direction entirely. He talks about Melchisedek, and then, instead of saying, "But Christ is greater than him," the author says, "consider how great this man (Melchisedek) is!" Suddenly, Christ, who has previously eclipsed all the other Old Testament worthies, must Himself step back to be upstaged by this man Melchisedek--though scholars think him to have only been an obscure ruler of a Canaanite city! Yet, he outshines Moses, the prophets, et al, and even, seems to be Christ's equal. In the purpose of the author of Hebrews, this can only make sense if, in his mind, Melchisedek IS Christ Himself.
One may deny that Melchisedek is Christ, I suppose, but I do not think we can deny that this was the opinion of the writer of Hebrews.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
Hi Steve,
Does that mean that Melchizedek-Jesus was not really the king of a physical city of Salem in Genesis? in other words, the king of Salem/peace was just a title that Melchizedek held.
Does that mean that Melchizedek-Jesus was not really the king of a physical city of Salem in Genesis? in other words, the king of Salem/peace was just a title that Melchizedek held.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Grace and peace,
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin Ho
Yes. I believe that is the case. If Melchisedek is a Christophany, it is not to be thought that he would live out a normal earthly career or hold a position in an earthly government. I think this is what the writer of Hebrews is saying when he says that Melchisedek was "king of Salem, MEANING 'king of peace.'" (Hebrews 7:2)
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
I would be careful with the writer of Hebrews' interpretation, however. First of all, what was his purpose in explaining Melchizedek?
His purpose was to explain why Jesus could be our High Priest when the priesthood was given to the tribe of Levi, and the high priesthood specifically to the descendants of Aaron. With that in mind, would he have any reason for reading an allegory into the text of Genesis 14?
My contention is, absolutely yes!
In the time of this author's writing, there were various Jewish opinions on who or what Melchizedek was. One of the most common interpretations was that he was Shem, as Steve pointed out. Another was that he was an angel of God.
Notice how the writer of Hebrews identifies Melchizedek to his audience. What questions is he trying to answer for them by wording his explanation this way?
"This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means 'king of righteousness'; then also, 'king of Salem' means 'king of peace.' Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God who remains a priest forever."
According to biblical law, Levitical priests must have a genealogy to prove their right to inherit the priesthood. As an example, certain priests who could not prove their genealogy were expelled from the priesthood after the return from Babylonian exile (see Neh. 7:63-65). So the writer's purpose in claiming that he had no genealogy is clear. As a high priest, Melchizedek had no recorded genealogy to prove his right to be a priest. But what about no father or mother, no beginning of days nor end of life?
Here is where the writer's purpose isn't so clear, so I want to suggest something. If we look at the genealogies given earlier in Genesis, we can clearly see who was descended from whom. We see fathers and sons listed, and we see the number of years that they lived listed. In Melchizedek's case, though, we have no record of who his parents were or how long he lived!
Was the writer saying that Melchizedek was Christ, or could the writer have been making an analogy between Melchizedek and Christ based on this fact?
By way of answering this, I'd like to call your attention to the latter part of this chapter. We read in verse 11 that "another priest should come after the order of Melchizedek instead of the order of Aaron."
Was Aaron the only priest in his order? No! THEN NEITHER WAS MELCHIZEDEK.
I submit that this "order of Melchizedek" was a priestly order in the exact same way that the Aaronic priesthood was. Jesus Christ was and is the fulfillment of this order of Melchizedek, but He is not to be equated with it in its entirety!
Does that make sense?
Damon
His purpose was to explain why Jesus could be our High Priest when the priesthood was given to the tribe of Levi, and the high priesthood specifically to the descendants of Aaron. With that in mind, would he have any reason for reading an allegory into the text of Genesis 14?
My contention is, absolutely yes!
In the time of this author's writing, there were various Jewish opinions on who or what Melchizedek was. One of the most common interpretations was that he was Shem, as Steve pointed out. Another was that he was an angel of God.
Notice how the writer of Hebrews identifies Melchizedek to his audience. What questions is he trying to answer for them by wording his explanation this way?
"This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means 'king of righteousness'; then also, 'king of Salem' means 'king of peace.' Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God who remains a priest forever."
According to biblical law, Levitical priests must have a genealogy to prove their right to inherit the priesthood. As an example, certain priests who could not prove their genealogy were expelled from the priesthood after the return from Babylonian exile (see Neh. 7:63-65). So the writer's purpose in claiming that he had no genealogy is clear. As a high priest, Melchizedek had no recorded genealogy to prove his right to be a priest. But what about no father or mother, no beginning of days nor end of life?
Here is where the writer's purpose isn't so clear, so I want to suggest something. If we look at the genealogies given earlier in Genesis, we can clearly see who was descended from whom. We see fathers and sons listed, and we see the number of years that they lived listed. In Melchizedek's case, though, we have no record of who his parents were or how long he lived!
Was the writer saying that Melchizedek was Christ, or could the writer have been making an analogy between Melchizedek and Christ based on this fact?
By way of answering this, I'd like to call your attention to the latter part of this chapter. We read in verse 11 that "another priest should come after the order of Melchizedek instead of the order of Aaron."
Was Aaron the only priest in his order? No! THEN NEITHER WAS MELCHIZEDEK.
I submit that this "order of Melchizedek" was a priestly order in the exact same way that the Aaronic priesthood was. Jesus Christ was and is the fulfillment of this order of Melchizedek, but He is not to be equated with it in its entirety!
Does that make sense?
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Damon,
To a very large degree, your explanation makes sense, and it is not an unfamiliar one to me. It has some explanatory power, but it does not account for the problems that I raised to this view in my larger post above.
You raise an excellent challenge in pointing out that Jesus is called "another priest" after the order of Melchisedek, thus making a distinction between the two. The same distinction appears in Hebrews 7:3, where it says that Melchisedek was "made like the son of God," seemingly distinguishing him from Christ.
Being compelled as I am by the arguments I presented above to see Melchisedek as a Christophany, I have always felt that these two references should be understood as follows:
A Christophany is one event; the incarnation is another. When the pre-incarnate Christ took on human form in certain Old Testament encounters (e.g. Genesis 18:1-2; 32:24-30// possibly Josh.5:13ff; Judges 13:9-22; Dan.3:25; etc.), these were apparently temporary embodiments, whereas the incarnation was the permanent embodiment of the same Entity. On this view, for example, the "Man" who wrestled with Jacob was, in one sense, the same Entity that was later incarnated in Bethlehem, but was not the same "Man." or anthromorphized manifestation. These were separate physical phenomena, each having its own characteristics, but (arguably) the same trans-temporal Being appearing in these distinct manifestations.
If the second person of the Trinity appeared as a priestly Melchisedek to Abraham, in Genesis 14, and later came to earth as Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, the two events would represent the appearance of two "men," and two "priests" (Melchisedek would be one, and Jesus another)-- but one divine Person existing eternally and taking a human or human-like form to interact with mankind on various occasions. Of the many human-like appearances, only the incarnation, of course, would represent the actual taking-on of adamic human nature.
This way of seeing things would seem to justify the language of the author of Hebrews, and I am inclined to believe this is what he meant. I could be wrong, but it is the way the weight of the evidence drives me.
If it seems bizarre for there to be appearances of Christ in the Old Testament, then the suggestion that Melchisedek is Christ thus appearing will seem untenable. However, since evangelicals usually do not deny that the Old Testament records various Christophanies, I can not find any reason to object to the suggestion that Melchisedek was one of these, and it seems the best way to give full force to the words and the argument of Hebrews.
To a very large degree, your explanation makes sense, and it is not an unfamiliar one to me. It has some explanatory power, but it does not account for the problems that I raised to this view in my larger post above.
You raise an excellent challenge in pointing out that Jesus is called "another priest" after the order of Melchisedek, thus making a distinction between the two. The same distinction appears in Hebrews 7:3, where it says that Melchisedek was "made like the son of God," seemingly distinguishing him from Christ.
Being compelled as I am by the arguments I presented above to see Melchisedek as a Christophany, I have always felt that these two references should be understood as follows:
A Christophany is one event; the incarnation is another. When the pre-incarnate Christ took on human form in certain Old Testament encounters (e.g. Genesis 18:1-2; 32:24-30// possibly Josh.5:13ff; Judges 13:9-22; Dan.3:25; etc.), these were apparently temporary embodiments, whereas the incarnation was the permanent embodiment of the same Entity. On this view, for example, the "Man" who wrestled with Jacob was, in one sense, the same Entity that was later incarnated in Bethlehem, but was not the same "Man." or anthromorphized manifestation. These were separate physical phenomena, each having its own characteristics, but (arguably) the same trans-temporal Being appearing in these distinct manifestations.
If the second person of the Trinity appeared as a priestly Melchisedek to Abraham, in Genesis 14, and later came to earth as Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, the two events would represent the appearance of two "men," and two "priests" (Melchisedek would be one, and Jesus another)-- but one divine Person existing eternally and taking a human or human-like form to interact with mankind on various occasions. Of the many human-like appearances, only the incarnation, of course, would represent the actual taking-on of adamic human nature.
This way of seeing things would seem to justify the language of the author of Hebrews, and I am inclined to believe this is what he meant. I could be wrong, but it is the way the weight of the evidence drives me.
If it seems bizarre for there to be appearances of Christ in the Old Testament, then the suggestion that Melchisedek is Christ thus appearing will seem untenable. However, since evangelicals usually do not deny that the Old Testament records various Christophanies, I can not find any reason to object to the suggestion that Melchisedek was one of these, and it seems the best way to give full force to the words and the argument of Hebrews.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve, I understand and respect why you see things the way that you do. However, I strongly feel that there is an order of Melchizedek, as I mentioned before. The author of Hebrews parallels this order of Melchizedek with the order of Aaron, which did not consist of just a single person. Furthermore, I don't believe that this does justice to the OT texts concerning Melchizedek in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, which I'll elaborate on a little bit below.
I and a few others are writing a book titled "The Order of Melchizedek." The material it will contain will be about as important as, say, the historical location of the Garden of Eden, or the whereabouts of the long-lost Ark of the Covenant. Because I'm not the only writer and because we all feel that its release should be made special - "sanctified" as it were - I feel that it would be inappropriate to share some of the more ground-shaking parts beforehand. It would certainly be a disservice on my part to do that to the other writers without their consent.
As I've mentioned in one of my previous posts on this thread, the following points concerning the text in Genesis 14 seem to indicate that we're not simply dealing with a Christophany here:
1. The place where Melchizedek met Abram was called the "king's valley", indicating that it was a well-known place associated with a king or kings.
2. This valley is apparently to be identified with the Kidron Valley immediately eastwards of Jerusalem. The identification of this valley in particular as a place associated with a king or kings seems highly significant.
3. If Melchizedek was identified as the king of Jerusalem, just how long had Jerusalem been historically as well as spiritually significant?
Now, Psalm 110. This psalm is identified as a psalm of David. What, in the immediate historical context, was the actual subject of this psalm? Was David prophesying of Christ, or was something else going on?
What was going on, as many Jewish commentators have noted, is that the psalmist was speaking as if his lord, King David, were a joint ruler together with God. Just as father and son would often rule as co-regents in many parts of the Middle East, the psalmist was making exactly that analogy here!
Quoting the psalm:
"The LORD [God] says to my Lord [King David]: 'Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, your young men will come to you like the dew. The LORD [God] has sworn and will not change His mind: 'You [King David!] are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'
"The Lord [King David] at Your [God's] right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. The One who grants [kingly] succession [i.e., God] will set him [David] in authority; therefore he will lift up his head."
The whole purpose of this psalm was to establish David's divine right to rule as king of Israel. (By the way, this exact same formula of establishing a king's divine right to rule by labeling the god as the king's father also occurred in ancient Egypt, so there's a historical/cultural precedent for interpreting this psalm in this fashion.) In the middle of this psalm, he's identified as a priest in the order of Melchizedek. Christ could naturally be foreshadowed as a priest in the order of Melchizedek, according to this verse, because King David was anointed (Hebrew 'messiah'ed') as king, foreshadowing the coming King of Kings.
The final question is, what in the heck did it mean that King David was identified as a priest in the order of Melchizedek?
Damon
I and a few others are writing a book titled "The Order of Melchizedek." The material it will contain will be about as important as, say, the historical location of the Garden of Eden, or the whereabouts of the long-lost Ark of the Covenant. Because I'm not the only writer and because we all feel that its release should be made special - "sanctified" as it were - I feel that it would be inappropriate to share some of the more ground-shaking parts beforehand. It would certainly be a disservice on my part to do that to the other writers without their consent.
As I've mentioned in one of my previous posts on this thread, the following points concerning the text in Genesis 14 seem to indicate that we're not simply dealing with a Christophany here:
1. The place where Melchizedek met Abram was called the "king's valley", indicating that it was a well-known place associated with a king or kings.
2. This valley is apparently to be identified with the Kidron Valley immediately eastwards of Jerusalem. The identification of this valley in particular as a place associated with a king or kings seems highly significant.
3. If Melchizedek was identified as the king of Jerusalem, just how long had Jerusalem been historically as well as spiritually significant?
Now, Psalm 110. This psalm is identified as a psalm of David. What, in the immediate historical context, was the actual subject of this psalm? Was David prophesying of Christ, or was something else going on?
What was going on, as many Jewish commentators have noted, is that the psalmist was speaking as if his lord, King David, were a joint ruler together with God. Just as father and son would often rule as co-regents in many parts of the Middle East, the psalmist was making exactly that analogy here!
Quoting the psalm:
"The LORD [God] says to my Lord [King David]: 'Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, your young men will come to you like the dew. The LORD [God] has sworn and will not change His mind: 'You [King David!] are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'
"The Lord [King David] at Your [God's] right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. The One who grants [kingly] succession [i.e., God] will set him [David] in authority; therefore he will lift up his head."
The whole purpose of this psalm was to establish David's divine right to rule as king of Israel. (By the way, this exact same formula of establishing a king's divine right to rule by labeling the god as the king's father also occurred in ancient Egypt, so there's a historical/cultural precedent for interpreting this psalm in this fashion.) In the middle of this psalm, he's identified as a priest in the order of Melchizedek. Christ could naturally be foreshadowed as a priest in the order of Melchizedek, according to this verse, because King David was anointed (Hebrew 'messiah'ed') as king, foreshadowing the coming King of Kings.
The final question is, what in the heck did it mean that King David was identified as a priest in the order of Melchizedek?
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
Hi Steve,
Going back to the Genesis account again, why was this battle for the rescue of Lot so significant that Melchisedek-Christophany had to come to meet Abraham?
Also, does this suggest that Abraham might have recognise Jesus (as a Christophany) in Genesis 18 when he ran out to greet the three men?
Going back to the Genesis account again, why was this battle for the rescue of Lot so significant that Melchisedek-Christophany had to come to meet Abraham?
Also, does this suggest that Abraham might have recognise Jesus (as a Christophany) in Genesis 18 when he ran out to greet the three men?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Grace and peace,
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin Ho
Just curious what the arguments are for the assumption that "my Lord" is King David? I've never heard it interpreted in this way - especially since Jesus says that this passage is referring to the Messiah in Mark 12:35-37..."The LORD [God] says to my Lord [King David]:
"And Jesus {began} to say, as He taught in the temple, "How {is it that} the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET."' David himself calls Him 'Lord'; so in what sense is He his son?"
This seems to me to be a pretty clear teaching from Jesus.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"How is it that Christians today will pay $20 to hear the latest Christian concert, but Jesus can't draw a crowd?"
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings