Thank you for your patience yesterday when I had to leave home at 5:30 am to have a medical test done and couldn't do the blog. I was really nervous about having sedation because I'd never had it before, but everything went fine and my results came back great. I was foggy-headed and a little dizzy most of the day afterwards but that's to be expected.
As promised, today we're going to take a look at the top three theories of who Melchizedek was. As we do this, we should keep in mind that "Melchizedek" may not have been a proper name but a title. The name originates from the word "melek" which means "king", and from the word "tsedeq" which means "righteousness". Being called "king of righteousness" or "righteous king" doesn't have to mean he was perfect, for righteousness is imputed by faith. This is how righteousness was imputed to Abraham, for example, so although Abraham was a man who made mistakes, it would not be wrong to refer to him as a "man of righteousness". Apostles, teachers, and pastors could accurately be referred to as "preachers of righteousness". So although being called "king of righteousness" lends credence to the theory that the appearance of Melchizedek in Genesis was an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ, this doesn't exclude the possibility that he was a human being like you and me who worshiped the one true God.
This first theory is one I wasn't familiar with, but there is an ancient Hebrew tradition that Melchizedek was Noah's son Shem. Shem is found in the genealogy of Jesus Christ, and Shem was believed to have been a preacher of righteousness like his father Noah. Since people in those days lived extraordinarily long lifespans, Shem would have still been alive in the days of Abraham at the ripe old age of about 400. If Shem were the leader of his tribe or clan, and if he were also a priest, then in the days before the law was given he could have held the titles of both king at priest at the same time. And if Melchizedek was a title and not a proper name, it would make sense that he wasn't going by his given name of Shem but by the title that indicated his authority. The drawback to this theory is that the author of Hebrews tells us that the genealogy of Melchizedek was not known. Now this could simply mean that Shem didn't explain to Abraham who he was, and since Abraham didn't know, then Moses didn't know when he wrote Genesis. But since the genealogy of Shem is clearly given in the Bible, if he were such a great priest and king we might expect someone to say so. On the other hand, if this king and priest is Shem it would make sense that he was carrying on the faith he learned from his father. It would make sense that he was still serving the one true God---the God who had saved his family from the great flood.
The second theory is one we've briefly discussed: that Melchizedek is Christ. His titles, "king of righteousness" and "king of peace", are titles Christ also holds. When Melchizedek meets Abraham after the defeat of the kings, he brings bread and wine, which calls to mind the bread and wine of the last supper in which Jesus referred to these items as His body that was broken for us and His blood that was poured out for us. The author of Hebrews speaks of this priest as if he has no beginning or end, and this makes us think of the Lord Jesus Christ who has existed forever and will continue to exist forever. It reminds us of a passage we will study later on in the book of Hebrews, a passage that refers to the eternal priesthood of Christ: "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them." (Hebrews 7:25) The fact that the author says Melchizedek is "without father or mother, without genealogy" places an obstacle in the path of equating Melchizedek with Christ. We do know the genealogy of Christ. We know His genealogy all the way back to Adam on His mother Mary's side and also on His step-father Joseph's side, plus we know that His biological father is God. In addition, when we see appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ in the Old Testament, He is normally referred to as "the angel of the Lord". We don't find Christ called a priest until after He shed His blood to atone for our sins. Just as the high priest sprinkled the blood of an atoning sacrifice on the mercy seat, Christ sprinkled His own blood of atonement on the mercy seat---not on the mercy seat of an earthly temple but on the mercy seat in heaven.
There's nothing wrong with thinking Melchizedek may have been an appearance of Christ. Many highly respected scholars believe this. I believed it for a long time but have gradually begun to lean toward the third and final theory that we're going to look at below.
The third theory is that Melchizedek was a real man who lived during the days of Abraham. He was the leader of his tribe and therefore a king. Since he lived before the law was given, he performed the office of priest for his people. Abraham had never met him before and didn't learn anything about him during their one encounter, so he couldn't speak on the subject of this man's genealogy. The fact that Melchizedek appears only briefly in Genesis doesn't have to suggest anything supernatural to us. The king of Sodom also appears briefly in that same chapter and is never heard about again, but we don't tend to think of him as a mysterious character. We think of him as a real person, which he was, and I think it's likely Melchizedek was a real person too. Two kings meet with Abraham on the same day, which was probably an exciting and remarkable occurrence in Abraham's life, and I tend to think they were both actual human kings. To back up the theory that Melchizedek was a regular person just as much as you and I are, the author of Hebrews does not say that he was Christ but that his priesthood resembled that of the Son of God. (Hebrews 7:3)
The main point we need to take away from the mysterious subject we've been studying is that the goal of the author of Hebrews was not to confuse us but to prove to us that Christ, who was not of the priestly tribe of Levi, has the right to hold the title of great high priest. God previously chose another man, Melchizedek, to be a high priest even though he was not of the tribe of Levi (which did not yet exist). God chose one man, Melchizedek, to be a king and a priest at the same time, even though under the Mosaic law one man could not be both king and priest. Since Melchizedek lived before the law, this rule didn't apply to him. Since Christ made a new covenant and freed us from bondage to the law and put us under the law of grace, He too is not bound by this rule. God is free to anoint whomever He wishes to be a king or a priest, and if He wants to give both titles to one person, He has the right to do so.
We have to remember that the book of Hebrews is written to Jewish Christians. They can clearly see that Jesus of Nazareth possesses the legal title to the throne of David. He has the genealogical credentials to wear the crown. It's not so easy for them to understand why He has the right to the priesthood, so the author uses the example of Melchizedek to help them understand. Because the recipients of this letter are Jews, it's vitally important for them to understand that Christ is their great high priest. They have to see that He made a sacrifice of atonement that is great enough to roll back their sins forever, not just for a year. If they can't get this issue settled in their minds, they may remain stuck in the idea of salvation by works. They may rely on bringing sacrifices and offerings, or on going through the motions of religion, or on abiding by the traditions of men in order to "earn" salvation.
None of us can earn salvation. We can never be good enough to redeem ourselves. But we don't have to be! Christ was good enough. Christ did the work that we couldn't do for ourselves. Our part is simply to believe in Him, to regard Him as Lord and King, and to trust in the intercession He makes for us as our great high priest.
No comments:
Post a Comment