In our “Our Heritage” article for this issue we have an interesting and significant exposition of the Melchizedek Priesthood by Brother John Carter. It is taken from a series he wrote entitled “Many Parts and Many Ways”. It was first published in The Christadelphian in June 1957, so it’s fifty years old. It is significant because to our knowledge it was the first exposition in which the phrase, “but made like unto the Son of God”, concerning Melchizedek, is fully appreciated and explained.
We are sure you will read it with interest.
DIVINE revelation may take hold of immediate circumstances and yet so shape the record that some information entirely beyond the writer’s view is included. To quote again Peter’s words: “The prophets searched what or what manner of time the Spirit… did signify, to whom it was revealed that not unto themselves they did minister the things they wrote” (2 Peter 1:11,12). Every typical item of history involves a divine shaping of the record so that it takes on the outline of the thing to be signified. Only so could they be written as “types” (1 Cor 10:11 margin). Such a record involves foreknowledge of things to come, and this could only be possible in an inspired writing.
Perhaps the most striking piece of typical history is found in the account of Melchizedek. He comes into the narrative of Genesis abruptly; three verses only in our English version are given to the story of his meeting with Abraham. We can imagine how a modern news reporter would have touched up the scene, describing the arrival of the priest-king of Salem and his meeting with the victorious Abraham with the recovered captives and spoil, the obsequious withdrawal of the king of Sodom in the presence of one recognized as a very important person, the religious rite in which the priest-king and Abraham engaged, and then the departure of the priest-king, after which the king of Sodom again comes forward to make his proposals to Abraham. The Scriptures tell of the meeting with a surprising reticence.
The revolt of five city states of the Jordan plain against their Mesopotamian overlord after twelve years of service and payment of tribute brought reprisals. In a successful lightning advance Chedorlaomer and three confederates swept along the eastern side of the Jordan valley to Mount Seir and then advancing north administered a sharp lesson to the rebels of the cities of the plain. Lot, who was living in Sodom, was taken with the captives.
Abraham’s skill and resourcefulness was seen in his decision when news reached him of his nephew’s fate. His camp was a large one, for he could muster 318 trained men. With these and some men from a friendly tribe, by a surprise attack he routed what must have been a force larger in strength and better in equipment, and continued the pursuit as far north as Damascus. He then returned with recovered captives and the stolen goods.
The King of Sodom, whose disasters strikingly contrast with Abraham’s successes, went to meet Abraham. Before, however, anything was said, Melchizedek was seen approaching. He must have been known to both Abraham and the King of Sodom. The latter withdrew, while Abraham engaged in an act of worship with Melchizedek. The record with a remarkably sparing use of words describes him as King of Salem, and priest of the Most High God. He brought forth bread and wine, and blessed Abraham in the name of the Most High God who had delivered Abraham’s enemies into his hand. Abraham then paid tithes, and Melchizedek departed; and the King of Sodom advanced and made a proposal that Abraham should have the captured goods if the captives were restored to the King of Sodom.
The meeting with Melchizedek bore fruit immediately. Abraham had been blessed in the name of the Most High God. Now in the name of that God he refuses anything that Sodom can give him: “I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoe latchet, and that I will not take anything that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abraham rich”. It is clear from Abraham’s words that in the worship of God in company with Melchizedek Abraham had made a solemn dedication of service to God. Some intimate words had passed between priest and worshipper, and some great resolve registered. The meeting had set Abraham’s course and had given him the moral earnestness to follow it, though it meant refusing the overtures of the King of Sodom and offering a repulse to him that could make him an embittered enemy. But the character of the King of Sodom and that of his citizens is shortly revealed as so corrupt that divine vengeance fell. From what possible contaminating associations was Abraham saved by the little time spent in what almost appears to be a chance meeting with the priest of the Most High God?
Although Abraham’s history takes up thirteen more chapters in Genesis, we hear no more of the Priest of Salem. Did Abraham turn aside in his later journeys for further worship with him? While it is possible, we do not know. The account where Melchizedek is concerned is limited to the one occasion, and sacred history adds nothing more.
From the record itself we should not conclude there were lessons of vital importance inwrought in the story. The possibility that it has great significance emerges from the only other reference to Melchizedek in the Old Testament.
To David had been covenanted the throne of Israel as a permanent possession together with an immortal descendant of his family. This coming King had to be a builder of a house of prayer for the worship of God. Clearly the question of the priesthood, when an immortal reigns, is a vital one—for David could not think of a house of God without priesthood. Who could the priest be but the immortal King himself? That such would be so is revealed in an inspired Psalm.
Psalm 110 is the most quoted in the New Testament of any Old Testament scripture. Jesus built an argument upon the first verse which depends for its validity upon David being the author. With such supporting evidence we can well accept the title of Psalm 110 as being a Psalm of David.
It is impossible to say how far David could understand what was involved in the divine invitation to his Lord to sit at God’s right hand. If it was a legitimate argument for Jesus to quote the fact that David called Messiah Lord as proof that Messiah was more than David’s son, and the opponents of Jesus did not dispute the validity of his argument, then it is in order to conclude that David could understand that the Psalm was Messianic. He would connect the words of the covenant, “I will be his Father and he shall be my son”, with the reverential term “My Lord”. In some way the Messiah had to be at God’s right hand for a period which would end with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and the Lord’s rule in Zion. David then describes the associates of the King. They are a multitude endowed with perpetual youth; “thy youth” is not a description of the monarch but of the body-guard of youthful associates. They are clad in holy attire, robed as priests; and they are free will offerings, even as the gifts that were made for the tabernacle of old. They are a dedicated and sanctified army of kings and priests who are revealed as the dew of the morning light. This recalls the figure of Isaiah who likens the dead arising out of the earth to the dew of lights (Isa 26:19). The cortege of the King are a royal immortal priesthood raised from the dead and radiant in the light of the millennial dawn. What then is the status of the Messiah himself? The answer is given in verse 4 : “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”. The Messiah himself is a priest-king—a ruler in Zion like his prototype of Abraham’s day.
Prophecy thus hints at the reason for the inclusion of the episode of Melchizedek in the record of Genesis. It could, of course, be the fact that Melchizedek’s history as recorded simply provided the Psalmist with a parallel, the connection between history and prophecy being purely adventitious. Such an idea, however, is dispelled when we come to the application of both the history and the psalm to the office of Jesus as Messiah in the letter to Hebrews.
The preparation for the argument is skilfully made. The opening verses which epitomize the theme of the epistle quote the words “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”, thus linking Jesus with the Lord of David of the Psalm. The same verse (Psa 110: 1) is again quoted to show the superiority of the son over the angels (Heb 1: 13); while angels minister, he sits with the Father on His throne. Another step leading on to the application of the Psalm may be seen in the reference to the work of Jesus as High Priest (2:17; 3:1), and a thought link with the Psalm emerges in the reference to the “great high priest that is passed into the heavens”. These allusions lead on to a detailed discussion.
First the essentials of priesthood are established. No man takes upon himself the office: Aaron was called: so also was Jesus, and the proof is in God’s declaration, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 5:1–6). His qualification of compassionate sympathy is set out: his obedience under trial had been a preparation, and this had “perfected” him for the priestly duty of intercession. To this he was called, and again Psalm 110:4 is cited. An exhortation follows, but with marked ability the digression circles back to the office of Jesus. He has entered into the veil as a forerunner, “made an high priest after the order of Melchizedek”. For the third time the application of these words is made to Jesus. The stage is set for the development of the argument.
It is regrettable that the chapter division breaks up the argument. Chapter 7 opens with a long involved statement, of which the principal parts of the sentence are: “For this Melchizedek . . . abideth a priest continually”. Truly the prophecy says Messiah is a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, but it is Melchizedek himself of whom it is here declared that he abideth a priest continually. It is a startling statement, did it stand alone. It is qualified, however, by the last phrase of intervening clauses: “for this Melchizedek.
. . made like unto the Son of God , abideth a priest continually”. “Made like unto the Son of God.” How, when and where? The answer is that Melchizedek is so made in the record of Scripture. When that Scripture was penned an overruling hand determined its limits, fixed what should be included and what left out. Only the mind that reached forward to Christ, and saw his work and arranged his office, could have delineated the form of the historical record that foreshadows it. We can now see that the prophecy in Psalm 110 had no accidental association with the history in Genesis 14 . The history was written with a purpose which, however, was not evident until the Psalm linked the record in Genesis with another King of Salem who also will be a priest. Then when the Son of God had come, had offered himself, and had assumed the office of priest, the time had come for the unfolding of the hidden meaning of the sacred record.
We must now trace out the argument of Hebrews chapter seven. There is first the statement of the facts. Melchizedek was:
- King of Salem
- Priest of the Most High God
- who met victorious Abraham and received tithes from him.
Then comes the interpretation of both what is written and what is omitted in the sacred record. The very order of the name and office has significance. Melchizedek means King of righteousness: and Salem means peace: the divine order is first righteousness and then peace, and had the record said King of Salem, Melchizedek, this would have been reversed and the lesson lost. Four omissions are noted:
- without father,
- without mother,
- having neither beginning of life,
- nor end of days.
Clearly this is not literally true of the man himself. All four things are essentially part of a mortal man: he has parents, and there is a beginning and an end to his life. But these things are not recorded of Melchizedek in Genesis, and the argument is that their very omissions are divinely intended so that a picture is drawn of the Son of God. Melchizedek is without these things in the record because he is there “made like unto the son of God”. He owes nothing to his ancestry—for we know nothing of his parentage. He stands alone in Scripture without a peer: he had neither ancestor nor successor in his office, but stands in splendid uniqueness, as the one through whom Abraham received God’s blessing. After these bold affirmations there follows a detailed examination of the teaching of the history and the Psalm.
- (Heb 7:4–7)—Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. Upon what basis? Levi also took tithes, but his right to do so was conferred by God’s commandment which fixed the duties of both Levi and his brethren, who gave the tithe. It was by external sanction and not by intrinsic right that Levi was permitted to take a tenth from his brethren. In contrast, Melchizedek received tithes as of superior right, which again was shown by his blessing of Abraham. Melchizedek thus was “better” than Abraham, and inferentially better than Aaron who descended from Abraham.
- (Verse 8)—Levi was the first of a succession of priests—each dying and giving place to another as Scripture witnessed. But the same Scripture bore no witness to the death of Melchizedek, “of him it is witnessed that he liveth”, but the witness is in the record, in this case in a silence which is significant.
- (Verses 9,10)—By a figure (“if I may so say”) Levi paid tithes since he was unborn when Abraham paid the tithe to Melchizedek.
- (Verses 11–14)—The very fact that another order of priesthood was contemplated was evidence of the insufficiency of the Aaronic order. The change of priesthood involved a change of law. The Mosaic system was vitally associated with the tribe of Levi; its functioning was based on the Aaronic priestly system. Its discontinuance, then, is evident since Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, and the Mosaic system is not based on that tribe.
- (Verses 15–17)—The change of priesthood is even more evident from the character of the priests. The Levite functioned because of a law, the Mosaic, which commanded that by physical descent the office should continue in that tribe. It was a “ carnal commandment”— concerned with the flesh, and fleshly descent. The Melchizedek priest differed fundamentally since the office was based upon “the power of an endless life”. Power is intrinsic; law is external. The flesh is weak and its life has only a short term: endless life has no term, and the high priest’s possession of endless life at once establishes his title and ensures continuance in office. Christ is a priest for ever .
- (Verses 18,19 ; see RV)—This disannulling of the law is necessitated by its own inherent weakness: but the end of the law prepared for the introduction of a better hope by which men, held at a distance by the law, can draw near to God. This better hope is connected with the better priesthood of Melchizedek.
- (Verses 20–22)—The appointment of the Messiah to the priesthood was by oath—“The Lord sware.” No such oath was connected with Levi’s appointment.
- (Verses 23–25)—The Aaronic priest was mortal, and the priesthood was continually changing. The priest after the order of Melchizedek is for ever : wherefore he continueth ever and has an unchangeable priesthood. Because of this he is able to save to the uttermost (evermore— margin) those who come unto God through him. He ever liveth.
- (Verses 26–27)—The Law made men priests who had infirmity, and whose offerings were continually repeated. The word of the oath makes priest one who is God’s Son, who offered himself once, who is perfected for ever more.
It will be seen from this brief setting forth of the points made by the apostle upon the basis of Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 , that he makes every word carry its quota of proof. There is one more allusion to the Psalm in a later chapter in Hebrews. It is a daring deduction from two words. In the tabernacle there was no seating accommodation—the priests stood. The word “stand” is used of their service in Deuteronomy 10:8 . In contrast the Psalm invites the Son to “sit down”. Paul sees in this a figure of the unfinished character of the Levitical service and of the completed work of the perfect offering. Every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, for ever sat down on the right hand of God (Heb 10:11,12).
There is one item in the history of Melchizedek upon which any reader of today might quickly lay hold, but to which no reference at all is made in the lessons of Hebrews. Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine, and one instinctively thinks of the bread and wine by which Christ is kept in memory. Paul knew the significance of the bread and wine as the Lord had appointed. Why is this omitted in the long drawn out list of lessons in Hebrews? Was it simply that it was not relevant to the argument and therefore not mentioned? This seems probable, for it is a part of the type that when the Lord’s warriors meet him after their worldly conflicts they partake of the bread and wine as the token of fellowship with him; and receive from him the blessing.
The history of Abraham’s meeting with God’s high priest, combined with the prophecy in Psalm 110 , has a significance that is not on the surface. The full import of what he wrote was beyond Moses’ knowledge; of himself he could not draw a picture of the office of the Son of God as priest of God. Yet in a few words in which order and content join to make the lesson, he delineates the work of Jesus. The Psalmist fixes the connection between the type and the Messiah, while the inspired pen of an apostle draws out the meaning for the edification of believers in Jesus generations after Moses and David.