Who was Melchisedec? Before the author of Hebrews brings him up, Melchisedec was mentioned by King David in the book of Psalms. The character's original introduction is seen in chapter fourteen of Genesis. Abram had just returned from a successful military campaign and met with several area kings including Melchisedec. So, obviously, by the time Melchisedec is mentioned in Hebrews, he had already been the topic for scholarly and Rabbinic study throughout the middle eastern peoples since the time of Abraham. Read about Melchisedec on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek#Name. I never knew there were so many writings about him.
“Typological association of Jesus Christ with Old Testament characters occurs frequently in the New Testament and in later Christian writings; thus, Jesus Christ is also associated with Adam (as the "New Adam") and with Abraham. The bread and wine offered by Abraham to Melchizedek have been interpreted by church fathers including Clement of Alexandria as being a prefiguration of the Eucharist.” That comes from the article.
I found it interesting that some scholars associate Melchisedec with Shem, one of Noah's three sons. I also found it interesting that the blessing Abram received ties in with his name change.
“Expressing a kabbalistic point of view, the Zohar commentary to Genesis 14 cites Rabbi Yitzchak as saying that it was God who gave a tithe to Abram in the form of removing the Hebrew letter He from his own throne of glory and presenting it to the soul of Abram for his benefit.” And “The Zohar's commentary on Genesis 14 cites . . . The letter He is the letter God added to Abram's name to become "Abra-ha-m" in Genesis.”
Being an expert and teacher, the author(s) of Hebrews would have been studied in such interpretations. Both Abram and Melchisedec are brought forth as historical characters by the author. Abram, the father of their race, was a man. He won a victory in battle and afterward met with area kings, one of which was Melchisedec. In verse one of chapter seven of the book of Hebrews, the author begins, “For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of kings . . .”
The meeting of two people. Both are relevant to the Hebrew national identity. Both are relevant to the Christian identity. Aside from the many other historical interpretations of the two, the author has settled on an amalgamate Hebrew interpretation. This is his take.
Two persons met physically. Abram was a man. If Melchisedec was not a man, at least he was a person. The author's assessment of Melchisedec attributes to him the qualities of being without parents or children. That, in and of itself, is not beyond normalcy. However, what grabs the attention is, “having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” That really sets Melchisedec apart from normal men. In the author's opinion, Melchisedec had been “made like unto the Son of God.” Was the priest/king a divine being, an angel? In the book of Daniel, chapter three, verse twenty-five, the angel that appeared in the fiery furnace was described similarly, like the Son of God. The author says of Melchisedec that he was, first, “King of righteousness,” and after that, “King of Salem” (maybe a city, or) “King of peace.” As to his priesthood, he remained continually.
There is a connection to be made, here, between Melchisedec (“like unto the Son of God”)being a “King of peace” and Jesus being the “Prince of Peace” from Isaiah nine.
To continue in verse four, the author directs the reasoning mind to consider just “how great this man was.” The patriarch of Israel gave a full tenth of all that he possessed. That offering was not to the king but, rather, to the man who had no “beginning of days, nor end of life,” and who “abideth a priest continually.” The author then compares regular priests to this priest of note. In verse five, the author informs us that the regular priests were sons of Levi, a tribe set apart under law to receive the priesthood. They were commanded to take tithes from their own people according to the law of God. The difference between them and Melchisedec lay in the fact that Melchisedec was not a descendant of Abraham, yet, in the office of priest, he received tithes from Abram, and blessed the man that already possessed the promises of God.
The author, in verse seven, used the term, “without all contradiction.” That is akin to saying, 'without a doubt.' It is clear that the author considered Melchisedec greater than Abram. The man was eternal and made like the son of God. He obviously had a high reputation and history – enough so to impress a man who had just returned from slaughtering kings. The author asserts that the lesser, Abram, was blessed by the greater, Melchisedec. The author brings our attention to a common, well-known, everyday truth. Priests under the law were men; they died. On the other hand, Melchisedec had a time-honored reputation for immortality. The author then makes a personal point in verse nine, prefacing his opinion with the words, “as I may say so.” His personal aside was in regard to the man, Levi, the son of Abraham from whom came the priesthood. His point was simple. The priesthood was still in the loins of Abraham when the priest of the most high God met him.
The author challenges the reader about the Jewish national predisposition toward Levitical perfection. What was that? It was a basic, ingrained inclination to think of the priesthood under the law of God as beyond reproach, in other words, God's priesthood was perfect. There was nothing above it or beyond it. If the end-all limit of the priesthood, through which the people received the law, was perfect, the author asked, what further need was there for another priest to rise up after the order of Melchisedec? Why was not Jesus called after the order of Aaron like all other priests under the law?
The author introduces the argument that a change in the priesthood, that leap from the order of Aaron to the order of Melchisedec, necessitated a similar change in the law. He reasons that the man to whom these matters pertain came from a tribe that was not called to minister at the altar. The lineage of Jesus is addressed. He came from the tribe of Judah and not from the tribe of Levi. The law that came through Moses mentioned nothing about Judah having priestly duties. According to the author, the evidence suggests that Jesus, as priest, is similar to Melchisedec in that rather than being a priest by the law of a carnal command, he was a priest in the power of an endless life. His evidence was the very word of God that said to Jesus, “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.”
It is explained in verse eighteen that there had been a true “disannulling” of the commandment that had gone before. Basically, the previous command was canceled and made void. Why? It was because of the inherent “weakness and unprofitableness” of a priesthood peopled by mortal flesh. A conclusion based on decades of real-life experience expressed the truth that the law made nothing perfect. However, asserted the author, “the bringing in of a better hope did.” By that better hope, men drew close to God. Moreover, that better hope, that new high priest, Jesus, was affirmed by an oath. Regular men of the tribe of Levi were made priests by commandment but not by the oath of God. The author's evidence is the oath of God found written in God's word: “The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” This is the author's assessment in verse twenty-two: “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”
To continue from verse twenty-three, the author points to a well-known truth. Down through the ages, there had been many priests. Having many priests was a necessity due to the fact the men died and needed to be replaced. By comparison, however, Jesus had an “unchangeable” priesthood in that he did not need to be replaced because of mortality. For that one reason, Jesus, the priest forever after the order of Melchisedec, is able to save to the “uttermost” all who come to God by him. Since he lives forever, there is no interruption in his intercession.
Mankind's need necessitated such a high priest as Jesus. We needed something better than a mortal high priest subject to the same sins as all the rest of us. We needed someone who was holy, someone who was harmless, someone who was undefiled, someone who was separate from sinners and made higher than the heavens. We had already had ages of failing mortal priests. You might say, they were only there to keep the seat warm for Jesus. Unlike many ages worth of mortal priests, the new high priest after the order of Melchisedec would not need to daily make sacrifices for his own sins before those of the people. Everything was covered by the single act of offering himself to the cross.
The author concludes his argument. The law made priests of men. Men have infirmities. Priests themselves are guilty of sin and weakness. Then, they die. Unlike the law, the word of God's oath, which came after the law, consecrated the son as priest forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment