Sometimes I wonder if the students get together and decide to make Melchizedek the main question throughout their time in Bible schools. It is almost as if there is a conspiracy to drive their teachers clinically insane with endless arguments about if he is Jesus or not. I have even had students make T-shirts that said, “Melchizedek is my homeboy”. No life whatsoever. If we only had the Genesis and Psalms reference to Melchizedek, I am sure that none of this would be an issue. We could go ahead and stow Mel’s name away with such Bible name treasures like Shear-jashub and Abimelech. Hebrews insured that Melchizedek would not go silently into that dark night.
Genesis 14:18-20 is where we encounter Mel for the first time (and yes that is a whopping 3 verses if you are counting). He really is a side note to the more important story in chapter 14 of Abram rescuing his nephew Lot from raiding kings. On his way back from the victory, we are told,”And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” Even if this was all we had, it brings up some great questions. How is Mel a “priest of the Most High”? How does he know about Yahweh (the Lord)? I thought only Abram knew. How many others were there like Mel in history that we have no knowledge of? Did God appear to all of them like Abram? Mel’s story challenges me that often I have such a narrow view of God and the Gospel (it isn’t fair that He only appeared to the Jews is a complaint I often hear).
Salem is the same site that David will take about 1,000 years later from the Jebusites, and he turns it into his capital of Jerusalem. The Jebusites are an idolatrous people group, so whatever was happening in Mel’s time is long over. Abram did recognize Mel’s authority and priesthood since he gives one tenth (which is what the Hebrew word for tithe means) of the spoils of battle. The mystery deepens with Mel in Psalm 110, the only other Old Testament passage to mention him. Psalm 110 is a Messianic prediction of Jesus that says, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” In speaking about Jesus, the author has the revelation from God that the Messiah will be a priest, but after the order of Mel. This is a surprise first of all because the Messiah is supposed to come from the line of David (Judah) and be a king, not a priest. Secondly, if the Messiah was going to be a priest, why wouldn’t he be in the line of Aaron (Levi) like the other high priests of Israel? Psalm 110 never explains this.
The author of Hebrews heavily utilizes Psalm 110 in his argument about the priesthood of Jesus. Some scholars believe the whole letter of Hebrews originated from the author’s revelation of what Psalm 110 meant. In chapter 7 of Hebrews, the author compares Jesus and Melchizedek, and then contrasts this order of priesthood with the Levitical order, with the clear conclusion that the priesthood of Mel is superior. The big debate comes in here, as some believe that the author is not comparing Jesus to Mel, but that he is stating that Mel was Jesus (is Jesus since He is eternal). Mel was a Christophany! (an appearance of Jesus as a man before the incarnation; different from a theophany which is an appearance of God the father).
As the author connects Jesus and Mel, he says in 7:3, “He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.” If Mel was just a man, how could he have no beginning or end, no mother or father? It must be Jesus then according to some. However, there are two main problems with this view. First, verse 7:3 says specifically, “resembling the Son of God” and verse 17 says, “This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek.” Both of these are clear in English and the Greek that a comparison is being made between two different people! The author’s main argument is based on a comparison, so it doesn’t work if you are saying that he is comparing Jesus to Jesus. That isn’t a comparison.
Second, it is a misunderstanding of the way in which Jewish rabbis taught by using “arguments from silence”. Genesis 14 never says that Mel didn’t have parents or that he had no beginning or end. The author adding that to Hebrews 7 is an “argument from silence” and it is used to promote the comparison between Mel and Jesus. You can’t push this in the way of Mel being Jesus, because Jesus most definitely had a father (God), a mother (Mary), and a genealogy (both in Matthew and Luke). The comparison comes because Mel was a priest/king like Jesus, and because Mel was a priest called directly by God instead of being born into it (again like Jesus).
I know it is a cool thought that Jesus came around 2,000 BC and ran a whole city. He has a name that screams to be put on a T-shirt. My favorite moment in a Bible class came the moment that one of my students asked our teacher for the week if he thought Melchizedek was Jesus. Our teacher just happened to be Dr. Ronald Youngblood, the Dr. Youngblood who was on the NIV translation team and edited the Nelson Bible Dictionary (in other words, not a normal schlub like me). Dr. Youngblood didn’t skip a beat, didn’t go through several options, he just looked at the student and said, “No. It is clear in the Greek that this is a comparison.” That was it. No debate. Just the sweetest student got shut down by a teacher moment ever! Thank you Dr. Youngblood. You put an end to the # 1 Bible Urban Legend.
The Bible Nerd 
You understand that I could not read this post without responding…right?
All these years later, I am still interested in this mysterious character, but not for the same reasons, well…not exactly the same.
One point you raised but did not really deal with is the problem of Jesus being a priest and yet coming from the line of Judah/David, not Levi/Aaron. As you stated, this disqualifies him from being a priest of the Law. So how can our author talk about him as our great high priest? The strange thing is that he does answer this question but does so with little qualification. “[The problem:] For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, [the solution:] who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent [i.e., like a Levitical priest], but by the power of an indestructible life [i.e., like a Melchizedekian priest].
Now, whether you read it in Greek or English, you’re right, Hebrews 7 is clearly making a comparison. The problem is not with the language but with the logic of Hebrews 7. The logic is that the Levitical priesthood was based on “legal requirement concerning bodily descent,” and as such the law designated descendants of Levi/Aaron to serve as priests. But we are only told one qualification of the Mel priesthood: that it is based on “the power of an indestructible life.” Regardless of what you say about Mel’s identity, it is obvious that the author of Hebrews is suggesting that both Mel and Christ met this qualification in some sense [perhaps Christ in a literal sense and Mel in a literary sense, if you take the author’s argument as being an argument from silence].
I don’t think the point has anything to do with the author wanting us to get sidetracked over the identity of Mel–this book is about Jesus! But I think we can get just as sidetracked trying to dismiss him as we do trying to defend him. The fact is, if we want to understand Christ’s priestly role, we have to wrestle with Hebrews, and especially Hebrews 7. So I the question is not: what is Hebrews 7 saying about Melchizedek? Rather, the question is, what is Hebrews 7 saying about Jesus, in light of this comparison with a priest who has “neither end of days nor beginning of life,” whose priesthood was based not on the same criteria as the levitical priesthood, but ont the “power of an indestructible life.”
Without going too far into what I think is going on here, isn’t it interesting that Christ is somehow priest in Hebrews, but also the sacrifice (9:26; 10:12). The idea of a self-sacrificing priest is foreign to the Law. It is at least intriguing that the most instrumental figure in getting Jesus crucified–or in the language of Hebrews, ‘sacrificed’–was Caiaphas, the high priest… And it is clear that the author of Hebrews (as seemingly Paul as well) does consider Jesus’ death an atoning sacrifice for sin, according to the Law (substitutionary atonement 101). So could it be that Jesus’ relation to the Law is not as priest, but as sacrifice; for while he does not legally meet the requirements of a priest, he does meet the requirements of a sacrifice–a lamb without blemish (Deut. 17:1-7; cf. 1 Pet. 1:19). So Jesus did die according to the Law, as sacrifice. But because he was a priest on the basis of “the power of an indestructible life,” his death’s power over him was undermined by this greater power. While he his death was in line with the Levitical priesthood, his resurrection, was in line with the Melchizedekian priesthood, since his life was indestructible, thereby making his work as priest permanent. And as such:
“The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever” (Heb. 7:23-24).
This, I think, is the completion of the work of the priest of the people of God, because we not only needed someone to die on our behalf, but also someone to be raised on our behalf. As I see it, without the Mel priesthood, there is no clear sense in which Christ’s resurrection implicates the future resurrection of believers. We needed someone who could both die on our behalf AND live on our behalf.
And if I am off, the questions still need to be answered: (1) if Jesus is a priest, in what sense is he a priest, since he is not a priest according to the law? (2) how does the priesthood based on the power of an indestructible life relate to the resurrection? (3) how does Christ’s sacrifice relate to the Levitical priesthood? (4) How does Christ’s resurrection guarantee believers’ resurrection, if not based on a priestly role?
Thoughts?
Jeremy
You know it could be comparing Jesus with Jesus contrasting they way he came as Mel and the way he came as the Savouir were quite different but from the same priesthood. Having no father or mother as Mel makes sense because the mission was different as compared to Jesus coming as the God-man experiencing all that man has experienced. Just throwing that out there.
Good thoughts Jeremy!
[P.S. The point about Caiaphas is that I’m suggesting God allowed his turning Christ over to be crucified/sacrificed to be accepted as the atoning sacrifice that only the high priest could offer, unbeknownst to Caiaphas. I’m not sure I made that point very clear. This is similar to the irony of the Roman guards dressing Jesus in the garb of a king and placing a sign above his head declaring his kingship on his cross as an act of mockery, when in fact this was the most appropriate time of to declare his kingship! God seems to delight in allowing our rebellion become his victory, so that no one may boast before the Lord!]
Jeremy, I was wondering if this post would pull you back into the wonderful world of Mel! I see it has done so. I think it is only fitting if one of your thesis is eventually on Mel. I can still remember the long and fun conversations we had back in your school. I also remember your homework assignments where you would get so into an issue, that you would stop your assignment and write a whole paper on it. Good to see you still digging into the Word. I understand your point about Caiaphas. This is a point of great irony in the Gospel story and reminds us that God uses everyone and anyone to accomplish his will (sounds like another Pharaoh). 1 Cor. 2 has that awesome passage about how the powers of darkness and evil really thought they were winning in cross and had no idea they were sealing their own doom. I love how you wrote to DA Carson about this, and thought it was hilarious that you mentioned me and him in the same sentence. I am not even in his zip code. Let me know if you get a reply from him. That would be classic. I am not ignoring your long comment on Mel, I just want to prepare a well thought out reply.
Thank you again for making Mel one of my top questions.
Sean
Hahaa…guilty. It took me at least the entire first trimester to begin submitting to the method. But I eventually did…kicking and screaming 🙂
We’ll se if Dr. Carson writes back. The email was sent to his assistant, but I think I found a direct line to him today. I’ll just keep bugging him until I get an answer! It’s really not about nitpicking. I just want an interpretation that does justice to the author’s logic. Could it be that the temple that was patterned after the one in the heavens also had a priesthood that was patterned after the one in the heavens, whose priest was truly seated at the right hand of God to make intercession for us? The more I think about it, the more bits and pieces seem to come together…
Take your time in responding. I know you’re busy!
Blessings,
JS
Jeremy,
did Dr. Carson ever reply? Hey, I am going to hit you with a Facebook to see if you are in Kentucky this summer.
Sean
No response to my email 😦
But I’ll take that as a concession 🙂
Jeremy, I will never concede! I am only fasting and praying for three weeks like Daniel before responding 🙂 Actually, sorry for the delay, I have had 2 trips and parents visit. Trying to catch up soon. Sean