Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Professor: Student:
2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................ 3
4. MELCHIZEDEK FROM GENESIS 14:18-20 IS A TYPE FOR CHRIST IN HEBREWS 7:1-10 .................. 8
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 10
1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The figure of Melchizedek1 appears only three times in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures:
in Genesis 14:18-20, in Psalm 110:4, and in Hebrews 7:1-3. His figure presented in these
three places in the Bible “gave rise to a considerable unorthodox speculation as a result of
the enigmatic account of Genesis 14.” 2 There are many contributions made by many
theologians on this subject, but there is a little consensus among them in regard to the
Hebrews chapter 7.
There are different categories of interpretations regarding the identity and function of
Melchizedek in Hebrew 7. Firstly, this study aims to trace a short history of interpretation of
the figure and function of Melchizedek. And secondly we will try to understand the identity
and Genesis 14:18-20 along with a short history of interpretation of these two passages.
1
It seems to me that the historicity of Melchizedek is unquestionable. Josephus Flavius wrote about him
the following words: “the king of Sodom met him at a certain place, where Melchisedec, king of the city of
Salem, received him. That name signifies the righteous king; and such he was without dispute, insomuch that, on
this account, he was made the priest of God...” – Josephus Flavius, Josephus Complete Works, trans., Williams
Whinston (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1960), 10. 2.
2
John Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: University Press, 1969), 196.
3
2. A SHORT HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FIGURE OF
MELCHIZEDEK IN HEBREWS AND A CRITIQUE OF SOME VIEWS
rabbinic discussion regarding Melchizedekʼs behaviour in the ark of Noah, from which we
suppose that Melchizedek was saved from the flood. 4 Criticizing the rabbinical view of
Melchizedek we can affirm that the text from Genesis reveals nothing regarding the
genealogy of Melchizedek. To agree with the afore-mentioned rabbinical view and to state
that Melchizedek was related to Noah through Shem is apart from the biblical text. Moreover,
the author of Hebrews would certainly disagree with this interpretation because the bloodline
The following quotation from the Qumranian literature is very significant for the
3
Fred Horton, The Melchizedekian Tradition. A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth
Century A. D. And in the Epistle of Hebrews (Unknown Publisher), 123-124.
4
In rabbinic tradition Abraham is seen to ask: “He said to Melchizedek, ʽHow did you come out of the
ark?ʼ Melchizedek answered, ʽBy the charity which we practised there.ʼ – "Psalm Thirty-Seven," in The Midrash
on Psalms (Yale Judaica Series), 1:422.
4
...their Melchizedek, who will bring them back to them, and he will proclaim liberty
for them to set them free, and make atonement for their sins... for all the children of
light and for the men of the lot of Melchizedek... for that is the time of the acceptable
year of Melchizedek... as it is written concerning him in the hymns of David who
says: ʽThe heavenly one standeth in the congregation of God; among the heavenly
ones he judgeth.ʼ Its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot which
God... and Melchizedek will avenge with the vengeance of the judgements of God.
Isaiah the prophet who says: ʽThy heavenly one is King.ʼ5
From this quotation we can discover that in Qumranian community Melchisedek6 was
judge, and a priest. As a critique to this view we state that he author of Genesis and the
author Hebrews does not refer to Melchizedek as a warrior who subjects the kings of the
earth, but it is Abraham who subjects the kings of Genesis 14 and not Melchizedek; neither
This view is not so popular among scholars and theologians today, but was held in the
past by at least three theologians: G. Campbell Morgan, Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, and Joseph
Benjamin McCaul. According to their views Jesus was the real person who met Abraham in
the Valley of Shaveh, and Jesus is present there in his pre-embodied state,7 or according to G.
Morgan Campbell “as the appearing and ministry of none other than the Son of God.”8
However, the book of Genesis doesn’t seem to present a supernatural being in this context,
and such an identification of Melchizedek with the Son of God seems to distort the literal
5
A. S. Van Der Woude, "11q Melchizedek and the New Testament," New Testament Studies 12, no.
(1965): 303.
6
Paul J. Kobelski demonstrated that in a certain text discovered at Qumran, there appears another figure
called Melchireša – a woman that seems to be averse and inimical to Melchizedek, a leader of the spirits
darkness. For further information see J. Paul Kobelski, "Melchizedek and Melchireša," in Catholic Biblical
Quarterly Monograph Series 10 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 10-166.
7
Joseph Benjamin McCaul, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Longmans, Green, 1871), 80.
8
Morgan G. Campbell, God's Last Word to Man (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1936), 85.
5
2.4. The Priesthood of every man
Almost four decades ago Bruce Demarest wrote a book about the history of
interpretation of Hebrews 7:1-10, from the times of Reformation to 1970. In his book
Demarest brings a quite new perspective (his view) on the figure of Melchizedek. He says the
following:
A priest in whom the fullness of divine grace is operative, endowing him with its
eternal character, of necessity ʽcontinues forever... the Mechizedekian order was a
wholly interiorized priesthood of grace which death could not destroy.9
Moreover than that, according to Demarest interpretation, Abraham, Noah and Abel
are all believer priests just as the New Testament believer priests. As a critique of this view
we can state that the book of Genesis doesn’t seem to indicate that believers from Abraham
back to the blameless Abel were equal with the believer priests from the New Testament.
With surety, Demarest goes beyond the purpose of the original context of Genesis.10
Luther and Calvin adhered to the patristic exegetical framework in their Bible
commentaries. Martin Luther says that he does not want to argue about the question of
identity, but that on the basis of the ancient Hebrew teachers he will accept that Melchizedek
is Shem.11 Calvin addresses also the issue of Melchizedekʼs identity in his commentary on
Genesis. According to Calvin “many imagine Melchizedek to have been Shem; to whose
opinion I am, for many reasons, hindered from subscribing.12 Thus, Calvin disagrees with
9
Bruce Demarest, A History of Interpretation of Hebrews 7:1-10 from the Reformation to the Present
(Tubingen: J. C. B., Mohr, 1976), 97.
10
Furthermore, the author of Genesis did not intend to show that Abel, Abraham, Noah or Enoch, and
Melchizedek as believer priests in the same sense as the New Testament does.
11
Bruce McNair, "Luther, Calvin and the Exegetical Tradition of Melchisedec," Review and Expositor
101, no. (2004): 749. Luther added that Melchizedek was so greatly honored by the people that he lost the name
Shem and became Melchizedec, King of Salem.
12
John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis (1554), trans., J. Owen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948-1949),
387.
6
Luther, but agrees most nearly with Theodoret,13 Chrysostom and Augustine. In conclusion
we can say that Moses never mentions that Shem migrated from the east to Judea, and again,
with Shem.
nation, and Melchizedek is to be taken also as a person who prefigures the One who will play
an identical role for the future nation. Gerhard Von Rad affirms that the incorporation of this
event in the narration flow was not of historical interest, but to indicate a future Priest.
The Melchizedek incident appears simply as an event, but one must nevertheless
assume that it is spoken with special purpose for future readers. If it were really an
ancient tradition, one would have to consider it an explanation and legitimation of
some ancient contractual relationship existing between Israel and a Canaanite city-
king. In the insistence of our narrative that Abraham gave him a tithe we see Abraham
bowing before the one who is holding the place for the future anointed one.14
Thus, Von Rad is right when he states that the narration plot from Genesis 12-14
functions as an indicator for a future priest which will serve as a mediator and Melchizedek
himself is to be taken as an indicator also. In the same time we don’t have to understand
Melchizedek from Genesis as being Shem, an angel, or a pre-incarnate Christ, but we have to
Christ without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life.
13
According to Theodoret – Melchizedek was a gentile – McNair, "Luther, Calvin and the Exegetical
Tradition of Melchisedec," 748.
14
Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1961), 181.
7
4. MELCHIZEDEK FROM GENESIS 14:18-20 IS A TYPE FOR CHRIST IN
HEBREWS 7:1-10
The Apostle Paul understands that the attributes of Melchizedek in the Genesis
narrative were listed for the purpose of providing a representation of the ultimate priest. Thus,
meaningful name will be “the king of righteousness” and the facts that Melchizedek is
without father, and without mother should be understood as follows: Paul is not saying
that Melchizedek did not have mother and father, but he is referring to the record of the text
in Genesis and not to the historical Melchizedek independent of the text. Thus, Melchizedek
without parents, indicated that the real high priest would be elected by God on a non-
genealogical basis. 15 Buchanan agrees with the afore-mentioned statements. He says: “the
attributes that Melchizedek displayed in his person are the attributes that are carried by the
Son of God.”16 And F. B. Meyer has stated also: “What is allegorically true of Melchizedek
was literally true of Jesus, who had neither beginning of days nor end of life. Many men in
Genesis had no birth or death recorded. And just as clearly the reader would not imply that the
king of Sodom, for example, would have eternal life. Thus to hold this belief, the writer of
5. FINAL CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion of this short investigation into the history of the interpretation of the
figure of Melchizedek and the analogy that Paul creates between Jesus Christ and
Melchizedek is that Melchizedek is the picture, while Jesus Christ is the reality. One sees
15
The Expositors Greek Testament, ed. Robertson W. Nicoll, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
Unknown), 308. “...his office derives no sanction from priestly lineage or hereditary rights; and in this respect he
is made like to the Son of God.”
16
George Wesley Buchanan, "To the Hebrews," in The Anchor Bible (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday
and Co, 1976), 119.
17
F. B. Meyer, The Way into the Holiest (London: Morgan and Scott, Unknown), 109.
8
more details in the reality; but even if the picture contains less details, it presents an exact
representation of the reality. Thus, one would not be able to tell the difference between
In the end I would say that a comparison of the message of Genesis and Hebrews
concerning the identity Melchizedek demonstrates that the massages are identical. This
validates the view that the author of Hebrews used the literal message of Genesis for his
commentary on Melchizedek.
9
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bowker, John. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge: University Press, 1969.
Buchanan, George Wesley. "To the Hebrews." In The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N. Y.:
Doubleday and Co, 1976.
Campbell, Morgan G. God's Last Word to Man. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1936.
Demarest, Bruce. A History of Interpretation of Hebrews 7:1-10 from the Reformation to the
Present. Tubingen: J. C. B., Mohr, 1976.
The Expositors Greek Testament. Vol. 4, Edited by Robertson W. Nicoll. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, Unknown.
Horton, Fred. The Melchizedekian Tradition. A Critical Examination of the Sources to the
Fifth Century A. D. And in the Epistle of Hebrews: Unknown Publisher.
McCaul, Joseph Benjamin. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Longmans, Green, 1871.
McNair, Bruce. "Luther, Calvin and the Exegetical Tradition of Melchisedec." Review and
Expositor 101 (2004): 747-761.
Meyer, F. B. The Way into the Holiest. London: Morgan and Scott, Unknown.
Van Der Woude, A. S. "11q Melchizedek and the New Testament." New Testament Studies
12 (1965): 301-326.
10