In the commentary on Melchizedek in Hebrews; the writer admitted he
was going deep, speaking of things which could only be grasped by very
mature believers (Heb. 5:10,11,14). It is therefore not wise to base
fundamental doctrine on the teaching of such verses; nor should the
Melchizedek passages loom large in the minds of those who are still coming
to learn the basic doctrines of Scripture.
“This Melchizedek, King of
Salem (Jerusalem), priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning
from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him” is spoken of as being
“without father, without mother, without descent (genealogy), having neither
beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God” (Heb.
7:1,3). From this it is argued by some that Jesus literally existed before
his birth, and therefore had no human parents.
Jesus has a Father (God)
and a mother (Mary) and a genealogy (see Mt. 1, Lk. 3 and cp. Jn. 7:27).
‘Melchizedek’ therefore cannot refer to him personally. Besides, Melchizedek
was “made like unto the Son of God” (Heb. 7:3); he was not Jesus
himself, but had certain similarities with him which are being used by the
writer for teaching purposes. “After the similitude of Melchizedek there
ariseth another priest”, Jesus (Heb. 7:15), who was ordained a priest “after
the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:5,6).
The language of Hebrews about
Melchizedek just cannot be taken literally. If Melchizedek literally had no
father or mother, then the only person he could have been was God Himself;
He is the only person with no beginning (1 Tim. 6:16; Ps. 90:2). But this is
vetoed by Heb. 7:4: “Consider how great this man was”, and also by the fact
that he was seen by men (which God cannot be) and offered sacrifices to God.
If he is called a man, then he must have had literal parents. His being
“without father, without mother, without descent” must therefore refer to
the fact that his pedigree and parents are not recorded. Queen Esther’s
parents are not recorded, and so her background is described in a similar
way. Mordecai “brought up...Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had
neither father nor mother...whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were
dead, took for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). The author of Hebrews was
clearly writing as a Jew to Jews, and as such he uses the Rabbinic way of
reasoning and writing at times. There was a Rabbinic principle that "what is
not in the text, is not" (1)- and it seems that this is the principle of
exposition being used to arrive at the statement that Melchizedek was
"without father". Seeing no father is mentioned in the Genesis text,
therefore he was "without father"- but this doesn't mean he actually didn't
have a father. It's not recorded, and therefore, according to that Rabbinic
principle, he effectively didn't have one.
The book of Genesis usually goes to great lengths to introduce the family
backgrounds of all the characters which it presents to us. But Melchizedek
appears on the scene unannounced, with no record of his parents, and
vanishes from the account with equal abruptness. Yet there can be no doubt
that he was worthy of very great respect; even great Abraham paid tithes to
him, and was blessed by him, clearly showing Melchizedek’s superiority over
Abraham (Heb. 7:2,7).
The writer is not just doing mental gymnastics with
Scripture. There was a very real problem in the first century which the
Melchizedek argument could solve. The Jews were reasoning:
‘You
Christians tell us that this Jesus can now be our high priest, offering our
prayers and works to God. But a priest has to have a known genealogy,
proving he is from the tribe of Levi. And anyway, you yourselves admit Jesus
was from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). Sorry, to us Abraham is our supreme
leader and example (Jn. 8:33,39), and we won’t respect this Jesus’.
To
which the reply is:
‘But remember Melchizedek. The Genesis record is
framed to show that such a great priest did not have any genealogy; and
Messiah is to be both a king and a priest, whose priesthood is after the
pattern of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6 cp. Ps. 110:4). Abraham was inferior to
Melchizedek, so you should switch your emphasis from Abraham to Jesus, and
stop trying to make the question of genealogies so important (see 1 Tim.
1:4). If you meditate on how much Melchizedek is a type of Jesus (i.e. the
details of his life pointed forward to him), then you would have a greater
understanding of the work of Christ’.
And we can take that lesson to
ourselves.
Notes
(1) See James Dunn, Christology In The Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) p. 276 note 59.
<Previous Contents Next>