The significance of Melchizedek

In my last post, I focused on the incident with Melchizedek within Abraham’s story (see my post Becoming people above reproach (Genesis 14)). This is important, I believe, because far too often we are tempted to ignore the immediate context of a passage and jump straight to Jesus. In the process, we often miss important lessons and do not do justice to Scripture’s intention. Nevertheless, we should not ignore the wider context that includes the New Testament as we reflect on the significance of this passage.

The mystery of Melchizedek

The brief episode with Melchizedek raises lots of questions. On the one hand, everything about this person is suggestive of someone significant. His name (in Hebrew malki-tsedeq) may mean ‘king of righteousness’ or ‘my king is righteous’ and can potentially be a title rather than a proper name. Salem matches the second half of Jerusalem’s name and the explanation that the meeting took place in the King’s Valley (just south of that city) makes the identification with Jerusalem plausible (Gen 14:17-18). Being ‘king of Salem’ (Hebrew shalem, ‘perfect, complete’), however, may also be descriptive, meaning ‘king of peace’ (in the Hebrew original only the consonants were written, so sh-l-m could make shalom = peace). Moreover, Melchizedek is also a priest of God Most High (El Elyon), who blesses Abraham and receives a tithe in return (Gen 14:18-20), all of which indicates his superiority over the patriarch.

Who can this person be, who is above Abraham (the father of the people of Israel), and portrayed as worshipping the same God as Abraham – note how the patriarch has sworn an oath to the LORD God Most High (Yahweh El Elyon; Gen 14:22). He is clearly someone of significance, yet the encounter with Abraham is fleeting and the narrator tells us nothing more of his ancestry even though genealogies were a crucial way to establish people’s connections and importance. Thus, Melchizedek appears from nowhere and then disappears just as fast. Given these suggestive details, it is not surprising that speculation around him was ripe from early on.

Early Jewish interpretations

Before exploring the NT’s use of Melchizedek, I turn to early Jewish interpretations to provide the context in which Hebrews develops its own line of thought. This in no way takes away from the value of the NT’s argument or its inspired status. It simply highlights the fact that thoughts don’t develop in a vacuum but are part of a larger context in which interpreters reflect on certain issues. The lines of thought may touch on certain points and diverge on others. Knowing this background helps us see the uniqueness of Hebrews in some respects, while also demonstrating that there is an inherent tension in the story that all recognise and resolve or explain differently.

Melchizedek – generous host, righteous king, high priest

Early Jewish interpreters have noted Melchizedek’s generosity (bringing out bread and wine) as well as the symbolism in his name and his status as priest in Jerusalem.[1] These features led to a filling in of the picture, so that Melchizedek is portrayed as generously providing food not only for Abraham but for all his troops; he is clearly recognised as righteous and, being a priest in Jerusalem (the centre of Israel’s worship later), suggested to many that he was high priest and not simply ‘a’ priest. Below is a sample of quotes from various ancient sources.

He [Melchizedek] stretched his hands to heaven and honored him [Abraham] with prayers on his behalf and offered sacrifices of thanksgiving for the victory and feasted handsomely those who had taken part in the contest, rejoicing and sharing their gladness as though it were his own. (Philo, On Abraham 235)

Now this Melchizedek hospitably entertained Abraham’s army, providing abundantly for all their needs, and in the course of the feast he began to extol Abraham and to bless God for having delivered his enemies into his hand. Abraham then offered him a tithe of the spoils, and he accepted the gift. (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1:181)

[Jerusalem’s] first founder was a leader of the Canaanites, called in his native tongue “righteous king” – for so indeed he was. For this reason he was the first to serve as a priest before God and, having been the first to build the temple, gave to the city previously called “Salem” the name Jerusalem. (Josephus, Jewish Wars 6:438)

When the high priest of God Most High saw him [Abraham] approaching and bearing his spoils… (Philo, On Abraham 235)

And Melchizedek, the king of Jerusalem… was a priest serving in the high priesthood before God Most High. (Targum Onqelos Gen 14:18, Targum Neophyti Gen 14:18)

The tension – a Gentile superior to Abraham?

Given Melchizedek’s exalted status who seemed superior to Abraham in that he blessed the latter and received a tithe from him, several Jewish interpreters concluded that he must have been circumcised. Others identified Melchizedek with Shem, Noah’s son, and treated his name (Melchizedek) as a title (righteous king) rather than a proper name. According to Gen 11:11, Shem lived some 500 years after the flood, so would still have been around during Abraham’s time. Having Abraham’s ancestor bless him would have removed the tension inherent in the story of a Gentile having prior claim to the Jerusalem priesthood and blessing Abraham, the forefather of the Jews. If Shem is Melchizedek, then the incident affirms the Jews’ place in Jerusalem, as well as that of the Levitical priesthood who descended from Abraham.

He [Melchizedek] was righteous and he was born circumcised. (Genesis Rabbah 26:3)

Likewise, [Melchizedek] was born circumcised, as it says “And Melchizedek, king of Salem” [meaning that he was the king who was shalem, i.e. ‘complete, perfect’ and therefore circumcised]. (Abot deR. Natan [A] 2)

And Melchizedek, the king of Jerusalem, who was the great Shem… (Targum Neophyti Gen 14:18)

The [Jews] say that he [Melchizedek] was Shem, Noah’s son, and counting up the total years of his lifetime they demonstrate that he would have lived up to Isaac [so could have encountered Abraham]. (Jerome, Questions in Genesis, Gen 14:18)

Some Jewish interpretations of Psalm 110 – Melchizedek an angelic being?

The only other reference to Melchizedek in the Old Testament is in Ps 110:4 and this psalm gives further food for thought. Christians understand the psalm to be addressed to someone other than Melchizedek, though of the same priestly order as he. However, the Hebrew is somewhat ambiguous, so that ‘according to the order of’ may be understood as ‘by my order’ (the root is davar, which as a noun means ‘word, thing, matter’, or as a verb, ‘to speak, command’). Thus, verse 4 may be translated as ‘You are a priest forever by my order, Melchizedek’. If so, then the whole psalm is addressed to Melchizedek. He is the lord to whom the LORD (God) says that he should sit at God’s right hand until He subdues his enemies (Ps 110:1). His sceptre is stretched out by God Himself (i.e. his reign is of divine origin) and he will judge the nations (Ps 110:6).

There is further uncertainty over how to translate Ps 110:3 ‘from the womb of the dawn, your youth are to you as the dew’ (NASB). The ancient Greek translation (Septuagint) rendered it like this, ‘I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning’ (Brenton’s translation). The ambiguity comes from the root yalad, from which both ‘youth, child’ and ‘to give birth, beget’ are derived. If Melchizedek was begotten by God, then he is a son of God. Since this phrase is sometimes used for angelic beings in the Bible and much of the language suggests a person who is more than human, the above considerations led to the idea that Melchizedek was a heavenly being. This is expressed in some texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls that date from around second-first century BC (e.g. 11Q13 Melchizedek Text 2.13-16).[2]

Psalm 110 within the Old Testament

Within the Old Testament, it is most likely that Psalm 110 addresses King David. Just as Melchizedek was a king-priest of Jerusalem, so the psalm asserts that David follows in the same tradition as both king and priest. By implication, the psalm also speaks of the great Davidic descendant, the messianic king who will rule the nations and judge them by God’s divine authority. The priestly aspect of the Davidic line is elsewhere downplayed, though both David and Solomon offered sacrifices at climactic moments in the people’s history (e.g. 2 Sam 24:18-25; 1 Kings 8:65-64).[3] Nevertheless, on the day-to-day basis, the priestly tasks were carried out by the Levitical priests. Usurping their responsibilities and entering the holy premises of the sanctuary were considered sacrilege (2 Chron 26:16-21).

Melchizedek in the NT

Hebrews understands Psalm 110 to be messianic and since Christians identified the Messiah to be Jesus, the letter applies to Him the messianic categories of both king and priest (Heb 5:5-6). Although the focus is primarily on the priestly aspect in the letter, verse 5 quotes Ps 2:7, which is a reference to the Davidic king who at his coronation was adopted as God’s son. Of course, Hebrews plays on the deeper significance of this statement, namely that Jesus is more than a human king adopted as a son of God. Rather, He is indeed begotten by God, of divine origin and uniquely the Son of God. The second quotation in v.7 brings in Jesus’ status as priest by the reference to Ps 110:4 and Melchizedek.

For a Jewish Christian audience, the issue with Jesus’ priesthood and therefore His atoning sacrifice was that God had ordained Aaron and his sons to be priests and Jesus was not descended from them. How can He offer atonement to God when He is not a priest from Aaron’s order (Heb 7:13-14)? Hebrews 7 further elaborates on this point and finds a precedent and a parallel in the figure of Melchizedek. His special significance is highlighted similarly to Jewish interpretations as king of righteousness (a translation of the name Melchizedek) and as king of peace (King of Salem/shalom; Heb 7:2). The writer exploits the silence of Genesis about Melchizedek’s ancestry and genealogy to highlight the comparison with Jesus. This, together with the phrase ‘made like the Son of God’ (Heb 7:3), carries echoes and associations of a heavenly being that surfaces in some Jewish interpretations.

By demonstrating that Abraham was inferior to Melchizedek (the former received the blessing and gave a tithe – Heb 7:4-7), the writer argues that the Levitical priesthood that descended from their ancestor, Abraham, is inferior to the royal-priestly figure represented by Melchizedek (Heb 7:13-14). Notice, however, that Hebrews carefully differentiates between Melchizedek and Christ. It is not that Abraham met and submitted to the pre-incarnate Christ. Rather, Melchizedek is an image, an analogy or type of Christ (he [Melchizedek] was made like the Son of God – Heb 7:3; if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek – Heb 7:15). Melchizedek was a human figure who no doubt had a father and mother, was born and died, but because Scripture is silent about this, he is a suitable parallel to Jesus whose priesthood was given on the basis of a life that had no beginning and no end (‘indestructible life’ – Heb 7:16).[4]

Conclusion

In summary, then, both Jewish and Christian sources notice the significance of Melchizedek and highlight the symbolism of his name and location. Some Jewish interpretations even see him as an angelic or heavenly being, begotten of God (based on a particular reading of Psalm 110). For Jews, the point of tension is how Abraham could submit/be inferior to a Gentile, thus some argue that Melchizedek was circumcised and/or that he was Shem, Abraham’s ancestor. The NT utilises that very tension though takes it in a different direction by seeing in Melchizedek a forerunner of the Davidic king and therefore of Messiah, Jesus. In Abraham’s submission, the Aaronic priests who descended from him submit symbolically to the king-priest Jesus prefigured by Melchizedek. Scripture’s silence on the latter’s ancestry symbolises Jesus’ endless life, which qualifies Him as an eternal priest.

---

[1] What follows here is based on James L. Kugel’s collection of ancient interpretations of Melchizedek that he quotes. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1997, 1998), 276-286.

[2] A further interpretation that is particularly fanciful, envisages Melchizedek as a nephew of Noah, who was begotten of God to a human mother but without human intervention from a father. He survived the flood by being taken back to Eden. He is described as a priest to all priests who will become a great people and they in turn will sanctify God. 2 Enoch (A) 71:2, 27-29. The dating of this work is uncertain, but many of its interpretations are paralleled in ancient Jewish sources, so Kugel argues that its kernel may go back to the beginning of the common era. Kugel, Traditions, 914.

[3] The reference to Solomon also mentions the people, so it is possible that the verse simply means that they brought the animal offerings and the priests sacrificed them. In the memorable incident where Saul offers the sacrifice before a battle and Samuel reprimands him for doing so, the issue is not about the act of sacrificing per se, but that he did not wait for the prophet as he was instructed (1 Sam 13:8-14).

[4] Although the NT does not mention this, Christian interpreters later also saw a foreshadowing of the Lord’s Supper in the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek. E.g. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 4:161, 3.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.