Melchizedek - 18 July 2009 |
|
A mishmash of assorted jottings on Melchizedek / Heb 7 culled from various sources.
- Ps 110 contemplates a priestly kingship, in whom the requirement for all Israel to be a priestly kingdom (Ex 19) is fulfilled. David’s line is intended ‘to reflect, in the occupant of the throne of Israel, the values which the Sinai covenant had required of the nation as a whole’, so that ‘the full intentions of the divine purpose for the race, expounded in Gen. 1-2 might be achieved’ (Dumbrell 152).
- Melchizedek actually means, in Heb, either (1) my king is sedeq; or (2) Milku is righteous; or (3) my king is righteous. Wenham (316) says (1) or (2) more likely in Gen; though Heb 7:2 is closest (though not exactly) to (3).
- Salem almost certainly Jerusalem, not the town associated with Shechem, since it’s obviously in the south, whereas Shechem is further north. The unusual name Salem (as opposed to Jerusalem, which was attested very early) is probably used bcs of the significance of ’slm’ = peace, as in Heb 7:2.
- Bread and wine comprises a royal banquet, appropriately provided by a king. Poss a covenant meal?
- Gen 14:17-24 is a meeting between Ab and two kings – of Salem (Mel and Sodom). Mel honours and blesses Ab (bread and wine, blessing), whereas the King of Sodom shows disdain (’give me the persons’, v21; so Wenham). Thus contrast between the two kings’ attitudes to the one to whom God’s promise had been given.
- Melchizedek blesses Abraham (Gen 14:19), as anticipated by the promise of Gen 12:1-3, so we anticipate that Mel would himself experience the Abrahamic blessing. By contrast, the King of Sodom’s disdain leads us to anticipate that he will not experience this blessing, but rather God’s curse (Gen 12). Interestingly, he gets ’stuff’ (Gen 14:23), though his end is not far away (Gen 19).
- ‘Ps 110, often seen as a coronation liturgy, declares the Davidic king to be a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (v 4) … Gen 14 implies that because Melchizedek blessed Abram, divine blessing would rest on his successors, the priest-kings in Jerusalem.’ (Wenham 322).
- ‘Tithe-giving implies acknowledgement of status.’ (Wenham 322)
- Ps 110 is about a king who is declared a priest, not vice versa (86). But maybe Heb doesn’t use it in quite this way.
- 7:1-3 begins ‘this Mel’ and ends ‘remains a priest forever’. This should be regarded as the key assertion of the paragraph, and the intervening material as the (necessary and sufficient) grounds for the assertion. (Rooke 88) On this basis, then, need to understand the significance of the rest of 7:1-3.
- Driving towards ch 7 (exposition of Melchizedekian priesthood) ever since 2:17, where ‘high priest’ first mentioned (cf. Stedman). Breaks off immediately after 2:17; into exposition of ‘faithful and merciful’ (ch 3-4), then another hint in 5:6, 10, then another delay before ch 7. Delay before full exposition stimulates sense of intrigue in readers – ‘what’s which HP thing all about?!’ (cf. Lane).
- 7:3 ‘elaborate rhetorical flourish’ (Attridge) to draw attention to Mel’s status.
- When Mel is first introduced in 5:10, Heb then digresses bcs the readers have ‘become dull of hearing’ (5:11). Then there follows an extended exhortation to not go back to the OC systems (6:1-8), and (among other things) to maintain earnestness (6:11). Finally, then, Heb returns to this doctrine for the ‘mature’ (6:1) in 6:20/7:1, with the re-introduction of Melchizedek. Thus the Melchizedekian priesthood of Xt is cast as a fairly tricky thing to understand but which will, nonetheless, pay rich dividends for our spiritual maturity. It’s fine to eat candy floss, but eventually you need to sit down to a plate of meat and veg.
- ‘The perspective of 4:14-16, with Xt the ascended high priest who is able to sympathise with our weaknesses and provide mercy and grace to help in our time of need, is central to our writer’s aim in his “word of exhortation”.’ (Clarke quoting Peterson 114) Key applicatory principle: Look at Xt as this kind of high priest.
- Westcott thinks that the use of the participle ‘resembling’, rather than the adjective, means that Mel’s significance lies in his biblical representation, not the man himself. (cf Lane, 165)
- Mel is a ‘priest for ever’ in the sense that there is ‘no point at which he takes over from another priest or surrenders his office to someone who will succeed him’ (Clarke, quoting Schenk 78).
- Inclusios: 1-3 (hiereus); 4-9/10 (dekanten); 11-19 (nomos); 20-28 (orkomosias)
- The inability of the law to perfect the believer (11-19) is implicit in the appointment of a Melchizedekian priest subsequent to the establishment of the levitical priesthood.
- Change of priesthood entails change of law bcs law establishes priesthood. Therefore if the levitical priesthood is superseded, there must (necessarily have) be(en) a change in the law also. 7:11-12, 18-19.
- Xts appointment as priest coincided with his enthronement as king. Power of indestructible life establishes it (7:16). Why is it that this kind of priesthood (founded on resurrection life) has this kind of quality?
Bcs he always lives to make intercession (7:25)
Established by oath, and thus unchangeable (6:16-18)
Guarantor of better covenant, which can’t be broken or changed (ch 8, esp 8:6)
Problem with levitical priesthood was both with (a) the system itself; and (b) the flaws of the people who enacted it (5:3 cf 7:27)
Mel priesthood is a royal priesthood
- The establishment of the Melchizedekian priesthood in the ascended and enthroned Christ necessarily entails the passing away of the levitical priesthood, and prepares the way for the destruction of the home of the levitical priesthood – the temple.
- ‘A different order of priesthood comes with an entirely different system. The priesthood is intertwined with the law, with the covenant, with the sanctuary, with the sacrifices. When the priesthood is changed, these inevitably change as well.’ Thus the establishment of the new order of priesthood prepares the way for 8:1-10:18, which expounds the establishment of the new covenant (ch 8), the new sanctuary (9:1-10) and the new sacrifice (9:11-10:18). (Clarke)
- Priests were from the tribe of Levi, from the family of Aaron, whereas kings were from the tribe of Judah. The fact that Melchizedek is ‘without genealogy’ (7:3) means (1) he must be from a different order of priests, which doesn’t depend on descent (hence 7:16); (2) we thereby avoid the ‘problem’ that a genealogical qualification for the (aaronic) priesthood would disqualify him from the kingship and vice versa (cf 7:14).
- The connection between the ‘oath’ to Abraham in 6:13ff. and that concerning Melchizedek in 7:20ff. is likely to be established by considering how Melchizedek features in the Abraham narrative in Genesis, rather than (in the first instance) Ps 110, since Gen brings Mel, Abraham and the ‘oath’ together.
- The third term in 7:3 (’without genealogy’) amplifies and explains the significance of the first two. ‘Without Father or Mother’ does not establish his eternity, but his lack of written genealogical qualification for the aaronic priesthood, and by implication that he must have possessed a different kind of priesthood which Abraham recognised. (Lane 165f.) Of course he had a father and mother; they’re just not recorded, so he couldn’t have been a levitical priest. Poss especially significant since Genesis is all about genealogical descent. It’s true, therefore (following many modern exegetes), that Heb constructs an argument from silence, but the silence is obviously significant. (This answers the objection of Horton, 153f., that the silence can’t be significant because Jethro also has no recorded genealogy. Since Jethro appears in Ex/Num, not Gen, it makes sense that the genealogical silence should be less significant.)
- Think shadow-reality, not promise-fulfilment, to understand why Heb sees more in Ps 110 and Gen 14 than might initially appear to be there.
- Granerod thinks that Mel was regarded as immortal, and that this is crucial for the argument about Xt’s immortality and perpetual priesthood (Granerod, 195). Doubtful (SJ)
- Strangely appropriate that Mel should drop of sight from Heb after ch 7, just as he does after Gen 14.
- Melchizedek isn’t mentioned much in the Bible. One verse in Ps 110; one paragraph in Gen 14. Gen 14 is tricky because it seems at first glance rather unconnected to the Gen narrative. Mel just pops up and disappears, so it’s hard to see his relationship to other biblical themes. Ps 110 is tricky for the opposite reason – it’s quoted and alluded to so often in the NT that there’s so much biblical data to take into account. Moreover, though the general message of the Psalm seems fairly clear (esp in the light of these NT refs), there are some obscure details.
- Recall that 4:14-5:10 highlights important differences between Christ priesthood and the aaronic priesthood. E.g. Xt no ignorant or beset with weakness (5:2); no need to offer sacrifices for his own sins (5:3). This prepares for the argument of ch 7 that Xt’s priesthood is of a different order, anticipated in 5:10.
- Heb can be analysed thematically as a presentation of Xt as prophet (e.g. 3:1ff), priest (e.g. 4:14ff) and king (e.g. 2:5ff.). Cf. overview in 1:1-4. Of these, priest and king prob occupy most attention in the book. Also significant is the fact that Xt combines these offices; cf. 2:10-11 – the king who brings his people to glory also sanctifies them. Not something that could ordinarily be done in Israel! Makes sense of one of the first things Heb draws attention to about Mel – that he’s King of Salem and priest of God most High.
- Significance of the location of Salem, where Melchizedek was priest/king: the site of the later city of Jerusalem, palace of the kings of Israel, temple of the LORD.
- Most modern exegetes mention the Qumran scrolls, but they hold a range of different views on their significance for Hebrews.
- Lane (159) and Granerod (200) both mention the established Hebrew exegetical principle of gezerah shawah, whereby a connection between two texts is established merely on the basis of a common word, and the texts are then deployed to shed light on each other. Interesting that this hermeneutical approach has some pedigree.
- Heb 7 refers explicitly to both Ps 110 and Gen 14. Ps 110:4 repeated lots of times (Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17, [21], etc.)
- Significance of bib-theo framework: Adam was a priest in the garden-sanctuary, charged with ruling world as a king. Need, therefore, to encompass this work in one person. The roles were separated in the law, since priests and kings were from different tribes, though acc to Ps 100 the king anticipated and retained aspects of the earlier Melchizedekian priestly privileges. Xt’s Melchizedekian priesthood is the climactic bringing-together of his twin second-Adamic roles of priest and king.
- Relationship between the church’s priestly role towards the nations (Ex 19; 1 Pet 2; etc) and Xt’s priestly role for the church in relation to Xt’s Melchizedekian priesthood.
Bruce A. Demarest, ‘Hebrews 7:3: A Crux Interpretum Historically Considered,’ Evangelical Quarterly 49 (1977) 141-162
William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC)
Gard Granerod, ‘Melchizedek in Hebrews 7,’ (2009)
W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 152.
Richard Longenecker, ‘The Melchizedek Argument in Hebrews,’ in Guelich (ed.), Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology
David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection (SNTSMS)
Ros Clarke, ‘How and why does Hebrews make so much of the assertion that Christ is ‘a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek”?’ (Unpublished essay)
D. W. Rooke, ‘Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7,’ Biblica 81 (2000) 81-94
G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC)
New Bible Dictionary, ‘Shechem’
Thx also to MS, RAS, JBJ, SW, RD, AJPT
| Tweet | Post comment via Facebook |
Posted by Steve Jeffery · Topics: Bible, Minister's Blog