Melchizedek - Final

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF ADVENTIST THEOLOGY

THE IDENTITY OF MELCHIZEDEK FROM HEBREWS 7:1-10 IN THE LIGHT OF GENESIS 14:18-20 WITH A SHORT HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

Professor:

Student:

Dr. Felix H. Cortez

Miron Silviu Claudiu

2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................ 3 1.1. 1.2.

PURPOSE FOR THE STUDY ............................................................................................................. 3 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................... 3

2. A SHORT HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FIGURE OF MELCHIZEDEK IN HEBREWS AND A CRITIQUE OF SOME VIEWS .................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5.

RABBINIC INTERPRETATIONS ......................................................................................................... 4 MELCHIZEDEK IN QUMRANIAN TEACHINGS....................................................................................... 4 THE PRE-EMBODIED CHRIST AS MELCHIZEDEK .................................................................................. 5 THE PRIESTHOOD OF EVERY MAN ................................................................................................... 6 REFORMATION VIEWS ON MELCHIZEDEK – LUTHER AND CALVIN .......................................................... 6

3.

MELCHIZEDEK: A REPRESENTANT OF A FUTURE MELCHIZEDEK ................................................. 7

4.

MELCHIZEDEK FROM GENESIS 14:18-20 IS A TYPE FOR CHRIST IN HEBREWS 7:1-10 .................. 8

5.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 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 significance and function of Melchizedek in these narratives, especially in the Epistle to Hebrews chapter 7.

1.1.

Purpose for the study

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 function of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 from a Genesis narrative perspective.

1.2.

Delimitations of the study

This research is limited to an examination of two Biblical narratives: Hebrews 7:1-10 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 2.1.

Rabbinic Interpretations

Rabbinic interpretations regarding the identity and character of Melchizedek are various. Fred Horton in his commentary on Hebrews wrote: For R. Ishmael, Melchizedek (=Shem) is an impious character who loses the priesthood to Abraham because he dared to bless Abraham before God. In point of fact, God had intended to derive the priesthood from Shem (=Melchizedek) but did not since Melch1zedek committed such a great impropriety.3

Thus, in rabbinical tradition Melchizedek is identified with Shem. There is even a 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 of Shem is very well known.

2.2.

Melchizedek in Qumranian teachings

The following quotation from the Qumranian literature is very significant for the forming of an opinion about the identity of Melchizedek in Qumranian community:

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 seen as an eschatological person, an angelic being, a great liberator, a heavenly warrior, a 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

is he described in Genesis or Hebrews as a judge or liberator.

2.3.

The Pre-embodied Christ as Melchizedek

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 sense of the Genesis narrative.

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

2.5.

Reformation views on Melchizedek – Luther and Calvin

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, Melchizedek according to the author of Hebrews has no bloodline in order to be identified with Shem.

3.

MELCHIZEDEK: A REPRESENTANT OF A FUTURE MELCHIZEDEK In Genesis 12-14 account Abraham is a literarily representative of the future Israelite

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 cityking. 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 take it in a similar representative fashion as Abraham: as Abraham was a representative for a future Israel, so Melchizedek functions as a representative of a future Melchizedek – which is 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, he interprets Melchizedekʼs name as being meaningful in the context of Hebrews 7: his

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 nongenealogical 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 Hebrews must use a special hermeneutic, applicable to Melchizedek alone.”17

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 Melchizedek and Christ literarily. The only difference is in their effect. 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. Calvin, John. Commentary on Genesis (1554). Translated by J. Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948-1949. 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. Flavius, Josephus. Josephus Complete Works. Translated by Williams Whinston. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1960. 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. Kobelski, J. Paul. "Melchizedek and Melchireša." In Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 10. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. 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. "Psalm Thirty-Seven." In The Midrash on Psalms, 1: Yale Judaica Series. Rad, Gerhard Von. Genesis. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1961. Van Der Woude, A. S. "11q Melchizedek and the New Testament." New Testament Studies 12 (1965): 301-326.

10