Monday: According to the Order of Melchizedek
Read Genesis 14:18-20 and Hebrews 7:1-3. Who was Melchizedek, and how did he prefigure Jesus?
Melchizedek was both a king and priest. He was also superior to Abraham, since Abraham paid him tithe. Likewise, Jesus is king and priest (Hebrews 1:3); unlike Melchizedek, however, Jesus was sinless (Hebrews 7:26-28).
Image © Lars Justinen at Goodsalt.com
Hebrews 7:15 explains that Jesus was priest “in the likeness of Melchizedek” (NKJV). This is what the earlier expression in Hebrews, “according to the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5:6, NKJV), means. Jesus was not a successor of Melchizedek, but His priesthood was similar to his.
For instance, Paul says that Melchizedek was without father, mother, genealogy, birth, and death. Some have suggested that Melchizedek was an incarnation of Jesus in the time of Abraham. But this thought does not fit the argument of Hebrews. Melchizedek “resembles” Jesus (see ESV), which implies that He was different from Jesus (Hebrews 7:3).
It has also been suggested that Melchizedek was a heavenly being, but this would destroy the argument of Hebrews. If Melchizedek were without father, mother, beginning, or end, he would be God Himself. This poses a problem. Melchizedek’s heavenly, fully divine priesthood would have preceded the ministry of Jesus. If this were the case, as Hebrews says, “what further need would there have been for another priest to arise” (Hebrews 7:11, ESV)?
Instead, Hebrews uses the silence of Scripture regarding Melchizedek’s birth, death, and genealogy to build a typology, symbol, for Jesus’ priestly ministry (Genesis 14:18-20) and reveals that Jesus Himself was eternal. In short, Melchizedek was a Canaanite king-priest who served as a type of Christ.
“It was Christ that spoke through Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God. Melchizedek was not Christ, but he was the voice of God in the world, the representative of the Father. And all through the generations of the past, Christ has spoken; Christ has led His people, and has been the light of the world.” — Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 1, p. 409.
| What does the revelation about Melchizedek teach us about how God works among those who have never had human missionaries preach to them? |
(21)
The book of Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians with the purpose of doing a paradigm shift from the earthly temple service to the heavenly process that it represented. One of the big sticking points in the Jewish mind was that a priest had to be a descendent of Aaron. The writer of Hebrews makes the point that there was a priesthood before the Aaronic priesthood, giving the Old Testament example of Melchizedek. This is not rocket science (theology). It is the simple use of an example to make a point in an argument. Namely, that there was a biblical precedent for non-Aaronic priests. And that Jesus could be considered as a priest on that basis.
Thanks Maurice, Your simple commentary brought clarity to this passage for me. Tammy
Hebrews uses Melchizedek because King David used it in one of his psalms and that it was also an "Oath of God Himself" about this very matter of making a King also be a Priest way before He started a priesthood that could not hold a position of a king at all with the Levites and the Aaronic priesthoods. King Melchizedek was a King of a Kingdom called "Salem." Which eventually came to be known as Jerusalem. The author of the lesson for Monday says that Melchizedek was a Canaanite Priest. There is no scriptural proof for that at all. But so what?, Abraham was a Gentile "man of God." And Melchizedek was God because He was Jesus in Human Form and Jesus also was and is God because both Melchizedek and Jesus are "One and the Same." We are to go by Bible and Bible only and this is what I read from the OT and from King David's Psalm and the book of Hebrews.
Bro Pete, how can we say Melchizedek was "Jesus in human form"? Where is the evidence for that?
The lesson itself says correctly that "Melchizedek was not Christ". I believe the church would not hold the erroneous position of confusing Melchizedek with Christ were it not for the trinity doctrine adopted in 1980.
Dan, read what EGW says in the Desire of Ages at His Triumphal Entry: She says there this, "Ask Abraham, he will tell you, it is Melchizedek King of Salem,..."
I typed the word "Melchizedek," on the EGW Writings and 17 hits came up. Most of them are in the context of "the tithe." Many of them say that Jesus is not Melchizedek. But yet, the one in "The Desire of Ages" in reference to Jesus Triumphal Entry make it very clear that Jesus was and is Melchizedek King of Salem. The book of Hebrews devotes three chapters of that book on the subject of Melchizedek and also very clearly says that this King and Priest had no geneology, father, or mother, or beginning or ending of life and while this can only apply to Jesus Himself then it has to apply to Melchizedek too because it was in reference to King and Priest Melchizedek that the Book of Hebrews made this statement about.
Pete, there are 17 references to Melchizedek in the Bible. The primary one in Genesis where Abraham pays tithe to Melchizedek; the reference in Psalms in a messianic psalm where he is acknowledged as a priest of the order of Melchizedek; and the rest are in Hebrews where the author is making the case of Christ being our heavenly priest on the basis of him being a priest of the order of Melchizedek. I don't think there is a Biblical basis for Melchizedek being Christ.
The Ellen White quote you give is in the context of a whole string of names for Christ and is probably a reference to the meaning of the name - my king is righteousness or my king is peace rather than saying Jesus and Melchizedek are one and the same.
As is often the case, the simplest interpretation is the best.
Maurice, EGW says in the DA quote regarding Jesus Triumphal Entry, to ask Adam, etc. and when she gets to Abraham, "it is Melchizedek, King of Salem." Yes, Adam would say it is the seed of the woman, etc. and etc. and these are "All Jesus, including Melchizedek, King of Salem," my brother.
easy explanation. thank you
[Note: Brigitte has not morphed into Maurice. This comment was submitted for Sunday but after some correspondence with her, we decided it was better suited to Monday. I cut and pasted the comment and in the process, my avatar appeared at the top of the comment. Apologies to Brigitte. I am sure that she is much better looking than me. Maurice]
I carefully read the passage referencing 'order of Melchizedek' - Psalm 110:1-7KJV – v.1: ” The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” v.4: ”The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent(change His mind), Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”
Then follow the verses 5–7: v.5 ”The Lord at thy(David's/Israels's) right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath”, and v.6: ”He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies, he shall wound the heads over many(great) countries.”
What does it mean for the Lord to be 'a priest after the order of Melchizedek'? What order did Melchizedek belong to, what office and authority did this order hold, and how were its duties implemented?
Heb.5:1-10NKJV points out that Christ, the LORD’s Son, our Lord, was a priest 'according to the order' of Melchizedek. Could 'order' be understood to mean that Melchizedek ‘ordered/included’ Christ to be part of his 'order/office'? Melchizedek appeared on earth without a lineage to trace his ancestry and left without a trace. Had the Father appointed Melchizedek to prepare The Way of Christ, sent Abram on his way to be taught by Him about the LORD who guided him?
Heb.5:9-10 paraphrased: ”And having been perfected, Christ Jesus became the author of eternal salvation to all who believe His teachings and follow His Way; v.10 - called by God as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.”
If Melchizedek’s office was that of a spiritual leader/teacher/priest, then this passage tells me that in Christ Jesus we have a leader/teacher/priest who shows us The Way - the Truth and the Light of His Father’s Will.
The follower of the Way is now called upon to step into this office of spiritual leadership to be the Light on the Hill, the Salt of the earth as he/she is included in the ‘royal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek’.
Jesus, the Son of Man, learned obedience by loving the Father supremely; desiring to please Him only. The Creator Son, the Son of God incarnate as Christ Jesus left heaven and continued to submit Himself completely to the very core of His being!
I see His sacrifice to be that of self-will, placing the Will of His Father above all else in His life in the flesh. Faith in and Love of the Father was all that sustained Him. He passed this miracle of God's Grace and Mercy on to us that we should walk in it by Faith!
Thanks for your comments
I learned from Sunday's lesson study the priesthood was a honor given by God. Today's lesson study teaches that honor is not limited to the descendants of Abraham including spiritual descendant of Abraham.
God is in the business of leading all the people into the knowledge of Himself.
Abraham recognized Melchizedek the priest of God Most High and gave him tithe.
It is noteworthy in Genesis 14:18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine
Symbolizing the body of Christ. (maybe I am reading too much into this)
When I refer to 1 Peter 2:9 claim exclusive right to God, God is telling me I am the savior of the world.
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.
Acts 10:34-35
I am so glad even when I was a gentile, He has covered me with His everlasting love.
Amen to this, Newbegin Dewaraj, "Bread and wine" from Melchizedek to Abraham, The Body and Blood of Jesus for sure. In the book The Desire of Ages by EGW she says very clearly in the context of Jesus Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem on a donkey, "Ask Adam and he will tell you, it is the seed of the woman, ask Abraham and he will tell you, it is Melchizedek King of Salem, King of peace..." And now I say, the Book of Hebrews says that Melchizedek had no father, mother, beginning of days or end of life: Jesus was very much the same except that when He became a human He had a human mother only as a human baby boy, Jesus to me, was and is King Mechizedek in human form.
Pete, keep in mind if you are saying that Ellen White in Desire of Ages says Melchizedek was literally Christ, that in Selected Messages vol 1 she says Melchizedek was not Christ. I am not sure if that is exactly what you’re implying or not.
So mr William Earnhardt, what was EGW exactly meaning when she says in the DA and in the context of Jesus timphal entry, if one was to ask Abraham he would say that this was Melchizedek King of Salem, King of Peace, and this in the context also that Adam would say that this was the "Seed of the Woman," etc.: Was the seed of the woman "literally Christ?" EGW was human and she made mistakes even in her "expositions of scripture" and she was willing to accept this as a fact. Read what she said in Page 35 of Counsels to Writers and Editors, "There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositons of Scripture are without an error." She made this statment in 1892, six years before she wrote the one in the DA.
Thanks Pete, I was just curious how you reconcile that. Thanks for explaining. Its not a hill I'm going to die on either way.
Thanks to you too, William Earnhardt for hearing me out. But just think about this also: Jesus has appeared in human form even before He took upon Himself that form as a baby in Bethlehem 2,000 plus or minus years ago; He was one of the three "humans" that appeared to Abraham to assure him of the promise to Abraham that he would have a son from his wife Sarah. He was the human that was with the three Hebrews in the "fiery furnace" of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon who also exclaimed that there was a fourth there in the midst of those flames looking like a "Son of God." And just because the book of Hebrews indicates that Jesus was Priest after the "order of Melchizedek," what do we know about that so called "order of Melchizedek?" Nothing other than that Abraham was met by a King of a city called Salem who was also Priest of God and that this King and Priest blessed Abraham and Abraham gave this priest 10 percent of his war spoils, and that King David in one of his psalms states that God's Son was made a priest of this order, and then finally the book of Hebrews says that Melchizedek had no father, mother, beginning of life or end of days and reiterates King David's Psalm about God's Son (Jesus) being made a priest after this order etc., and goes on to say how Jesus qualified to be our High Priest because of this "endless life" of His. But just the fact that there is a mention of "an order" for this priesthood does not mean that there were other "humans" that were Kings and also Priests of God. The book of Hebrews goes on to put a difference about this "Priesthood," as not having human ancestries either or needing to have sacrifices offered for them either or by them and for them.
Isn't interesting too how God never wanted His people to have a King and how in the Levitical Priesthood none of them could be Kings? Personally, I feel that God's plan was for Melchizedek (Jesus) to eventually be their King, and one day this will become a reality for us when He returns in power and glory,
And like in Leviticus, the clarity of how the animal sacrifices were offered is not mentioned at all regarding King and Priest Melchizedek or for that order of priesthood because like Jesus, He did not need them either for Himself and this then has to make Jesus Himself to also be Melchizedek too as to how I read these verses of the book of Hebrews.
Please permit me to add one additional comment -
Studying the Scriptures with my fellow Bible students and reading their comments, I begin to understand that basic spiritual insights develop over time; we are taught the basics first, and as we continue to live our lives by faith, the Savior’s spirit develops in us the understanding of true Life and its purpose.
I am interested to read everyone’s comments, noticing various areas of focus and concern, each one expressing what is important at that time. I am also beginning to realize that it is not fruitful to get into arguments about matters related to our spiritual faith; each believer develops its own faith-life, and each will develop it in its own time.
I trust the lesson writers preparing the daily lessons to take the best care they can to convey Scripture’s truth, though they also are still in this process of developing a deeper understanding of the Faith of Christ.
My advise to my fellow Bible students is to keep learning ‘simple’, focusing on that which really matters – God’s Faith and Love for us and to express this in how we interact with our fellow man. After all, what we learn needs to be suitable to be applied to our daily lives!
Learning that which supports our faith to increase our love for God and one another is a gift from the Spirit of Christ Jesus, everything else is in my opinion fringe-learning, prone to speculation leading to debate; some of the Faith really enjoy a debate, though! 😊
If there is any source to help clarify Bible text, I trust Ellen White to shed light on the subject, as she did with her salient quote for this lesson.
This is essentially true and worthwhile. The big picture should never slip our view point.
A few days back (January 13), we read that:
In fact, Hebrews 7:3 says that Jesus does not have “beginning of days nor end of life” (cf. Heb. 13:8) because He is eternal. Thus, the idea of Jesus as God’s “only begotten son” is not dealing with the nature of Christ as deity but with His role in the plan of salvation. Through the incarnation, Christ fulfilled all the covenant promises.
With the Monday lesson, there is not only a glaring contradiction but also a glaring inconsistency about Melchizedek. I hope lesson teachers get to correct the error of January 13 and correctly place Christ as the divine High Priest, not Melchizedek. The January 13 error came about most probably in an attempt to accommodate trinitarian theology, and this has become the foundation for much of the SS quarterly lessons lately. May God help us all.
I think todays lesson missed a very important historical fact. Melchizedek was a Title and not a name. This is how he could be "without father and mother". It did not matter who held the position, the Title did not change. Historically speaking, it was no different than the Title, Pharaoh of Egypt.
Hello Jim. Where is that in the lesson? I think that would be totally misleading. Melchizedek was a person and not a title according to the Bible. Making the name a title would be quite a stretch, because we only have one Melchizedek in the Bible. Jesus the Son of God was a "priest according to the order of Melchizedek". Nowhere does the Bible call Him a Melchizedek. Even then, were it true that Melchizedek is a title, that cannot explain away the fact that the Melchizedek of Salem was "without father or mother". All title holders (like Herod) had father and mother.
Jim, rather than a title, I think it was a meaningful name. Many Bible characters were given names that were meaningful - and we know that some changed their names to more meaningful ones. Example Abram/Abraham.
I beg to differ. Here is just one of many Jewish scholars interpretation on Melchizedek. Also in the non-canonical book of Jasher, Abram was not picked out of thin air, he was a man after God’s on heart like David was and he was trained at the feat of Noah and Shem. It is likely that the 60 year difference between the Bible and the book of Jasher ( The Book of the Righteous) is a Biblical error and Noah was still alive and Abram spent time ( almost 30 years ) with Noah and Shem. Shem in fact may be Melchizedek which would make sense as to why Abraham paid him so much respect. Abram’s God training did not come from his father Terah as he was an idol worshiper.
https://www.aish.com/atr/Where-Was-Salem.html
I have no problem with what you are saying here Jim.
With regard to Melchizedek being a "name" or a "title" - I think debate on this really takes us away from the significance of reference in Hebrews. I believe the author of Hebrews is simply making the point that Aaronic priests were such by inheritance rather than suited to that role by "nature" or "character", whereas Jesus was priest because of who He was - the Son of God. Because of who He was He was really the only one who could truly be priest. Should you be interested in following this through further I would recommend an article written by Jim Cole-Rouse, published in the book "God's honourable mentions". Tracing OT genealogies, noting the overlaps of names of people we are all familiar with he proposes an interesting suggested possibility that Melchizedek could have been Shem, the son of Noah.
I do not believe we should be making anything significant out of Melchizedek being "without father and mother". He obviously had both, but scripture does not record for us or make note of who they were, and the author of Hebrews (I accept as being Paul) had not bothered to research the matter for himself. The reference to Melchizedek is to separate Christ from the Aaronic, sanctuary focused, and limited ministry of those priests. Christ's priestly ministry replaced and surpassed both Aaronic priest and high priest, so could not be adequately represented by either.
Thank you for that. In that he must precede Aaronic priesthood, and that he must represent us eternally, we should be careful to accept any man (Melchizedek) as eternal. The point that Levi paid tithes in Abraham points to the kind of priesthood (not priest) which we should acknowledge. Christ precedes our Aaronic structure for he created it. He also precedes Melchizedek by the same argument. We pay respect (tithe) in Him through His death we died at the cross. Thus, call it whatever you want, the greatest priesthood is the first one, in which Jesus sacrificed his choice of divinity to be our brother. This happened before the foundation of the world, before angels sinned.