Why
Melchizedek Is Not A Christophany
Genesis 14, which is in the midst of several notable Christophanic
passages (Gen.12:7; 16:7–13; 17:1–22; and 18:1–33), contains the unique
biblical record of one called Melchizedek. He is identified as the king of
Salem and the priest of the most high God. He appears historically in just
three verses, Genesis 14:18–20, though he is mentioned briefly in Psalm 110:4 and
again in Hebrews 5–7, the latter in a more detailed fashion. From time
immemorial, questions have been raised as to the identity of this “priest of
the most high God” who pronounces a blessing upon Abraham.
I. Advocates of the Belief That
Melchizedek Was Christ
It is exceedingly difficult to find any literature, current or
otherwise, that espouses the view that Melchizedek was a Christophanic
appearance of the preincarnate Son of God. Yet, numerous Christians have at one
time or another heard this hypothesis mentioned. The origin of this belief is
not easily traced. William T. Bullock points out that around A.D. 400
“Epiphanius says some (Haer. lxvii.3 & lv.5) in the church held the false
view that Melchizedek was the Son of God,” and that apparently, “Ambrose (De.
Abrah. 1§3)” was included among them.
Dean Henry
Alford cites Jerome, who says, “Marcus Eremita [about 400], who wrote a
treatise on Melchisedec, mentions heretics who believed him to be ‘God the
Word, before He took flesh, or was born of Mary.’ ” Alford goes on to say
that Ambrose seems to have held this view, although “he expressly states him to
have been merely a holy man, a type of Christ. This last view was ever the
prevalent one in the church.” (It is not uncommon for the church Fathers to contradict
themselves in their various writings.)
Finally,
Alford notes, “In later times the idea that he was the Son of God has been
revived.” Alford himself, however, seems to fall short of adopting this view
completely when he says, “Melchisedec is a prophetic symbol of Him” and “the
city over which Melschisedec reigned, as well as his own name, was of typical
significance.” Alford feels that there is perhaps too much mystery involved in
the matter to come to a sure conclusion.
Writing in
1864, Moses Stuart, in a two-page excursus, lists ten views regarding the
identity of Melchizedek. He says that of the nine false opinions the most
popular view was that Melchizedek was Christ. Stuart states that this view has
been defended in recent times by Pierre du Moulin (Lat. Molinaeus), Joachim
Cunaeus, Jacques Gaillard, Johann H. Hottinger, Johann A. Stark, Johann W.
Petersen, and others. Bullock, who also wrote in 1864, says this
position “has been adopted by many modern critics.”
B. H.
Carroll, the founder and president (around 1900) of Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, considered the view “plausible,” but
totally rejected it. In 1972, Homer A. Kent, Jr., then President of Grace
Theological Seminary, noted that “occasionally among popular Bible teachers of
the present, one finds Melchizedek identified as a theophany.” Thus, this view
has generally been considered to be false throughout church history and has not
been widely espoused, yet apparently is sometimes still taught in some places.
F. W.
Farrar, in a rather forceful vein, gives his characterization of this
particular view of Melchizedek. He says:
The notion that Mechizedek was … “God the Word, previous to
Incarnation,” … [is] on all sound hermeneutical principles, not only “almost”
but quite “childish”.… No Hebrew, reading these words, would have been led to
these idle and fantastic conclusions about the super-human dignity of the
Canaanite prince.
II. Some Basic Reasons Why Melchizedek
Should Not Be Identified As Christ
There are, of course, a number of overriding factors which have
caused Christians in general to reject the identification of Melchizedek as
Christ. These arguments are based squarely upon the clear statements and
revealed theology of the Word of God and may be comprehended under four
sections.
A. The
Identification Ignores the Details of Genesis
14
The identification of Melchizedek as Christ ignores certain
details of the historical account in Genesis 14. Two facts stand out, namely,
Melchizedek was the king of a city (v. 18), and he performed a religious
ceremony (v. 19–20).
1. Although it has been variously interpreted
(“spiritualized” and allegorized), there are no compelling reasons for taking
Salem as other than a topographic location, probably Jerusalem, as found in its
shortened form (“Salem”) in Psalm 76:2. Since theophanies in human form were
always quite temporary and fleeting, it would be highly unusual for God to have
visited Abram while posing as the king of a Canaanite city. Besides, in none of
the identifiable Christophanies was the one who appeared connected in any
permanent way with life on this earth.
2. When Christ appeared in the human-form
theophanies He never performed a religious ceremony. Yet Melchizedek was titled
“priest of the most high God” and brought bread and wine, the elements of a
completed sacrifice, while he pronounced a blessing upon Abraham.
Patrick Fairbairn, writing in 1854,
plainly states the natural conclusions to be drawn from the historical details
given in Genesis 14: “But the view now almost universally acquiesced in is,
that he was simply a Canaanite sovereign, who combined with his royal dignity
as king of Salem the office of a true priest of God. No other supposition,
indeed, affords a satisfactory explanation of the narrative.”
B. The Identification Disagrees with the Book of
Hebrews
The identification of Melchizedek as Christ also disagrees in
several points with the book of Hebrews.
1. Hebrews 7:3 declares in essence that
Melchizedek had no recorded genealogy. Some mistake this to signify eternality
of being. But, Hebrews 7:6 plainly states that Melchizedek did have a
genealogy, although it was not traced through Abraham.
2. This identification would destroy the
argument of the book of Hebrews. Christ is better than angels (1:4), better
than Moses (3:3), and better than Melchizedek (7:22). This would not be so if
Christ were Melchizedek.
3. A third disagreement with the book of Hebrews
lies in the statement that Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of God”
(Heb. 7:3), as a copy or facsimile. Again, this would not be true if
Melchizedek were Christ, for why should the text say he is made like unto Christ if he actually were
Christ?
4. A fourth disagreement revolves around the
statement that Melchizedek remains a priest continually (Heb. 7:3). Those who
see Melchizedek as Christ must argue that his priesthood remained forever. If
so, however, it would conflict not only with Aaron’s priesthood but also with
that of Christ Himself. How could Christ be an eternal Melchizedek and at the
same time exercise a ministry as Jesus Christ? The phrase in question is better
taken to teach that Melchizedek’s priesthood was not humanly derived from
another and had no recorded ending.
5. Finally, the oft repeated statement (Psa.
110:4; Heb. 5:6; 6:20; 7:11, 21) that Christ is a priest “after the order of
Melchizedek” “clearly differentiates Christ and Melchizedek, and it would
hardly be a clarification if the text said he was a priest after the order of
himself.”
C. The Identification Lacks Any Christophanic
Confirmation
This identification of Melchizedek also lacks necessary
confirmation in Scripture. The characteristic pattern of the human-form
theophanies is not found in the Melchizedek account. That is, he was never
identified as Deity, as was normal in the case of all Christophanies. There
were no introductory phrases such as “the Lord
appeared” (Gen. 12:7), “the Lord
said” (Gen. 13:14), or “the angel of the Lord
said” (Gen. 16:9), which are so common in the Christophanies around the Genesis
14 passage. Neither was there any recognition on Abram’s part that he had seen
God as at other times (e.g., Gen. 18:25). This omission of any textual
indication of a Christophanic appearance seems almost conclusive in itself that
Melchizedek was someone other than Deity.
D. The Identification Lacks Etymological Support
Finally, the identification of Melchizedek as Christ requires one
to suggest that since Melchizedek means “king of righteousness” he must have
been a Christophany. The Hebrew scholars Carl Frederick Keil and Franz
Delitzsch note that “judging from Josh. 10:1, 3, where a much later king is
called Adonizedek, i.e. Lord of
Righteousness, this name may have been a standing title of the ancient kings of
Salem.” It is out of the question to see Adonizedek (this later, pagan
Canaanite king of Jerusalem whom Joshua had to conquer) as a Christophany, but
his title was very similar to Melchizedek’s. This type of title for Canaanite
dynastic rulers probably originated with a king such as Melchizedek, who,
fearing the most high God, truly did rule his subjects with justice.
Additionally,
Hamilton notes that other Old Testament names which contain “the first element malki—(e.g., Malchiel, ‘El is my king’
[Gen. 46:17]; Malchiah, ‘Yahweh is my king’ [Jer. 38:6]) are read unanimously
as names with mlk as an epithet
rather than a theophoric element.” In other words, Melchizedek would be a
descriptive name, as those above, not one that bears some other allegorical
meaning.
The
etymology, therefore, does not convincingly argue for a Christophany but rather
for the fact that Melchizedek was the real, historical priest-king of Salem,
whose life and ministry at some points typified Christ’s.
III. Conclusions
Who, then, was this Melchizedek? Many conjectures have been made.
He has been identified, for example, as an angel, Enoch, or Shem. George Bush
speaks hyperbolically when he says that “the bare recital of the different
opinions that have been entertained would fill a volume.” However, as early as
Josephus the view is expressed that Melchizedek was “king of the city Salem.”
Bullock says this “certainly was the opinion of … most of the early Fathers …
of Theodoret … and Epiphanius … and is now generally received.” Irenaeus,
Eusebius, John Calvin, Cornelius à Lapide, Ernst F. K. Rosenmüller, and Robert
S. Candlish, according to Thomas Whitelaw, were also of this persuasion.
Keil and
Delitzsch nicely summarize the ideas regarding the true identity of
Melchizedek: “We can see in him nothing more than one, perhaps the last, of the
witnesses and confessors of the early revelation of God, coming out into the
light of history from the dark night of heathenism. Yet this appearance does
point to a priesthood of universal significance.” Herbert C. Leupold adds that
“we are compelled to regard this venerable king-priest as a worshipper and
publicly an adherent of the true religion of Yahweh as handed down from the
sounder tradition of the times of the Flood.”
In fact,
the view that Melchizedek was not a Christophany is the only position that can
be upheld by sound hermeneutics and exegesis applied diligently to the biblical
records of Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7. It is for these reasons, therefore, that
Melchizedek is not regarded as a Christophany in the body of this work.
IV. A Summary of the Appendix
The figure of Melchizedek, who suddenly appears and then vanishes
just as quickly from the scene in Genesis 14:18–20, has drawn the attention of
practically every Bible scholar. Because of the particular attention given to
Melchizedek in Hebrews 5–7, some have entertained the idea that he is to be
identified as Christ. Among those who have held this opinion are some
considered heretics by Marcus Eremita around a.d.
400. Epiphanius also calls this a false view but says that some in his day were
of that opinion regarding Melchizedek. In modern times the view has been
defended by Molinaeus, Cunaeus, Gaillard, Hottinger, Stark, Petersen, many
modern critics, and sometimes among popular Bible teachers.
Against
this identification of Melchizedek as Christ, however, are a number of salient
points.
1. First, the identification ignores the
historical details of Genesis 14, such as the fact that Melchizedek was the
king of a local city named Salem. When Christ appeared in the human-form
theophanies He never came as a person tied in some permanent way to this earth.
Again, the Christophanic individual never performed a religious ceremony as
Melchizedek did.
2. Second, the identification disagrees in
several points with the book of Hebrews.
a) Melchizedek did have a genealogy, though it
was not traced through Abraham.
b) If Melchizedek were Christ, then Christ could
not be “better than” Melchizedek; thus part of the argument of Hebrews would be
destroyed.
c) It would be foolish to say Melchizedek was
made like Christ, if indeed he were Christ.
d) Melchizedek could not have had an eternal
priesthood because such would conflict with Aaron’s priesthood and even with
Christ’s.
e) To say that Christ is a priest after the
order of Melchizedek clearly differentiates the two individuals.
3. Third, the identification of Melchizedek as
Christ lacks the normal, clear confirmation by scriptural declaration.
Christophanies are not presented to the reader in cryptic fashion. They are
always clearly identified with such phrases as “the Lord appeared” or “the angel of the Lord said.”
4. The identification is not convincing from the
standpoint of etymology. Rather than interpreting Melchizedek as a personal
name with an allegorical meaning, the name should be seen as a title for
ancient Jebusite rulers of the city-state Salem. This is shown from similar
titles such as “Adonizedek” (Josh. 10:1, 3). Adonizedek was a later king of
Jerusalem but likewise certainly not a Christophany.
Finally, Melchizedek should be viewed
as a godly Canaanite prince who had retained the true knowledge of Jehovah from
his ancestors back to the time of Noah’s Deluge. Combined in his person were
the twin offices of king and priest. The divine omissions concerning his
genealogy, birth, and death were for the purpose of presenting him as a type of
Christ in the New Testament. (James A. Borland, Christ in the Old Testament [Fearn, UK: Christian Focus
Publications, 1999], 139–147)