Friday, October 7, 2022

Matthew H. Emadi on Melchizedek not being the same person as Jesus

  

. . . by contrasting Melchizedek with the king of Sodom in the same pericope . . .we discover that Melchizedek’s kingship—like Adam’s before him—is subservient to God’s rule as creator. (Matthew H. Emadi, The Royal Priest: Psalm 110 in Biblical Theology [New Studies in Biblical Theology 60; London: Apollos, 2022], 45)

 

In Hebrews 7:4-10, the author draws one primary conclusion based on his brief exposition of Genesis 14:18-20. The Melchizedekian priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood because Melchizedek blessed Abraham (the ancestor of the Levites) and received a tithe from Abraham (7:6-7, 9-10). It does not appear that Melchizedek’s superiority over Abraham and the Levites is merely a by-product of redemptive-historical priority. There is something about the nature of Melchizedek’s priesthood that causes it so supersede the Levitical priesthood. But what is it? The answer has to do with the quality of Melchizedek’s priesthood as a permanent priesthood. Hebrews 7;3 and 7:8 provide the clue to this line of reasoning. According to Hebrews 7:3, Melchizedek is ‘without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of his life, but being similar to the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time’. The language of this verse does not have to mean that Melchizedek was pre-existent (without beginning of days) and that he never died (without end of life). In that case, we would assume that the author of Hebrews believed that Melchizedek was either the pre-incarnate Christ, or still alive on earth somewhere, or taken into heaven. Instead, Hebrews 7:3 is simply a description of the way Melchizedek appears and disappears in the Genesis narrative.

 

When Melchizedek arrives in Genesis 14:18, he has no genealogical record—no record of father, other, birth or death. His missing genealogy is an important literary feature since every significant person I Genesis always has a genealogical history. The author of Hebrews assessed Melchizedek’s lack of recorded family heritage as significant. Hebrews 7:8 says, ‘In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, it is being testified (martyroumenos) there he lives.’ The point is not that Melchizedek lived for ever. Instead, the author employs the passive participle martyroumenos to describe the manner in which the Genesis narrative bore witness to Melchizedek—he is simply there, existing, living, with no predecessors or successors. In other words, the only witness we have of Melchizedek in the Genesis narrative is that he lives.

 

In the light of these observations, the authors comment about Melchizedek’s ‘resembling the son’ (aphōmoiōmenos de tō huiō tou theou mean? These six words have caused quite a few problems in the history of interpretation. If the referent of tō huiō tou theou is the eternal Son of God, then perhaps interpreters are right to view Melchizedek as a pre-incarnate Christ. However, the permanency of Melchizedek’s priesthood is what resembles the Son of God (The participle aphōmoiōmenos modifies the matrix sentence ‘He remains a priest forever.’ Thus, ‘He remains a priest for ever, resembling the son of God’). Furthermore, the author’s intent in 7:1-3 is to describe Melchizedek in the context of Genesis, which would make a passing comment to the eternal Son (Christ) seem out of place.

 

Perhaps, then, we should not assume that tō huiō tou theou is a direct reference to Jesus, but only an indirect one. In other words, the reference to tō huiō tou theou is not only a reference to the Son of God but also a reference to the son of God. In other words, Melchizedek resembles the son of God in Genesis and throughout the narrative of scripture. The concept of sonship in Hebrews—and in Genesis—and its relationship to the priesthood cannot be divorced from the covenantal storyline of the Old Testament. Melchizedek embodied the Old Testament’s archetypal form of covenant mediation; he was like the son of God because he mediated God’s blessing to Abraham—by extension the nations—as a royal priest of God Most High (Yahweh; cf. Gen. 14:22). Similarly, Adam was not a royal priest by virtue of the law; he was a royal priest by virtue of his familial relationship to God as one made in God’s image. Perhaps when the author of Hebrews uses the expression ‘resembling tō huiō tou theou’, it is his way of saying that Melchizedek’s priesthood was tied to and in succession with the stipulations of a superior covenant. Even Abraham—the recipient of the covenant promises—recognized Melchizedek as a superior kind of priest-king in succession with Adam and Noah (7:6). Because of Melchizedek’s resemblance ‘tō huiō tou theou’, the author of Hebrews asserts that when the Lord swore an oath in Psalm 110;4—‘The LORD has sworn and he will not change his mind, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”’—he was not just appointing a priest; he was also appointing a huion (7:28). (ibid., 192-94, emphasis added)

 

With respect to the section in bold above, Emadi has the following note showing the typical Protestant reaction to the hint that anyone besides Jesus presently holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, while at the same time, recognizing that Melchizedek did hold such a priesthood while on earth:

 

If this were the case, when there would be two men occupying the Melchizedekian office. Such a conclusion is contrary to the Christological argument of Hebrews. (Ibid., 193 n. 46)

 

Blog Archive