.
. . 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)