Friday, January 27, 2023

James A. Borland, "Why Melchizedek Is Not A Christophany"

 

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)

Blog Archive