Of the Order of Melchizedek

The King-priest of Genesis 14

Melchizedek appears 3 times in the Bible: in Genesis 14, in Psalm 110, and in Hebrews 5-7. Psalm 110 has the distinction of being the most frequently cited psalm in the New Testament: 'Psalm 110 is a famous psalm. It is appreciated to such a degree by the NT authors, that it is the one quoted most of all'. It is cited by Christ (for example, in Matthew 22:43-45 to demonstrate his superiority over David), by Peter, to demonstrate the reality of what had happened at Pentecost (Acts 2:34-35), and by the writer to the Hebrews, to demonstrate the superiority of Christ over angels (Hebrews 1:13), to show that he was set apart as a priest by God himself (Hebrews 5:6), and to show the superiority of his priesthood (Hebrews 7:17).

However, the latter point is given much more prominence by the references back to Genesis 14, which is summarised in Hebrews 7:1-3, and then the significance of which is explained in the rest of the chapter. Without going into much detail, therefore, it is clear that as far as the author of Hebrews is concerned, the events of Genesis 14 are vital to a proper understanding of the role of Jesus Christ in our salvation. There is no mention in Genesis 14 of a Messiah, either implicitly or explicitly, yet the clear inference from Hebrews is that without this chapter our understanding of the priesthood of Jesus would be limited and impoverished in the extreme.

So what are the features of Genesis 14 that contribute to our understanding of the nature of Christ's saving work? To answer that question, we need to pay attention to the place of this chapter in its context, and the role that Melchizedek plays in Abram's life at this point.

The Narrative

Genesis 13 tells of the separation of Abram and Lot from one another, with Abram offering Lot a choice of land. Lot surveys the Jordan Valley, which is so fertile as to be compared to the Garden of Eden (13:10). Lot's choice is very much conditioned by what he sees; the ominous note is sounded in 13:13 that 'the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners before the Lord'. Following the separation, God speaks to Abram, confirming the promise that He will give Abram the land of Canaan in which to dwell. The narrative concludes with Abram worshipping God in Canaan (13:18).

Genesis 14 opens with a confederate attack on Sodom and the cities of the plain. This attack was led by Chedorlaomer, king of Elam (although he is named third, the listing is in alphabetical order and it is clear that Chedorlaomer is the leader), who was joined by Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch of Eliasar and Tidal king of Goiim. These four kings fought against the five kings of the Jordan valley: Bera of Sodom, Birsha of Gomorrah, Shinab of Admah, Shemeber of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela. These names are problematic, with little external verification.

More importantly is the fact of tribal warfare, a phenomenon recorded here for the first time. Following the dispersal of the nations in Genesis 11, there is an ever-deepening downward spiral into sin and death. 'For the first time in the Bible, tribes and nations now war against each other in the intensification of sin and the confusion from Babel'.

The reason for the attack was a rebellion, following twelve years of subjection to Chederlaomer. The description of conquest in 14:5-7 suggests that there is widespread revolt against Elam (=Mesopotamia). Neither the Rephaiim nor the Zuzim nor the Emim nor the Horites can stand against Chederlaomer. Deuteronomy 2:12 describes the Emim as 'people great and many, and tall as the Anakim', a description which makes Chederlaomer's power great indeed, and Abram's subsequent victory all the more impressive too. Chederlaomer uses his might to quash every rebellion, and to take captive the men of Sodom, among whom is Lot.

An unknown and unnamed escapee informs 'Abram the Hebrew' of these events. The naming of Abram in this way is itself significant and important; he is nowhere designated like this in Genesis. In etymology, the word 'Hebrew' seems to refer to ethnicity, meaning 'a descendant of Eber', who is mentioned in the line of Shem in Genesis 11:14. This is the line of covenant blessing (Genesis 9:26). Thus although Abram dwells in Canaan, he is no Canaanite: he belongs to the covenant people of God. Marshalling 318 trained men of his household, he wages war on the five kings and rescues Lot.

It is during his return from battle that Melchizedek meets Abram, prepares food and pronounces a blessing. Abram gives him a tenth of his possessions. The King of Sodom suggests Abram should keep the goods he has won in battle, but he refuses to do so. Melchizedek is not heard of again.

Unique Features of the Story

Genesis 14 is unique for a variety of reasons. V.P. Hamilton (Genesis in NICOT series) makes several points worth emphasising.

First, the all-important chapters 15-17 which deal with the revelation of God's covenant of grace are bracketed by chapters which speak of the sad behaviour of Lot. In chapter 13, Lot chooses the Jordan valley over the land of Canaan, and separates from Abram, resulting in his predicament of this chapter (14:11-12). Then chapter 18 announces the judgement on Sodom, followed by Abram's intercession and the rescue of Lot, whose behaviour has been questionable. The themes of sin and grace, which are interwoven throughout Genesis, are present in this narrative too.

Second, this chapter is unique in that it presents Abram as a warrior. We do not see the Hebrew in this capacity anywhere but here. He is presented to us as the great patriarchal example of faith (cf. 15:6), but Abram's faith did not preclude him having to wage warfare on those kings who have captured Lot.

We could say several things about this. The whole narrative functions as a reminder of the enmity of which God spoke in Genesis 3:15 -- 'I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel'. Recognising that there is a covenantal promise here that the seed of the woman will destroy the enemy, we also see this promise played out and worked out in the battle scenes of the Old Testament. Not least in this chapter do we see Abram as the seed of the woman destroying the kings as representative of the seed of the serpent.

There is also a development of another important theme and that is the covenant promise of Genesis 12:3 -- 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonours you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed'. This chapter illustrates the faithfulness of God to that promise, as he defends Abram against those who have dishonoured him in the capture of Lot, and also introduces us to one who blesses Abram, that is, Melchisedek, and who, in terms of God's covenant, will himself be blessed.

I suppose we can also take from the warrior portrait of Abram the lesson that faith alone is never faith on its own. Abram believed God -- a fact that Paul takes up in Romans 4 and 5 to show that justification is by faith in God's promise, and is neither merited nor earned by us. At the same time, faith is always demonstrable and verifiable in the works that it performs. Abram has to use a wise and cunning strategy to effect Lot's release, not because he has no faith, but precisely because he does.

So he takes 318 trained men with him (14:14). It seems a strange number. One interpreter has suggested that it is a symbolic number (the sum of all the prime numbers between 7 and 7 squared). Gervitz says that the number 7 is symbolic in this passage, with Abram's name appearing 7 times between vv13-24 and Melchizedek's blessings of vv19 and 20 containing 7 words each. Well, it's interesting what can be done with biblical numbers, and at the very least furnishes evidence that the narrative has been very carefully written. But I just want to underscore the point that Abram's strategy is also very carefully planned.

Thirdly, Hamilton suggests that this is the only chapter in the Abram cycle (at least from chapters 12-22) where God does not speak to someone. The covenant promises are affirmed in 13:14-17, and again at 15:1-5; but God's presence in this chapter is a silent one. He is here as Abram's protector and benefactor; and according to Hebrews, we can hear God's voice in this chapter in a unique way in the role of Melchizedek.

At a literary level, it is clear that the appearance of Melchizedek interrupts the narrative. In 14:17, the king of Sodom goes out to meet Abram, and in verse 21 he speaks to him. The chapter would read continuously and without interruption were verse 21 to follow on from verse 17. But suddenly, without introduction, warning or preamble, they are joined by another person, one Melchizedek.

So who is Melchizedek?

Five distinct pieces of information are given to us about this enigmatic figure in the course of Genesis 14.

His Name

Melchizedek means 'my king is just' or 'my king is righteous'. It bears a resemblance to the name of another king in Jerusalem in Joshua 10, Adoni-zedek, 'my lord or master is righteous'. Names are of great significance in the Bible; the writer of Hebrews is at pains to extract the meaning of this particular name when he says, 'He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness'.

The significance of this is to be seen not least in the following context, where, after the meeting with Melchizedek, God ratifies the covenant promise and provision. Abraham believes God and God reckons this to Abraham for righteousness (15:6). And in this context of sin, warfare and death, the note of righteousness in this name injects the idea of grace and acceptance before God.

His Offices

This enigmatic figure holds two distinct offices. First, he is 'king of Salem'. 'Salem' is a shortened form of Jerusalem, as is clear from Psalm 76:2, which says that '[God's] abode has been established in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion'. Jerusalem would also suit the journey taken by Abraham travelling south from Damascus to Hebron.

Again, the writer of Hebrews take care to bring out the significance of this title in translation. In addition to Melchizedek's name meaning 'king of righteousness', the author of Hebrews says 'and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace' (Hebrews 7:2). What is perhaps less obvious is the clear connection between the name Salem and the name Solomon: a later king of Jerusalem, occupying the same office and sitting on David's throne, bears a name that echoes the Genesis story.

What is even more intriguing is the fact that Melchizedek is described as 'priest of God most high'. There are two immediate implications of this. The first is that there was knowledge of God outwith the family of Abraham. In spite of the fact that a line of particularity runs throughout Genesis, so that of the sons of Noah, God's choice is on Shem, and of the sons of Shem, his choice is on Terah, and of the sons of Terah his choice is on Abram, there is knowledge of God beyond that line. The revelation of God's salvation is not confined to the line by which that revelation is distinctively to be carried to the world. There are people unrelated to Abraham who worship the God of Abraham. The fact that Abram uses the same designation of God in 14:22 shows that his God and the God of Melchizedek are one and the same.

It is disappointing and disconcerting to see some modern evangelical commentaries on Genesis take the view that Melchizedek is simply a pagan worshipper. For example, John Walton of Wheaton, in the NIV Application Commentary series, says

Since El Elyon could represent the designation of a Canaanite god, we have no reason to think of Melchizedek as a worshiper of Yahweh or even as monotheistic. His joint role as king and priest is common in the ancient Near East.

If this is true, then Abraham was sadly mistaken in his estimate of Melchizedek, and the writer to the Hebrews even more so.

The force of this is brought out very clearly by Geerhardus Vos:

Melchizedek stood outside the circle of election recently formed. He was a representative of the earlier, pre-Abrahamic knowledge of God. His religion, though imperfect, was by no means to be identified with the average paganism of the tribes. Abrham recognized the El Elyon whom Melchizedek worshipped, as identical with his own God. He gives him the tithe, and receives from him the blessing bestowed in the name of El Elyon, both actions of religious significance. And not only indireclty or typically was this principle brought out: in the most explicit form at the very beginning Abraham was told that in him should 'all the families of the earth be blessed'(Genesis 12:3).

In other words, the appearance of Melchizedek is itself a fulfillment of the Noahic blessing that the Japhethites would dwell in the tents of Shem (Genesis 9:27), that the light of salvation which was kindled by God within a particular genealogical line and kept aflame by him down through the generations, would be experienced and enjoyed by those who were naturally outwith that circle. Melchizedek thus becomes one of the first examples in the Old Testament of something that becomes explicit with the new: that it was always God's intention that the blessing of Abraham should extend to the Gentiles.

The second implication lies in the possibility of someone combining more than one official function in his one person. Melchizedek is both king and priest: he governs and he mediates. This phenomenon is confined to only a few individuals. Arguably Moses combines in his person prophetic, priestly and royal functions, as does David. But they are the exception to the rule that individuals are appointed by God to one particular office.

God has set Melchizedek to office. That is the force of Hebrews 5:5-6:

So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'; as he says also in another place, 'You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek'.

Melchizedek does not usurp a priestly function, he fulfills one to which he has been consecrated. The argument of Hebrews is that there are only two ways in which one might obtain a religious function: by genealogical descent or by oath. Melchizedek has been set apart especially to the offices which he holds, and he combines in his person the offices of king and priest. Abram esteems him highly for his work's sake.

His Banquet

One of the first actions Melchizedek performs is to prepare a feast for Abram the conqueror. There is a deliberate contrast in the narrative between the king of Sodom and the king of Salem. While the king of Sodom simply 'went out' to meet Abram (14:17), meaning that he went out empty-handed and with more than a passing interest in the spoils of the conquest and the recovery of the plundered goods of Sodom, Melchizedek 'brought out' bread and wine. There is probably here an underlying reference to the preoccupation with things which was characteristic of Sodom in contrast to the bounty and benefaction of Melchizedek.

The reference to bread and wine certainly refers to provision for the warriors; it is probably shorthand for a great feast. So, for example, Wisdom invites us to her feast with the words 'Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed' (Proverbs 9:5). For those of us who are accustomed to the provision of the Lord's Supper, there is an obvious connection to the bread and wine feast of the new covenant, a point which Jonathan Edwards presses in his History of the Work of Redemption:

Another remarkable confirmation Abraham received of the covenant of grace was when he returned from the slaughter of the kings; when Melchisedec the king of Salem, the priest of the most high God, that great type of Christ, met him and blessed him, and brought forth bread and wine. The bread and wine signified the same blessings of the covenant of grace that the bread and wine does in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. As Abraham had a seal of the covenant in circumcision that was equivalent to baptism, so now he had a seal of it equivalent to the Lord's Supper. And Melchisedec's coming to meet him with such a seal of the covenant of grace, on the occasion of this victory, evinces that it was a pledge of God's fulfillment of the same covenant.

Edwards may be pressing the point rather far here. For one thing, Abram did not receive the sign of circumcision until much later than this, and, for another, circumcision was explicitly said by God to be a sign of the covenant in a way that Melchisedec's feast was not. Nonetheless, the banquet was the provision of God's king-priest, and was accompanied by words of covenantal blessing. It is possible, I think, to view this sacramentally.

His Blessings on Abram

The benediction is as follows:

Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of Heaven and Earth;

And blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand (14:19-20).

The title 'God Most High' appears frequently in the book of Daniel (3:26, 4:17 etc), and is also used in descriptors of Jesus (eg Son of the Most High God, Mark 5:7). But here is something quite unique. God is given a superlative name, he is described as the possessor of the universe, the victory of Abram is ascribed to him, and in consequence Melchizedek adopts what is clearly a mediatorial role in blessing Abram in the name of God, and blessing God for his unique deliverance of Abram.

Among other things, this crystallises the way the word 'bless' can be used in Scripture, in ascribing a position of honour to God and in describing the position of honour which God bestows on his people. In both cases, blessing is a positional word, describing a relationship. This is clarified in the beatitudes, in which Jesus pronounces a 'blessing' on those who are in a relationship of favour and communion. Interestingly, as with Melchizedek, the first words of benediction talk about possession of the kingdom of heaven, and inheriting the earth'.

His Receiving the Tithe

The final element of the Genesis story is the fact that Abram gives Melchizedek a tenth of all the booty that he has taken through the conquest. Melchizedek has not come for a share, but Abram spontaneously offers it to him, and he accepts. Numbers 31:25-41 gives an example of a procedure by which the plunder that was taken in battle is divided between the warriors and the congregation, with a particular proportion being given as a levy to the Lord. That is what is going on here. Abram identifies the legitimate role of Melchizedek as a priest of Jehovah, and he offers the tithe to him, which the king of Salem willingly accepts.

The Importance and Significance of Melchizedek

Often we can miss the obvious in our handling of the biblical text. The fact that Melchizedek is mentioned in Hebrews in connection with the priesthood of Christ means that our first questions revolve around the symbolism and typology of this passage, and the relationship between the appearing of Melchizedek and the work of Jesus Christ.

But before we come to this, there is a much more fundamental lesson to be learned, and a more basic question to be asked. That is: what did Melchizedek's appearing mean for Abraham at this particular point in his life? That is an all-important question. It was not without reason that this particular individual should meet with the patriarch at this particular point.

Spurgeon enlarges on this theme in a marvellous sermon entitled 'Jesus Meeting his Warriors' (No. 589). He takes Abram as a type of all the faithful, representing the trials that all God's people endure. The believer, says Spurgeon, must engage in warfare, just as Abram did, fighting against powerful odds, with a right to Canaan given to him by God, using all means and fighting ceaselessly until he had the victory. Then Spurgeon develops the second point: that 'while engaged in such earnest spiritual contention, the believer may expect to see his Lord'. He asks:

Why does Jesus Christ, as set forth here under the type of Melchizedek, appear unto his children in times of conflict? Answer -- He comes to them, first, because they are weary. In every conflict which the child of God has to wage, it is not the private person who goeth to the warfare, it virtually is Christ fighting -- Christ contending. It is a member of Christ's body laboring against Christ's enemy for the glory of the Head. Christ the Head has an intense feeling of sympathy with every member, no matter how humble. Since there is a vital union between Christ and every member, there is also an undying sympathy; and whenever, brother, thou contendest for the faith till thou growest weary, Jesus Christ will be sure to give thee some proof of his close communion with thee.

He also goes on to show how Melchizedek appears just as Abram is about to be tempted subtily by the king of Sodom to make himself rich. But the appearance of the priest-king strengthens Abram so that he will not yield to temptation:

He who is of the King's Council must walk very daintily lest he offend his Master. I tell you, from experience, that the nearer you come to Christ, and the more you have of communion with him, the more jealous you must be of yourself ... Beloved, it is well to have communion with Christ, to prepare us against subtle temptations, for to feed us upon Melchizedek's bread and wine is to make us more than a match for the King of Sodom.

Well, of course, what Spurgeon is saying is the truth; whether it is the truth taught in Genesis 14 is another matter. My reason for citing Spurgeon is simply this: whatever the legitimacy or otherwise of his hermeneutic, supposing we had no scriptural teaching regarding the typological relationship between Melchizedek and Christ, it is obvious that the blessing pronounced on this man at this point in his life both confirmed the covenant that had already been given, and encouraged Abram to go forward into the greater experience of covenant ratification.

Melchizedek's appearance functions at a personal level to assure Abram that he was the object of God's benediction, that God had spared his life because of covenant purposes yet to be fulfilled, and that the God who had promised him Canaan was, in fact, the possessor of Heaven and Earth. We cannot allow our typology to detract from the dynamic of this personal meeting; indeed, my whole contention about the typology of Scripture is that before you can get to the typology you must first reckon with the symbolism present in the account itself.

When you do that here, you see what a marvellous provision it was at this time that God should remember Abram in this way. He does remember all his children, in all their circumstances, and he gives them both physical and spiritual nourishment to enable them to continue in their journey.

The transition from Genesis to Hebrews takes place via Psalm 110. Hebrews takes up its consideration of the greater priesthood of Jesus in the light of the fact that David records, 'The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek' (Psalm 110:4). As William Binnie states, 'if the hundred and tenth psalm teaches what the epistle to the Hebrews deduces from it, it is a prophecy that cannot have come by the will of man'. Binnie is arguing that there is no-one except the Messiah to whom the words can refer; against the modern critics, Binnie says that this psalm is in the form of a new oracle or revelation from God in Israel. Unlike other psalms, which reflect on what God has revealed, this psalm is cast in the form of a prophetic oracle. The opening words 'The Lord says to my lord' Binnie sees as being equal to the prophetic phrase 'thus saith the Lord'. He translates, 'Thus saith Jehovah to my Lord', and says that 'both in form and substance it is a new revelation, a prophecy respecting Christ, a divine oracle delivered in song. He goes on:

The psalm contains two distinct oracles -- two declarations which, at the time of their publication, were revelations of new truth to the ancient church, and not merely authentic echoes of truth elsewhere revealed. There is first, in the opening verse, the announcement of Messiah's exaltation to the right hand of God; and then, in the fourth verse, the memorable proclamation of his Royal Priesthood.

So this is new revelation, dependent upon the historical appearance of Melchizedek in three verses of Genesis 14, and anticipating the glorious appearing of one who could fulfill the terms of the prophecy.

For one thing is certain: even if the psalm were composed as an enthronement psalm, 'it was impossible for Israel to have a king who at the same time was a priest' (see 2 Chronicles 26:16-18 regarding Uzziah). And it was impossible also that the tribe which supplied the kings (=Judah) should also supply the priests (=Levi). Part of the issue with which Hebrews is going to deal is 'how it is possible that Christ became a priest while not belonging to the tribe of Levi'. Where did he get his priesthood from, and how does he carry out the functions that belong to him as the king-priest of his people?

So what does this passage tell us about Jesus?

Hebrews 5-7 is really an interpretation and explanation of the revelation of Psalm 110:4. When the writer to the Hebrews deals with the priesthood of Christ, his guiding principle is that the office into which Christ entered as the Mediator of his people was 'after the order of Melchizedek'. That phrase itself ought to do away with any speculation about whether Melchizedek was Christ himself, that is, whether the appearance of the king of Salem was actually a Christophany. It makes no sense to say that Christ was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek if he was Melchizedek.

And what is interesting in Hebrews is that so much is made of the silence of Genesis. The writer sees as much significance in what Genesis 14 does NOT say, as he sees in what it does. That is why the writer says of Melchizedek 'He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever' (Hebrews 7:3). These negatives are important, and refer not to the fact that Melchizedek had no parents or that he was himself immortal; they refer to the absence from the text of Genesis of any reference to Melchizedek's birth, lineage or death.

In the context of Genesis, of course, these silences are deafening. This is, after all, a book structured around the phrase 'the generations of'. Yet here is a significant figure whose generations are not recorded. That is all the more significant for the role that he plays as priest, since the Old Testament Aaronic priesthood very much depended on establishing genealogy. Numbers 3, for example, makes it clear that the Levites alone are to have charge of the priestly functions of the tabernacle:

And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, Bring the tribe of Levi near, and set them before Aaron the priest, thaty they may minister to him (vv5-6) ...

And you shall appoint Aaron and his sons and they shall guard their priesthood. But if any outsider comes near, he shall be put to death (v10) ...

I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel ... The Levites shall be mine ... List the sons of Levi, by fathers' houses and by clans .. (vv12, 15)

One of the peculiarities about Jesus is simply the fact that 'our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests' (Hebrews 7:14). He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5). But there is another way of obtaining an office and function. He has a genealogy (as Melchizedek did, of course), but there is another way of obtaining a function: if not by genealogy, then it may be obtained by oath. That is the essence of the order of Melchizedek. The absence of genealogy from Genesis serves to highlight the fact that the Melchizedekian priesthood is characteristically a priesthood bestowed by divine oath.

Thus Jesus was to come from the line of which God promised that the kings and lawgivers would come, yet the appearance of Melchizedek also legitimises a priesthood outwith the tribe of Levi. It is as a priest of this other, Melchizedekian, order, that Christ appears before us in the gospels.

So, according to the letter to the Hebrews, how does Genesis 14 enrich our understanding of the work of Jesus as our priest?

First, the sudden appearance of Melchizedek teaches us that it was always God's intention that the established Old Testament economy be temporary, and give way to an ultimate and better arrangement. So Hebrews 7:12-16:

for when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well ... this becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.

Like the scaffolding necessary during the period of construction, the elaborate system of the Aaronic priesthood was a temporary measure, awaiting the completion of God's work in Christ. Melchizedek is a hint to us that God is going to do something new, by virtue of which what is old will pass away.

Geerhardus Vos describes the appointment of Christ as a priest after the order of Melchizedek as 'not a change of species within the genus, but a change of the genus itself'. The levitical arrangement highlights the complext nature of the priestly function; but God's intention was to transfer that function to one unique individual who was not of Levi's line.

The reason for that is clear. Against the background of the inseparable bond between priesthood and covenant, Vos argues that while the covenant created the Aaronic priesthood, it is actually dependent upon the Melchizedekian priesthood, demonstrating that 'the excellence of the new covenant is in proportion to the excellence of the priesthood'.

Hebrews sees this in the action of the giving of the tenth. Levi, the tribe from which the priests would come, 'was in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him'. The paying of the tribute was not simply personal on Abram's part, it was representative. The priestly line was acknowledging the superiority of another person, who could guarantee the perfection which the levitical priesthood could not (Hebrews 7:11). Even as the light of the covenant of grace was rising in the dawn of the Old Testament age, Abram could see the brightness of the noon-day, which would eclipse the OT system. May it not be said of the encounter with Melchizedek that 'Abram saw [Christ's] day and was glad' (John 8:56)?

Secondly, the appearance of Melchizedek points to the unparalleled, unique nature of the priesthood of Christ. C.S. Lewis says of Melchizedek that 'his unrelated, unaccounted for, appearance sets him strangely apart from the texture of the surrounding narrative. He comes from nowhere, blesses in the name of the 'most high God, possessor of Heaven and earth' and utterly disappears. This gives him the effect of belonging, if not to the other world, at any rate to another world...'.

In Abram's day, this royal priest was unique, and pointed forward to someone quite unparalleled, who could exercise the functions of priest and king as Mediator of his people. In our day, it is precisely that unique mediatorial work of Jesus that we must defend in the midst of a pluralistic and multi-faith society. We have a Saviour, and there is none other like him. He is still 'strangely apart' from the world which he is to redeem.

Thirdly, the appearance of Melchizedek is a reminder to us of the unique sufficiency and potentiality of the work of Christ. As Melchizedek is many things to Abram, Christ is all things to me. He is king, priest, provider. In the plurality of his offices he deals with all of my needs. There is no area of my life to which he does not attend. So Spurgeon:

The order of Melchizedek's priesthood was the most ancient and primitive, the most free from ritual and ceremony, the most natural and simple, and at the same time the most honourable ... Melchizedek's office was exceptional: none preceded or succeeded him; he comes upon the page of history mysteriously; no pedigree is given, no date of birth or mention of death; he blesses Abraham, receives tithe, and vanishes from the scene amid honours which show that he was greater than the founder of the chosen nation. He is seen but once, and that once suffices.

And of Christ too it may be said, 'he is seen but once, and that once suffices'.

Fourthly, the writer deduces from the story of Melchizedek his great point about the eternalness of Christ's priesthood:

The former priests were many in number because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them (Hebrews 7:23-25).

Here is the contrast between the levitical priests and the priest-king Jesus: as one who is priest after the order of Melchizedek, Christ is king with a permanence that none other can match. He truly is without beginning of days or end of life.

Conclusion

The meeting of Abram with Melchizedek is remarkable, both in the context of Genesis and in the wider context of the Bible. For a narrative of four verses, it carries a significance out of all proportion to its length. And in these four verses, there is a remarkable glimpse of glorious things to come. In the words of Patrick Fairbairn:

Here, then was a sacred enigma for the heart of faith to ponder, and for the spirit of truth gradually to unfold: Abraham, in one respect relatively great, and in another, relatively little; personally inferior to Melchizedek, and yet the root of a seed that was to do for the world incomparably more than Melchizedek had done; himself the type of a higher than Melchizedek, and yet Melchizedek a more peculiar type than he! It was a mystery that could be disclosed only in partial glimpses beforehand, but which now has become comparatively plain by the person and work of Immanuel. What but the wonder-working finger of God could have so admirably fitted the past to be such a singular image of the future!

References

M.J. Paul, 'The Order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4 and Heb 7:3)', WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 195

Bruce Waltke, Genesis, p228

7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47 -- S. Gevirtz, cited in Hamilton, NICOT, p407

John Walton, Genesis, p419

Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, p91

Jonathan Edwards, Works, Vol I, p544

C.H. Spurgeon, Jesus Christ: the history, ceremony and prophecy as told in the OT, p77

Spurgeon, Jesus Christ, p78

William Binnie, The Psalms, their history, teaching and use, p163

Binnie, Psalms, pp171-2

M.J. Paul. 'The Order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:3), Westminster Theological Journal, 49:1 (Spring 1997), p

Paul, p

Geerhardus Vos, 'The Priesthood of Christ in Hebrews', Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, p135

Vos, 'Priesthood of Christ', p136

C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms, p103

C.H. Spurgeon, Treasury of David, on Ps 110:4

Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture, Vol 1, p357