Melchizedek and Christ: A Question
July 7th, 2009 by Sean
by Patrick Navas (from an email, posted here by permission)…check out his Truth Matters interview
Hello Friends,
In the debate I was recently in, my opponent pointed to Heb. 7:3 as proof-text for the “eternality” of Christ. In verse 3 the subject is Melchizedek, priest of the Most high God:
“[Melchizedek] is without father or mother or ancestry, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.”
Do you know of any commentators or journal articles that do not see this as a proof of Christ’s eternality.
I’ve already looked up some. My conclusion is this: First of all, the subject is Melchizedek. He is spoken of as “without father or mother or ancestry.” All commentators agree that, since his genealogy is not recorded in Scripture, that is the sense in which the author meant he is “without father or mother or ancestry.” Jesus, of course, has a father (God), a mother, (Mary), and ancestry (meticulously recorded in the gospels of Matthew and Luke). Also, it seems clear that the sense in which Melchizedek had “no beginning of days nor end of life” is, not that he is some kind of “eternal” person, but the Scripture does not record his birth (or catalog his genealogical record) and does not record his death. In fact, that was the author’s whole point, that a person could be an authentic priest of God in spite of the fact that he was not descended from the Levitical line. For the author, this helps to establish the legitimacy of Christ’s priesthood, since Christ was not a Levite but came from the tribe of Judah. Then the text says that Melchizedek was made to resemble the Son of God by remaining a priest “forever.” As far as I can tell, that is the sense in which the author is pointing out how he was made to resemble the Son of God. He, like the Son of God, has a perpetual priesthood. The author is not saying anything about the Son of God in terms of never having had a beginning to his existence. The “no beginning of days nor end of life” statement is not even being applied to the Son of God but to Melchizedek, and this is not even meant in a literal sense, but in the sense that there is no record of such in Scripture. And Melchizedek was made to resemble the Son of God in the sense that both have an everlasting/perpetual priestly office. That is the point of emphasis. At least, that is how I’m understanding the text at this point.
What are your thoughts? Any good references or commentaries on this subject?
Thank you all in advance,
Patrick Navas
From the Wrested Scriptures site:
This passage provides a comparison of the priesthood of Melchisedek and the priesthood of Christ to show that the latter is superior to the Aaronic priesthood. It does not have reference to the nature of the origin of Christ. This can be shown from the following:
Jesus did have a mother (Mary) and a father (God)1. (Luke 1:35). His family line is the subject of the early chapters of both Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels. (Matthew 1; Luke 3).
Jesus had an end of life when he died. After his resurrection he declared: “I am he that liveth, and was dead.” (Rev. 1:18). He is now alive “for evermore” since his Father raised him from the dead. (Acts 13:29, 30).
The superiority of the priesthood of Christ is established in the Epistle to the Hebrews by the following arguments:
The Levitical priesthood depended upon descent (e.g. Ezra 2:61, 62), but Scripture is silent about the family tree of Melchisedek. He appears in the Genesis narrative without antecedents and nothing is said about his subsequent life. He is, therefore, a type of the priesthood of Christ. The writer to the Hebrews states that Christ “has become a priest not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life.” (vs. 16, R.S.V.). Hence the superiority of Christ’s priesthood - he “abideth a priest continually” (vs. 3); his priesthood is not dependent upon inherited qualifications.
The Levitical priests received tithes according to the Law. (vs. 5). But their inferior status is implied, since in a figure they paid tithes to Melchisedek while in the loins of Abraham, their father. (vs. 5, 9, 10).
——————————————————————————–
Footnotes:
It is said of Esther that she had “neither father nor mother.” (Esther 2:7). Likewise, this did not mean that she had no natural parents, (but rather that they were dead).
From N.T. Wright’s commentary, Hebrews for Everyone, pp. 71-72:
“Luke 1:35 has embarrassed many orthodox theologians, since in preexistence [Trinitarian] theology a conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring about the existence of God’s Son. Luke is seemingly unaware of such a Christology; conception is causally related to divine Sonship for him”? Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 291.
“I entertain strong doubts about the correctness of the notion, commonly received, of what is called the eternal generation of the Son from the Father… My own conviction is that the title, Son of God, has no reference to the eternal generation in the essence of Deity, but to the supernatural constitution of the mediatorial person of Christ.
“As to the fact that it is affirmed that the Son of God was generated from all eternity from the essence of the Father, it will be strongly resolved that such a proposition is both absurd and clearly among those propositions of which no sense can be made. Moreover it cannot be affirmed from the testimony of the sacred writings. For the proposition is self-contradictory. For if the Son is generated — he did not exist from all eternity, but there was a time when he did not yet exist. For every generation, especially a substantial generation, as they call it, and properly so, is a change from non-being to being.” Volkelius, De Vera Religione, lib v, c. xi, p. 470
Primasius (Bishop, 6th century —Commentary on Revelation. based on Tyconius and Augustine)
(in Westcott):
On Heb 1:5: “He does not say ‘Before all ages I have begotten you,’ nor in past time; but ‘today,’ he says, ‘I have begotten you. The adverb refers to present time. For in God neither do past things go by nor do future things follow. But to God the whole of time is joined together. And so the meaning is: ‘Just as I am eternal and have no beginning and no end, thus I have you [the Son] coeternally with me.’”
When I considered Melchisedec, from Hebrews 7:3,
I considered this man (Melchisedec) to be like an angel, for they
had no beginning of days (on this earth) nor end, nor father or mother, and they too are like the Son of God in many ways, so I wondered if this Melchisedec was an angel of God, or at least something like an angel of God. One thing we know is that he was
not the Son of God, just someone like him in many ways.
This Melchisedec was an example of a pattern, example, or type
of him who was to come to this earth as a man, which is Jesus who
did in the process of time come by the flesh.
I still wonder very seriously if this Melchisedec is in fact a celestial
being who ministered as the priest of God in the city called Salem
for such purposes of God.
Could this Melchisedec have been an angel of God who served as
a priest in Salem as a man for God’s purposes in Christ?
Right now I consider this a possibility. Do we have anything that
says this man could not have been an angel of God?
Angels have no mother or father as they are not born of men.
Angels have no beginning or end as concerning the flesh as men do.
What about the saints of God that will sit with Jesus in his throne,
which is one big throne made up of many smaller ones, judging the
nations (isn’t this in part happening today through all who pray and intercede and are seated with Christ in the heavenlies?) and
are also called to be priests and kings?
Will all in Christ abide a priest continually in Jesus? (and as kings also?) Did this Melchisedec partake of some of the things in Christ
before the rest of us, and is he still doing so?
I still have questions about this and they are fun to explore.
Ray, Heb 7:4 clearly calls Melchizedek a man. He was not an angel. There are many learned people quoted above who also state he was human, just like you and I.
Heb 7: 4 See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils!
Just because God has not spelled everything out does not give us permission for speculation.
2 Peter 1:
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2Tim 2:
15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
We always have the right to question, when such questions will lead us to God.
Genesis 19:10,11
But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to
them, and shut to the door.
And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with
blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves
to find the door.
Gard Granerød of the MF Norwegian School of Theology has an article in “Biblica” called “Melchizedek in Hebrews 7″. He’s interested in the sources the author of Hebrews relied on when he presented details about Melchizedek not found in the OT. Here’s his conclusion:
See http://www.bsw.org/?l=71901&a=Comm04pdf.html for the entire article.