First off- chapter 7 reads like a court trial. Supporting evidence and arguments to prove a point, then prove the point!
Finally, we get back to Melchizedek. I am going to do my best with this chapter...I hope we can figure this out! Melchizedek must have been important to have a whole chapter devoted to him in the New Testament! One of the big issues that the people were fighting against was the idea that Jesus, their High Priest, was not from the tribe of Levi or the family of Aaron; all priests had to come from the priestly tribe of Levi and from the priestly family of Aaron. The goal of this chapter is to clarify this intellectual issue so the people can move on in accepting Christ.
We begin with an introduction to Melchizedek (see Genesis 14:18- 20)-- King of Salem (some translations say Sodom)-- eventually this place is Jerusalem. He was both king and priest- this is a huge exception to the rule: kings could not be priests and priests could not be kings (this was actually one of the issues that started the Protestant Reformation too!). Abraham defeated the confederation of kings who took his nephew Lot captive and as Abraham was returning home, he met Melchizedek- and immediately gave him 10% of the war spoils. (This is all from the Genesis story).
We get to learn more about Melchizedek- his name means king of goodness/righteousness and king of peace (Salem= peace). In this case- order matters- you need to have goodness/ righteousness before you can have peace; righteousness is the only true path to faith. Baptist theologian Charles Spurgeon once said, "Peace without righteousness is like the smooth surface of the stream before it takes its awful Niagara plunge!" What do you think about that?! We now get into some sticky wording! There is no evidence of Melchizedek's parents or anything about him. The author says he is "made like the Son of God" Some commentaries mention this cold be "immaculate" production (like Jesus), some commentaries say we just don't know about the parent, some even suggest that Melchizedek was Jesus in the Hebrew Bible. The point the author is trying to make= every good Jewish person knows the integrity and goodness and righteousness and life of Melchizedek, and Jesus is greater than that- so follow Jesus as you followed the priesthood of Melchizedek. Again, maybe difficult for us to follow, but we aren't Jewish!
Things get even more confusing now (vv 4-10). Essentially, the next set of verses say, "you know how good Abraham was- well Melchizedek is even greater than that!" Abraham willingly gave a tithe to Melchizedek (vv 4-6a); he wasn't required to. The requirement of tithing came when the Levite priesthood was developed during Moses (and Levi wasn't even born yet!). Translation= Abraham's tithe was greater than the tithes commanded because he gave of it willingly. Translation= as great as Abraham was- Melchizedek was even greater because of the tithing issue. More evidence that the author uses is in v 7: Melchizedek blessed Abraham, so he must be the greater of the two. As in the last set of verses, the author is arguing the greatness of Jesus by comparing Jesus to Melchizedek. All good Jews know Abraham was great-- and Melchizedek is greater than Abraham-- and Jesus is greater hen Melchizedek. Following this?!
Ready for more?! The "original" priesthood (v 11) was through the tribe of Levi/ family of Aaron. The laws of being a priest were in Leviticus and were Mosaic (i.e. from Moses). However, perfection could not/ did not happen (v 11b), so God needed to create something different. It was evident through Hebrew history that the Jews didn't follow the priesthood like they should (otherwise there would have been no New Testament!), so there needed to be something new (v 11c), something different, something like Melchizedek (who wasn't from any tribe!). That new "high priest" is Jesus, and he could not be a Mosaic priest, because he wasn't from the tribe of Levi/ family Aaron- Jesus was from the tribe of Judah/ family of David (vv 13-14). Phew! Got that!
Now, the crux of the argument (vv 15- 28)...
The author says we have that new priest, who was similar to Melchizedek, but greater (v 15). This person was made a priest not by human (Mosaic) laws, but by God laws (v 16). Translation- if Melchizedek was great, this new priest is going to be even greater! We tried the Mosaic way of getting people to God (vv 18- 20); we tried the Laws; we tried the sacrifices; we tried the feasts... but that didn't work out; so there has to be a better way. And because God made a promise (v 21-22), God will do what God can to keep that promise! Do people act that way- try to keep a promise that they make or are we ok with letting those promises go by the wayside?
The final verses discuss the perfectness of Jesus as being high priest. He is without sin, he is blameless, and he is eternal. Something that "regular" priests (Levitical priests) cannot do...so Jesus has to be the better option! The priests used to be selected by the Laws, but this priest, Jesus, was selected by God- so that supersedes all other priests. To sum it up- Jesus is definitely the best option!
I hope this helps some. I know this was a tough chapter. I had to read it a few times.
Enjoy the sunshine.
Shalom+
Pastor Paul
I not only read this chapter twice (in my KJV) but once in the Good News Bible (the only alternative Bible I have at home) AND watched two videos on UTube who had discussions on Melchizedek! This plus your excellent explanation has given me some understanding about Melchizedek, Jesus, and Jesus being a High Priest. One of the commentaries on UTube was between two men from the Yale Divinity School - Harold W. Attridge and David L. Bartlett. What I like about this commentary is that they don't presume to know everything and question each other about different thoughts. One of the thoughts they discuss is Melchizedek. They make two points I thought was interesting - 1) In those times (the time this Book was thought to be written) the common belief was if something wasn't mentioned, then it didn't exist. Since Genesis doesn't mention anything about the geology of Melchizedek or Melchizedek's death, then there wasn't any. and 2) Does this mean that Melchizedek was one of the Great Angels ? They did not have a conclusion but did feel that it might be true. What do you think, Pastor? I do find it interesting that the author of Hebrews does take a Psalm from the OT as proof that Jesus was the High Priest mentioned. But the same author in previous chapters refutes what was said in the OT. It's a little like picking and choosing? And how did Melchizedek become the High Priest? But however that happened, obviously Moses recognized him and recognized his superiority - giving of tithes. Another point that I felt that the author was making is, as High Priest, Jesus was the intermediary between us and God and God and us. (Another point the two gentlemen were making while discussing this chapter). If that is so, do we still, today, need to go through Jesus for our thoughts, prayers, guidance and Jesus in turn takes this to God? Did Jesus stop being our intermediary when he died and was reincarnated? One of the points the author of Hebrew makes is that Jesus suffered and was tempted so that Jesus could understand humans and what we go through and "explain" it to God. Jesus even says that you can only get to God through him. ???? From past experience, I can tell you that when I was not "righteous" or behaving as I should, I was NOT at peace! So I am thinking I agree with Charles Spurgeon. I think the reason I have such a problem with the "swearing an oath" part is because My Mother always told us kids that "Saying is as good as promising." So if you say it, you don't need to swear it or promise it, you said it - it is then your word. Following your explanation in paragraph 6 - that because the Jews were following the wrong priest (or the priests were becoming corrupted) so God needed to do something else - do you think that will happen again? We are starting to follow the wrong things - will God send us another intermediary? This book is a bit confusing and different - but I am enjoying it! Enjoy the day
ReplyDeleteHmmm...some interesting conversation for the Yale people. Do you happen to have the YouTube link or title of the film?
DeleteI like their idea- if it wasn't written it didn't happen. So, its taking a somewhat historical look...if I don't say anything, it doesn't exist.
About the angel aspect? I never thought of that. There is some evidence that there was a person named Melchizedek- some of the Jewish commentaries say that he may have been Shem- son of Noah- but that is definitely stretching things I think. I have no idea!
This whole concept is somewhat confusing! The job of a high priest- like you say- was to be intermediary. And, like you say, the role of Jesus as human was so that he could explain humanity to God. Upon Jesus' death- when the Temple curtain was torn- that took away the role of intermediary, so we can know have direct contact with God. Confusing?!
The author, like many people, pick and chose what texts to write about and how to interpret them!
Jesus was God;s most recent attempt at gaining humanity...will there be something else in the future? Who know- our history is too new!
I do think we are following some wrong "high priests" and there is some need for "correction"
This is all confusing, but I like the mental challenges and arguments the author is using.
Thanks for all the research Donna!.
The high priests and there rituals, are only men and are sinners. I think Melchizedek? Maybe an angel sent by God to help get things back on track. For the laws back then were weak and useless. God sent his son who was without sin, made perfect forever, so we could enter heaven only through Faith, in him.
ReplyDeleteGood angel point-- see Donna's comments above regarding that point!
DeleteIt is confusing and hard to understand.
Good commentary RoseMarie!
You are right a very confusing chapter. Was this Melchizedek Even Jewish I'm not getting that he was so was he possibly another Nationality that also believed in our God? There is no history of him and it says he still lives. I thought as Rose Marie said that possibly he was an angel?? Anyhow This chapter states that Jesus is the High Priest over all. That is what I got from reading several times also. However still confused.
ReplyDeleteMelchizedek was Jewish as he was a high priest. Donna also commented about possible angelic origin of him! I have never heard that, but we could go with that!
DeleteVery confusing isn't it! Thanks Clara!
I sent a Jewish friend a text and asked her for some background on Melchizedek- some a Christian can understand. She said “I’ll get back to you”. She hasn’t so far. If she sends anything interesting I’ll let you know.
ReplyDeleteHahaha! It would be good to hear her perspective! We are all confused!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the extra work Cathy!
Oops! I/we forgot! Here it is Saturday and Rhea reminded me that we didn't to our reading yesterday. After further review (does this wording sound familiar?) we realized we missed two days. Our bad.
ReplyDeleteYes, this was a tough chapter. Half way through it, I was convinced that this was the Old Testament and I checked to make sure I was reading the correct passage.
A word of warning: don't ask about keeping promised. I am biting my typing fingers so that I don't launch into a rant about Biden and his keeping (??) promises. I will not say any more. Sorry, but I am now smiling.