Melchizedek, a rather mysterious character found in the Old Testament, one who met Abraham after his victorious battle with Chedorlaomer, in what could be the first instance of fellowship resembling Holy Eucharist, Melchizedek comes to meet Abraham bringing along the bread and wine. We are also given an insight through the writings of Moses in Genesis 14 that this same Melchizedek was not just a king, but also a priest of God, who blessed Abraham and acknowledged the God of Abraham, as the God most high. Abraham also reciprocates the blessing that he received by offering a tithe of one-tenth of everything he had. Though this is the only place in scripture (Gen 14) we find a record of active participation with Melchizedek, it was still rather significant as biblical authors such as David and Paul (assuming that Paul wrote Hebrews) expounded on the character of Melchizedek so that we may understand the likeness of which Melchizedek resembles.
[18] And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. [19] He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; [20] and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him one-tenth of everything. – Genesis 14:18–20 (NRSV)
Melchizedek in the Psalm of David
Psalm 110, a psalm of David, one of the most quoted OT passaged in the NT, where David speaks of the Messiah, the Christ who sits at the right hand of God, and one whose enemies will be made his footstool.
[1] The LORD says to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” – Psalm 110:1 (NRSV)
Terms such as “mighty scepter” and “rule in the midst of your foes” gives us insight that the Messiah is a King. David then proceeds to say that the Messiah is also a priest, not just any priest, but one who is in the order of Melchizedek. But what does that actually mean, “the order of Melchizedek”? There was something implicitly understood by the primary readers of Genesis and Psalms on what this meant. Paul, or the author of Hebrews, understood this!
The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” – Psalm 110:4 (NRSV)
Melchizedek in Hebrews
Paul, as he was speaking of Jesus Christ as the perfect High Priest, he draws from a few passsages to make his point, one being Psalm 110:4, that Jesus is a perfect High Priest, one who is in the “order of Melchizedek”. There it is again, Paul knew exactly what this meant. Do take note that this is not the first instance where Paul gives us types of Christ from the OT, infact the book of Hebrews is full of types of Christ – so do explore!
[9] and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, [10] having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. – Hebrews 5:9–10 (NRSV)
However, for now we want to know, what did Paul mean when he says Christ being the High Priest in “the order of Melchizedek”? Continue reading to Hebrews 6:20 through Hebrews 7:4 and it would be clear on what this meant.
[20] where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. [1] This “King Melchizedek of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him”; [2] and to him Abraham apportioned “one-tenth of everything.” His name, in the first place, means “king of righteousness”; next he is also king of Salem, that is, “king of peace.” [3] Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. [4] See how great he is! Even Abraham the patriarch gave him a tenth of the spoils. – Hebrews 6:20–7:4 (NRSV)
Interesting to note that names are not just for referring to a person, but at least in the Biblical context, carried meaning. Jesus being the perfect High Priest in “the order of Melchizedek” meant that…
- Just as the name Melchizedek meant “King of Righteousness”, Jesus is the true King of Righteousness.
- Just as Melchizedek is “King of Salem”, meaning King of Peace, Jesus is the true King of Peace.
- Just as there is no written record of genealogy for Melchizedek, meaning having neither beginning of days nor end of life, Paul makes the connotation that this resembles Jesus Christ, who is the eternal Son of God, who has no beginning and no end, a priest forever.
Homilies of St. John Chrysostom
To make this clearer, do refer to the writings of St. John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Hebrews [^1]. I would like to quote a small portion of the homily where St. John Chrysostom unpacks the meaning of Melchizedek who was found to be without geenealogy, and how that reflects the characteristics of Christ.
He then adds another distinction, Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, abides a Priest continually. Since then there lay in his way [as an objection] the [words] You are a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec, whereas he [Melchisedec] was dead, and was not Priest for ever, see how he explained it mystically.
‘And who can say this concerning a man?’ I do not assert this in fact (he says); the meaning is, we do not know when [or] what father he had, nor what mother, nor when he received his beginning, nor when he died. And what of this (one says)? For does it follow, because we do not know it, that he did not die, [or] had no parents? You say well: he both died and had parents. How then [was he] without father, without mother? How having neither beginning of days nor end of life? How? [Why] from its not being expressed. And what of this? That as this man is so, from his genealogy not being given, so is Christ from the very nature of the reality.
See the without beginning; see the without end. As in case of this man, we know not either beginning of days, or end of life, because they have not been written; so we know [them] not in the case of Jesus, not because they have not been written, but because they do not exist. For that indeed is a type, and therefore [we say] ‘because it is not written,’ but this is the reality, and therefore [we say] ‘because it does not exist.’ For as in regard to the names also (for there King of Righteousness and of Peace are appellations, but here the reality) so these too are appellations in that case, in this the reality. How then has He a beginning? You see that the Son is without beginning, not in respect of His not having a cause; (for this is impossible: for He has a Father, otherwise how is He Son?) but in respect of His not having beginning or end of life.
Homily 12 on Hebrew 12:1-3, by St. John Chrysostom
It was clearly understood that Melchizedek being one found with no genealogy did not mean that he was eternal, without beginning, nor without end. He had parents, and he would have died just like all men, however this is something that was not revealed or written. It is more accurate to say that, this characteristics points to Jesus Christ, not because it was not written, but because it is a reality, that Christ is truly the eternal Son of God, one who truly had no beginning and end, one who is eternal, a king and priest forever.
Is Melchizedek actually Jesus or a type of Christ?
Though some may regard this mysterious character, Melchizedek, as Jesus Christ himself manifesting as a man to Abraham, I do not believe that this hypothesis to be valid. Based on the writings of Paul and the Church Fathers like St. John of Chrysostom, we find that Melchizedek was not Jesus himself, but certain likeness of his characteristics was to point us towards the true King of Righteousness, Jesus our Messiah.
To make this even clearer, I would like to end this post by quoting Homily 12 on Hebrews by St. John Chrysostom (Hebrews 7:3),
But made like the Son of God. Where is the likeness? That we know not of the one or of the other either the end or the beginning. Of the one because they are not written; of the other, because they do not exist. Here is the likeness. But if the likeness were to exist in all respects, there would no longer be type and reality; but both would be type. [Here] then just as in representations [by painting or drawing], there is somewhat that is like and somewhat that is unlike. By means of the lines indeed there is a likeness of features, but when the colors are put on, then the difference is plainly shown, both the likeness and the unlikeness. [^1]
Footnotes
[^1] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240212.htm