Melchizedek As He Prefigured Christ

Transcript

GR 1690
05/19/2013
Melchizedek as He Prefigured Christ
Hebrews 7:1-3
Gil Rugh

We're going to the book of Hebrews in your Bibles, Hebrews 7. We are into the major section of the book of Hebrews, a section that began in Hebrews 5:1 and will continue to Hebrews 10:18. And when we get through Hebrews 10:18, we will have completed the doctrinal sectional of the book. And then he'll move to some of the application of these truths that we might take to heart.

The high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ, that's the focal point of this section of Hebrews, showing that Jesus Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood and the high priestly ministry of Aaron and his descendants. Now we talk about the Levitical priesthood, the Aaronic priesthood, we're talking about the same thing. Levi is the tribe, the tribe of Levi. Aaron was part of the tribe of Levi and the priestly line comes through Aaron. Not all the Levites were priests, but as a tribe they were committed to the priestly ministry. Some of them had responsibilities, for example, of taking down the tabernacle when they would be moving, setting it up and various matters related to the ministry of the tabernacle and the priest ministry. So we talk about the Levitical priesthood, we're talking about that tribe of Levi has responsibility for the ministry of the tabernacle and later the temple in Israel. We talk about the Aaronic priesthood, we're talking about specifically that line of priests that come from Aaron who was himself of the tribe of Levi.

In Hebrews 5:1-10 the writer began this discussion of the ministry of the high priest. Hebrews 5:1 opened up, “for every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men and things pertaining to God.” And it showed what a person had to be and had to do as high priest. And then he showed how Christ was qualified to be high priest. Then he broke off his discussion, Hebrews 5:10 said, “being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.” Then with verse 11, remember, he said, “I have many things to say about Melchizedek but you can't handle it yet.” You are stuck in a state of immaturity. They haven't grown and developed as they should.

Now the Scripture hasn't unfolded the teaching on Melchizedek to this point and the details of Christ's high priestly ministry as they will be unfolded here haven't been unfolded. But as a reflection on the fact they haven't grown and matured. If you are not continually growing and maturing in the Word of God, then we remain in a state of stunted growth, immaturity. And we're not ready to handle the things that God then reveals and makes known. Some Christians get stuck, they know the basics of the Gospel, the general Bible stories and it seems that's enough. You know, it takes development, of being in the Word regularly, of being taught the Word, of taking in the Word, developing that pattern of thinking biblically as we make our way through the Scriptures so we are more able to handle the further things.

I appreciate being able to teach the truths of God, not only the milk of the Word but the meat of God here. I remember my father telling me many years ago, he says, “you better stay at that church because there probably isn't any other church that will put up with you.” And I appreciated that my father didn't think he ought to coddle us and just make us feel good. I appreciate being in a church and with a congregation of believers who are open to seriously study the Word of God, that are interested in more than superficial things or interesting stories.

We come to talk about Melchizedek that will move us on to further maturity so we grow together. And that's what he said in Hebrews 6:1, “let us press on to maturity,” tackling some of these meatier, heavier things of God's truth that we must understand if we are to be the people that God intends us to be. It might be nice to be in sixth grade, but it's not good to be in sixth grade when you are 25. It's different to be in college than it is to be in grade school and so on. And that's where we are spiritually, we want to continue to grow and mature.

He warned them of the danger of not growing. And some of them have lost interest because they never truly came to the salvation which is in Christ. They are not things that have gripped their hearts. But he is convinced that the primary group he is addressing, the majority of them are true believers. So in Hebrews 6:9 he transitioned, talking to them, encouraging them. Then we came down to verses 19-20, “this hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast, one that enters within the veil where Jesus has entered.” And that picture of moving into the innermost sanctuary of the tabernacle where the Ark of the Covenant was, where God manifested His presence among His people. And now Jesus, our forerunner. has entered into the true Holy of Holies, the very presence of God in heaven as a forerunner for us, providing access that we might enter into the presence of God. That's why he could say in Hebrews 4:16, “let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace that we might find mercy and grace to help in time of need.”

So in Hebrews 6:20, Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, “having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Now he has picked up with Melchizedek. That's where he left off in Hebrews 5:10, “that Christ was designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Now Christ has become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” We're pressing on to maturity. We need to grapple with these truths and take them in, come to understand them as fully and clearly as we can.

Melchizedek. This is the first reference to Melchizedek in a thousand years. The last reference to Melchizedek was in the Psalms, one verse. It is quoted back in Hebrews 5:6, “you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” That came from Psalm 110:4, paraphrased for us in Hebrews 6:20. Do you know what? Before that one verse of Scripture in Psalms it had been a thousand years earlier to the previous reference. The historical reference to Melchizedek is found in Genesis 14. That's two thousand years before Christ. The reference in Psalm 110 is about one thousand years before Christ. Those two references, Genesis 14:17-20 and Psalm 110:4, are the only two references to Melchizedek in the entire Old Testament. Melchizedek is not mentioned at any time through the gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. In fact the only New Testament book that mentions Melchizedek is the book we are studying, the book of Hebrews. Yet he is a very important person and he is the background for the development of Jesus' high priestly ministry here and demonstrating that Jesus Christ and His high priestly ministry is superior to that of Aaron and the Levitical priests. Not only is it superior, it is of a totally different kind.

Let's go back to Genesis 14. For some of you this will be a review of review, but some of you may have not been acquainted with this section of Genesis. A little bit of history. Back in Genesis 12, the opening verses are the initial of God's covenant with Abraham, the Abrahamic Covenant, God's promise to bless Abraham and his descendants. Then you come to Genesis 13 and in this chapter we are told about a separation between Abraham and his nephew Lot. Remember when Abraham left his homeland and journeyed and ended up in the land of Canaan, he brought with him his nephew whose name was Lot. Lot's father had died, Abraham's brother. So this nephew in effect joined himself, became part of Abraham's family and Abraham brings him with him as he journeys to Canaan. God greatly blesses and prospers Abraham, he becomes a man of great wealth. And so does Lot prosper. And so in those days prosperity was measured by the herds you had, the servants you had. And there is a conflict. Abraham has such large flocks and herds and many servants, and so does Lot. And so you try to have these vast herds and pretty soon there is tension between the herdsmen of Lot and the herdsmen of Abraham.

So in Genesis 13:8, “Abram said to Lot, please let there be no strife between you and me nor between my herdsmen and you herdsmen for we are brothers.” Now he is graciously addressing Lot on his own level. By virtue of the fact that Abraham is Lot's uncle, he is the older man. He could speak down to Lot, so to speak, that I am the one who has the right to decide here. But he calls him a brother, we're brothers, so I want to deal with you on the same level. We need to put some space between us so we don't have tension between the herdsmen who take care of our flocks. And then Abraham very graciously says to Lot, you pick where you want to go. Now as the older man it was Abraham's prerogative to choose. But he defers to Lot. You pick where you want to go, and wherever you pick, then I will move to a different area. You might think Lot would say, no, Uncle Abraham, you are the older man. I've been blessed by being with you, you've taken me in after the death of my father. I want to defer to you in this. No. Lot immediately jumps on it. He looks around, sees what he thinks is the best land and then he picks that for himself.

So we're told in verse 10, “Lot lifted up his eyes, saw all the valley of the Jordan that it was well watered everywhere.” This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. It was like the garden of the Lord, the Garden of Eden, like the land of Egypt as you go to Zoar. “So Lot chose for himself all the valley of the Jordan and Lot journeyed eastward. They separated from each other. Abram settled in the land of Canaan while Lot in the cities of the valley. He moved his tents as far as Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord.” Lot is on a bad route and his selfish approach and the decisions he made are going to be ruinous for him and his family as you are aware of the story.

Now God then reiterates His covenant with Abraham, that all the land of Canaan will belong to him and his descendants.

You come to Genesis 14 and there is conflict in the land that Lot has settled in. A king named Chedorlaomer has a federation of four kings with him, he and a federation of three of other kings comprise the four kings. Chedorlaomer has subjugated the regions of Sodom and Gomorrah so they have to pay tribute to him. Well there are five kings aligned in the region of Sodom and Gomorrah so those five kings rebel against the four kings headed by Chedorlaomer. The problem is Chedorlaomer defeats them. And so when you come to Genesis 14:11, “they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and their food supply and departed. They also took Lot, Abram's nephew, and his possessions and departed for he was living in Sodom.” Disastrous decision. That city which was so exceedingly wicked in the sight of God has become hometown to Lot and his family. It will have a terrible impact and result for his wife and his daughters as well as Lot himself.

But here on this occasion when the king of Sodom is among those who are defeated, the victorious kings come in, they sweep up, they take the people away who will become their slaves and they take all their possessions—the spoils of war. Someone escapes from the battle and comes to tell Abram, “your nephew, Lot, and his whole family have been carried away.” Well Abram, you get the size of something of Abram's household, he has over 300 of his own servants who have been equipped for war, for battle. Because here you are, a vastly wealthy man with your herds, you have to protect them from marauding bands, from robbers and so on. Well he has over 300 men in his own household, his servants who have been trained to fight. Plus he has an alliance with some other individuals. They join forces, they go after these victorious kings, they surprise them in the night and defeat them and deliver Lot.

So Genesis 14:16 says, “he brought back all the goods and also brought back his relative Lot with his possessions and also the women and the people.” So he has rescued everyone and recovered all the possessions. Verse 17 says, “then after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer, who was the king and head of that federation of four kings, and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh, that is the King's Valley.” The King's Valley is where Jerusalem would be located.

Now verse 18, out of nowhere we read, and “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. Now he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High who has delivered your enemies into your hand. He gave him, Abram gave to Melchizedek a tenth of all.” Now we're back to the king of Sodom who came out to meet him.

So verses 18-20 contain everything in the historical account of Melchizedek. Not another word will be said about Melchizedek for a thousand years, and then it will be just one prophetic verse—in Psalm 110:4. Then not another word will be said about Melchizedek for another thousand years until we come to the book of Hebrews. Remarkable at how God works and you see how important His word is in every word. We say, where did Melchizedek come from? What is the purpose of this? I mean, up to this in the book of Genesis the development has brought us to Abraham, God is dealing with Abraham. Then we saw in Genesis 12 the covenant made with Abraham and repeated again in Genesis 13. And God's dealings with Abraham and his descendants now seemingly “out of nowhere.” Nothing in the prior record, nothing in the prior genealogies prepare you for Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the Most High God.

Let me just say there have been three views regarding the identity of Melchizedek. We're not going to go into detail but just so you are aware, as people struggle. Who was Melchizedek.? A very early view identified Melchizedek with Shem, one of the sons of Noah. Back up to Genesis 9:18, now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. Then going to go on and give the lines of each of these sons, the line of Ham, the line of Japheth and the line of Shem. We are all descendants of Adam we know, we are all descendants of Noah. We are all descendants of either Shem, Ham or Japheth because Noah had three sons and through them came the population of the earth. So we all know our great, great, great, great, great, going all the way back. We think at least we go back to Adam, but we not only go back to Adam, and it's important we go back to Adam, but we go back to Noah and either Shem, Ham or Japheth. But we're here to note that Shem is one of the sons of Noah.

This view arose very early, at the end of the first century, so that's a long time ago, by the Jews. And evidently in reaction to the very teaching that we are looking at in Hebrews to try to provide an Old Testament identity for Melchizedek in response to the identification Christians made of Melchizedek as a prefiguring of Christ and a priesthood that Christ would have. They made Melchizedek simply Shem who was still living and was functioning as a king at Jerusalem. You have the genealogy of Shem and his descendants when you come to Genesis 10 beginning with verse 21. Also “to Shem the father of all the children of Eber, the older brother of Japheth, children were born. The sons of Shem were,” and it goes on to talk about the descendants of Shem. Then you'll come down further to Genesis 11:10, “these are the records of the generations of Shem. Shem was 100 years old, became the father of Arphaxad. And then he had other sons and daughters.” And verse 11 tells us “Shem lived 500 years after he became the father of Arphaxad and he had other sons and daughters.” So we know something of the life and genealogy both his parentage and his descendants of Shem.

This view was picked up by early church fathers that Shem was Melchizedek and was picked up by reformers. Martin Luther, John Calvin made this identification. So some of you who read commentaries on the Old Testament you will sometimes across a commentary that will identify Melchizedek and say he is Shem. And you wonder where it came from, well that's the background, promoted originally it seems by the Jews at the end of the first century to give some kind of concrete identity to Shem.

I don't think Shem is a possibility here. We'll see as we go through Hebrews, one of the emphasis made is we have no record of the line of Melchizedek, either his parents or his descendants. But as we've just noted we do have that line in Genesis regarding Shem. And it would be strange for Moses who is writing this 500 years after these events under the inspiration of the Spirit who has talked much about Shem, who is the ancestor of Abraham. That's his importance and where we're developing as we follow the line of Shem at the end of Genesis you come to Abraham who becomes the key figure. It would be interesting that he doesn't mention him by name when he talks about Melchizedek. Can't think that he is pulling the wool over people's eyes so you can think you don't know anything about the parentage of Shem or the descendants of Shem because we are calling him Melchizedek. But really we do know a lot about him. His father is a very famous man—Noah. And among his descendants, we have the line right down to Abraham. So later when the book of Hebrews makes a point nothing is recorded about his parents or descendants, that wouldn't be true of Shem. There are some other reasons we may note as we move along in our study in Hebrews 7, particularly as Levi being in the loins of Abraham, paying tithes to Melchizedek. Well, Levi is a descendant of Shem. Levi, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi. And Levi in the loins is paying tithes to Melchizedek. Abraham is a descendant of Shem, so Abraham in the loins of Melchizedek. If Melchizedek is Shem, he'd be paying tithes to himself. So I don't think Shem is a possibility. So when you read that you can put “x.”

Second view is that this passage in Genesis 14 is a theophany, just two words—God manifestation, a manifestation of God. Or a Christophany, a manifestation in particular of the second person of the Godhead. So some would believe that this was the pre-incarnate Christ manifesting Himself. But I don't think that will do as we'll see in Hebrews 7. And that's not a view held by very many modern writers. One that you may be familiar with that does hold it is Henry Morris. He's done much work on creation research, his commentary on Genesis, he does hold that this is a theophany. But he does acknowledge in that that there are some irresolvable problems with that view that we'll just have to leave with the Lord.

I think the third view is the correct view, that Melchizedek is a type of Christ. And what is written about him and what is not written about him, both are to prefigure the priesthood of the Son of God. A type is something that prefigures something, that what is written or what is not written, as we'll see, is for the purpose of prefiguring, being a type of the antitype, the fulfillment. The Son of God is the fulfillment of this type, but the type is not the antitype. There are just certain things about the type that prefigure which is the fulfillment, here would be Christ. We'll see more of that as we go to Hebrews.

While you're still in Genesis I want you to note an expression here that Melchizedek brought out bread and wine. Now some picked up that bread and wine and Roman Catholics use passages like this and tie it to the Lord's Supper, mass and so on. I think here there is no significance particular to that. He brought out bread and wine because he is going to nourish, they're not having a communion service; he is nourishing the troops. He is a king, he's bringing out resources. They've been to battle. How are you going to feed an army here? I mean, they had to go out in the night they attack, they don't have supply lines here. Here he brings out food and drink as we would refer to it, bread and wine, the food supplies.

He is king and he is priest. This does tell you something. In the Levitical system and as Moses writes this, remember the first five books of the Bible are called the books of Moses or the books of the Law, and in the Law it was specified that the Levites would be the priestly line. The king could not come from the tribe of Levi, the tribe of Judah will be the line of the kings. And a priest could not come from the tribe of Judah. So under the Mosaic Law, this is before the Law but as Moses wrote this there is something unique about this because he is king and priest. If the Levitical priesthood is still in force, Jesus Christ is not qualified because He would be of the tribe of Judah. He could be king, He could not be priest. Some of you are familiar with the account of King Saul and the time when he intruded into the office of priest. He was waiting for Samuel, Samuel delayed in his coming to offer sacrifices so Saul went ahead and offered the sacrifices himself. The punishment of that was so severe, God said to Saul, “you are done being king and none of your descendants can be king after you, because he had intruded into the office of priest.” That was not allowed for a king. You had to be of the tribe of Levi.

So here we have one who is king of Salem, he is priest of the Most High God. He blesses Abraham. That will become a key point in Hebrews 7. “Blessed be Abraham of God Most High,” note this, “God Most High possessor of heaven and earth.” Verse 20, “blessed by God Most High.” Twice Melchizedek uses the title God Most High, El Elyon. Interesting down in verse 22 as Abraham now meets with the king of Sodom, he says “Abraham said to the king of Sodom, I have sworn to the Lord God Most High,” Yahweh El Elyon, pick up the same name for God, “who is the possessor of heaven and earth.” It's the same thing Melchizedek said in verse 19, “possessor of heaven and earth.” Melchizedek is a worshiper of the true and living God. He is a priest, a true priest of the true and living God. It won't be His kingship that gets developed in Hebrews, it will be His priesthood because that's the focal. We are showing the superiority of Christ to the Levitical priesthood. The fact of His kingship is clearly established here.

Where did he come from? I don't believe he can be of the line of Shem because that will be a problem with the descendants being in his loins. We will see more of that when we get into Hebrews 7, we just touched on that. Probably a Canaanite king. I mean, what would Shem be doing, being king of Jerusalem? This is the land of Canaan. Well, Canaan is the son of Ham, the brother of Shem. Why would Shem be being a king in the territory overseen by his brother and his family line? It's another indication it's probably not Shem here. So he is a true king, evidently that line. There would have been, I take it, believers which explains why in parts of the world to find remnants of biblical truth among people in strange places. Well, these descendants of Noah spread to fill out the whole earth. The truth of the living God would have been passed on in various lines. We have another example of that. Job would have been a man of the time period of Abraham. We don't know anything, he just appears. He's not tied to anyone else that we know like Abraham or any of the other lines that we know of in Genesis, but he is a devout, godly man—“the most righteous man on the face of the earth.”

So I think we have that biblical truth. The Scripture is only concerned to follow the line. We pick up with Abraham and from here on it's only Abraham and his descendants that are in the focal point. But some of that truth would have been passed on. Melchizedek was in that line from Noah's sons, probably Canaan, Ham, but he is a godly man and he will be used to prefigure Christ.

Abraham's response to the king of Sodom is, “I wouldn't take a thing from you.” Verse 23, “I will not take a thread or a sandal thong.” In other words none of the possessions that were taken that are mine because they are the booty, you'll never be able to say you made Abraham rich. And so he had nothing to do with the king of Sodom. He didn't act here for the benefit of the king of Sodom, he acted here for the benefit of his nephew who is being caught up in the affairs of Sodom.

Okay, come back to Hebrews. That's the historical reference. We'll stop in the reference in Psalms in a moment. Come back to Hebrews 7:1, let's pick up with Melchizedek and what is said about Melchizedek. “For this Melchizedek,” this Melchizedek that he just mentioned in Hebrews 6:20, verse 20 being a paraphrase of Psalm 110:4 which was quoted more directly in Hebrews 5:6. “This Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God who met Abraham.” The first ten verses, and we're not going to get through all ten but we'll do the first three, “this Melchizedek met Abraham.” That's the key statement. Those first ten verses are going to give the history, the first three verses just the basic history of what was in Genesis 14 and then verses 4-10 will use that history to show that Melchizedek was a type of the Son of God and His priesthood, and it shows that he is superior to Levi. And then he'll move on to the issue of the Levitical priesthood and the superiority of Christ.

This historical section, verses 1-10, are bracketed. It begins with the statement, “Melchizedek met Abraham.” You see that is broken up, “Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the Most High God who met Abraham.” The key statement is “Melchizedek who met Abraham.” You'll note verse 10 ends, “Melchizedek met him,” referring to Abraham, back to verse 9. So it sort of brackets this historical section. We're going to talk about that account in Genesis and its significance, when Melchizedek met Abraham. Then those first ten verses will form a unit.

“This Melchizedek king of Salem,” king of Salem. Salem is Jerusalem, a shortened form of Jerusalem. We'll go to one verse, back in Psalm 76. We do this today, we use abbreviations. Someone might say, I'm going to Kansas City; someone else might say, I'm going to KC. You don't say, why would you say KC? The name is Kansas City. Because it's an abbreviation, we use it. If somebody said, I'm going to the city of angels. Well, you're going to heaven. No, you're going to Los Angeles. Now you might be going to the city of angels someday but . . .

Look at Psalm 76:1, God is known in Judah, His name is great in Israel, His tabernacle is in Salem, His dwelling place is in Zion. That's Mt. Zion, Jerusalem, where Jerusalem is. Zion means the city of our God. Salem. So when he is king of Salem he is king of Jerusalem. Interesting connection, but that's not what is going to be developed here because the writer is not primarily concerned to develop the kingship, that it's Jerusalem, the city where the Messiah will reign in His kingdom and so on. No, he is only going to follow the issue of the priesthood. But the fact of the matter is, this is a king priest, which marks him out as unique and enables him to prefigure Christ in a way no Old Testament priest could in that way. There are certain aspects of the priesthood that could prefigure what Christ as high priest will do. We saw some of that in Hebrews 5:1-10. But they couldn't prefigure Him as a king/priest because there were no such individuals in Israel under the Law. So he is king of Salem. We'll say more about the Salem in a moment.

He is “priest of the Most High God.” So he is king and he is priest, unique. Already we have a difference with the Levitical system as we have noted, which separated them clearly—two different tribes, the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Levi, one for the king and one for the priest. He was priest of the Most High God, “the true and living God” as we saw in Genesis 14, the God that Abraham worshiped.

He met Abraham when he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. That becomes one of the most important things said here. The second one will be the next statement—“to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth of the spoils.” Melchizedek blessed Abraham, Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe. Those two points are key in the focus here. They will demonstrate the superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham and since Levi will be a descendant of Abraham, he's in the loins of Abraham, so to speak. Melchizedek is superior to Levi as well. It is striking, with all that Genesis says about Abraham almost out of nowhere, so to speak, we meet Melchizedek who is Abraham's superior. Remarkable how God works. And yet everything that is recorded in Genesis about Melchizedek and everything that is not recorded has to be exactly as God wants it so that it fits the picture that Melchizedek is to be of the priesthood of the Son of God. That's why we believe in verbal inspiration of Scripture—it is exactly as God intends it to be.

“He blessed him.” That will be elaborated as we get down into verses 4ff. I'm just noting these points now and we'll show the greater always blesses the lesser. And Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils, a tenth of all. Further down it will make clear these are the spoils of war. They belong to Abraham but they are given to Melchizedek whom Abraham recognizes as God's representative. So they are given as Israel, the tithe was given to the priest. It belonged to the Lord, so it could be given to the priest who was God's representative, that's the apportionment. So he's recognizing the priesthood of Melchizedek and his superiority. And so he gives the tenth to him.

Now he's going to explain the names. This Melchizedek was first of all by the translation of his name, ‘king of righteousness.’ That's what the name means. Zedek, righteous, righteousness; and the melchi is king. So he translated his name, it is king of righteousness. Then he is also king of Salem, which is translating Salem, king of peace. He is bringing together righteousness and peace. This will be a key part of the priest’s ministry—to provide God's righteousness so that we can have peace with God. It also connects him to the prophecies concerning the Son that would come.

Come back to Isaiah 9, but before you go there come back to Joshua. Some of these things we have to pick up. I say we'll do them later and then some of them I'll forget and we won't do them. Just come to Joshua 10, I want you to note something about Melchizedek. It evidently became something of like you name dynasties of kings and some of the kings carry the name. In Joshua 10:1, now it came about when ‘Adoni-Zedek,’ you see the same ending. Melchizedek, Adoni-Zedek. He is king of Jerusalem. Well, Adoni is the word Lord, melchi the name king. Here this is 500-600 years after Abraham and the time of Melchizedek. The king of Jerusalem is called lord of righteousness. This is a godless, wicked king—Adoni-Zedek. But the name carries on. Evidently goes back, perhaps an original king of Jerusalem who was righteous was a king who brought peace, and that dynastic name continued on. So another connection of Melchizedek as a historical figure and historical king. Here 500 years after him the kings of Jerusalem are still carrying the title, king of righteousness or lord of righteousness, even when you have a king who doesn't bear that connection.

Now you can come to Isaiah, and we'll skip the Psalm since we did Joshua. Isaiah 9. Here the prophecy of the coming Messiah. Verse 6, “for a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us.” We saw this in Hebrews 1, “in these last days God has spoken to us in One who is a Son.” Hebrews 1 showed the uniqueness and superiority of the Son. “This son will be given to us, the government will rest on his shoulders. His name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, eternal father, prince of peace. There will be no end to the increase of his government or of peace on the throne of David and over his kingdom to establish it and uphold it with justice and righteousness.” So you see that Melchizedek back there and his name, king of righteousness, king of peace, there is a prefiguring of the ultimate king of Jerusalem and the One who will truly be the king of righteousness and the king of peace.

Come back to Hebrews. So those two points are mentioned. Nothing elaborated him, just a reminder which obviously the Jews would pick up in what he has talked about with the Son in Hebrews 1 and other places in the intervening chapters to prepare them, to make the connections that we've been talking about. Further elaboration is going to come. And then verse 3. He has dealt with what was said about Melchizedek, now he says we need to consider what is not said about him. This is important also. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. Some people say, well then he must be a theophany. No, what is written about him because note that next statement, and you should underline it—“but made like the Son of God.” In other words what was written about him was written so that he could prefigure, be a type of the Son of God. Note here, as Son of Man Jesus does have a genealogy, we know who His parents are. In fact you read the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, you can trace His lineage all the way back to Abraham and all the way back to Adam. We have that. We have His death recorded as a man. But here he is made like the Son of God, and there is no beginning and no ending.

So as we saw when we were in Hebrews 1 and then have referred to it from time to time in intervening chapters, you have Christ presented both as Son of Man, truly man, and Son of God, truly God. And at different times you have a different emphasis being brought. And here it is as Son of God. So Melchizedek is anticipating Him in His priesthood as one more than man. So nothing was recorded about Melchizedek regarding his genealogy. You couldn't be a priest in Israel if you couldn't demonstrate your genealogy went back to Levi. Without that you are disqualified from being priest. But Christ has no genealogy, Melchizedek has not genealogy in that sense. Nothing is recorded about him. And you don't have the end of his life recorded. That's why I don't think it could be Shem, we have his genealogy and we're told how long he lived. After his last son he lived 500-some years, whatever, as we saw in Genesis.

So what was written about Melchizedek—he was a literal, physical king of a Canaanite city, Jerusalem. But what is written about him, he is a godly man. And what is written about him was written, what was not written about him was not written so that he would be a picture of the coming Son of God who would be both king and priest.

He is without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God. He remains a priest perpetually. His concern is the priesthood. He doesn't talk about the eternal kingship because that's not the point, we're talking about the superiority of Christ to Levi and the Levitical priesthood. So that's the line he goes down even though the others have been mentioned and are true. He is a king, he is king of righteousness, he is king of peace. He remains a priest perpetually, and perpetually is a good translation of the word. This is not the same word that is used of Christ when He is spoken of as being a priest eternally. The point here being there is no record of the end of his priesthood or of a successor to this priest in the Genesis account. So that leaves the priesthood of Melchizedek open and ongoing because there is no record of its end. So again it is what is recorded and not recorded about Melchizedek that pictures him as Christ. Doesn't make him more than just a man, he's a type. Christ is the anti-type, the fulfillment of what was prefigured.

And that will be brought out later on as we move down. For example verse 8, in this case, mortal men receive tithes. Well, we have the record of the Levitical priests. They die, they are succeeded by someone else. They are mortal. But there is no record of the death. Later in Hebrews 7 he will talk about the fact that the Levitical priests couldn't continue because they died. But again we don't have any record of that in Melchizedek. So his priesthood and functioning is left open. The last we read of him, he is functioning as a priest and Abraham is honoring him as a priest. We'll go on, the death of Abraham will be recorded but Melchizedek is left open-ended. What happened to him? Where did he go from there? Was there a subsequent successor? The Bible doesn't record any of that, and that's the point. I know I'm belaboring it, but we want to be clear on what this type is.

A type is not an allegory, we're not finding hidden meanings here, fanciful development. Furthermore, I think we are on solid ground if we limit ourselves to the types being those that the Scripture identifies as types. We know Melchizedek is a type. If no more had been said about Melchizedek, we wouldn't know what to make of him. He would just be a strange figure who appeared out of nowhere and disappeared. It's the book of Hebrews that makes it all clear. We have the prophetic reference in Psalm 110:4, but we wouldn't know quite how to fit that all together.

In all of this, God, two thousand years before the coming of Christ, had in detail. Imagine Abraham, he just gets out of a battle and meets this figure he hadn't met before, Melchizedek. They have this interaction, he honors him, we move on in the biblical record for two thousand years. Then Christ comes and we find out how it all fits together. What a marvelous Scripture we have. It is totally trustworthy in all of its detail. And it is in that Scripture that we learn of the One who is the fulfillment of all Scripture, who is our Savior.

Let's pray together. Thank You, Lord, for the riches of Your Word. Thank You for the privilege we have to press on to maturity, to learn more and more of You and Your person and Your work, the wonders of wonders. How amazing that we have Your Word in our possession, to study it, to examine it, but Lord we never exhaust it. Thank You for the truths of the book of Hebrews. I pray that we will gain a greater and greater appreciation of the One who is our high priest, the work that He has done for us, the work that He continues to do for us, the security we have in Him. We praise You in Christ's name, amen.