The Typology of Melchizedek

[mik]

Going to put forth why I believe that Melchizedek is a “type of Christ” or type of Messiah or a version/form of him. There are some very big parallels that can be seen if we incorporate multiple verses in the OT and NT.

John 8:53-58 - "“53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.””

Genesis 14:17-20 - ""17 After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer 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). 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) 19 And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; 20 and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand! Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything”

In all of scripture, all of Gods kings were never priests. The Messiah is the only one who was ever called a king and a priest.

Isaiah 9:6 - ""6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Hebrews 6:20 - ““20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.””

Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. 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 forever. See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils.

[Hermano]

Some additional thoughts: the Melchizedek priesthood graciously provides to man, whereas the Aaronic priesthood legalistically demands from man: Melchizedek gave bread and wine to refresh the worn out Abraham (the first Jew) after his battle with the enemy kings (see Genesis 14:14–20). And the first word from Melchizedek’s mouth was “Blessed”—“Blessed be Abram…” (Genesis 14:19).

Like the Melchizedek order, Jesus (the Second Person of the eternal Trinity, who exactly represents the unchanging God) has only ever been about blessing and provision. That’s why I think some parts of the law of Moses were aberrations.

That hiccup—the Jews coming out of the unilateral Abrahamic covenant of grace, and going into the bilateral, works-based Law of Moses—lasted from Sinai to the cross. We recall that 2 Cor. 3:6-9 names that covenant a ‘ministry of death and condemnation, engraved on stones.’

As I argued elsewhere regarding the imperfectness of the law of Moses:

Is God Violent, Or Nonviolent?

I believe Pastor [Joseph] Prince is correct in saying “Something tragic happened right at the foot of Mount Sinai.” What happened? Well, Moses was known to sometimes misinterpret and embellish what he was hearing from God. Case in point: When Moses was told to speak to the rock, reassuring the people of the Lord’s lovingkindness, he instead struck the rock, declaring “Listen, you rebels, must WE bring you water out of this rock?” Numbers 20.

Jesus himself is THE Word of God (Revelation 19:13), and showed himself to be the arbiter of all Scripture. He said “All authority has been given to ME in heaven and on earth.” Matthew 28:18. And “You have heard it was said…but I say…” Matthew 5.

Speaking of Mosaic embellishments, Jesus ‘blotted out the handwriting of ordinances [DOGMA vs. nomos] that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.’ By doing this, he ‘disarmed the powers and authorities’ —since their principle weapon is condemnation. See Col. 2:14. (Note: I define dogma this way: human embellishments carrying a suggestion of threatened judgment.)

To support the bold assertion that God’s true nature has only ever been nonviolent and unipolar (i.e., love), please consider this short essay,

“Is God Violent, Or Nonviolent? ” at

Is God Violent, Or Nonviolent?

A final thought: we recall that after the Flood, after his drunken disgrace, Noah spoke over his three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth), and said of Shem, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!” The Jews, including Jesus, are “Semites,” descendants of Shem.

The king of Salem (shalom) is called “Melchizedek,” which is not a name, but a title meaning “king of righteousness.” In rabbinical literature, it is suggested that Melchizedek was SHEM, the son of Noah, and the progenitor of the Jews (–and greater than Abraham, because ‘the greater blesses the lesser’ Hebrews 7:6-10). He would have been 465 years old when he met Abram—who was 75 years old at their meeting (and who himself lived to be 175).

[DaveB2.0]

(the Second Person of the eternal Trinity, who exactly represents the unchanging God)

Just to be clear - did you mean that Jesus represents the Father? Or are you using ‘God’ as a word to describe a threesome of persons, so that Jesus represents the three, one of which is himself?

[Hermano]

(the Second Person of the eternal Trinity, who exactly represents the unchanging God)

Just to be clear - did you mean that Jesus represents the Father? Or are you using ‘God’ as a word to describe a threesome of persons, so that Jesus represents the three, one of which is himself?

Dave, I meant Jesus represents the Father. But as you know, I am also comfortable referring to Jesus as God the Son, and to the Holy Spirit as God the Spirit.

From John 14:9—
“…Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…”

From Hebrews 1:3—
“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word….”

Generally speaking, I believe “God” refers to the First Person of the Trinity, the Father.

And although Jesus said—

John 14:28
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I…”

—I consider the possibility that the relation of Jesus to the Father as His subordinate may be limited to Jesus’ time of ministry as Savior, and will be ended when everything that needs to be saved is finished being saved…

(I only threw in my reference to the Trinity to let the new people know I am trinitarian, and not because it is actually relevant to “The Typology of Melchizedek.” )

[DaveB2.0]

Thanks H! When Trins use the word ‘God’ I’m not sure sometimes who they mean. It is a bit confusing.

[mik]

The king of Salem (shalom) is called “Melchizedek,” which is not a name, but a title meaning “king of righteousness.” In rabbinical literature, it is suggested that Melchizedek was SHEM , the son of Noah, and the progenitor of the Jews (–and greater than Abraham, because ‘the greater blesses the lesser’ Hebrews 7:6-10). He would have been 465 years old when he met Abram—who was 75 years old at their meeting (and who himself lived to be 175).

That also seems like a pretty good explanation.

[mik]

Hmm, I did forget a concept I was looking into a while back when thinking about this.

According to the Hebrew Language and their customs, people’s names reflected the actions of who they were. There was always a function in accordance with their name. If we take Yeshuahs name, it literally means ‘to save/deliver/rescue,’ yet we don’t use the literal definition in place of the name. Yeshuas name is seen to functionally represent what he was. So by extension the same could be used for Melchizedek and probably every other name in the bible if we look at the original Hebrew.