And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he [was] the priest of the most high God.
18. Melchizedek king of Salem ] The name Melchizedek was considered by the Jews to mean “the king of righteousness” (Heb 7:2), or “my king” ( malchi) “is righteousness” ( zedek). The name should be compared with that of Adoni-zedek (Jos 10:1). It appears most probable that Zedek was the name of a Canaanite deity, and that the names Adoni-zedek, Melchizedek, meant “my Lord is Zedek,” “my king is Zedek,” just as Adonijah, Malchijah, meant “my Lord is Jah” and “my king is Jah.”
Salem ] In all probability to be identified with Jerusalem, as evidently by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 7:1-2). The objection, that Jerusalem was too far south for the present incident, is of no value. The objection that in Jdg 19:10 the ancient name of Jerusalem was “Jebus” is not conclusive. “Jebus,” as a name, seems only to have been inferred from the Jebusites. See Driver, H.D.B., s.v. “Jebus”; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, i. 266. The following points deserve consideration: ( a) In the Tel-el-Amarna tablets Jerusalem appears with the name Uru-salim. ( b) Salem is the poetical, or archaic, name for Jerusalem, in Psa 76:2. ( c) Melchizedek is compared to the king of Zion in Psa 110:4. ( d) Abram’s paying of tithe to Melchizedek gains greatly in symbolical significance, if Salem is the same as Jerusalem. ( e) The tradition of this identification is favoured by Josephus ( Ant. i. 10, 1) and the Targums.
The alternative suggestion, made by Jerome, that Salem is the place mentioned in Joh 3:23, in the Jordan Valley, seems very improbable. On the other hand, if Salem be Jerusalem, it is the only mention of Jerusalem in the Pentateuch.
brought forth bread and wine ] As a friendly king, Melchizedek provides food and drink for the returning victor, and, as a priest, gives to him his blessing. In the mention of bread and wine there is no idea of religious offerings. It is the gift of food to weary and famished soldiers. Jewish commentators have regarded these gifts as symbolizing the shew-bread and the drink-offering: Christian exegesis has often associated them with the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. But the bread and wine are not offered to God; they are given to Abram as a token of good-will and as a means of refreshment. There is nothing sacrificial in the gift.
he was priest of God Most High ] Melchizedek was not only king ( melek) of Salem, but also a priest ( ohen). The combination of the priestly with the kingly functions was common in the East; though amongst the Israelites it is not found until the Maccabean period.
This is the first mention of a priest in Holy Scripture. It is clearly intended that Melchizedek should impersonate pure Monotheism.
Melchizedek is a, not the priest of “God Most High” (Heb. El Elyon). Some have thought that El Elyon denotes here the name of an ancient Canaanite deity, and quote, in favour of this view, the statement of Philo of Byblus (Euseb. Prep. Ev. i. 10) that there was a Phoenician divinity = “Elyon called Most High.” But El in the O.T. is one of the most common names of God, especially frequent in poetical and archaic usage. It is often combined with some qualifying epithet denoting an attribute, e.g. Gen 17:1, “God Almighty” = El Shaddai: Gen 21:33, “the Everlasting God” = El ‘olm: Exo 20:5, “a jealous God” = El anna. Again Elyon, “Most High,” is an epithet often applied to Jehovah, e.g. Num 24:16; and combined with El, Psa 78:35. Melchizedek seems, therefore, to be regarded by the writer as a priest of God Almighty, the God of the Universe. The fuller knowledge of God as Jehovah, the God of Revelation, was the privilege of Abram and his descendants. The conception of Melchizedek as the representative of a primitive phase of Natural Religion, in the Canaan of 2000 b.c., idealizes his figure. Very probably, in the scene before us, his interposition will best be interpreted symbolically. Josephus ( Ant. xv. 6, 2) mentions that the Maccabee princes assumed the title of High Priest “of God Most High.” Cf. Assumption of Moses, Gen 6:1, “There shall be raised up unto them kings bearing rule, and they shall call themselves priests of the Most High God.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
18 20. Abram and Melchizedek
SPECIAL NOTE ON MELCHIZEDEK
1. Its significance. The episode of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-20) is one of the most interesting in the Book of Genesis. Its extreme brevity heightens the sense of mystery in which it is involved. It may be taken for granted that the incident is introduced on account of its profound religious significance. It describes the meeting between the Priest-King of “the Most High God” of the Human Race and the Father of the Chosen People, the Servant of Jehovah, the God of the new Revelation. The moment chosen for this meeting is instructive. Abram, the Hebrew stranger, is returning from victory over the foes of the land: Melchizedek, the Canaanite Priest-King, has had no part in the campaign. Abram represents the new spiritual force that has entered the world’s history: Melchizedek represents the ideal of the permanent communion of mankind with God. The new family and the new nation, through whom that communion is ultimately to be perfected, render their homage to the representative of the Universal and the Omnipotent.
To the Israelite reader Jerusalem was the centre of pure religion and spiritual aspirations. Abram, impersonating the people of which he was to be the founder, receives from Melchizedek, the Priest-King of Jerusalem (Salem), not riches, nor offers of reward and possessions, but firstly bread and wine, sustenance and refreshment, and secondly his blessing, in the name of the Most High God, upon the servant of Jehovah. Abram, in his turn, renders tithe to Melchizedek, typifying thereby the obligation of every true son of Abram to recognize the full claims of the spiritual life upon his loyal service.
II. Details for study. 1. The Name. Though originally the name may have meant “Zedek is king,” it suggested to Israelite readers or hearers “the king of righteousness,” cf. Heb 7:2, or “righteous king,” cf. Joseph. B. J. vi. 10, . . For the Messianic significance of which, cf. Psa 45:4 ff.; Jer 23:6; Jer 33:15-16; Dan 9:24; Mal 4:2.
2. His Royal Office. He is King of Salem; and, while this title denoted to the Israelite the personal character of “a king of peace” (cf. Heb 7:2), it can scarcely be doubted that in the identification of Salem with Jerusalem (cf. Psa 76:2; Joseph. Ant. i. 180) lies the peculiar typical significance of the event. The name of the city in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets (circ. 1400) is Urusalim: the king of Jerusalem in Jos 10:1 is Adoni-zedek.
3. His Priestly Office. He is Priest as well as king. He is Priest of the Most High God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who is identified, according to the text of Gen 14:22, by Abram with Jehovah. There is no suggestion of anything evil, impure, or polluting, in the worship of which Melchizedek, a native Canaanite, is a priest. Abram treats him as the official representative of the true God. It was not until the age of the Maccabees that the High Priest was also king.
4. His Blessing. As the representative of the true God, Melchizedek invokes upon Abram a message of Divine blessing. He blesses God; the victory of Abram over his foes is a ground for grateful praise. He presents the patriarch with bread and wine as the pledge of good-will and as an expression of honour and gratitude.
5. He receives tithe from Abram, cf. Heb 7:7-10. The receiver is greater than the giver of tithe. The impersonator of the ideal worship at Jerusalem receives tithe from the father and founder of the Israelite people.
6. Melchizedek disappears from the page of history as suddenly as he appears. Nothing is recorded of his family or lineage, of his life or actions. He “stands unique and isolated both in his person and in his history his life has no recorded beginning or close” (Westcott, Ep. Hebrews, p. 172). It is not the man Melchizedek, but the Scripture portrait of Melchizedek in Genesis 14, which causes the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews to designate him as “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.”
7. The Messianic passage in Psa 110:4 (quoted in Heb 5:6; Heb 7:17; Heb 7:21), “Thou art a priest after the order (or, manner) of Melchizedek,” seems to mean that the Messiah is not a priest of the tribe of Levi, or of the family of Aaron, but, like the Priest-King of Jerusalem in the story of Abram, is, according to a more primitive conception of priesthood, the king of a kingdom of priests (cf. Exo 19:6).
8. Melchizedek is not mentioned in the Apocryphal Books. There is a lacuna in the Book of Jubilees at this passage (13:25). Abram has evidently made his offering of tithe; and the next words are “ for Abram, and for his seed, a tenth of the first-fruits to the Lord, and the Lord ordained it as an ordinance for ever that they should give it to the priests who served before Him, that they should possess it for ever. And to this law there is no limit of days; for He hath ordained it for the generations for ever that they should give to the Lord the tenth of everything, of the seed and of the wine and of the oil and of the cattle and of the sheep. And He gave it unto His priests to eat and to drink with joy before Him” (Charles’ Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, vol. ii. p. 33).
9. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews regards Melchizedek as the type of Christ; as ( a) King of Righteousness; ( b) King of Peace; ( c) Priest, not of the line of Levi or Aaron; ( d) greater than Abraham, receiving tithes from him; ( e) eternal. See chap. 7 with Westcott’s notes.
10. Philo allegorizes the person of Melchizedek, who, he considers, represents the priesthood of “right reason,” offering to the soul the sustenance of gladness and joy in the thoughts of absolute truth ( Leg. Allegor. iii. 25).
11. Clement of Alexandria ( Strom. iv. 25) regards the offerings of bread and wine as typical of the Eucharist, adding, “And Melchizedek is interpreted ‘righteous King’; and the name is a synonym for righteousness and peace”: cf. Strom. ii. 5, “He (the Saviour) is Melchizedek, ‘the king of peace,’ the most fit of all to head the race of men.”;
12. Jerome (Ep. lxxiii. ad Evangelum), summarizing opinions about Melchizedek, mentions that Origen and Didymus held him to have been an Angel; many others thought he was a Canaanite prince, exercising priestly offices, like “Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job”; the Jews very commonly identified him with Shem. Again, it appears to have been held by some writers, that Melchizedek was a manifestation of the Son; by others, that he was an appearance of the Holy Spirit (cf. Quaest. ex V. et N. Test. Augustini Opera, tom. iii. App. cix.: ed. Migne, P. L. 35, p. 2329).
13. Westcott ( Ep. to the Hebrews, p. 203) gives an account of the interesting legend respecting Melchizedek preserved in “the Book of Adam.” “To him (Melchizedek) and Shem the charge was given to bear the body of Adam to Calvary, and to place it there where in after time the Incarnate Word should suffer, so that the blood of the Saviour might fall on the skull of the Protoplast. In the fulfilment of this mission Melchizedek built an altar of twelve stones, typical of the twelve apostles, by the spot where Adam was laid, and offered upon it, by the direction of an angel, bread and wine ‘as a symbol of the sacrifice which Christ should make’ in due time. When the mission was accomplished, Shem returned to his old home, but Melchizedek, divinely appointed to this priesthood, continued to serve God with prayer and fasting at the holy place, arrayed in a robe of fire. So afterwards when Abraham came to the neighbourhood he communicated to him also ‘the holy Mysteries,’ the symbolical Eucharist.”
14. That the episode of Melchizedek has been introduced from a distinct source of tradition is very probable. ( a) It interrupts the narrative in Gen 14:17, which is continued in Gen 14:21. ( b) Its contents are not in harmony with the context. In Gen 14:22, Abram refuses to take anything from the spoil: in Gen 14:20, Abram is said to give Melchizedek “a tenth of all.” If “a tenth of all” refers to the spoil, it contradicts Gen 14:22: if it refers to “all” his own property, then it assumes for Abram quite different surroundings from those of the story in chap. 14.
No late tradition of Abram is likely to have represented him as offering a tithe “of all” to a Canaanite king. But the short passage may illustrate a large class of traditions, religious and symbolical in character, which in early days had collected round the name of the patriarch. Psa 110:4 is evidently based upon the present passage.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Gen 14:18-20
Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine
The narrative of Melchizedek
I.
CONSIDER THE HISTORICAL FACTS OF THIS NARRATIVE.
1. Melchizedek makes his appearance at the close of the first war recorded in the annals of the human race. Abraham was on his journey home from the rescue of Lot, and had reached a place called the Kings Dale, when his meeting with the priest took place.
2. Who was Melchizedek? There is an old tradition of the Jews to the effect that he was Shem, the son of Noah, Shem being his personal name, Melchizedek his official designation. This, however, is improbable, since
(1) it is unlikely that Moses, who has hitherto spoken of Shem by his proper name, should here veil his identity under a different one;
(2) it seems unlikely that Abraham and Shem could have been co-residents in the same land without intercourse;
(3) it is unlikely that a man whose pedigree was distinctly known should have been selected as a typical instance of a man whose pedigree was altogether unknown. We are therefore limited to the conclusion that he was a Canaanitish prince, who retained the uncorrupted faith of his forefathers.
3. What was the secret of his peculiar greatness? His names suggest an explanation. He must have been eminently righteous to have earned such titles as King of Righteousness and King of Peace. He stood alone in his office, as priest of the Most High God. He was known by undeniable tokens as the man whom God had consecrated to be His priest.
II. CONSIDER THE SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS NARRATIVE OF MELCHIZEDEK.
1. He was a symbol of the mystery connected with the Saviours person.
2. He shadowed forth important truths in relation to Christ as our Priest. His priesthood was distinguished for its antiquity, its catholicity, its independence.
3. Melchizedek was the prefiguration of Christ as the King of His people.
4. The story seems to be a typical picture of Christ exercising His ministry of benediction. (C. Stafford, D. D.)
Abram and Melchizedek
The priesthood of Melchizedek was not based upon his birth, for he was not in any priestly line. It was not based upon the performance of any written laws of sacrifice; we know nothing of his burnt offerings. But higher than any priest by birth, he was a priest of the Most High God, because of his character, his righteousness. It was a spiritual, rather than a mere legal service which he rendered. His office work and his character were a unit in their inspiring motive and in their results. True priesthood is life, and true life is priesthood. There is something almost weird in this meeting of Abram and Melchizedek. It was at the close of the first recorded war in history, in which the patriarch had become a hero. For the first time in human affairs this was the celebration of a victory. It had been the first conflict between the Church and the world. Melchizedek is the setting sun of the primitive revelation which sheds its last rays on the patriarchs, from whom the true light of the world is to arise. The sun sets, that when the preparatory time of Israel have passed away, it may rise again in Jesus Christ the antitype. No sooner had he appeared and spoken, than he disappeared again into obscurity and silence. No priest had preceded him; and lie left no successor,–a lonely example of the eternal glory, greater than Abram whom he blessed. Such being the men and their meeting, we observe two of the practical lessons.
I. THE RIGHTEOUS MANS NOBILITY. Melchizedek was the king of righteousness before he was king of Salem; and this king of righteousness blessed righteous Abram. The patriarch was called the Friend of God, and history knows him as the father of the faithful. But his trust in God was more than a profession; it was his life. His daily conduct was the tree bearing the fruit of a perfect faith; not that he was perfect, but he strove to become such. Every deed was an act of his living faith. It was no strange event when the king of Sodom prostrated himself at Abrams feet. And if all of Gods children were like Abram, the world would pay still greater honour to the Church of the living God. The saints are the worlds nobility.
II. THE RIGHTEOUS MANS BLESSING. No benediction was too great for Abram, as the patriarch bowed before the priest of the Most High God, and received through the sacred lips the blessings from the possessor of heaven and earth. (D. O. Mears.)
The trite priest for mankind
I. THE TRUE PRIEST IS DIVINELY APPOINTED.
1. Called of God.
2. Separated from the rest of mankind.
II. THE TRUE PRIEST IS ONE WITH THE RACE HE REPRESENTS.
1. The dignity of human nature.
2. The destiny of human nature.
III. THE TRUE PRIEST HAS THE POWER TO BLESS.
1. To pronounce blessings on men.
2. To bless God on their behalf.
3. To declare Gods benefits towards men.
IV. THE TRUE PRIEST IS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN.
1. He receives gifts from God for men.
2. He receives gifts from men for God. (T. H. Leale.)
Melchizedek a type of Christ
I. HE WAS A ROYAL PRIEST.
II. HIS GENEALOGY IS MYSTERIOUS.
III. HE WAS PERPETUALLY A PRIEST.
IV. HE WAS AN UNIVERSAL PRIEST.
V. HE WAS A PRIEST OF THE HIGHEST TYPE. As compared with the priesthood of Aaron, that of Melchizedek was superior–
1. In time;
2. In dignity;
3. In duration.
VI. HIS PRIESTHOOD HAS THE HIGHEST CONFIRMATION. Divine oath. (T. H.Leale.)
Melchizedek
I. MELCHIZEDEK WAS A PRIEST.
II. THIS PRIESTHOOD CAME OF GOD AND WAS RATIFIED BY AN OATH.
III. THIS PRIESTHOOD WAS ALSO CATHOLIC.
IV. THIS PRIESTHOOD WAS SUPERIOR TO ALL HUMAN ORDERS OF PRIESTS.
V. THIS PRIESTHOOD PARTOOK OF THE MYSTERY OF ETERNITY.
VI. THIS PRIESTHOOD WAS ROYAL.
VII. THIS PRIESTHOOD RECEIVES TITHES OF ALL. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
Jesus meeting His warriors
Let us consider Abraham as the type and picture of all the faithful.
I. We mention, then, what you must all know right well by experience–you who are Gods people–THAT THE BELIEVER IS OFTEN ENGAGED IN WARFARE.
1. This warfare will be both within and without–within with the innumerable natural corruptions which remain, with the temptations of Satan, with the suggestions of his own wicked heart; and without, he will frequently be engaged in warfare, wrestling not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, etc. The peculiar case of Abram leads me to remark that sometimes the believer will be engaged in warfare, not so much on his own account as on the account of erring brethren, who, having gone into ill company, are by and by carried away captive.
2. Observe that this war is one against powerful odds. The four kings mentioned in this chapter were all great sovereigns.
3. Carefully notice, that as it is a battle of fearful odds, it is one which is carried on in faith. Abram did not venture to this fight with confidence in his own strength, or reliance upon his own bow, but he went in the name of the Lord of Hosts. Faith was Abrams continual comfort. The Christian is to carry on his warfare in faith. You will be vanquished, indeed, if you attempt it by any other method.
4. In this great battle, carried on by faith, Abram had a right given him from God, and the promise of Gods presence virtually in that right. What business had Chedorlaomer to come unto Canaan? Had not Jehovah said to Abram, All this land will I give unto thee? Therefore he and his confederate monarchs were neither more nor less than intruders. It is true they would have laughed at the very idea of Abrams claiming the whole land of Canaan, but that claim was nevertheless valid in the court of heaven, and the patriarch by right divine was heir of all the land. Christian, you are, by virtue of a covenant made with you to drive out every sin, as an intruder.
5. Yet more, the Christian is engaged in a conflict in which he walks by faith and leans upon God; but yet it is a conflict in which he uses all means, calls in all lawful assistance, and exerts himself with all vigour and speed.
6. Abram marching on thus with activity, and using discretion, by attacking his enemies at night rather than by day, did not cease until he had gained a complete victory over them.
II. While engaged in such earnest spiritual contention, the believer may expect to SEE HIS LORD. When Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego, were fighting Christs battles in the fiery furnace, then the Son of Man appeared unto them. He understands that warriors require strengthening meat, and that especially when they are under stern conflict they need extraordinary comforts that their souls may be stayed and refreshed.
1. Why does Jesus Christ, as set forth here under the type of Melchizedek, appear unto His children in times of conflict?
(1) He comes to them first, because they are weary. In every conflict which the child of God has to wage, it is not the private person who goeth to the warfare, it virtually is Christ fighting–Christ contending. It is a member of Christs body labouring against Christs enemy for the glory of the Head. Christ the Head has an intense feeling of sympathy with every member, no matter how humble.
(2) The King of Peace met the returning warrior for another reason. Abram was probably flushed with victory, and this is a very dangerous feeling to any child of God.
(3) Yet again, was not this visit bestowed because Abram was about to be tried in a yet more subtle manner than he had been before? It is easier to fight Chedorlaomer, than to resist the king of Sodom. Joshua down in the plain never grew weary when he was fighting the Amalekites, but Moses on the mountain felt his hands grow heavy. Why? Because the more spiritual the exercise, the more aptness is there in us to grow weary in it; and so the more spiritual the temptation the more likelihood of our becoming a prey to it, and the more strength do we need to overcome it.
2. In what character did He meet Abram? As one possessed of a royal priesthood.
3. What did He do for him? Brought him bread and wine. Christs flesh and blood our spiritual sustenance.
4. What Melchizedek said to Abram.
(1) He blessed him.
(2) He blessed God.
III. When a wrestling believer is favoured with a sight of the great Melchizedek, voluntarily and yet necessarily he makes a NEW DEDICATION of himself to God. You see Abram does not appear to delay a moment, but he gives to Melchizedek a tithe of all, by which he seemed to say, I own the authority of my superior liege lord, to all that I am, and all that I have. (C. H.Spurgeon.)
Melchizedek and his typical character
Persons who study the phenomena or aspects of the heavens inform us, that sometimes a great comet or a beautiful meteor has appeared most unexpectedly in the skies. Some of these heavenly visitants engage only the notice of astronomers: but a few are so exceedingly grand and lovely, that they attract every eye. Now these lights in the heavens suddenly arise, shine awhile in glory, and then disappear forever. But some are so remarkable, and so amazingly beautiful, that they live in the memory as a joy forever. Now such appears to me to be the meteoric or comet-like vision of Melchizedek in the bright sky of the ancient Church, as he starts before our view in the sacred writings. Melchizedek glances suddenly on the sight here, as a brilliant meteor or a glorious comet. We gaze on the starry light shining so brightly in the firmament of the early Church; but, like its brother in the heavens, as we gaze in admiration it is gone!
I. THE HISTORY OF MELCHIZEDEK.
1. War was the occasion of introducing this royal priest, in its successful issues in the deliverance of Lot.
2. But who was Melchizedek? The question has been agitated often, and very strangely answered, though I believe its true solution can clearly be found in the holy writings. The best opinion is, that Melchizedek is a real historic personage; that his name was not found in the regular lists of the priesthood; that as king as well as priest, he shadowed the glorious offices of Christ; and the Lord set him forth in Scripture as the living type and image of our blessed Redeemer, as our great and only High Priest, our Divine King and Saviour. Melchizedek was a ray of heavenly light in the early morning of the Church, which led the intelligent eye to the sun dawn and glory of the Sun of Righteousness. He was as the finger post or pillar, with the broad arrow, on the kings high road; the royal statue in the court, which pointed to the heavenly King on His throne. As a prince on earth, he shone in the light also of a priest divine, directing faith in prophetic grandeur to the glory of the Great Prince of heaven, descending on earth to feed and bless His people, conquerors through His might, as our High Priest at the sacramental banquet of His love, signifying His dying work and mediation on the Cross, as our true sacrifice, and typical of His imperishable glory and majesty in the heavens, where Christ ever liveth to intercede for and satisfy, and bless us forever.
II. CONSIDER HOW MELCHIZEDEK WAS A LIVING TYPE OF OUR LORD IN HIS OFFICES.
1. He typified Christ in His illustrious person. His origin and end are veiled in mystery for our instruction in the Sacred Writings, that our curiosity may be checked where Gods wisdom gives all the light we need. As he was king of Salem, signifying peace, and king of righteousness, as his compound Hebrew name, Melchizedek, means, he was a noble figure of Christ, the true Prince of Peace, who brought peace by the blood of His cross between God and man, and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the joyful fruit of His passion, sufferings, and blessed mediation.
2. He typified Christ, especially in His sacerdotal character. Melchizedek was a priest as well as a king: a royal priest, and not of Abrahams or Aarons line. In this he especially resembled the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ is our one and only royal High Priest: His office is unchangeable; He never can die; He ever liveth to intercede for us in the heavens; and He hath His true type, therefore, not in Aaron, but in Melchizedek, as both King and Priest. Besides this, Melchizedek blessed Abram; and the latter gave him tithes of all, as a sign of his inferiority, and of the Jewish priesthood; as the apostle says, Levi paid tithes to the king of Salem in the loins of Abraham. The sum or heads of this most able argument of St. Paul must be clear to any reflecting mind, that Christ was constituted by the Father a royal Priest, whose Divine office was singular; it had its typical origin not in Levi, but in Melchizedek; that Christ has no successor in His Divine work; and that He is our only Intercessor before God above.
III. TWO PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS MUST NOW CONCLUDE THIS SUBJECT.
1. Consider how important in its bearings is the great truth, that Christ Jesus the Lord is our Royal High Priest in Gods presence for us. We had imperative need of such a Redeemer on earth, and such a Mediator in heaven. In His nature God and man are united. He only reconciles man to God; Christ only joins heaven and earth. He is the worlds great peace offering; He is the King of righteousness and peace for His beloved people.
2. Consider whether your soul has ever been awakened to see the spiritual glory of Christ, and the inestimable value of His love. A moral film must be removed from the eye of the soul to see spiritual things, and the full glory of Christ. Live not in a dreamy state as professing Christians, but awake and arise to your true position as redeemed by Christ, to glorify Him both in body and soul. (J. G. Augley, M. A.)
Melchizedek
Melchizedek is mentioned by three inspired writers, Moses, David, and Paul. The places where he is spoken of are Gen 14:18-20; Psa 110:1-7, and Heb 5:1-14; Heb 6:1-20; Heb 7:1-28. The first notice is purely historic; the second purely prophetic; the third explains and shows the fulfilment of the former two in the person of Christ.
1. The first resemblance is found in the names or titles of the mysterious ancient. He is called Melchizedek, which means King of Righteousness. He is said to have been the king of Salem, that is King of Peace. It matters not where this Salem was. The import is the same. Now Jesus Christ is the Lord our righteousness; He is the righteousness of God for our complete justification; He was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him; He is also our Peace; yea, He is the Prince of Peace; He came and preached peace to them that are afar off. He was the great Sin bearer. He is the great Peacemaker. The peace He gives passes all understanding.
2. Then Melchizedek was a man. It is not necessary to disprove or even to state the wild and foolish opinions which have been sent forth respecting this person. He was a man. He was taken from among men. So was Jesus Christ a man, truly and properly a man. He is often so called by inspired men, by Himself, by His Father. He must needs be a man, that He might fully sympathize with His people, and that He might have somewhat to offer.
3. But Melchizedek was not only a man; he was also a great man. He was the priest of the Most High God. Melchizedek was greater than Abraham. The proofs are two:
(1) Melchizedek received tithes from him;
(2) Melchizedek pronounced an authoritative blessing upon him; and yet with the exception of Melchizedek sacred history tells us of no one greater than Abraham. So the man Christ Jesus was great–truly great–greater than Abraham. Hear Him: Before Abraham was I am. Interpret this as you may, it establishes Christs superiority over Abraham. The fact was that the Son of God was the author of Abrahams existence (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2).
4. Moreover, Melchizedek was not of the tribe of Levi, nor of the order of Aaron. No Jew ever claimed that Melchizedek was a Levite, or learned or derived anything from Aaron. Nor was Jesus Christ of the order of Aaron, nor of the tribe of Levi.
5. Nor is this all. For Melchizedek was the first and the last of his order. Aaron had no predecessor, but he had many successors. But Melchizedek had neither predecessor nor successor. His order was wholly independent of all others. It was just so with Christ Jesus. Christ has an unchangeable, an intransmissable priesthood. His priesthood is according to the power of an endless life. Thus we have an explanation of those phrases used of Melchizedek: Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. The law of the Levitical priesthood was minute and exact as to both the parents. A defect here was fatal. But Melchizedeks parents are not named in the genealogical tables of the Levites. Neither did they contain the names of any of Christs ancestors. The priests of the order of Aaron could not act before a certain age, nor were they to officiate after a certain age–all which must be ascertained by the tables of lineage. But these tables tell us not (neither do any records) when Melchizedek began or closed his sacred functions. Neither do they mention the name, or birth, or time of Christs entering on His Priesthood. Thus was Christs Priesthood set forth to us as personal and perpetual–truly a glorious Priesthood. In it let us trust. In it let us exult forever. (W. S. Plumer, D. D.)
The patriarch and the priest king
I. THE PRIEST KING.
1. The person himself.
2. His position.
3. Melchizedeks prophetic blessing.
II. THE PATRIARCH.
1. Abram recognizes in Melchizedek a person worthy of special respect and honour.
2. Note the religious spirit in which Abram viewed his success.
CONCLUSION: From Abrams conduct we may learn–
1. Humility.
2. Thankfulness.
3. Stedfastness of religious purpose. (W. S. Smith, B. D.)
Melchizedek
The sacred historian having here met with what I may call a lily among thorns, stops, as it were, to describe it. Let us stop with him, and observe the description.
1. He was doubtless a very holy man; and if a Canaanite by descent, it furnishes a proof among many others, that the curse on Canaan did not shut the door of faith upon his individual descendants. There never was an age or country in which he that feared God, and worked righteousness, was not accepted.
2. He was a personage in whom was united the kingly and priestly offices, and as such was a type of the Messiah and greater than Abram himself. This singular dignity conferred upon a descendant of Canaan shows that God delights, on various occasions, to put more abundant honour upon the part that lacketh.
3. He was what he was, considered as a priest, not by inheritance, but by an immediate Divine constitution. (A. Fuller.)
Melchizedek
Behold Melchizedek! In wise purpose his descent is hid far beyond our sight. So, too, clouds and darkness mantle the first rise of Jesus. He is, by eternal generation, the co-eternal Son of the co-eternal Father. But who can grasp such mystery? He who begets precedes not the begotten. He who is begotten is not second to the parent cause. This truth is a boundless ocean. Let us meekly stand on the shore and marvel. We read, and are assured, that Jesus, by eternal birth, is God of God, and very God of very God. But while we cannot dive into the depths, we bathe our souls in the refreshment of the surface. For hence it follows, that He is sufficient to deal with God, and to satisfy God, and thus to save His people to the uttermost. We see not Melchizedeks cradle. But we distinctly see him man on earth. Eyewitnesses, who heard Jesus and handled Him, give testimony, that He, too, has tabernacled in our clay, and thus was qualified to shed His life blood as our ransom. In Melchizedek we find neither first nor latest hours. No search can tell when he began or ceased to be. Here is Jesus. His age is one everlasting day. From eternity past to eternity to come, His being rolls in one unbroken stream. Before time was, His name is, I am that I am. When time shall have run its course, His name is still, I am that I am. Melchizedek. How mighty is this name? He that utters it, says, King of Righteousness. Who can claim that title, in its full purport, but Jesus: what is His person, what His work, but the glory of righteousness? Since Adam fell, earth has seen no righteousness apart from Him. But His kingdom is first righteousness, then peace (Rom 14:17). There is a throne in it righteously erected to dispense righteousness. All the statutes–decrees–ordinances–every precept–every reward–every penalty–is a sunbeam of righteousness. Eachsubject is bright in royal robes of purity–each wears a crown of righteousness (2Ti 4:8). Each delights in righteousness, as his newborn nature. Melchizedek was a local monarch. His city was graced with the name of Salem, which is Peace. The war, which stalked through the land, troubled not these tranquil citizens. Here again we have the sweet emblem of Jesus blissful reign. His kingdom is one atmosphere of peace–one haven of unruffled calm. Heaven is at peace with the inhabitants. Sin had rebelled. It had aroused most holy wrath. It had armed each attribute of God with anger. It had unsheathed the sword of vengeance. It had pointed the arrows of destruction against our world of transgression. But Jesus cleanses His flock from every stain of evil. He is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Melchizedek is called to the most hallowed functions. He is the consecrated priest of the Most High God. As king, he sat above men. As priest, he stands before God. This holy office exhibits Jesus. He spurns no office which can serve the Church. The entrance of sin calls for expiation. No sinner can approach a sin-hating God without a sin-removing plea. This expiation can only be by the death of an appeasing victim The victim can only die by a sacrificing hand. Hence we need, a priest to celebrate the blood-stained rite. And all which is needed we have in Jesus. Cry out and shout, O happy believer, your Christ is All. An altar is upraised. The altar is Christ. No other can suffice. He alone can bear the victim, which bears His peoples sins. A lamb is led forth. The lamb is Christ. None other has blood of merit co-equal with mans guilt. Jesus, therefore, God in essence, Man in person, extends Himself upon the accursed tree. But who is the priest who dares approach a superhuman altar? Who has a hand to touch a victim God? The very sight would shiver man into annihilation. Therefore Jesus is the priest. The incense of His intercession ever rises, Father, bless them; and they are blessed. Father, smile on them; and it is light around. With extended hand He takes their very offering of prayer, and praise, and service. He perfumes all with the rich fragrance of His merits. He makes all worthy in His own worthiness, and thus our nothingness gains great reward. Melchizedek meets Abraham with bread and wine. The weary warrior is way-worn and faint. Refreshment is provided. Tile Lord is very tender of His peoples need. Awful is the curse on the Ammonites and the Moabites, because they met not Israel with bread and water in the way, when they came forth out of Egypt (Deu 23:4). Here again, we see our great High Priest. With God-like bounty He presents every supply which wasted strength, and sinking spirit, and failing heart require. (Dean Law.)
Another collection
Thus exclaimed a member of the parish the other day, How often they come! It is give, give, all the time! The same person might have added, Another bill! It is pay, pay the grocer and the baker, and the coalman, all the time! Isnt it curious that people recognize the duty of paying a debt to their fellow men so much more readily than they do paying a debt to God! These collections in church–what are they if they are not, in a most important sense, the payment of debts? We are only stewards of the Lords bounty. Nothing we have is really our own. We are just using it for a time for Him. We have consecrated everything to Him, and we should regard these appeals in church for money as opportunities to pay back something we owe.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 18. And Melchizedek, king of Salem] A thousand idle stories have been told about this man, and a thousand idle conjectures spent on the subject of his short history given here and in Heb. vii. At present it is only necessary to state that he appears to have been as real a personage as Bera, Birsha, or Shinab, though we have no more of his genealogy than we have of theirs.
Brought forth bread and wine] Certainly to refresh Abram and his men, exhausted with the late battle and fatigues of the journey; not in the way of sacrifice, c. this is an idle conjecture.
He was the priest of the most high God.] He had preserved in his family and among his subjects the worship of the true God, and the primitive patriarchal institutions; by these the father of every family was both king and priest, so Melchizedek, being a worshipper of the true God, was priest among the people, as well as king over them.
Melchizedek is called here king of Salem, and the most judicious interpreters allow that by Salem, Jerusalem is meant. That it bore this name anciently is evident from Ps 76:1-2: “In Judah is God known; his name is great in Israel. In SALEM also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.” From the use made of this part of the sacred history by David, Ps 110:4, and by St. Paul, Heb 7:1-10, we learn that there was something very mysterious, and at the same time typical, in the person, name, office, residence, and government of this Cannanitish prince.
1. In his person he was a representative and type of Christ; see the scriptures above referred to.
2. His name, malki tsedek, signifies my righteous king, or king of righteousness. This name he probably had from the pure and righteous administration of his government; and this is one of the characters of our blessed Lord, a character which can be applied to him only, as he alone is essentially righteous, and the only Potentate; but a holy man, such as Melchizedek, might bear this name as his type or representative.
3. Office; he was a priest of the most high God. The word cohen, which signifies both prince and priest, because the patriarchs sustained this double office, has both its root and proper signification in the Arabic; [Arabic] kahana signifies to approach, draw near, have intimate access to; and from hence to officiate as priest before God, and thus have intimate access to the Divine presence: and by means of the sacrifices which he offered he received counsel and information relative to what was yet to take place, and hence another acceptation of the word, to foretell, predict future events, unfold hidden things or mysteries; so the lips of the priests preserved knowledge, and they were often the interpreters of the will of God to the people. Thus we find that Melchizedek, being a priest of the most high God, represented Christ in his sacerdotal character, the word priest being understood as before explained.
4. His residence; he was king of Salem. shalam signifies to make whole, complete, or perfect; and hence it means peace, which implies the making whole the breaches made in the political and domestic union of kingdoms, states, families, c., making an end of discord, and establishing friendship. Christ is called the Prince of peace, because, by his incarnation, sacrifice, and mediation, he procures and establishes peace between God and man heals the breaches and dissensions between heaven and earth, reconciling both; and produces glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good will among men. His residence is peace and quietness and assurance for ever, in every believing upright heart.
5. He governs as the Prince and Priest of the most high God, ruling in righteousness, mighty to save; and he ever lives to make intercession for, and save to the uttermost all who come unto the Father by him. See Clarke on Heb 7:25.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Quest. Who was this?
Answ.
1. Shem, as the Jews and many others think, who probably was alive at this time, and, no doubt, a great prince. But neither is it probable that Shem should be a king among the cursed race of Ham; nor will this agree with the apostle’s description of Melchizedek, Heb 7:3, without father and mother, & c. Whereas Shem’s parents, and the beginning and end of his days, are as expressly mentioned by Moses as any other.
2. A Canaanitish king, by the Divine Providence made both a king over men, and priest unto the true God, brought in here in this unusual manner, without any mention of his parents, birth, or death, for this end, that he might be an illustrious type of Christ. Of this matter see more upon Heb 7:3.
King of Salem, i.e. of Jerusalem, called elsewhere Jebus, and Salem, Psa 76:2.
Bread and wine; not for sacrifice to God; for then he had brought forth beasts to be slain, which were the usual and best sacrifices: but partly to show the respect which he bore to Abram, and principally to refresh his weary and hungry army, according to the manner of those times. See Deu 23:3-4; 5:18; Jdg 8:5-6,15; 1Sa 17:17.
He was the priest of the most high God: thus in succeeding ages the same persons were often both kings and priests, as the learned note out of Virgil and other authors. And this clause is here added, as the cause and reason, not for his bringing forth or offering bread and wine, as some would have it, (for that is ascribed to him as a king, as an act of royal munificence), but of the following benediction and decimation. In those times God had his remnant scattered here and there even in the worst places and nations.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18. MelchizedekThis victoryconferred a public benefit on that part of the country; and Abram, onhis return, was treated with high respect and consideration,particularly by the king of Sodom and Melchizedek, who seems to havebeen one of the few native princes, if not the only one, who knew andworshipped, “the most high God,” whom Abram served. Thisking who was a type of the Saviour (Heb7:1), came to bless God for the victory which had been won, andin the name of God to bless Abram, by whose arms it had beenachieveda pious acknowledgment which we should imitate onsucceeding in any lawful enterprise.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine,…. Both the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem say, this is Shem the son of Noah, and which is the sense of the Jewish writers in general, and of many Christian ones; but, though it is highly probable he was living at this time, yet it is not easy to account for it why his name should be changed, or that he should reign in a country in the possession of his brother’s son; or that he should meet Abram, and congratulate him on the slaughter of one of his own descendants, as Chedorlaomer was; and especially it cannot be said of him that he was without father or mother, or that those were not known, since Shem’s parentage and pedigree are famous enough; some have thought him to be more than a mere man, even the Son of God himself, but he is manifestly distinguished from him in Heb 7:3; he seems to be what Josephus k says he was, a Canaanitish prince, a pious and religious man, eminently raised up by God, and whose genealogy was kept a secret, that he might be in this as in other things a type of Christ; but that he should be Canaan himself, as Dr. Clayton l thinks, a brother of Metsir, or Mizraim, the second son of Ham, being by Sanchoniatho called Sedec, is not likely, since he was cursed by Noah. Salem, of which he was king, is by the above Targums said to be Jerusalem, and which is the opinion of many writers, Jewish and Christian, and of which opinion I myself was formerly, [See comments on Heb 7:1]; Jerusalem being plainly called Salem, Ps 76:2, but it seems clear from hence that it must be near to Sodom, and lay in the way between Damascus and Sodom; whereas Jerusalem was in a contrary situation, and lay nearly forty miles from Sodom; for Josephus says m, the lake Asphaltites, where Sodom once stood, was three hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, which is about thirty eight miles; and Jerom relates n, that Salem was a town near Scythopolis, which was so called in his times, and where was showed the palace of Melchizedek, which, by the largeness of the ruins, appeared to have been very magnificent, and takes it to be the same place with Shalem in
Ge 33:18; and Salim, near to which John was baptizing, Joh 3:23: this great man “brought forth bread and wine”; not as a priest for an offering, but as a munificent king, to refresh Abram and his weary troops, and which the king of Sodom could not do, because the victuals of that place were carried off by the four kings, Ge 14:11; and as Abram had the land of Canaan by promise, and now had made conquest in it over the invaders of it, Melchizedek, sensible of his right unto it, brings forth the best fruits of it, and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes o, tenders them to him as “livery and seisin” of it: in this Melchizedek was a type of Christ, who comforts and refreshes his hungry and weary people with himself, the bread of life, and with the wine of his love, as well as his name and title agree with him, who is a righteous King and Prince of Peace, Jer 23:5:
and he [was] the priest of the most high God; a priest as well as a king, as in many countries princes were both p; and in this he was a type of Christ in his kingly and priestly offices, who is a priest upon the throne, both king and priest, Zec 6:13. Melchizedek was a priest not of any of the Phoenician deities, but of the true and living God, who is above all gods, dwells in the highest heaven, and is the most High over all the earth; by him was he called to this office and invested with it, and he ministered to him in it.
k De Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 10. l Chronology of the Hebrew Bible, p. 100. m Autiqu. l. 15. c. 6. sect. 2. n Ad Evagrium, tom. 3. fol. 13. E. o Works, vol. 1. p. 694. p “Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phoebique sacerdos”, Virgil. Aeneid. l. 3. vid. Servium in loc.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
18. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth. This is the last of the three principal points of this history, that Melchizedek, the chief father of the Church, having entertained Abram at a feast, blessed him, in virtue of his priesthood, and received tithes from him. There is no doubt that by the coming of this king to meet him, God also designed to render the victory of Abram famous and memorable to posterity. But a more exalted and excellent mystery was, at the same time, adumbrated: for seeing that the holy patriarch, whom God had raised to the highest rank of honor, submitted himself to Melchizedek, it is not to be doubted that God had constituted him the only head of the whole Church; (362) for, without controversy, the solemn act of benediction, which Melchizedek assumed to himself, was a symbol of preeminent dignity. If any one replies, that he did this as a priest; I ask, was not Abram also a priest? Therefore God here commends to us something peculiar in Melchizedek, in preferring him before the father of all the faithful. But it will be more satisfactory to examine the passage word by word, in regular order, that we may thence better gather the import of the whole. That he received Abram and his companions as guests belonged to his royalty; but the benediction pertained especially to his sacerdotal office. Therefore, the words of Moses ought to be thus connected: Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and seeing he was the priest of God, he blessed Abram; thus to each character is distinctly attributed what is its own. He refreshed a wearied and famishing army with royal liberality; but because he was a priest, he blessed, by the rite of solemn prayer, the firstborn son of God, and the father of the Church. Moreover, although I do not deny that it was the most ancient custom, for those who were kings to fulfill also the office of the priesthood; yet this appears to have been, even in that age, extraordinary in Melchizedek. And truly he is honored with no common eulogy, when the Spirit ratifies his priesthood. We know how, at that time, religion was everywhere corrupted since Abram himself, who was descended from the sacred race of Shem and Eber, had been plunged in the profound vortex of superstitions with his father and grandfather. Therefore many imagine Melchizedek to have been Shem; to whose opinion I am, for many reasons, hindered from subscribing. For the Lord would not have designated a man, worthy of eternal memory, by a name so new and obscure, that he must remain unknown. Secondly, it is not probable that Shem had migrated from the east into Judea; and nothing of the kind is to be gathered from Moses. Thirdly, if Shem had dwelt in the land of Canaan, Abram would not have wandered by such winding courses, as Moses has previously related, before he went to salute his ancestor. But the declaration of the Apostle is of the greatest weight; that this Melchizedek, whoever he was, is presented before us, without any origin, as if he had dropped from the clouds, and that his name is buried without any mention of his death. (Heb 7:3.) But the admirable grace of God shines more clearly in a person unknown; because, amid the corruptions of the world, he alone, in that land, was an upright and sincere cultivator and guardian of religion. I omit the absurdities which Jerome, in his Epistle to Evagrius, heaps together; lest, without any advantage, I should become troublesome, and even offensive to the reader. I readily believe that Salem is to be taken for Jerusalem; and this is the generally received interpretation. If, however, any one chooses rather to embrace a contrary opinion, seeing that the town was situated in a plain, I do not oppose it. On this point Jerome thinks differently: nevertheless, what he elsewhere relates, that in his own times some vestiges of the palace of Melchizedek were still extant in the ancient ruins, appears to me improbable.
It now remains to be seen how Melchizedek bore the image of Christ, and became, as it were, his representative, ἀντίτυπος ( avtitupos. (363)) These are the words of David,
“
The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek,” (Psa 110:4.)
First, he had placed him on a royal throne, and now he gives him the honor of the priesthood. But under the Law, these two offices were so distinct, that it was unlawful for kings to usurp the office of the priesthood. If, therefore, we concede as true, what Plato declares, and what occasionally occurs in the poets, that it was formerly received, by the common custom of nations, that the same person should be both king and priest; this was by no means the case with David and his posterity, whom the Law peremptorily forbade to intrude on the priestly office. It was therefore right, that what was divinely appointed under the old law, should be abrogated in the person of this priest. And the Apostle does not contend without reason, that a more excellent priesthood than that old and shadowy one, was here pointed out; which priesthood is confirmed by an oath. Moreover, we never find that king and priest, who is to be preeminent over all, till we come to Christ. And as no one has arisen except Christ, who equalled Melchizedek in dignity, still less who excelled him; we hence infer that the image of Christ was presented to the fathers, in his person. David, indeed, does not propose a similitude framed by himself; but declares the reason for which the kingdom of Christ was divinely ordained, and even confirmed with an oath; and it is not to be doubted that the same truth had previously been traditionally handed down by the fathers. The sum of the whole is, that Christ would thus be the king next to God, and also that he should be anointed priest, and that for ever; which it is very useful for us to know, in order that we may learn that the royal power of Christ is combined with the office of priest. The same Person, therefore who was constituted the only and eternal Priest, in order that he might reconcile us to God, and who, having made expiation, might intercede for us, is also a King of infinite power to secure our salvation, and to protect us by his guardian care. Hence it follows, that relying on his advocacy, we may stand boldly in the presence of God, who will, we are assured, be propitious to us; and that trusting in his invincible arm, we may securely triumph over enemies of every kind. But they who separate one office from the other, rend Christ asunder, and subvert their own faith, which is deprived of half its support. It is also to be observed, that Christ is called an eternal King, like Melchizedek. For since the Scripture, by assigning no end to his life, leaves him as if he were to survive through all ages; it certainly represents or shadows forth to us, in his person, a figure, not of a temporal, but of an eternal kingdom. But whereas Christ, by his death, has accomplished the office of Priest, it follows that God was, by that one sacrifice, once appeased in such a manner, that now reconciliation is to be sought in Christ alone. Therefore, they do him grievous wrong, and wrest from him by abominable sacrilege, the honor divinely conferred upon him by an oaths who either institute other sacrifices for the expiation of sins, or who make other priests. (364) And I wish this had been prudently weighed by the ancient writers of the Church. For then would they not so coolly, and even so ignorantly, have transferred to the bread and wine the similitude between Christ and Melchizedek, which consists in things very different. They have supposed that Melchizedek is the image of Christ, because he offered bread and wine. For they add, that Christ offered his body, which is life-giving bread, and his blood, which is spiritual drink. But the Apostle, while in his Epistle to the Hebrews, he most accurately collects, and specifically prosecutes, every point of similarity between Christ and Melchizedek, says not a word concerning the bread and wine. If the subtleties of Tertullian, and of others like him, were true, it would have been a culpable negligence, not to bestow a single syllable upon the principal point, while discussing the separate parts, which were of comparatively trivial importance. And seeing the Apostle disputes at so great length, and with such minuteness, concerning the priesthood; how gross an instance of forgetfulness would it have been, not to touch upon that memorable sacrifice, in which the whole force of the priesthood was comprehended? He proves the honor of Melchizedek from the benediction given, and tithes received: how much better would it have suited this argument to have said, that he offered not lambs or calves, but the life of the world, (that is, the body and blood of Christ,) in a figure? By these arguments the fictions of the ancients are abundantly refuted. Nevertheless, from the very words of Moses a sufficiently lucid refutation may be taken. For we do not there read that anything was offered to God; but in one continued discourse it is stated, ‘He offered bread and wine; and seeing he was priest of the Most High God, he blessed him.’ Who does not see that the same relative pronoun is common to both verbs; and therefore that Abram was both refreshed with the wine, and honored with the benediction? Utterly ridiculous truly are the Papists, who distort the offering (365) of bread and wine to the sacrifice of their mass. For in order to bring Melchizedek into agreement with themselves, it will be necessary for them to concede that bread and wine are offered in the mass. Where, then, is transubstantiation, which leaves nothing except the bare species of the elements? Then, with what audacity do they declare that the body of Christ is immolated in their sacrifices? Under what pretext, since the Son of God is called the only successor of Melchizedek, do they substitute innumerable successors for him? We see, then, how foolishly they not only deprave this passage, but babble without the color of reason.
(362) “ Non dubium est quin illum constituerit unicum totius ecclesiae caput.” — “ Il ne faut pas douter que Dieu ne l’ait constitue chef unique de toute l’Egilise.” — French Tr
(363) “ Il faut voir comment Melchisedech a cu la figure de Christ engravee ea soy, et est comme la representation et correspondance.” — French Tr
(364) “ Ceux qui dressent d’autres sacrifices pour nettoyer les pechez, on forgent d’autres sacrificateurs.” Those who prepare other sacrifices to cleanse from sins, or make others sacrificing priests. — French Tr
(365) Oblationem ; yet the word ought not to be rendered oblation, because this term in English always implies that the offering is made to God; whereas Calvin speaks of the bread and wine simply as being presented by Melchizedek to Abram. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(18) Melchizedek king of Salem.There is a Salem near Scythopolis in the tribe of Ephraim, near to which John baptised (Joh. 3:23, where it is called Salim), and Jerome mentions that some local ruins there were said to be the remains of Melchizedeks palace. But such traditions are of little value, and we may eel certain that the place was really Jerusalem (Psa. 76:2); for it lay on Abrams route homeward, and was within a reasonable distance of Sodom, which, as we have seen, lay in the Ciccar of Jericho, at the northern end of the Dead Sea. Salem is a common name for towns in Palestine (Conder, Tent-work, i. 91), and the village in Ephraim is too remote to have been the place of meeting.
In Melchizedek we have a type of Christ (Psa. 110:4; Heb. 5:6; Heb. 5:10; Heb. 7:1-21), and so venerable is his character and aspect that Jewish tradition identified him with the patriarch Shem, thus reconciling also to themselves his superiority over their forefather Abraham. But this idea is contradicted by Heb. 7:3. He was more probably the king of some Semitic race who still occupied Salem, but from whom it was at a subsequent period wrested by the Jebusites, who called it Jebus, after the name of their ancestor (Jdg. 19:10-11). Up to Davids days it seems to have still had a titular king (2Sa. 24:23), and upon his conquest of it its old name reappears, but with a prefix, and henceforward it was known as Jeru-salem, that is (probably), the possession of Salem.
The typical value of Melehizedeks priesthood lies not merely in his being king of righteousness and king of peace, but even more in his priesthood being universal, limited by no external ordinances, and attached to no particular race or people. Moreover, he is a king-priest (Psalms 110), and by taking precedence of Abram. and blessing him, and receiving of him tithes, he became the representative of a higher priesthood than any that could spring from Abrams loins.
Bread and wine.The representatives of food of all kinds, both liquid and solid. Though the primary object of this offering was the refreshing of the bodies of Abrams men, and of the prisoners wearied with their long march to and fro, yet we cannot but recognise in it a foreshowing of the bestowal by Christ, the antitype, upon His Church of the spiritual food of His most blessed Body and Blood.
Priest of the most high God.Heb., of El elyon. The mention of the term priest (used here for the first time) shows that some sort of sacrificial worship existed at Salem. Sacrifice had, however, been practised before; for Abel had acted as a priest when offering his firstlings, and Abram at the various altars which he built. Apparently, however, Melchizedek had been set apart for the priesthood in some more definite way. El elyon means the supreme God, and though the two words are so similar in English, they are altogether unlike in Hebrew. In Psa. 7:17 the epithet elyon is applied to Jehovah. With that precision in the use of the names of Deity which we have so often noticed before, Melchizedek is described as a priest of El elyon, the Supreme Ruler of the universe; but Abram swears by Jehovah El elyon, thus claiming that Jehovah was that Supreme Deity whom Melchizedek served, though without the special knowledge of Him which the patriarch possessed.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
18. Melchizedek king of Salem This mysterious stranger here suddenly emerges from the dim background of the old Canaanitish heathenism, “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” (Heb 7:3,) that is, without any recorded genealogy, (a matter of prime importance with a Hebrew,) or mention of birth, age, or death . His name and title are significant, “first being, by interpretation, king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is, king of peace . ” Heb 7:2. His bringing forth bread and wine suggests to the Christian the symbols of the holy Eucharist, and his benediction on Abram, his receiving tithes of him, and his position and title as priest of the most high God, (a title never used of Abraham,) place him above the father of the faithful. No wonder the psalmist, a thousand years later, caught inspiration from the name, and, in prophetic vision, used this sacred character as a type of the Messiah. Psa 110:4.
From the earliest times there have been strange speculations and various conjectures as to this mysterious person. Some have identified him with the patriarch Shem, supposing that survivor of the flood to have lingered until Abram’s time. But if so, why should his name have been changed to Melchizedek, and how could it be said of Shem, with Gen 11:10-27, before us, that he was without pedigree? Heb 7:3. Others have maintained that Melchizedek was the Son of God himself, appearing in human form . But such a Christophany, without a word of explanation, is scarcely supposable, and the sublime comparisons drawn in Psa 110:4, and Heb 6:20; Heb 7:3, are reduced to the empty platitude of making Christ like himself . A sect called Melchizedekians arose in the third century, and were so named because of their strange doctrine that Melchizedek was not a man, but some heavenly power, an intercessor for the angels, and so superior even to Jesus Christ . For other notions, unnecessary to record here, see the Bible Dictionaries .
Doubtless the proper view to take of this mysterious character is to regard him as an exceptional instance in that early time of a venerable Hamite, or perhaps, like Abram, a Shemite, who had been kept pure from the prevailing idolatry of the world, and like Job and Jethro was a worshipper of the one true God. Nor need we deem it strange that such an example of righteousness should have been living in that place and time. God has had, in all ages and nations, men eminent for uprightness and even sanctity of life. The Noachic covenant, of which the rainbow is the gracious sign, embraces “in every nation him that feareth God and worketh righteousness.” Act 10:35. The mystery which invests Melchizedek is chiefly owing to our utter lack of knowledge of his pedigree, his subsequent life, and his death. His name breathes a strange charm, and may have indicated his far-famed eminence for righteousness. Some take the words king of Salem as a title, melek-shalem, (king of peace,) and urge that Heb 7:2, favours this view . But such suppositions are not to be pressed, for the writer to the Hebrews evidently uses the meaning, both of his name and residence, homiletically . Salem is undoubtedly the name of a place, the residence of this saintly king, and is probably the archaic name of Jerusalem, as used also in Psa 76:2. Identification with Shalem, of Gen 33:18, or Salim, of Joh 3:23, is far less satisfactory . See notes on Hebrews 7.
Melchizedek came forth from his royal city, and was, like the king of Sodom, grateful to Abram for ridding the land of its invaders and oppressors. He also brought forth bread and wine, general terms for food and refreshments, in token of his gratitude, and of his appreciation of the services of the noble Hebrew. On the use of divine names in this passage, see on Gen 14:19; Gen 14:22.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest of El Elyon (God Most High). And he said, “Blessed be Abram of El Elyon, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be El Elyon who has delivered your enemies into your hand”. And he gave him a tenth of all.’
The sudden appearance of Melchizedek of Salem takes us by surprise. If Salem is Jerusalem, although that is not certain, it is not on the expected return route from Damascus to Sodom, and Melchizedek has not previously been obviously involved. There must therefore be something significant behind it. Clearly Melchizedek is involved somehow and sufficiently to take the trouble to bring victuals to the returning troops. These would be needed as Sodom and Gomorrah had had their victuals taken by the four kings (deliberately stated – Gen 14:11) and the ready food stolen would have already been eaten by the hungry troops returning to their homelands. The obvious answer to the problem is a treaty situation.
We have now come to the nub of the narrative. Here in writing is the confirmation of the covenant between Abram and Melchizedek and the King of Sodom on the sharing of the booty, put into writing by Melchizedek’s recorder, of which a copy is given to Abram (or copied by his steward). We do not know fully all that lay behind it but it is quite clear that Abram is now called on to pay a reckoning to King Melchizedek of Salem, and that he knew what it was about and was expecting it.
The ‘witness’ to the agreement is El Elyon (God Most High), the god worshipped by Melchizedek, and accepted by Abram who sees Him as Yahweh the Creator (Gen 14:22). The credit for the victory is given to Him by Melchizedek. Abram can agree because he thinks of Him in terms of Yahweh. El Elyon is possibly also accepted by the King of Sodom. The payment as far as Melchizedek is concerned is one tenth of the booty.
We can compare Melchizedek’s words with Gen 9:26 where ‘blessed be the Yahweh, the God of Shem’ referred to a blessing on Shem. Here the two main parties are mentioned. ‘Blessed be Abram’ and ‘blessed be El Elyon (the god of Melchizedek)’, meaning ‘blessed be Melchizedek’. These are the two main parties to the covenant.
There is external evidence of a cult of El Elyon and some support for connecting the worship of El Elyon with Canaanite Jerusalem. He is involved here because Melchizedek is a major player and is superior in status. (Melchizedek is also a good Canaanite name – compare Adonizedek in Josha 10:1). The fact that this incident is allowed to stand as it is indicates the essential accuracy of the narrative and its ancient provenance.
But why should Abram hand over one tenth of all the booty? The answer, partly at least, lies in the provision of food. The returning heroes and the captors they have delivered are supplied with sustenance by the king of Salem as he comes to meet them on their return. This is confirmed in Gen 14:24 where payment for the food is specifically mentioned. But this in itself indicates some kind of treaty arrangement between Abram and Melchizedek. Why else would he come with provisions?
This brings us to two other possible factors that we may need to take into account.
The first is that in some way Melchizedek of Salem is recognised as having treaty rights and responsibilities with respect to Abram and his confederates. This may include the fact that they used his fields for grazing when the harvest has been gathered in, and they may have enjoyed other benefits that they would know of, including rights over the area around the oaks of Mamre, which could also be part of a treaty which included the sharing of booty. There may also have been an agreement for the provision of military help when needed, probably reciprocally. Salem (compare Psa 76:2), which would in future centuries become Jerusalem, may well have had great influence and exerted rights over the surrounding area.
Then secondly it could be that Melchizedek had provided mercenaries to assist Abram in the attack in return for a portion of the booty. They are not mentioned, but this might be because his scribe is writing the account and with true Oriental courtesy he is happy to give all the credit to Abram and his men (which would also explain why Abram’s confederates have also been ignored in the account, for the agreement is with Abram) while taking payment for his own part in the project.
While Abram had been gathering his own men he could well also have sent messengers to Melchizedek with whom he had a treaty arrangement, calling on him to send him extra troops per the previously agreed terms, agreed for whenever he would need help against attack, and probably vice versa. Now he has to pay the reckoning.
But there is also the question of the remainder of the booty. About this agreement has to be reached, and this includes the King of Sodom. This is also incorporated into the covenant as we see in verses 21-24. Then, once agreed, the contract will be ‘signed, sealed and delivered’.
Full credit must be given to Abram, who generously declines his portion. The tenth part is given to Melchizedek. Abram’s confederates are to receive their ‘portion’, clearly a recognised amount. And it is agreed that the remainder will be handed back to the representative of the five kings.
(We can compare with this Abraham’s contract for the field and cave at Machpelah in Genesis 23. There the impression given is of the gift of the land and an equally generous Abram insisting on payment. In fact we have the terms of a strict contract, again agreed in true Oriental fashion. The same may be true here).
But could all the facts in the contract have been put together so quickly to enable it to be put in writing as here? The answer is that they were already known. The tributary status of the five kings, and by whom, was a matter of history, the details of the attacks on the various peoples would quickly spread by word of mouth through the land, and could be confirmed from released prisoners. They had seen the army march down the King’s Highway. It was in the interests of all the people to watch and know where the kings might strike next. The final details would come from the mercenaries themselves.
And now we come to the second part of the covenant agreement.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
DISCOURSE: 22
MELCHIZEDEC BLESSING ABRAM
Gen 14:18-20. And Melchizedec king of Salem brought forth tread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
WAR is a calamity arising out of the state of fallen man. We have innumerable lusts which cannot be satisfied without trespassing on others, and which lead us to retaliate injuries with vindictive ferocity. Hence there is no nation, whether savage or civilized, which is not frequently engaged in war: and if there were any one nation determined to cultivate peace to the uttermost, it would still be necessary for them to learn the art of war, in order that they might be ready, when attacked, to repel aggression, and to maintain their liberties. The first war of which we read in history, was that recorded in the chapter before us. Chedorlaomer king of Elam, with three confederate kings, invaded the cities of the plain, who had combined for their mutual defence; and, having defeated the combined armies, took Sodom and Gomorrha, and plundered them of all that was valuable or useful. Abram, as we have already seen in his conduct to Lot, was a man of peace: and from the history before us it is clear, that he was not under the influence either of covetousness or ambition; but, living in the midst of hostile nations, he had wisely trained his servants, 318 in number, to the use of arms: and finding that his nephew Lot had been carried captive by the victorious invaders, he determined, with Gods help, to rescue him. Accordingly he armed his little band, and, with a few allies, pursued the victors. He speedily came up with them, and, by a stratagem suited to the inferiority of his force, prevailed against them. Having dispersed or slain his enemies, he recovered all the captives and the spoil; and returned in triumph to those whose cause he had espoused. In his way to them he received the testimonies of Gods approbation mentioned in the text. To elucidate these, together with the circumstances connected with them, we shall consider,
I.
The respect which Melchizedec paid to Abram
Melchizedec was a person of most singular and mysterious character
[Some have thought that he was the same as Shem: but Shems parentage was known; whereas Melchizedecs was not. Others have thought that he was Christ, who just for that occasion assumed the appearance of a man: but he was a person made like unto the Son of God; and therefore could not be the Son of God himself. Whoever he was, he was certainly a very eminent type of Christ. His name imported that he was king of righteousness, while at the same time, as king of Salem, he was king of peace [Note: See Heb 7:1-2.]. He was also a Priest of the most high God, ministering, not to one peculiar people, as the Levites afterwards did, but to mankind at large without any distinction. In these respects he typified the Lord Jesus, whose sceptre is a right sceptre [Note: Psa 45:6.], who maketh peace for us by the blood of his cross [Note: Col 1:20.], and who is the great High Priest that once ministered on earth, and is now passed into the heavens to offer incense before the throne of God [Note: Heb 4:14.]. In him alone, after Melchizedec, were combined the offices of King and Priest: He and he only is a Priest upon his throne [Note: Zec 6:13.].
Moreover, Melchizedec was a type of Christ in those things which we do not know concerning him, as well as in those things which we do know: yea, there were many things concealed from us, on purpose that he might be a more illustrious type of Christ. We are not informed of his birth, or parentage, or death. We are not told who preceded him in his office, or who followed him. He is merely introduced on this occasion as without father, without mother, without beginning of life or end of days, that he might fitly represent that adorable Jesus, who was without father, as Man, and without mother, as God, and who abideth a priest continually [Note: Heb 7:3.].]
As Gods servant, he came forth on a remarkable occasion to honour Abram
[Abram was returning with his victorious bands, laden with the spoil that he had recovered from the slaughtered kings. For the refreshment of his weary troops, Melchizedec brought forth bread and wine. It is certainly a striking coincidence, that this, even bread and wine, is the provision which our great High Priest has appointed to be received by all his people to refresh them after their conflicts: but we do not on the whole apprehend that there was any thing more intended by the bread and wine, than to administer suitable nourishment to Abram and his attendants after their fatigues. But from the other tokens of respect which Melchizedec shewed to Abram, there is much instruction to be derived.
Melchizedec blessed Abram for the zeal he had manifested, and blessed God for the success he had given. In blessing Abram he shewed what obligations we owe to those who go forth to fight in our defence, and by their valour procure to us the peaceful enjoyment of our possessions. If Abram had not stood forth on that occasion, what misery would have been entailed on those who had been taken captive, and on those who were left behind to bewail the loss of their dearest relatives, and experience the pressure of want and famine! And we also may easily conceive to what a deplorable state we of this nation should soon be reduced by our envious and ambitious neighbours, if we had not fleets and armies ready to maintain our cause. It is to be lamented indeed that all our warriors are not so pacific in their principles, and disinterested in their patriotism, as Abram was; but still they are instruments of good to us; and we ought to acknowledge with gratitude the benefits they confer upon us.
Had Melchizedec rested there, he had ill performed the office of a priest. But he proceeded to bless God also; shewing thereby, that all success must ultimately be traced to God, the giver of every good and perfect gift. It would have been impiety indeed not to give him the glory of so complete a victory, obtained by so small a force over four confederate and triumphant kings, without the loss of one single follower. But he should be acknowledged in every instance of success, whether more or less complete, and whether more or less dearly purchased: for it is He who giveth victory unto kings; he raiseth up one and casteth down another; he saves whether by many or by few.]
Let us now turn our attention to,
II.
The return which Abram made him
Had we been told that Abram gave Melchizedec a present in return for his kindness, we should merely have considered it as a proper compliment suited to the occasion. But we are informed that he gave him tithes of all. This circumstance is peculiarly important. If we attend to it, and consider it according to the light reflected upon it in other parts of Scripture, we shall find in it,
1.
An acknowledged duty
[Melchizedec was Gods Minister. In the performance of his high office, he had taken a lively interest in the concerns of Abram: he had not merely congratulated him as a friend, but blessed him officially as a priest; and had rendered thanks also to God for him as his Minister and representative. In short, he had been a kind of Mediator between God and Abram, acting, as Priests are ordained to do, for each, with and towards the other [Note: Heb 5:1.]. Abram, viewing him in this light, gave him the tithes, not as a friend, but as Gods representative. Doubtless Abram accompanied the present with unfeigned expressions of personal respect and gratitude: but still, though he might intend it in some measure as a token of love to man, he designed it principally as a tribute of piety to God. And herein he has shewn us our duty towards the Priests and Ministers of God. If they perform their office, as Melchizedec did, with a tender concern for those amongst whom they minister, and with real piety towards God, they ought to be esteemed very highly in love for their works sake: While they serve at the altar, they ought to live of the altar; and while they minister unto us of their spiritual things, we should feel happy in imparting to them of our temporal things. What if our property be earned with the sweat of our brow, or purchased, as Abrams was, at the risk of our life; we should account a portion of it due to God, who has enabled us to acquire it; and we should consider the support of his Ministry and his religion as having the first and most urgent demand upon us.]
2.
A hidden mystery
[We should have seen nothing particular in this transaction, if God had not been pleased to reveal it to us. But by the light of the New Testament we see in it nothing less than the abolition of the whole Jewish polity, and the establishment of Christianity upon its ruins.
The tribe of Levi were by Gods special command ordained to be priests; and the tithes of every thing (which God claimed as his property) were to be given to them for their support. They were to be considered as Gods representatives; and therefore they had, in this respect, a superiority above all the other tribes. But Melchizedec ministered in the priesthood four hundred years before they had any designation to the office; and an hundred and fifty years before Levi himself existed: and to him Abram, the father of all the tribes, paid tithes. The same superiority therefore which the tribe of Levi claimed on account of the priesthood above their brethren, Melchizedec claimed above Abram himself, and consequently above Levi also: for Levi being in the loins of his father Abram, may be considered as paying tithes in Abram. Here then at once we see, that Melchizedecs priesthood was superior to that of Levi. Now the priesthood of Christ was to be, not after the order of Levi, but after the order of Melchizedec; (for God foretold, even while the Levitical priesthood was in all its plenitude of sanctity and power, that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedec [Note: Psa 110:4.].) Christ therefore had a priesthood of a higher order than that of Levi. This further appears from the circumstance of his being appointed to the priesthood with an oath, (The Lord sware, and said, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec:) whereas the Levitical priests were appointed without any such solemnity. Moreover, as we before hinted, there was no successor to Melchizedec in his priestly office; which intimated, that Christ should have none in his; but that his priesthood should be everlasting: whereas the Levitical priests could not continue in their office by reason of death. From all this it appears, that Christs priesthood was intended to supersede that which was appointed by the law; and consequently, that the law itself, which was so intimately connected with the priesthood, was to yield to the dispensation which Christ should introduce. For if Melchizedecs priesthood, which was only typical, was superior to that of Levi, much more must Christs priesthood be superior; because the things which exalted the person and office of Melchizedec, were merely figurative and shadowy; whereas those which dignify the person and office of the Lord Jesus, are real and substantial; he is really in his person the eternal God, and will execute to all eternity the office he has undertaken [Note: See the whole seventh chapter to the Hebrews.].
Behold, then, how deep a mystery is contained in that which appears at first sight so unimportant! O that we may all bear it in mind, and present to him, not a portion of our property only, but our bodies and our souls also to be a living sacrifice unto God!]
To improve this subject, we would earnestly entreat of you these two things:
1.
Study the Scriptures with earnest prayer to God for the teaching of his good Spirit
[In every part of Gods word there are many important truths which cannot be discerned, unless God be pleased to open our eyes to see them, and our understandings to understand them. We do not mean by this observation to refer to mysteries merely, but to great practical truths. We may understand the letter of Scripture, and yet be extremely ignorant of its spirit. Take, for instance, such an expression as this, God is love: What, I ask, can we understand of it without humble meditation and prayer? Yet if we have meditated and prayed for ever so long a time, there would still be unsearchable riches in those words to reward our continued search; yea, eternity itself will not suffice to explore their full meaning. Exactly as we might have meditated a thousand years upon the text, and not found out the truths which by the light of subsequent revelations we discover in them, so it is with ten thousand other passages, which we cannot duly comprehend or feel, till God is pleased to reveal them to us by his Spirit. The Bible is a sealed book; and neither the unlearned nor the learned can open it of themselves [Note: Isa 29:11-12.]. It contains inexhaustible treasures of wisdom and knowledge which God alone can impart. Let us then search the Scriptures with humility and diligence, lifting up at the same time our voice to God for understanding: for it is God alone who giveth wisdom; out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding [Note: Pro 2:1-6.].]
2.
Let every mercy you receive, lead you to God the giver of it
[Ungodly men would have been rioting upon the spoil, and abusing the gifts which God had bestowed upon them [Note: 1Sa 30:16.]. But Abram and Melchizedec made this victory an occasion of glorifying God. O that we could learn of them! Our successes too often lead to intemperance and riot: yea, mercies of every other kind have but little effect to solemnize the spirit, or to change the heart. Deliverances from sickness, how little are they improved as they ought to be! Instead of devoting our renewed strength to the service of our God, we too commonly lose the impressions that were upon us, and forget the vows which we made in the day of our calamity. But let it not be thus in future: let the honour of God be dear to us: let it be the first desire of our hearts to render unto him our tribute of praise and thanksgiving: and the more visible his interpositions have been in our favour, the more earnest let our endeavours be to live to his glory.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he [was] the priest of the most high God.
Ver. 18. Melehizedek king of Salem. ] Who this Melchizedek was is much controverted. Some would have him to be the Holy Ghost. Others, the Lord Christ in the habit of a king and priest. The Jerusalem Targum saith, Hu Shem Rabba : this was Shem the Great. And of the same opinion are not a few of the Hebrew doctors, and others. But what should Shem do in Canaan; which country fell not to him, but to his brother Ham? To this they answer – That by the instinct of the Holy Ghost, he left his own posterity now fallen away, for most part, to idolatry, and came to the land of Canaan, a type of heaven, and the place from whence peace and salvation should be preached to all people. If this were so, it might very well be that Amraphel, who was of Shem’s lineage, and his fellow-soldiers, moved with reverence of this their great-grandfather Shem, might forbear to molest him at Salem, or invade his territories, when they wasted and smote all the neighbour nations. a But then, on the other side, if Melchizedek were Shem, 1. Why doth not Moses call him so, but change his name? 2. Why did not Abram, dwelling so near, visit him all this while, that was so near allied to him, and so highly respected by him, as it was meet? 3. Why did Melchizedek, the grandfather, take tithes of his nephew, to whom he should rather have given gifts and legacies? 2Co 12:14 Most likely, Melchizedek was a Canaanite of the Canaanites; yet a most righteous king and priest of the most High God, and so a pledge and firstfruits of the calling of the Gentiles to the knowledge and obedience of Jesus Christ, of whom he was a lively type. Heb 7:2
Brought forth bread and wine.
a Dr Prideaux Lect. de Melchls., p. 95.
b Tert. de Proescrip. advers. Haeret.
c Beehive of Rom. Church , chap. iii. fol. 93.
d Melancthon. Orat. de encom, eloquentiae.
e Pref. to his Book of the Sacraments.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Note the parenthetical clause Gen 14:18-20, which interrupts in order to interpret.
Melchizedek = King of righteousness, or by Figure of Speech Enallage, (App-6), righteous king. In History, Genesis 14. In Prophecy, Psalm 110. In Fulfilment, Hebrews 7. This might be Shem in type, Christ in antitype.
Salem. Called, on the bricks of the ruins of an ancient city in S. of Palestine, Uru-Salim = the city of Salim. The Tablets show that Palestine was at this time in possession of Egypt, and the Tablets are letters to the Pharaohs Amenophis III and IV. One is from Ebed-Tob, the successor of Melchizedek. Three times he says “not my father, not my mother installed me in this place but the Mighty King” (Compare Heb 7:1-4), i.e. he did not inherit by succession, but by the gift and “the arm of the Mighty King” (the deity).
wine. Same as Gen 9:20-24. See App-27.
priest. Yet no sacrifices. Hence a type of Him to Whom all shall bow (Psa 110:4, and pay their tithes and bring their gifts (Psalm 72). See note on Gen 9:27.
MOST HIGH GOD. Hebrew. El Elyon, so verses: Gen 14:19, Gen 14:20, Gen 14:22. See App-4. First occurance of this title. Compare first occurance in N.T. (Luk 1:76) “Highest”, in relation to the earth. See also Deu 32:8 (compare Act 17:26). Psaalm 8; Psa 9:18, Psa 9:27; and note on Num 24:16.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 19
ABRAHAM AND MELCHIZEDEK
“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Gen 14:18-20
Genesis 14 gives us the first account of war mentioned in Holy Scripture. When the war was over, Lot, his family, and his goods had been carried away into captivity. Lot laid up treasures for himself upon the earth; and thieves broke through and took all his treasures. When Abraham heard what had happened to Lot, his nephew by nature and his brother by grace, he armed three hundred and eighteen of his trained servants and rescued his beloved brother, his brothers family, his goods, the king of Sodom, and all his people. When Abraham returned from the slaughter of the kings, Melchizedek met him and blessed him. This meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek is recorded for our learning and admonition in Gen 14:18-20.
I know that Melchizedek is a type of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hebrews 7 makes that perfectly clear. However, as I read this chapter, I am always constrained to think, – What a blessed picture Abraham is of our Savior! What he did for Lot is exactly what Christ has done for his people.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, because of his great love for us, took us to be his brethren from eternity. We were taken into captivity and bondage by sin. We lost everything. Satan thoroughly spoiled us. He held us in the dark dungeon of sin and death. When we could do nothing to help ourselves. Christ Jesus, our Elder Brother, like Abraham, came to deliver us, not with three hundred and eighteen armed men, but by the merits of his blood and the power of his grace.
He defeated our enemies and took them captive who had held us captive (Col 2:13-15). He ransomed us from the hands of Gods offended justice (Gal 3:15). He set us free by the power of his grace, restoring all that we had lost (Eph 2:1-13). Christ has defeated all our adversaries, forever delivered us from their power, and made us more than conquerors in him by the power of his grace (Rom 8:33-39).
Yet, in this particular passage of Scripture I am sure that the Holy Spirit has set Abraham before us as a representative, a type and picture of every believer in this world. Abraham was the father of the faithful, allegorically the father of all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. In the history of Abraham, every believer can read his own biography. His temptations, trials, tragedies and triumphs were prophetic pictures of those things that every follower of Christ must experience. Like Abraham, all the children of Abraham must, through much tribulation, enter into the kingdom of God. As Abraham here represents the believer living in this world. Melchizedek is a type of our great King and Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ.
A Warfare Engaged
Abraham engaged in a warfare, deliberately and purposefully. Though he was a man of peace., he lived among men of war. In Genesis 14, we see this man who was the friend of God taking up arms against his godless enemies, because of the great evil they had done. Like Abraham, the sons and daughters of Abraham are engaged in a warfare so long as we live in this world.
The believer is a soldier, a good soldier of Jesus Christ. In the Word of God, the believer is compared to a soldier engaged in warfare more often than he is compared to anything else, except perhaps a sheep. He is a man of peace. Yet, he is a man of war. We have wars within and wars without. Sometimes our wars arise, like Abrahams, from erring brethren. Sometimes they arise from providential trials. Often they arise from enemies without, and more often from enemies within; but as long as we live in this world, we are at war. We must, as soldiers on the battlefield, carry our swords always drawn. We must protect ourselves with the shield of faith and the helmet of salvation, stand fast having our feet shod with the gospel of peace, and march onward carrying the weapon of all-prayer. The believer must never feel himself at ease as long as he is on this side of Jordan. Here, in this world, we are in the enemys land. Expect a foe behind every bush. At the end of everyday, if we have not fallen prey to some hellish foe, let us adore and give thanks to God for his almighty grace which has kept us. Like Abraham, we are on a battlefield. Our enemies are sin, Satan, the world, and error. We must fight the good fight of faith, for ourselves, for our brethren, and for the glory of God.
We fight against powerful odds. Abraham had only three hundred and eighteen loyal servants at his command. Yet, in the name of God, he marched against and defeated the armies of the kings of the nations around him. He fought in Gods name, for Gods cause. Therefore, he fought in Gods strength. Failure was not even a possibility.
Our warfare is one that is carried on in faith. Abraham was a man of faith. The spirit of his life was simple confidence in God. Had he gone out against the kings of the nations by any other power than faith in Christ, he would have fallen. This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. And the weapon of faith is the blood of the Lamb. We fight against our inward sins by faith in Christ, not by resolutions of our wills. We fight against the world by faith, trusting God, not by ingenuity. We fight against heresy by faith, believing the Word of God, not by logic, history, tradition, and popularity polls. We fight against Satan by faith, trusting him by whose omnipotent hand the fiend of hell is bound and governed, not by the strength of our own wills. We would be wise to heed the admonition given by C. H. Spurgeon. — Live near to Jesus, rest upon the power of his atonement and the prevalence of his plea, and then go forward against every enemy without and every foe within, and you shall be more than conquerors.
We have the blessed consolation of knowing that our battle is right. In this great battle, carried on by faith, Abraham had a God-given right to do what he did. The whole land of Canaan was his (Gen 13:14-16). The kings of the nations had no business there. They were invaders. God, who gave him the land, promised his unfailing presence to protect him in it (Gen 12:3; Gen 15:1).
Is there any way we can properly apply this fact to ourselves? Indeed there is. If you belong to Christ, Satan has no right to hold you (Joh 12:30-31). If you have been justified from sin, sin has no right to rule you (Rom 6:14-18). If God is true, error (that which denies his truth) has no right to exist. If Christ is our Master, the world has no right to our hearts. God is with us, and in the name of God we shall be victorious (Psa 118:11-12).
The warfare in which we are engaged demands diligence and the use of all means. Abraham did not sit still and say, Well, the Lord will deliver Lot. That would not have been and act of faith, but presumption. Believing God, Abraham called upon all his servants and went to war. We must do the same. We must engage all the servants God has given us to fight the good fight of faith. So long as we are on this battlefield, let us be engaged in prayer, skilful in the knowledge and use of Gods Word, mighty in praise, and found in the company of our brethren, our comrades in grace.
This is a warfare from which there is no discharge until victory is won. Abraham did not lay down his sword until he had gotten all that he went after and defeated every foe. Blessed is that man or woman who, believing God, follows his example (Php 3:4-14). We must give ourselves no rest so long as sin is in our hearts, one of Gods elect is unconverted, error is found in Gods earth, or one breath is left in the nostrils of that old dragon, Satan. We must bring back everything that has been lost. Everything must be brought in subjection to Christ. We cannot rest until it is; and it shall be. Victory shall be ours (Rom 16:20).
Visitation Of Grace
Abraham enjoyed a visitation of grace. Many debate whether Melchizedek was Christ, or just a type of Christ. Either way, he represents Christ visiting his servant on the earth. Battle weary soldiers, engaged in the cause of Christ, may well expect and anticipate a visitation of grace. As Christ showed himself to Abraham, by the appearing of Melchizedek, he will show himself to you. He knows that his warriors need strengthening, comforting, and encouraging. As he came to Shadrach, Meshech, and Obed-nego in the fiery furnace, the Son of God will come to you in your hour of need.
Why did the Lord Jesus now appear to Abraham under the type of Melchizedek? Abraham was weary and needed refreshing. Being a man of sinful flesh, he may have been somewhat self-elated by his victory (Luk 10:17-20). If that were the case, the best cure for pride is the sight of Christ (Job 42:5-6). The best cure for indifference is his presence (Rev 3:21). Perhaps the greatest reason for this gracious visitation was the fact that Abraham was about to be tried in a far more subtle way than he had ever been tried before and needed to be prepared for it (Gen 14:21-24). The king of Sodom, a godless, reprobate man, was about to offer Abraham great wealth and the honor of his ungodly crown. Nothing could equip Abraham or us to honor God and strengthen him and us for temptation like communion with Christ (Son 1:2-4; Son 1:12-14).
Abraham had brought back the captives. He had every right to the spoils. If he had taken them, no one could charge him with any evil. What could be wrong with accepting the accolades of an ungodly king and an ungodly nation? The fact is, believers live by a higher rule than other men. Their concern is not for their rights, their own honor, or the riches of this world. The ungodly live for and seek those things (Mat 6:32). Believers live for and seek the will and glory of God in Christ.
How did Christ appear to Abraham? Melchizedek, the Lord Jesus in type, came to Abraham the way he comes to all his people, as a royal, kingly priest. He came to Abraham as a king with power, a king with power over Abraham, his servant, power over his enemies, with power over all things. He who is God our Savior is the sovereign Monarch of the universe. He is also our great High Priest. Melchizedek came to Abraham as a priest with a sacrifice – bread and wine, tokens of our Saviors perfect obedience and blood atonement.
What did Melchizedek do for Abraham? – He brought forth bread and wine. This is the food of faith (the righteousness and atonement of Christ) which we must eat (Joh 6:53-56). The bread and wine foreshadowed the elements used by our Lord in establishing the blessed ordinance of the Lords Supper . When it is truly observed, that gospel ordinance is a spiritual feast, an act of faith. Melchizedek revealed Gods greatness to his servant Abraham. He conveyed Gods blessing to Abraham. He blessed God for Abraham as a priest, and taught Abraham to bless God. In all these things, he portrayed our Lord Jesus Christ, the believers King and Priest.
A Type Of Christ
Some say that Melchizedek was Noahs son, Shem. Some say that he was an angelic, celestial being. Some say he was Christ. Melchizedek was a man who was a great type of our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 7:3-4; Heb 7:15). Consider how great this man was! This man (both Melchizedek and Christ) was without father or mother. If Melchizedek was a mere man, no one knew his parents. Certainly, this is stated to remind us of the eternality of our Savior. He who became a man to save us is God, the eternal Son. He was the priest of the Most High God. He was not of the Aaronic or Levitical orders, a priest of Israel, but of God, Gods special priest. He was not a priest, but the Priest. He was King. Again, he was not a king, but the King, the King of Righteousness and the King of Salem, that is to say, the King of Peace. He is called the King of Righteousness and afterward the King of Peace, because righteousness must be established before peace can be given (Psa 85:10; Isa 32:17; Rom 3:21-26; Rom 5:1; Col 1:20). This man was both the Priest and the King, as I said, not of Levi; but of Judah. And the Scriptures tell us that our Lord Jesus Christ is not a priest after the order of Aaron, or Levi, but after the order of Melchizedek.
The Levitical Priests were unclean; and therefore had to make sacrifices for their own sins and then for the peoples. — Christ had no sin.
The Levitical Priests were mortal. — Christ is a Priest forever.
The Lord Jesus Christ, Gods own dear Son, is our Melchizedek. He is the great High Priest (Heb 7:21-25). He is a Priest by Gods oath (Psa 110:4). He is a Surety of a better covenant. He is an unchangeable Priest. He is a saving Priest. He is an abiding, prevailing, propitiatory Priest (1Jn 2:1-2).
An Act Of Consecration
Abraham gave Melchizedek tithes of all that he had. We recognize that tithing was a requirement of the law; but the law had not yet been given. Like believers today, Abraham here made a free, voluntary gift, compelled by nothing but gratitude. It was a reasonable gift. The tithe Abraham gave was an acknowledgement that all that he possessed belonged to God. By his gift, he was saying, I am yours. The tithe he gave was a gift of faith. He gave it with confidence that the God he worshipped by his gift would supply all his needs. If we would worship God with our gifts, we must bring our gifts to him like Abraham brought this gift to Melchizedek. We cannot worship God by paying a tithe. That was a legal necessity in the Mosaic age. We worship God by bringing free gifts of gratitude and faith to him (2Co 9:7, voluntarily, as symbols both of our consecration to him and our faith in him, saying
Hail, Melchizedek divine! Christ, the Great High Priest is mine!
Here, before Your throne I fall! Take not a tithe, but take me all!
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Melchizedek
1 Melchizedek, type of Christ the King-Priest. The type strictly applies to the priestly work of Christ in resurrection, since Melchizedek presents only the memorials of sacrifice, bread and wine. “After the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 6:20) refers to the royal authority and unending duration of Christ’s high priesthood (Heb 7:23); (Heb 7:24). The Aaronic priesthood was often interrupted by death. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, as King of righteousness, King of peace; (Isa 11:4-9); (Heb 7:2) and in the endlessness of his priesthood; but the Aaronic priesthood typifies His priestly work.
most high God
2 “Most high,” or “most high God” (Hebrew, El Elyon). “Elyon means simply “highest.”
(1) The first revelation of this name (Gen 14:8) indicates its distinctive meanings. Abram, returning from his victory over the confederated kings (Gen 14:1-17) is met by Melchizedek, King of Salem. . . The “priest of the most high God” (El Elyon), who blesses Abram in the name of El Elyon, “possessor of heaven and earth.” This revelation produced a remarkable impression upon the patriarch. Not only did he at once give Melchizedek “tithes of all” the spoil of the battle, but when the King of Sodom offered other of that spoil to Abram, his answer was; “I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord Jehovah, the most high God El-Elyon, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet,” etc. (Gen 14:18-23).
(a) The Lord (Jehovah) is know to a Gentile king (Melchizedek) by the name “most high god” El Elyon);
(b) a Gentile is the priest of El Elyon and
(c) His distinctive character as most high God is “possessor of heaven and earth.”
Appropriately to this Gentile knowledge of God by His name “Most High,” we read that “the Most High divided to the nationsthat is, Gentiles] their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam,” etc. (Deu 32:8). As “possessor heaven and earth,” it was the prerogative of the Most High to distribute the earth among the nations according to whatever principle He chose. That principle is declared (Deu 32:8). To the same purport is the use of the name in Daniel, the book of Gentile prophecy; (Dan 3:26); (Dan 4:17); (Dan 4:24); (Dan 4:25); (Dan 4:32); (Dan 4:34); (Dan 4:35); (Dan 5:18); (Dan 5:21).
(2) As “possessor of heaven and earth,” the most high God has and exercises authority in both spheres:
(a) the heavenly authority of El Elyon (for example (Dan 4:35); (Dan 4:37); (Isa 14:13); (Isa 14:14); (Mat 28:18).
(b) the earthly authority of El Elyon (e.g). (Deu 32:8); (Psa 9:2-5); (Psa 21:7); (Psa 47:2-4); (Psa 56:2-3); (Psa 82:6); (Psa 82:8); (Psa 83:16-18); (Psa 91:9-12); (2Sa 22:14); (2Sa 22:15); (Dan 5:18).
See, for other names of Deity:
(See Scofield Gen 1:1).
(See Scofield Gen 2:4).
(See Scofield Gen 2:7)
(See Scofield Gen 15:2).
(See Scofield Gen 17:1).
(See Scofield Gen 21:33
(See Scofield 1Sa 1:3).
Melchizedek
Meaning King of Righteousness.
Compare (Heb 7:2).
Salem
Meaning Peace.
Compare (Heb 7:2).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
king: Psa 76:2, Heb 7:1, Heb 7:2
bread: Mat 26:26-29, Gal 6:10
the priest: Psa 110:4, Heb 5:6, Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20, Heb 7:1, Heb 7:3, Heb 7:10-22
the most: Rth 3:10, 2Sa 2:5, Psa 7:17, Psa 50:14, Psa 57:2, Mic 6:6, Act 7:48, Act 16:17
Reciprocal: Gen 41:45 – priest of Gen 47:22 – of the priests Exo 2:16 – the priest Lev 9:22 – his hand Num 18:28 – and ye shall Deu 23:4 – Because they met Jos 10:1 – General Jdg 8:5 – loaves 2Sa 5:6 – Jerusalem Pro 3:9 – General Dan 3:26 – the most Zec 6:13 – a priest Luk 24:44 – in the law Luk 24:50 – he lifted
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gen 14:18. It has been a great question among expositors, who Melchizedek was. The Jewish rabbins say that he was Shem, the son of Noah, who was king and priest to those that were descended from him, according to the patriarchal model. And it must be allowed to be probable that Shem was alive at this time, and that he was a great prince. But as Shems genealogy and birth are recorded in Scripture, and were well known, it could, with no propriety, be said of him, as the apostle says of Melchizedek, that he was without father (namely, mentioned in the sacred history) and without mother, without beginning of days or end of life: nor is it at all probable that Moses should introduce Shem under the name of Melchizedek, without any apparent reason, or any the least intimation of his meaning. Many Christian writers have thought that this was an appearance of the Son of God himself, our Lord Jesus, known to Abram at this time by the name of Melchizedek. But this is not consistent with what the same apostle affirms in the same place, Heb 7:3, who says, not that he was the Son of God, but that he was made like him, , that is, was made a type of him; nor is it consistent with his affirming that Christ was constituted a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Besides, it is said that Melchizedek was king of Salem: but we are sure Christ never reigned over any particular city as a temporal prince. It seems sufficiently evident that he was a mere man; but from whom he was descended, or who were his immediate parents or successors, God has not seen fit to inform us: nay, it is probable that God designedly concealed these things from us, that he might be the more perfect type of his eternal Son. He brought forth bread and wine For the refreshment of Abram and his soldiers, and in congratulation of their victory. This he did as king. As priest of the most high God he blessed Abram, which, no doubt, was a greater refreshment to Abrams soul than the bread and wine were to his body.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 14:18-20. Abraham and Melchizedek.This section comes in a little awkwardly, for we should have expected Gen 14:21-24 to have followed Gen 14:17. It would be hazardous to infer that it is a later insertion. Melchizedek is a priest-king of Salem, i.e. probably Jerusalem, the name Uru-Salim being attested as early as the Tell el-Amarna correspondence (Jdg 19:10*). His name probably means My king is Sidiq (Jos 10:1). The deity, whom he serves as priest, is described as El Elyon, i.e. God Most High. Whether a deity with this title was actually worshipped among the Canaanites we do not know; probably the narrator wished to represent the one true God as worshipped even then at Jerusalem, but was unwilling to put the name of Israels God, Yahweh, into the lips of one who did not belong to the chosen people. Yahweh must be intended, for the priestly blessing would not be represented as uttered in the name of a heathen deity, moreover He is described as Maker (mg.) of heaven and earth, and therefore the only God. Abraham would not have sworn to any other, though the identification with Yahweh in MT of Gen 14:22 is probably not original, LORD being absent in LXX and Syr. To the victorious little force Melchizedek brings out bread and wine to refresh them after their exhausting march, victory, pursuit, and return, and utters his priestly blessing on Abraham. The patriarch responds by paying him tithes of all, i.e. of the spoil. This is not necessarily inconsistent with his refusal in Gen 14:22 f. By right of conquest all belonged to him, he had, therefore, the right to dedicate the tithe to the sanctuary; for himself, however, he will take nothing.
Gen 14:21-24. Abrahams Magnanimity.Captives as well as property belonged to Abraham. The king of Sodom appeals to his generosity for the former. But Abraham in reply lifts up his hand (render lift for have lift) to heaven in solemn oath that he will take nothing even of the most worthless, not to mention the more valuable goods. He is too independent to be indebted to the king of Sodom. It is a strangely different Abraham from the man who can enrich himself with royal gifts at the price of his wifes honour (Gen 12:13; Gen 12:16). It is curious that he speaks as if all his spoil consisted of goods captured from Sodom, or the five cities, whereas that actually taken by the four kings must have been much more, to say nothing of what belonged to themselves. That which the young men have eaten he does not refund; it belongs to the expenses of the expedition. But he does not impose on others the high standard of self-abnegation he lays down for himself; he may waive his own right, but he has no title to waive the rights of his alliesthey must have their share.
Gen 14:24. Read mg.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem {h} brought forth bread and wine: and he [was] the priest of the most high God.
(h) For Abram and his soldiers refreshment, not to offer sacrifice.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
"Melchizedek" was probably a title rather than a proper name. It means "King of Righteousness." Compare Adonizedek ("Lord of Righteousness") in Jos 10:1; Jos 10:3. However theophoric names were common in the ancient Near East, so his name may have meant "My king is Sedeq" or "Milku is righteous," Sedeq and Milku presumably being the names of gods. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 316.] The names of both the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 14:2) are compounds of a Hebrew word translated "evil" (cf. Gen 13:13).
Bread and wine were the royal food and drink of the day. Many writers have commented on their typical significance, though there is no basis for connecting them directly with the elements used in the Lord’s Supper. Many ancient Near Easterners used bread and wine in making covenants. [Note: Donald J. Wiseman, "Abraham in History and Tradition. Part II: Abraham the Prince," Bibliotheca Sacra 134:535 (July-September 1977):236.] Melchizedek, the first priest mentioned in the Bible, evidently gave a royal banquet in Abram’s honor. In view of their characters and geographical proximity, Abram and Melchizedek may have been friends before this meeting. Melchizedek may have been Abram’s king to whom the patriarch was paying an expected obligation. [Note: Loren Fisher, "Abraham and His Priest-King," Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):268.]