(This article was first written as a research paper for a Doctor of Ministry class on the Psalter at Reformed Theological Seminary. It has been slightly edited for publication here.)
Melchizedek appears to us as a mysterious, cryptic figure in the Bible. He only appears briefly in Genesis 14, and then he is referenced by name and office by David in Psalm 110:4 and the author of Hebrews in chapters 5, 6, and 7 in connection to the Messiah. Even though he is an obscure figure, he serves to bind our Bibles together, appearing in the Pentateuch, the Psalter, and the New Testament epistles as the Biblical understanding of the role and offices of the Messiah are developed. Due to his obscurity, many have sought to postulate as to his identity. John Currid notes, “A Midrashic explanation is that Melchizedek is the patriarch Shem, the son of Noah, who is still alive in Abraham’s day.”1 Others have speculated that Melchizedek is an angelic being, while some contend that he is a Christophanic vision of the pre-incarnate Christ. While these views may be appealing, they stand in opposition to the understanding of who Melchizedek is to both David and the author of Hebrews. Melchizedek is a priest-king by the divine oath of Yahweh who serves as a type of the future Messiah who will perfectly fulfill the roles of son, priest, and king.
Hamilton defines biblical theology as the “interpretive perspective reflected in the way the biblical authors have presented their understanding of earlier Scripture.”2 He writes, “One of the primary aims of biblical theology is to understand and embrace the worldview of the biblical authors. In order to do this, we have to know the story they take for granted, the connections they see between the events in that story, and the ways they read later parts of the story by the light that emanates from its earlier parts.”3 This paper aims to understand the interpretive perspective of David as he understood earlier scriptures to develop the idea that the Messiah who was to come from his lineage would be a royal priest-king after the order of Melchizedek, then to see how the author of Hebrews has further explored and developed David’s understanding in light of the incarnation and the Christ event.
Introducing Melchizedek
Melchizedek only has one historical appearance in Genesis 14:17-24. He surprisingly enters the narrative without warning and then vanishes as suddenly as he appears. Yet for the Biblical authors, this character and his offices have substantial significance in understanding the Messiah. Melchizedek enters the scene upon Abraham’s4 divinely enabled victory in battle over the four Mesopotamian kings and his rescue of Lot. There is much to be gleaned about him from Moses’ account of his interaction with Abraham.
Melchizedek is first introduced as a king. His name, which is Old Canaanite5, literally means ‘My king is righteous’ or ‘King of Righteousness.’ The author of Hebrews prefers the latter translation (Hebrews 7:2). He is the King of Salem, which Psalm 76:2 equates to Jerusalem. This will become significant in David’s understanding as he defeats the Jebusites in 2 Samuel 5, capturing Jerusalem, and leads the procession of the Ark of the Covenant to rest upon Zion in 2 Samuel 6. In Psalm 2, David understands that God has set the Messiah to reign as King on “Zion, my holy hill” in Jerusalem. Salem also means peace, so Melchizedek is also understood to be a ‘king of peace.” Again, the author of Hebrews (7:2) picks up on this significance in application to Christ, who crushes the head of the serpent, defeats sin and death, and overcomes the enmity between man and God, ushering in peace.
Secondly, Moses introduces Melchizedek as a priest. This is significant because he is the first explicitly named priest in the Bible. What is striking is that this gentile king-priest is not a polytheistic priest to a plethora of Canaanite deities. Rather, he is a priest of El Elyon, God Most High, a name that Abraham attributes to Yahweh in Genesis 14:22. Melchizedek is a monotheistic priest of Yahweh to whom he worships and serves as the Creator and Possessor of heaven and earth. As a royal priest-king of Yahweh, Melchizedek is seen mediating blessings to Abraham as one who also loves and serves Yahweh.
Two other aspects of Melchizedek’s appearance in Genesis, which are significant for the author of Hebrews, are his lack of a genealogy (Hebrews 7:3) and the fact that Abraham, the patriarchal father of Israel and the Levites, tithes a tenth of his spoils of war to this priest-king (Hebrews 7:6-10). His lack of genealogy is not to suggest that he doesn’t have parents or children, but for the author Hebrews, who notices that all significant people in Genesis have a genealogy associated with them, picks up on this literary significance, “which makes him like the son of God, ‘without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life’ (Hebrews 7:3).”6 The fact that Abraham pays tithes to Melchizedek, with Levi in his loins, presupposes the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood over the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods which will later be established in the Mosaic Covenant.
The Development of David’s Biblical Theology Concerning the Royal Priest-King of Psalm 110:4
We read in Psalm 110:4, “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”7 Under the Mosaic covenant and in the Davidic covenant, there was a clear separation and delineation of the office of king and priest. Therefore, it is surprising when we read in Psalm 110:4 that David expects and proclaims that the Messiah will be a priest and king like Melchizedek. The question is, how did David discern this theological truth? Clearly, David is writing Psalm 110 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as Jesus explicitly said he was in Mark 12:36. One only has to consider Paul’s repeated New Testament use of mysterion to understand that at times, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, biblical authors in the Old Testament wrote of things that go beyond their full ability to comprehend. It is possible that God revealed to David through divine revelation something entirely new concerning the Melchizedekian office of the Messiah. Even if this is so, David must have come to discern through his inspired study of the Scriptures that the Messiah would be a priest-king, that he would be one who served perfectly “after the order of Melchizedek.”
David was a man after God’s heart and Israel's anointed king. In Deuteronomy 17:18, Moses gives instructions for the future king of Israel, “when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests.” David is undoubtedly obeying this command.
Psalm 1 is a messianic psalm about the future king from David’s loins, but it’s not entirely divorced from the life of David. In verse 2, he writes of the blessed man, “his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.” The “his law” in this verse could be understood as Yahweh’s Torah or syntactically could be understood as the king’s individual copy written by his own hand of the Torah8, which he studies, memorizes, meditates upon, and stores up in his heart. Either way, the blessed man delights in and meditates on the Torah of Yahweh.
Therefore, as David writes, delights in, and meditates day and night on his Torah, he sees both typological and covenantal patterns, which lead him to understand that the Messiah who is to come from his linage will serve in the dual office of priest and king, that the messiah will be a royal priest after the order of Melchizedek. We must explore these two patterns to discern how David concluded that the Messiah from his loins would be a royal priest-king.
The Typological Priest-King in the Torah
The combination of the offices of priest and king in one person is a usual occurrence in the Mesopotamian cultures of the Ancient Near East. However, the combination of these offices never occurs explicitly in the history of Israel, the covenant people of God in the Old Testament, and yet David is able to discern, from the Scriptures, that the Messiah will combine these offices into a royal priest-king. He is able to do this because the office of the priest-king is typified in the writings of Moses. There is historical correspondence and escalation of these offices in Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the nation of Israel. These persons are nowhere explicitly called priests or kings; however, they are seen to be exercising dominion, leading in a kingly fashion, and mediating in a priestly role.
Adam “is the Bible’s archetypal priest-king in God’s kingdom.”9 God created Adam in his own image and likeness, placed him in the Edenic temple garden, and charged him to exercise dominion and to fulfill the mediatorial role of the priesthood in the sanctuary. The kingly role of Adam is expressed in several ways. First, Adam is created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Matthew Emadi writes, “Ontological status results in functional purpose. In other words, to be made in God’s image brings with it the responsibility of kingship.”10 Secondly, Adam was created in the image of God for the purpose of exercising dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26, 28). Adam exercises this dominion, expressing his kingly authority, as he names the animals of God’s creation and then names his wife, “she shall be called Woman” (Genesis 2:18-23).
Adam also served as a priest in the Garden of Eden. As Hamilton writes, “Yahweh built creation as a cosmic temple, and into that cosmic temple he placed a living, breathing, worshipping representation of himself and his own authority, character, presence, and rule.”11 The Garden of Eden was the first earthly temple established by God. It was the dwelling place of God upon the Earth. It was the place of God’s presence upon the earth. The Garden of Eden was the place where Adam, the first priest, walked with God. The dwelling place of God upon the earth begins with the garden temple of Eden, moves to the Tabernacle in the time of Moses, then is established in the Temple during the days of Solomon, is experienced in the incarnation of Christ as the son of God comes and tabernacles among us (John 1:14), is now the Church (Ephesians 2:11-22), and eschatologically will be eternally lived out in the New Heaven and the New Earth (Ezekiel 47; Revelation 21-22). A priesthood is associated with each dwelling place of God upon the earth.
Adam was created outside of the garden temple and then placed within the garden temple (Genesis 2:7-8) to mediate the knowledge of God to all creation and to spread the image of God to all creation. In this way, he served as God’s priest in God’s temple. Moses clearly understood the priestly function of Adam, and David was obviously able to interpret Moses correctly. In Genesis 2:15, Moses writes, “The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” Beale notes,
Genesis 2:15 says God placed Adam in the Garden ‘to cultivate [i.e., work] it and to keep it'. The two Hebrew words for ‘cultivate and keep' are usually translated ‘serve and guard [or keep]’ elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is true that the Hebrew word usually translated ‘cultivate’ can refer to an agricultural task when used by itself (e.g., 2:5; 3:23). When, however, these two words (verbal [‘abad and samar] and nominal forms) occur together in the Old Testament (within an approximately 15-word range), they refer either to Israelites serving God and guarding [keeping] God's word (approximately 10 times) or to priests who 'keep' the service (or charge) of the tabernacle (see Num. 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chr. 23:32; Ezek. 44:14).12
What Beale and others have carefully noticed is that Moses intentionally uses priestly language, which will later become synonymous with the Levitical functions in the Tabernacle and Temple, to describe the gardening work of Adam in the Garden.
In this priestly function, Adam is then given the priestly responsibility to guard and keep the command given in Genesis 2:16-17. When he fails to uphold his priestly responsibility and violates the covenant of works, Adam and Eve are banished from the garden temple—the place of the presence of God upon the earth. Beal writes of Adam, “Thus, the implication may be that God places Adam into a royal temple to begin to reign as his priestly vice-regent. In fact, Adam should always best be referred to as a 'priest-king,' since it is only after the fall that priesthood is separated from kingship, though Israel's eschatological expectation is of a messianic priest-king.”13 While this office is separated after the Fall, Moses presents types of Adam, who function as both king and priest.
Noah functions as a new Adam as he ushers in a new creation and a new covenant and even experiences a fall like Adam’s. At Noah’s birth, his father, Lamech, prophesizes, “Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands” (Genesis 5:29).” His language is reminiscent of Genesis 3:15 and places Noah in the linage of the seed of the woman. Hope is placed in him for relief and deliverance from the violence engulfing the world. Noah is a righteous man who is blameless in his generation and who finds favor in the eyes of Yahweh.
Although Noah is not called a king and is not explicitly given the Adamic command to subdue the earth and have dominion, he is seen to function in a ruling, kingly fashion. He faithfully leads his people through the de-creation event of the flood and into the new re-creation post-flood. He is given dominion and authority over the animals in a new way; they are now food for him and delivered into his hand. As such, the fear and dread of Noah and mankind are placed within the beasts of the earth (Genesis 9:2).
The priestly function of Noah is first seen in that God reestablishes the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply with him (9:1). Like Adam, Noah is commissioned to mediate the knowledge of God to all creation and to spread the image of God to all creation. As Noah gets on the Ark, he is to separate the clean animals from the unclean animals. After the Flood, Noah is seen building altars and making sacrifices to Yahweh on behalf of all mankind. In Genesis 8:21, “the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma” of Noah’s sacrifice, indicating that Noah’s priestly offering was acceptable to Yahweh and that it served as a propitiatory sacrifice appeasing God’s wrath.
When God calls Abraham out of the land of Ur of the Chaldeans and enters into covenant with him, God promises Abraham that “kings shall come from you” (Genesis 17:6). Abraham is nowhere called a king; however, we do see Abraham functioning in the capacity of kingship. The first explicit mention of the office of king in the narrative of the Bible is in Genesis 14. In this scene, four foreign kings go to war against the five local kings of the Dead Sea area. These five cities of the Dead Sea region were vassals to Chedorlaomer for twelve years. In the thirteenth year of their service, they rebelled against Chedorlamore. The four foreign kings make preparations and respond to the rebellion. The five local kings lose the battle. Two of their kings die, falling into a bitumen pit. Those who survived the battle fled north to the hill country. The victorious kings pillage and plunder Sodom and Gomorrah, taking away all of their possessions and taking their people captive. In the seizing of this plunder, Lot, the nephew of Abraham, is taken captive and carried to Dan in the northern Golan Heights.
Abraham gets word from a warrior who had escaped the battle that Lot had been taken captive by the four foreign kings. In response, Abraham gathers his 318 fighting men and goes to battle against the kings in order to rescue Lot. Abraham’s leadership, skill, and military prowess are more than the four kings are able to overcome. He is successful in defeating them, and he rescues Lot.
In this scene, Abraham is seen to be functioning as a king, as an equal to the kings he fights against. He leads his men into battle against kings, is an excellent military strategist, redeems Lot and the women who were taken captive, and seizes the spoils of his victory in war. Dempster writes, “Abraham is portrayed as a conquering warrior who is able to defeat the [four] Mesopotamian armies with only 318 servants. Abraham is a vastly superior ‘king’ because of the obvious supernatural help that he receives.”14 With the first mention of kings, Abraham is seen to function as they function and have victory over them; therefore, while he is not explicitly mentioned as holding the office of king, he is clearly seen functioning as a king.
Not only does Abraham function as a king, but he also functions in the role of a priest. When Abraham is called out of Ur of the Chaldeans, God speaks to him. In the trifold promise of Genesis 12:1-3, God promises Abraham offspring, land, and universal blessing. Abraham responded to this promise of God by traveling through the promised land of Canaan, building altars, and making sacrifices to Yahweh. He builds altars in Shechem, Bethel, and Hebron. In doing so, he is claiming the land God has promised him, restoring the right and proper worship of God, and mediating between God and the people.
The next typological priest-king in the Torah is the nation of Israel. When we consider the nation of Israel, we should consider it as a collective whole, or what Hamilton defines as a “corporate personality.”15 The nation of Israel is personified as an individual person to whom God makes his covenant. This is seen in the way that God interacts with Israel, especially in the fact that God instructs Moses to proclaim to Pharoah, “Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22). In calling Israel his firstborn Son, God is proclaiming that Israel is the new Adam, the son of God. As the son of God, Israel is seen to be dutifully carrying out the creation mandate given to Adam and Noah to be fruitful and multiply the imago dei upon the face of the earth. We read of Israel while in the land of Goshen in Exodus 1:7, “But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them.”
In the nation of Israel, under the Mosaic Covenant, the offices of king and priest are clearly separated as they have been since the fall of Adam. However, the nation of Israel, like Adam, and Noah and Abraham who followed him, is to serve in a similar role—conquering and subduing land, exercising dominion, and mediating the knowledge of God to the nations. As God enters the Mosaic Covenant with the nation of Israel, he tells them, “if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5-6). One of God’s purposes in the Mosaic Covenant was to establish a kingdom of priests; to establish Israel as a royal priesthood. Beyond the priesthood function of Israel, it is God’s design that kings will also come from Israel. God gives instructions in the Torah, Deuteronomy 17:14-20, concerning the future kings that will come from Israel once they are in the promised land. By entering into a Covenant with Israel, God establishes the nation as a son-priest-king like Adam, and like Adam in the garden and Noah after the flood, Israel will fail in their role once in the promised land of Canaan.
The Appearance of Priest-Kings Associated with the Ratification of Covenants
A second typological pattern that would have influenced David’s understanding of the Melchizedekian priesthood of the Messiah is the appearance of Gentile Priest-Kings at the ratification of the two previous Covenants, the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. Moses carefully and intentionally narrates the events of Genesis 14-15 and Exodus 17-19 so that the reader of the Torah sees these two events mirroring each other. Emadi and Sailhamer lay out the comparisons as follows: Abraham goes to war with the nations (Genesis 14:1-12), and Moses goes to war with the nations (Exodus 17:8-10), Abraham has a divine victory (Genesis 14:14-17) and Moses has a divine victory (Exodus 17:11-13), Abraham meets with the Gentile Priest-King Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20) and Moses meets with the Gentile Priest-King Jethro (Exodus 18:1-12), God establishes his covenant with Abraham (Exodus 15) and God establishes the Mosaic covenant (Exodus 19-24).16 The appearance of these Gentile Priest-Kings at the ratification of these covenants does two things. First, it is a reminder that the ultimate purpose of God’s covenantal work with Abraham and the nation of Israel is that God is establishing his universal kingdom that will include all nations and that the totality of redeemed humanity will be royal priests-kings. Their appearance also leads to the expectation that there will be a future perfect priest-king, who ushers in the ratification of a New Covenant, which will finally bring to fulfillment to the universal blessings promised in the Abrahamic Covenant through which the nations would be blessed by the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, the seed of David.
Typological Partial Fulfillment in the Life of David
Matthew Emadi writes, “Although the offices of king and priest become institutionalized and separated in Israel's history, the Torah's storyline sets a trajectory for a messianic hope contained in a priestly ruler who will execute the kind of covenant mediation that reunites the jurisdictions of priesthood and kingship into one office.”17 As David writes and meditates on his copy of the Torah, carefully noticing the typological patterns, their historical correspondence, and escalation, it would seem plausible that David begins to see in his own life a partial fulfillment of this messianic hope. In the Davidic covenant, God makes covenantal promises to David to establish him a house, that is, a dynastic lineage, and to raise up from his lineage a king who will eternally sit on the throne of David (2 Samuel 7:8-17). Therefore, David knows that he is not the Messiah, but rather, he is in the lineage of the seed of the woman from whom the Messiah will come. He knows that the Messiah will come from his loins, and he knows from his study of Torah and his own life experiences that he is typologically foreshadowing the perfect future son-priest-king.
In 1 Samuel 15, Saul is rejected as king for not placing the entirety of the Amalekites under the ban; in 1 Samuel 16, David is divinely anointed as the true king of Israel, placing upon him overtones of priesthood; in 1 Samuel 17, David ascends to kingship by defeating Goliath and the Philistine enemies of God, mirroring Saul’s rise to the office of king by defeating the Ammonites.18 When David defeats Goliath, he cuts off his head as promised, placing him in the head-crushing lineage of the seed of the woman, and he takes Goliath’s head to Jerusalem, essentially placing the Jebusites on notice. However, his capturing the Mountain of God for the glory of God will have to wait because 1 Samuel 18 through 2 Samuel 1 covers the period of two kings. During this time, Saul, the rejected king, still sits on the throne and exhausts himself trying to eradicate David. After the death of Saul, David becomes the King of Judah in 2 Samuel 2, and then in 2 Samuel 5:1-5 David becomes the king of Israel, uniting the kingdom of Israel, north and south, under his sole rulership.
The events that unfold in 2 Samuel 5:6-7:29 bring the two typological patterns discussed above to a partial fulfillment in the person of David. In 2 Samuel 5:6-13, David, as the anointed and enthroned King of Israel, defeats the Jebusites and captures Jerusalem, making him the King of Jerusalem like Melchizedek once was. Then, in 2 Samuel 5:17-18, David goes to war with the Philistines and has divine victory over them just as Abraham and Moses had done before him. In 2 Samuel 6, David oversees the procession of the Ark of the Covenant, the place of God’s presence and Law upon the earth, to finally rest upon Mt. Zion, “the mount that God desired” (Psalm 68:16).
In 2 Samuel 6, David the king is surprisingly seen functioning in the role of a priest. It is David, who is from the tribe of Judah and not a Levite, that goes to Obed-edom to retrieve the ark of God and bring it to Jerusalem (6:12). David is seen to be offering sacrifices of oxen and of fattened animals (6:13) before the ark of God. These are sacrifices associated with the burnt offering for propitiation and the fellowship offering signifying communion with God as the result of propitiation. He is seen to be wearing a linen ephod (6:14), which was among the priestly garments assigned to the Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 28:4). Once the ark of God makes it to Jerusalem, David offers burnt offerings and peace offerings (6:17). David, just as a priest would and Melchizedek did for Abraham, “blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts” (6:18). Then David, in a similar manner to Melchizedek gives blessings to the people of bread (6:19). Like Jethro he gives the people meat (Exodus 18:12) likely from the offerings he has made (6:19).
After his divinely enabled victories over the nations (2 Samuel 5) and his priestly role (2 Samuel 6) God meets with David and establishes his covenant with him (2 Samuel 7). However, at the ratification of the Davidic Covenant, there is no third-party priest-king like Melchizedek or Jethro because David himself is the royal priest-king serving as a type of Melchizedek. This is significant because it aligns the Davidic Covenant with the Abrahamic Covenant. As Thomas Schreiner remarks, “The Davidic covenant is organically related to the covenant with Abraham, and a son of David will be the means by which the promises made to Abraham will come to pass.”19 The reality that this is David’s understanding is strengthened by his prayer for the Davidic King-Messiah in Psalm 72:8-11,
May he have dominion from sea to sea,
and from the River to the ends of the earth!
May desert tribes bow down before him,
and his enemies lick the dust!
May the kings of Tarshish and of the coastlands
render him tribute;
may the kings of Sheba and Seba
bring gifts!
May all kings fall down before him,
all nations serve him!
David understood that the eternal king who would come through his lineage, according to the covenantal promise of God, would be the one who brought the Abrahamic Covenant to ultimate and final fulfillment. Therefore, in Psalm 110:4, David understands that the Messiah will be a priest-king after the order of Melchizedek because the Messiah will be the one who ushers in a New Covenant, which brings to fruition the Abrahamic Covenant’s promises and blessings. David is a type of Melchizedek, but the Messiah, as the antitype, will perfectly mediate the Abrahamic blessings through a Melchizedekian priesthood to the nations.
The Author of Hebrews’ Use of Psalm 110:4
In examining how the New Testament explores and further develops the understanding of the Melchizedekian priesthood of the Messiah, several passages could be explored; however, the most explicit references to Psalm 110:4 are found in Hebrews 5:1-10 and Hebrews 7:1-28. For the purposes and scope of this paper, only these two passages will be considered.
The author of Hebrews is writing to Jewish Christians, likely prior to AD 70, who are attracted to the idea of turning away from Jesus and the New Covenant and apostatizing from the faith by placing themselves back under the Mosaic Covenant, which is now obsolete. The author of Hebrews is presenting the superiority of Christ over everything else associated with the Mosaic Covenant as a plea for them not to apostatize in favor of the Old Covenant. Leading up to Chapter 5, the author has argued for the superiority of Christ over the angels who were merely the mediators of the Mosaic Covenant. In arguing for the superiority of Christ over the angles, the author advocates that Christ is supreme because he is the Davidic King, he is truly God and truly man, he was worshipped post-resurrection by the angles, he was exalted to the right hand of the Father, and he rules over all things.
The author then argues that Jesus is superior to Moses; Jesus is the priest of our confession and the one to whom Moses spoke of and looked forward to. Having argued for the superiority of Christ over the angels and Moses, the author argues that Jesus offers a superior rest than was obtained by Joshua. From here, the author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the priesthood of Christ to the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods of the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus is a superior priest because he is a Melchizedekian priest.
Hebrews 5:1-10 and the Use of Psalm 2:7 and 110:4
In this passage, the author begins his argument on the superiority of the priesthood of Christ by arguing that Christ’s priesthood was given to him by God, as was Aaron’s high priesthood given to him by God. However, Aaron was “chosen from among men” and was therefore “beset with weakness” and sin like all other men, and “because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifices for his own sins just as he does for those of the people” (Hebrews 5:1-4).
In describing the way in which God appointed Christ to the office of high priest, the author of Hebrews combines Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4. In both of these verses, Yahweh speaks directly to the Messiah, in Psalm 2:7, he says to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” In Psalm 110:4, Yahweh speaks to the Messiah, saying, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” Here, the author is capturing the typological understanding of David in the Psalter concerning the Messiah that would come from his progeny and arguing that Jesus Christ has perfectly fulfilled David’s eschatological messianic hopes.
The Messiah, who will sit on the Davidic throne forever, will be the Son of God. This means that Jesus is the antitype to Adam, who was declared God’s son (Genesis 5:1), and to Israel, who was next to be declared as the son of God (Exodus 4:22-23). Secondly, this Son of God is declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Therefore, Jesus is the perfect royal son-priest-king, far superior to anything under the Mosaic Covenant. Christ could not have been a priest after the order of Aaron for at least two reasons. First, Jesus is the offspring of David. Therefore, he descends from the tribe of Judah and not Levi. The Aaronic high priests and the Levitical priests were required to descend from the tribe of Levi. This is significant because the office of priesthood that Jesus holds must necessarily be different than the priesthood associated with the Mosaic Covenant. So, the author of Hebrews argues that Jesus’ priesthood is a Melchizedekian priesthood, which is associated with the Abrahamic Covenant, and Jesus is the one who fulfills the covenantal promises made to Abraham and David.
The second reason Jesus could not be associated with the Aaronic Priesthood is that the Aaronic Priesthood could not fulfill the promises made to Abraham. Emadi writes,
For Christ to achieve what the Aaronic order could never do, namely definitively deal with sin for the children of Abraham, he had to be a priest who would simultaneously fulfill the creation mandate (given to Adam) and accomplish redemption (promised to Abraham). Again, there is only one priest in the biblical narrative who is associated with the archetypal priesthood given to primal humanity at creation and the covenantal blessing of Abraham, and that priest is Melchizedek.20
Emadi’s comment is a concise statement that summarizes the point the author of Hebrews is making in these verses. The author presents Jesus as the new and perfect Adam, the son-priest-king par excellence who does not fail to keep and guard God’s command, thereby earning for the elect of God a righteousness they could never earn for themselves and no other priesthood could secure.
Also, the author of Hebrews states that Christ is the “source of eternal salvation for those that obey him.” That is to say that Christ brings the Abrahamic Covenantal universal blessings and promises to the nations. The only way this is possible is for the Christ to be a priest of an order that is not associated with the Mosaic Covenant because, as the author of Hebrews will later say, “it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near” (Hebrews 10:1-2) and “for the law made nothing perfect” (Hebrews 7:19). God never intended the Mosaic covenant so save, rather it served as a tutor, a guardian of sorts (Galatians 3:24) until Christ the perfect Melchizedekian priest came to bring the universal promises made to Abraham to bear on the nations.
Although Jesus was not like Aaron, with sin and in need of sacrifice, he was a Son who, in his humanity, learned obedience, suffered death, was made perfect, and as a Melchizedekian priest, mediates eternal salvation to all who obey him.
Hebrews 7:1-28 and the Use of Psalm 110:4
After the parenthetical warning against apostasy (Hebrews 5:11-6:12) and the elaboration on the hope belonging to believers (Hebrews 6:13-20), the author moves to an exposition of the Melchizedekian priesthood of Christ (Hebrews 7:1-28). He first reintroduces the idea of the Messiah’s Melchizedekian priesthood in Hebrews 6:19-20. The author gives his readers a sure and steadfast assurance that they will enter into the holy of holies—the very presence of God. He grounds this assurance of the believer’s access to the presence of God on the basis of the Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus Christ. As Thomas Schreiner notes, “as high priest he entered God's presence, offering his own blood to secure access to God for believers. The hope of believers is anchored in the work of Jesus as high priest. Their hope is secure, for Jesus as the Melchizedekian priest has atoned for their sins so that they can enter God's presence joyfully and boldly. He is their ‘forerunner’ or ‘precursor.’”21
In Chapter 7, the overarching argument of the author is that the priesthood of Jesus is superior to the priesthood under the Mosaic Covenant because it is a permanent priesthood. It is important to give consideration to the flow of the chapter to see how this argument is developed.
In 7:1-3, Melchizedek is introduced by giving an overview of his appearance in Genesis 14. He is a king of Salem and a priest of the Most High God. That is to say that he uniquely holds the dual office of king and priest. He then blessed Abraham after his victory over the four Mesopotamian kings. By translating his name and the location of his kingship, Melchizedek is said to be a king of righteousness and peace, a position which is perfectly fulfilled in Christ. Then, in verse 3, the author seizes on the biographical information concerning Melchizedek that is left out of Genesis. “He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” The author of Hebrews is not suggesting that Melchizedek is some eternal being who isn’t human. Instead, the author notices the significance of the absence of his genealogy and recognizes that this resembles the Son of God, who “continues as a priest forever.” He uses the absence of genealogy in Genesis 14 to typify and introduce the permanent nature of the high priesthood of Jesus Christ.
In 7:4-10, the author argues for the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood over the Levitical priesthood based on the reality that Abraham, the patriarch of the covenant people of God, submitted himself to Melchizedek and gave him a tenth of his spoils from war. The argument that the author makes is interesting. The Levites who are descended from Abraham are to receive a tithe from their brother Israelites who also descend from Abraham (Numbers 18:21;26). Then, the Levites were to give a tithe of the tithe they collected to the Aaronic priesthood (Numbers 18:28), which also descended from Abraham.
However, Melchizedek, who does not descend from Abraham, received tithes from Abraham and blessed Abraham. As seen in the Mosaic Covenant, those who are inferior tithe to those who are superior. The Israelites tithe to the Levitical priests, and the Levitical priests tithe to the Aaronic high priests. Therefore, logically, Melchizedek is superior to Abraham because Abraham tithes to him as a superior. Beyond this, Melchizedek and the order of his priesthood are superior to the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods because these priesthoods, having descended from Abraham, were in the loins of Abraham when he tithed to Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:9-10).
In the previous two sections, the author has introduced the idea that the order of the Melchizedekian priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood, in part because it is not dependent upon any particular genealogy. This idea is now further developed in Hebrews 7:11-19. The Law given in the Mosaic Covenant could not make its adherents perfect because its mediators were imperfect. Sinful, weak, mortal, and imperfect priests cannot achieve perfection for themselves or for anyone else. There is then a built-in inferiority and inadequacy in the Levitical priesthood, which necessitates a change in priesthood from the Levitical priesthood to the superior Melchizedekian priesthood.
According to the author, this change in the priesthood is evident in four ways. First, Jesus is raised up as a high priest from the tribe of Judah, “and in connection with that tribe, Moses said nothing about priests” (Hebrews 7:14). Joseph prophesied that kings would come from Judah (Genesis 49:8-12), which is seen first in David and lastly in Christ, but in Christ there is now an established priesthood that has arisen from the tribe of Judah.
Secondly, the Melchizedekian priesthood of Christ is established not based on his genealogical descent but rather upon his resurrection power (Hebrews 7:15-17). There has been a transition to a superior and permanent priesthood because Jesus, the high priest in the likeness of Melchizedek, has triumphed in victory over the curse of death. He has an “indestructible life,” whereas the Levitical priests all succumbed to sin’s ultimate victory—death (Hebrews 7:15-16).
Thirdly, because of the inferiority and inability of the Levitical priesthood to bring perfection, God has promised to raise up the Messiah to the office of a superior priesthood. The author quotes Psalm 110:4, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” In quoting David in Psalm 110:4, the author is reminding his readers that God promised this priesthood during the time of the Mosaic Covenant, and this promise has been fulfilled in Christ. Not only is this priesthood promised, it is promised to be permanent or “forever,” and the resurrection and indestructible life of Christ proves his priesthood is forever because he lives forever.
Fourthly, the evidence that there has been a change in the priesthood from the inferior Levitical priesthood to the superior Melchizedekian priesthood is seen in that through Jesus Christ, the nations have the hope of drawing near to God and entering into his presence (Hebrews 7:18-19). The Mosaic Covenant and its priests could not bring to fruition the universal blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, so it and its priests were set aside as useless, and God kept his promise to Abraham by raising up a superior and successful priesthood.
The primary argument in Hebrews 7:20-28 is that the Melchizedekian priesthood of Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood because it is based upon the oath of God, not merely genealogical descent. No Levite was made a priest by an oath. Again, the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 110:4, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’” The oath proves that the priesthood of Christ is permanent because God cannot act in opposition to his nature, and therefore “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). God cannot violate his moral law; he cannot violate the 9th Commandment, and the oath establishes both the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek and its permanence. “Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25).
Jesus is the perfect king, priest, and Son who is “the guarantor of a better covenant (Hebrews 7:22).” It is important that consideration is given to this verse in light of the argument up to this point. David and the author of Hebrews appear to see a significant connection to the Melchizedekian priesthood of Christ and the fulfillment of the universal blessing promised in the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant, both of which were established by an oath. This does not mean to flatten the covenants. Christ ushers in the New Covenant, which was promised in Jeremiah 31 (Hebrews 8:8-12). In this covenant, God promises that he will grant justification, righteousness, forgiveness, everlasting life, the complete restoration and transformation of the sinner, and glorification, not based upon works but upon grace alone in the completed works of Christ alone. “The covenant of which Christ is the guarantor is a better covenant because it perfects its people.”22 Jesus, holding the office of a Melchizedekian priest, ushers in a far superior covenant to the Old Covenant. In this New Covenant of grace, all of its members have been saved by grace, have had their hearts circumcised, intimately know Yahweh, and are being sanctified through the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit of God. Jesus is the promised son of Abraham, the fulfillment of the sacrificial system under Moses, and the promised son of David, who brings salvation and universal blessing to the nations by bringing them under his federal headship in the New Covenant.
The Application of the Melchizedekian Priesthood of Christ to the Church
R.C. Sproul once said, “One of the most important things that we can do is to try to deepen our understanding of God.” The Apostle Paul wrote, “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:18). As the Scriptures are examined in their entirety to discover and discern the meaning behind the Melchizedekian priesthood of Christ, the church is forced to behold the glory of God in Christ, and the Spirit of God works to mold the saints and shape them into the image of God. There is an axiomatic biblical truth that men and women become like what they worship. If the church is to be sanctified and made into the image of Christ, it must behold Christ as he is presented in the Scriptures. If a false distorted Christ is beheld, an idol is created, and the one who worships the idol will become impotent and dead like the idol (Psalm 115:4-8). Christ is presented in the bible as the son-priest-king after the order of Melchizedek, it is essential for the church to plumb the depths of this great truth in order to accurately behold the reality and glory of the only begotten Son of the Most High God.
Another significant application of the Melchizedekian Priesthood of Christ is to consider the argument of the author of Hebrews. The church today can have confidence and assurance of their salvation because their high priest has offered a superior sacrifice; he has secured for them an eternal redemption; he has brought them into a superior covenant; he has the power to make them perfect; and he has entered into the heavenly holy of holies with his own blood where he has perfectly atoned for their sins and ever lives to intercede for the church. This assurance is strengthened when one considers the reality that from Genesis through Revelation, God has been at work to bring about the salvation of his elect through the Melchizedekian Priesthood of Jesus Christ. “Consider the work of God” (Ecclesiastes 7:13). “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David” (2 Timothy 2:8).
Soli Deo Gloria,
Chase
Currid, John, A Study Commentary on Genesis, vol. 1, (Darlington, England; Wyoming, MI: Evangelical Press, 2003), 288-289.
Hamilton, James M., Jr, What is Biblical Theology? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 16
Ibid., 12
Abram’s name is changed to Abraham in Genesis 17:5. For clarity, this paper will refer to him as Abraham.
Currid, John, A Study Commentary on Genesis, vol. 1, (Darlington, England; Wyoming, MI: Evangelical Press, 2003), 58.
Hamilton, James M., Jr. Typology—Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns: How Old Testament Expectations Are Fulfilled in Christ. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 70.
All Scripture Quotations are from the ESV Text Edition: 2016
Hamilton, James M., Jr., Psalms Volume 1: Psalms 1-72 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021), 94.
Emadi, Matthew, The Royal Priest: Psalm 110 in Biblical Theology (London, England: Apollos, 2022), 25.
Ibid., 29.
Hamilton, James M., Jr. Typology—Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns: How Old Testament Expectations Are Fulfilled in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 65.
Beale, G. K., The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Leicester, England: Apollos, 2004), 66-67.
Ibid., 70.
Dempster, Stephen G., Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (London, England: Apollos, 2003), 79.
Hamilton, James M., Jr. Typology—Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns: How Old Testament Expectations Are Fulfilled in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 52
Emadi, Matthew., The Royal Priest: Psalm 110 in Biblical Theology (London, England: Apollos, 2022), 46.
Ibid., 63.
In this way Saul’s rise to kingship is a foil to David’s rise to kingship.
Schreiner, Thomas., Covenant and God’s Purpose for the World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 79.
Emadi, Matthew., The Royal Priest: Psalm 110 in Biblical Theology (London, England: Apollos, 2022), 189.
Schreiner, Thomas., Commentary on Hebrews (Nashville, TN, B&H Publishing Group, 2015), 204.
Renihan, Samuel., The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2020), 173.