ARTICLE V.

WHO WAS MELCHISEDEC?

By REV. ISAAC HEADLEY.

It is generally supposed that Melchisedec was some great and good man; "a king and priest in Salem, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him and receive tithes of him." In the present humble attempt to give a different view of the subject, we will, in the first place, very briefly notice it as a matter of history.

The Bible is a history of the church, in which those things and events pertaining to it, are noticed and enlarged upon, according to their importance, as they stand in relation to and have a bearing upon the church. In such a history would such an important event as God's first establishment of a priesthood, be entirely omitted, or at most but barely mentioned, in one or two instances; and this priesthood far superior to the Levitical priesthood, respecting which there is so much said in the Scriptures? Would God establish such a prior and superior priesthood, baptized in His own name, and which He designed should be such a perfect model of the priesthood of Christ, and then have no more said respecting it, in that lucid history which He has given us of His church? Or would God at first establish an order in His church which, by way of eminence, is called the order of the most high God, and then for ever after prohibit His people from having such an order?

It was contrary to the law and ordinances of God, for one man to officiate in both the kingly and priestly office. Uzziah, king of Judah, once attempted to burn incense in the temple of the Lord, but for this one attempt to officiate as a priest, the Lord smote him with the leprosy, which remained upon him till the day of his death. Would not this have been a very strange and mysterious procedure if God had first established such an order, that one man should be both a king and priest? And the Hebrews knowing all this, would it not greatly weaken, rather than strengthen the apostle's argument in favor of the Divine priesthood of Christ, by his asserting it to be after the order and similitude of Melcisedec, if they had understood him as considering Him nothing but a man, yet both a king and priest?

Let us now notice the place where Melchisedec had his church THIRD SERIES, VOL. IV. No. 3. 8

and kingdom. It is called Salem, a place, not again even mentioned in the Old Testament, except in the 76th Psalm, where it is said, "in Judah is God known; his name is great in Israel, in Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling in Zion." Here Salem evidently means Jerusalem, God's acknowledged tabernacle and dwelling place. And Jerusalem was built on Mount Moriah, where Abraham offered up his son, about forty years after Melchisedec met him. And if we look at the Bible account of that wonderful transaction, we see Abraham at the command of the Lord, with his son and two servants, going three days journey into the land of Moriah, to offer up his son on a mountain, God would tell him of. And when he beholds the desig nated mountain afar off, he leaves his servants behind, and he and his son go on together and alone, to the place the Lord had pointed out for the offering, there builds an altar, and proceeds to complete the sacrifice, till his uplifted hand aiming the fatal stroke, is arrested by a voice from heaven; he looks and beholds behind him, a ram, caught in the thicket by his horns.' It must then have been an uninhabited wilderness, a mountain, a thicket of trees, brush and shrubbery. Does it seem reasonable to suppose that this transaction occured, where the Most High God had a kingdom and a church, with a king and a priest ruling His subjects and offering sacrifices for His people; or does it not rather force upon the mind a very different conclusion? Yet all this was done on Mount Moriah, where Jerusalem was afterwards built and called Salem, and there is no mention made in the Bible of any other Salem.

Do not historical facts, therefore, lead us to conclude that Melchisedec was not a mere man; at that time king and priest in Salem? For there is not a word said in Scripture, respecting his church, kingdom, people or subjects: and not even the place with which his name is associated, is again mentioned but once, and then it evidently means Jerusalem, where Christ, (who, without any interpretation, is king of righteousness, and king of peace, and priest of the most high God) had His church, and kingdom, people and subjects.

In those days, God did often appear to man in human form: He thus appeared to Abraham, before the destruction of Sodom. It is expressly said, that "the Lord appeared unto him," and the manner of his appearing is particularly related :-" As Abraham sat in his tent door, he beheld three men standing by him :" he supposed they were men, he at first addressed them as men; entertained them as men; washed their feet, prepared refreshment for them, and they did eat under the tree as men. It is supposed that two of these were angels, but one was evidently a Divine Being, as the whole narrative plainly shows; and beyond a doubt, it was a Divine Being, with whom Jacob wrestled, as

with a man, and he supposed him to be a man, while wrestling with him.

So likewise, "four men were seen walking in the midst of the fiery furnace, and the form of the fourth, was like the Son of God," and doubtless it was the Son of God in human form. In these and other instances, in which God visibly appeared to man, it is generally supposed that it was Christ, the second person in the Trinity, who thus appeared: as He was the one appointed to assume human nature, make atonement for sin, and be King and Priest in Zion. And is it not as reasonable to suppose that Christ did, as a man, appear to Abraham, and brought him bread and wine, and received tithes of him, as that He should appear to him as a man, have his feet washed by Him, and partake of the human refreshment, He had prepared? Therefore in view of those visible manifestations which God frequently made of Himself to man, we see nothing in the nature of the case, to make it inconsistent to suppose, that Melchisedec was Christ Himself, who appeared to Abraham as a man, after the slaughter of the kings, as He did before the destruction of Sodom. And His bringing bread and wine, might have had an allusion to His subsequent priesthood, as these are the elements Christ has appointed to represent His body and blood, as our great atoning high-priest.

Let us now notice what the apostle says on the subject. The grand and leading object of the apostle throughout this epistle, was to convince the Hebrews, that the priesthood of Christ, was far superior to that of Aaron, or of any human being. And like a skilful theologian he begins with his argument at the foundation, and proceeds on in it with great caution, well knowing he had strong and deep-rooted prejudices to combat. For he tells them, "he had many things to say on the subject, which were hard to be uttered, seeing they were dull of hearing," i. e. filled with prejudice. He therefore commences his epistle by first establishing the Divinity of Christ, and then proceeds in his argument by frequently, in a cautious, but more and more direct manner, alluding to the great culminating point of it; the Divinity of Christ's priesthood. He shows them that they stood in need of, and that God had established a better priesthood than that of Aaron, which was only typical of better things to come, for the blood of bulls and of goats could never take away sin. All this was plainly intimated by the well known fact, that the patriarch Abraham, Levi's progenitor and the greatest man living, did pay tithes to Melchisedec, thus acknowledging a superior priesthood than could arise from him or his posterity. And even Levi also paid tithes in Abraham, his progenitor. And then the apostle proves to them from their own Scriptures, that God had, with all the solemnities of an oath, appointed Christ to the superior priesthood. He quotes the 110th Psalm, where it is said with evident allusion to Christ, "the Lord hath sworn, and will not repent,

thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." The Apostle, then, for the purpose of establishing the Divinity of Christ's priesthood, goes on to explain what that order was, by describing the character of Melchisedec. And truly he gives him a very dignified character; a character that never was, and never can be applicable to any human being. "King of Salem, and priest of the most high God. First being, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and after that, also King of Salem, which is King of peace."" From this, it seems that the apostle considered the expression in Genesis, "King of Salem," merely figurative, and the interpretation of it, was King of righteousness, and King of peace. Now these are titles, which are in the highest and most peculiar sense, abundantly and exclusively applied to Christ, throughout the Scriptures; and which the words Melchisedec and Salem both signify.

"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life." Most comprehensive expressions, embracing every essential requisite to human existence. Can this be affirmed of any human being? But it is perfectly applicable to Christ. His humanity was without father, His Divinity without mother; and He had no predecessor, no beginning of days, nor end of life: but this cannot be said of any mere man.

To explain these expressions as merely meaning, we have no account of His pedigree, birth or death, or line of priesthood; appears to be taking great and unwarrantable latitude, in interpreting the plain and simple language of Scripture, and making it say something directly contrary to what is plainly and positively expressed.

And why may we not, upon the same principle of interpreting Scripture, prove that this world and matter are eternal, and that Christ is a created being? for those passages which assert the contrary, only mean, we have no account of the eternal existence of the former, or of the creation of the latter. The apostle does not consider these expressions as being mystical or metaphorical, or as needing any explanation; he does not stop to interpret them, as meaning, we have no genealogy of Melchisedec, or of his line of priesthood; as he had just interpreted the phrase, "King of Salem," as meaning King of righteousness, and King of peace. He leaves these expressions to be understood in their plain, simple meaning, just as they read; and proceeds to say, "made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually." Not only in Abraham's day, but when the apostle wrote this, Melchisedec was then, and would remain, a priest for ever. And in further confirmation of this, he adds, "for here men that die, receive tithes, but there he," Melchisedec, "received them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth ;" was then still alive. It *Heb. 7:3.

'Heb. 7: 2.

being said, he was made like unto the Son of God, many have supposed he could not be the Son of God: for it would be inconsistent to say a person was made like unto himself. But would it not be more inconsistent to say, that a mere man was made like unto the Son of God, in His priestly office, and thus become an atoning Saviour and Redeemer? For it is to the unchangeable and efficacious priesthood of Christ, that the words like unto have a special reference. "Made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually." Besides, we find the same expression used in describing the form of the fourth, in the fiery furnace, "like the Son of God; and He was the Son of God.

The apostle then calls upon them, to "consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils." Paul knew that they considered Abraham the greatest man that ever lived. He was the honored father of their nation, the spiritual father of believers, to whom the promises of God were made, and who, by way of eminence, was called the friend of God. Yet great as he was, he acknowledged Melchisedec to be his superior, by paying tithes to him and receiving his blessing; and without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better. They must, therefore, according to their own creed, acknowledge Melchisedec to be more than a mere man, since their father Abraham, the greatest and most Divinely honored of men, had thus acknowledged him to be his superior. Hence, the apostle labors to convince them, from their own Jewish sentiments, of the Divinity of Christ's priesthood. "For the Lord had sworn that He was a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec."

As the apostle proceeds in his argument, and seems to be drawing the two branches of it-Christ and Melchisedec-to the same point, he inquires, "If, therefore, perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron ? * For He of whom these things were spoken, pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar;" as was the fact respecting Melchisedec. "For it is evident," continues the apostle," that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident; for that, after the similitude of Melchisedec, there ariseth another priest, who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec." Now, if Christ is made a priest, not after the order of Aaron, nor after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life, and yet He be after the order and similitude of Melchisedec, can it be that Melchisedec was a mere man? If we affirm that He was, where are

'Heb. 1: 11-17.