<- Previous   First   Next ->

elements of life.

This consideration tends further to explain why the writer of the Epistle takes the Biblical record of Melchizedek, that is Melchizedek so far as he enters into the divine history, and not Melchizedek himself, as a type of Christ. The history of the Bible is the record of the divine life of humanity, of humanity as it was disciplined for the Christ. The importance of this limitation of the treatment of the subject is recognised by patristic writers; e.g., levgei ta; katj ejkei'non ouj th;n fuvsin ejxhgouvmeno" ajlla; th;n katj aujto;n dihvghsin ajpo; th'" qeiva" tiqei;" grafh'" kai; ajpj ejkeivnh" ejmfaivnwn to; o{moion (Theodore ap. Cram. Cat. vii. p. 203).

One omission in the Epistle cannot but strike the student. The writer takes no notice of the gifts of Melchizedek, who ‘brought forth bread and wine’ (Gen. 14:18) when he came to meet Abraham. This is the more remarkable as the incident is dwelt upon in the Midrash. The ‘bread and wine’ are regarded there as symbols of the shewbread and the drink-offering, or of the Torah itself ( Beresh. R. 43.18 [Prov. 9:5]; Wunsche p. 199). And stress was naturally laid upon this detail in later times. The Fathers from Clement of Alexandria (see below) and Cyprian ( Ep. ad Caecil. 63, 4) downwards not unfrequently regard the bread and wine as the materials of a sacrifice offered by Melchizedek; and Jerome distinctly states that they were offered for Abraham ( ad Matt. 22.41ff.; comp. ad Matt. 26.26ff.).

All this makes the silence of the Apostle the more significant. He presents, and we cannot but believe that he purposely presents, Melchizedek as priest, not in sacrificing but in blessing, that is, in communicating the fruits of an efficacious sacrifice already made. He only can bless who is in fellowship with God and speaks as His representative. And it is under this aspect that the writer of the Epistle brings before us characteristically the present work of Christ.

A similar lesson lies in the positive fact which stands out most significantly in the words of the Epistle. Melchizedek is priest at once and king. The combination of offices which meets us in the simplest forms of society is seen to be realised also when humanity has attained its end. Philo in an interesting passage points out the difficulty of combining the priesthood with kingly power ( de carit. § 1; ii. p. 384 M.), and yet such a combination must exist in the ideal state. He who unites with the Unseen must direct action. He who commands the use of every endowment and faculty must be able to consecrate them. He who represents man to God with the efficacy of perfect sympathy must also represent God to man with the authority of absolute power.

It is remarkable that Melchizedek is not dwelt upon in early Jewish commentators. It does not appear that he was ever regarded as a type of Messiah (Schoettgen ad loc. ). The only example of this interpretation is quoted by Heinsius from Moses Hadarshan, whose person and writings are involved in great obscurity, but who seems to have lived in the 11th century (Heinsius, Exercit. Sacrae , p. 517; and from him Deyling, Exercit. Sacrae ,
2.73).

The writer of the Epistle, as we have seen, regards Melchizedek as a living type of a living and eternal King-priest. The old history, true in its literal reality, was, according to him, perfectly, ideally fulfilled in the facts of Christian history. Philo also deals with Melchizedek, but with characteristic differences.


<- Previous   First   Next ->