Abraham Meets Melchizedek
Sermon • Submitted • Presented
0 ratings
· 22 viewsNotes
Transcript
Genesis 14:18-24
Genesis 14:18-24
Tonight we come to to a very interesting section of scripture in Genesis Chapter 14, where we are introduced to one of the most intriguing figures in the Bible, Melchizedek, King of Salem.
Abraham has just successfully rescued his nephew Lot and all of the people who were taken with him by Chedorlaomer, the king of Elam, and has now returned to the Valley of Shaveh (in Hebrew, “level plain”) where he is met by the king of Sodom. it says in verse 16:
Genesis 14:16 (NKJV)
16 So he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot and his goods, as well as the women and the people. 17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley), after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him.
Notice in verse 17 a parenthetical phrase that states the alternative name of this place as the King’s Valley. As we read on into verse 18 we find that Melchizedek is the King of Salem. If this Salem is indeed Jerusalem, as most scholars believe it is, than this “King’s Valley” likely either Kidron Valley or the Valley of Hinnom which is the eastern boarder of the city of Jerusalem at that time, which is the boarder of what is called the Old City.
The Kidron Valley is especially important as it is the place Jesus would have crossed on the night of HIs arrest as He and His disciples headed towards the garden of Gethsemane. It is also the place where David crossed over as he was being pursued by Absolom his son, another depiction of betrayal akin to that of Judas’. In David’s case, he too was betrayed by his friend Ahitophel. It’s interesting that instances involving betrayal and death are associated with the location, and in many places in the Bible it associated with judgment and sorrow.
We know that once Jesus crossed over the valley and entered the Garden of Gethsemane He felt the sorrow and weight of His impending death, so much so that He sweat blood shortly thereafter while praying.
The word Kidron, or Cedron in Hebrew means, “a dusky place” and is often associated with the murky water that flows through the valley after heavy rains. Throughout the Old Testament we find many instances where the Kidron valley was used as place to destroy and discard the idols and paraphernalia of the pagan gods after they were brought down by righteous Jewish kings.
For example, 2 Kings 23:1–6 describes King Josiah commanding “the high priest, the priests next in rank and the doorkeepers to remove from the temple of the Lord all the articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts.” Once removed from the temple, the idols were “burned . . . outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron Valley” (verse 4). King Josiah did the same with the Asherah pole (verse 6). Similar reforms were accomplished by King Asa and King Hezekiah, both of whom disposed of idols in the Kidron Valley (1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 29:16; 30:14).
In Joel 3:2 it says, “I will also gather all nations, And bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; And I will enter into judgment with them there On account of My people, My heritage Israel, Whom they have scattered among the nations; They have also divided up My land.”
The Valley of Jehoshaphat mentioned here in Joel 3:2 is also known as the Valley of Decision. In Joel 3:14 it says, “Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.”
Many scholars believe that the Valley of Decision is the Kidron Valley. And while in the context of Joel, the decision to be made is God’s decision when he judges nations for their sin, the parallel between Abraham’s “decision” to raise his hand to the Lord (verse 22) and in allegiance and obedience to Him in not taking any spoils (which we will get to) is too coincidental not to notice.
I always find it so interesting that when one digs into a scripture, we can find these uber coincidental points of interest that if taken at face value, point to the exacting knowledge of God. Who else could have placed Abraham at this exact location where he would be required to make a decision for the Lord? A place that would later be referred to as the valley of decision?
It begs the comparison to our own lives. When we have had a mighty victory, either over sin or maybe a great blessing, what decision do we make. Do we sink back into our own celebration, counting the spoils, or do we raise our hand to the One True God in praise and adoration.
Genesis 14:18 (NKJV)
Abram and Melchizedek
18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
The name Melchizedek in the original language means King of Righteousness; melek meaning king and tsedek meaning right or righteous. The term “king of Salem” translates king of Peace.
I think most of us are aware that Melchizedek is considered a type of or a picture of Christ, but I would go further and say that this Melchizedek was (and is) indeed Jesus Christ, appearing here to Abraham in what we call a theophany, and I’d like to walk through what I believe are the points that prove that.
First, we have the two titles given to Melchizedek.
First, “the King of Salem”. As I mentioned a minute ago, this term translates to King of Righteousness. While there is no direct reference to Jesus as the King of Righteousness in the New Testament, in Hebrews 7 the author of that book provides an exacting parallel between Melchizedek and Jesus:
Hebrews 7:1–2“1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace…”
Clearly, the author is stating the obvious likeness to Jesus, our King of Righteousness and Prince of Peace. And we know that title, Prince of Peace is explicitly used of Jesus in Isaiah 9:6
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
If we continue read in Hebrews 7:3 we read that Melchizedek was, “3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”
It’s very interesting, and we should note, that the author of Hebrew’s is here revealing to us additional parallels between Melchizedek and Jesus, but not by using direct comparison. The author pauses his interpretation of historical fact and reveals a number of things that are NOT included in the Genesis 14 account.
He says the Melchizedek was, “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life”.
Now, academically inclined scholars, in my opinion, those that, in their attempt to foolproof their apologetics (in other words eliminating the possibility for a weakened argument) will say that the author of Hebrews is still only making a parallel and not trying to assert that Melchizedek was in fact a theophany of Christ.
A good example of this is how the Moody Bible Commentary (or more correctly, its authors) speaks of Hebrews 7. They state:
The writer [of Hebrews] sees as much significance in what Genesis does not reveal about Melchizedek as in what it does disclose about him. Genesis is a book of genealogies. It records the father and birth and death of its leading characters. The omission of this information about Melchizedek is seen to be a providentially intended type. A type is a divinely purposed historical illustration, which prefigures its corresponding reality that is yet future. What is true in type of Melchizedek is true in reality of the Son of God. In His humanity, Jesus had a mother (Mary) and a genealogy, but in His deity, He had neither father, mother, nor genealogy. What is true of Melchizedek in figure is true of Jesus in fact from His divine nature, namely He has neither beginning of days nor end of life. Since Melchizedek’s death was never mentioned in Genesis, then, so to speak, he remains a priest perpetually. But in actuality this is the case with Jesus.
What the Moody scholars are saying is that even though the parallels between Jesus and Melchizedek are uncanny, they still only point to Melchizedek being a type with the fulfillment of all of his attributes becoming actuality in Jesus.
Now in their defense, Moody asserts later on that Melchizedek is likely Christ, but their former argument is one of a few you will hear regarding Melchizedek.
I think this is week apologetics though, and easy theology. It’s much easier to lean into the poetic license and typologies used in the Bible, than it is to argue that God revealed Himself to Abraham physically in the form of Melchizedek, who I am convinced was in fact a theophany of Christ.
Here’s my argument for Melchizedek being a theophany, and I base it on what we know about the times and location of the storyline in Genesis 14, among other points.
First, as Dr. Henry Morris puts it, it is sufficiently remarkable that a man with the titles King of Righteousness and King of Peace were to hold such titles in a place like Canaan during this time in history. We know that the paganism in the area at the time was as good as demonism and that the cultural practices were antithetical to God. One only has to consider that in a few chapters God is destroying Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness, of which we get a very clear picture when His angels are the target of homosexual rape.
Melchizedek is also said to be the priest of the most High God. This is the first time that a priest is mentioned in the Bible, and this occurs hundreds of years before the Levitical laws regarding priesthood are given to Moses. In addition, the term Most High God is translated El Elyom, which is used to drive home the fact, in the text, that this God is higher than all other gods and goddesses in the Canaanite religions of the time and geography.
In Genesis 14:19 we see that Melchizedek describes the Most High God as the possessor of Heaven and Earth, which is a reference back to Genesis 1.
Then, in verse 20 we read that Abraham gave him, Melchizedek, a tithe of all the spoils he captured from the four eastern kings. Clearly, Abraham identifies Melchizedek as representing the same God that called him out of Haran and into Canaan. Further, he understands that this man, Melchizedek as his superior.
And to that end, as we read on in Genesis 14:19-20
19 And he blessed him and said:
“Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
20 And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”
And he gave him a tithe of all.
In Hebrews 7:7 it says “7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better.” The writer is making it clear that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham. In fact, the writer continues in v.9 stating that even the Levitical priests who according to the Law are to receive tithes from the Jewish people, ultimately pay tithes to the “greater”.
9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
What’s more, the writer of Hebrews infers in verse 8 that unlike the Levites who accept tithes as mortal men, Melchizedek received tithes but is immortal.
8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives.
The inference is that because we see no genealogy and there is no death recorded of Melchizedek, he lives on forever. Yes, it could be argued that this is again, a “type” of Christ and is poetic, but there is more.
How is it that Melchizedek has become God’s priest? Was it not Abraham that received the promise of a lineage that numbered more than the sands of the seas?
In Genesis 12:1-3 God promises that Abraham would be a great nation.
In Genesis 12:7 God promises to give the land of Canaan to Abraham as well.
I find it interesting that at the same time Abraham comes to dwell in Canaan there also Melchizedek is reigning in Salem, which most scholars believe is Jerusalem. And as we’ve seen, Abraham acknowledges his kingship and authority over him by giving him tithes of the spoils.
On top of that, Melchizedek is called a priest. This priesthood is acknowledged by the writer of Hebrews as being greater than that of the Aaronic priesthood. It says
Hebrews 7:11–13 “11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.”
These are all types of questions that can’t really be answered by the interpretation that Melchizedek was just a local chieftain or lower case “k” king. They just leave too many questions open regarding his lineage, his position, his priesthood.
In the very least, the writer of Hebrews, led by the Holy Spirit in his writing of the book, could have simply placed the word record in verse three where it says
3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life
By simply stating “without record of father, mother, etc.” the writer would have clarified that Melchizedek was squarely a type of Christ, and not Christ Himself. But instead, we read at the end of Hebrews 7:3 that Melchizedek is, “3 made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”
It is true that most sound, conservative Bible scholars believe that Melchizedek was an ordinary man, but the lofty language afforded him in both Genesis and Hebrews 7 leave many questions unanswered.
The last point I will make regarding my belief that this was a theophany is the statement in Hebrews 7:3 that Melchizedek is “made like the Son of God”.
We have a supporting text in Daniel where, when we read about the fiery trial of Shadrah, Meshach, and Aned-Nego. It says in Daniel 3:24–25 “24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.” 25 “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.””
Some argue that when the writer of Hebrews states that Melchizedek is “like the Son of God” it is a further comparison to the type of Christ he represents, but the same language used there is used in Daniel when King Nebuchadnezzar describes the fourth figure in the fire as being like the Son of God.
The argument against this is that if Melchizedek was the son of God, then why does it say “like”, and the answer is that we see the same phraseology in Daniel. As well, some argue that Melchizedek is said to be a man in Hebrews 7:4
4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.
However, we have other Scriptures that support Christ, in His pre incarnate appearances, being called a man. For instance, Genesis 18:2
2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,
Also in
22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.
Here in Genesis 18 we find three men coming to visit with Abraham and ultimately two turn out to be angels and the third the Lord Himself.
Lastly, we come to verse 19 to 20 of Genesis 14:
Genesis 14:19–20 “19 And he blessed him and said: “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; 20 And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” And he gave him a tithe of all.”
We’ve briefly looked at the blessing previously and noted that it portrays the lesser, Abraham, being blessed by the greater, Melchizedek, which in the Jewish culture and tradition holds true. The greater, the father for instance, always blessed the son or his offspring. So we see this as an affirmation of Melchizedek’s position.
But what I want to notice specifically is the last part of verse 20: “And he gave him a tithe of all.”
It’s the identification of Melchizedek as God (Christ) that explains why Abraham immediately recognized and submitted to Melchizedek’s superiority. It wasn’t just out of social respect but as an expression of faith and worship. Abraham responded by giving Melchizedek “a tenth of all”.
Tithing is portrayed throughout the OT as an act of worship. Here we see Abraham doing just that. It’s also interesting to note that the Scripture says he gave a tenth of ALL, not just the spoils that he had captured. It could be that he only gave what was captured, but I interpret here that Abraham is giving of all that he has.
In the following verses, we read something that leads me to that conclusion.
21 Now the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself.”
22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the Lord, God Most High, the Possessor of heaven and earth, 23 that I will take nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich’—24 except only what the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me: Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.”
The king of Sodom comes to Abraham to make a deal to split the spoils. He offers Abraham all the material spoils of the war and asks instead that he be able to take the people.
On a side note, this makes me cringe since we know what was taking place in Sodom at the time. Why would this man want to take all the people. I also find it interesting that Melchizedek does not address the king of Sodom, even though he was present. Remember in v.17 it says
The New King James Version Chapter 14
17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley), after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him.
If Melchizedek was just a man, there would be no issue with him addressing the King of Sodom in some fashion, but if Melchizedek is God, then He certainly cannot be in the presence of such sin. We know this is the case as in Genesis 18 Abraham meets three men, two of which are angels and one that is Jesus (another theophany). Jesus does not enter Sodom, but the angles, on His behalf and as tools of Judgment, do.
Circling back now to verses 21 through 24 - Abraham has just given a tenth of all he had and is confronted by the king of Sodom to negotiate the allotment of the remainder of the spoils.
Abraham makes a comment that is twofold. One, it reaffirms that Melchizedek is in fact God/Jesus, and two, it provides us an example of how we are to react when confronted with God.
First, remember that we are in the valley of decision. Abraham is met with God incarnate and has to make the decision to either 1) recognize God’s authority over his life and react accordingly, or 2) accept the blessing of God and continue on his way back into the world unchanged.
What we see is that Abraham in fact does recognize God’s authority, receives His blessing with gladness, and reacts accordingly, worshipping Him by way of tithing. He further confirms his loyalty and obedience when he says to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, the Possessor of heaven and earth, 23 that I will take nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich’.
Abraham made the conscious decision to refuse the worlds gifts in place of the greater blessing of knowing God and being known by God. It also shows that he understood clearly that his victory and subsequent blessings were from God and nobody else, not even his own skill or ability.
It would have been very easy for him to accept these spoils from the king of Sodom to replace all that he had just given to Melchizedek, but he takes nothing, not even a piece of thread which is used to sew sandal straps to their sole. IN essence, he is refusing the pagan offerings just like the kings of Judah did when they cast the idols and Ashteroth into the valley to be burned.
This is a great reminder to us regarding how we should react to God. When met with victory or defeat, when given blessing or chastisement for our good, how will we we react, and what decision will we make in the valley of the King?
Abraham would teach us that it is indeed better to give than to receive and to be worshipful in every moment that God provides us.
