p. 414 | Who Was Melchizedek?

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Sep 20, 1883

Who Was Melchizedek?

Our readers, and especially those who have been in the faith of the Third Angel's Message for a number of years, may be surprised that we present this query again in our paper. It has been so often noticed that we have some fears of its becoming tedious. And we speak especially of those of our faith, because our views of the sanctuary and the priesthood are so well established, they have received such close examination and borne such rigid criticism, that it would seem impossible for any one who is well acquainted with our positions to admit the chance of a further argument. But it is a truth, a sad truth, that some will spend more time in speculating on improbable points than in developing plain truths and duties. We do not speak thus by way of complaint; we are always willing to notice any subject whenever it becomes necessary to vindicate the truth, and whenever the opportunity is presented of helping those who are in doubt.

This is not an unimportant question. It is so closely connected with the subject of the sanctuary and the priesthood that we are free to confess that if it is possible to identify Melchizedek, to tell who he was further than is revealed in the reference to him in Gen. 14 and the letter to the Hebrews, we shall have to reconstruct our faith in some important particulars. But we have no fears in this respect; we have examined our ground over and over, and always to be more confirmed in the position we took about thirty years ago, when studying the theory of the "Age to Come." They who have had some of our experience with that theory, and have seen its fruits as we have seen them, will not be surprised that we are jealous of everything that will give "aid and comfort" to its advocates.

There are but two prominent positions assumed by those who profess to be able to tell who Melchizedek was, namely: one, that he was Shem. But as we know his genealogy there is no use to consider this. The other, that he was the Son of God himself. This we will consider.

1. This supposition is not necessary, as all the statements of the Scriptures are explainable without it. It is assumed that to no one but to Christ will those declarations apply. But we must consider the usages of those times in explaining such texts. On that subject we give a few authorities.

Dr. Clarke says: "He who could not support his pretensions by just genealogical evidence, was said by the Jews to be without father. . . . This sort of phraseology was not uncommon when the genealogy of a person was unknown or obscure."

The "Comprehensive Commentary" says: "The commentators generally agree that what is meant is that his name is not preserved, or the names of his parents, in the sacred genealogies."

The "Biblical Commentary" says: "Melchizedek stands in the Scripture narrative with no mention of father, mother, or pedigree, of the beginning or end of his life; and the suppression of these details adapts him for standing as a type of the Son of God. . . . The sacred narrative regarding Melchizedek was so ordered, both in what it said, and in what it left unsaid, that the historical picture is singularly fitted to represent in typical outline the Son of God."

The Syriac renders it: "Of whom neither his father nor his mother are written in the genealogies; nor the commencement of his days, nor the end of his life; but, after the likeness of the Son of God, his priesthood remaineth forever."

Barnes argues the question at length, and says the Syriac has given the correct view.

Chrysostom wrote: "We know of no beginning or end in either case; in the one, because none are recorded; in the other, because they do not exist."

Kitto says: "Others, . . . have held that Melchizedek was no other than the Son of God himself. But in this case it would hardly have been said that he was made like unto the Son of God, or that Christ was constituted a priest after the order of Melchizedek, or, in other words, was a type of himself."

Scott rejects the idea for the same reason, that Christ could not stand as a type of himself.

The Scriptures present a complete type of Christ in his priesthood, but not in any one individual. Without "the example and shadow" of the priesthood and service of Aaron we could form no just idea of the work of Jesus "in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle" in which he ministers. But if we followed the type of Aaron alone we should form very incorrect ideas of the priesthood of Christ. The apostle Paul points out a number of differences between his priesthood and that of Aaron, and shows conclusively that all the deficiencies in the type of the Aaronic priesthood are made up in that of Melchizedek. See Heb. 5 and 7. If it were possible to identify Melchizedek, or to produce his genealogy, then the whole argument would be overthrown.

2. The language of the oath by which Christ was made priest forbids the supposition that he was Melchizedek. Ps. 110 is prophetic throughout. It looks forward to the time when Messiah as a priest shall sit "on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens," as a priest. The word "order" expresses much in this oath. Christ is to be king after the order of David. It would be absurd to say that David was a king after the order of David. Zacharias was a priest after the order of Aaron. It would be absurd to say that Aaron was a priest after the order of Aaron. Now if Christ were Melchizedek it would be equally absurd to say he was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. That would be to say that Christ was a priest after the order of Christ! It would make him a successor of himself. It leaves us without any type of some of the most important points in his priesthood, or makes him a type of himself. In every way the supposition is inadmissible.

3. But we have recently had presented to us an argument (or rather an objection) which is supposed to be conclusive that Melchizedek was Christ. It is said that if he were not, if his priesthood did not commence until A. D. 33, then the faithful in the preceding dispensation were without a priest, without an intercessor, and therefore without salvation. But there is no scripture to show that this inference is necessary; we will see if it will stand the test of just reasoning.

(1) The facts concerning the service of the sanctuary show just when his priestly work commenced. It will not be denied that the editors of the Review and Herald have given this subject very thorough examination, and we offer no apology for introducing their testimony. In Review, Vol. 35, No. 5, Jan. 1870, in the article, "Order of Events in the Judgment," Eld. Andrews spoke as follows:—

"The period of 490 years belonged to old Jerusalem, the place of the earthly sanctuary. But the remainder, viz., 1810 years, coming wholly within the gospel dispensation, must pertain only to the sanctuary of the New Testament. And it is remarkable that the very verse which tells us how much of the vision pertained to the earthly sanctuary, does present to our view the sanctuary of the new covenant in close connection with the introduction of the new covenant. Dan. 9:24, 27. For one of the last events in the period of 70 weeks is the anointing of the most holy. This is not the anointing of the Saviour, for the term is literally, in Hebrew, the holy of holies, a plain reference to the sanctuary itself. This anointing was performed in the earthly sanctuary when the ministration therein began. Lev. 8:10, 11. . . . Its anointing was an event preparatory to Christ's ministering therein, just as the earthly sanctuary was anointed in both its holy places before the Levitical ministration commenced in it."

The same substantially is found on p. 13 of his tract, "The Sanctuary of the Bible."

In Eld. Smith's book, "The Sanctuary and the Twenty-three Hundred Days," in the comment on Dan. 9, are the following words:—

"'To anoint the most holy.' Verse 24. This brings to view an act which was performed preparatory to the commencement of the ministration of the sanctuary, which was to anoint both the holy places and all the sacred vessels. Ex. 40:9-11."

In "Thoughts on Daniel," commenting on the same prophecy of the work of the Saviour, he says:—

"Before the ministration in the sanctuary commenced, the sanctuary and all the holy vessels were to be anointed. Ex. 40:9, 10."

The type places this work before the ministry in the sanctuary. The prophecy locates it when Jesus ascended on high, A. D. 33. Now if there is anything in "the shadow and example," or any prophecy or history of the Scripture which places the commencement of his ministry at an earlier date, we shall be pleased to consider it when it is presented.

(2) Paul, speaking of those things which were taken away at the cross of Christ, namely, the ordinances of the Levitical service, says they "are a shadow of things to come." Col. 2. And in his argument on the priesthood in Hebrews, he says the law had a shadow of good things to come. But if the priestly work of Christ existed through all preceding dispensations, then the types of the law were a shadow of things past as truly as of things to come. And if so it is singular that in all the Scripture statements and arguments and types concerning the priestly work there is not a single hint of the fact. On that subject the Bible is as silent as on the change of the Sabbath!

(3) Paul says in Heb. 8:3, "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." This necessity arises from the fact that "without shedding of blood there is no remission." It is the offering which gives efficacy to the intercession of the priest. Now we ask any person who thinks the priestly work of Christ was necessary to the salvation of those who lived in past dispensations to consider the fact that there was no offering, no sacrifice, to present as the ground of such intercession. There is not a type, a statement, or an intimation in all the Scriptures showing that a priestly service without an offering would avail anything for sinners. But the priesthood of Christ answers every demand of the Scriptures in this respect. "By his own blood" he has entered "into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Heb. 9:12, 24.

It can only be answered that their faith took hold on a future offering, typified by those in the law. That answer is correct. And it is true also that their faith laid hold of a future priesthood, even that of the coming Messiah, typified by the priests under the law, and also by Melchizedek. Their faith could look forward to a future intercessor as well as to a future sin-offering, without which the intercession would have no efficacy.

This subject is extensive; we could greatly enlarge upon it. But we think we have said enough to justify our assertion that if we are wrong on this point the Seventh-day Adventists will have to reconstruct their faith. But we have no apprehensions on this point. When the objectors show that they have studied this question in all its bearings as thoroughly as they who have providentially done so much to set forth our faith; as they whom we quote in this article, we feel assured that they will no longer appear as objectors. There is consistency in truth when it is fully considered; but when examined superficially it appears beset with difficulties. The subjects of the sanctuary and the priesthood are cardinal doctrines with us as a people. We are thankful that the Lord has given us so clear light in reference to them.