Canaanites and posterity of Xoah, and eminent for holi- ness and justice, and therefore discharged the priestly as well as regal functions among the people ; and we may conclude that his twofold capacity of king and priest (characters very commoidy united in the remote ages ; see N. Schwebel, De caiisis conjunctce olim c. 7-eyno sa- cerdotii dignitatis, Onold. 1769 ; J. G. Mliller, De re;fibus ap. antiq. poptdvs sacerdotibus, Jen. 1746) afforded Abra- ham an opportunity of testifying his thankfidness to God, in the manner usual in those times, by offering a tenth of all the spoil. This combination of characters happens for the first time in Scripture to be exhibited in his person, which, with the abrupt manner in which he is introduced, and the nature of the intercourse between him and Abraham, render him in various respects an appropriate and obvious t/pe of the Messiah in his united regal and priestly character. The way in which he is mentioned in Genesis would lead to the immediate inference that Melchizedek was of one blood ^vith the children of Ham, among whom he lived, chief (like the king of Sodom) of a settled Canaanitish tribe. This was the opinion of most of the early fathers (ap. Je- rome, /. c), of Theodoret {in Gen. Ixiv, p. 77), and Epi- phanius {Ilwr. Ixvii, p. 716), and is now generally re- ceived (see Grotius in Ifeh: ; Patrick's Commentary in Gen.; Bleek, Jlebrder, ii, 303; Ebrard, Ilebriicr ; Fair- bairn, Typolofiy, ii, 313, ed. 1854). As Balaam was a prophet, so Melchizedek was a priest among the cor- rupted heathen (Philo, Abrah. xxxix ; Euseb. Pros/?. Erang, i, 9), not self-ap|)ointed (as Chrj'sostom suggests, Horn, in Gen. xxxv, § 5; comp. Heb. v, 4), but consti- tuted by a special gift from God, and recognised as such by him.
Melchizedek combined the offices of priest and king, as was not uncommon in patriarchal times. Nothing is said to distinguish his kingship from that of the con- temporary kings of Canaan; but the emphatic words in which he is described, by a title never given even to Abraham, as a " priest of the most high God," as bless- ing Abraham and receiving tithes from him, seem to im- ply that his priesthood was something more (see Heng- stenberg, Christol. Psa. ex) than an ordinary patriarchal priesthood, such as Abraham himself and other heads of families (Job i, 5) exercised. Altliough it has been ob- served (Pearson, On the Creed, p. 122, ed. 1843) tliat we read of no other sacerdotal act performed by Jlelcliize- dek, but only that of blessing [and receiving tithes, Pfeiffer], yet it may be assumed that he was accustomed to discharge all the ordinary duties of those who are "ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices" (Heb. viii, 3) ; and we might concede (with Philo, Grotius, I. c, and others) that liis regal hospitality to Atirahara was possi- bly preceded liy an unrwunled sacerdotal act of oblation to (Jod, without imjilying that his liospitality was in it- self, as recorded in tJeiiesis, a sacritice.
The "order of ^lelchizcdek," in Psa. ex, 4, is explained by Gesenius and Koseinnidler to mean " manner" = like- ness in official dignity =a king and priest. The relation between Melchizedek and Clirist as type and antitype is made in the Ejiistle to the Hebrews to consist in the following particulars: 1. Melchizedek was the priest of the most high (iod l)y an immediate divine constitution; so Christ was a ]iriest after his order, and not after that of Aaron. 2. ISIelchizedek derived his priestly office from no predecessor, and delivered it down to no suc- cessor; in this respect Christ also stands alone: "Our Lord sprang from the tribe of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." 3. Mel- cliizedek was stiporior to Abraham, consequently his priesthood was superior to that of Levi and bis descend- ants. So Clirisi's priesthood was superior to the Aaronic. 4. Melchizedek was the priest appointed to exercise bis office in behalf of all the worshippers of the true (iod; so Clirist is the universal priest, the only one ajipointed to make intercession for our ginlty race. 5. !Molclii/.o- dek's priesthood was limited to no definite time; tliis circumstance is noticed just as it would have been had
MELCHIZEDEK
59
MELDENIUS
his priesthood had neither beginning nor end : " Christ is a priest forever" (Psa. ex, 4). G. Each sustained the high honors of king and priest ; and the significant ap- pellations are appUed to both — "Righteous King and King of Peace" (Isa. xxxii, 1 ; viii, 6, 7). In the Mes- sianic prediction (Psa. ex, 4), "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," the phrase '■•forever'' is not to be understood in the absohite sense, either of Melchizedek's priesthood or of Christ's. Melchizedek's priesthood terminated with his life; so Christ's priestly and liingly office as IMediator wiU both cease when the work of redemption is fully accomplished (1 Cor. xv, 24- 28). But in neither case is there any statute which limits the specified accession to office and of egress i'rom it. To these points of agreement, noted by the apostle, human ingenuity has added others which, however, stand in need of the evidence of either an inspired wTiter or an eye-witness before they can be received as facts and applied to establish any doctrine. Thus J. Johnson {Unhloody Sacrijice, i,123, ed.l847) asserts on very slen- der evidence that the fathers who refer to Gen xiv, 18, understood that Melchizedek oifered the bread and wine to God; and hence he infers that one great part of our Saviour's Melchizedekian priesthood consisted in offer- ing bread and wine. Bellarmine asks in what other respects is Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedek. ^Vaterland, who does not lose sight of the deep signifi- cancy of Melchizedek's action, has replied to Johnson in his Ajypendix to "the Christian Sacrifice explained" (ch. iii, § 2, Works, v, 165, ed, 1843). Bellarmine's ques- tion is sufficiently answered bj' Whitaker, I)iiputatio}i on Scripture (Quest, ii, ch. x, p. 168, ed. 1849). The sense of the fathers, who sometimes expressed them- selves in rhetorical language, is cleared from misinter- pretation by bishop Jewel, Reply to Harding, art. xvii ( Works, ii, 731, ed. 1847). In Jackson, On the Creed (bk. ix, § 2, ch. vi-xi, p. 955 sq.), there is a lengthy but valuable account of the priesthood of Melchizedek; and the views of t^vo different theological schools are ably stated by Aquinas {Summa, iii, 22, § 6) and Turretin {Theologia, ii, 443-453).