Who was Melchizedek?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kidner

Derek Kidner

Kidner does not enter into detail concerning the debate over the identity of Melchizedek. He treats Melchizedek as a historical person, king of Jerusalem, and priest of Jehovah.[1] Kidner also notes the meaning of Melchizedek’s name and titles, associating him with righteousness and peace. Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7 note the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek to that of the Aaronic line.

 

 

Sailhamer

John Sailhamer

Sailhamer’s view is similar to that of Kidner. He speaks of Melchizedek as a historical figure, the king of Salem, who is presented as the foil to the king of Sodom.[2] Melchizedek’s name, titles, actions, and words identify him as a legitimate priest of the true God, and Abraham’s response is validation of his position.

 

 

 

 

 

Wenham

Gordon Wenham

Wenham does not share the view of Kidner and Sailhamer. He writes that Melchizedek’s name should likely be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the lordship of a false god (e.g. Zedek).[3] Whereas Kidner identifies Salem with Jerusalem, and Sailhamer does not comment on the matter, Wenham leans away from interpreting Salem as Jerusalem. As for Melchizedek’s priesthood, Wenham asserts that “El-Elyon,” rather than being understood as a reference to Jehovah, should be interpreted as the highest of the Canaanite false gods. This view of Melchizedek, however, does not prevent Wenham from recognizing him as a type of Christ.[4]

 

 

McWilliams

In addition to these views of Melchizedek as a godly, human type of Christ and a pagan Canaanite priest (who also served as a type of Christ), Davis notes that others have propagated the theories that Melchizedek was either “a theophany of the preincarnate Christ” or Shem, the son of Noah.[5] Davis, however, opts for the same view held by Kidner and Sailhamer (and Waltke, as well).[6] It is this view, that understands Melchizedek as a true, human, historical figure, king of Jerusalem, priest of Jehovah, and forerunner of the ultimate Priest-King, Jesus Christ, that I believe best fits the immediate biblical (Genesis 14:17-24), theological (Psalm 110:1-4; Hebrews 5, 7), and historical contexts. To interpret Melchizedek as a theophany or to identify him with Shem seems to require an approach to the text that is biased from the start. From a purely linguistic standpoint, Wenham’s view may be possible, but it seems to raise enough theological difficulties as to make the view of Kidner, Sailhamer, Davis, and Waltke much more preferable.

 

[1] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries v. 1 (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 131-132.

[2] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: With the New International Version of the Holy Bible. Vol. 2, ed. Frank E Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1990), 122-125.

[3] Gordon J Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary. Vol 1 ; Genesis 1-15 (Waco: Word Books, 1987), 139-141.

[4] Ibid., 322.

[5] John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Salem: Sheffield Publishing Co., 1998), 181.

[6] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 225-238.

Advertisement

The Church in Old Testament Typology

Far from the church being a distant or parenthetical thought, the Holy Spirit so moved the writers of old that it should be clear the things pertaining to Israel “happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (I Corinthians 10:11). They have rich application for the church in the new covenant age, both for what they reveal about Christ and for what they also show us about the church in union with him.

via The Church in Old Testament Typology.

 

Reinterpretation or Typology?

A friend of mine asked me to take a look at this article and let him know what my thoughts were. This post is my response.

Rather than reproduce sections of the article in this post, you can read the original post here (Don’t worry; it’s not lengthy): Does Romans 9:25-26 Support Covenant Theology?

1. Mr. Waymeyer seems to be reading the Dispensational definition of “church” into that of covenant theology, making it seem as though Covenant theologians advocate the church’s replacement of Israel. Dispensational theologians typically restrict their definition of “the church” to those believers (Jew & Gentile) in the present age of history, beginning at Pentecost and ending (as far as new members go) with the “Rapture” at the end of this age. Regardless of whose definition is correct, we need to at least let our brothers’ definitions stand for the sake of discussion, so we do not unintentionally misrepresent them. This goes for both Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians, who often end up talking past one another.

What Mr. Waymeyer needs to take into account is that in Covenant Theology terms, the entirety of the elect throughout history is the “new and true” Israel – the elect are the antitype of Israel’s type. Most Covenant Theologians will simply say “the church,” but usually they simply mean nothing more than the elect of God throughout history, even though the church was not formally organized until the time of the New Testament. This is because Covenant Theologians see Scripture presenting one unified people of God, not two peoples of God with two parallel eschatalogical destinies. Rather, they see the elect, and ethnic Israel as her type. We’ll come back to typology later.

2. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Waymeyer in his rejection of the “People = Israel” view, for the reasons he presents.

3. For all his desire to be true to the plain meaning of the Old Testament text, I believe Mr. Waymeyer’s attempt actually obscures the plain meaning of the New Testament text. This happens by way of his “analogical” interpretation of the New Testament use of the Old Testament. He provides examples of other “analogical” passages, including Matthew 2:14-15, 17-18; and 8:17. But all three of these passages in Matthew explicitly speak of the “fulfillment” of prophecy – not an analogical illustration. Making the statement, “This event is similar in principle to what that Old Testament text spoke of” cannot be construed as a “fulfillment” of what was said in a passage of prophecy. The fact that Mr. Waymeyer uses these text as examples should cast doubt on the validity of his “analogical” assumption regarding the proper interpretation of Romans 9:25-26 as well.

4. The “absence of any referent in the introductory formula” is an argument from silence, not a positive support for Mr. Waymeyer’s analogical interpretation.

Finally, I have not read Ladd (who held to historic premillennialism) or Storms on the subject, so I do not know if Mr. Waymeyer’s description of the “reinterpretation view” accurately applies to them. However, I will say that it does not apply to me, nor to what I know of Covenant Theology in general. His description is basically that Paul is cherry-picking an Old Testament text, completely divorcing it from its original meaning, and giving it a new meaning. Actually, I think Mr. Waymeyer is being polite by using the label “reinterpretation.” The view he describes is tantamount to saying Paul is performing divinely-inspired eisegesis. Needless to say, for a truthful God for whom yes means yes and no means no, such a view would be unacceptable, and we would be wise to reject it. However, I do not believe his description accurately portrays a Covenantal view of typological interpretation.

Instead of the “reinterpretation” view as Mr. Waymeyer describes Covenant Theologians as espousing, I would actually hold to a typological interpretation of the passage. The apostle Paul is unpacking an Old Testament prophecy which involves typological elements. In this case, the type is ethnic Israel, and the antitype (what is meant by “true Israel”) is the elect. One need only go back to the beginning of the chapter in verses 6-8 to see Paul making this very point. “Israel” can refer to either a) the entirety of ethnic Israel, or b) Israelite believers (the group of whom which would later be expanded to include Gentiles, becoming what is formally known as “the church”).

In conclusion, while I would agree with Mr. Waymeyer that Romans 9:25-26 is not a “proof-text” for Covenant Theology, I would also say that a proper recognition of biblical typology, and allowing the NT writers to mean what they say, in no way contradicts a likewise proper view of Covenant Theology (such as that of the 1689 London Baptist Confession).

For a brief, general comparison of the hermeneutics of 1689 Federalism (Covenant Theology) and Dispensationalism (as well as other systems like New Covenant Theology and Westminster Paedobaptist Covenant Theology), check out this site: 1689federalism.com.