This Bible teaching conducted by Shawn focuses on Hebrews 7:3 and delves into the character of Melchizedek as a type of Jesus Christ. Shawn emphasizes the importance of understanding biblical truth while also promoting love and unity among believers, even amidst differences in non-essential beliefs. The teaching explores the significance of Melchizedek’s name, kingship over Salem, and priesthood, as well as his interaction with Abraham after the slaughter of the kings. The teaching also touches on the symbolic meaning of Melchizedek offering bread and wine to Abraham and the implications for Christians today.

Watch on YouTube

Hebrews 7:3 Part 1 Bible Teaching Script

Hebrews 7.3 Part 1
February 2nd 2014
Meat
Welcome, let’s pray, sing the word, and sit in some silent prayerful reflection before getting into more about Mechizedek in Hebrews chapter 7.

PRAYER
SING
SILENCE

Okay, before we get into our verse by verse I am impressed to say something that I think needs to be said.

The reason I think this is the case is that over the last year many people who were once very supportive of this ministry and church have become . . . unsupportive.

In the ministerial outreach this seems to be because we were kicked off local television and for our focus on modern Christianity.

Here at CAMPUS the partial mutiny has been over theological positions.

Now, while I do EVERYTHING possible to understand the word of God in the Spirit and Truth of its content, in my opinion there are very few hills to die on it the faith.

The hills to die on are do we

“receive Jesus Christ as the sole source of salvation,”

“that He is the I Am”

“That He is God in the flesh,”

“that we are saved by God’s grace through faith,”

“that He was crucified for the sins of the world, died, and then rose again on the third day,”

That “the Bible is the word of God.”

That “Christians are commanded to believe and love.”

I don’t know of ANYTHING else that would cause me to part faith with another believer.

And I sometimes wonder if God hasn’t left it this way as a means to teach all of us – the PHD.s, the Evangelists, the lowly and the lofty – to love each other amidst our differences.

There are two points I want to reiterate in light of all of this.

First, we do not all have to believe the same things relative to the non-essentials.

There may even be times between us that we could even differ on some of what we have labeled “the essentials.” (I hope not, but its possible). But amidst all of the variables – that exist between us here in this room and between those in this room and the rest of the body “out there” – love must be allowed to work its work. Patience, longsuffering, etc.

But my second point is we must do all we possibly can to understand biblical truth!

This presents us with somewhat of a paradox. On the one hand, we have listed a few hills worthy dying on and have said everything else is intellectually negotiable, but here in the same breath I am saying that we must strive with all we’ve got to see, know, and understand biblical truth.

The reason we approach our faith and Christian walk through this model is because while the non-essentials ought to never divide the body and those in it, we do believe it is vital to worship God in Spirit and in Truth – so while the non-essentials are never points for contention, understanding them in the clearest light possible is vital to our respective Christian walks.

Let me give an illustration to help make my point.

I would NEVER, EVER make water baptism – it’s modes, etc. – a matter of division or suggest to someone that they are not saved for having neglected it or that they are a superior Christian for having embraced it.

Got that?

But I personally embraced water baptism by immersion as important to my individual walk and in a gift that allows me (as a man in flesh) to know and understand God even better than I could without it.

Now, some people might say:

“We’ll, isn’t this approach hypocritical? I mean, you personally have benefited from water baptism, shouldn’t you then teach, having benefited from it on a first hand basis, then enforce it more strongly?”

I don’t think so. What we will do is teach and explore water baptism relative to the Christian walk, and I may (amidst the teaching include an illustration from my own life to bolster my argument) but because it is a non-essential, and because it does NOT fit in the hill to die on category I would never try to make it such.

That is the game of darkness, and division, etc.

So I hope this makes some sense. Because by adopting this approach a number of wonderful things happen:

First, it allows us to receive all people (in love) irrespective of their tangential beliefs. Calvinists and preterists and pre-tribists and Baptists are all welcome – as are their divergent ideas.

Secondly, it allows us to learn together what possibilities may exist outside their established mindsets without alienating people for the opinions they have already formed.

Third, it is an inoculation against division. To clearly define what are essentials goes a long way in refusing to allow mountains to become molehills.

And finally, it allows us to open explore without fear or condemnation all biblical positions and to individually choose what is biblical in our minds, and what is not . . . and to subsequently grow thereby.

Got all that?

Okay . . . let’s get to what’s important – our study of the word of God.

Okay, last week at the end of chapter 6 the writer of Hebrews ended the chapter and said Christ was made after the order of Melchizedek.

And then we read the first three verses of Hebrews 7, which say:

1 For this Melchisedec, 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 by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

We took a few minutes (due to our geographical location and the fact that many of us have either come out of Mormonism or have family and friends in it) and we talked about what the LDS say about this Melchezedek.

So let me re-read these three verses that speak of him, and sort of build a case for who I believe He is.

When we read the Old Testament, it is vital to understand the use of “types.”

Most of you know that a type is a figure or representation of something to come.

For example “Egyptian bondage” was a type for the bondage of sin all people – to some extend – are in until saved by Christ.

Moses was a type for the Messiah.

The Exodus was a type for leaving the world behind.

The Passover Lamb was a type for the shed blood of Jesus for the sins of the world.

The Pillar of Fire – Jesus
Manna from Heaven – Jesus
Water from the Rock – Jesus
The Flesh Pots – type for sin
The Sacrificial Offerings – Jesus
The Festivals and Feasts -Jesus
The Brazen Serpent – Jesus

Look at the Old Testament Tabernacle.

There were three entrances to it – all typifying of Him. There was a
A gate – Jesus
A door – Jesus
And a veil – Jesus flesh

Inside there were seven Articles of Furniture:
Brazen Altar type of the cross
Laver: Washed clean by Christ
Golden Lamp: Christ is the Light
Table of bread: Jesus bread of life.
Altar of Incense: Jesus our intercessor!
The Mercy Seat

One of my favorite types in the OT represents Jesus as all Man and all God.

What is the type

The Ark of the Covenant.

In Exodus 25:10-11 we read:

“And they shall make an ark of acacia-wood . . . And you shall overlay it with pure gold. You shall overlay it inside and out, and shall make on it a crown of gold all around.”

Now acacia-wood is gnarled and thorny, representing man.

And gold was pure and costly, representing God.

The Ark was wood. The Ark was Gold
Jesus was All Man. Jesus was All God.

Contents of the Ark? Manna, The Law, Aaron’s Blossoming Rod

And on and on and on.

So who was Melchizedek?

He was another TYPE of Jesus Christ, not of a priesthood to be handed down like the Levitical priesthood – there is no mention of any Melchizedek priesthood, just a figure named Melchizedek who was such an imposing high priest even Abraham, the father of our faith, paid him respect and homage.

His type was a powerful and mysterious High Priest when fulfilled in Christ was shown to be a high priest forever and ever.

Now, prior to Sinai, the patriarchs (or fathers of each family) were the established priests of the land.

Then at Sinai, God established a priesthood based on the heritage of Aaron.

Melchizedek was a great high priest prior to the establishment of the priesthood based on heritage.

So when we combine the fact that

1) Melchizedek was a high priest prior to the establishment of the Levitical priesthood . . .

AND

That what he was a figure for our final high priest Jesus Christ . . .

. . . we can then begin to understand what Melchizedek was biblically. Admittedly, many Christians believe he was an actual man. There are Jewish Rabbins who think he was possibly Shem, who was the son of Noah.

But real or not, the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that he was a type of Jesus Christ.

Then, let’s look at his name
“Melchizedek . . .”

Melchizedek’s name in Hebrew is
“Malki – tsedek,” and it clearly means “my righteous king”, or “king of righteousness.”

We might assume that he bore this name due to the fact that He had a pure and righteous administration of his government.

Obviously, this is yet another characteristic of the Lord – actually, a characteristic which can only be applied to Him only, as he alone is essentially the only righteous Potentate.

As a type of Christ we know that the type must be righteous. In Melchizedeks case, even His name speaks to this.

Then we know that He is called (first in Genesis) “. . . king of Salem . . .”

Where was Salem? Massachussets? No.

Have you ever heard of Jeru”salem?”

Psalms 76:1,2: “In Judah is God known; his name is great in Israel. In SALEM also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.”

“Shalam” signifies to make whole, complete, or perfect, to bring peace. Christ is called the Prince of peace, because, by his incarnation, sacrifice, and mediation, he procures and establishes peace between God and man.

Remember . . .???
“Peace on earth good will toward men!”

The Lords residence is peace and quietness and assurance for ever, in every believing upright heart.

He governs as the Prince and Priest of the most high God, ruling in righteousness, mighty to save; and he ever lives to make intercession for, and save to the uttermost all who come unto the Father by him.

Extrapolated out, there is truly only one KING of SALEM – Jesus. If Melchizedek was a real man, we would, in my opinion, say there have been two.

And what does scripture say Melchizedek brought to Abraham?

“Bread and wine!”

The very same elements Jesus established communion upon in the upper room.

Think of it so far.

Melchizedek, a name that means “king of righteousness,” whose reigned over a kingdom known as peace, brought bread and wine, the elements of communion, as refreshment to Abraham after a battle made victorious by the True and Living God!

Are you seeing the type?

Then let look at Melchizedek’s office –
We know he was a king of righteousness, but He was also

“a priest of the most high God.”

The word “Nhk” or “cohen,” signifies an office of both “prince” and “priest” because the patriarchs sustained such a double office at this time.

Cohen has its root in the Arabic word, “kahana” which signifies “to approach, draw near, have intimate access to; and from hence to officiate as priest before God, and thus have intimate access to the Divine presence.”

Melchizedek, being a priest of the most high God, predated and typified Christ in his priestly duties of approaching the throne of God on our behalf, of “entering into the Divine Presence.”

What other evidences point to Melchizedek being purely a type for Jesus and nothing else?

Let’s sort of skim over our text for today in Hebrews 7 – and let’s actually read verses 1-4, which say:

1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him.

2 To him Abraham also gave a tenth of all. He was first by interpretation king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace.

So in addition to all we have talked about even Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek!

What is the purpose of this? Abraham was certainly at the top of the heap in authority among the Jews, wasn’t he?

Absolutely. Remember how the Jews regarded Abraham at the time of Jesus?

When John the Baptist preached repentance to the Jews, they would say to him

“We have Abraham for our father.”

And remember what Jesus said to them about Abraham

“Verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

This was all typified when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek as an indication that Jesus’ position of authority and power were far above even Father Abraham.

You get it?

Then, verse three in Hebrews 7 says, speaking of Melchizedek, that he was

3 without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest continually.

Now, we’ve really gotta get real here . . . about this character Melchizedek as a type of Jesus.

Did Jesus (as the pre-incarnate Word of God) have a Father?

No! There was not father of Jesus as there was no Jesus preincarnate – just the Word of God – and the Word of God had no father, nor mother!

And then the writer says (in the King James) that He was without descent.

The Greek word for “without Descent” is “agenealogetos.”

Genealogetos means with a record of birth or beginnings. Agenealogetos means without any record or descent.

This also is true of the Word – who was not created nor had a beginning like all other men.

Additionally we read that Melchizedek was not only without father or mother or genealogy but that . . .

“having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest continually.”

Finally, David gives us some insight into Melchizedek when he writes:

Psalm 110:4 The LORD hath sworn,
and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Where other priests (of the Levitical order were merely high priests while alive) Christ would perform His sacerdotal duties beyond this life and into the ages.

Later on in this chapter in Hebrews, the connection between the figure Melchizedek and Jesus is made more clear in relation to their priestly duties as we will read beginning at verse 22:

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And there truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man (Jesus), because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest came to us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those first high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Okay. So there are some biblical thoughts on this mysterious character names Melchizedek.

Okay.

So let’s hit on what chapter seven is all about – sort of as a preface to our verse by verse study.

In Hebrews chapter five (verses 10-11) the writer first mentions the name of Melchizedek, and said “that Christ was made an high priest after the same order as this figure” but also said at that point in the epistle that there was a lot he could write about concerning him but that the readers were in a state of mind that they wouldn’t be able to understand it.

From there he sort of rebukes them for their lack of progress in obtaining “Christian knowledge,” and then in chapter six exhorts them to go on and make advancements in the acquisition of knowledge and understanding as this would keep them from apostasy.

Well it appears after having laid all of these observations on them that he is ready to get back to the subject of
Melchizedek.

And I would suggest that like he has done with angels, and prophets, and the Law, and the Hebrew way of life, His object is to show that Jesus is a better (or superior) High Priest that the Jewish High Priest – by likening Him to Melchizedek.

He does this by showing that the whole Jewish priesthood and community (which sprouted from Abraham) even bowed (so to speak – paid tribute) to this Melchizedek.

If Christ was of the order of Melchizedek, as was prophesied He is therefore superior to the Jewish priesthood.

So first we’ll see that the writer describes Melchizedek as a person or being.

Then he reminds us of his history and interaction with Abraham, then he explains that it is impossible for “perfection” to rise out of the rites and rituals of the Levitical priesthood . . . and that a priesthood that represented a perfect state (and was held only by one – the author and finisher of the faith) must be superior to what they had as Jews.

Therefore, the writer argues, there must be a change of administration to accomplish God’s will among men.

Then the writer proves the superiority of Christ and His High Priest position to the former, and the last argument presented is that under the Levitical priesthood the high priest had to offer sacrifice for his own sin but this high priest (Christ) was holy, harmless, and undefiled and that He had no need to offer sacrifices for his own sins, and therefore, in this respect there was a vast superiority of the Christian High Priest over the Jewish.

So let’s go to verse one and begin our read through chapter seven.

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchisedec, 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 by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

In this very first line of verse on we are provided with three major insights into this being:

His Name
His Kingship over Salem
And His priesthood

Let’s return to his name for a second as repetition is the mother of memory.

Recall that his name is literally a compound of two Hebrew terms and LITERALL takes these two words:

“king and righteousness”

And combines them together into one – Melchizedek.

Names were at times given in the Bible on account of the quality or characteristic of the man in question.

Bible scholar Grotius suggests that he was the same man who, in the history of Sanchoniathon, is known as suduk–Sydyc.

It has indeed been made a question by some whether such a person ever actually existed.

Again, whether he existed or not is not the question. Of course he existed – but in my opinion it is clear who He was – a pre-incarnate Christophany of the Messiah to come.

Again, the Jews typically think he was Shem, and Josephus suggested that he was a Canaanitish prince; a personage eminently endowed by God, and who acted as the priest of his people.

We might all be wrong – so I suppose the parallels between this Old Testament character and Jesus are the important part to consider.

The writer also notes that he was King of Salem.

As we have noted, the Hebrew word Salem means, peace.

Because of the name Jeru”salem” is it accepted by most that He was King over that amazing vicinity – which was NOT known as Jerusalem at that time.

How did Jerusalem get its name?

Before it was called Jerusalem the land (known only as Salem) was inhabited by a people called the Jebusites.

The Jebu was over time morphed into JERU – add Salem to it and you get Jeru-SALEM.

Geographically, when we take the “slaughter of kings” that Abraham was involved in to retrieve the booty and Lot who was taken captive, he would have passed through Salem on his return.

And then, “priest of the most high God.”

Now, the main duty of a priest in the Old Testament was to offer sacrifice.

And as we stated this duty was probably first performed by the father of the family, (we can read about this in Job 1:5, Genesis 8:20, and Genesis 22:2).

Once the father dies it was the duty of the eldest son. Have you ever heard that a man is king of his castle?

Back in the day if a man was the priest offering sacrifice for his family he was typically thought of as a king too.

In some ways that model applies to good fathers today, where they ought to serve their family as Christ – sacrificing for them and leading them in righteousness.

(But that is a whole other subject).

So it was not a remarkable thing for Melchizedek, as King of Salem, to also be called priest.

It is also noteworthy that all the way back to Genesis, prior to Abraham, notions of God were present among peoples outside of him.

Finally, here in the first verse, the author describes an action this Melchizedec takes, saying

“who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him . . .”

Now, we can see this in a number of ways. First, in the cultural and physical.

Abraham had gone to war with oppressive forces and overwhelmed them. Out of respect and in harmony with a very culture that places a lot of value on hospitality, Abraham could have been greeted by Melchizedek out of gratitude.

Additionally, the fact that he provided Abraham with bread and wine COULD have simply just been what was customary.

I mean serving bread and wine is almost proverbial in biblical times.

This is how most biblical pragmatists see this exchange. Admittedly, I am a bit more mystical in my thinking.

I believe firmly that the living God, being the great creator, infuses through his dealings with human kind meaning, threading through history connections of the past to the present.

Admittedly, this perspective can be abused and has the potential to really get out of hand, so I could be wrong, but I see in this offering a type of the Messiah to come.

Certainly, if Melchizedek was a human being, the bread and wine could have been seen as commonplace in that day, but I still maintain it pictured the bread of life shedding His blood in the future and works as a type for us today.

Something to consider.

Finally, we have a picture of Melchizek meeting Abraham and both refreshing him (with bread and wine) and blessing him with words.

What was the occasion? Abraham, according to verse one, was returning from

“the slaughter of the kings.”

From what I could tell, there were four:

Amraphel, king of Shiner
Arioch, king of Ellasar
Chedorlaomer, king of Elam,
Tidal, king of nations

These guys were marauders who had invaded the valley where Sodom and Gommorah were located, took the wealth (and lot) and Abraham pursued them beyond Dan, into Damascus, and after smiting them, returned with the spoils.

I find it also significant, as a type, that this forerunner of the Messiah was the one who appeared and rewarded Abraham for His service – for resisting these invaders who plummeted the valley, and in so doing freed the land of fear and apprehension of future invasions, and bringing back all the treasure to its rightful owners.

To me the picture is obvious.

The true King of Righteousness, and Prince of Peace, will likewise meet and refresh and nourish all “people of faith” represented by Abraham who also seek to set people free from marauding bands of earthly kings that prey upon the weak and unsuspecting.

This picture or type must certainly be seen in spiritual terms in this day and age of Christianity, not one where Christians take up physical arms to slaughter the invading Kings of this world as a means to overcome them.

This is supported by the fact that it was the father of faith who waged the slaughter in this picture, and not a father of flesh.

We’ll end here, and pick up at verse 2 next week.

Questions
Comments

Prayer