According to the Order of Melchizedek

With regards to Ralph Elliott's The Message of Genesis and the controversy it generated.

Panis:

Doesn't make me wonder.

Just one example of many from the book:

"It would appear, then, that in verse 19, Melchizedek was blessing Abram by the Baal, whom Melchizedek considered to be the highest god of the city state at Salem. Thus, Melchizedek was extending blessings for, and receiving, tithes in behalf of his El Elyon, to be equated with Baal."--p. 116

Perhaps Ralph forgot to look at Hebrews 7:1-4


Circenses:

One thing that must be understood about what the author of Hebrews (I think it’s Barnabas) is doing by evoking the figure of Melchizedek is that he is explaining the Levitical priesthood system of the OT and its relation to Christ. Three points: First, Barnabas’ intention is not to explain Melchizedek but to explain Christ. Second, he is using typology as a comparison. Third, by the time of the 1st century, the character of Melchizedek had developed far beyond the literal information given in Genesis 14.

Melchizedek is a king-priest much in the same way that Christ is a king-priest. This fits in with the purpose of Hebrews. Also, Melchizedek is not mentioned as having parents. It was a cultural tendency among the Jews to create legends about those who did not have a history. Hebrews 7:3 speaks of Melchizedek as having neither father, mother, genealogy, beginning nor end. Genesis 14 says nothing about Melchizedek not having parents, but because it doesn’t say he did have parents, and because he was viewed by the Jews as a strange and odd figure, legends grew up about who he was. We can see this in the important (Psalm 110). There used to be a time that many conservative Christians believed that Melchizedek of Genesis 14 was REALLY Christ incarnate. I remember hearing such an interpretation from Christians as a child. One of the real sources of the Elliott controversy regarding his interpretation of Genesis 14 stems from believers who had been taught as children that Melchizedek was Christ. If a child, like myself, doubted that Melchizedek was Christ Incarnate in Genesis 14 then the teacher would turn to Hebrew 7: 3. “That is what the literal truth of the Bible says.” Now very few today actually believe that Melchizedek did not have parents and is eternal. Even fewer believe that Melchizedek was Christ. It is amazing how far we have come in just the last twenty years of the SBC.

Barnabas is trying to say that the priesthood of Christ is like that of Melchizedek in the fact that it is outside of the Levitical line (genealogical inheritance of priesthood) and is eternal and unchanging having no parents. If you read Hebrew 7, Barnabas is emphasizing genealogy. Jesus himself points to the genealogical emphasis of Melchizedek when he quotes Ps. 110 to the Pharisees in Mark 12:35-37. Barnabas did not believe that Melchizedek was Christ or that he never had parents and was eternal. He is simply using the legends of Melchizedek to explain the Christ’s relation to the Levitical priesthood.

Much of the controversy today surrounding Elliott’s interpretation of Melchizedek is that most conservatives interpret Melchizedek to be a Canaanite priest-king of faith who worshipped Yahweh while Elliott interpreted him to be a Canaanite priest-king who worshipped the Baal god El Elyon (Most High god) and who blessed Abraham by El Elyon (Genesis 14:19-20) but Abraham in return acknowledged that he swears by Lord El Elyon (Yahweh the Most High God) (Genesis 14:22). Elliott interprets Abraham as making a statement about his God Yahweh and not the Baal god El Elyon of Melchizedek (Message, 116-117).

Three points: First, it is true that Barnabas in Hebrews is not interested in the faith of Melchizedek. He is interested in the genealogical legend of Melchizedek. Second, he calls Melchizedek a priest of the Most High god (hupsistos theos), a literal Greek translation of El Elyon. He does not refer to him as priest of the Lord the Most High God. Barnabas is not making a direct connection between Melchizedek and Yahweh. Third, El Elyon was a name of one of the Canaanite Baal gods.

Whether or not Elliott was right in his interpretation is really unknown to me. I know of very well respected conservative scholars who go either way on this issue. Even those who disagree with Elliott on the issue understand, like myself, how he can make such an interpretation in good faith and scholarship. The Biblical evidence is ambiguous if not leaning towards Elliott’s view and Elliott makes a good case.

But regardless of this point, Christians were “persecuting” Elliott for an interpretation of a select passage of Scripture that had no significant bearing upon the faith. Again, if many believers forty years ago had not thought that Melchizedek was Christ I doubt that this would have been an issue. Instead, they would have just focused on other parts of his book they thought would tar him. I have never found a single person, let alone a single scholar, who I agree with on every aspect of the Bible. Even the great SBC scholars that I frequently read (Mullins, Moody, Stagg) have at least one or two interpretations with which I disagree. All of my favourite professors have had interpretations with which I disagree. None of these interpretations that I deem spurious has ever made me not like them or made me find there theology liberal or made be question their faith. I just disagree with them.

But regardless of all this, the amazing thing today is that SBC seminaries that are now all controlled by those who were for the conservative resurgence populate their faculty with Old Testament profs who agree with Elliott on a lot if not most of the controversial interpretations that caused such a stir in the early sixties.

I think the controversy and all the subsequent major controversies that have developed to this day with regards to the theology taught in SBC schools are all about controlling others. Don’t you think it is interesting that anytime such a theological controversy comes up the answer is always more control? Today the control is always through the 2000 BFM.

First, SBC employees, then seminary professors, then missionaries, and now its becoming state conventions and state college professors and local associations and its churches. I have even heard some pastors state that we need to not allow students into seminary unless they agree with the 2000 BFM. Why? Because they receive money from the SBC. Why should we fund seminary students who are going to preach or teach doctrines contrary to the majority of Southern Baptists. This has been the logic used since 1962. This has been the method of gaining control. I had joked in the past about seminary students having to sign the 2000 BFM as a ludicrous extension of the contemporary logic, but now I have heard some agree that it is the only way of protecting sound doctrine. Now I am afraid of making other jokes in fear that they will come true. Here’s one: Next local associations will only associate with churches whose pastors have signed the 2000 BFM. There I said it.

I hope the idea of making seminary students sign the 2000 BFM is just the wishes of a small minority of SBC members and not an idea that will come to fruition.

I think if we had more SBC leaders "according to the order of Melchizedek" and less self-perpetuating Levites then we might church-goers who did not want to fire every person who disagreed with them on minor issues.

What do you think?