Melchizedek and Christ

Panis:

I agree that the writer of Hebrews is trying to draw a contrast between the Levitical priesthood and Christ. Obviously, as you said, the focus of the writer is on Christ. Still, there seems to be some problems with your argument and Ralph's argument.

First, you assume that an overwhelming majority of people from pre-1963 to the present have seen Melchizedek as something other than a type of Christ. This may or may not be the case. Either way, as you insinuated, the majority of scholarly opinion today is that Melchizedek is a type. I believe this to be true, personally. From your post, I think you believe this as well.

Second, (switching to Ralph here) if Melchizedek was a priest of Baal, where is the Hebrew term for Baal in Genesis 14? It is completely absent. Furthermore, if this is indeed a reference to Baal in Genesis 14, can you find any other instances anywhere in the Old Testament where Baal is referred to as El Elyon?

The typeology in Hebrews 7 contrasted with Ralph's interpretation of Genesis 14 is what does him in. Let's say that Melchizedek is a high priest of Baal. That means that the writer of Hebrews is using a high priest of Baal as a type of Christ.

That, of course, is liberal theology through and through. Nowhere in the Bible is there an instance of anything overtly pagan being used as a type of Christ. Why would the writer of Hebrews draw similarities between a high priest of Baal and Christ? Just because of some supposed "legends?" That argument makes no sense.

The problem that the people in the SBC had with Ralph's commentary was that it was overwhelmingly liberal in its theology. The Genesis 14 interpretation is just one example.

Circenses:

First, you assume that an overwhelming majority of people from pre-1963 to the present have seen Melchizedek as something other than a type of Christ. This may or may not be the case.

I assume that most Christians who read Hebrews 7 will come away with the notion that Barnabas is trying to make a relationship between Christ and Melchizedek. I assume that the extent of what that relationship is in the minds of the belivers will be varied. I know that mass opinion has matured over the last forty years in varied areas. Whether or not the majority of believers believe Melchizedek to be something other than a type of Christ I do not know and did not assume. Even if the majority of believers do believe Melchizedek to be only a type of Christ we still must learn the different opinions on what the majority means by “type”.

Either way, as you insinuated, the majority of scholarly opinion today is that Melchizedek is a type. I believe this to be true, personally. From your post, I think you believe this as well.

Yes.

Second, (switching to Ralph here) if Melchizedek was a priest of Baal, where is the Hebrew term for Baal in Genesis 14? It is completely absent. Furthermore, if this is indeed a reference to Baal in Genesis 14, can you find any other instances anywhere in the Old Testament where Baal is referred to as El Elyon?

As you are aware of, the term Baal does not really denote one god but a pantheon of varied Baal gods worshipped by the Canaanites.

I could not find a Biblical passage where Baal is referred to as El Elyon. I did find extra biblical material. The concept of El Elyon as “most high god” and “possesser of all things” is of Canaanites origin. The Ras Shamra tablets found in Jerusalem circa the time of Abraham and Melchizedek show that the Canaanites at Salem worshipped a god call Al’iyan (highest god) who was the “possessor”. Many other Ugaritic texts refer to El Elyon as a Baal god after the time of Abraham and Melchizedek.

But I was only able to find one passage other than Genesis 14 in the Bible that refers to El Elyon as Lord (Psalm 78:35, 56). But even this passage does not necessarily refute Elliott’s argument when we note that he is saying that Abraham was noting that Yahweh is the true El Elyon (Most High god) and not Al’iyan. This would be akin to Paul in Athens (Acts 17:22-31) refering to the altar inscribed “To the Unknown God” as the one and only God. The Athenians were not worshipping Yahweh but just had a altar for any god they didn’t know. Paul took this as an opportunity to witness: “Let me tell you about the God that you don’t know ….” This is basically what Elliott’s argument is.

The typeology in Hebrews 7 contrasted with Ralph's interpretation of Genesis 14 is what does him in. Let's say that Melchizedek is a high priest of Baal. That means that the writer of Hebrews is using a high priest of Baal as a type of Christ.

Again, I do not think that Barnabas in Hebrews is referring to Melchizedek’s faith when he uses him as a type. The genealogy is what is most important. Another interpretation I read is that Melchizedek is a type of Him who was to come in the fact that he ministers to both a Jew (Abraham) and a Gentile (the King of Sodom). Christ is like Melchizedek in that He serves Jew and Gentile without distinction. In this latter interpretation, the substance of the religion is not stressed but the fact that the religious priest ministers to both Jew and Gentile. I think this interpretation is stretched but it does give an example that Barnabas’ purpose is not to compare the faith of Christ with the faith of Melchizedek.

Let’s take another typological example. In Romans 5:14, Paul compares Christ and Adam. He says that Adam is a type of Him who was to come. How can this be? Adam was the one who caused the fall of man. Adam is the the one in which all who are in him shall die (1 Cor 15:22). How could Paul say that Adam who caused the curse to come upon man is like Christ? Yet, Paul does. Perhaps, Paul is not emphasizing a comparison of Adam and Christ in all aspects but only in specific ones.

Heck, Jesus compared Himself to Jonah, the anti-prophet, the prophet who did almost everything against God’s plan and, even when he did what God told him to do, he did it with a bad attitude. In fact, the reason he disobeyed God was because he did want the Ninevites destroyed. How could Jesus compare Himself to Jonah? Well, his analogy went only as far as Jonah was in the belly of a fish for three days and He would be in the belly of the earth for three days. For the most part, that was as far as his analogy went and that is as far as we should take it.

I do not think that the comparison of Christ and priest-king of Baal would be inappropriate as long as the comparisons are accurate and fulfill the function of the author. As long as Paul does not say that Christ like Adam cursed the ground or God IS unknown Athenian god, then I have no problem with the analogy.

That, of course, is liberal theology through and through. Nowhere in the Bible is there an instance of anything overtly pagan being used as a type of Christ. Why would the writer of Hebrews draw similarities between a high priest of Baal and Christ? Just because of some supposed "legends?" That argument makes no sense.

Okay, how is Elliott’s interpretation liberal theology? I am forever hearing and reading people accuse interpretations they disagree with as liberal.

Well, Christ is compared with the "morning star" in a few places. "Morning star" is Venus, or Aphrodite in the Greco-Roman world. Again, Paul makes a comparsion between God and “the unknown god”. But see above. The comparison is about genealogy and not about Baal. You say you do not understand why Barnabas would draw similarities between a king-priest of Baal and Christ? Well, let me ask you this: why did Barnabas draw a comparison between Melchizedek and Christ in the first place? What is the purpose of the comparison? There is the answer to your question.

Again, I am not saying that I hold to Elliott’s interpretation. I am just saying that the Biblical evidence is either ambiguous or leaning in his direction. I really do not think that defining Melchizedek’s faith is essential to Genesis 14 and certainly not to Hebrews 7.

The problem that the people in the SBC had with Ralph's commentary was that it was overwhelmingly liberal in its theology. The Genesis 14 interpretation is just one example.

Again, explain how Elliott’s commentary is liberal. Do we as as conservative Christians actually know what liberalism is? He believes in God, he believes in Christ, he believes in the Bible as authorative, infallible and the inspired truth of God. What makes his commentary liberal? Is it because it differs with other people on peripheral matters? Because it challenges are expectations of what the Bible ought to be? Because it differs from what we were taught in Sunday School? People use the slanderous tag “ liberal” a whole lot but no one seems to be willing to explain what they mean by it or how it applies to those they refer to.