II. Melchizedek is Both King and Priest (vs. 1-3).
“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace.” peace,” without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”
Melchizedek is only one of many shadows or symbols of Christ in the Old Testament. It is important to remember that what serves as a symbol of a thing is never the thing itself.
Melchizedek is the example of how the function of both offices of king and priest are fulfilled in one man. The two offices of king and priest are manifestly contrary to one another in as much as the administration of the one, stands in stark opposition to that of the other. As king, he is the administrator of justice to the offender. As priest, he is the administrator of mercy. Mercy cannot satisfy the demands of justice because when mercy is extended, the sinner goes unpunished. On the other hand, the administration of justice to the sinner is a complete absence of mercy because the penalty for sin is death. So, how can both offices be affected in one man to render both justice and mercy at the same time?
As King, he renders the sentence of death to the sinner. “The soul who sins, will die” (Ezekiel 18:20) Because the demand for justice must be met for God's holiness to be satisfied, someone must die for sin. It is God's justice that protects his holiness. So, for God to allow sin to go unpunished would be a violation of his nature.
As High Priest, he must supply mercy to the sinner. This is the function of the office. The sinner is guilty, and it is imperative that the sin be punished, but as Priest, he must pardon the offender and allow him to go unpunished (4:14-16). How then does he both demand justice and extend mercy to the sinner? This suggest that there was a sacrificial system observed by Melchizedek which bore the approval of God.
Jesus himself paid the penalty for all sin for all men for all time. Calvary is the satisfaction of God to extradite the sins of humanity to his justice. Thus, as High Priest, he is able to extend mercy and pardon all who will appropriate to themselves the blood of atonement (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9).
III. Melchizedek is a High Priest Without Genealogy (v. 3).
“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most-High God… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”
In chapter seven, we are going to find both comparison and contrast. Jesus' priesthood will be compared to that of Melchizedek but contrasted to that of Aaron.
“Without father, mother, or genealogy.” In other words, with no predecessor and no successor.
Since this is typology, whatever is said of Melchizedek as high priest must also be said of Jesus as high priest. Whatever is said of Jesus as High Priest must also be said of Melchizedek as high priest. This is the nature of typology. Verse 17 informs us that Jesus was made a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. However, verse 3 tells us that Melchizedek was “made like the Son of God, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Here, the order is reversed. So, how are we to understand these rather perplexing statements?
As High Priest, Jesus was taken out of man just like every other high priest, including Melchizedek. This means he had a mother and a father, and so did Melchizedek. He had a “beginning of days and an end of life.” He was born in Bethlehem and died in Jerusalem. According to Matthew 1, he had a genealogy that was traced all the way back to Adam. Both were men, both had a mother and a father, and both had a genealogy. So, how can the writer say, “without father, mother, or genealogy?”
We must remember that the focus is not on Melchizedek the man. The focus is on the priesthood. This is the context. It was Jesus’ priesthood that had no “father, mother, or genealogy?” Just like the priesthood of Melchizedek, Jesus’ priesthood is a one-man-forever-priesthood with no predecessor and no successor.
In the Levitical system, all priests were descended through the line of Aaron (1 Chronicles 6:50-52). To the contrary, the office of the high priest was not passed on to Melchizedek by his father, nor did he pass it on to his heir. In other words, his is also a one-man-forever-priesthood “without father, mother, or genealogy.”
“Having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (v. 3) seems to offer three possibilities.
That this refers to the man Melchizedek. Some argue from this that Melchizedek was not a man but some supernatural being who was neither born of human parents nor had a beginning or end of life. Since this does not fit the reality of Jesus as the antitype, we know this explanation simply is not possible. Some view this and the preceding statement as simply a Hebraism which stresses the obscurity of his genealogy and posterity. Perhaps that is true, but since the type must always reflect the antitype, this theory simply does not reflect typology.
“Having neither beginning of days nor end of life” refers not to the man himself but to his priesthood.
This priesthood is unlike that of the Levitical system. We can look back at Sinai and see where the Levitical priesthood had its beginning of days with the anointing of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 28:1ff). We can then look forward from there to the cross and see where that priesthood saw its end of life. Now, a new and greater covenant is inaugurated in Jesus “according to the power of an endless life.” But Jesus did die and he died as a Great High Priest. This then, is not referring just to the man himself. This also may not apply to just the priesthood apart from the man. Since this is a one-man-forever priesthood, then apart from the man, there is no priesthood.
That this refers to the man as a high priest is, I believe, more to the point. As men, both Jesus and Melchizedek had a beginning of days and an end of life. Both were born and both died. As high priests however, they have neither “beginning of days nor end of life.” They remain priests continually. Death does not interrupt their status as high priest. This stands in contrast to the priests of the Levitical system whose “beginning of days” began at the age of twenty-five. As priests, they reached their “end of life” which was the end of their priestly function at the age of fifty when they completed their appointed time of priestly service (Numbers 8:24-25). Actually, this is what applied to the three families of the Levites who served the tabernacle in a variety of ways. Since the priests were also Levites of the family of Kohath, we can only assume this law applied to them as well.
“But made like the Son of God” (v. 3).
Here, the order is reversed. In 6:20, Christ is presented as a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Now, Melchizedek is said to be a High Priest who was made like the Son of God. Like everything else that is type, Melchizedek is the shadow of the reality. This is like the building of the tabernacle in Exodus 25:40 being built according to the “pattern shown to you on the mountain.” Everything that is shadow must be patterned according to the thing it represents. The substance ALWAYS precedes the type, and the type must always reflect the reality.
He “remains a priest continually” (v. 3).
His priesthood is uninterrupted even by death. He left his office to no one else. Although Melchizedek has been dead for many centuries, he remains the central figure in that one-man-forever priesthood. Like the Son of God, he carries his priesthood beyond the grave. He does not leave it to another. His priesthood, in contrast to that of the Levites, is not bound by the physical. It was “not according to the law of a fleshly commandment” (vs. 15-16). This fleshly commandment says that the Levitical priest must end his days of service at the age of fifty. The High Priest ended his days of service at his death. In contrast, the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater. He continues as the High Priest of his priesthood even though he is dead.