Hebrews 7:1–10

Original Meaning

An Exposition on Melchizedek (7:1–3)

INHEBREWS 7:1–3 the writer to the Hebrews briefly expounds Genesis 14:17–20, demonstrating typological connections between Melchizedek and the Son of God. His interpretation of the passage has a compact style with which he quickly highlights certain key points that strengthen the association between these two figures suggested by Psalm 110:4.

Verses 1–2a provide a concise summary statement of the Genesis passage. Melchizedek was a priest-king of the city Salem, who met Abraham as he returned from routing certain invading kings. In the Old Testament narrative four kings from the east (Kedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goiim, Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar) marched on a confederation of five kings from Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela. The armies of the latter were defeated in a valley called Siddim and their cities plundered. Lot, Abraham’s nephew, was among the captives taken from Sodom, a fact brought to the attention of the patriarch by a servant who had escaped the battle. Abraham pursued the invaders to Dan, where he staged a night-time attack, putting the enemies to flight and recovering their booty. After his return home both the king of Sodom and Melchizedek, priest of God Most High, met Abraham. The author of Hebrews focuses on Abraham’s encounter with the latter, in which Abraham gave a tithe and received a blessing.

The author of Hebrews points out that Melchizedek’s name means “king of righteousness,” alluding to the Hebrew words melek (which means “king”) and sedeq (which is commonly rendered “righteousness”1). He further interprets “Salem,” the city over which Melchizedek ruled as king, to mean “peace,” associating the name with the Hebrew šalom. Thus, the author reasons, he is “king of peace.” These concepts of righteousness and peace are appropriate for one who prefigures the Messiah, who would make righteousness and peace possible for the people of God.2

The writer finds what the Old Testament narrative does not say especially relevant for his argument. Following a common exegetical practice known as “argument from silence,” the author capitalizes on Genesis 14’s lack of any reference to Melchizedek’s ancestry, birth, or death. His point is not that Melchizedek exists as some form of supernatural being. Rather, he focuses on the details of what the narrative does and does not say, anticipating a stark contrast between Melchizedek’s priesthood and the Levitical priesthood, which he will develop later in the chapter. Since the Genesis text says nothing of this priest’s genealogy, birth, or death, his priesthood has neither the qualifications nor the parameters one finds concerning the Levitical priesthood in the law of Moses. The Levites were priests by virtue of heritage and ceased from the office upon death. Scripture places no such limitations on Melchizedek’s priesthood. For the author of Hebrews, therefore, the Genesis narrative confirms what is clearly stated in Psalm 110:4—a priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek lasts forever.3

Bridging Contexts

HEBREWS 7:1–10 PRESENTS the modern expositor with one of the more fascinating pieces of interpretation found in the New Testament. The logic inherent in the author’s argument is both rigorous and, perhaps, a bit perplexing for those unfamiliar with his conventions. What are we to make of his treatment of Melchizedek? How can we appropriate this text, which deals with an obscure priest mentioned in only a few Old Testament verses, into contemporary applications?

Hebrews’ use (not abuse) of the Old Testament. In the not-too-distant past the exegetical methodology of Hebrews was most often associated with the allegorical exegesis of Philo of Alexandria, a first-century Jewish interpreter. Allegorical interpretation, later affiliated with the “Alexandrian School” of the early church fathers, probes for deeper or mystical senses in a text not readily apparent from the normal meanings of the words themselves. For those who saw Hebrews in this vein, the author fancifully drew meanings from Old Testament passages based on broad semantic associations. Thus, the meaning of a text was not to be found in the apparent meanings of the words used in association with literary context, historical background, and so forth. Rather, allegorical interpretation holds there are hidden or spiritual meanings in the text in addition to the literal sense.

More recently, however, a number of writers have recognized sharp differences between Hebrews and Philo. As indicated in the author’s treatment of Genesis 14:17–20, Hebrews shows great interest in Old Testament contexts and the meanings of specific words. What governs his interpretation of this text is typology, not allegory. Before we consider his use of typology, however, we must focus on two related, but important, principles behind his hermeneutics.

(1) The author, as he does throughout Hebrews, uses “verbal analogy” in his interpretations detailed in Hebrews 7.5 That is, he interprets the Melchizedek passage found in Genesis 14 alongside Psalm 110:4, the only other Old Testament text to mention the priest from Salem. This principle, “Scripture interprets Scripture,” has continued as a hallmark of valid exegesis throughout the history of the church down to the present day. Indeed, we utilize concordances to check linguistic parallels to terms we find in a text under consideration, at times for the purpose of clarifying word meanings or concepts.

I believe this principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture is vital for understanding the author’s “argument from silence” (Heb. 7:1–3)—an approach to biblical interpretation that would be graded down in many modern hermeneutics classes!6 Yet, the author does not play fast and loose with his text at this point. Rather, he seeks to expound what an Old Testament author clearly indicates. Let me explain.

The author of Hebrews interprets the Melchizedek narrative of Genesis 14:17–20 in light of that which the psalmist declares in Psalm 110:4: “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (italics mine). Thus, with use of the words translated “forever” (eis ton aiona), Scripture associates eternality with a Melchizedekan-type priesthood—a fact the writer of Hebrews expounds extensively in the rest of chapter 7. When our author reads the Genesis passage in this light, the lack of reference to Melchizedek’s heritage and death makes sense. The enigmatic priest-king has an eternal quality to his priesthood. Thus, the author of Hebrews interprets Genesis 14:17–20 contextually rather than grasping facts from thin air, but the context, in this case, is the broader context of Scripture.7

(2) The author of Hebrews interprets his Old Testament Christologically. Speaking of the Christological hermeneutic woven through the fabric of the New Testament, David S. Dockery writes:

The renewal of the preaching of Jesus after his crucifixion carried with it a statement concerning his own person and function, and reception of the message involved acknowledgment of Jesus as the exalted Lord and allegiance to him. This greatly influenced the church’s reading of its Scriptures, the Old Testament, and had literary consequences for the development of the New Testament. By reading the Old Testament in this fashion, the church preserved the christological approach that it learned from Jesus.8

That Jesus’ own methods of interpreting the Old Testament in light of himself laid the foundation for apostolic hermeneutics was suggested by C. H. Dodd earlier this century.9 Offering a summary of Jesus’ interpretations in this regard and drawing his conclusions from the Synoptics, R. T. France writes:

He uses persons in the Old Testament as types of himself (David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jonah) or of John the Baptist (Elijah); he refers to Old Testament institutions as types of himself and his work (the priesthood and the covenant); he sees in the experiences of Israel foreshadowings of his own; he finds the hopes of Israel fulfilled in himself and his disciples, and sees his disciples as assuming the status of Israel; in deliverance by God he sees a type of the gathering of men into his church, while the disasters of Israel are foreshadowings of the imminent punishment of those who reject him, whose unbelief is prefigured in that of the wicked in Israel and even, in two instances, in the arrogance of the Gentile nations.10

France’s summary brings us to the topic of typology and locates the typological interpretation of Genesis 14 found in Hebrews 7 within the mainstream of early Christian hermeneutics. The word “typology” comes from the Greek term typos, which can mean “pattern, prefiguration, model, impression, foreshadowing.” Typological interpretation involves identifying preordained connections between events, persons, things, or institutions in the span of salvation history. This identification of significant connections between Melchizedek and Jesus constitutes the interpretive strategy of Hebrews 7. For Hebrews the priest Melchizedek foreshadows the heavenly high priest, Christ. Melchizedek is not the Son of God but is “like the Son of God” in that he “remains a priest forever” (7:3) in the perspective of Scripture. This drawing of prefigured connections between Melchizedek and Christ constitutes the main program of Hebrews 7:1–10.

An interpretive pitfall. At least one word of caution is in order at this point. We need to reflect on typological interpretation in the New Testament and our ability or inability to practice the same. Among evangelical New Testament scholars the debate goes on as to where exactly the lines should be drawn. Klyne Snodgrass strikes a somewhat delicate balance on the issue of our appropriation of New Testament exegetical practices:

With great fear of possible abuse … I would not want to argue that the apostles could be creative because of their context, but that we are confined to more mundane methods. In terms of approaching the text, whether Old Testament or New Testament, we must be guided by the author’s intention. We do also, however, read the Scriptures in light of the person and work of Christ. We must resist superimposing Christian theology on Old Testament texts and should feel no compulsion to give every Old Testament text, or even most of them, a christological conclusion. But we will have failed if we do not ask how Old Testament texts function in the whole context of Scripture. Without allegorizing the Old Testament, we must seek to understand God’s overall purpose with his people.…

Specifically, I have become convinced that the concept of correspondence in history is particularly valuable to interpretation. We have not completed the interpretive task until we have determined how a text does or does not correspond with Jesus’ ministry or the ministry of the church. The writers of the New Testament seem to have looked for patterns of God’s working in the Hebrew Scriptures, in the life of Jesus, and in their own experience. Our reading of the Scriptures should do no less. Noting such patterns is a far cry from the abusive interpretation of allegorizing.11

The practice of recognizing correspondences rests in part on the belief that God acts consistently in accordance with his character and purposes and that Scripture reflects accurately a unified and interrelated “message” through its many sub-messages. The danger comes when our identification of true historical correspondences lapses into an allegorizing that reads hidden messages into the text. With the author of Hebrews we must take the text itself seriously and inquire concerning the author’s intended meanings (to work within hermeneutical boundaries) as well as how those meanings might relate to later revelation.

Applying a “servant” text.Hebrews 7:1–10 does not serve as an exegetical or homiletic end in itself. Rather, by its explication of Melchizedek’s superior priesthood, it serves the purpose of laying a foundation for the author’s main point that Jesus’ priesthood is greater than that of the Levitical priests of the Old Testament. Thus we might call this first section of chapter 7 a “servant” text in that it prepares for a “punch line” to be offered later. This makes it no less significant, and we still must ask how this text is to be applied responsibly.

At least three directions come to mind in thinking about moving toward application. (1) The first has to do with our attitudes toward the Old Testament. God, as a God who works in corresponding ways in history, has revealed truth about himself and his relationship to people in the Old Testament as well as the New. We must remember that the old covenant materials were the Bible for the early church. They cherished the Old Testament as God’s revelation, and so must we.

(2) Study of the interpretation of Scripture found in Hebrews 7 offers us an opportunity to reflect on models of interpretation. We live in a postmodern era, in which all interpretive strategies find an equal place at the table of public discussion. In postmodernity often what is more important is what a reader reads into a written text and how he or she responds to it rather than what the author may have originally meant. How should we as Christians respond to this? What can be learned from the author of Hebrews that can be applied in our own Bible study? What parameters are presupposed in his approach to Genesis 14:17–20, and how might his parameters relate to us?

(3) Finally, however one assesses his hermeneutics, the author’s approach is both studied and intellectually rigorous. He systematically dissects and interprets Genesis 14:17–20 and utilizes his interpretation as a foundation stone in a broader, logical argument. This “intellectual” approach serves his pastoral purpose of challenging his hearers to endure in the Christian life. As a professor at a university, this text reminds me of the importance of rigorous study in service to Christ and the importance of keeping that service in view as one attempts rigorous study. Within a Christian context, the dichotomy between the life of the mind and the life of the heart is a false dichotomy. Our choice should not be between the heart and the head, and Hebrews invites us to integrate the two. This passage in Hebrews challenges us to reflect on that integration.

Contemporary Significance

OUR ATTITUDES TOWARD the Old Testament. Take a moment and consider your own perspectives on the Old Testament. What part does it play in your thoughts about the Christian life? What role does it play in the Bible studies you attend? In the preaching at your church? For Jesus and his first followers, what we refer to as the “Old Testament” comprised their written Scriptures. When Jesus went to synagogue on the Sabbath, the attendant would take a scroll of Isaiah or Deuteronomy, for example, from a box and hand it to the teacher for the day, who would then expound the Scriptures.

The New Testament itself is permeated with quotes from the Old Testament because, for the first Christians, that Old Testament was the powerful Word of God, “sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12). The preaching among the earliest Christians was based on the new covenant teachings about and from Christ, anchored in the Old Testament Scriptures. It is easy for that fact to be eclipsed in the full-orbed revelation of Christ found in the written Scriptures we now call the “New Testament.” Some among us may even fall into the category of “practical Marcionites,” who think of the Old as outdated by the New.12

According to the common generalization, the New Testament is the source of all that is good, kind, and loving, embodied most of all in the person of Jesus Christ who reveals the friendly face of God. As the story goes, however, the Old Testament is at best a mixed bag. The occasional flash of brilliance may lighten the path of the believer, but on the whole, the angry, the vindictive, the bloodthirsty, is far more prominent.

Now I suspect that there is at least a grain of truth in this common view of the two parts of our Christian Bible. At least I have never heard a Christian contrast the beauty and attractiveness of the Old Testament with the horrors of the New. No, Christians have always found refuge in the New Testament when the problems of the Old Testament have threatened to engulf them. In fact, some Christians even go so far as to claim with emphasis that they are New Testament Christians for whom the Old Testament is no longer authoritative.

Even if the problems with the Old Testament should stem from some monumental misunderstanding, the fact that such a misunderstanding is so common is something we must reckon with.13

One way of reckoning with such misunderstanding is to reflect on the integral—indeed foundational—place the Old Testament has in Hebrews in communicating the author’s Christology (as here in 7:1–10) and, more broadly, in dealing with Christian obedience and endurance. As the early church embraced and was nourished by the Old Testament, so should we own it for ourselves and grow from its influence. Yes, we read it in light of Christ and the new covenant. This is inevitable. Yet, we also should read it as powerful, meaningful revelation from God in its own right, not as a secondary part of the canon.

Whose interpretive model? Several years ago I happened upon a talk show as I was changing the television channel. The subject matter and participants caught my attention immediately. A group of homosexuals were debating a group of fundamentalist Christians over the appropriateness of a homosexual lifestyle. The fundamentalists, contrary to stereotype, were both thoughtful and respectful, and they did a fairly good job of explaining the biblical basis for their belief that homosexuality is wrong. They took several texts from both Testaments and spoke of context and word meanings. In response to their use of Scripture, the show’s host interjected, “Yes, but that’s just your interpretation”; this comment, rather than a discussion of homosexuality, is my reason for introducing the story.

We live in what has been labeled a postmodern culture. Since the constituents of that culture often elevate the “right” to one’s own interpretation above the idea of there being any correct interpretation, the concept of truth sits in the wings, never being invited on stage for discussion. The comment “That’s just your interpretation” becomes the ultimate trump card in any debate.

Nevertheless, from the perspective of a biblical worldview Christian theology, rightly understood, “does not offer us a theology of speculation and exploration. It offers us a theology of revelation and salvation.”14 We may ever be growing in our grasp of that revelation—we must live as lifelong learners—but there are truths we can grasp, and detailed study of the Scriptures provides one way of growing in our understanding of truth. So what are elements of a proper model of biblical interpretation? Let me mention three seen in Hebrews 7:1–10.

(1) We must take the specifics of a scriptural passage seriously. Commentaries, such as the one you hold in your hands, deal with dynamics such as context, structure, and word meanings, belying a conviction that the author’s original intent and, even more significantly, God’s intent expressed through the author matter a great deal. The author of Hebrews depends on insight into context and word meanings for his interpretation of the Genesis Melchizedek passage. Hebrews’ approach to studying this passage in terms of detailed analysis suggests the appropriateness of my attempt, as one within a Christian tradition, at writing on the details of a biblical text and your attempt to understand what I am writing. We have precedent for detailed study of the Word as a profitable endeavor for Christians.

(2) We should interpret Scripture in light of Scripture. God has spoken “to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways” (1:1), but he has always been the one speaking and has never contradicted himself. Thus, we must read and study Scripture in light of the broader context of Scripture. This can give us greater insight into the truths of the Bible and can keep us from grave error.

(3) We should read and study our Bibles Christologically. As stated by Klyne Snodgrass in the quote earlier in this chapter, “We must resist superimposing Christian theology on Old Testament texts and should feel no compulsion to give every Old Testament text, or even most of them, a christological conclusion.” Yet for the Christian, Christ is the ultimate point of reference for biblical truth—indeed, all truth. This Christological hermeneutic is an approach

by which we seek to move beyond historical criticism to the christological, as opposed to the existential, significance of the text. The text’s christological meaning can in fact be shown to carry tremendous import for human existence. I believe that I am here being true to the intent of the scriptural authors themselves and even more to the Spirit who guided them, since they frequently made an effort to relate their revelatory insights to the future acts of cosmic deliverance wrought by the God of Israel (in the case of the Old Testament) or to God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ (in the case of the New Testament). This approach … seeks to supplement the historical-critical method by theological exegesis in which the innermost intentions of the author are related to the center and culmination of sacred history mirrored in the Bible, namely, the advent of Jesus Christ. It is believed that the fragmentary insights of both Old and New Testament writers are fulfilled in God’s dramatic incursion into human history which we see in the incarnation and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, in his life, death, and resurrection.15

When we approach Scripture in this way, we do so in the hermeneutical spirit and with the convictions manifested in the exegesis of the Bible found in Hebrews 7. Christ becomes the ultimate “north star,” by which we can get our bearings in the constellation of old and new covenant writings.

Being a thinking Christian. John Stott tells of two women at the local supermarket who stopped to chat. One asked the other, “What’s the matter with you? You look so worried.” The friend responded, “I am. I keep thinking about the world situation.” “Well,” the first said, “you want to take things more philosophically, and stop thinking!”16

I am sure my colleagues in philosophy would take offense at the thought that more philosophy means less thought! However, this humorous dialogue reflects the attitude some have toward the Christian faith. The reasoning goes, “Christianity is a religion of the heart, the emotions; don’t kill it by being so cerebral!” Although some of us in academia need to be reminded that Christianity deals extensively with matters of the heart (and our degrees on the wall and critical analyses in our heads do not excuse us from reckoning with those matters!), it is entirely appropriate that we stress our corporate call to “love the Lord your God … with all your mind” (Mark 12:30).

In Pensées Blaise Pascal wrote, “Man is obviously made for thinking. Therein lies all his dignity and his merit; and his whole duty is to think as he ought.” Right thinking can lead to right feeling, right acting, right outcomes—although it does not necessarily do so. Without right thinking, however, we are in danger of having a zeal for God that is not in accordance with knowledge (Rom. 10:2). In a holistic approach to Christian faith heart and head, co-lovers of God, dance. If evangelicalism truly constitutes the future of Christianity, as Alister McGrath suggests, it will be because head and heart both are valued and encouraged.17 If we neglect the life of the mind, “our pagan culture is going to overwhelm us.”18

In Hebrews 7 the author is thinking critically and inviting us to think with him. His arguments are logical and well crafted, drawing us into analysis of the Old Testament material. You cannot deal with Hebrews 7 in terms of the heart alone. The head must come into play or one’s reading of the text is awash. He is leading us somewhere with this logic of his. We are moving once again toward a call to total engagement in the life of Christ. Heart, mind, emotions, and strength all will be called upon shortly. Nevertheless, we must begin here, with rationales for why we must act a certain way. Here we, with the author of Hebrews, begin by loving God with our minds.

Original Meaning

The Greatness of Melchizedek (7:4–10)

THE WORD THEOREO , used fifty-eight times in the New Testament, commonly means “to view” or “to watch” something; here it refers rather to perception. Thus the NIV translates the word “just think.” The author calls his hearers to grasp the greatness of Melchizedek as indicated by the Old Testament narrative. He develops his claim for the enigmatic priest’s eminence in one primary direction. Both a responsibility and honor held by Levi’s descendants was the collection of the tithe (Num. 18:21–32), which they received as their inheritance from the Lord. This set them apart as unique among the children of Israel.

As the author of Hebrews points out, however, the Genesis passage has Abraham, the father of those who would become the Levites, giving a tithe to the priest Melchizedek, who, obviously, was not of the tribe of Levi (7:5–6). Thus the Levites, who were still “in the body of [their] ancestor” Abraham, in a sense paid a tenth to Melchizedek (7:9–10)! The author again brings in the eternality of Melchizedek’s priesthood when he says, “In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living” (7:8). That father Abraham (and the Levites in his body) gave a tithe to this priest shows his deference to him and respect for his unique service on behalf of God Most High.

By virtue of his greater position, Melchizedek in turn blessed Abraham. When the author states, “And without a doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater,” he is not giving a maxim that assumes only superiors give blessings. Not only do subordinates give blessings throughout the Old Testament, 4 but in Genesis 14:17–20 Melchizedek blesses God immediately after he blesses Abraham! No. Our author, based on his broader argument concerning the tithe and the eternality of Melchizedek’s priesthood, parenthetically proclaims (rather than argues for) the superiority of Melchizedek in connection with the blessing offered by him. Melchizedek’s superiority to the Levites primarily rests on his having received a tenth of the spoils from Abraham and the fact that Scripture gives no indication of his death.

Bridging Contexts

HEBREWS 7:1–10 PRESENTS the modern expositor with one of the more fascinating pieces of interpretation found in the New Testament. The logic inherent in the author’s argument is both rigorous and, perhaps, a bit perplexing for those unfamiliar with his conventions. What are we to make of his treatment of Melchizedek? How can we appropriate this text, which deals with an obscure priest mentioned in only a few Old Testament verses, into contemporary applications?

Hebrews’ use (not abuse) of the Old Testament. In the not-too-distant past the exegetical methodology of Hebrews was most often associated with the allegorical exegesis of Philo of Alexandria, a first-century Jewish interpreter. Allegorical interpretation, later affiliated with the “Alexandrian School” of the early church fathers, probes for deeper or mystical senses in a text not readily apparent from the normal meanings of the words themselves. For those who saw Hebrews in this vein, the author fancifully drew meanings from Old Testament passages based on broad semantic associations. Thus, the meaning of a text was not to be found in the apparent meanings of the words used in association with literary context, historical background, and so forth. Rather, allegorical interpretation holds there are hidden or spiritual meanings in the text in addition to the literal sense.

More recently, however, a number of writers have recognized sharp differences between Hebrews and Philo. As indicated in the author’s treatment of Genesis 14:17–20, Hebrews shows great interest in Old Testament contexts and the meanings of specific words. What governs his interpretation of this text is typology, not allegory. Before we consider his use of typology, however, we must focus on two related, but important, principles behind his hermeneutics.

(1) The author, as he does throughout Hebrews, uses “verbal analogy” in his interpretations detailed in Hebrews 7.5 That is, he interprets the Melchizedek passage found in Genesis 14 alongside Psalm 110:4, the only other Old Testament text to mention the priest from Salem. This principle, “Scripture interprets Scripture,” has continued as a hallmark of valid exegesis throughout the history of the church down to the present day. Indeed, we utilize concordances to check linguistic parallels to terms we find in a text under consideration, at times for the purpose of clarifying word meanings or concepts.

I believe this principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture is vital for understanding the author’s “argument from silence” (Heb. 7:1–3)—an approach to biblical interpretation that would be graded down in many modern hermeneutics classes!6 Yet, the author does not play fast and loose with his text at this point. Rather, he seeks to expound what an Old Testament author clearly indicates. Let me explain.

The author of Hebrews interprets the Melchizedek narrative of Genesis 14:17–20 in light of that which the psalmist declares in Psalm 110:4: “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (italics mine). Thus, with use of the words translated “forever” (eis ton aiona), Scripture associates eternality with a Melchizedekan-type priesthood—a fact the writer of Hebrews expounds extensively in the rest of chapter 7. When our author reads the Genesis passage in this light, the lack of reference to Melchizedek’s heritage and death makes sense. The enigmatic priest-king has an eternal quality to his priesthood. Thus, the author of Hebrews interprets Genesis 14:17–20 contextually rather than grasping facts from thin air, but the context, in this case, is the broader context of Scripture.7

(2) The author of Hebrews interprets his Old Testament Christologically. Speaking of the Christological hermeneutic woven through the fabric of the New Testament, David S. Dockery writes:

The renewal of the preaching of Jesus after his crucifixion carried with it a statement concerning his own person and function, and reception of the message involved acknowledgment of Jesus as the exalted Lord and allegiance to him. This greatly influenced the church’s reading of its Scriptures, the Old Testament, and had literary consequences for the development of the New Testament. By reading the Old Testament in this fashion, the church preserved the christological approach that it learned from Jesus.8

That Jesus’ own methods of interpreting the Old Testament in light of himself laid the foundation for apostolic hermeneutics was suggested by C. H. Dodd earlier this century.9 Offering a summary of Jesus’ interpretations in this regard and drawing his conclusions from the Synoptics, R. T. France writes:

He uses persons in the Old Testament as types of himself (David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jonah) or of John the Baptist (Elijah); he refers to Old Testament institutions as types of himself and his work (the priesthood and the covenant); he sees in the experiences of Israel foreshadowings of his own; he finds the hopes of Israel fulfilled in himself and his disciples, and sees his disciples as assuming the status of Israel; in deliverance by God he sees a type of the gathering of men into his church, while the disasters of Israel are foreshadowings of the imminent punishment of those who reject him, whose unbelief is prefigured in that of the wicked in Israel and even, in two instances, in the arrogance of the Gentile nations.10

France’s summary brings us to the topic of typology and locates the typological interpretation of Genesis 14 found in Hebrews 7 within the mainstream of early Christian hermeneutics. The word “typology” comes from the Greek term typos, which can mean “pattern, prefiguration, model, impression, foreshadowing.” Typological interpretation involves identifying preordained connections between events, persons, things, or institutions in the span of salvation history. This identification of significant connections between Melchizedek and Jesus constitutes the interpretive strategy of Hebrews 7. For Hebrews the priest Melchizedek foreshadows the heavenly high priest, Christ. Melchizedek is not the Son of God but is “like the Son of God” in that he “remains a priest forever” (7:3) in the perspective of Scripture. This drawing of prefigured connections between Melchizedek and Christ constitutes the main program of Hebrews 7:1–10.

An interpretive pitfall. At least one word of caution is in order at this point. We need to reflect on typological interpretation in the New Testament and our ability or inability to practice the same. Among evangelical New Testament scholars the debate goes on as to where exactly the lines should be drawn. Klyne Snodgrass strikes a somewhat delicate balance on the issue of our appropriation of New Testament exegetical practices:

With great fear of possible abuse … I would not want to argue that the apostles could be creative because of their context, but that we are confined to more mundane methods. In terms of approaching the text, whether Old Testament or New Testament, we must be guided by the author’s intention. We do also, however, read the Scriptures in light of the person and work of Christ. We must resist superimposing Christian theology on Old Testament texts and should feel no compulsion to give every Old Testament text, or even most of them, a christological conclusion. But we will have failed if we do not ask how Old Testament texts function in the whole context of Scripture. Without allegorizing the Old Testament, we must seek to understand God’s overall purpose with his people.…

Specifically, I have become convinced that the concept of correspondence in history is particularly valuable to interpretation. We have not completed the interpretive task until we have determined how a text does or does not correspond with Jesus’ ministry or the ministry of the church. The writers of the New Testament seem to have looked for patterns of God’s working in the Hebrew Scriptures, in the life of Jesus, and in their own experience. Our reading of the Scriptures should do no less. Noting such patterns is a far cry from the abusive interpretation of allegorizing.11

The practice of recognizing correspondences rests in part on the belief that God acts consistently in accordance with his character and purposes and that Scripture reflects accurately a unified and interrelated “message” through its many sub-messages. The danger comes when our identification of true historical correspondences lapses into an allegorizing that reads hidden messages into the text. With the author of Hebrews we must take the text itself seriously and inquire concerning the author’s intended meanings (to work within hermeneutical boundaries) as well as how those meanings might relate to later revelation.

Applying a “servant” text.Hebrews 7:1–10 does not serve as an exegetical or homiletic end in itself. Rather, by its explication of Melchizedek’s superior priesthood, it serves the purpose of laying a foundation for the author’s main point that Jesus’ priesthood is greater than that of the Levitical priests of the Old Testament. Thus we might call this first section of chapter 7 a “servant” text in that it prepares for a “punch line” to be offered later. This makes it no less significant, and we still must ask how this text is to be applied responsibly.

At least three directions come to mind in thinking about moving toward application. (1) The first has to do with our attitudes toward the Old Testament. God, as a God who works in corresponding ways in history, has revealed truth about himself and his relationship to people in the Old Testament as well as the New. We must remember that the old covenant materials were the Bible for the early church. They cherished the Old Testament as God’s revelation, and so must we.

(2) Study of the interpretation of Scripture found in Hebrews 7 offers us an opportunity to reflect on models of interpretation. We live in a postmodern era, in which all interpretive strategies find an equal place at the table of public discussion. In postmodernity often what is more important is what a reader reads into a written text and how he or she responds to it rather than what the author may have originally meant. How should we as Christians respond to this? What can be learned from the author of Hebrews that can be applied in our own Bible study? What parameters are presupposed in his approach to Genesis 14:17–20, and how might his parameters relate to us?

(3) Finally, however one assesses his hermeneutics, the author’s approach is both studied and intellectually rigorous. He systematically dissects and interprets Genesis 14:17–20 and utilizes his interpretation as a foundation stone in a broader, logical argument. This “intellectual” approach serves his pastoral purpose of challenging his hearers to endure in the Christian life. As a professor at a university, this text reminds me of the importance of rigorous study in service to Christ and the importance of keeping that service in view as one attempts rigorous study. Within a Christian context, the dichotomy between the life of the mind and the life of the heart is a false dichotomy. Our choice should not be between the heart and the head, and Hebrews invites us to integrate the two. This passage in Hebrews challenges us to reflect on that integration.

Contemporary Significance

OUR ATTITUDES TOWARD the Old Testament. Take a moment and consider your own perspectives on the Old Testament. What part does it play in your thoughts about the Christian life? What role does it play in the Bible studies you attend? In the preaching at your church? For Jesus and his first followers, what we refer to as the “Old Testament” comprised their written Scriptures. When Jesus went to synagogue on the Sabbath, the attendant would take a scroll of Isaiah or Deuteronomy, for example, from a box and hand it to the teacher for the day, who would then expound the Scriptures.

The New Testament itself is permeated with quotes from the Old Testament because, for the first Christians, that Old Testament was the powerful Word of God, “sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12). The preaching among the earliest Christians was based on the new covenant teachings about and from Christ, anchored in the Old Testament Scriptures. It is easy for that fact to be eclipsed in the full-orbed revelation of Christ found in the written Scriptures we now call the “New Testament.” Some among us may even fall into the category of “practical Marcionites,” who think of the Old as outdated by the New.12

According to the common generalization, the New Testament is the source of all that is good, kind, and loving, embodied most of all in the person of Jesus Christ who reveals the friendly face of God. As the story goes, however, the Old Testament is at best a mixed bag. The occasional flash of brilliance may lighten the path of the believer, but on the whole, the angry, the vindictive, the bloodthirsty, is far more prominent.

Now I suspect that there is at least a grain of truth in this common view of the two parts of our Christian Bible. At least I have never heard a Christian contrast the beauty and attractiveness of the Old Testament with the horrors of the New. No, Christians have always found refuge in the New Testament when the problems of the Old Testament have threatened to engulf them. In fact, some Christians even go so far as to claim with emphasis that they are New Testament Christians for whom the Old Testament is no longer authoritative.

Even if the problems with the Old Testament should stem from some monumental misunderstanding, the fact that such a misunderstanding is so common is something we must reckon with.13

One way of reckoning with such misunderstanding is to reflect on the integral—indeed foundational—place the Old Testament has in Hebrews in communicating the author’s Christology (as here in 7:1–10) and, more broadly, in dealing with Christian obedience and endurance. As the early church embraced and was nourished by the Old Testament, so should we own it for ourselves and grow from its influence. Yes, we read it in light of Christ and the new covenant. This is inevitable. Yet, we also should read it as powerful, meaningful revelation from God in its own right, not as a secondary part of the canon.

Whose interpretive model? Several years ago I happened upon a talk show as I was changing the television channel. The subject matter and participants caught my attention immediately. A group of homosexuals were debating a group of fundamentalist Christians over the appropriateness of a homosexual lifestyle. The fundamentalists, contrary to stereotype, were both thoughtful and respectful, and they did a fairly good job of explaining the biblical basis for their belief that homosexuality is wrong. They took several texts from both Testaments and spoke of context and word meanings. In response to their use of Scripture, the show’s host interjected, “Yes, but that’s just your interpretation”; this comment, rather than a discussion of homosexuality, is my reason for introducing the story.

We live in what has been labeled a postmodern culture. Since the constituents of that culture often elevate the “right” to one’s own interpretation above the idea of there being any correct interpretation, the concept of truth sits in the wings, never being invited on stage for discussion. The comment “That’s just your interpretation” becomes the ultimate trump card in any debate.

Nevertheless, from the perspective of a biblical worldview Christian theology, rightly understood, “does not offer us a theology of speculation and exploration. It offers us a theology of revelation and salvation.”14 We may ever be growing in our grasp of that revelation—we must live as lifelong learners—but there are truths we can grasp, and detailed study of the Scriptures provides one way of growing in our understanding of truth. So what are elements of a proper model of biblical interpretation? Let me mention three seen in Hebrews 7:1–10.

(1) We must take the specifics of a scriptural passage seriously. Commentaries, such as the one you hold in your hands, deal with dynamics such as context, structure, and word meanings, belying a conviction that the author’s original intent and, even more significantly, God’s intent expressed through the author matter a great deal. The author of Hebrews depends on insight into context and word meanings for his interpretation of the Genesis Melchizedek passage. Hebrews’ approach to studying this passage in terms of detailed analysis suggests the appropriateness of my attempt, as one within a Christian tradition, at writing on the details of a biblical text and your attempt to understand what I am writing. We have precedent for detailed study of the Word as a profitable endeavor for Christians.

(2) We should interpret Scripture in light of Scripture. God has spoken “to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways” (1:1), but he has always been the one speaking and has never contradicted himself. Thus, we must read and study Scripture in light of the broader context of Scripture. This can give us greater insight into the truths of the Bible and can keep us from grave error.

(3) We should read and study our Bibles Christologically. As stated by Klyne Snodgrass in the quote earlier in this chapter, “We must resist superimposing Christian theology on Old Testament texts and should feel no compulsion to give every Old Testament text, or even most of them, a christological conclusion.” Yet for the Christian, Christ is the ultimate point of reference for biblical truth—indeed, all truth. This Christological hermeneutic is an approach

by which we seek to move beyond historical criticism to the christological, as opposed to the existential, significance of the text. The text’s christological meaning can in fact be shown to carry tremendous import for human existence. I believe that I am here being true to the intent of the scriptural authors themselves and even more to the Spirit who guided them, since they frequently made an effort to relate their revelatory insights to the future acts of cosmic deliverance wrought by the God of Israel (in the case of the Old Testament) or to God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ (in the case of the New Testament). This approach … seeks to supplement the historical-critical method by theological exegesis in which the innermost intentions of the author are related to the center and culmination of sacred history mirrored in the Bible, namely, the advent of Jesus Christ. It is believed that the fragmentary insights of both Old and New Testament writers are fulfilled in God’s dramatic incursion into human history which we see in the incarnation and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, in his life, death, and resurrection.15

When we approach Scripture in this way, we do so in the hermeneutical spirit and with the convictions manifested in the exegesis of the Bible found in Hebrews 7. Christ becomes the ultimate “north star,” by which we can get our bearings in the constellation of old and new covenant writings.

Being a thinking Christian. John Stott tells of two women at the local supermarket who stopped to chat. One asked the other, “What’s the matter with you? You look so worried.” The friend responded, “I am. I keep thinking about the world situation.” “Well,” the first said, “you want to take things more philosophically, and stop thinking!”16

I am sure my colleagues in philosophy would take offense at the thought that more philosophy means less thought! However, this humorous dialogue reflects the attitude some have toward the Christian faith. The reasoning goes, “Christianity is a religion of the heart, the emotions; don’t kill it by being so cerebral!” Although some of us in academia need to be reminded that Christianity deals extensively with matters of the heart (and our degrees on the wall and critical analyses in our heads do not excuse us from reckoning with those matters!), it is entirely appropriate that we stress our corporate call to “love the Lord your God … with all your mind” (Mark 12:30).

In Pensées Blaise Pascal wrote, “Man is obviously made for thinking. Therein lies all his dignity and his merit; and his whole duty is to think as he ought.” Right thinking can lead to right feeling, right acting, right outcomes—although it does not necessarily do so. Without right thinking, however, we are in danger of having a zeal for God that is not in accordance with knowledge (Rom. 10:2). In a holistic approach to Christian faith heart and head, co-lovers of God, dance. If evangelicalism truly constitutes the future of Christianity, as Alister McGrath suggests, it will be because head and heart both are valued and encouraged.17 If we neglect the life of the mind, “our pagan culture is going to overwhelm us.”18

In Hebrews 7 the author is thinking critically and inviting us to think with him. His arguments are logical and well crafted, drawing us into analysis of the Old Testament material. You cannot deal with Hebrews 7 in terms of the heart alone. The head must come into play or one’s reading of the text is awash. He is leading us somewhere with this logic of his. We are moving once again toward a call to total engagement in the life of Christ. Heart, mind, emotions, and strength all will be called upon shortly. Nevertheless, we must begin here, with rationales for why we must act a certain way. Here we, with the author of Hebrews, begin by loving God with our minds.