The Order of Melchizedek

On Hebrews 6:13-20

“Jesus has become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” This verse should be familiar to us, but it is also mysterious. And this mysterious figure of Melchizedek is surprisingly important to us and to our salvation.

Speculum Humanae Salvationis, Westfalen oder Köln,
circa 1360. ULB Darmstadt, Hs 2505, fol. 29r

He appears briefly in Genesis and then once again in the Psalms and that is all we have about him in the Old Testament.

From Genesis:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed [Abram] and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" And Abram gave him a tenth of everything. (Gen 14:18-20)

And from the Psalms:

The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Psa 110:4)

Even though these references are brief, the author of Hebrews, who today we again hear speaking in the Church, reflects deeply upon these passages and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, finds in Melchizedek an image of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. He writes of Melchizedek, “He is without father or mother or genealogy” – because, you see, no genealogy is provided for him in Genesis – “and he has neither beginning of days nor end of life” – because, again, neither of these are recounted in the narrative.

Melchizedek simply appears and disappears again from the story, rather like Tom Bombadil.[1]  As Nahum Sarna writes, he “suddenly emerges from the shadows and as suddenly retreats into oblivion.”[2]  In having no beginning or end, the author of Hebrews finds that Melchizedek “resembl[es] the Son of God [and] he continues a priest forever” (7:3).

Melchizedek challenges the notion of priesthood prevalent in Jesus’ day, and he challenges some of our notions of priesthood as well. At the time of Christ, and really throughout most of scripture, when someone is talking about a priest, they are probably talking about the priesthood of Aaron and his descendants – the Levites. [3]  Being a priest of God meant having the proper heredity and it came with certain ritual obligations and privileges. By the time of Jesus, priests were primarily ministers of the altar in the temple.^[4]

Significantly, the Gospels never refer to Jesus or his apostles as priests. Jesus, as Hebrews points out, was “descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests” (Heb 7:14). In the Gospels and Acts, the priesthood of God continues to be the Levitical priesthood.

Interestingly, the majority of the New Testament does not mention priests at all. The word “priest” is totally absent from all the epistles except for Hebrews.[5] Half of the New Testament’s entire discussion of priesthood takes place in Hebrews. And it is Hebrews that reveals to us the priesthood of Jesus Christ. So if we want to know anything about Christian priesthood, we have to study Hebrews, which clearly teaches that the priesthood of Jesus Christ is not akin to Aaron’s Levitical priesthood, but is something both newer and older than that. It is the eternal priesthood of the order of Melchizedek.

Melchizedek, “the priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18), is the first priest mentioned in the Bible, and he is no Levite. He is not even a descendant of Abraham, let alone of Levi or Aaron. In fact, he blesses Abraham, and receives tithes from him. So, Hebrews says, his priesthood is superior to that of the Levites, because Levi, within his ancestor Abraham, is blessed by and pays tithes to Melchizedek, not the other way around (7:7-10).

So, Biblically, there is from the very beginning a kind of priesthood outside the line of Levi and Aaron, despite the fact that the Bible, Old and New Testaments, more commonly understands priesthood as Levitical.

St. Justin Martyr writes,

Melchizedek was described by Moses as the priest of the Most High, and he was a priest of those who were in uncircumcision, and blessed the circumcised Abraham who brought him tithes, so God has shown that His everlasting Priest, called also by the Holy Spirit Lord, would be Priest of those in uncircumcision. Those too in circumcision who approach Him, that is, believing Him and seeking blessings from Him, He will both receive and bless.[6]

This commentary underscores the importance of Melchizedek’s priesthood for the universal calling to Christ. Christ, and the “covenant he mediates” (Heb 8:6) as high priest, is available to all, circumcised and uncircumcised, and not only to those descended from Abraham.

To better understand the order of Melchizedek, I think we have to look at two figures: one you’ve probably heard of: David the king, and one you may not have: Zadok, the first high priest.

Melchizedek is both king and priest of Salem. Now, Salem, which means “peace,” is another name for Jerusalem – Jeru-Salem (cf. Psalm 76:2). And Melchizedek’s two roles in Salem – priest and king – would later be more distinct. Zadok represents the priests of Jerusalem and David the kings. Even Melchizedek’s name points to these two roles. Melek means “king” and “Tsadowq” is the name of the first high priest. Melek Tsadowq together form “Melchizedek.”

Zadok is one of the descendants of Aaron, a priest at the time of David, who became the first high priest of the temple built by Solomon. The high priests descended thereafter descend from Zadok. I think it may be partly for this reason that Hebrews usually calls Jesus “high priest” rather than simply “priest.” Zadok means “righteous” and so the name Melchizedek means “righteous king” as Hebrews states (7:2).

David, as I hope we all know, is the great king of Jerusalem. And so he shares this with Melchizedek. He is a successor to the kingship of Melchizedek. It makes sense, then, when Psalm 110 includes David and his successors among the priesthood, stating, “The LORD says to my lord…, ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’” (Ps 110:1,4).

And who is the true Son of David? Who is the true king of Peace? Jesus Christ! He is the true king forever and ever! He is the king of peace, the king of Salem, the king of Jerusalem, the successor of Melchizedek, a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.

Biblical priesthood of God ends rather as it begins. Melchizedek’s priesthood “of God Most High” in Genesis becomes the priesthood “of God and of Christ” in Revelation (Rev 20:6). Fittingly, according to Hebrews, Jesus Christ, in whom the last priests mentioned in Scripture have their priesthood, is after the order of the first priest mentioned in Scripture. Melchizedek and Christ begin and end the biblical discussion of priesthood. Their priesthoods are extraordinary. They are not Levites. Their sacrifices are not the sacrifices of animals. Melchizedek offers bread and wine (Gen 14:18), prefiguring Christ’s offering of his own body and blood (cf. Heb 9:11-12, 10:10). They are both called king as well as priest (Gen 14:18; Rev 19:16). The priesthood of each is forever (Ps 110:4; Heb 6:20). Extended once for all the sons of Aaron (Ex 28:43-29:1), priesthood is now extended to all those whom the blood of Jesus Christ has freed from sin (Rev. 1:5-6).

---

[1] https://chandy.wordpress.com/2005/11/15/they-dont-fit/

[2]  Nahum Sarna. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989, 109

[3] In fact, the word כֹּהֵן kohen appears in 153 verses in Leviticus - more than in any other book in the Bible. Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for kohen (Strong's 3548)"

[4] TDNT, 262

[5] Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed. Hort Balz, Gerhard Schneider. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991. 174.

[6] Justin Martyr. “Dialogue with Trypho.” Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1885, 211

Compassion for Demons

On Luke 8:26-39

Demons cry out to Jesus, the Son of the Most High God. They beg him not to cast them into the abyss, but rather to allow them to enter a nearby herd of swine.

The Miracle of the Gadarene Swine

about 1000

Tempera colors, gold leaf, and ink on parchment

The J. Paul Getty Museum

Remember, these are demons, like the one to whom the priest says before baptisms,

“I adjure you, most evil, unclean, foul, abominable and alien spirit, by the power of Jesus Christ…, Depart! Acknowledge the futility of your power, which had no authority even over swine. Remember the One who ordered you, in accordance with your own request, to enter the herd of swine” (Second Exorcism).

These are such as have no right to ask anything of the Lord. They are altogether evil and rebellious, and yet they ask. Because they also cannot do anything without the Lord’s permission. They cannot even lead a pig. In Genesis, the Lord gives dominion to us humans over all the beasts (1:28). Strikingly, the demons have no share in this. In presence of Jesus, a Legion of demons is utterly powerless, even over pigs. So perhaps it is not so surprising to hear them begging the Lord for something. Though their effrontery remains staggering.

What is perhaps more surprising is that the Lord grants their petition. They beg him for permission to enter the swine, and he gives them leave (8:32). He doesn’t have to do this, you realize. He could have said to them at this time, again as the priest does before baptisms, “go back to your own Tartarus until the great day of the judgement that has been prepared”(First Exorcism). But the demons beg to be spared from this abyss and he does spare them – at least for now.

The Lord taught his disciples, “Ask and it will be given you” (Luke 11:9). Does this teaching apply even to the unfaithful demons? For a moment here anyway, it seems so.

Why? Does Jesus love even the demons?

We could point to many passages – for example, in the cursing Psalms – that proclaim God’s hatred for the wicked and for his enemies. But I believe the fathers were right to interpret these passages allegorically. The enemy that God hates and that we should hate is certainly not our neighbors or our fellow creatures, but sin and death, temptations and all the thoughts which deceive or distract us from the love of God.

On the other hand, it is also true that the fathers also allegorize the cursed and hated enemies in the Psalms as demons. Meanwhile, God is love and has taught us to love even our enemies. And surely the demons are his enemies. And surely he loves his enemies. I certainly hope so, because every time I sin, I make myself like a demon and an enemy of God. 

One of the last things Father Sid told me before he died was that we must have compassion for the demons. I found the idea then and now both repellent and difficult, but I’m not sure he was wrong. One could understand Jesus’ permission to enter the swine as compassionate.

This should give us hope, I think. If the Lord hears the petitions even of the demons of hell, then surely he will hear us, even when we cry out to him from the depths of our despair. 

“Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord; Lord, hear my voice! Let your ears be attentive to the voice of my pleading. If you, O Lord, should mark our guilt, Lord, who would survive? But with you is found forgiveness:  for this we revere you” (Ps 130:1-4).

When the Lord hears us, has mercy on us, and grants our petitions, we must do good with the good he gives us. This is not what the demons do. When their petition is granted, what do the demons then do? Do they seek the good of the pigs entrusted to their care? Do they lead the pigs to slop? Hardly. As you know, they rushed the herd into the lake and drowned them. St. Cyril of Alexandria writes,

“Wicked demons are cruel, mischievous, hurtful and treacherous to those who are in their power. The fact clearly proves this, because they hurried the swine over a precipice and drowned them in the waters” (Commentary on Luke, Homily 44).  

When the demons possessed a man, they used their power to hurt the man, and when they possessed the swine, they used their power to hurt the swine. They are utterly petty and hurtful and destructive. They take even the smallest opportunity to do what harm they can. You and I become ever more like these demons when we return again and again to our sins the way that a sow, having been washed, returns to her wallowing in the mire (2 Peter 2:22).

Yet, every time we repent, the Lord forgives us. He shows us mercy. He spares us from the abyss. Every time we cry out to him, he hears us. Every time the Lord forgives us, we have the opportunity, by the grace of God, to become like the good and kind and loving and merciful men and women that God created us to be.

Maybe Jesus was even giving the demons an opportunity. He does not at this time condemn them to the abyss. If this is an opportunity for them, they immediately squander it. Jesus does not condemn the demons. They condemn themselves. Throwing the swine over the precipice, they cast themselves into the abyss.

This is how damnation works, I believe. God does not damn the sinful and wicked, they damn themselves by their impenitence. God does not desire the death of sinners, but rather that we repent and live. There are no penitents among the damned. There are only those who reject God absolutely – who would rather wallow in their hurtful sins than love God and their neighbors.

In hell, we know, there is wailing and gnashing of teeth (e.g. Matt 13:42; Luke 13:28). What might not be clear about this is that all that tooth gnashing is probably not penitent lamentation. The word here can refer to snarling and growling as in anger. The word often communicates “hate, desire for destruction of the other” (TDNT, as quoted by Randal Rauser). So hell is peopled by the hateful, not by victims of some spiteful God. Our God is a loving God who desires our repentance. Let us repent then, and believe the gospel.

6) Cursing Psalms - Conclusions

Grand Duke Dmitry Ioannovich (Donskoy) prays
for the sending down of victory before the Battle of Kulikovo

go back

Of this there should be no doubt: these allegorical interpretations were not the originally intended meanings of the curses. I do not believe, however, that these meanings should be somehow less valuable to the one praying these Psalms. God’s inspiration is not limited to author’s intent. If one does not wish to harbor against human enemies the hatred expressed in these Psalms, yet does wish to react prayerfully to bona fide injustices in need of restitution, one solution is to make this hatred, allegorically understood, one’s own.

This is not to say that there is not also value and something to be learned from what the Psalmist did intend. There are real evils in the world and in our own lives and desires. These should not be forgotten when we pray. We need to bring our whole selves and our whole situation to God, I believe, with all its difficulties. There is no value in trying to hide anything from God. While it is true that Jesus taught us to love our enemies, it is also true that he expressed outrage at injustice. Christians should also be aware of and outraged at injustice, but not hateful of the unjust.

5) Cursing Psalms - Who are the enemies?

go back

The Fathers of the Church allegorized the enemies cursed in the Psalms in various ways. The following is a list of some of their interpretations.

The enemy is death.

• “But who is such an enemy unless it is death, the enemy of life.” – Eusebius of Caesarea on the enemies in Ps 9:3

The enemy is the demonic.

• The enemy of Ps 9:6 who rules the cities is the devil. – Augustine


• The assailants of Ps 18:40 are demons. – Evagrius 


• “Pray the prayer of the present psalm, not against flesh and blood but against the spirits of the air who    daily harm us.... the invisible enemies.” – Arnobius the Younger on Ps 35


• “This has reference to the devil and his followers” – Cassiodorus on the enemies in Ps 35


• “I think this speaks about the cross on which the devil falls unknowingly.” – Evagrius of Pontus on the enemies in Ps 35:8


• "Hatred against the demons contributes greatly to our salvation and helps our growth in holiness. But we do not of ourselves have the power to nourish this hatred into a strong plant, because the pleasure-loving spirits restrict it and encourage the soul again to indulge in its old habitual loves. But this indulgence - or rather this gangrene that is so hard to cure - the Physician of souls heals by abandoning us. For He permits us to undergo some fearful suffering night and day, and then the soul returns again to its original hatred, and learns like David to say to the Lord: 'I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them my enemies'" (Ps. 139: 22). -Evagrius, Texts on Discrimination in Respect of Passions and Thoughts 

The enemy is iniquity.

• “Take up a love for justice and a hatred for iniquity…. It is possible at times to use hatred even praiseworthily.” - Basil the Great on hatred of enemies in Ps 139

The enemy is the self.

• “There is a war a person wages with himself” – Augustine on Ps 144

The enemy is sinful or filthy thoughts.

• The teeth which God breaks in Ps 3:7 are “the teeth of sinners [which] are thoughts foreign to reason coming to us on account of our nature by which our enemies approach us.” – Evagrius of Pontus


• “The ‘little ones’ of Babylon… are those troublesome sinful thoughts that arise in the soul.” – Origen on Ps 137


• The “little ones” are “all corrupt and filthy thoughts against Christ.” – Ambrose on Ps 137

The enemy is temptation.

• “While these temptations were still young, he caught hold of them and dashed them against Christ.” – Benedict on Ps 137

continue

4) Cursing Psalms - Allegorical Reinterpretation

go back

Roland Murphy, as demonstrated in the last post, is willing to acknowledge the importance of understandings of these Psalms other than the historical. He writes,

Recent hermeneutical theories have challenged the dominance of [the historical-critical] method, arguing that every interpreter begins with certain inevitable presuppositions…. Certainly, the historical-critical method does not exhaust the meaning of a text, which in fact acquires new meanings as it is passed from generation to generation (8). 

Murphy’s own method of coming to a new understanding of the cursing Psalms is not altogether dissimilar from the spiritualizing and allegorical interpretations found in the patristic commentaries. When the early Christians inherited these Psalms of cursing, many felt quite free to imbue them with new meanings. Arnobius the Younger (c. 460), reading the curses of Psalm 35, asks,

What are we to do with this psalm? If we curse our enemies, we disregard the gospel, in which we are ordered not to curse them but to bless them…. Pray the prayer of the present psalm, not against flesh and blood but against the spirits of the air who daily harm us, who daily commit wars….What do you pray…? That the Lord will war and fight those who are against you as you grasp the arms of his own help against invisible enemies.

 St. Marina smiting a demon with a hammer

Arnobius’ solution to the difficulty of praying these curses as a Christian is to allegorize the cursed enemies as “spirits of the air,” that is, the demons. Allegory is one answer to the question of what use can be made of the cursing Psalms by those who believe that all of the Scripture – somehow including these passages which freely express the most vile and evil inclinations of the human heart – is inspired by God and that the Psalms are particularly suitable for use in our worship of him in accordance with ancient Christian custom. This is just the approach that Arnobius and many other early fathers of the Church have taken. They understood the enemies cursed by the Psalms to be the demons that Jesus spent so much time casting out. Augustine, Evagrius, and Cassiodorus support the view of the enemies as demons.  The ancient Israelites were clearly not intending to curse demons, but some early Christians thus redirected the curses.

Other fathers identify the cursed enemy as death, injustice, or the self. Benedict (c.480–547) understands the particularly cruel curse against the Babylonian babies as an allegory concerning temptations (Ps 137:9). He writes, “While these temptations are still young, catch hold of them and dash them against Christ.” The Scriptural type of Christ as the rock already existed and so Benedict simply spiritualized the “little ones” as temptations and made sense of the curse in that way (1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 2:4-7).  Origen and Ambrose also support this interpretation.

continue

3) Cursing Psalms - Scholarly Reinterpretation

go back

Dr. Jonathan Ben-Dov

Readers of the cursing Psalms sometimes have a tendency to try to explain them away, as I attempted in the last post by pointing out that the form of Psalm 137:9 was not exactly that of a curse, as if this could remove some of the horror from the image of smashing babies' heads. Some have attempted this kind of explanation for the longest and most devastating of the curses, found in Psalm 109. Ben-Dov describes how it is possible to read this curse into the mouth of the enemy rather than the Psalmist:

A simple reading of Psalm cix understands  vv. 6-19 to be the words of an individual, who is in despair as a result of his enemies' actions. However, this can also be contested, with  vv. 6-19 understood as a quotation of the prosecutors' words. This may be supported from the fact that the enemies are referred to in the plural at the opening of the psalm, while the curse refers to a single person (450).

I am uncertain whether we should critically favor the “simple reading” of this Psalm, but it causes me to wonder why some feel it necessary to seek out a more convoluted reading (then again, perhaps textual scholars enjoy that for its own sake). It seems to me that some just simply cannot stand for these passages to be in the Bible expressing sentiments they regard as so unbiblical.

Fr. Roland Murphy

Along these same lines, Roland Murphy provides a rather creative understanding of the enemies in these Psalms. Regarding the enemies, he writes in his book The Gift of the Psalms, “Are they really human beings? The descriptions are so extreme and exaggerated that they seem to portray superhuman hostile and evil powers…. Perhaps the reader of the psalms should understand the enemies as personifications of evil” (46). He has here departed from a strictly historical understanding. It seems to me that Murphy simply does not want the enemies to be human beings. He even asks, “Was the problem an evil spirit?” (47). I think he may be reaching for an explanation that the text itself does not support. I sympathize – I do not want the enemies to be human beings either – but, historically, that is what they are.

Fr. Jack Custer

No historical contextualizing, however well it alleviates certain misconceptions about these texts, can change the reality that they express hateful and destructive sentiments. Theirs is a pure and perfect hatred, however understandable or even justified it may be (Ps 139:22). As John Custer writes in his book The Old Testament: A Byzantine Perspective, “There is no reason to deny that the Psalmist probably meant exactly what he prayed for: the physical destruction of the real enemies of his nation” (167). This, in my opinion, is the accurate historical reading of the curses themselves.


continue

2) Cursing Psalms - A Historical-Critical Interpretation

Go Back

The enemies cursed by these Psalms represent extreme examples of wickedness and injustice. The text presents this reality of injustice even at times when it is not clearly apparent in certain translations. In his article, “The poor's curse,” Jonathan Ben-Dov provides some helpful textual analysis of the term  עָנִי, as used in Psalm 35:10 immediately following a curse. This term is usually translated “poor” and it appears in six cursing Psalms. For example, as if to give in part the reason for the preceding brutal curses, such as, “Let their eyes be darkened,” and, “Make their loins continually to shake,” and, “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living,” Psalm 69:29 explains “I am poor” (Ps 69:23, 28-29 KJV). On face value, such an understanding of this term might make these passages appear to be a poor person cursing the rich, as if inequity of capital were so great an injustice as to justify the hope that “ruin come upon them unawares,” but there is more implied by the term than simple poverty (Ps 35:8). Ben-Dov writes,

The root ‘nh in nominal and verbal forms does not necessarily express lack of capital. עָנִי  is a passive form of the verb ‘nh when implying oppression and the עָנִי is therefore one who has suffered oppression or injustice. Lack of property naturally accompanies this situation, but is not the major aspect of it; it is the social status, not the poverty, which leads to violence and oppression (434). 

The victim crying out for God to curse his enemies is not reacting to simple inequities or minor slights, but to actual and severe injustices. Ben-Dov further points out that the word is textually similar to an Akkadian idiom which “can indicate a person, just as it can indicate a field or any other object that has been forcefully confiscated” (434). The oppression referred to can be as severe as enslavement, such as was experienced by the Jews in the Babylonian captivity. For these reasons, I think the term is better translated “afflicted,” especially when associated with a curse, as it occasionally is in the RSV (e.g. Ps 69:29).

Babylonian Siege of Jerusalem
from  L'Histoire du Vieux et du Nouveau Testament
by Nicolas Fontaine

Foremost among the oppressors cursed by the Psalms are the Babylonians, who consequently receive the most terrible of the curses: “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” (Ps 137:9). This Psalm calls the Babylonians “captors,” “tormenters,” and “devastators” for what they have done to Jerusalem and its people (Ps 137:3, 8). The brutal devastation that they inflicted upon the Israelites involved all the atrocities of war, likely including the slaughter of children and the enslavement of the people. The psalmist is not demanding a curse upon his enemies worse than that which his enemies have already visited upon the psalmist’s people. The psalmist is invoking the law of just retribution: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exod 21:23-25; see also Lev 24:17-22). Further, it is worth keeping in mind that this most sadistic passage is not a curse in the proper sense. It does not say “O God, dash their babies against the rock!” but, “Happy shall he be” who does so, as if to say, not that the psalmist intends to carry out infanticide, but that, if someone were to do so, they would be justified, given that the Babylonians have committed equivalent atrocities.

Historically, it seems clear to me that the psalmist composed these curses, for the most part, against actual human enemies of the people of Israel. The Israelites suffered terrible atrocities. Seeing themselves as a people in relationship with God, to call upon God to curse those they would curse was, in a sense, only natural. The human reaction to severe injustice is to cry out for retribution.

Continue

1) Cursing Psalms - Introduction

Here is an odd picture of me giving a presentation
on the Cursing Psalms

Images of violence fill the Book of Psalms – violence perpetrated both by God and by humans sanctioned by God. In the following series of posts, I will be concerned primarily with prayer for violence against one’s enemies, which is known as a curse or imprecation. Some of these passages in the Psalms, with their extreme images (for example, breaking teeth, bathing feet in blood, burying with burning coals, and breaking the heads of babies) can be quite shocking to our sensibilities, especially if we use the Psalms as a book of prayer. For this reason, the modern Roman Church has sometimes omitted these passages from its liturgical prayer. However, as a member of the Byzantine Church, which is deeply steeped in the tradition of praying the entire Psalter, this solution does not satisfy me in the least. Therefore, I will first consider these passages tomorrow from a historical-critical point of view and attempt to discover, as far as possible, the intended meaning of the text in the historical context. In the following days, I will consider how the Church Fathers and later commentators have reinterpreted and allegorized these passages and thus incorporated them into the prayer of the Church.

Continue