하나님나라를 꿈꾸며(Kingdom of God)

17 After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the sKing’s Valley). 18 And tMelchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was upriest of vGod Most High.) 19 And he blessed him and said,

w“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,

xPossessor2 of heaven and earth;

20  and blessed be God Most High,

who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”

And Abram gave him ya tenth of everything. 21 And the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself.” 22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, z“I have lifted my hand3 to the Lord, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth, 23 that aI would not take a thread or a sandal strap or anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’ 24 I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me. Let bAner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share.”

God’s Covenant with Abram

s 2 Sam. 18:18

t Heb. 7:1

u Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5:6, 10; 7:1, 11, 17

v Ps. 57:2; Acts 16:17

w Heb. 7:6, 7

x Matt. 11:25

2 Or Creator; also verse 22

y Heb. 7:4; [ch. 28:22]

z Ex. 6:8; Num. 14:30; Deut. 32:40; Ezek. 20:5, 6, 15, 23, 28; Dan. 12:7; Rev. 10:5, 6

3 Or I have taken a solemn oath

a [Esth. 9:15, 16]

b ver. 13

 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ge 14:17–15:1.

17절) 아브람이 롯과 그의 가족들을 납치해 포로로 끌고가는 그돌라오멜과 그와 함께 한 왕의 군대를 다메섹 왼편의 호바까지 추격해서 그들을 쳐부수고 돌아올 때에 소돔 왕이 사웨 골짜기, 곧 왕의 골짜기로 나와서 아브람을 만났다.(삼하 18:18) 사웨 골짜기는 예루살렘 동편에 위치하였다. 앞서 10절에서 소돔 왕은 싯딤 골짜기에서 그돌라오멜 일행에게 대패한다. 그런데 이후 아브람의 추격과 승리의 소식을 듣고 그를 맞이하기 위해서 올라온 것이다. 사웨 골짜기는 왕의 골짜기로 불렸다. 이는 그 골짜기가 예루살렘 남쪽에 있는 곳으로 기드론 골짜기와 힌놈 골짜기가 만나는 지역이었을 것이다. 

-  The king of Sodom heads the welcome-home party for the victorious Abram, and the meeting takes place at the King’s Valley, also called the Valley of Shaveh (“Valley of the Ruler”).2 This particular site appears in the OT again only in 2 Sam. 18:18. It was situated at the confluence of the Kidron Valley and the Valley of Hinnom, south of the city of David.3 The choice of such a place for the extension of greetings shows the exhilaration of the king of Sodom, who has traveled northward, eager to meet triumphant Abram. The site also prepares us geographically for the sudden appearance of Melchizedek king of Salem.

2 See A. A. Wieder, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Lexicographical Notes,” JBL 84 (1965) 160–62, for this explanation.

3 See P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), p. 408.

 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 408.

18절) 살렘왕 멜기세덱, 그는 지극히 높으신 하나님의 제사장이었다. 그가 전투를 승리로 마치고 돌아오는 아브람 앞에 떡과 포도주를 가지고 나아왔다. 본문의 멜기세덱이 어떤 인물인지 정확히 규명하는 것은 쉽지 않다. 본문에 등장하는 것만으로 추정해볼때 그는 왕이요 동시에 제사장의 역할을 수행하고 있다. 본문에 구약에서 처음으로 제사장(코헨)이라는 단어가 사용된다. 당시 아브람 외에고 하나님을 섬기는 이들이 존재하고 있었던 것이다. 여기서 멜기세덱은 아브람에게 떡과 포도주를 주었다. 이는 제사장이 가지고 다니는 음식으로 아브람에게 이를 대접하면서 복을 빌어주었고 또한 아브람에게 승리를 주신 가장 높으신 하나님을 찬양할 것을 권면하고 있다. 

“아브라함이 모든 것의 십분의 일을 그에게 나누어 주니라 그 이름을 해석하면 먼저는 의의 왕이요 그 다음은 살렘 왕이니 곧 평강의 왕이요” (Hebrews 7:2, NKRV)

히브리서에서는 그를 의의 왕, 살렘 왕, 평강의 왕이라고 말한다. 살렘은 예루살렘의 줄임말이면서(시 76:2) 히브리어로 평화, 평강을 뜻하는 ‘샬롬’과 관계가 있다. 구약 성경에서 멜기세덱에 대해서 직접적으로 언급하는 바는 거의 없다. 하지만 멜기세덱은 예루살렘과 관련된 제사장-왕에 대한 흥미로운 모범을 제공한다. 후대에 예루살렘의 왕들은 그를 닮아야 한다고 기대했던 것으로 보인다.(시 110:4) 특히 히브리서는 예수 그리스도를 다윗의 왕위를 잇는 왕으로 묘사하면서 동시에 그리스도가 멜기세덱의 반차를 따르는 대제사장이라고 불렀다.(히 5:5-10; 6:20-7:17) 따라서 예수 그리스도의 대제사장 직분은 레위의 후손들이 지니는 제사장 직분보다 우월하다고 보았다. 

- 하나님의 성품의 다양함을 보여주는 표현들, 이처럼 다양한 하나님의 이름은 하나님의 성품의 다양함을 보여준다. 

엘 엘욘(14:19) : 지극히 높으신 하나님

엘 로이(16:13) : 살피시는 하나님

엘 샤다이(17:1) : 전능하신 하나님

엘 올람(21:33) : 영원하신 하나님 

-  Melchizedek is identified as “king of Salem” and “priest of God Most High [El Elyon]” (v. 18). His name, Malkî-ṣedek, means “king of righteousness” (Hb. 7:2);172 the language “king of Salem,” melek šālēm, means literally “king of peace” (Hb. 7:2). By this parallel language between his name and his city there is an association of “righteousness” and “peace” (Salem). These two characteristics are found together in the Old Testament (Ps 85:10; Isa 9:7; 32:17; 48:18; 60:17). Jerusalem is often also linked with ṣedek in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa 1:21, 26; 33:5; 46:13; 61:3; Jer 31:23; 33:16; Ps 118:19; cf. the kings of Jerusalem, Adoni-Zedek, Josh 10:1; Zedekiah, 2 Kgs 24:17–18). “Salem” (šālēm) is widely recognized as an ancient name for Jerusalem (yĕrûšālayim) in Jewish tradition;173 “Salem” appears in parallel with “Zion,” referring to the temple at Jerusalem (Ps 76:2[3]). In the Old Testament the name “Jebus,” referring to the pre-Israelite inhabitants of the city, is used of Jerusalem (e.g., Josh 15:8). The earliest mentions of Jerusalem outside the Bible are Rusalimum in Egyptian Execration texts (ca. 1850) and Urusalim in the Amarna texts (fourteenth century).174

“Priest” (kōhēn) in v. 18 is its first occurrence in the Bible. Patriarchal blessing involved the divine benefits of prosperity and progeny for Abram and his family (e.g., 12:1–3; 22:16–18; 26:3–4); the patriarchs in turn conveyed the blessing under the auspices of the Lord upon the succeeding generation (e.g., 27:27–29; 28:1; 49:28). This incident, however, is the only priestly blessing in Genesis. Later, the priests were the chief agents of blessing in Israel (e.g., Num 6:24–26; Deut 10:8); however, often a national leader (Exod 39:43; 2 Sam 6:18) or a family member (24:60; Ruth 2:19–20; 2 Sam 6:20) blessed others by invoking the Lord. Invocations typically assumed that only the Lord could ultimately bestow blessing; a benedictory prayer petitioned God for prosperity and well being. The expression “bread and wine” refers to daily but luxurious provisions (Judg 19:19; Eccl 10:19; also Lam 2:12). That they were refreshment for returning warriors makes sense (e.g., Judg 8:5; 2 Sam 16:1–2).175 Although both elements were part of Israel’s worship offered to God (e.g., Lev 2:4–16; 23:13; Num 28:14)176 and later functioned symbolically at the Lord’s table (1 Cor 11:26), there is no overt cultic meaning attached to them here.177

172 Also Philo, Leg. 3.79; Josephus, Ant. 1.180; J.W. 6.438; but Tg. Ps-J. does not recognize it as an appellative and translates the Hb. (malkî-ṣedek), adding the identification Shem: “And the righteous king, he is Shem the Great …”

173 E.g., 1QapGen 22:13; all Tgs.; Josephus, Ant. 1.10.2[180–81]; 7.67[7.3.2]; J.W. 6.437 [6.10.1]; Gen. Rab. 43.6; for more detailed discussion, see below “Excursus: Melchizedek.”

174 P. King, “Jerusalem,” ABD 3.751.

175 Hamilton, Genesis Chapters 1–17, 408.

176 P. Bird, “Vine,” HBD 1113.

177 D. Elgavish contends that the victuals indicated a celebratory feast following a treaty arrangement (cf. 26:30; 31:54; Deut 23:5–7), but in context there is no certain indication of a covenant here (“The Encounter of Abram and the Melchizedek King of Salem: A Covenant Establishing Ceremony,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis, 495–508).

 K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 148–149.

19-20절) 멜기세덱은 천지의 주재요 지극히 높으신 하나님의 이름으로 아브람에게 축복한다. 그는 분명하게 이 싸움을 승리로 이끄신 분이 하나님이심을 밝히면서 대적을 아브람의 손에 붙이신 하나님을 찬송한다. 이에 아브람은 이 전투에서 얻은 것의 1/10을 십일조로 멜기세덱에게 바친다. 본문의 주재(possessor)로 번역된 히브리어 단어는 ‘코네’로 하나님이 천지를 창조하신 창조주이심을 가리킨다. 하나님은 온 땅이 하나님의 성전이 되게하기 위해서 그것을 지으셨다. 이것을 기억하며 하나님이 천지의 주재이심을 인정하며 살것을 요구하셨지만 아담과 하와는, 또한 많은 이들이 이를 잊고 불순종을 일삼고 있었다. 이에 멜기세덱은 승리하고 돌아오는 아브람에게 하나님이 온 땅의 주인이심을, 그분이 온땅을 지으시고 우리의 삶에 순종을 요구하심을 통해서 이 싸움의 승리가 아브람이 가지고 있던 군사력이나 능력에 기인한 것이 아니고 오직 하나님께 있음을 상기시키고 있는 것이다. 이에 아브람은 멜기세덱의 말이 사실임을 인정하는 표현으로 십일조를 그에게 바치고 있는 것이다. 말하자면 십일조의 기원으로 인용되는 이 본문은 우리로 하여금 우리에게 허락된 모든 승리가 하나님으로부터 기원했다라는 사실을 인정하도록 촉구하고  있는 것이다. 

21-24절) 멜기세덱의 축복의 반응과는 대조적으로 전투에서 간신히 살아남은 소돔왕은 지금 아브람에 나아와 어떤 감사의 표현도 하지 않은 채 전투를 통해서 대적들로부터 빼앗은 전리품과 포로들중에 사람들은 자신에게 돌려보내고 물품은 네가 가지라고 제안한다. 본문의 실 한 오라기와 신발끈이라는 표현은 가장 보잘것 없고 가치없는 것들의 상징이다(암 2:6; 8:6, 마 3:11). 이에 아브람은 소돔왕의 제안을 거절한다. 그는 다시금 이 전투의 승리가 하나님께로부터 기인했음을 고백하면서 하나님의 축복으로 자신이 부유해지고 큰 민족을 이루는데 있어서 하나님외의 다른 이들의 도움, 왕의 도움이 개입하는 것을 거절하고 오직 하나님만을 의지하겠다라는 강력한 믿음의 표현을 하고 있는 것이다. 아브람은 앞서 멜기세덱의 표현을 다시금 반복한다. 천지의 주재시요 지극히 높으신 하나님 여호와께 내가 손을 들어 맹세하는데 소돔 왕 당신에게 속한 것중에 실 한 오라기나 신발 끈 하나라도 내가 가져감으로 내가 부유해졌다라는 말을 듣지 않겠다라고 다짐한다. 단지 젊은이들이 먹은 것과 자신과 동행한 아넬과 에스골과 마므레의 분깃만을 제외하고 전리품을 소돔왕에게 돌려주겠다라고 말한다. 

아브람의 단호한 거절은 여러가지를 우리에게 시사한다. 1) 아브람은 이 세상의 복을 추구하지 않는 사람이었다. 그는 하늘의 신성한 복을 추구하는 사람이었다. 2) 아브람은 하나님이 그를 존귀하게 해주실 때를 사모하고 있었다. 하지만 그 방식이 인간적인 방식, 당대 그 지역의 왕과의 친분을 쌓는 것이 아니라 하나님의 때, 하나님의 방식이었다. 3) 아브람은 소돔 왕이 제안한 전리품을 거절한다. 이는 억울한 자들의 눈물과 피로 얼룩진 물건이었다. 이후 소돔은 죄악으로 가득 찬 도시로 심판을 받아 멸망했다. 아브람은 그러한 부정한 재물을 취하지 않을 것을 결심한 것이다. 경건하지 못한 방식으로 얻는 재물을 단호히 거절했다.

여기서 아브람은 지극히 높으신 하나님, ‘엘 엘욘’이라는 표현에 ‘여호와’라는 표현을 추가한다. 그는 지금 ‘엘 엘욘’과 ‘야훼’가 한분이시며 동일한 신성을 가지고 있다라는 사실을 알고 있다는 것을 암시한다. 여기서 손을 드는 행위는 바로 하늘의 하나님께 맹세를 하는 표현이다.(단 12:7) 본문에서 아브람으로 치부하게 하였다(made Abram rich)라는 표현 ‘아사르’는 십일조(마아세르)라는 표현의 wordplay이다. 이는 구약에서 부가 하나님으로부터 말미암는다는 것을 인정하면서 하지만 부를 의지하는 것은 어리석음을 말하는 것이다. 

-  By his oath the patriarch affirms his faith in the Lord who will bless him; he will not be indebted in any way to the foreign king for his success, lest he boast he “made Abram rich” (v. 23). “To make rich” (from ʿāšar; cf. Ezek 27:33) may be a Hebrew wordplay on “tenth” (măʿaśēr) indicating that his wealth is from the Lord alone, which he devotes to him. Wealth is attributed to the Lord in the Old Testament (e.g., 24:35; 31:16; Deut 8:18; 1 Sam 2:7; Prov 10:22; Eccl 5:19), but trust in riches leads to folly (Deut 8:17; Pss 49; 52:7; Prov 11:4; Eccl 5:10, 13; also 1 Tim 6:17). Abram only accepts the provisions already eaten on the campaign by his retainers and the payment to his allies who had earned their part of the spoil (v. 24).

 K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 157.

아브람은 살렘왕 멜기세덱과 소돔왕 베라와의 만남에서 멜기세덱의 제안은 받아들이고 소돔왕의 제안은 거절한다. 그는 이 싸움의 결과가 하나님께 속한 것임을 알고 있었고 그래서 멜기세덱에게 십일조를 드리고 소돔왕의 제안은 거절한다. 자신의 성공, 부유해짐의 원인이 소돔왕의 도움으로부터 왔다는 가능성을 철저히 배제시키고 있는 것이다. 

우리들의 삶은 어떠한가? 세상적인 방식의 성공을 좇아서 그것을 도리어 추구하고 있는데 아브람은 어쩌면 당연해 보이는 전리품을 거부하면서 오직 하나님께만 승리가, 성공이 있음을 고백하고 있는 것이다. 

Excursus: Melchizedek

Although the name “Melchizedek” occurs but twice in the Old Testament (14:18; Ps 110:4),185 Jewish and Christian interpreters recognized the religious significance of this cryptic figure. By virtue of his blessing the patriarch and by Abram’s deference toward him in presenting a tithe to the priest-king, this person held a superior position. What individual could be greater than Father Abraham? In addition, his priesthood antedated that of the Levitical order, apparently functioning independently of the traditional priesthood of Israel. Melchizedek, moreover, appears and disappears in the text without mention of his parentage, his priestly accession, or death. What was the nature of his priesthood? Since he worshiped the same God as Abram, how did Melchizedek also know of the Lord? And, as the king of “Salem” (= Jerusalem), which became the center of Israel’s political and religious life, what was the relationship of his priesthood and the royal house of David? These and related mysteries provided interpreters opportunities for speculation, producing even heretical views (e.g., Melchizedekians) about his identity and role and the significance of his name as well as his city’s name.186

From Qumran Cave Eleven, 11QMelch (or 11Q13) presents (ca. 100 b.c.–a.d. 100?) an eschatological exegesis of biblical texts in which Melchizedek is depicted as an angel or a superior heavenly being, perhaps the archangel Michael. Melchizedek as God’s instrument makes atonement for the righteous and exacts judgment upon the wicked (Belial).187 The majority of Jewish interpretations, however, maintained that he was a man but an especially anointed priest, even high priest before God Most High (Philo, Abr 235; Tgs. Onq., Neof.). Josephus asserted that he founded Jerusalem as its first king and priest (Ant. 1.10.2[180–81]; J.W. 6.437[6.10.1]). Philo too implied that Melchizedek possessed a unique priesthood having no antecedents (Leg. 3.25–26 [79–82]; Congr. 99). A significant variation from this tradition was the identification of “Salem” with the Samaritan city Shechem, meaning Melchizedek functioned as priest at the temple of Mount Gerizim (Pseudo-Eupolemus, Praeparatio Evangelica 9.17.5 [= OTP 880]; Jub. 30.1), perhaps a view that was related to the rendering of Gen 33:18 in the LXX (Syr., Vg.): “and Jacob came to Salem, a city of Shechem.”188

Jewish identification of the priest-king as Noah’s son, Shem, in the Palestinian targums of the Pentateuch (and rabbinics, e.g., b. Ned. 32b; Pirqe R. El. 8; Gen. Rab. 44.7) was the result of typical Jewish speculation on the paltry biblical evidence and traditions about Shem during the intertestamental period.189 This opinion is mentioned without comment by some Christian interpreters (Ephrem the Syrian, Epiphanius, and Jerome).190 According to the chronology of chap. 11, Shem would have been Abram’s contemporary, and Gen 9:26, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem,” may have influenced this view as well. Melchizedek’s priesthood was subordinated to Abraham by the rabbis who contended that his priesthood was not perpetuated by his descendants, since he erred in blessing Abraham before he did God (b. Ned. 32b), understanding Ps 110:4 as addressed to Abraham: “You [Abraham] are a priest forever, according to the utterance [= Gen 14:19b–20a] of Melchizedek.” Alternatively, another rabbinic tradition explained that it was the name of God or Torah that Melchizedek passed on to the patriarch (Gen. Rab. 48.6–8). A rabbinic tradition related that Melchizedek transferred his priesthood to the patriarch, making Abraham a priest (Gen. Rab. 45.5; 55.6; b. Ned. 32b).

The church fathers too viewed Melchizedek as a man, though exceptions, such as Origen, can be found.191 For Justin Martyr (Dial. with Trypho 19:3–4; 33) and Tertullian (Adv. Jud. 2), it was significant that the origin of his priesthood was neither of circumcision (i.e., Gentile) nor of observance of Jewish law; the Levitical order as descendants of Abraham required circumcision. Christ’s priesthood, greater than that of the Zadokites, was a priesthood carried on by the church. Whereas the rabbis interpreted the bread and wine brought by the priest-king as symbolic of the temple shewbread and wine libations or, alternatively, of Torah (Gen. Rab.), the church fathers did not commonly view them as typological of Christian communion. Clement of Alexandria was one of the first to do so (Strom. 26).

Christian interpretation rests on Hebrews 5–7, which draws on Melchizedek as the point of contrast with the Levitical order. The writer to the Hebrews may well have assumed that his readers believed Melchizedek was the first priest and hence had no genealogical requirements.192 Psalm 110:4 was addressed by God to David’s “Lord” (v. 1), who was the Christ (Mark 12:35–37; Acts 2:34–36); hence, like that of Melchizedek, Jesus was appointed the head of a new order, having no predecessors (Heb 5:5–6, 10), since he like Melchizedek did not come from Levi’s succession. Melchizedek’s priesthood antedated that of Levi (7:10), and Jesus came from Judah, which possessed no priestly succession (7:11–17). The writer to the Hebrews emphasized the superiority of the priestly order of Jesus to Levi by observing the greater priesthood of Melchizedek in contrast to Levi. Whereas for Levi his divine appointment was not formalized by oath, the priesthood of Melchizedek was confirmed by divine oath (7:20–21). Melchizedek’s priesthood was perpetual (diēnekes) (7:3), for he had no priestly heritage and no successors (7:3); also Abraham, representing Levi, who resided in the patriarch’s loins, presented a tithe to Melchizedek and was blessed by the priest-king’s priesthood (7:1). Jesus too has an “eternal” (aiōna) priesthood (5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28).193 Even the name of Melchizedek and his city implied, to the writer to the Hebrews, the superiority of the priest-king to that of Levi (7:2).

In returning to the Old Testament references to “Melchizedek,” there remains for us to consider the modern critical reconstruction of how the figure Melchizedek functioned in the religious and political life of monarchic Israel. The conventional thought is as follows: Gen 14:18–20 and Ps 110:4, written in the Davidic era, created Melchizedek, who as the priest-king of Jerusalemite origin legitimized the pre-Israelite (Jebusite) priesthood of Zadok and the kingship of David’s reign.194 According to this view, there existed a Jebusite lineage of priests at Jerusalem’s shrine to Canaanite El when David acquired the city; Zadok was the priest of the Jebusite cult whom David retained to assuage the new Canaanite populace in his realm. He joined with the priest Abiathar, who was clearly associated with Yahwism, as dual caretakers of the ark and its shrine. The biblical claims of an Aaronide heritage for Zadok are spurious (2 Sam 8:17; 1 Chr 6:1–8[5:27–34]; 6:50–53[35–38]; Ezra 7:2–5). The MT’s 2 Sam 8:17 (1 Chr 18:17) is a corruption of an original reading which leaves Zadok without a patrimony.195 The name “Zadok” is reminiscent of the two kings associated with Jerusalem before David’s time, Melchizedek (“My King is Zedek”) and Adoni-Zedek (“My Lord is Zedek,” Josh 10:1). Some scholars have proposed there was a cult deity at Jebus named Zedek (Ug. Ṣaduq).196 To bolster David’s claims on Jerusalem and its cult, “Zion theology” drew on Canaanite mythology of Zion as a holy site for the gods, making the city the epicenter of Israel’s religion. Zion as the abode of Yahweh was the chief sacred space in the new nation, and David’s lineage, whom the Lord elected (2 Sam 7:13–16; Pss 2:7; 89:26–27[27–28]; 110:1–3), was the legitimate line of rulers over Israel.197 Zadok was designated the head of a line of high priests by David. Jerusalem and the Davidic house then were inviolable. Together, the religious and political arms of the nation were joined in the royal city of David; he wedded this originally Canaanite ideology of sacral kingship devoted to the Canaanite deity El Elyon with the traditional tribal religion of Yahwism. In this view the oracles of Ps 110:1, 4 are addressed to David as a prophetic utterance announcing God’s decree. Psalm 110:4 and the Melchizedek appearance in Genesis made David’s priestly order have legitimacy, although not mentioned by Moses. Also his priesthood was historically related to the El worship at the new capital, Jerusalem.

This proposal of a Jebusite priesthood David appropriated and the syncretism of an emerging “Zion theology” based on Canaanite religious thought is unfounded.198 There is no certain evidence of a Jebusite lineage of priest-kings,199 and the idea of a “Zion theology” of Canaanite character in Israel cannot be demonstrated. The antecedent to Zion’s special place in Israel’s religion was the event of Sinai; the transition of Sinai’s covenantal significance to Jerusalem was affected by the entry of the ark under David’s auspices (2 Sam 6). The subsequent appointment of David’s house (2 Sam 7) completed the transition. But there was never an orthodox doctrine of inviolability attached to Jerusalem, evidenced by the requirement of Israel’s obedience to the Sinai covenant.200 Also David’s resistance to foreign religion makes it unlikely that he as a devout Yahwist would have accommodated a Canaanite cult. Hebron as Zadok’s origin rather than Jebusite Jerusalem better suits the historical setting of David’s rise from the south before his conquest of Jerusalem (1 Chr 12:28[29]).201 Last, it is curious that the Zadokites did not trace their line back to Melchizedek; in the face of the explanation for Zadok’s Aaronide heritage in biblical genealogy (2 Sam 8:17; 1 Chr 6:1–8[5:27–34]; 6:50–53[6:35–38]; Ezra 7:2–5),202 there is no compelling reason to rewrite monarchic history in such a sweeping way.

Moreover, there is ambiguous evidence regarding the nature of David’s priesthood. David’s kingship was sacral, that is, divinely appointed; but his designation as priest may not have been technically sacerdotal, authorizing him to carry out sacrifice. There was a consistent division between the offices of priest and king in orthodox Yahwism; it is wrong to assume that the kingship of David was of the same priestly character as the kings of the ancient Near East.203 He and his sons’ role may have been limited to the commissioning of sacrifice and the supervision of worship, such as in the transfer of the ark (2 Sam 6:12–18; also see 2 Sam 24:25) and the building of the temple (1 Chr 22:15; also 1 Kgs 5–7; 8:4–5, 62–64; 9:25).204 If sacrifice were practiced by David, it would have been justified by David as the successor to Melchizedek (Ps 110:4). But it is clear that the Davidic house did not operate typically as priests for the nation, which was limited to the tribe of Levi (Deut 10:8–9) whose Aaronic clan alone performed the exclusive rites of sacrifice at the central altar (e.g., Num 3:1–10; Exod 28:1, 41; 40:14–15; Lev 8:12; 16:32–34; Heb 5:1). The king was subject to the Mosaic law (Deut 17:17–20), which provided only for Aaronic priests; the kings of Israel who transgressed this provision were condemned (1 Sam 13:9–10; 14:33–35; 1 Kgs 12:31–33; 2 Kgs 16:12–18; 2 Chr 26:16–20).205 D. W. Rooke expresses the difference between David’s priesthood and the Aaronic priesthood also in terms of function but adds that David’s priesthood was “ontological,” that is, he was a priest in his being forever, as Son of God, not by virtue of priestly activity.206 This difference is further reflected by the writer to the Hebrews, “no one from that tribe [Judah] has ever served at the altar”; in other words there was no divine appointment for Judah in Moses. In particular from the time of David onward, the Zadokite lineage of Aaron held sole claim to the altar. Psalm 110:4 is best interpreted as a future ideal king in whom would reside the offices of both king and priest, a feature known elsewhere in the ancient Near East but not experienced by Israel’s kings207 until the illegitimate claims of the Hasmonean rulers (1 Mac 14:41).

Psalm 110:1, 4 is two oracles addressed to “my Lord” (ʾadōnî) that ultimately must be taken as referencing David’s “Lord,” not David himself by a court prophet as assumed by many commentators.208 Psalm 110 is oriented toward the future, ideal king who will be priest as well, a role David’s lineage could not fulfill until the coming of the Messiah, who unites the two functions. David’s “Lord” (ʾadōnî, “my Lord”) was the Messiah as understood by Jesus (Matt 22:41–46 pars.) and the apostles (Acts 2:34–35; 5:31; Rom 8:34; Heb 1:13; 10:12–13). If David is the recipient of the oracles, rather than the author of the psalm, then the argument of Jesus and his apostles founders.209 This is true as well of the second oracle, which was said to be directed to Jesus Christ in the argument of the writer to the Hebrews (5:5–6; 7:14–17). It makes no difference if Melchizedek in fact had predecessors or successors, for the writer to the Hebrews argues typologically, not actually, on the basis of the silence of Genesis regarding his heritage and succession (Heb 7:3).210 Chrysostom commented: “How you ask, is it possible for a person to have no father or mother, and lack beginning of days and end of life? You heard he [Melchizedek] was a type; well, neither marvel at this nor expect everything to be found in this type. You see, he would not be a type if he were likely to contain every feature that occurs in reality” (Homilies on Genesis 35.16).211 It is unnecessary for Melchizedek and Jesus to share in all traits; thus the ancient interpretation that Melchizedek was the preincarnate Christ is not required. Melchizedek is a copy of the heavenly priesthood of Jesus, “like [aphōmoiōmenos] the Son of God” (Heb 7:3), not Jesus a type of Melchizedek.212

185 Also Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 10–11, 15, 17.

186 J. Kugel, The Bible As It Was (Cambridge: Belknap at Harvard University Press, 1997), 151–62. For the discussion of Melchizedek in the history of interpretation, see D. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, SBLMS 18 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973); F. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century a.d. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); and M. McNamara, “Melchizedek Gen 14, 17–20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature,” Bib 81 (2000): 1–31; and M. Astour, “Melchizedek (Person),” ABD 4.686.

187 G. Brooke, “Melchizedek (11QMelch),” ABD 4.687–88.

Ant. Antiquities, Josephus

J.W. Jewish War, Josephus

Leg. Legum allegoriae, Philo

Congr. De Congressu eruditionis gratia, Philo

OTP The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth

Jub. Jubilees

LXX Septuagint

Syr. Syriac

Vg. Vulgate

188 Kugel, The Bible As It Was, 160; M. Astour, “Salem,” ABD 5.905.

b. Babylonian Talmud

Ned. Nedarim

Pirqe R. El. Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer

Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah, ed. J. Neusner

189 R. Hayward, “ ‘Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity in the Pentateuchal Targumism,” in Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honor of Martin McNamara, JSOTSup 230 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 67–80.

190 McNamara, “Melchizedek,” 11–15.

b. Babylonian Talmud

Ned. Nedarim

Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah, ed. J. Neusner

Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah, ed. J. Neusner

b. Babylonian Talmud

Ned. Nedarim

191 Horton, Melchizedek, 88–89.

Dial. Dialogus cum Tryphone

Adv. Jud. Adversus Judaeos

Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah, ed. J. Neusner

Strom. Stromata

192 Ibid., 163; J. A. Fitzmyer creates theological havoc when he accepts too readily the ot critical opinion that the late insertion of vv. 18–20 omitted the original reference to Melchizedek’s origin and it was actually Melchizedek who paid the tithe to the superior Abram; when set in Gen 14, the reverse came to be understood, and it was from this misunderstanding that the writer to the Hebrews built his argument (“Melchizedek in the MT, LXX, and the nt,” Bib 81 [2000]: 63–69).

193 Horton observes that the use of διηνεκές (7:3) for Melchizedek’s “perpetual” order may be intentional so as to distinguish the “eternal” (αἰῶνα) priesthood of Jesus (although the former term is used as a synonym in Heb 10:14, referring to Jesus’ eternal sacrifice) (Melchizedek, 161–62).

194 The best known proponent is H. H. Rowley, “Zadok and Nehushtan,” JBL 58 (1939): 113–41, and “Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen 14 and Ps 110),” in Festschrift, Alfred Bartholet zum 80 Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr, 1950), 161–72; also see others in G. Ramsey, “Zadok,” ABD 6.1034–36.

MT Masoretic Text

195 Reading instead “Zadok and Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, son of Ahitub were priests”; this reconstruction relies on 1 Sam 22:20; 23:6; 30:7 and assumes there was one Ahitub, not two men of the same name. See M. Rehm, “Levites and Priests,” ABD 4.305–6.

Ug. Ugaritic

196 E.g., Rowley, “Zadok and Nehushtan,” 130–31; and D. Schley, “Adoni-Zedek,” ABD 1.75.

197 J. Levenson, “Zion Traditions,” ABD 6.1098–1102.

198 See also the critique of this interpretation by F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973).

199 Horton, Melchizedek, 39–45.

200 G. McConville, “Jerusalem in the Old Testament,” in Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God (Cambridge: Tyndale House, 1992), 21–51, esp. 25–27.

201 J. Day assumes the syncretism of Canaanite El and David’s religion, but he argues against a Jebusite setting for Zadok and proposes Hebron (“The Canaanite Inheritance of the Israelite Monarchy,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, JSOTSup 270 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 75–78).

202 E. Carpenter, “Zadok,” ISBE 4.1169–70.

203 H. L. Ellison, The Centrality of the Messianic Idea for the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1953), 9–11; M. J. Paul, “The Order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4 and Heb 7:3),” WTJ 49 (1987): 195–211; “Melchizedek,” NIDOTTE 4.934–36.

204 See the disputed passage 2 Sam 8:18 regarding David’s sons as “priests” (כֹּהֲנִים) or “royal advisors” (NIV) in R. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 252–53.

205 The difficult passage Zech 6:13 has been wrongly interpreted as combining the royal and priestly functions in the priest Joshua; the language “between the two” (v. 13b) and the chiastic structure argues for two distinct persons, Zerubbabel and Joshua, of Zech 4:11, 14. See E. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 198–99.

206 D. W. Rooke, “Kingship as Priesthood: The Relationship between the High Priest and the Monarchy,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, 187–208.

207 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 96, n.33.

208 E.g., A. A. Andersen, The Book of Psalms, Psalms 73–150, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 2.767; L. C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, WBC (Waco: Word, 1983), 86–87.

209 D. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1635–36.

210 M. J. Paul contends that Heb 7:3 argues, not from the silence of Gen 14 but on the basis that Melchizedek’s parents were not the required ones for priestly heritage, even as the Jews did not count a Gentile to have a father, i.e., a legal father.

211 ACCS 2.26.

212 Bruce, Hebrews, 138; also “pattern/copy” (ὑπόδειγμα), Heb 8:5; 9:23.

 K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, vol. 1B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 151–156.