LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

CHRIST: A PRIEST AFTER THE LIKENESS OF MELCHIZEDEK

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. RATHEL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE COURSE NBST 654

LIBERTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY
MICHAEL BOLING

LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA MONDAY, 7 DECEMBER, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

MELCHIZEDEK AS REVEALED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT ----------------------------------------------------- 3 HEBREWS 5-6: INITIAL COMPARISION OF CHRIST TO MELCHIZEDEK -------------------------------------- 6 HEBREWS 7: CHRIST THE ETERNAL PRIEST AFTER THE LIKENESS OF MELCHIZEDEK -------------------10 CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15

BIBLIOGRAPHY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17

3
INTRODUCTION

Biblical scholars have developed numerous theological positions on the issue of Melchizedek in particular, the kingship and priesthood attributed in scripture to this rather mysterious character. The extent to which the author of Hebrews (hereinafter referred to as the author) utilizes Old Testament references to both the order of Melchizedek and the Melchizedekan priesthood in support of assertions throughout his homily for the superiority of Christ has some confused on how to interpret and apply the authors argument. For many, Melchizedek has been viewed as a theophany included in the Old Testament and used in Hebrews as a means to stress Christs eternality. However, as noted by Harold Songer, the somewhat tedious discussion of the Jewish priesthood tempts the reader to push quickly through chapter 7 to reach the spiritual loftiness of later chapters. But those who yield will miss a stunning perspective on the significance of Jesus.1 The theological connotations inculcated within the authors comparison of Melchizedek and Christ must be interpreted as a unified peroration regarding the necessity of Christs incarnation and oblation. Essentially, Hebrews is a midrashic-style homily which exegetically utilizes a series of rabbinic-style arguments to establish the imperfections of the old diathk (covenant) while stressing the necessity and perfection of the new diathk. The author utilizes the enigmatic Old Testament character Melchizedek to demonstrate the superiority of Melchizedek over Abraham and the Levitical priesthood, ultimately revealing Christ as eternal King and High Priest par excellence. MELCHIZEDEK AS REVEALED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Melchizedek makes his first and most notable literary appearance in Genesis 14. Following Abrahams successful rescue of his nephew Lot from King Chedorlaomer and his
1

Harold Songer, A Superior Priesthood: Hebrews 4:14-7:28, Review and Expositor 82 (1985): 354.

4 allies, the king of Sodom and Melchizedek king of Salem met Abram in the valley of Shaveh. The king of Sodom came to congratulate Abram on his victorious raid and to request the return the booty that was rightfully his in accordance with the custom of the day, while conversely, Melchizedek provided bread and wine to supply the exhausted warriors with food and drink, but more especially as a mark of gratitude to Abram, who had conquered for them peace, freedom, and prosperity.2 Quite interestingly, nothing further is revealed in the Genesis text to provide the reader with any concept of why Abraham offered to Melchizedek a tenth of the spoils taken from his raid against the Chedorlaomer led armies. Of further note is the use of El Elyon by Melchizedek compared to the use of Jehovah by Abram in their respective praises to God. G. Levi Della Vida comments that The god of Melchizedek king of Salem, El Elyon the Lord of Heaven and earth, is an isolated feature in Biblical literature. To be sure, mentions of Elyon (this name not being linked to El) are numerous in the Old Testament, and especially in the Psalms, where Yahweh Elyon and Elohim Elyon are also found. The only passage, however, in which Elyon is preceded by El, besides Gen. 14:18-20 is Ps. 78 where it parallels Elohim and obviously refers to Yahweh. Therefore no biblical parallel can be used in the attempt to understand the nature of El Elyon in Gen. 14.3 Despite the scholarly debate regarding the interpretation of El Elyon, the actions of Abraham rendering respect toward Melchizedek place further significance on the person of Melchizedek as someone of both earthly and spiritual importance. Melchizedek is seen by most scholars as, at a minimum, a monotheist who worshipped the same God recognized by Abraham. Perhaps most significant for the purposes of the assertions made in Hebrews are the numerous theological themes interlaced in the literary background of Genesis 14. Most notable of these themes are the lack of any trace of genealogy or specificity concerning Melchizedek as a

2 3

Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers), 132. G. Levi Della Vida, El Elyon in Genesis 14:18-20 Journal of Biblical Literature 63, no. 1 (1944): 1-2.

5 priest unto El Elyon (God Most High) and the etymology of Melchizedek. These themes are utilized in Hebrews as points of comparison between Melchizedek and Christ. There is no further mention of Melchizedek in the pages of scripture after his rather abrupt appearance in Genesis 14 until he once again receives an even briefer treatment in Psalm 110:4. Psalm 110 is appreciated to such a degree by the New Testament authors, that it is the one quoted most of all. Especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is used to work out the concept that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek.4 A known messianic psalm, Psalm 110 contains numerous prophetic references to Christ. For the purposes of Hebrews, it is verse 4 which is the focal point of discussion. Hebrews utilizes a number of key theological elements subsumed within Psalm 110 as a foundation upon which the author builds his argument for the superiority of Christ over the sacrificial system and priestly apparatus of the old diathk. Of particular importance to the homily of Hebrews are the ideas of sitting at the right hand of God, and, in relation to the comparison of Melchizedek and Christ, the aforementioned phrase thou are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek depicted in Psalm 110:4. As noted by Gerhard Kittel, Psalm 110 postulates that Christ begins a new order () which cannot be combined with the Aaronic priesthood. Melchizedek implies the dissolving of the Jewish Law and cultus.5 Scholars have debated at length over how ` ( al dibrah Malkiy-Tsedeq), translated literally as according to the manner of Melchizedek, should actually be understood in the context of its utilization in Hebrews. Joseph Fitzmeyer rightly avers that for the context of Hebrews 7:15, the author paraphrases the Hebrew of Psalm 110:4 thus utilizing the phrase
M. J. Paul, The Order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110:4 and Heb. 7:3(, Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987): 195. Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume IV (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), 570.
5 4

6 (kata homoiots Melchisedek), according to the likeness of MelchizedekIt is this notion of likeness which is exploited in the midrashic commentary6 that is Hebrews 7. HEBREWS 5-6: INITIAL COMPARISON OF CHRIST TO MELCHIZEDEK The initial presentation of Melchizedek in Hebrews is located in Hebrews 5:6. In this verse, the author utilizes a direct quote of Psalm 110:4, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. The author asserts that Christ is simultaneously the heir to the throne of David as well as the eternal high priest. William Lane comments that the appeal to Melchizedek, who as the first priest mentioned in Scripture is the archetype of all priesthood, validates Jesus priesthood as different from and superior to the Levitical priesthood.7 Additionally, just as Melchizedek performed the dual offices of king and priest, Christ is presented as occupying a similar status. Leon Morris saliently notes that He is a priest of the same kind as Melchizedek. Most translations render this as of the order of Melchizedek, but this is incorrect. There was no succession of priests from Melchizedek and thus no order. Jesus, however, was a priest of this kind not like Aaron and his successors.8 John Calvin also addresses the importance of the comparison made between Melchizedek and Christ in particular the proper interpretation of order of Melchizedek. He notes that What is in Greek, , according to the order, is in Hebrew, ,ol-deberti, and means the same, and may be rendered, according to the way or manner.9 Perhaps Franz Delitzsch provides the most salient

Joseph Fitzmeyer, Now This Melchizedek (Heb. 7:1(, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 309. William Lane, Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews 1-8 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson), 122.

Leon Morris. Commentary on Hebrews in The Expositors Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelations. Edited by Frank Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 49.
9

John Calvin, Calvins Commentaries: Volume XXII (Grand Rapids: Baker Books), 119.

7 commentary on the importance of Christ as priest and king according to the manner of Melchizedek. He notes that: The king of Salem was, according to Canaanitish custom, which admitted of the union of the kingship and priesthood, really a high priest, and therefore, regarded from an Israelitish point of view, united in his own person the offices of David and of AaronIf David were the person addressed, the declaration would stand in antagonism with the right of Melchizedek as priest recorded in Genesis chapter 14, which, according to the indisputable representation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, was equal in compass to the Levitico-Aaronic right, and, since after the manner of requires a coincident reciprocal relation, in antagonism to itself also.10 Furthermore, the manner in which Christ was appointed as king and high priest is of particular significance to the author. In this regard, George Buchanan comments that The qualifications that applied to any high priest applied just as well to Christ.11 Given that all Israelite priests were from the tribe of Levi, the author appealed to Psalm 110:4 as proof of Christs divine appointment as the eternal high priest after Melchizedek, a character who was also not of the lineage of Levi. Not only did the author appeal to Psalm 110:4 as proof of Christs divine appointment as eternal high priest, he also utilized the Messianic nature of Psalm 110 as background to assert Christs position as heir of King David. F. F. Bruce comments on this assertion by stating that The promised prince of the house of David is, by the same divine right, perpetual priest of Melchizedeks order.12 The comparison of Melchizedek and Christ made by the author was quite bold and in stark contrast to the understanding held by most Jews regarding the distinct roles of king and priest. Buchanan notes that At least from the time of Saul and Samuel, it had been customary for the high priest and the king to be different people and some scholars trace the division of the priestly
10

Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Psalms (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers), 697. George Buchanan, Anchor Study Bible: Hebrews (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc.), 94.

11

F. F. Bruce, New International Commentary on the New Testament: Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company(, 126.

12

8 and administrative offices much earlier, even before there was a kingdom.13 In response to the relative uniqueness of his argument, the author utilizes a common rabbinic technique known as verbal analogy to further support his comparison of Melchizedek and Christ in an effort to assert the unique nature of Christs priesthood. George Guthrie states that the author successfully accomplishes his argument by coupling Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4 by virtue of their common elementsthe exegete finds in these passages a declaration made by God to Jesus.14 Ultimately, the author is able to successfully link the concepts of sonship and priesthood in his Christology.15 Just as Melchizedek was called priest of El Elyon, so to was Christ called by God to be the eternal priest. Guthrie observes that In other words, the position of high priest derives from divine rather than human authority.16 This calling is unique from the separation of priestly and kingly duties understood as commonplace by most Jews in particular those among the Qumran community. It was somewhat of a radical idea to combine the duties of priest and king into one office as priests were from the tribe of Levi and after the installation of King David by God, Israelite kings were to be from the tribe of Judah. As noted by Philip Hughes, Hebrews 5 is significant in that it evinces in the one person and category of Melchizedek, who was both king of Salem and priest of God Most High, there is a union of the royal and priestly functions.17 While the priesthood of Christ as a priest after the order of Melchizedek is more fully developed in Hebrews 7, the author initiates this concept in
13

Buchanan, 94. George Guthrie, NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 189. Ibid. Ibid, 188.

14

15

16

Philip Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), 181.

17

9 Hebrews 5 in an attempt to corroborate the doctrine that Christs high priestly office was not from himself but from God.18 Delitzsch further elaborates on the eschatological expectation subsumed within Psalm 110:4 and extracted by the author of Hebrews in his comment that The priesthood is to be united with the kingship in him (Christ) who rules out of Zion, just as it was in Melchizedek, king of Salem, and that for ever.19 In this regard, the author of Hebrews initiates his introduction of Melchizedek and more importantly, provides the framework by which he further elaborates the importance of Christ being a priest, and ultimately king, after the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 6 also mentions Christ as being after the order of Melchizedek. While Hebrews 5 was an overview of Christ as a priest after the order or manner of Melchizedek, the author, in Hebrews 6, presents Christ as the forerunner or (prodromos). As noted by Raymond Brown, This term (prodromos) was used in Greek literature to describe the function of a small party of soldiers sent fully to explore the way ahead prior to the advance of an army.20 In presenting Christ as our prodromos, the author once again alludes to Psalm 110:4 by comparing Christ, as he did in Hebrews 5 as a priest after the order of Melchizedek. The author does not fully explicate the exact nature of his assertions, perhaps in keeping with his comments in the former part of Hebrews 6 where he exhorts his readers to grasp on to the more mature teachings. William Lane suggests that the author makes the quality of precursor or forerunner, which he attributes to Jesus, dependent upon his high priestly ministry. Jesus is the

18

Ibid. Delitzsch, Psalms, 697. Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press), 122.

19

20

10 in that he entered behind the curtain as our precursor in his office as high priest like Melchizedek.21 Hebrews 5 and 6 are presented as foundations for the more complete treatment in Hebrews 7 of the precise nature by which Christ is compared to Melchizedek. Now that the author has presented a basic conceptual framework to build upon, he now shifts his focus to the various aspects by which Christ is superior to Abraham and the Levitical priesthood, as our eternal high priest and king par excellence. HEBREWS 7: CHRIST THE ETERNAL PRIEST AFTER THE LIKENESSS OF MELCHIZEDEK The enigmatic Old Testament character Melchizedek claims center stage in Hebrews 7 as the author utilizes a number of rabbinical teaching and midrashic methods by which to elaborate on not only Melchizedek, but more importantly, the manner in which Christ is the perfection of the law and the various elements subsumed within it. Lane remarks, the basis of the midrash in 7:1-10 is the hermeneutical principle of gezera sawa, that is, if two separate passages of Scripture contain the same word, the verbal analogy provides a sufficient reason for explaining one text in light of the other.22 The two passages the author utilizes in his gezera sawa style argument are Genesis 14:17-20 and Psalm 110:4; however, Psalm 110:4 is the main focus of the discussion in Hebrews 7. Lane also notes that the author utilizes two additional methods of interpretation to justify his assertions. The first, known as the argument from silence, serves to justify the statements made in Hebrews 7:3, 8. This argumentative principle is based on the concept that even the

21

Lane, 154. Lane, 159.

22

11 silence of scripture was charged with significance23an idea recognized both in rabbinic and Alexandrian exegesis.24 An additional form of argumentation utilized by the author is known as qal wahomer or the argument from the lesser to the greater. This principle utilizes the interpretative framework that what applies in a lesser case applies to a greater one.25 The author commences his comparison of Christ and Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 with a brief overview of the encounter between Abraham and Melchizedek recorded in Genesis 14:1720 as background from which to present his later assertions. He then proceeds to provide an etymological lesson on the meaning of Melchizedeks name. The name Melchizedek is formed by the union of two root words, ( melek) meaning king and ( sedeq) which is typically translated as just or righteousness. Additionally, the author interprets Salem, (Shalem), the city of which Melchizedek was said to be king, to mean peace, perhaps in an attempt to connect it with the Hebrew word for peace, shalom.26 Guthrie notes, 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.27 The author continues his explication of Melchizedek by noting what the Genesis 14 text does not mention about the life of Melchizedek thus utilizing an argument from silence to further elaborate on the comparisons between Christ and Melchizedek. Hughes rightly notes, the silence is eloquent insofar as Melchizedek is a type of Christ. It does not imply that he was a superhuman being or a manifestation of Godit is not surprising that our author should regard

23

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Guthrie, 253. Ibid.

24

25

26

27

12 the omission of any mention of parentage or posterity as remarkable.28 The lack of genealogy is indeed startling considering characters of great import in the Pentateuch are typically connected to a genealogical background as ancestry was of great significance to Semitic peoples. Of further interest is the interesting fact that Melchizedek is the only personage among the worshippers of the one true God whose ancestry and descendents receive no mention.29 Christ, by virtue of being a priest after the order of Melchizedek, has an eternal priesthood, one devoid of any limitations by means of death or lineage. Moreover, the author focuses on the details of what the narrative does and does not say, anticipating a stark contrast between Melchizedeks priesthood and the Levitical priesthood30 thereby connecting Christ with Psalm 110:4 a priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek lasts forever.31 In Hebrews 7:4-10, the author shifts his argument from silence to the qal wahomer argument in an effort to assert the greatness of Melchizedek, and ultimately Christ, over both Abraham and the Levitical priesthood. John Calvin provides valuable insight into the authors intent. He comments: The author points out by giving to Melchizedek, Abraham thereby confessed that Melchizedek excelled him in dignity. If, then, the patriarch Abraham owned him more honorable than himself, his dignity must have been singular and extraordinaryThen the argument is this Abraham, who excelled all others, was yet inferior to Melchizedek; then Melchizedek had the highest place of honor, and is to be regarded as superior to all the sons of Levi.32 The author continues his presentation of the superiority of Melchizedek over the Levitical priesthood by noting that nowhere is it related that Melchizedek lost his priestly office by death,
28

Hughes, 248. Ibid. Guthrie, 254. Ibid. Calvin, 160.

29

30

31

32

13 whereas we have the record, generation after generation, of Levitical priests who died and had to hand on their dignity and duty to their heirs.33 He goes on to make the connection between the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek and Christ in that what was applicable to Melchizedek in a literary sense is true absolutely of him who serves his people as high priest in the presence of God34, namely Christ the eternal high priest. The author now begins to present what Guthrie calls the culmination on his treatment of The appointment of the Son as a Superior High Priest.35 The priesthood of Christ is permanent and immutable unlike the transient nature of the Levitical priesthood which was dependent on a succession of priests. James Thompson notes, As an instrument for getting at this immutability of Christ, the permanence of the high priest now becomes a significant feature of the midrashvv. 4-10 show that the order of Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical order.36 Hebrews 7:11 begins with a question, one given to provide the foundation upon which the author notes the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood with the perfection of Christ as the eternal high priest. Once again the author refers back to Psalm 110:4, the cornerstone passage for his magnum opus argument. He postulates to his readers as to why, if the Levitical priesthood was able to fulfill all of the requirements necessary for man to obtain acceptability before their Creator, was there a need for a new priestly order to arise. Buchanan saliently comments, On the basis that God does not allow things that are unnecessary, the author

33

Bruce, 163. Ibid. Guthrie, 265.

34

35

James Thompson, The Conceptual Background and Purpose of the Midrash in Hebrews VII, Novum Testamentum 19, no. 3 (1977): 215.

36

14 reasoned that another priest would not have arisen for action if the existing priesthood had been functioning effectively.37 The Levitical priesthood was unable to bring about the perfection or the desired end necessary for man to fully obtain acceptability or access to God; the desired end referring to the type of relationship established between God and his people under the new diathk.38 The author asserts that the Levitical priesthood was merely a foreshadowing of the new diathk ushered in by Christ after the order of Melchizedek. Given the Levitical priesthood was but a foreshadowing of better things to come and thus unable to bring the aforementioned desired end, there is a distinct need for a shift in not only the priesthood, but the law as well. The author depicts Christ as the perfection unattainable under the Levitical construct. Lane comments, the writer clearly recognizes the validity of the OT priesthood: Aaron was called by God, but from the perspective of the event of Christ only as a foreshadowing of a new and superior priesthood announced in the OT itself.39 He goes on to provide further insight into the foundational concept provided by the author by stating, the concept of (perfection) is thus eschatological: the fulfillment of the promises of the new covenant in the priestly ministry of Christ makes possible an access to God and relationship with him that was not possible under the former covenant.40 The inability of the Levitical priesthood to bring about perfection serves as the basis for that system to be abrogated and for the institution of a new priesthood, one not from the tribe of Levi but rather from the tribe of Judah. Walter Brooks notes, could not be achieved
37

Buchanan, 122. Guthrie, 265. Lane, 181. Ibid.

38

39

40

15 by the Levitical priesthood because it was a priesthood of this world, the world of shadows. The priesthood of Christ, however, is not of this world but of the eternal world where he is a minster in the sanctuary and the true tent, which is set up not by man but by the Lord.41 Guthrie adds further salient commentary to this discussion with his comment that Christs tribe, the tribe of Judah, never served at the altar of God under the old covenant because that covenants regulations made no provision for any tribe other than that of Levi.42 The appointment of Christ is not based on an ancestral right of passage. Conversely, it is based on the establishment of a new priesthood through an oath by God. The author concludes his argument for the superiority of Christ by stating, because of this different state of affairs, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenantJesus is the ground or basis of the security of that covenant43 as he is able to bring forth the perfection of the law and additionally because he has a permanent priesthood.44
CONCLUSION

By contrasting Melchizedek with Christ, our author effectively demonstrates Christ as superior to Abraham and the Levitical priesthood. The law and sacrificial cultus were merely a foreshadowing of better things to come. Christ, as priest after the order of Melchizedek, not being of the tribe of Levi has become a priest in a manner not according to, indeed altogether in contradistinction to, the legal requirement concerning bodily descent.45 No longer do we have

Walter Brooks, The Perpetuity of Christs Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Journal of Biblical Literature 89, no. 2 (1970): 207.
42

41

Guthrie, 266. Donald Hagner, New International Biblical Commentary: Hebrews (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers),

43

110.
44

Ibid. Hughes, 264.

45

16 to live our lives distant from the throne room of God. Christ is indeed both our king and our eternal high priest who is able to bring the perfection which the law was wholly incapable of doing on our behalf. He has redeemed us by the power of his resurrection from the dead and by the glory of his exaltation to the right hand of the Majesty on high.46 Christ offered himself up as the final atonement for our sins. The perpetual need to offer the blood of bulls and goats under the old covenant has been abrogated by Christs sacrifice. As noted by Edward Fudge, Jesus perfected his sacrifice in his living, performed it in his dying, and presented it in his resurrection and exaltation all on behalf of his people and as their representative.47 Whereas Melchizedek is literarily depicted as eternal, Christ is emphatically presented by the author as truly our eternal priest, one who continually intercedes on our behalf and by whom we have access to God. The nature and excellence of the priesthood of Jesus is revealed by the (order( to which he belongs,48 the order of Melchizedek. Despite the relative theological complexity of the comparisons between Melchizedek and Christ, believers should make every effort to engage and comprehend the congruency of this topic within the entirety of scripture. There is a tremendous amount of work available to both scholar and laymen alike that presents the concepts subsumed in the author of Hebrews argument for the superiority of Christ. Understanding the necessity of Christs incarnation and oblation is essential to comprehending the importance of Christ being after the order of Melchizedek as well as what such a concept means for the believer and their relationship with God. While the theological nuances presented by the author may be complex, the message is simple: Christ is our king and high priest par excellence.
46

Ibid. Edward Fudge, Hebrews (Abilene: Leafwood Publishers), 127. Brooks, 205.

47

48

17

BIBLIOGRAPHY Brooks, Walter. The Perpetuity of Christs Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Journal of Biblical Literature 89, no. 2 (1970): 205-214.

18

Brown, Raymond. The Message of Hebrews. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984. Bruce, F. F. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990. Buchanan, George. The Anchor Bible Commentary: To the Hebrews. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972. Calvin, John. Calvins Commentaries, Volume XXII: Hebrews, 1-2 Peter, 1 John, James, Jude. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009. Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996. ____________. Commentary on the Psalms. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996. Fitzmeyer, Joseph. Now This Melchizedek (Heb. 7:1(. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 305-321. Fudge, Edward. Hebrews. Abilene: Leafwood Publishers, 2009. Guthrie, George. The NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. Hagner, Donald. New International Biblical Commentary: Hebrews. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990. Hughes, Philip. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977. Kittel, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume IV. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967. Lane, William. Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews 1-8. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991. Morris, Leon. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews in The Expositors Bible Commentary: Hebrews Through Revelation. Edited by Frank Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. Paul, M. J. The Order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:3(. Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987): 195-211. Songer, Harold. A Superior Priesthood: Hebrews 4:14-7:28. Review and Expositor 82 (1985): 345-359. James Thompson, The Conceptual Background and Purpose of the Midrash in Hebrews VII. Novum Testamentum 19, no. 3 (1977): 209-223.

19

Vida, G. Levi Della. El Elyon in Genesis 14:18-20. Journal of Biblical Literature 63, no. 1 (1944): 1-9.