Types are, by their very nature, inadequate to the task. Take, for instance, the use of goats on the Day of Atonement. One was sacrificed and the other was released into the wilderness. It took both of these to typify the work of Christ. The same kind of thing happens in Genesis 14. God’s redemptive work is beyond the depiction of one man. Both Abram and Melchizedek will serve as Christ figures even though they appear together in the same text. This particular passage has the advantage of a two-fold exegesis in subsequent scripture: first, in Psalm 110 and then in the comments both of Christ and of the author of Hebrews on this Psalm.
Jesus is concerned with the opening of the Psalm. He uses it to dispel the depleted view that the Jews had of the Christ. When he asks whose son Christ is, the Pharisees say, “The son of David.” This is the case, but it is not the whole picture. The Pharisees could not see beyond a political figure who would rescue them from the power of Rome. So Jesus wants to know why David would call him Lord. How can he be both? Jesus is not pointing out a contradiction, as though his audience would now have to choose the next option. He is bringing to light their unbelief. A naturalistic outlook would never be able to grasp the answer.
The Pharisees read this passage and missed the point that the son of David is God. But they did see one thing that might be easy for us to miss. Notice that Jesus just assumes that they would know that the passage he quotes is talking about the Christ. The key is found in the phrase, “Sit at my right hand.” This is a privilege reserved for only one and it implies something that does not normally occur to us: Christ, properly defined, is one who will aspire to nothing higher than second place. Paul says as much in I Corinthians 15:27, 28 (q.v.).
This leads us into a concept that, even though it was presupposed in the creation account, is introduced in Genesis 14: the Suzerain-Vassal relationship. Chedorlaomer is presented as the Suzerain. The kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela had been serving him for twelve years. They are vassals (whether the kings of Shinar, Ellasar, and Goiim are co-suzerains or non-rebellious vassals is beside the point). The king of Elam is, historically, the chief king in this war. Yet, he is not the first mentioned. Instead, we are first introduced to Amraphel king of Shinar. This sets the redemptive context. It goes in two directions. First, we are transported back to the plains of Shinar. The Tower of Babel is awaiting the judgment of God. But now, in keeping with the theme of the past chapters, Moses looks forward. Israel has been called out of Egypt, the kingdom has been divided, and now Lot has been captured. Or, as later scripture would have it, we are witnessing the Babylonian exile. Still, we should not look upon the correlation between the patriarchs and the nation of Israel as an end in itself. Both point to Christ.
When Abram takes it upon himself to rescue Lot, we see Christ appearing as the Kinsman-Redeemer. It is also Christ who redeems Israel from exile. This, however, is not only to be found in the return recorded in Ezra-Nehemiah. It occurs both in type and, later, in reality. The temple glory, which Ezekiel saw leaving, now returns in the person of Jesus. Shadow meets substance. Abram meets Melchizedek. But this is getting too far ahead. We need to look deeper into the slaughter of the kings.
Kline is helpful in tracing the history of an identification given to Abram in vs. 13. He is called, “Abram the Hebrew.” Contained in this name is the task to which he was called. It all goes back to Noah’s oracle. Shem was to be the one through whom redemption would come. However, this also meant that through Shem would come the judgment of the Canaanites. This is easy enough to see in the conquest of Canaan under Joshua. Nonetheless, we are still in the realm of types. Redemption is not found in military conquest. It is the work of an individual. And so Moses begins to narrow the field.
In Genesis 10:21, Shem is identified as the father of all the children of Eber. But Eber is three slots down in the genealogy. Furthermore, Shem has had other descendents by this time. But Moses wants to focus in on the children of Eber; that is, the Hebrews. The elect one has yet to be singled out, and so, Eber’s children are divided. Peleg’s name is prophetic of this event, “For in his days the earth was divided.” This division is reflected in the double treatment of Shem’s genealogy. First, in chapter 10, it is traced through the line of Joktan. But then, chapter 11 goes through his brother Peleg and straight to Abram. We are now left with the typological fulfillment of the Noahic oracle in a single individual, “Abram the Hebrew,” or, in terms of the antitype, Christ.
Now, Christ in Abram must complete the task prophesied by Noah. There seems to be a problem, though. Abram is fighting against the invaders; however, he is protecting the Canaanites. But Noah is not concerned with the physical descendants of Ham’s son. True, it will be these physical descendants who are addressed under Joshua’s conquest, yet even this points to a greater reality. To see what it is, consider Christ in his role as the last Adam by understanding the failure of the first.
Adam was installed as priest-king over the Edenic temple and charged to tend and guard it. This involved cleansing the temple of any outside evil influence that would try to make its way in. Rather than getting rid of the serpent, Adam gave in to its temptation. God then promised a second priest-king, the seed of the woman, who would crush the serpent’s head and, through this one act of righteousness, cleanse the temple forever. The ancient Israelites, acting corporately as Christ, were to foreshadow this event. The land of Canaan was the temple. Here then is the significance of the slaughter of the kings: Christ is crushing the head of the invading serpent and, in so doing, he is the redeemer of his kinsmen.
But now, after the slaughter of the kings, Moses introduces Melchizedek, who blesses Abram. As the author of Hebrews puts it, “It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.” We should take a closer look at Psalm 110; here, David includes the section that the author of Hebrews finds so fascinating. “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’” Note carefully the context. It occurs in the middle of the description of the one who is to rule in the midst of his enemies and will shatter kings on the day of his great wrath. The Psalmist makes it clear that the same individual is under consideration throughout. But, if we go back to the historical foundation, Melchizedek is not the one who is shattering kings. This task belongs to Abram. David has just exegeted Moses. Whereas historically, Abram and Melchizedek are two, separate individuals, typologically, they are one.
At the same time, the author of Hebrews will deepen the exegesis. He describes Melchizedek in this way, “He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.” Melchizedek is the consummate Christ figure. Even though this is the case, Moses also portrays him as God the Father to Abram’s Christ figure. By viewing the picture from this angle, we will be able to see the redemptive play, which was presented to us before the appearance of Melchizedek, redone and cast in a new light. The serpent is still being crushed, but now this can be seen in terms of the declaration of allegiance to a suzerain. It happens when Abram gives the tithe to Melchizedek indicating that he would submit to the God of Melchizedek. Along with this pledge is the corollary, which Abram mentions in his response to the king of Sodom. Abram had lifted his hand to the LORD that he would take nothing that belonged to the king of Sodom. It was the prerogative of the suzerain to decide what happened to the war booty. Had Abram accepted this offer, he would, by all rights, be made the vassal of Sodom’s king. And just as the king of Sodom could not entice Abram, neither would Satan be able to derail the plans of Jesus. His bread is God’s Word; the LORD will not be tempted by him; and not for all the kingdoms in this world will he become the serpent’s Christ.
The one righteous act of Christ is seen both in the slaughter of the kings and in the refusal to acknowledge the king of Sodom. The first depiction was accompanied by redemption in the rescue of Lot. The second, however, seems to lack the same redemptive motif. But then, the author of Hebrews does some more explaining. His purpose in the book is to show the superiority of Jesus. At the moment, he is detailing how much better his priesthood is. Melchizedek is cast against Aaron. Levi, he claims, paid tithes in Abraham because he was still in the loins of his father. On one level, the author is dealing with Levi only in terms of his physical descendents. He will get nowhere unless he can establish the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood to this earthly tradition.
Still, on a deeper level, it is legitimate to consider the Abrahamic tithes in terms of the double typology of the original account. It will take both Abraham and Melchizedek to do full justice to the priestly work of Christ. The same priest who operates under the power of an eternal life offers his own life as the sacrifice. One goat was sacrificed for the sins of the people, the other bore them away. Abraham is not merely paying tithes to the priest of the Most High God; rather, the part symbolizes the whole. Abraham is offering his whole being to the LORD. Christ is sacrificing himself to God.
To see how Levi fits into the picture, we will need to look into the true identity of the Levites. Recall that their inheritance was not to be land, but God himself. A promise like this is not limited to a single physical tribe. It speaks to the spiritual whole; that is, to the church. The Levites paid tithes by virtue of being in the loins of Abraham. We, by virtue of our living union with Christ, have been offered up together with him to God and, thereby, our redemption, which is unto purification, has been accomplished. The sons of Levi may now bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD.
Posted by kcourter at agosto 21, 2003 7:04 PM