Revelation 1:1-20

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who then testified to everything that he saw concerning the word of God and the testimony about Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy aloud, and blessed are those who hear and obey the things written in it, because the time is near!

4 From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from “he who is,” and who was, and who is still to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ – the faithful witness, the firstborn from among the dead, the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has set us free from our sins at the cost of his own blood 6 and has appointed us as a kingdom, as priests serving his God and Father – to him be the glory and the power for ever and ever! Amen. 7 (Look! He is returning with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes on the earth will mourn because of him. This will certainly come to pass! Amen.) 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God – the one who is, and who was, and who is still to come – the All-Powerful! 9 I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony about Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day when I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 saying: “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches – to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.” 12 I turned to see whose voice was speaking to me, and when I did so, I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands was one like a son of man. He was dressed in a robe extending down to his feet and he wore a wide golden belt around his chest. 14 His head and hair were as white as wool, even as white as snow, and his eyes were like a fiery flame. 15 His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 He held seven stars in his right hand, and a sharp double-edged sword extended out of his mouth. His face shone like the sun shining at full strength. 17 When I saw him I fell down at his feet as though I were dead, but he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid! I am the first and the last, 18 and the one who lives! I was dead, but look, now I am alive – forever and ever – and I hold the keys of death and of Hades! 19 Therefore write what you saw, what is, and what will be after these things. 20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches” (Revelation 1:1-20).¹

Introduction

This message reminds me of my first visit to India. I arrived in Bombay (that is what they called Mumbai in those days) a couple of weeks before my letter indicating my travel information, particularly my flight schedule. A few hours and a couple of phone calls later, I was talking to someone who knew where I was supposed to meet my contact in Bombay (then a city of 8 million). She told me that I should go to the YMCA, where my contact was staying. That sounded easy enough, but her last words to me were troubling:

“Make sure the cab driver doesn’t take advantage of you.”

I was soon to learn exactly what that meant. I could not conceal the obvious fact that I was an American tourist, unskilled in dealing with the likes of cab drivers, and this driver knew it after his first glance at me. He did indeed get me to the YMCA, but only after driving through every back alley and taking every side road known to man. I’m guessing that the trip was three times longer than it needed to be, a reality to which the meter on his dash testified. (Honestly, I was so glad to get to my destination, I didn’t mind paying more than I should have.)

Now you may wonder what driving around the back streets of Bombay has to do with this message. Well, let me set your mind at ease by informing you that I will get to our text from the first chapter of Revelation. But like my experience in Bombay, it will take us a while to get there. That is because I am going to try to accomplish several things in this message, making it a bit out of the ordinary (if there is such a thing with my sermons).

Next Sunday we will have a special Christmas program, and I will not be preaching, so this is my only opportunity to address Christmas until after the holiday has passed. My primary reason for preaching from Revelation 1 is that this is the first of a short series entitled, “Our Lord’s Letter to the Seven Churches of Asia.” While the letters to each of the seven churches of Asia are found in Revelation 2 and 3, the introduction (to chapters 2 and 3, and indeed the entire Book of Revelation) is recorded in chapter 1 – our text for today. My intention is to summarize the way the four Gospels of the New Testament comment on the coming of the Lord Jesus, and then compare this to the description of our Lord in the first chapter of Revelation. In so doing, my hope is that we will not only gain the proper perspective of our text(s) in Revelation, but also on our celebration of Christmas.

Observations

Let me begin by making a couple of observations regarding the way in which the Gospels deal with the birth of the Lord Jesus in Bethlehem. The first is that only two of the four Gospels actually contain a birth account. Matthew and Luke begin with the birth of our Lord, while Mark and John have no birth account. Second, I want you to notice that even Matthew and Luke have little to say about the actual birth of our Lord:

24 When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife, 25 but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25).

6 While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn (Luke 2:6-7).

This raises a question in my mind: “Why doesn’t the actual birth of the Lord Jesus receive more attention in the Gospels?” I’d like to attempt to answer this question by considering how each of the Gospels deals with the coming of our Lord, and then consider Revelation 1 in the light of our conclusions. So let’s begin by looking first at the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

The Coming of Christ in Matthew and Luke

One of the greatest issues in the New Testament is the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. This is especially true in terms of salvation, sanctification, and fellowship. Jews were strongly opposed to taking the Gospel message to Gentiles, as we can see from this text in Acts:

20 And when the blood of your witness Stephen was shed, I myself was standing nearby, approving, and guarding the cloaks of those who were killing him.’ 21 Then he said to me, ‘Go, because I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’” 22 The crowd was listening to him until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, “Away with this man from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live!” (Acts 22:20-22)

The Judaisers’ solution was simple: Gentiles must convert to Judaism. They insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved (see Acts 15:1ff.). The issue then expanded to the area of sanctification (see Galatians 3:1-5; Romans 6-8). Keeping the Law was the means by which one was sanctified.² One aspect of the controversy concerned the observance of the Old Testament Jewish food laws, which would effectively prohibit fellowship between Jews and Gentiles, not to mention mutual participation in the Lord’s Supper. This became a major issue in the church, as we can see from Acts and Galatians.³

I believe that both Matthew and Luke were written to help resolve some of the tension between Jewish and Gentile believers.⁴ Matthew is written by a Jew and thus seems to be addressed primarily to Jewish readers. Luke, on the other hand, is written by a Gentile and is targeted primarily toward a Gentile audience. But here is where the surprise comes. The “Jewish” Gospel of Matthew contains a great deal of Gentile content. Likewise, the “Gentile” Gospel of Luke has a great deal of “Jewish” material. Matthew reveals that while the gospel came through Jews, and initially to Jews, it also came through some Gentiles and was intended for Gentiles as well as Jews. Luke informs Gentile readers that Christianity has a rich Jewish background and heritage, which should neither be ignored nor despised.

Let’s look first at the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew opens with a genealogy that begins with Abraham and ends with Joseph. This comes as no surprise because Jews placed a great deal of emphasis on their biological relationship with Abraham (see John 8:33). However it is not enough to be one of Abraham’s physical descendants; one must become Abraham’s offspring by sharing his faith (see Romans 4). How shocking John the Baptist’s words must have been to these “biological Jews:”

9 “And don’t think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that God can raise up children for Abraham from these stones! 10 Even now the ax is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 “I baptize you with water, for repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than I am – I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clean out his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with inextinguishable fire” (Matthew 3:9-12).⁵

Matthew’s genealogy is also informative because it contains the names of three Gentile women (Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth), all of whom were in the lineage of the Lord Jesus. Gentiles are somehow a part of the “seed of Abraham.” In a short time, it would be evident that the true “seed⁶ of Abraham” that would bring God’s promised blessings to the world was Jesus. Abraham’s true children (plural) are those who are men and women of faith, whether Jew or Gentile:

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his descendant [seed]. Scripture does not say, “and to the descendants [seeds],” referring to many, but “and to your descendant [seed],” referring to one, who is Christ (Galatians 3:16).

9 Is this blessedness then for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision? For we say, “faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” 10 How then was it credited to him? Was he circumcised at the time, or not? No, he was not circumcised but uncircumcised! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised, so that he would become the father of all those who believe but have never been circumcised, that they too could have righteousness credited to them. 12 And he is also the father of the circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified. 15 For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either. 16 For this reason it is by faith so that it may be by grace, with the result that the promise may be certain to all the descendants – not only to those who are under the law, but also to those who have the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (Romans 4:9-16).

Matthew’s account of Jerusalem’s response to the arrival of the Magi, with their startling news that the “King of Israel” has been born, reveals the low spiritual state of Jerusalem and the Jews at the time of our Lord’s birth:

1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem 2 saying, “Where is the one who is born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” 3 When King Herod heard this he was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him (Matthew 2:1-3, emphasis mine).

Think of it. The Promised Messiah has been born in Bethlehem, just as the prophet Micah had foretold. Bethlehem was within easy walking distance from Jerusalem (5-7 miles), and yet no one who heard the report of the Magi (so far as we are told) went to Bethlehem in search of the Christ child. Worse yet, Matthew’s words do not indicate mere apathy on the part of the residents of Jerusalem; his words inform us that “all Jerusalem” was troubled by the report of the Magi. They were uneasy about the coming of Christ. In my opinion, this was because they feared that His appearance would be detrimental to their own interests, and in a certain sense, they were absolutely right (see John 11:47-48).

In Matthew’s Gospel, things will not get better for Judaism as the book unfolds. In Matthew 4:12-16, the Gospel writer reports that Jesus began His public ministry in “Galilee of the Gentiles,” and this in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 9:1-2).

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) was our Lord’s frontal attack of the scribes and Pharisees and of their version of Judaism. It begins with our Lord pronouncing blessings on those whom the scribes and Pharisees rejected as unworthy of the kingdom (Matthew 5:3-16). He then shocked everyone with these words:

“For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20).

The Pharisees were considered “first in line” for the Kingdom of Heaven, the gatekeepers of the kingdom. They expected to have 50-yard-line seats in the kingdom, and yet Jesus had the audacity (in their minds) to declare that their version of Judaism would not even get them admission into heaven. Beginning in Matthew 5:21, our Lord sets out to correct the false teaching of the scribes and Pharisees regarding the interpretation and application of the Old Testament Law. Then, in chapter 6, Jesus warns against the public display of piety in order to win the praise of men, focusing on acts of charity, prayer, and fasting. It is no wonder that the scribes and Pharisees were threatened by Jesus and His teaching. And to make matters worse (for the Pharisees), Jesus backed up what He taught with miracle after miracle, so that the people acknowledged that His teaching was vastly superior to that of the Pharisees:

28 When Jesus finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed by his teaching, 29 because he taught them like one who had authority, not like their experts in the law (Matthew 7:28-29).

In Matthew’s Gospel, Gentiles were not only part of Messiah’s genealogy, they were also those whose faith surpassed that of the Jews:

5 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion⁷ came to him asking for help: 6 “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible anguish.” 7 Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Instead, just say the word and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, ‘Go’ and he goes, and to another ‘Come’ and he comes, and to my slave ‘Do this’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found such faith in anyone in Israel! 11 I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; just as you believed, it will be done for you.” And the servant was healed at that hour (Matthew 8:5-13).

Perhaps the ultimate “Gentile” moments come in Matthew 15. It is here that Jesus declares all foods clean.⁸ It is also in chapter 15 that Jesus grants the request of the persistent Canaanite woman, whose faith Jesus commended for being great (Matthew 15:21-28). If these were Old Testament days, this Canaanite woman would have been put to death, but here her faith is commended and her petition is granted. Gentile faith once again trumps Jewish self-righteousness.⁹

Time does not permit me to deal with Luke’s Gospel with the same degree of depth, but I can safely say that this Gentile-focused Gospel has a very strong “Jewish” flavor. Just as Jewish believers needed to understand that the gospel (promised in the Abrahamic Covenant) includes Gentiles, Gentile believers needed to see that their salvation has Jewish roots. Luke 1 is primarily about the birth of John the Baptist, while chapter 2 focuses on the coming of Jesus Christ. Luke intertwines these two events because they are so closely related, in prophecy and in fulfillment.

John’s parents, Zacharias and Elizabeth, both have impressive Jewish roots.¹⁰ Zacharias and his wife are of the tribe of Levi, and thus Zacharias is fulfilling his priestly duties when the angel Gabriel appears to him, announcing the upcoming birth of John the Baptist, who will introduce Jesus as the Messiah. The shepherds who come to worship the baby Jesus are also Jewish (although they certainly are not at the top of the socio-economic ladder of Judaism). Luke records two of our Lord’s visits to Jerusalem (both with His parents) while He is a child. The first visit is for His circumcision, where He is welcomed and worshipped by both Simeon and Anna, elderly and godly Jews who have long awaited the coming of Messiah. The second visit occurs when Jesus is 12 years old. Here, Jesus amazes not only the Old Testament scholars, but also His parents. When Jesus makes His appearance at the synagogue in Nazareth, He reads from the prophecy of Isaiah 61:1-2 and declares that this prophecy has been fulfilled by His appearance (Luke 4:16-30). Notice the intensity of the Jewish response to our Lord’s reference to Gentile salvation (of the Gentile widow at Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian), as recorded in the Old Testament:

22 All were speaking well of him, and were amazed at the gracious words coming out of his mouth. They said, “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” 23 Jesus said to them, “No doubt you will quote to me the proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ and say, ‘What we have heard that you did in Capernaum, do here in your hometown too.’” 24 And he added, “I tell you the truth, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. 25 But in truth I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s days, when the sky was shut up three and a half years, and there was a great famine over all the land. 26 Yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to a woman who was a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, yet none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard this, all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage. 29 They got up, forced him out of the town, and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. 30 But he passed through the crowd and went on his way (Luke 4:22-30).

We should not only note how Luke begins his Gospel (with his account of the births of John and Jesus), but also how he ends it. The saving work of our Lord is described as the fulfillment and culmination of what God had foretold in the Old Testament:

27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures. . . . 44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things (Luke 24:27, 44-48).

We have seen that Matthew and Luke both begin with the story of our Lord’s birth. Matthew speaks to Jews, but in a way that reminds (or informs) them that Gentiles have always been a part of God’s eternal plan of salvation. Luke writes to Gentiles, but he emphasizes the Jewish roots of Christianity. But what of the other two Gospels – Mark and John – which do not include the “Christmas story”? What do they have to offer regarding the coming of Christ? Let’s pursue this matter a little further.

The Coming of the Christ in Mark and John

When we come to Mark’s Gospel, it is readily apparent that he chooses to pass over a number of events, including the birth of our Lord. We should also note that even when Mark’s account of a particular event is brief, it may include information that is not included in the more lengthy accounts of the other Gospel writers. For example, note the original information we find in Mark’s account of our Lord’s temptation in the wilderness:

12 The Spirit immediately drove him into the wilderness. 13 He was in the wilderness forty days, enduring temptations from Satan. He was with wild animals, and angels were ministering to his needs (Mark 1:12-13).

Here we see that our Lord’s temptation included much more than just that which Matthew and Luke have recorded in greater detail; we find that Jesus was continually tempted over that 40-day period. In addition, we are told that our Lord’s testing not only involved fasting, but also spending days and especially nights in the presence (or proximity) of wild animals (which would likely include such creatures as wolves and coyotes – or their Middle Eastern counterparts – as well as scorpions and vipers).

I am especially fascinated by Mark’s choice of words at the commencement of his Gospel:

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way, 3 the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make his paths straight’” (Mark 1:1-3, emphasis by underscoring mine).

Matthew and Luke present the beginning of their Gospels as the birth of the Lord Jesus. Mark, on the other hand, presents the beginning of his Gospel as the Old Testament prophecies¹¹ concerning the coming of John the Baptist as the forerunner of Messiah. Mark passes over much material that is dealt with in greater detail by Matthew and Luke, but in his account, opposition to Jesus begins in chapter 2, and by chapter 3 (verse 6), the Pharisees and Herodians will conspire to kill Jesus.

In John’s Gospel, the “beginning” really is the beginning – of creation:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. 2 The Word was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created (John 1:1-3).

John’s Gospel is not like Matthew’s, for Matthew presents the coming of Jesus in a way that makes the reader gradually aware of who He is. Thus, we find Peter’s “Great Confession” in Matthew 16 and our Lord’s transfiguration in chapter 17.

John lets us know who Jesus is in the first chapter of his Gospel. He deals with the coming of our Lord in theological terms. Jesus is God, the Creator (John 1:1-3), the One who is both the light and the life (1:4-5). He is the true light who was rejected by the world, but nevertheless the only One through whom men may become the children of God (1:9-13). In verses 14-18 of chapter 1, John presents Jesus as God incarnate, God come in human flesh: His undiminished deity took on uncorrupted humanity for all eternity. And in verses 19 and following, Jesus is presented as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29, 36).

And so we learn that while only two Gospels include the Christmas story of our Lord’s birth, all of the Gospels start at the author’s choice of a beginning place. Matthew and Luke make the beginning the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus. Mark starts with the Old Testament prophets, and John starts with creation.

My Concern Regarding Christmas

I have no objection to the celebration of the birth of our Lord at Christmas. It is one of my favorite holidays. What does concern me is that the idea of “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild” does not quite do justice to the person of our Lord at His incarnation. “Baby Jesus, lying in a manger” is not how we should think of our Lord now. In the Gospels, it is not long before it becomes very clear that Jesus is not a helpless victim, whose destiny is subject to the whims of mortal men. The words of the Christmas carol remind us that Jesus was truly “Lord at His birth.” Likewise, a careful reading of the Gospels informs us that Jesus was also Lord at His death. He was the One in control of all things so that His death would take place precisely how and when it had been prophesied, in spite of the fact that the Jews were determined not to put Him to death during the feast of Passover.¹²

Throughout the Gospels, there are numerous indications of our Lord’s true identity, and thus of His deity and sovereignty. Our Lord’s appearance at the temple as an infant, and later as a 12-year-old child, revealed that He was no mere mortal.¹³ The Father’s testimony at our Lord’s baptism was yet further proof of His true identity.¹⁴ So, too, was the voice from heaven in John 12:28-33. The miracles Jesus performed in His public ministry,¹⁵ and the circumstances surrounding His crucifixion,¹⁶ resurrection,¹⁷ and ascension,¹⁸ were all proof that someone greater than John the Baptist (or Jacob or Abraham)¹⁹ had appeared. This is further confirmed by Stephen’s vision at the time of his death,²⁰ and Paul’s vision at the time of his conversion.²¹ Our Lord’s cleansing of the temple²² was not done by “gentle Jesus, meek and mild.”

What I am trying to say has been said far better in Scripture than I can articulate on my own:

4 Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well. 5 You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, 6 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature. 8 He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross! 9 As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow – in heaven and on earth and under the earth – 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:4-11, emphasis mine).

It is those final three verses of the text above to which I wish to call your attention. When we worship Jesus today, it is not the “babe in the manger” that we worship; it is the risen, glorified, exalted Lord that we worship and serve:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, 16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him. 18 He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son 20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven (Colossians 1:15-20).

Jesus in the Book of Revelation

When we approach Revelation 1 with Philippians 2 and Colossians 1 in mind, we are not surprised at all by John’s depiction of our Lord as the great and mighty Savior that He is. The Jesus on whose breast John once leaned²³ is now the Jesus before whom John falls, as though he were a dead man.²⁴

A Few Observations

As we now approach Revelation 1, let me make a few observations about this text.

1. Revelation 1 (and, indeed, the rest of the Book of Revelation) is Christ-centered. This is “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (verse 1). The Father speaks in verse 8, but it is the Son who has center stage. It is He who speaks to the seven churches. It is He who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals in chapter 5. It is He who will come triumphantly for His bride in chapter 19. That is why He is central from the beginning of this book.

2. The Book of Revelation is church-centered. The entire Book of Revelation is written to the seven churches of Asia. We find the seven churches in view at the end of the book just as they are at the beginning:

From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from “he who is,” and who was, and who is still to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne (Revelation 1:4).

“To the angel of the church in . . . write . . .” (Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).

“. . . and then all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts. I will repay each one of you what your deeds deserve” (Revelation 2:23).

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star!” (Revelation 22:16)

Given my background and theological training, I would have expected the closing book of the Bible – a book of prophecy – to focus almost entirely on the nation Israel and on the Jews, but this is not really the case. The English term “church” (singular or plural) occurs 20 times in Revelation, while “Israel” is found 3 times²⁵ and “Jew/Jews” occurs 2 times.²⁶ In no way do I wish to diminish the role of Israel in prophecy. I only intend to point out the important role the church plays in prophecy, and particularly in Revelation.

3. The Lord’s return and the conclusion to God’s plans and purposes for human history are viewed as near at hand in Revelation. In Daniel’s prophecy, the prophecies are to be sealed up, because the end is far away:

“But you, Daniel, close up these words and seal the book until the time of the end. Many will dash about, and knowledge will increase” (Daniel 12:4).

He said, “Go, Daniel. For these matters are closed and sealed until the time of the end (Daniel 12:9).

But you should go your way until the end. You will rest and then at the end of the days you will arise to receive what you have been allotted” (Daniel 12:13).

But in the Book of Revelation, the time of the end is near, and thus the seals are removed:

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who then testified to everything that he saw concerning the word of God and the testimony about Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy aloud, and blessed are those who hear and obey the things written in it, because the time is near! (Revelation 1:1-3)

(“Look! I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy expressed in this book.”) (Revelation 22:7)

(“Look! I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to pay each one according to what he has done!” (Revelation 22:12)

The one who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon!” Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:20)

4. There is a very strong emphasis at the beginning and the end of the Book to listen carefully to what is being said, and to heed it.

Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy aloud, and blessed are those who hear and obey the things written in it, because the time is near! (Revelation 1:3)

“The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).

What is written in this book comes from God and is not to be modified, either by addition or subtraction:

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who then testified to everything that he saw concerning the word of God and the testimony about Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:1-2).

18 I testify to the one who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).

The vision John sees of our risen and glorified Lord in Revelation 1:12-20 is surely intended to get our attention and to cause us to listen to what this Awesome One has to say to us.

5. The description of the glorified Christ in chapter 1 is not to be thought of as a photograph of our Lord. You will notice the frequently used word “like” in verses 13-15. His hair was white “like wool”; His eyes were “like a flame of fire” (verse 14). The most graphic imagery is employed to describe the majesty, power, and glory of the risen Lord, but even it falls short of the reality, which is beyond words to describe. The Lord Jesus will again be described in chapter 5 as standing “as if slain,” with seven horns and seven eyes. I read these words of description as highly symbolic, rather than as a starkly literal picture. The description is meant to have a powerful impact on the reader, but I don’t personally think that it can fully encompass the magnitude of His majesty.

6. The description of our Lord in chapter 1 reminds us of several texts in the Old Testament. The statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2 has a few similarities to the description of the risen Lord in Revelation 1, but this statue seems to be the backdrop against which the person of our Lord is contrasted.

31 “You, O king, were watching as a great statue – one of impressive size and extraordinary brightness – was standing before you. Its appearance caused alarm. 32 As for that statue, its head was of fine gold, its chest and arms were of silver, its belly and thighs were of bronze. 33 Its legs were of iron; its feet were partly of iron and partly of clay. 34 You were watching as a stone was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its iron and clay feet, breaking them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were broken in pieces without distinction and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors that the wind carries away. Not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a large mountain that filled the entire earth” (Daniel 2:31-35).

So far as I can tell, the statue is precisely that – a statue. It is not a living being. No wonder Nebuchadnezzar will order that a golden image be made and worshipped in chapter 3. Nebuchadnezzar’s vision was of a statue made of metals of different and diminishing quality: gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay. In Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, our Lord is depicted as a stone which strikes the image at its feet and brings it down, thereby defeating and destroying great kingdoms.

In the revelation of our Lord in Revelation 1, our Lord is a living being, very much alive and very active. His feet are said to be “like burnished bronze,” heat treated and strong. Unlike the statue of Daniel 2, our Lord has no weakness in His feet, and nothing will bring Him down. He is the One who will rule as “King of kings” and “Lord of lords.”²⁷

When we come to Daniel 7 and 10, we see a description of our Lord which more closely matches the description we find in Revelation 1:

13 I was watching in the night visions,
“And with the clouds of the sky
one like a son of man was approaching.
He went up to the Ancient of Days
and was escorted before him.

14 To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty.
All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him.
His authority is eternal and will not pass away.
His kingdom will not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14).

5 I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen; around his waist was a belt made of gold from [Uphaz]. 6 His body resembled yellow jasper, and his face had an appearance like lightning. His eyes were like blazing torches; his arms and feet had the gleam of polished bronze. His voice thundered forth like the sound of a large crowd. 7 Only I, Daniel, saw the vision; the men who were with me did not see it. On the contrary, they were overcome with fright and ran away to hide. 8 I alone was left to see this great vision. My strength drained from me, and my vigor disappeared; I was without energy. 9 I listened to his voice, and as I did so I fell into a trance-like sleep with my face to the ground (Daniel 10:5-9).

In addition to these similarities in the Book of Daniel, there is a direct reference to Zechariah 12:10 in verse 7 of our text in Revelation:

(Look! He is returning with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes on the earth will mourn because of him. This will certainly come to pass! Amen.) (Revelation 1:7)

This provides us with an important key to the interpretation of the entire Book of Revelation. The reader is expected to interpret and understand the Book of Revelation in the light of Old Testament prophecies. The past is the key to the future. (Old Testament) Scripture enables us to understand current scriptural revelation. Put differently, the prophecies we find in Revelation speak of the fulfillment of things that were prophesied in Old Testament times. New Testament prophecy is the reiteration, clarification, or amplification of Old Testament prophecy.

7. The exhortations of Revelation, as well as the prophecies concerning His Second Coming are based upon what He has already accomplished at His first coming:

5 And from Jesus Christ – the faithful witness, the firstborn from among the dead, the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has set us free from our sins at the cost of his own blood 6 and has appointed us as a kingdom, as priests serving his God and Father – to him be the glory and the power for ever and ever! Amen. 7 (Look! He is returning with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes on the earth will mourn because of him. This will certainly come to pass! Amen.) (Revelation 1:5-7)

9 They were singing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals because you were killed, and at the cost of your own blood you have purchased for God persons from every tribe, language, people, and nation. 10 You have appointed them as a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth” (Revelation 5:9-10).

Conclusion

There are many details in Revelation 1 that could be discussed and would be of interest, but we have chosen to focus our attention on the seven churches addressed in chapters 2 and 3. Let us conclude this lesson by considering several applications of our text.

First, let us approach these words of our Lord to the seven churches of Asia as words that are directed at us as well. One of the Bibles in front of me is a “Red Letter Bible.” Frankly, I’ve never been very enthusiastic about such Bibles because every word of Scripture is from our Lord. But when I turn to chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation, I see red writing. These are the words of our Lord to His church. What is spoken to one church has application to all the churches, including the church today. Let us therefore approach these chapters in the light of the introduction in chapter 1:

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who then testified to everything that he saw concerning the word of God and the testimony about Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy aloud, and blessed are those who hear and obey the things written in it, because the time is near! (Revelation 1:1-3, emphasis mine)

When we go all the way back to the Book of Deuteronomy, we find words which look forward to the coming of Christ and to His revelation of future events such as we find in Revelation:

18 “I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command. 19 I will personally hold responsible anyone who then pays no attention to the words that prophet speaks in my name. 20 But if any prophet presumes to speak anything in my name that I have not authorized him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die” (Deuteronomy 18:18-20).

Jesus is that “prophet” promised so long ago by Moses. As he indicates, we had better listen well to what He has to say. But he goes on to warn about self-appointed “prophets” who will speak false words. The “revelations” of such a false prophet are to be rejected.

Second, since these words in Revelation come from our Lord, we dare not distort them in any way, by adding to them or taking from them:

18 I testify to the one who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).

Third, let us take note of the fact that the time of our Lord’s return is portrayed as imminent. The prophecies of this book “must happen very soon” (verse 1). The Christian must always be ready and expectant with regard to our Lord’s return. To look upon our Lord’s return as distant is dangerous:

35 “Get dressed for service and keep your lamps burning; 36 be like people waiting for their master to come back from the wedding celebration, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. 37 Blessed are those slaves whom their master finds alert when he returns! I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, have them take their place at the table, and will come and wait on them! 38 Even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night and finds them alert, blessed are those slaves! 39 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him” (Luke 12:35-40; see also verses 42-48; Matthew 24:44; 25:10; 2 Peter 3:1-10).

And so the Book of Revelation concludes with the saints eagerly awaiting our Lord’s return; indeed, they are hastening Him on:

The one who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon!” Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:20).

Fourth, the Book of Revelation presents us with a God who is in control of His creation and of human history. The sovereignty of God assures us that what God has promised He will fulfill because nothing can thwart His plans and purposes. Revelation not only reveals things to come, it reveals a sovereign Lord who is able to bring these things to pass. It is our absolute confidence in His sovereignty that sustains us in those times of persecution and apparent chaos. That is a lesson that Job learned, albeit the hard way:

1 Then Job answered the Lord:
2 “I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:1-2).

He does whatever he pleases in heaven and on earth,
in the seas and all the ocean depths (Psalm 135:6).

“Who announces the end from the beginning
and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred,
who says, ‘My plan will be realized,
I will accomplish what I desire’” (Isaiah 46:10).

“All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he wishes with the army of heaven and with those who inhabit the earth. No one slaps his hand and says to him, ‘What have you done?’” (Daniel 4:35).

5 and from Jesus Christ – the faithful witness, the firstborn from among the dead, the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has set us free from our sins at the cost of his own blood 6 and has appointed us as a kingdom, as priests serving his God and Father – to him be the glory and the power for ever and ever! Amen (Revelation 1:5-6).

11 Then I saw heaven opened and here came a white horse! The one riding it was called “Faithful” and “True,” and with justice he judges and goes to war. 12 His eyes are like a fiery flame and there are many diadem crowns on his head. He has a name written that no one knows except himself. 13 He is dressed in clothing dipped in blood, and he is called the Word of God. 14 The armies that are in heaven, dressed in white, clean, fine linen, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth extends a sharp sword, so that with it he can strike the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod, and he stomps the winepress of the furious wrath of God, the All-Powerful. 16 He has a name written on his clothing and on his thigh: “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Revelation 19:11-16).

Fifth, the Book of Revelation is (so far as the canon of Scripture is concerned) God’s final word of invitation to unbelievers to forsake all efforts at earning God’s favor and to embrace Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross of Calvary as the means to the forgiveness of our sins and the hope of spending eternity in His presence:

16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star!” 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say: “Come!” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wants it take the water of life free of charge (Revelation 22:16-17).

The Good News of the Gospel is not only that God will bring His kingdom to earth, but that He is the One who brings men into this kingdom. The bad news is that sinners cannot enter into God’s heaven. The Good News is that the way into heaven is through the cleansing of sin that comes through Jesus:

12 “(Look! I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to pay each one according to what he has done! 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end!) 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes so they can have access to the tree of life and can enter into the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral, and the murderers, and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood!” (Revelation 22:12-15)

This cleansing from sin that is required for entrance into heaven is a cleansing that Jesus accomplished on the cross of Calvary for all who receive it:

5 and from Jesus Christ – the faithful witness, the firstborn from among the dead, the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has set us free from our sins at the cost of his own blood 6 and has appointed us as a kingdom, as priests serving his God and Father – to him be the glory and the power for ever and ever! Amen (Revelation 1:5-6).

9 They were singing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals because you were killed, and at the cost of your own blood you have purchased for God persons from every tribe, language, people, and nation. 10 You have appointed them as a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth” (Revelation 5:9-10).

The Book of Revelation ends with a word of warning and a word of invitation. Those who cling to their sins will not enter God’s kingdom. Those who cling to the person and work of Jesus Christ and His saving work at Calvary will be saved and live forever in His presence. The death of Jesus on the cross of Calvary was not for His sins, but for yours. He bore your punishment on the cross, and He offers you His righteousness if you trust in the work He has done on your behalf. I urge you to trust in His saving work so that your sins might be forgiven, and so that you can enjoy the benefits of being on the winning side of human history.

Copyright © 2011 by Robert L. Deffinbaugh. This is the edited manuscript of Lesson 1 in the three-part series, Our Lord’s Letter to the Seven Churches of Asia, prepared by Robert L. Deffinbaugh on December 12, 2010. Anyone is at liberty to use this lesson for educational purposes only, with or without credit.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the NET Bible. The NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION, also known as THE NET BIBLE, is a completely new translation of the Bible, not a revision or an update of a previous English version. It was completed by more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The translation project originally started as an attempt to provide an electronic version of a modern translation for electronic distribution over the Internet and on CD (compact disk). Anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection will be able to use and print out the NET Bible without cost for personal study. In addition, anyone who wants to share the Bible with others can print unlimited copies and give them away free to others. It is available on the Internet at:

www.netbible.org.

2 See Galatians 3:3.

3 See Acts 10-11; Galatians 2:11-21; also Romans 14-15; 1 Corinthians 8-10.

4 I do not mean to say that this was the only purpose for these Gospels, or even the primary purpose of these authors.

5 This matter is also taken up in Romans 1-4, and again in chapters 9 and 10.

6 “Seed” is singular here, as Paul specifies in Galatians 3:16.

7 Yet another centurion, stationed at the foot of the cross, will declare, “Truly this one was God’s Son!” (Matthew 27:54).

⁸ Matthew 15:10-20; see Mark 7:14-23, especially verse 19.

⁹ See the powerful way Paul deals with this subject matter in Romans 9:30—10:13.

10 Luke 1:5.

11 The prophecies cited here by Mark are Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.

12 See my sermon on John chapter 18 on bible.org:

http://bible.org/seriespage/jesus-lord-thy-death-john-181-11

13 See Luke 2:22-52.

14 See Matthew 3:13-17.

15 See Luke 4:32-37; 5:8.

16 See Matthew 27:54.

17 See Matthew 27:50-54; 28:1-7.

18 See Ephesians 1:18-19; 4:7-8; Romans 8:11.

19 See John 4:12f.; 5:36; 8:53f.; see also Matthew 12:6, 41, 42.

20 See Acts 7:54-56.

21 See Acts 9:1-9.

22 See Matthew 21:12-15.

23 See John 13:23. While not named, it is generally assumed that this one is John.

24 Revelation 1:17.

25 Revelation 2:14; 7:4; 21:12.

26 Revelation 2:9; 3:9.

27 See Revelation 17:14; 19:16.

1. Introduction

As Longenecker said, there is probably a no more enigmatic figure in all of scripture than Melchizedek, and there is a no more difficult problem in biblical studies than tracing the Melchizedek tradition in Jewish and Christian literature.¹ His name appears only twice in the Old Testament (Gen 14:17-20 and Ps 110:4) and only in some passages of Hebrews within the New Testament (Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20-7:28).

In Gen 14:17-20 Melchizedek’s sudden appearance surprises the readers by interrupting the main narrative line. No background source exists about why he appears after Abraham’s having defeated four kings, only that he just carries his mysterious name (‘king of righteousness’ and ‘king of Salem’). The name ‘El Elyon’ which he used, when he blessed Abraham, also provides another enigma.

In Psalm 110:4 Melchizedek’s name is mentioned again. Even though Psalm 110 is a famous one quoted most by the New Testament authors, especially regarding Christology (Matt 22:41-43; Heb 6:20-7:28), it is also one of the most difficult to exegete.²

As one begins to read Hebrews, these difficulties seem to intensify because it contains so many exegetical enigmas. One of the most difficult passages would be Hebrews 7:3; “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides a priest perpetually.” Because of the exegetical difficulties, there is much debate about his identity and the passages regarding him. But as for his function, many agree that Melchizedek, king of Salem, plays a vital linking role among the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New Covenants, especially regarding his priesthood and kingship.³

Through this paper, various views about the identity of Melchizedek will be discussed, especially his function in light of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12-21 and in light of the theology of the royal priesthood based on the Davidic covenant in Psalm 110. This paper will also connect these discussions with the passage in Hebrews 7:1-10, which shows the New Covenant based on the detailed comparison of Christ and Melchizedek as an excellent example of the subtle and rich Jewish hermeneutics of Gen 14:17-20.⁴ Lastly, an evaluation will be made of the significance of Melchizedek as a covenantal figure related to the three major covenants.

2. Various Views about the Identity of Melchizedek

To begin the discussion, first of all, it is desirable to separate Melchizedek’s identity from his function. Although his identity has been much debated, most of the debates center around two issues; whether he is a heavenly being or merely a historical human being.⁵ As to his function, especially in the context of Hebrews, most agree that he functioned as a type of Christ⁶ because they think that Melchizedek’s encounter with Abraham was part of the historical setting. However, the notion that he is a type of Christ does not necessitate the condition that he must be a historical being because he can be also thought of as a heavenly/historical being like Christ.⁷ In this part three most popular views about his identity as a heavenly being, as the pre-incarnate Christ, and as a historical being will be presented and will be followed by the discussion of his typological function.

2.1. Melchizedek as a Heavenly Being

Melchizedek’s name is mentioned in two of the scrolls that represent the different views of the covenanters of the Qumran: the Genesis Apocryphon from Cave 1 (1QapGen) and the Melchizedek scroll from Cave 11 (11QMelch).⁸ In 1QapGen 22:14-17 Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek is described in more detail than in Gen 14:18-20, but it does not add significantly to the portrait of Melchizedek.⁹ In 11QMelch, however, Melchizedek is depicted as a Heavenly Redeemer Figure, identified with the archangel Michael, who plays eschatological roles in defeating Belial (11QMelch 2.22-26; 3.7; 4.3) and in delivering the sons of light even though the archangel Michael does not appear in this document.¹⁰ In the Babylonian Talmud (see Hag. 12b, Zebah. 62a, Menah. 110a) the archangel Michael is described as a heavenly high priest, and in a medieval Jewish source (Yalqut had. f. 115, col.3, no.19) he is identified with Melchizedek, who is called ‘the priest of El Elyon.’¹¹ Further evidence of relevant speculation on Melchizedek as a ‘heavenly being’ is found in 2 Enoch 68-73¹² and in the Nag Hammadi tractate Melchizedek, along with various Gnostic sources which depict him as ‘a heavenly power’.¹³

This view seems to have been supported especially through the implication of Heb 7:3, but it also has created some difficulties. For instance, if the author of Hebrews had thought of Melchizedek as an angelic figure, he would have contrasted Melchizedek with Christ, or else his whole argument of Heb 1:4-14 would have been nullified.¹⁴ Because of this difficulty, some insist that Melchizedek was a heavenly being, not an archangel,¹⁵ or a heavenly warrior or a heavenly high priest.¹⁶ The typical reason why scholars try to consider Melchizedek as a heavenly figure is that some similarities exist between the Qumran documents and the book of Hebrews. The differences, however, also exist at the same time. The differences are dominant in Hebrews 7, but in the book of Hebrews as a whole, the similarities are dominant. The military or forensic portrait of Melchizedek as a holy warrior, which is a major feature of 11QMelch, is quite different from the priestly image in Hebrews 7, whereas some similarities exist in light of the eschatological redemptive action of Christ.¹⁷ Because of these similarities, some argue that the recipients of Hebrews were former Qumranites or that they had been influenced by the Qumran sectarians. These similarities, however, might imply the Jewish common thought about Melchizedek at that period. Moreover, it is worth noting that 11QMelch has no reference to the priesthood of Melchizedek or to the OT passages which mention him.

2.2. Melchizedek as the Pre-incarnate Christ

The functional similarities mentioned above and the interpretational difficulties about Melchizedek’s genealogy in Heb 7:3 lead some to argue that he was the pre-incarnate Christ as the Divine Logos.¹⁸ This view was not uncommon in the patristic period.¹⁹ Regarding this view, Ellingworth carefully summarizes, “The speculation is at its maximum if we are required to think of Melchizedek as a being from but co-equal with Christ…The theory of an implicit identification between Melchizedek and Christ is less alien to the epistle, but the evidence, as we have suggested, falls short of conviction, and the theory itself appears to arise from a desire to impose on the material a neater theological pattern than it in fact possesses.”²⁰ But this view also has some difficulties. First of all, Christ’s incarnation has a significant uniqueness in Christianity. The climactic significance of his incarnation culminates on the Cross. The author of Hebrews definitely declares that Christ’s redemptive sacrifice is ‘once for all,’ having, so to speak, an eternal effect (Heb 7:27; 9:12; 9:26; 10:10). If Melchizedek were the pre-incarnate Christ, the purpose of the incarnation would not be clear and such a relationship would diminish the significance of Christ’s incarnation. Second, the use of a[fwmoiwmevnos (‘made like’) implies that Melchizedek and the Son of God are two different persons because Melchizedek is said to have been ‘made like unto the Son of God,’ and the Son of God is said to have been ‘made a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.’²¹

2.3. Melchizedek as a Historical Being

Most critics hold Melchizedek to have been a historical being largely through some historical documents that support Salem and El Elyon mentioned in Genesis. The city of Salem is usually thought to have been identical with Jerusalem. Recent evidence has increased the probability that as ‘king of Salem’ Melchizedek ruled over the Canaanite city-state later called Jerusalem.²² The name El Elyon (‘God Most High’) is even more debatable because of two major critical arguments. First, some critics think that El Elyon in Genesis 14:18 was actually not Yahweh.²³ As von Rad suggested, it might be true that the cult for El Elyon was practiced in ancient Canaanite Jerusalem before Israelite times.²⁴ Second, some critics regard Gen 14:18-20 and Psalm 110:4 as pieces of syncretism whereby the pre-Davidic kingship and the Canaanite worship of El Elyon were linked with Yahwism and the founding of the Davidic dynasty in order to foster the emergence of Jerusalem as Israel’s cultic center.²⁵ But these two arguments show the contrast with the OT passages because Gen 14:18-20 equates El Elyon with Yahweh. Actually the fact that the two deities, El and Elyon, were regarded as Canaanite gods does not prove that El Elyon in the Genesis 14 context refers to a Canaanite god because the author of Genesis could use El Elyon to express Yahweh’s superiority to the two dominant Canaanite gods by combining both El (the lord of earth) and Elyon (the lord of heaven) in the Canaanite religious setting.²⁶ Another epithet qōnēh shāmayim wā’āretz (‘possessor of heaven and earth’) in Gen 14:19 and 22 signifies Yahweh’s superiority to El and Elyon. Furthermore, the OT elsewhere uses El Elyon as an epithet for Yahweh (Psalm 7:17; 47:2; 57:2; 78:56).²⁷

2.4. Melchizedek as a Type of Christ

Orthodox Protestants and traditional Roman Catholics usually hold the view that Melchizedek is a type of Christ. As mentioned previously, however, this view does not refer to the identification of Melchizedek, but to his function or role. For the typological interpretation, some comments are in order. First, even though the notion that Melchizedek is a type of Christ seems to provide one basic presupposition that he was a historical being, it is not sufficient because he can also be thought as a heavenly/historical being like Christ even in a typological setting.²⁸ Second, Melchizedek can be thought of as a type of office (as a king-priest) by defining him as one whose functions in his office ‘correspond closely to’ or ‘set the pattern for’ similar functions carried out by one who fills the same office in a later period.²⁹ Hebrews presents Melchizedek as one who is ‘likened to but not equated with’ Christ.³⁰ Third, the statement about Melchizedek’s lack of genealogy has been explained as an elaboration on the silence of Genesis regarding Melchizedek’s origin. There seems to be no consensus for the interpretation about his genealogy in Heb 7:3 in a typological setting, even though the Jewish hermeneutical principle known as quod non in thora non in mundo in Latin (Lit. “If it is not written in the Torah, it does not exist in the world.”) is widely applied.³¹ This subject will be dealt with later on.

3. The Three Covenants and Melchizedek

The various views for the identity of Melchizedek have been discussed. The three Bible passages (Gen 14:18-20; Ps 110; Heb 7:1-10) will be looked at, focusing on Melchizedek’s identity and his function relative to the three covenants.

3.1. The Abrahamic Covenant and Melchizedek in Genesis 14

3.1.1. The Significance of Abraham’s Encounter with the Kings.

Gen 12-22, where God promises to Abraham by an oath known as the Abrahamic covenant, shows a well-organized chiastic and inclusio structure designed in a sophisticated way as follows:

Narrative Structure of Genesis 12-22

God’s covenant with Abraham is more fully revealed as Genesis progresses. Before beginning a discussion of the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and Melchizedek’s blessing, Let us pay attention to Abraham’s encounter with the kings and his function in Gen 12-21.

First, noticeably, the people Abraham met were usually kings (Pharaoh in Ch.12, some kings in Gen 14, Abimelech in Ch.20-21). Except for these kings, his encounters were with Lot, Hagar and Ishmael. The case of Lot and Ishmael shows clearly one nature of the Abrahamic covenant in Gen 12:1-3, that is, they could be blessed in association with Abraham even though they were not heirs of the blessing. Even kings who had political and military power were blessed through Abraham. The two events in Egypt (Gen 12) and Gerar (Gen 20), and climactically the event of the kings’ war (Gen 14) testify to it. The sons of Heth regarded him as a mighty prince (Gen 22:6).³² Only Abraham himself and his eternal descendants promised by God could be a blessing to others.

Second, Abraham’s role in his encounter with the kings showed two functions: as a deliverer (Gen 12:10-20; 14:1-24) and as a mediator (Gen 18:16-33; 20:1-18; 21:22-34).³³ These two functions came from God by the nature of the Abrahamic covenant. Actually these two functions could be regarded as identical with the two offices, i.e., the kingship and the priesthood, which were the same as those of Melchizedek. Although Abraham was not a king-priest like Melchizedek, his two major functions indicated that he was like a king-priest. Thus the encounter of Melchizedek as a king-priest with Abraham was not a sudden insertion as some critics insist, but a carefully designed placement by the author of Genesis. Horton ignores this significant fact by insisting that Melchizedek was the first priest in the Bible, just applying the Jewish hermeneutical principle, “quod non in thora non in mundo.”³⁴ Horton failed to appreciate that Melchizedek was actually a king-priest and that Abraham was like a king-priest.³⁵

3.1.2. The Abrahamic Covenantal Nature and Melchizedek in Gen 14.

The three events which occurred between the two covenants of Gen 12 and Gen 15 partially explain the nature of the Abrahamic covenant. As mentioned in the narrative structure of Gen 12-21, these three events along with three other events in Gen 19-20 show the chiastic structure. In addition, Melchizedek’s encounter with Abraham in Gen 14:17-24 clearly shows the contrastive structure as follows:

Setting: King of Sodom’s going out to meet Abraham (v.17)

Some comments about this event are in order. First, the author of Genesis treats Melchizedek very differently from the king of Sodom who was like a representative of the other kings in the context. Abraham gave his humble tithe to Melchizedek, while he showed clearly that he had no religious or political affiliation with the king of Sodom. If Salem had been identified with Jerusalem, it would have been possible that Melchizedek was a Canaanite king of the Jebusites, but he might be a Yahweh-worshipping priest unlike other Canaanite kings through the opposite treatment from Abraham.³⁶ Therefore, it is not necessary to think of this event as a syncretistic link between the Israelite and the Canaanite religion.³⁷

Second, this event shows a close relationship to the Abrahamic covenant. By limiting Melchizedek’s blessing as only being the Abrahamic typology, some have failed to connect it to the Abrahamic covenant.³⁸ There are two clues to show this relationship. 1) The first clue is from Melchizedek’s blessing. The key word of his blessing was מִגֵּן (“to deliver up” or “to give” as a Piel perfect form), providing the reason for praise to El Elyon. However, this term also functions as a connector with chapter 15 because another form of this word (מָגֵן means ‘shield’) is used in Gen 15:1.³⁹ Both verses (Gen 14:20 and Gen 15:1) tell of God’s protection of Abraham in order to accomplish His promise explicitly. Abraham had already experienced God’s security through the events in Egypt and in the kings’ war, but in Gen 15 he was experiencing God’s security for his future descendants, based on the Abrahamic covenant. 2) The second clue is from Melchizedek’s name. As Hebrews mentions, Melchizedek is a king of righteousness and of peace. These two words have been typical for describing Messiah (Isa 9:7) and soteriological for expressing the idea that the peace of God is based upon the righteousness of God (Isa 32:17; Rom 5:1).⁴⁰ Interestingly, these two qualities of righteousness and peace can be also applicable to Abraham in light of the Abrahamic covenant in Gen 15:6 and 15.

Regarding righteousness, God reconfirmed two crucial promises to Abraham in Gen 15: one in regard to his offspring (Gen 15:1-6), and the other in regard to the land (Gen 15:7-21). Abraham needed to have offspring and land to become a great nation. Abraham knew that he could not make a great nation in his lifetime because God had said to him that God would make Abraham a great nation, emphasizing his descendants. Therefore, he believed that a great nation would gradually be made through his offspring. In Gen 15, God affirmed that He would make a great nation through Abraham’s physical body. Through the kings’ war, Abraham had already experienced the nature of the promise that all the nations would be blessed. Therefore, Abraham thought that through his future descendants, all the nations would be blessed by the affirmation of God in Gen 15:1-6. He believed in the Lord, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. The righteousness of Gen 15:6 is related to obedience to the promise of God about the future, eventually eschatological, descendants.⁴¹

Regarding peace, Abraham was depicted as a king-like figure who brought peace to the land in Gen 14. His defeating the kings demonstrates clearly Abraham’s victory over the enemies. Similarly, in Gen 15:16 Abraham’s descendants will return as judges of the Amorites to bring peace to the land which God promised Abraham. Wenham comments, “In these scenes Abram is portrayed not merely as the archetypal Israelite who has faith in God, but as a conquering king who has been promised victory over his foes and a great territory.”⁴² Abraham had the two qualities of righteousness and peace which were the same as those of Melchizedek in Gen 14. It is worth noting that in the strong kingly motif of Abraham, the priestly blessing occurs in Gen 14, whereas in his strong priestly motif, the kingly oath occurs in Gen 22. This shows the closely functional relationship of both. Actually Melchizedek’s blessing in Gen 14:19-20 is identical with God’s covenant to Abraham in other passages. He functioned as a priest of God who blessed Abraham.

3.2. The Davidic Covenant and Melchizedek in Psalm 110

3.2.1. The Royal Priesthood of Israel.

Concerning whether there was any other king-priest like Melchizedek in Israel, there has been a lot of debate, but still no consensus. The notion of a royal priesthood has been very common in the ancient Near East world.⁴³ Scholars have recognized some common elements in the culture and outlook of the peoples of the ancient Near East from the Nile to the Euphrates, by insisting on ‘patternism.’ However, others such as Frankfort, have reacted against the whole idea of a common pattern of culture, have emphasized the diverse elements of Egyptian and Babylonian civilization, and have dismissed the idea of patternism.⁴⁴ The main issue is whether or not Israel had a sacral kingship like that of the ancient Near East world. This issue has been one of the most important and fascinating subjects in the Old Testament, and also one of the most controversial. Some critics insist that Israel embraced a sacral kingship and regarded it as a syncretistic process in which other religions, especially of the Egyptians and of the Canaanites around Israel, greatly influenced the religion of Israel.⁴⁵ However, that Israel has a sacral kingship does not sufficiently prove that it has a syncretistic religion.

Most scholars think of David as a priest.⁴⁶ However, there are also many objections to that view. There does seem to be a consensus that David did function in a priestly manner. But the issue is that his functioning in a priestly manner was not a sufficient proof that he was a priest.⁴⁷ Unfortunately, it is not clear how the royal priesthood operated within Israel’s historical setting. For this issue, two discussions are in order. First of all, one thing in the ancient Near East surrounding Israel is clear: the high priesthood of the king. Even though a nation already had a professional high priest, the position of being a king gave him automatically the position of the high priest as the head of the cult.⁴⁸ The view that the royal priesthood should be thought of in light of the high priesthood corresponds well with the passages of Hebrews because Hebrews often portrays Christ as the High priest who entered into the Holy of Holies (2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:1, 5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1-3; 9:7, 10, 25; 13:11). In this sense, the case of Uzziah is debatable.⁴⁹ However, it is evident that the historical background of Num 16 makes a clear distinction between the Aaronic priesthood and other orders among the Levites concerning the burning of incense. Merrill comments, “Despite the punishment of Uzziah for his indiscretion, there is not a hint of a chastisement for his having assumed a priestly role in general.”⁵⁰ The case of Uzziah does not give any useful information about the royal priesthood of Israel.

Second, the imageries of the Psalms relating to the royal priesthood share many similar concepts about the sacral kingship such as ‘sonship,’ ‘anointed one,’ ‘walking before God,’ ‘right hand of throne,’ or ‘life-breath’ with other ancient Near Eastern countries.⁵¹ Even though Psalms may use these imageries to express the ideal king who has an indispensable relationship with Yahweh by the nature of the poetic language, it is undeniable that not all these imageries refer only to the ideal king but also reflect some nature of the Israelite kingship implicitly.

In sum, the discussions imply that Israel might have a royal priesthood. The king-priest of Israel, however, would function only in a limited sense as he performed priestly actions mainly for administrative purposes, except for the ministry limited only to the Aaronic priesthood at which time he would fully function. Now let us pay attention to the king-priest image through the structural analysis of Psalm 110.

3.2.2. The King-Priest Image in Psalm 110.

If Psalm 110 were not related with David, it would be impossible to tell the relationship between the Davidic covenant and Melchizedek because there is no passage which mentions Melchizedek’s relationship to David except Psalm 110. In this Psalm the issue of authorship and addressee is very important because it provides an essential key to the interpretation of the psalm itself. David has been widely recognized as its author.⁵² Another issue is who the addressee is. This issue seems to be more complicated. The traditional view is that David addressed his messianic Lord, in a directly prophetic manner.⁵³ Another view which has become popular is that the early king such as David or Solomon was the recipient of the Psalm for two reasons. The first reason is, as some have suggested, that the term “my lord” is never used elsewhere in the OT as a divine reference, while frequently it is applied to the reigning king.⁵⁴ The second reason is from the typological-prophetic interpretation which insists that because the Davidic king had practiced being a royal priest, the psalm could be applicable to its Sitz im Leben in the royal court of Israel.⁵⁵ It is likely that Psalm 110, which was originally written by David, seems to be addressed to himself by a court priest who spoke historically but that Psalm 110 is attributed to Christ ultimately.⁵⁶

Though this psalm is surely telling about the king-priest, how can the king’s role and the priest’s role be harmonized in it? Some structural observations are in order. First, vv.1-2 and 5-6 seem to portray the kingship which destroys the enemies, and v.4 mentions the priesthood, not the priestly function, but an oath. It is unclear what v.3 and v.7 refer to. Verse.3 is a verbless clause, consisting of nouns, suffix and preposition according to the MT reading.

Psalm 110:3

This verse shows a partial synonymous parallelism. The term ‘dew’ is parallel with ‘volunteer’ just as ‘your people’ with ‘your youth.’ ‘In splendor of holiness’ is not identical with ‘from the womb of dawn’ because the former refers to the semantic force of ‘instrument,’ while the latter ‘source.’ But they are the same in that these phrases use metonymy. As for the relationship between ‘dawn’ and ‘womb,’ the appositional genitive is preferred, ‘from womb (refers to ’source’), that is, dawn (specific).’ Likewise, the phrase ‘in splendor of holiness’ is also the same, ‘in splendor (refers to ‘garment’), that is, holiness (specific).’ Thus, the translation would be, “Your people voluntarily come out in holiness at your powerful day, and your youth come to you as dew naturally comes out at the dawn.” This verse seems to give the image of the holy assembly in the book of Revelation 7:9 instead of the image of a holy army. Thus, v.3 may be related to the result of the priestly role of consecrating people.

Second, v.7 is difficult because of two symbolic sentences: one is “He will drink from the brook by the wayside” and another is “He will lift up head”. Delitzsch thinks that he lowered his head to drink as a man in the weakness of his flesh, but he lifted his head in victory as the Messiah.⁵⁷ But there is no indication that “lowering head to drink” refers to the humiliation or the humanity of Messiah. Kraus considers v.7 as “a sacramental act” that belongs to the ritual of the crowning of the Anointed one similar to Psalm 2.⁵⁸ But it is doubtful for there is neither washing nor anointing in this context. Only drinking is mentioned. ‘Drinking from the brook’ may refer to the renewing ritual after the final victory (Gen 14: 18; Judges 15:18-19; 1 Kings 17:6), and ‘lifting head’ honor gained by victory.⁵⁹ Verse 7 is related to the priesthood through the kingship like glory gained through fighting. Through the discussion, the structure of Psalm 110 is as follows:

Interchange Structure of Psalm 110

This psalm shows the kingship as a judge and the priesthood as a mediator mixed together with an eschatological implication.

3.2.3. The Davidic Covenantal Nature and Melchizedek in Ps 110.

As most agree, the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are strikingly alike. In 2 Sam 7:8-17 God promised David exactly the same things as He did to Abraham (God promised protection [v.9], land [v.10], peaceful death [v.11], a descendant [v.12], and a kingdom [v.12] as an everlasting promise [v.13, v.16]). As discussed in the previous section, David had two functions as a king-priest like Melchizedek, even though his priestly function was limited. It is also evident that David brought righteousness and peace to Israel as a king. But the peace seemed to be only a limited one. In 2 Sam 7:11 peace was restricted to the personal matter. Both the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants show a kind of development in the term of function. Abraham was neither a king nor a priest, but he performed these two functions in part. David was a king-priest and also did two functions in part, but in a more developed form. ⁶⁰ The structure of Ps 110 shows the indispensable relationship between the kingship and the priesthood, that is, the priesthood was fulfilled through the battle image of the kingship and the kingship through the holiness image of the priesthood. The Davidic king is elected as a ‘priest’ according to the order of Melchizedek before the holy people who offer themselves willingly (vv.3-4) and performs a peaceful ritual after the final victory (v.7). Thus, the priesthood of the Davidic king seems to be for representing the holiness of his people and for celebrating the final victory. Melchizedek also showed this image in Gen 14 by bringing bread and wine in order to celebrate Abraham’s victory.

3.3. The New Covenant and Melchizedek in Hebrews 7

3.3.1. The Comparison between Christ and Melchizedek.

Melchizedek appeared again in Hebrews (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 11, 15, 17). In Hebrews the characteristics of Christ’s priesthood enumerated in the extended description of him as ‘a priest after the order of Melchizedek’ were those not merely of a high priesthood but of a royal priesthood; in other words, rather than being the description of a high priest, the picture of Christ given in Heb 7 depicts, so to speak, a sacral king. In this way the two major Christological strands in Hebrews of the divine sonship and of the high priesthood are seen together since these two were the most significant elements of the ancient royal ideology.⁶¹

Heb 7:1-2 mentions Melchizedek’s encounter with Abraham in Gen 14:18-20. Some differences between the two passages are in order; there is (1) no mention of the king of Sodom, (2) no mention of the bread and wine, (3) no mention of the content of Melchizedek’s blessing, and (4) the interpretation of his name and title: “king of righteousness” and “king of peace.” These differences show us what the author wanted to elaborate on through the passage: (1) the person of Melchizedek as a king-priest, and (2) Melchizedek’s blessing and Abraham’s tithing.⁶² Contextually it is important to figure out these differences because they are connected directly with the next passage which explains that Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood through Melchizedek’s superiority to the Levitical priesthood. However, this passage does not compare the two roles of Melchizedek and Christ. Thus, a comparison of the roles of Melchizedek and Christ is needed since Heb 7:1-3 is an explanation of Heb 6:13-20. The author connects Melchizedek’s event with Christ’s event. Regarding the similarities of the two roles of Melchizedek and Christ, two comments are needed.

First, Melchizedek’s blessing had a close relationship to the Abrahamic covenant. In Gen 14:18-20 Melchizedek’s major function was to confirm the promise of God in Gen 12:1-3 to Abraham by blessing him. In Hebrews Christ’s function is as a confirmer of the New Covenant promised by God to Christians. Second, both are king-priests of righteousness and peace in a higher position than Abraham and the believers. Melchizedek and Christ initiated their blessings first, and then Abraham and the believers respond to the blessings. In the Davidic covenant there was no one who functioned like Melchizedek. Some argue that Zadok functioned like Melchizedek, but there is no clear evidence of it.⁶³

Some differences also exist. First, even though Melchizedek and Christ were king-priests, the function of Christ as a king-priest was emphasized more in detail than was that of Melchizedek. In Gen 14:18-20 Melchizedek simply blessed Abraham, but in Hebrews Christ not only confirmed the New Covenant but also established it. In Gen 12-21 Yahweh, not Melchizedek, was the establisher of the Abrahamic covenant as well as of the Davidic covenant (Psalm 89:3-4). Second, even though the main point of Heb 7:11 is that another priest was needed according to the order of Melchizedek for a perfect sacrifice, it implied that Melchizedek was not a perfect king-priest able to offer a perfect sacrifice. If Melchizedek had been a perfect king-priest, it would not have needed another priest. Hebrews emphasizes explicitly Christ’s once-for-all perfect sacrifice (Heb 7:27; 9:12; 9:26; 10:10) and connects the everlasting oath of God in Psalm 110:4 to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ in Heb 6:13-18. Melchizedek was not a person able to make an oath to Abraham. Christ is definitely superior to Melchizedek in that sense. Thus, Melchizedek was not the pre-incarnate Christ.⁶⁴ Now a difficulty found in Heb 7:3 needs to be addressed.

3.3.2. The Interpretation of Hebrews 7:3.

The statement about Melchizedek’s lack of genealogy has been explained as an elaboration of the silence of Genesis on Melchizedek’s origin. For the interpretation about his genealogy in Heb 7:3 in its typological setting, even though the Jewish hermeneutical principle known as “quod non in thora non in mundo” in Latin (Lit., “If it is not written in the Torah, it does not exist in the world.”) is widely applied, ⁶⁵ there is still no consensus because people use this principle according to their own interpretation. Two viable options are in order to account for Melchizedek’s lack of genealogy.

First, Heb 7:3 clearly shows that there are some very close relationships between Melchizedek and Christ (“made like the Son of God”) through the mysterious statement, “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Heb 7:16 and 7:21 give the crucial answer about how Christ became a priest while not belonging to the Levitical order (7:16, “Not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life.” 7:21, “With oath…The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, ‘Thou art a priest forever’”).⁶⁶ Paul comments, “Jesus became a priest by oath. He did not take over from his parents, and he leaves no task after his death. The task of the Levitical high priest was limited by his predecessor’s death and by his own death.”⁶⁷ Likewise, Melchizedek might be a king-priest by the oath of a higher king, not from parents as commonly happened in the ancient Near East.⁶⁸

Second, the Jewish hermeneutical principle can be applicable to Heb 7:3. Strictly speaking, according to this principle, the lack of genealogy about Melchizedek does not seem to support Heb 7:3 because the genealogies of many people were not mentioned in the Scriptures. It would be nonsense to treat all those people equally with Melchizedek. However, in the sense that he was the first king-priest mentioned in the Scriptures without genealogy, the Jewish hermeneutical principle would be still valid. Bird’s comment is apt, “Why did the psalmist choose him? There are no other individuals in Israel’s history, especially its history as recorded in the Pentateuch, to which the explicit titles of king and priest are applied except Melchizedek…in order to make clear the purpose of the typology, the psalmist chooses to speak of Melchizedek and not another individual.”⁶⁹ However, if we just interpret the mysterious statement about no genealogy according to this principle, the author of Hebrews seems to go too far in his expression because he almost describes Melchizedek as having the same eternal attributes as those of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Even though this Jewish hermeneutical principle is valid in a typological setting, this interpretation seems to weaken the emphasis of the author.

Furthermore, Heb 7:3 seems to support that the priesthood of Melchizedek has eternal characteristics. His eternal priesthood may be from his identity as a confirmer of the eternal Abrahamic covenant the same as Jesus’ sacrificial effect is eternal. Melchizedek blessed Abraham once, but the effect of his blessing is still valid beyond his genealogy and even beyond the Levitical genealogical order.

3.3.3. The New Covenantal Nature and Melchizedek in Heb 7.

As Hebrews clearly states, Melchizedek is a type of Christ through some similarities. Both as king-priests of righteousness and peace functioned as confirmers respectively of the Abrahamic covenant and of the New Covenant, and had eternal characteristics in their priesthoods. However, Melchizedek has no connection with the salvation which is the center of the New Covenant. The reason why the author of Hebrews mentioned Melchizedek is to emphasize the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to the Aaronic priesthood by suggesting Melchizedek’s superiority to Abraham who was the ancestor of the Levites. Christ performed his priestly function by shifting his priestly activity into his willing self-sacrificial death within the framework of the Yom Kippur ritual.

In Hebrews the kingly motif of Christ also appears. Christ is depicted as the Son of God in Heb 1:5 and 1:13 which reflects the ideology of the kingship in Israel.⁷⁰ Attridge rightly comments, “Alternatively, our author may be operating basically with the pre-existence christology of the exordium. In that case he would be using the language of Ps 2 (“today”) in a metaphorical or allegorical sense, for the eternal generation of the Son.”⁷¹ One way to understand the intersection of sonship and priesthood is the view that the priestly act of Christ derives its special character from the fact that it is the act of the eternal Son. In Heb 7:3 the author’s understanding of the eternal priesthood of Christ may well have been influenced by that of sonship even though the symbolic logic of the text works in just the opposite direction.⁷² The Son is the effective mediator because he is the High Priest who suffered and now sits enthroned in heavenly glory. Therefore, Christ established the New Covenant as the High Priest with the status of the eternal Son.

4. The Significance of Melchizedek on the Royal Priesthood

In the Scriptures, God is always described as the only King over Israel and the world, but through the sonship, the kings of Israel have been considered as typical rulers under God’s authority. The term ‘sonship’ does not mean that the kings of Israel had been treated as the divine gods like the sacral kings of the ancient Near East world. Rather, it meant that they had been regarded as the rulers over people whom God has given to them.

During the Monarchy, the royal priesthood was divided according to two lineages: the kingship in the Davidic lineage and the priesthood in the Levite lineage. Even though there is no clear evidence of the existence of a king-priest, the Israelite kings seemed to be king-priests in a limited sense. Thus, they were called “the sons of God.”

Only through Christ as the eternal Son of God, has the perfect royal priesthood been accomplished. His royal priesthood can be described as the imagery of the Lion and the Lamb. In the Scriptures the image of the Lion represents the kingship, while that of Lamb the priesthood.⁷³ The primary background for the image of Jesus as a Lamb especially in the Johannine community of the New Testament was the Passover lamb, combined with the allusion to sacrificial lambs. The author of Hebrews also clearly states that Christ did his priestly function through his willing self-sacrifice (9:25). The second background was probably the image of the Suffering Servant as a lamb in Isaiah 53:7, a passage to which early Christians devoted much attention.⁷⁴ One interesting thing is that in Revelation the great lion (Rev 5:5) turns out to be the slain lamb (Rev 5:6).⁷⁵ The transition from Lion to Lamb does not refer to the change of Christ’s role from a king to a priest. Rather, it shows that his kingship was fulfilled through his priesthood. In other words, Jesus is substantially the eternal King-Priest. Through his sacrifice he did his priestly function to make peace. By his sacrifice as the High Priest his kingship has been established as the righteous Redeemer by those who recognize Christ’s Lordship. The center of Christ’s kingship (eternal throne) is his redemptive work in leading the believers to their eschatological rest. By his redemptive work, those who believe in him can also inherit the royal priesthood of Christ as the sons of God (1 Pet. 2:9).

Through this discussion, we conclude that Melchizedek was a historical being who was a Yahweh-worshipping king-priest. Although he might be a Canaanite king, it does not prove that he was not a Yahweh worshipper. Furthermore, it is not desirable to consider Melchizedek’s encounter with Abraham as a syncretistic process of the Jewish religion with the Canaanite religion. As a person who linked three covenants, the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants together, Melchizedek functioned not only as an excellent type of Christ as a king-priest but also as a significant eschatological model regarding righteousness and peace that Christ has made.

¹ Richard N. Longenecker, “The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews: A Study in the Development and Circumstantial Expression of New Testament Thought,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd (ed. Robert Guelich, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 161.

² Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (WBC 21; Waco: Word, 1983), 78-87.

³ Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 179-181; Albert Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests and the New Priest According to the New Testament (Petersham: St. Bede’s, 1980), 147-172; Longenecker, “Melchizedek Argument,” 171-182, and The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (Naperville: Allenson, 1970), 109-119.

⁴ Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Now This Mechizedek…(Heb 7:1),” in The Semitic Background of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 221-223.

⁵ F. L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 30; London: Cambridge University, 1976), 1-5.

⁶ For the discussion of the terms ‘type’ and ‘antitype,’ see Horton, Tradition, 161-164; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 138; James Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest: Ps 110:4 As the Substructure of Heb 5:1-7:28 (EUS 23; New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 95; Chad L. Bird, “Typological Interpretation within the Old Testament: Melchizedekian Typology,” Concordia Journal 26 (2000) 50-52.

⁷ Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa (CBQMS 10; Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 126-7.

⁸ Anders Aschim, “Melchizedek and Jesus: 11QMelchizedek and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conferences on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (eds. Carey Newman, James Davila, and Gladys Lewis, JSJSup. 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 130.

⁹ Fitzmyer, “Now,” 227-228, compares the MT, the Genesis Apocryphon, and the Targum Neofiti I.

¹⁰ M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude, “11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament,” NTS 12 (1965/1966): 301-26; Kobelski, Melchiresa, 3-23, 49-83; Fitzmyer, “Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11,” in The Semitic Background, 245-267. In 11QMelch, Melchizedek leads other angels against Belial. In other sources (Dan 10:13; 1 Enoch 20.5; 1QM 17.5), it is Michael who has similar responsibilities. See M. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSPsup.11; Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1992), 257-62.

¹¹ Kobelski, Melchiresa, 65.

¹² Beverly A. Bow, “Melchizedek’s Birth Narrative in 2 Enoch 68-73: Christian Correlations,” in For A Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (eds. Randal Argall, Beverly Bow and Rodney Werline, Pennsylvania: Trinity, 2000), 33-41.

¹³ For a detailed discussion of Rabbinic and Gnostic sources, see Birger A. Pearson, Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity (SAC 5, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 108-123.

¹⁴ Paul Ellingworth, “‘Like the Son of God’: Form and Content in Hebrews 7:1-10,” Biblica 64 (1984): 258.

¹⁵ M. Delcor, “Melchizedek form Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JSJ 2 (1971): 133-35; and Kobelski, Melchiresa, 126. Kobelski states that as for Melchizedek in Hebrews, it is probably more accurate to speak of a heavenly Melchizedek rather than an angelic Melchizedek as he might appear to be in 11QMelch and 4Q^cAmram^b.

¹⁶ Aschim, “Melchizedek,” 129-147.

¹⁷ Although Kobelski and Horton hold different views (Kobelski holds a heavenly figure view, but Horton a historical-being view), both agree that many similarities between the two documents exist. See Kobelski, Melchiresa, 127-28; Horton, Tradition, 167-69. Similarly to Kobelski, Aschim, “Melchizedek,” 129-147; Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Melchizedek or ‘King of Righteousness,’” EvQ 63:4 (1991): 305-312.

¹⁸ Bruce, Hebrews, 137; Anthony T. Hanson, Jesus in the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1965), 70-71; and James Thompson, “The Conceptual Background and Purpose of the Midrash in Hebrew VII,” NovT XIX (1977): 209-223.

¹⁹ For instance, Ambrose insisted that Melchizedek was a human being (De Fide as Gratianum iii.11.), but elsewhere he also identified Melchizedek with the Son of God (De Abrahamo i.3.). See Hughes, Hebrews, 242; and Hebrews: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X (Downers Grove, IVP, 2005), 95.

²⁰ Ellingworth, “Like the Son of God,” 260-62.

²¹ R. C. Stedman, Hebrews (NTCS; Downers Grove: IVP, 1992), 81.

²² For the identification of the city of Salem, see S. E. Robinson, “The Apocryphal Story of Melchizedek,” JSJ 18:1 (1987): 26-39; Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1996), 235-236; J. A. Emerton, “The Site of Salem, The City of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18),” in Studies in the Pentateuch (VTSup. 41; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 45-72.

²³ E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; New York: Doubleday, 1964), 104.

²⁴ Von Rad, Genesis, 179-80; Claus Westmann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (trans. J. J. Scullion, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 207.

²⁵ For example, Fitzmyer, “Now,” 233-235 and John Day, “The Canaanite Inheritance of the Israelite Monarchy,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOT 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1999), 73-75.

²⁶ The combination of two different gods is common in the Near Eastern society. G. Levi Della Vida, “El ‘Elyon in Genesis 14:18-20,” JBL 63 (1944): 9; Loren R. Fisher, “Abraham and His Priest-King,” JBL 81 (1962): 265-70.

²⁷ Bruce, K. Waltke, “Melchizedek,” in ZPEB (Vol.4, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 177-178

²⁸ Kobelski, Melchiresa, 126-7.

²⁹ Bird, “Typology,”46-47.

³⁰ Ibid., 46-49.

³¹ Due to Strack-Billerbeck’s book, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, this rabbic maxim has been quite widespread in the hermeneutics of this day. However, there is still much debate about its application. Bruce comments, “The argument from silence plays an important part in rabbinical interpretation of Scripture where nothing must be regarded as having existed before the time of its first biblical mention…thus Sarah is ‘without mother’ because her mother is nowhere mentioned (On Drunkenness, 59ff.).” Bruce, Hebrews; 136; Horton, Tradition, 153-64; and Bruce A. Demarest, “Hebrews 7:3: A Crux Interpretum Historically Considered,” EvQ 48-49 (1976-77): 162. Contra., M. J. Paul. “The Order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4 and Heb 7:3),” WTJ 49 (1987): 204-209.

³² D. J. Wiseman, “Abraham in History and Tradition. Part II: Abraham the Prince,” Bib Sac 134 (1977): 228-237.

³³ C. P. Baylis, “The Author of Hebrews’ Use of Melchizedek from the Context of Genesis” (Th.D. diss. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989), 37-61.

³⁴ Horton, Tradition, 153-64.

³⁵ Paul, “Order of Melchizedek,” 204-209; Deborah W. Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7,” Biblica 81 (2000): 84-86.

³⁶ Waltke, “Melchizedek,” 177-178.

³⁷ For the syncretistic view, see Speiser, Genesis; 104; Fitzmyer, “Now,” 233-235; and Day, “Canaanite Inheritance,” 73-75. Contra., Waltke, “Melchizedek,” 177-178.

³⁸ von Rad, Genesis, 179-181.

³⁹ Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 408-13; G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC 1; Waco: Word, 1987), 327.

⁴⁰ The qualities of righteousness and peace were closely associated in ancient times with the rule of the ideal king, as is evident from a psalm such as Ps 72. See Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest,” 87; Attridge, Hebrews, 189; and Paul Ellingworth, Commentary on Hebrews: A Commentary on Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 357.

⁴¹ Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 335. For the Christological interpretation of Gen 15:6 in the context of Romans 4:3, R. Holst, “The Meaning of ‘Abraham believed God’ in Romans 4:3,” WTJ 59 (1997): 319-26.

⁴² Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 335.

⁴³ Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom, 265-67; David R. Anderson, The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews (SBL 21; New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 13-27; H. W. Fairman, “The Kingship Rituals of Egypt,” in Myth, Ritual, and Kingship (ed. S. H. Hooke, Oxford: Clarendon, 1958), 75; R. de Landhe. “Myth, Ritual and Kingship in the Ras Shamra Tablets,” in Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, 122-148; J. H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (SBT 2:32; Naperville: Allenson, 1975), 101-102.

⁴⁴ H. H. Rowley, “Ritual and the Hebrew Prophets,” in Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, 236. Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948), 277-344.

⁴⁵ Some scholars think that the religions of Egypt (S. H. Hooke and T. N. D. Mettinger) or Canaanites (J. Day) or Babylonia (S. Mowinckel) influenced Israel’s religion. S. H. Hooke, “Myth and Ritual: Past and Present,” in Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, 9-15; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (trans. G. W. Anderson, Oxford: Blackwell, 1956), 56-95, and The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (Vol. 1, trans. D.R. Ap-Thomas, New York: Abingdon, 1967), 50-60; T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: the Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT 8; Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 268-75.

⁴⁶ Those who insist that Israel had a royal priesthood usually insist David’s priesthood: (1) David offered sacrifices (2 Sam 6:13, 17-18; 24:18-25; 1 Ch 21:18-28). (2) David wore an ephod (2 Sam 6:14; 1 Ch 15:27). (3) David ate the shewbread (1 Sam 21:6). (4) David exercised authority over priests (2 Sam 6). (5) David blessed the people (2 Sam 6:18). (6) David’s sons were called priests (2 Sam 8:18). Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1967), 46-53; Day, “Canaanite Inheritance,” 75; Merrill, “Royal Priesthood: An Old Testament Messianic Motif,” Bib Sac 150 (1993): 50-61.

⁴⁷ For the argument against David’s priesthood, see Paul, “Order of Melchizedek,” 195-211; and Anderson, King-Priest, 19-27. Wenham suggests that the ‘priest’ of 2 Sam 8:18 would be better translated as ‘administrators,’ although he thinks that Davidic kings were priests in a limited sense. G. J. Wenham, “Were David’s Sons Priests?” ZAW 87 (1975): 79-82.

⁴⁸ O. R. Gurney, “Hittite Kingship,” in Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, 105-121; Frankfort, Kingship, 262-276, 313-325; and Mowinckel, Psalms, 50-60.

⁴⁹ Paul considers 2 Chronicles 26:16-23 as one of the evidences that Israel did not have a royal priesthood. But Merrill argues, “The infraction was not that of a king functioning cultically, but of a king undertaking a cultic ministry limited to another order of priests,” by quoting Num 16:40. Paul, “Order of Melchizedek,” 197. Contra., Merrill, “Royal Priesthood,” 61.

⁵⁰ Merrill, “Royal Priesthood,” 61.

⁵¹ Mowinckel, Psalms, 50-80; Mettinger, King and Messiah, 185-293; and Eaton, Kingship, 135-97.

⁵² For the Davidic authorship, see Anderson, King-Priest, 38. Contra., H-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59: A Commentary (trans. H.C. Oswald, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 64.

⁵³ For the purely messianic view, see Paul, “Order of Melchizedek,” 195-211 and Anderson, King-Priest, 35-86. For Solomon, H. Bateman IV, “Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament,” Bib Sac 149 (1992): 445-46. For David, Merrill, “Royal Priesthood,” 50-61.

⁵⁴ Bateman, “Psalm 110:1,” 448; and Gerald Cooke, “The Israelite King as Son of God,” ZAW 75 (1961): 202-25.

⁵⁵ Merrill, “Royal Priesthood,” 51, 57-58.

⁵⁶ It is impossible to think that the recipient of Psalm 110 was Solomon through Jesus’ question, “If David then calls him ‘lord,’ how is he his son?” in the synoptic Gospels. His rhetorical question implies that ‘my lord’ in Ps 110 cannot be Solomon.

⁵⁷ F. Delitzsch, Psalms (Commentary on OT 5; trans. F. Bolton, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 196.

⁵⁸ Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 352-53 and Anderson, King-Priest, 60-61.

⁵⁹ Kurianal, “Jesus Our High Priest,” 41-45. Horton also thinks that Ps 110 represents a victory song sung upon David’s return to Jerusalem. Horton, Tradition, 34. The Akkadian expression ina qāti [d]ullim re-ši ula a-na-ši (‘I cannot lift my head due to my misery.’) may be a proper example related to this verse. See CAD N-2, 85.

⁶⁰ Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest,” 81-94.

⁶¹ Attridge, Hebrews, 146-47; and Rooke, “Kingship as Priesthood: the Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOT 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1998), 193-195.

⁶² Ellingworth, “Like the Son of God,” 255-57.

⁶³ John Day proposes that it is unlikely that Zadok had previously been the priest-king in Jerusalem since it would have been a dangerous policy for David to have kept an ex-king as his chief priest. Day, “Canaanite Inheritance,” 75-80.

⁶⁴ Bruce, Hebrews, 137; Hanson, Jesus, 70-71; Ellingworth, “Like the Son of God,” 257-60.

⁶⁵ Refer to fn. 32.

⁶⁶ Some insist upon the legitimacy of Jesus’ Levitical heritage, but according to Hebrews, Jesus was not of the Levitical descent. The main point of Hebrews is that he did priestly functions as a spiritual High Priest. William Adler, “The Suda and the “Priesthood of Jesus,” in For A Later Generation, 1-12.

⁶⁷ Paul, “Order of Melchizedek,” 208-10.

⁶⁸ The most popular example for this case is Abdu-Heba, king of Jerusalem (14^th BC) in Amarna Tablet No. 288, lines 14f., “Neither my father nor my mother but the mighty arm of the king [of Egypt] gave it to me.” Paul, “Order of Melchizedek,” 207. Cf. Bruce, Hebrews; 136-37

⁶⁹ Bird, “Typology,” 47.

⁷⁰ Cooke, “The Israelite King,” 202-25; Mowinckel, Psalms, 50-60; Johnson, Sacral Kingship, 46-53; and Eaton, Kingship, 124-25.

⁷¹ Attridge, Hebrews, 54.

⁷² Ibid., 146-47.

⁷³ S. A. Ellisen, Biography of A Great Planet (Illinois: Tyndale House, 1975), 25.

⁷⁴ C. S. Keener, “Lamb,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development (eds. Ralph Martin and Peter Davis, Grand Rapids: IVP, 1997), 641-42.

⁷⁵ Patricia M. McDonald, “Lion as Slain Lamb: On Reading Revelation Recursively,” Horizons 23/1 (1996): 29-47.

A passionate prayer

A traitorous arrest

A trumped up charge

A false trial

Lying witnesses

A denying disciple

Washed hands

Unrighteous remorse

A Place called Skull

A remote crossroads of the world

Between two thieves

Sneering rulers

Scoffing bystanders

Abusive soldiers

Insensitive crucifiers

A repentant robber

A new mother and her new son

Weeping women

A worshipping Centurion

Three hours of darkness

The earth shakes

Some living dead

A criminal's cross

A sealed stone

Salvation!

Salvation? How can the salvation of all mankind happen in this way? In this ignominious, inglorious way? How can this be? That all of the sins of all who have ever lived or are living or will live are paid for on a criminal's cross? Aren't criminals most in need of forgiveness? Can criminals even be forgiven? How can a Man who hung on a criminal's cross pay for all the sin of all people?

And in Jerusalem of all places. Why not Rome, the political capital of the world? Or Athens, the cultural capital of the world? Or Alexandria, the educational capital of the world? Or Ephesus, one of the economic capitals of the world? Or Corinth, certainly one of the sin capitals of the world? Yes, that's it, why wasn't sin paid for in one of the greatest sin centers of history?

It just doesn't make sense. How can this Friday be Good? And how could salvation happen in this way?

No blaring trumpets, no glorious angels, no parades of power and purity, just another Friday crucifixion in the ancient Roman empire. Amazing. Excruciatingly painful, but almost ho-hum for the Roman soldiers. Just one more criminal to throw on the trash heap of history and off we go for a few drinks and a good time of gaming.

Yet salvation did come this way. Yes, it did!

God had worked for thousands of years to provide His salvation. First there was creation, then rebellion, and then rejection, banishment, separation-we were cut off from God and Life. But that's when God began the redemption process, first with promises, then with prophecies, and all with purpose, the purpose of demonstrating His power through His weakness as He kept His promises and fulfilled His prophecies. His Son became one of us: His Son became His Slave, His sacrifice. our Savior. And in Jerusalem.

God loves weakness because weakness is the greatest way He can show His power. How can an ordinary Man who isn't even worthy of a second look become our Savior? But He did through the power of God's weakness in Jerusalem.

How can Jerusalem become the place of salvation? Jerusalem was a world capital in the ancient Roman Empire. One of the greatest structures of all, Herod's Temple, was in Jerusalem. The city was a spiritual capital in the empire, but Jerusalem was different from the other world capitals. It was . . . well, it was Jewish, quirkish, lavish in its own way, but certainly not in the Roman way. Jerusalem was really a weak world capital, crushed under the Roman heel. But God had made Jerusalem the center of His salvation purposes, the place where all His promises would be fulfilled, an unlikely place populated by some very unlikely people. How like God to do this.

This is my salvation, my deliverance, my eternal life started on earth and slated to last forever. Again, I must ask how can this be? How can a five-year old fatherless and familyless little boy get father, mother, and family in the blink of an eye? How can that little boy receive a call to serve God? How can that little boy grow up to be blessed with mentors and marriage and sons and daughters-in-law and grandchildren, and faithful friends full of love for him? How can that be? Only because God glories in taking the weak and making us His vessels of glory.

It has been many years since God saved me and I still serve Him. Salvation never ends; why should service? And may I die as Jesus died: with a cross on my back, resurrection in my heart, and the interests of God on my mind.

What has your salvation been? Can you join with me in this Good Friday season and rejoice in God's salvation for you? Think of what He has done for you and join me.

Books on Ephesians

Abbott, T. K. A Critical And Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897.

Barth, Markus. Ephesians. The Anchor Bible, 34, 34a. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974.

Bock, Darrell, L. “'The New Man' as Community in Colossians and Ephesians.” In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands: Biblical and Leadership Studies in Honor of Donald K. Campbell pp. 157-67. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984.

Eadie, John. Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. 2nd ed. Edited by W. Young. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1883; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., n. d. Out of print.

Ellicott, Charles J. Epistle to the Ephesians: with a Critical and Grammatical Commentary, and A Revised Translation. 5th ed. London: Longmamans, Green & Co., 1884; reprint, Minneapolis: The James Family Christian Publishers, n. d.; reprint of 2nd ed., Ellicott's Commentaries, Critical and Grammatical, on the Epistles of Saint Paul, with Revised Translation, 2 vols. Buffalo, N.Y.: William S. Hein company, 1966. Vol. 1.

Erdman, Charles R. The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1931.

Foulkes, Francis. The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians: An Introduction and Commentary. In The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press, 1956.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of Ephesians. GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 1967.

Hoch, Carl B., Jr. “The New Man of Ephesians 2.” In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition 98-126. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Hoehner, Harold. “Ephesians.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: New Testament Edition. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983.

Ironside, H. A. In the Heavenlies. Neptune N. J.: Loizeaux, 1937.

Kent, Homer A. Jr. Ephesians: the Glory of the Church. In Every Man's Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians. Columbus OH: Wartburg, 1937.

Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. The Word Bible Commentary, 42. Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1990.

Loncoln offers an up to date bibliography on pages xxix-xxxiv.

Martin, W. G. M. “The Epistle to the Ephesians.” In the New Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953.

Saucy, Robert L. “The Church as the Mystery of God.” In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition 127-55. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Stott, John R.W. God's New Society: The Message of Ephesians. In The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1979.

Wood, A. Skevington. “Ephesians.” In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Vol. 11. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

Periodicals on Ephesians

Harris, W. Hall, III. “The Ascent and Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:9-10.” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (April-June 1994): 198-214.