Genesis 14:17-18

2007.Mar.10 03:00

Two Kings (maybe)

The battles ended, Abram’s forces heroes of the day. Two kings come to meet with Abram.

After his [Abram’s] return from the defeat and slaying of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh, that is, the King’s Valley. Melchizedek king of Salem [later called Jerusalem] brought out bread and wine [for their nourishment]; he was the priest of God Most High (Genesis 14:17-18, AMP).

The two kings, the king of Sodom (perhaps King Bera of verse 2) and King Melchizedek of Salem meet with Abram at King’s Valley. It seems to me that this is a general post-war meeting–there’s discussion about spoils later–but the reasons are not explicit. In any event, I’ll write my next entry about what these two kings did in their meeting(s) with Abram. Now, I want to look at the two men.

I’ll start with Melchizedek, since I can find more information about him. The wikipedia article on him has a good deal of information. I’ll highlight two points:

1. Salem may be an early name for Jerusalem, hence Melchizedek may have been the king of Jerusalem, which is just interesting to me.
2. The Hebrew can be interpreted that Melchizedek was a priest of Zedek, rather than Yahweh.

Melchizedek gets referred to two other significant times in the Bible, the first in Psalm 110:

The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalm 110:4, CEV)

The author of Hebrews compares, particularly in chapter 7 Christ’s priesthood to that of Melchizedek. I want to note in particular:

Without [record of] father or mother or ancestral line, neither with beginning of days nor ending of life, but, resembling the Son of God, he continues to be a priest without interruption and without successor. (Hebrews 7:3, AMP).

Melchizedek’s kingship may have been hereditary, based on family, military ability, politics, etc. and possibly so was his priesthood, but it is presented in the Bible without any reference to any qualification for his priesthood, other than his simply being a priest. And in his priesthood, King Melchizedek of Salem blesses the nomadic Abram, and arguably initiates the Hebrew/Levitical priesthood by being a priest and blessing a man obeying God. Melchizedek’s worldly qualifications, then, are presented as largely irrelevant; to this extent, I might say that he operates in these passages in freedom from his flesh (Although that might be a pretty big logical leap, too).

King Bera’s wikipedia says that he’s a guy mentioned in Genesis 14. He’s not a major character, but he’s the king who reigns over Sodom during a, erm, bad time in its history. I don’t know if he was still king at Sodom’s destruction, but there’s no reason to imagine he could not have been. In any case, Bera’s sovereignty is a facade. He is subject to other kings, his rebellion fails, and he is indebted to a foreigner (Abram) for the rescue of his city and people. Bera, then, is a king enslaved, and his kingdom falls into a level of moral perversion that has its men demanding to rape the guests of one of their (probably wealthiest) citizens. The citizen in question, Lot, who has seen obedience and faith to Jehovah in his uncle and aunt, has fallen into this decay so far as to call these men “brothers”, and then offer them his daughters (Genesis 19).

With these ramblings in mind, and understanding that I am making some logical jumps here that go well beyond what is stated in the Biblical narrative, I see in these two kings a display of what is and isn’t freedom. One is walking in the freedom of the priesthood (a term which I just made up and might someday elaborate on), and one who is enslaved by worldly concerns. King Bera’s worldly status is worthless, both spiritually, and in the physical world. He ought to have freedom based on his status as king, but to me it is clear that he is far more slave than sovereign. Melchizedek, who serves Abram a post-battle meal, is revealed as free through his service, or so I’m going to interpret parts of Hebrews 7. I rejoice to know that my priest, Jesus, is of the order of Melchizedek, the free, who is sovereign and chooses to serve.

Genesis 14:19-20

2007.Mar.11 21:42

Blessing from Salem

Read Genesis 14

King Melchizedek of Salem was a priest of God Most High. He brought out some bread and wine and said to Abram: “I bless you in the name of God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. All praise belongs to God Most High for helping you defeat your enemies.” Then Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything. (Genesis 14:18-20, CEV)

Melchizedek, in his postbellum meeting with Abram, gives two things, and receives one: 1. He gives Abram bread and wine. 2. He gives Abram a blessing. 3. Abram gives him a tenth “of everything”.

Why Melchizedek brought the refreshments is not explained here, but I think it’s significant that he did meet one of Abram’s needs, that of food; although there’s no indication that Abram was in particular need of food, this is something that, to my knowledge, most cultures do: honor someone by giving them food and drink. So, Melchizedek does a good thing there.

He follows this by blessing Abram, and then praising Yahweh, God of Abram, for the war’s victory. He does something succinctly that seems so hard to do; that is, to honor those who are carrying out some work of God (leading worship, serving some need, teaching, etc.), while giving the principle praise to God, who ultimately deserves it. It bothers me that this seems so hard to do, and I’m not sure why. Both honoring other humans and praising God are very, very important, but I think we humans in general tend to overcompensate one way or the other, either giving all praise to the human party or not honoring or encouraging them at all. To propose that one who ought to honored for their faithfulness in the work of the Lord should be humble and not require any reciprocation is, in my opinion, dishonoring to the work God is doing in them, and perhaps more importantly is just plain hurtful to the person. As a Christian, I have a responsibility to honor and bless others for both good works and their faith evidenced in good works.

And, no, I’m not going to try to define “honor” today.

Abram responds by giving Melchizedek a tenth “of everything”, which I assume refers to the spoils of the war. And Melchizedek receives it. No argument, at least none recorded for posterity. The implication is that this priest/king received as Abram gave. Maybe this was partially payment for troops, maybe it was to assist in Melchizedek’s priesthood, maybe just an exchange of gifts between leaders, I don’t know. But this interaction of giving and receiving is so much how I’d like to act in such situations. I want to receive humbly and gratefully (i.e., without protest) the gifts from God, either directly or through others. I also want to give with joy and without strings attached as God directs me.

“It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35, NASB): It is such a blessing to receive gratefully, and even more to give.