How many priests in the order of Melchizedek?

[andesheng]

I am a new user of CA forums. I have read through the other threads concerning Melchizedek and feel that they don’t directly answer the question I have below, so I’m going to put this up in a new thread and hope for the best. I am looking for an answer about how to interpret this particular passage of Scripture, not for an overall answer about Melchizedek. I look forward to your answers.

In Hebrews 7:23-25 a comparison is made between Christ’s Melchizedekan priesthood and the Old Testament priesthood. There needed to be a large number of Levitical priests because they needed to be replaced upon the death of each priest. But this is contrasted with the priestly order of Melchizedek in that Jesus “holds His priesthood permanently,” and thus never needs to be succeeded. If the author considered those appointed as pastors of the various local assemblies to be priests and considered them to be of the order of Melchizedek, could he really make this contrast, since there would then be numerous priests of the Melchizedekan order just as there were of the Levitical order? I’ve read that the Roman Catholic Church considers her priests to be of the order of Melchizedek, the same order as Jesus, but it seems to me this passage implies the author believes the Melchizedekan order to be an order of one (Jesus) or two (Melchizedek and Jesus) priests.

 

[Eucharisted]

A priest works in the Person of Jesus Christ. Hence, the Priesthood of Christ is permanent.

 

[andesheng]

A priest works in the Person of Jesus Christ. Hence, the Priesthood of Christ is permanent.

I think that I understand your reasoning. Please let me know if I am paraphrasing it accurately enough to stay in keeping with your thought: Christ is the priest in the order of Melchizedek. The priests of the RCC serve “in persona Christi” (sp?), so that it is still the priesthood of Christ at work when a local priest serves at mass. The individual priest is not raised to the same level (order) of priesthood as Christ, but works with the authority of Christ’s priesthood.

But I think that still leaves me with my original question. Would the author have stressed the singularity of the priesthood of Melchizedek (Don’t need many priests of this order, since Christ is permanent.) if the priests around him were also considered priests of the order of Melchizedek?

 

[puppypatrol]

I am a new user of CA forums. I have read through the other threads concerning Melchizedek and feel that they don’t directly answer the question I have below, so I’m going to put this up in a new thread and hope for the best. I am looking for an answer about how to interpret this particular passage of Scripture, not for an overall answer about Melchizedek. I look forward to your answers.

In Hebrews 7:23-25 a comparison is made between Christ’s Melchizedekan priesthood and the Old Testament priesthood. There needed to be a large number of Levitical priests because they needed to be replaced upon the death of each priest. But this is contrasted with the priestly order of Melchizedek in that Jesus “holds His priesthood permanently,” and thus never needs to be succeeded. If the author considered those appointed as pastors of the various local assemblies to be priests and considered them to be of the order of Melchizedek, could he really make this contrast, since there would then be numerous priests of the Melchizedekan order just as there were of the Levitical order? I’ve read that the Roman Catholic Church considers her priests to be of the order of Melchizedek, the same order as Jesus, but it seems to me this passage implies the author believes the Melchizedekan order to be an order of one (Jesus) or two (Melchizedek and Jesus) priests.

In the early Old Testament, the priest came only from the tribe of Levi. Melchizedek was the first to be called by God. He did not become a priest by right of birth but by divine calling. This is why the priest as we know them today are said to be priest in the order of Melchizedek and that they are a priest forever, called to stand in as High Priest for Christ

 

[andesheng]

In the early Old Testament, the priest came only from the tribe of Levi. Melchizedek was the first to be called by God. He did not become a priest by right of birth but by divine calling. This is why the priest as we know them today are said to be priest in the order of Melchizedek and that they are a priest forever, called to stand in as High Priest for Christ

I understand what you are saying, but I’m still not sure that it answers my question from Hebrews. If the author felt that all those priests around him were also of the order of Melchizedek, doesn’t it negate his point of contrast in v.23 in which he says “the priests (Levitical), on the one hand, existed in great numbers” , implying: “on the other hand, there is only one priest of the order of Melchizedek.”

I hope I’m not sounding too picky. I just really want to see if there is a satisfactory answer to my question from within Catholic theology.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I think this is discussed in the , paragraphs 1544-1547Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the sections on “The one priesthood of Christ” and “Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ,” and summarized in paragraph 1591.

If I am summarizing it correctly, it says, only Christ is the true priest. The common priesthood of all believers and the ministerial or hierachical priesthood of the ordained are two different participations in the one priesthood of Christ.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

There are two things that go together to make up an “order” of priesthood. The sacrifice and the priest himself. With the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood, which was ordained by God, the priest himself would come from the House of Levi, and offer a ritualistic bloody sacrifice. This we know entailed many priests from each generation until the coming of Jesus Christ.

The order of Melchizedek on the other hand was a priest forever (and was also a king.) His sacrifice was bread and wine (with Abraham) and today as well, although in truth it is really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, our High Priest.

The old Levitical order was ended forever and replaced with the new perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ according to the order of Melchizedek. Therefore one may theorize that there have only ever been 2 priests of the order of Melchizedek.

 

[andesheng]

Thank you for your answers, Todd and AmbroseSJ. I think I’m being brought closer to what to me is an acceptable answer. I will read the paragraphs in the Catechism that you provided links for, then I’ll post again my summary position for everyone’s evaluation. It’s good to know that the RCC community is so ready to help with sincere questions from Protestants like myself when we read something in Scripture that at least on the surface level doesn’t seem to square with Catholic theology.

 

[Ignatius]

I am a new user of CA forums. I have read through the other threads concerning Melchizedek and feel that they don’t directly answer the question I have below, so I’m going to put this up in a new thread and hope for the best. I am looking for an answer about how to interpret this particular passage of Scripture, not for an overall answer about Melchizedek.

At least 87, Melchizedek Himself, Jesus, Paul, the Twelve and the 72 Desciples directly commissioned by Christ.

 

[andesheng]

The relevant passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church seem to confirm that Jesus holds the role of priest in the order of Melchizedek in a unique sense and that other priests are considered to belong to the same order of priesthood by participating in Jesus’ priesthood by the authority that Jesus himself grants.

I would like to see if the forum could provide an answer to this question: What is the first instance in historical records of a local priest being considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek? My point is that perhaps this is an instance of “development of doctrine” and that at the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews, local priests were simply not thought of as belonging to the order of Melchizedek in the same way that they are today, even though those local priests really held that status in God’s eyes.

Lastly, I would like to propose an analogy for the evaluation of those of you who have been kind enough to follow this thread and contribute your answers. Let me know if I’m on the right track:

A western frontier town’s mayor appointed a sheriff, but only one sheriff. The sheriff served for a number of years in the town, but eventually encountered a case that required his spending a prolonged period of time out of the town. So that the sheriff’s responsibilities could continue to be carried out in the town, he appointed a number of deputies to serve in his absence. The town’s inhabitants still considered their only sheriff to be the one and only sheriff appointed for them, but they gladly accepted the services of his deputies in his absence. Were those deputies actually sheriffs? Well, in a matter of speaking they were. They were truly “deputy sheriffs,” though not often thought of or referred to in that sense. And they held their positions as sheriffs only because of the authority of the sole sheriff of the town.

So do I have an accurate grasp of the Catholic interpretation of Hebrews 7:23-25 and the Catholic view of priests as belonging to the order of Melchizedek? I would appreciate your feedback.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The distinction between believers and Christ or between ministerial priests and Christ is much fuzzier than that between sheriff and deputies. Remember, on the road to Damascus, Jesus didn’t say, '“Why do you persecute my followers” but “Why do you persecute me.” (Acts 9:4) The very Spirit of Christ dwells within believers and ministerial priests and makes them one with Him, members of His Body. When believers offer spiritual sacrifices according to their common priesthood (1 Peter 2:5) or ordained men offer material sacrifices according to their ministerial priesthood (1 Corinthians 10:16-21), they do so through Christ, with Christ, and in Christ, so that it is not so much they who offer the sacrifices but Christ, the one true priest, who lives in them. (Galatians 2:20)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

My understanding would be similar to Todd’s. I believe it is Jesus Christ who actually offers the bread and wine at the Sacrifice of the Mass (by means of the ministerial priesthood) and who actually consecrates the bread & wine thereby transubstantiating them into His own Body and Blood. I don’t believe this doctrine has changed since Apostolic times. However, as you suggested, there does seem to be a development of doctrine in latter times whereby the ministerial priesthood is thought of as partaking of the Order of Melchizedek, certainly on a more substantial level than exists with the Royal Priesthood of the baptized Faithful. It was most certainly the intention of Our Lord to make them partakers by commanding the apostles “do this in memory of me.” This command would have had the same divine force as the words of consecration have. IOW, because they DO participate in the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ, they do in fact have a certain claim to the order of Melchizedek by their ordination. But I don’t know of any ECFs that discuss this, in order to give you the exact answer you want. But there may indeed be mentions. It’s an interesting question.

 

[andesheng]

Based on Todd Easton’s and AmbroseSJ’s answers, as well as the citations from the Catechism, I’m able to agree that the Catholic understanding of the status of local priests does not conflict with or contradict the teaching in Hebrews 7:23-25. Thanks for the help. I’m still open to hearing about references in the writings of the early church to local priests as being of the order of Melchizedek if anyone knows of any. Thanks again!

 

[nablaise]

This is how I understand it.

All fathers are natural priests. ‘Priest’ means spiritual father. So Adam was a priest for example. He was to offer the sacrifice (the tree), the blessings to his family, …

Originally all biological fathers were also priests. This means that biological fatherhood was not separated from spiritual fatherhood. This was the time even before Moses.
Remember Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob…offering sacrifices, blessing their kids, etc??? they were priests naturally.

But later in time, biological fathers scandalized their families in such a way that they lost their respect. This is when priesthood was separated. Families would look up to someone else for priestly benefits. In Israel, it started with the story of the Golden Calf. As you know, It was from that day the Levites (tribe of Levi) become officially only priests for the tribes of Israel. Why because they are the only ones who did not worship the Calf.

So priesthood is associated to age/wisdom. It was always the ‘elders’ who are priests and would perfom priestly functions to the younger. Except of course where an elder had lost this priesthood by bad behavior… Adam with the tree. For Noah with the wine, etc…

So what was so special about Melkizedek. The first thing to understand about Melkizedek is that this is a title not a name. Melkizedek is a title which means 'King of Righteousness". In Scripture it is said that he reigned in the city of ‘Salem’ which means ‘city of Peace’.

As you know God made Man in his image. Therefore, there is fatherhood in Man as there is in God, there is sonship in Man as there is in God.
As I indicated all fathers were priest-kings naturally. A father was a king over his family. But his kingship was in a sense shared by his first-born son.
The first-born son is the one who is to take over when the father dies or when he is not around. In any case, all childreen look up to parents and their elders as model of righteousness. It is good to notice this word here ‘Righteousness.’

Righteousness and elder son or first born son are intimately associated from God’s design of our human nature. Every parents even not religious teach and expect the elders to be good examples to the young and the yound to obey and listen to their elders. This is God’s natural moral order inscribed in every man’s heart.

So in the original human family what do we have. We have Noah’s three sons. Shem, Japhet, and Ham. As you can expect, despite the sin of Noah and Ham, the Bible tells us that Shem did not fall. The Bible also tells us how lands were divided among those three sons which is still the basic land division today.
The Land of Shem was in the Middle East where Israelis and arabs lives. Notice that these are the sons of Abrahm, of Shem.
Scoolars say that the person who hold the title of Melkizedek, was Shem. He was the first born of the new humanity. Thus expected (him and his descendent) to shine righteousness among men. The city of ‘Salem’ is the currenty ‘Jerusalem’. As you can see his people never lost sight of it or forgot their natural mission. It is not an accident that all monotheist religion come from descendent of Shem. The vacation to know spiritual truth and ways of righteousness is inscribed in them. They have this responsability. In fact this is what Pope Benedict reminded them when he was there in Jersusalem. He specifically mentioned these words of ‘being example of righteousness in the city of peace and righteousness’.
Jerusalem is the natural capital of the world because of its spiritual significance. It is the city of our ‘elder’.

So while Levi was not the first son and was chosen only because he was found righteousness among his brother… This was because the natural order was broken. The natural order is that of Melkizedek. Christ is also the first born of God, the first born of the dead, so he leads (and reign over) his breathreen to heavenly Jerusalem.

This order of Melkizedek is also inscribed in the Catholic Church hierarchy. All Popes are basically spiritual descendents of Peter. And Peter was the first born of the Christian Faith. He was the first to confess the Christian Faith and Jesus made him ‘elder’ and charged him to confirm his brothers in the Faith.
When cardinals meet to elect a new Pope they are basically searching for who is the most righteous among them, the wisest, the ‘elder’…the next ‘Peter’.

Christ is a Priest after the older of Melkizedek, an eternal order because it is an older which springs from ‘Father-Son’ relationship.
Every natural first-born no matter who is the parents will be expected to be example to his younger siblings. I think this is basically what the older of Melkizedek means. Jesus is the first born of the new creation.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Psalm 110:1,4
**1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. **

4The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, **Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. ** 5The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

Hebrews 6:13-8:6

13For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

14Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

15And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

16For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

17Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

19Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

** 20Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.**
Hebrews 7
1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

**3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. **
4Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

5And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

6But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

7And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

** 11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? **
12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

**15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.**

18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

20And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, **Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec ** 22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23And **they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: **
24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an **unchangeable priesthood. **
25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he **ever liveth **to make intercession for them.

**26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; **
27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

28For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
Hebrews 8
1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

4For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Scripture clearly teaches only Jesus holds that priesthood.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Wuest translates unchangeable priesthood as nontransferable.

 

[ryanoneil]

Consider this. The Levitical priesthood had different age limits during different periods of time. Ministry began at 30 and ended at 50 (Num 4:3, 43). Later they started their duties as 20 (1 Chron 23:24, 27). I’m not sure when different retirement age where at different times, but Melchizedek was not limited to any age restriction what so ever. He was a priest “for ever” as long as he lived. The Greek expression “for ever” in (Heb 7:3, 24) is different and weaker that the one one translated in (6:20; 7:17, 21,28). So, when we look at (Heb 7:24) Jesus is a priest for all eternity (because he remains alive), while Melchizedek was a priest for a long time until he died.

I guess my thinking is, Hebrews is not implying there is only “one” priest of the order of Melchizedek just because there were “many” in the levitical order. I think it is contrasting times of service instead of numbers. In otherwords, in the pre-Levitical form of the priesthood every father was priest in the family structure, until it was passed to the first-born son. Meaning there were many priests in the pre-Levitical order as well. Do you see my point.

 

[John7]

unchangeable / ἀπαράβατον / aparabaton

[FRIBERG] aparabatos, on
strictly not transient;
hence, of what is fixed and not subject to change
permanent, never changing

[BDAG] aparabatos
Permanent, unchangeable

 

[realpatience]

It would help to know first the identity of Melchizedek. In Genesis 14:18 we are told that Melchizedek 1) was king of Salem, 2)brought forth to Abraham bread and wine, 3) was priest of the Most High God, 4) addressed God as “possessor of heaven and earth.”

Now notice.

1. “King of Salem” means “King of Peace” (Heb 7:2). The name “Jerusalem” means “City of Peace.” Here we find Melchizedek, the “King of Peace,” ruling over Jerusalem [Salem] the “City of Peace.” Prophecies tell us that “the King, the Lord of hosts [Jesus Christ]” will rule from Jerusalem (Zech 14:16, also Mic 4:2, Ps 2:6) and that the child that is to be born King [Jesus Christ] is the “Prince of Peace” (Isa 9:6).
2. Jesus used bread and wine during the last Passover supper He had with His disciples.
3. David says that God told his Lord [Jesus Christ] to “sit at my right hand…” (Ps 110:1) and tells Him that: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (verse 4). It is Christ who now resides at the Father’s right hand (Heb 8:1; 10:12; 12:2).
4. Jesus Christ addressed the Father as “Lord of heaven and earth” (Mat 11:25; Luke 10:21).

According to Hebrews, Melchizedek means “King of Righteousness.” It would essentially be blasphemy to apply this title to any human being because “all have sinned…” (Rom. 3:23). This awesome title could only apply to a divine Being. Also “King of Peace” could not apply to any human being as we simply do not know the way to peace (Rom 3:10, 17).

Melchizedek is also said to have no physical human parents (“without father, without mother, without genealogy”). Hebrews makes that point crystal clear when it further states that Melchizedek have “neither beginning of days, nor end of life.”

Finally, Hebrews says that Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of God.” He was “like” the Son of God because He was not yet, in actuality, the Son of God – that is, until He was later begotten by the Father and became His Son.

Melchizedek could have been only the eternal, preexistent Word who later became Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Blessings,

 

[Nita]

Heb. 5:5-6 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”; as he says also in another place, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz’edek.” In speaking of Jesus’ priesthood, the text in Hebrews shows that Paul is speaking about the office of “high priest”. (cf Heb. 2:17, 3:1, 4:14; 4:15; 5:1,5,10; 6:20; 7:26: 8:1,3; 9:7,11,25; 13:11.)

In the Levitical priesthood there was only one who could serve as high priest and only he could enter the Holy of Holies. There were many priests, but only one high priest (at a time). It is the office of high priest that Jesus was appointed to in the New Covenant. He is the only high priest we have; He is permanently present as our high priest in the true Holy of Holies.

In Catholicism our only high priest is Jesus. None of our ordained priests, bishops, or popes are ever considered to be high priests in the New Covenant.