G
graceandfaith
Guest
Much of the Old Testament has direct and subtle references to the coming sacrifice of Christ. Melchizedek is just another one of those instances. A beautiful sign of the grace and salvation to come.
- Status
G
garysibio
Guest
It just seems to me that the Son of God would not be a priest according to the order of any human.Why would it? Jesus was baptized by a mere human as well. Not to mention he was born of another human
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
Yes, the Supper was before His death, but His death is the eternal sacrifice, the same sacrifice as the Eucharist; do we not hold that the sacrifice of Christ saved Mary from original sin? And her birth is much before His death at Calvary.
Also, I’m just kind of put off by your reference to Melchizedek as “He” and a “pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus”. I am more comfortable speaking of him (M) as a type of Christ or prefigurement of Jesus.
Peace,
Phil
C
CatholicFireman
Guest
I found who Melchizidek is from New Advant: newadvent.org/cathen/10156b.htm
G
garysibio
Guest
The fact that you are more comfortable with thinking of Melchizedek as a type of Jesus does not mean that it is the truth. I don’t know if he is a type or a theophany but, when writing about the possibility that the latter is the case, I uses ‘He’. Otherwise I have been using ‘he’ to refrigerator to Melchizedek in my comments.
The eternal nature of Jesus’ sacrifice and the Eucharist is exactly why I think that, if Melchizedek was a theophany, an question we don’t know the answer to, that the bread and wine he offered could have been transubstantiated.
R
runningdude
Guest
You know, I was just considering that dilemma…
I read something vague on Wikipedia, about a Rabbinic teaching that while the Jewish people have specific Covenant with God as the Chosen People, this wouldn’t preclude God forming covenants with other nations Rabbinic Jewish views of chosenness. So Melchizedek could be a faithful remnent of one of these covenants. (As an aside, I think some of these covenants may have gone horribly wrong, hence why so many cities were smited
).It is also true that Melchizedek was before the establishment of Israel, yet after the Flood of Noah. So it possible that Melchizedek represented a pure and umblemished version of the Noahine priesthood, the priesthood established by the covenant with Noah.
Christ then, might be honored to symbolically join this line, as the Noahine line was established by none other than God the Father!
G
garysibio
Guest
Thanks for the link.
Clearly the author sees Melchizedek As a type of Jesus rather than a theophany. He doesn’t even address that possibility. If he is correct then Melchizedek’s sacrifice could still be Eucharistic the more I think about it. Melchizedek is described as a priest. Transubstantiation occurs when a priest says the words of consecration.
I’m more and more convinced that we won’t have all these answers in this life.
G
garysibio
Guest
God did make covenants with people other than the Jews. The New Covenant is with all people. So was the covenant made with Noah ands his descendants in Gen 10.You know, I was just considering that dilemma…
I read something vague on Wikipedia, about a Rabbinic teaching that while the Jewish people have specific Covenant with God as the Chosen People, this wouldn’t preclude God forming covenants with other nations Rabbinic Jewish views of chosenness. So Melchizedek could be a faithful remnent of one of these covenants. (As an aside, I think some of these covenants may have gone horribly wrong, hence why so many cities were smited
It is also true that Melchizedek was before the establishment of Israel, yet after the Flood of Noah. So it possible that Melchizedek represented a pure and umblemished version of the Noahine priesthood, the priesthood established by the covenant with Noah.
Christ then, might be honored to symbolically join this line, as the Noahine line was established by none other than God the Father!
C
CatholicFireman
Guest
You know, I just thought of something. Have you ever asked the person who actually says, …and the bread and wine offered by your servant, Melchizedek." Of course I’m talking about your parish priest (or any priest). It would be interesting to hear their thoughts on him. And as I typed the quote I was thinking that they are referring it as “bread and wine” instead of body and blood…
OK, now I’m confused.
G
garysibio
Guest
I wish I had access to a priest whose answer I could actually trust.You know, I just thought of something. Have you ever asked the person who actually says, …and the bread and wine offered by your servant, Melchizedek." Of course I’m talking about your parish priest (or any priest). It would be interesting to hear their thoughts on him. And as I typed the quote I was thinking that they are referring it as “bread and wine” instead of body and blood…
OK, now I’m confused.
As far as I know the Church has never said one way or the other on these issues. Unless she does, and I really don’t think that’s high on her “to do” list, it’s an interesting exercise to speculate. It might help us all gain some new insight.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I don’t think anything in Catholic teaching excludes the possibility of Melchizedek being a theophany. The problem I see is how Christ as Melchizedek fit into the contemporary world of Melchizedek. Was he following in an earlier line of priests, and Melchizedek was the greatest by whatever measure, which meant no further priests of this order were ever needed? Did he say “I’m offering this sacrifice, but don’t any of you try to do the same!”? Did he claim to be a singular priest, with no predecessor, colleague, or successor? If so, not much of an order.
These questions persist even if we reject the idea of Christ as Melchizedek. However, they are easier to ignore if we are just talking about Melchizedek and his order fading into obscurity. If Melchizedek was Christ, the problem you had about him being in a human order is just pushed back hundreds of years, unless we construct an elaborate setting where he has his own order, but no humans are in it before or after. If Melchizedek was human, we can say that Christ’s priesthood may have been prefigured by Melchizedek, and Christ is symbolically following in that priesthood, but he need not be literally and formally in that lineage and time.
These questions persist even if we reject the idea of Christ as Melchizedek. However, they are easier to ignore if we are just talking about Melchizedek and his order fading into obscurity. If Melchizedek was Christ, the problem you had about him being in a human order is just pushed back hundreds of years, unless we construct an elaborate setting where he has his own order, but no humans are in it before or after. If Melchizedek was human, we can say that Christ’s priesthood may have been prefigured by Melchizedek, and Christ is symbolically following in that priesthood, but he need not be literally and formally in that lineage and time.
G
garysibio
Guest
I tend to think that Melchizedek was a theophany although I’m not all that invested in the idea. Scripture says he was without beginning or end. He just kinda shows up and disappears. That’s the nature of a theophany in this sense. I’ve heard some biblical scholars who believe that, whenever the Bible calls someone an Angel of the Lord, it’s a theophany.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
That’s fine for an angel to just show up and disappear. But what did Melchizedek do? He had enough of a following to break into the oral record of the time. He had enough of an organization to perform sacrifices in a setting that was respected by the public (or at least the historians). It’s not clear why his name came down to us, but other priests performing sacrifices at the time did not, but it’s likely he had a prominent venue and perhaps a longstanding organization (either before, after, or both) which lent legitimacy to his actions.
R
runningdude
Guest
You have to be careful here, because there is a difference between the Old Testament Priesthood, and the Christian (Catholic) Priesthood.
In the OT, the priesthood referred to individuals consecrated to offer animal sacrifices to God the Father for atonement of sins. After the Passover in Egypt, one of the most important sacrifices was a Lamb, an animal sacred in Egypt. (Killing a “sacred” animal meant the Hebrew risked execution, so they needed to trust in God for protection).
During Christ’s passion, Jesus offered Himself as the final Lamb of God for the Passover sacrifice. After this, Christ established the sacramental priesthood to re-present this sacrifice as the Eucharist. So the Christian priesthood is a distinct institution that complements and fulfills the Old Testament priesthood.
Occurring centuries before the Exodus, the individuals would have an extremely limited context to understand Melchizedek’s sacrifice as the Eucharist.
So Melchizedek’s priestly sacrifice of bread and wine is an all together strong foreshadowing of the Eucharist, as it was a distinct sacrifice apart from the usual animal sacrifice, but I just can’t see any theological need for bread and wine involved to actually be the Eucharist.
G
garysibio
Guest
Where’s the evidence that all this existed? He seems to have popped up for this moment. We hear nothing of his activities either before or after this incident.
G
garysibio
Guest
Even Thoth we are in the OT Melchizedek can’t be considered an OT priest which didn’t start until Aaron. The author of Hebrews goes to great lengths to show that the priesthood of Melchizedek as superior to the Mosaic priesthood since Abraham paid him tithes.
P
Philomena5
Guest
+JMJ+
First, sorry about my above post. I hit enter before I was done typing.
Secondly, I am pretty sure it is just foreshadowing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The institution of the Holy Eucharist was on Holy Thursday at the Last Supper. It is pretty neat, though, how things in the Old Testament prefigure the New Testament. The study of this is called Typology. An example of it would be Eve as the mother of all the living, and Mary is the Mother of all who live in Christ.
In Christ,
Philomena5
First, sorry about my above post. I hit enter before I was done typing.
Secondly, I am pretty sure it is just foreshadowing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The institution of the Holy Eucharist was on Holy Thursday at the Last Supper. It is pretty neat, though, how things in the Old Testament prefigure the New Testament. The study of this is called Typology. An example of it would be Eve as the mother of all the living, and Mary is the Mother of all who live in Christ.
In Christ,
Philomena5
D
Digitonomy
Guest
There is no evidence. I’m just constructing a plausible explanation for why he broke into the oral history. It’s a lot less plausible that this would be the case if he were a mere flash in the pan. When people recount movie stars of the 20th Century, what are the odds they will include Yahoo Serious?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Is he not a king in the line of David?
R
runningdude
Guest
That not quite true. Cain and Abel were the first to offer sacrifice to God, getting Cain into trouble for offering an inferior sacrifice. Noah built and alter and offered burnt animal sacrifices soon after the earth repopulated with animals. Abraham was prepared to offer his son Issac as a sacrifice on what became the temple mount in Jerusalem. Then Abraham’s great-grandson Levi founded the Levite priesthood, and Levi’s great-great-grandson Aaron (brother of Moses) founded the Aaroite priesthood.
So there were several orders of Old Testament priesthoods, of which Melchizedek’s was a far superior line, as Abraham the great ancestor of the Jewish priesthoods paid him tithes.
- Status