Melchizedek & the Eucharist

[garysibio]

In Gen 14 Melchizedek, described as a priest of God, offers a sacrifice of bread and wine. Because he is described as without beginning or end, many people believe he was a theophany, a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus. For the sake of argument, let’s say that’s the case. Would this bread and wine have been transubstantiated? Was it just bread and wine or was it the body and blood of Jesus?

 

[ConstantineTG]

In Gen 14 Melchizedek, described as a priest of God, offers a sacrifice of bread and wine. Because he is described as without beginning or end, many people believe he was a theophany, a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus. For the sake of argument, let’s say that’s the case. Would this bread and wine have been transubstantiated? Was it just bread and wine or was it the body and blood of Jesus?

It was just bread and wine.

 

[Philomena5]

+JMJ+

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Never heard of theophany before… but I would agree that as a high priest Melchizedek is a type of Christ. There’s no reason to believe that this old sacrifice/offering would’ve been transubstantiated though.

 

[garysibio]

It was just bread and wine.

I was kinda hoping for a little more than yes or no.

I asked this because (1) I’ve been watching this show on EWTN about the Biblical basis for the Mass and the Eucharist which has been talking a lot about Melchizedek and (2) I was reading Hebrew 7 today.

I understand that the Bible does not record Melchizedek saying anything like the words of consecration but it does call the bread and wine a sacrifice. Obviously it was also an unbloody sacrifice. Sounds a lot like the Eucharist, does it not? I realize this is pre-Calvary but, if this is a theophany, that problem vanishes.

 

[garysibio]

Never heard of theophany before… but I would agree that as a high priest Melchizedek is a type of Christ. There’s no reason to believe that this old sacrifice/offering would’ve been transubstantiated though.

I’d be interested in your thoughts about my comments in msg #5.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Never heard of theophany before… but I would agree that as a high priest Melchizedek is a type of Christ. There’s no reason to believe that this old sacrifice/offering would’ve been transubstantiated though.

Theophany is what the Eastern Churches celebrate on January 6. In the Roman Catholic Church, they celebrate the Epiphany, which is Christ is revealed to the world through the 3 Kings. In the East the event is Christ’s baptism in the Jordan, where God (theos) is revealed in 3 persons as God the Father is heard from heaven, God the Son is in the Jordan, and God the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove on Jesus.

 

[ProVobis]

I asked this because (1) I’ve been watching this show on EWTN about the Biblical basis for the Mass and the Eucharist which has been talking a lot about Melchizedek and (2) I was reading Hebrew 7 today.

Understandable since Melchizedek is mentioned in the Canon (EP1) along with Abel and Abraham.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I was kinda hoping for a little more than yes or no.

I asked this because (1) I’ve been watching this show on EWTN about the Biblical basis for the Mass and the Eucharist which has been talking a lot about Melchizedek and (2) I was reading Hebrew 7 today.

I understand that the Bible does not record Melchizedek saying anything like the words of consecration but it does call the bread and wine a sacrifice. Obviously it was also an unbloody sacrifice. Sounds a lot like the Eucharist, does it not? I realize this is pre-Calvary but, if this is a theophany, that problem vanishes.

I had just finished skim reading through “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre… a pity I didn’t read through it more thoroughly! (sadly my time is scarce for reading…

It does sound a lot like the Eucharist, but does that necessarily require transubstantiation? If they had transubstantiated bread back under the old covenant… then why did Jesus need to come down and die for our sins? I’d say that it is because the High Priest M. made a lesser sacrifice than Jesus.

It is by the spoken word of Jesus from the Last Supper that that bread is His Body. Also it is by His command to do this that Catholic priests present again His sacrifice for us.

…That’s the meager thought that I can piece together after some critical thinking!
God Bless,
Phil

 

[sapphire778]

I think it was just bread and wine.

Transubstantiation might probably have been meant to take place only after Jesus, the High Priest, had offered His highest form of sacrifice, which is His body and blood (at both the suffering level and glorified state) for us . Melchiz was, I believe, only foreshadowing the institution of the Eucharist.

 

[JimG]

The mysterious offering made by Mechizedek was a foreshadowing of the Eucharist. That’s why it was mentioned in the Eucharist Prayer of the Tridentine rite, now the Extraordinary Form, just after the consecration. (I quote from an old missal.):

“Be pleased to look upon these offerings with a favorable and gracious countenance; accept them as You were please to accept the offerings of your servant Abel the righteous, the sacrifice of our father Abraham, and that of Melchizedek, your high priest, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.”

 

[runningdude]

I seem to remember that phrase “Jesus is a Priest of the Order of Melchizedek” refers to Jesus’s priesthood being outside of the Levite order that sprung from Abraham’s son (who was not born yet according to Hebrews 7). So Christ traces His priesthood to a primordial faith present at the time of Abraham.

Melchizedek, from my understanding, predates the nation Isreal, and had a priesthood outside of Abrahamic lineage, which is what is implied by “Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life”. As an ancient king of Salem, a city renamed Jerusalem after the rise of Judah and Isreal, he is arguably a predecessor of David, who is a direct ancestor to Christ.

I then don’t thinks its necessary to consider Melchizedek’s sudden appearance as Theophany, or his sacrifice of bread to be transubstantial in nature, as Melchizedek is simply one of many servants chosen to be leaders in the Holy Land by the Father as a great prophet, heralding and prefiguring the arrival of the Son.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’ve encountered a similar speculation that the manna in the desert was some kind of true Eucharist. Personally I lean against the idea, partially because of the worms that would corrupt the manna if an attempt was made to store it (meaning the person didn’t trust God to provide for them the next day). If it were the Eucharist this would be a terrible horror. Also there’s the manifest unworthiness of the people who ate it in general, and the large quantities eaten. I really think the manna was a type (as in image, model, prefigurement) of the Eucharist rather than the Eucharist itself.

Same with the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek. I’ve heard an explanation that the reference to him being without father or mother, birth or death refers to an early Rabbinic concept that if something isn’t recorded in the Bible it didn’t happen. This obviously isn’t literally true, but the author of Hebrews (likely a Jew writing for other Jews) seems to have taken the concept and applied a more figurative meaning to it, to emphasize the typological relationship between Melchizedek and Christ. Melchizedek doesn’t have any recorded father or mother, etc., prefiguring the eternity of the Logos, Who would become the true King of Peace and Priest of the Most High.

It seems quite plausible to me that the actual man Melchizedek was a Canaanite priest-king, one who followed the ancient, almost monotheistic cult of El (God) or Elyon (Most High) if to the people of Salem he was a different deity, a creator beyond even El, as he seems to have been in some Semitic cultures, or perhaps most likely a sort of combination of the two into a single Creator-King God, as the name given, “El Elyon,” suggests. He could therefore represent a good element of natural religion, before the Canaanites had reached the fullness of their iniquity (before which the Israelites would not be allowed to take possession of the Holy Land- hence the long delay). Clearly the Bible takes this “God Most High” to be the same as YHWH, and Melchizedek’s sacrifice of bread and wine comes to be seen as a prefigurement of the Eucharist. I don’t see why it would instead be Christ Himself going back in time and consecrating the Eucharist for Abraham or something like that, though I suppose it’s possible.

 

[garysibio]

Theophany is what the Eastern Churches celebrate on January 6. In the Roman Catholic Church, they celebrate the Epiphany, which is Christ is revealed to the world through the 3 Kings. In the East the event is Christ’s baptism in the Jordan, where God (theos) is revealed in 3 persons as God the Father is heard from heaven, God the Son is in the Jordan, and God the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove on Jesus.

Theophany literally means manifestation of God. While the Eastern churches might celebrate it like we celebrate the Epiphany, it has other uses as well.

biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/theophany.html

 

[garysibio]

I had just finished skim reading through “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre… a pity I didn’t read through it more thoroughly! (sadly my time is scarce for reading…

It does sound a lot like the Eucharist, but does that necessarily require transubstantiation? If they had transubstantiated bread back under the old covenant… then why did Jesus need to come down and die for our sins? I’d say that it is because the High Priest M. made a lesser sacrifice than Jesus.

It is by the spoken word of Jesus from the Last Supper that that bread is His Body. Also it is by His command to do this that Catholic priests present again His sacrifice for us.

…That’s the meager thought that I can piece together after some critical thinking!
God Bless,
Phil

The Last Supper was also before Jesus dies and rose again. If Melchizedek was a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus, there is no reason why He couldn’t have changed the bread and wine in 2000 BC.

I don’t know the answer to my question. I doubt that anyone will know for certain until we get to Heaven.

 

[garysibio]

I think it was just bread and wine.

Transubstantiation might probably have been meant to take place only after Jesus, the High Priest, had offered His highest form of sacrifice, which is His body and blood (at both the suffering level and glorified state) for us . Melchiz was, I believe, only foreshadowing the institution of the Eucharist.

The Last Supper was prior to His sacrifice.

 

[garysibio]

I seem to remember that phrase “Jesus is a Priest of the Order of Melchizedek” refers to Jesus’s priesthood being outside of the Levite order that sprung from Abraham’s son (who was not born yet according to Hebrews 7). So Christ traces His priesthood to a primordial faith present at the time of Abraham.

Melchizedek, from my understanding, predates the nation Isreal, and had a priesthood outside of Abrahamic lineage, which is what is implied by “Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life”. As an ancient king of Salem, a city renamed Jerusalem after the rise of Judah and Isreal, he is arguably a predecessor of David, who is a direct ancestor to Christ.

I then don’t thinks its necessary to consider Melchizedek’s sudden appearance as Theophany, or his sacrifice of bread to be transubstantial in nature, as Melchizedek is simply one of many servants chosen to be leaders in the Holy Land by the Father as a great prophet, heralding and prefiguring the arrival of the Son.

Good points but it raises another question: Unless Melchizedek was a theophany, wouldn’t saying that Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizedek make Him less than Melchizedek in some sense? Why would Jesus’ priesthood be defined by a mere human?

 

[garysibio]

I’ve encountered a similar speculation that the manna in the desert was some kind of true Eucharist. Personally I lean against the idea, partially because of the worms that would corrupt the manna if an attempt was made to store it (meaning the person didn’t trust God to provide for them the next day). If it were the Eucharist this would be a terrible horror. Also there’s the manifest unworthiness of the people who ate it in general, and the large quantities eaten. I really think the manna was a type (as in image, model, prefigurement) of the Eucharist rather than the Eucharist itself.

Same with the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek. I’ve heard an explanation that the reference to him being without father or mother, birth or death refers to an early Rabbinic concept that if something isn’t recorded in the Bible it didn’t happen. This obviously isn’t literally true, but the author of Hebrews (likely a Jew writing for other Jews) seems to have taken the concept and applied a more figurative meaning to it, to emphasize the typological relationship between Melchizedek and Christ. Melchizedek doesn’t have any recorded father or mother, etc., prefiguring the eternity of the Logos, Who would become the true King of Peace and Priest of the Most High.

It seems quite plausible to me that the actual man Melchizedek was a Canaanite priest-king, one who followed the ancient, almost monotheistic cult of El (God) or Elyon (Most High) if to the people of Salem he was a different deity, a creator beyond even El, as he seems to have been in some Semitic cultures, or perhaps most likely a sort of combination of the two into a single Creator-King God, as the name given, “El Elyon,” suggests. He could therefore represent a good element of natural religion, before the Canaanites had reached the fullness of their iniquity (before which the Israelites would not be allowed to take possession of the Holy Land- hence the long delay). Clearly the Bible takes this “God Most High” to be the same as YHWH, and Melchizedek’s sacrifice of bread and wine comes to be seen as a prefigurement of the Eucharist. I don’t see why it would instead be Christ Himself going back in time and consecrating the Eucharist for Abraham or something like that, though I suppose it’s possible.

While the manna was a type of the Eucharist, I don’t see how the two could possibly be equated. The manna wasn’t even a sacrifice.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Last Supper was prior to His sacrifice.

The whole Passion Week is the entire Sacrifice of Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Good points but it raises another question: Unless Melchizedek was a theophany, wouldn’t saying that Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizedek make Him less than Melchizedek in some sense? Why would Jesus’ priesthood be defined by a mere human?

Why would it? Jesus was baptized by a mere human as well. Not to mention he was born of another human