Order of Melchisedek

[Mintaka]

I don’t think the Jews ever denied that other people could be in contact with the one true God or obey Him. For example, the King of Persia obeyed God, even though he was no Jew. Sometimes even Nebuchadnezzar did some godfearing, and the Greeks worshipped the Unknown God. Certainly the philosophers and Brahmins have all talked about God and tried to serve Him. Abraham was apparently trying to serve the one true God before God actually started chatting and making covenants with him. So God could certainly have given Melchizadek priestly power if He felt like it; and apparently, He did.

We don’t know how or why Abraham recognized Melchizadek as being a real priest of God or that his sacrifices were okily-dokily. But he did, and that’s probably not a surprise. Melchizadek was king in Jerusalem when it was just plain Salem.

Similarly, yes, people sacrificed animals before the Covenant and sometimes those sacrifices were pleasing. The difference is that at a certain point, God commanded the Jews to do sacrifices in a certain way. Until that point, they were just operating on wild grace, like Abraham pre-Covenant or Melchizadek.

 

[NonCatholic]

According to the IGNATIOUS Catholic Study Bible, “neither beginning nor end” (in regards to Melchizedek) is not literal. It is in contrast to the age limits set for the Aaronic priesthood, where ministry began at 30 and ended at 50 (Num 4:3, 43). Melchizedek was not limited to two decades of ministry, for no such age restriction was in force in pre-Levitical times. Jesus likewise exercises his priesthood for as long as he lives- for ever (7:24).

The “for ever” associated with Melchizedek in (Heb 7:3) is different and weaker than the ones applied to Jesus. The sense is that Melchizedek was priest “for a long time,” whereas Jesus remains a priest “for all eternity”.

I’m pretty sure about the Bible rendering based on the Greek word used or perpetual and the use of such word in other places. I think God is making the comparison to Jesus priesthood in the order, which is eternal, not restricted to 30 to 50. That’s why I wanted to include verse 23 “Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.”

I think it really clarifies the contrast finite versus the infinite priesthoods between the levitical priesthood versus the eternal priesthood of Jesus represented by Melchizedek priesthood. Where did that interpretation come from? The “IGNATIUS Catholic Study Bible” right? I don’t understand how that can be the correct interpretation? Do anyone else??

It appears the Biblical record affirms the likeness of eternal attributes of Melchizedek and Jesus; otherwise why would the Bible state the following verse 17: "For it is attested of Him, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.” , this is quoted from Psalm 110:4

"The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

The Hebrew word for forever is “owlam”, which translated is “everlasting”.

Hebrews 6:20 “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a {hope} both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, 20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

Wow, this has been enlightening doing the word searches and following Scripture reference rabbit trails…fun fun!

 

[codebilly]

I have to apologize. I do not understanding what you are saying about a covenant of bloodshed.

**See, I am now establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you (9:9) **

I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food. And it was so." (Genesis 1:29,30)

Before the flood, no flesh food does God give. After the flood God permits the animal as food.

• Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants. Only flesh with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat. - Gen 9:3-4*

If an animal is to be taken as food, naturally it must die and it’s blood must be spilled out. But God says that He requires an accounting of the bloodshed.

For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life. If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made. –* Gen 9:5-6***

As seen above it is said “for your own lifeblood also (too) I will demand an accounting”.

The “too” in Gen 9:5 clearly implies the accounting of blood for Gen 9:3-4 is extended to Gen 9:5, and with more severity. You shed human blood, your blood shall be shed.

Now this giving of animal life to Noah and his sons with him establishes a Covenant between God, Noah, his descendants, AND every living creature.

God said to Noah and to his sons with him: "See, I am now establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you: all the birds, and the various tame and wild animals that were with you and came out of the ark. - Gen. 9:8-10

God expanded the “family structure” of His covenant people - from a husband and a wife (Adam and Eve) to a family unit. Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives where included in the blessings of this covenant.

Yes, because they all were spared (by God’s Mercy) of their sins and hence the deluge, so the blessings of the covenant would apply, but the keeping of covenant is a requirement of Noah, his sons and descendants.

Having to account for the bloodshed of every living thing, animal or human, means that some rite of accounting must exist. Noah could not slay an animal for food, without God’s covenant being remembered. The remembrance of God in His promises, manifestation and blessings is call prayer. That each time an animal is to be slain, and accounting is made, and the prayers offered become a ritual. That ritual / rite would be passed down to the sons.

Also, what makes you say the author of Hebrews was unaware or rejects this?

*He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself. – Heb 7:27
*

That the sacrifices were made daily, implies that no animal could be taken without an appropriate offering be made. A sin offering would be made in remembrance of the deluge, and the sparing of humanity by God, coming down through Noah.

 

[codebilly]

Also, what makes you say the author of Hebrews was unaware or rejects this?

Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. – Hebrews 7:3

He says Melchizadek, " (he is) without father, mother, or ancestry"

Shem cannot be Melchizadek, as Shem’s father and mother are known.

Therefore, *Shem as Melchizadek *is a position contradictory to that of the author of Hebrews.

I weigh in on the side of Hebrews.

 

[MDK]

Mercygate agrees, what about the rest of you?

It’s certainly not that non-Catholics have no idea of truth whatsoever. When you come to some truth, you will be in agreement with Catholics in that matter. Whatever truth you have, can be a stepping stone to the fullness of truth. One cannot forever seek the truth, and loving Truth remain non-Catholic. The more one has truth about God, the more one has in common with the Catholic teachings.

 

[NonCatholic]

It’s certainly not that non-Catholics have no idea of truth whatsoever. When you come to some truth, you will be in agreement with Catholics in that matter. Whatever truth you have, can be a stepping stone to the fullness of truth. One cannot forever seek the truth, and loving Truth remain non-Catholic. The more one has truth about God, the more one has in common with the Catholic teachings.

Do you agree or disagree with Post #33?

 

[ryanoneil]

I’m pretty sure about the Bible rendering based on the Greek word used or perpetual and the use of such word in other places. I think God is making the comparison to Jesus priesthood in the order, which is eternal, not restricted to 30 to 50. That’s why I wanted to include verse 23 “Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.”

I think it really clarifies the contrast finite versus the infinite priesthoods between the levitical priesthood versus the eternal priesthood of Jesus represented by Melchizedek priesthood. Where did that interpretation come from? The “IGNATIUS Catholic Study Bible” right? I don’t understand how that can be the correct interpretation? Do anyone else??

It appears the Biblical record affirms the likeness of eternal attributes of Melchizedek and Jesus; otherwise why would the Bible state the following verse 17: "For it is attested of Him, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.” , this is quoted from Psalm 110:4

"The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

The Hebrew word for forever is “owlam”, which translated is “everlasting”.

Hebrews 6:20 “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a {hope} both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, 20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

Wow, this has been enlightening doing the word searches and following Scripture reference rabbit trails…fun fun!

I think we are actually in agreement, but using different angles to come to the same conclusion. So, I didn’t mean to disagree with your initial point. There is no doubt that Melchizedek is an allegorical sign of the eternal generation of Jesus.

I was just responding to (7:3) concerning Melchizedek in particular. His priesthood was limited to the length of his life (he didn’t literally live forever). The same was true of King Solomon the royal heir of David. The oath of perpetual priesthood in (Ps 110:4) did have provisional reference to Solomon, but he didn’t live forever. Only Jesus (the Davidic Messiah) qualifies for the everlasting priesthood envisioned in the psalm because he is risen to an immortal life.

So, “forever” to Melchizedek means as long as he lives. Jesus likewise exercises his priesthood for as long as he lives, which is literally “forever”. Also, Melchizedek was not literally without father, mother, or ancestry. The point is that he was not a descendant of Aaron (because he preceded him). The whole conversation is in the context of contrasting the requirements of the Levitical priesthood (genealogy and age limits).

Does that make sense?

I agree. These studies are very stimulating!

 

[ryanoneil]

"codebilly:

Melchizadek brings bread and wine. It must follow that his covenant with God is not of an accounting of bloodshed. A different covenant not described anywhere in the OT.

That the sacrifices were made daily, implies that no animal could be taken without an appropriate offering be made. A sin offering would be made in remembrance of the deluge, and the sparing of humanity by God, coming down through Noah.

Thank you for the last post, but I still don’t understand how this applies to the conversation.

Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with these words: (Gen 14:18-19)

These are probably the elements of a thank offering made to God in gratitude for a successful misson, and I don’t see what it has to do with a sin offering or a covenant.

 

[ryanoneil]

Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. – Hebrews 7:3

He says Melchizadek, " (he is) without father, mother, or ancestry"

Shem cannot be Melchizadek, as Shem’s father and mother are known.

Therefore, *Shem as Melchizadek *is a position contradictory to that of the author of Hebrews.

I weigh in on the side of Hebrews.

It is valid to say the Author of Hebrews is using allegory to show the eternal generation of Jesus, but (Heb 7:3) is not speaking literally. Jesus was not literally without father, mother, or ancestry (Mat 1:1-17). The point is that he was not a descendant of Aaron.

It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. (Heb 7:14)

The whole conversation is in the context of contrasting the requirements of the Levitical priesthood (genealogy and age limits) and how it was deficient and destined to pass away.

See post #47.

 

[codebilly]

Thank you for the last post, but I still don’t understand how this applies to the conversation.

Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with these words: (Gen 14:18-19)

These are probably the elements of a thank offering made to God in gratitude for a successful misson, and I don’t see what it has to do with a sin offering or a covenant.

Can you cite a single example anywhere in scripture or tradition where there is a priesthood without a covenant or oath?

None. At the heart of the priesthood is an oath and vow. I really can’t understand your “objection”. Just a question … are you Catholic?

If so, our priesthood comes from Jesus Christ’s covenant with God the Father. There is no priesthood without covenant.

How could Catholic priests be priests “according to Melchizadek” if there is distinction from Melchizadek’s priesthood?

 

[codebilly]

It is valid to say the Author of Hebrews is using allegory to show the eternal generation of Jesus, but (Heb 7:3) is not speaking literally. Jesus was not literally without father, mother, or ancestry (Mat 1:1-17). The point is that he was not a descendant of Aaron.

It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. (Heb 7:14)

The whole conversation is in the context of contrasting the requirements of the Levitical priesthood (genealogy and age limits) and how it was deficient and destined to pass away.

See post #47.

Yes. That is one point (not descended from Aaron) but not “the” point.

The point is the oath and covenant with God. That is the only point of the priesthood. A priest yokes himself to the oath of Jesus Christ, His new and everlasting covenant, His vow to save each and everyone of us, by His very self sacrifice, His Body and Blood.

No priesthood can or could be established without covenant and oath.

( Lookup how often “oath” is used in the bible. )

You do recall that when the bull was slaughter it was divided into two halves and separated on the ground. He who slaughtered the bull, and tore it in two, then walked in the middle of the two carcasses to make a solemn vow to the Lord. That vow was a very serious vow. Because you break the vow, you say “may I be torn in two like this animal”, not to mention, you cannot account for the animal bloodshed of the sacrifice.

It’s there is black and white.

I don’t need to say anything more about it.

 

[guanophore]

My understanding from Hebrews 7:3 is that one of the key attributes of this particular priesthood, Melchizedek, is that it is without beginning or end, it is eternal, just as our Lord is. Is that how you all understand? Contrasted to the Aaronic priesthood, they kept dying as individuals and therefore were inferior.

Yes.

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 remains a priest perpetually.

Contrasted against the Aaronic priesthood, they kept dying as individuals and therefore were inferior to Melchizedek. Again, just focusing on this one attribute; I know there are more.

Yes. But an important attribute.

Hebrews 7:23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.

Does this make sense?.. please verify the context of these passages; if you read and understand as I do. Thanks.

This is the quality of the catholic priesthood as well. They are taken up into His ministry as the Great High Priest, and when they are given the seal of the priesthood, it makes an eternal indelible mark upon them that can never be voided, just as baptism does when we are sealed in the HS.

 

[guanophore]

I’m pretty sure about the Bible rendering based on the Greek word used or perpetual and the use of such word in other places. I think God is making the comparison to Jesus priesthood in the order, which is eternal, not restricted to 30 to 50. That’s why I wanted to include verse 23 “Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.”

I think it really clarifies the contrast finite versus the infinite priesthoods between the levitical priesthood versus the eternal priesthood of Jesus represented by Melchizedek priesthood. Where did that interpretation come from? The “IGNATIUS Catholic Study Bible” right? I don’t understand how that can be the correct interpretation? Do anyone else??

It appears the Biblical record affirms the likeness of eternal attributes of Melchizedek and Jesus; otherwise why would the Bible state the following verse 17: "For it is attested of Him, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.” , this is quoted from Psalm 110:4

"The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

The Hebrew word for forever is “owlam”, which translated is “everlasting”.

Hebrews 6:20 “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a {hope} both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, 20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

Wow, this has been enlightening doing the word searches and following Scripture reference rabbit trails…fun fun!

Are you saying you think Melchizedek was eternal? There is just no record of his beginning or end. He was a type for Christ, because many did not know where He came from, or where He went.

 

[broski234]

A lot of good content. But not Shem as Melchizadek.

A covenant with God must be made to establish a lineage of priests. From the covenant comes the rite. Passing down the covenant according to the rite is the priestly line.

It is that simple IMHO.

I never mentioned Shem

 

[maryj]

Heb 7:4-10 Abram gives a tithe to Melchezidek. Levi is the seed of Abram, thus the priestly tribe of levites. Doesn’t this show that Melchezideks’ priesthood is superior to the levites priesthood?

 

[NonCatholic]

Thank you for the last post, but I still don’t understand how this applies to the conversation.

Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with these words: (Gen 14:18-19)

These are probably the elements of a thank offering made to God in gratitude for a successful misson, and I don’t see what it has to do with a sin offering or a covenant.

**
Melchizedek is typology, pointing to a type of Christ, but is inferior to Jesus as high priest. Similar to the brass pole with the serpent to which the Jews were to look upon to be saved from the poisonous snake bites.

Hebrews is trying to reach Jews to give up their Jewish traditions concerning the priesthood for the superior priesthood of Jesus. This is why the fact that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, is so important to the Jewish-Chrisitian mind. If Abraham was considered the Father of the nation and he gave tithes, than the one whom he paid tithes is superior. If Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, then Melchizedek is superior to Aaron, and since Melchizedek points or is a type of Christ, then Jesus priesthood is superior to the levitical priesthood; therefore the Jews should follow the true and living God through Jesus.**

 

[NonCatholic]

Are you saying you think Melchizedek was eternal? There is just no record of his beginning or end. He was a type for Christ, because many did not know where He came from, or where He went.

You are correct, he appears, then disappears and was a King of Salem, which many biblical scholars believe is Jesusalem. Points to the eternal priesthood. I communicated that thought in error and apologize.

 

[NonCatholic]

Yes.

Yes. But an important attribute.

This is the quality of the catholic priesthood as well. They are taken up into His ministry as the Great High Priest, and when they are given the seal of the priesthood, it makes an eternal indelible mark upon them that can never be voided, just as baptism does when we are sealed in the HS.

Actually; this is the whole point. If one of attributes of Jesus priesthood is eternallity and the opposing problem with the Aaronic priesthood is they kept dying as individuals. The Catholic priests keep dying don’t they? This is inferior to Jesus priesthood, not a type of “High” priesthood. No one can say unless through imagination or invention, that the Catholic priesthood is in the order of Melchezidek, it is unbiblical. This is but one of many reasons that no one in their right-biblical mind and follow such a priest. It also explains why Jesus told us to call no “spiritual teacher” Father. You all cannot be this blind and ignorant not see the problem can you? I don’t mean this personally; it is what Scripture teaches, but you have to apply common sense to it all.

 

[codebilly]

**
Melchizedek is typology, pointing to a type of Christ, but is inferior to Jesus as high priest. Jesus.**

Yes. But I would say “less”, instead of " inferior". The branch of the vine is 100% vine. I like to say this because of Pope Gregory the Great’s depiction of his identity , i.e., “I am the servant of the servants of Christ”

So the foremost puts himself as least. In fact in the entering into the spirit of Holy servitude, one draws nearest to Christ’s spirit of service.

While it may be contrary to Christian tradition and thought, I still don’t understand why Melchizadek could not have been Christ Himself appearing to Abraham. After all, we know that God appeared to Abraham as 3 persons, why could Christ not appear as the High Priest of God Most High.

The Lord’s revelation of Himself throughout the OT is related to His name. That is, the seer prophet is witness to God. As witness God reveals something of Himself. To Moses, He revealed that He is the “I AM that IAM”. The omniscient being, the eternal, a name considered so high that Jews consider Yahweh as unsearchable.

Could it be that Melchizadek’s appearance “revealed” his identity to Abraham, and that revelation is “King of Peace”.

Also, Hebrews 7 seems to hint that the author may believe Melchizadek to be Jesus Himself (i.e. no ancestry , no father mother ,etc.)

Hebrews is trying to reach Jews to give up their Jewish traditions concerning the priesthood for the superior priesthood of Jesus. This is why the fact that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, is so important to the Jewish-Chrisitian mind. If Abraham was considered the Father of the nation and he gave tithes, than the one whom he paid tithes is superior. If Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, then Melchizedek is superior to Aaron, and since Melchizedek points or is a type of Christ, then Jesus priesthood is superior to the levitical priesthood; therefore the Jews should follow the true and living God through Jesus.

Yes. I agree. The case is being made in relationship to covenant. Proceeding from covenant comes law. The old covenant was a covenant “of blood”. Jesus surrenders His Body and Blood of the new everlasting covenant in the rite of Melchizadek at the Last Supper.

If you are really “NonCatholic” , based on your conclusion it should be very clear that the Body and Blood of Jesus, according to the rite of Melchizadek, the Catholic Liturgy, the priest and the words of institution, are inseparable and indifferent from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Himself. There can be no distinction,

This is because He Himself the Covenant, the Oath, between God the Father and man. He lays His life down at the table of the Last Supper. By establishing a New Covenant He knows Judas will betray and the price will be His mortal Body and Blood.

He is the sacrifice and the oblation. Amen.

Similar to the brass pole with the serpent to which the Jews were to look upon to be saved from the poisonous snake bites.

Jesus’ saying "lest the son of man be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent " refers to His sacrifice on the cross. This, I think, is another thread worthy of exploration.

 

[maryj]

Actually; this is the whole point. If one of attributes of Jesus priesthood is eternallity and the opposing problem with the Aaronic priesthood is they kept dying as individuals. The Catholic priests keep dying don’t they? This is inferior to Jesus priesthood, not a type of “High” priesthood. No one can say unless through imagination or invention, that the Catholic priesthood is in the order of Melchezidek, it is unbiblical. This is but one of many reasons that no one in their right-biblical mind and follow such a priest. It also explains why Jesus told us to call no “spiritual teacher” Father. You all cannot be this blind and ignorant not see the problem can you? I don’t mean this personally; it is what Scripture teaches, but you have to apply common sense to it all.

So what does it mean to you that Jesus’s priesthood is eternal? and number 2…why are you yelling…kpeople: