Priest from the order of melchizedek

[caroldmoore]

please explain who Melchizedek was and what is the signifigance of the quote from the bible you are a priest from the order of melchizedek… how it relates to Jesus and the priest hood please

 

[Godfollower]

please explain who Melchizedek was and what is the signifigance of the quote from the bible you are a priest from the order of melchizedek… how it relates to Jesus and the priest hood please

There’s a good discussion of this in Hebrews:

This “Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High,” “met Abraham as he returned from his defeat of the kings” and “blessed him.” And Abraham apportioned to him “a tenth of everything.” His name first means righteous king, and he was also “king of Salem,” that is, king of peace. 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. See how great he is to whom the patriarch “Abraham (indeed) gave a tenth” of his spoils. The descendants of Levi who receive the office of priesthood have a commandment according to the law to exact tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, although they also have come from the loins of Abraham. But he who was not of their ancestry received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had received the promises. Unquestionably, a lesser person is blessed by a greater. In the one case, mortal men receive tithes; in the other, a man of whom it is testified that he lives on. One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, was tithed through Abraham, for he was still in his father’s loins when Melchizedek met him. If, then, perfection came through the levitical priesthood, on the basis of which the people received the law, what need would there still have been for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not reckoned according to the order of Aaron? When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well. Now he of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, of which no member ever officiated at the altar. It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. It is even more obvious if another priest is raised up after the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become so, not by a law expressed in a commandment concerning physical descent but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. For it is testified: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law brought nothing to perfection; on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. And to the degree that this happened not without the taking of an oath --for others became priests without an oath, but he with an oath, through the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: ‘You are a priest forever’”-- to that same degree has Jesus (also) become the guarantee of an (even) better covenant. Those priests were many because they were prevented by death from remaining in office, but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away. Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them.
It was fitting that we should have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, higher than the heavens. 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. For the law appoints men subject to weakness to be high priests, but the word of the oath, which was taken after the law, appoints a son, who has been made perfect forever.

Hebrews 7:1-28.

This is in reference to Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek in Genesis 14:17-20: “When Abram returned from his victory over Chedorlaomer and the kings who were allied with him, the king of Sodom went out to greet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with these words: ‘Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your foes into your hand.’ Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.”

 

[Iggy66]

Just a couple of quick points (Godfollower has pointed you to the relevant scriptures):

Melchizedek came before the Levitical priesthood, so this may be another pointer to Christ as someone that transcends, and is above, the Jewish priesthood (Christ does not come from the Levitical priesthood line, he came from the line of Judah, the first repentant man in scripture).

Melchizedek in legend is associated with Shem, Noah’s son who was the ancestor of Jesus. This may establish Christ as priest for all descendants of Noah, yet also maintain the strong Jewish link as Shemites became the Jews (‘Semitism’ coming from ‘Shem’).

I’m sure there is much more people will add, so that’s just a couple of points I’d throw into the mix.

 

[SonCatcher]

I am told that because Melchizedek does not have any lineage described in the Bible (neither ancestors nor descendents; neither birth nor death recorded), he had no beginning nor end according to Jewish law. That is why his priesthood is “forever.”

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I am told that because Melchizedek does not have any lineage described in the Bible (neither ancestors nor descendents; neither birth nor death recorded), he had no beginning nor end according to Jewish law. That is why his priesthood is “forever.”

This would be the more Biblical approach to Melchizedek’s ancestry than the Shem theory. The lack of recorded ancestry or death, passing through the lens of Rabbinic Judaism which tended to take the view that if something was not recorded in the Bible it did not happen at all, becomes for Christians a foreshadowing of Christ’s eternity. That’s not to say the alternative connection to Shem can’t be somewhere in the background as well.

Maybe it would be nice to make a short list of some of the parallels between Melchizedek and Jesus.

-They were both priest-kings
-They both used bread and wine in their sacrifices
-They both were associated with Jerusalem
-They both were associated with peace (compare “shalom” and “Salem”)
-They both possess a priesthood that seems to transcend the Levitical one and perhaps Israel as a whole, since Abraham, the ancestor of Israel and therefore of Levi, is blessed by and gives a tithe to Melchizedek.

 

[Iggy66]

That’s a good list Aelred.

 

[jcrichton]

please explain who Melchizedek was and what is the signifigance of the quote from the bible you are a priest from the order of melchizedek… how it relates to Jesus and the priest hood please

…most of the factors have been given… but consider too that Melchizedek “appeared” and “disappeared;” which suggest he had no origin and no ending (alpha and omega); what I find most interesting is that Melchizedek is above being king os Salem (which is thought to be the pre-existing Jerusalem) he is Yahweh God’s High Priest; yet, since Jesus is the King of kings and the eternal High Priest (remember Highlander’s theme: there can be only one?), it can well be surmised that it is a personal Revelation of Christ (coupled that with Christ’s statement that he existed prior to Abraham and that Abraham so His Day and he was glad–St. John 8:56) as Melchizedek (the king of Salem who’s God’s High Priest and receives the tiething from Abraham as he Breaks Bread and shares Wine with him–Last Supper’s type?); this simple passage in Genesis is heavily loaded almost as much as Gen 3:15!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rdscheirer]

I too questioned Melkizidek years ago both here and with our teacher in adult Bible study- I said that from reading the encounter and that he historically disapeared could it have been Jesus- he stated that the Church’s stance is that it was Shem(which means name in Hebrew).

 

[7FSD11]

Who in the Catholic organization has heard of the Emerald Cloister order of Melchizedek? Is the diatribe that they profess have any validity in the eyes of our church?

 

[SonCatcher]

Who in the Catholic organization has heard of the Emerald Cloister order of Melchizedek? Is the diatribe that they profess have any validity in the eyes of our church?

I haven’t heard of them so I ran a quick search. It seems they have invented their own scripture so I wouldn’t place any trust in what they say.

They have no legitimate connection with the biblical Melchizedek (the topic of this thread).

 

[PJM]

=caroldmoore;8016458]please explain who Melchizedek was and what is the signifigance of the quote from the bible you are a priest from the order of melchizedek… how it relates to Jesus and the priest hood please

READ the story in the Book of Genesis in the shrot chapter #14.

He was BOTH the King and Highpriest of SALEM. When Abram [future Abraham] with God’s help defeated his enemies the King offered Abram a “tenth” of what was captured as a reward and and it was refused because Abraham recogonized Gods intervention. Melchizedek, then brought out AS THE HIGHPRIEST, Both Bread and Wine [which were common sacrifice itmes] and presented them to Abram.

This is seen as a typology [something that points to something else] of the future Eucharist: Bread and Wine; and Sacrifice, and Highpriest. AND it’s in the very FIRST book of the Bible!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Godfollower]

READ the story in the Book of Genesis in the shrot chapter #14.

He was BOTH the King and Highpriest of SALEM. When Abram [future Abraham] with God’s help defeated his enemies the King offered Abram a “tenth” of what was captured as a reward and and it was refused because Abraham recogonized Gods intervention. Melchizedek, then brought out AS THE HIGHPRIEST, Both Bread and Wine [which were common sacrifice itmes] and presented them to Abram.

This is seen as a typology [something that points to something else] of the future Eucharist: Bread and Wine; and Sacrifice, and Highpriest. AND it’s in the very FIRST book of the Bible!

God Bless,
Pat

Actually, it’s the other way around: Abram offered Melchizedek a tenth of everything he (Abram) had taken. Some Bible translations use the ambiguous “he gave him”, but others specify that Abram was the one giving the tithe; and Hebrews 7:4 makes it clear that Abram gave the tithe to Melchizedek.

 

[jcrichton]

I too questioned Melkizidek years ago both here and with our teacher in adult Bible study- I said that from reading the encounter and that he historically disapeared could it have been Jesus- he stated that the Church’s stance is that it was Shem(which means name in Hebrew).

…I am truly ignorant about much of Church’s historical Teachings, my statement is based solely on Biblical findings:

Salem = Jerusalem; yet Jerusalem did not exist during Abraham’s times.

King of Salem, ergo: King of the city of Peace; yet Scritures show us only two Kings of the city of Peace: the Father (which was eventually rejected by Israel and suplanted by Saul, a human monarch) and Jesus Christ: the Immanuel, the Prince of Peace: the King of Kings

God’s High Priest; yet, the Priesthood did not exist untill Israel was rescued from Egypt (hundreds of years later); so that particular Priesthood (line) had to preexist–Scriptures tells us that in Christ we were selected/elected even before Creation, which suggests, at least to me, the origins of that Priesthood not founded on Aaron/Levi

Jesus’ Day being witnessed by Abraham–unless Christ’s statement is to be taken as allegorical or as a vision given to Abraham or as a revelation given to Abraham where he was allow to foresee the future Incarnation, Melchizedek’s visit could very well be the factor revealed by Christ where He allowed Abraham to see the Promised realized even at its very inception

Compare too with the various appearances made by God (as with Jocob) where He only allows a very ambiguous revelation (as a man) to be witnessed by those which He uses as instruments to bring forth His Salvific Plan.

Could Shem, an actual person instead of Christ’s appearing as a man, be the actual Melchisedek?.. I do not know–but I see no Biblical connection to that possition.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ryanoneil]

There is Christian tradtion linking Shem and Melchizedek.

St. Ephraem the Syrian (Commentary of Genesis 11,2)
The theologians Alcuin, Peter Lombard, and Nicholas of Lyra
The Glossa Ordinaria, the running commentary that filled the margins of the medieval Latin Bible
Martin Luther (Lectures on Genesis 14, 18)

 

[onlyvoice]

This would be the more Biblical approach to Melchizedek’s ancestry than the Shem theory. The lack of recorded ancestry or death, passing through the lens of Rabbinic Judaism which tended to take the view that if something was not recorded in the Bible it did not happen at all, becomes for Christians a foreshadowing of Christ’s eternity. That’s not to say the alternative connection to Shem can’t be somewhere in the background as well.

Maybe it would be nice to make a short list of some of the parallels between Melchizedek and Jesus.

-They were both priest-kings
-They both used bread and wine in their sacrifices
-They both were associated with Jerusalem
-They both were associated with peace (compare “shalom” and “Salem”)
-They both possess a priesthood that seems to transcend the Levitical one and perhaps Israel as a whole, since Abraham, the ancestor of Israel and therefore of Levi, is blessed by and gives a tithe to Melchizedek.

Here is a more detailed list of the parallels between Melchizedek and Jesus. The inescapable conclusion is that they are one and the same Being.

1. Melchizedek greeted Abraham with bread and wine. Bread and wine later became the symbols of Christ’s Passover sacrifice of His body and blood.
2. Melchizedek addressed God as “possessor of heaven and earth.” Jesus Christ addressed the Father as “Lord of heaven and earth.”
3. Melchizedek means “King of Righteousness.” Righteousness is obedience to God’s Law (Psalm 119:172). No human being could be king of righteousness because all have transgressed God’s Law of righteousness (Rom. 3:23). But Jesus placed Himself above that Law when He claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). No man could be Lord or King over God’s Law. Only God could be. And Jesus is God. God made all laws (James 4:12) therefore He is Supreme Ruler or King. He determines what righteousness is. To apply the title “King of Righteousness” to any human being would essentially be blasphemy.
4. Melchizedek was “King of Salem, which is King of Peace.” No human being could be King of Peace. Men do not know the way to peace: “There is none righteous, no not one… And the way of peace they have not known” (Rom. 3:10, 17). Jesus, not any human being, is the “Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).
5. Melchizedek was the “priest of the Most High God.” In the days when the apostle Paul lived and wrote this scripture, which was shortly after Jesus ascended to heaven as High Priest, Melchizedek even then “abideth” – which means does now abide – “a priest continually.” The order of Christ’s priesthood is named after Melchizedek. It is the High Priest’s name that is placed upon an order just as Aaron’s name was upon the Aaronic priesthood. This Melchizedek was then High Priest, in Paul’s day, and even now, and will rule forever. Yet Jesus Christ was, is today, and shall also be forever High Priest. Could there be two High Priests?
6. Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of God.” Jesus is the Son of God. But in the days of Abraham, Jesus was not the Son of God, for He had not yet been born of the virgin Mary but He was made like unto the Son of God in His manifestation to the ancients.
7. Melchizedek was “without father, without mother, without descent.” He was not born as human beings are. This does not mean that his records of birth were lost for without those records human priests could not serve (Ezra 2:62). But here Melchizedek had no genealogy. He must not have been an ordinary mortal. He had no descent or pedigree from another, but was self-existent. Paul gives his inspired interpretation of this fact: “Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” Melchizedek has always existed from eternity, just as the pre-existent Word, who later became Jesus in the flesh, has always existed from eternity.

Looking at all these striking parallels, is there one good reason why Melchizedek could not be the incarnate Jesus?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Here’s another question: Why does Melchizedek have to be a human like all the rest of us. If God can make angels that are not humans–couldn’t He have made a priest that would be forever that was not human and was not Jesus?

Maybe Melchizedek was God’s rector of heaven? God set on the throne and Melchizedek presided in Heaven before Jesus came to Earth–was born of the virgin Mary and offered his perfect sacrifice on calvary?

Since Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary transcends time-- maybe Melchizedek was the priest that God used in dealing with man before the Levitical priesthood?

Melchizedek is a great mystery but the Triune God is a great mystery, too!

There’s no doubt that Jesus is superior to Melchizedek because he is god but just think of this: since Melchizedek is above Aaron–Melchizedek certainly isn’t no slouch!

 

[jcrichton]

Here’s another question: Why does Melchizedek have to be a human like all the rest of us. If God can make angels that are not humans–couldn’t He have made a priest that would be forever that was not human and was not Jesus?

Maybe Melchizedek was God’s rector of heaven? God set on the throne and Melchizedek presided in Heaven before Jesus came to Earth–was born of the virgin Mary and offered his perfect sacrifice on calvary?

Since Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary transcends time-- maybe Melchizedek was the priest that God used in dealing with man before the Levitical priesthood?

Melchizedek is a great mystery but the Triune God is a great mystery, too!

There’s no doubt that Jesus is superior to Melchizedek because he is god but just think of this: since Melchizedek is above Aaron–Melchizedek certainly isn’t no slouch!

True, Jesus is God; He never was not God (John 1:1-4) and while there’s that mystery of Melchizedek, I doubt that he was an “eternal” (meaning outside of being Christ Himself) since that would pit him against Christ, the Eternal King and High Priest!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[EricFilmer]

please explain who Melchizedek was and what is the signifigance of the quote from the bible you are a priest from the order of melchizedek… how it relates to Jesus and the priest hood please

A lot of excellent responses have been made in this thread. But let us also elaborate on Psalm 110:4

The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest for ever
after the order of Melchiz’edek.”

What we are dealing here is an example of biblical typology (as PJM pointed out in Post #11). The above psalm references the historical Melchizedek, but the words of the psalm were addressed to King David. Nevertheless, the psalm is understood as a prophecy concerning the future messiah who would be born of David’s line. Both Melchizedek and David are considered biblical “types” of Jesus. Although Melchizedek and David were mortal kings, aspects of their lives and ministries helped the People of God to understand what would be the role of the future (and greater) messianic king.

 

[Godfollower]

Here is a more detailed list of the parallels between Melchizedek and Jesus. The inescapable conclusion is that they are one and the same Being.

1. Melchizedek greeted Abraham with bread and wine. Bread and wine later became the symbols of Christ’s Passover sacrifice of His body and blood.
2. Melchizedek addressed God as “possessor of heaven and earth.” Jesus Christ addressed the Father as “Lord of heaven and earth.”
3. Melchizedek means “King of Righteousness.” Righteousness is obedience to God’s Law (Psalm 119:172). No human being could be king of righteousness because all have transgressed God’s Law of righteousness (Rom. 3:23). But Jesus placed Himself above that Law when He claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). No man could be Lord or King over God’s Law. Only God could be. And Jesus is God. God made all laws (James 4:12) therefore He is Supreme Ruler or King. He determines what righteousness is. To apply the title “King of Righteousness” to any human being would essentially be blasphemy.
4. Melchizedek was “King of Salem, which is King of Peace.” No human being could be King of Peace. Men do not know the way to peace: “There is none righteous, no not one… And the way of peace they have not known” (Rom. 3:10, 17). Jesus, not any human being, is the “Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).
5. Melchizedek was the “priest of the Most High God.” In the days when the apostle Paul lived and wrote this scripture, which was shortly after Jesus ascended to heaven as High Priest, Melchizedek even then “abideth” – which means does now abide – “a priest continually.” The order of Christ’s priesthood is named after Melchizedek. It is the High Priest’s name that is placed upon an order just as Aaron’s name was upon the Aaronic priesthood. This Melchizedek was then High Priest, in Paul’s day, and even now, and will rule forever. Yet Jesus Christ was, is today, and shall also be forever High Priest. Could there be two High Priests?
6. Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of God.” Jesus is the Son of God. But in the days of Abraham, Jesus was not the Son of God, for He had not yet been born of the virgin Mary but He was made like unto the Son of God in His manifestation to the ancients.
7. Melchizedek was “without father, without mother, without descent.” He was not born as human beings are. This does not mean that his records of birth were lost for without those records human priests could not serve (Ezra 2:62). But here Melchizedek had no genealogy. He must not have been an ordinary mortal. He had no descent or pedigree from another, but was self-existent. Paul gives his inspired interpretation of this fact: “Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” Melchizedek has always existed from eternity, just as the pre-existent Word, who later became Jesus in the flesh, has always existed from eternity.

Looking at all these striking parallels, is there one good reason why Melchizedek could not be the incarnate Jesus?

Jesus hadn’t been born yet?

 

[onlyvoice]

Jesus hadn’t been born yet?

That’s right. During Abraham’s time, Jesus had not been born of the virgin Mary yet. He was the God called the Word who eternally co-existed with God [the Father]. “The world was made by him” (John 1:10) - meaning, He was the God who said, “Let there be light” and “Let us make man in our image…”

He was the God who spoke to Moses and who told him that, “I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty…” (Exodus 6:2-3). He was that “spiritual Rock that followed them (the Israelites)” (I Cor. 10:4). In short, the pre-existent Word who later became a human being in the person of Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.