The Levitical priesthood (perpetual or not?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter JosephJohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alright, to really address this question of a perpetual Levitical priesthood, we have to first examine what the ‘Levitical priesthood’ is. When we think of the priests of Judaism, we think of those who offer sacrifice and, of course, the High Priest of the Temple. While these are priests, it is an extremely narrow view which excludes the vast majority of Judaism’s priests.

The tribe of Levi was vast, stemming from Levi’s three sons: Gershom, Kohath, and Merari. All three of these branches were included in the Levitical priesthood and the descendants of these sons had very different roles within the priesthood such as the transportation of the Ark, the physical erection of the meeting tent, care of the Temple, and offering of sacrifice. The Gershomite line of the priesthood went extinct at the Babalonian Captivity. The Merarite line disappeared in the fifth century BC. At each of these disappearances of a portion of the priesthood, the various duties were divided among the remaining priests of Levi’s line.

Despite all of these reassignments, the priesthood of Israel gradually became linked to the Ark (and eventually the Temple itself) instead of service to God as it was originally meant to be. As such, at the Temple’s destruction the priesthood ceased to have meaning to the Israelites. The descendants of Levi still have a perpetual priesthood, that is, obligation to service to God, but now it is seen as greatly reduced, only offering service in certain orthodox synagogues.

When we now speak of ‘Kohen’ as priests, we only speak of the descendants of the head of the line of Kohath at the time of the disappearance of the other lines of priests. The extended families from the line of Kohath took on now vacant duties of the Temple.
 
Last edited:
As to the priesthood of Melchizedek supposedly being in opposition to the Levitical priesthood, it is not. It is simply different. We must, however first distinguish the order of Melchizedek from the line of Melchizedek.

The order of Melchizedek speaks of a naturally born duty to serve God. Melchizedek was not only a priest but also a king. He served God in every way he could, not just those which had been handed down to him. It is in this sense that we are of the order of Melchizedek

The line of Melchizedek, however, is different. Only Christ is naturally of the line of Melchizedek and, through Christ, bishops and priests participate in this ministerial priesthood. To the ancient Jews of the time of Christ, it was common knowledge that Melchizedek was Shem, the first born son of Noah. If you trace his age back, you find that he was born before the flood and retained the pre-flood extended life span. He actually died after Abraham did. The High Priesthood was passed down from father to first born son within a tribe. The High Priesthood passed from Adam (skipping Cain and Abel for obvious reasons) to Seth and so forth down to Shem, who was Melchizedek. Christ, as the firstborn Son of God is the ultimate High Priest, in the same line (that is the High Priesthood handed from father to son) as Melchizedek.

Unfortunately, as Christianity moved primarily into the gentile world, this oral tradition of the line of Melchizedek was lost and the order of Melchizedek was focused upon. There is, however, a dual nature to Melchizedek’s priesthood which supports both the universal Christian priesthood and the ordained priesthood through Holy Orders. In modern times, with the ecumenical dialogue which has taken place since Vatican II, we are starting to reexamine the early Jewish oral traditions and it is shedding some light on early explanations of Melchizedek’s priesthood.
 
Last edited:
Those who still follow only the Old Covenant and the Mosaic law - might deem HEBREWS as ‘harsh’ and unacceptable… MeanWhile, the NT / New Covenant / Jesus - offers the Faith in Jesus / Worship of (Holy) Spirit - as the now Truthful Way to Salvation… . The Scribe of Hebrews gives us a clear and understandable Testimony and Teachings…

Jesus the Great High Priest

14Since therefore we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to the religion we profess. 15For ours is not a high priest unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who, because of his likeness to us, has been tested every way, Or: who has been tested every way, as we are. only without sin. 16Let us therefore boldly approach the throne of our gracious God, where we may receive mercy and in his grace find timely help.
↑ 5.
1FOR EVERY HIGH PRIEST is taken from among men and appointed their representative before God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2He is able to bear patiently with the ignorant and erring, since he too is beset by weakness; 3and because of this he is bound to make sin-offerings for himself no less than for the people. 4And nobody arrogates the honour to himself: he is called by God, as indeed Aaron was. 5 [ Ps.2.7. ] So it is with Christ; he did not confer upon himself the glory of becoming high priest: it was granted by God, who said to him, ‘Thou art my Son; today I have begotten thee’; 6 [ Ps.110.4. ] as also in another place he says, "Thou art a priest for ever, in the succession of Melchizedek.’ 7In the days of his earthly life he offered up prayers and petitions, with loud cries and tears, to God who was able to deliver him from the grave. Because of his humble submission his prayer was heard: 8son though he was, he learned obedience in the school of suffering, 9and, once perfected, became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 [ Ps.110.4. ] named by God high priest in the succession of Melchizedek.
 
Sorry I don’t mean to disrespect scripture. Harsh is the wrong word.

I’m really intrigued by the line/order of Melchizedek distinction. It seems like it’s somewhat like the promise to the Levi’s is kept and actually surpassed because a better priesthood is extended to not only the Levi’s but also all descendants of Israel and actually all descendants of Adam…

Ok so that’s cool and helps…

Ok and with regard to the passage from Hebrews, what does it mean for Christ to offer a sin offering for himself. Did Christ have original sin personally to atone for?? If so that’s deeply mysteriously. It’s beautiful if true but really mysterious. God “becoming sin” is mysterious enough.

Also this means Christ was his own sin offering which is extremely confusing. Ok I could ramble about this forever but if someone has something insightful to add about this …

Thanks you too that’s really interesting stuff
 
JosephJohn said:
Ok and with regard to the passage from Hebrews, what does it mean for Christ to offer a sin offering for himself. Did Christ have original sin personally to atone for?? If so that’s deeply mysteriously. It’s beautiful if true but really mysterious. God “becoming sin” is mysterious enough.

Also this means Christ was his own sin offering which is extremely confusing. Ok I could ramble about this forever but if someone has something insightful to add about this …
Click to expand...
In sin offerings for himself, the Scribe of Hebrews is juxtaposing the fallen human state of the instituted Aaronic High Priest with the natural High Priesthood of Christ. The sin offerings of the Jewish High Priests were not wholly selfless. They were to abrogate his own sins as well as those of his people. Christ, however, has no need to offer any sacrifice for himself. What he does is solely for the good of those for whom he executes his duty as High Priest.

Christ being ‘made sin’ is in reference to the ancient ritual of the ‘scapegoat’ at Yom Kippur. A goat was brought into the Holy of Holies and the High Priest placed the sins of the Israeli people upon the goat and it was released into the desert to die by itself. Christ did not transfer the sins of the world onto another being but rather took them upon himself. He was literally (in the Israeli tradition) our sin and must die through his own autonomous action. It is thus that we say that Christ “accepted even death, death on a cross” (Philippians 2:8). He gave assent to his own death for it would put to death the sins of not just Israel but the whole world.

Christ was his own sin offering. This is true only in the sense that he was the one who offered the sacrifice and he was the sacrifice being offered. He gave the offering on behalf of the sins of the world.
 
Last edited:
With Regard to Sacrifice and the Fall of Man… Jesus/Divine is the Purest and only Sacrifice capable of Atoning for SIN itself - for the purpose of Redeeming Man back with God.
This was accomplished in the Cross… and very shortly thereafter, as promised to the Apostles by Jesus at the Last Supper, God’s Holy Spirit returned back to and Into Man - At Pentecost aka Redemption - leading to Salvation Via Faith and Spirit…
 
Last edited:
CRM_Brother said:
The order of Melchizedek speaks of a naturally born duty to serve God. Melchizedek was not only a priest but also a king. He served God in every way he could, not just those which had been handed down to him. It is in this sense that we are of the order of Melchizedek

The line of Melchizedek, however, is different. Only Christ is naturally of the line of Melchizedek and, through Christ, bishops and priests participate in this ministerial priesthood.
Click to expand...
Hi @CRM_Brother. I have read with great interest your posts on this thread, but a couple of things are not clear to me. Please understand I’m not challenging anything you wrote, just asking for additional clarification. Could you please define more clearly what you mean by the terms “line” and “order” here?

Thanks!
 
“The line of Melchizedek, however, is different. Only Christ is naturally of the line of Melchizedek and, through Christ, bishops and priests participate in this ministerial priesthood.” ???
…
At best… only those whom are pure and sinless could ever be considered as being a possible “high priest” of the order of Melchizedek.

HEBREWS clearly shows that apparently and Only JESUS
  • has been granted . by God the Father
    to be His and our Forever High Priest …
That said, In Heaven, we are as priests (not High Priest) … 1 Peter 2

…

The Living Stone and a Chosen People

4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6

For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
  • a chosen and precious cornerstone,*
    and the one who trusts in him
  • will never be put to shame.”*
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
  • has become the cornerstone,”[*
8 and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
  • and a rock that makes them fall.”*
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
 
Last edited:
When we speak of the differences of ‘line’ and ‘order’ (sometimes it is easier to ‘think’ of order as ‘manner’, as it is sometimes translated) we differentiate between the ‘why’ and ‘how’ the high priesthood was conferred upon Melchizedek.

Line speaks of the line of succession, from Father to firstborn Son. In the same vein, only Christ may be the true High Priest as he is the firstborn Son of the Father. Even ordained priests today are not directly of the line of Melchizedek, for they are not the firstborn Son of God. Instead, it is instituted upon them at their ordination in which they share in the High Priesthood of Christ.

Order (or manner) speaks of how that heirship to the priesthood was conferred. It was naturally present in the soul of Melchizedek (Shem) at the time of his birth. There was no external authority which ordained this priesthood upon him. It is this type of inheritance which we receive the universal priesthood. We all are of the order (manner) of Melchizedek in this respect but we are not of his line (the passing of the High Priesthood from Father to Son).
 
Last edited:
Thank you, @CRM_Brother. A further question, if I may. The expression “the order of Melchizedek” is Biblical, found first in Psalm 110:4 ( דִּבְרָה , dibrah) and then five or six times in Hebrews (taxis). But what is the origin of the expression “the line of Melchizedek,” which as far as I can tell, doesn’t occur in the Bible? Is it found first in Jewish use, for example in the Talmud, or is it an exclusively Christian term? In an earlier post you seemed to suggest that it is Jewish:
CRM_Brother said:
In modern times, with the ecumenical dialogue which has taken place since Vatican II, we are starting to reexamine the early Jewish oral traditions and it is shedding some light on early explanations of Melchizedek’s priesthood.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The distinction between line and order comes from the early Church Fathers writing in Greek. As time progressed and the Jewish oral tradition (eventually written down in the Midrashes according to one of my seminary professors) of the identity of Melchizedek faded from Christian thought, these passages of the Church Fathers seemed to contradict each other. It was only the reexamination of the Jewish tradition at the time of Christ after Vatican II that scholars realized that the differences were not contradictory but rather expanding upon different aspects of Melchizedek’s priesthood, that the description of Melchizedek’s line and order were not strictly within the same context but two parts of the greater inherited Jewish tradition that was alive in the early Church.

The professor, Dr. Jeffery Morrow, who introduced me to this somewhat new area of study was actually a converted Orthodox Jew who was well versed in the origins of the Midrash teachings at the time of Christ. He, along with a number of scholars around the world, are slowly introducing the practice using historical Jewish tradition from the time of Christ as a supplement for the understanding of the writings of the early Church.
 
Last edited:
The exact differentiation used is two separate words used in Chapter 7 of Hebrews. First is the ‘order’, used repeatedly by the scribe as “τάξιν”, taxin, translated as “order” or “type of thing”. In this, the scribe explains that in his order of priesthood, Melchizedek needs no pedigree or genealogy as the Levitical priests do, for his priesthood naturally rests within his soul. The ‘line’ is drawn out by the Church Fathers from the scribe’s mention that Melchizedek is not “tracing his ancestry”, “γενεαλογούμενος” genealogoumenos, from the Levitical priesthood but he does indeed have a lineage, a line. It is because of this line that Abraham seeks Melchizedek out. He is of the true mortal lineage of high priests and the true patriarchal head of Abraham’s tribe.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately no. This was actually an example he used in class to demonstrate the shift of biblical scholarship over the years. That a radical shift in interpretation did not just happen in the early modern and contemporary periods but also at marked points throughout history. He also used the misinterpretation of ‘Nephilim’ found in Genesis as a modern discarding of long held tradition as a modern analogue to the confusion over line and order of Melchizedek.

His primary area of study is the historical drift of Biblical Exegesis. He may mention the line and order of Melchizedek as an example, but I don’t believe that he would go into it in detail. Plus, everything I’ve found that he has written was written after I had him in class. He was still a guest lecturer at the seminary when I had him. Now he is a full Professor and a Senior Fellow at the St. Paul’s Center for Biblical Theology. His area of concentration may have shifted slightly as he was given higher level courses.
 
Last edited:
Okay, thanks. One last quick question. When you say “the Scribes” here, do you mean specifically the Talmud?
CRM_Brother said:
The ‘line’ is drawn out by the Church Fathers from the Scribes
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ah, no. That was a typo. I meant to say “scribe’s” as in the Scribe of Hebrews, as the author is often referred to.
 
Last edited:
Okay, fine. Thank you for your patience in replying to my long list of questions!
 
BartholomewB said:
דִּבְרָה , dibrah
Click to expand...
This word is דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י and is translated as ‘the order’
Strongs translates it as ‘cause, manner, reason’

The entire phrase ‘the order of Melchizedek’

a preposition and a proper noun in the masculine singular is also added;

מַלְכִּי־ translated as ‘of’ (preposition)
צֶֽדֶק translated as ‘Melchizedek’. (proper noun MS)

In the Leningrad Codex (the standard for the Hebrew Bible)
עַל־דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק
remember we are reading from right to left here. עַל־ is another preposition that translates as ‘According to’
 
Last edited:
The name מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק (Malki-Tzedek) is hyphenated in Hebrew. It means, literally, “righteous king”. Malki is a form of melekh, king, and tzedek is a form of tzadik, righteous or just. Zadok, the high priest appointed by David, is another form of the same Hebrew word.

The preposition “of”, in this case, is not a separate word in Hebrew. It’s expressed in the ending attached to the noun dibrah, which, as you say, can have a range of different meanings.

https://biblehub.com/str/hebrew/1700.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top