This is long, but it’s the result of approx. thirty days of discourse on the topic of Melchizedek… The black wording is direct from the source, the purple is my thoughts inserted as I tried to figure out what was being said I’ll post the summary of my conclusions based on that conversation in the next post (this one’s too long). It was the best we were able to come up with between the two of us and what resources we had.
"This is a response to the question from a friend of mine. He was one of my professors in the seminary, and one of the most intelligent people I know. I asked him what’s the significance of M, and if he was the first priest mentioned in the OT.:
small question , huge answer. story begins in Gen 14:17 - 20 where Mel a king of Salem (Jerusalem) and a priest of the Most high God, goes out to meet Abraham, returning from a victory over four kings. Mel offers bread and wine to Abe, Abe in turn gives Mel a tenth of his loot. The tenth part , ie tithe, would become the standard offering of the Jew to the Temple, at the hands of the priest. Mel was evidently a monotheist (Most High God) who as a priest his principal job [both in Judaism and even in pagan religions] was to offer the sacrifice to the Deity. It is nowhere stated, and seems to me improbable that Mel was a Jew, Abe having recently arrived in those parts from his native Ur. Ergo, yes to priest, probably no to OT priest. On the other hand, it is Psalm 110 that blurs and clarifies at the same time. Psalm110 is already important in the NT because the Lord Himself quotes it verbatim at Mt22:44; Mk 12: 36; Lk 20: 42-43; Ac 2: 34-35; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20-22; Col 3:1. [These particular verses refer to Jesus quoting David as refering to to the Messiah as lord, and asking how he could be his descendant] ergo we can be certain it was a key OT text out of which the nascent Christian Church would begin to see Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecies and foresigns. Then in the same ps 110 in v 14 is explicit when Dave says about Jesus (from a Christian prophecy-fulfillment context, ) “You will be a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek.” [so here is the point about the prophecy, if the Psalm is used by Christ as a lesson in prophecy fulfillment, then there is a reason that Melchizedek is mentioned in that particular Psalm – next question would be that surely this is not the only time that Christ is mentioned as the messiah or as being of the line of David nor the only time that David refers to Christ as lord] This psalm already quoted by the Lord, is then utilized by the first century church, drives the point home by simply saying Mel is a priest and the Lord’s servant (Jesus) is to made a priest forever. This in turn enters the actual text of the NT by its use in Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21. It is then enshrined in Roman Canon, the First Eucharistic Prayer by referencing Melchizedek as the OT foreshadowing of the High Priest Jesus, who has finally appeared. I think the fact that Mel offered Abe bread and wine was enough, in addition to Mel’s identity as priest to warrant his reference in the Catholic Canon [Para. 1333: . . . The Church sees in the gesture of the priest-king Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering" (Gen 14:18; cf. Roman Missal, EP I [Roman Canon] 95). ] as a OT prophetic figure who would make sense only when Jesus the only Great High Priest in the Christian dispensation. Priest in Greek is hiereus, a cultic minister who principal job was to offer the sacrifices at the Temple in a proper manner. Only Jesus the archiereus or High Priest and the other Jewish priests mentioned often in the NT as being a opponents of the Lord. [Here I think is the Levi vs. Melchizedek argument, which might have been what started the whole thing… sounds like there was a lineage of priests and Christ was not of that particular lineage?] Hebrews as book is beautiful but a little hard for us Westerners to break open. Its extensive argument made to convince neophytes of Jewish origin of the authenticity of the entire Christian movement is understandable highly rabbinic in its inspiration and line argument: essentially anything done in the bible eo ipso constitutes a precedent for further carrings…"
