After the Order of Melchizedek

Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies Theological Seminary After the Order of Melchizedek A Term Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Course THST 619 Doctrine of the Sanctuary by Ralph D Bock October 2009 Table of Contents CHAPTER 11 INTRODUCTION1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY4 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY4 DELIMITATION5 METHODOLOGY5 CHAPTER 27 TYPOLOGY OF savior AND MELCHIZEDEK7 WHAT IS TYPOLOGY? 7 WHO IS MELCHIZEDEK? 8 AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK10 CHAPTER 316 SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION16 BIBLIOGRAPHY19 CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK? PSALM cx SPEAKS ABOUT A PERSON WHO IS A KING AND A PRIEST, BUT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL in that respect WAS NEVER SUCH A KING. IT COULD BE THAT THE PSALM SPEAKS ABOUT A FUTURE KING-PRIEST. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT DEALS non WITH A HISTORICAL KING, BUT WITH THE MESSIAH. 1 The prediction of delivery boy priesthood according to t he fiat of Melchizedek indicated that the Aaronic priesthood was transitory (Heb 7 verses 1114), and imperfectthat is, salvation from sinwas not possible through the Aaronic priesthood.This meant that graven image int closing curtained to change the hieratic law, making it possible for virtuoso who was not a descendant of Aaron to become a high-pitched priest. erstwhile the new High Priest after the order of Melchizedek arrived, the typical priesthood would end (verses 1519). christ became priest, not on the basis of genealogical ties, but by a divine declaration. His priesthood is permanent because His life is indestructible. 2 This is called in biblical theology typology. Whether or not typology can legitimately be embraced in the interpretation of definite messianic prophecies is by far the most controersial question.One area of OT typology was that of typical individuals who served as proto fonts both of different individuals within the OT and of Christ in addition, th e Melchizedek of coevals 1418-20 served as an individual type of the Messiah within the OT, as evinced in Psalm 1104 and that the author of the Book of Hebrews utilized the Melchizedekian typology already engaged within the OT canon to further his arguments for the supremacy of the priesthood of the Nazarene to that of the Levites. 3 Matthew Henry and et al. reference to Hebrew 7. that Melchizedek met Abraham returning from the fork out of Lot, Melchizedeks constitute, tycoon of Righteousness, doubtless suitable to his character, marked him as a type of the Messiah and his kingdom. The name of his city signified Peace and as mightiness of Peace he typified Christ, the Prince of Peace, the great Reconciler of deity and man. Nothing is recorded as to the beginning or end of his life thus he typically resembled the Son of God, whose existence is from everlasting to everlasting, who had no virtuoso that was before Him, and will have no one come after Him, in His priesthood.Every part of Scripture honors the great King of Righteousness and Peace, our glorious High Priest and Savior and the more we examine it, the more we shall be convinced, that the testimony of delivery boy is the spirit of prophecy. 4 at that place are strong parallels between Melchizedek and Jesus both are the Sons of God, priest of the Order of Melchizedek, King of Righteous, King of Peace, appointed by God, eternal priesthood, and preexistent. Statement of the Problem The problem this paper espouses is embodied in the questions What was so special nigh the order of Melchizedek?Why would God juxtapose the order of Melchizedek to that of Jesus if there where no credence to it? Significance of the study The study is significant because it will explore the intertextual study of Melchizedek in telling to Jesus Christ. The study is vital because it will contribute to the knowledge of bringing to management the importance of Jesus priesthood as superior and more elevating and able to me et the needs of Gods people during the pass completion days of earths floor. Purpose of the StudyThe of import thrust of this paper is to provide a clearer put one over of the superior and excellent perception of Jesus priesthood as efficacious enough for the people of God. In reality, Jesus Christ is the only true priestly mediator between God and the human race. The priesthoods of Aaron and Melchizedek serve only as role models of Christs effective ministry. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the victorian time (1 Tim. 25,6). 5 DelimitationThe paper will be delimited to the few pericopes about Melchizedek in Genesis 14, Psalm 110 and the letter to the Hebrews chapter 7. Methodology This is a qualitative research that describes Melchizedek and Jesus priesthood from Jewish and Christian sources. Chapter 1 is a description of the introduction that i ncludes the significance of study, purpose and the delimitation of the research. Chapter 2 contains the literature check into that extrapolates sources from Jewish, Christian, and non-Christian literature to expound on Melchizedek and Jesus priesthood as relevant to the plan of salvation.Chapter 3 is the conclusion with the focus on the summary and findings of the research work. Chapter 2 TYPOLOGY OF JESUS AND MELCHIZEDEK WHAT IS TYPOLOGY? Exactly what is a type? Theologically speaking, a type may be defined as a regard or ensample of something future and more or less prophetic, called the Antitype. 6 Muenscher says a type is the preordained representative relation which certain persons, events, and institutions of the Old Testament agree to corresponding persons, events, and institutions in the New. 7 Wick Broomall has a concise statement that is helpful A type is a shadow cast on the pages of the Old Testament history by a equity whose full embodiment or antitype is found in t he New Testament revelation. 8 We would, in summary, evoke the following definition, which we paraphrase from Terry A type is a real, exalted happening in history which was divinely ordained by the omniscient God to be a prophetic picture of the strong things which he purposed to bring to fruition in Christ Jesus.Who is Melchizedek? The identification of Melchizedek has been highly debated in the history of the church. Jewish tradition has identified Melchizedek with Shem, the son of Noah who, after the chronology in Genesis, survived the flood and lived at a time when Abraham was alive(p) and was his contemporary for a hundred years. Christian tradition has proposed different interpretations to identify who Melchizedek was. Origen said that Melchizedek was an angel. Others have proposed that he was the Holy Spirit in human form.M any Christians, ancient and contemporary, have said that this is a classical cause of a Christophany in the Old Testament, that is, Melchizedek was Je sus Christ himself, who appeared to Abraham in human form. The concept of Christophany should be spurned because it contradicts the statement in the book of Hebrews that Jesus was designated a Priest after the order of Melchizedek. If Melchizedek was Christ therefore how could Christ himself become a Priest in the likeness of Melchizedek? 9 Ellen White wrote in the Re weigh and denote that it was Christ that spoke through Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God.Melchizedek was not Christ, but he was the verbalise of God in the world, the representative of the Father. And all through the generations of the past, Christ has spoken Christ has led His people, and has been the weak of the world. 10 Another view is that Melchizedek was a type of Christ. The typological interpretation suggests that the priesthood of Melchizedek was a type of Christs priesthood. As Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God, so was Jesus. As Melchizedek was a king, so was Jesus. Both Melchizede k and Jesus were royal priests.In the persons of Melchizedek and Jesus the offices of priest and king were combined. For this paper we are going to focus on the view that Melchizedek was a type of Jesus. After The Order of Melchizedek The Lord has blaspheme and will not change his genius You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110,4). Unlike the ordinary priests, for whom it was possible to be of priestly descent and yet not very function as priests (cf. Deut 18,6-8 Lev 21,17-23), the priesthood of Jesus priest was sworn unto Him by God Himself to be after the order of Melchizedek.He was not of any priestly descent inas more than as he was not of the tribe of Levi, nor was he a priest in the sense of someone who was actually employed as a sanctuary attendant and was carrying out sanctuary duties on a periodic basis. However, his priesthood was more permanent and enduring than that of any other priest, since whether or not he was functioning in the sanctuary a nd doing the job of priest, he was by definition a mediator between people and divinity fudge for the rest of his life. 11 Christ was a priest of God after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 1104 Hebrews 56,10 620 711,17).The word order (taxis) signifies an arrangement. In this connection, it means of similar arrangement, i. e. , the nature of, or just like Melchizedek. The meaning is this in some sense the kingly-priesthood of Jesus would be similar in nature to that of Melchizedek. Note the reference to Psalm 1104 above, and observe that Christ made the practise of this Psalm to Himself in Matthew 2243-4512 It was not that Melchizedek was without beget, without mother literally, or that he had no genealogical background.No, the right being conveyed was this. Whereas the Aaronic priesthood resulted from being a part of a family line, i. e. , the descendants of Aaron, Moses brother, the priesthood of Melchizedek was bestowed directly by God. And it was precisely in this manner tha t the Lord Jesus was appointed as our High Priest he did not acquire it by means of a physical lineage (cf. Hebrews 714). 13 In the Letter to the Hebrews, the author uses the lick of Melchizedek in his reflection on the salvation-historical significance of Jesus life.Although there are probably original elements to his use of Melchizedek, much of what he affirms about Melchizedek is parallel or similar to what is found in Jesus. The author uses the view that his readers had about Melchizedek for the purpose of proving the superiority of Jesus High Priesthood to that of Aaron and his descendents. His goal is to demonstrate that Christs death brings the Levitical sacrificial system to an end. The figure of Melchizedek sees the unification of king and high priest into one individual. These two offices were separated in the Mosaic powder compact and also later in the Davidic covenant.Moses led the people whereas Aaron his brother founded a high-priestly order later, when God swore to David that he would establish his dynasty forever, the high priesthood belonged to the family of Zadok, who was a priest (from the line of Aaron). Melchizedek, in the authors view, prefigures the unification of two offices in one person, which should come to pass in the last days. To be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek is to be both king and priest. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 0 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him. Abraham, the father of the Levites and the nation of Israel, paid tithes to Melchizedek and because of that, through Abraham, Levi also paid tithes to Melchizedek, so to speak. In doing so, not only was Melchizedek greater than Abraham, but greater than Levi and the priesthood that bore his name. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the law, what further need was there that another priest should burn up after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?The writer, having established the superiority of the priestly ministry of Melchizedek over the Levitical priesthood, now shows the superiority of the priestly ministry of Christ Jesus over both. Perfection, as we have seen in this paper, refers to salvation. Perfection is the New Testament sacrifice it is salvation through the sacrifice of Christ, and the completeness of His entire work for the believer. In addition if the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law could bring a person into salvation, reconciliation and access to God, whence there was no need for another priest to come after the order of Melchizedek.The fact that there was one who came after the order of Melchizedek proved the failure of the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law to provide a complete and comprehensive salvation that only Christ, our great High Priest, provides. It means that Christ was not a High Priest, as in Aaronic and the Levitica l order (according to the law of Moses). The High Priesthood of Jesus Christ is of a higher order Christ was and is a High Priest as Melchizedek and not as Aaron or Levi. Note the following 1. Melchizedeks correct as High Priest was not dependent on gillyflower either was Christs. (714). 2. Melchizedek was not in a succession of many priests neither is Christ. (73). 3. Melchizedeks priesthood was higher than and separate from the Levitical order so is Christs. (74-7). ? 4. Melchizedek was priest and king so is Christ (See Zech. 69-15). 5. Melchizedek received tribute from Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation this shows the superiority of Melchizedeks priesthood above the Levitical (which came out of the loins of Abraham). See Gen. 1418-20 with Heb. 7414. Chapter 3 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONTHIS CHAPTER DISCUSSES THE SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH. Summary The replacing of the old priesthood with the eternal priesthood of Christ also meant a replacement of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, which was required. All of this was set up, executed and revealed by God, for the purpose of convincing the Jews their old Levitical priesthood was now history. And it means that we have a High Priest and access to God For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.Who necessary not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people for this he did once, when he offered up himself. (Heb. 726-27). Wherefore, he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever lived to make intercession for them, (Heb. 725). Conclusion A advertent reading of Hebrews 7 provides a lens for understanding the rest of the letter. Christs priesthood, its efficacy and our response, is the main theme of the letter, and this is expounded carefully in chap. 7, via the v ehicle of Melchizedek.In the form of true Hebrew poetics, repetitions of references to Melchizedek lead the reader on a hermeneutical journey. However, also in good Hebrew form, what is left unsaid explicitly also colourize the reading and understanding and makes the possibilities for interpretation even richer. 15 Recommendations After a careful analysis of the juxtaposition position of the Melchizedeks priesthood and Priesthood of Christ, this paper proposes the following recommendation for further research In examining the priesthood of Christ, does grace have any antecedents?What has Christ to offer up for the perfection of His Priesthood in heaven? Does Christ Priesthood offer any entrust of salvation to the sinner? Bibliography BIRD, CHAD L. 2000. TYPOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION WITHIN THE OLD TESTAMENT MELCHIZEDEKIAN TYPOLOGY. CONCORDIA JOURNAL 26. Booij, Thijs. Psalm 110 linguistic rule in the midst of your foes Vetus testamentum 41, no. 4 October 1991. Broomall, Wick. 1960. Baker Dictionary of Theology. Everett F. Harrison, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Carl F. H. Henry, eds. magisterial Rapids, MI Baker. Bullinger, E. W. 1968. Figures of Speech utilise in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI Baker. Coleran, James E. The sacrifice of Melchisedech. Theological Studies 1, no. 1 February 1940. Danker, et al. , Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, gelt University of pelf, 2000. Dunnill John, Covenant and sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews. SNTS 75 Cambridge, CUP, 1992. Edwardson, C Bible facts concerning the Sanctuary and the Judgement, Maplewood Press. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. forthwith this Melchizedek (Heb 71). Catholic biblical Quarterly 25, no. 3,July 1963. Gane, Roy Altar Call Daidem, 1999. Kobelski, P J. The Melchizedek tradition. daybook of Biblical Literature 96, no. 4 December 1977. Lefler, Nathan. The Melchizedek traditions in the Letter to the Hebrews reading through the eyes of an invigorate Jewish-Christian author. Pro Ecclesia 16, no. 1,2007. Mariottini Claude, A Priest after the order of Melchizedek, Professor of Old Testament, Northern Baptist Seminary. Mason, Eric Farrel. Hebrews 73 and the relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus. Biblical Research 50 2005. Neyrey, Jerome H. Without beginning of days or end of life Hebrews 73 topos for a true deity. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53, no. 3 July 1991. Paul, M J. The order of Melchizedek Ps 1104 and Heb 73. Westminster Theological Journal 49, no. Spr 1987. Petuchowski, Jakob Josef. The arguable figure of Melchizedek. Hebrew Union College Annual 28, 1957. Review and Harold, Feb. 18, 1890. Rooke, D. W. , Kingship as Priesthood The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. JSOTSS 270 Sheffield 1998. Songer, Harold S. A superior priesthood Hebrews 414-727. Review & Expositor 82, no. 3 Sum 1985. Terry, M. S. 1890. Biblical Hermeneutics. New York, NY Eaton & Mains. Thompson, James W. Concep tual background and purpose of the Midrash in Hebrews 7. Novum testamentum 19, no. July 1977. Walter R. Roehrs, The Typological drug abuse of the Old Testament in the New Testament, Concordia Journal 10,1984 204-216 William J. Hassold, Rectilinear or Typological Interpretation of Messianic portent? Concordia Theological Monthly 38,1967. rabbit warren E. Berkley, http//www. bible. ca/ef/expository-Hebrews-7. htm Were, Louis F. The blotting out of sins 1 Paul, M J. The order of Melchizedek (Ps 1104 and Heb 73). Westminster Theological Journal 49, no. 1 (Spring 1987) 195-211. 2Raoul. Dederen, vol. 12, enchiridion of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, (electronic ed. Logos Library System Commentary recognition Series Hagerstown, MD Review and Herald make Association, 2001, c2000), 390. 3Bird, Chad L. 2000. Typological Interpretation Within the Old Testament Melchizedekian Typology Concordia Journal 26, no. 1 36-52. 4Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Matthew Henrys Concise Commentary, (Oak Harbor, WA Logos Research Systems, 1997), Heb 71. 5Dederen, Raoul, vol. 12, Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, (electronic ed. , Logos Library System Commentary Reference Series Hagerstown, MD Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2001, c2000), 390. 6 Bullinger, E.W. 1968. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI Baker. 7 Terry, M. S. 1890. Biblical Hermeneutics. New York, NY Eaton & Mains. 8 Broomall, Wick. 1960. Baker Dictionary of Theology. Everett F. Harrison, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Carl F. H. Henry, eds. Grand Rapids, MI Baker. 9 Mariottini Claude, A Priest after the order of Melchizedek, Professor of Old Testament, Northern Baptist Seminary. 10 Review and Harold, Feb. 18, 1890. 11 D. W. ROOKE, Kingship as Priesthood The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East.JSOTSS 270 Sheffield 1998. 12 Danker, et al. , Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,pic Chicago University of Chicago, 2000, 989. 13 D. W. ROOKE, Kingship as Priesthood The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. JSOTSS 270 Sheffield 1998. 14 Warren E. Berkley http//www. bible. ca/ef/expository-hebrews-7. htm 15 John Dunnill, Covenant and sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews. SNTS 75 Cambridge, CUP, 1992,