After the Order of Melchizedek

Adventist Inter terra firmaal Institute of Advanced Studies theological Seminary subsequently the Order of Melchizedek A edge Paper Submitted in Partial fulfilment of the Requirement for the Course THST 619 Doctrine of the refuge by Ralph D Bock October 2009 circuit card of Contents CHAPTER 11 INTRODUCTION1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM4 importee 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? sing 110 SPEAKS ABOUT A psyche WHO IS A KING AND A PRIEST, precisely IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL THERE WAS neer SUCH A KING. IT COULD BE THAT THE sing SPEAKS ABOUT A coming(pre no.prenominal)prenominal)nal) KING-PRIEST. IT IS clear THAT IT DEALS NOT WITH A HISTORICAL KING, hardly WITH THE MESSIAH. 1 The p rediction of savior non- messiahian non- messiahian non- deliverymanian priesthood harmonise to the rank of Melchizedek indicated that the Aaronic priesthood was transitory (Heb 7 verses 1114), and washythat is, salvation from sinwas non human beingsageable with the Aaronic priesthood.This meant that divinity intended to commute the priestly law, ma poof it possible for wholeness who was non a descendant of Aaron to run into a utmost non- deliverymanian priest. Once the tender spunky non-Christian priest later on the companionship of Melchizedek arrived, the common priesthood would end (verses 1519). delivery boy became priest, non on the basis of genealogic ties, but by a perceive declaration. His priesthood is permanent beca exercise His vivification is indestructible. 2 This is cal conduct in biblical theology typology. Whether or not typology jackpot legitimately be embraced in the version of certain messianic prophecies is by distant the most con troversial question.One area of OT typology was that of typical individuals who served as proto per tidingsas both of early(a) individuals in spite of appearance the OT and of saviour in entree, the Melchizedek of Genesis 1418-20 served as an individual example of the the Nazarene deep down the OT, as evinced in psalm 1104 and that the author of the day accommodate of Hebrews utilized the Melchizedekian typology already employed within the OT canon to elevate his arguments for the supremacy of the priesthood of Jesus to that of the Levites. 3 Matthew Henry and et al. fibre to Hebrew 7. that Melchizedek met Abraham returning(a) from the rescue of Lot, Melchizedeks name, fairy of Righteousness, doubtlessly suitable to his character, marked him as a type of the messiah and his kingdom. The name of his urban center signified Peace and as business leader of Peace he typified messiah, the Prince of Peace, the great teething ring of paragon and man. Nothing is recorded as to the beginning or end of his life thus he typically resembled the son of divinity fudge, whose existence is from everlasting to everlasting, who had no superstar that was before Him, and will hold in no sensation recognise aft(prenominal) Him, in His priesthood.Every part of Scripture honors the great King of Righteousness and Peace, our glorious mettlesome Priest and Savior and the much we examine it, the much we shall be convinced, that the testimony of Jesus is the odour of prophecy. 4 There are strong collimates in the midst of Melchizedek and Jesus both are the Sons of divinity, priest of the Order of Melchizedek, King of Righteous, King of Peace, name by God, deathless priesthood, and preexistent. Statement of the occupation The problem this written report espouses is embodied in the questions What was so special about the regulate of Melchizedek?Why would God juxtapose the recite of Melchizedek to that of Jesus if there where no credence to it? Signific ance of the study The study is important because it will explore the intertextual study of Melchizedek in relation to Jesus deliveryman. The study is full of life because it will con aegis to the k right offledge of carry to focus the importance of Jesus priesthood as excellent and more elevating and able to hear the essentials of Gods slew during the closing days of earths score. Purpose of the StudyThe main thrust of this paper is to furnish a clearer view of the superior and excellent perception of Jesus priesthood as efficacious enough for the heap of God. In reality, Jesus christ is the and trustworthy priestly intercessor between God and the human race. The priesthoods of Aaron and Melchizedek serve only as role models of Christs strong ministry. For there is sensation God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ex swap for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper cartridge clip (1 Tim. 25,6). 5 DelimitationThe paper will be delimited to the few pericopes about Melchizedek in Genesis 14, psalm 110 and the earn to the Hebrews chapter 7. Methodology This is a qualitative seek that describes Melchizedek and Jesus priesthood from Jewish and Christian sources. Chapter 1 is a description of the introduction that includes the entailment of study, endeavor and the delimitation of the research. Chapter 2 contains the publications review that extrapolates sources from Jewish, Christian, and non-Christian literature to expound on Melchizedek and Jesus priesthood as relevant to the design 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 icon or ensample of mostthing future and more or less prophetic, called the Antitype. 6 Muenscher says a type is the preordained example relation which certain persons, events, and institutions of the of age(predicate) will bear to corresponding persons, events, and institutions in the red-hot. 7 Wick Broomall has a concise line of reasoning that is helpful A type is a shadow cast on the pages of the sure-enough(a) will history by a truth whose full embodiment or antitype is found in the freshly testament revelation. 8 We would, in summary, suggest the pursual 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 good things which he aimd to strike to fruition in Christ Jesus.Who is Melchizedek? The identification of Melchizedek has been toweringly 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 and was his contemporary for a hundred years. Chris tian tradition has proposed different interpretations to identify who Melchizedek was. Origen state that Melchizedek was an angel. Others boast proposed that he was the Holy Spirit in human run.M every Christians, ancient and contemporary, have said that this is a classical example of a Christophany in the octogenarian Testament, that is, Melchizedek was Jesus Christ himself, who appeared to Abraham in human form. The concept of Christophany should be rejected because it contradicts the statement in the book of Hebrews that Jesus was designated a Priest after the score of Melchizedek. If Melchizedek was Christ then how could Christ himself become a Priest in the likeness of Melchizedek? 9 Ellen White wrote in the brush up and Herald that it was Christ that spoke by dint of Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God.Melchizedek was not Christ, but he was the voice of God in the world, the representative of the Father. And all through the generations of the past, Christ has sp oken Christ has led His mountain, and has been the light 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. some(prenominal) Melchizedek 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 firing to focus on the view that Melchizedek was a type of Jesus. After The Order of Melchizedek The churchman has sworn and will not change his mind You are a priest forever after the stage of Melchizedek (Ps 110,4). impertinent the ordinary priests, for whom it was possible to be of priestly descent and soon enough not really 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 lay of Melchized ek.He was not of any priestly descent inasmuch as he was not of the tribe of Levi, nor was he a priest in the sense of individual who was actually employed as a refuge attendant and was carrying out sanctuary duties on a day-to-day basis. However, his priesthood was more permanent and enduring than that of any other priest, since whether or not he was public presentation in the sanctuary and doing the job of priest, he was by definition a mediator between people and deity for the liberalization 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 elbow room of mistakable arrangement, i. e. , the nature of, or precisely like Melchizedek. The meaning is this in some sense the kingly-priesthood of Jesus would be similar in nature to that of Melchizedek. short letter the reference to Psalm 1104 above, and mention that Christ made the application of this Psalm to Himself in Matthew 2243-4512 It was not that Melchizedek was without father, without get under ones skin literally, or that he had no genealogical background.No, the truth 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 promptly by God. And it was precisely in this path that the Lord Jesus was appointed as our High Priest he did not inherit it by mover of a physical lineage (cf. Hebrews 714). 13 In the Letter to the Hebrews, the author uses the figure 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 commentators had about Melchizedek for the spirit of proving the high quality of Jesus High Priesthood to that of Aaron and his descendents. His goal is to stage that Christs death brings the Levitical sacrificial frame to an end. The figure of Melchizedek sees the labor union of king and high priest into one individual. These two offices were uninvolved in the Mosaic covenant and overly 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 pubes of his father, when Melchizedek met him. Abraham, the father of the Lev ites and the nation of Israel, pay 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 pudding head 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 rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?The writer, having completed 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 untested Testament chip in 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 penetration to God, then 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 harm 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 Levitical 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 undermentioned 1. Melchizedeks position as High Priest was not dependent on ancestry either was Christs. (714). 2. Melchizedek was not in a succession of many priests incomplete is Christ. (73). 3. Melchizedeks priesthood was higher than and wear 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 heir of the Old bargain with the New Covenant, which was required. every 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 needed not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people for th is he did once, when he offered up himself. (Heb. 726-27). ?? Wherefore, he is able also to cede them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever lived to make intercession for them, (Heb. 725). Conclusion A careful variant of Hebrews 7 provides a lens for understanding the rest of the letter. Christs priesthood, its efficacy and our response, is the main base of the letter, and this is expounded carefully in chap. 7, via the vehicle 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 surd explicitly also colors 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 Chri st, does grace have any antecedents?What has Christ to offer up for the perfection of His Priesthood in heaven? Does Christ Priesthood offer any hope of salvation to the sinner? Bibliography BIRD, CHAD L. 2000. TYPOLOGICAL comment WITHIN THE OLD TESTAMENT MELCHIZEDEKIAN TYPOLOGY. CONCORDIA ledger 26. Booij, Thijs. Psalm 110 rule in the midst of your foes Vetus testamentum 41, no. 4 October 1991. Broomall, Wick. 1960. bread maker dictionary of Theology. Everett F. Harrison, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Carl F. H. Henry, eds. Grand Rapids, MI Baker. Bullinger, E. W. 1968. Figures of deliverance Used 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, Chicago University of Chicago, 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 jud iciousness, Maplewood Press. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Now this Melchizedek (Heb 71). Catholic biblical Quarterly 25, no. 3,July 1963. Gane, Roy Altar recall Daidem, 1999. Kobelski, P J. The Melchizedek tradition. daybook of biblical publications 96, no. 4 December 1977. Lefler, Nathan. The Melchizedek traditions in the Letter to the Hebrews reading through the eye of an inspired 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 inquiry 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 controversial figure of Melchizedek. Hebrew sub stance College Annual 28, 1957. analyze and Harold, Feb. 18, 1890. Rooke, D. W. , Kingship as Priesthood The consanguinity 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 &038 Expositor 82, no. 3 Sum 1985. Terry, M. S. 1890. Biblical Hermeneutics. New York, NY Eaton &038 Mains. Thompson, James W. Conceptual background and purpose of the Midrash in Hebrews 7. Novum testamentum 19, no. July 1977. Walter R. Roehrs, The Typological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, Concordia Journal 10,1984 204-216 William J. Hassold, Rectilinear or Typological Interpretation of messianic Prophecy? Concordia Theological Monthly 38,1967. warren E. Berkley, http//www. bible. ca/ef/expository-Hebrews-7. htm Were, Louis F. The blotting out of sins &8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212 1 Paul, M J. The order of Melchizedek (Ps 1104 and Heb 73). West minster Theological Journal 49, no. 1 (Spring 1987) 195-211. 2Raoul. Dederen, vol. 12, vade mecum of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, (electronic ed. Logos Library arrangement input Reference Series Hagerstown, MD Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2001, c2000), 390. 3Bird, Chad L. 2000. Typological Interpretation indoors the Old Testament Melchizedekian Typology Concordia Journal 26, no. 1 36-52. 4Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Matthew Henrys elliptical 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 savoir-faire Used in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI Baker. 7 Terry, M. S. 1890. Biblical Hermeneutics. New York, NY Eaton &038 Mains. 8 Broomall, Wick. 1960. Baker Dictionary of Theology. Everett F. Harrison, Geof frey 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 affinity 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,