Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Melchizedek only in Hebrews?
#1
As far as I see the mentioning of Jesus as being ''Priest in the order of Melchizedek'' is only mentioned in the ''Epistle to the Hebrews'', right?

First of all there is a lot of things vague about who wrote it, so many people were mentioned, even in the King James Bible, who could be the writer. But let's say that Paul was the writer, we still don't know if Jesus ever claimed or said this, or if this is only theology of Paul himself?

Somewhere some things don't fit. If Jesus was such a priest, than he didn't have to keep Jewish things at all, or part of God's commandments. So I'm not sure what ''the writers'' point is overhere. Making Jesus less Jewish? there are a lot of options. But maybe somebody can explain?
Or explain where there is a paralell with such claims in the Christian Testaments, if Jesus ever meant this idea to get spread around.
To me it sounds weird somewhat.
Be well.
#2
One commentary offers this note concerning Melchizedek:

"This individual appears briefly in the Old Testament as a prophetic type of Christ. His name, "king of righteousness," and his title, "king of peace," both picture the ministry of Christ. By emphasizing the silence of the Old Testament passage (Genesis 14:18 ff.), the author establishes many of the parallels within the typology. Since there is no record of Melchizedek's parents or descendants, he serves as a picture of the priesthood of Christ that was promised in Psalm 110:4. Normally, genealogy was essential to a priest (cf. Ezra 2:62, Neh. 7:64). Melchizedek was without beginning or ending, due to silence. Christ is such, due to His divine and eternal nature. Melchizedek was "made like," or resembles, the Son of God in that he pictures Him in advance as a prophetic type of Christ.

"Both Aaron and Moses were chosen by God to serve as priests before the Law was given, and Jesus Christ was chosen after the Law was given. The fact that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah would have precluded this serving as a priest, except that the completion of the Mosaic Law meant the passing of the Levitical priesthood. The Law itself promised another priesthood after the "order of Melchizedek" which would permanently replace the temporary Levitical system (Psalm 110:4).

(The comment continues that...) the Aaronic priesthood was temporary, instituted under the Old Covenant, and involved daily sacrifices and yearly atonement. Melchizedek's priesthood is permanent, instituted under the New Covenant, and involves a one-time sacrifice and eternal atonement.

"Jesus is pictured as both the ultimate exception and the ultimate completion of God's promise to raise up an eternal priest (Ps. 110:4) who would offer the ultimate sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 9:11-15, 10:5-14)."
#3
I could fully agree with the commentary MAlan quoted, would nonetheless like to reply to another issue from Yetzirah's question.

(11-11-2013, 01:56 PM)Yetzirah Wrote: Somewhere some things don't fit. If Jesus was such a priest, than he didn't have to keep Jewish things at all, or part of God's commandments. So I'm not sure what ''the writers'' point is overhere. Making Jesus less Jewish? there are a lot of options. But maybe somebody can explain?
Or explain where there is a paralell with such claims in the Christian Testaments, if Jesus ever meant this idea to get spread around.
To me it sounds weird somewhat.
Be well.

We know that a big part of the Bible is pre-Abraham, pre-Jewish. The World existed and was destroyed long before Judaism existed. Judaism played a part in our Father's plan, a great part, but it is not the pivot of history or the pivot of understanding. That would be Y'shua. He is the measure of all things. Without Messiah there would have been no need for Judaism.
I think this is the writers point.

One could read more about Melchizedek in another pre-Jewish text; The Book of Enoch.
#4
(11-11-2013, 01:56 PM)Yetzirah Wrote: As far as I see the mentioning of Jesus as being ''Priest in the order of Melchizedek'' is only mentioned in the ''Epistle to the Hebrews'', right?

First of all there is a lot of things vague about who wrote it, so many people were mentioned, even in the King James Bible, who could be the writer. But let's say that Paul was the writer, we still don't know if Jesus ever claimed or said this, or if this is only theology of Paul himself?

Somewhere some things don't fit. If Jesus was such a priest, than he didn't have to keep Jewish things at all, or part of God's commandments. So I'm not sure what ''the writers'' point is overhere. Making Jesus less Jewish? there are a lot of options. But maybe somebody can explain?
Or explain where there is a paralell with such claims in the Christian Testaments, if Jesus ever meant this idea to get spread around.
To me it sounds weird somewhat.
Be well.
The word in the Bible come from God. We know in the NT most bibles are corrupted. That's why true Christians use KJV. Or NKJV,


Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times.

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
#5
Thank you all for the replies so far. I should read the book of Enoch again, it's too long ago I did read it.

Quote:This individual appears briefly in the Old Testament as a prophetic type of Christ
This part of ''type of Christ'' I can understand.
But the difficulty of Jesus as a Christ vs. Melhizedek. Is that about Jesus a lot of things are claimed:
He is King of the Jews,
At first didn't want to talk to the women who believed in him, and called her dog, because she was not Jewish.
He's the son of God, and God Himself.
Not from a tribe because he had no father, but from Yehudah and a Priest?
Indeed there were more types of Annointed(Christs) people though. And God doesn't have to be Jewish, but a King of the Jews should.

The silence about Melchizedek ancestry does not proof that he didn't have them.
Psalm 110:4 is interesting though. :-)
But I don't see where Melchizedek's priesthood would only have a 1-time deal atonement. Another question is, if we have to hold by Melchizedeks order, is it commanded to Jews to do so?
It says we will be priests in that order, well after the 1 time deal priesthood becomes boring then? Or is it a Catholic lookalike thing, because they claim to have the Melchizedek kind of priesthood.

But I have to read up upon the issue.

A.Bird
Your approach seems nice here. But I'm not sure then still why Jesus had to be so Jewish, and following certain (or all) commandments. If I take all the claims about his Jewishness and unJewishness together there are different conflicts.
But thanks, I will read more about it.
#6
(11-13-2013, 03:33 PM)Yetzirah Wrote: A.Bird
Your approach seems nice here. But I'm not sure then still why Jesus had to be so Jewish, and following certain (or all) commandments. If I take all the claims about his Jewishness and unJewishness together there are different conflicts.
But thanks, I will read more about it.

Judaism was the vehicle that brought Messiah, that is the greatness of Judaism, therein we can take pride.
Ridiculous would be if we admire the vehicle instead of its cause.

It should not be a new thing for a Jew to know that God is great and man is merely what God allows him to be.
It is perverse to think that we are the cause, no, we are merely the means.

Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?

Furthermore you should know that, that Jew; Y'shua, the one who the nations acclaim to be Messiah, or Christ as they call Him, is not in that old flesh anymore.
He has died for all, therefore all have died; and He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised. From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.

I know this is difficult to understand and actually one will never completely grasp it unless you die, which you must, because if a grain of wheat falls into the earth and does not die, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
Or in other words: Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God.
#7
Hi A.Bird.

Well Melhizedek was not Jewish. That was part of the point. And so it was maybe not necessary for Judaism to bring the Messiah according to the Melchizedek line.

Besides that, it was also the Bible as a vehicle to bring Messiah. We don't throw away the Bible because a Messiah came. Nor says God that it is because out of pride, or that pride should be in our dictionary, pride it is partly the opposite of being biblical. So I don't get why you use it.
Indeed it is for a Jew (and all) to know that God is great and man is merely what God allows him to be. But it is also very biblicall that we should ourselves strive to make the best out of it, to work with our talents etc. the word ''merely'' is mainly used by Christians. While in the Christian Testament it also hints that the person who doesn't use his talent, will get nothing.

That Jesus is not here in the flesh anymore is logical. And has nothing to do much with Melchizedek. Except maybe that there were more in the old days who didn't die etc.
We more often saw The Kingdom of God, what is eternal. For that we need transformation sometimes. Indeed Jews were more often send to die by Christians because of the theology that we were not reborn etc. But that is a Christian theology, not specifically a biblicall one. And with Bible we are only allowed to accept the Torahs that The Almighty gave, we were not allowed to add to it. (nor Jesus could suddenly exclude those who did not come to him).
Melchizedek might have been more righteous then Jesus in this aspect.
But we have to reed and accept eachother more.
We can forgive the Christian Nazi's theology behind it, if they ask for forgiveness, and better their ways. But we can't forgive the theology of killing others for a holy truth, while The Almighty did not order it, nor the converting of Jews in order to break all the vessels.
Jews are not on earth to admire themselves, I don't know where you get that from. Plus with The Almighty the cause is not always more important then the vehicle. A Messiah is also only a vehicle to lead people to The Almighty. The Almighty is the only one allowed to be worshipped, but that does not mean that the Messiah as a vehicle is not important or been done away with.
#8
(11-16-2013, 11:09 AM)Yetzirah Wrote: Hi A.Bird.

Well Melhizedek was not Jewish. That was part of the point. And so it was maybe not necessary for Judaism to bring the Messiah according to the Melchizedek line.

Besides that, it was also the Bible as a vehicle to bring Messiah. We don't throw away the Bible because a Messiah came. Nor says God that it is because out of pride, or that pride should be in our dictionary, pride it is partly the opposite of being biblical. So I don't get why you use it.
Indeed it is for a Jew (and all) to know that God is great and man is merely what God allows him to be. But it is also very biblicall that we should ourselves strive to make the best out of it, to work with our talents etc. the word ''merely'' is mainly used by Christians. While in the Christian Testament it also hints that the person who doesn't use his talent, will get nothing.

That Jesus is not here in the flesh anymore is logical. And has nothing to do much with Melchizedek. Except maybe that there were more in the old days who didn't die etc.
We more often saw The Kingdom of God, what is eternal. For that we need transformation sometimes. Indeed Jews were more often send to die by Christians because of the theology that we were not reborn etc. But that is a Christian theology, not specifically a biblicall one. And with Bible we are only allowed to accept the Torahs that The Almighty gave, we were not allowed to add to it. (nor Jesus could suddenly exclude those who did not come to him).
Melchizedek might have been more righteous then Jesus in this aspect.
But we have to reed and accept eachother more.
We can forgive the Christian Nazi's theology behind it, if they ask for forgiveness, and better their ways. But we can't forgive the theology of killing others for a holy truth, while The Almighty did not order it, nor the converting of Jews in order to break all the vessels.
Jews are not on earth to admire themselves, I don't know where you get that from. Plus with The Almighty the cause is not always more important then the vehicle. A Messiah is also only a vehicle to lead people to The Almighty. The Almighty is the only one allowed to be worshipped, but that does not mean that the Messiah as a vehicle is not important or been done away with.

I agree with you that "Jews are not on earth to admire themselves...".
I've understood that much of what you've said, I hope.
I am, however, a little bit reluctant to reply on anything else because it's not so clear what you want to say, it might be a language issue like you've said before or maybe something else; you seem to be all over the place.
#9
Another observation to consider is Melchizedek blesses Abraham (Gen. 14:19). Inside Abraham's loins is Levi who represents the Levitical priesthood. And as such, "he who blesses is greater than he who is being blessed". Thus, the priesthood in order of Melchizedek is the greater authority than the Levitical priesthood. And the Hebrew author reiterates what Psalm 110:4 says: Christ is our High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, an order of the highest authority we know of in scripture.
#10
Hi, welcome OrderMySteps,

I'm not sure how I should take the consideration. Because it is not written as far as I understand that Abraham is greater because he blesses people.
I think it are just 2 different priesthoods. Nor Melchizedek, nor Yithro try to interfear with the Jewish priesthood, and they had no authority over them. Yithro also had no authority over Moses.

Even If I will follow your reasoning, then Jesus came later than Levi, and should be blessed by the Sanhedrin. Jesus came later. Or John The Baptist who baptised Jesus is also not greater then Jesus in your opinion I guess.
Besides that Melchizedek came earlier then Jesus. It is written that Jesus is in his order, not that he is Melchizedek, nor that he is more important then Melchizedek, etc.
Plus Jesus is Jewish, and can't just step into another priesthood whenever he likes. He got his tasks and commandments as a Jew.

Psalm 110:4 does not use any word connected to Christ, Yeshua or Messiah. So I don't get how translators come up with the translation that you use.

Be well


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)