The Melchizedek Priesthood

[Mudcat]

I've read through Hebrews and the OT accounts of Melchizedek, again. I don't really see anything to support the notion that anyone other than Christ can be a Mechizedek priest. I think the Bible says all Christians have been placed in a royal priesthood but it doesn't specify or really indicate this priesthood is Melchizedek However, I may be interpreting Scripture differently than LDS do with this. I realize the CoJCoLDS have documentation on this from the LDS canon, but is it reinforced in the Bible?What do you think? Any specifics would be good. Thanks.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[MormonMason]

I've read through Hebrews and the OT accounts of Melchizedek, again. I don't really see anything to support the notion that anyone other than Christ can be a Mechizedek priest. I think the Bible says all Christians have been placed in a royal priesthood but it doesn't specify or really indicate this priesthood is Melchizedek However, I may be interpreting Scripture differently than LDS do with this. I realize the CoJCoLDS have documentation on this from the LDS canon, but is it reinforced in the Bible?What do you think? Any specifics would be good. Thanks.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

What about Melchizedek? Or, are you one of those who believes in the Melchizedek-God Theory? And, how many kinds of priesthood exist in the Bible? So far as I am aware, there were only two. There are those said to be priests in the Bible who did not hold and were at that time ineligible for the Aaronic Priesthood. What priesthood would they have held? Aside from this, could not the Melchizedek Priesthood be said to be a royal priesthood, being held by kings such as Melchizedek or Jesus Christ, as well as those who would be kings and priests through Christ?

[Avatar4321]

I've read through Hebrews and the OT accounts of Melchizedek, again. I don't really see anything to support the notion that anyone other than Christ can be a Mechizedek priest. I think the Bible says all Christians have been placed in a royal priesthood but it doesn't specify or really indicate this priesthood is Melchizedek However, I may be interpreting Scripture differently than LDS do with this. I realize the CoJCoLDS have documentation on this from the LDS canon, but is it reinforced in the Bible?What do you think?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Of course not, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone but Christ ever held the Melchezidek Priesthood.

Oh wait, yes there is: Melchezidek held it. In fact, Paul was quite clear that there is an entire order of men who hold the Melchezidek Priesthood.

Now tell me something, why does it matter? Even if the Bible was a page long merely stating that Jesus Christ lived, the Church could continue to operate because God can reveal this priesthood again.

Tell me something, Malichi was pretty clear that Elijah would come and reveal the Priesthood before the Second coming. Elijah was not an Israelite. He could not have held the Aaronic Priesthood. What Priesthood did he have to reveal?

[Deborah]

Genesis 14:18 "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God"

[Ron Beron]

I've read through Hebrews and the OT accounts of Melchizedek, again. I don't really see anything to support the notion that anyone other than Christ can be a Mechizedek priest. I think the Bible says all Christians have been placed in a royal priesthood but it doesn't specify or really indicate this priesthood is Melchizedek However, I may be interpreting Scripture differently than LDS do with this. I realize the CoJCoLDS have documentation on this from the LDS canon, but is it reinforced in the Bible?What do you think? Any specifics would be good. Thanks.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Some believed that it was a hereditary title and not only by Jesus, but his brother, James also held it. In the time of Jesus there was such an order of Melchizedek called the Zadokhim or "Righteous Ones".

Jesus is referred to in Acts as the suffering Zaddik which finds similiarity in Isaiah 53. According to some the concept of Zaddik "is not only to the concept of 'Righteousness' as being the primary basis of legitimacy in the succession, but also to the personality of the righteous priest/king Jesus, in whose name the new order is established."

Of equal importance is the fact that the Zadokite priesthood is hereditary passing down from Jesus to James who officiated within the church with said authority. Also memorable is the fact that James could officiate within the temple, wearing the breastplate and even entering the holy of holies.

The Melchizedek order existed far earlier where Melchizedek was probably a Canaanite king of pre-Israelite Jerusalem. He is mentioned in two OT passages. In Gen. 14:18-20 which is well known and in Ps. 110:4 he is the representative priest in which the Davidic line is established. The "son of David" establishes righteousness. As the the perfect priest the Zadok dictates the worship of Israel and stands as mediator between God and Israel. This priesthood is not finite, but infinite and transcends the Aaronic priesthood. The echoes of this is seen in Hebrews.

A good argument on this subject, although lengthly, is well worth reading.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...+james+eisenman

[urroner]

Margaret Barker, a Methodist minister said this (Bolding is mine):

Jesus was described and remembered as a great high priest (Heb.4.14), the Melchizedek raised up by the power of an indestructible life (Heb.7.16) who had offered the final atonement sacrifice to fulfil and supersede the temple rites (Heb.9.1-14). Melchizedekâ??s priesthood was more ancient than Aaronâ??s, and the Letter to the Hebrews argues that the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Aaronic (Heb.7.11-19). Now Aaron was the brother of Moses, but Melchizedek was priest in Jerusalem in the time of Abraham. Melchizedek represented the older faith. The Jerusalem kings had been priests in the manner of Melchizedek (Ps.110), but there had been no place for an anointed king, a Messiah, in the religion of Moses. Deuteronomy set strict limits on the role and powers of the king (Deut.17.14-20), but these rules had been elaborated with the wisdom of hindsight, and inserted after the demise of the monarchy. Paul knew where the roots of Christianity lay; he argued that Christianity looked to the faith of Abraham (and by implication Melchizedek), and so was rooted earlier than the Law given to Moses (e.g. Rom.4).

[Anijen]

The New Testament talks of Christ ordaining his apostles this was the Melchizedek priesthood too.

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you." (John 15:16)

FAIR has a nice article here

[Hammer]

I've read through Hebrews and the OT accounts of Melchizedek, again. I don't really see anything to support the notion that anyone other than Christ can be a Mechizedek priest. I think the Bible says all Christians have been placed in a royal priesthood but it doesn't specify or really indicate this priesthood is Melchizedek However, I may be interpreting Scripture differently than LDS do with this. I realize the CoJCoLDS have documentation on this from the LDS canon, but is it reinforced in the Bible?What do you think? Any specifics would be good. Thanks.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Thus the need to restore the plain and very precious truth lost.

But just for fun here is a scripture:

Gen. 14: 18

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Ps. 110: 4

4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

[Mudcat]

Ron B., Urroner, Anijen,

Thanks for links...its a lotta info...but Im gonna try to look at all of it.

Mud

[jadams_4242]

I've read through Hebrews and the OT accounts of Melchizedek, again. I don't really see anything to support the notion that anyone other than Christ can be a Mechizedek priest. I think the Bible says all Christians have been placed in a royal priesthood but it doesn't specify or really indicate this priesthood is Melchizedek However, I may be interpreting Scripture differently than LDS do with this. I realize the CoJCoLDS have documentation on this from the LDS canon, but is it reinforced in the Bible?What do you think? Any specifics would be good. Thanks.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Hebrew 5-1...For every "HIGH PREIST" taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.

{high preists are melchesidec}

[Mudcat]

What about Melchizedek? Or, are you one of those who believes in the Melchizedek-God Theory? And, how many kinds of priesthood exist in the Bible? So far as I am aware, there were only two. There are those said to be priests in the Bible who did not hold and were at that time ineligible for the Aaronic Priesthood. What priesthood would they have held? Aside from this, could not the Melchizedek Priesthood be said to be a royal priesthood, being held by kings such as Melchizedek or Jesus Christ, as well as those who would be kings and priests through Christ?

The jury is still out on what I think specifically. I agree that it seems only two priesthoods are mentioned, unless this royal priesthood of believers is something else. And no Im not one of those who support a theophany that Christ was Melc. in the past (that doesn't make sense). Just trying to get a better scope on what LDS think about this.

[Mudcat]

Of course not, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone but Christ ever held the Melchezidek Priesthood.

Oh wait, yes there is: Melchezidek held it. In fact, Paul was quite clear that there is an entire order of men who hold the Melchezidek Priesthood.

Im not sure Paul was crystal clear about an entire order of men that were of this priesthood. He may have been referring to the Levitacal priests. However, Im not prepared to bringforth argument or defend the topic. Im merely on a fact finding mission.

Now tell me something, why does it matter? Even if the Bible was a page long merely stating that Jesus Christ lived, the Church could continue to operate because God can reveal this priesthood again.

It may not matter at all. But if it does matter, I'd like a clearer understanding of it.

Tell me something, Malichi was pretty clear that Elijah would come and reveal the Priesthood before the Second coming. Elijah was not an Israelite. He could not have held the Aaronic Priesthood. What Priesthood did he have to reveal?

Ok..on this, I went back and looked at Malachi 4 and Im not seeing that a priesthood restoration in inferred. It says hes coming back before the 2nd coming as a prophet to set fathers against sons...etc..

[grego]

It says hes coming back before the 2nd coming as a prophet to set fathers against sons...etc..

LDS might read that as "fathers towards sons" and "sons towards fathers", as in a good family thing (another thread topic, though).

[moriancamur]

I've read through Hebrews and the OT accounts of Melchizedek, again. I don't really see anything to support the notion that anyone other than Christ can be a Mechizedek priest. I think the Bible says all Christians have been placed in a royal priesthood but it doesn't specify or really indicate this priesthood is Melchizedek However, I may be interpreting Scripture differently than LDS do with this. I realize the CoJCoLDS have documentation on this from the LDS canon, but is it reinforced in the Bible?What do you think? Any specifics would be good. Thanks.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

No, the bible does not re-enforce this doctrine.

Under the Mosaic law only the Levites officiated in the temple. Of that tribe the descendents of Aaron were singled out to officiate in higher ordinances. One per year was called as High Priest. John the Baptists dad was one and was officiating in the Holy of Holies at the time the angel visited him. Caiaphas (Jn11:49) was in this position when he thus prophesied. These High Priests of the "Aaronic priesthood", officiated in the atonement sacrifice and was the only one allowed into the Holy of Holies to sprinkle blood for the sins of Israel. Note only one.

Melchizedek was a priest of note to whom the Father Abraham paid tithes. Abraham, with whom God made covenants occupies a pre-eminent position in the history of Israel. Yet despite his position of great honour as Father of this nation of Israel and the chosen, he paid tithes to a higher person named Melchizedek. (It is conjectured this man may have been Shem, who died during Abrahams lifetime and was 10 generations before him and his ancestor).

Paul in Hebrews (esp. ch 7) is showing how all those sacrifices by all those High Priests throughout Israels history never actually saved anyone. They were types of Christ. He, as our High Priest with power to save is far greater in priesthood than those previously. He is only ONE, and his offering ONCE was sufficient to atone for all our sins. The fulfilment of the old testament prophecy that one after the order of Melchizedek would come, refers to One who would be of higher authority than any previous or present priesthood, just as Melchizedek was of higher authority than even Abraham. Thus Paul is not in any way suggesting that there would be others of the order, just the contrary, he is saying there is only One. The One who made the infinite atonement. We have this High Priest....One Jesus Christ. Thus the significance of the veil of the temple being rent, showing all was now fulfilled. No more such sacrifices were needed. The kingdom of God is now come and is not to be found in any place, it is within those who have accepted this One great sacrifice (Luke 17:21)

[Mudcat]

LDS might read that as "fathers towards sons" and "sons towards fathers", as in a good family thing (another thread topic, though).

Grego,

Sorry, you were right about that. I must have picked up King Bubba Version by mistake, or read to fast.

Mudcat

[MormonMason]

The jury is still out on what I think specifically. I agree that it seems only two priesthoods are mentioned, unless this royal priesthood of believers is something else. And no Im not one of those who support a theophany that Christ was Melc. in the past (that doesn't make sense). Just trying to get a better scope on what LDS think about this.

But, why does the royal priesthood have to be something else, particularly if the LDS view about this is correct? The Bible only names two priesthoods, namely, Melchizedek and Aaronic. The same goes for modern revelation. That is good enough for me.

Glad to see that you are not a believer in the Melchizedek-God Theory. You are right that it makes little sense. Of course, this theory was created to help explain how Christ could be the only one while still having Melchizedek also being one. Creation of this theory was made to preserve a protestant teaching while trying to remove an apparent contradition to that teaching.

However, the fact that both Christ and Melchizedek held it creates a problem for the evangelical interpretation of Hebrews 7 that Christ is the only Melchizedek Priest, now doesn't it? And, if it does create such a problem and does allow for more than one, it can also allow for much more than one just as easily.

In point of fact, the Greek word underlying the word "order" in the passage indicates a "fixed succession."

[Mudcat]

But, why does the royal priesthood have to be something else, particularly if the LDS view about this is correct? The Bible only names two priesthoods, namely, Melchizedek and Aaronic. The same goes for modern revelation. That is good enough for me.

Im not saying it has to be. I havent studied and prayed about this is one aspect of theology as much as I should. I guess Im in the research phase.

However, the fact that both Christ and Melchizedek held it creates a problem for the evangelical interpretation of Hebrews 7 that Christ is the only Melchizedek Priest, now doesn't it? And, if it does create such a problem and does allow for more than one, it can also allow for much more than one just as easily.

In point of fact, the Greek word underlying the word "order" in the passage indicates a "fixed succession."

Yeah, you've got a point, but I don't think (if that was the case) Christ couldn't be succeded since he is eternal. He would always be the chief high priest so to speak. I guess if you wanted to say this royal priesthood was that of Melc., maybeso (I dunno yet). But I think there is something different between JC and that difference would be authority.

[grego]

Yeah, you've got a point, but I don't think (if that was the case) Christ couldn't be succeded since he is eternal. He would always be the chief high priest so to speak. I guess if you wanted to say this royal priesthood was that of Melc., maybeso (I dunno yet). But I think there is something different between JC and that difference would be authority.

Hope this helps to get an understanding of LDS POV:

LDS BIBLE DICTIONARY: Melchizedek Priesthood

The higher or greater priesthood, as compared with the lesser or Aaronic priesthood. The reason for the name is given in D&C 107: 1-3. The Melchizedek Priesthood is mentioned in Ps. 110: 4; Heb. 2: 17-18; Heb. 3: 1; Heb. 5: 6, 10; Heb. 6: 20; Heb. 7: 11, 15, 17, 21; but the Bible does not give many particulars concerning the functions of that priesthood, except that Christ was a high priest after that order. From latter-day revelation we learn that within the Melchizedek Priesthood are the offices of elder, seventy, high priest, patriarch, apostle, and president (D&C 107), and that this priesthood must be present and functional whenever the kingdom of God is upon the earth in its fulness.

The Melchizedek Priesthood was first made known to Adam, and the patriarchs and prophets in every dispensation had this authority (D&C 84: 6-17; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 180-81.) When the children of Israel failed to live up to the privileges and covenants of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Lord took away the higher law and gave them a lesser priesthood and a lesser law. These were called the Aaronic Priesthood and the law of Moses. The Aaronic Priesthood is not a different priesthood; rather, it is the lesser portion of the priesthood, dealing with the introductory ordinances and the preparatory commandments (D&C 84: 18-28). When Jesus came, he restored the Melchizedek Priesthood to the Jews and began to build up the Church among them. However, it was lost again by apostasy, and was taken from the earth.

The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored to the earth in these last days by the ministry of Peter, James, and John, who literally came to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the spring of 1829 and conferred this power and authority upon them (D&C 27: 12-13). Later, Moses, Elias, and Elijah gave them further keys by which these brethren could use the Melchizedek Priesthood in additional ways (D&C 110). The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the president of the high or Melchizedek priesthood, and by virtue of this position, he holds all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on the earth. This office or calling is held by only one man at a time, and he is the only person on the earth at that time in whom all the powers and keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood are functional.

Christ is the great high priest, and it was originally called after him; its name was later changed to "Melchizedek priesthood" to avoid the frequent use of its original name, and also since Melchizedek was a great example of what it meant to be a high priest in that priesthood.

JS, working on the Bible translation, gave differing versions of many Melchizedek verses in Genesis and Hebrews.

[MormonMason]

...

Yeah, you've got a point, but I don't think (if that was the case) Christ couldn't be succeded since he is eternal. He would always be the chief high priest so to speak. I guess if you wanted to say this royal priesthood was that of Melc., maybeso (I dunno yet). But I think there is something different between JC and that difference would be authority.

Here is the thing about that passage in Hebrews 7, which is so very often translated incorrectly. The passage refers rather to the office of High Priest in its functions. Another problem is that people assign to the Greek word aparabatos an active sense that nowhere appears in any document in which it is used; and it has been used far more often than the lone instance that occurs in the New Testament. The only way it could mean that it indicates something "not transferable" is if it holds an active sense.

But, the evidence of usage shows that it did not appear to have such an active sense as used to be claimed for it in the old literature before the papyri containing the word were found. The standard Greek-English Lexica point out this little fact that continues to be ignored in the evangelical literature for the most part.

But, to return to the point I made about the specific office, there is one thing in which Christ cannot be succeeded, and that is the sacrifice which he made for sins, such as the High Priests (Aaronic) of Israel did. However, that did not change the fact that there were others who held the same priesthood. They just were not the functioning High Priest for the years in which they did not serve. But, there still were a number of others who held the Aaronic Priesthood.

It is the same with the Melchizedek Priesthood. There is only one who holds a specific responsiblity as part of his office to offer sacrifices for sin, and that is Christ. However, that does not preclude the existence of others who hold the same priesthood and office. They just do not function in the same capacity as does Christ, who sacrificed himself once for sin.

That is how I see the meanings of the passage in context.

[SteubieU]

I find this all very interesting.

According to the Catholic Church, ordained priests are ordained into the order of Melchizedek through Jesus Christ.

[Doctor Steuss]

I find this all very interesting.

According to the Catholic Church, ordained priests are ordained into the order of Melchizedek through Jesus Christ.

I never knew this.

Groovy. (BTW, it's good to see you posting again).