Who In The Old Testament Held The Melchizedec Priesthood?

[ebeddoulos]

I like doing word studies. Never having laid claim to being conversant with the Biblical languages, I armed myself with Strongâ??s Concordance (tips his hat to maklelan with a smile), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Tanakh and a Bible Dictionary. I found 750 instances in 653 verses where the Hebrew כּהן (kôhên) is translated as priest, be it singular (2 Chronicles 24:2), plural (2 Chronicles 24:5) or possessive (2 Chronicles 24:11). I was looking for instances where a non-Levitical Israelite is called a priest (kôhên). I found the following and in each case the individual referenced is a priest (kôhên) but is not a Levite.

Melchizedek:

"And Mel-chiz'edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High." (Genesis 14:18)

The Bible provides very little information about this very important king and priest of God.

â??Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.â? (Hebrews 7:3)

According to The New Ungerâ??s Bible Dictionary his priesthood genealogy was not recorded in the register of the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood.

â??Without father,â? etc. (Heb. 7:3), refers to priestly genealogies. Melchizedek is not found on the register of the only line of legitimate priests; his fatherâ??s name is not recorded, nor his motherâ??s; no evidence points out his line of decent from Aaron. It is not affirmed that he had no father or that he was not born at any time or died on any day; but these facts were nowhere found on the register of the Levitical priesthood.â? (Merrill F. Unger, R.K. Harrison, ed., â??The New Ungerâ??s Bible Dictionaryâ?, Chicago: Moody Press, [1985], pg.832)

King David and Davidâ??s sons:

â??The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, â??You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchiz'edek.â??â? (Psalms 110:4 - RSV)

â??and Benai'ah the son of Jehoi'ada was over the Cher'ethites and the Pel'ethites; and David's sons were priests.â? (2 Samuel 8:18 - RSV)

David and his sons were of the tribe of Judah:

â??Then Judah acknowledged them and said, â??She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.â?? And he did not lie with her again. When the time of her delivery came, there were twins in her womb. And when she was in labor, one put out a hand; and the midwife took and bound on his hand a scarlet thread, saying, â??This came out first.â?? But as he drew back his hand, behold, his brother came out; and she said, â??What a breach you have made for yourself!â?? Therefore his name was called Perez.â? (Genesis 38:26-29 - RSV)

â??And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, â??A son has been born to Na'omi.â?? They named him Obed; he was the father of Jesse, the father of David. Now these are the descendants of Perez: Perez was the father of Hezron, Hezron of Ram, Ram of Ammin'adab, Ammin'adab of Nahshon, Nahshon of Salmon, Salmon of Bo'az, Bo'az of Obed, Obed of Jesse, and Jesse of David..â? (Ruth 4:16-22 - RSV)

Zabud:

â??Azari'ah the son of Nathan was over the officers; Zabud the son of Nathan was priest and king's friendâ? (1 Kings 4:5 - RSV)

We know from the second chapter of First Chronicles which gives the genealogy of Judah that Zabud was of the tribe of Judah and the great-grandson of Jarha, an Egyptian slave:

â??Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters; but Sheshan had an Egyptian slave, whose name was Jarha. So Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to Jarha his slave; and she bore him Attai. Attai was the father of Nathan and Nathan of Zabad.â? (1 Chronicles 2:34-36 - RSV)

Ira:

â??and Ira the Ja'irite was also David's priest.â? (2 Samuel 20:26 - RSV)

It is likely that Ira, like Zabud above, was from the tribe of Judah:

â??and Segub was the father of Ja'ir, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead.â? (1 Chronicles 2:22 - RSV)

Now my question is this: In the Old Testament, could the Melchizedec Priesthood be reserved for those individuals found worthy to be priests but were not of Levitical descent? Or is there another explanation for these non-Levitical priests, given that many believe that only Levites held the priesthood until Christ came.

[Flyonthewall]

I don't try to put myself on the same academic level as yourself, but to my simple mind, the Aaronic priesthood was only to officiate in the temporal ordinances, while the Melchizedek priesthood is to administer the spiritual.

Since the Law of Moses was only about the temporal, then the Aaronic priesthood was the more widely known and used.

Prophets, would have the Melchizedek priesthood as they dealt with the spiritual, and had the keys to lead the church/religion, in whatever form it was in those days.

Melchizedek pre-dated Aaron, and the 12 tribes so I'm not sure how he would have fit into the registry of the Aaronic priesthood. Wasn't the Aaronic priesthood tailored to fit the Law of Moses anyway, a scaled back version of the whole priesthood?

[Billy]

I was looking for instances where a non-Levitical Israelite is called a priest (k

[kryoung1983]

"What is this similitude? Could it be given to us in Hebrews 7:3 speaking of Melchezedek

Hebrews 7:3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Additional Note

Similitude definition

1 a: counterpart , double b: a visible likeness : image

2: an imaginative comparison : simile

3 a: correspondence in kind or quality b: a point of comparison

If the Melchezedek Priesthood is the Melchezedek Priesthood then it should not be called a similitude which indicates that it is similar or like but not the same."

You just proved our point. before Melchizedek it was named the priesthood after the holy order of the Son of God, and was in similitude of the only begotten of the father. The Melchizedek is in similitude of the Son of God.

[Billy]

. . .before Melchizedek it was named the priesthood after the holy order of the Son of God. . .

Where does it say that prior to Melchizedek the priesthood was called "the holy order of the Son of God"?

What Priesthood did Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob have? Can you give me Biblical references for each?

[kryoung1983]

Where does it say that prior to Melchizedek the priesthood was called "the holy order of the Son of God"?

What Priesthood did Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob have? Can you give me Biblical references for each?

I was paraphrasing extra biblical scripture.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Where does it say that prior to Melchizedek the priesthood was called "the holy order of the Son of God"?

What Priesthood did Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob have? Can you give me Biblical references for each?

What do you suppose the priesthood was called before Melchizedek?

[LDSMusic483]

deleted

[Billy]

What do you suppose the priesthood was called before Melchizedek?

Is it the "the holy order of the Son of God. . ."?

[Cold Steel]

Melchizedek is not found on the register of the only line of legitimate priests; his fatherâ??s name is not recorded, nor his motherâ??s; no evidence points out his line of decent from Aaron.

That's most likely because he was Shem, and his father was Noah. He shows up just as Shem disappears. He occupies a place of importance, yet nothing is known of him before he appears. Most scholars believe "Melchizedek" was a name title and not a proper name. So the priesthood itself would have come through the fathers, even to Noah, who then passed in on to Shem/Melchizedek.

This could easily be another thread, but I thought it made sense to mention it here.

[Billy]

That's most likely because he was Shem, and his father was Noah. He shows up just as Shem disappears. He occupies a place of importance, yet nothing is known of him before he appears. Most scholars believe "Melchizedek" was a name title and not a proper name. So the priesthood itself would have come through the fathers, even to Noah, who then passed in on to Shem/Melchizedek.

It seems like if Melchizedek was Shem, he would of been really old if he shows up at the same time as Abram

Looking at the genealogy in Genesis 11

Noah

Shem

Arphaxad

Shelah

Eber

Peleg

Reu

Serug

Nahor

Terah

Abram

[sean0scott]

Not to be redundant, but I cracked open this can of worms in the Samuel 8:18 thread and figured I'd chirp for it here too. Jethro by way of the covenant people, the Midianites, was a priest.

[bert10]

Hi

Melchizedek means ...."My King is Righteousness." This was the New Name given to Shem the Son of Noah who founded the City of Salem. The City of Salem means....city of Peace. Melchisedek was at first Prince of the city of Peace which was another of His title. Also Abraham went to see Melchisedek for a reason. In Chapter 11 Hebrews....we are revealed that Abraham searched for a city whose founder and maker is God [salem] and he also searched for a heavenly country. Zion was already in heaven and soon to follow was Salem. The Bread and the Wine was administered to Abraham which was used later by the Lord to convert the passover into the last supper.

The Melchizedek priesthood followed the direct line of Adam thru Seth...all the way down to Enoch...to Noah his Son Shem and to whomever belonged to this line. It was at this time that Abraham was made High Priest of the Lord on the Earth....For Melchizedek and Salem would soon be translated into heaven like Zion before the flood.

So Abraham was not allowed to stay...He paid his tithing and went on to fulfill the mission of the Lord.

Anyone who makes the Righteousness of God His King in all things in His life shall inherit the title/name Melchizedek.

As for the rest I am too tired to post more on this.

Peace be unto you

bert10

I like doing word studies. Never having laid claim to being conversant with the Biblical languages, I armed myself with Strongâ??s Concordance (tips his hat to maklelan with a smile), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Tanakh and a Bible Dictionary. I found 750 instances in 653 verses where the Hebrew כּהן (kôhên) is translated as priest, be it singular (2 Chronicles 24:2), plural (2 Chronicles 24:5) or possessive (2 Chronicles 24:11). I was looking for instances where a non-Levitical Israelite is called a priest (kôhên). I found the following and in each case the individual referenced is a priest (kôhên) but is not a Levite.

Melchizedek:

The Bible provides very little information about this very important king and priest of God.

According to The New Ungerâ??s Bible Dictionary his priesthood genealogy was not recorded in the register of the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood.

King David and Davidâ??s sons:

David and his sons were of the tribe of Judah:

Zabud:

We know from the second chapter of First Chronicles which gives the genealogy of Judah that Zabud was of the tribe of Judah and the great-grandson of Jarha, an Egyptian slave:

Ira:

It is likely that Ira, like Zabud above, was from the tribe of Judah:

Now my question is this: In the Old Testament, could the Melchizedec Priesthood be reserved for those individuals found worthy to be priests but were not of Levitical descent? Or is there another explanation for these non-Levitical priests, given that many believe that only Levites held the priesthood until Christ came.

[ebeddoulos]

It seems clear that prior to setting up the Levitical Priesthood, there were individual priests that made sacrifices to God called family priests as noted in the Holman Bible Dictionary. Prior to setting up the Levitical Priesthood there is no mention of the Melchizedek or Aaronic Priesthood, with the most notible exception of Melchizedek.

So what?

Is this verse speaking about David or about Christ i.e. a Messianic Psalm? If it is speaking about Christ, then David would not be a priest.

They need not be mutually exclusive. According to Matthew Henry, David is a type of Christ.

"Herein David was a type of Christ, who descended from him, not from Moses, because he came to take away sacrifice (the family of Moses was soon lost and extinct), but to establish and perpetuate joy and praise; for of the family of David in Christ there shall be no end." (Mathew Henry, "Matthew Henryâ??s Commentary on the Whole Bible", Preface to the commentary on the Book of Psalms)

This messianic psalm, like many others, serves a dual purpose. In this case, it is to allow David to foreshadow Christ as both Priest and King.

Luke 6 seems to indicate that David was not a Priest

Your little theory is entirely dependent on when David received this prophetic psalm â?? before or after the incident about which Christ was talking. All you must do to make your case is to provide evidence that Psalms 110 was written before David ate the shew bread. Do you really think that is likely and do you think you are up to the task? Iâ??ll hazard a guess that you are not.

Is it possible that David's sons did not have the priesthood? Maybe that is why other versions have substituted priest for another word.

Anything is possible but in this case it is most unlikely. If you would like to do dueling versions we can do so but in reality what matters is what the Hebrew underlying the versions actually says. Here are two sequential verses from the NIV. Both verses use the Hebrew word כהנים or kôhên

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is it the "the holy order of the Son of God. . ."?

So is that what you think it is called?

It seems like a very resonable answer to me.

[ebeddoulos]

Not to be redundant, but I cracked open this can of worms in the Samuel 8:18 thread and figured I'd chirp for it here too. Jethro by way of the covenant people, the Midianites, was a priest.

You are correct! Thanks!

Shucks. I blew it. I missed that one.

Kudos to you.

I wonder how many others I missed.

[katherine the great]

Most scholars believe "Melchizedek" was a name title and not a proper name.

That makes a lot of sense, although I think it could be a proper name as well. Kind of like: Pharaoh, Herod, and Caesar--sometimes a name, sometimes a title and sometimes both.

[sean0scott]

That makes a lot of sense, although I think it could be a proper name as well. Kind of like: Pharaoh, Herod, and Caesar--sometimes a name, sometimes a title and sometimes both.

Both, like when people here in Utah name their kids Hunter?

[Flyonthewall]

Both, like when people here in Utah name their kids Hunter?

[katherine the great]

Both, like when people here in Utah name their kids Hunter?

I was thinking more like Bishop Bishop or Elder Elder.

[Billy]

Billy states,

Is this verse speaking about David or about Christ i.e. a Messianic Psalm? If it is speaking about Christ, then David would not be a priest.

Ebeddoulos replies,

They need not be mutually exclusive. According to Matthew Henry, David is a type of Christ.

I agree with you that we will probably need to agree to disagree, but I will give you my two cents below anyway.

Matthew Henry may be right that David is a type of Christ, but what does Matthew Henry say specifically about Psalm 110?

Matthew Henry

"PSALM CX.

This psalm is pure gospel; it is only, and wholly, concerning Christ, the Messiah promised to the fathers and expected by them." http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc3.Ps.cxi.html

As I have said before in a previous post, Christ uses David as an example of one who was NOT a priest and therefore had no right to go into the temple and eat the shewbread (Luke 6). You pointed out that maybe David was not a priest at the time that he ate the shewbread, but was ordained a priest at a later time. Certainly this is a possibility, but I feel that this is unlikely. You would think that Christ would make note that he ate the shewbread prior to being ordained therefore it was wrong, but he was ordained a priest at a latter time.

Luke 6

3And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

4How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

Note in Hebrews 7:13 that there were no members of the tribe of Judah that worked at the altar. And in verse 14 there is NO mention of priesthood within the tribe of Judah. You would think that if there were priest of any kind within the tribe of Judah (David, David's sons, Solomon) there would of been mention of it and if this were true then verses 13 and 14 would not be true.

Hebrews 7

13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Matthew Henry states,

"1. There is a change in the tribe of which the priesthood comes. Before, it was the tribe of Levi; but our great high priest sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning the priesthood, v. 14. This change of the family shows a real change of the law of the priesthood." http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.Heb.viii.html

Look at the Hebrew in context. You tell me what the difference is. Explain why כהנים in verse 18 should be translated as something entirely different and totaly unrelated in the very next verse. What subtlty am I missing? If you cannot explain it, then you tell me why the NIV or the other versions you mentioned has done a better job of translation than the Tanakh and the dozen or so versions which are in agreement. Bottom line: David's sons were priests "this I know; because the Hebrew tells me so."

What if David's sons were not priests, should you use the name priest or would it be better and less confusing to use another word? This was noted in another thread which is posted below.

Most of the translations that say that Davidâ??s sons were advisors base their translations on the interpretation offered by the Chronicler in 1 Chronicles 18:17 where Davidâ??s sons are called â??the chief officials in the service of the king.â? This description of the office occupied by Davidâ??s sons reflects the post-exilic perspective of the Chronicler, where only Levites could serve as priests. Thus, the designation of Davidâ??s sons as priests was unacceptable to the Chronicler.

Many English translations follow the Chroniclerâ??s unwillingness to acknowledge that individuals who were not Levites could become priests. Since the Chronicler does not use the word â??priestsâ? but calls the sons of David â??chief officials at the kingâ??s sideâ? (NIV), many English translations follow the reading of the Chronicler.