The Order Of Melchizedek

[consiglieri]

Latter-day Saints proclaim a restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, that many men in the Church hold this priesthood, and often point to the Epistle to the Hebrews in support of their view.

Hebrews mentions the "order of Melchizedek," but often the response from non-LDS is that the priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" referred to in Hebrews is comprised of only one person; that being Jesus Christ.

A fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls tends to support the LDS view that the Melchizedek Priesthood order is comprised of more than one person.

He (Melchizedek) will proclaim liberty for them, to free them from [the debt] of all their iniquities. And this will [happen] in the first week of the jubilee which follows the ni[ne] jubilees. And the day [of atonem]ent is the end of the tenth jubilee in which atonement will be made for all the sons of [God] and for the men of the lot of Melchizedek."

11QMelchizedek, 6-8.

Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, pp. 139-40.

Although "priesthood" is not specifically mentioned in this passage, it would seem that the "lot of Melchizedek" would easily match the "order of Melchizedek" referred to in Hebrews.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[The Nehor]

Wouldn't Melchizedek also be of the order of Melchizedek?

[Bill Hamblin]

Latter-day Saints proclaim a restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, that many men in the Church hold this priesthood, and often point to the Epistle to the Hebrews in support of their view.

Hebrews mentions the "order of Melchizedek," but often the response from non-LDS is that the priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" referred to in Hebrews is comprised of only one person; that being Jesus Christ.

A fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls tends to support the LDS view that the Melchizedek Priesthood order is comprised of more than one person.

11QMelchizedek, 6-8.

Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, pp. 139-40.

Although "priesthood" is not specifically mentioned in this passage, it would seem that the "lot of Melchizedek" would easily match the "order of Melchizedek" referred to in Hebrews.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Whoops! Somehow my comment was added to the quote. I suspect I am to blame, but I will claim innocence. Here's my comment extracted from the quote.

The term "lot" here is g

[Thunderfire]

It's difficult for me to get my brain around an order of "one" (being Jesus alone). If anything, we should say that the Order of Melchisedec is an order of "two" (Melchisedec and Jesus)!

Yet then we could say that this "order" includes whomever the Lord seeks to choose to represent him. Because in the end, like Paul writes in "Galatians", it is Christ who lives in me.

[Sargon]

The Order of the Phoenix has more than one person.

Case closed.

[helix]

It's difficult for me to get my brain around an order of "one" (being Jesus alone). If anything, we should say that the Order of Melchisedec is an order of "two" (Melchisedec and Jesus)!

Yet then we could say that this "order" includes whomever the Lord seeks to choose to represent him. Because in the end, like Paul writes in "Galatians", it is Christ who lives in me.

I'm with you. I don't understand how Melchisedec can't be part of his own order.

[The Nehor]

I'm with you. I don't understand how Melchisedec can't be part of his own order.

Perhaps he also believed that any club or order that would let him into it wasn't worth belonging to.

[mfbukowski]

What about Paul saying something along the lines of "You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood....?

A generation is typically more than one, :-) and he isn't talking about the levitical priesthood since he is speaking to his audience....?

[johnny]

consiqlieri

Hebrews mentions the "order of Melchizedek," but often the response from non-LDS is that the priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" referred to in Hebrews is comprised of only one person; that being Jesus Christ.

I consider Melchizedek a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 5:10; 6:20; Gen 14:18). After Christ became our High Priest, there is the ordained priesthood of and the priesthood of all believers (Titus 1:5,7; 1Pet 2:5).

[consiglieri]

The term "lot" here is g

[urroner]

Were all the high priests of the first temple members of the Levitical Priesthood or IOW, descendants of Levi? I seem to remember reading somewhere, my brain is on vacation right now, that the high priest who made the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, took upon him the sins, and then transferred them to a goat identical to the one sacrificed, wasn't of the Levitical Order, rather, he was of the Melchizedek Order. I wish I could remember where I had read that.

[Zakuska]

On vacation "now"?...

[Notquitewetyet]

Were all the high priests of the first temple members of the Levitical Priesthood or IOW, descendants of Levi? I seem to remember reading somewhere, my brain is on vacation right now, that the high priest who made the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, took upon him the sins, and then transferred them to a goat identical to the one sacrificed, wasn't of the Levitical Order, rather, he was of the Melchizedek Order. I wish I could remember where I had read that.

I know in Egypt, all priesthood was delegated and only a portion of the priesthood held by the Pharaoh. I don't have my egyptology class notes with me currently, but I could send you some stuff I have over Thanksgiving. (At home on a zip drive:( ) I think, with Solomon dedicating the temple, it'd be reasonable to tie in with the king being the officiator and head of the Melchizedek Order. It'd also tie nicely into somethings Joseph Smith had done to himself in Nauvoo, involving a crown...

[Zemah]

What about Paul saying something along the lines of "You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood....?

A generation is typically more than one, :-) and he isn't talking about the levitical priesthood since he is speaking to his audience....?

After claiming that only Christ can hold the Holy Melchizedek priesthood, many Christians have begun to claim that Paul's words are evidence that all believers are included in the priesthood.

They are confused. The Melchizedek priesthood is described in Hebrews as one requiring an oath.

Again the LDS Church with her prophets got it right.

Zemah

[Zemah]

consiqlieri

I consider Melchizedek a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 5:10; 6:20; Gen 14:18). After Christ became our High Priest, there is the ordained priesthood of and the priesthood of all believers (Titus 1:5,7; 1Pet 2:5).

I met some believers as I was returning to my apartment after Church one day. They were drunk and still drinking. They recognized me as a man of God and asked me to pray for them. I assured them that they could pray for themselves as the Bible teaches â??to the Father in the name of the Sonâ?. As we spoke together I learned that one was Catholic and the other Protestant; they both believed in Christ. They soon requested that we pray together but wanted me to lead the pray. This we did.

Now tell me honestly, are these believers able to represent Christ in the priesthood?

It is corrupt doctrine that the Melchizedek priesthood is bestowed to all believers.

Zemah

[Zemah]

Just one of the reasons I love this board is getting qualified insights from reputable authorities. Thanks!

Would these "lots" be similar to the lots thrown to choose the apostle to replace Judas in Acts 1?

Or do you think that an interpretation of "destiny" would be similar to Joseph Smith's claim that all those who are called to missions in this life were foreordained in the grand council in heaven?

And do you think that the use of the word "men" in the Melchizedek DSS fragment, likely written by a Jew somewhere in time close to the author of Hebrews, might be referring to something similar to Hebrews' "order of Melchizedek," which is of course taken from the Psalms originally?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Letâ??s keep it simple. The use of the word "hood" as a suffix to the word "priest" makes it plural.

Zemah

[Mudcat]

Latter-day Saints proclaim a restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, that many men in the Church hold this priesthood, and often point to the Epistle to the Hebrews in support of their view.

Hebrews mentions the "order of Melchizedek," but often the response from non-LDS is that the priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" referred to in Hebrews is comprised of only one person; that being Jesus Christ.

A fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls tends to support the LDS view that the Melchizedek Priesthood order is comprised of more than one person.

11QMelchizedek, 6-8.

Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, pp. 139-40.

Although "priesthood" is not specifically mentioned in this passage, it would seem that the "lot of Melchizedek" would easily match the "order of Melchizedek" referred to in Hebrews.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hey Consig,

From my point of view, I believe there is more than one Melchizedek priest. In fact I believe this priesthood of all believers are of that order, I consider it synonymous with the priesthood of Christ. But I also believe there is only one High Priest of that order, that being Christ.

Mudcat

[Zemah]

Hey Consig,

From my point of view, I believe there is more than one Melchizedek priest. In fact I believe this priesthood of all believers are of that order, I consider it synonymous with the priesthood of Christ. But I also believe there is only one High Priest of that order, that being Christ.

Mudcat

There has to be more than one priest of the Melchizedek Order since Hebrews tells us Christ is a priest of that order and surely Melchizedek the King of Salem of the Old Testament is also. If the Son of God is a priest, than surely the Father is too; if the Father and the Son hold the priesthood, than the Holy Spirit must be of the priesthood also. And we know that the Holy Ghost is a plurality because it can abide in many souls.

As for the â??all believers are priests theoryâ?: I met some believers as I was returning to my apartment after Church one day. They were drunk and still drinking. They recognized me as a man of God and asked me to pray for them. I assured them that they could pray for themselves as the Bible teaches â??to the Father in the name of the Sonâ?. As we spoke together I learned that one was Catholic and the other Protestant; they both believed in Christ. They soon requested that we pray together but wanted me to lead the pray. This we did.

Now tell me honestly, are these believers able to represent Christ in the priesthood?

It is corrupt doctrine that the Melchizedek priesthood is bestowed to all believers.

Zemah

[urroner]

I remembered where I have read it. It was in these speech by Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest

The era of wrath must have been associated with the loss of the

Melchizedek Priesthood and the breach of the eternal covenant. Jewish tradition

remembered that there had been no anointing oil in the Se cond

Temple, and so the appearance of a Messianic high priest, that is, an

anointed high priest, must have been part of the hope for the restoration of

the true temple and the eternal covenant. Piecing together what can still be

known about the Melchizedek priesthood is one way of recovering the

teaching of the earlier temple.

Resurrected to the Eternal Priesthood

The high priest was the Lord, the Holy One of Israel with his people.₄₃

He would have been born as a normal human being, so we have to ask how

it was that the high priest became a great angel, how he became divine. The

answer must lie in the ri tuals perform ed in the Ho ly of Holies, wh ere

on ly the high priest was all owed to en ter. Several texts do de s c ri be how

the king was â??bornâ? as son of God or â??raised up/resurrectedâ? in the Holy

of Holies.₄₄ Being born as a son of God and being resurrected were both

descriptions of the same process of becoming divine; Jesus himself used the

terms interchangeably. Angels are the sons of God, the resurrected, he said

(Luke 20:36).₄∞

The author of the letter to the Hebrews knew that Melchizedek had

become a priest through resurrection and that this distinguished his priesthood

from that of Aaron. The Levitical priestsâ??Aaron and his sonsâ??held

the priesthood â??according to a legal requ i rem ent con cerning bod i ly

descentâ? (Heb. 7:16), whereas Melchizedek had been raised up and had the

power of an indestructible life. Melchizedek was therefore an eternal priest.

These words, â??he was raised up,â? are often understood to mean no more

than that he was elevated to a high office, but the Greek word here is the

word for resurrection. Melchizedek was resurrected to the eternal priesthood,

which he held by the power of an indestructible life.₄₆

It seems the Melchizedek priesthood existed before the Levitical priesthood and was important in the first temple.

[Zemah]

I remembered where I have read it. It was in these speech by Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest

It seems the Melchizedek priesthood existed before the Levitical priesthood and was important in the first temple.

The Melchizedek priesthood is integral to the theology of prophet, priest, and king as foretold by the prophets of old and fulfilled in Christ through Joseph Smith.

Zemah

[Mudcat]

There has to be more than one priest of the Melchizedek Order since Hebrews tells us Christ is a priest of that order and surely Melchizedek the King of Salem of the Old Testament is also. If the Son of God is a priest, than surely the Father is too; if the Father and the Son hold the priesthood, than the Holy Spirit must be of the priesthood also. And we know that the Holy Ghost is a plurality because it can abide in many souls.

Hi Z,

I suppose this is gross speculation on my part, but Melchizedek may have been pre-mortal Christ. (just a thought)

I thought the Father gave all things to the Son. (just a thought)

Ok, what do you mean by the HG being a plurality?

As for the “all believers are priests theory”: I met some believers as I was returning to my apartment after Church one day. They were drunk and still drinking. They recognized me as a man of God and asked me to pray for them. I assured them that they could pray for themselves as the Bible teaches “to the Father in the name of the Son”. As we spoke together I learned that one was Catholic and the other Protestant; they both believed in Christ. They soon requested that we pray together but wanted me to lead the pray. This we did.

Now tell me honestly, are these believers able to represent Christ in the priesthood?

Zemah, I am assuming you believe you are a Melchiziedek priest.

I am assuming you have sinned.

If I were to find you at the exact moment of you sin, would be a Mechizedek priest that is sinning or not?

It is corrupt doctrine that the Melchizedek priesthood is bestowed to all believers.

Zemah

Why?

[aletheia]

I've noticed that many of the critics of Mormonism have questioned the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood because of Hebrews 7:23-24. That verse reads: â??And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.â? The margins of the authorized version claim that the word unchangeable means in transmissible in Greek and, thus, they claim that only Christ can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. However, the authorized translation has been questioned by many in its interpretation of this verse. W.E. Vine, a leading authority in New Testament Greek words, stated the following in his book, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: â??Aparabatos (the Greek word for â??unchangeableâ?) is used of the priesthood of Christ, in Hebrews 7:24, â??unchangeable, unalterable, inviolable, revised version margin, a meaning found in the papyri; the more literal meaning in the authorized versionâ?¦, â??that doth not pass from one to another,â? is not to be preferred. This active meaning is not only untenable, and contrary to the constant usage of the word, but does not adequately fit with either the preceding or succeeding context.â?

In other words, this verse is actually stating that the Melchizedek Priesthood does not change in function and will not be superseded by another priesthood. The verse is comparing the priesthood of Christ with the priesthood of Aaron. Aaronâ??s priesthood changed in function in that it was originally a priesthood used to offer animal sacrifices, but became, later, responsible for the sacrament and other ordinances of repentance after Christ offered himself as the final sacrifice for sins.

Furthermore, it is true that Christ is our great high priest, but that does not mean he holds the Melchizedek Priesthood exclusively. If Christ is the sole holder of it then why is it called the Melchizedek Priesthood? (Bear in mind, however, that it is called the Melchizedek priesthood in order to avoid repetitious use of the Lordâ??s name. It is the Lordâ??s Priesthood, not Melchizedekâ??s). Obviously Melchizedek held the priesthood called after his name too. Lehi, who was not a Levite, and thus, not a Levitical Priest, was the bearer of the Melchizedek also and this was the sole order of Priesthood among the Nephites until non-Levites were allowed to hold the lesser Priesthood after the death of Christ.

The entire purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to establish the Melchizedek priesthood as superior to the Aaronic priesthood, but it must be understood also that the higher priesthood was not meant to destroy the Aaronic Priesthood. Exodus 40:15 states that the Aaronic Priesthood will be an everlasting priesthood; thus, those who maintain that the priesthood of Aaron is done away with must reckon with that verse.

[Zemah]

Mudcat,

I do not believe there is support in the Bible for your speculation that â??Melchizedek may have been pre-mortal Christâ?.

It is clear that Melchizedek was a man, a righteous king, in his own rite. He had his own pre-mortal existence as did Jesus and as did we. The Bible tells us that Christ was our Lord God, not a reincarnation of a priest who lived in the times of Genesis. Melchizedek had his calling to be a righteous king of Salem and Jesus had his calling to be the Lamb of God.

All men who obtain the Holy and Apostolic Priesthood in Christ are called of God in this life and also fore-ordained in pre-mortality.

God is a plurality in the sense that He has manifested Himself to us as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In the priesthood we are promised a fatherhood in God, so the Father is also a plurality (hence the term Elohim in the OT).

Christ promised us a sonship in God and that the saints would share the Fatherâ??s throne as Christ shared it. So the throne, which symbolizes governance, is a plurality in Christâ??s Lordship.

Likewise the Holy Ghost is not a singularity of being. It is a plurality of Hosts who have been glorified in the singularity of the WORD as we testify of the Father and of the Son.

Christ promised to glorify us after death; this glory is first bestowed on our spirit and later in the resurrection our glorified spirit is united with our glorified body. So our spirit is made holy before the resurrection; this was demonstrated by Jesusâ?? appearance outside the tomb before ascending to the Father.

But not all glorified spirits are allowed to join the Holy Ghost on earth as Testator to the truth. Only priests of God and Christ are allowed to facilitate conversions.

Yes, I believe the oath and covenants that I made in the LDS Temple make me a priest of God and Christ.

And yes, I remain a sinner, albeit a repentant sinner. Even Paul admitted to the ongoing struggle with temptation and sin which he blamed on his corruptible body of flesh. This did not prevent him from executing his priestly duties. But the Bible does not teach that the priesthood of Melchizedek is obtained through faith alone. Hebrews teaches it is a priesthood requiring an oath; thereby making it greater than the Levitical (or Aaronic) priesthood, which required a genealogical link to the Sons of Aaron and the tribe of Levi.

If any believer could call himself a priest of the apostolic order of Melchizedek, than there would be no single authority in Christâ??s Church. Each denomination could and would teach there own brand of Christianity and Christâ??s Church would be divided by doctrine.

But Christ promised that the dividing power of Satan would not overcome His Church, hence the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the apostolic priesthood and living revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost was restored to one place.

Makes prefect sense that it would have to be this way.

Zemah

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

I do not believe there is support in the Bible for your speculation that â??Melchizedek may have been pre-mortal Christâ?.

It is clear that Melchizedek was a man, a righteous king, in his own rite. He had his own pre-mortal existence as did Jesus and as did we. The Bible tells us that Christ was our Lord God, not a reincarnation of a priest who lived in the times of Genesis. Melchizedek had his calling to be a righteous king of Salem and Jesus had his calling to be the Lamb of God.

All men who obtain the Holy and Apostolic Priesthood in Christ are called of God in this life and also fore-ordained in pre-mortality.

Well, it was just a thought. Though I don't think it could be posited that Christ was a reincarnation of Melch., nor did I intend to suggest that.

God is a plurality in the sense that He has manifested Himself to us as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In the priesthood we are promised a fatherhood in God, so the Father is also a plurality (hence the term Elohim in the OT).

Christ promised us a sonship in God and that the saints would share the Fatherâ??s throne as Christ shared it. So the throne, which symbolizes governance, is a plurality in Christâ??s Lordship.

Likewise the Holy Ghost is not a singularity of being. It is a plurality of Hosts who have been glorified in the singularity of the WORD as we testify of the Father and of the Son.

So you are saying their are many Holy Ghosts and each of these Holy Ghosts is unified by the Word. Have I got that right?

Christ promised to glorify us after death; this glory is first bestowed on our spirit and later in the resurrection our glorified spirit is united with our glorified body. So our spirit is made holy before the resurrection; this was demonstrated by Jesusâ?? appearance outside the tomb before ascending to the Father.

But not all glorified spirits are allowed to join the Holy Ghost on earth as Testator to the truth. Only priests of God and Christ are allowed to facilitate conversions.

Which Holy Ghost? Seems you are saying there is more than one HG......I'm not really following you here.

Yes, I believe the oath and covenants that I made in the LDS Temple make me a priest of God and Christ.

And yes, I remain a sinner, albeit a repentant sinner. Even Paul admitted to the ongoing struggle with temptation and sin which he blamed on his corruptible body of flesh. This did not prevent him from executing his priestly duties. But the Bible does not teach that the priesthood of Melchizedek is obtained through faith alone. Hebrews teaches it is a priesthood requiring an oath; thereby making it greater than the Levitical (or Aaronic) priesthood, which required a genealogical link to the Sons of Aaron and the tribe of Levi.

If any believer could call himself a priest of the apostolic order of Melchizedek, than there would be no single authority in Christâ??s Church. Each denomination could and would teach there own brand of Christianity and Christâ??s Church would be divided by doctrine.

But Christ promised that the dividing power of Satan would not overcome His Church, hence the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the apostolic priesthood and living revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost was restored to one place.

Makes prefect sense that it would have to be this way.

Zemah

Ok, well the Bible isn't nearly as narrowly specific about getting sworn at a an LDS Temple and so forth about being a Melc. priest. But that is your belief.

In regards to that bit about the oath.... I don't really know how to respond. I thought it was God that made the oath?

I am glad to know that you can sin and still believe you are a Melc. priest. In light of that, seems like your story about the drunken Catholic and Protestant was more a statement against Catholics and Protestants than it was the sin you found them in.

[ed2276]

Just one of the reasons I love this board is getting qualified insights from reputable authorities. Thanks!

Would these "lots" be similar to the lots thrown to choose the apostle to replace Judas in Acts 1?

Or do you think that an interpretation of "destiny" would be similar to Joseph Smith's claim that all those who are called to missions in this life were foreordained in the grand council in heaven?

And do you think that the use of the word "men" in the Melchizedek DSS fragment, likely written by a Jew somewhere in time close to the author of Hebrews, might be referring to something similar to Hebrews' "order of Melchizedek," which is of course taken from the Psalms originally?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Bill's comments here just opened some thoughts to me. The quotation you have above says that Melchizedek will proclaim liberty to men by reason of the atonement. This seems to fit Christ, who is also described in Isaiah as the one who will proclaim liberty to the captives. It seems that Melchizedek may be used as a name title, King of Righteousness, that applies to Christ.

The comment about lots, or allocation, made me think of the OT Divine Council scene where the nations are apportioned among the gods, Israel being Jehovah's portion, or lot. And the NT verses where it is said that men are given the power to become the sons of God and where Christ says that not one of those who have been given to Him (allocated) will be lost.

Tying this all together, it seems to me that it is the Lord, King of Righteousness, who proclaims liberty to those who are captives in consequence of their sins, by way of His atonement. And that those who are given to Him, allocated, are given power to become the sons of God; and that power which is given to men that allows them to become sons of God is the Melchizedek Priesthood (the priesthood after the order of the Son of God...King of Righteousness). After all, we are told in the D&C that the Melchizedek Priesthood holds the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, and that it is through this priesthood the powers of godliness are revealed to man.