Melchizedek Connection, Royal Priesthood

[a_ntv]

Ministry to do Mass/Divine Liturgy appears to equate to office, right? The priestly office occupied by an ordained laity believer.

Perhaps this helps to explain the Melchizedek and "Aaronic-like" difference:

Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The simple fact that numerous heretics,...

I dont know how readable can be for a Protestant the Catholic Encyclopedia, that is a 100 years old text that requires some knowledge of specific vocabulary/doctrine. Here this text points out the difference between the Consecration of the Eucharist, that is the "made present" of the sacrifice of the Cross, and thus offered by Christ to the Father (the sacrifice), and the eating/drinking of the Holy Body and Blood that is offered by Christ to any Christian (the sacrament) who receives the sacrament for his own sanctification.

Perhaps to point out the difference between the priesthood of Melkisedek and the hierarchical priesthood it is better to refer to the Catechism of the RCC (link):

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father." The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. the faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace - a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit - ,the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. the ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

About the Aaronic priesthood:

1540 Instituted to proclaim the Word of God and to restore communion with God by sacrifices and prayer this priesthood [Aaronic] nevertheless remains powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its sacrifices ceaselessly and being unable to achieve a definitive sanctification, which only the sacrifice of Christ would accomplish.
1541 The liturgy of the Church, however, sees in the priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites, as in the institution of the seventy elders, a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant

 

[Standing Up]

This:

The whole community is Melchizedek priestly and the ordained prieshood is Aaronic-like seems to me to be the simple way of looking at it (not Protestant btw fwiw, just Christian).

It was Aaronic who offered the sacrifice--no believer can do that, only the ordained ones per RCC and O. Right folks?

I guess the next question is whether that is true? Is there really supposed to be two priesthood types in the NT?

OTOH, it might simply be there is in fact only one, but believers need training. Once trained, they are still of the Melchizedek priesthood, rather than, for some reason, switching over to Aaronic-like. Why the switch though, why would someone want to "go backward" from Melchizedek to Aaron-like or do they view that as "forward" in some sense?

And this:

1 Cor. 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

To whom does the we refer?

Near as I can tell it's in 10:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

Are these brethren the priesthood of Melchizedek believers or are these brethren the two types?

Thoughts?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

This:

The whole community is Melchizedek priestly and the ordained prieshood is Aaronic-like seems to me to be the simple way of looking at it (not Protestant btw fwiw, just Christian).

It was Aaronic who offered the sacrifice--no believer can do that, only the ordained ones per RCC and O. Right folks?

I guess the next question is whether that is true? Is there really supposed to be two priesthood types in the NT?

OTOH, it might simply be there is in fact only one, but believers need training. Once trained, they are still of the Melchizedek priesthood, rather than, for some reason, switching over to Aaronic-like. Why the switch though, why would someone want to "go backward" from Melchizedek to Aaron-like or do they view that as "forward" in some sense?

And this:

1 Cor. 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

To whom does the we refer?

Near as I can tell it's in 10:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

Are these brethren the priesthood of Melchizedek believers or are these brethren the two types?

Thoughts?

Uggg... The Clergy of The Church is not related to the OT Priesthood.

Forgive me...

 

[Standing Up]

Uggg... The Clergy of The Church is not related to the OT Priesthood.

Forgive me...

I understand that is the idea, I'm just trying to get some verbiage right to get a handle on it for discussion. 'Aaron-like office' is the best I understand because Mass/Divine Liturgy is associated with sacrifice. Aaron-like is the only ones from OT that could do that.

What would you say? They're not Melchizedek priesthood, so what are they? Clergy? But I'm trying to understand the difference.

You are of Melchizedek, but cannot sacrifice. Should we or just me get rid of the sacrifice concept or what? Paul says brethren when we ... now, that's presumably the Melchizedek priests. I know you don't want the OT association and apparently Paul doesn't include OT sacrifice/priests, so how do we go from here?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I understand that is the idea, I'm just trying to get some verbiage right to get a handle on it for discussion. 'Aaron-like office' is the best I understand because Mass/Divine Liturgy is associated with sacrifice. Aaron-like is the only ones from OT that could do that.

What would you say? They're not Melchizedek priesthood, so what are they? Clergy? But I'm trying to understand the difference.

You are of Melchizedek, but cannot sacrifice. Should we or just me get rid of the sacrifice concept or what?

I applaud your attempt to understand. I wish I wasn't so tired. I would write something at length. Perhaps in the morning.

The clergy of the Church is a new institution, set down by Christ himself. They are us, they are from us... we elect them.

Forgive me...

 

[a_ntv]

This:

The whole community is Melchizedek priestly and the ordained prieshood is Aaronic-like seems to me to be the simple way of looking at it (not Protestant btw fwiw, just Christian).

It was Aaronic who offered the sacrifice--no believer can do that, only the ordained ones per RCC and O. Right folks?

I guess the next question is whether that is true? Is there really supposed to be two priesthood types in the NT?

OTOH, it might simply be there is in fact only one, but believers need training. Once trained, they are still of the Melchizedek priesthood, rather than, for some reason, switching over to Aaronic-like. Why the switch though, why would someone want to "go backward" from Melchizedek to Aaron-like or do they view that as "forward" in some sense?

And this:

1 Cor. 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

To whom does the we refer?

Near as I can tell it's in 10:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

Are these brethren the priesthood of Melchizedek believers or are these brethren the two types?

Thoughts?

I thing that the best is to lissen what the first Christians said.
Saint Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthians on about 96 AD. Let's read it:
He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours.
Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him....
For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites.
The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.
Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. (link)

I want highlight two points:

A) Saint Clement is obviously speaking of a Christian liturgy, but to describe the roles of the Christians, he uses this analogy:
* Aaronite high priest -> Christian bishop
* Aaronite priests -> Christian priests
* Aaronite levites -> Christian deacons

This analogy is well known in all the early centuries Christian literature. For example read the 3rd or 4th century Constitutions of the Holy Apostles:

For ye know undoubtedly that those that are by us named bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, were made by prayer, and by the laying on of hands; and that by the difference of their names is showed the difference of their employments...
For if there were no rule or distinction of orders, it would suffice to perform all the offices under one name. But being taught by the Lord the series of things, we distributed the functions of the high-priesthood to the bishops, those of the priesthood to the presbyters, and the ministration under them both to the deacons;..
For it is not lawful for a deacon to offer the sacrifice, or to baptize, or to give either the greater or the lesser blessing. Nor may a presbyter perform ordination.... (link)

B) Saint Clement explains that any one has to follow his role:
Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order,living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him.
The difference of roles is not a difference of sanctity: all the Christians share the Melchisedek's priesthood.

1141 The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, "by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that . . . they may offer spiritual sacrifices. This "common priesthood" is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate
1142 But "the members do not all have the same function." Certain members are called by God, in and through the Church, to a special service of the community. These servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

interesting thread!

 

[Standing Up]

Must have missed the response, but I'll comment now:

A) Saint Clement is obviously speaking of a Christian liturgy, but to describe the roles of the Christians, he uses this analogy:
* Aaronite high priest -> Christian bishop
* Aaronite priests -> Christian priests
* Aaronite levites -> Christian deacons

I suspect RCC would rather state this:

Aaronite High Priest---Pope
Priests---priests of denominations
levites---deacons of denominations

Also,

For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Whatever else may be said, the incorrect distinction of clergy/laity was early established, rather than the Biblical and Apostolic notion of the priesthood of believers.

Anyone know why the Aaronic priesthood was established?

 

[a_ntv]

A) Saint Clement is obviously speaking of a Christian liturgy, but to describe the roles of the Christians, he uses this analogy:
* Aaronite high priest -> Christian bishop
* Aaronite priests -> Christian priests
* Aaronite levites -> Christian deacons

Yes, you are right.
The distinction between the various grade is anyway known also in Qumran: in codex 1QSb (1Q28b) we have various "blessings" (consecration prayers):
Col. 1 for faithfuls of Yhahad (i.e. cathecumens)
Col. 2 for an other gruop of individuals (too fragmentary to translate)
Col. 3 for priests
Col. 4 for high priests (you can check pag 140 of the edition of M. wise, M. Abegg, E. Cook)

Anyway after further study and reading many scholars, I arrived at the personal conclusion that the very early Christians used to have four divisions:
- not Christians
- deacons (Christians in service of the priests/high priest)
- priests (or saints) i.e. all Christians
- high priests (or angels), who later were named bishops and presbyters, they were so saint that could acts as Jesus did.

I suspect RCC would rather state this:
Aaronite High Priest---Pope
Priests---priests of denominations
levites---deacons of denominations

This is a simply a huge misconception completely wrong.
- The pope is a bishop. He has more hierarchical (ruling) power than a diocesan bishop, but absolutely no more liturgical or sacramental power (no particular ceremony exists to consecrate a pope, only an election, while there is always been a ceremony/consecration for a bishop and also for OT high priests - see Zach 3:1-10 or Ex 28)
- bishops, priests, deacons of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are considered by Catholics as true bishops, priests and deacons, while Protestant deacon, priests and pastors are considered by Catholics as laymen (not a doctrinal issues -there are doctrinal issues also with Orthodox-, but for the lacking of a proper consecration)

Anyone know why the Aaronic priesthood was established?

Usually scholars agree that the institution of the Aaronic priesthood happened after the return of the Babylonian exile (the relevant verves of the Bible are considered to be V IV century writings). It is very probably that the functions of high priests in the pre-exile reigns belonged to the king, and the priests were simply his helpers in this matter (a situation extremely common in the ancient Middle East.
We still have in the Bible some example of the king (who was not a Aaronic) acting as a high priest (for example 1King 9:25).
After the exile the ruling class, i.e. the priests, took some prerogatives of the kings.
Because of this heritage, Jesus, who was not Aaronic but as Messiah was king, could be considered a high priest (see Hebrew)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

shameless bump

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes, you are right.
The distinction between the various grade is anyway known also in Qumran: in codex 1QSb (1Q28b) we have various "blessings" (consecration prayers):
Col. 1 for faithfuls of Yhahad (i.e. cathecumens)
Col. 2 for an other gruop of individuals (too fragmentary to translate)
Col. 3 for priests
Col. 4 for high priests (you can check pag 140 of the edition of M. wise, M. Abegg, E. Cook)

Anyway after further study and reading many scholars, I arrived at the personal conclusion that the very early Christians used to have four divisions:
- not Christians
- deacons (Christians in service of the priests/high priest)
- priests (or saints) i.e. all Christians
- high priests (or angels), who later were named bishops and presbyters, they were so saint that could acts as Jesus did.


This is a simply a huge misconception completely wrong.
- The pope is a bishop. He has more hierarchical (ruling) power than a diocesan bishop, but absolutely no more liturgical or sacramental power (no particular ceremony exists to consecrate a pope, only an election, while there is always been a ceremony/consecration for a bishop and also for OT high priests - see Zach 3:1-10 or Ex 28)
- bishops, priests, deacons of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are considered by Catholics as true bishops, priests and deacons, while Protestant deacon, priests and pastors are considered by Catholics as laymen (not a doctrinal issues -there are doctrinal issues also with Orthodox-, but for the lacking of a proper consecration)


Usually scholars agree that the institution of the Aaronic priesthood happened after the return of the Babylonian exile (the relevant verves of the Bible are considered to be V IV century writings). It is very probably that the functions of high priests in the pre-exile reigns belonged to the king, and the priests were simply his helpers in this matter (a situation extremely common in the ancient Middle East.
We still have in the Bible some example of the king (who was not a Aaronic) acting as a high priest (for example 1King 9:25).
After the exile the ruling class, i.e. the priests, took some prerogatives of the kings.
Because of this heritage, Jesus, who was not Aaronic but as Messiah was king, could be considered a high priest (see Hebrew)

The Qumran was the teachings of the Essenes. After the captivity the Aaronic priesthood was replaced after being taken out by God when the family of Eli was replaced by Samuel, an Ephriamite, who came in under the provision of Nazirite.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Qumran was the teachings of the Essenes. After the captivity the Aaronic priesthood was replaced after being taken out by God when the family of Eli was replaced by Samuel, an Ephriamite, who came in under the provision of Nazirite.

Yeah......that is what evil sons could do to a father

Young) 1 Samuel 3:14 and therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli: the iniquity of the house of Eli is not atoned for, by sacrifice, and by offering--unto the age.'

Rotherham)1 King 1:27 So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto Yahweh,--to fulfil the word of Yahweh which he spake concerning the household of Eli, in Shiloh

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The Qumran was the teachings of the Essenes. After the captivity the Aaronic priesthood was replaced after being taken out by God when the family of Eli was replaced by Samuel, an Ephriamite, who came in under the provision of Nazirite.

Yeah......that is what evil sons could do to a father

Young) 1 Samuel 3:14 and therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli: the iniquity of the house of Eli is not atoned for, by sacrifice, and by offering--unto the age.'

Rotherham)1 King 1:27 So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto Yahweh,--to fulfil the word of Yahweh which he spake concerning the household of Eli, in Shiloh

1 Samuel indicates he was an Ephrraimite but 1 Chron 6:28 implies he was an Levite. Go figger :shrug:

 

[visionary]

2 Samuel 8:18 “David’s sons were chief ministers. Ok in Hebrew it reads, “uVenayahu Ben Yohoyada vehakreti venality uvenei David cohamin hayu”

David is a Cohen, which is a special line of the Levi priests....the only possible translation for the word Cohen in the Bible is priest, so how could the sons of David be priests?

Kehuna, which means priesthood is only transmitted by males...

2 Samuel 20:26 Hebrew reads, “vegam Ira haywire haya cohen l’David”

translated... Also Ira, the Jairite was a priest unto David.

King David met with Zadok the priest and most people think that it is the name of the priest but what almost every scholar knows is that it is not a name but a title of a jebuzite prieshood.

How could the guy named Zadok support the young King David and then serve Solomon for years?

The priestly ministry does not start until a man is 30 years of age.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

What was Melchizedek's litugry like?


The Orthodox Churches maintain that Prophet King David the psalmist was also of the order of Melchizedek as was St. James, the brother of OUR LORD also.

What is "IT" that the order of Melchizedek does?

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I'll give you a hint.

Wine and Bread.

Body and Blood.

What is it that the 'priests' of the order of Melchizedek do? What is their liturgy.

The laity of the order of Melchizedek have a liturgy also. What do they do?

Forgive me...

 

[visionary]

Yeshua's ministry is Melchesidec's ministry. Yeshua's praise, prayer life, and beatitudes are all samples.

Melchisedec means King of Righteousness and he was King of Salem. He is both King and High Priest of the Melchizedek Order.

An important witness to pre-Christian Jewish speculation on Melchizedek has surfaced among the Dead Sea Scrolls: 11QMelch. The fragmentary Hebrew text, usually dated to the first century B.C., features Melchizedek as a heavenly end-time redeemer, with attributes of the archangel Michael. He appears in the tenth and final jubilee of world history to rescue the elect, the "men of the lot of Melchizedek" (ii.8), doing battle with Belial and his fellow evil spirits. Melchizedek's triumph is described as a high-priestly act of "expiation"

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

2 Samuel 8:18 “David’s sons were chief ministers. Ok in Hebrew it reads, “uVenayahu Ben Yohoyada vehakreti venality uvenei David cohamin hayu”

David is a Cohen, which is a special line of the Levi priests....the only possible translation for the word Cohen in the Bible is priest, so how could the sons of David be priests?

Kehuna, which means priesthood is only transmitted by males...

2 Samuel 20:26 Hebrew reads, “vegam Ira haywire haya cohen l’David”

translated... Also Ira, the Jairite was a priest unto David.

King David met with Zadok the priest and most people think that it is the name of the priest but what almost every scholar knows is that it is not a name but a title of a jebuzite prieshood.

How could the guy named Zadok support the young King David and then serve Solomon for years?

The priestly ministry does not start until a man is 30 years of age.

Much of the prophesy of Ezekial surrounds Zadok as representative of the priesthood. Nathan the seer,at the time of David, along with Zadok guided in the kingdoms transition stages. I'm not sure about the timeframe.

 

[visionary]

The Macabee boys took over the temple service in the Melchesidek order of rights.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The Macabee boys took over the temple service in the Melchesidek order of rights.

Which the Essene's would have completely disagreed with.