After the Order of Melchizedek

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 56
  • Published : November 22, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
Adventist International Institute

of Advanced Studies

Theological Seminary

“After the Order of Melchizedek”

A Term Paper

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirement for the Course:

THST 619 Doctrine of the Sanctuary

by

Ralph D Bock

October 2009

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 11

INTRODUCTION1

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM4

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY4

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY4

DELIMITATION5

METHODOLOGY5

CHAPTER 27

TYPOLOGY OF JESUS AND MELCHIZEDEK7

WHAT IS TYPOLOGY?7

WHO IS MELCHIZEDEK?8

AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK10

CHAPTER 316

SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION16

BIBLIOGRAPHY19

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE “AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK?” PSALM 110 SPEAKS ABOUT A PERSON WHO IS A KING AND A PRIEST, BUT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL THERE WAS NEVER SUCH A KING. IT COULD BE THAT THE PSALM SPEAKS ABOUT A FUTURE KING-PRIEST. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT DEALS NOT WITH A HISTORICAL KING, BUT WITH THE MESSIAH.[1] The prediction of Jesus’ priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek indicated that the Aaronic priesthood was transitory (Heb 7 verses 11–14), and imperfect—that is, salvation from sin—was not possible through the Aaronic priesthood. This meant that God intended to change the priestly law, making it possible for one who was not a descendant of Aaron to become a High Priest. Once the new High Priest after the order of Melchizedek arrived, the typical priesthood would end (verses 15–19). Christ became priest, not on the basis of genealogical ties, but by a divine declaration. His priesthood is permanent because His life is indestructible.[2] This is called in biblical theology typology. Whether or not typology can legitimately be embraced in the interpretation of certain messianic prophecies is by far the most controversial question. One area of OT typology was that of typical individuals who served as prototypes both of other individuals within the OT and of Christ; in addition, the Melchizedek of Genesis 14:18-20 served as an individual type of the Messiah within the OT, as evinced in Psalm 110:4; and that the author of the Book of Hebrews utilized the Melchizedekian typology already employed within the OT canon to further his arguments for the supremacy of the priesthood of Jesus to that of the Levites. [3] Matthew Henry and et al. reference to Hebrew 7.1 that Melchizedek met Abraham returning from the rescue of Lot, Melchizedek’s name, “King of Righteousness,” doubtless suitable to his character, marked him as a type of the Messiah and his kingdom. The name of his city signified “Peace;” and as King of Peace he typified Christ, the Prince of Peace, the great Reconciler of God and man. Nothing is recorded as to the beginning or end of his life; thus he typically resembled the Son of God, whose existence is from everlasting to everlasting, who had no one that was before Him, and will have no one come after Him, in His priesthood. Every part of Scripture honors the great King of Righteousness and Peace, our glorious High Priest and Savior; and the more we examine it, the more we shall be convinced, that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. [4] There are strong parallels between Melchizedek and Jesus: both are the Sons of God, priest of the Order of Melchizedek, King of Righteous, King of Peace, appointed by God, eternal priesthood, and preexistent.

Statement of the Problem
The problem this paper espouses is embodied in the questions: What was so special about the order of Melchizedek? Why would God juxtapose the order of Melchizedek to that of Jesus if there where no credence to it?

Significance of the study
The study is significant because it will explore the intertextual study of Melchizedek in relation to Jesus Christ. The study is vital because it...
tracking img