Was Melichedek Priesthood in the ancient Christian church?

[Mullenite]

Was Melchizedek Priesthood in the ancient Christian church?

There was the higher priesthood, which was the Melchizedek Priesthood, and there was the lesser priesthood, which was the Aaronic Priesthood.


Selected Bible Passages:

Genesis 14: 18
Leviticus 3:
Numbers 25:10-13
Nehemiah 13:29
Luke 9:1-2
Luke 10:1
John 15:16:
Hebrews 3:1:
Hebrews 5:5-6
Hebrews 5:10:

Some believe that Christ was and will always be the only Christian high priest ,I.e. in this context, the only person to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.
This is the view espoused by most evangelical critics of the LDS faith. However, this position is not supported by scripture. For starters, I quote LDS author James Carver:


Christ was after the Order of Melchizedek. Observe that he was after the
Order of Melchizedek. For there to be an order, a group of people must belong. The Greek word for "order" is taxin, which means, "a fixed succession" or " manner."
If Christ belong to an "order" Jesus was not the only one to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood He established an order of that priesthood in his day.

Other indications that Christ was not the only one who held the Melchizedek Priesthood can be found in Heb. 4:14 and 5:, where we read that Christ was "a great high priest" glorified not himself to be made an high priest." If Jesus had been the only Christian high priest "after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 5:6), then it stands to reason that the definite article " the"
would have been used in these verses instead of the indefinite articles "a" and "an".

Some evangelical commentators assert that the Greek word for "unchangeable" used in reference to the Savior's priesthood in Hebrews 7;24 actually means "untransferable," "without a successor," or "that doth not pass from one to another." Thus, it is argued that since Christ's priesthood is "untransferable," then no else can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. However, this rendering, which at best has always been viewed as a marginal reading, has long been rejected by the Greek scholars.


The Greek word in question is aparabotos (also aparaabaton). According to the late W. E. Vine, a Greek expert and New Testament scholar, the reading of aparabatos as "that doth not pass from one to another" is "not only untenable, and contrary to the constant usage of the word, but does not adequately fit with either the preceding or the succeeding context" (4:166). Greek scholar Newman lists the Primary meaning of aparabator as "permanent". Even evangelical scholar Leon Morris concedes that the marginal reading "without a successor" in Hebrews 7:24 "does not seem to be demonstrated".


The Dead Sea Scrolls provide evidence that some ancient Jews under-stood that men could hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. Kent Brown, a professor of ancient scripture at BYU, discusses the Qumran material and Hebrews 7:24:

There was further concern for priesthood matters at Qumran. Not only do we find a good deal said about the priest (the direct descendants of Aaron) and Levites as distinct from the laymen of the community, but there was additional interest in Melchizedek's priesthood and those who would share his sacred lot, that is, those who would bear the same priesthood. The rather late Christian understanding that Jesus would be the last High Priest of the Melchizedek order (see Hebrews 7:24, marginal reading no. 5 in most King James Version translations) is a based on an erroneous interpretation of the Greek word aparabaton which does not mean "intransmissible" but means "unchangeable" when referring to Jesus" priesthood. Because the Essenes of the Dead Sea obviously expected other priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek and because their Melchizedek text bears a close connection to the ideas expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrew, the notion that Jesus was to be the High Priest cannot be sustained by an appeal to this scroll (11Q Melchizedek ) which was read by Jews contemporary with Jesus and Paul. In addition, no contemporaneous Greco-Roman source ever uses the aparabaton with meaning "intransmissible"---it always means "unchangeable."

Church father Theophilus (ca A.D.), bishop of Antioch, spoke of Melchizedek's time such priests were found "in all the earth.": And at that time there was a righteous king called Melchizedek, in the city of Salem, which is now Jerusalem. This was the first priest of all high priest of the High God......And from his time priests were found in all the earth.....


The Aaronic Priesthood
The LDS Church is the only major Christian church that claims to possess the Aaronic Priesthood. Critics of the LDS assert that Aaron's priesthood was abolished when the Savior came to earth. But the New Testament does not teach this. Furthermore, the Aaronic Priesthood could not been abolished because the Old Testament says it is an eternal priesthood. Therefore, this priesthood must be found in the True Church. The New Testament suggests there were two levels of priesthood authority in the Saver's church........

[Hemidakota]

What about selected BOM, D&C, Pear of Great Price Passages? lol

[Dale]

I doubt our scripture really claims it was a common early Christian priesthood. If that were the case the Catholic church would be claiming it. The only individuals i know had it are specifically mentioned in modern revelation. It is unclear in the Bible that anybody ever had it, but certain individuals.

Psalm 110:4 if i recall right is about Davidic kings. Solomon, David, Saul, all held that kingly priesthood. They offered sacrifice. And were not condemned for it.

[Mullenite]

Hello Hemidakota; yes I now about the B of M, D&C, but it's for the Bible readers only.

[Hemidakota]

Got it...thanks

[bert10]

The answer is Yes. Now as whether men need the Melchizedek priesthood or not is given here.....because in truth....he that believeth in Christ [All of His teachings] Shall do greater works than He did...because HE is going to the Father.

John 14:12 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

The Kingdom of God is not in words but in power. And who else but they who have been called and chosen can bring the kingdom of God back to men?

There are many of the Teachings of the Lord which were removed from the bible and those who separated themselves from the Catholic Church had to teach that the Melchizedek priesthood was not necessary. For these teachings that Protestant have today did not exist before the Reformation.

For truly no man without being 'officially called and chosen' can do greater works than Christ nor can any of these seal and unbind on the earth as well as well as spiritually in heaven.

BTW...Melchizedek means....."My King is Righteousness". Anyone one the earth who learns to make.....The Righteousness of God His king [head] shall indeed receive this priesthood. Because only men who have learned this can come into this HOLY ORDER OF GOD. Before the days of Shem it was called....by other names....such as "Holy Order of God" "Patriarchal Order" etc. Jesus gave the Melchizedek priesthood to His Apostles and the Apostles gave it to their disciples in turn. These were eventually cast out of the early churches even killed. Others were called gnostic and also cast out persecuted and killed. Until the Apostasy become complete when the man of sin appeared.



Peace be unto you
bert10

Originally Posted by Mullenite

Was Melchizedek Priesthood in the ancient Christian church?

There was the higher priesthood, which was the Melchizedek Priesthood, and there was the lesser priesthood, which was the Aaronic Priesthood.

Selected Bible Passages:

Genesis 14: 18
Leviticus 3:
Numbers 25:10-13
Nehemiah 13:29
Luke 9:1-2
Luke 10:1
John 15:16:
Hebrews 3:1:
Hebrews 5:5-6
Hebrews 5:10:

Some believe that Christ was and will always be the only Christian high priest ,I.e. in this context, the only person to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.
This is the view espoused by most evangelical critics of the LDS faith. However, this position is not supported by scripture. For starters, I quote LDS author James Carver:


Christ was after the Order of Melchizedek. Observe that he was after the
Order of Melchizedek. For there to be an order, a group of people must belong. The Greek word for "order" is taxin, which means, "a fixed succession" or " manner."
If Christ belong to an "order" Jesus was not the only one to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood He established an order of that priesthood in his day.

Other indications that Christ was not the only one who held the Melchizedek Priesthood can be found in Heb. 4:14 and 5:, where we read that Christ was "a great high priest" glorified not himself to be made an high priest." If Jesus had been the only Christian high priest "after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 5:6), then it stands to reason that the definite article " the"
would have been used in these verses instead of the indefinite articles "a" and "an".

Some evangelical commentators assert that the Greek word for "unchangeable" used in reference to the Savior's priesthood in Hebrews 7;24 actually means "untransferable," "without a successor," or "that doth not pass from one to another." Thus, it is argued that since Christ's priesthood is "untransferable," then no else can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. However, this rendering, which at best has always been viewed as a marginal reading, has long been rejected by the Greek scholars.


The Greek word in question is aparabotos (also aparaabaton). According to the late W. E. Vine, a Greek expert and New Testament scholar, the reading of aparabatos as "that doth not pass from one to another" is "not only untenable, and contrary to the constant usage of the word, but does not adequately fit with either the preceding or the succeeding context" (4:166). Greek scholar Newman lists the Primary meaning of aparabator as "permanent". Even evangelical scholar Leon Morris concedes that the marginal reading "without a successor" in Hebrews 7:24 "does not seem to be demonstrated".


The Dead Sea Scrolls provide evidence that some ancient Jews under-stood that men could hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. Kent Brown, a professor of ancient scripture at BYU, discusses the Qumran material and Hebrews 7:24:

There was further concern for priesthood matters at Qumran. Not only do we find a good deal said about the priest (the direct descendants of Aaron) and Levites as distinct from the laymen of the community, but there was additional interest in Melchizedek's priesthood and those who would share his sacred lot, that is, those who would bear the same priesthood. The rather late Christian understanding that Jesus would be the last High Priest of the Melchizedek order (see Hebrews 7:24, marginal reading no. 5 in most King James Version translations) is a based on an erroneous interpretation of the Greek word aparabaton which does not mean "intransmissible" but means "unchangeable" when referring to Jesus" priesthood. Because the Essenes of the Dead Sea obviously expected other priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek and because their Melchizedek text bears a close connection to the ideas expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrew, the notion that Jesus was to be the High Priest cannot be sustained by an appeal to this scroll (11Q Melchizedek ) which was read by Jews contemporary with Jesus and Paul. In addition, no contemporaneous Greco-Roman source ever uses the aparabaton with meaning "intransmissible"---it always means "unchangeable."

Church father Theophilus (ca A.D.), bishop of Antioch, spoke of Melchizedek's time such priests were found "in all the earth.": And at that time there was a righteous king called Melchizedek, in the city of Salem, which is now Jerusalem. This was the first priest of all high priest of the High God......And from his time priests were found in all the earth.....


The Aaronic Priesthood
The LDS Church is the only major Christian church that claims to possess the Aaronic Priesthood. Critics of the LDS assert that Aaron's priesthood was abolished when the Savior came to earth. But the New Testament does not teach this. Furthermore, the Aaronic Priesthood could not been abolished because the Old Testament says it is an eternal priesthood. Therefore, this priesthood must be found in the True Church. The New Testament suggests there were two levels of priesthood authority in the Saver's church........

[Vanhin]

Originally Posted by Dale

I doubt our scripture really claims it was a common early Christian priesthood. If that were the case the Catholic church would be claiming it. The only individuals i know had it are specifically mentioned in modern revelation. It is unclear in the Bible that anybody ever had it, but certain individuals.

Psalm 110:4 if i recall right is about Davidic kings. Solomon, David, Saul, all held that kingly priesthood. They offered sacrifice. And were not condemned for it.

Just an FYI, the Catholic Church claims that their priesthood is Mechizedek. Here's from the Wikipedia article on Mechizedek Priesthood.

Catholics find the roots of their priesthood in the tradition of Melchizedek. (CCC 1544)[1] In Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek offers a sacrifice of bread and wine. Christ therefore fulfilled the prophecy of Ps 110:4, that he would be a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," at the Last Supper, when he broke and shared bread with his disciples. Catholics take seriously Christ's command that the Apostles should "do this in memory of Me." As such, the Church continues to offer sacrifices of bread and wine at Mass, as part of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Vanhin

[Hemidakota]

You have love to the Wiki god.

[Vanhin]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

You have love to the Wiki god.

Hello there Hemidakota. What does that mean? Seems a little meanspirited, but it's hard tell for sure.

Regards,
Vanhin

[Hemidakota]

Not everything written within Wiki is correct. I am still laughing over the posting by unamed person regards to the workings of Nuclear Weapons....not even close. However, reminds me some of the Discover Channel theological insights- "the gospel according to the Discover Channel.'

You will notice, I don't post from Wiki. There are too many excellent LDS websites that have proper references and enough information to be self-standing for both members and non-members alike.