Order of Melchisedek

The Abel inference is interesting.

However, Gen 9:3-10 has:

***3-4 Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants. Only flesh with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat.

5 For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life.

6 If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made.

7 Be fertile, then, and multiply; abound on earth and subdue it."
8 God said to Noah and to his sons with him:
9 "See, I am now establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you

10 and with every living creature that was with you: all the birds, and the various tame and wild animals that were with you and came out of the ark.***

Gen 9:3-4 implies that prior to the flood, green plants were the food given by God to Noah. This assertion is consistent with :

I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food. And it was so." (Genesis 1:29,30)

After the flood, the Lord gives animal flesh. This makes sense as green plants would have died in the deluge.

However, Gen 9:5 states an accounting must be made for blood, inclusive an accounting for animal blood.

Gen 9:9 further elaborates on a covenant God establishes in context of this accounting, not only for human blood, but God extends His covenant to the animal kingdom 9:10

Therefore, it is clear that by God’s demand of an accounting, a sacrifice be made by Noah and his descendants, for any and all bloodshed including animal.

Making the sacrificial offering establishes a ritual, and a priesthood of the ritual, aka rite or order.

**Melchizadek and his order is enigmatic for several reasons:
*]The Pentateuch is dominated by 4 distinct authors of varying writing styles. However, as I recall, the Gen 14 fragment containing the story of Melchizadek is not written by any of those 4 dominant authors. Rather, a mysterious 5 author with unique writing style penned the verses. “He and his style” appear nowhere else in the bible.

**]Melchizadek is said to be a priest, therefore “rite, ritual, and order” follow. The priesthood ensuing from the covenant God made with Noah and the animal kingdom, is a rite of accounting for bloodshed. *

*]Melchizadek " being a priest of God Most High", and offering bread and wine, must therefore be bound by to God Most High with another covenant.

And what is this covenant between Melchizadek and God Most High


Praise and Glory be to you Lord Jesus Christ!

The OP indictd that he had not encountered many references to Melchisedek. This ancient priest is often mentioned in the various liturgies of the Church, referencing the sacrificial nature of the recieint of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Someone has pointed out that Melchisedek’s “sudden” appearance in the Old Testament, in a way, prefigures the “sudden” appearance of the Son of God, even though the ancient Hebrews had long expected the coming of a Savior.

Interesting of course. However, a priest of a rite in the OT was via the establishment of a Covenant between God and the priestly line. There is no covenant in the OT described to establish the priesthood and rite of “bread and wine”.

Melchizadek would therefore be VERY puzzling, … enigmatic for Jewish scholars.

Yes I read them. The answers presented on those articles are fine.

But the bible answers directly and the tradition and history of the Catholic priesthood naturally follows.

An order of priesthood means that a covenant exists between priest and God. A rite ensues from the covenant. ( See my post above citing Genesis for further explanation )

Therefore, Jesus establishes the priesthood by commanding the Apostles to “… Do this in remembrance of me”. Hence the rite and ritual of the priesthood is established with Jesus Christ Himself as the covenant between God and man.

It’s very clear.

Broski’s profile says he is a representative of an orthopedic device company. He’s in surgery – but not as the patient!

Thanks for the prayer…Let me explain why I was in surgery. I sell Orthopaedic implants (i.e. plates, screws and rods) that are used to fix your bones when you break them. Usually if I work past 6pm, it’s because one of my surgeons has added on a case. Such as yesterday. But thank you for being so thoughtful. It gave me a little chuckle, but was appreciated. I wondered if someone would think that! I will give you a reply a little later today.

Interesting of course. However, a priest of a rite in the OT was via the establishment of a Covenant between God and the priestly line. There is no covenant in the OT described to establish the priesthood and rite of “bread and wine”.

Melchizadek would therefore be VERY puzzling, … enigmatic for Jewish scholars.

According to Jewish and Christian tradition Melchizadek is the patriarch Shem, the first-born of Noah (Gen 6:10). Being a patriarch he possesed ruling authority as a “king” as well as religious authority as a “priest”. His genealogy in Genesis indicates that he lived into and beyond the lifetime of Abraham (Gen 11:10-11).

See my post #14

About halfway through the article, D. Shem’s Blessing Talks about Melchizedek being Shem.

Interesting. However, I believe that no matter “how you spin it”, the authority as a priest comes solely from a covenant with God.

Hebrews 7 validates the assertion.

[INDENT]" And to the degree that this happened not without the taking of an oath --for others became priests without an oath, but he with an oath, through the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: ‘You are a priest forever’”-- Hebrews 7:20,21

The priestly tradition of the Catholic also validates this fact. The authority of the priest comes from the Covenant made by Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ.

No covenant … no priesthood. Noah’s covenant was in regards to bloodshed. Melchizadek’s was not.

The author of Hebrews 7 also, certainly is unaware, or rejects that Melchizadek is Noah’s firstborn.

It can’t be correct. The author of Hebrews 7, and its content is a higher authority.

He can’t be descendent of Noah because his rite of priesthood proceeds from the covenant between God and Noah. That covenant is a covenant of account for bloodshed. Hence, a sacrifice or accounting would be made for each animal slaughtered.

Melchizadek brings bread and wine. It must follow that his covenant with God is not of an accounting of bloodshed. A different covenant not described anywhere in the OT.

Since the tradition that our Catholic priesthood is according to the rite of Melchizadek, the Covenant of Melchizadek BE Jesus Christ Himself.

A lot of good content. But not Shem as Melchizadek.

A covenant with God must be made to establish a lineage of priests. From the covenant comes the rite. Passing down the covenant according to the rite is the priestly line.

It is that simple IMHO.

My understanding from Hebrews 7:3 is that one of the key attributes of this particular priesthood, Melchizedek, is that it is without beginning or end, it is eternal, just as our Lord is. Is that how you all understand? Contrasted to the Aaronic priesthood, they kept dying as individuals and therefore were inferior.

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

Contrasted against the Aaronic priesthood, they kept dying as individuals and therefore were inferior to Melchizedek. Again, just focusing on this one attribute; I know there are more.

Hebrews 7:23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.

Does this make sense?.. please verify the context of these passages; if you read and understand as I do. Thanks.

I believe the Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich had a vision of Melchizedek. It can be read in The Life of Christ, vol. 1. I know, as private revelation, we are not required to believe it. It’s very interesting nonetheless.



Mercygate agrees, what about the rest of you?


That said, I think Melchizadek presents theological problems.

The notion of “covenant as prerequisite” of priesthood, mystifies Melchizadek further. That is, Melchizadek as priest suggest a covenant between God Most High and Melchizadek.

I personally believe that the Covenant must be Jesus offering Himself for the salvation of all and for the food of all. If Melchizadek is not Jesus Himself, then he must be in the line of Jesus’ priesthood.

Regardless, I find in this, a very beautiful meditation … I can’t really explain it, but mediation on Melchizadek brings me to the self sacrificial act of Jesus, … not on the cross, but in the form of His renunciation of self … yes. Jesus, while with the Father is priest with the Oath that He will renounce Himself and sacrifice Himself for all.

It is also, so profound that He manifests His bread and wine offering as His Self sacrifice, His Body and Blood, hence ending all other priestly lines, and establishing on earth “The new and everlasting covenant”

All praises and glories are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!

yes. agreed.

I have to apologize. I do not understanding what you are saying about a covenant of bloodshed.

**See, I am now establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you (9:9) **

God expanded the “family structure” of His covenant people - from a husband and a wife (Adam and Eve) to a family unit. Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives where included in the blessings of this covenant.

Also, what makes you say the author of Hebrews was unaware or rejects this?

According to the IGNATIOUS Catholic Study Bible, “neither beginning nor end” (in regards to Melchizedek) is not literal. It is in contrast to the age limits set for the Aaronic priesthood, where ministry began at 30 and ended at 50 (Num 4:3, 43). Melchizedek was not limited to two decades of ministry, for no such age restriction was in force in pre-Levitical times. Jesus likewise exercises his priesthood for as long as he lives- for ever (7:24).

The “for ever” associated with Melchizedek in (Heb 7:3) is different and weaker than the ones applied to Jesus. The sense is that Melchizedek was priest “for a long time,” whereas Jesus remains a priest “for all eternity”.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.