After the Order of Melchizedek Free Essays

Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies Theological Seminary â€Å"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 Presentation WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE â€Å"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 may be the case THAT THE PSALM SPEAKS ABOUT A FUTURE KING-PRIEST. Clearly IT DEALS NOT WITH A HISTORICAL KING, BUT WITH THE MESSIAH. We will compose a custom paper test on After the Order of Melchizedek or on the other hand any comparative point just for you Request Now [1] The forecast of Jesus’ ministry as indicated by the request for Melchizedek showed that the Aaronic organization was short lived (Heb 7 refrains 11â€14), and imperfectâ€that is, salvation from sinâ€was impractical through the Aaronic brotherhood. This implied God proposed to change the consecrated law, making it feasible for one who was not a relative of Aaron to turn into a High Priest. When the new High Priest after the request for Melchizedek showed up, the run of the mill ministry would end (refrains 15â€19). Christ became cleric, not based on genealogical ties, however by a celestial presentation. His organization is changeless in light of the fact that His life is indestructible. [2] This is brought in scriptural religious philosophy typology. Regardless of whether typology can genuinely be grasped in the understanding of certain messianic predictions is by a wide margin the most dubious inquiry. One territory of OT typology was that of commonplace people who filled in as models both of others inside the OT and of Christ; also, the Melchizedek of Genesis 14:18-20 filled in as an individual kind of the Messiah inside the OT, as manifested in Psalm 110:4; and that the writer of the Book of Hebrews used the Melchizedekian typology previously utilized inside the OT group to advance his contentions for the incomparability of the brotherhood of Jesus to that of the Levites. [3] Matthew Henry and et al. reference to Hebrew 7. that Melchizedek met Abraham coming back from the salvage of Lot, Melchizedek’s name, â€Å"King of Righteousness,† without a doubt reasonable to his character, stamped him as a kind of the Messiah and his realm. The name of his city implied â€Å"Peace;† and as King of Peace he epitomized Christ, the Prince of Peace, the incomparable Reconciler of God and man. Nothing is recorded with respect to the start or end of his life; hence he regul arly took after the Son of God, whose presence is from everlasting to everlasting, who had nobody that was before Him, and will have nobody come after Him, in His ministry. All aspects of Scripture respects the incomparable King of Righteousness and Peace, our wonderful High Priest and Savior; and the more we inspect it, the more we will be persuaded, that the declaration of Jesus is the soul of prediction. [4] There are solid equals among Melchizedek and Jesus: both are the Sons of God, minister of the Order of Melchizedek, King of Righteous, King of Peace, delegated by God, interminable organization, and previous. Articulation of the Problem The difficult this paper upholds is epitomized in the inquiries: What was so unique about the request for Melchizedek? For what reason would God compare the request for Melchizedek to that of Jesus if there where no trustworthiness to it? Criticalness of the examination The investigation is noteworthy in light of the fact that it will investigate the intertextual investigation of Melchizedek according to Jesus Christ. The examination is imperative since it will add to the information on bringing to center the significance of Jesus’ ministry as better and more lifting and capable than address the issues of God’s individuals during the end long periods of earth’s history. Reason for the Study The primary purpose of this paper is to give a more clear perspective on the prevalent and astounding view of Jesus’ brotherhood as useful enough for the individuals of God. Actually, Jesus Christ is the main genuine clerical middle person among God and mankind. The brotherhoods of Aaron and Melchizedek serve just as good examples of Christ’s compelling service. â€Å"For there is one God, and there is one arbiter among God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a payoff for all, the declaration to which was borne at the correct time† (1 Tim. 2:5,6). [5] Delimitation The paper will be delimited to the couple of pericopes about Melchizedek in Genesis 14, Psalm 110 and the letter to the Hebrews section 7. Procedure This is a subjective examination that depicts Melchizedek and Jesus’ brotherhood from Jewish and Christian sources. Section 1 is a depiction of the presentation that incorporates the importance of study, reason and the delimitation of the exploration. Part 2 contains the writing audit that extrapolates sources from Jewish, Christian, and non-Christian writing to elucidate Melchizedek and Jesus’ organization as pertinent to the arrangement of salvation. Section 3 is the end with the emphasis on the outline and discoveries of the examination work. Section 2 TYPOLOGY OF JESUS AND MELCHIZEDEK WHAT IS TYPOLOGY? Precisely what is a sort? Religiously, a sort might be characterized as â€Å"a figure or ensample of something future and pretty much prophetic, called the ‘Antitype’†. [6] Muenscher says a sort is â€Å"the destined agent connection which certain people, occasions, and organizations of the Old Testament bear to comparing people, occasions, and foundations in the New†. 7] Wick Broomall has a compact explanation that is useful: â€Å"A type is a shadow thrown on the pages of the Old Testament history by a reality whose full epitome or antitype is found in the New Testament revelation†. [8] We would, in outline, propose the accompanying definition, which we reword from Terry: A sort is a genuine, lifted up occurring in history which was supernaturally appointed by the omniscient God to be a prophe tic image of the beneficial things which he purposed to bring to realization in Christ Jesus. Who is Melchizedek? The recognizable proof of Melchizedek has been exceptionally bantered throughout the entire existence of the congregation. Jewish convention has recognized Melchizedek with Shem, the child of Noah who, after the sequence in Genesis, endure the flood and inhabited when Abraham was alive and was his contemporary for a hundred years. Christian convention has proposed various understandings to recognize who Melchizedek was. Origen said that Melchizedek was a heavenly attendant. Others have recommended that he was the Holy Spirit in human structure. Numerous Christians, antiquated and contemporary, have said this is an old style case of a Christophany in the Old Testament, that is, Melchizedek was Jesus Christ himself, who appeared to Abraham in human structure. The idea of Christophany ought to be dismissed on the grounds that it negates the announcement in the book of Hebrews that Jesus was assigned a Priest after the request for Melchizedek. On the off chance that Melchizedek was Christ, at that point how could Christ himself become a Priest in the resemblance of Melchizedek? [9] Ellen White wrote in the Review and Herald that it was Christ that spoke through Melchizedek, the minister of the Most High God. Melchizedek was not Christ, however he was the voice of God on the planet, the delegate of the Father. And all through the ages of the past, Christ has spoken; Christ has driven His kin, and has been the light of the world. [10] Another view is that Melchizedek was a sort of Christ. The typological translation recommends that the organization of Melchizedek was a sort of Christ’s brotherhood. As Melchizedek was a cleric of the Most High God, so was Jesus. As Melchizedek was a ruler, so was Jesus. Both Melchizedek and Jesus were regal ministers. In the people of Melchizedek and Jesus the workplaces of minister and lord were consolidated. For this paper we are going to concentrate on the view that Melchizedek was a kind of Jesus. After The Order of Melchizedek The Lord has sworn and won't alter his perspective: You are a minister everlastingly after the request for Melchizedek (Ps 110,4). In contrast to the standard clerics, for whom it was conceivable to be of holy drop but not really work as ministers (cf. Deut 18,6-8; Lev 21,17-23), the organization of Jesus minister was sworn unto Him by God Himself to be after the request for Melchizedek. He was not of any religious plunge because of the fact that he was not of the clan of Levi, nor was he a minister in the feeling of somebody who was really utilized as an asylum specialist and was completing haven obligations on an everyday premise. In any case, his organization was more lasting and suffering than that of some other cleric, since whether he was working in the asylum and ‘doing the job’ of minister, he was by definition a middle person among individuals and divinity for an amazing remainder. [11] Christ was a cleric of God after the â€Å"order of Melchizedek† (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11,17). The word â€Å"order† (taxis) implies a â€Å"arrangement. † In this association, it implies â€Å"of comparative arrangement,† I. e. , the idea of, or â€Å"just like Melchizedek†. The significance is this: in some sense the royal organization of Jesus would be comparable in nature to that of Melchizedek. Note the reference to Psalm 110:4 above, and see that Christ made the utilization of this Psalm to Himself in Matthew 22:43-45[12] It was not that Melchizedek was â€Å"without father, without mother† actually, or tha