After the Order of Melchizedek
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 1 1
INTRODUCTION 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 4
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 4
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 4
DELIMITATION 5
METHODOLOGY 5
CHAPTER 2 7
TYPOLOGY OF JESUS AND MELCHIZEDEK 7
WHAT IS TYPOLOGY? 7
WHO IS MELCHIZEDEK? 8
AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK 10
CHAPTER 3 16
SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 16
BIBLIOGRAPHY 19
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
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 1 1
INTRODUCTION 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 4
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 4
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 4
DELIMITATION 5
METHODOLOGY 5
CHAPTER 2 7
TYPOLOGY OF JESUS AND MELCHIZEDEK 7
WHAT IS TYPOLOGY? 7
WHO IS MELCHIZEDEK? 8
AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK 10
CHAPTER 3 16
SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 16
BIBLIOGRAPHY 19
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
Bibliography: BIRD, CHAD L. 2000. "TYPOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION WITHIN THE OLD TESTAMENT: MELCHIZEDEKIAN TYPOLOGY." CONCORDIA JOURNAL 26. Broomall, Wick. 1960. Baker Dictionary of Theology. Everett F. Harrison, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Carl F. H. Henry, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Bullinger, E. W. 1968. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000. Dunnill John, Covenant and sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews. SNTS 75; Cambridge, CUP, 1992. Gane, Roy “Altar Call” Daidem, 1999. Petuchowski, Jakob Josef. "The controversial figure of Melchizedek." Hebrew Union College Annual 28, 1957. Review and Harold, Feb. 18, 1890. Terry, M. S. 1890. Biblical Hermeneutics. New York, NY: Eaton & Mains. [2]Raoul. Dederen, vol. 12, Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, (electronic ed., Logos Library System; Commentary Reference Series Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2001, c2000), 390. [3]Bird, Chad L. 2000. "Typological Interpretation Within the Old Testament: Melchizedekian Typology" Concordia Journal 26, no. 1: 36-52. [4]Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Matthew Henry 's Concise Commentary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Heb 7:1. [5]Dederen, Raoul, vol. 12, Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, (electronic ed., Logos Library System; Commentary Reference Series Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2001, c2000), 390. [6] Bullinger, E. W. 1968. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. [7] Terry, M. S. 1890. Biblical Hermeneutics. New York, NY: Eaton & Mains. [8] Broomall, Wick. 1960. Baker Dictionary of Theology. Everett F. Harrison, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Carl F. H. Henry, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. [10] Review and Harold, Feb. 18, 1890. [12] Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,[pic] Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, 989.