Adventist International Institute
of Advanced Studies
“After the Order of Melchizedek”
A Term Paper
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the Course:
THST 619 Doctrine of the Sanctuary
Ralph D Bock
Table of Contents
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
TYPOLOGY OF JESUS AND MELCHIZEDEK
WHAT IS TYPOLOGY?
WHO IS MELCHIZEDEK?
AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK
SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
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. 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. 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.  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.  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...
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.
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.
Bird, Chad L. 2000. "Typological Interpretation Within the Old Testament: Melchizedekian Typology" Concordia Journal 26, no. 1: 36-52.
Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Matthew Henry 's Concise Commentary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Heb 7:1.
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.
 Bullinger, E. W. 1968. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
 Terry, M. S. 1890. Biblical Hermeneutics. New York, NY: Eaton & Mains.
 Broomall, Wick. 1960. Baker Dictionary of Theology. Everett F. Harrison, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Carl F. H. Henry, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
 Review and Harold, Feb. 18, 1890.
 Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,[pic] Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, 989.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document