Evolution of Catholic Priesthood - Part 3

“Priest Forever in the line of Melchizedek” – Who is Melchizedek?

This is a difficult question to answer since there is very little information about this individual in the Scriptures. It seems this person has been introduced to justify the naming of Jesus as a priest.

The character ‘Melchizedek’ first appears in Genesis chapter 14. He is confined to 3 verses: 18-20. Let us quickly look at the context of his sudden appearance and disappearance.

Noah, the hero of the flood that destroyed mankind, had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. One of the descendants of Shem was Terah whose sons were Abraham, Nahor, and Haran. Haran was the father of Lot. (Remember the story of how his wife became a pillar of salt for looking back while fleeing Sodom; it was this same Lot who was made drunk and then raped by his daughters so that they could bear children.)

Abraham and his nephew Lot settled in Canaan with their possessions, including cattle, women, and slaves. Since there was not enough pasture for all their cattle, they decided to go their separate ways: Abraham remained in Canaan while Lot moved to Jordan valley and camped near Sodom.

Briefly, here is what happened soon after. An alliance of four kings led by Chedorlaomer of Elam went to war with another alliance of five kings including Bera of Sodom and Birsha of Gomorrah and defeated them. The four kings took everything in Sodom and Gomorrah including food. Since Lot, Abraham’s nephew, was living in Sodom, he too was captured, and all his possessions looted. When Abraham heard about this, he pursued the four kings with his fighting men ‘numbering 318’, defeated them, and recovered the loot that had been taken. He also brought back his nephew together with the women and other prisoners.

When he came back after his victory over the four kings, the king of Sodom went to meet him. Out of the blue, Melchizedek appeared on the scene from nowhere. “And Melchizedek, who was king of Salem and also a priest of the Most High God, brought bread and wine to Abraham, blessed him, and said, ‘May the Most High God …be praised.’ And Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of all the loot he had recovered”. Just as he appeared from nowhere, Melchizedek then disappears only to reappear much later in verse 4 in Psalms 110: “You will be a priest forever in the priestly order of Melchizedek”. He then reappears more ‘elaborately’ in the Letter to the Hebrews of the New Testament.

In the New Testament documents, Jesus is not called a priest. In fact, he was against Jewish priests of the time, calling them ‘vipers’, ‘whitewashed sepulchers’ and similar derogatory terms. Ancient priesthood tended to be hereditary. The establishment of Levites as priests for the Jewish community is related to the story of the golden calf followed by the episode of the ‘sacred violence’ in which members of the Levite tribe killed three thousand of their relatives to prove that they are on Lord’s side.

How then could Jesus, from the tribe of Judah, be a priest without being a Levite? The Letter to the Hebrews had to find a different lineage for him. It did this by appeal to a minor figure Melchizedek mentioned briefly only twice in the Old Testament books of Genesis and Psalms.

It appears the story of Melchizedek is an interpolation into the framework dealing with Abraham’s rescue of Lot. That framework itself is an addition to the text of Genesis. According to many scholars, the entire chapter 14 of Genesis shows no signs of being from the prime sources. It seems to be ascribed to a foreign source which explains the fact that Melchizedek, unlike the Hebrew priests, does not have the normal lineage (X son of Y, etc.) He seems to have been, according to the Jesuit scholar Joseph Fitzmyer, a priest of the polytheistic Canaanite religion.

The Letter to Hebrews speaks of the priesthood of Jesus and his one sacrifice which redeemed mankind. It emphasizes the everlasting priesthood of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies. This Letter to Hebrews, written allegedly by St. Paul, is said to be (1) not Paul’s, (2) not a letter, and (3) not to Hebrews. Its core idea that Jesus is a priest is not reflected in the writings of Paul. Its style, unique vocabulary, sentence structure, rhetorical devices, and sophisticated language have no parallels in the rest of scripture. Using the assertions of the Letter to Hebrews, the priesthood was made an accepted institution among Christians. It made Jesus a priest and all priests his successors! The author of the pseudo-Pauline epistle makes no mention of the Last Supper, even when quoting the blood covenant of Moses.

Sacrament of Eucharist, Transubstantiation, and priest as the miracle worker

Regarding the Eucharist, it was not Jesus who instituted it, rather Paul. This is clear from 1 Corinthians 11.23-26:

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same manner, He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as long as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

The Pauline Eucharist removed the element of actual supper but retained the ritual and godly presence. (This is what is happening during mass these days.)

One must distinguish between “Last Supper” and “Lord’s Supper.” Last Supper refers to the meal that Jesus had with his disciples before he died. Lord’s Supper, on the other hand, is the commemoration of the Last Supper and is in fact what is termed “Eucharist”. Valeriy A. Alikin in his book The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering has the following interesting take on this matter. He is describing what was happening among the followers of Jesus in the early Church.

“The primary function of the Lord’s Supper was to establish a fellowship, communion, and unity among the participants. This meal was an expression of their being a community. However, the interpretation of the community gathered for the supper as the ‘body of Christ’, the interpretation of the bread and wine as Jesus’ body and blood, and the attribution of the ceremony’s origins to an institution by the historical Jesus himself must all be regarded as early, yet secondary developments.

It has proved to be difficult to regard the Lord’s Supper as a continuation of Jesus’ Last Supper. The story of the Last Supper, which is the story about the institution of the ecclesiastical communal meal, rather originated secondarily in explanation of the existence of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist.”

Originally the Lord’s Supper was celebrated as a full meal within the framework of the Sunday evening gathering. In the second half of the second century, the Eucharist, in a more modest form was introduced into the morning gatherings on several days of the week, including on Sunday. This development resulted in the morning ceremony being regarded as the real sacrament while the Sunday Supper gradually ceased to be considered Eucharistic and as such became a charity meal for the less well-off members of the community.”

In 1551, the Council of Trent confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation as Catholic dogma, stating that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.” This change the Catholic Church has called transubstantiation.

From that day, all priests, by the decree of the Council of Trent, became miracle workers!