One of the chief points which the Romanists use to prove the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice is to cite the biblical concept of the Melchizedekian priesthood. In particular, Genesis 14:18 is often cited to show that Melchizedek's "bringing forth" bread and wine is a type of the Eucharist and since (as they allege) Melchizedek was offering them as a sacrifice, therefore this shows that the Sacrifice of the Roman Mass is biblical.
There are a few main problems with this idea:
[1]. Melchizedek was bringing the bread and wine to refresh Abraham and his troops after their battles with the Eastern kings, not to offer them as a sacrifice. This is similar to what Barzillai the Gileadite did for King David in 2 Samuel 17:27-29.
[2]. הוֹצִ֖יא (a form of the word יָצָא) is the word used for "brought forth" in Genesis 14:18. As far as I know, it is not used anywhere in the Old Testament for the idea of sacrificing something.
[3]. The sacrifice of the mass uses the substance of Christ's body and blood, under the appearance (or accidents) of bread and wine whereas Melchizedek had the actual substance of bread and wine. The thing being "offered up" (if Melchizedek was indeed offering a sacrifice) is different than what is offered in the Roman Mass. Thus Melchizedek can't be used for the Roman Catholic argument here and transubstantiation is forfeited.
[4]. If Melchizedek's sacrifice is a type of the Roman Mass, then the bread and wine of Melchizedek said to be sacrificed by the Romanists must be propitiatory. However, without shedding of blood, there can be no such sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22). Since Melchizedek obviously did not have blood for his "sacrifice", it is not propitiatory, and thus it is not a type of the Roman Mass.
[5]. The priests in the order of Aaron also offered bread and wine (Exodus 29:40; Numbers 28:13-14). Thus Cardinal Bellarmine's idea that the Aaronic Sacrifice was always bloody (On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Book I, Chapter 6) is clearly disproven.
Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek in the following ways:
1) The fact that no genealogy of Melchizedek is recorded in Scripture shows that he is type of Christ's eternal pre-existence (Hebrews 7:3).
2) Melchizedek was a priest and king, and so was Christ.
3) Both priesthoods were greater than the Levitical Priesthood.
The Reformed scholastic theologian Francis Turretin lists the following absurdities in the Romanists' doctrine of the Mass:
"(a) An external and visible sacrifice and yet the victim itself is not seen. (b) Blood is shed as is required in every sacrifice, and blood is not shed because it is taught to be bloodless. (c) A true body is said to be offered to the Father and not a true body, since it is invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed and unextended. (d) It is maintained to be the same as the sacrifice of the cross and yet neither the same victim, action, nor passion is seen in the same place. (e) The thing offered is destroyed and is not destroyed, since it does not cease to be simply, but only under the species. (f) Christ was once offered, who nevertheless is offered repeatedly and will not cease to be offered before the end of the world. (g) A sacrifice of infinite value, which yet has no value unless repeated a thousand and ten thousand times. (h) Christ offering himself for others to take away their sins, and yet offered by another to take away sins already taken away and pardoned" (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 3, pg. 530)
Answers to Robert Bellarmine's Arguments
Bellarmine: "Besides, when Scripture describes the priesthood of Melchisedech in so many places, as distinct from the Aaronic priesthood while similar to the priesthood of Christ, should it not hand down in some place what the sacrifice of Melchisedech actually was? Accordingly, a priesthood is ordered to sacrifice, and if a sacrifice were unknown, it is necessary that the priesthood also be unknown. There is no mention anywhere of precisely what sacrifice Melchisedech offered except in this passage."
Response:
1. The genealogy of Melchizedek is also unknown. Why can't his sacrifice also be unknown? "The secret things belong to the Lord" (Deuteronomy 29:29).
2. Though his sacrifice is not officially known, as I said above, I personally think (at least based off of my reading of the text) that Melchizedek offered in his sacrifice to God the tenth portion of the spoils of war given to him by Abraham. Among those spoils were likely some animals meet for sacrifice (cf. Numbers 31:32-33).
Bellarmine: "For if Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, consequently he should agree in this priesthood with Melchisedech, namely in what is proper for that priesthood, except the form of such a sacrifice. What Melchisedech blessed and what he received as a tithe, is not proper to that priesthood, since it is in common with the Levitical priesthood. That Melchisedech was not anointed with sensible oil, nor succeeded by another, nor did any man succeed him, is not proper to Melchisedech, since it is in common with Abel and with several others. Lastly, because his lineage is unwritten, and thence was a type of the eternity of the priesthood of Christ, besides what is something intrinsic to the priesthood, is not proper to Melchisedech, but is in common with Job, Heli, and others, who were both priests and do not have their lineage described (as Epiphanius shows, Panarion, haer. 55). But to offer bread and wine, is proper to Melchisedech."
My Response:
1) That fact that Melchizedek gave tithes to Abraham shows his superiority over Aaron's priesthood. This is the exact argument given by the author of Hebrews in Hebrews 7:4-10.
2) Job and Abel are nowhere referred to as "priests of God Most High", as Melchizedek is.
Bellarmine: "in the Aaronic priesthood there was indeed a sacrifice of bread and wine, but as a certain part and tempering quality of the other sacrifice. Then, bread, the loaves which were offered in the Aaronic sacrifice with animals, as we said, were always mixed with oil, and much of the time from this they became a cake. But the sacrifice of Melchisedech was simple bread. Then, it could also be said that the difference between those priesthoods was that Aaron offered sacrifices of all kinds, i.e. both bloody and unbloody. Melchisedech, on the other hand, only used an unbloody, pure, and simple sacrifice, as we taught above from the citations of Jerome, Eusebius and all the Fathers."
My Response:
[1]. Bellarmine is clearly ignorant of Leviticus 5:11 which forbids bread to be mixed with oil.
[2]. Rabbi Abarbanel and Rabbi Maimonides speak of meat-offerings which were both accessories or "additions" to other sacrifices but also offered by themselves in other liturgical settings.
[3]. If the Roman Catholic view on the mass is true, then Christ is a priest after the order of Aaron, since he offers both a bloody (the cross of Calvary) and an unbloody sacrifice (the Eucharist in the Roman Mass).
Bellarmine: "if Christ be a priest forever, the rite of sacrificing must continue for ever: he cannot be said to be a priest who hath no sacrifice to offer. But there can be no sacrifice, if we destroy that of the mass."
My Response:
1) While offering the sacrifices were no doubt part of the office of the Israelite priesthood, that was not all there was to it. For example, the high priest in ancient Israel had the prerogative of blessing the people, lighting the lamps, and blowing the trumpets. (Numbers 6:23; 8:2; 10:8).
2) Christ is a priest forever in his intercession for His people, continuously presenting the merits of His sacrifice to God the Father (Hebrews 7:25; 10:14).
No comments:
Post a Comment