TheShopKeeper: Please can someone kindly answer this:

What is the reason why the Jews are not tithing today and they are more blessed than we Christians?

Thanks

Also ask why is it that the Jews are not Christians yet they are doing fine. such questions are not spiritual. Why is it that dangote is not a christian yet he has money? Etc etc

I actually have an entirely different and radical view to this tithing matter but lets allow Goshen360 to martial out his points first. The real problem though is not the tithing or not per se but the way and means the whole thing is going about which is by the way a reflection of the greater Nigerian society which holds nobody accountable for any thing.

Joagbaje:
If you have something to teach .im all ears

This is the reason we have problem with you here using your 'ears' to read from your computer screen, lol you see yourself

Woofff, the thread too broad, reducing greatly the chance to gain anything important or new. Was initially encouraged by the op's claim on Hebrews7 but it appears na same same. Well make i see if my eyes go still permit me reply some posts.

@Gosh
As much as possible, can you keep it simple? i guess the goal of exposition is for us all to 'get it' or understand it more. Remember, you're trying to talk to sheep. Keep It Simple. We happen to love the simplicity that is in Christ, thanks.

Okay, let’s get started right now!
Jesus is not Melchizedek and Melchizedek is not Jesus.

i agree with most of what you wrote, so i'm just picking SOME of what you wrote that need some tweak. The quoted is not stated and is not necessary in this thread. There is no need to generate unnecessary issues and diversions.

Melchizedek was a man

And Jesus was what? a woman?

Melchizedek was a man (Heb. 7:4) and no man fall from heaven, he had to be born of a woman

Jesus was also born of a woman. What's this?
Gala 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

On the contrary, its Melchi that we are told that he had no human parents!!
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Jesus was made like Him, and He was made like Jesus.

Now, who is this Melchizedek and what is it about him that made Jesus to “become” High Priest forever “according to the order” of Melchizedek? Let’s not guess. Let the writer explain to us since it is written.

This is Melchizedek below.

Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
He was a priest and a king at the same time. That is the SIMPLE order that Jesus followed Him in, the rest na jara.

@debor

Please point out the verse in Hebrews 7 so this can be specifically addressed in context.

Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

i'm certain that you know the differences between present and past tense. This practice was going on under the noses of the apostles as it were, yet none of them ever condemned tithes or spoke ill of it. Jesus commended it, unlike the holier than Jesus folks here screaming like giving tithes is the criteria to damnation and falsehood.

Secondly, Jesus referred SPECIFICALLY to tithes given according to the law and not any other tithe - yes or no?

i don't know the criteria or rationale behind determining the tithes Jesus specified. Tithes, Mercy, Faith and Judgement were before the law, and also commanded by the law. Jesus commended all four.

"You can't fail to see the weightier matters of the law and be bullying the light weights."

What does this mean?

"You" refers to 'one' or closer yet, 'you guys'. One can't/ought not to ignore the weightier matters while always yapping about the tithe light weight. Anytime someone quotes a scripture against the scripture, in order to disregard tithes, always note that such is also disregarding the weightier matters.

Again, did Jesus condemn wave offerings and heave offerings? Yes or no?

Did Jesus condemn going for the Passover festival in Jersualem? What other 'commendation or approval' for attending the Passover festival do you need beyond Jesus himself attending it? Jesus also commended and approved it didn't he?

Is it wrong to do any of the above? i await your answer, mine is NO, IT IS NOT WRONG. The onus is on those that condemn what God never condemned.

If the argument is that the Scripture 'plainly teaches', then how come there are no teachings to give tithes in any of the accounts of giving contained in the NT church? Why can't we conclude that the Scripture 'plainly teaches' that tithing is no longer relevant as it has ceased to be (recorded as) practiced?

It teaches because they had been upgraded. The passover and its ilk had been upgraded to the sacrifice of Christ. Christ and His sacrifice is now what is needed and perfect for sins, as opposed to the former. There are no teachings for many things in the NT, there's hardly a direct scripture on offering either. The simple point you and your likes continually fail to take in is that tithe is a form of giving and an offering.

@zikky

yep, the Hebrew verse refers to Levites.

The moral lesson is that tithe was received after the law and nobody complained about tithes except you folks trying to force your dislike into the Bible. i hope the below no apply to you.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

whether weightier or lighter is not relevant here. If the weightier matters of the law is not relevant to Christians, why should we be bothered bout the light weights. The simple truth is that the Law is not applicable. Don't tell me you are still adhering to the matters of the law? If you are you better comply 100% o! So when is the next burnt offering taking place at your end

conjectures. Deal with the below.
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
By the grace of God, i still adhere to the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Do you?
Until you guys figure out that the law done away with is ceremonial, you will continue to stumble at the Bible. First, they advice me to throw away the OT. Now they say make i join Matthew, Mark, Luke and John put for dustbin.Sorry, i don't take ungodly advice.
Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Jer 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

this your statement is not complete. Let me help: Jesus commended and approved the practice of rendering a tenth of agric produce to the Levites in accordance with the law you don't have to thank me, afterall that's what friends are for

And where did you conjure this complete statement from again?

Thank you, if they are still adhering to the matters of the law, they should also apply death sentence to adulterers! Na so na! Why only tithe huh? Smh

Its not only tithe na. Honour your father and Mother, add that one too. We adhere to that as well. As for death sentence, grace don come save them. Grace doesn't excuse disobedience to the law of God though. The NT gives them a chance at forgiveness and repentance, not that it erases adultery or robbery as wrong.

@Gosh

Offering as it is in the NT is NEVER, I repeat NEVER based on the OT.

i wonder again at what you mean by NT. NT is Matthew to Revelations plus X.
Well,giving also has this scripture in view. Let me limit it to 2 for now though ALL scripture still remain valid for teaching and instruction in righteousness. i wonder why you're trying to limit it to one, perhaps based on your prejudice?
Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee;
Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
This verse has an angle that your one and only doesn't. Also, this.
1Co 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

It is based on this scripture sir. Take a look,

New International Version (©1984)
On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

i believe you are referring to this scripture below?
1Co 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
1Co 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
i see in that scripture, a command and order to give, falling the hand of your touted NT giving must be 'if you like'. It says I have given order. It also says every one of you. Imagine a pastor saying everyone of his congregation is ordered to give something today. Imagine Oyedepo saying that, or Benny Hinn. You for don open office thread for here. Yet that is what God is basically saying in this your model verse. And the giving is proportional as God hath prospered him. Good News says "in proportion", Darby calls it "degree". It shows that there is nothing absurd about proportional(percentage or fractional or certain portion) giving in the NT.

This is what the NT offering of the OT is based upon. It will be best to show the world where NT Christians offer offerings like the OT.

Brother, forget all this showing the 'world' thing and make your points. NL no be the world, no disrespect to the forum. There are less than 1million ids here, and many people have multiple ids. Plus not everybody is on the religion section reading tithes. That's why i was 'tickling' your friends who organised a seminar the other time, where they had was it 20 people or so attending, after all the mouth of how they had changed the whole of mankind to 'finding the light'. Lets just talk ehnn, forget the people clapping and liking, lets have an honest and openminded scriptural discussion.

What you call offerings in churches and place of worship today is replaced with MONEY giving and we are instructed to "set aside a CERTAIN PORTION of our income" on the first day of the week. This is where giving so called "offering" in churches comes to be. It is NOT talking about the OT kind of offerings!

Na this kain quote your teacher for write SEE ME. i don't understand the quote oh. Are you against people giving money in churches or what?

@tislight
i don't usually reply you as you're usually around to cheerlead without any originality of any kind, or you go on a quoting rampage of quoting posts without brake. But let me make a bit of a comment.

Infact jesus talked about offering and said that any one that is taking his offering to the temple and remembers that his brother so have something(complains) against him, he should leave his offering there at the temple and go make peace with his brother befor coming back to do the offering.

I dont know they dont obey Jesus words here and do animal sacrifice and others but decicded to do tithing alone

Offering or gift is not limited to animal sacrifices. Thank God they also gave money and other things in Jesus' days, we for no hear word at all.
Luk 21:1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
Luk 21:2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee;

@Gosh

Clearly from this scripture, the historic Melchizedek did not appear as a type and shadow in order to receive tribute or tithe from Abraham BUT to bless. How much more the fulfilled Melchizedek?

Did He receive tithes from Abraham? i believe that issue is also clearly stated.

Melchizedek met Abraham returning from the slaughter of kings and the scripture simply records that he blessed Abraham without first demanding tithe or tribute from Abraham. In like manner, the fulfilled Melchizedek (Jesus Christ) blesses Christians without first demanding tithe in order to bless them, Christians are blessed by the sacrifices of Christ.

Did Melchizedek receive tithes from Abraham?

What then is “biblical type or shadow”?

What has this got to do with anything? Christ is of/after the order of Melchizedek. Where does the shadow come in oooooooo? i'll leave your theories on Melchi is not Jesus, they smell very irrelevant to this thread.

Every word of this writer is extremely important.

Sentiments. i hope you'll remember this soon though.

Abram gave (not pay) tenth from the spoils of war.

This is trivial and unwarranted. The Bible uses the words 'give' and 'pay' synonymously in this context.
Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham.
When Abraham gave tithes, it is believed that Levi also gave tithes in Abraham.
2Ti 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

It will be scripturally wrong to teach that giving of tithe/tenth is what makes God bless someone under the new covenant even as it wasn’t like that in the case of Abram and Melchizedek as type and shadow of better covenant.

There is always blessing for doing good and for obedience, whether OT or NT. Teaching that tithes is a means to salvation, forgiveness, or justification would be wrong. If you obey, it will be well with you, even if it is your parents.
Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Eph 6:2 Honor thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;
Eph 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

The apostles often leaned on the law for foundation and ratification of their teachings, they were not bent on destroying it or making it irrelevant. That is what they referred to as scriptures, including Jesus. Today, you guys say the opposite. All because of 10%
1Cor 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

To add to your exposition,
Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Melchizedk was King of righteousness and King of peace. Jesus is also the same. He is the Lord our Righteousness, and our King of Kings and Prince of Peace. Melchi was BTW the King of Salem, which is now Jerusalem.
Psa 76:2 In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.
Jerusalem is the city of David, and Jesus is the son of David. Make i stop for there, na tithe i come talk for hia.

@ Image123,

Thank you for your contribution. I will try my best to minimize the lengthy exposition so as to focus on important point. Not too many people like to read story though..... . Again, I'm taking the exposition step by step or verse by verse. We shall come back to some of the points you made when debate starts proper. I will try and remove some unncessary point....if you wish so we can make it simple. Thank you.

Bidam: Bro.goshen..lets be spiritually sensitive in this last days that d enemy is trying to blind d eyes of believers from knowin the true light of d gospel..i may not be gifted in your area of bible exposition but i have enof bible sense with d little the Holy Ghost has taught me over the years to firmly agree with bro..joagbe dat tithing is really a kingdom principle..this principle might ave been abused by fraudsters who parade demselves as pastors(wolves in sheepskin)..but d truth of d matter is dat d saints of God re really fufilling d will of the Lord as outlined in mat6:3 and mat6:19..u may tend to disagree on this but dis post is actually for those believers u re trying to lead astray..and as for ur so called expose on heb7..u actually lack spiritual discernment on wat dat scripture is talkin about..omitin some vital information and layin emphasis on melchizedec priesthood doesnt cut it for me..from gleanin tru dat scripture u said melchizedek is a man..but d scripture was clear dat melchizedek was without father,mother,without descendant..to me dat melchizedek of old is Jesus Christ..for Jesus is d same yesterday,today and forever..and who told u xtians dont go on slaugther of kings..we go on slaugther of kings though not in d physical but in d spiritual so as to advance God's kingdom..for we wrstle not against flesh and blood but against demonic entitities dat rule territories and space..they ave hierachies and re weel organised..u said Isreal has no king and priest..but by d inspiration of d Holy Spirit we know dat david operated as both a prophet, a king and a priest..i dont ave time to expain in d details cos am not on a pc..but witout contradiction d less is blessed of d better..d levitical priesthood of those days is liken to we who He has made king and priest unto our God..d Fivefold ministry is to equip d saints..so d saints can do d work of d minstries...money cannot advance d kingdom of God for d kingdom of God is life giving in itsef..bit money can be use as a tool to spread d word of Godand dats where tithes and offering play a part..shalom

"and as for ur so called expose on heb7..u actually lack spiritual discernment on wat dat scripture is talkin about..omitin some vital information and layin emphasis on melchizedec priesthood doesnt cut it for me"

I will only respond to some, not all of your points as quoted. The purpose of this exposition is to proof biblical truth. If you think I lack spiritual discernment, you are also permitted to contribute and let put everything in the lens of the scripture. I may omit some vital information about Melcizedek but you can also add to this. I don't know all.

"from gleanin tru dat scripture u said melchizedek is a man..but d scripture was clear dat melchizedek was without father,mother,without descendant..to me dat melchizedek of old is Jesus Christ..for Jesus is d same yesterday,today and forever"

You haven't allowed me get to the verse where it says Melchizedek is without father, mother and genealogy and you are jumping to conclusion. I'm taking the exposition verse-by-verse bro. Take it easy you hear. You said Melchizedek is Jesus, but the same Heb 7 says...."he was made LIKE the son of God". Does that sound or teach he is Jesus? In biblical types and shadows, a person cannot be type of himself. Jesus had mother, genealogy/descendant BUT Melchizedek dont so how is Melchizedek the same as Jesus When we don't understand the purpose of God using types and shadows in the OT, we will replace them as though they are substance. Simply, Melchizedek is NOT Jesus and scripture confirms that truth.

"and who told u xtians dont go on slaugther of kings..we go on slaugther of kings though not in d physical but in d spiritual so as to advance God's kingdom..for we wrstle not against flesh and blood but against demonic entitities dat rule territories and space..they ave hierachies and re weel organised"

The battle Abraham went was physical.....not spiritual. The Christian battle is spiritual and where do we get our spoils of war from if we fight a spiritual battle so we can give tithe from such spoils of war. We need to address that also. I showed a diagram to show the covenant of the NT and the NT testament Christian is bless.

"u said Isreal has no king and priest..but by d inspiration of d Holy Spirit we know dat david [b]operated as both a prophet, a king and a priest..i dont ave time to expain in d details cos am not on a pc"[/b]

You will have to show us where David was ordained as priest, not operated as priest and king sir.


"d levitical priesthood of those days is [b]liken to we who He has made king and priest unto our God..d Fivefold ministry is to equip d saints..so d saints can do d work of d minstries"[/b]

Clearly enough, we have five fold ministry who is not levites and priest same and you agree that believers are now made kings and priests in Christ so tithe is to be paid to who? if we ourselves are now kings and priests.


"money cannot advance d kingdom of God for d kingdom of God is life giving in itsef..bit money can be use as a tool to spread d word of Godand dats where tithes and offering play a part..shalom"

Giving is what the NT teaches. So the kingdom of God should be advanced with crops and animals? which is biblical tithe or do we expand God's kingdom with spoils of war in the case of Abraham? Money answers to Kingdom advancement sir NOT crops, animals and spoils of war.

2.To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

The writer still expounding and describing “this Melchizedek” from verse one says, “To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all”. We must understand the context of “tenth of all” by the writer. “All” in the context does not imply everything that Abraham possessed but all that he recovered from war as specified by the writer in verse 4,

“…unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils”.

Since the writer of Hebrews is using Melchizedek in Chapter 7 as a type, shadow and historic, we also need to agree with the context of “all” as in verse 2 here and was limited only to “spoils of war” in verse 4. Let’s travel back to Genesis 14:14-24, quoting from New King James Version.

[b]"Now when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and eighteen trained [servants] who were born in his own house, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. He divided his forces against them by night, and he and his servants attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which [is] north of Damascus. So he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot and his goods, as well as the women and the people. And the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that [is], the King's Valley), after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who [were] with him. Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he [was] the priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said: "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand." And he gave him a tithe of all. Now the king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself." But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, the Possessor of heaven and earth, "that I [will take] nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that [is] yours, lest you should say, 'I have made Abram rich'- "except only what the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me: Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion."[/b]

Here we see that the content of this “all” was specified as Heb. 7:4 and Genesis 14:14 – 24 both agree. So we understand that the “all” that is being spoken of is the spoils of war, not from “all” that Abraham possessed. The “spoils” as specified in Genesis are as follow,

Goods
Abraham’s brother – Lot and his goods.
Women and
People.

These are the context of the “all” as recorded in Genesis and specified by the writer of Hebrews. We also see in this account that there was a "king of Sodom" that also met Abraham as well as Melchizedek, who is also a king of Salem and priest of Most High God. Also, after Abraham gave tithe/tenth to Melchizedek; Abraham also gave the rest of the “spoils” (women, people and the goods excluding his brother Lot and his goods) back to King of Sodom that first met him before the appearance of Melchizedek. This proves that the “spoils” of war were not the possessions of Abraham and doesn’t belong to Abraham as he clearly acknowledged the spoils of war doesn’t belong to him saying, “But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, the Possessor of heaven and earth, "that I [will take] nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that [is] yours, lest you should say, 'I have made Abram rich'- "except only what the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me: Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion."

Abraham also gave some parts to his servant and APPARENTLY TOOK NOTHING TO HIMSELF. The example of Abraham as Pre-tithe era is flawed in many ways. If Christians are to follow this example of Abraham on this account of tithing in Genesis 14 for those who teach that tithing existed BEFORE the law as in the case of Abraham, then Christian will ALSO need to do the following:

1. We will go to war and slaughter kings – Heb. 7:1

2. We will give tithe/tenth from spoils of such “war and slaughtering” of kings – Heb. 7:2, 4

3. We will acknowledge that what we recover from such “war and slaughtering” of kings doesn’t belong to us and must return them to the rightful owner(s) – Genesis 14:22 – 24

4. We will keep nothing for ourselves – Genesis 14:22 – 24.

The context of “all” is clearly specified in the scripture. If the context of “all” included Abraham’s possession, the scripture would probably have made it clear to us that Abraham gave tithe from his possession or income. If the context of "all" includes our monetary income and we are to follow Abraham’s example, then we should also follow Abraham’s example by not keeping anything to ourselves. The truth of the matter is this,

1. Abraham was very rich before the account of tithe to Melchizedek and scripture did not make it clear he was rich by giving tithe of his possession or income in order to become rich – Genesis 13:1-2. It is unbiblical to teach that tithing makes one blessed financially. This clearly contradicts the teaching of tithing in the example of Abraham as “before the law or Pre-law”. Tithe teachers say tithing antedates the law in the example of Abraham but we understand that Abraham did not tithed from his own possession or income. Abraham clearly acknowledged that what he gave the tenth from was not his personal possession but tithe teachers say Christians should tithe from their personal possession or income.

2. Abraham gave tithe/tenth from spoils of war and he acknowledged the spoil of war doesn’t belong to him as he returned them to the rightful owner. What a Christian works to earn belongs to such Christian and he/she cannot return the rest to any rightful owner because it belongs to him as income.

We also see in the account of Genesis that Abraham "after" being blessed that Abraham gave tithe/tenth of “all” the spoils of war. The tithe teachers teach that you have to tithe in order for God to bless you or before God can bless you. This is GROSS HERESY! In the account of Genesis, blessing was pronounced on Abraham “before” he gave the tithe/tenth part of all as being referred to here in Heb.7:2 and witnessed in Genesis 14:14 – 24. “tenth part of all” (of Goods, Woman, People, His brother - Lot and his good). These are the content or context of "all" being referred to here in Heb.7:2.

“…first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace”

The writer continues to reveal Melchizedek’s historical identity and says it is “being by interpretation”. In Hebrew, “Melchi” means “king,” “zedek” means “righteousness,” and “Salem” means “peace”. Therefore Melchizedek as a type by interpreting his name, the “King of Righteousness” and also the “King of Peace.” Both of these titles are appropriate for the Messiah in the Old Testament. Hence, historically speaking, Melchizedek was not actually the King of Righteousness or the King of Peace (that is, Christ); he was only that person divinely used as a type and “by interpretation”. Abraham as we know did not tithe to the “person” of Jesus but to a “type and shadow” of Christ and when Christ came as the reality of the types and shadows, no one tithed to him neither did he demanded tithe from anyone for our Christ came to bless and not to receive tithe/tribute.

3. without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

The writer continues to describe Melchizedek. Remember the writer started chapter 7 with the phrase, “For this Melchizedek” (v1). Now he is telling us about this man, Melchizedek and how Jesus was made a High Priest forever "like", not "is" according to the “order of this Melchizedek”.

“without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life…”

What kind of statement is this? If someone is a man like Melchizedek according to verse Heb. 7:4 (Now consider how great this man was...), how can he not have a mother or be without mother, without father, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life but the bible says of every man:

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. Job 14:1

New Living Translation (©2007)
For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman and everything comes from God. I Corinthians 11:12

“having neither beginning of days, nor end of life…”

The writer is not saying that Melchizedek is God because only God, as we understand do not have “beginning of days nor end of life”. The writer also identified Melchizedek as a man in verse 4. So, how can a man be “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life…?”

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; Ecclesiastes 3:2

Put all these together, this is a rabbinical hermeneutics or exegesis based on the fact that Melchizedek’s lineage or genealogy is not given or recorded in Gen. 14:18-20, before or anywhere in scriptures. It is not literal neither is it historic for a man not to have a mother, father decendants, birth and death record. He suddenly appeared and then disappears from history only to show up again in the prophetic psalms. Like all human beings Melchizedek had parents, but the Holy Spirit sovereignly gave no account of the beginning of Melchizedek's days (birth record) or of the end of his life (death record), that he might be a proper type of Christ eternal priesthood as revealed by the writer of Hebrews. As our perpetual High Priest, he (Melchizedek) serves as another type of the eternal priesthood of Christ not the person of Christ. Melchizedek’s unrecorded family decent or genealogy is used to illustrate that Christ was eternal, pre-existed his incarnation, and was superior to the law, not Christ being the very person of Melchizedek.

“Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” must be understood “typically or as a type”, not literally and not historically. This is because Melchizedek was not Jesus Christ living in the flesh before his virgin birth. For all the important persons in Genesis, except Melchizedek, there is a genealogy. In the divine writing, the Holy Spirit sovereignly gave no account of the beginning of Melchizedek's days (birth record) or of the end of his life (death record), that he might be a proper type of Christ as the eternal One, as our perpetual High Priest. This corresponds with the presentation of the Son of God in the Gospel of John. Being eternal, Jesus has no genealogy (John 1:1). But as the Son of Man, Christ does have a genealogy (Matt. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). Historically, Melchizedek since he was a man and every man born of a woman dies at a certain time, Melchizedek also died but the writer, using rabbinical hermeneutics or exegesis says he does not have end of life because his death record was not recorded just at his birth record was not recorded.

“…but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually”.

This is where the type and shadow of Melchizedek as fulfilled in Christ was revealed; clearly revealing to us that Melchizedek and Christ are not the same person. It was Melchizedek that is being compared to Christ here not other way round. This proves that Christ, the fulfilled Melchizedek is superior to the historic Melchizedek in that Christ became our high priest interceding for us.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
But Jesus lives forever, so he serves as a priest forever. That is why he is always able to save those who come to God through him. He can do this because he always lives and intercedes for them. Heb. 7:24-25

New International Version (©1984)
Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Romans 8:34.

But made "like" the Son of God is the comparison. This Melchizedek REMAINS A PREST CONTINUALLY because historically, his death record was not recorded and considered as a king-priest. This is the type and shadow that Jesus fulfilled and the "forever” aspect in the phrase “after the order of Melchizedek”. If Jesus as man died, Melchizedek also died but since no death record was found and Jesus was also raised to live again, continues to be not just a priest but our high priest; Jesus lives continually and forever.

The historical Melchizedek was not the Son of God, but was “made LIKE the Son of God.” His name, title, and lack of genealogy all make him into a type of Christ, not the person of Christ. Christ is “after the order of,” “like” (v. 3), or “after the similitude” of Melchizedek (v. 15). It was the Christ-event, not Melchizedek’s historic rule as priest-king that fulfilled the types and shadows in Christ. However, those who use the description from Hebrews 7:1-3 to teach that Melchizedek was actually Christ in a pre-incarnate form destroy both the meaning of the incarnation of Christ and the necessity for Abraham’s calling. The write here in verse 3 stated that Jesus is NOT Melchizedek “BUT MADE LIKE (similar to) THE SON OF GOD, remains a priest continually. If Jesus and Melchizedek are same, there will be no need for comparison and Jesus will not have to “become” if he already is Melchizedek.

Image123: @Gosh
As much as possible, can you keep it simple? i guess the goal of exposition is for us all to 'get it' or understand it more. Remember, you're trying to talk to sheep. Keep It Simple. We happen to love the simplicity that is in Christ, thanks.

i agree with most of what you wrote, so i'm just picking SOME of what you wrote that need some tweak. The quoted is not stated and is not necessary in this thread. There is no need to generate unnecessary issues and diversions.


And Jesus was what? a woman?


Jesus was also born of a woman. What's this?
Gala 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

On the contrary, its Melchi that we are told that he had no human parents!!
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Jesus was made like Him, and He was made like Jesus.


This is Melchizedek below.

Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
He was a priest and a king at the same time. That is the SIMPLE order that Jesus followed Him in, the rest na jara.

the reference to melchizedech that he had no mother no father is to show that his priest hood was not heridetory, from father to son, but rather a direct appoinment by God.

Just like christ was not a levi that he will inherit his priest hood from his father but his was a direct appoinment from God with an oath (you are a priest forever).

But we know that christ has father and mother (mary and Joseph) but when it comes to being a priest, their is no mother and father consideration for them.

Though christ priest hood is in the other of melchizedec (no mother no father) it is in the same line like that of christ, that when it comes to his priest hood father and mother is "off", not inherited from parent.

You guy really need to start reading the bible with insight.

Ok, since melchizedec did not die where then is he now? Has he gone to to heaven? No.

Christ said No man has ascended into heaven but the son of man that descended from heaven.

^^^
was christ lying?

The truth is the issue under consideration is that of being a priest by a direct appointment by God as contrasted with that of the Aronic priest hood(levitical) that was from father/mother to so son.

.

4. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

“Now consider how great this man was…”

The writer takes us away from the phrase that begins chapter 7:1, “For this Melchizedek” and brings us to the phrase, “Now consider” to begin verse 4. Therefore, the writer wants us to consider this man, the historic Melchizedek. The first evidence that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham and the Mosaic Law is that Abraham gave tithes to him. With “now consider” the author of Hebrews begins to lay foundation for the groundwork for his crucial declaration in verse 18 that the entire Levitical system (which was also done in the act of Abraham giving tenth of spoils of war – vs. 5, 9-10) of worship, including its high priesthood and tithing, has been “set aside” or “disannulled”. “Now consider” begins a presentation of four evidences which prove to the Hebrew mind that Melchizedek’s priesthood replaced that of Aaron. This list of evidences is found in verses 4-10 and the conclusions begin in verse 11. The writer made it clear how he wants us to consider how great or the greatness of this man, the historic Melchizedek, who is also a type and shadow of Christ’s king and priesthood giving the evidences saying, “…unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils”. Referencing from Gen 14:14-24). Here, there is a deliberate and conscious use of word changing from “a tenth part of ALL” in verse 2 to “tenth of the SPOILS”. Make no mistake friends; the writer is still referring to the same historic event because items taken from war are referred to as spoils.

First, Abraham like I mentioned earlier is extremely important in this context because,

1. He is the Patriarch of the Hebrews nation or national Israel and

2. He is the father of them that are of faith.

Expounding on Abraham as “Patriarch” of the Jewish nation and as a “father of faith”. It is extremely important we understand the deliberate use of word. The writer didn’t ground Abraham as the “father of faith; that is, of them that believe but as a “patriarch”. This is a reminder that all Israel traces its lineage through Abraham.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Consider then how great this Melchizedek was. Even Abraham, the great patriarch of Israel, recognized this by giving him a tenth of what he had taken in battle.

One of the revelations the writer of Hebrews was sharing is to tell the national Israel is that, many of their laws, rituals and ordinances and OT laws was a type and shadows off good things to come and the Old had come to an end because the New has come. Using Abraham is a “patriarch” of national Israel is not a typical of example for them that Abraham is the father of faith to those who believe. To them (Christians) who believe in God, righteousness is imputed unto them, not by work but by grace through faith. Abraham is historically the patriarch of the national Israel but a type and shadow of those who are called and who believe in God through faith that is fulfilled in Christians who come to Christ. Hence, Abraham becomes the "father", not "patriarch" of them that of faith. How? Under Grace, righteousness is not by works or religious activities, it is by faith. When we believe, righteousness is imputed unto us, we don’t work for it.

New Living Translation (©2007)
In the same way, "Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith". Galatians 3:6

New Living Translation (©2007)
Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous--even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith. Romans 4:11.

In a sense, the reference to Abraham as he gave tenth of the spoil is not as father of faith or them that are of the household of faith or them that believes but as a patriarch of the national Israel. This destroys the teaching that Abraham’s example should also bind on Christians because Abraham’s act was not revealed as the “spiritual father of those who have faith” according to Romans 4:11 in New Living Translations but as patriarch of national Israel. To further demonstrate this truth of Abraham as patriarch of national Israel and father of them that believes, the writer wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Levi, one of the tribes of Israel also gave tithe/tenth “in” Abraham when he met Melchizedek (vs. 5, 9-10) and gave the tenth of spoils.

“…the tenth of the spoils”

Scripturally speaking then, it is wrong for someone like Abraham, and then he was still Abram to give tithe/tenth from what doesn’t belong to him. However, one can argue that the spoils of war belong to Abraham because they become the properties of a victor after the victory of war. If we take this argument contrary to the fact that Abraham himself clearly acknowledged the properties does not belong to him to justify tithing for Christians, then we must also consider the following as example of Abraham as mentioned earlier:

1. We must go to physical war and slaughter kings, not spiritual war. – Heb. 7:1 but the scripture says our fight, battle or war is not physical anymore unlike that of Abraham, Ephesians 6:12.

2. We must give tithe/tenth from spoils of such “war and slaughtering” of kings – Heb. 7:2, 4

3. We must acknowledge that what we recover from such “war and slaughtering” of kings doesn’t belong to us and must return them to the rightful owner(s) just as Abraham did, Genesis 14:22 – 24.

4. We must keep nothing for ourselves, Genesis 14:22 – 24.

Those who use the example of Abraham as tithing for Christians as “Pre-law” or “before the law” tithing clearly ignore the truth that Abraham did not tithe from his “all” as it relates to his possessions or personal income he labored to get by himself but the context of “all” is clearly limited to the spoils of war in this verse which does not originally belong to Abraham and cannot be taken as his personal possession or monetary income which is being taught today in the body of Christ by the pro-tithe teachers.

It also negates the tithe teaching today that Christians should tithe from their monetary income with the claim that it precedes the law but when it comes to the practice itself, it is done “according to the law” because they will tell you the "storehouse" is the church where you worship and being fed with the word so you must bring your tithe else the devourer will do its job - To the contrary then, the so called “pre-law” tithing in the example of Abraham was NEVER given or taken to the "storehouse" BEFORE the law. Hence, we understand the tithe teachers ONLY camouflage with the statement that tithe was before the law while they practice the context “according to the law”.

The Historic Melchizedek as Type or shadow of Christ VS Tithing “according to the Law”.

5. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they are descendants of Abraham:

From this verse, the writer begins to lay another ground foundation and shift away the attention of his readers from the “pre-law” tithing of Abraham (which was historic and given to a type and shadow, not the person of Christ) unto the “law” [/b]tithing as commanded, that is, [b]“tithing according to the law”. This clearly proves that the former, the “pre-law” tithing wasn’t commanded to Abraham but the “law” tithing was commanded by God and that makes it tithing “according to the law” to the national Israel, not to Christians and specifically to the tribe of Levi, cf Numbers 18.

“And verily they that are of the sons of Levi…”

Here, the writer added something using the conjunction, “And” to begin verse 5. Remember the writer in verse 4 with the phrase, “Now consider…”, then joins verse 4 and 5 together with the conjunction, “And”, making a case for “comparison” between “this man - the historic Melchizedek” (v.4) and “those who are of the sons of Levi” (v.5), and says theses sons of Levi are those (1) “who receive the office of the priesthood; (2) have a commandment to take tithes of the people”. This is the reason we cannot talk about the Levites of the Levitical priesthood of the law without talking about tithe that God commanded the national Israel to be given to the sons of Levi as they serve in the Levitical Priesthood.

“Sons of Levi” reminds the readers that the Levitical priests owed much of their existence and authority to their commandment of receiving tithes. The writer of Hebrews first reminds his readers where the authority of the Levitical priesthood originated before he proves that Christ’s authority is greater and replaces the former.

“…have a commandment to take tithes of the people…”

“have a commandment” refers specifically to the book of Numbers chapter 18. Those who study Numbers 18 in order to support New Covenant tithing are compelled to discard it and concentrate on more obscure texts as we will soon discover in the context of Hebrews 7 as we proceed further. However, one who takes the time to study Numbers 18 will soon discover why tithing is never commanded for the new covenant believers neither does anyone one in the new testament have a "commandment to take tithe" like the sons of Levi from the new testament believers. Since Numbers 18 actually contains the “commandment,” “ordinance” or “statute” of tithing, it should be carefully studied by every serious bible student with the goal of discovering exactly what the bible says.

This “ordinance” or “statute” of tithing which provided sustenance for the Levites had abolished the centuries-old tradition which had designated the male head of the household as the family priest. The tithing ordinance forced Israel, not Christians (because Christ had not yet come physically and died for the new testament church) to support the Levitical system through tithes and offerings. It also applied a death penalty on anyone trying to “draw near” to worship God directly.

“…according to the law…”

It establishes the connection between “tithing” and the Mosaic Law for the Levites who receive the commandment to receive tithe from the national Israel because it says, “that is, of their brethren, though they are descendants of Abraham”.

...to be continue

Image123: @tislight
i don't usually reply you as you're usually around to cheerlead without any originality of any kind, or you go on a quoting rampage of quoting posts without brake. But let me make a bit of a comment.


Offering or gift is not limited to animal sacrifices. Thank God they also gave money and other things in Jesus' days, we for no hear word at all.
Luk 21:1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
Luk 21:2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee;

lol, thanks for the complement if that was what it was.

Actually am surprise that you quoted my post.

But lets see if you addressed it or it was just a formality.

Image123:
Offering or gift is not limited to animal sacrifices. Thank God they also gave money and other things in Jesus' days, we for no hear word at all.

now, which of my post is this statement addresing?

Who said that voluntary offering has stopped?

Are you deliberately being disingeniouse? Or it is a deliberate dishonesty?

We said that the sweet smelling offering that paul talked about is NOT TITH, but you went attacking offerining, it is like you no longer know the difference between tith and voluntary offering.

Let me help you.
It was a voluntary offering that paul received and not tith.

This fraud has eaten deep into your bone that you cant rationally separate tithing from voluntary offering.

Image123:
Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee;

yea, Jesus made that statement like he made in mattie 23. So you should also do animal sacrifice, afteral they also use animal for sacrifice in the temple and will as well left the animal there and go make peace befor coming back to make his offering.

So, according to you, Jesus did not condemn animal offering also.
So, you are cursed if you dont do animal sacrifice today.

.

Goshen360:

"and as for ur so called expose on heb7..u actually lack spiritual discernment on wat dat scripture is talkin about..omitin some vital information and layin emphasis on melchizedec priesthood doesnt cut it for me"

I will only respond to some, not all of your points as quoted. The purpose of this exposition is to proof biblical truth. If you think I lack spiritual discernment, you are also permitted to contribute and let put everything in the lens of the scripture. I may omit some vital information about Melcizedek but you can also add to this. I don't know all.

"from gleanin tru dat scripture u said melchizedek is a man..but d scripture was clear dat melchizedek was without father,mother,without descendant..to me dat melchizedek of old is Jesus Christ..for Jesus is d same yesterday,today and forever"

You haven't allowed me get to the verse where it says Melchizedek is without father, mother and genealogy and you are jumping to conclusion. I'm taking the exposition verse-by-verse bro. Take it easy you hear. You said Melchizedek is Jesus, but the same Heb 7 says...."he was made LIKE the son of God". Does that sound or teach he is Jesus? In biblical types and shadows, a person cannot be type of himself. Jesus had mother, genealogy/descendant BUT Melchizedek dont so how is Melchizedek the same as Jesus When we don't understand the purpose of God using types and shadows in the OT, we will replace them as though they are substance. Simply, Melchizedek is NOT Jesus and scripture confirms that truth.

"and who told u xtians dont go on slaugther of kings..we go on slaugther of kings though not in d physical but in d spiritual so as to advance God's kingdom..for we wrstle not against flesh and blood but against demonic entitities dat rule territories and space..they ave hierachies and re weel organised"

The battle Abraham went was physical.....not spiritual. The Christian battle is spiritual and where do we get our spoils of war from if we fight a spiritual battle so we can give tithe from such spoils of war. We need to address that also. I showed a diagram to show the covenant of the NT and the NT testament Christian is bless.

"u said Isreal has no king and priest..but by d inspiration of d Holy Spirit we know dat david [b]operated as both a prophet, a king and a priest..i dont ave time to expain in d details cos am not on a pc"[/b]

You will have to show us where David was ordained as priest, not operated as priest and king sir.


"d levitical priesthood of those days is [b]liken to we who He has made king and priest unto our God..d Fivefold ministry is to equip d saints..so d saints can do d work of d minstries"[/b]

Clearly enough, we have five fold ministry who is not levites and priest same and you agree that believers are now made kings and priests in Christ so tithe is to be paid to who? if we ourselves are now kings and priests.


"money cannot advance d kingdom of God for d kingdom of God is life giving in itsef..bit money can be use as a tool to spread d word of Godand dats where tithes and offering play a part..shalom"

Giving is what the NT teaches. So the kingdom of God should be advanced with crops and animals? which is biblical tithe or do we expand God's kingdom with spoils of war in the case of Abraham? Money answers to Kingdom advancement sir NOT crops, animals and spoils of war.

Thank u for replying my post and dat shows u don't throw anybody's view to d dustbin as thrash..but let me take it slowly one by one am in no hurry and i hope u re not too...WAS KING DAVID A PRIEST? am not d only believer who believes king david was a priest..dats a whole new topic entirely and i dnt want to derail d thread cos its talking about tithing..but to find out if king david was a priest u can go the this link..www.askelm.com/doctrine/ The exposition dere will blow ur mind cos u can't talk about melchizedek and Christ witout d mention of david who also was a type of melchizedek.. As u know in ancient isreal one is not required to be specially consecrated in order to perform d sacrificial functions anyone might approach d altar and offer sacrifices..chek (2sam24:25). Even solomon before d ark in jerusalem(1king3:15): David on the occasion of the transferance of the ark to zion and solomon at d dedication of d temple ministered as priest(2sam6:14,17,18,1king8:22,54). The kings of isreal ordained as priest whomever they chose. David invested his own sons wiith priestly office(2chr11:15..2chr23:18,2chr29:27)... And as for who do we give our tithes and offering to...ayam am coming with scriptural quotations to back those claims.

@op..sorry in d link www.askelm.com/doctrine/ i gave u search for Christ as high priest.

THIS GOSHEN ALWAYS EXPOSING ONE THING OR THE OTHER. LET ME FIND OUT YOU WEAR TRENCHCOAT WITH NOTHING UNDERNEATH AND THEN WALK TO THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE TO START EXPOSING YOURSELF TO WOMEN. LET ME FIND OUT

.

.

6. But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

Many tithe teachers/preachers will quote this verse out of context to mean and interpret that it was JESUS who is being referred to in this verse that received tithes from Abraham but I’m referencing other translation to show that it was still the historic Melchizedek

New Living Translation (©2007)
But Melchizedek, who was not a descendant of Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham. And Melchizedek placed a blessing upon Abraham, the one who had already received the promises of God.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Although Melchizedek was not from the tribe of Levi, he received a tenth of everything from Abraham. Then Melchizedek blessed Abraham, who had God's promises.

This is the second evidence that Melchizedek was greater Abraham.

The writer begins this verse with the phrase, “BUT HE” “BUT" introduces a negative or contrary statement to the comparison being made in verse 4-5. The writer had said whose genealogy IS NOT derived from them. That is, whose genealogy is NOT from the genealogy of Levi because the writer already told us in verse 3 that Melchizedek is without genealogy. So the writer is telling us that there was a Levi, who received commandment to receive tithes BUT there is one, Melchizedek who IS NOT from such genealogy of them that are commanded to receive tithe but still, received tithe from Abraham who had the promise.

Therefore, at this point; the writer proves two points or established two groups between verse 5 and 6:

1. The SONS OF LEVI - who receive the priesthood and have the commandment to receive TITHE FROM THEIR BRETHREN ACCORDING TO LAW.

2. HE (MELCHIZEDEK) WHO IS NOT FROM SONS OF LEVI RECEIVED TITHE FROM ABRAHAM.

7: And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

Here we see beyond all contradiction in continuation to v6, that the lesser is blessed by the better. This is tying up to the blessing being referred to v6 when the writer said,"and blessed him who had the promises". Who is the lesser and who is the better? When we link it to the previous verses 1 and 6 which states the same thing about blessing and the record in Genesis 14:14-24. We come to conclusion that the lesser is Abraham who had the promises while the better is Melchizedek who released/gave the blessings. We can also prove this by consulting other translations below:

8. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives.

The most twisted verse of Hebrews chapter 7 is verse 8 to justify tithing for Christians. Like I said above, the writer up till this point had established two groups in comparison from verse 4 and 5 where he said:

“NOW CONSIDER how great this man [was], to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. – v4”

“AND INDEED THOSE WHO ARE OF THE SONS OF LEVI, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham – V5”

These are the two groups verse 8 is referring to in context. Many false tithe and scripture twisting teachers read into this verse and grossly apply/abuse it saying, Jesus is the “he” of this verse – nothing is being said of Christ in Hebrew 7 until verse 13-14. Now, we come to TWO groups here and we see both of them receive tithes. The writer brings the two groups together and compare thus, “HERE MORTAL MEN (many or plural) receive tithes, BUT THERE HE (one or singular) [receives them], of WHOM IT IS WITNESSED THAT HE LIVES.

Who is the “he that received or receives” being referred to in this verse? Simply Melchizedek - whom it is testified or witnessed that "he" lives as stated in verse 3 because Melchizedek was considered that he lives continually or forever since v3 already told us he has neither beginning of days nor end of life - so he is considered to live continually as his death record was not written anywhere in scripture. However, let look at other translations to prove this truth:

Hebrews 7:8
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually].

I love this translation because it states clearly that it's two groups we are looking at now. "HERE", IN THE LEVITICAL PREISTHOOD.....while "THERE" IN THE CASE OF MELCHIZEDEK.......Melchizedek is considered as he lives forever or continually as the bible recorded in Heb 7:3,6 and he was the ONE being referred to here that received tithe from Abraham.

Hebrews 7:8
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
Those priests get a tenth, but they are only men who live and then die. But Melchizedek, who got a tenth from Abraham, continues to live, as the Scriptures say.

Hebrews 7:8
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
Priests receive a tenth of everything, but they die. Melchizedek received a tenth of everything, but we are told that he lives.

This makes the interpretation of the writer using the comparative word, “HERE” and “BUT THERE” here in Heb.7:8 saying, Here MORTAL MEN (plural and many, referring to sons of Levi) receive tithes, BUT THERE HE (singular and one, referring to Melchizedek even as seen from different translations) [receives them], of whom it is witnessed that he lives. It’s like saying in our modern day English, “On this hand…..on the other hand…”

So “The he that lives here” is Melchizedek simply because his death record wasn’t found in scripture and hence he is “considered” (not in reality) that he lives, this was typified of Melchizedek and fulfilled in Christ as the “Fulfilled” Melchizedek. I DON'T KNOW WHERE ON EARTH IMAGE123 AND OTHER TITHE TEACHERS GOT THEIR INTERPRETATION THAT JESUS IS THE "HE" BEING REFERRED TO IN THIS VERSE. THIS IS READING INTO GOD'S WORD YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION AND GROSS MISINTERPRETATION OF GOD'S WORD TO SUITE YOUR TITHE TEACHINGS. JESUS NEVER RECEIVED TITHE AND WILL NEVER RECEIVED TITHE, AT LEAST NOT IN THIS PRESENT WORLD.

9-10. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.

I call these verse the most overlooked and ignored verses of Hebrews chapter 7.

The writer by the Holy Spirit buried some revelation and truth in these two verses. The writer says, EVEN LEVI who receives tithes PAID TIHES THROUGH ABRAHAM. By saying this, it doesn’t mean that Levi who are commanded to receive tithe from their brethren (v5) LITERALLY OR PHYSICALLY PAID TITHES because the writer went further to tell us that he (Levi) was still in the lions of his father (Abraham) when Melchizedek met him. The writer by the Holy Spirit, SPIRITUALIZED AND BURIED the act of PAYING TITHE OF LEVI "IN" or "INSIDE" or "THROUGH" THE ACT OF ABRAHAM WHEN HE "GAVE" TITHE TO MELCHIZEDEK.

This is the same truth Apostle Paul taught and engaged in Romans 5:12,

New Living Translation (©2007)
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

How can everyone sin because Adam sinned? The truth here is because “everyone was in Adam when he sinned”. Those who teach that tithe existed before the law as in the case of Abraham obviously ignores verses 9-10 that what God instituted as tithing for the Levitical Priesthood under the law was also done or spiritualized in the act of Abraham according to these verses.

This is a clear revelation to say, "SO TO SPEAK"; that SHOULD IN CASE ANYTHING HAPPENS TO THE LEVI "PAID/PAYING" TITHE WOULD ALSO MEAN THE SAME THING HAPPENING TO THE ABRAHAM ACT OF "PAYING/GAVE" TITHES. IT MEANS IF ANYTHING HAPPENS TO THE ACTS OF ABRAHAM "PAYING/GAVE" TITHE, IT WOULD ALSO MEAN SAME THING HAPPENING TO LEVI "PAYING/GAVE" TITHE. IT MEANS ANY CHANGE OR CHANGES TO THE LEVI "PAID/PAYING" TITHE IS ALSO CHANGE OR CHANGES IN THE ACT OF ABRAHAM "GIVING/GAVE" BECAUSE ONE ACT OF LEVI HAS BEEN BURIED OR SPIRITUALIZED IN THE ACT OF ABRAHAM AS LEVI WAS STILL "IN" ABRAHAM THEN. ALSO, IF ONE IS SET ASIDE, NULLIFIED AND ABOLISHED, THE OTHER IS ALSO DONE AWAY WITH.

Apostle Paul continues to teach the truth in respect to Romans 5:12 and he says in verse 17,

New Living Translation (©2007)
For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God's wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ. – Romans 5:17.

...to be continue

Goshen360: 9-10. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.

I call these verse the most overlooked and ignored verses of Hebrews chapter 7.

The writer by the Holy Spirit buried some revelation and truth in these two verses. The writer says, EVEN LEVI who receives tithes PAID TIHES THROUGH ABRAHAM. By saying this, it doesn’t mean that Levi who are commanded to receive tithe from their brethren (v5) LITERALLY OR PHYSICALLY PAID TITHES because the writer went further to tell us that he (Levi) was still in the lions of his father (Abraham) wheOn Melchizedek met him. The writer by the Holy Spirit, SPIRITUALIZED AND BURIED the act of PAYING TITHE OF LEVI "IN" or "INSIDE" or "THROUGH" THE ACT OF ABRAHAM WHEN HE "GAVE" TITHE TO MELCHIZEDEK.

This is the same truth Apostle Paul taught and engaged in Romans 5:12,

New Living Translation (©2007)
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

You're missng the point of paul over this Levi Abraham thing. The point he was making was that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham for Abraham to pay tithe and be blessed by him. His point was that Melchizedek priesthood was higher that levitical priesthood because Levi also indirectly paid tithes to Melchizedek . Then the biggie part if you observe from the beginning of Hebrews is that christ is greater than angel greater than Levi . And he substantiated he with the fact that if
Melchizedek could be greater than levitical priesthood Jesus also is greater than levitical priesthood because he came in the order of Melchizedek which is higher than aaronic or levitical. So let's make this short and smart .

Joagbaje:

You're missng the point of paul over this Levi Abraham thing. The point he was making was that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham for Abraham to pay tithe and be blessed by him. His point was that Melchizedek priesthood was higher that levitical priesthood because Levi also indirectly paid tithes to Melchizedek . Then the biggie part if you observe from the beginning of Hebrews is that christ is greater than angel greater than Levi . And he substantiated he with the fact that if
Melchizedek could be greater than levitical priesthood Jesus also is greater than levitical priesthood because he came in the order of Melchizedek which is higher than aaronic or levitical. So let's make this short and smart .

OGA JO WETIN YOU CHOP REMAIN FOR US ?

Goshen360: 7: And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

Here we see beyond all contradiction in continuation to v6, that the lesser is blessed by the better. This is tying up to the blessing being referred to v6 when the writer said,"and blessed him who had the promises". Who is the lesser and who is the better? When we link it to the previous verses 1 and 6 which states the same thing about blessing and the record in Genesis 14:14-24. We come to conclusion that the lesser is Abraham who had the promises while the better is Melchizedek who released/gave the blessings. We can also prove this by consulting other translations below:

8. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives.

The most twisted verse of Hebrews chapter 7 is verse 8 to justify tithing for Christians. Like I said above, the writer up till this point had established two groups in comparison from verse 4 and 5 where he said:

“NOW CONSIDER how great this man [was], to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. – v4”

“AND INDEED THOSE WHO ARE OF THE SONS OF LEVI, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham – V5”

These are the two groups verse 8 is referring to in context. Many false tithe and scripture twisting teachers read into this verse and grossly apply/abuse it saying, Jesus is the “he” of this verse – nothing is being said of Christ in Hebrew 7 until verse 13-14. Now, we come to TWO groups here and we see both of them receive tithes. The writer brings the two groups together and compare thus, “HERE MORTAL MEN (many or plural) receive tithes, BUT THERE HE (one or singular) [receives them], of WHOM IT IS WITNESSED THAT HE LIVES.

Who is the “he that received or receives” being referred to in this verse? Simply Melchizedek - whom it is testified or witnessed that "he" lives as stated in verse 3 because Melchizedek was considered that he lives continually or forever since v3 already told us he has neither beginning of days nor end of life - so he is considered to live continually as his death record was not written anywhere in scripture. However, let look at other translations to prove this truth:

Hebrews 7:8
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually].

I love this translation because it states clearly that it's two groups we are looking at now. "HERE", IN THE LEVITICAL PREISTHOOD.....while "THERE" IN THE CASE OF MELCHIZEDEK.......Melchizedek is considered as he lives forever or continually as the bible recorded in Heb 7:3,6 and he was the ONE being referred to here that received tithe from Abraham.

Hebrews 7:8
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
Those priests get a tenth, but they are only men who live and then die. But Melchizedek, who got a tenth from Abraham, continues to live, as the Scriptures say.

Hebrews 7:8
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
Priests receive a tenth of everything, but they die. Melchizedek received a tenth of everything, but we are told that he lives.

This makes the interpretation of the writer using the comparative word, “HERE” and “BUT THERE” here in Heb.7:8 saying, Here MORTAL MEN (plural and many, referring to sons of Levi) receive tithes, BUT THERE HE (singular and one, referring to Melchizedek even as seen from different translations) [receives them], of whom it is witnessed that he lives. It’s like saying in our modern day English, “On this hand…..on the other hand…”

So “The he that lives here” is Melchizedek simply because his death record wasn’t found in scripture and hence he is “considered” (not in reality) that he lives, this was typified of Melchizedek and fulfilled in Christ as the “Fulfilled” Melchizedek. I DON'T KNOW WHERE ON EARTH IMAGE123 AND OTHER TITHE TEACHERS GOT THEIR INTERPRETATION THAT JESUS IS THE "HE" BEING REFERRED TO IN THIS VERSE. THIS IS READING INTO GOD'S WORD YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION AND GROSS MISINTERPRETATION OF GOD'S WORD TO SUITE YOUR TITHE TEACHINGS. JESUS NEVER RECEIVED TITHE AND WILL NEVER RECEIVED TITHE, AT LEAST NOT IN THIS PRESENT WORLD.

well, this tith people are hanging on to straws.

Whether Jesus or melchizedec that is refered to and melchizedec forshadowed Jesus, whichever.

It means that in the new dispensation "men that are dying" no longer receives tith in the new convanant like it was in the old convanant that it was commanded by law.

truthislight:


well, this tith people are hanging on to straws.

Whether Jesus or melchizedec that is refered to and melchizedec forshadowed Jesus, whichever.

It means that in the new dispensation "men that are dying" no longer receives tith in the new convanant like it was in the old convanant that it was commanded by law.

Bolded above, you are 1000+ % CORRECT But we have to show this tithe fraud teachers how they manipulate scriptures to say that Jesus is the very one in verse 8 being referred to as the "he who receives/received tithe that is testified that he lives".