Melchisedec - Who Was This Man?

Interesting point you just brought up, my dear bari_kade. Interesting point.

Dear Drusilla,

I have no worries with anyone who argues against tithing, as far as that is their persuasion; but from what I've read of them, I'm more inclined to the persuasion that most of the arguments against it are weak.

As regards this very subject, the core question of my concerns are not about dietary laws, etc. Rather, it is here more about PRIESTHOOD and TITHES - both made in reference to the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hi TV01,


Yes, I'm more inclined to tithing for Christians at this point; although I'D like to state upfront that it is not something that should be a legalistic engagement that believers use as a yardstick against their fellow brethren.


I've followed the discussions on the several threads on the topic/subject of tithing; and have learnt tremendously from the principle contributors/debaters on either side; yourself, TayoD, 4get_me, syrup, etc.


I hope it does not come across as an excuse that I'm quite occupied at the moment with loads of stuff; however, when I have more time, I'll gladly oblige you.

Yet, I've taken the time to go through your points as well on the subject; and my one problem in most of your arguments is the idea of reducing the various types of giving to a mere "simply give". Pardon me, but even when 4get_me outlined some of them and gave texts upon texts for them, several arguments (besides yours) were made in opposition to his points; and yet, it's amazing that not much substance could be gleaned from those counter arguments (IMHO).

Then again, I recall syrup's didactic outline in reference to the debate with you on theocracy and similar terms. Following through that thread, I well appreciate her comprehensive outline and debunking of the idea that the tithes could be played down to mean other than what they meant, so that taxes were being introduced to make it sound like tithing/tithes were simply a matter of high-handed theocratic governnance (although, I was quite concerned by how you had loosely used the term 'theocracy'). Link:

           http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.640.html#msg362582

This is not to say that there were no good points in your counter arguments. However, what my studies lead me to infer, and the points raised on all sides, would be more towards tithing.


Like I opined earlier, I'm still studying the subject, However, as far as being practical goes, I have experienced the blessings of tithing for myself, which only strengthens my persuasions on the subject.


This is precisely one of the issues that weaken your arguments. Tithing is not the same thing as a "tribute" - and the idea that it was a common practice back by communities does not mean that I take my theology outside God's covenant blessings.

Granted, we may gain help in trying to understand what exactly a subject points by examining what other communities had practised and how they did so. However, the big issue is what God's Word teaches, rather than a common practise among communities.

The point I'm trying to make here is this: there is a fundamental issue here in connection with Melchizedek --

        (a) he stands in connection with the first mention of priesthood and tithes in the Bible

        (b) the patriarch Abraham gave him tithes of all, without so much as Melchizedek asking

        (c) the pristehood of our Lord Jesus is patterned after Melchizedek's priesthood.

Please try and see the point I'm raising here. We do not read that Melchizedek was a warlord (so where does the inference come in as to Abraham's tithes possibly being a type of "tribute"?). Abraham was not paying "tribute" to a warlord; and that argument should not even come in at all in the ambit of this discussion.


In due course, I'll like to share what light has come to me on the issues mentioned in this connection. Do have a good day.  

Hi Bari-Kade,

I know you are chewing on this particular issue at the moment and I know that we are all still learning, but a few more points.


I appreciate the stance on "various types of giving", But I see it from another perspective. Giving is in response, primarily to need or a desire to bless. I see no need to classify or categorise giving, but neither do I don't deny others the right to do so. In any event, I don't see this as core to a discussion on mandatory tithing for NT Christians. I also fail to see how over 27 pages of discussion boils down to this 1 point? If I recall, TayoD likewise refused to budge from a point of "priests offer gifts and tithe = gift, therefore NT Xtians must tithe". If you want to equate the tithe with a type of giving, my personal opinion is that connection is at best tenuous, as a tax, tribute or madatory tithe is not the same as giving.


I also (and quite fondly) remember my discussion with Syrup about "theocracy". I appreciate that the discussion cleared up the difference b/w ecclessiocracy and theocracy, which I failed to distinguish when posting. Again this was not pivotal to the discussion and Syrup agreed that there is no mandatory tithe for NT Xtians. We also concurred that a NT Christian choosing to tithe is another matter entirely. To make a tithe mandatory makes it no difference to a tax or tribute. And as we know, Kings only take tribute from strangers, not their sons.


I trust we all are, but there are only 3 positions really. Yes, no or undecided. Most proponents of tithing can wheel out anecdotal evidence to suggest it "works". And at best that's just what an enforced tithe is, a work. I humbly submit that there is nothing scriptural to attest to this. I could similarly testify that tithing made no difference to my walk (except in a negative sense). To which I'D expect the well worn rejoinders of "not doing it right", "heart not right", "sin" or some other of the type I've heard severally, which only point it back to being a work


Feel free to presume that a amndatory tithe =/= tribute, but can it really be anything else?
It's not an idea that it was common practice, it's a fact. My introducing this was not to argue against it, merely for background knowledge and for a full discussion.


Accepted. WhatI believe God's word teaches is that NT Christians give in response to need (or to bless). But as ever, I am happy to hear other submissions, attested to by scripture of course.


Your interplay from a to c is at best debatable. Abrahams response is no where testified as something incumbent on NT believers or integral to the priesthood. He voluntarily/by freewill GAVE! Nothing divinely ordained or mandated, and as you clearly stated demanded or requested.

I stated clearly that tribute in the form of a tithe (tenth) was paid to the warlord or PRIEST. I don't think it's hard or would be considered tenuous for anyone to make the leap from warlord to king. Niether did I infer that Abraham was paying tribute. That would be counter-intuitive to my point above.

As ever I appreciate your contributions. I was hoping to advance the discussion in that main thread, to considering the practical application and outworking of a "mandatory tithe" for NT Christians.
Given the universal priesthood of all believers (with The Lord as High Priest), would you have any suggestions as to what it represents it's significance, and  how it should be correctly/scripturally done?

Thanks for your time.

God bless
TV

TV01,


It's amazing that people often make statements like this; but my one question would be: if someone doesn't see a need for the classification, then why do we read of them in Scripture as such?


I don't remember making it mandatory to give or tithe. In the NT, NOTHING in this regard is mandatory; and I read the arguments against tithing as mere excuses, which will not do. However a person feels on this issue is a matter of their personal persuasion, even if one such should argue for NO GIVING at all! But then, at the end of the day, I'D be more interested in what precisely is said in God's Word.


If only you wouldn't read tithes as a question of being mandatory to the believer. Again, is this issue about Kings taking tribute or it is one about priesthood and tithes mentioned in connection to Melchizedek? The grave mistake many people make is often to derail from what exactly is stated and look for far-fetched inferences that have no bearing to what is being discussed. TV01, to bring in the issue of "tribute" will further weaken your persuasion; and I do hope you would not even make the mistake of referring to that ideology.


I don't count on the list of using anecdotal evidences.


I would say that you haven't seen the Scriptural precedence to tithing; and no sir, tithing is not an enforced exercise. No one is obligated, mandated, bound, enforced, induced, or compelled to give ANYTHING in the NT. Even the other type of giving is not what anyone is mandated to do. However, when a believer sees the Biblical precedence for the various types of giving and he/she applies themselves to it, the blessings thereto definitely follow such submission of heart in obedience.


And I'll serve you one more.    As long as you keep seeing it as "work" and therefore to be played down or argued against, may I challenge you to look up the references for the other types of "giving" and see the point: even those types are NOT MANDATORY! In which case, if tithing means nothing to you in the NT, the other types will simply have to mean nothing at all.

Your arguments against tithing is a bit tiresome (no offences) because of your default interpretation of it as "work", etc. If that is the way you read the subject, please understand that the other types of giving you come across in the NT simply won't be more profound to you.


Please don't try to be so patronizing.   I do not equate tithes to tribute in this regard; nor do I read at all that Abraham was paying a tribute to Melchizedek (which would make the latter read as a warlord).


I would have to wonder yet again that the background knowledge you seek to introduce in this regard does not tessellate with Abraham's tithe that he gave to melchizedek.


Is tithing somewhat a strange subject to the the curriculum above? I would here seek to take the same humble position as yours for others to help me smoothen out any misconceptions here that I might have.


I had to sink back in my chair and wonder at your shoe strings here, TV01. Going by your assertions, what did Abraham GIVE?? Did he give "GIVE"? or he gave "TITHES"?

Please check the references again: it says TITHES!

Now, it seems that my points (a) to (c) earlier did not register with you because you probably thought I was arguing for a MANDATED giving made INCUMBENT by ORDINATION. Phew!! Sorry, I didn't so infer that tithes were by default to be read as such.

Now, let me appeal once again: please look carefully and maintain the course here that we're reviewing. Let me bring you round them again:

        (a) he stands in connection with the first mention of priesthood and tithes in the Bible (no inference suggesting Melchizedek was a warlord)

        (b) the patriarch Abraham gave him tithes of all, without so much as Melchizedek asking (here again, by emphasis, no inference to ideas of any mandate, incumbency, obligation, enforcements, inducements, or compulsion)

        (c) the pristehood of our Lord Jesus is patterned after Melchizedek's priesthood (what examples are there in this connection for believers - any, none?).

The debate will keep going round in circles if we continue to make far fetched inferences that are not suggested in posts we read. I haven't (and don't intend) to make tithing a madatory exercise for any Christian - because NOTHING is mandatory upon the believer in this regard.


In the first place, if there was no connection between tithes and tributes in the case being discussed, I don't see why you would even have suggested it.

Second, Abraham was not recorded as paying tithes (and not even tribute) to a warlord; and your interjection with that line was unnecessary.

Third, even as a PRIEST Melchizedek did not receive "tribute", but rather "tithes" from Abraham; which should humble our hearts to not read Melchizedek for other than Scripture says of him. He was "first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace" (Heb. 7:2).


Yours appreciated as well; and I hope that mine has helped dispel the idea that tithe is mandatory by default; for clearly, it was not in Abraham's case, nor should it be for the NT believer.


It's a simple response of the believer's heart as part of his/her worship to God (Heb. 13:16). How it is done is not a rigid code in the NT; but the apostle offers a principle in I Cor. 16:1.

I'll start at the end, and probably won't need to go any further  .

First ~ The discussion on tithing was always based around whether it was mandatory, that is an obligation for NT Christians. In as much as you obviously don't subscribe to that, we are agreed up to that point.

Second ~ If one chooses to tithe (pay a tenth - or to use it more loosely, a fixed percentage), that is between them & God, and does not engender some kind of blessing over and above one who simply gives. Not to mention that another believer could easily give more than this tithe (or the others combined giving types   ), without feeling the need to label it.

Third ~ Do I need to add that giving is a grace, a choice and should be mindful of circumstances, especially noting that there are priorities for NT Christians in applying their means, and giving (outside the immediate family) is not first.

Fourth ~ Yes a worship response aptly titles all our actions as Christians to do the glory of God, by His grace working through us. But the whole basis of your submission is made mute by saying NT Christians tithe but there is no rigid code? which just takes us back to my second point above.

Fifth ~ Also adopting the "types of giving and associated blessings" approach shows clearly that you believe that the act of tithing engenders some sort of reward. Sir, that is not a response, that is an act, a work. You turn the chain on it's head, You actually want God to respond to you.

Sixth ~  You did'nt actually respond to my "Practical outworking & application" poser. For discussions sake, I say "okay lets introduce a tithe", what does the assembly do with it? How is it utilised?

Seventh ~ I often wonder why people would spend time and resource trying to justify or legislate the tithe. I'D refer them to the "all things in common" approach of primitive Christianity and ask how you'D fit the notion of tithing in there? I'D go on to ask why Peter clearly told Ananias that his possessions where his to do with as he pleased, if Ananias was either obligated or better served by a voluntary tithe.

I also have recourse to scripture. II Corinthians 8 & 9, should nail it for most.

And an anecdote. The first thing I became bound by as a believer was the notion of the tithe. The first religious thing God loosed me from was that same notion. The scripture above was pivotal.

God bless
TV

@bari_kade,

Thanks for breathing some fresh air into this issue of tithing. While I have disagreed with TV01 regarding this issue, no doubt he has enriched my knowledge through the process as well. Having said that, I am glad you guys have now "carry go" this discussion to the right forum.

@TV01,

I just want to respond to an issue you raised which bari_kade already dealt with as well. Phillipians 4:5 - Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. It is obvious that Paul and the Phillipians expect God's response each time they give. Giving can not be separated from receiving except one is not interested in going through the entire cycle. When you sow, you will reap, when you give you will receive, when you lend to God, He will repay you and when you cast your bread on the waters, you will find it after many days.  These are biblical principles that bear eloquent testimony that expecting God to respond to our giving is just doing what the Bible says.

This I believe was a big motivation for the early Christians who sold their lands for the benefit of the church. Jesus already promised them multiple of that in return here in this lifetime! Matthew 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. These disciples knew that you can't beat God at giving. The more they gave, the more they received.

You miss my point, giving as I said is a grace. Tithing (mandatory) is an obligation. If you wish to make it incumbent on yourself and ritualise it, that's your choice, but there is nothing to suggest this in itself is something that demonstrates a increasing walk of faith.


And God loves a cheerful giver. Nothing about income streams or classifications. Simply give. Be it as a worship response, a need or to bless, just give. There is no need to be overly scholarly or spiritual.


First Abraham did not tithe out of anything God gave him.

Second the NT makes it clear that one's first priority is to provide for their family. Subscribing to some tithing or blessing the man of God notion while your family go without is a clear sign of self-enforced religious obligation.


Giving is a grace. An outworking of a walk of faith and maturing Christianity.

I hate to say this, but the main emphasis of Abrahams life was his faith. There is nothing to suggest that we are to live by his every action. How about marrying one's sister? Or lying about it? Why not insist on concubinage for NT Xtians?

For the umpteenth time, Christians simply give, as the Lords exhortation clearly stated. The attempts to classify giving (and then calling tithing giving), assign different types and levels of rewards is at best over-scholarly and over spiritual (religious & ritualistic). At worst it's a sly way to keep the tithing bondage going by claiming it's not mandatory, but there are benefits if you do so. Sorry mate, it simply doesn't wash.


Not on any type, just on any instance or simply the fact that you do. The taxonomy of giving is of the fertile imagination of those who insist on it. The only things are relevence are how cheerful and the degree (how sacrificially). No income streams!

It was a demonstration of faith, but more pertinent an acknowledgement of the superiority of Melchisedeks priesthood.

No one said what Abraham did was a work, you are trying to make it one. And it's a lack of faith that leads one to ritual.


All I asked was how are tithes to be used? Could you outline or direct me to this NT principle of tithe use.

Your idea that I give to you whilst humerous, does suggest that you - maybe unwittingly - subscribe to the notion that giving is primarily to benefit, rather than a worship response

Again, please outline what the NT says about tithing. Giving is distinct. If voluntary then the distinction is pointless if mandatory your are back on tax/tribute territory. And whatever, I 'D still appreciate your showing NT direction for the use of tithes.


Not against it per se, but against those who would try and sell it as across-board beneficial or required NT Christian practice.


Nice attempt to skirt the main question. How does tithing dove-tail with an "all things in common" attitude?


If you do not legislate, perhaps you'D care to explain the difference between tithing and other types of giving, and the need for a distinction if tithing is giving and not mandatory. Upfront I'D say the only reason to distinguish tithes is because you ascribe something to the act (although you keep trying to pass it off as a response).

God as love is all about people and their need. It's the whole point. Disdaining human need and responsibility in an effort to sound super-spiritual leads nicely to the point about pharisees tithing herbs, but overlooking love, justice and mercy. Responding to human need is a worship response. The Macedonians fully well realised that.

Christianity is not about doctrinal excellence, academic rigour or scholarly depth, its about practial day to day Christian living, loving the Lord and your neighbour as yourself. It's not about knowledge, it's about love.


God bless
TV

@TV01,

I just wish that we should come back and tidy this thread; because I'm a bit concerned now that the main characters are being pushed further to the background. Could we just rather do as Heb. 7:4 says: "Now consider how great this man was", and help other readers to not lose the gist about Melchizedek?

Thank you for your brotherly love and challenge; and in due course, I'll share my concerns of the tithing issue in the appropriate thread. God bless you, everyone else who've visited this thread. . . and myself! 


@TayoD,

Lol, thanks bro for your encouragements. I'll see what I can share on tithing in the appropriate thread. Oh yes, I'll also be considering the issue from the actions of our blessed patriarch Abraham. Blessings.  


@donnie,

Don't be discouraged. Let's read more from you; as I'm also interested in reading your persuasions about the points you raised. Regards.

@ALL,
God bless everyone of you. We can rejoice that whether or not we understand the mystery of this great man Melchizedek, our blessed Lord Jesus Christ has such an efficacious priesthood far richer than any man's ability to fathom. Bless all.

Melchisedec not Just refering to a person ,  it is refering most to a seat (position). That is why the Melchisedec does not have mother or father.

Melchisedec was the priest of EL Elyown Elyown EL (The most High God).

Genesis 14 : 18
"And Mel-chiz'edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. "

If you notice the title priest of God Most High ,  up to this time Abram was serving the wrong God.

Yashua El Massiah (also known as Isa Al Masih) was also a member of the Ancient Mystic Order of Melchiz'edek

Hebrew 5 : 10
"being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek. "

All the major and minor prophets of the Torah namely Isaiah, Amos, Malachi, Elisha (El is my Salvation), Yonah, Yoel, Nahum etc,etc were all members of the Ancient and Mystical Order of Melchiz'edek.

Yashua El Massiah (Aka Jesus) was not the only member of this Ancient Priesthood, they were many members of the Ancient priesthood which still lives on today June 18 - 06 - 2007.

Hebrew 7 : 23
"The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office;"

Yashua was also a member of the Essenic brotherhood with was a branch of the order of Aaron (Ancient Egyptian Order).

Hebrew 7 : 11
"11: Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levit'ical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchiz'edek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? "

The order of Melchiz'edek is grew out of Ancient Kemet (also known as Tamare falsely called Egypt by the Greeks) as the Order of Ma'at (Order, Justice and Truth).

@HorusKuns,


We notice that up until this time your efforts to be deliberately dubious haven't caught on your expected public ovation. Melchizedek himself said this:

     'And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God,
     possessor of heaven and earth' (Gen. 14:19)

And again, it is said:

     'And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of my master Abraham, who hath
     not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way,
     the LORD led me to the house of my master's brethren. (Gen. 24:27)

By trying so hard to be dubious with the clear declarations of Scripture and cheating on language misadventures and wrong inferences, your labours will continue to be exercises in futility. No vex, but it doesn't take a Harvard education to see through your facade.

Quote from Tayo D:
Thanks for taking the first step towards dispelling this error that donnie is propagating on these pages. I have always been fascinated and eventually heart broken by many men of God whose primary calling is evangelism, but are so eager to keep a following that they delve into the office of a teacher and the end result is error like this one. While I have not heard Pastor Chris teach on this subject, I am not too surprised that he has taken this view because he tends to emulate Benny Hinn a lot, and Benny Hinn's teaching is just totally wacko some times. The attention he gives to the person of the Holy Spirit goes way beyond what I see revealed in scriptures. I'll explain this further in my answers to donnie. Besides, this is not about Benny Hinn.

So you now assign ministries to men of God ? You are bold o! But i do not want to become as bold as you.


Quote from Tayo D:
I learnt very well from my Master Jesus. The testimony He received is that He taught as one having authority. He made categorical statements based on scriptural premises. That is more than I have seen you do so far.

Really?

Quote from Tayo D:

Please try to think about what you are saying a little bit. No one ever said the man Jesus was here in the O.T. As you rightly pointed out, the man Jesus was born by Mary in Bethlehem. The one who manifested in the O.T. is the One called the Son of God which the Bible testifies about in Micah 5:2 whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. To claim that Jesus (used loosley to mean the Word of God or the second member of the Godhead) was never manifested in the OT is the height of abysmal ignorance. While I intend to prove this more later on, I will first bring your attention to His manifestation in the Garden of Eden where He came to meet with Adam and Eve and they hid from Him. Genesis 3:8 - And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. Did you notice that it was the voice of God that was doing the walking? Who is the voice og God if not the Word of God - Jesus!

I'm not unaware of that manifestaion of the Word. You must understand that the Word of God is God. You do not seperate a man from his word. His words are a representation of his personality. If you heard my voice over the radio, will you say: Donnie's voice said so so and so? Will you not say: Donnie said? I agree that the voice of God was the Word of God and in fact God himself. But not the man Jesus. That voice was known from the beginning, by the prophets of old and by the angels. That was the voice they heard walking ( or talking) in the garden. They heard the voice but they saw no form.


Quote from Tayo D:
Now here you are making categorical statements without any scriptures to prove it. Will you please read in full John 1:18 I quoted earlier to see the entire picture.  John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.We are told here that no one has ever seen God in all His glory, but all the manifestations we see of Him is from no other but the Son who makes Him known. I will go into more depths on these different manifestations when I talk about Jesus calling Himself the "I AM" as Telly B mentioned earlier.

I do not think there is anything i have said that i cannnot prove with scripture. The Son was manifested in due time to show us the father. He was the express image of the father's person. But he promised to send us the Holy Spirit in His place who will hear from Him and show unto us. This Holy Spirit is the one on the earth today making the presence of the father and of Jesus real to the world.

Quote from Tayo D:
So? That does not mean He has ever been a manifestation of God in the physical which is the bone of contention here. Jesus also came from the Father which is the same thing as the phrase "proceedeth from the Father". John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. Now do you notice the word again in bold? What does that mean to you? Doesn't that tell you that He has been in the world before and was going back as a matter of habit? Again means this is not the first time I am doing this!

The scripture refering to the Holy Spirit as that which proceedeth from the Father cannot be used in the same way for Jesus because Jesus unlike the Holy Spirit proceeded once and is in heaven now. Take note of the term Proceedeth(proceeds) as used for the Holy Spirit.


Quote from Tayo D:
I just can't wait. I hope you will think through scriptures yourself and not come here to regurgitate that which you have been taught!

My friend, If enter in to unwholesome arguements. I only share that which i am a partaker of. I have no business discussing what i have not personally experienced bother I have been taught by God and by His teachers whom He hath annointed andappointed.