₦airaland Forum

@ Truthislight,

truthislight: @Goshen360

hide your address o!

Tithers can assasinate you o!

This bros G get sense o!

See how him they use Joagbaje hand by force dey preach tith to stop. Lol.

image go soon come cry foul.

That christ collected tith! (image = money)
lol

I have put on the whole armour of God (Ephesians 6:11, 13); I have put on the belt of truth and my breastplate of righteousness is in place (Ephesians 6:14); My feet is shielded with the gospel of peace (verse 15); I have taken up the shield of faith, with which I can extinguish all the flaming arrows (verse 16); Long ago, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God is in my heart and mouth (verse 17); I pray in the Spirit and also believers praying for me (verse 18-19) so that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel.

OLAADEGBU: Is it a local church or a fraternity?

Brother....I am the church of God. I only go to fellowship with other believers is a believers' gathering. When scripture says, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together...", it didn't say not forsaking the assembling of the church....because he understands we the people are the church but we only meet together in a place. Maybe you need to start consulting other translation with KJV.......

New Living Translation (©2007)
And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some people do, but encourage one another, especially now that the day of his return is drawing near.- Hebrews 10:25

Also, the much neglected verse JUST LIKE the "commandment to take tithe" is INSIDE the law, so also is "those who have the commandment, Levites" also paid tithe IN THE ACT of Abraham (Hebrews 7:9-10). When scripture says the law is abolished, set aside, disannulled (verse 18-19) and the law changed due to change in priesthood (verse 12), it means the entire law is set aside including all its regulations, sacrifices and commandment to take tithes because it's all inclusive package in the law.

Verse 9-10 also places the act of levites paying tithe in the act of Abraham and disannulled the law, the act of Abraham is also disannulled because the argument is the levites were still IN THE LIONS OF ABRAHAM when he gave tithes to Abraham. By one man all sinned and by one man all is made righteous. If we all sinned by Adam and in Christ, we are all made righteous, it simply means we have nothing in Adam anymore.

Before I proceed to the next verse which was also onced used by Joagbaje on this thread to declare that The Law Has been Abolished,

Joagbaje: Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace

[size=20pt]The verse above makes it clear that Jesus has abolished the law of commandments, contained in ordinances, given to the Jews in the Old Testament. He fulfilled them and abolished them. The laws and commandments of the Old Testament are not relevant to the new creation in Christ Jesus. It’s therefore wrong for you to live your life trying to obey the Law.[/size]

[size=20pt]Hebrews 7:12
"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.[/size]

The Lord Jesus became our High Priest in the New Testament, not in the order of the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood, but in the order of Melchisedec (Hebrews 7:17&21). This signifies an eternal priesthood; a new priesthood, headed by Jesus Christ, different from what obtained in the Old Testament.
Now, the importance of that is this: Jesus Christ has become our High Priest, and He’s not the High Priest of the Old Testament Law; He has a new law. Remember what we read in Hebrews 7:12, that a change in priesthood automatically means a change of the Law. Since the priesthood has been changed and Jesus Christ is now our High Priest in the New Testament, the law has also been changed. That’s why Jesus said in

John 13:34,
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another

Love has replaced all the laws and ordinances of the Old Testament (Read Romans 13:8-10)

. In Matthew 22:37-40
"…Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.".

‎​This however doesn’t mean that the Old Testament is not useful to us today.

Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

The things written in the Old Testament have been written only for our learning; they’re not the revelations by which we live today as new creations in Christ. Now learn more of what it is to walk in love.

In this thread as highlighted above, Joagbaje teaches that that the OT and the law was between God and the Jews as also confirmed by this scriptures,

New Living Translation (©2007)
That first covenant between God and Israel had regulations for worship and a place of worship here on earth. Hebrews 9:1

Hebrews 7:5 says from our previous exposition that "the commandment to take/collect tithe was given to the Levites ACCORDING TO THE LAW",

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
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:

This verse ties "commandment to take tithes" to "the law of Moses". When Joagbaje teaches that the Law has been abolished, he doesn't accept the truth that the commandment to receive tithe is also part of the law. When the law is Abolished, tithe is also abolished. It is scriptural abuse and heresy grounded with greed that will only teach the law is abolished but only tithing remains.

In Acts 15:5-22, the apostles in Jerusalem, being Jewish Christians, had not required Paul to teach the Gentiles to observe the Mosaic Law and tithing. However, due to a lack of spiritual insight, they still required themselves and other Jewish Christians to continue observing all of the law. This error caused a multitude of problems which Paul faced and tried to correct in his letters, especially Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Second Corinthians, chapter 3. This failure to understand the impact of the gospel on the Mosaic Law also caused the situation in the church that was being addressed by this letter to the Hebrews.

Since all four “evidences” in verses 4-10 involved tithing, it is therefore logical to conclude that the “law” being discussed in verse 11 must also include the law of tithing in Numbers 18. This is especially true since the first use of both “law” and “commandment” in Hebrews refers to tithing. In verse 5,

English Standard Version (©2001)
And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham.

Tithing was singled out of the entire law because it best enabled the Levitical system to exist. The Levitical system, like human organizations, began with the means to support it.

11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

The writer after making all his point and indepth exposition above from verse 1-10. He began v11 with "THERFORE" if perfection were through the Levi who received commandment to function in the levitical prieshood (v11, 5), receive tithes and also paid tithe to the priest, Aaron according to the law. The writer says there would not be need for another priest should perfection had being through these Levitical priesthood. And if there would even be a replacement of priesthood, why not according to the order of Aaron according to the law but which compares to the priesthood of Jesus being according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 6:20). This is the whole exposition by the writer like I mentioned from the beginning of my explanation from Heb.7:1. The priesthood of Jesus did take after the "order of Aaron" (not hereditary) according to the law but according to the "order of Melchizedek" by to oath/power of endless life.(v15-17 of Heb.7)

“If therefore” begins drawing conclusions from the evidence presented in verses 4-10, which began with “now consider.” On the basis of the Levitical priesthood Israel “received the law,” that is, all of the Mosaic Law and including tithing commandment as stated in verse 5! Since this is a discussion of tithing and levitical priesthood, common sense teaches that “the law” must also include tithing for verse 5 says, “according to the law”. A compound Greek noun-verb here means that the law was “legislated” and “enacted” through the priests. After being initiated by God, the “legislated” law of tithing and other offerings provided for the very existence of the Levitical priesthood, and, in turn, the Levitical priesthood gave the whole law to Israel.

“If therefore perfection were” (or could have been achieved) through the Levitical priesthood implies that something was lacking. The problem was that nothing, absolutely nothing, in the system of laws that established their priesthood, or that resulted from the ministry of their priesthood, had been able to produce the perfection required by God! This included tithing! All the financial support in the world cannot, and will not, produce a moral priesthood (or clergy). Therefore, there was need for another greater priesthood and change to the entire system says verse 12,

New International Version (©1984)
For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. – Hebrews 7:12.

^^^
My brother, I do have where I fellowship with other believers.

Frosbel, why you dey pour sand-sand for these people garri naw Abeg no spoil business o.

You suppose figure out I was only cracking jokes...... with all these mantle and anointing selling preachers...

^^^
Can't you read I said, "I picked race after asking him whether na mango seed I go come with".....

^^^
T.D Jakes Ke? ......Na Rod Parsley I still wan go, them say make I come receive mantle tomorrow and double portion anointing and I should come with a seed so I can seal whatever I receive tomorrow. When I asked Pastor Rod Parsley what kind of seed he's talking about....mango seed, mustard seed or BANANA seed ......If you see the kind eye wey he take look me, I just pick race comot .........

Joagbaje: I just came to this thread , I've not read the three pages. But let me respond briefly to the op. firstly I don't know where you got your quote from. Did anyone say so?

Secondly what is misbehavior? Crime? If a pastor commits a crime, the law should handle him. It's the law that determines if a crime is actually committed .


If its a ministerial error, he should be confronted directly to explain and if he is wrong he can Apologise and make a change as it has happened to several ministers. Above all things ,the major responsibility from the church is praying for ministers

. If a minister Makes a mistake , prayer can bring restoration. That doesn't make him a false minister. Apostles of the bile had ther mistakes . It's the Heart God sees.

JUDGING
the mistakes many posters make here Is this idea of judging and condemnation . The man who judge another man outs himself in position of condemnation and he has started sinning too. Correction should be done in love .

Gossip that we experience on the NL here is unscriptural. The church washing dirty linen in public in the view of sinners, it's against the respect christ has for his church. Why should Christians be the people openly giving evil publicity about the church ,helping Satan fulfil his agenda by destroying people's faith in God. God frowned even at Christians going to judge matters before sinners.

1 Corinthians 6:1
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?. . 6 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

I can see you are abusing scriptures. The very scripture you quoted is clearly talking about a Christian taking another Christian to law court before or in front of an unbelieving judge rather than going before same Christian who can judge another Christian. I always like to unmask your false teachings whenever you quote and abuse scriptures. Look at the same verse from other translations,

New Living Translation (©2007)
When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers!

New International Version (©1984)
If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?

Even this translation says, the saints can also judge instead of the ungodly.....

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
When one of you has a complaint against another, how dare you go to court to settle the matter in front of wicked people. Why don't you settle it in front of God's holy people?

Darby Bible Translation
Dare any one of you, having a matter against another, prosecute his suit before the unjust, and not before the saints?

Weymouth New Testament
If one of you has a grievance against an opponent, does he dare to go to law before irreligious men and not before God's people?

So, Joagbaje....look at these translations starring at you in the face and tell us if it's not talking about taking a Christian brother to law court by another Christian brother INSTEAD of judging the matter between fellow Christian. Clearly, a Christian can judge his fellow Christian instead of the ungodly......

OLAADEGBU: Have you been to Rodney Brown's church lately?

No ooo, Na Rod Parsley Chrurch I go last week Sunday. I went to receive my prayer cloth and lay down my tithe at the Apostle's feet...

Next is to start laughing in tongues....

Nice thread Frosbel.

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 .

I know very well this verse will generate another controversy. Levi did not physically pay tithe as said earlier and you are also right on what you said, "His point was that Melchizedek priesthood was higher that levitical priesthood because Levi also indirectly paid tithes to Melchizedek . 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".

Look beyond the what is said literally in those scriptures and come back to defend the fact when Abraham paid tithe, Levi also paid tithe to Melchizedek. When Adam sinned, All sinned. When Christ was made righteous, all was made righteous.....What is going on in those scripture Joagbaje....e be like say you need coaching oo....

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".

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

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.

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.

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

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”.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

I just used my Crest Pro-health for Multi-purpose protection and here is the proof

@ Joagbaje,

I have shown you and everyone following this thread and the world from scripture the difference of what the OT called "offerings" and the NT what is called "offerings" in today's church. If you are not convinced, kindly show us where the NT church is instructed to collect offerings in the church other than the scripture I have shown you that teaches offerings/collections for the saints in the NT church. The world is reading and following us as we teach God's word.

Second, since you said "tithe and offering" goes together and one cannot be taken and the other left out, will you agree if it is shown from the scripture where tithe is dis-annulled, set aside and abolished that offerings is also abolished, set aside and dis-annulled since you teach both goes together. Will you agree

The diagram presented below will also be discussed as a framework for our exposition.

“…and blessed him”.

This is very important! Every word of this writer is extremely important. Abraham, actually Abram in Genesis 14:18-24 was blessed by the historic Melchizedek “before” Abram gave (not pay) tenth from the spoils of war. 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. Also Abram was rich in silver and gold (Genesis 13:1-2) prior to his encounter with Melchizedek and we are not told he became rich by tithing before the event of Genesis 14. Abraham wasn’t rich or blessed by his tithing! He was pronounced blessed by the historic Melchizedek and it was written,

And he blessed him, and said, blessed [be] Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. Genesis 14:19-20

Now, we are told in Heb. 6:20 that Jesus become or became High Priest "FOREVER according to the order" of Melchizedek and in Heb.7:1, we are told “this Melchizedek” is a priest and a king. It therefore means Jesus is also a King and Priest also because Jesus became a High Priest "forever according to the order of Melchizedek".

In Israel, NO KING IS A PRIEST AND NO PRIEST IS A KING AT THE SAME TIME. It’s either one or the other, not both at the same time. So Jesus is King and Priest according to the order or pattern of Melchizedek because this Melchizedek is a priest and king at the same time. This is the first thing being established by the writer about Jesus and Melchizedek when the writer said Jesus became High Priest “forever according to the order of Melchizedek” – they were both kings and priests as Jesus took “after” the “order” of Melchizedek but Jesus himself is not Melchizedek. We will establish the "forever" aspect of the "according to the order of Melchizedek" as we expound further.

...to be continue

Definition of Biblical Types:

A type is a preordained representation wherein certain persons, events, and institutions of the O.T. stand for corresponding persons, events, and institutions of the N.T. Types are pictures or object lessons by which God has taught and/or hidden His redemptive plan. They are a shadow of things to come, not the image of those things (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5; 10:1). The Mosaic system, for example, was a kind of kindergarten in which God's people were trained in divine things and taught to look forward to the realities of things yet to come.

For the purpose of edification for the saints of God, there are four (4) classes of biblical types and shadow:

A. Typical Persons:

1. Adam was a type of Christ who was yet to come (Rom. 5:12-21; 2 Cor. 15:45-49).

2. Melchizedek was a type of the eternal priesthood of Christ (Gen. 14:18-24; Heb. 5:5-9; 6:20; 7:1-10, 17); a type of combined kingship and priesthood (Heb. 7:1-3 with Zech. 6:12-13); and a type of eternal existence (Heb. 7:3, 6 with Mic. 5:1-2; Jn. 1:1-3; Heb. 1:.

3. Abraham offering up his only promised son was a type of God offering His only begotten Son (Gen. 22; Jn. 3:16; Heb. 11:17-19).

4. Isaac was a type of the resurrection of Christ (Gen. 22; Heb. 11:19).

5. Moses was a type of Christ as the prophet of God (Dt. 18:15-19; Acts 3:19-26), and of faithfulness (Heb. 3:1-6).

6. Aaron was a type of the high priesthood of Christ (Heb. 5:1-5).

7. Jonah was a type of the death, burial, dissension (into the lower parts of the earth for three days), and resurrection of Christ (Jonah 2; Mt. 12:40; Eph.4:8-10).


B. Typical Events:

1. Some of the events during Israel's wandering in the wilderness were typical of things Christians would face (2 Cor. 10:1-13).

2. The lifting up of the brazen serpent in the wilderness was typical of the crucifixion of Christ and benefits of the cross to be realized by others (Jn. 3:14; Num. 21).

C. Typical Acts:

1. Smiting the rock as in Ex. 17 was typical of Christ being crucified or smitten for men (2 Cor. 10:4).

2. Smiting the rock the second time instead of speaking to it was typical of crucifying Christ afresh (Num. 20; 2 Cor. 10:4; Heb. 6:6).

3. Rejecting the chief cornerstone was typical of the rejection of Christ (Isa. 28:16; Mt. 21:42).

4. The many acts of the priests in the tabernacle worship were typical of various aspects of redemption through Christ: killing animals; shedding and sprinkling blood; burning incense; the showbread; lighting lamps; and the daily and yearly rituals were all typical acts, fulfilled in Christ and His redemptive work (Heb. 7:11-28; 8:1-6; 9:1-28; 10:1-22).

D. Typical Institutions:

1. The whole Mosaic institution of offerings and worship was typical of things to come in the sacrifice and redemptive work of Christ and the worship of God in the true way (Ex. 12-13; 25:1 - 40:38; Heb. 7-10).

2. The Aaronic priesthood, the garments of the priests, and other aspects of the ministry of the law were typical of Christ and His redemptive work (Ex. 28-29; Heb. 7-10).

3. The Sabbath for Israel was typical of the eternal rest in Christ and of that which is to come for all the redeemed (Ex. 20:8-11; 31:12-18; Dt. 5:15; Heb. 4).

4. The feasts of Israel were typical of various aspects of redemption through Christ (Ex. 12; Lev. 23; 2 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 5-10).

5. The temple and all the rituals of worship carried on in it were typical of the same things the tabernacle and its worship were typical of.

6. The tabernacle and temple, their compartments, and furniture were themselves typical of the heavenly tabernacle Christ entered into (Heb. 8:1-5; 9:1-10, 23-24).

Hence, we understand that Melchizedek was a type and shadow of Christ in the “order” of his “king and priest” not in the “person” of Melchizedek himself. If Christ is Melchizedek, it will mean that Christ was a type of himself and scriptures does not teach such. It will also mean Christ lived historically before he was born of a virgin birth. Some also teach that Melchizedek is Shem, such teaching is error because the scripture records the genealogy of Shem but the scripture did not record the genealogy of the historic Melchizedek hence Melchizedek is NOT Shem.

1. For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; Heb. 7

The writer had already established the "fulfilled" Melchizedek in Christ right from Hebrews 5:1-6 from the "prophetic" Melchizedek of Psalm 110. It was re-emphasized in Hebrews 6:20 and then he begins Hebrew Chapter 7 as a continuation from Heb.6:20 introducing us to the "historic" Melchizedek (who was a type and shadow and from whom the prophetic came to be in Psalms) of Genesis 14 and discussed the Pre-law tithing that was done by Abraham to the historic Melchizedek.

The Historic Melchizedek as Type or shadow of Christ and the Pre-law tithing.

“For this Melchizedek…”

It is very important for us to understand which Melchizedek the writer referenced here in this verse – the historic Melchizedek. We know it is the historic Melchizedek by the writer referring to first appearance of Melchizedek in Genesis 14 when he met Abraham when returning from slaughter of kings. This is the first mention of Melchizedek in the bible. Who then is “this Melchizedek?” The writer made reference to this historic Melchizedek as “who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him” so we can therefore trace this back to history in Genesis 14:14 – 24. 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?

The writer drew heavily from the historic event of Genesis 14 still talking about Melchizedek that, he is a “king of Salem, priest of the most high God”. Now, we understand that “this Melchizedek" (historic) was a king (of Salem) and also a priest (of the most high God). Hence the historic Melchizedek was a “king and a priest” at the same time. Israel's king later descended from the tribe of Judah and house of David and the priest on the other hand descended from the tribe of Levi and the house of Aaron. No King in Israel is a priest and a king at the same time but Melchizedek was a king-priest and Jesus and the NT believers fulfilled that as a type and shadow. Today, no Christian goes on “slaughter of kings” like Abraham and Christ had made every believer or Christian a king and priest unto himself; he (Christ) being our “High Priest” (Revelation 1:6; Hebrews 3:1, 5:1-6, 8:6 and 10:12).

“…who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him”

Abraham in this context is extremely important because,

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

2. He is the (spiritual) "father" of them that are of faith.

We shall expound on Abraham as “Patriarch” of the Jewish nation and as a “father of them that are of faith” – it is extremely important. 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.

What did Abraham do in order to receive blessing? Absolutely nothing - foreshadowing the blessing of God without works to believers through Christ as the fulfilled Melchizedek. In this account where the historic Melchizedek is a type and shadow, that is under the type and shadow in the appearance of Melchizedek, Abraham did nothing to get the blessing, how much more under the fulfilled Melchizedek of Christ. The historic Melchizedek therefore becomes the first to be a king and a priest at the same time. This is how and where he is a type of Christ but not Christ himself.

What then is “biblical type or shadow”?

@ tpia,

I have no personal issue with you and I believe you don't have any against me also aside what we teach from scriptures. In response to the thread you referenced above, when you speak against evils, misconducts and misbehaviours of authority in the body of Christ, that is not rebellious from scriptural view. I do not have much time now as I would have showed what biblical rebellion is.

David, by hierarchy in Israel is greater than Nathan the prophet. When David who was in authority erred and God told Nathan to go rebuke him. When Nathan rebuked him, my dear tpia, David was God's anointed but he did not quote judge not or touch not God's anointed to Nathan the Prophet. Today, we already have the complete revelation of God's word in the final and canonized scriptures, we don't have to wait for God to specifically tell us to confront, rebuke a leader that erred because God had already told us in the final and complete word - the Bible.

You see, evangelism is cheap with mouth and words but more effective when it involves our behaviour and conduct in the society whether as a Christian or a pastor. When the scripture says, "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of us Christian" is because of our conducts and misconducts. That is evangelism by way of living, our conducts and behaviour in the society. Tell me, when a Christian or a pastor sleeps with another man's wife, is that a good conduct and we should not judge such Christian or pastor When a Christian and/or pastor defraud members, steals, gain wealth dishonestly etc, are you saying the bible doesn't judge them already simply because they want to hide under the scripture of "judge not and touch not mine anointed" C'mon tpia, truth be told and not be bent. I will never bend the scripture for any misconduct and gross misbehaviour, be it me or anyone.

I'm out of here.