₦airaland Forum

East: Jesus is the perfection of tithing.

HOW is that so?

East: Let’s look at our tithe and eat His flesh and drink His blood for in doing so we are fulfilling the Law.

That must be the most IGNORANT sentence I read anywhere on the net! The reason is this -

East: When we believe in Jesus, all is done concerning our redemption from the curse and we don’t have to add a thing.

Tithing has NOTHING to do with REDEMPTION - NOWHERE does the Bible connect tithing with anybody's redemption or salvation.

East: I have seen that not even God brings any accusation against His people

Then you most certainly haven't read your Bible! While it makes us 'feel good' to read the above, the fact is that even God Himself has accused 'His people' at some time or the other - there are so many examples, depending on what each case presents. If not, what then does He mean by saying: 'But I have a few things against thee' in Revelation 2:4, 14, 20?

There's a whole lot of jargon in your 'conclusion' that make for very shoddy work.

wordtalk:
This is one way of showing that the said house being argued did not belong to Jesus as His personally rented apartment, and hence CANNOT be used to justify a fallacious argument around which house Jesus dwelt in or had as His own.

In view of all this, the question still remains: did Jesus Himself have any place of abode while he was on earth? What was His residential or 'postal' address?

Some use verses like Luke 9:58 and Matthew 8:20 to justify the argument that Jesus was 'homeless' (to put it bluntly). But do these verses actually teach that Jesus had no place or home of His own?

I think that such texts as Luke 9:58 et al do not prove conclusively that Jesus had no home of His own - whether one which He owned personally or shared with His disciples/apostles. What those verses demonstrate is the style of Jesus classic answer in parabolic manner to intriguing questions of discipleship. The quip that 'the Son of man hath not where to lay his head' cannot be used to justify a 'homeless' Saviour any more than it could be used to say that He had no place where He ever slept.

On the contrary, when some early converts asked Him, 'Rabbi, . . . where dwellest thou?' His answer was: 'Come and see.' Consequently, 'they came and saw WHERE HE DWELT, and abode with Him that day' - read John 1:38-39.

It is remarkable here that when asked pointedly about where He dwelt/lived, Jesus did not reply as in Luke 9:58, 'the Son of man hath not where to lay his head'. Rather, He took them to the place where He dwelt - and these disciples dwelt with Him there that day.

It is crucial to note that we are not told exactly where this dwelling place was. All we can say here is that such verses as Luke 9:58 do not prove that Jesus had no home - on the contrary, John 1:38-39 indicate at the very least that He had place where He formerly dwelt. Further, some are inclined to say that other verses as Matthew 9:28; 13:1 & 36 (with reference to 'the house') are ancillary to the point that Jesus had His own house or dwelling place.

Bottomline: Luke 9:58 does not prove that Jesus had no home - that was usually His classic retort/reply to enquirers who express eagerness to be discipled to Him without having counted the cost. Besides that verse, others raise the question as to where He actually dwelt, and what is meant by 'the house' in those other passages.

Image123:

newmi link=topic=886109.msg10342653#msg10342653 date=1331050640:
Mark 2:15
"And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him"
Now this an objective thought, doesn't the reference above support the notion that Jesus could possibly could have had a house

Even a casual english literate knows that scripture refers to Levi's house. A supposed student of the Bible has taken the 'take it or leave it' approach.

@Image123,

You bear an 'image', please be gentle with newmi.

Perhaps what you might have done in your counter argument is point out HOW and WHY newmi's verse of Mark 2:15 does not establish that 'Jesus could possibly have had a house' - i.e., a personally rented house of His own.

"And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him"

So, Mark 2:15 - Jesus own house? Answer: Definitely NOT.

WHY and HOW?
Because other passages in the NT have direct bearing on that event and show that the 'house' belonged to someone else - Levi.

Please read and compare between Mark 2:14-15 and Luke 5:29-30 >>

MARK 2:14-15:
[v. 14] And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.
[v. 15] And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

compare with -

LUKE 5:27-29:
[v. 27] And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.
[v. 28] And he left all, rose up, and followed him.
[v. 29] And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.

Luke 5:29 explains Mark 2:15 and shows that 'his own house' is a reference to Levi, not Jesus. Further, it is commonly believed that the same Levi is MATTHEW, who later became one os His disciples (please see Matthew 9:9-10). So, it was Matthew's house that such verses as Mark 2:15 was pointing to.

This is one way of showing that the said house being argued did not belong to Jesus as His personally rented apartment, and hence CANNOT be used to justify a fallacious argument around which house Jesus dwelt in or had as His own.

BERNIMOORE:
NOW THE 'ONUS OF PROOF' LIES ON THE 'ADVOCATES OF THE ALLEDGED MELCHIZEDECK PRIESTHOOD' TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM APART FROM HEBREW 7:16, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO SHED MORE LIGHT AND CONVINCE US.

I've done that already in showing several things -

(a)  'similitude' is not the same thing as 'ORDER'

(b)  your argument is erratic because you first attempted to argue that 'after' and 'order' are treated as one word, whereas they are two words in both Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7.

(c) your argument is also forcefully in DENIAL - because where we read of the fact that Scripture teaches about the 'ORDER' of melchizedek, you simply DENIED the fact by arguing it does not exist.

(d) the fact that 'ORDER' is not merely a matter of 'resemblance' is shown in the same argument the author uses for Aaron in Hebrews 7:11 ('the ORDER of Aaron') - can you then DENY also that no such thing as 'ORDER' exists in the Aaronic priesthood? Or can you then make the same argument that 'ORDER' in Aaron's case is merely 'resemblance'?

(e) I also showed that Melchizedek's priesthood is NOT at par with any other OT priesthood such as Jethro's or Moses' or Potipherah's - this is because (i) the priesthood of melchizedek features in Jewish Scripture as a divine prophecy; and (ii) it is distinguished from all other priesthoods made without an oath.

Therefore, to find any substance in your arguments denials, you would have to do a few simple things:

1. EXPLAIN WHY and HOW you would DENY the fact that there is an 'ORDER' of priesthood in Scripture in relation to Melchizedek. This will only help us see why YOU cannot accept David's prophecy in Psalm 110 (after the 'ORDER' of Melchizedek), and also why the Hebrew writer would have used the very same argument from divine prophecy that YOU deny.

2. EXPLAIN WHY no other OT priest (aside Aaron's) is said to have an 'ORDER' than Melchizedek- since it is Melchizedek ALONE that is said in divine prophecy to have such an 'ORDER'. It will not do to look at all those verses and declare that an 'ORDER' does not exist - that would simply be flying outside the hemisphere of divine inspiration.

BERNIMOORE:
Note pls,    my particular 'reply' here is divided to A  ,B   and,    C            anyone that would like to QUOTE ME on these particular reply ,should please either quote 'whole' PARAGRAPHS A,  or B or   C, you can only change the color of your particular emphasis on my qote. thanks

It's not possible to follow you in a straight line between your arguments - especially because you seem to have muddled up the issues and jumped to erroneous conclusions. So, bear with me as I've tried to unravel them in a coherent manner.

BERNIMOORE:
ALSO

SEE THE DEFINATION OF ''AFTER  THE POWER OF AN ENDLESS LIFE'' (a verse tha advocates of melchi priesthood turned to 'a dynasty'  yes 'dtnasty'in the sense that they actually 'smuggled' their own unproved meaning through the back door using this verse 16 as a cover, now lets uncover or shift the veil using your 'strong hebrew bible dictionary

We didn't turn Melchizedek's priesthood into a dynasty - if we did, we would say so plainly without your apologetics on our behalf. The point here is that you have introduced the conundrum of 'dynasty' into this discussion and arrived at a strawman argument all by yourself - raising an objection that nobody else raised, and then trying to knock it down all by yourself at the same time! That's just cheating - in the same way that you denied the 'ORDER' that Scripture teaches SEVERAL TIMES as plainly as clear sky!

Relax. Until you begin to handle things simply as they appear in the Bible, your strawman 'dynasty' does not even begin to arise as an issue. Moot point again - or just plain hefing, sorry.

BERNIMOORE:
SO WE ARE TOTALLY IN THE DARK NOT FROM THE BIBLE BUT FROM THE AGITATORS OR ADVOCATES OF UNEXISTING 'PRIESTHOOD 'ORDER' ALLEGED TO BE OF  MELCHIZEDECK AND THATS THE ONLY PART THAT REMAINED AN ARTIFICIAL MISTERY OF WHICH THEY USE  ONLY ON ONE PARTICULAR VERSE, IS HEBREW 7: 16;

You can remain in the dark all you want - because as far as i know, the BIBLE itself shows that there is such a thing as the ORDER of Melchizedek. Denying the fact does not bring you into the light, so it's alright to sit comfortably in your self-constructed darkness as you please.

Okay, don't take that personally - I was just besides myself, amazed at your unequivocal assertion to deny what Scripture clearly teaches on this point. Don't go down that route - or you would have to explain how YOU come to the conclusion that an 'ORDER' does not exist and so David's prophecy in Psalm 110:4 is just non-existent.

WE ALSO HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST 'ASCENTION TO PRIEST' OUTSIDE LEVITICUS ORDER;HEB 7:13,14;

Nobody is arguing to make Christ a priest according to the Levitical 'order' - so that there is a moot point. The point has already been made that being a Levite does not guarantee that a Jew could enter into Jewish priesthood; and the fact remains that there is a clearly UNDISPUTED fact that a Jew from the family of JUDAH was recognized as a levitical priest - see Judges 17:7 and 18:19. How do you deal with such issues?

BERNIMOORE:
JETHRO SHARE THE SAME 'CALL' TO GOD WITH MELCHIZEDECH,THAT IS THEY ARE BOTH   ELIGIBLE TO OFFICIATE OR EVEN ENJOY TO BE CALLED 'GODS PRIEST' SO THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT MELCHIZECK  THAT WOULD WARRANT 'AN ALLEGED'  'PRISTHOOD 'ORDER', IT DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE THERE IS NO ''PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO 'PROVE OR STAND' AS A RECOGNISED AND ACCEPTED PROOF, EXCEPT  MERE SPECULATIONS,

I would rather say that YOU are the one making wild speculations - some of which I just unraveled above in 5 quick points.

Now, it is interesting that you asserted that there is nothing special about Melchizedek that would warrant an alleged priesthood 'ORDER'. That is a very wild claxon on your part that totally ignores Scripture, my dear friend.

On the contrary, there are a number of special reasons why Melchizedek has an 'ORDER' of priesthood for Christ -

(a) the first is that this ORDER sits as a part of divine prophecy in Jewish Scripture: God pronounced an oath in connection with this ORDER of priesthood - otherwise, Hebrews 7:21 would be most certainly meaningless for people who make your kind of argument;

(b) the second is that this ORDER is not a whimsical contruction which you can argue away on the basis of 'nothing special', or to make it at par with that of Jethro's priesthood or any other kind of priesthood in the OT - otherwise again, the author would not be at pains to urge his recipients to 'consider how great' Melchizedek was (v. 4). Nobody is asked to consider how great Jethro was (even though you magicallly made him 'king of Midian' with absolutely NOTHING to show for it); nobody is asked to consider how great Potipherah was; nobody was even asked to consider 'how great' Moses was, even though Psalm 99:6 declares he was actually a priest. WHY all this? Because the author was not making a case for any apparent 'ORDER' of all these other OT priesthoods - which is why you cannot bring down Melchizedek's priesthood to be at par with Jethro's.

(c) your argument that an alleged priesthood 'ORDER' does not exist is simply a DENIAL of Scripture, because scripture itself shows that such a thing as 'the ORDER of Melchizedek' actually exists! Read it in all these verses below (KJV) -

Psalm 110:4 - 'a priest for ever after the ORDER of Melchizedek'
Hebrews 5:6 - 'a priest for ever after the ORDER of Melchisedec'
Hebrews 5:10 - 'an high priest after the ORDER of Melchisedec'
Hebrews 6:20 - 'an high priest for ever after the ORDER of Melchisedec'
Hebrews 7:11 - 'another priest should rise after the ORDER of Melchisedec'
Hebrews 7:17 - 'a priest for ever after the ORDER of Melchisedec'
Hebrews 7:21 - 'a priest for ever after the ORDER of Melchisedec'

Now tell me: how could ANYONE open their eyes and see all these mention of the ORDER of Melchizedek and still DENY the fact by asserting that -

'THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT MELCHIZECK  THAT WOULD WARRANT 'AN ALLEGED'  'PRISTHOOD 'ORDER', IT DOES NOT EXIST'

What then do you do with all those verses that establishes the fact beyond your DENIAL?

BERNIMOORE:
BUT AFTER PROFESSING HIS ALLEGIANCE OR TOTAL ACCEPTANCE TO THE ALMIGHTY GOD,  HE PERFORM THE SAME SACRIFICING FUNCTION OF A HIGH PRIEST 'IN THE PRESENCE OF AARON' WHO WAS A PRIEST BY BIRTH AS THE FIRST BORN JUST THE SAME WAY MELCHIZEDECH DID TO ABRAHAM WHO WAS ALSO A PRIEST.

My goodness!  Please go softly on these gigantic leaps, I beg you! You have mumbled and jumbled so many things here, you know!

Let me unravel them in five quick points below:

BUT AFTER PROFESSING HIS ALLEGIANCE OR TOTAL ACCEPTANCE TO THE ALMIGHTY GOD,  HE PERFORM THE SAME SACRIFICING FUNCTION OF A HIGH PRIEST . .

1. This sounds like you're trying to make a case for jethro's conversion from idolatry to Judaism. if that were the case, then nothing in the OT shows that at all. Jethro from the start is identified as a priest who knew the very same God as did the Jewish people, for was he altogether ignorant of 'the mountain of God' to which Moses came (Exo. 3:1)? When he spoke of 'the LORD' in Exodus 18, who had converted him in order for him to profess any 'allegiance or total acceptance'?

There were no 'profession or total acceptance' in Jethro's case, because he was not an idol worshipper to begin with.

HE PERFORM THE SAME SACRIFICING FUNCTION OF A HIGH PRIEST 'IN THE PRESENCE OF AARON' WHO WAS A PRIEST BY BIRTH AS THE FIRST BORN . . .

2. Jethro did not function as 'high priest' - he was simply the 'priest' of Midian (Exo. 3:1 & 8:1)

3. Jethro is not said to have performed the same 'sacrificing function' of a "high priest", since he was not even 'high priest' in the first place. Rather, what he offered in Exodus 18 is simply a fellowship meal, so that 'Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread' with him (verse 12). There were others who offered burnt offerings at other times - such as the young men of Israel who Moses sent to offer 'burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD' on an alter under a hill which Moses had built (Exo. 24:5), but these young men were neither "high priests" nor occupying the role of such a high-priestly function.

4. Aaron was NOT 'a priest by birth' - he was first a 'spokesman' unto the people (Exo. 4:16), and was later consecrated as 'priest' by Moses (Exo. 28:41; 30:30).

. . .OF AARON' WHO WAS A PRIEST BY BIRTH AS THE FIRST BORN JUST THE SAME WAY MELCHIZEDECH DID TO ABRAHAM WHO WAS ALSO A PRIEST.

5. Melchizedek is not said to have offered any sacrifices or burnt offerings - so you cannot assume he did the same thing to Abraham as is said of Jethro in Exodus 18. What we simply read is that Melchizedek 'brought forth bread and wine' (Genesis 14:18), nowhere is it said that he offered any sacrifices in his august meeting with Abraham.


I just wanted to be clear here so that we don't take what you have argued for granted. They are full of wild and wide exegetical gaps and presumptions - which are just plainly erroneous.

BERNIMOORE:
AND THEY WORSHIP IDOLS

How do you know this? If that were true, then Jethro would rather have been a priest of an idolatrous people. But Exodus 18 shows on the contrary that he was a Godly priest who knew, served and worshipped the very same God who was worshipped by Israel.

No, nothing around those texts tell us that the priest of Midian officiated over those who worshipped idols as their lifestyle at the time of Jethro's priestly office. If the Midianites fell into idolatry, we can also call into play the fact that Israel also fell into idolatry during Moses and Aaron's time (Exo. 32:7). Not only so, but also the very same Numbers 25 which you quoted in like manner describes Israel's idolatry in declaring that "Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor" (v. 3). This verse that darkens Israel's spiritual history does not warrant the idea that Israel were all a people who worshipped idols - and in the same manner, we cannot accuse the Midianites based on one verse in the same Numbers 25 as if they were an idolatrous people all through their history.

BERNIMOORE:
FURTHER, THE PRE-LAW HIGH PRIESTS, WE ARE NOT BEING PUT IN THE DARK,THAT IS  PRIESTS ''WHOSE HEART''  ARE TOWARDS THE ALMIGHTY GOD OR ACCEPT THE ALMIGHTY GOD OVER THEIR OWN NATIVE gods, AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE CALL FROM GOD 'IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR TRIBE OR  NATIVE ORDINATION' EXAMPLE OF THIS IS JETHRO,

Pre-Law priests do not 'automatically receive' calling from God - that is not the basis upon which the non-Jewish priests were consecrated. The example of Jethro is not a calling that was "automatically received" without conditions, for God's call to be priests are not 'irrespective' of this or that but set on divine prerogatives.

Every high priest taken from among men is ordained  for men in the things of God - on several conditions, one of which is that he "CAN HAVE COMPASSION" on the ignorant (Heb. 5:2). Some of these priests might fail or err ('he himself also is compassed with infirmity') - but the divine call itself is not predicated upon questions of one's 'native ordination'. To use Jethro as an example for your presumptions is merely filling gaps and scribbling things which you cannot exegetically demonstrate. Sorry.

This is why you jumped another exegetical hole in stating that Jethro was king of Midian -

JETHRO WAS THE KING OF MIDIAN,

Please show me where you got this information from within the Bible. I'm well aware that Fausset's Bible Dictionary assumes he was a 'Prince priest of Midian', but it also confuses the same person to be both 'father of Zipporah, Moses' wife, and of Jethro and Hobab' - but I would like to ask users of Fausset's Dictionary: HOW could the same person be his own father all at the same time?

Please lay aside all these fiction from so-called Bible dictionaries and R-E-A-D the Bible for YOURSELF! Show me where the Bible teaches that Jethro was king of Midian and that would suffice. If you can't show this, then let's just say you jumped to conclusion without Biblical foundation - and that's what I call 'hefing'.

BERNIMOORE:
AND JESUS 'DECLARED AS KING  OF KINGS,AND LORD OF LORDS' WHAT A FITTING AND UNDISPUTABLE SIMILARITIES?

On what basis do you make the title of 'king of kings/Lord of lords' a matter of 'similarities'? You've just jumped a huge exegetical gap here, dude.

If it were a matter of similarities or resemblance, then ALL three (Melchizedek, Joshua and Jesus) actually had similarity and resemblance in one thing: PEACE. see below -

     {(a) Melchizedek, 'also King of Salem, which is, King of peace' - Heb. 7:2;}
     {(b) Joshua, 'he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be
      between them both' - Zech. 6:13;}
     {and (c) Jesus, 'he is our peace, who hath made both one', Eph. 2:14}.

However, I have shown that this is not merely a matter of 'similarities' or ''resemblance' for the writer in Hebrews. If that were the case, then indeed Joshua the high priest in Zechariah 3 & 6 bears far more 'similarities' in function than would Melchizedek to Jesus! And that is 'undisputable'.

On another stretch, neither Melchizedek nor Joshua is called 'king of kings' nor 'Lord of lords' - so there are no 'similarities' there!

And even though Melchizedek was king and priest, it is undisputable that Joshua was seen as combining these two 'functions' in himself, as one who "shall be a priest upon his throne" (Zech. 6:13), wearing both a mitre and crowns (Zech. 3:5 & 6:11)!

Joshua is also said to be clothed with garments as a priest and king (Zech. 3:5) - the very same thing we shall read about Christ who is also clothed in His 'kingly-priest' garment (Rev. 1:13).

Seeing all these things are so, where are the "similarities" that you were making for Melchizedek on the title of Jesus as 'king of kings/Lord of lords'?

BERNIMOORE:
(B)  IM ASKING NOW, WILL THE BIBLE CONTRADICT ITSELF ? IN HEBREW 7:15 AND HEB 7:17?

No, the Bible would not contradict itself on this matter (even though we find some of the people in the Bible actually contradicting themselves)!

What has happened here is that YOU are the one who had contradicted what the Bible is teaching. First, you made the error that the 'AFTER' and 'ORDER' were treated as one term using only H1700 - and I have shown that, on the contrary, there were two Hebrew and Greek words used in both passages of Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7.

Then you had argued merely on 'similitude' - which again is NOT the same thing as an 'ORDER' of a priest/priesthood. It is a priest/priesthood 'after the ORDER of Melchizedek' that Christ takes up or is consecrated - this is far more than a 'resemblance' because it would mean that the priesthood of Melchizedek is something other than a divinely appointed priesthood by God Himself (which incidentally is the reason why some anti-tithing theologians have erroneously concluded without Biblical foundation that Melchizedek was a 'pagan priest').

So, if you have so patently contradicted yourself on this issue, would you blame your error on the Bible or anyone else than yourself?

BERNIMOORE:
BUT HE WOULD RESEMBLE, IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HIS OFFICE, THIS ANCIENT PRIEST-KING, COMBINING IN HIMSELF THE TWO FUNCTIONS OF PRIEST AND KING; AS A PRIEST, STANDING ALONE; NOT DERIVING HIS AUTHORITY FROM ANY LINE OF PREDECESSORS; AND HAVING NO SUCCESSORS.

NOW, THE PARTICULAR HEB 7, SUPPLIED US WITH  ESTABLISHED PROOFS POINTING TO THE TRUE MEANING OF WHAT IS RENDERED 'ORDER';THAT IS;RESEMBLANCE, OR 'MANNER' OR  'LIKE' FOR 'LIKE',

Please tell me: WHY would the author use Melchizedek and not rather any other priest/priesthood in the OT?

If it were a matter of 'resemblance', then Joshua's priesthood would far supercede all others including that of Melchizedek, for the following reasons -

(a) the name 'Melchizedek' is not translated into 'salvation'; whereas both 'Jesus' and 'Joshua' are names pointing to salvation;

(b) 'Melchizedek' does not feature as a bearer of sin, such as all other priests undoubtedly are concerned with (Heb. 5:1-3); but both Joshua the high priest (Zech. 3:4) and Jesus (Heb. 1:3 & 7:27) are seen in this connection;

(c) Melchizedek is not said anywhere to be connected with building any temples; but both Joshua (Zech. 6:12-13) and Jesus (Heb. 9:11) are seen as priests connected with Temple work and building;

(d) Please note: although priests in the OT are seen wearing both a crown and mitre (e.g., Exo. 29:6), yet we do not read directly of Melchizedek wearing a 'crown' either as priest or king - BUT we do infact read of both Joshua (Zech. 3:5 & 6:11) and Jesus (Heb. 2:9; Rev. 19:12) having more than one crown.

I could go on to list more than 25 'similarities' or 'like-for-like' between Joshua and Jesus, if that is what you want. But all that would be ineffectual, because the author of Hebrews was well aware that these 'similarities' among priests existed even in the OT! He was not arguing for similarities or resemblances - rather he was showing that priesthoods were based on an 'ORDER' rather than on a similarity! It was either the 'ORDER of Aaron' or the 'ORDER of Melchizedek' - and not whether the priesthood which Jesus took up was 'similar' or 'resembled' this or that or the other.

So, again I ask: if it were a matter of 'resemblance', then WHY would the author use Melchizedek and not rather any other priest/priesthood in the OT which 'resembled' Jesus (such as JOSHUA) by far more than Melchizedek?

BERNIMOORE:
BUT HE WOULD RESEMBLE, IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HIS OFFICE, THIS ANCIENT PRIEST-KING, . . .

Sorry, but you seem to be confusing between an 'ORDER' and a 'RESEMBLANCE'. As we have seen, it is not merely a matter of who or what 'resembled' what. If it was a matter of mere resemblances, then I keep asking; WHY NOT any other priests mentioned in the OT, such as Jethro, Potipherah, Moses or even JOSHUA? Surely, any of those priests could have sufficed for the author to show 'resemblances' between their priesthoods and Christ's.

One may say that neither Jethro, Potipherah nor Moses assumed an office that combined the two 'functions' of priest and king - which again is a weak argument. For instance, the highlights the author gave of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 included kingship and attributes of divinity (v. 1-3); as such, WHY NOT Moses, who in the OT was like GOD (Exo. 4:16 & 7:1) and also a PRIEST (Psa. 99:6)?

The fact that it is not merely a 'resemblance' the author was arguing is also borne out in the fact that JOSHUA combined these two 'functions' of 'priest and king' in himself - read Zechariah 3 & 6. So again, WHY NOT compare the priesthood of Joshua instead of that of Melchizedek?

The answer is simple enough: the priesthood of Melchizedek stands out above all other priesthoods of the OT because it was predicated on a DIVINE OATH and established in divine prophecy. This is where the 'ORDER'  (τάξις - 'taxis') comes in - Christ's priesthood is more than a matter of 'resemblance' or 'characteristics' of functions: it rather is a priesthood AFTER THE ORDER of Melchizedek.

BERNIMOORE:
HE WOULD NOT BE IN THE REGULAR LINE OF THE PRIESTHOOD,

I don't see how that underscores the gist of the writer of Hebrews in that chapter.

Regular line or not, the writer actually employed even far stronger basis for his arguments. Rather than deal with a 'regular lineage' of priests, he spoke about Someone who was not even connected with priestly service in the first place, talkless of being priest from another line! He first had to deal with this question in verses 13 and 14 in two ways:

(a) v. 13 - the author asserts that this Person was from a tribe of which "no one has ever served at the altar" - even though the same Person was actually a Jew and could arguably have links to the priestly pedigree. Aside from the fact that among the ancestors of Jesus are several individuals named LEVI and MELCHI (see Luke 3), there are other valid reasons that a Jew could present to query the author's assertion here; so he goes on to verse 14 to show that his case had some other 'evidence' -

(b) v. 14 - although the author also argues that Moses said nothing about priesthood from the tribe of Judah, yet that in itself does not deny someone from the tribe of Judah being recognized as a Levitical priest.

Perhaps the second point in (b) above surprises you? Well, let me expound on that.

As I've always tried to show, being from the tribe of Levi was no guarantee of being a Jewish priest, especially where one could have a mixed pedigree; but that is also no guarantee to deny that a Jew from Judah could most definitely be recognized as a Jewish priest.

If you want to argue against the fact on the basis of Hebrews 7:14, then let me ask you: what happens when a Levite is from the family of Judah - could he not also be a priest? If not, WHY then do we find a clear example of a case of a Levite priest who was from the family of JUDAH as in Judges 17:7?

The issue of 'regular line of priesthood' does not even arise here - because that is not what the writer sought as his ground of argument. He knew that if he were to make the argument of 'regular line', some of his recipients would have invalidated that kind of argument upon the fact that a Jew from the family of JUDAH was also recognized as a Levitical priest in Israel - Judges 17:7.


I think the problem with many Christians is that they just take what they read in the NT for granted - as is the case here for the book of Hebrews. If taken at face value, then it could be argued that the author had made patently false arguments. An example is his assertion that Isaac was the 'only begotten' of Abraham (Heb. 11:17) when in very fact we know from the record in Genesis that Abraham had other sons besides Isaac! This 'mystery' is possibly reconciled when we seek the manner of the author's rhetorical style for such nuances.

So, when he argues in Hebrews 7:14 that the line of Judah says nothing about priesthood/priests, that in itself does not wash with the fact that Jewish priests from the tribe of JUDAH were recognized in Israel's history, as in the example of Judges 17:7 and 18:19. Only lazy readers of Scripture would let Hebrews 7:14 overshadow all other considerations in the Old Testament.

Okay, now let's look at what seemed to have bothered you on the question of the clause 'AFTER THE ORDER'.

BERNIMOORE:
THE WORD RENDERED “ORDER” HERE MEANS PROPERLY A 'WORD' ; 'A THING', 'A MATTER'; HENCE, 'A WAY' OR 'MANNER'. THE MEANING HERE IS,
THAT HE WOULD BE A PRIEST “AFTER THE MANNER” OF MELCHIZEDEK;

If 'manner' or 'style' was all that the author of Hebrews was trying to make, would it be the same in his use of that word 'order' for Aaron? After, he spoke about the 'order of Aaron' in Hebrews 7:11 - so was he effectively saying that other priests were simply called after 'the manner' of Aaron? Don't forget that in both cases of Aaron and Melchizedek, he used the same Greek word, 'τάξις (taxis)' - just so you know.

On the contrary, I think he actually meant far more than a mere 'manner' or 'style' of subjects. Some of these I've shared in my rejoinders to Zikkyy's. A most serious problem in assuming it was merely a matter of style would mean that Melchizedek had nothing special to offer the Jew as far as priesthood was concerned - because, firstly, other priests in the OT also had qualifications in their 'manner' of priesthood; and secondly, we would have to answer the question of WHY no other priest fitted the 'manner' more than Melchizedek.

OR, SUCH A PRIEST AS HE WAS.

Eh, that would be meaningless in two ways:
(a) first, in Biblical hermeneutics; and -
(b) in Jewish eschatology.

'Such a priest as he was' would be saying that we altogether ignore the 'ORDER' of His priesthood, even though the author did not even hint anything close to such an assumption. Infact, you went on to DENY that an 'ORDER' exists in Scripture with regards to Melchizedek's priesthood - I'll take that up later.

There is a reason why he kept mentioning this 'order' of MELCHIZEDEK  earlier in chapters 5 and 6 before he came to 7. If he was merely arguing his case on Hebrew constructs from Psalm 110, he would long have lost his audience! But he wanted to impress his recipients with something far more than 'similarities' - because he knew that they already had more than enough to show that mere 'similarities' in priesthood is not going to convince anyone about what he was arguing.

HE WOULD NOT BE OF THE TRIBE OF LEVI;

Is that enough to ground his argument merely on the question of 'manner' of priesthood? Elsewhere, I've shown that being of the tribe of Levi did not guarantee that a Jew had a place in Jewish priesthood.

BERNIMOORE:
THE PARTICULAR  ORIGINAL  OATH REFFERED TO IN THE BOOK OF PSALM 110:4 from Hebrew 7,‘DID NOT’ TREAT  ‘‘AFTER’’ SEPARATELY, AND  ‘‘ORDER’’  SEPARATELY, LIKE YOU QUOTED,BELOW;

I am particularly glad that you pointed this out! Although not many people can understand these simple constructs and so they just attempt to scribble and slice things here and there, only to arrive at a completely different terminus!

However, I think you are completely WRONG there, and have only fallen into the same error that you wanted to 'correct' in respondng to garyarnold. Actually, the original oath in Psalm 110:4 uses two different words for 'after' (על, 'al)  and 'order' (דּברה, dibrâh) - they are NOT treated as the same or even as a single Hebrew word.

The first word 'after' (על, 'al) is translated into many different words and appears over 2300 times in the OT alone; while the second word 'order' (דּברה, dibrâh) occurs a mere 5 times in the OT, also translated into various English words.

BERNIMOORE:
‘’AFTER THE ORDER’’ TRANSLATED ALTOGETHER WAS ACTUALLY RENDERED  USING (H1700),

The (H1700) was used only for 'order' (דּברה, dibrâh), but not for 'after'. So what happened to (H5921) which was used for  'after' (על, 'al)?

If you're looking for a similar construct (but with a different meaning) where two or more words in English appear only as a single word in the Hebrew, then look up 1 Chronicles 23:31 -

'And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD: '

The four English words above ('according to the order') are actually the translation of a single Hebrew word - משׁפּט (mishpâṭ). See also 2 Chronicles 8:14 for the same thing.

No, you're wrong here BERNIMOORE. While you erred in assuming that H1700 applied to two Hebrew words, the fact is that you left out (H5921) for the other word in Psalm 110:4.

The reason I pointed this out is not so much about the impact it has on your analysis of the word 'order' as used both in Hebrews 7 and Psalm 110. Rather, I think it matters to us that your attempt to 'correct' someone else and failing in the process only throws open the question of whether or not you have a good grasp of what you're arguing as far as the languages go.

@BERNIMOORE,

I understand you addressed garyarnold in your reply of March 4th. Although I do not hold brief for him or anyone, I'd like to comment on your views concerning the question of 'AFTER THE ORDER' as used in Hebrews 7, since you broadened your comments to invite "other interested persons".

So, let's take a few from yours -

BERNIMOORE:
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

[b]Similitude
G3665
ὁμοιότης
homoiotēs
hom-oy-ot'ace

From G3664; resemblance: - like (as), similitude.

First off, the Greek word ὁμοιότης (homoiotēs) seems to have been used only twice in the whole of the NT - here in Hebrews 7:15, and in Heb. 4:15 ('For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as (ὁμοιότης) we are, yet without sin', KJV).

HOWEVER, there are two things to bear out here:

1. The whole of the writer's argument in chapter 7 does not rest on the issue of 'similitude' in verse 15 - so, we are not dealing with 'similitude' as a replacement for the word 'ORDER' in verse 17.

2. Since the thrust of the writer's argument for the priesthood of Melchizedek rests on an 'ORDER', we should seek to deal with this one rather than focus on 'similitude'.

So, looking again we find that the Greek for 'ORDER' in those verses is τάξις (taxis), which is quite a different thing from 'similitude' in verse 15. We'll expound on this in due course.

Zikkyy:
I am seeing variants of salvation here. You are confusing me sir

I wasn't speaking of variants of salvation - so no confusion. 'Salvation' as a term is used with varied connotations in Scripture. The very simple thing to do is read the passages I cited, such as Psalm 110, then all mysteries disappear!

Peter did not mention Melchi, because he was not thinking Melchi.

Peter was not thinking about a different kind of priesthood - which was why I mentioned that he recognizes "the function of this type of priesthood" that Melchizedek bore even though he did not mention the man by name. You don't need to mention someone or something by name before you're able to recognize the character or function of a particular subject.

This is why we can be sure that he was not thinking about the Jewish priesthood in 1 Peter 2:9 when he talked about a "royal priestood" - because Jewish priesthood is NOT one of royalty in FUNCTION. The only one we see that fits this FUNCTION is that of Melchizedek - not Jethros, not Potipherah's, and not Moses' priesthood.

To even argue that Peter could not have been thinking of Melchizedek simply because he did not mention him, you would have to find the foundation for the TYPE of priesthood that he was infact discussing. To ignore this would only render that verse absolutely BASELESS - because almsot ALL priesthood that have anything to do with God's redemptive and salvation purpose in Scripture have a foundation! Peter did not magically throw words about 'royal priesthood' around - there is a foundation for his proclamation in that verse.

Zikkyy:
If this feature is embedded in the priesthood, it then implies that Peeps back in the days could ultimately have been saved by faith/belief in Melchi I am just not getting your explanation here. I hope you are not getting frustrated by zikkyy's stubbornness

My dear sir, you have not shown any stubbornness - and your questions and views have helped me much in further study.

However, it cannot be gainsaid that Melchizedek's priesthood IN ITS NATURE features in God's salvation purpose. For one, this priesthood ALONE features in Jewish divine prophecy in Psalm 110 - which sets it apart from every other priesthood mentioned in the OT.

Second, the fact that it features in God's salvation purpose does not mean that people were ultimately saved by believing in Melchizedek. Abraham also 'believed' in the priesthood of Melchizedek by fellowshipping with this priest, but that 'faith' did not save him. To go further, there is no indication that anyone is saved by 'believing in' or having 'faith' in ANY priesthood/priest. 'Priesthood' did not bring salvation to anyone - rather, Christ came as SAVIOUR for the salvation of ALL; but He is PRIEST for believers.

Those who benefit as BELIEVERS from the priesthood of Christ 'after the order of Melchizedek' are a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD. The priesthood of royalty is set apart for divine worship (worship by 'kings' who rule/reign); and the theme of this worship is God's ULTIMATE SALVATION (see Revelation 20:6; 5:10, and 1 Pet. 2:9).

This is what I have consistently outlined; and nowhere did I try to say that Melchi or anyone was 'playing the part/role that Jesus died for'.

crossman9:
Giving and sharing  not sowing
1 Corinthians 9 (King James Version)

Please look down to 2 Corinthians 9 (the second epistle of Paul to the Corinthians) - there you will find 'sowing' of 'seed' as part of giving -

crossman9:
2 Corinthians 9
2 Corinthians 9:6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.
7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
9 As it is written: “They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; their righteousness endures forever.”[a]
2 Corinthians 9:10 Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness.

When you get to verse 10, read it again in the KJV - '2Co 9:10  Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness '

I hope this helps? If not, no problem - 'keep calm and carry on', as they say.

crossman9:
for me it is about helping the poor and loving the widows if my wealth bless these people that is what i see is the goal of the gospel to love people with our wealth

That is all good and fine. Whether we serve others in this aspect of the Chrristian ministry by 'sowing seed' or any other way we are led, the essential thing is to do all to the glory of God. This should not make for quareels among Christians on whether we should sow seed in Christ or deny the value of that ministry in apostolic teaching. God bless you.

Zikkyy:
God's salvation purpose; are you saying that Melchi was already playing the part/role that Jesus died for? Maybe you don't know (and i don't believe that's what you intended), but that's the message i get from reading your post. And it's because of your focus on the so called Melchizedekan priesthood.

Hehehe. . . Zikkyy, you're a very funny fellow! I never said anywhere that Melchizedek or ANYONE for that matter was 'already playing the part/role' that Jesus died for - that was not even remotely hinted at in my comments. Mary could also feature in God's "salvation purpose" without 'playing the part/role that Jesus died for' - many others could also feature in God's salvation purpose without 'playing the part/role that Jesus died for'. The one thing that I was putting forward was this: the NATURE of that priesthood, not the 'role' that it accomplishes!

Okay, let me simplify it for you.

1. I spoke about the 'nature' of Melchizedek's priesthood

2. The 'nature' of that priesthood is BEYOND merely matters of "intercession"

3. the 'nature' of that priesthood is 'more cogently one that is set apart specifically for worship on the basis of God's redemptive and 'salvation purpose' '

- and it is just the last two words ('salvation purpose') that caught your eye, eh?

Okay, no worries. Perhaps it may shock you to know that God's salvation purpose did not start in the New Testament, but dates back to the very early history of our humanity in Genesis 3. The apostles in the NT also affirm this fact, but that's another gist on its own. However, the one thing wa can say is that Melchizedek's priesthood in its 'NATURE' actually features most definitely in God's salvation purpose.

Why do you think that OF ALL THE PRIESTS/PRIESTHOODS mentioned in the OT, ONLY that of Melchizedek features in Jewish divine PROPHECY? And no - it is not merely a matter of that weak argument of 'similarities' of persons or priesthood: it goes much more beyond that, as I've shown several times!

This should be my 601th post.

Zikkyy:
Maybe am wrong but what i see here is that Christ priesthood draws from his divine nature. We cannot say the same for Melchi.

Oh dear! I expected you would soonest come to that serious exegetical problem!

Dude, this has nothing to do with you being right or wrong. Rather, it's a question of finding the manner of the author's rhetorical style - which is key to the nuances he makes throughout that epistle.

That said, the chapter does not predicate the priesthood as drawing from Christ's 'divine nature'. To argue like that would mean that Melchizedek's priesthood drew also from his own nature - whether divine, celestial or human.

Secondly, if the priesthood drew from Christ's divine nature, then He would not need to have suffered death, in as much as the Jews did not reckon death or dying as part of the 'divine nature' of Christ (John 12:34) - more than that, it would place his priesthood at par with other priesthoods where men were made priests and yet suffered death as well (verse 23). Infact, this very point of of his death would strongly negate your argument earlier that just because "they nailed him to the cross", it would not be your idea of "acceptance" - although I replied by noting that 'there is nothing within the Law of Moses or even the OT that protests against the idea of a crucified Messiah being priest'.

However, the issue here is all about the basis of the durability of the priesthood which Christ takes up. If the priesthood of Melchizedek was to be 'for ever', so also the OT Jewish priesthood after the order of Aaron was to be 'perpectual' and 'everlasting'. So what does that solve for the recipients of Hebrews? Did the Aaronic priesthood draw from the nature of Aaron in order for it to be a 'perpectual' priesthood? Please think on this point very carefully.

crossman9:
Wealth as a Word In Scriptures appears (31) times in the king James bible.

It does not matter how many times 'wealth' appears in Scripture - whether 31 or 3100 times! the fact is that Christians have no problem sowing seed - which is why we find this teaching in 2 Corinthians 9.

Zikkyy:
He did not say the priesthood (as a distinct institution/entity) was made after the power of an endless life.

The answer to your argument here is verse 28 - 'but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.' It is not simply that Christ lives forever - the Jew already saw this in the Jewish law (John 12:34). It was not even that 'persons' are compared for 'similarities' - otherwise, the Jew would have mistaken Melchizedek to be an eternal person in the literal sense (verses 3 and .

If, therefore, Christ "was made" priest, what kind of priesthood would that be, against the backdrop that the OT priesthood (not the 'persons') was declared to be both 'perpectual' an 'everlasting'?

Zikkyy:
This was how the Jews see Melchi, the Hebrew verse states Melchi abide a priest continually, he did not say the priesthood continues without Melchi. It was about the person. The way i see it, it is the person that defines the priesthood and not the other way round.

If that was how the Jews already saw Melchi, what then would have been the need for the author to try to convince them of what they already knew? That would be simply preposterous, to say the very least! Then in very fact he would not even have tried to urge his recipients to "consider how great" Melchizedek was - verse 4; nor would he have had to repeat himself several times over in quoting Psalm 110:4 to his recipients.

No, that is not how the Jew saw' Melchi - and I've tried to explain just above.

Zikkyy:
When the Hebrew writer talked about an endless life, he was referring to the person of Christ and not his priesthood.

True. But that was in the sense that only Christ fitted the qualifications of that priesthood - the priesthood after the ORDER of Melchizedek.

Unless you're trying to ignore the question of the DURABILITY of the priesthood, there would be no basis for even bringing in the issue of an 'endless life' here - because the Jew ALREADY viewed the Messiah/Christ as abiding forever according to their Scripture (see John 12:34). But if the basis and durability of the priesthood matter to you, then you would only have to seek answers to these two basis questions:

1. On what basis then is the durability of ANY priesthood to be reckoned?

2. On what basis is the durability of Melchizedek's priesthood reckoned?

To ignore the second would weaken your argument for the priesthood of Christ; and to evade the first would only destroy any argument you make for priesthood in Hebrews. Pick your poison.

Zikkyy:
Jethro the jews knew, Melchi they don't know. That's where you have some similarities with the person of Christ.

No, that's not the basis of the argument as to "why in particular Melchizedek's priesthood be would 'compared' to Christ's priesthood as if there are two priesthoods there". They might easily as well compare between the priesthood of Jethro and Christ's, IF it was merely a matter of 'similarity' of 'comparison'.

Zikkyy:
read verse 3 of hebrews 7 again, the ultimate aim was for the target audience to accept Christ priesthood by showing what looked like similarities between the priest Melchi and Christ. The Jews already see Melchi as living forever and therefore remain a priest.

You're merely assuming things here, Zikkyy. First, the Jews did NOT already see Melchi as living forever - not even in the literal or hyperbolic sense! The author employs a rhetorical manner of speaking (as he does throughout that epistle) in arguing his case for Melchizedek, and NOT because he assumed that the Jew 'already' saw Melchi as living forever!

Second, if the aim of the author was merely to show what looked like similarities between Melchi and Christ, he would most woefully had lost his argument before he got to the end of that chapter! Mere 'similarities' was counter-productive for a Jew who knew the basis of Jewish priesthood!

Third, if it were a case of 'similarities', the Jew would typically have had very strong grounds to REJECT the writer's argument - because a whole hall of priests were named in the OT who bore FAR MORE striking "similarities" that he could have employed. Afterall, did you not find a 'similarity' in the case of Jethro?

The key to all this that you're missing is this: DIVINE PROPHECY! The only grounds that the Jew would concede to Melchizedek's priesthood is, like I said earlier, the fact that this particular priesthood 'leaves all other priesthoods behind (such as Jethro's and Potipherah's) and enters directly into the divine records of Jewish prophecy - which makes a very, very strong case as to why the Jew MUST accept it even after the Law of Moses had been given.'

If you're basing your idea here merely on arguments of 'similarities', you would in fact be defeating your convictions at first instance - because, more than anything else, the 'similarities' you're trying to argue would also mean that ALL the other priests and priesthoods could be considered on the same basis as the author argued for Melchizedek.

Zikkyy:
What gives the priesthood it's longevity/durability or endless live as you call it?

The durability of the priesthood rests on TWO things among others:
1. 'divine oath'
2. 'the power of an endless life'

In other words, what gives the priesthood its durability are those two things, among others. That is what I have often said, and to quote my comment again: 'And the durability rests, not on the man, but on both a 'divine oath' and 'the power of an endless life'. '

Let me use Aaron's priesthood as an example to clarify what I mean about 'the durability' of a priesthood. The priesthood given to Aaron was deemed as a perpetual and an everlasting priesthood (Exo. 29:9 and Num. 25:13). Being 'perpetual' did not mean that Aaron would live perpetually; so that long after Aaron had died (Num. 20:26), his priesthood continued to be the reference and foundation of Jewish priesthoods in Israel for many generations - in short, it was a priesthood 'after the order of Aaron' (Heb. 7:11).

In example above, it can be easily understood that the durability of the 'perpectual' priesthood did not rest on the man Aaron himself, but rather on the commandment of a divine gift.

Just in the same manner, when I said that the durability of the priesthood did not rest on the man as in the case of Melchizedek, I meant to distinguish between the person and the priesthood in order to show that the priesthood itself rested on something other than the person. In the case of Christ, it rested both on a divine oath and the power of an endless life.

crossman9:
I did not make myself clear i was saying these people twist the bible to exploit the  people there  is nothing wrong in giving it is more blessed to give than receive I am against people making merchandise out of the innocent that is my point

I got your point - and thank you for bearing with me in the way I came across.

The whole point is that you had shown a concern about WHY a Christian needs to sow seed when he/she is 'already' blessed in Christ in the heavenlies (Ephesians 1:3). I tried to point out the following things:

1. Sowing seed is a veritable part of our Christian lives and service

2. Sowing seed has nothing to do with our salvation; but it has everything to do with our service as Christians

3. Seed sowing is not to be treated as a matter of covetousness - which is all too rampant among believers, whether in the apostles' day or in our day

4. the abuses should not deter us from engaging in what actually belongs to us as Christians

5. we should not be hasty to label people as 'false preachers' just because we have not seen something which others have seen and embraced (in this case, seed sowing is recognized as part of the Christian life and service, yet so many Christians kick against it as if it is foreign to the apostles' teaching)

Zikkyy:
Maybe i don't understand what you meant when you said the durability of the priesthood rest on the power of an endless life. Are you saying if Melchi is no longer priest, and Christ is not Priest, the Priesthood will continue forever? i.e. when there is no priest, the priesthood remain?

No, that is not what I said. Look again at my comment which you quoted:

1. "It is the 'priesthood' itself that is the issue, not the man 'Melchi'." That was to clarify between 'the person' and 'the priesthood' - they are not to be confused as meaning the same thing.

And then, to answer your question: 'Are you saying. . . when there is no priest, the priesthood remain? The second part should suffice -

2. And the durability rests, not on the man, but on both a 'divine oath' and 'the power of an endless life'. This was to show on what basis the priesthood would be more than 'transcient' and very unlike the 'perpectual' priesthood of Aaron. The word of the oath was long given in Psalm 110 even BEFORE Christ was consecrated a priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Zikkyy, please lay aside this idea of similarities in 'persons' for a moment. I've given several reasons why the author is focusing on MORE THAN similarities in persons in that chapter, none of which you have addressed.

Second, if it were merely a matter of similarities of 'persons', then indeed Melchizedek would have had absolutely NOTHING better than other priests and priesthoods of those named in the OT - Jethro, Potipherah, Moses and Joshua. I'm sure you CANNOT deny that ALL these and more also have the said 'similarities' of 'PERSONS' you're arguing for here.

Zikkyy:
The Jews knew Jethro, Melchi they don't know. Melchi remain a mystery, due to limited info.

That, again, ignores the real question I raised there: "Why not rather a priesthood after the order of 'Jethro' or of 'Potipherah'??" If you're saying it was because the Jews knew Jethro, then why not Potipherah - since the Jews also 'knew' Potipherah in the same manner?

What you're failing to see here is WHY the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek 'enters directly into the divine records of Jewish prophecy'. Is it because they 'knew' Jethro that is why he failed to enter in their prophecy on the same basis as did Melchizedek? From where did you pluck the idea that just because Melchizedek 'remain a mystery', that in itself was sufficient for the Jews to accept him in their prophecy? That would simply be arguing from laughter, bro.

Zikkyy:
Why do you think some people here on NL believes Melchi is Christ? It's that bad The Jews had similar problem.

Hehe. . . The Jews didn't have the 'similar problem' that some here on NL have in confusing between Melchizedek and Christ - at least, neither you nor I have that problem. The point is that the Jews would see Psalm 110 as a prophetic declaration that a NON-JEW would be priest over THE JEWS - a most serious matter for a Jew who was informed on the Law!

@Zikkyy,

I've been away to attend to very important matters outside NL. Saw your rejoinders, but it seems you just touched here and here and left very pertinent matters out of your replies.

Let me try and connect with the recent ones you left me.

Zikkyy:
i think we are saying the same thing. genealogy is required to prove that you truly from the priestly tribe of Levi.

Maybe. However, I enunciated the fact that it goes BEYOND mere genealogy. The more serious matter is that, even though a Jew may be able to trace his lineage to the tribe of Levi, that in itself does not guarantee a place in the Jewish priesthood - which is why, the question of POLLUTION arises. And pollution in this case is not a matter of genealogy but of consecration.

In essence, you need more than mere genealogy to guarantee serving in the Jewish priesthood - which is what the writer to the Hebrews wanted to impress upon his recipients in that epistle.

Zikkyy:
Why protest? it wasn't going to happen. i don't recall Christ functioning as high priest in a jewish temple.

What do you mean by 'it wasn't going to happen'? I didn't argue anywhere about Christ functioning as a 'priest', left alone as 'high priest' in the Jewish or other temple! The point was that Christ was goingg to be established as priest 'after the order of Melchizedek' - and that was indeed going to happen, and it did! On that basis therefore, "the Jews would have protested against David's prophetic declaration of a priest 'after the order of Melchizedek' in Psalm 110" -  the Jew had every right to 'protest' a non-Jewish lineage for those who were to serve as Jewish priest within the declarations of the Law.

Zikkyy:
secondly, they nailed him to the cross. That's not my idea of acceptance

There is nothing within the Law of Moses or even the OT that protests against the idea of a crucified Messiah being priest. On the contrary, the prophets spoke of a crucified Saviour to whom the Jews would look for their redemption - and that is a totally Biblical idea of 'acceptance' (see, e.g. Zechariah 12).

Zikkyy:
I believe you already seen my beautiful response above

Oh get serious for once! You didn't leave a 'beautiful response' to the pertinent issue that 'within the Law' another order of priesthood was recognized in a prophetic nature that would have direct bearing upon Jewish divine relationships! That is Psalm 110.