₦airaland Forum

I was going to let this thread pass; but some rather lame arguments have surfaced that I'd like to address.

Pardon me, but let me start with crossman's -

crossman9:
The Thing is you’re already blessed in Christ why would you need to sow a seed for the word already declares the work is already done in Christ, he become poor that we might become rich it’s like paying for a meal that is on the house?

I see that argument a lot, but it is merely hefing. Sowing seed has nothing to do with your salvation; but it has everything to do with your fruitfulness in SERVICE. It is for this reason that Paul - the same author of Ephesians - still taught that the Christian who sows 'seed' is engaging in a service that primarily "supplieth the want of the saints," - 2 Corinthians 9:12.

He does not make the kind of argument you made, that just because we are 'already' blessed, then as Christians we don't need to sow seed - that is just lame grumbling that many people often raise to show their ignorance in the things of God.

A Christian who 'sows seed' already understands that he/she is blessed in the heavenlies in Christ (Eph. 1:3). As a consequence of that blessing, such a Christian sows his/her seed.

Many people complain about the abuse of seed-sowing, and rightly so - because there was such a concern among the apostles in their day. However, Paul makes clear that even though seed-sowing is a veritable part of the Christian life and service, yet it is not to be treated as a matter of covetousness (2 Cor. 9:5)

Therefore, if you want to sow your seed, please do so - God bless you. And for those who would rather want to find every lame excuse to argue against 'sowing seed' as a Christian, then let them hold back and give NOTHING - without arguing to accuse others as 'false preachers' simply because these preachers recognize what the grumblers have failed to see in Scripture.

These false preachers never tell people the truth?

What is 'the truth'? If a teacher of God's Word points to 2 Corinthians 9 to show you that a Christian may sow seed, does that disqualify such a teaching from being 'the truth'?

Was Paul a false preacher as well, since he was the same author who taught Christians about 'sowing seed' in 2 Corinthians 9? Why didn't Paul (incidentally the same author of Ephesians) argue that there is no need for the Christian to 'sow seed' since we are "already" blessed in Christ? Why does he even concern himself with the question of HOW MUCH a Christian sows - 'He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully'??

I wouldn't direct this at you personally, crossman; but it so happens that many times some Christians who label others as 'false preachers' are the most miserably blind and ignorant folks walking on two (borrowed) legs! If someone doesn't understand an issue, it were better to pass silently rather than offer arguments which only accentuate 'beautifully crafted ignorance'.

As Christians, let's R-E-A-D our Bibles.

Zikkyy:
there's no way i will agree a priesthood can be called 'AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK'. The way i understand it, Christ priesthood is of the type 'similar' to that of Melchi. Thats what the bible meant by 'after the order'.

Okay, I forebear. However your disagreement, I think it goes far beyond merely typologies and similarities or comparison. If that were the case, then indeed there are other 'types' of priesthoods in the OT that the writer of Hebrews could have used to the same effect.

But he didn't use those other 'types' of priesthoods that are 'similar' - because he was not making a case for what is 'similar' or not. If he was trying to do so, then why not Moses (who was also a priest), or Jethro, or Potipherah. . . or even Joshua? Could they not have fitted in with a so-called 'similarity' or comparison? Why especially Melchizedek?

You see, there's very good reason why some so-called paraphrased or almost literal translations  recognize that the writer was making a case for what is in an 'order' of priesthood beyond merely 'similarities' in priesthoods. I've posted a few of those translations above to 'assist' on Hebrews 7:17 (post #536).

Zikkyy:
Melchi belong to a priesthood that derived its durability from the power of an endless life? Fine, all you need to do now is to tell us where we can find Melchi. Melchi has endless life abi?

See above in post #545, where i said the following -
It's not necessary for me to produce either Christ or Melchizedek himself to prove the durability of this priesthood. It is the 'priesthood' itself that is the issue, not the man Melchi. And the durability rests, not on the man, but on both a 'divine oath' and 'the power of an endless life'.


Cherio for now. More later.

Zikkyy:
what i really want to understand is what you meant by  blessings of salvation? Am sorry, if mv initial was not so clear.

No problem. In one word, the nature of Melchizedek's priesthood goes beyond matters of intercession, etc to more cogently one that is set apart specifically for worship on the basis of God's redemptive and salvation purpose.

If you care for details of how I came across that, then here goes:

1. Priests generally are ordained for men in things pertaining to God (Heb. 5:1)

2. In most cases, the priestly ministry deals with 'sacrifices for sins' (verse 1) and intercession (to have 'compassion on the ignorant' - verse 2)

3. However, Melchizedek's priesthood goes far beyond these and is a ministry of 'ultimate salvation and redemption'. He was not interceding nor offering sacrifices Abraham's sins; rather, he blessed both Abraham and God (Gen. 14:19-20).

4. Hebrews 7:6 underscores #3 above in affirming that Melchizedek blessed Abraham who already had the promises; and then goes on to point us back to Psalm 110.

5. In Psalm 110 the picture given us is a priestly ministry according to the order of Melchizedek. This type of priesthood is not emphasizing 'sacrifices for sins' nor 'intercession' for believers as its core ministry (even though these are already included). Rather, it focuses on victory and salvation in conquest -

Psalm 110 >>
(a) 'sit down at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool'  (v. 1; compare with 1 Pet. 3:22)
(b) 'rule thou in the midst of thine enemies' (v. 2 - consider Gen. 14:20, 'God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand')
. . . etc., until we come to verse 4 - ' a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek'
. . . and then continues to proclaim God's victory in salvation and redemption up until verse 7.

6. The interesting thing here is that Christians are also partakers of the Melchizedek priesthood - 'Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power'

7. Now, what shall these 'people' be doing as 'priests' according to this 'order'? Verse 3 also gives the answer; they 'shall be willing in the day of [God's] power,'' - not interceding; but rather in worshipping God on the basis of His divine salvation ('the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning').

Peter, although he does not mention Melchizedek by name, yet he recognizes that the function of this type of priesthood is beyond mere 'intercession' or 'sacrifices for sins' - he says that Christians are a 'royal priesthood' who should 'shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light' (1 Pet. 2:9).

The Melchizedekan priesthood of Psalm 110 is a 'royal' kind of priesthood concerned with rulership and prophetic blessing based on divine salvation - far much more than mere interceding and sacrifices for sins.

All this takes me to Revelation 20:6 - those who have a part in the first resurrection 'shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years'. Declaring the praises of God (1 Pet. 2:9) and 'reigning' with Christ (Rev. 20:6) are the core features of the Melchizedekan priesthood.

So, when I said that Melchizedek was rather more occupied with pronouncing blessings of salvation and victory (see Gen. 14:19-20a, and compare with Heb. 7:6), the above is what I meant to convey.

Zikkyy:
Jesus is in a class of his own. he no get rival, not even from Melchi.

Oh, c'mon Zikkyy. Nobody is talking about 'rivals' here - not even between Christ and melchizedek. The point he made was that Jesus functions in the order of Melchizedek - which is another way of saying precisely what Scripture teaches. It is not a matter of a class of priesthood standing all by itself - that is unwarranted by the fact that Scripture clearly shows that the priesthood of Christ is NOT in a class of its own - it is AFTER A PARTICULAR ORDER - the order of Melchizedek.

We are now in an order that is forever

What 'order' is that? I find everywhere it clearly says: 'after the ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK'. You will not find anything that says 'an order of Jesus Christ'

Zikkyy:
to prove that the durability of Melchi's priesthood rests on the power of endless live, all you need to do is produce Melchi. So we know he has endless life.

It's not necessary for me to produce either Christ or Melchizedek himself to prove the durability of this priesthood. It is the 'priesthood' itself that is the issue, not the man 'Melchi'. And the durability rests, not on the man, but on both a 'divine oath' and 'the power of an endless life'.

Zikkyy:
we are all aware Jesus did not feature in the jewish temple as a priest.

I don't think I argued otherwise.

We are also aware that the Levitical priesthood needed to be scrapped for Jesus priesthood to take effect.

Nor did I argue to the contrary.

Let me add that Jesus did not take up any priesthood from Melchi.

Indeed Jesus is made a priest AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK. To deny this fact is to deny Scripture altogether, bro.

Jesus is made a priest not merely on the basis of a statement like 'you are a priest' - that kind of statement would be hiding very important words: "after the order of Melchizedek". The Bible shows He was consecrated priest - and the priesthood He took up (yes, 'took up') was after a particular 'order', - it was not merely a matter of a pristhood 'similar' to someone else's priesthood. No. It was a divine priesthood that bore a particular 'order' in much the same was as the Jew from the tribe of Levi 'takes up' a Jewish priesthood after the 'order of Aaron'.

Some have played down the issue of 'order' be saying it refers only to comparisons - 'like for like' as you earlier hinted at, or similarities. However, if it was merely a matter of comparison, why in particular would Melchizedek's priesthood be 'compared' to Christ's priesthood as if there are two priesthoods there?  And why not yet use another priesthood like Jethro, Potipherah's, Moses, or Joshua's as the basis of that comparison - afterall, neither Jethro nor Potipherah were Israelites, let alone be from the tribe of Levi??

Zikkyy:
Also note that the law restricting priesthood to Levi did not annul the priesthood prior to the law, so the jews have no reason rejecting priesthood like Melchi's which was already history.

Depends on what you mean by 'not annul'  in that quote. But if your argument holds any substance, then the Jews would indeed have accepted also the priesthood of Jethro in much the same way as David prophesied about the priest 'after the order of Melchizedek'. And every other priesthood in 'history' (such as the Egyptian priesthood of On) would have also featured in Jewish prophecy after the Mosaic Law was given.

You see, the basis on which you argue is not quite helpful. You seem to be saying that the only grounds for which the Jews could not reject the priesthood of Melchizedek was because it came prior to the Law and was a matter merely of 'history'. But what I've just pointed out is 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.

Why not rather a priesthood after the order of 'Jethro' or of 'Potipherah'?? The priesthood 'after the order of Melchizedek' is much more than merely a matter of history prior to the Law - it 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.

Now, a word about this second bolded part -

Zikkyy:
Pollution becomes relevant cos you cannot be priest if you are not from tribe of levi.

No again, not quite correct. If that were the case, the Jews would have protested against David's prophetic declaration of a priest 'after the order of Melchizedek' in Psalm 110. The Jew knew that David made that divine proclamation while the Law was still in operation - and the Law had already declared that the Jewish priesthood through Aaron was a 'perpetual one', leaving no room at all for a non-Jew (see Exo. 29:9 - 'Aaron and his sons . . . the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute'; and also Num. 25:13 - 'the covenant of an everlasting priesthood').

David's declaration in Psalm 110 simply points out the direct opposite of what you argued. In effect, what David was saying is this: although the Law of Moses stipulated that priesthood in the Jewish ministry was perpetual and only to be from the lineage of Aaron and the tribe of Levi; yet, the LORD Himself has sworn - and will NOT change His mind about that oath - the Messiah is 'a priest for ever after the order of' a non-Jew, Melchizedek. Not only so, but this priest is not even from the tribe of Levi!

Okay, on this one I would have to be a bit more detailed so you can grasp my view better.

Zikkyy:
In Neh verse, the law was very much in operation. Priesthood belonged to the tribe of Levi.

True, priesthood according to the Law belonged to the tribe of Levi; but -

Pollution becomes relevant cos you cannot be priest if you are not from tribe of levi.

No, not quite right. Let me first clarify on the bolded part.

The stipulations of the Law were twofold: (a) genealogy; and (b) sanctification - see Exodus 19:22. Therefore, in Nehemiah 7 and Ezra 2, the question of pollution arose if a Jew was unable to show his genealogy in the reccords, and not merely because he could not be traced particularly to the tribe of Levi. Being a Levite did not guarantee a place in the priesthood.

Let me expound on them:

(a) Genealogy: the question here being about genealogy derived from mixed marriages with other tribes. Although Ezra 2:61 shows that these were 'the children of the priests', yet because of mixed marriages with the 'daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite', they could not find their register among those reckoned by genealogy  - on account of this, they were 'as polluted, put from the priesthood'.

(b) Sanctification: even though they were put from the priesthood, the 'pollution' here takes into consideration the question of whether or not they (as 'children of the priests') could eat of the most holy things -see verse 63. If one from the line of the priests was not sanctified, he could not eat of the holy things of the LORD.

The above just shows you that even though a Jew came from the line of the priests, or could be traced to the tribe of Levi, that does not guarantee him a place in the priesthood.

Zikkyy:
For e.g post law the people were no longer allowed to worship as they pleases, they were then required to worship at the place the Lord chose. See Deuteronomy 12.

In quoting Deuteronomy 12, I presume you meant during the era of the Mosaic Law, and not actually 'post law'?

In any event, even after Moses declared the commandment that the Jews were to seek the place of God's name as the national worship center, Israel also worshipped at various places. For instance, Joshua built an altar unto the LORD God of Israel in mount Ebal (Josh. 8:31), even though the place of God's name was to be at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 6:6).

Further, we are not told that the Israelite couple (Manoah and his wife) offered burnt offerings at that national worship center when they encountered the angel of the LORD in Judges 13. Yet again, David at one time built an altar at Araunah's threshing floor and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings to the LORD (2 Sam. 24:25).

The point here is that Deuteronomy 12 may have stipulated a special center of national worship for Israel; yet, we find Israel worshipping at various places on various occasions during the era of the Mosaic Law - i.e., while the Law was still in operation.

Zikkyy:
jethro was either a priest of God or a priest of satan. You either for God or for satan. There is no middle ground. Can we say jethro was priest of satan?

You're taking a dribble now.   There's no 'we' on this matter; rather, I'm certain that Exodus 18 shows us that Jethrow was a priest of God - the same God that Israel worshipped.

The question was whether or not you find any verse where Jethro was designated in the very same manner that Melchizedek was - 'priest of the Most High God'. Don't try and dribble on that, or I'll rush you a slide tackle!

Zikkyy:
you forgot this happened before the law. How could the israelite reject him when the law restricting priesthood to the levites was not yet in place.

I didn't forget that happened before the Law; and Israel could not just accept any priest/priesthood just because the Law had not yet been enacted. The question was whether or not Jethro was a priest of the same God that Israel worshipped. If he was not, would Israel have fellowshipped with him in the sacrifice of Exodus 18 just because the Law of Moses had not yet been promulgated?

@Zikkyy,

I'm really enjoying our discussions on the current subject on priesthoods - perhaps this would have been more appropriate in another thread on its own so that we don't muddy things up for 'tithe debaters'.

Anyhow, thanks so much for the heart-warming discussions so far.

This one -

Zikkyy:
If Jesus Christ is Melchi, it's likely i will agree with most of the stuff wordtalk been saying here cos that's the only way it makes sense to me. But you need to show us how you arrived at this conclusion, or you want us to accept yours statement by faith

Hehe. . . on that note, you'd be sending me off the picth with a red card!
No, I'm not convinced that Jesus Christ is actually Melchizedek - not even if we try to transfer a theophany of sorts between the covenants. Sorry, but just my thoughts.

^^
Not bad. Here is another translation to 'assist' -


Hebrews 7:17 Good News Translation (GNT)

17 For the scripture says, You will be a priest forever, in the priestly order of Melchizedek

or, by another translation to 'assist' -

Hebrews 7:17 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

17for He doth testify -- `Thou [art] a priest -- to the age, according to the order of Melchisedek;'

. . . or, even this one:


Hebrews 7:17 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

17 For he witnesseth, That thou art a priest without end, by the order of Melchisedec; [Soothly he witnesseth, For thou art a priest into without end, after the order of Melchisedec;]

Zikkyy:
BTW when was the last time you went for a church service with Melchi as the officiating\presiding priest

We are all 'priests' (1 Pet. 2:5 & 9; Rev. 1:6; 20:6) - there is no 'commercial' or 'official' or 'officiating' or 'negotiating' or 'presiding' priest. Your problem here is looking about for who is 'officiating' or 'negotiating'. Goodness! When will you get done with that kind of religiosity?.

wordtalk, i am not happy with the bit highlighted. I see it as an attempt to rank Christ & Melchi as equals. Please don't go that route.

No, I was not ranking them as equals; but that doesn't mean I should be shy in declaring the facts there.

I was not talking about "persons" - rather I used "priesthood" in saying that 'the Melchizedekan/Christ's priesthood is a 'priesthood of ULTIMATE SALVATION and REDEMPTION'. This is what psalm 101 is all about, as well as the picture given us in Revelation 20:6. I was more concerned about the nature of the PRIESTHOOD of melchizedek, not about his 'person'.

Although the persona are distinct in their very persons, yet the PRIESTHOOD is absolutely ONE - no difference or 'different types' in that one priesthood. It was not a 'like-for-like', but a single priesthood that derives its durability from the power of an endless life.

Zikkyy:
We all agree that verse 3 refers to Melchi. If Melchi lives forever and is a priest forever, it therefore means there are two seperate priesthood currently operational; Christ's and Melchi's.

No, not necessarily. There are not two separate 'priesthoods' - just one. It is called the priesthood AFTER THE ORDER OF Melchizedek. Even Christ is the High Priest of our profession, He is still bearing that priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. It does not mean two separate or different 'priesthoods'.

So are you for Christ? or you are for Melchi? take a stand now!

I've long taken a stand: I'm for Christ who is MADE a priest AFTER THE ORDER OF Melchizedek.

The problem with many Christians (not you, Zikkyy), is that just because they have come to see Christ as priest, they immediately and everytime want to do away with the 'order' of His priesthood. This is why I have often maintained that the moment you erase Melchizedek from the picture, you have absolutely no basis for a Christian priesthood. None.

wordtalk: Melchizedek in Genesis 14 was not 'interceding' for Abraham, but rather pronounced blessings of salvation and victory (see Gen. 14:19-20a, and compare with Heb. 7:6).

So, you asked:

Zikkyy: I don't understand. Can you please expatiate?

Okay.

The priestly ministry stood for many things pertaining to the service of God (Heb. 5:1). Most often, some see various aspects of service to stand prominenty above others in this ministry - some may view 'intercession', or 'teaching', or 'offerings and sacrifices', or 'counsel' as the most prominent feature of a particular priestly ministry.

However, the Melchizedekan priesthood goes far beyond all these services. It is a ministry of worship and pronounced blessings - 'worship' to God for His saving power upon His people; and the pronoucements of blessings of salvation and victory for God's people. These are the two most prominent features of the Melchizedekan priesthood.

Which was why I said that Melchizedek in Genesis 14 was not 'interceding' for Abraham, but rather pronounced blessings of salvation and victory (see Gen. 14:19-20a, and compare with Heb. 7:6). In Genesis 14, Melchizedek was more occupied with events after the conquest, for which he blessed both Abraham and God -

(a) verse 19 - 'And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth;

(b) verse 20 - 'And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.'

Here, it is not so much a matter of intercession or of teaching, counselling, etc. (although those are included, as per Heb. 5:1). Rather, it is one of pronouncing blessings in the character of worship to God.

Zikkyy:
I've tried what i saw was just the regular title like Pope, General Overseer, Bishop e.t.c

No, Zikkyy. That designation is not 'just the regular title like Pope' etc.

Designations of this nature hold a very special place of office, functions, sphere and durability in Biblical exegesis. When similar appellations are used for various persons, the designation changes the character of the qualifications (office, functions, sphere of influence, authority and durability).

Please let me make an example. The appellation 'son of God' is used both as a general term for men and angels (e.g., Dan. 3:25), as well as for Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1). Adam, for instance, is called 'the son of God' (Luke 3:38); while angels are referred to as 'sons of God' (Gen. 6:2).

However, in the entire Bible, the special designations 'only begotten son of God' (John 3:18) and  'the only begotten of the Father' (John 1:14) apply to only one Person: Jesus Christ. The Jews were familiar with the general title of 'son of God' in the OT Scriptures; yet, when they heard Jesus use that title as a special designation for Himself, they knew it was not just a 'regular title' He was claiming (John 10:33-36).

So it is with the present subject. Even though we recognize some are called 'priests of the LORD' (most often in the plural - 1 Sam. 1:3; 22:17; 2 Chron. 13:9; 26:17 and Isaiah 61:6); yet no other priest is given this designation 'priest of the Most High God' used specifically for Melchizedek by both writers of Genesis and Hebrews. The point in all this is that the authors did not wish the reader to take it for granted as a special designation of the one so named - just as the NT writers would not want us to take for granted the title 'only-begotten Son of God' as applicable to just one Person and only that one Person!

If it were merely a 'regular title', then Melchizedek would not have been any more special a priest than the rest of the identified OT priests. There are numerous other 'priests of the LORD' in the OT that he could easily have referenced for the sake of a regular title - but he obviously intended far more than that, and thus points out that Melchizedek was designated 'priest of the Most High God'. The import here, as I've noted earlier, is that the reader who was familiar with such a construct would see just one thing: Melchizedek bore his priesthood as received directly from God without intermediaries.

Why is the above even important? Because the same writer knew that the converted Jew who read his epistle was ALREADY aware that MOSES was a PRIEST, even though the same Moses never once called himself as such in the Law. So, if it were merely a matter of a regular title, what stopped the Jew from arguing that Moses was also a priest just as Aaron and other priests? What stopped the Jew from arguing that Jethro was also a 'priest of the LORD', as evidently appears in Exodus 18?

When he says, therefore, that Melchizedek was 'priest of the Most High God', he was reminding the reader of a special designation used for this priest, even though the said priest was not a Jew - and thus showing that a GENTILE priesthood was key to their ultimate salvation.

This is where I now answer a related question you raised in post #511.

Now, on to your most recent rejoinder.

Zikkyy:
I have not said Christ did not receive his priesthood directly from God, all have said was that the mode of receipt cannot be the basis for claiming the priesthood is forever. The Hebrews text tells us it was because Christ lives forever. Where is Melchi now?

I did not infer or state anywhere that 'the mode of receipt' was what gave the priesthood its character of being 'forever'. More than anything, I think I stated a couple posts earlier that:

'So, Melchizedek's priesthood was not transcient  - not simply because there are 'no documentations' - rather, as we both agree, the durability of his priesthood is derived from the basis on which it rests: the power of an endless life (Heb. 7:16)' (post # 497)

Zikkyy:
Priests were not restricted to a certain tribe prior to that era. Melchi was refered to as a priest in the records, nobody was going to dispute that hundreds or even thousand s of years after.

Pardon me, but I'm not trying to dispute the 'records' of priests. If 'Melchi was referred to as priest in the records', was Jethro (Moses' father-in-law) not also referred to as 'priest in the records' (Exodus 18)? Was the priest of Midian not a legitimate priest also which you find in the 'records'?  It is not merely that 'Melchi was referred to as a priest in the records' - for so are other priests who were 'referred to as priests in the records' - including the priests of Dagon, the priest of On, and Mattan the priest of Baal. All these and more were refeered to as 'priests in the record', dear sir!

Even so, by now you begin to understand why it's tenuous to playdown the importance of these things. If itt were merely for the sake of 'no documentation' or 'in the records' that the writer of Hebrews sought to make his points, he would long have woefully failed! The first question a thinking head would ask is this: 'which record'?

However, the question is even more about the legitimacy of a non-Jewish priest who features prominently in Jewish redemption and ultimate salvation.

Bear with me while I take this one up in detail:

Zikkyy:
Neh. 7:61-64 applies to a period where you have to be from the tribe of Levi to be priest. The Jews don’t joke with it.

Within the Law, that may apply; but BEFORE, DURING and AFTER the era of the Mosaic Law, it does not apply - because even during the era of the Law, another type and order of priesthood was prophetically being recognized, even though it pointed to the future.

Nehemiah 7:61-64 is therefore foundational for all priesthoods that have anything to do with salvation and redemptive histories of the Jewish people. Redemptive history does not begin with the emergence of Israel as a people - it dates right back to Genesis. Therefore, any question of priesthoods which enter into discourses of redemption among the Jews would see Neh. 7:61-64 as foundational for such discussions, regardless when that verse was penned.

Let me expatiate. It so happens that LONG BEFORE the prophet Nehemiah penned those words in Neh. 7:64, it is a commonly held tenet that genealogy plays a vital role in determining who should take up an office in public life (1 Chron. 9:1 - 'all Israel were reckoned by genealogies'). Even Moses had earlier laid the foundation that no foreigner or stranger (non-Jew) was to rule over Israel or assume a priestly office (see Deut. 17:15; Num. 3:10, 38; 16:40). Therefore, if one's genealogy or pedigree could not be ascertained, such a person would not enter into discourses on redemption and ultimate salvation.

But remarkably, OUTSIDE the recorded genealogies of the Israelites, even the Jews recognized the legitimacy of other Godly priests and priesthoods. Two examples:

(a) the priest of Midian (Exodus 18) who rejoiced and praised 'the LORD' for all the goodness He had done for Israel (v. 9-11), and also offered sacrifices to the same God of Israel (v. 12). If Moses and the Jews rejected this priest as of God, why then did they fellowship with him in the sacrifices which he offered to God? Which 'God' was he offering sacrifices to, such that Moses and all Israel came to fellowship with this priest in that sacrifice - and yet 'the LORD' did not accuse His people of idolatry or 'paganism'?

(b) Melchizedek (Genesis 14) who ascribed praise to 'the Most High God' for giving victory to Abraham. If this priest was a 'pagan' (as half-baked anti-tithing theologians have erroneously concluded), how is it that Abraham responded to the priestly pronouncements of blessings; as well as that the same Melchizedek features as holding the order of priesthood which Christ was to take up (Psalm 101:4)?

It is striking that David made the prophetic utterance of Psalm 101:4 at a time when the Law was already enacted and operational in Jewish life! How come the Jews never protested against this, despite the fact that they knew what the Law of Moses said about 'non-Jews' or 'foreigners' featuring in discussions about Jewish priesthoods?

The whole point here is this: you do not have to be from any of the tribes of Israel in order to be recognized as 'a legitimately appointed priest by God' in matters of ultimate salvation and redemptive history.

Zikkyy:
I am not sure the issue of pollution applies here. We are looking at two different periods here.

Indeed it very well applies even though we are considering two different periods. The fundamental issue here is the question of all priesthoods received from God, and not those which point to 'pagan' priesthoods.

Hence, if any reference to priesthood is made in the redemptive history of Israel, we cannot escape the question of Jewish genealogies. For this reason, if a particular priesthood is referenced as having any bearing at all in salvific matters, the Jew would seek to know the pedigree of the priest in question - or he is left with no choice than to reject such as a priest with no divine portfolio or protocol. Why? Because all Israel held a common belief: 'salvation is of the Jews' (John 4:22).

This is what the writer in Hebrews sought to reconcile: how a non-Jew could have such a powerful protocol in Jewish redemptive history without risking the idea of a 'polluted priesthood' based on arguments of 'no documentation'. In fact, the argument of 'no documentation' would quite easily have destroyed, rather than enhanced, his premise.

Zikkyy,

There are two main issues you raised in your rejoinders which I'll try and focus on. They helped me to understand why you have a problem with my earlier comments concerning the person and priesthood of Melchizedek, so I'd rather skip replying to every line of your other comments.

I'll start by taking up a few points and dealing in detail. You had said:

Zikkyy:
I still don’t see how title tells me anything other than he was a priest.

Aww, this makes me wonder whether you even considered the special meanings of designations and titles of various persona in Scripture.

The Levi priests were also priest of the Most High God.

Were the Levitical priests ever called or designated by the title 'priest of the Most High God'? I don't quarrel with the fact that the levitical priests were priests of 'the LORD'; but were they specifically designated as 'priests of the Most High God'?

Since it seems a designation doesn't say much more to you than merely being 'a priest', then it is just as well that Jethro (Moses' father-in-law) was 'priest of the LORD' even though we don't find any verse in the entire Bible saying so. No? And what would you say to anti-tithing theologians who argue that Melchizedek was a 'pagan priest' just because he was not mentioned in connection with 'the LORD' (i.e., Jehovah)??

I think this is where you seem to be having a serious problem - the question of specific designations. But I'll get back to this in just a moment, to show you how important this is in exegeting a passage or text.

Hey Zikkyy,

I'm busy just now but will come back to expound on some of the points you could yet not get.

However, I'd like to leave you with a fe points to consider in view of your latest reply.

Zikkyy:
I have done a careful study and still could not arrive at such a conclusion. I did my best

Okay, so what conclusion did you arrive at?

What does 'priest of the Most High God' as a title mean to you? Please try a little harder - it's not difficult.

And my response was that you can only abide a priest continually if you continue in office. A dead priest cannot be said to abide priest continually. So, where is Melchi now

Okay, no worries. A 'dead priest' cannot abide a priest continually, yes? Good. Now just tell me: to whom does verse 3 refer to in saying "abideth a priest continually" - to Melchizedek or to Christ?

If Melchizedek is referred to, what made it so that he 'abides priest continually'? Please don't rush again to the 'no documentation' mantra - that is trash talk and would only result in a 'polluted priesthood' (Neh. 7:64ff).

If it refers to Christ, you will just merely be jumping a huge exegetical hole in that verse 3 - clearly the verse was referring to Melchizedek. 

The others, I'll come back and outline them for you.

Zikkyy:
How do you abide a priest continually if you are not in office? You don’t find this interpretation even in the Hebrews verse.

I never said he abides a priest forever when he was not in office - an interpretation I never made. I rather said that he 'abides a priest continually on account of having received the priesthood directly from God.'

If he did not first receive the priesthood, would he be in office? No. And would he also have been a priest forever if he did not first receive the priesthood? No, again.

So, you see I did not give any such interpretations as you supposed.


For the others, I think for the most part you're saying just the same thing I have answered to already. if not, then I will find time to come back and sort them out for you. Enjoy for now.

Zikkyy:
Even Aaron retains the title of priest after death, but he died and was replaced.

No, Aaron did not retain the title of 'priest' after death; for if he did, then Hebrews 7:23 would be meaningless. Once replaced, such priests do not continue to retain such titles of 'priest' - in Biblical hermeneutics, it would mean that the dead priest continues to effectively be priest while he's dead. Such a notion is why so many Christians pray to departed or dead 'saints' and 'priests' - thus, depriving themselves of the priesthood of Christ.

This priesthood differs from Levitical priesthood in that the levitical priest dies and another one replaces him.

Agreed - Hebrews 7:23.

Zikkyy:
Christ priesthood is forever because he lives forever and not because he received the priesthood directly from God. We cannot say the same for Melchi. A fact you are fully aware of.

I am fully aware that Christ received His priesthood directly from God without any intermediaries - Hebrews 5:10.

I am also fully aware that the Aaronic priesthood was attended upon by a mediator - Moses, who 'consecrated' Aaron and his sons into the priestly office (see Exodus 28:42 and 29:9).

I am also aware that while Moses was the mediator who himself 'consecrated' Aaron and his sons into the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood, yet Christ was also 'CONSECRATED FOR EVERMORE' as priest (Heb. 7:28).

The question, Zikkyy, is this: WHO 'consecrated' Christ?? Find me the 'intermediary' or 'mediator' that stood to 'consecrate' the Son of God - and i will be happy to have learnt something fresh.

As for Melchizedek receiving his priesthood directly from God, please tell me: on what basis would you assume that there was a 'mediator' who stood to 'consecrate' him? It is not because we don't find a verse for it - but when you study the texts carefully, you will find indeed that the title: 'priest of the Most high God' was intended by both authors of Genesis and Hebrews to point the reader to that fact.

Zikkyy:
You still don’t get it. This is not about priesthood where the priest retains a title of priest forever; we are talking about priesthood where the priest is forever available to intercede.

Apologies if I didn't get you earlier. I had assumed we were on the same frequency and had agreed on many things thereto. However, I think your latest answer shows me what you're missing.

Biblical priesthood in its broad sense is not merely about 'where the priest is forever available to INTERCEDE'. While intercession is one of the highlights of the Aaronic and other priesthoods (see Heb. 5:1-2), it is yet not the thrust of the Melchizedekan priesthood. The priesthood of Melchizedek is FAR MUCH MORE than intercession - it is one of TOTAL SALVATION.

Look back - the Aaronic priesthood, for example, was available for intercession where earthly priests could 'have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way' (cf. Heb. 5:2). The converted Jews were already familiar with the nature of 'intercessory priesthood'. But even this much reverred intercessory priesthood of Aaron COULD NOT BRING SALVATION to anybody, including the priest himself, AARON!

This is where the Melchizedekan priesthood steps in - because it was a priesthood based on one fundamental principle above all: the pronouncement of salvific blessings! Melchizedek in Genesis 14 was not 'interceding' for Abraham, but rather pronounced blessings of salvation and victory (see Gen. 14:19-20a, and compare with Heb. 7:6). Blessings pronounced in such circumstances direct our gaze to God's power in salvation and redemption.

The priesthood of ULTIMATE SALVATION is what the writer in Hebrews intended his recipients to grasp. Having shown that the Aaronic priesthood of 'intercession' could not save anyone (Heb. 5:2-3), he goes on to affirm that Christ Himself 'became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him' (Heb. 5:9). And on what basis does Christ become such? The answer is in the very next verse - 'Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec' (v. 10). This is even brought together in Heb. 7:25 - 'Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.'

In brief, there are two kinds of priesthood:

(a) Aaronic (and other types of priesthoods) - 'priesthood of intercession'
(b) Melchizedekan/Christ - 'priesthood of ULTIMATE SALVATION and REDEMPTION'

'Perfection' is NOT through the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood of intercession (Heb. 7:11a) - rather, the 'perfection' of our spiritual relationship with God comes through the priesthood of ultimate salvation: that priesthood 'after the order of Melchisedec' (Heb. 7:11b).

I went into all this to show why I cannot agree with you that we were dealing with a kind of priesthood where 'the priest is forever available to intercede' as far as we're dealing with Melchizedek. Intercession is included in Christ's priestly ministry - but that is only one among MANY OTHER blessings of that priesthood.

Zikkyy:
Did the people continue to render these tenths in their way in addition to complying with the new tithing requirement?

When you say 'continue to' and 'in addition to', it seems you're making a case for a 'continuum' between both types of tithes. Further, you cannot make such suppositions with 'in addition to', because it is clear that -

1. the people we're reading about ('Isaac all the way to the Israelites ') did not live in the same era or period;

2. prior to the emergence of Israel as a theocratic nation, the generations that lived earlier were NOT UNDER THE MOSAIC LAW - infact, Moses clearly states that the patriarchs WERE NOT given the Mosaic Law (see Deut. 5:3)

In view of the above, I have often maintained that -

(a) the Levitical tithes are NOT a 'continuum' of Abraham's tithes
(b) Abraham's tithes were not 'subsumed' into the Levitical tithes
(c) Abraham's tithes does not 'come under' the Mosaic Law
(d) Abraham's tithes are not 'subsumed into' the Mosaic Law

We should therefore understand that tithes are simply a description of the giving of a tenth of one's resources. It is therefore futile for us to be chasing after a non-existent 'continuum' between the tithes we read of in the Bible - that is why we cannot be talking about people doing this or that 'in addition to' something else.

Hi Zikkyy,

Zikkyy:
By descendant I meant Isaac all the way to the Israelites standing before Moses at the time he was reading out the law.

That's what I thought, and that's why I kept my reply down to that constraint.

I can see you are not willing to fully commit

On the contrary, I tried to be quite committed within what Scripture declares and helps us to conclude through Biblical exegesis. If you wanted me to go beyond what the texts of Scripture declares, I would have done so.

but let assume they tithed one way or another. I have one last question (hopefully);

Any further questions are welcome anytime.

what happened to tenth the people were rendering just before Moses dished out the new tithing requirement?

I don't know for sure what happened to such 'tenths' or tithes. Anything anyone might conclude on that would most probably be conjecture or hypothesis of one sort or another.

Zikkyy:
True talk. But I’ll add that the only reason it cannot be shown that Melchi priesthood ‘was only transcient’ is because there are no documentations.

Well, I respect your view, even though I think there's more to it than that.

I don't think that the issue of 'no documentations' establishes this point. The nature of priesthoods established merely on arguments of no documentation was regarded as, not only 'transcient', but also polluted.

In the OT, it was entirely essential that 'all Israel was reckoned by genealogies' (1 Chron. 9:1). When serious theocratic issues of national import were at stake, officers and participants were also to be determined by the genealogies. But where true Israelites could not establish their genealogies or pedigrees, they were regarded as 'as polluted, put from the priesthood' (see Neh. 7:61-64).

If therefore the writer had intended to demonstrate the durability and power of Melchizedek's priesthood merely on a question of 'no documentation', he would totally have lost his argument. Why? Because his converted Jewish recipients would immediately have interpreted Melchizedek's priesthood as a 'polluted priesthood' on the established basis of Nehemiah 7:64.

So, Melchizedek's priesthood was not transcient - not simply because there are 'no documentations' - rather, as we both agree, the durability of his priesthood is derived from the basis on which it rests: the power of an endless life (Heb. 7:16)

Zikkyy:
Are you saying the Levi priests (Aaron & his sons) were never priest of the Most High God?

No. Rather, as a title ('priest of the Most High God' - Gen. 14:20 and Heb. 7:1) used specifically for Melchizedek, the converted Jew would be able immediately to see that this priesthood was received directly from God without intermediaries. 

Zikkyy:
True, Melchi was considered great because of a priesthood described as ‘unchangeable’. But why was Melchi priesthood described as unchangeable? You will find this in verse 3

I'm not so sure verse 3 gives us the answer as to the nature of his priesthood, since that verse is not to be taken literally. Melchizedek 'abides a priest continually', not because he literally did not have 'beginning of days, nor end of life'.

Verse 3 only gives us the 'qualifications' befitting anyone who would hold such a priesthood - such a person should have 'neither beginning of days, nor end of life'. Melchizedek is not literally 'eternal' (which you also agree with); but only abides a priest continually on account of having received the priesthood directly from God. I think that's the point the author seeks to make in that verse 3.

However, I think the question of 'why Melchizedek's priesthood is described as unchangeable' is answered in verse 16 and expounded upon in verses 20-21.

(a) in verse 16, we find the basis on which Melchizedek's priesthood rests: the priesthood itself is based on 'the power of an endless life' and not on 'the law of a carnal commandment';

(b) in verses 20-21, the Melchizedekan priesthood which Christ Himself has taken up is even more strongly affirmed on a the basis of a divine oath in contrast to all other types of priesthoods which were made 'without an oath'.

Put together, what this shows is that the priesthood of Melchizedek was given directly from God without intermediaries, in contrast to the Aaronic priesthood which was mediated through Moses. Another more lucid way you have described this is in your comment that - 'Hebrew 7 described the Melchi\Christ priesthood as that of priests with eternal life.'

@Zikkyy,

Zikkyy:
Thanks wordtalk. If you don’t mind, I like to ask;  is it possible the descendants of Abraham rendered similar gifts (i.e a tenth of war takings) as well routine tithing of tenths to a priest (that’s if they are able to find one ) or as burnt offering (where there are no priests).

It depends on who you're including as 'descendants of Abraham'; but if you meant merely Isaac and Jacob, then Gen. 28:22 is just one example. We know that many people have a serious problem with the question of whether or not Jacob actually gave tithes (or, the 'tenths') to God - but that in itself does not negate the possibility of his actually doing so at some point in his life.

However, the tithes of Abraham's descendants did not have to be only from spoils of war. As in Jacob's example in Gen. 28:22, his tithes were to come from all that God would have given him without reference to warfare.

Thirdly, Scripture does not leave us with specifics or details as to how descedants of Abraham might have given tithes or the tenth to God - whether routinely or at special/specific events in their lives, or whether as burnt offerings or in some other way. The point is that the giving of the tenth was expressed in various ways - either from spoils of war or from one's personal possessions as blessings received from God.

Zikkyy:
Melchi was considered great because of the ‘nature’ of his priesthood.

Fantastic - you've expressed it better than I did!

BERNIMOORE:
CAN YOU SEE YOURSELF, YOU CLAIMED THAT MANY HAVE SHY AWAY FROM THESE PARTICULAR VERSE,BUT IT WILL INTEREST YOU THAT THE PERSONWHO ACTUALLY QUOTE THESE 'ACTUALLY SHY AWAY' NOW ITS YOUR TURN,LET GO

Go where?   This guy, you're so funny.

Indeed, many anti-tithers I have asked to look into 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 have often tried to shy away from that passage. For those who dare, they offer either excuses or draw fallacious conclusions that try to dribble in unrelated matters that Paul never discussed in that chapter - such as 'justification'. For yet others, you will find them desperate enough to slice verse 15 in half quotes and arrive at the fallacy that Paul did not want the support of Christian ministers in the Church.

There are so many laughable things to read from anti-tithers on that passage. The one thing they have been so scared to acknowledge is the fact that Paul used the Law of Moses to teach Christian giving in the Church! All the sob-tales of the Law nailing this and that and doing away with this and that just quite simply fall flat on those two verses.

Where do you think the apostles got the teaching on HOLINESS?
Answer: from the Law of Moses.

Where do you think the apostles got the teaching of marriage relationships among Christians in the Church?
Answer: from the Law of Moses.

Where do you think the apostles got their teaching of guiding rules for women in the Church?
Answer: from the Law of Moses.

Where do you think the so-called 'Christian' sabbath came from?
Answer: from the Law of Moses.

Where do you think the apostles got their teaching on Christian support for NT ministers?
Answer again: from the Law of Moses.

Where do you suppose the apostles got their teaching about children respecting their parents with a view of 'promised blessings'?
Em, answer: from the Law of Moses!

And from  where dod you suppose Moses got many of his teachings on morality and civil relationships among Israel?
Answer - not from the Law of Moses, but from MANY PAGAN CODIFIED LAWS which Christians are so vacuously IGNORANT of!!

This is why for the most part, there's only hot air wafting through the windows of anti-tithings arguments. And it was quite a simple matter for me to run through your rejoinder because nothing there is new and many of these things have already been trahsed out elsewhere.


All the same, thanks for taking up my concerns.