₦airaland Forum

wordtalk:
Those who benefit as BELIEVERS from the priesthood of Christ 'after the order of Melchizedek' are a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD.

Priethood of Christ 'after the order of Melchizedek' looks like you are seriously marketing Melchi what's wrong with just calling it 'Priesthood of Christ'?

wordtalk:
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.

Unless you are telling me wordtalk is Peter, i don't see how you can be reading his thoughts.

wordtalk:
Why do you think that OF ALL THE PRIESTS/PRIESTHOODS mentioned in the OT, ONLY that of Melchizedek features in Jewish divine PROPHECY?

If Christ was to be a priest without succession (i.e. continues as priest forever), which other priest serve as reference point if not the priest (Melchi) that is considered as still being in office (without succession).

Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. [/i]

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

wordtalk:
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!

All you done so far is to complicate a very simple matter

wordtalk:
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.

Melchi priesthood drew from his very (human) nature, one reason why his priesthood cannot be compared to that of Christ. Christ did not succeed a dead or dying priest and will not be replaced by another priest in future.

wordtalk:
it would place his priesthood at par with other priesthoods where men were made priests and yet suffered death as well (verse 23).

I don't see how his death place him at par with other priesthoods. I don't recall reading about other priests that serves as priest in an heavenly temple or tabernacle.

wordtalk:
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',

It is not stated anywhere in the bible that the priesthood of melchi is forever.

wordtalk:
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?

The Aaronic priesthood continues by seccession of priests, one dies and is replaced by another. For Christ's, there is only one priest, he did not replace anybody and will not be succeded by another priest.

wordtalk: 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?

It's not about Melchi. He was just a reference point.

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

What are the 'qualifications'?

wordtalk: 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)

Why not? it like saying there would be no basis for the Hebrews writer to keep quoting your favorite psalms 110, since the Jews were already familiar.

wordtalk: 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?

I only have issues with durability when you attempt to describe the nature of Melchizedek's priesthood using the personality of Christ. But to answer your question, i think it all depends on the manner or way the priesthood was set-up.

wordtalk: On what basis is the durability of Melchizedek's priesthood reckoned?

Don't know. wasn't there at set-up, and there are no info to work with.

wordtalk: 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

Nobody is arguing prophecy here. I believe your concern was why Melchi featuring in the prophecy and not some other priest.

wordtalk: which makes a very, very strong case as to why the Jew MUST accept it even after the Law of Moses had been given.

I still don't know where you get the idea that the Jew accepted it. If they did, there would be no need for the Hebrews text.

wordtalk: 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.

I'll agree with the above if the priesthood you refer to is that of Christ.

wordtalk: 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.

Where? Kindly assist, Point me in the right direction.

wordtalk: 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.

Okay. What about Melchi?

wordtalk: 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?

It depends on what the writer was aiming to achieve.

Quote - "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek"

Jesus' eternal priesthood is similar to Melchizedek who had no descendents, and there were no priests to follow him.

wordtalk: 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.

I don't see this anywhere in the bible.

wordtalk: 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"

Yes, Christ was going to be established as Priest, and that did happen. A non-Levi priest in a Jewish temple was not going to happen, or you think the Jews would be bothered about a Priest serving in an Heavenly temple? that falls outside the purview of the Levi priests

wordtalk: 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.

As noted above, there was no need for protest

Hebrews 8:4 (KJV)
4For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

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.

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,

Well done Bernimoore, Good job! you've shown you have a good understanding of the Hebrews 7

wordtalk:
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.

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. 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

wordtalk:
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 -

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

wordtalk:
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).

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

wordtalk:
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??

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


Heb 7:3  Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

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

Heb 7:15  And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Heb 7:16  Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

From verse 15, we see that the Hebrew writer refers to similarities in 'persons' and not priesthood. verse 16 tells us that Christ was made (a priest) not by law of commandment but after the power of an endless life. He did not say the priesthood (as a distinct institution/entity) was made after the power of an endless life. Maybe am wrong but what i see here is that Christ priesthood draws from his divine nature. We cannot say the same for Melchi.

wordtalk:
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'.

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

amor4ce:
Priests offer sacrifices. The true Messiah offered Himself as the purest of sacrifices before entering into His glory.

Thank you my brother

Joagbaje, i hope you are learning. Maybe Joagbaje will tell us Melchi also sacrificed himself and he want to compare Melchi priesthood to Christ's

wordtalk:
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.

The Jews knew Jethro, Melchi they don't know. Melchi remain a mystery, due to limited info. Why do you think some people here on NL believes Melchi is Christ? It's that bad The Jews had similar problem.

wordtalk:
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.

I believe you already seen my beautiful response above

wordtalk:
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').

Why protest? it wasn't going to happen. i don't recall Christ functioning as high priest in a jewish temple. secondly, they nailed him to the cross. That's not my idea of acceptance

wordtalk:
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.

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

wordtalk:
Don't try and dribble on that, or I'll rush you a slide tackle!

Seriously, how come there is no referee for this match No wahala, i have plenty of red cards in my pocket

wordtalk:
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'.

It does not make Jethro a priest of satan. Designation is what the writer chose to use at that point in time. That's tha way i see it.

wordtalk:
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?

There was no need to query his priesthood. there was no restriction at the time.

i'll have to come back later to respond to your posts. My network is a bit frustrating at this time. It takes almost an hour to make a post

wordtalk:
@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.

i have to say it's been fun. Should not be posting at this time, but just can't keep off. i will not be so regular between now and Monday next week, but will do my best to keep up. Thanks for your time

Enigma:
^ You sure say you no dey for eternal "order" of Cherubim & Seraphim so? 

no mind me jare. na Joagbaje dey make post wetin i no suppose post. I don't know what he is doing here.

Joagbaje:
There's is no Jesus order of priesthood. He functions in the order of Melchizedek

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

Joagbaje:
Will you nullify the word of God.

No, but it will be fun nulifying yours.

Joagbaje:
Now that it has ended we are back to Melchizedek order In  which Jesus function. that means the Order never ended.

We are now in an order that is forever

Image123:
Jesus Christ is Melchizedek.

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

wordtalk:
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.

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?

wordtalk:
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'.

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

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'.

wordtalk:
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).

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

wordtalk:
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)

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.

wordtalk:
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?

we are all aware Jesus did not feature in the jewish temple as a priest. We are also aware that the Levitical priesthood needed to be scrapped for Jesus priesthood to take effect.

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

wordtalk:
(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'?

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. 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 Neh verse, the law was very much in operation. Priesthood belonged to the tribe of Levi. Pollution becomes relevant cos you cannot be priest if you are not from tribe of levi. 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.

wordtalk:
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?

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?

musKeeto:
Una no dey tire?

oh com'on, do you ever get tired of making money?

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

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

wordtalk:
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?

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. So are you for Christ? or you are for Melchi? take a stand now! BTW when was the last time you went for a church service with Melchi as the officiating\presiding priest

wordtalk:
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'

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.

We can talk when you produce Melchi, i have some questions for him

wordtalk:
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

Knowing you were not ‘on ground’ when Melchi was consecrated, and the bible did not tell us how he was consecrated, “anything anyone might conclude on that would most probably be conjecture or hypothesis of one sort or another” You do me i do you

wordtalk:
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.

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

wordtalk:
I never said he abides a priest forever when he was not in office - an interpretation I never made.

i am not saying you did.

wordtalk:
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.'

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

wordtalk:
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.

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?