Melchizedek

[India]

Anyone have any pointers/links to a good explanation of Hebrews 7:3 (which says that Mel. was without beginning of days or end of life)? The study Bible explanations I've seen say that it's just a reference to the fact that his geneology wasn't given, but that doesn't make any sense to me given what the verse seems to be saying.

Thanks in advance,
India

[Socrates]

The Hebrew Christian scholar Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum answers this question as follows (from www.ariel.org/qamelchi.html):



Q: Who is Melchizedek? He appeared to have no father or mother, and there is no record of any of his ancestors. Was he an angel or was he actually the human king of Salem (Heb. 7:1)?

A: Melchizedek was simply a human being who happened to be both the king and priest of the city of Jerusalem in the days of Abraham. The point of Hebrews is not that he did not have a father and mother, but only that there was no record of it. Hebrews wants to stress that for the Melchizedekian priesthood, ancestry was not relevant as with the Aaronic priesthood. To be an Aaronic priest, one had to show descent from Aaron. But the Melchizedekian priesthood was by divine appointment only, and, therefore, ancestry was not necessary. That is why the Bible does not give the names of Melchizedek's parents or his genealogy. Hebrews 5:1 clearly states that one of the prerequisites for priesthood is that one had to be human. Therefore, Melchizedek could not have been a pre-incarnate Christ nor could he have been an angel. Another reason he could not have been a pre-incarnate Christ is that Old Testament theophanies came and disappeared once they gave their message and never held permanent office on earth; but Melchizedek did hold permanent office(s) as king and priest. In addition, when the Bible compares Christ to Melchizedek, it says he was made like the Son of God. It does not say Melchizedek was the Son of God, but simply “like” in the sense that Melchizedek was a type of Christ as he was both priest and king. Melchizedek was certainly a type of the Messiah, but he was not the Messiah Himself, nor pre-incarnate Christ, nor an angel, but simply a human being.

[India]

The Hebrew Christian scholar Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum answers this question as follows (from www.ariel.org/qamelchi.html):

...The point of Hebrews is not that he did not have a father and mother, but only that there was no record of it. Hebrews wants to stress that for the Melchizedekian priesthood, ancestry was not relevant as with the Aaronic priesthood....


That makes sense concerning the first part of Heb. 7:3 ("Without father or mother, without genealogy"), but if that's the point the author is trying to make, why does he go on to say, "...without beginning of days or end of life"? That's my real question. Also, 7:15-16 implies Mel. became a priest "not on the basis of...his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructable life." It sounds like Heb. 7 is saying Mel. isn't an ordinary human.

[Socrates]

India asks:That makes sense concerning the first part of Heb. 7:3 ("Without father or mother, without genealogy"), but if that's the point the author is trying to make, why does he go on to say, "...without beginning of days or end of life"? That's my real question. Also, 7:15-16 implies Mel. became a priest "not on the basis of...his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructable life." It sounds like Heb. 7 is saying Mel. isn't an ordinary human.Once again, the point of Hebrews is to show that the Melchidezekian priesthood did not depend on any ancestry. The phrase "..without beginning of days or end of life" reinforces that neither his genealogy nor his birth or death are recorded in Scripture. Rather, he was clearly a Jebusite, since --zedek is a typical Jebusite name ending.

Mel was another type of Christ, but the parallel can't be extended too far. Christ DID have a mother and genealogies, but His priesthood does not depend on these because He was not a descendant of Aaron.

Here is a commentary by the 18th century Reformed Baptist theologian and scholar John Gill.

Ver. 3. Without father, without mother, without descent, &c.] Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office; nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any authentic accounts: or this is to be interpreted, not of his natural, but scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, and a mother, and a natural lineage and descent; but of these no mention is made in Scripture, and therefore said to be without them; and so the Syriac version renders it; "whose father and mother are not written in the genealogies"; or there is no genealogical account of them. The Arabic writers tell us who his father and his mother were; some of them say that Peleg was his father: so Elmacinus {d}, his words are these; Peleg lived after he begat Rehu two hundred and nine years; afterwards he begat Melchizedek, the priest whom we have now made mention of. Patricides {e}, another of their writers, expresses himself after this manner

“they who say Melchizedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, and argue from the words of the Apostle Paul, asserting the same, do not rightly understand the saying of the Apostle Paul; for Shem, the son of Noah, after he had taken Melchizedek, and withdrew him from his parents, did not set down in writing how old he was, when he went into the east, nor what was his age when he died; but Melchizedek was the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Salah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah; and yet none of those patriarchs is called his father. This only the Apostle Paul means, that none of his family served in the temple, nor were children and tribes assigned to him. Matthew and Luke the evangelists only relate the heads of tribes: hence the Apostle Paul does not write the name of his father, nor the name of his mother.”

And with these writers Sahid Aben Batric {f} agrees, who expressly affirms that Melchizedek was glap Nba, "the son of Peleg": though others of them make him to be the son of Peleg’s son, whose name was Heraclim. The Arabic Catena {g} on # Ge 10:25, "the name of one was Peleg", has this note in the margin;

“and this (Peleg) was the father of Heraclim, the father of Melchizedek;”

and in a preceding chapter, his pedigree is more particularly set forth:

“Melchizedek was the son of Heraclim, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber; and his mother’s name was Salathiel, the daughter of Gomer, the son of Japheth, the son of Noah; and Heraclim, the son of Eber, married his wife Salathiel, and she was with child, and brought forth a son, and called his name Melchizedek, called also king of Salem: after this the genealogy is set down at length. Melchizedek, son of Heraclim, which was the son of Peleg, which was the son of Eber, which was the son of Arphaxad, &c. till you come to, which was the son of Adam, on whom be peace.”

It is very probable Epiphanius has regard to this tradition, when he observes {h}, that some say that the father of Melchizedek was called Eracla, and his mother Astaroth, the same with Asteria. Some Greek {i} writers say he was of the lineage of Sidus, the son of Aegyptus, a king of Lybia, from whence the Egyptians are called: this Sidus, they say, came out of Egypt into the country of the Canaanitish nations, now called Palestine, and subdued it, and dwelled in it, and built a city, which he called Sidon, after his own name: but all this is on purpose concealed, that he might be a more apparent of Christ, who, as man, is "without father"; for though, as God, he has a Father, and was never without one, being begotten by him, and was always with him, and in him; by whom he was sent, from whom he came, and whither he is gone; to whom he is the way, and with whom he is an advocate: yet, as man, he had no father; Joseph was his reputed father only; nor was the Holy Ghost his Father; nor is he ever said to be begotten as man, but was born of a virgin. Some of the Jewish writers themselves say, that the Redeemer, whom God will raise up, shall be without father {j}. And he is without mother, though not in a spiritual sense, every believer being so to him as such; nor in a natural sense, as man, for the Virgin Mary was his mother; but in a divine sense, as God: and he is "without descent or genealogy"; not as man, for there is a genealogical account of him as such, in # Mt 1:1-17 Lu 3:23-38 and his pedigree and kindred were well known to the Jews; but as God; and this distinguishes him from the gods of the Heathens, who were genealogized by them, as may be seen in Hesiod, Apollodorus, Hyginus, and other writers; and this condemns the blasphemous genealogies of the Gnostics and Valentinians. It follows,

having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; that is, there is no account which shows when he was born, or when he died; and in this he was a type of Christ, who has no beginning of days, was from the beginning, and in the beginning, and is the beginning, and was from everlasting; as appears from his nature as God, from his names, from his office as Mediator, and from his concern in the council and covenant of peace, and in the election of his people; and he has no end of life, both as God and man; he is the living God; and though as man he died once, he will die no more, but lives for ever. It is further said of Melchizedek,

but made like unto the Son of God: in the above things; from whence it appears, that he is not the Son of God; and that Christ, as the Son of God, existed before him, and therefore could not take this character from his incarnation or resurrection:

abideth a priest continually; not in person, but in his antitype Christ Jesus; for there never will be any change of Christ’s priesthood; nor will it ever be transferred to another; the virtue and efficacy of it will continue for ever; and he will ever live to make intercession; and will always bear the glory of his being both priest and King upon his throne: the Syriac version renders it, "his priesthood abides for ever"; which is true both of Melchizedek and of Christ.

{d} In Hottinger. Smegma Orientale, l. 1. c. 8. p. 269, 254.
{e} In ib. p. 305, 306, 254.
{f} In Mr. Gregory’s Preface to his Works.
{g} In ib.
{h} Contra Haeres. Haeres. 55.
{i} Suidas in voce Melchisedec, Malala, l. 3. Glycas, Cedrenus, & alii.
{j} R. Moses Hadarsan apud Galatin. l. 3. c. 17. & l. 8. c. 2.

Ver. 15. And it is yet far more evident, &c.] From a fact which cannot be denied;

for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest; or another has risen, even Jesus the son of David, of the tribe of Judah; another from Aaron, one that is not of his family or tribe, but one like to Melchizedek: hence we learn that Melchizedek and Christ are not the same person; and that the order and similitude of Melchizedek are the same; and that Christ’s being of his order only imports that there is a resemblance and likeness between him and Melchizedek, in many things, which are observed in the beginning of this chapter: and this "arising" does not intend Christ’s setting up himself, only his appearance in this form; and being expressed in the present tense, denotes the continual being, and virtue of his priesthood.

[Jason Gastrich]

Melchizedek was quite an interesting character. It may appear puzzling why Abraham would pay tithes to a gentile king. He was surely a "type" of Christ because of his priesthood. He was also a "type" of post-Christ Gentiles. After salvation was offered to the Gentiles, the "type" that Melchizedek was became more apparent.

JG

P.S. Don Richardson has written a couple of awesome books about indigenous people and how they had a little bit of the gospel story and the uncreated God in their culture from before the dispersion at Babel. Some tribes have even been looking for the rest of a God-centered story or even the Messiah.

I've read "Peace Child" and "Eternity In Their Hearts" and I highly recommend them.

[themuzicman]

Dare I mention it?

Melchizedek's priesthood is the basis for the concept of the Christian tithe.

Michael

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

true. Mel was a king, so Abram wanted to pay hommage to the King

[Steven]

" 1. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
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." Hebrews 7:1-3

(you may want to read the full context of these verses, and determine the verse by the context)

India,

Melchisedec was a typology of Christ. Having no father, mother beginning or ending of days, made like unto the Son of God and then the term 'abiding as a preist continually'.

A little further down in verse 15-16 you read: " 15. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16. Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life." Hebrews 7:15-16

Only Christ acts as the continual High priest, having endless life, also the atoning sacrifice bringing the forgivness of sins; in the OT the priest would stand before God once a year, slitting the spotless lamb's throat for first his own sins, then the people's. The term 'father or mother' refers more to an earthly term; the fact that Christ was perfect not having an earthly father with a sin nature, thus the reason for a virgin birth. Being 100% God, 100% man, he was not of man but was a man with no sin nature. The Old testament is always looking forward to Christ, the New testament is always looking back to Christ; in the OT, Jesus' name may not be mentioned, but it is full of typologies of Christ: his atoning work, his justice, his holiness, his righteousness, etc. Hebrews captures a rare moment showing that Abraham the father of the Jewish race, even gave homage to this Melchisedec, recognizing him as likened to the Son of God, and being the ultimate high preist, continually.

I hope I've answered your question.

Steven

www.informationgospel.net

[David O]

I think he runs a 7-11 in Toledo. I am a wooden-headed-Bible-literalist, so this passage is extremely interesting. In high school I named my band Melchizedec. I think it might just mean exactly what it looks like it says.

[Apollos]

Not to change the subject, but...

I just wanted to mention that Melchizedek has nothing whatsoever to do with the Christian having a tithe today - nothing!

Christians have no "tithe" today. There is no such command in all of the NT for tithing today.

Christ - not Melchizedek - is the author of our religious teachjing and practice today.

Thankx!!

[Thomas2003]

Hi,

One thing you might want to consider is Melek, it means King. (different forms, Molech, Moloch, Melek, Melec). Chisedek means Righteousness, thus King of Righteousness in verse 2.

He is sitting on the Throne of Jerusalem, the promise given to the seed of Abraham - this is no small thing. Isaiah 9:6 tells us one of Christ's titles is Prince of Peace.

In Leviticus and Deuteronomy Moloch Worship, or King Worship, is established as a capital offense. In ancient paganism religion was a department of state whereby the King would dole out favors for dedication of children to state service. God explicity denounced it as a challenge to His Sovereignty and mandated death for all who practice and for those who fail to execute those who practice it.

Hebrews is exhibiting Abraham's actions as being not only consistent with the Covenant - but a necessary outworking of the Covenant. "Without all contradition the less is blessed of the better."

Additionally, in verse 8 we read, "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he received them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." This witness, I believe, must go back to God's testimony concerning the matter:"Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee and Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." Hebrews 5:5-6

Verse 9 says that Levi received tithes and paid them in Abraham. This Melchisedek seems to me to be the root of David, the very same Throne, upon which Jesus Christ sits.

Jesus Christ in Revelation declares the following:

" And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. " Revelation 5:5


I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Revelation 22:16


I don't know exactly what to conclude but Abraham didn't just "pay homage" - he gave Melchisedek the First Fruits and it is written that all subsequent tithes, all First Fruits, are paid likewise in Abraham. This is worship and God prohibits the worship of any other King. Who this man is, he is great, and sitting upon the Throne of David - that I do believe.

Further, tithes as well as all of the law and judgments are in full force and effect. Otherwise there is no hope for our reward, this Priesthood of Melchisedek is the foundation of our reward, hence our tithes solidifies our work and establishes it.

Cordially,

Thomas

[David O]

Very interesting post!

[trueseeker]

I have heard the speculation that Melchizedek is another name for Shem himself. He was still alive at the time of this event. He was obviously greater in statis than Abraham, which few people alive probably were. There was no one alive from previous generations, and he seemed to live on perpetually. He was out living generations of his and his brother's offspring. He was somebody special that must have seemed to them that he knew everything about history and had a on going indestructable life. In this way he represented Christ, no one before Him, knowing everything about the past and a indestructable on going life.

[David O]

I liked that theory until I thought about that part referring to no ancestry. I'm too much of a Wooden Headed Bible Literalist to go for it now.

[Undomiel]

Yesterday @ 10:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136992#post136992)
Thomas2003:

Hi,

One thing you might want to consider is Melek, it means King. (different forms, Molech, Moloch, Melek, Melec). Chisedek means Righteousness, thus King of Righteousness in verse 2.

He is sitting on the Throne of Jerusalem, the promise given to the seed of Abraham - this is no small thing. Isaiah 9:6 tells us one of Christ's titles is Prince of Peace.

In Leviticus and Deuteronomy Moloch Worship, or King Worship, is established as a capital offense. In ancient paganism religion was a department of state whereby the King would dole out favors for dedication of children to state service. God explicity denounced it as a challenge to His Sovereignty and mandated death for all who practice and for those who fail to execute those who practice it.

Hebrews is exhibiting Abraham's actions as being not only consistent with the Covenant - but a necessary outworking of the Covenant. "Without all contradition the less is blessed of the better."

Additionally, in verse 8 we read, "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he received them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." This witness, I believe, must go back to God's testimony concerning the matter:"Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee and Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." Hebrews 5:5-6

Verse 9 says that Levi received tithes and paid them in Abraham. This Melchisedek seems to me to be the root of David, the very same Throne, upon which Jesus Christ sits.

Jesus Christ in Revelation declares the following:

" And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. " Revelation 5:5


I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Revelation 22:16


I don't know exactly what to conclude but Abraham didn't just "pay homage" - he gave Melchisedek the First Fruits and it is written that all subsequent tithes, all First Fruits, are paid likewise in Abraham. This is worship and God prohibits the worship of any other King. Who this man is, he is great, and sitting upon the Throne of David - that I do believe.

Further, tithes as well as all of the law and judgments are in full force and effect. Otherwise there is no hope for our reward, this Priesthood of Melchisedek is the foundation of our reward, hence our tithes solidifies our work and establishes it.

Cordially,

Thomas


Hi Thomas
:hi:

Are you LDS by any chance?

[trueseeker]

David O,

Noah died 100-150 years earlier, since that time there had been no one living from previous generations. So to everyone alive he was the oldest generation, all the rest had past away. Not only before him, but also many generations after Shem had also pasted on. In fact, except for Shem's great grandson Ebner who out lived Shem. Shem out lived 9 generations after him, including Abraham. He finally died when Issac was 105 and Jacob was 45.

Shem had seen the marvels of the preflood world, experienced the flood, experienced the tower of Babel (Ebner would have experienced the tower of Babel also), and was a lone figure in history at that time. There was no one alive from previous generations, therefore his geneology didn't exist anymore, and he appeared to them to have a indestructable life. He was only 11 generations directly from Adam.

If you take the verse so literally to mean that Melchizedek actually had no parents, then who could it be? Not even Christ Himself says he had no parents, He says He proceeded forth from the Father. Even someone specially created like Adam, the scripture lists God as his Father. Unless you decide that Melchizedek is God the Father Himself, you have to interpret that statement as a figurative expression, not a literal statement. :shrug:

[David O]

I can't buy that because of this;

Genesis 7
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

[trueseeker]

David O,

I am referring to Shem, Noah's son, who was with him on the ark.

[David O]

Oops, c'mon George, get me a mouse. I'll hug him and pet him, and call him George.

[Apollos]

Further, tithes as well as all of the law and judgments are in full force and effect. Otherwise there is no hope for our reward, this Priesthood of Melchisedek is the foundation of our reward, hence our tithes solidifies our work and establishes it.

Actually no, tithes and none of the old covenant is in effect today. There was a NEW covenant established by the blood of Jesus Christ. Within this new covenant many of the same principles are re-established in a fuller and more spiritual form, but no tithe is given for Christians to follow – just free-will giving!!.

I must say that is the greatest of error to say that the priesthood OF Melchizdek is the FOUNDATION of our reward.

The foundation of our reward, in fact our whole religion is built upon (and must be) the foundation of JESUS CHRIST !!! (And I assure you there is no tithe that plays a part in this !!!)

Thankx.

[Thomas2003]

Yesterday @ 01:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137423#post137423)
Undomiel:




Hi Thomas
:hi:

Are you LDS by any chance?


Dear Sir,

No, I don't do drugs, thank you! LOL

I'm a Reformed Christian, Calvinist, Theonomist, Postmillinialist - I was just thinking outloud there. As I stated, I don't know how to reconcile it or exactly what to believe about Melchisedek, I'm more inclined to leave it as a mystery. But there are some very interesting concepts that can make one go....hmmmmmm....

Thanks,

Thomas

[Thomas2003]

Yesterday @ 10:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138029#post138029)
Apollos:



Actually no, tithes and none of the old covenant is in effect today. There was a NEW covenant established by the blood of Jesus Christ. Within this new covenant many of the same principles are re-established in a fuller and more spiritual form, but no tithe is given for Christians to follow ? just free-will giving!!.

I must say that is the greatest of error to say that the priesthood OF Melchizdek is the FOUNDATION of our reward.

The foundation of our reward, in fact our whole religion is built upon (and must be) the foundation of JESUS CHRIST !!! (And I assure you there is no tithe that plays a part in this !!!)

Thankx.


Dear Apollos,

Thank you for your response, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion in two respects.

First, I believe the New Testament applies against Judaism and statism in favor of the Old Testament, thus the "New Covenant" is simply the establishment of THE COVENANT God made with Abraham properly interpreted and applied. Thus, other than administration I don't believe there is any change between the testaments - rather just the fulfillment and establishment.

I believe all of the law is in full force and effect. Exception being that Christ ascended to heaven, our sacrificial lamb, and entered into God's presence for us - into the heavenly Temple. The legislation and judgements are still applicable.

Second, my statement regarding Melchisedek was not intended to diminish Jesus Christ - but to glorify Him, it was God who said, "Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedek." I was not saying the foundation of our Faith was Melchisedek, but the foundation of our reward - for it is through this priesthood that Christ's makes intercession and judges our works and rewards them accordingly. (Romans 2:6)

In conclusion, I believe God's Tax, the tithe, is the legal basis of rewards. I believe that without the tithe one cannot establish their work so that it is has eternal reward. It is these firstfruits that that makes the remainder holy. I believe that if a work is to abide it must be of the Faith, God's law on firstfruits is clear to me.

"If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward." 1 Corinthians 3:14

Cordially,

Thomas

[Apollos]

Hey Thomas2003 -

Thank you for the cordial response.

I will be away for a few days, but I will give a more detailed answe then. But here is a point or two to ponder...

Thus, other than administration I don't believe there is any change between the testaments - rather just the fulfillment and establishment.
Please reconcile this thought with Hebrews 7:12 -

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. "

The point the writer is making is that in orer for Christ to become a priest, there had to be a change OF the law (not just in the law). Why? Because uner the old covenant ALL priests HAD TO BE Levites. Christ was of the tribe of Judah - there had to be a change on the law.

I believe all of the law is in full force and effect.

James 2:10 and Galatians 5:3 tell us that IF we keep ONE point of the law we MUST keep it ALL !! How do you reconcile your thoughts with these two passages?? This must include ANIMAL SACRIFICES!! You don't get to pick & choose or do you have a passage that let's you do this? I guess then if there is even ONE EXCEPTION, there is probably a whole NEW covenant full of exceptions. Yes??

I was not saying the foundation of our Faith was Melchisedek, but the foundation of our reward - for it is through this priesthood that Christ's makes intercession and judges our works and rewards them accordingly. (Romans 2:6)
This cannot be so. Our reward and eveything spiritual is made possible by the blood of Jesus Christ. I cannot see how you can separate one from the other.

Second, please note that the priesthood of Christ is "according" or like the priesthood of Melchizedek. Christ did not descend from Mel nor is His divine priesthood derived from the physical priesthood that Mel had. Do not confuse the two and do not think that Christ's priesthood was derived from this earthly, physical priesthood!!

I believe God's Tax, the tithe, is the legal basis of rewards. Christians today have no tithe today because Christ nowhere authorizes a tithe for His disciples today - Col. 3:16 .
The basis of our reward is the santification received via the blood of Jesus Christ. Our labor is not in vain in the Lord. But I sure would like to see how you esatablish this thought if you have the time!

Back next week. Thankx!!

[Thomas2003]

Dear Apollos,

I responded to this the other day, probably spent an hour on it - pressed "Reset" to "Preview" it - felt like fishing and the one that got away! LOL Well, here is a shorter response.

Concerning Hebrews 7:12, I agree there is a change of the law, it is an administrative change in the completed work of Christ. The priesthood of believers has always applied and is conditioned upon the law as Exodus 19:5-6 makes clear:

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

This setting is before the giving of the law and is in reference to the Kingdom of God, it is not sacerdotal, but a spiritual sacrificing priesthood, the goal of this priesthood is to be a royal priesthood, an holy nation (1 Peter 2:5) that reigns on earth. (Revelation 5:10, 20:6) The law is the means of that reign, in spiritual obedience. The sacerdotal role of Aaron was brought to it's completion in the sacrifice of Christ.

Hence, I believe the permissive and restrictive force of the law is now segregated.

James 2:10 and Galatians 5:3 tell us that IF we keep ONE point of the law we MUST keep it ALL !! How do you reconcile your thoughts with these two passages?? This must include ANIMAL SACRIFICES!! You don't get to pick & choose or do you have a passage that let's you do this? I guess then if there is even ONE EXCEPTION, there is probably a whole NEW covenant full of exceptions. Yes??

I believe that Jesus Christ is our perfect law keeper, but that the law is our blueprint for building the Kingdom of God.

First, I think it is important to understand the disparity between Paul and James. I believe they are both in favor of the Law as Law and both against the Law as Mediator, the difference many people perceive is simply in the approach used in Scripture. Paul is using a polemic argument against the Law as Mediator, James is using an apologetic defense of the Law as Law. Paul explains in Romans 3:31 that by faith we establish the Law, and in Romans 7:25 the permissive and restrictive force, saying "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." The law of God in this respect is the same thing James calls the perfect law of Liberty. James 1:25, 2:12

This cannot be so. Our reward and eveything spiritual is made possible by the blood of Jesus Christ. I cannot see how you can separate one from the other.

I don't understand how you perceive I'm separating something. I believe all is brought into union in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, being two natures of man of very man and God of very God, according to the Chalcedon Creed.

Second, please note that the priesthood of Christ is "according" or like the priesthood of Melchizedek. Christ did not descend from Mel nor is His divine priesthood derived from the physical priesthood that Mel had. Do not confuse the two and do not think that Christ's priesthood was derived from this earthly, physical priesthood!!

Here is a point I believe we disagree on, I do believe Christ is fully human and fully divine and His priesthood is after the order of Melchisedek. I believe the Scripture is settled on this. Psalms 110:1, Hebrews 5:6, 6:20

"Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedek."

Christians today have no tithe today because Christ nowhere authorizes a tithe for His disciples today - Col. 3:16 .
The basis of our reward is the santification received via the blood of Jesus Christ. Our labor is not in vain in the Lord. But I sure would like to see how you esatablish this thought if you have the time!

I believe Christians today are the same as any other Christians, such as Abraham, Moses, Aaron, David, Paul, John, James &c. The only difference is the Revelation is complete in Jesus Christ, the Faith is the same, the Law is the same - Christ entered the heavenlies for us and His blood coveres the mercy seat. The sacrafice is finished.

Thus, the Tithe is established through the priesthood of all believers, just as it was in Abraham, just as the Levi's collected tithes and paid them in Abraham.

"And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham." Hebrews 7:8-9

It is the mechanism through which we spiritually establish our work in eternity. 1 Corinthians 3:14

"If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward."

The Church is eternal and is how we secure our reward in the heavenlies during our tenure on earth. This tithe is the means of establishing the eternality of our work, otherwise Scripture indicates it will be burnt up:

"If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." 1 Corinthians 3:15

What I'm confused about, from your position, is how would you know whether or not your work will last? I rest assured in God's word that by the First Fruit the lump is holy, Romans 11:16, we are the First Fruits of Christ's resurrection and our purpose is to do the work we've been called to do - manifest the Kingdom of God in our lives.

Cordially,

Thomas

[Menachem]

The term Malki-zadek laid out in the Hebrew is "My king is rightousness" or "My Rightous King." In Genesis it is used as a proper name for the king of the city of Salem which is Jerusalem in the Time of Abraham. In Pslams 110:4 the context of the use of the Term Malki-zadek is in reference to King David in How HaShem is telling David that he is HaShem's rightous king. If laid out The king had some priest-like funtions as in offereing sin sacrifices for himself but the priest had to complete the ritual so ritual involvement of the king in that manner is restrained to giving the offer and letting the priest do the rest. the reference to "you are a priest forever" in Psalm 110 is in reference to David's reverence of HaShem and how David is all about following HaShem to the end.. and a note on the christian book of Hebrews in my opinion the author was assuming he had no father or mother based on that there was very little information given about Malki-zadek beyond him blessing the Gentile Avram. Avram becomes the first Jew in the next chapter as the covenant is established and his name is changed to Avraham. That is my take on it and i hope to see what you all think..

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Isn't it abraham?

[Menachem]

Bill the Cat:

Isn't it abraham?

Avraham and Abraham are the same thing the Hebrew Alef- Bet-Resh-Heh- Mem can be read as either Avraham with the Hebrew pronunciation or Abraham with the english pronunciation i simply chose Avraham because of how I was raised to say it. and Bet the letter has both a "v"sound and a "b" sound so that is why i say Avraham. sorry for the inconvenience... :thumb: