[b]@Zikky

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

THANKS TOO,

LET ALL GLORY BE UNTO THE ALMIGHTY GOD,
I JUST USED THEIR OWN REFFERENCED STRONG HEBREW BIBLE DICTIONARY(newjerusalem.org), AND THE ANSWER THERE WAS JUST UNDISPUTABLE,AT LEAST IT WAS NOT RECCOMENDED FIRST BY ME FIRST,

[color=#000099] WILL THE BIBLE CONTRADICT ITSELF ? IN HEBREW 7:15 AND HEB 7:17?


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

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

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


GOING FURTHER TO G3664 WHERE IT WAS DERIVED, SEE THE MEANING OF WHAT IS RENDERED IN HEB 7:15 AS

‘’AFTER THE 'SIMILITUDE' OF MELCHISEDEC THERE ARISETH ANOTHER PRIEST’’,


G3664

ὅμοιος

homoios

hom'-oy-os

From the base of G3674 ;[i] similar (in appearance or character): - {like} + manner.



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

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order (H1700) of Melchizedek.

Ps 110:4 The LORDH3068 hath sworn,H7650 and will not repentH5162, Thou [art] a priestH3548 for everH5769 after the orderH1700 of Melchizedek.H4442

H1700
דּברה
dibrâh
dib-raw'
Feminine of H1697 ; a {reason} suit or style: - {cause} {end} {estate} {order} regard.

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

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


.AND LIKE I SAID;

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

FAILURE TO DO THAT SHOWS HOW FUTILE AND EMPTY SPECULATION THEY BUILD THEIR BELIEFS.



[/i][/color]

CHEERS.[/b]

tithe and offerings are just mere scams. offering every sunday? my people perish for lack of knowledge

If Christians are royal priests, who amongst them gives tithes, offerings and first fruits to who?

makeitsoon:

tithe and offerings are just mere scams. offering every sunday? my people perish for lack of knowledge

Would u be kind enough to explain why and how u are so sure it's a scam? I really appreciate people talking with facts.

(KJV) Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ

(NIV) Ephesians 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

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?
These false preachers never tell people the truth?

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,

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

Zikkyy:

I believe you already seen my beautiful response above

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

crossman9:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

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

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

Genesis 34:29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.

Deuteronomy 8:17 And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth.

Deuteronomy 8:18 But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.

Ruth 2:1 And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband's, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech; and his name was Boaz.

2 Samuel 2:32 And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man in thine house for ever.

1 Kings 15:20 And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land.

2 Chronicles 1:11 And God said to Solomon, Because this was in thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge my people, over whom I have made thee king:

2 Chronicles 1:12 Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like.

Ezra 9:12 Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.

Esther 10:3 For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed.

Job 21:13 They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave.

Job 31:25 If I rejoice because my wealth was great, and because mine hand had gotten much;

Psalms 44:12 Thou sellest thy people for nought, and dost not increase thy wealth by their price.

Psalms 49:6 They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches;

Psalms 49:10 For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others.

Psalms 66:12 Thou hast caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water: but thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place.

Psalms 112:3 Wealth and riches shall be in his house: and his righteousness endureth for ever.

Proverbs 5:10 Lest strangers be filled with thy wealth; and thy labours be in the house of a stranger;

Proverbs 10:15 The rich man's wealth is his strong city: the destruction of the poor is their poverty.

Proverbs 13:11 Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase.

Proverbs 13:22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.

Proverbs 18:11 The rich man's wealth is his strong city, and as an high wall in his own conceit.

Proverbs 19:4 Wealth maketh many friends; but the poor is separated from his neighbour.

Ecclesiastes 5:19 Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.

Ecclesiastes 6:2 A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.

Jeremiah 49:31 Arise, get you up unto the wealthy nation, that dwelleth without care, saith the LORD, which have neither gates nor bars, which dwell alone.

Zephaniah14:14 And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.

Acts 19:25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said,
Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.

1 Corinthians 10:24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

crossman9:

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

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

Acts 4:32-37

New International Version (NIV)


The Believers Share Their Possessions
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

This should be my 601th post.

Zikkyy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

Okay, let me simplify it for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Giving and sharing not sowing
1 Corinthians 9 (King James Version)
1 Corinthians 9
King James Version (KJV)
1 Corinthians 9
1 Corinthians 9:1Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
1 Corinthians 9:2If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 9:3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
1 Corinthians 9:4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 9:6Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
1 Corinthians 9:7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
1 Corinthians 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
1 Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
1 Corinthians 9:10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
1 Corinthians 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
1 Corinthians 9:12If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
1 Corinthians 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
1 Corinthians 9:14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
1 Corinthians 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.
1 Corinthians 9:16For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
1 Corinthians 9:17For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
1 Corinthians 9:18What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
1 Corinthians 9:19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1 Corinthians 9:20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1 Corinthians 9:21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1 Corinthians 9:22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1 Corinthians 9:23And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
1 Corinthians 9:24Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
1 Corinthians 9:25And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
1 Corinthians 9:26I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
1 Corinthians 9:27But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
1 Corinthians 9:1-25 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
1 Corinthians 9
Paul’s Rights as an Apostle
1 Corinthians 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?
1 Corinthians 9:2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 9:3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me.
1 Corinthians 9:4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[a]?
1 Corinthians 9:6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?
1 Corinthians 9:7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk?
1 Corinthians 9:8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”[b] Is it about oxen that God is concerned?
1 Corinthians 9:10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.
1 Corinthians 9:11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?
1 Corinthians 9:12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.
1 Corinthians 9:13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?
1 Corinthians 9:14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
1 Corinthians 9:15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast.
1 Corinthians 9:16 For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!
1 Corinthians 9:17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.
Paul’s Use of His Freedom
1 Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
1 Corinthians 9:21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
The Need for Self-Discipline
1 Corinthians 9:24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.
Footnotes:
a. 1 Corinthians 9:5 That is, Peter
b. 1 Corinthians 9:9 Deut. 25:4
Acts 4:32-37
New International Version (NIV)
The Believers Share Their Possessions
Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
Acts 4:33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all
Acts 4:34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
Acts 4:35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Acts 4:36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 5
New International Version (NIV)
Acts 5
Ananias and Sapphira
Acts 5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.
Acts 5:2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
Acts 5:5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
Acts 5:7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
Acts 5:9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
Acts 5:10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
2 Corinthians 9
Generosity Encouraged
2 Corinthians 9
2 Corinthians 9:6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.
7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
9 As it is written: “They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; their righteousness endures forever.”[a]
2 Corinthians 9:10 Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness.
2 Corinthians 9:11 You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.
2 Corinthians 9:12 This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of the Lord’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God.
2 Corinthians 9:13 Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, others will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else.
2 Corinthians 9:14 And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because of the surpassing grace God has given you.
2 Corinthians 9:15 Thanks be to God for his indescribable g

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-887094.0.html

check this link

crossman9:

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

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

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

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

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

crossman9:

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zikkyy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@BERNIMOORE,

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

So, let's take a few from yours -

BERNIMOORE:

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

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

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

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

HOWEVER, there are two things to bear out here:

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

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

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

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

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

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

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

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

OR, SUCH A PRIEST AS HE WAS.

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

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

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

HE WOULD NOT BE OF THE TRIBE OF LEVI;

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

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

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

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

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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