BERNIMOORE:

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

JETHRO WAS THE KING OF MIDIAN,

BERNIMOORE:

AND THEY WORSHIP IDOLS

BERNIMOORE:

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

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

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

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

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

BERNIMOORE:

ALSO

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

BERNIMOORE:

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

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

wordtalk:
The point was that Christ was goingg to be established as priest 'after the order of Melchizedek' - and that was indeed going to happen, and it did! On that basis therefore, "the Jews would have protested against David's prophetic declaration of a priest 'after the order of Melchizedek' in Psalm 110"

wordtalk:
the Jew had every right to 'protest' a non-Jewish lineage for those who were to serve as Jewish priest within the declarations of the Law.

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

wordtalk:
2. And the durability rests, not on the man, but on both a 'divine oath' and 'the power of an endless life'. This was to show on what basis the priesthood would be more than 'transcient' and very unlike the 'perpectual' priesthood of Aaron.

wordtalk:
I've given several reasons why the author is focusing on MORE THAN similarities in persons in that chapter, none of which you have addressed.

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

wordtalk:
The key to all this that you're missing is this: DIVINE PROPHECY! The only grounds that the Jew would concede to Melchizedek's priesthood is, like I said earlier, the fact that this particular priesthood 'leaves all other priesthoods behind (such as Jethro's and Potipherah's) and enters directly into the divine records of Jewish prophecy

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

wordtalk:
If that was how the Jews already saw Melchi, what then would have been the need for the author to try to convince them of what they already knew?

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

wordtalk:
Unless you're trying to ignore the question of the DURABILITY of the priesthood, there would be no basis for even bringing in the issue of an 'endless life' here - because the Jew ALREADY viewed the Messiah/Christ as abiding forever according to their Scripture (see John 12:34)

wordtalk:
But if the basis and durability of the priesthood matter to you, then you would only have to seek answers to these two basis questions:

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

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

wordtalk:

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

wordtalk:

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

wordtalk:

However, the issue here is all about the basis of the durability of the priesthood which Christ takes up. If the priesthood of Melchizedek was to be 'for ever',

wordtalk:

So what does that solve for the recipients of Hebrews? Did the Aaronic priesthood draw from the nature of Aaron in order for it to be a 'perpectual' priesthood?

wordtalk:

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

wordtalk:

And no - it is not merely a matter of that weak argument of 'similarities' of persons or priesthood: it goes much more beyond that, as I've shown several times!

wordtalk:

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

wordtalk:

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

wordtalk:

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.

wordtalk:

the priesthood of Melchizedek stands out above all other priesthoods of the OT because it was predicated on a DIVINE OATH

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

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.

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'.

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'.

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.

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

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


Hebrews 7:17 Good News Translation (GNT)

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


or, by another translation to 'assist' -

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

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

. . . or, even this one:


Hebrews 7:17 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

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


NOW USING YOUR ABOVE 'PLEADED' BIBLE TRANSLATIONS,TO SHOW YOUR HYPOCRISY;
a,Good News Translation (GNT)
b,Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
c,Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

LETS SEE HOW THE WORD 'ORDER' WAS RENDERED USING THE 3 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS THAT YOU RELIED ON IN HEB 7:15;
a,Hebrews 7:15
Good News Translation (GNT)

15 The matter becomes even plainer; a different priest has appeared, who is like Melchizedek.
b,Hebrews 7:15
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
15And it is yet more abundantly most evident, if according to the similitude of Melchisedek there doth arise another priest,
c,Hebrews 7:15
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
15 And more yet it is known, if by the order of Melchisedec another priest is risen up; [And more yet it is known, if after the order of Melchisedec another priest riseth;]



FOLLOWING THE 3 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS THAT YOU RELIED ON HEB 7:15,'AFTER THE SIMILITUDE' WAS ACTUALLY TRANSLATED;
a,GNT= WHO IS 'LIKE' b,YLT=THE 'SIMILITUDE' OF c,WYC='AFTER THE ORDER' WHICH MEANS;

'LIKE' IS SAME AS 'SIMILITUDE' IS ALSO SAME AS 'AFTER THE ORDER'.

PLS NOTE THAT THESE ARE YOUR OWN RELIABLE BIBLE REFERENCES,THERE IS NO DENIAL.

SO NOW WORDTALK, WHO IS LYING BETWEEN MYSELF AND YOU,OR WHO IS FORCEFULLY DENYING NOW?


wordtalk,quote
[quote]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.

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

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

Now tell me: how could ANYONE open their eyes and see all these mention of the ORDER of Melchizedek and still DENY the fact by asserting that -
'THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT MELCHIZECK THAT WOULD WARRANT 'AN ALLEGED' 'PRISTHOOD 'ORDER', IT DOES NOT EXIST'
What then do you do with all those verses that establishes the fact beyond your DENIAL?
wordtalk quote;

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

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)?

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.

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.

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'.
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.

so was he effectively saying that other priests were simply called after 'the manner' of Aaron?

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.

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

Is that enough to ground his argument merely on the question of 'manner' of 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.

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?

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.

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.

Only lazy readers of Scripture would let Hebrews 7:14 overshadow all other considerations in the Old Testament

FXKing2012: This has been hugely informative and exciting, wondering how many people in here still think Tithes and the likes apply to us today.

There are not two separate 'priesthoods' - just one. It is called the priesthood AFTER THE ORDER OF Melchizedek. Even Christ is the High Priest of our profession, He is still bearing that priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. It does not mean two separate or different 'priesthoods'.

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

“AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEC”

“after” G2596 - A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time)
“order” G5010 - regular arrangement, that is, (in time) fixed succession (of rank or character)

We are talking about the order; i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Two comes after one.

IF Melchizedec Was The First, After The Order Of Would Constitute The Second. Since The Levitical Priesthood Was Disannulled (Hebrews 7:1 , That Means It Is Treated As Though It Never Was. Therefore, The Priesthood Of Christ Comes After That Of Melchizedec. I Believe It Is As Simple As That.

Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by Joagbaje(m): 17 days & 9 hours


Will you nullify the word of God. Before the law there was Melchizedek order. When the law came ,there was levitical order for a period. Many high priest functioned under the order of levitical priest hood. Now that it has ended we are back to Melchizedek order In which Jesus function. that means the Order never ended. It has always been . The levitical was only an intrusion. This is the real order.

amor4ce: http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/Simon/pdfs/Tithing.pdf

FXKing2012: I stopped tithing after reading posts in here. I pray to God I'm on the right path.

goshen360:

Yes you are on the right path BUT Giving is required of you according to how God blessed you, cheerfully, when needed and when led by the Spirit of God.