Poster | Thread | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | The distinction I made Ron was that the priestly order of Melchizedec has always existed. No matter who one thinks occupied this order. The order itself has always existed.
I don't believe is has. The 'order of Melchizedek' is a bible way of saying Christ is a Priest-King. Israelites were taught that they could have no priest-king, but Zechariah predicted it and Christ fulfilled it. Heb 2:17 speaks of Christ's 'becoming a merciful and faithful highpriest'. This took place on his ascension to heaven. I cannot see why there should ever have been a Melchizedek priesthood prior to this, and can't think of anyone who might have filled the role.
As regards Daniel's 70 weeks I suspect my prophetic interpretations would be quite different to most folks'. _________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2004/3/12 17:54 | Profile | rookie Member
Joined: 2003/6/3 Posts: 4821 Savannah TN
| Re: | | What purpose did Melchizedec serve Abraham? "Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedec met him." Hebrews 7:9-10 Tithes were actually paid to Melchizedec through Abraham by those who lived and officiated at the altar under the Aaronic priesthood.
Also, the Scriptures says of Melchizedec, "remains a priest continually." Hebrews 7:3 This is why I say that the order of Melchizedec coexisted with the Aaronic priesthood.
Secondly, start a thread, you have piqued my interest.
In Christ Jeff _________________ Jeff Marshalek
|
| 2004/3/12 18:05 | Profile | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | Also, the Scriptures says of Melchizedec, "remains a priest continually." Hebrews 7:3 This is why I say that the order of Melchizedec coexisted with the Aaronic priesthood.
Hi Jeff "I remain bald, continually" but I wasn't always bald. There was a time when I wasn't bald. (I have the photos to prove it.) However, I became bald at a point in time, and since that time I have 'remained bald, continually'.
Get my point? :-D
Hebrews is using the bible picture of Melchizedek as a one-off, none-successive, king-priest as a type of Christ. He did not inherit his priest-king role, nor will he bequeath it to another. It is his, alone, forever. The writer is setting up the scene ready for the later statement that Christ's is a non-transferable priesthood. [Heb 7:24]
As regards another thread... do you mean regarding Abraham and Mechizedek? Patience, my brother, at our current rate of progress the Abraham, My Friend series should reach Melchizedek within the next 5 years! :-o _________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2004/3/13 5:15 | Profile | eagleswings Member
Joined: 2003/12/30 Posts: 297 Connecticut, USA
| Re: The Order of Melchizedek | | "I became bald at a point in time."
When I wrote the following for the Priesthood and Life thread I was unaware of your example, "a point in time". Honest(ly) :-)
Forasmuch then as the CHILDREN are partakers of flesh and blood, the incarnation and the perfecting of His calling, his vocation IN POINT OF TIME, were necessary. He also Himself likewise took part of the same (flesh and blood); that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil (Heb.2:14) Moreover, in the process of bringing many SONS to glory -- saving us and calling us to a HOLY CALLING, i.e. PRIESTHOOD through DEATH, resurrection, ascension and exaltation, -- He not only abolished death, but brought LIFE and incorruptibility to light through the gospel which is the POWER of God for salvation to everyone who believes (2 Timothy 1:9,10; Romans 1:16).
See the thread Priesthood and Life through and as of 2004 /3/13 5:58
_________________ Roger P.
|
| 2004/3/13 6:15 | Profile | Delboy Member
Joined: 2004/2/8 Posts: 199 Worthing UK
| Re: The Order of Melchizedek | | Hay, do you have to be bald to participate in this thread? Or even join The Order of Melchizedek? Ha Ha :-D _________________ derek Eyre
|
| 2004/3/13 6:28 | Profile | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | Hay, do you have to be bald to participate in this thread? Or even join The Order of Melchizedek?
No, there's no favouritism here. In any case we know that God has balanced this thing fairly evenly. To some He gave hair, the others He made good looking.
_________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2004/3/13 10:57 | Profile | rookie Member
Joined: 2003/6/3 Posts: 4821 Savannah TN
| Re: | | "I became bald at a point in time." You also had hair during your lifetime. I myself am approaching the point in time when I will share in your experience. However, the focus of this argument looks to a specific point in time.
My question, then based on looking to a point in time, Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedec at a specific point in time. Likewise, the writer of Hebrews also uses this same point in time to say that the Levitical priesthood figuratively paid tithes to this Melchizedec at this moment in time that occured approximately 3700 years ago.(?) Now according to the Law who did the Aaronic priesthood pay tithes to?
In Christ Jeff _________________ Jeff Marshalek
|
| 2004/3/13 13:19 | Profile | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | Jeff writes My question, then based on looking to a point in time, Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedec at a specific point in time. Likewise, the writer of Hebrews also uses this same point in time to say that the Levitical priesthood figuratively paid tithes to this Melchizedec at this moment in time that occured approximately 3700 years ago.(?) Now according to the Law who did the Aaronic priesthood pay tithes to?
Hi Jeff Sorry to hear you are approaching the time of life when you may become "folically challenged". (just in case any politically correct spys visit this site and think we are prejudiced against baldees)
Ah, I see where you are coming from. I'm glad you see that the Levitical priesthood figuratively paid tithes. We are in the world of figures, types and shadows here. I have often wondered who received the priests' tithes and have concluded that the priests received the priests tithes. Each priest needed a priest, so the gave their tithes not to themselves as an individual but into the 'priests' fund'.
We know that the funds never went beyong the Levitical priests so there was no literal Melchizedek Priests that the Levitical Priests paid tithes too. This whole passage is designed to show the inherent superiority of King-Priests to Levitical Priesthood. Abraham 'paid tithes' to Melchizedek, but only once. However, this sets a precedent showing that the Melchizedek kind of priesthood is inherently superior to that of Aaron. Abraham never paid tithes to Aaron, but Abraham did pay tithes to Melchizedek. Hence, Melchizedek is greater than the 'father' of Levi (and Aaron).
It leads on to this important verse [/color] [color=0000FF]12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.[/color]Heb 7:12. Notice that this is why the Levitical priesthood came to an end. The word 'changed' is [color=0000FF]metatithEmi[/color] which means "to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other"). In other words, the Melchizedek priesthood never co-existed with the Levitical, it replaced it.
If the Melchizedek priesthood had been in existence there would never have been a need for the "additional and temporary law"; [color=0000FF] Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.[/color][Gal 3:19] As soon as Christ came (and fulfilled His calling) a new priesthood was established.
The Levitical priesthood was originally "Aaron and his children". The new Melchizedek priesthood is also "[color=0000FF]I and the children which God hath given me[/color]". [Heb 2:13. The Levitical priesthood was under an anointed (Christed) head. But those who had the 'blood of Aaron in their veins' were also potentially qualified as priests. The Melchizedek highpriest is Christ; the priests who serve under him will be those who have the highpriest's life in them.
Lars has begun a series of quotes from T Austin Sparkes. [color=FF0033]Priesthood and Life[/color]. It looks good and I would recommend you to follow it through; I intend to do so _________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2004/3/13 14:50 | Profile | rookie Member
Joined: 2003/6/3 Posts: 4821 Savannah TN
| Re: | | Ron wrote:
Sorry to hear you are approaching the time of life when you may become "folically challenged". (just in case any politically correct spys visit this site and think we are prejudiced against baldees)
One of the benefits of being folically challenged has been realized in the fact that the students here at UCLA has begun to open doors for me.
Ron also wrote:
Ah, I see where you are coming from. I'm glad you see that the Levitical priesthood figuratively paid tithes. We are in the world of figures, types and shadows here. I have often wondered who received the priests' tithes and have concluded that the priests received the priests tithes. Each priest needed a priest, so the gave their tithes not to themselves as an individual but into the 'priests' fund'.
In response I see something different. "For I am the Lord, I do not change; therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. Yet from the days of your fathers you have gone away from My ordinances and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you." Says the Lord of hosts. But you said, "In what shall we return?" [b]Will a man rob God?[/b] Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, "In what way have we robbed You?" [b]In tithes and offerings.[/b] You are cused with a curse, for you have robbed Me, even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse,..." Malachi 3:6-10
Ron you are correct in that the Levitical Priests placed their tithes and offerings in the storehouse. Here in Malachi we see that God declares that the storehouse is His. So I believe that I am correct in saying that the Levitical Priesthood paid their tithes to God.
I will address your other thoughts as time permits. I have some students waiting to open the doors for me.
In Christ Jeff _________________ Jeff Marshalek
|
| 2004/3/15 12:30 | Profile | Agent001 Member
Joined: 2003/9/30 Posts: 386 Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| Re: | | Hi all, Philologos (Ron) says: Quote:
Hebrews is using the bible picture of Melchizedek as a one-off, none-successive, king-priest as a type of Christ. He did not inherit his priest-king role, nor will he bequeath it to another. It is his, alone, forever. The writer is setting up the scene ready for the later statement that Christ's is a non-transferable priesthood. [Heb 7:24]
I agree. I suspect this is the one point where most disagreements arise from. _________________ Sam
|
| 2004/3/15 15:54 | Profile |
|