Your tithes were already paid.

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by Sean

But ye(all saints) are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Brother,
God said the same thing about Israel.

Exodus 19:4-7
Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

Brother,
God said the same thing about Israel.

Exodus 19:4-7
Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him.

The difference is, the only priesthood found in the NT is that of the believer.

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The difference is, the only priesthood found in the NT is that of the believer.

There is no difference, we were grafted in to that which has already existed.

Romans 11:24-26

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

[J.A. Perez]

I'm emphasizing on both fronts for a reason, God's original plan was to have his people reign with him as kings and priests. Remember he came to the Jew first and then we were grafted in because of the hardness of their heart. We became heirs of salvation because of their denial. The spiritual priesthood was all of Israel the literal priesthood was Levite after the order of Aaron. Gods design was to reestablish the priesthood of Melchisedek. So everything we saw in the law was a type and shadow of things to come. The ministry and the Saints but all kings and priests to God.

Hebrews 7:5-17
And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest
should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

The argument is made that Abraham and Jacob did not tie continually. But it is nonetheless right to say that they were the first recorded in history to pay a tithe.

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

Clearly Chapter 7 is about a better priesthood and I better covenant. It is debated among scholars but if you search it out, you will understand that the apostle Paul was talking about himself in this verse. Receiving tithe. ( here man receive tithe) The other thing that is clear about this verse is that when you give tithe or offering, weather by money or food and arraignment, God receiveth them in heavenly places.( but there he receiveth them)

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

Clearly Chapter 7 is about a better priesthood and I better covenant. It is debated among scholars but if you search it out, you will understand that the apostle Paul was talking about himself in this verse. Receiving tithe. ( here man receive tithe) The other thing that is clear about this verse is that when you give tithe or offering, weather by money or food and arraignment, God receiveth them in heavenly places.( but there he receiveth them)

This is the biggest blunder you've made yet. Paul was not referring about himself receiving tithes. I would laugh if it was not so sad.

“And here (the temple in Jerusalem) men that die (the Levitical priests in Jerusalem)receive tithes; but there(in the days of Abraham) he (Melchizedek) receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.”

Father Perez, I implore you to pray about this. You are simply taking extreme liberties with scripture that are not in proper context.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

I'm emphasizing on both fronts for a reason, God's original plan was to have his people reign with him as kings and priests. Remember he came to the Jew first and then we were grafted in because of the hardness of their heart. We became heirs of salvation because of their denial. The spiritual priesthood was all of Israel the literal priesthood was Levite after the order of Aaron. Gods design was to reestablish the priesthood of Melchisedek. So everything we saw in the law was a type and shadow of things to come. The ministry and the Saints but all kings and priests to God.

Hebrews 7:5-17
And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest
should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

The argument is made that Abraham and Jacob did not tie continually. But it is nonetheless right to say that they were the first recorded in history to pay a tithe.

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

Clearly Chapter 7 is about a better priesthood and I better covenant. It is debated among scholars but if you search it out, you will understand that the apostle Paul was talking about himself in this verse. Receiving tithe. ( here man receive tithe) The other thing that is clear about this verse is that when you give tithe or offering, weather by money or food and arraignment, God receiveth them in heavenly places.( but there he receiveth them)

I think you err, on two fronts, with this post.

One: the men "who die" is talking about Levites, as the greater context of the chapter indicates. Note v. 5 "sons of Levi". These "men who die" is contrasted to Melchizedek, or he who has neither "beginning of days, nor end of life".

Two: The Greek text of Hebrews 7:8 does not have an equivalent phrase for "receiveth them" in the second clause. It is supplied by the translators, as is noted by the use of italics in the printed versions of the KJV.

This means the verse should be read as follows:

And here indeed dying men receive tithes. On the other hand, in that place [it is] being testified that he lives on

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/7-8.htm

The context here doesn't really have anything to do with tithing. Rather, it's a contrast between the "sons of Levi" and "Melchizedek". The author is making the case that the Melchizedekian priesthood is greater, and even superior than the priesthood enjoyed by the sons of Levi.

How does he prove his case? By showing that:

One: Melchizedek received tithes from the great patriarch Abraham

Two: That Levi tithed to Melchizedek, through Abraham, being yet unborn

Three: That the sons of Levi all die, but Melchizedek never dies

Four: That the Messiah is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and not after the order of Levi

Five: That Messiah's Melchizedekian priesthood is likewise greater, and ever superior to the priesthood enjoyed by the sons of Levi

Conclusion: The Jewish believers in Jesus, who, because of persecution and trouble received by their unbelieving countrymen, were on the verge of denying Jesus and returning to the Old Covenant. The Epistle to the Hebrews shows why this is a MONUMENTAL mistake that can't be underscored enough.

To revert to Old Covenant Law and the practices thereof is to crucify the Son of God afresh, and to trample under-foot the holy blood of the New Covenant (and etc.).

Therefore, realize and understand that Levi and his priesthood pales in comparison to Jesus and His priesthood. The tithe system enjoyed by the sons of Levi, along with the rest of the Old Covenant practices surrounding the Levitical priesthood are perished. Indeed, the entirety of the Old Covenant with God was dependent upon the Levitical priesthood.

But since Messiah came, forever a priest after the order of Melchizedek, all of that, both Levitical priesthood and the Old Covenant built around that priesthood, is done away with.

So, don't go back to living under the precepts of the Old Covenant, including tithing to the temple and the sons of Levi, or you risk the curse of being one of them that draw back unto perdition, which is to say, that God will take no pleasure in you (Hebrews 10:38-39). Melchizedek and his priesthood is infinitely better than the priesthood of Levi. So, also, is the Messiah and His priesthood. He is even greater than Moses, who gave to Israel the precepts of the entire Old Covenant, including tithing (See Hebrews 3).

Unless and until the whole letter to the Hebrews is understood in its context, including the purpose of its writing, and who the audience is, and what they were going through when they received the letter, that is, what the current events in their lives were and how the letter addressed them, it's nearly impossible to fully grasp the intent and meaning.

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I .

I agree for the most part of what you said.

And if you Read my last paragraph it should clear things up.

However I think it also must be taken into account that not everyone agrees with your understanding, for instance..


"Marvin D. Treece - Hebrews - The Literal Word-

Hebrews 7:8

Translation - and here dying man receive tithes; but there he (takes tithes), while it continues being witnessed that he lives.

And here dying man received tithes. We have the men and de construction which is best represented by men (on one hand) and de (on the other, or but). The preposition 'hode'(here) represents the Levitical priest hood.

This is the present circumstance which the Hebrew writer knew that his readers would except. While 'ekei'(there) represents Melchisedek the present participle 'apothneskoutes' (dying men) is without the article, and should be taken as objectival.

The description is apt for all the tribe of Levi, and anyone outside the perimeter of deity.

The present participle 'marturoumenos'(witness) represents a continuing action. The witness is surely meant to be that of Scripture, but for those who hold two Melchisedek being equivalent to theophany, it means that everyone has the witness by the continued living of the personage.

The verb 'ze' must find its counterpart in the participle 'apothneskoutes'(dying men), and must maintain the same force. It's dying man is and excepted condition, then 'ze'(he lives) must also be excepted. This writer, without earnestly seeking to establish a position, admits the effect of this comparison.

By that, it is implied that Melchisedek still lives.this again, would emphasize the personage as "God" in an appearance. It is no different then the appearance of God, or some divine entity being represented, as seen by Abraham (Genesis 18:2).

The tendency of the Hebrew writer by these two excepted conditions of dying man and he lives causes us to try to gauge the depth of his intended view. It is difficult to look at these two phrases without concluding that the one who lives must be viewed as a continued process.

It is quite amazing to consider the phrases dying man and he lives. If the often he is not in view, then exegesis certainly becomes more difficult."

Because Melchisedek continues so do men that receive tithe.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

Because Melchisedek continues so do men that receive tithe.

This is a nice summary of the passage from a grammatical point of view.

And, as the last line indicates, at the time of writing, the receiving of tithes and the living of Melchizedek were both continuing actions, but note: IT WAS AT THE TIME OF THE WRITING.

Hebrews was written before the sacking of Jerusalem and the loss of the temple and priesthood. So, in the day and time in which the letter was written, it was true to say that men who died continued to receive tithes, just as much as Melchizedek continued to live on, having no "end of days".

But once the temple was destroyed and the priesthood class of Levites annihilated, the continuing action of the verb no longer holds any bearing.

The continuing action of receiving tithes continued as long as the temple stood and the priests and Levites operated. But once that came to an end, so did the continuing action.

After 70 AD, not a soul in all of Judaism received tithes according to the Law. It wasn't until 90 AD at a city called Yavneh that the pharisees got together in council and reconstituted Judaism after the destruction of the temple and loss of priesthood.

They re-instituted the tithe on cattle and the like, but these men were not the appropriate candidates to receive the tithe according to the Law. The tithe then went to the synagogue, instead of the temple, since there was no temple, or class of priests, to receive it.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

I agree for the most part of what you said.

And if you Read my last paragraph it should clear things up.

However I think it also must be taken into account that not everyone agrees with your understanding, for instance..


"Marvin D. Treece - Hebrews - The Literal Word-

Hebrews 7:8

Translation - and here dying man receive tithes; but there he (takes tithes), while it continues being witnessed that he lives.

And here dying man received tithes. We have the men and de construction which is best represented by men (on one hand) and de (on the other, or but). The preposition 'hode'(here) represents the Levitical priest hood.

This is the present circumstance which the Hebrew writer knew that his readers would except. While 'ekei'(there) represents Melchisedek the present participle 'apothneskoutes' (dying men) is without the article, and should be taken as objectival.

The description is apt for all the tribe of Levi, and anyone outside the perimeter of deity.

The present participle 'marturoumenos'(witness) represents a continuing action. The witness is surely meant to be that of Scripture, but for those who hold two Melchisedek being equivalent to theophany, it means that everyone has the witness by the continued living of the personage.

The verb 'ze' must find its counterpart in the participle 'apothneskoutes'(dying men), and must maintain the same force. It's dying man is and excepted condition, then 'ze'(he lives) must also be excepted. This writer, without earnestly seeking to establish a position, admits the effect of this comparison.

By that, it is implied that Melchisedek still lives.this again, would emphasize the personage as "God" in an appearance. It is no different then the appearance of God, or some divine entity being represented, as seen by Abraham (Genesis 18:2).

The tendency of the Hebrew writer by these two excepted conditions of dying man and he lives causes us to try to gauge the depth of his intended view. It is difficult to look at these two phrases without concluding that the one who lives must be viewed as a continued process.

It is quite amazing to consider the phrases dying man and he lives. If the often he is not in view, then exegesis certainly becomes more difficult."

Because Melchisedek continues so do men that receive tithe.

Okay, we are on the subject of Melchisedek now.

Melchisedek was a "type of Christ", right?

Melchisedek received tithes from Abraham, right?

Melchisedek received tithes "in the stead" of Christ, you teach, right?

If a man receives tithes today(as a replacement recipient of tithes to Melchisedek), as Melchisedek did, then they are receiving them in the stead of Christ, right?("give to God when giving you tithes to the church")

You do realize, that by using this passage in Hebrews 7 to make your case, that you are saying that the ministry stand as EQUALS to Melchisedek as the recipient of tithes, and as a replacement to the type of Christ illustrated in the passage.

Brother, this is exactly why we hear..."when you give your tithe, you are giving to God".

They are teaching us that the PASTOR, in a sense, replaces JESUS as your representative to God.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

There is no difference, we were grafted in to that which has already existed.

Romans 11:24-26

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

So then are you ready to publically declare that the 5 fold
New Testament ministry are equivalent to the tribe of Levi? Is your pastor your priest?