 |
|
|
"What about those instances in which a demon manifests in a Christian? In most cases the demon entered before the believer's conversion to Christianity, and the evil spirit continued to control some part of the Christian's life because the specific occult sin was never renounced. The demon claims squatters rights."
-- Bob Larson
|
|
| |
Study Resources: The Order of Melchizedek and the Garden of Eden
Posted on Sunday, February 22 @ 14:13:55 PST by John |
|
Immanuel submitted: "I found it very interesting that Melchizedek brings bread and wine “Communion or Lord’s Supper” according to the order of Melchizedek. I guess that would make the Communion service still in affect for the new covenant.
Notice in Gen.14:21 Melchizedek refuses Abram’s tithe and only asks for the persons. What ever that means? Perhaps Jesus is only interested in people coming to Him.
Seems to me the tenth of Abram’s possessions was just cheerful giving towards Melchizedek. The tithe was never required of Abram from Melchizedek.
In Heb.7:9-12 the tithe was a part of Levitical priesthood, and verse 12 says, For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
Abram refuse to take his tithe back therefore the tithe was never a part of the order of Melchizedek.
As part of the Levitical priesthood the tithe was given to the support the priesthood, stranger, widow and orphans.
I believe we are free enough in the Lord to tithe if we want to, but I would also say that we are free to just give an offering with a cheerful heart without keeping track of our finances. Just like the observance of a day.
This is what we can see in the scriptures during the time that Jesus was establishing the new covenant. Jesus as Melchizedek did gave bread and wine, they did not require a tithe although a tithe was given to Melchizedek through Abam.
Jesus did however tell a Pharisee that he should tithe, but the Pharisee was at the time under the law of Moses.
Another way to look at this is we have been restored back to the Garden of Eden “new covenant” though Christ. Adam and Eve never tithed They may have enjoyed a Sabbath like we rest or abiding in Christ. The Sabbath started on the seventh day and continued on every other day until they sinned. When God entered into the Sabbath He rested until Adam and Eve sinned then He went back to work sacrificing a lamb.
Abram and Melchizedek
18. Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
19.And he blessed him and said:
“Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
20.And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”
And he gave him a tithe of all.
21.Now the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself.”
22.But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, the Possessor of heaven and earth,
23.that I will take nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that is yours, lest you should say, “I have made Abram rich’—
24.except only what the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me: Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.”
Hebrews 7
9.Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak,
10.for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
Need for a New Priesthood
11. Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
12.For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law."
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: The Order of Melchizedek and the Garden of Eden (Score: 1)
 by nate4onenation on Monday, February 23 @ 08:08:00 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | What is not of faith is sin so continue if your conscience dictates, but consider the following.
Mat 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:29 I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
Some people get stuck on this last part thinking Christ was referring to us drinking the cup of communion in this fulfilled covenant as a celebration of His return and not His death. I do not believe this to be true. Copies of the Old Covenant do not remain now that the law is fulfilled, so why do we insist the copies of the New Covenant do? Is the New Covenant consummated or not?
There is one point many confuse. Passover was not replaced by communion for all who live in a completed New Covenant. Communion was a copy of the promise of Christ’s blood being partaken by each individual who believed AT HIS RETURN. When they partook of communion, it symbolized the promise they were hoping for. The blood of the New Covenant becoming an internal and forever reality applied to their lives once and for all after He returned for salvation.
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Since I am making a case concerning communion to fellow Christians who are already holding the preterist view, I will not make the case for salvation not being applied until after Christ's return because we already agree for the most part on this point. But in the first communion, Christ gave the disciples another copy of a heavenly truth to follow until His blood of the New Covenant would once and for all be applied to their lives after the consummation of the kingdom.
Read again:
Mat 26:29 I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
When was the next time Christ would drink again of the fruit of the vine? It was a reference to the marriage supper of the Lamb! When the Bride and Groom would be met together in the consummation of the kingdom. When the blood of Christ would finally be applied to all who hoped in its promise and to all who follow in belief after the kingdoms consummation.
Tell me when Christ drank a literal cup of wine and ate real bread "ON THAT DAY"
He didn't. But He said He would drink it in a new way, so He had communion with believers ON THAT DAY, but for anyone to maintain that literal communion is what this means, then you must prove communion would be done in the same manner for a different purpose! You can't prove that.
Communion was, however, partaken of in a different manner, for the same purpose once and for all. Salvation.
This happened for those who were “alive and remained” as well as for those who were taken up. Both parties received the promise of salvation. Those who were alive were presently “changed” and eternal life “clothed” them. Those who were taken up received their new bodies and eternal reward. Are they still doing communion in heaven? Wouldn’t Christ “drink it anew,” in a “new way”, with them as well?
He has partaken of communion with both parties, when His sacrifice was accepted by the Father, and He returned in glory to “recompense to each man according to his works” back in AD 70. We now are also made alive by His blood when we are saved. We become a part of the New Jerusalem, and are cleansed by
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Misreading the passage? (Score: 1)
by JohnC on Monday, February 23 @ 13:46:44 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | The following is not meant to argue one way or another on either the issue of tithing or communion:
When you say, "Melchizedek refuses Abram’s tithe and only asks for the persons," I think you are misreading the passage in question (Gen.14:21). There is a distinction in the text between the king of Salem(Melchizedek) and the king of Sodom, according to the way the passage is rendered in NIV. Melchizedek is not requesting the persons, the king of Sodom is. I verified this in the Expositor's Bible Commentary. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
| 
|
