I have a different perspective on this topic of Melchizedek than that. Avraham was clear that he would not receive anything from Melchizedek, not even a sandal strap, so if that be the case, I cannot believe that he accepted a “tithe” from him. Personally, I believe that what he accepted was a “portion” of the bread and wine that Melchizedek offered. Melchizedek blessed Abraham in the name of El Elyon, but Avraham quickly corrected that and said, “In the name of YHVH, El Elyon.” He was differentiating between the two, the one Melchizedek served and the One and Only God, YHVH, whom Avraham served.
My husband has an entire paper written on this topic, but for the life of me right now I cannot remember the exact group who worshiped El Elyon. When I find it I will repost it.

• 
  Janice Morris
  January 28, 2019 at 10:03 am  /

  Tina, The Bible does not say the Abraham would not take from Melchizedek. He refused to take for theKing of Sodom. Gen. 14:21-24. Gen. 14:18-21 shows that Melchizedek King of Salem gave Abraham tithes. There is no indication that Abraham refused the tithe.

  Further, Hebrews 5-7 gives us commentary into the this interaction.

  • 
    Sven Brown
    January 29, 2019 at 12:53 pm  /

    You are correct Janice, regarding your response to Tina and the receiving of a tithe.
    But I think you missed a few of the points she was making. Your reply indicates to me you misunderstood the more important parts of her reply.

    Avram did not refuse a ‘tithe,’ as you said. However, Tina was indicating your idea of the ‘tithe’ Avram received may be off. Although tithe is generally accepted as an offering in the temple and to Levites, there are many Hebrew words that have more than one meaning. The temple service and the tithe do not exist at the time of this exchange. Using that definition opposed to another, in this specific situation, is an anachronism (out of place and time). To that point she mentioned that the tithe Avram received was a portion of the meal. This fits the texts of Gen 14:18 where the hiphil verb hoetzee of this verse means Malki-tzedek ’caused the outbringing’ of bread and wine. It does not include giving, just presenting or preparing, in context. There is no giving or eating of the meal in the language through Gen 14:24 where this meeting ends UNLESS you include the last part of Gen 14:20, ” And he gave him a tenth of all.” as the giving of the meal. This is where an alternate definition of ma’asaer (translated here as tenth) in vayyitten-loe ma’asaer mikkoel is warranted. In every other similar use of this word (except this one) there is a clear link to it being associated with an offering, a cohen, or a Levite. However ALL of these other references are AFTER the formation of the priesthood of YHVH in Exo 28:1. In the HALOT there is an alternate definition offered based on the Hebrew word tash’rennah found one time in “…Thou dost greatly enrich it…” (Ps. 65:9 NAS). Because of the context tied to “the earth” before this word and the “waters” after in this verse, using the HALOT reference offers “he causes giving of a drink (waters) to the earth.” There is also the very interesting note in the HALOT referencing the origin of this word is from an Ugaritic word for ‘to give hospitality.’ Ugaritic is the language the Canaanites! Using this definition, based on an Ugaritic word from an Ugaritic king, we should amend Gen 4:20 to “and he (Malki-tzedek) gave him (Avram) from the hospitality [his part] from all.” Yes, this is a bit clunky in English because I am trying to adhere to as literal a translation as possible from the Hebrew text. The “hospitality” is the “tenth” English has poorly translated. This translation is not an anachronism; it actually fits quite nicely. Would you agree?

    I would ask you to look again at Tina’s reply and consider what she said in response to thinking the Canaanites ‘knew’ YHVH. The Canaanite/Ugaritic chief god was El, known as El Elyon. Malki-tzedek was trying to assume authority over Avram and the entire situation in the name of the god of their land and as a local “chief of chieftans” authority. Avram rejects that notion and replies accordingly to the king of Sodom as seen in Gen 14:22-23 using YHVH with the title ‘el elyon’ and not the name of the god El Elyon.

    My last comment regards your reference to Hebrews 5-7. You appear to be indicating that I should go to the NT for its commentary if I have lack of understanding. It appears that you indicate I should use the NT to form my opinions of the OT and not rely, perhaps, on such an analysis as I have done here. Did I understand you correctly?