stephan huller

I am sure that I have left a lot unsaid. Part of that is that I don't know all the answers. In fact that's probably 90% of it. I am so tired from just getting through today that I can't even think. But it is important to remind ourselves that 'Jewish' theology only accounts for one half of the possible 'Hebrew' basis to New Testament literature. The Samaritans are the other. I should mention that I just got word that the deputy high priest of the community just died. When we talk about abstract concepts like the 'earthly and heavenly tabernacle' and the 'high priest' we often forget that the Samaritan tradition has not lost touch with that aspect of the Hebrew experience (it also counts sabbatical years and jubilees). Here is what my friend Benny had to say about the passing of the high priest:



Just to make clear - there were originally two major Samaritan groups in antiquity. What was identified as 'normative' Samaritanism and Dositheanism. The Dosithean doctrine was that the Mountain (the traditional holy place where the earthly tabernacle was supposed to rest so referenced in the Ten Commandments) is not holy without the Tabernacle. It is widely regarded that this view can be reconciled with the Christian doctrine that the earthly Tabernacle is now unnecessary and that only the Heavenly Tabernacle matters.

stephan huller

It is also curious that the only claim that Jerusalem has for being mentioned in the Pentateuch is the Melchizedek reference (Salem supposedly being equated with Jerusalem). The Samaritans of course say this is rubbish. They identify Salem with their sanctuary on Mount Gerizim (see LXX., Gen. 33.18; comp. Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, 9. 17). But if we think of it for a moment, in some sense the Jerusalem priesthood goes back (at least symbolically) to Melchizedek. The Samaritan understanding connects him with the Gerizim sanctuary. The Christian understanding developed from Hebrews simply doesn't make any sense - i.e. that Jesus's line is somehow 'separate' from the priesthood of the Law or 'Aaron' is idiotic. This couldn't have been what the author of Hebrews originally meant given that Samaritans and Jewish identified Melchizedek as the head of their respective orders.

Look at the LXX version of Gen 33:18:

What is most incredible is that both the Masoretic and Samaritan texts here agree against the LXX:

How anyone cannot see that the present Samaritan is not original or has been altered is obvious. But is it Dosithean?

One of the best discussions of this odd situation is found in Magnus Karveit's most amazing book the Samaritans:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lZS...0salem&f=false

stephan huller

It would seem reasonable to suppose that EVERYONE in antiquity assumed that Melchizedek was a divine figure coming to greet Abraham - i.e. the god who managed the heavenly sanctuary. Thus the idea that the gospel was about Jesus a heavenly figure like Melchizedek has a precedent in the Pentateuch.

thief of fire

When the new heavens and ther new earth arrives will this be in forum A or B?

stephan huller

So you want to have a Biblical forum but avoid interpreting the sources as they were originally interpreted or referencing them as they were originally referenced? I like to learn how the Bible was interpreted by people who actually belonged to an ancient tradition. But I don't control the forum so might want to address the powers that be.

thief of fire

Not at all. There was a suggestion that there be two forums, one for referenced threads or posts, and one for everything else. So considering your post allows us to consider how that might work out in practice. Many people post here, though 4-5 will go into the discussion forum for changes here. So, if ever there a was an appropriate time to say something it is probably now.

DCHindley

In Gen 14:18 Melchizedek's lineage is not preserved, only that he is a king and a priest of God Most High (a common god name in the ANE).

The natural understanding I always took away from the passage in Hebrews was that the author was explaining how Jesus could be a priest when EVERYONE knew he was not of Aaronic lineage.

In Hebrews Jesus is clearly both a king as well as a Priest:

(RSV Heb 1:13) But to what angel has he [God] ever said, "Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet"?(1)

(RSV Heb 10:12-13) 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins [his own life], he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 then to wait until his [Christ's] enemies should be made a stool for his feet.(1)

To explain why Jesus had to die, the author of Hebrews enjoins believers of his own day to look at an example set by Abraham:

(RSV Heb 6:15) And thus Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise.(2)

The author of Hebrews explains the significance of Jesus' death in this matter:

(RSV Heb 6:20) ... Jesus has entered [heaven] as a forerunner for us (see Heb 10:12), having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.(3)

That the author of Hebrews did not believe that Jesus Christ could be Melchizedek himself, is this:

(RSV Heb 7:10) [Jesus] was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him [Abraham].

DCH

Notes, the foot ones:

(1) This is clearly an allusion to Psa 110:1, interpreting the Adonai (kurios in Lxx) as referring to Jesus Christ, not to king David:

A Psalm of David. The LORD (YHWH/kurios) says to my Lord (adonai/kurios): "Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet."

(2) The "promise" (singular in Greek) refers either to the promise of blessings and many sons:

(Gen 15:5-6, 15) 5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 And he believed the LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness. … 15:15 As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. …

or to that promise AND the promise of inheritance of greater levant:

Gen 15:18 On that day [actually the day after the day above] the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, …"

(3) That Melchizedek was considered a priest by the final editor of Genesis:

(RSV Gen 14:18) And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High. … 20 And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

stephan huller

Very useful summary DCH. Another question that has to be asked is why would the Jews and Samaritans have connected Melchizedek with an existing heathen covenant at Shechem if God later showed such hostility with the Shechemites. Indeed Kartveit notes that LXX Genesis 33:18 and other sources identify Σικιμων as meaning 'Shechemites.' How can this possibly be reconciled with the same sources praising Simeon and Levi for slaughtering what must presumably be Melchizedek's 'people' or descendants in some sense? The answer must be that Melchizedek is already then cryptically understood heavenly being - the heavenly high priest or high priest of the place at the top of the heavenly elevator which came up from Shechem. Kartveit also shows that the Samaritans agreed with Philo in praising Simeon and Levi for their action.

EarlDoherty

IOW, Melchizedek, when on earth in history, was a priest and acted in that role outside the gate of Jerusalem, including offering bread and wine. Why then did the author of Hebrews not make the obvious parallel that Jesus, too, served as priest outside Jerusalem, i.e., in his alleged sacrifice on Calvary, just outside the gate of Jerusalem? Instead, Jesus is High Priest in a “line” from Melchizedek entirely on the basis of a passage in scripture about God conferring an immortal priesthood. In addition, why, if the offering of bread and wine (in this case in terms of himself) by Jesus in a Last Supper tradition, or Paul’s “Lord’s Supper” scene, was available as an alleged historical event, did the writer of Hebrews not offer it, either in parallel with an historical Melchizedek in scripture or in an exact parallel with Moses when he established the old covenant?

I see nothing here that explains the significance of Jesus’ death. Entering heaven has nothing to do with the death, it has to do with the offering of blood in the heavenly sanctuary, which is what 10:12 refers to. Nor does the parallel with Melchizedek have anything to do with a suffering and death on the part of Melchizedek, so there is no relationship there.

Earl Doherty