Sheshbazzar

Hmmm, interesting viewpoint, let's see, "In Hebrew society one is born into a priestly family, ie you are a son of Aaron..."
Of course the Bible is the sole source of the story on the very existence of a "Hebrew society", and the laws, explanations, and history that supported the authority of the Levitical Priesthood, Therefore the authority and validity of the Levitical Priesthood is confirmed by the record, and by that record the sons of Aaron are the Priests. fair enough.
But this same Scriptural record also accounts of another Priesthood, older and preceding that which was established in the lineage of Aaron, and as you also pointed out, not originating in "Hebrew society" but unto Whom "Hebrew society" was ever indebted.
This being of that Priest with whom father Abraham ate and drank, and from Whom Abraham received blessing, (the seed of Levi being yet within his loins receiving and partaking of that same blessing), and unto Whom he gave his tithes.
The Bible is the sole source of this story also, and yet you reason based on the record of Scripture, that the priesthood of Aaron through Levi is to be accounted as legitimate, but that the Priesthood of Melkizedeq through Yahshua the Messiah is not? Point is, if the one of these stories is validated by the record of Scripture, so also is the other.
Of course if Genesis 14:18-20 don't fit in well with your views, and you really believe it to be a "late" interpolation inserted into the text of Genesis during the age of the Hasmonean's, you are free to eliminate it from your 'version'.
For after all, it is only a composition of old lies and fables anyway, right?

spin

Of course, you misunderstand. Gen 14:18-20 fits perfectly into what I've said. It was inserted into the text. It's not found in Jubilees. This is the only passage in the Pentateuch which talks of El Elyon, a popular 2nd c. BCE manner of referring to God. The Melkizedeq episode interrupts Abraham's journey to speak with the king of Sodom. And it short circuits the Hebrew priesthood, indicating that it wasn't around when the Hebrew priesthood was first set up, as that priesthood makes no accommodation for any priesthood of Melkizedeq. Find me just one confirmable use of El Elyon which predates the 2nd c.

Have I ever said that? If it makes you feel good to believe such a thing I won't change your mind. I suggest you stop making silly aspersions.


spin

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

The Westminster Shorter Catechism provides a good summary of Scriptural teaching:

Question 23. What offices doth Christ execute as our Redeemer?

Answer. Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth the offices of a Prophet. of a Priest, and of a King, both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation.

Question 24. How doth Christ execute the office of a Prophet?

Answer. Christ executeth the office of a Prophet, in revealing to us by his Word and Spirit, the will of God for our salvation.

Question 25. How doth Christ execute the office of a Priest?

Answer. Christ executeth the office of a Priest, in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God, and in making continual intercession for us.

Question 26. How doth Christ execute the office of a King?

Answer. Christ executeth the office of a King, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies.



Regarding Christ's priesthood, it is of a higher level than that of the Old Testament. In Hebrews 7, it is written "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.' The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." Hebrews goes on to speak of the oath through which Jesus has become the "guarantee of a better covenant."

Avatar

I may be remembering this wrongly, but wasn't he formally trained as a Rabbi? I'm sure the got some kind of religious education at the time.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Luke 2:41ff speaks of him "sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions." But it goes on to say that "Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers."

spin

This makes no sense, except as an unadorned profession of faith.


spin

Sheshbazzar

It appears from this post that I understood your position quite well, that Gen. 14:18-20 is not authentic "Scripture", while the surrounding verses are to be accepted as authentic, surely that is what your previous posts implied, and what the above statement confirms.
Rather obviously, on the whole, both Judaism and Christianity accept Genesis 14:18-20 as an integral element of the original narrative.
I am a man of faith, and on faith alone am willing to accept that the entire book of Genesis was in its present form at least from the time of Ezra.
If you want to dispute the authenticity of those three verses, I am not the one with whom to take it up, for I'll no more discount the authenticity of these words, than I would the words of Genesis 1:1 or of Genesis 50:26

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

I refer to the typological distinctions which are understood, accepted, and appreciated by adherents to the Christian faith.

spin

But your particular variety of faith has nothing to do with reality or history, does it?


spin

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Even from the days of the Apostle Paul (and before), it has been bearing fruit all over the world!