Red Herrings??? Hmmmm... examining your argument is a distraction? Sorry - I didn't realise we were supposed to take everything you say at face value. I can appreciate how it must be difficult for you to be asked to explain your handling of scripture. Nonetheless it seems to me that it's actually pertinent to the discussion.
There is no problem discussing my handling of Scripture ... just as there should be no problem discussing your handling of Scripture. However, stating the so-called "folly" of "my approach" which just so happens to be a point made in Hebrews 7:14 is indeed a red herring. God's word makes a point about the silence of priests from the tribe of Judah. God specified the Levites would be priests. Although He was silent about the tribe of Judah, they simply weren't authorized to be Levitical priests. That meant Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest. The point? God called Him to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek according to Psalm 110:4. "Silence" is brought up in Heb. 7:14 to support why Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Like it or not, when God specifies what He wants, "silence" about other so-called options doesn't authorize any of them. Rather, only that which is specified is authorized. You know, I don't think this principle is that hard to understand. However, the application of this principle to issues such as IM is surely going to present problems for some. Therefore, such folks are faced with decisions: either discredit or undermine the point being made in Hebrews 7:14, or change the way they view passages such as Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 and simply do the things God specified in those passages.
Let's apply some integrity to the discussion and reexamine the way it has progressed.
You concluded: Rather, it prohibited them from being priests.
To be fair, your preceding sentence acknowledged that Jesus couldn't be a "Levitical" priest, but you have regularly missed that qualifier in your argument. I'd suggest that it's a very important qualifier but an inconvenient one for your argument.
Thanks for being fair and acknowledging what I said in its context. I do not believe that Hebrews 7:14-17 is teaching that Jesus couldn't be a priest - that point is made in 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:6,10; 6:20; and is the basis for the discussion in chapter 7 ... that continues through chapter 10. The point being made in Heb. 7:14-17 is that Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest. And, an additional point is also emphasized in this text. The change in priesthood meant that there would also be a change in the law, which was discussed in 8:6-13.
Frankly, I think the point in Hebrews 7:14 is a valid principle that needs to be considered when people attempt to deviate from what God specified. If the point is invalid, then please explain to us why it's even there. Do you think God makes invalid points? Uses poor reasoning skills? By all means, if my understanding of Heb. 7:14 is amiss, then please explain to us exactly what the point is of this passage in its context.
Firstly - I agree 100% that it says that the scripture is silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. I've never argued otherwise. The issue isn't whether or not it's stated but whether or not it is being interpreted and applied correctly in your argument. That's what I'm disputing and I'd suggest that it's arrogant to insist that your argument is necessarily God's argument.
Good. You acknowledge what the passage plainly says. Now, why exactly is it "arrogant" (another personal attach - a red herring) to think that when God specifies what He wants (e.g. priests from the tribe of Levi), His silence doesn't authorized something else (e.g. priests from the tribe of Judah). I'm kind of lost here. You acknowledge what the passage says, but don't give us any indication at all of how we should apply the principle taught in the passage. But, I'm "arrogant" for accepting what the passage teaches and applying it. Help me out here. Surely now, since you are not blinded by a beam in your own eye (i.e. Matt. 7:1-6), and should be able to help us see the truth revealed in Heb. 7:14.
Now let's consider it carefully.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Now - it's very clearly demonstrated here that scripture is silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. Noone could dispute that... BUT how is it applied?
If it's concluded that silence prohibits, then it necessarily follows that this passage would conclude that Jesus couldn't be a priest at all, wouldn't it? Any other conclusion demands that He could be a priest DESPITE scripture's silence on that point.
No, it wouldn't and it doesn't. Assuming that you have indeed studied the book of Hebrews, you should be familiar with the previous passages that declare that Jesus is a High Priest (3:1, 4:14-15) after the order of Melchizedek (5:6,10; 6:20). Note carefully the point being made in Hebrews 7:14-17. It's not that Jesus couldn't be a priest period. The point is that Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest. That is the point. It's supports why Jesus was a priest of a different order. He wasn't authorized to be a Levitical priest. However, He was authorized to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek, which genealogy played no part in (7:3).
To make sure the point is clear, Jesus' genealogy is only a factor to be considered when evaluting whether or not He could have been a Levitical priest. He couldn't. God specified the Levites. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. Therefore, He couldn't have been a Levitical priest. Rather, He was a priest of an order that genealogy played no factor in whatsover.
Far from making the point that silence prohibits, it emphasises the point I've made all along - that we should consider what IS said instead of focussing on what isn't.
Sorry, but the point being stressed in Hebrews 7:14-17 is that silence indeed prohibits. It meant that Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest. If a point can't be made about God's silence when He specified what He wanted, then the writer of Hebrews made an invalid point - which would also mean that God made an invalid point (2 Tim. 3:16a). That, my friend, is not a valid conclusion in my reasoning.
I agree. We should focus on what is said rather than what isn't said. That is why I brought up the example earlier of Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10 and got a for my efforts.
Mightn't the argument be better understood along the lines of:
"Scripture is silent about priests coming from the tribe of Judah. Right?
And only Levites can be priests. Right?
So Jesus can't be a priest. Right?
WRONG! Don't forget good old Melchizadek. He wasn't a Levitical priest but he was still a priest. In fact his is a better priesthood and that's the sort of priest Jesus is."
The red-bolded font shows where the wrong conclusion was drawn that make your next conclusion also wrong. While it is true that only the Levites could have been priests under the Levitical system (which was coupled with the law of Moses), you have overlooked a point being made in the latter part of Heb. 7:3 about Melchizedek - "having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually" (NKJV). The point? There is no record of Melchizedek's birth nor death. Therefore, his office remained open. And, as the writer goes on to explain, Jesus filled that open office.
Now I agree entirely with the point that noone other than Levites could be a Levitical priest. I've never argued against that either... BUT it in no way whatsover makes a case for silence prohibiting.
Whether or not you like the consequences, Hebrews 7:14-17 is indeed making a case that God's silence doesn't authorize when He specified what He wanted.
NOW - to the Noah situation again.
Ummm... That's my conclusion too. Noah did as God asked. Again - the issue was never about what scripture said. It was about your understanding and application of what it says. What I asked for is evidence that Noah approached the matter by considering what the silence meant. I submit that there is none and further that the only evidence we have is that he followed the positive instruction.
Peace
Actually, Noah's consideration of God's silence wasn't a point I made. The point I was after is how we should understand Noah's faith i.e. Hebrews 11:7. Being the man of faith that he was, he did just what God told him (Gen. 6:22). Today, looking back at what God told Noah and his example of obedience, there is a lesson there for us to follow. And, if we are tempted to deviate from God's will for us today under the gospel of Christ, we indeed should apply the principle taught in Hebrews 7:14. For sure, Noah didn't deviate. Neither should we. God doesn't have to list all the things that aren't acceptable when He specifies what He wants. He didn't when He specified Levite priests ... and He didn't when He specified gopherwood. I believe it is God's will that we learn from His word and apply things like this in our lives today (Rom. 15:4).
Upvote
0