- Nov 30, 2003
- 1,437
- 372
- 70
- Faith
- Catholic
- Politics
- US-Republican
True. But Paul is looking for an example where Abraham paid tithes to the person in Heb 7 so that he can continue to make the case from Hebrews 3 that Christ is greater than Moses and than Abraham.
So while you are correct that some other examples exist where there is no back story/history for the character - yet as Hebrews 7 points out Paul is making the case for Christ as High Priest - and only Levites could be a priest according to scripture...so he is making the argument from Abraham that this is one greater than both Levi and Abraham.
This to me is a non-sequiter. It matters not that Paul was just looking for an example. If Moses did not actually write that M. was without parents and Paul was basing his argument off of Moses’ writings, then Paul would be either deliberately deceiving his readers or he was in serious error. In either case, Paul would be disqualified from writing any part of the infallible Word of God. 2/3rds of the New Testament should then be ripped out.
He based it on what his readers would quickly recognize in Moses' writing to make his case that Christ is greater and above that system of priesthood.
And they would have recognized that Paul was reading his own thoughts into Moses’ writing and he would have been kicked out of the Christian community.
Neither did Paul's readers - he simply points out that the historic record for Melchizedek mentions no date of death and no parents mentioned as we find it in the historic account. Paul is using that feature of the account to do a comparison. Type vs antitype.
This is the only thing that Moses wrote about Mechisedek:
After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.”
Genesis 14:17 - 20
Notice that Moses wrote nothing about Melcizedek’s parents or the date of his death.
This is what Paul wrote:
He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.
Hebrews 7:3
Paul did not write simply that Moses did not mention no date of death and no parents, as you said. He wrote that “he is without father or mother or genealogy”. If Paul came to that conclusion from nothing else than Moses’ writings, then Paul would be wrong. There is nothing in Moses’ writing that would lead a reader to this conclusion.
The Lamb was a type of Christ - does not mean that the lamb is God, or God the Son etc. You are not distinguishing between type vs antitype.
First, this is another non-sequiter.
Second, the lamb is not God’s Son but since Jesus is the Son of God and Jesus is the Lamb of God then the Son of God is the Lamb of God.
(Not claiming that his readers should expect to see a very old Melchizedek walking around). - Then He makes the case by contrast that Christ "lives forever".
If Paul made the case that Jesus lives forever based on the above writing of Moses then it would have been a very poor case, since Moses never even implied that Melchizedek never had parents and never died.
3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.
23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.
Paul used this as an argument to prove that Jesus has a Biblical claim to priesthood above all humans.
I agree with Jesus being our high priest forever (which is why we Catholics believe that Jesus’ sacrifice is perpetual in the Mass. If our salvation was finished on Calvary then Jesus would not still be our high priest. When Jesus said “It is finished” He was not saying that our salvation is finished. It is only that He finished all the OT prophesies of His sufferings. Otherwise, He would not continue to be a high priest).
But to have Paul base his argument by twisting the writing of Moses to say something that he never intended to say is either deliberately deceptive or in serious error. I recall Martin Luther once saying that the Bible is so clear to understand that a simple ploughboy could understand it. But if what you argue is true, that Paul taking his argument from Moses even though Moses never intended to say that and yet Paul is nor deceptive nor confused, then that ploughboy would find it hopeless to ever make sense out of the scripture. And at this point I would direct that ploughboy to the nearest Catholic Church to convert. You would have proven to the ploughboy that he needs the Church to help him understand the Bible.
There is a rule in philosophy call Occam’s Razor, which is that the simplest explanation is often the right explanation. We Catholics have a much simpler explanation. The reason that Paul’s argument for Jesus’ perpetual priesthood from Moses seems forced is because Paul never intended his argument to be based on Moses. He was basing it on oral tradition within Judaism. It was oral tradition that said that Melchizedek was without parents and that he never died. With this explanation, Paul would not have been deceptive nor in error. So his writings do not have to be ripped out of the Bible (YAY!) and that ploughboy can continue to be confident that he can understand the Bible without the need for the Catholic Church to interpret it for him (boo!).
Upvote
0