(7:14)
(7:3)
To the contrary, the entire argument of the epistle depends upon both of these points. Melchizedek has to lack a recorded genealogy (or at least it helps our author's case that he lacks a recorded genealogy) so as to inaugurate a priesthood which does not rely upon genealogical descent, precisely in order that the Judahite Christ might be a priest of some kind (= a priest after the order of Melchizedek).Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:10 amFor it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
(7:14)
Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
(7:3)
this is a non-sequitur, a failed harmonization. One can be a priest of some kind (= a priest after the order of Melchizedek), only if he is as Melchizedek, without genealogy, hence without link with human tribes.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:34 pmTo the contrary, the entire argument of the epistle depends upon both of these points. Melchizedek has to lack a recorded genealogy (or at least it helps our author's case that he lacks a recorded genealogy) so as to inaugurate a priesthood which does not rely upon genealogical descent, precisely in order that the Judahite Christ might be a priest of some kind (= a priest after the order of Melchizedek).Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:10 amFor it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
(7:14)
Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
(7:3)
That is not what Hebrews says, nor how it argues. You are misreading the epistle.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:19 pmthis is a non-sequitur, a failed harmonization. One can be a priest of some kind (= a priest after the order of Melchizedek), only if he is as Melchizedek, without genealogy, hence without link with human tribes.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:34 pmTo the contrary, the entire argument of the epistle depends upon both of these points. Melchizedek has to lack a recorded genealogy (or at least it helps our author's case that he lacks a recorded genealogy) so as to inaugurate a priesthood which does not rely upon genealogical descent, precisely in order that the Judahite Christ might be a priest of some kind (= a priest after the order of Melchizedek).Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:10 amFor it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
(7:14)
Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
(7:3)
That is not true at all. The epistle makes a very straightforward argument to the effect that Jesus belongs to "the order of Melchizedek" (τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ), a status which was already apparently applied to kings (not of priestly descent) in Psalm 110 (OG 109). It is all there; you just have to read it and understand it.
Lots of Christians thought and still think both that Jesus was born and that he had no beginning of days. It is impossible; and yet millions believe it.
This verse says exactly what I was saying: the order of Melchizedek is not based upon ancestry. So your last clause is correct: it it not because Melchizedek and Jesus are not from Levi but from Judah; rather, it is regardless of tribe.Not only this. The verse 7:14 goes directly against 7:15-16:
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.
Melchizedek has to lack a recorded genealogy not because the Judahite Christ will become priest forever, but in virtue of the his (of Mekizedek and of Jesus) "indestructible life". In other terms, Jesus becomes a new Melkizedek in virtue of the his feature shared with Melkizedek (the possession of an "indestructible life"), not in virtue of the his being not from Levi but from Judah.
This is an Argument from Snowball: the Christians of today have to accept the entire snowball, not the Christians of yesterday.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:26 am Lots of Christians thought and still think both that Jesus was born and that he had no beginning of days. It is impossible; and yet millions believe it.
No, my last clause is that Jesus is the new Melkizedek not because he is from Judah as opposed to Levi, but because he is without birth just as Melkizedek, sharing with him a life forever.This verse says exactly what I was saying: the order of Melchizedek is not based upon ancestry. So your last clause is correct: it it not because Melchizedek and Jesus are not from Levi but from Judah; rather, t is regardless of tribe.
What is the difference, since both are eternal beings?But the author does not say that Jesus became like Melchizedek. In 7.3 he says that Melchizedek became like the Son of God, the other way around from how you put it.
I don't think that Melkizedek is a midrashic figure. He was an archangel adored in Qumran, for example.
The bit about Melchizedek and Jesus sharing an "indestructible life" is a direct interpretation of the Psalm: "you are a priest forever."