Posted by Steve B., et al on 9/13/2001, 1:47 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 7/29/2001, 1:23 pm Cliff, I don't know if you're still reading this board, but back in the early part of the month, in the context of our discussion of trinitarian doctrine, you wrote this: We could take one difficult scripture at a time and wrestle out the alternative interpretations for the two positions of Oneness vs Trinity...and stick to that scripture and the rules... I replied that I thought this was a good suggestion, and offered to let you pick the first scripture, although I also noted I would be going on vacation for awhile. I've now returned from vacation, and though I don't see that you taken this up yet, or even if you care to any longer, I myself am still interested. In the absence of a suggested passage from yourself, I would like to discuss Hebrews 6:20-7:3, the analogy between Jesus and Melchisedek. This has the advantage of also being one of the verses Steve M. asked me to address in Lanny's posting of the same period. I had earlier said of this passage that it was one of the passages that showed the New Testament authors quite clearly thought of Jesus as the pre-existent Son of God. Lanny's counter-statement was this: [T]his is typololocal and refering back to Melchesedic who has no lineage recorded in the Bible. The point is this: All earthly priests derived their office from their Aaronic lineage. Christ was from Judah. How then could he be a priest? Using a typological argument the writer says Christ is a priest after Melchesidek who also had no earthly lineage for the foundation of his priesthood. In fact Mel... is superior to Aaron in that Aaron (in the loins of Abrahan) paid tithes to Mel. All this is full of typology and revelation and has nothing to do with pre-existance. What Lanny says would be true if this passage in Hebrews did not include the phrase "having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God..." That is, the author has already gone far enough to establish that Melchizedek lacked a priestly genealogy by saying "without father, without mother, without descent." By specifically adding that he did not have beginning or end, and that in this he was made like the Son of God, the author goes further than the question of genealogy, although that of course is in view also. The broad picture being painted here is this—Melchisedek is labeled a priest long before the establishment of the Levitical priesthood, but very sketchy details are given about him. We know that after the Jewish law was given to Moses, the priesthood was available only to those men descended from Aaron, and that much importance was consequently placed on one's geneaolgy. In Melchisedek's case no genealogy is given (nor even possible, since he predates the man from whom priests were supposed to be descended) and the names of his mother and father are not even recorded. All of this makes him anomalous among Biblically designated priests, so his priesthood is by necessity of a different order. He is somewhat of a mysterious personage. The Bible does not tell us of his birth, nor of his death – it only tells us that he was a priest. The author of Hebrews uses this fact to make a figurative application. He posits the existence of an “order of Melchisedek” not referred to elswhere in the Bible. Later in Hebrews, he is to say Jesus is made a high priest “after this order.” Here in 6:20-7:3 he introduces Melchisedek's story, and then begins enumerating characteristics of the order of Melchisedek – the things that its members hold in common and that distinguish them as being of this order. He starts off, “First...,” showing he is beginning a related series of things. The first thing he mentions is that Melchisedek is “by interpretation, King of Righteousness.” This is because that is the meaning of the Hebrew name “Melchisedek.” So can we be agreed that this item in the list pertains to Melchisedek in one sense – that he is not the true, literal “King of Righteousness” but that is the meaning of his Hebrew name? And can we also be agreed that this item applies to Jesus in another sense? That is, Jesus' name is not Melchisedek, but he is the true King of Righteousness. And so on we go down the list. An allegorical application is being made: Melchisedek is called the King of Salem because in this case he is (apparently) the literal King of Salem – he ruled in the city of that name. But Jesus is King of Salem in a different sense – he never bore earthly rule in Salem (or at least not yet, and not in the limited role that Melchisedec did) but he is the King of “Peace,” which is the meaning of the Hebrew word “Salem.” Then we come to “without father, without mother, without descent...” Since the other items in the list of which this phrase is a part all pertain to Melchisedek, would one be unreasonable to conclude that this also pertains to him in some sense? But the question remains then, in what sense is Melchisedek without father and without mother? I believe that the author is continuing to speak allegorically, as indeed we know the Bible does in other places (such as the passage in Galatians where Paul says of Hagar and Sarah, “Such things are an allegory...,”). I do not believe that the author meant us to understand that Melchisedek literally popped into existence without father or mother, but rather that the fact that Melchisedek appears that way in the Bible serves as an allegory. The Bible does not tell us who Melchisedek's father or mother or family is; it does not count those things as sufficiently important to record, and his existence as a priest in the Biblical narrative does not depend upon them. Therefore, for the author's purposes in the book of Hebrews, he can be regarded as not having them. The author then tells us that Melchisedek had “neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” I also believe that these final items in the list are in the category established by the earlier items – they serve to alleorically show how Jesus and Melchisedec belong to the same priesthood. They apply to Melchisedek in one sense and to Jesus in a different sense, but it is a sense which is nevertheless recognizable as being first suggested by the example of Melchisedek. My interpretation is that these items continue to be true of both Jesus and Melchisedek as showing they belong to the same order. I say that they are true of Melchisedek in a figurative or allegorical sense – the Bible does not record this information of him and so to us his life and ministry have no known beginning or end. And I say that for the author's point to be made, these items must then also apply to Jesus in some sense. But in what sense can they apply? A beginning for the man Jesus is recorded in the Scriptures for us, so it does not apply in the exact sense it applies to Melchisedek. Do we perhaps have a hint to what sense is meant when we note it is not the name “Jesus” that is used here but rather “the Son of God?” I think so. I think that the man Jesus had a beginning but the Son of God did not, and I think that this passage's argument can only be made because the eternal Son of God took on human form and likeness in the man Jesus. In other words, I think the logic of the passage demands that the Son of God, in order to be a model for Melchizedek to be “made like unto,” be without beginning of days or end of life. We agree that the Son of God is literally without end of life. Therefore I say that the only reasonable interpretation is that the Son of God is also literally without a beginning of days. To me, this is not only a reasonable interpretation, but the only possible interpretation the passage can have. Any other violates the internal logic and structure of the case the author is making here. To sum up, the passage shows that Christ's pre-existence was not controversial to the Biblical authors. They so easily assumed it to be true that they could use it to illustrate a point in an argument without fearing that it would introduce any controversial issues. If a Son of God without beginning of days (i.e., a pre-existent Christ) were a pagan, Greek concept that was to be guarded against, a verse like Hebrews 7:3 could never have been penned by a disciple of Jesus without careful explanation and qualification. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- Posted by Cliff on 8/11/2001, 1:03 am , in reply to "Taking Cliff's suggestion..." I suppose it would be the higher road to tackle your arguements. But since I first made that statement, I have had a change of heart. I know that many of these scriptures can be argued both ways. And you provide some strong arguements. I also know that you have no intention of changing position, just as I have no intention of changing mine. In a scriptural sense this dicussion is just "spilling our seed on the ground". I have some dear friends here, who are very Trinitarian. I am fairly alone in my beliefs. I fully support your right to believe the way you do, and I would dearly love to see you bring more people to the Lord. You fight well for your principles. Because you believe it does not make it true. Because I believe something, also is not the supreme validation. These are very complex arguements that you have chosen, and I chose the simple ones. I would prefer to stand on what kind of being died on the cross? did he die as a man only? does "one" mean numerical one? was he God the Son or Son of God? yet, I really don't want your answers for these. You see, if "one" does not mean numerical one...we are reading different Bibles through different eyes. I have no reason to want "one" to mean anything other than what it says. You do. IF you bring others to Christ...that's all that matters in the end.