You're listening to the Naked Bible Podcast. To support this podcast, visit nakedbiblepodcast.com and click on the support link in the upper right-hand corner. If you're new to the podcast and Dr. Heizer's approach to the Bible, click on newstarthere at nakedbiblepodcast.com. Welcome to the Naked Bible Podcast, Episode 185, Hebrews Chapter 7. I'm the layman, Tray Strickland, and he's scholar Dr. Michael Heizer. Hey Mike, how are you doing this week? Pretty good. Pretty good. Ready for Melchizedek again. Our boy. This will be the shortest podcast ever, which we'll be referencing. Cool. Listen to that other stuff. Yeah. Well, that's all the time we have for now. Well, that's good. Before we get started, Mike, I just want to remind everybody that we're going to try to do a get-together in Boston because we'll be at the SPL and ETS covering the conferences. So we're aiming for Friday, November 17th in Boston somewhere. So stay tuned to that. We'll try to do a live Q&A like we did last year in San Antonio. Yeah. Hopefully we'll get, like in San Antonio, we'll get a dozen or so and have a good time. Yeah. Should we say who we have lined up for some of the interviews? Yeah. I mean, we can do that. Let's see. Going back here into my memory. I'll mention a few. Hugh Ross, we're fortunate enough to be able to spend what I'm hoping will be 20 or 30 minutes with Hugh Ross. I mean, his schedule is very chaotic. And that's because he has to speak a little bit. He has to do some booth time. And then people just want to talk to him. So we'll get to chat with Hugh again. I got to chat with him last year, but just one on one at a booth. But it'll be nice to interview him and talk about his recent book, John Walton. We have on the schedule John Golden Gay, who is an Old Testament professor. Andy Nacelli has a book on the quote, higher life, let go and let God approach to the Christian life. He has a book critiquing that. I think that'll be interesting. We have trying to remember their names because I haven't met them before. Gerald Heistrand and Todd, I think it's Todd Wilson. They have a couple of books that thematically are about recovering the model of the scholar pastor back in the old days. A couple of centuries ago, scholars were really sort of leading intellectuals and theologians. So they're actually, again, trying to kind of restore this model, write a lot about it. So I thought, for this audience, that's going to be an important conversation, an exposure to their work too. So that's an illustration. Those are samples of what we have. Some familiar ones, David Burnett, Ron Johnson, Carl Sanders, but it'll be a good time. All right. Yeah, looking forward to it. Well, here we are in Hebrews 7, and no, we're not going to just look like ended here. But I will say, again, by way of a retrospect, we have covered Melchizedek quite a bit on the podcast. And not too long ago, this is sort of part two of Christ's High Priesthood. We got into the High Priesthood of Christ a little earlier, episode 183. In fact, the Priesthood of Christ is going to stretch into Hebrews 10. I made that comment before, but part one, if we're calling this sort of a second part, the second installment, is episode 183. So you can go back and listen to that, but even further back than that, not too long, but further back, we had a whole series on Melchizedek that we had the third, I think it was the third, we did four podcasts on Melchizedek. I think the third one was episode 170 where we did Christ at Melchizedek, and we actually got into Hebrews 7 a lot in that episode. So because of that, we're going to focus today on what we didn't do before. I'm going to do a little summarizing and then transition to newer material. I'm not going to repeat these prior episodes. We're just going to hit a few points real quickly by way of summary. So if you want detail, episodes really 167, I think on through 170, 171, are all about Melchizedek. You got the episode 183, about first installment for the High Priesthood. But you want the detail go there for today, just hitting some highlights and then getting into new stuff. And I think you'll find the new stuff pretty interesting. So let's go to the last few verses of Hebrews 6, which set up Hebrews 7 and jump in there. So Hebrews 6, 13, I'm going to read 13 through 20. For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself saying, Surely I will bless you and multiply you. And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. For people swear by something greater than themselves, all their disputes and oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise, the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure instead fast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. And that again reintroduces this, or introduces the Melchizedek idea specifically. There was an earlier illusion again in the high priestly talk that I mentioned just a few minutes ago before. Let's just jump right into Hebrews 7. Again, if you want to listen to the end of Hebrews 6 or the other stuff, please go there. Hebrews 7 begins this way right on the heels of that comment that he has been made a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Verse 1 says, For this Melchizedek, the king of Salem, the priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. And to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is king of peace. 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. See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils. That finishes up with verse 4, at least to this point. Now, there's some old material here, again mostly from episode 170, Melchizedek in the New Testament. There is a significant phrase, and significant phrase number one, I guess we can call it, father or mother or genealogy, neither beginning of days or end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he continues a priest forever. Now as O'Brien commented, and I quoted this in the earlier episode, he says, these remarkable words have been understood in two significantly different ways. The first approach interprets without father or mother as divine predicates, which were well known in Hellenistic sources. Without genealogy signifies unbegotten or uncreated, and therefore of divine generation. Well, the crucial statement without beginning of days or end of life means that he was truly God and not merely a divinized mortal. On this view, if you're going to take these things this way, O'Brien says, Melchizedek is a divine figure, a heavenly being who is not part of this world. End of quote. That's from O'Brien's commentary letter to the Hebrews in the Pillar series. Now, the problem, of course, as O'Brien himself points out, and we talked about, it is the Second Temple period understanding that Melchizedek is a divine being, but in the Old Testament, you don't get that. There's just no hint that he's anything but a guy, but a man. So, we get into the second approach that O'Brien talks about. The second approach takes the author's statements as an example of an argument from silence in a typological setting. In the first clause, without father or mother, without genealogy, it's understood in purely human terms, it's in a Greco-Roman context. If that's the case, then this would discredit Melchizedek. Without father meant being illegitimate. Someone without a mother was the child of a woman of low social status. Without genealogy meant that one was disqualified for becoming a Levitical priest, according to Numbers 310 and 15 and 16. So, that's another perspective. If you don't take these phrases as the language of divinity, you might have other problems on the other side, and we talked about these things in the earlier episode. We sort of parked on the notion that the key to unraveling this language without showing disrespect to Melchizedek without saying, oh, he's illegitimate, his mom was low status, and that kind of thing. The way to unravel it and not make him a divine being whereas the Old Testament never says that and creates those problems was really two of these words. That is without genealogy. The point of this description, therefore, would be a priestly qualification, not that Newt Melchizedek was a supernatural being, but that he was a priest that didn't depend, his priesthood didn't depend on a specific genealogy. That's why we get this talk about we don't have a father or mother mentioned in the Old Testament. We don't have anything like that mentioned. And so, this perspective says the reason why those things are absent in the description of Melchizedek was so that no one could say, well, the only priesthood that's available is the one from the tribe of Levi and all that. If you take that stuff away and then God calls him a priest, which he does, again, in Psalm 110 and, of course, in Genesis 14, then in God's mind, here is a priest of the Most High. Here is a priest that God approves of that doesn't need this genealogy. And that's important because the Messiah, of course, would be the son of David, not the son of Levi. And that's why the description of the linkage back to Melchizedek, who doesn't have any particular lineage attached to him, why that becomes significant. So, O'Brien says in this regard, although Melchizedek could not have qualified for the Levitical priesthood, he was a priest of God Most High. And Abraham recognized this. Moreover, since Genesis says nothing about his birth or death, his priesthood is cast as having no beginning or end. It was divinely pointed. That's the end of his quote. Melchizedek's priesthood, he's not described with any genealogical qualifications, no mom and dad. That's never given. So, you know, we're dealing with something outside of Leviticus, excuse me, outside of the line of Levi that God approves of. And it also, there's no narrative in the Old Testament about Melchizedek's priesthood ever ending. When we get to Psalm 110, it's like still there. It's still in God's mind. This is a legitimate line. It's a legitimate priestly line. And so, by virtue of the absence of this information, no genealogy, it's never said to have ended. That, again, suggests to the reader, and this is what the writer of Hebrews is picking up on, that this is a priestly line that God approves of. It doesn't depend on Levi and didn't have an end. It's still ongoing.  It's sort of part of a sensible part of a whole package. Now, again, this is me talking now, not O'Brien or anybody else. This is the way I summarized it in the early episode. I said the implication is that Melchizedek was still a priest in the most high, regardless of ancestry. There's no need to worry about Jesus not being from the tribe of Levi. You can call him a priest. You don't have to worry about that. We don't need to worry about Levi. This is a different priesthood. It's also approved of God and one that is, you know, is cast that way because it didn't originate with the tribe and is never described as having an end. As such, physical succession to Jesus of Nazareth isn't an issue. Because the priesthood, his ministry follows, wasn't linked to a lineage. It was dictated by God alone. I think that's, again, the importance of this linkage back to Melchizedek. Lastly, one other line from O'Brien he said, and I used this in the earlier episode but it's worth repeating here, he says, consequently Melchizedek foreshadows the priesthood of Christ at that point where it is most fundamentally different from the Levitical priesthood. In other words, it's not dependent on tribal lineage. Now, a significant phrase number two or a significant set of ideas number two is this line in, again, what we read here of that Melchizedek resembles the Son of God. Resembling the Son of God, he Melchizedek becomes a priest forever. Now, note the wording. It is Melchizedek who resembles the Son of God. The point isn't that Jesus resembles Melchizedek. It's the other way around. Melchizedek is the one who resembles the Son of God. Because Melchizedek resembles Jesus, his priesthood is to be understood as being independent of lineage and one begun by God and never terminated. And so while Second Temple Jewish texts, again, we spent a whole episode on those texts with Melchizedek, while those texts thought about Melchizedek in divine terms, the reason for doing so was misguided. But the notion is still valid if one sees how the Messiah was a priest according to Melchizedek's priesthood. And the Messiah, not Melchizedek, was divine. In other words, the idea that Melchizedek had something to do with a divine Messiah was on target. But not because Melchizedek was more than a man. It was because Jesus, the Son of David, the Messiah, he was more than a man. And Melchizedek resembles him, not the other way around. Now, we had gone over all of that again in earlier episodes, so I'm going to leave it there. And we're going to move on to new stuff. New points of focus. And really there's going to be two drill down places in this episode when it comes to Hebrews 7. And really there, found in Hebrews, the rest of the chapter, Hebrews 7, 11 through 26. Now, I'm going to read all of that. That's the rest of the chapter. But I'm only going to focus on Hebrews 7, 4 through 10 in these two drill down points. Versus 11 through 26 basically derived from verses 4 and 10 or reinforced ideas about Christ's priesthood we've already discussed. Frankly, verses 4 through 10 is the really interesting material for today because it's new. Now, here's the whole remainder of Hebrews 7. So I'm going to read again 11 through 26 here just so that we get it in our heads. And then we'll go back to 4 through 10. Verse 11. Now, if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the law, what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belong to another tribe from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek who has become a priest not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him that you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Verse 18. For on the one hand a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness. For the law made nothing perfect. Isn't that an interesting statement? Verse 19. But on the other hand a better hope is introduced through which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath for those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath. But this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him, The Lord has sworn it will not change his mind you are a priest forever. Verse 22. This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. The former priests were many a number because they were prevented by death from continuing an office. But he holds his priesthood permanently because he continues forever. Consequently he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, wholly innocent unstained, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens. He has no need like those high priests to offer sacrifices daily first for his own sins and then for those of the people since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests but the word of the oath from later than the law appoints a son who has been made perfect forever. That's the whole of chapter 7. Let's go back to verses 4 through 10 and hit the first of our drill down points. Hebrews 7, 4 to 10 read it once more so we fix it in our minds. So how great this see how great this man, Melchizedek, was to whom Abraham the patriarch paid a tenth of the spoils. In those descendants of Levi who received the priestly office have a commandment about to take ties from the people, that is from their brothers. Though these also are descended from Abraham, but this man who does not have his descent from them received ties from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. In the one case, ties are received by mortal men but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. One might even say, this is verse 9, one might even say that Levi himself who receives ties paid ties through Abraham for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. That's the end of verse 10. So we have a couple of items to cover here. The first one isn't really transparent from verses 4 through 10 but is related to the content and this question has come up in Q&A episodes before. What is the question? Was Melchizedek Shem, the son of Noah. Lane in his commentary writes, in the Targumic tradition Targums were Aramaic translations of in this case the Old Testament. You also have New Testament Targums that would be Aramaic translations of the Greek New Testament. But in the Targumic tradition Melchizedek is identified as Shem, Noah's son and it is specified that he served God quote at that time. Typically you find this in Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan in Genesis 14-18 and some other sources. Now Targum, Neophyte again you find it there too. So there are some fairly significant Targums, Aramaic translations of the Old Testament that when you hit Genesis 14-18 they throw in, the translators throw in this idea that Melchizedek was Shem. Now Targums, again these specific ones mentioned are dated anywhere from the first to the ninth century A.D. So they post-date the Old Testament by centuries. They are again pretty pretty loose translations but they reflect some ideas that were around in the Jewish community what we might think of as the rabbinic community and so in a couple of Targums this idea you know leaks its way into the actual translation even though in the Hebrew text of Genesis 14-18 there's nothing like this. There's no connection to Shem made in the Hebrew Bible specifically. Now I've already said again in Q&A and other contexts I don't think Melchizedek was Shem. I mean there's no biblical evidence for that but nevertheless you have it here in these sources. Now I want to quote from about the date just so that we sort of you know give some weight to this. The whole series put out by liturgical press on the Aramaic Targums you can get English translations of the Aramaic Targums and then commentaries on those Targums in this multi-volume series of books. So this is from Targum Neophyti in this series Aramaic Bible. Targum Neophyti 1 that is Genesis. It's translated by Martin McNamara who's a very well known Targumic scholar and the editors are Cathcart Mayer and McNamara himself. They write this about the Targum Neophyti and then some of this other stuff about Targum Pseudo-Jonathan their dates. They write Neophyti part of what scholars call the Palestinian Targums. There is very strong evidence from rabbinic sources that written texts of the Targums of the Pentateuch therefore the Palestinian Targums existed at least in the late third and early fourth centuries of our era that is A.D. and there are indications that they were known there earlier still. They're going to go back to the first century and they continue and say this about Targum Pseudo-Jonathan opinions expressed on the date of Pseudo-Jonathan range from the time of Ezra or shortly after it all the way to the time of the Crusades which is a considerable range of time range of opinions. Although Pseudo-Jonathan certainly contains ancient traditions many recent authors argued that this Targum received its final form after the Arab conquest of the Middle East. Splansky believes that Pseudo-Jonathan dates from the ninth or tenth century. His main arguments may be summarized as follows. The reference to Adishah and Fatima in Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis 2121 should not be seen as an insertion. The source of the Midrash could not have originated before 633 C.E. or A.D. at the earliest. Again these are known entities. Pseudo-Jonathan makes use of pre and both P.R.E. it's an abbreviation for a text in the town of Khamas. A fact which points to the ninth or tenth century of the time. That's really obscure stuff. Here we get to something that's a little bit more interesting, a little more discernible I would say to a popular audience. They write, the way in which Pseudo-Jonathan represents the Midrash about Abraham's refusal to bless Ishmael in Genesis 2511 betrays an anti-Muslim polemic. And the reference to the blemish of Ishmael in Genesis 3522 can best be explained against the background of a world divided between Arabs and Christians. There are possible indications in other texts in Pseudo-Jonathan that they date from a time after the Arab conquest. Then he starts talking about calendar and things like this. Basically the point is that there's stuff in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan that contains the Shem tradition we're talking about that sort of reflect a problem with Islam. And if that's the case then you're talking about 5th, 6th, 7th century and beyond history. And we've got a divided Middle East. So this is why primarily when it comes to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan that scholars argue look, this is pretty late. It's pretty late material. It contains some older ideas that you can find in other texts but this is late material. The Targums are centuries at least a few centuries after the Old Testament period. Now I'm going to read you just because I think it's kind of interesting. I'm going to read you Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis. This is what you'd actually read in this Aramaic translation of Genesis 14 verses 14 through 18. This is the Melchizedek passage. Now if you were following along in your Old Testament, English translation and I'm going to quote the English translation of Kathart Mayer and McNamara, you're going to see right away boy there's stuff in there that I don't have in my Bible. And yeah, that's true. There is stuff in there you don't have in your Bible because they frankly feel very free to add details. This is not a text critical issue where oh, some Hebrew manuscripts have this extra stuff about Shem. There's actually no evidence for these stuff about Shem. They just they make it up. They add it. And we're going to talk about why they add it, why it made sense for them to do it. But when they created this translation, they just add materials. So here we go. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis. Genesis 14 beginning in verse 14 of that chapter. When Abram heard that his brother had been captured he armed his young men whom he had trained for war who had been brought up in his house. They did not wish to go with him. So he chose from among them Eleazar son of Nimrod who was equal in strength to all 318 of them. And he pursued them as far as Dan. The night was divided for them on the way. One part fought against the kings. The other part was kept in reserve for the smiting of the first born in Egypt. Like what in the world is the first born in Egypt? Yeah, I know it's hundreds of years later, but just bear with me. And this is what the Targums do. They just add stuff. They make stuff up. He arose. This is still in verse 15. He arose. He and his servants and smote them and pursued those of them that remained until he remembered the sin that was to be committed in Dan again, which is way future which is north of Damascus. Verse 16. He brought back all the possessions. He also brought back a lot his kinsmen and his possessions, as well as the women and the rest of the people. Verse 17. When he returned from defeating Keter Leimer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him at the leveled plain, which is the king's race course. 18. Here we go. The righteous king, that is Shem, the son of Noah king of Jerusalem went out to meet Abram and brought him bread and wine. At that time, he was ministering before God most high. That's the end of the selection. The Targum doesn't even use the term Melchizedek. He'd use his righteous king again, Melchizedek could be translated, my king is righteous. He says the righteous king and then it says point blank, that is Shem, the son of Noah king of Jerusalem. He went out to meet Abram. It's a clear identification of Shem with Melchizedek in the Targums. You also have this in early patristic sources, early church fathers, a couple of them will have this kind of stuff in it. Ephraim is one of them. You'll find this now. I'm going to post a couple of links on the episode page for this episode. There are two articles. If you're interested in the Shem subject you can get these. These are publicly accessible articles. One is by Andre Orlov who interestingly enough is now David Burnett's advisor at Marquette. He has an article along essay on second Enoch which is also known as Slavonic Enoch. It's an Enochian book that was written in ancient Slavonic. That's the language it survives in. That references this idea that Shem and Melchizedek were the same person. There's also an article from the Biblical Journal about this and let me get the title for it because I'm going to read a brief selection from it. The title is Melchizedek, Genesis 14-17-20 in the Targams in Rabbinic and early Christian literature. You're going to have links to both of those. If you're interested in the subject there you go. You'll have some good stuff to read. I think you'll be sufficiently entertained if you're into this Shem idea. Which doesn't have Biblical roots but you see it in these I'm going to go to that second article which is by McNamara. I'm going to read a few things. You say, why in the world did they make this connection? Back in the Q&As that we've had before it's basically about chronology how their lives overlap. So McNamara says on the 13th page of the PDF that you could get page 13 of the article as well, he says the Biblical evidence for this idea is as follows. Abraham was 100 years old at the birth of Isaac, Genesis 21-5. Isaac was there for 75 years old when Abraham died. Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebecca, Genesis 19-2, and was 60 years old at the birth of Esau and Jacob, Genesis 25-25. Jacob was thus born 15 years before the death of Abraham and consequently 50 years, 15 plus 35 before the death of Shem. Isaac died at the age of 180 years Genesis 35-28. Shem thus lived during 100 years of Isaac's 180 and during 50 years of Jacob's lifetime. Which also by definition then if he lived during the lifetime of Isaac and Jacob, he also lived during the lifetime of Abraham and so the argument is that he was alive and surely he must have been Melchizedek. That's basically how the argument goes. People take the chronology and they assume an identification. It's actually that simple. Well, Shem's life overlapped with Abraham and Abraham meets this Melchizedek guy and well, Shem and Melchizedek must have been the same. And you say, well, that doesn't make any sense. I agree with you. I don't think it makes any sense at all but that's what's behind it. So that idea which was a tradition in some community somewhere within Judaism it leaks its way into Aramaic translations, Targums of Genesis 14 and then early Christian writers who were familiar with Jewish tradition, Jewish thinking had interact with Jews. They refer to the idea in their own writings as well. So you actually get these references in early Christian sources and in Targums about Melchizedek and Shem being the same guy. Now, you say, well, it's kind of interesting what's the harm. You know what, why? Is there anything here to really care about? Well, yeah, there may be. McNamara on page 15 has a section on the origin of the identification of Melchizedek with Shem. He writes M. Simon in reference to a scholar thinks that it was due to the embarrassment felt by Jews in view of Abraham's paying homage to Melchizedek. If Melchizedek is identified with Shem then Abraham was merely showing deference to an ancestor. In other words, let me stop there. This is just speculation, but some scholars think, well, they came up with this idea because it's kind of embarrassing to have Abraham. He's Abraham, good grief. He's awesome. He's our primary ancestor. It's embarrassing to have this guy bowing to essentially a canine. Okay, let's identify Melchizedek with Shem. That way Abraham is only really bowing to an ancestor. It's not so bad. He says, it's doubtful if there was any polemical, tendentious intention anti-Christian or otherwise in the identification. The identification of Melchizedek with Shem in any event may well predate Christianity. For a century you might be older than that. R. Ishmael, Rabbi Ishmael takes the identification for granted and the text that's found in Jewish or Christian sources do not indicate any embarrassment with it. Rabbinic, Targomic, and patristic texts, especially Jerome would seem to indicate that the identification arose from chronological considerations on the Biblical age attributed to Shem. That's what we just mentioned. Now, McNamara continues and he observes, this is really, I think this is actually kind of interesting, he observes that when you get to rabbinical writings there are certain rabbis that make a point of denigrating Melchizedek's priesthood that's kind of demoting it, devaluing it. And that becomes really interested because rabbinical writings, the rabbinic period as we think of it is in line with the events of the New Testament and of course post-dates continues on after the New Testament. So the suspicion among certain scholars is that the rabbinic writings, you know, certain rabbis who wrote about Melchizedek and even, you know, may or may not have accepted this Shem idea they make a point to sort of take Melchizedek's priesthood down a few pegs and scholars suspect that when they do that they are shooting at Jesus. Okay, because Jesus to Christians was identified with this priesthood. Let me just read a section from McNamara's article. He writes, it has been noted above that in accepting the identification of Melchizedek with Shem, Rabbi Ishmael did not have any polemical point to me. The same cannot be said of his statement which follows immediately on this regarding Melchizedek's priesthood. This he says was taken away by God from Shem. In other words, from Melchizedek. Melchizedek lost his priesthood and given to Abram. That's what the rabbis taught. Shem or Melchizedek was a priest but his descendants were not. God transfers the priesthood of Shem or Melchizedek to Abraham and addresses Psalm 110 to him. So let me just stop there. The rabbis just interpreted Psalm 110 as being spoken to Abram. So God transfers the priesthood of Shem to Abraham and addresses Psalm 110 to him, sit on my right hand as he also does in Psalm 1104. You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek which is interpreted as meaning on account of what Melchizedek said and so on and so forth. This is why you imagine that the speaker in the Psalm is speaking to Abraham.  That's how they read the passage. Now back to McNamara. The reason for the demotion of Melchizedek's priesthood is seen in Melchizedek having blessed Abram before he uttered his blessing to God most high. As Patekowski observes, there can be no doubt that Rabbi Ishmael's reference to Melchizedek is polemical. But against whom is Rabbi Ishmael's polemic directed? Let me just stop there. The rabbi is based this demotion idea on the fact that Melchizedek blessed Abraham before the comment about blessing the most high. So God was mad and God said, okay, because you did that, I'm going to take your priesthood and give it to Abram. You're not going to have any more priest after you. I'm going to transfer it to Abraham and then Psalm 110 preserves this transference of the priesthood over to Abraham. But you see what that does. It's going to be a slam to Christians who are identifying Jesus with the priesthood of Melchizedek. So back to McNamara, he says one possibility is that his target is the Christian understanding of Melchizedek's priesthood particularly as presented in the Epistle to the Hebrews specifically, Hebrews 7, with the use of Genesis 14, 17 through 20 in Psalm 110-4. El Ginsburg believed that it was very likely directed against the Christians such as the author of Hebrews 7, 1 through 3 and especially Justin, Justin Martyr, on account of his dialogue with Trifo specifically directed against the Christians who took Melchizedek to be a type, a foreshadowing of Jesus, unquote. So I'll, let me see if I want to bring out, say anything else there. Okay, one more paragraph. Others, I mean, we have to be fair here. So some scholars say we might have a Christian polemic going on here. We want to distance the priesthood of Melchizedek from Jesus. Very, very possible. There are other scholars who will go off in a different direction. I'm mentioning this again out of fairness and also for those of you who might find this interesting. Others do not consider such a conclusion necessary or warranted. They go a different way. The polemic may have originally been directed against a Jewish or Samaritan misuse of Psalm 110, possibly the Hasmoneans such as Simon. In 1st Abbey's 14, 35 and 41, we read, the people saw Simon's faithfulness and the glory that he had resolved to win for his nation. They made him their leader and high priest. The Jews and their high priest resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever until a trustworthy prophet should arise, unquote. Psalm 110 in particular, Psalm 110 4, would present legitimization for the Hasmonean union of royalty and kingship in one person, and that's what the Hasmoneans successors now. I'll just send the quote there. If you know a little bit about inter-testamental history, that was offensive to a lot of Jews. What the Hasmoneans did there. And so some scholars would say some of the rabbinic talk later on, New Testament era, 1st century and forward might have been named at the Hasmoneans. Maybe this is why they sort of knocked the Melchizedek priesthood down a few notches. They said these polemic things about it. Or again, the Hasmonean dynasty could be one or the other, and you probably had used that thought one thing or the other. And scholars, of course, you do that have think one thing or the other. But the important point is that if you want to say that Shem and Melchizedek are the same, A, you don't have any specific biblical evidence to say that, and B, you ought to know what you're getting yourself into. Because that whole idea was used by the rabbis to denigrate Jesus, his high identification in the book of Hebrews. So know what you're getting into. Now our second drill down point is, I think, the more obvious of this. As we read Hebrews 7 verses 4 through 10, you get to verses 9 and 10. I'll read them again. One might even say that Levi himself who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. There are all sorts of problems here. Basically the question is how in the world does Levi quote in the loins of his ancestor that is Abraham? Lots and lots of problems, but let's start with the mainstream view of this passage, and I'm going to telegraph it this way. The mainstream view tries really hard to avoid the most difficult question. It just does. The mainstream view argues that Levi wasn't really in the loins of his ancestor. It says that language is meant to convey the idea of corporate solidarity between Abraham and his descendants. Put another way, it wants to claim the superiority of Levi's priesthood has a quote basis in history, unquote, while denying that the tithe payment of Levi ever actually occurred in real time, because Levi of course hadn't been born yet. Here's a sample. If you think I'm overstaying this, here's a sample. This is from Lane's commentary, word biblical commentary. He writes this on page 170. The writer clearly recognized his statement that Levi had paid a tithe to Melchizedek was not literally true, because at the moment in primal history when Abraham met Melchizedek, Levi was yet unborn. Nevertheless, the statement that Levi had himself paid the tithe was true in an important sense indicated by the expression D-Abraham through Abraham, which immediately follows. The corporate solidarity that bound Israel to the patriarch implied that Levi was fully represented in Abraham's action. Therefore, Levi's status relative to Melchizedek was affected by Abraham's relationship to that personage. Consequently the superiority of Melchizedek over the Levitical priesthood is not merely theoretical, but has a basis in history. That's the end of the quote. Catch the basis in history. In other words, Abraham's existence that would have to be the basis in history. Abraham's existence makes Melchizedek's priesthood superior to Levi's because Levi was imagined to be in Abraham, but he wasn't really there. But that's okay since Abraham existed. It doesn't matter that the payment never occurred because Levi wasn't there. It was just presumed to work that way. Now, it might sound easy to poke fun at that, but let's think about it a little bit. Does anything in the text actually kind of supported? Some commentators suggest that one of the verb forms in Hebrews 7.9 makes the view that Levi wasn't really there. The correct view. Now, Hebrews 7.9 says one might even say that Levi himself who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham. The verb translated paid is a Greek perfect passive. It's dede kattotai perfect passive and negative third singular for your Greek geeks out there. It's a Greek perfect passive and so the verse could be translated this way. Levi himself who received tithes had tithes paid for him by Abraham. Now, that sounds like it nails down the representative idea. Hey, Levi doesn't have to be there. Abraham paid tithes on his behalf and so he doesn't really have to have existed yet. So, the mainstream view is really based on this notion and the notion is in turn is based upon this Greek perfect passive verb form that Levi had tithes paid for him in perfect passive. A perfect tense in Greek is an action in the past that has continuing and suing results. In passive it means that there's an outside actor. So, this is the basis for the mainstream view. Now, that sounds pretty good but there's a problem. It ignores the next verse. It ignores verse 10 which says quote, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. So, it sounds wonderful in verse 9. Hey, there's a grammatical argument to be made here for the mainstream view. Yeah, well, let's not look too closely at verse 10 because that has Levi in the loins of his ancestor. That's the problem. Now, B.F. Westcott who really deftly handles the passive in Hebrews 7.9, when he gets to verse 10, he just basically says a lot of blather. Okay, he basically obfuscates. I'm going to use him as an example because he does a really neat job pointing out the perfect passive and then he gets to verse 10, he writes this the repetition of the phrase which occurs again in the New Testament only in Acts 230. That is this idea about being in the loins. In Acts 230, it literally says to set one from his loins on the throne. So this idea only occurs there, but that this phrase emphasizes the idea of the real unity of Abraham's race in the conditions of their earthly existence. By this teaching, a mystery is indicated to us into which we can see but a little way. A final antithesis in our being. We feel at every turn that we are dependent on the past and that the future will expand in a large degree upon ourselves. This is one aspect of life and is not overlooked in Scripture.  On the one side our outward life is conditioned by our ancestry. On the other side, we stand in virtue of our spirit and immediate personal connection with God. Each man is at once an individual of a race and a new power in the evolution of the race. That's the quote. That's the commentary on verse 10. It basically has a lot of stuff elegantly, but it really doesn't say anything. It doesn't address the problem. So again, basically, the commentators again who argue for the representational view to use Guthrie's words that Abraham's payment of tithes could be transferred to his descendant Levi. They do so on the basis of verse 9 because of the perfect passive and then they never deal with the quote still in the lines of the ancestor, of his ancestor in verse 10. That is the fundamental problem. Verse 10 is the fundamental problem. So, here's essentially the mainstream verdict. You presume that the language of verse 10 is about let me just say that again. You presume that the language of verse 10 about still being in the loins of his ancestor doesn't deserve a whole lot of attention. It's just part of expressing the idea of verse 9. That Abraham represented his ancestor or that Abraham's ancestor would have done the same thing as Abraham did if he had an ancestor. That's where you have to go. The question before us therefore is how to take Hebrews 7.10 seriously. If you don't go with a representational view that it's just another way of saying what's in verse 9. If you don't do that you more or less deflect attention away from verse 10. What do we do with it? And again, we get all sorts of problems here. Let's just start with a question. Did the writer of Hebrews and other original New Testament writers and readers people living at this time did they believe that Levi the son of Jacob existed as a pre-born person in the loins of his great-grandfather Abraham? Did they believe that? In other words, was Levi really there in Abraham's loins? That's the question. And that's the question that commentators basically nearly universally don't even think about. They don't even raise it. Because it's an edgy question. But it's a quite understandable question. Did they believe that or not? Instead we get, oh, don't worry about verse 10. It's just part of expressing verse 9 that Abraham and Levi were identified. I'm sorry, but that's really for me anyway that's just really not satisfactory. But today we would say with pretty secure scientific justification that personal existence requires embodiment. Again we can't really perceive it any other way if we're looking if we're trying to think scientifically. That requires materiality which materiality naturally comes from two genetic contributors a man and a woman. You can't have human embodiment without that, normally anyway. I mean now there are other ways given like cloning and synthetic biology but just normally you can't have a full human being with embodiment, with materiality any other way than by two genetic contributors, a man and a woman. Consequently Hebrews 7, 9 and 10 can quite easily be read as a quaint, completely unscientific idea if the writers really believe Levi was there and if we're evaluating in scientific terms. So now we have another question that needs answering one that some listeners might think is easily answerable but it comes at something of a theological cost. Here's the question. If this passage suggests that the writer believed you could have an actual human person existing prior to birth. Think about that. If Levi really was there he really was in the loins of Abraham. That means he existed prior to birth or prior to embodiment. Then how do we avoid the conclusion that on one hand this is patently unscientific how do we avoid that conclusion without requiring the doctrine of pre-existence of the soul or contradicting other points of biblical theology. In other words can we argue that the Bible has a concept of person that doesn't involve embodiment. The short answer is well maybe or yeah you can do that but if you affirm that it produces pre-mortal that is pre-embodied existence. What we typically think of today as pre-existence. We could also call it maybe non-terrestrial embodied existence. This is what you're getting at. If you ascent against this idea that Levi was actually there it's not just if we're talking about physically there then we've got a real problem because then we've got a scientific error we've got a scientific thing that just can't be but if you say well maybe Levi was there without a body maybe you can have persons maybe the Bible lets us have persons without bodies then we could say Levi was there but we don't have to get into this genetic contributors because that's biology but we're not dealing with biology we're just saying Levi was there like in the soul the immaterial essence of Levi was there in Abraham. We have Levi as a person there without a body just the scripture allow us to speak of persons without bodies and if it does if we answer that question yes how do we avoid pre-existence of the soul because that has problems too or at least that's the way that doctrine has been perceived listeners might know that in the history of Christian theology that position pre-existence of the soul has been declared a heresy for about I don't know it's not 2000 let's call it 1500 years so again this is why there are reasons why people why Christian theologians don't want to go to pre-existence of the soul they have problems with it we'll talk about what those are but that's sort of the rock in the hard place that we're at here now how might we argue this idea biblically and sort of get Hebrews 7 9 and 10 off the hook for being unscientific we don't have to worry about biology but also workable in some way that allows the writer to believe that Levi was really there how do we do that we're going to try to noodle the problem let's start by asking what's an actual human person in biblical thought I've blogged a lot about this biblical anthropology you can go to my website and look that up and you're going to get a whole series on what's personhood in the Bible the Old Testament is pretty clear that in biblical theology personhood is the combination of material body whatever the form and animate spirit give material plus material that makes a whole person so Adam or Adam, humankind if you want to take it that way Genesis 2.7 let me read it to you then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living creature that description is euphemistic for the act of God in making humans animate beings the language describes soul or immaterial part of the person because each successive human doesn't need to have God breathe into him so we can't say that this is how every soul every person comes into being we don't have God like somewhere breathing God doesn't have lungs for one thing but you get the idea we don't have each person born because God breathes into them we don't have that described in the Old Testament we have it described with Adam and then thereafter humans reproduce they're made to reproduce so the language again is euphemistic for the fact that God made humans animate life forms that's really what it means isn't about each successive person needing to have God breathe into him like they did Adam the description also isn't about consciousness per se because people who are asleep or in a coma can rightly still be said to be alive the contents of the womb are alive before evidence of cognition is revealed or possible it's still a living thing a living entity whose DNA says human is by definition a living human no matter how hard our culture wants to deny the obvious logic of that I would also say that the language of Genesis 2.7 is not describing a special immaterial part of humans because the phrase is breath of life and living soul are both used to describe animate animal life breath of life is used to describe animals in Genesis 1.30 Genesis 6.17 Genesis 7.15 and 22 this is the sampling and living soul is a phrase the nefashchaya to describe animals used to describe animals in Genesis 1.21 2.19 8.21 9.10 so on and so forth it's actually pretty common Genesis 2.7 and other parts of Genesis are simply saying hey human life is here because God made it he made the flesh and then he animated it he made it in such a way that life would be able to reproduce too that's how we get humanity the point is that you need two parts in Old Testament thinking material and immaterial to have a full human person you certainly can't maintain that a corpse is a person although the word for person or self nefash which is often translated soul is actually used to describe a corpse or a body Leviticus 21.1 21.11 22.4 now the reason that happens is it ought to be familiar to us anybody who's been in a funeral knows that we still think of the body in the coffin as the person we knew the body takes on the person's identity in those kind of contexts but the body only having only the flesh only the corpse there really isn't the person and we know that so you can't really say you have a person when you just have a corpse but can we say that we have a person without embodiment that might help argue that Levi was inside the lorns of his father having nothing to do with biology because it has nothing to do with embodiment now example 1st Samuel 2813 you have the disembodied Samuel appear and have a conversation with Saul you have Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration now here's the question do they have bodies well they're visible as men but does that mean that we have embodiment here or is that just a phantom visualization that is nevertheless really them in other words is it just visual or is it just an actual embodiment not quite the same thing now it seems to be the case because we don't really have anything any other way to argue it in context what we have in 1st Samuel 2313 the transfiguration Moses and Elijah we have just a visual representation that was truly those individuals but we don't actually have embodiment we just don't have that in the context but that's muddled by the fact that the Bible has spirit beings who can assume actual corporeal embodiment like angels okay but perhaps that's an attribute or ability that doesn't really apply to post death human persons like Samuel and Moses and Elijah maybe it's better to speak a person who'd continuing on after death without embodiment you see where I'm going here maybe this will sound odd to us because we must have embodiment for identity at least in our human experience maybe scripture or portrayals like that of Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration just tell us they're still persons and they're with the Lord that Peter James and John were essentially shown a form that wasn't really embodied but it was still them it was still Moses and Elijah but they had they were visualized and that seems workable from the scriptural data you still have a person you have a person without a body but can we have the same idea a human person without embodiment before birth instead of after death because all these examples are after death can we have human personhood without embodiment before birth before mortal life on earth if that can be established then we have a workable solution for Hebrews 710 at least in theory Levi could have really been there if we divorce the language from biology and from any embodiment at all what would be better is the notion of pre-existence apart from any embodiment that's where we're sort of angling for here now I'm sure many listeners know that the idea of pre-existence like this is very controversial now to before again I think the idea is on the table why but you know 98-99% of Christian theologians evangelical or other eyes will call the whole idea aberrant or even label it heretical as though they're supposing everybody in the early church agreed on the matter which they didn't I've mentioned that the book by Givens when souls had wings pre-mortal existence in western thought it's quite good I'm actually going to if we have time we're actually going to read you a little bit from it about Augustine because the point needs to be made that yeah just about everybody you'd talk to would say well that's heresy but guess what Augustine didn't reject the idea it's commonly thought that he did but he only rejected a certain form of it there were lots of people in the other church that took this seriously that like this was on the table it was a possibility as an explanation for the origin of the soul pre-existence your pre-mortal existence real persons without bodies now just because people fear the idea presuming it's heresy they might say oh Mike this is just a silly rabbit trail the language is just about corporate career ancestral solidarity it makes no actual claim to personal existence before birth don't worry about Hebrews 7 10 well none of that's news to me but that isn't the question that needs attention there's certainly solidarity being struck in Hebrews 7 9 and 10 but the real question is what's the basis for it the basis is Levi paying ties quote while still being in the loins of his ancestor I mean it's something we need to think about again let's think of it take another little sort of side step here and think about another little angle if the writer wasn't saying Levi was really there in the loins of Abraham and so Levi didn't really pay ties to Melchizedek through Abraham because he didn't actually exist yet that's you know Lane's view we read it if the writer is saying Levi wasn't really there he didn't really pay ties because he didn't exist yet is Levi's priesthood really inferior to Melchizedek's if Levi was never actually there in any way how does the claim stand now I can't help thinking that commentators ought not to presume that people in the first century or earlier would have fought the way they do the way we do as moderates when ancient people really have rejected the idea that Levi was actually there in the loins of Abraham in some way that didn't require embodiment of any kind personally I'd like some evidence that the writer of Hebrews would never have had that thought I'd like some evidence for that rather than just us assuming it rather than just commentators assuming it I think it's especially needed because we actually have evidence to the contrary from both the Old Testament and 2nd Temple Judaism you can actually find things said, things written about this notion of non-terrestrial pre-mortal pre-existence I'll cite one biblical example this isn't the only one but I'll give you this one it's not going to nail anything down because you can look at it in a different way but think about this passage this is the call of Jeremiah should be familiar to a lot of listeners now the word of the Lord came to me saying this is Jeremiah 1, 4 and 5 word of the Lord came to me saying before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you I appointed you a prophet to the nations this passage as pointing to pre-existence is possible I mean it is possible to read that and think that what we're reading there is that Jeremiah existed before he got in the womb before I formed you in the womb I knew you how can God know a person who's not a person who doesn't exist and you can look at it that way and ask those questions and say well Jeremiah 1, 4 and 5 pre-existence without embodying but the language could also be read as indicating just sort of a generic statement about God's omniscience well God knows everything God knows everything ahead of time that's all it means and I have to be fair you can read it that way too but there are some again who read this passage and other passages as pointing to pre-existence that didn't require a body let me ask this question that you read as pre-existence what are we afraid of do we not read it as pre-existence because some early church thinkers just didn't like it you know honestly for a lot of people yeah that's why we don't read it as pre-existence because we just don't want to go there now honestly that's not an acceptable answer in and of itself most of scholarship on pre-existence sort of sidesteps this question it talks about Christ's pre-existence again that's a good topic it's important that the verses really sidestep this there are some exceptions now if you are a subscriber to my newsletter just go to drmsh.com right hand column click on the link for the newsletter and subscribe at the bottom of every newsletter issue there is a link to an archive of podcast articles that you can get to for free I'm going to put a 1966 dissertation in that folder the title of the dissertation Gerald Hamilton Kelly is the idea of pre-existence in early Judaism a study of the background of New Testament theology now a lot of it is going to be talking about Jesus in pre-existence but there are parts of that dissertation that get into the notion in Judaism and drawing on some Old Testament passages about persons pre-existing about objects pre-existing like the Torah there was this sort of pre-existence category for things in Judaism now why don't Christian theologians take pre-existence seriously today they can read this stuff this isn't like secret knowledge here you can go get this stuff and find it why don't we do that I've already answered the question it's basically because of church tradition why didn't some early church thinkers why didn't some early church people theologians why did they not embrace pre-existence why did they reject it is because of the flawed thinking about Romans 512 I'm not going to drift into Romans 512 here if you go up to my website drmsh.com put in Romans 512 you're going to get lots of material most Christian traditions teach that Romans 512 and I'll read the verse to you in the ISP and therefore just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin so death spread to all men because all sinned or other translations will say so that all sinned most Christian traditions say that that verse teaches inherited guilt inherited guilt that Adam sinned and the rest of humanity either he represented them all in other words God makes us all guilty for what somebody else did or we were quote in Adam we were put there and created there we were there pre-existing in Adam or somehow existing is probably a better way to say it because people don't want to go to pre-existence and we inherit his guilt because we somehow sinned with him now because of that this idea is drawn from Romans 512 and I hope you notice that the verse never actually says that it says what is inherited by Adam because of Adam sinned is death it doesn't say sin it doesn't say guilt Romans 512 really sort of steers this bus it drives the bus and because people thought this in the early church about Romans 512 that we have inherited guilt they had to balance things like our relationship to Adam where does the soul come from because it's the soul that's sinful we inherit guilt how is sinfulness transmitted what about predestination what about free will they had to struggle with all of these topics and if guilt is part of the way this gets discussed it gets kind of freaky to have pre-existence when you say why well if the souls pre-exist their birth their entrance into mortality mortal life how do they become sinful you go in there does God say hey you soul number 14 you go over that that's the body I'm assigning you you go in there and then somehow through flesh you're going to like absorb or inherit guilt because now you're in flesh like how does flesh produce a bad quality a bad attribute of the soul when the soul pre-existence and didn't have it well that was nice of you God how is God good what did that soul do at all he wasn't even in Adam from the beginning in that reconstruction there's lots of different ways to parse this nearly sure so I'm just giving you an illustration of why one reason it could be problematic you had the same idea for the origin of the soul called creationism where traditionism said the soul was created by the human parents then of course then the conundrum there is well how can biology create an immaterial thing how can the material create something that's immaterial it's just kind of weird creationism had the problem of well okay God just creates the soul on the spot we don't have pre-existence he creates each soul on the spot puts them in there but then God has to create them guilty because you can't really inherit guilt from biology you know that you had all these problems floating around and the discussion was steered by a certain understanding of Romans 512 now again this book when souls had wings I'm not going to take time to read from it I I'll have to think about it I could probably photocopy a couple pages and put them up but I want people to see I want people who are listening to this podcast to realize and I use Augustine in the pages I was going to read but we're getting pretty long here Augustine is such an important figure a central figure for people to see that even in the course of his writings he puts all of the views of the origin of the soul on the table and says you know what we just can't really know and they're all worth discussing now he objected to origin's particular take or he didn't want to sound too much like origin because origin had other doctrinal problems and he eventually gets anathematized so Augustine's problem is that he's not clear clear of origin but he sees the weaknesses of the other views and so what he eventually actually decides and we have to throw a pallagianism in here the whole controversy over free will because Augustine wanted guilt to be inherited he wanted predestination he didn't like the whole free will take too much free will and so where Augustine actually lands is he lands with a tradition despite its problems because that view allows him the most latitude to argue for predestination and human transference of guilt he never actually comes out and again I'll put the pages on the website he never actually comes out and says pre-existence is an unworkable terrible heretical idea he doesn't do it but yet his opinion veering away from that and the opinion of others has been construed as taking pre-existence completely off the table and again as I've said before on the podcast I think it should be on the table I'm not going to pretend that we have all the answers here but by way of wrapping this up I want people to learn this who listen to the podcast the issue should always be what can the text sustain the issue shouldn't be what did Augustine say what did Luther say and you know those guys say lots of good things sometimes I think they say lots of kind of bad things or truly bad things but that isn't the question the question should be what does the text sustain so to wrap up here again what about Levi being really there in the loins of his father I think that is a possibility I don't see any evidence and I haven't been shown any evidence that biblical writers would have dismissed the idea out of hand and I think that's because you have again these instances where if I can say it this way embodiment or we don't quite need it to still be talking about persons the clear examples are post-death and we have to ask ourselves well can we use the post-death examples to talk about pre-birth and that's when you get into passages like Jeremiah 1 you get into pre-existence passages the text could be read that way and if we want to go that direction that might help us deal with Hebrews 7-10 that's my point today the text could allow this we should not dismiss it because we just don't think that way you know I'm not dismissing the idea of corporate solidarity between Abraham and Levi that's certainly true again that's not the question the question is what is the basis for it and what do we do with the language of verse 10 I'm suggesting we shouldn't just fold the language of verse 10 into verse 9 and just say let's not worry about it let's not worry about the details of verse 10 I just don't think that's an honest way to proceed and I don't think that it can be demonstrated that biblical writers would not have thought that Levi was actually there somehow so for me I don't take verse 5-12 the way most people do I don't have a problem with pre-existence per se I can't say that Scripture teaches the idea with certainty it might teach it if it did that could account for the language of Hebrews 7-10 we could argue Hebrews 7-10 is sort of like Jeremiah 1 it reveals something God knew and revealed about someone existing but not yet born that reflects a verdict that is Levi's priesthood is inferior to Christ and Melchizedek's that has its basis in that knowledge and the real existence of Levi prior to birth in other words it takes Hebrews 7-10 seriously the solidarity between Abraham and Levi is based on a metaphysical truth that could be attached to events on earth that's what I'm saying if we don't take that view we're either left with the consensus view that God more or less transferred Abraham's payment to Levi and Hebrews 7-10 doesn't have a real time meaning in any historical sense it's just figurative language or something like that it's not historically or metaphysically true the language is just meant only to convey the principle of solidarity so you either take that view or you take the one I just articulated a minute or so ago instead of it but again the question should always be what can the text sustain how do we think about the text in its own context and what can it sustain in terms of interpretation all right Michael that was a little bit more referring back to your old podcast so better than expected all right Michael we'll get our listeners out on this over the next week or two we'll be releasing our conference podcast so I'll try to get those out as we do them but the next week and the week after that we'll be filled with conference interviews and hopefully our live Q&A so be looking for that and then we'll pick up Hebrews after that again and with that Mike I just want to thank you everybody for listening to the Naked Bible Podcast God Bless