Journal On Lawn's Journal: Genesis 14 18
Abraham saves the day
Its an interesting story, if I have it right. A large multi-national army leaves a large swath of destruction, including Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot, perhaps already abandoned the plains and now a citizen or inhabitant of Sodom, is taken captive along with the rest of the spoils. Abraham takes a raiding party made up of his own employees, and recaptures the spoils. Then gives them back (except for a tithing he gives to the priest).
This brings up one of my favorite people, Melchizedek (various spellings abound) who Abraham payed tithing too and from whom received bread and wine. Long after his brief mention in the Genesis, we see that the priesthood is named after him. It has many differentiating characteristics we learn from the Aaronic priesthood. It is not inherited. The Aaronic priesthood is very formalized and full of ritual. It is the priesthood of prophets and seers who act on a different mission and purview. Melchizedek mysteriously disappears, along with his city Salem from any note of any of the next generations to inhabit the same valley.
Moses perhaps acted under this priesthood when he instituted and officiated in the Tabernacle under this priesthood while the Aaronic was being set up). While Aaron could only visit the Holiest place once a year, and then with obscuring smoke, Moses was in divine presence (face to face) both in the Tablernacle and elsewhere. Perhaps Samuel acted under this priesthood when he was an officiator of sacrifices outside the Tabernacle. Perhaps Elisha who did miracles and sacrifices. Yet why is it still named after Melchizedek?
For something completely different, it was late night on "Coast to Coast" radio with George Nory where a particular woman was on the line accepting calls. She was helping people interpret their encounters with ghosts, etc... One person encountered what she called a "Mel-chee-see-dek" who are a group of angels particularly engaged in helping out us mere mortals. I have no idea where she pulls her "insights" from, nor does that matter much to me. I do not relay the story to paint her as a purveyor of truth. The odd pronunciation (I almost didn't recognize the word) along with the mention of them being an order of angels was interesting in that I was completely unaccustomed to hearing such a reference from such a source. The source seems independent from my own both in insight and in understanding for having some parallel.
But this brings me to ask, especially for those who wonder about my commentary here, what does "priest" mean to you?
For me a priest is someone who officiates in ordinances. My etymological research narrows its origins down to meaning the "lead ox", someone who is lead by the herdsman or Shepard who in turn inspires others to follow. I like that, it relates the word to a concept rather than protocol or official act of authentication though I admit there are those dimensions to the role. Is there something I might be missing? Perhaps in the protocol and authentication?
Are all prophets priests, or are none, or is the fact that the prophets both lead and officiate mean they are other than priests somehow?
Moo (Score:1)
The Midrush places him as Shem, son of Noah, and since She
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered about that. The Temple mount in Jerusalem is where Abraham eventually offered Isaac. And I've heard Jerusalem interpreted as "New Salem" sometimes. Yet it seems rather extra-biblical to assume that Salem was either just over the hill or even where Issac was offered. I too think that Salem and Jerusalem are in the same spot, but where did Salem go between the time of offering tithing and offering Isaac?
The Midrush places him as Shem, son of Noah,
Its interesting th
Re: (Score:1)
Shem called the place Salem, actually shuh-laim, meaning complete (or perhaps peace). Abraham called the mount G-d yay-ruh-eh, referring to the appearance of G-d. Out of deference to both, G-d called it a mixture, yayruheh-shuhlaim becomes yerushalayim.
That same scholar I mentioned before noted how Greece folklore held that Japeth was their founder.
The Midrush tells us th
Re: (Score:2)
For my own reasons, I like that interpretation.
Noah's blessing to Japeth that he should have beauty, the Talmud says means the Greek language.
Interesting, as his source clearly wasn't (for those purposes) Judaic. It was Greek.
There was no re-establishment of a covenant.
One could see Abraham's covenant as a continuation of Noah's, and Able (later Seth) and Adam. In fact one reference says Abraham specifically sought after the covenants of patriarch's of yore, and his efforts were rewarded the
Re: (Score:1)
What covenant with Noah?
The one where he said he would make sure he got onto the Ark? (Genesis 6:18 [blueletterbible.org]). That basically was over 120 years later when they went into the ark.
There was a second covenant (unless it was the point of the first, thus making it the same) in Genesis 9:9 [blueletterbible.org]. But, that covenant was with everybody (Note, G-d was talking to Noah and his sons, and mentioned their sons afterwards, so that means everybody). The covenant was a guarantee
Re: (Score:2)
What covenant with Noah?
No biggie. I only offer such to explain the context of my understanding. I could explain further, noting particular parallels through all of Genesis (from Eve's rejoicing at Seth's birth to Israel's blessing of Joseph's sons) as tracking a significant lineage marked with covenants, but tha
Re: (Score:1)
YW, and back at ya.
as tracking a significant lineage marked with covenants
Well, you are welcome to do so, but it certainly isn't what the Bible says, and is absolutely adverse to what Judaism teaches.
A convenant is a promise with an action to solidify it. And there are very few of those between G-d and the people, and none are the same.
But what I miss is their lamp having the three stages of the almond, and the branches looking like almond branches.
While there shoul
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problems in the Bible is that it doesn't include enough of its own commentary. Hence the Midrash, etc... However, as a person who invests much in a chosen lineage, it is surprising for me to see you so contrary to the idea. Never the less, as my previous JE mentions "conversion", I hold much more investment in a conversion rather than lineage. I missed your commentary in that JE.
A convenant is a promise
Re: (Score:1)
That is quite untrue. As the Word of G-d, knowing that it is true, that it preceded the world, and that the world was created from it, studying it for what it says (as opposed to what we want it to say) will show that it has a *very* specific message. As the Talmud says, "turn over in it and turn over in it, because it is all in it".
Further, the Bible calls itself [blueletterbible.org] the Torah, which means the law. Any system of Law that i
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, thats probably the point. I use a word as it is commonly used -- as a description. I agreed that it is laudable for you to use it specifically and technically for the sake of translation within a tradition
It is tricky, and sometimes I wish there was a more direct way to do this. I have seen people err by being too literal, and by being too figurative. My search is one of appreciation. Right and wrong will not
Moo (Score:1)
He took nothing. The tithing was from his own items.
Re: (Score:2)
He was in the area having ventured after the looters, and gave from his own increase knowing it was due.
In many ways that makes more sense.
Re: (Score:1)
He gave everything back, except he asked for payment for his friend's services.
He then met Malkitzedek, so he tithed his own items. This had absolutely nothing to do with the war, it just happened to be when he met the priest thus giving him the very oppurtunity to tithe.
The question is why did he meet the priest just then. The answer is that since he was Shem, and Abraham had just killed some of his children, he figured a condolence call was in order. Shem had no issue, so Abraham tithed his stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
it just happened to be when he met the priest thus giving him the very oppurtunity to tithe.
Which is what I interpreted you as saying before. There is no contention that I see on this issue. I do figure that it follows that since he was in the area he payed tithes just of his own increase.
It seems a priestly duty to accept tithes, and our duty to pay such. Since tithin
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, ok, you mean the four kings, gotcha.
It seems a priestly duty to accept tithes, and our duty to pay such.
Well, not their duty. It is a present. It keeps them going because they (like all Levites) had no land, and were expected to work in the Temple. The Levites owned some cities, however.
I perhaps am accepting of the plausibility while retaining my own personally lea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
dang (Score:3, Interesting)
No time for me to comment though... Thanks for the throught provoking post.