Transcript of Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL IM2014, July 6-10, 2014 The University of...
Mobile Tracking Using Forward Link in Cellular NetworksBiblical
Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL IM2014, July
6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
A New Interpretive Paradigm for
Melchizedek in Hebrews 7
New Testament/Early Christianity/Rabbinic Studies
EABS 2014 & SBL IM2014
10-39 New Testament/Early Christianity/Rabbinic Studies
(EABS)
July 10 Thursday 1-4 PM Room: SR IÖGF - Hauptgebäude
Richard K. Min
Instituto Teologico Bauptista Pablo (ITBP), Chiapas, Mexico
email: min75243@hotmail.com
http://biblicalparadox.wordpress.com
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Acknowledgements
Gopal Gupta for his support and guidance in my study and research
at University of Texas at Dallas.
Moses (HyunGu) Kim and yungGuen Lee at Paul Theological Seminary
(ITBP) and Ko-Mex Mission in Chiapas, Mexico, Sam Underwood at FBC
Farmers Branch, Jung-O Kim at Dallas Eastern Presbyterian Church,
In-Gyun Oh at Hanuri Church, Richard Crawford at FBC Richardson,
Katy Barnwell at Wycliffe Bible Translators & SIL, David
(Hosik) Kim at Korean Bible University, Paul Miller at Gramcord,
and SeJune Hong at IBM, for research opportunity, support, and
encouragement.
E. Earle Ellis for New Testament studies, and Carl F. H. Henry for
my study in John, Theology, and Christian Philosophy.
Cathy Drewry for Editorial Support.
Mi Min (my wife) for her support and encouragement, and being my
first and best audience.
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Note on Terminology
Cycle ) or κκλος in Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Circularity, Vicious Circle, Circular Reasoning
(Infinite) Loop
Reciprocal Interiority (Malatesta 1978)
Co-induction, Coinduction, Coinductive Logic
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Part 1
Introduction and Background
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Circular Rhetoric and Paradox in Biblical Studies
In the past,
The major work on circular rhetoric is viewed as Semitic influence
in repetitive or tautological expression (often treated as useless
or nonsensical) [Howard “Semitisms in NT”, 1929]
Only serious and major scholarly works on Circular Rhetoric: the
reciprocal indwelling relationships in 1 John (be-in and dwell-in)
by Malatesta (1978), followed by Brown (1982).
Paradoxes: mostly in Philosophy or Theology except one recent and
noteworthy work on Mark by Santos (1995).
self-denial discipleship (Mark 8:34),
servant-leadership (Mark 9:35).
Wilbert Francis Howard, “Semitisms in the New Testament." Accident
and Word Formation. Vol. 2 of A Grammaer of New Testatment Greek,
by James Hope Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929) 419–420;
Anthony A. Hutchinson. Semitic interference in the syntax of the
gospel of john. (The Catholic University of America, 2002)
132–133.
Narry Fajardo Santos and Narry Fajardo, “The Paradox of Authority
and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark,” Bibliotheca Sacra 154
(1995), 452–60; and Edmund B. Keller. Some Paradoxes of Paul (New
York: Philosophical Library, 1974): 2–3.
*
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Circular Reasoning and Paradox
Russell discovered: Paradox is caused by any type of vicious circle
(Principles of Mathematics, 1903)
Russell’s Paradox and Logical Atomism
“An analysis of the paradoxes to be avoided shows that they all
result from a kind of vicious circle.” (Whitehead &
Russell,1910)
"one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave
themselves.“(Barber’s Paradox)
=> The question is: does the barber shave himself? …
(Russell 1918 Lecture: The Philosophy of Logical Atomism)
cf. “Physician, Heal Yourself!” Luke 4:24
The Liar Paradox (Titus 1:12) [the most famous & classical
example]
Even one of their own prophet has said, “Cretans are always
liars”
(Epimenides circar 600 BC)
*
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Two Traditional Approaches
Philosophy to provide a sound epistemological foundation
If not now, then hopefully in future.
Classical Logic (by Tarski): to avoid circularity (paradox), to
treat circular reasoning as invalid, and to have a hierarchy of
language to prevent the circularity
Logical Atomism 2 (Wittgenstein):
Philosophy to point out linguistic mistake: “metaphysics and ethics
were literally nonsensical”
Deconstructionism (Postmodernism) (by Derrida): to treat the
languages as incapable and helpless.
“Is Zombie alive or dead?”
Reconstruct one’s own personal & subjective meaning of the text
(for there is no such a thing as objective “truth” expressed in a
text).
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Circularity in Everyday Life
Social interactions are cyclical:
Many natural phenomena are cyclical
Cyclical movement of the earth, four seasons, day & night,
etc.
Self-reference as a proof-method
Scripture explains by Scripture (Augustine)
Numerous examples (Barwise & Moss 1996)
Any 7x24 system or process (once up and running, meant to run
forever): web server, mobile server, operating systems,
life-support system, GPS & navigation system, etc..
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Two Familiar Examples
“I think, therefore I am.” in Specimina Philosophiae (1644)
This proposition became a fundamental element of Western
Philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all
knowledge. (Wiki)
“Scripturae ex Scripturae explicanda est.”
Scripture explains scripture.
Augustine: When we wish to examine passages made obscure by
metaphorical expressions, the result should be something which is
beyond dispute or which, if not beyond dispute, can be settled by
finding and deploying corroboratory evidence from within scripture
itself”
(On Christian Doctrine III.86-86, p. 87).
Luther: In this manner Scripture is its own light. It is a fine
thing when Scripture explains itself. (Franz August Otto Pieper,
Church Dogmatics, vol. 3:362)
Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 1 by Dr. Francis Pieper. pp.
359-367
http://heartoftn.net/users/gary27/Exegesis.html
*
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Breakthrough by Kripke (1975) and
Emerging new development with Circularity
Kripke (1975): “Outline of a Theory of Truth”, and
“Kripke-Kleene 3-valued Semantics for Logic Programs” by Fitting
(1985), and various computational approaches & implementations,
including:
Coinductive Logic Programming (co-LP) by Simon et al (2006),
Coinductive Logic Programming with Negation as Failure by Min et al
(2009), and
Its application to the study of Biblical Paradox by Min and Gupta
(SBL IM 2010), Min (SBL IM 2011), Min (SBL IM 2012), Min (SBL
IM2013), and Min (SBL AM2013).
http://biblicalparadox.wordpress.com
http://www.utdallas.edu/~rkm010300
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Current State of Biblical Scholarship
Einai En and Menein En in Johannine Literature
Dodd (1946), followed by
Malatesta (1978) and Brown (1982; 1995), notes about this “remain
in” (or “abide in”) formula in 1 John 2:5, as characteristic of the
Fourth Gospel, “not found (verbally) in the sources which are our
authorities for Hellenistic mysticism.”
Brown (1982) further elaborates this concept of divine indwelling
as an “important Johannine idea in the Old Testament and
intertestamental Jewish writing” and “to keep the Johannine view of
divine immanence distinctive,” noting that “this formula avoids
that identification with divinity that marked many Hellenistic
systems” by Hauck (Kittel 4:576).
*
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Part 2
Circular Rhetoric and Paradoxes
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Example 1: Exodus 3:14
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Example 2: John 14:10
Edward Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant: A Study of Einai En and
Menein En in the First Letter of Saint John [Analecta Biblica 69]
(San Francisco: Biblical Institute Press, 1978): 34–36
Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1995): 195–96;
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Example 3: Titus 1:12
The Liar Paradox
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Example 4 – Three Paradoxes in Matthew 22:15-46
(1) Matthew 22:15-22
(2) Matthew 22:23-33
Marriage vs Resurrection
(3) Matthew 22:41-46
David called Christ, “My Lord” in Psalm 110:1
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Example 4.
Christ - Whose son is he? Son of David.
Paradox of Lord-Servant (Father-Son) Relationship
What is Human vs Divine in crash!
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
A New Look at Matthew 22:15-46
All dealing with Biblical Law (Legal Reasoning)
thus the problems of Biblical Legal Reasoning (Halakoth)
Two Laws in Conflict or Contention (and not yielding to each
other)
Matthew 22:15-22. Tax Law
the law of God vs the law of Caesar (this World)
Who is my Master (Matthew 6:24)? Whose servant am I?
Matthew 22:23-33. Marriage (Family) Law
the law of Marriage (Mosaic Law) in this age vs. in the age to
come
the old law to be perished (time-expired) vs. the new law in
resurrection
Old Law vs. New Law (to repeal the old law)
A Note in Matthew 22:34-40. Order in the Laws (legal
precedence)
Hierarchy of the Laws, legal authority, highest law, legal
precedence and superseding law.
Matthew 22:41-46. Law of Inheritance (for Title of Lordship)
the law governing the Son of God in flesh vs. divine (Psalm
110:1)
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
A Classical Example in Contemporary NT Studies
Luke 17:20-30 “Already” and “Not Yet” in Tension
Two-stage coming of the Kingdom of God, expressed in temporal-modal
logic of “already” and “not yet” in tension
Oscar Cullmann: Christus und die Zeit (1946) in the framework of
History of Salvation (1965). Heilsgeschichte
It took over a half-century to uncover the underlying critical
method of Cullmann in temporal-modal logic, and to be correctly
recognized and rightfully appreciated.
E. Earle Ellis. Luke (1974), The Christ and Future in New Testament
History (2001).
G. E. Ladd. The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical
Realism (1974)
Similarly by John the Baptist in Primitive Christianity
He who comes after me [“not yet”] … he was before me
[“already”].
(John 1:15, 30 in Circular temporal-modal logic)
cf. Matthew 22:41-46; Hebrews 7:3,15 with Psalm110:1,4]
*
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Two Proof Methods in John 8:12-19
[Self-Testimony vs Testimony of Two Men]
John 8:12-19 (NIV)
12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said,
“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in
darkness, but will have the light of life.”
13 The Pharisees challenged him,
“Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not
valid.”
(1) John 8:12. one of “I am” sayings in John: εγω ειμι το φως του
κοσμου
(2) John 8:13. Objection and Accusation by the Pharisees
(lawfully)
It is self-witness or self-testimony (Circular Reasoning).
(3) The Pharisees (just like us in 20th century) declared it
invalid !
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Two Proof Methods in John 8:12-19
[Self-Testimony vs Testimony of Two Men]
14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my
testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am
going.
But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15You
judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16But if I do
judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with
the Father, who sent me.
17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is
valid.
18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the
Father, who sent me.”
Note: Two proof methods being presented side by side.
John 8:12 “I am …” as Self-Testimony – Circular/Coinductive
Reasoning
John 8:17 Testimony of two men according to the Law –
Legal/Inductive Reasoning
(1) Thus all metaphorical “I am” sayings of Jesus in John are
essentially Circular
(2) Contrary to the contemporary biblical
scholarship/exegesis/interpretation/logic
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
1 John 3:9 & 5:18 versus 1:8-10
A Difficult Problem in 1 John 3:9 & 5:18 vs1:8-10
Sin-state of Christian in need of confession for the forgiveness of
God versus
Sinless-state (impeccable state) of Christian
1 John 3:9 one “born of God” in circular logic
Πς γεγεννημνος κ το θεο μαρταν ο ποιε,
τι σπρμα ατο ν ατ μνει, κα ο δναται μαρτνειν,
τι κ το θεο γεγννηται.
Johannine Literature: einai en & menein en
Edward Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant: A Study of Einai En and
Menein En in the First Letter of Saint John [Analecta Biblica 69]
(San Francisco: Biblical Institute Press, 1978): 34–36;
Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1995): 195–96;
*
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Part 3
Hebrews: A Masterpiece of Circular Rhetoric and Logic of Paradox in
Action (4+ Major Paradoxes)
The Son of God vs David-Melchizedek in King-Priest Christology
(Psalm 110:1, 4; Hebrews 7:3, 15). [Paradox of Temporal-Modal
Logic]
The oath of God, sworn by himself (Hebrews 6:13; 7:21). [Paradox of
Self-Reference]
According to the Scripture, as it is written, the Son of God has
come to fulfill what had been written about himself (Psalm 40:6–8;
Hebrews 10:5–9). [Paradox of Self-Reference and
Mutual-Reference]
The Son of God the High-Priest of God offering Himself as the
sacrifice (Hebrews 10:8–10). [Paradox of Self Reference]
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Hebrews: A Masterpiece of
Paradox 1.
The Son of God is both divine and human, preexistent and yet to be
born as a man to be the priest according to the order of
Melchizedek (Psalm 110:1, 4; Hebrews 7:3, 15). [Paradox of
Mutual-Reference in Temporal-Modal Logic]
In the past on Hebrews 7:1-3, Scholarly Opinions or Debates focus
on
(1) Rhetoric & Logic: Jewish vs Greek Influence (Qumran vs
Philo)
(2) Melchizedek: Human vs Divine (or Supra-Human)?
(3) Type vs Inverse Type (Melchizedek vs Christ)
(4) Reading in Canonic Faith vs Blind Faith (or Skepticism)
But in the state of contention and disagreement (and for how
long?)
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Hebrews 7:3,15 - Melchizedek
1 Οτος γρ Μελχισδεκ, βασιλες Σαλμ, ερες το θεο το ψστου, … 3 πτωρ
μτωρ γενεαλγητος,
μτε ρχν μερν μτε ζως τλος χων, φωμοιωμνος δ τ υ το θεο,
μνει ερες ες τ διηνεκς. . . .
15 κα περισστερον τι κατδηλν στιν, ε κατ τν μοιτητα Μελχισδεκ
νσταται ερες τερος,
15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of
Melchizedek, there arises another priest.
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Hebrews: A Masterpiece of
Paradox 2.
This priesthood is ordained by the oath of God, sworn by himself in
an act of self-reference, for no higher authority exists whereby to
swear (Hebrews 6:13; 7:21).
Cf. Exodus 3:14, John 8:12-20
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Paradox 3
According to the Scripture, as it is written as in due time, the
Son of God has come to fulfill what had been written about himself
to do the will of God (Psalm 40:6–8; Hebrews 10:5–9).
Here the Son is reading the scroll, which was written to speak
about himself (as it is written in the scripture [Epistle of
Hebrews] which refers to the scripture [the scroll]). This is one
remarkable and mysterious example of circular rhetoric and paradox,
as a literary masterpiece, noteworthy in biblical prophecy and
logic.
Hebrews: A Masterpiece of
Circular Rhetoric and Paradoxes in Action
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Paradox 4.
The Son is not only the high priest of God, but also the sacrifice
himself with his own body (or blood) in circular rhetoric, once for
all to set aside the first to establish the second (Hebrews
10:8–10).
This is another remarkable and mysterious example of circular
rhetoric, literary wonder and mystery, and a literary masterpiece
on the Son of God.
Hebrews: A Masterpiece of
Circular Rhetoric and Paradoxes in Action
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Hebrews 5:10-14 as Pedagogical Preparation for Hebrews Ch7 &
thereafter (John 3:12-13)
Difficult to understand, yet Hebrews is a literary treasure and
masterpiece with noteworthy circular reasoning and paradoxes.
The author is aware not only of the difficulty of his materials in
teaching, but also the level of his readers in learning (Hebrews
5:10–14).
Expressed on behalf of the community (of “we”), the author’s
pedagogical assessment is not only a personal opinion, but also a
communal consensus.
In order to effect spiritual awakening and introspection, he
directly and authoritatively addressed his concern to his readers,
even at the risk of embarrassing them in public (Hebrews
5:11–14).
However, just as any good teacher might do, the author takes his
time and space for his students to review the basic materials in
order that they will be prepared (Hebrews 6:1–20).
After a lengthy pedagogical digression to cover the basic materials
reviewed (Hebrews 5:10–6:20), the author returns to the main course
of discussion in Hebrews 7 (for a “Critical” Lesson for a Mature
Christians)
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Difficult Lesson Ahead (cf. John 3:12-13)
The Well-Known Lesson: the Christ is the Lord (Psalm 110:1, Matthew
22:41-46, 1 Corinthians 12:3)
The Difficult Lesson (to be explored): Jesus Christ is the High
Priest forever (Psalm 110:4)
in the order of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 and thereafter. (cf. John
3:12-13 on Heavenly matters)
ησος, κατ τν τξιν Μελχισδεκ ρχιερες γενμενος ες τν ανα (Hebrews
6:20; 8:1)
The key thesis in progression is centered in the correct
understanding of this key passage in Psalm 110:4.
The Son of God is both divine and human, preexistent and yet to be
born as a man to be the priest according to the order of
Melchizedek.
(Psalm 110:1, 4; Hebrews 7:3, 15). Cf. John 1:15, 30 by John the
Baptist.
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Hebrews 7:1-3
By the time of Hebrews 7:1, the audience is well–prepared and alert
spiritually.
Additionally, they are now familiar with the key phrase, “according
to the order of Melchizedek” with regard to the eternal high
priesthood of Jesus Christ who is not only human but also
divine.
Hebrews 7:1–3 is a passage somewhat like a handle to the divine
scroll yet to be unrolled to reveal the hidden mystery of the Son
of God regarding his high-priesthood.
What has happened in the heaven after all?
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Hebrews 7:1-3
Mechizedek
He is the king of Salem and the priest of God Most High in Genesis
14:18–20, superior to Abraham and all of his descendants including
Levi.
Here Melchizedek is presented and interpretively applied to the Son
of God in the continuing framework of King-Priest Christology in
Hebrews (Psalm 110:1, 4).
In Circular Rhetoric and Logic of Paradox
Proem Midrash to make and set a ground work for biblically
consistent, coherent, sound, and valid Christological exposition of
Psalm 110:4 and thereafter.
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Summary: Two Paradoxes of the Son of God
in Psalm 110
As warned by the author of Hebrews, two passages in Psalm 110
generate the enormous controversies and difficulties in the New
Testament study and exegesis.
The first controversy and paradox about the Son of God is the
problem of the divine Lordship of Jesus Christ (human and
divine).
He is the son of David. Yet he is being addressed by David as “my
lord” (Psalm 110:1).
The paradox deals with the extended human “father-son” relationship
in the law, with the divine-human relationship (of lord-servant) in
Matthew 22:41-46
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Summary: Two Paradoxes of the Son of God in Psalm 110
(2) The Second Controversy and Paradox of the Son of God in Psalm
110:4 is the problem of the priesthood of Jesus Christ who is from
the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14–15).
According to the law, to have a priest outside of the tribe of Levi
and according to the order of Aaronic lineage is impossible.
The legal question is how it could be possible for Christ, the son
of David, to be a priest of God.
This controversy has never been dealt with or resolved in any part
of the New Testament except in Hebrews.
The writer has engaged in lengthy and delicate discussions with
great care and thorough discussion; otherwise, he could easily
mislead his audience.
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Conclusion
Abundant text-samples within the biblical (canonic) framework and
uniquely biblical (for example, Malateste 1978 & Brown
1982)
Paradox caused by Circular Rhetoric
It is about the Semantics
To express a concept (in circular rhetoric) in a valid and
meaningful way.
It was impossible with induction (or the semantics based on
induction): semantics of what is “finite and linear”.
Current scholarly bias or ignorance against circular rhetoric and
logic, to treat it as “meaningless, invalid, or nonsensical”.
Consistent & Coherent Framework of Interpretation
Circular Rhetoric and Logic of Paradox (for exegesis of
Hebrews)
King-Priest Christology
*
Biblical Paradox & Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 EABS 2014/SBL
IM2014, July 6-10, 2014
The University of Texas at Dallas Richard K. Min
Afterword by Solomon
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all
mankind.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every
hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.
(Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NIV)