11/15/2017 OT Levites & Priests: Closer to Sola Scriptura or Catholicism? (Part 2)
Dave Armstrong
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/11/ot-levites-priests-closer-sola-scriptura-catholicism.html In Acts, however, the interpreter is given the title “prophet” as well as “teacher”.
Both terms also are applied to Jesus.
It is clear from Luke 7:39
That they are not mutually exclusive:
The one who is addressed as teacher may also be (the eschatological) prophet.
. . . The foregoing discussion enables us to return to the question raised earlier and to answer it with some measure of confidence.
The interpretation of Scripture was indeed regarded, under certain conditions, as prophetic activity.
(44) And it is likely that Luke does so regard it, even in such persons as Peter and Stephen . . .
. . . But as the above discussion has shown, there is no clear division in Judaism or the primitive church between the teaching of a prophet and of a teacher.
Likewise, the false prophets in the church teach.
(1 Jn. 2:22, 26 f.; 4:1 ff.).
And the false teachers in the church correspond to the false prophets of the Old Covenant (2 Pet. 2:1).
Selective Footnotes:
(18) E.g., Acts 2:14-36; 3:12-26; 4:8-12 (Peter); 6:9-11; 7:2-53 (Stephen); 8:30-35 (Philip); 9:20-22; 13:5, 16-41; 17:2, 10 f., 17 (22-31); 18:4; 19:8; 26:22 f.; 28:23 (Paul); 18:24-28 (Apollos).
(19) For example, cf. Jer. 48:45 with Num. 21:28; 24:17; Jer. 50-51 with Isa. 13-14; Zeph. 2:15 . . . with Isa. 47:8.
On Dan. 11:30 as a reinterpretation of Num. 24:24 see F. F. Bruce,
“The Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community”, . . .
(20) Cf. L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (Hildesheim, 1966 [1892]), pp. 37 f.:
Already in the Old Testament period older Scriptures were interpreted and in a certain sense changed.
Ezra and the Levites appear as interpreters of the laws;
The Chronicler makes use of midrash;
Daniel is the interpreter of Jeremiah.
The schools of the prophets become assemblies of the wise. . . .
(21) SB 4, p. 116. Cf. R. Meyer, TDNT 6 (1959-1969), p. 817:
According to the rabbis the prophets are “the oldest expositors of the Law…”
(22) Matt. 23:2; R. Meyer, op. cit., 6, pp. 818 f.
“Since the temple was destroyed prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise”.
(Baba Bathra 12a).
Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi were viewed as the first members of the chain of rabbinic tradition.
(Krauss, op. cit., pp. 47 f.).
“Moses received… and delivered to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the great synagogue”
(Aboth 1:1).
See also J. Jeremias
(Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, London, 1969), pp. 233-245.
(23) So identified in 4Qflor 2:3. Cf. Dan. 9:22, 25.
(24) Bruce, “Daniel and Qumran”, pp. 228 f. Cf. 1QS 9:17-19:
The maskil is to conceal the teaching of the Law from the men of falsehood but to instruct the Community “in the mysteries (razey) of wonder and truth”;
1QH 12:11 f.:
“As a maskil have I come to know thee, my God, through the spirit that thou hast given me, and by thy Holy Spirit I have faithfully listened to thy marvellous secret counsel.
(sodh).”
Similarly, of the Teacher of Righteousness, “to whom God made known all the mysteries (razey) of the words of his servants the prophets”
(1Qp Hab. 7:4 f.).
(25) Cf. E. E. Ellis, “
Midrashic Features in the Speeches of Acts,”
Hommage au Professeur B. Rigaux (Gembloux, 1970), pp. 306 f.
(E. Earle Ellis,
“The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts,”
W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, editors,
The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts. E. Earle Ellis
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/prophet_ellis.pdf Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce.
Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.55-67)
For an interesting article by a rabbi on the Torah and Oral Law (with lots of OT texts), see:
“Obedience to the Oral Law is a Commandment,” by Rabbi Avraham Feld. Evidence For The Oral Law, Rabbi Avraham Feld
http://britam.org/law2.html Per all the above, priests, Levites, and prophets had strong teaching and interpretive authority.
OT authority was not strictly infallible:
That extraordinary gift needed the express guidance and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a way that was not possible till Jesus opened up the way by His redemptive sacrifice on our behalf.
But it was quite authoritative in a way that Protestant church authority (insofar as it exists at all) is not.
It conforms to the Catholic model.
Orthodoxy is absolutely central in both ancient and current-day Judaism.
But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that doctrine was nonexistent.
The Law certainly contains doctrines.
In any event, teachers were still needed to authoritatively interpret the Law, so the analogy is to Catholicism, not the sola Scriptura rule of faith.
I‘m not arguing the analogy to the Catholic magisterium in the sense of unbroken succession.
Obviously that did not occur in the OT.
But then again, that was earlier in salvation history, so we would expect it.
Doctrine was much less developed.
They didn’t have the Holy Spirit as we do, or the full revelation of the New Testament and the Gospel.
Therefore, apostolic succession and the protections of infallibility are now possible and thinkable and believable.
The New Covenant was a major increase of certainty and ability to ascertain spiritual truth in all things.
That’s how I would account for any real differences in the analogy I am drawing, while also continuing to maintain that the notions of authority were present in the Old Covenant, notwithstanding sinners and corruption as always;
Nothing new there.
Protestants can talk about sin and corruption (in the OT priesthood) all they like, but that doesn’t wipe out the necessity of authoritative teachers.
Or the fact that this is the norm prescribed by this same Bible that they want to make the sole final authority in the usual distorted Protestant manner.
They can’t appeal, on the one hand, to the Josian and Hezekian reformations on the ground that they established Scripture front and center in Jewish life (because they could again read it and apply it).
Yet fail to apply what that same Scripture says to the issues at hand.
They had to see what Scripture said;
So do we.
Nothing has changed in that regard.
I look in it and see that it teaches the necessity and normative nature of a strong teaching authority.
The Scripture alone does not teach Scripture Alone.
Protestants have reversed biblical authority:
Now the congregations can tell the pastors what is right and wrong?
The sheep become the shepherds?
What if they disagree?
This is always the Protestant dilemma. It sounds wonderful in theory but it ain’t biblical and it doesn’t work.
Whatever the amount of historical corruption in the ranks of the priests, kings, prophets, it doesn’t follow that there can never be a teaching class.
The OT clearly teaches that there was one.
The system was there, but obviously it was not always functional or trustworthy.
Corruption is the most obvious thing in the world and never proves anything in relation to true and false theology or exegesis.
(End Part 2)