|
“Truly I perceive that
God shows no partiality” (10:34). This statement is no doubt rightly
viewed as one of the key
passages in this long chapter dealing with “ the conversion of
Cornelius.” I would like
to argue that it should perhaps be applied not only to Cornelius,
however, but also to
“the conversion of Peter.” Initially Peter seems to have though that
despite the assertion of
Roman 2:11 that “God shows no partiality,” there was in fact
partiality in the
election.
The intention behind the
story of Abram giving tithes to Melchizedek could, then, have been
to legitimize the call
to Israel to the tithe to the priest of the central sanctuary in
Jerusalem.
Thus when Israelites in
the time of David and Solomon gave tithes to a former Canaanite
sanctuary in Jerusalem,
they were following the example of Abram. The only place in the
Old Testament where
Melchizedek is mentioned s in Psalm 110:4. “The Lord has sworn
and will not change his
mind: You are priest for ever after the order of Melchizdek.” Thus
the
dignity of the priest
Melchizedek was transmitted to the Davidic kings. In the New
Testament the letter to
the Hebrews takes up this theme. Melchizedek’s name is explained
as meaning “ king of
righteousness” and “king of peace” (Hebrews 7:2). The writer of the
letter to the Hebrews
sees the messianic expectations fulfilled in him (Jesus) who is also
high priest after the
order of Melchizedek (Hebrew 7:17). In other words, in the New
Testament the priesthood
of the Canaanite king Melchizedek becomes symbol and
prototype of a more
important priesthood, and Jesus becomes the fulfillment of a
prophecy
given to an originally
Canaanite cult.
From the book
Christian-Muslim Encounters. Edited by Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and
Wadi Z. Haddad.
|
