Anf-03 iv.ix.iii Pg 5
There is, if the text be genuine, some confusion here. Melchizedek does not appear to have been, in any sense, “subsequent” to Abraham, for he probably was senior to him; and, moreover, Abraham does not appear to have been “already circumcised” carnally when Melchizedek met him. Comp. Gen. xiv. with Gen. xvii.
“But again,” (you say) “the son of Moses would upon one occasion have been choked by an angel, if Zipporah,1165 1165
Anf-03 iv.ix.iii Pg 5
There is, if the text be genuine, some confusion here. Melchizedek does not appear to have been, in any sense, “subsequent” to Abraham, for he probably was senior to him; and, moreover, Abraham does not appear to have been “already circumcised” carnally when Melchizedek met him. Comp. Gen. xiv. with Gen. xvii.
“But again,” (you say) “the son of Moses would upon one occasion have been choked by an angel, if Zipporah,1165 1165
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 10
VERSE (19) - Ge 14:1-5 Jos 11:10 Jud 1:7 1Ki 20:1 Da 2:37
