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-02 vi.iii.ii.ii Pg 5.1
Anf-03 iv.ix.x Pg 33
See Ex. xvii. 8–16; and comp. Col. ii. 14, 15.
Why, again, did the same Moses, after the prohibition of any “likeness of anything,”1339 1339
Anf-01 ix.iv.xvii Pg 26
Ex. xvii. 16 (LXX.).
For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom; He, since He was Himself an infant, so arranging it that human infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for the sake of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judah, in the city of David.3591 3591
Anf-03 iv.ix.x Pg 33
See Ex. xvii. 8–16; and comp. Col. ii. 14, 15.
Why, again, did the same Moses, after the prohibition of any “likeness of anything,”1339 1339
Edersheim Bible History
Lifetimes vi.ii Pg 47.1
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 1
VERSE (8) - Ge 14:7 Ex 17:8-16 Nu 24:20 De 25:17-19 1Sa 15:3; 27:8
