How do Protestants interpret 2 Corinthians 5:18?

[Richard_Kastner]

Question: Who gave you the authority to interpret scripture? The bible, you say? Well, then we are both correct, aren’t we? Actually, since I currently have 12 bibles, I have 12X authority to interpret, right?

Quoting scripture is meaningless, when you are privately interpreting it. It means anything and everything without proper interpretation.Satan quotes scripture! Is he right? The bible tells us that scripture needs authoritative interpretation. Need the cites?

Who has that authority?

I don’t need your church to understand what this is saying

2Cor.5
10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

I added this v. so that there can be no doubt as to whom Christ is talking. He is talking to everyone who will stand before the judgement seat of God and this does not exclude everyone but Catholic priests.

14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

**17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; **

If you or your church says that this is saying something other than those that are new in Christ are given the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION, you would be wrong.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

At the Passover seder there is no priest necessary to offer the bread and wine is there? We are celebrating the same thing but we recognize Jesus as the sacrifice revealed.

You are correct about Jesus’ priest hood. And he is the only one in that priest hood. He is Melchizedek in the OT. Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father because His sacrifice has been already once offered. There is no need to re offer that which has already been offered. So no priest is needed for the Lords’ Supper.

jericho777,

I am only going to mention this once, as someone else has already tried to explain, there are not multiple sacrifices. Communion is a sharing in the one sacrifice.

The Passover meal was part of the covenant from God and men. It required an active participation. In reading Exodus 12:17, we see this was to be done perpetually, for ever.

We know from Jeremiah 31:31, a new covenant was prophesied. This prophesy was brought to mind in the New Testament, in a letter from St. Paul to the Hebrews 8:7 – 12.

The prescription of the Passover meal was detailed and clear from the Lord, as written in Exodus 12.

A lamb without blemish was to be slaughtered at twilight, eaten with unleavened bread, the lamb’s blood was to be sprinkled on the doorposts with hyssop, none of the lamb’s bones were to be broken, and this ordinance was to be celebrated perpetually.

The Jewish Passover meal consisted of:

1. The Festival Blessing – Drink from the 1st cup of wine.
2. Passover Narrative and Little Hallel (Psalms 113) – Drink from 2nd cup of wine.
3. Main Meal: roasted lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs and spices – Drink from 3rd cup of wine.
4. Great Hallel (Psalms 114 – 118) and the drinking of the 4th cup of wine, and closed when presiding priest or host says the phrase, “TEL TELESTI” which is interpreted as “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.

The Lord’s Supper occurred during the celebration of the Passover, or Seder, meal.

3 of the Gospel authors told us about the Lord’s Supper. Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote about it. All 3 say He gave the cup, of the new covenant, to the Apostles and told them to drink, but it does not tell us that Christ, the High Priest, drank of the cup.

Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18, tells us that, during the Passover meal, Christ announced He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until he drank it in the Kingdom of God.

After making this announcement, Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 tell us, “Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” After singing a hymn, the great Hallel, they went out to the garden, without the High Priest closing the celebration, not only not closing the celebration, but declaring He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until He drank it in the Kingdom of God. He did not say, “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.

When God made the covenant with Moses, Moses asked who to tell had told him of the covenant, Exodus 3:13 – 14. God told Moses, “I am, who I am.”

When Christ was arrested in the garden, He asked who they were looking for and they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth”. In John 18:5, Jesus told them, “I AM he”. When those arresting Him heard this, they went backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6).

Mark 15:22 – 24 told us that Christ was offered wine drugged with myrrh, but He did not drink it.

John 19:28 – 30 explains that Our Lord, aware that everything was now finished, in order that scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst”. Hearing this, they took a sponge and dipped it in common wine, sour wine, fruit of the vine, and held it up to His mouth with hyssop. After taking the wine, our Lord said, “It is finished”, bowed His head and gave up the spirit.

John 19:33 – 38 told us that our Lord’s legs were not broken, so that scripture might be fulfilled.

Mark 15:33 – 34 tells us the time the Lamb of God death, which was twilight, the same time Moses was instructed to slaughter the sacrificial lamb.

Christ came to fulfill the law, and it was fulfilled with the new covenant. A covenant of God and men, that requires participation of those being set free.

This is a copy and paste of material I have posted previously on these forums.

While it was not ‘necessary’ for a priest to preside over the Passover, we do not know the office of each one that “TEL TELESTI”.

It really appears you are denying any office necessary in the hierarchy of the Church and it is clear God set a hierarchy in the Church.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

If you truly are denying the necessity of an office within His Church, please provide the scriptures that show the ordination of someone who desired and received an office without it being through the authoritative men of the Church.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t need your church to understand what this is saying

Well, to understand the entirety of scripture, yes, you do, actually. The Apostle Peter condemns private interpretation of scripture, laying it at the feet of the ignorant and unstable. NOT calling you either one, but do you purposefully ignore this scripture?

If you or your church says that this is saying something other than those that are new in Christ are given the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION, you would be wrong.

Where does Paul (or anywhere in the bible) say that the ministry of reconciliation is only for the “new in Christ” as you put it? He does not. So, where did this concept come from?

Oh, and as to the “your church” stuff, this is not a competition. It is a search for the truth. How do you know that your personal interpretation is correct?

I know all about the multifarious accusations against the Catholic Church. What I still have not heard is an answer.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Well, to understand the entirety of scripture, yes, you do, actually. The Apostle Peter condemns private interpretation of scripture, laying it at the feet of the ignorant and unstable. NOT calling you either one, but do you purposefully ignore this scripture?

Actually you make reference to two passages.

2Peter1
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The purpose of the first in 2Peter1 is not to condemn private interpretation, but it is meant to show that prophecy does not come from man but from God.

2Peter3
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

The second says that some “unlearned and unstable” try to divert what Paul is saying away from the Gospel message and they do this to their own distruction. I have not done this. Quite the contrary I am trying to get you to see that this is precisely what Paul is saying in 2 Cor5 that God has given to ALL believers the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION. That God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

Where does Paul (or anywhere in the bible) say that the ministry of reconciliation is only for the “new in Christ” as you put it? He does not. So, where did this concept come from?

It says it right here. I emboldened it in my last post so you couldn’t miss it.

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Oh, and as to the “your church” stuff, this is not a competition. It is a search for the truth. How do you know that your personal interpretation is correct?

God Has given a certain amount of understanding to us all. Again, if you or your church are saying that 2Cor.5 17&18 is saying anything other than those that have become new in the faith of Jesus Christ are given the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION. You would fall into the catagory of “unlearned and unstable” who “wrest” scripture “unto their own destruction.”

I know all about the multifarious accusations against the Catholic Church. What I still have not heard is an answer.

I don’t know what you mean by “multifarious accusations” and what was it that you wanted an answer to.

 

[po18guy]

The purpose of the first in 2Peter1 is not to condemn private interpretation, but it is meant to show that prophecy does not come from man but from God.

**2 Peter 1:20 (King James Version) “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation”. **

Is this somehow not clear to you? Neither you not I have any authority to privately interpret. Private interpretation is non-biblical.

The second says that some “unlearned and unstable” try to divert what Paul is saying away from the Gospel message and they do this to their own distruction.

You prove the Catholic point! This is simply your twist on the meaning of these passages. Why on earth was Paul speaking of a “MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION” (as you put it), when he was speaking to those who had made their profession and been baptized 20-30 years before? Riddle me that! If they were reconciled once for all, as you allege, Paul’s ministry was USELESS (as I put it).

Your private interpretation completely ignores the form and functioning of the early, pre-bible Church. That itself is not biblical.

Whatever assembly you belong to does not completely resemble this early, Book of Acts Church. This is a huge problem and is not biblical.

Again, your opinion seems to be arrogant, condemning the oldest living institution on the face of the earth, the Apostolic Church, and replacing it with something that you find easy to accept. Any non-Apostolic Church is non-biblical.

Bottom line is that you believe the bible somehow magically gives you the authority to interpret scripture. This is non-biblical.

From where does your authority come? Answer, please.

 

[po18guy]

I sure wish that those who use only the bible; those who have only the bible as their foundation; those who quote the bible ad nauseam; those who think that only they know the truth and no one else does, would actually follow the bible!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually you make reference to two passages.

The purpose of the first in 2Peter1 is not to condemn private interpretation, but it is meant to show that prophecy does not come from man but from God.

The foretelling of scriptures, referenced by Peter, are the prophecies of the Old Testament.

Example:

**Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me. **

The only scriptures that Jesus could have possibly been speaking of, at that time, was the Old Testament. There are many other examples in the New Testament speaking of the prophecies of the Old Testament.

2Peter3
The second says that some “unlearned and unstable” try to divert what Paul is saying away from the Gospel message and they do this to their own distruction. I have not done this. Quite the contrary I am trying to get you to see that this is precisely what Paul is saying in 2 Cor5 that God has given to ALL believers the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION. That God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

There is no where in the New Testament that an author specifically addresses the things that they wrote as ‘scriptures’, on a level of the Old Testament.

Scriptures do not define a canon for the New Testament. There were many writings of the times, some ‘identified’ as by an Apostle, that were not canonized. Some of those writings were identified as by an Apostle who had writings that were defined as part of the canon that was accepted.

The very letter you’re using was written to a Church, as ‘instruction’, from a Bishop/Apostle. In Paul’s writings a Church was defined as ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ and the place that ‘the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known.’ No where did any author of scriptures, including the writings defined as part of the New Testament canon, say this about the scriptures themselves.

Going back to address interpretation of scriptures, I want to point out Nehemiah 8. This tells us how people of the Old Testament received an interpretation of scriptures. There never had been an acceptable practice of ‘private interpretation’, just as the New Testament does not teach such a practice.

It says it right here. I emboldened it in my last post so you couldn’t miss it.

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

God Has given a certain amount of understanding to us all. Again, if you or your church are saying that 2Cor.5 17&18 is saying anything other than those that have become new in the faith of Jesus Christ are given the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION. You would fall into the catagory of “unlearned and unstable” who “wrest” scripture “unto their own destruction.”

On this part of scriptures, I do not agree with your interpretation of verse 18. Verse 18 says, 'And all things (including the things that became new) are of God, who hath reconciled us (the Apostles) to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us (the Apostles) the ministry of reconciliation. Paul is identifying God to the Corinthians how they, themselves, were reconciled to God through Jesus Christ; God that given them the ministry of reconciliation.

For us to accept your interpretation of this passage, you will have to provide an example of scriptures where anyone became new and assumed an authoritive position (ministry of reconciling people to Christ), within the Church, without having been accepted through the men chosen and appointed by Christ or the men they chose and appointed into offices within the Church. That would be an example of reading scriptures within scriptures.

I’ll end this post on Paul’s explanation of the Church being the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ or the place that ‘the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through’ as the place people can become learned, so they can avoid wresting scriptures. It is unstable to think that God would give different interpretations to so many different people, through His Holy Spirit, and it still remain truth.

Do you always interpret scriptures for yourself? If so, how do you know that your interpretation is correct over all others?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

**2 Peter 1:20 (King James Version) “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation”. **

Is this somehow not clear to you? Neither you not I have any authority to privately interpret. Private interpretation is non-biblical.

This MEANS exactly what it says.

2Peter1
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

That “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” Why? 21For the prophecy came not in **old time **by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This is merely saying that prophecy in “OLD TIME” came from God through the movement of His Spirit in holy men.

You prove the Catholic point!

What would that point be?

This is simply your twist on the meaning of these passages. Why on earth was Paul speaking of a “MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION” (as you put it), when he was speaking to those who had made their profession and been baptized 20-30 years before? Riddle me that! If they were reconciled once for all, as you allege, Paul’s ministry was USELESS (as I put it).

I posted 2Cor.5:17&18 twice, but apparently you didn’t read it. The “ministry of reconciliation” is not how I put it. It is how Paul put it.

2Cor.5
18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Your private interpretation completely ignores the form and functioning of the early, pre-bible Church. That itself is not biblical.

Whatever assembly you belong to does not completely resemble this early, Book of Acts Church. This is a huge problem and is not biblical.

Are you saying that 2Cor5:18 does not say 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; because that is what I am saying. If you or your church is saying that this says something else then clearly you are wresting scripture. It’s the only conclusion I can come to.

Again, your opinion seems to be arrogant, condemning the oldest living institution on the face of the earth, the Apostolic Church, and replacing it with something that you find easy to accept. Any non-Apostolic Church is non-biblical.

If you are saying that 2Cor5:17&18 is saying something other than that God through His Spirit is giving us the “MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION” I have no power to condemn you, but your own words do.

Matt12
37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

2Peter3
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Bottom line is that you believe the bible somehow magically gives you the authority to interpret scripture. This is non-biblical.

Interpret? Maybe not. Spiritually discern? Absolutely.
1Cor.2
9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

From where does your authority come? Answer, please.

See above.

 

[po18guy]

Richard_Kastner:
Richard, you have dodged the question one too many times. You refuse to accept brotherly correction and insist that your ego is the determiner of truth.

I shall pray for you this afternoon before our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, which you also do not believe.

The next sound you hear will be dust being shaken off my sandals.

May Christ’s peace be with you, if you allow it.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The foretelling of scriptures, referenced by Peter, are the prophecies of the Old Testament.
The only scriptures that Jesus could have possibly been speaking of, at that time, was the Old Testament. There are many other examples in the New Testament speaking of the prophecies of the Old Testament.

Agreed.

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
2Peter3
The second says that some “unlearned and unstable” try to divert what Paul is saying away from the Gospel message and they do this to their own distruction. I have not done this. Quite the contrary I am trying to get you to see that this is precisely what Paul is saying in 2 Cor5 that God has given to ALL believers the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION. That God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

There is no where in the New Testament that an author specifically addresses the things that they wrote as ‘scriptures’, on a level of the Old Testament…

I’m sorry, but I dont see how anything you have written here pertains to what I had posted above.

On this part of scriptures, I do not agree with your interpretation of verse 18. Verse 18 says, 'And all things (including the things that became new) are of God, who hath reconciled us (the Apostles) to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us (the Apostles) the ministry of reconciliation. Paul is identifying God to the Corinthians how they, themselves, were reconciled to God through Jesus Christ; God that given them the ministry of reconciliation.

For us to accept your interpretation of this passage, you will have to provide an example of scriptures where anyone became new and assumed an authoritive position (ministry of reconciling people to Christ), within the Church, without having been accepted through the men chosen and appointed by Christ or the men they chose and appointed into offices within the Church. That would be an example of reading scriptures within scriptures.

I have done that several times.

2Cor.5
10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

I added this v. so that there can be no doubt about whom Paul is speaking. He is talking to everyone who will stand before the judgement seat of God and this does not exclude everyone but Catholic priests.

14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

I’ll end this post on Paul’s explanation of the Church being the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ or the place that ‘the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through’ as the place people can become learned, so they can avoid wresting scriptures. It is unstable to think that God would give different interpretations to so many different people, through His Holy Spirit, and it still remain truth.

1Tim.3
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Pillars, and ground are things that hold up the truth. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. The church was instituted by Christ to hold up Christ to the world. Isn’t this the same thing that Paul is saying in 2Cor5

19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Notice that Paul says “that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation” The world was the same for whom Christ was made “to be sin for us, who knew no sin” It doesn’t make any sense for Paul to be talking about God “reconciling the world unto himself” in v.19 and talking about Jesus being made “sin for us, who knew no sin” which is talking about the whole world and not just the apostles in v. 21 But somehow changes who He is talking about in v. 20 “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ” to be exclusively about the apostles. If you ask me this is what Peter is talking about when he said “unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Do you always interpret scriptures for yourself? If so, how do you know that your interpretation is correct over all others?

I chose to use spiritually discern.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m sorry, but I dont see how anything you have written here pertains to what I had posted above.

I have done that several times.

2Cor.5
10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

I added this v. so that there can be no doubt about whom Paul is speaking. He is talking to everyone who will stand before the judgement seat of God and this does not exclude everyone but Catholic priests.

14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Adding the verse didn’t change my disagreement with your interpretation. Verse 18 tells the people, promised ‘all things become new’, by what authority Paul is speaking, as well as those of authority speak. They were chosen and appointed by Christ, who reconciled them to God and the one who had given them the ministry of reconciliation. This is the authority by which everyone may receive done in His body (in verse 10, the ways of achieving His promises); the body of Christ is the Church, which He is the head of.

I am asking you to please show us an example of a specific person, or persons, who became ordained by their own desires, of themselves or through the authoritative men of the Church.

1Tim.3
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Pillars, and ground are things that hold up the truth. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. The church was instituted by Christ to hold up Christ to the world. Isn’t this the same thing that Paul is saying in 2Cor5

Christ is the cornerstone, built upon the foundation of the Apostles. A building cannot stand without a cornerstone. A foundation is useless without a cornerstone. A foundation is not a building by itself.

19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Notice that Paul says “that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation” The world was the same for whom Christ was made “to be sin for us, who knew no sin” It doesn’t make any sense for Paul to be talking about God “reconciling the world unto himself” in v.19 and talking about Jesus being made “sin for us, who knew no sin” which is talking about the whole world and not just the apostles in v. 21 But somehow changes who He is talking about in v. 20 “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ” to be exclusively about the apostles. If you ask me this is what Peter is talking about when he said “unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Sin for us (those who needed to be converted to Christians), who knew no sin, and being reconciled to God is a part of the ministry of reconciliation, which had been given to the men of the Church. The men of the Church are the ambassadors for Christ. They were chosen and appointed authority. They were the leaders, chosen and appointed, over the Church where the people then, and we now, become learned and stablized in His truth.

I chose to use spiritually discern.

Can you please tell me how you know when your discernment is correct, or incorrect?

 

[jericho777]

Greetings, Po18 and Prodigal Son, as you know the NT was written in Greek for the most part with certain Hebrew and Aramaic words here and there. Greek was the universal language of the time as English is today. The Greek word for priest is hiereus. Elder is presbýteros and overseer/bishop is episcope. These are the words in question as to their meaning.

I think we can agree the authors of scripture had command of the language and defined the terms used as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Where we disagree is their meanings and applications.

Now in the NT the Greek word for priest is hiereus and we all agree it is someone who offers sacrifices and it is used 31 times in the NT. It refers to the Levitical priest hood as well as Jesus our High priest. We know both offered sacrifices.

Nowhere in the NT is priest “hiereus” referred to explicitly (I think we could agree here) or implicitly (I don’t think you would agree here) as a definition for elder or bishop by the text. In Eph 4:11 Jesus gives the offices for the church “11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers” and nowhere is priest described or prescribed as you have defined it. Jesus further explains the purpose for instituting the fivefold ministry,” 12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up”. If there were to be priests as you define them this would be the place to ordain their placement and use the word that explicitly defines them “hiereus “. But it is not used. Also nowhere does Paul mention the Greek word for priest “heireus” as an office of the church. There is no sacrificial priest hood prescribed in the NT.

The Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of the Passover Seder. It is truth revealed. The story of Christ our Passover Lamb is presented; His sacrifice, death and resurrection are in the Seder. As anyone who has attended a Jewish Passover Seder will see as I have there is no priest present to offer the bread and wine. The apostles would have known this first hand and unless Jesus told them they were to be priests ( as you define them) they would not have known this. And He certainly did not tell them this. Incidentally when Christians celebrate the Seder in their own homes they are receiving communion just as the Jews were.

To me it is clear based on scripture there is no need to have a priest mediate or however you want to define it, a sacrifice for us. In Hebrews it is explained how the Levitical priest hood has been superseded by that of Christ. That there is an end to all sacrifice for sin in Christ Jesus. That there is no other mediator for the believer than Christ. There is no mention here of any new priesthood other than Christ’s who would officiate in the life of believers.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Greetings, Po18 and Prodigal Son, as you know the NT was written in Greek for the most part with certain Hebrew and Aramaic words here and there. Greek was the universal language of the time as English is today. The Greek word for priest is hiereus. Elder is presbýteros and overseer/bishop is episcope. These are the words in question as to their meaning.

I think we can agree the authors of scripture had command of the language and defined the terms used as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Where we disagree is their meanings and applications.

Now in the NT the Greek word for priest is hiereus and we all agree it is someone who offers sacrifices and it is used 31 times in the NT. It refers to the Levitical priest hood as well as Jesus our High priest. We know both offered sacrifices.

Nowhere in the NT is priest “hiereus” referred to explicitly (I think we could agree here) or implicitly (I don’t think you would agree here) as a definition for elder or bishop by the text. In Eph 4:11 Jesus gives the offices for the church “11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers” and nowhere is priest described or prescribed as you have defined it. Jesus further explains the purpose for instituting the fivefold ministry,” 12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up”. If there were to be priests as you define them this would be the place to ordain their placement and use the word that explicitly defines them “hiereus “. But it is not used. Also nowhere does Paul mention the Greek word for priest “heireus” as an office of the church. There is no sacrificial priest hood prescribed in the NT.

The Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of the Passover Seder. It is truth revealed. The story of Christ our Passover Lamb is presented; His sacrifice, death and resurrection are in the Seder. As anyone who has attended a Jewish Passover Seder will see as I have there is no priest present to offer the bread and wine. The apostles would have known this first hand and unless Jesus told them they were to be priests ( as you define them) they would not have known this. And He certainly did not tell them this. Incidentally when Christians celebrate the Seder in their own homes they are receiving communion just as the Jews were.

To me it is clear based on scripture there is no need to have a priest mediate or however you want to define it, a sacrifice for us. In Hebrews it is explained how the Levitical priest hood has been superseded by that of Christ. That there is an end to all sacrifice for sin in Christ Jesus. That there is no other mediator for the believer than Christ. There is no mention here of any new priesthood other than Christ’s who would officiate in the life of believers.

Leaving out tradition makes me strongly disagree with you. You cannot translate, or interpret, better than the authors, with the translations and interpretations of what they had written, and that they had passed down to their successors. Paul corrected the Corinthians on how they had come to abuse the Lord’s supper. It took the correction of an Apostle. Then if we read, without trying to translate, the writings of the early Church fathers we see communion instructions the same as the Catholic Church and how it is practiced.

The Catholic Church was the keeper of scriptures for 1500 years. It’s odd how someone trusts the scriptures but not the keepers of scriptures for centuries. Through the multiple translations, the Church had many opportunities to change them to be much more clear for everyone to understand, but as conscience keepers they delivered them as they had been written, along with the translations and interpretations, with the traditions we were to hold to, whether written or by word.

Christ only taught the Apostles communion and commanded them to teach everyone else. He did not teach the multitudes, the people, the laypersons. As you cannot find that Christ specifically told them that priests, or clergy, or any specific office was to perform the communion, you cannot find the opposite. John tells us:

**Joh 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. **

If you want to think that by ‘disciples’, John was excluding Apostles, then show me where John used the term ‘Apostles’.

Scriptures clearly tell of an authoritative Church, with offices first appointed by Christ Himself. Christ built a Church and no one could do a better job than He.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Adding the verse didn’t change my disagreement with your interpretation.

I’m not surprised.

Verse 18 tells the people, promised ‘all things become new’, by what authority Paul is speaking, as well as those of authority speak. They were chosen and appointed by Christ, who reconciled them to God and the one who had given them the ministry of reconciliation. This is the authority by which everyone may receive done in His body (in verse 10, the ways of achieving His promises); the body of Christ is the Church, which He is the head of.

I’m having a really hard time trying to decipher this paragraph. I think that you are trying to say what you have said before, that Paul is talking about an exclusive club of apostles that God has given this ministry of reconciliation to. Well that theory just doesn’t hold up under careful scutiny. We can do this by looking at the personal pronouns which are contained in vertually every v. in this chapter. Paul begins by talking about “our earthly house” and “we have a building of God, an house not made with hands” This I’m sure you will agree is talking about our bodies, **all **of our bodies. He is not talking exclusively about aposles bodies but all of our bodies. He goes on to explain how God has created this us to be “swallowed up of life” v.4. Again everyone not an exclusive club. V. 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight) Since Paul is addressing the believers in Corinth, again all the believers. V. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. This quite obviously is not only talking about believers, but all people. Again no exclusivity. Vs. 11,12 & 13 are talking about Paul and whoever is with him.

2Cor.5
11Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
12For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
13For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.

We know this because in v.11 Paul differentiates between we and your. From v.14 on Paul is again talking about all believers. V. 17Therefore if **any man **be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. clearly is talking about ANY MAN, and if he be in Christ he is a new creation. then there is v. 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; Who is this ministry of reconciliation given to? Well it certainly is not given exclusively to Paul and the apostles, but it is given to all who have become new in Christ.

I am asking you to please show us an example of a specific person, or persons, who became ordained by their own desires, of themselves or through the authoritative men of the Church.

I don’t know what you are talking about here.

Christ is the cornerstone, built upon the foundation of the Apostles. A building cannot stand without a cornerstone. A foundation is useless without a cornerstone. A foundation is not a building by itself.

Is this an example of infallible Catholic exegesis? If it is it’s pretty sad. Christ was not built on anything. The apostles are not the cornerstone. Jesus is. Peter filled with the Holy Spirit got up before the very people that had crucified his Lord and said “Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.”

Sin for us (those who needed to be converted to Christians), who knew no sin,

I’m not quite sure what your point is here. You take part of a v. designed to identify our Savior 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. and insert some irrelavant comment into it. I don’t get it.

and being reconciled to God is a part of the ministry of reconciliation, which had been given to the men of the Church.

Being reconciled to God comes through faith in Jesus Christ. The ministry (the commission to tell others about this readily obtainable reconciliation) of reconciliation is given to all who become new in Christ.

2Cor5
17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

The men of the Church are the ambassadors for Christ. They were chosen and appointed authority. They were the leaders, chosen and appointed, over the Church where the people then, and we now, become learned and stablized in His truth.

Where do you get this? It certainly isn’t in 2Cor.5.

Can you please tell me how you know when your discernment is correct, or incorrect?

I’m not infallible. I make mistakes. But I gotta say If you look over this post I think that my discernment makes a whole lot more sense than your “infallible” interpretation.

 

[jericho777]

Leaving out tradition makes me strongly disagree with you. You cannot translate, or interpret, better than the authors, with the translations and interpretations of what they had written, and that they had passed down to their successors. Paul corrected the Corinthians on how they had come to abuse the Lord’s supper. It took the correction of an Apostle. Then if we read, without trying to translate, the writings of the early Church fathers we see communion instructions the same as the Catholic Church and how it is practiced.

The Catholic Church was the keeper of scriptures for 1500 years. It’s odd how someone trusts the scriptures but not the keepers of scriptures for centuries. Through the multiple translations, the Church had many opportunities to change them to be much more clear for everyone to understand, but as conscience keepers they delivered them as they had been written, along with the translations and interpretations, with the traditions we were to hold to, whether written or by word.

Christ only taught the Apostles communion and commanded them to teach everyone else. He did not teach the multitudes, the people, the laypersons. As you cannot find that Christ specifically told them that priests, or clergy, or any specific office was to perform the communion, you cannot find the opposite. John tells us:

**Joh 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. **

If you want to think that by ‘disciples’, John was excluding Apostles, then show me where John used the term ‘Apostles’.

Scriptures clearly tell of an authoritative Church, with offices first appointed by Christ Himself. Christ built a Church and no one could do a better job than He.

I have researched the words we are discussing in their original language and you are mistranslating the original text. Please do yourself a favor and look them up in a concordance. I have provided the Strong’s numbers with their definitions. Please show me where I have mistranslated the original words. You don’t have to be a scholar to have commonsense or read.

Yes the church has leadership ordained by Jesus found in Eph 4:11-12. There are apostles present also in scripture but there are no priests as you have defined them in scripture. Please show me the word priest “heireus” present in scripture in association with church leadership.

Communion was instituted starting with the first Passover and was /is a universal Jewish practice. There was never a requirement for a priest to officiate. Why?

 

[Kentbarry111]

Yeah you right

Corsets to suit all budgets, best priced corsets. visit us for a wide range of corsets which include Black Corsets, Cupless Corset Top and many more….
corset
bridal basques

 

[teachccd]

I have researched the words we are discussing in their original language and you are mistranslating the original text. Please do yourself a favor and look them up in a concordance. I have provided the Strong’s numbers with their definitions. Please show me where I have mistranslated the original words. You don’t have to be a scholar to have commonsense or read.

Yes the church has leadership ordained by Jesus found in Eph 4:11-12. There are apostles present also in scripture but there are no priests as you have defined them in scripture. Please show me the word priest “heireus” present in scripture in association with church leadership.

Communion was instituted starting with the first Passover and was /is a universal Jewish practice. There was never a requirement for a priest to officiate. Why?

I’m just popping in here so I may be all off base but in the Letter to the Hebrews isn’t Jesus described as the eternal high priest? A priest offers sacrifice (See Leviticus) and Jesus is offering up Himself at the Last Supper as a perpetuation of what is to take place on the Cross. Again, I am just jumping in here but regardless of a “requirement” we see that it was THE eternal High Priest who officiated at the Last Supper. He was both priest and victim as He gave His life for our sins as a perpetual sacrifice. Remember that an eternal priesthood (see Hebrews) renders an eternal sacrifice. That is called the Mass… teachccd

 

[jericho777]

I’m just popping in here so I may be all off base but in the Letter to the Hebrews isn’t Jesus described as the eternal high priest? A priest offers sacrifice (See Leviticus) and Jesus is offering up Himself at the Last Supper as a perpetuation of what is to take place on the Cross. Again, I am just jumping in here but regardless of a “requirement” we see that it was THE eternal High Priest who officiated at the Last Supper. He was both priest and victim as He gave His life for our sins as a perpetual sacrifice. Remember that an eternal priesthood (see Hebrews) renders an eternal sacrifice. That is called the Mass… teachccd

That’s OK welcome teachccd. Yes in the Levitical priesthood sacrifices had to be offered repeatedly because it was an imperfect sacrifice. Their sacrifice could only cleanse the outside. Heb 9:9-10This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order. But Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and high priest only offering once the perfect sacrifice. Heb 9:27 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The effects of Christ’s sacrifice is perpetual but the sacrifice was offered once for all otherwise He would still have to be on the cross suffering. After offering Himself once He is now seated at the right hand of the Father. As you said “He gave His life for our sins” which is past tense but “as a perpetual sacrifice” is present tense which doesn’t correspond with Heb 9:28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people. This shows it was a onetime single event. To be a perpetual sacrifice it would have to read “Christ is sacrificed once”. Do you see how this then changes the meaning from a past tense sacrifice to a perpetual sacrifice?

 

[teachccd]

That’s OK welcome teachccd. Yes in the Levitical priesthood sacrifices had to be offered repeatedly because it was an imperfect sacrifice. Their sacrifice could only cleanse the outside. Heb 9:9-10This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order. But Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and high priest only offering once the perfect sacrifice. Heb 9:27 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The effects of Christ’s sacrifice is perpetual but the sacrifice was offered once for all otherwise He would still have to be on the cross suffering. After offering Himself once He is now seated at the right hand of the Father. As you said “He gave His life for our sins” which is past tense but “as a perpetual sacrifice” is present tense which doesn’t correspond with Heb 9:28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people. This shows it was a onetime single event. To be a perpetual sacrifice it would have to read “Christ is sacrificed once”. Do you see how this then changes the meaning from a past tense sacrifice to a perpetual sacrifice?

I do not want to derail the thread but I will just comment and then let the thread continue on topic. WHen in Hebrews is states that Jesus was sacrificed “once” for the forgiveness of sins that is not to be questioned. We believe that to the fullest degree. But when we are to understand the transcendent nature of God we realize that He is the “Eternal Now” and exists outside of time. So everything is present to the Father eternally. To say otherwise sets boundaries and we cannot do that around God. So, while Christ is not still hanging on the Cross, His sacrifice is still present to the Father. In the Mass we enter into that event and Jesus remains the High Priest as He offers His (once in time) eternal sacrifice to the Father.

All of the Old Testament sacrifices were in time and the event was limited. In Christ, His sacrifice is eternal and the event is infinite… teachccd

 

[jericho777]

I do not want to derail the thread but I will just comment and then let the thread continue on topic. WHen in Hebrews is states that Jesus was sacrificed “once” for the forgiveness of sins that is not to be questioned. We believe that to the fullest degree. But when we are to understand the transcendent nature of God we realize that He is the “Eternal Now” and exists outside of time. So everything is present to the Father eternally. To say otherwise sets boundaries and we cannot do that around God. So, while Christ is not still hanging on the Cross, His sacrifice is still present to the Father. In the Mass we enter into that event and Jesus remains the High Priest as He offers His (once in time) eternal sacrifice to the Father.

All of the Old Testament sacrifices were in time and the event was limited. In Christ, His sacrifice is eternal and the event is infinite… teachccd

Truly God is eternal and transcends time and space. But by your reasoning Christ is still on the cross also with everything being eternally present. How can you separate the cross from the sacrifice since they both happened together and therefore inseparable? Why would the language be in the past tense limiting it is a onetime event that is eternally efficacious as scripture says? As I said previously God could have used language to show the eternally present sacrifice but did not. There is a big difference as you can see.