Paul lays hands on Timothy

[guanophore]

There of course was the levitical priesthood of the OT and mentioned in the NT. The levites though were determinined by geneology and not ordination. The priesthood of all believers was not in the OT but rather a NT innovation.

You seem to have your mind so set against the priesthood that you are unable to see the evidence that is before you. It is quite clear in the Scripture that the whole nation of Israel was to function as a light to the Gentiles and to manifest the glory of God to the world, and also become the source of salvation to all. That is what it means to be a priestly people.

 Also mentioned in the NT was Christ as our High Priest. But no other kind of priests are mentioned - no christian clergy priests in the NT.

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Josua was not a clergy. The Levites were the official priests of the OT.

Joshua was ordained by Moses, when Moses laid hands upon him.

 I do not deny clergy in the church. I simply cite the plain history that this started in the end of the 2nd century and became established in the 3rd.

You will believe what you feel you must. Your version is not consistent with history, though, or the NT witness.

Clergy has always meant an ordained individual selected to handle the sacraments and an official leadership office not to be held by a layman. It started in the 3rd century. If you start changing the terminology around it makes it hard to communicate.

I am not sure where you came up with your definition, but all the Apostles were “laymen” before they were called, and nearly all the NT believers. There were many priests who did embrace the faith, but they did not become Christians as priests, but as laymen. The Bishops, priests, and deacons in the NT were taken primarily from among laypersons.

'has always meant" does not carry much weight, expecially coming from you, since you have already made assertions that you cannot support with documentation.

Maybe it has "always meant’ that for you, which is fine. It has not “always meant” that for those members of Apostolic Churches who have received the Sacred Traditions from through the paradosis.

 

[57Bill]

Timothy 1-6, “For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the fift of God that you have through the imposiiton of my hands”. Paul was not one of the 12 apostles,so was Paul ordained by Peter? or other apostles? or was it Christ himself who ordained Paul? Thankyou!

Sorry it this has already been mentioned ( I tend to skim )

…Galatians 1-2 and in Acts 22.

Galatians is considered the first and oldest of surviving scripture. Paul is most explicit at the start of this letter than other letters (at least in my NIV)

Paul, an apostle —sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead — 2 and all the brothers and sisters with me,
To the churches in Galatia:

 

[guanophore]

pablope,

Actually the laying on of hands is not presented in scripture as ordination. It was simply a blessing for a special mission used for a variety of purposes.

Ordination was not evolved until the third century. Up to that time there was no ordination according to the historians. This is what the Catholic scholars say.

Rob

Fortunately Catholic scholars (and you are selecting from among those that reinforce your own view, just as you do the Scriptures) do not define the Teaching of the Church. Scholars are not infallibly protected by the HS, unless they are in unity with the Church.

If your beef is with Roman Catholics, then you are welcome to try to push this errant point on the Orthodox, who received ordination also from the Apostles, and have been
practicing it since the time Peter was in Antioch. :yup:

There is a line of ordained bishops coming from Antioch that is older than the Petrine line in Rome.

You see, Rob, what you have run up against on CAF are Catholics who are well educated in their family history, and their faith. They are not going to be led astray from the truth by your “scholars” who assert things that are not consistent with the rest of history.

If you wish to cling to their assertions so that you don’t have to face the Truth, that is your affair, but you will not be able to pursuade anyone here to abandon the history of our faith in favor of your modernist opinions.

 

[guanophore]

guano,

I think those traditions as you explain it began in the 3rd century as Father Raymond E Brown explains. I have no idea where you get your interpretation of Paul’s mention of “stir into flame the gift that was given him.”

Rob

I get that by reading the text through the lens of Sacred Tradition, which is the faith of the Aposltes. However, since you seen bent on denial of Sacred Tradition, I offer you a non-Catholic “scholar”. Why do you suppose Matthew Henry thinks they were ordained men?

Eph 4:2-16

Note, The great gift that Christ gave to the church at his ascension was that of the ministry of peace and reconciliation. The gift of the ministry is the fruit of Christ’s ascension. And ministers have their various gifts, which are all given them by the Lord Jesus. The **officers **which Christ gave to his church were of two sorts - extraordinary ones advanced to a **higher office **in the church: such were apostles, prophets, and evangelists. The apostles were chief. These Christ immediately called, furnished them with extraordinary gifts and the power of working miracles, and with infallibility in delivering his truth; and, they having been the witnesses of his miracles and doctrine, he sent them forth to spread the gospel and to plant and govern churches. The prophets seem to have been such as expounded the writings of the Old Testament, and foretold things to come. The evangelists were **ordained persons **(2 Tim 1:6), whom the apostles took for their companions in travel (Gal 2:1), and sent them out to settle and establish such churches as the apostles themselves had planted (Acts 19:22), and, not being fixed to any particular place, they were to continue till recalled, 2 Tim 4:9.

And then there are ordinary ministers, employed in a lower and narrower sphere; as pastors and teachers. Some take these two names to signify one office, implying the duties of ruling and teaching belonging to it. Others think they design two distinct offices, both ordinary, and of standing use in the church; and then pastors are such as are fixed at the head of particular churches, with design to guide, instruct, and feed them in the manner appointed by Christ; and they are frequently called bishops and elders: and the teachers were those whose work it was also to preach the gospel and to instruct the people by way of exhortation. We see here that it is Christ’s prerogative to appoint what officers and offices he pleases in his church. And how rich is the church, that had at first such a variety of officers and has still such a variety of gifts! How kind is Christ to his church! How careful of it and of its edification! When he ascended, he procured the gift of the Holy Ghost; and the gifts of the Holy Ghost are various: some have greater, others have less measures; but all for the good of the body, which brings us to the third argument,
(from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

 

[guanophore]

Yes it was before but I dont think he meant long before. Not in the NT for sure and of course not mentioned either by the ECFs before late 2nd century. The idea of a clergy was late 2nd century.

I am sure Fr. Brown was aware of this. Laying on of hands was for a special mission but not ordination until around the 3rd century. Brown is in agreement with other historians both Catholic and protestant.

The primary point is it did not mean clergy or some special separation from layman.
It simply meant a special mission for that person as Fr. Brown explains. The NT did not have any clergy. Perhaps you might want to read the entire book to get his entire history and opinions on the subject?

Rob

Here is another Protestant Scholarly work I think you missed:

1 Tim 4:14

Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Neglect not the gift - by letting it lie unused.

In thee. In 2 Tim 1:6 the gift is represented as a spark of the Spirit within him, sure to smoulder by neglect, the stirring up or keeping in lively exercise of which depends on himself (Matt 25:18,25,27-28). The spiritual gift [charisma (NT:5486)] is that which qualified him for “the work of an evangelist” (Eph 4:11; 2 Tim 4:5), including perhaps the discerning of spirits, needed in ordaining, as overseer.
Given thee - by God (1 Cor 12:4,6).

By prophecy - i.e., by the Holy Spirit, at his ordination, or else consecration to the see of Ephesus; speaking through the prophets God’s will to give him the graces to qualify him for his work (1 Tim 1:18; Acts 13:1-3).

With the laying on of the hands. So in Joshua’s case (Num 27:18-20; Deut 34:9). The gift was connected with the symbolical laying on of hands. [Meta (NT:3326): the outward sign of an inward impartation of the Spirit (Acts 6:6; 8:17; 9:17; 13:3).] “WITH” implies that the presbyters’ laying on bands was the accompaniment of the conferring of the gift. “BY” [dia (NT:1223)] (2 Tim 1:6) implies that Paul’s laying on hands was the instrument of its being conferred.

Of the presbytery. 2 Tim 1:6 mentions only the apostle’s laying on of hands. But there his aim is to remind Timothy of the part he took in imparting to Timothy the gift. Here he mentions the fact, consistent with the other, that the neighbouring presbyters joined in the ordination or consecration, he taking the foremost part. Paul, though having the general oversight of the elders everywhere, was an elder himself (1 Peter 5:1; 2 John 1). The Jewish council was composed of the elders (the presbytery, Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5) and a presiding Rabbi; so the Christian church was composed of elders and a president (Acts 15:19,23). The apostles were presidents in general. As the president of the synagogue was of the same order as his presbyters, so the bishop was of the same as his presbyters. **At the ordination **of the president there were always three presbyters present to lay on hands; so the early Church canons required three bishops to be present at the consecration of a bishop. As the president of the synagogue, so the bishop of the church alone could ordain, acting as the representative, in the name of the presbytery (Vitringa). So, in the Anglican church, the bishop ordains, the presbyters present joining with him in laying on hands.
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

Perhaps what they refer to here as the requirement of at least 3 bishops is what was regularized in the 3rd. century? As you can see, though, that formalizing was not the beginning of ordination, which began in the OT under Moses, and was continued by Christ toward His Apostles, and they to their successors.

 

[submariner2]

You seem to have your mind so set against the priesthood that you are unable to see the evidence that is before you. It is quite clear in the Scripture that the whole nation of Israel was to function as a light to the Gentiles and to manifest the glory of God to the world, and also become the source of salvation to all. That is what it means to be a priestly people.

guano,

Dunno why you think I am against the priesthood. My own church has ordained pastors. What I am against is manufactured history. I stick with the top historians on subjects of history.

Joshua was ordained by Moses, when Moses laid hands upon him.

Your presumption rejected by experts.

I am not sure where you came up with your definition, but all the Apostles were “laymen” before they were called, and nearly all the NT believers. There were many priests who did embrace the faith, but they did not become Christians as priests, but as laymen. The Bishops, priests, and deacons in the NT were taken primarily from among laypersons.

None of them were ever ordained. Laying on of hands is not an ordination. There were no chistian clergy type priests in the NT.

Maybe it has "always meant’ that for you, which is fine. It has not “always meant” that for those members of Apostolic Churches who have received the Sacred Traditions from through the paradosis.

My church also has sacred traditions of scripture and the presence of Christ in our lives.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Of the presbytery. 2 Tim 1:6 mentions only the apostle’s laying on of hands. But there his aim is to remind Timothy of the part he took in imparting to Timothy the gift. Here he mentions the fact, consistent with the other, that the neighbouring presbyters joined in the ordination or consecration, he taking the foremost part. Paul, though having the general oversight of the elders everywhere, was an elder himself (1 Peter 5:1; 2 John 1). The Jewish council was composed of the elders (the presbytery, Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5) and a presiding Rabbi; so the Christian church was composed of elders and a president (Acts 15:19,23). The apostles were presidents in general. As the president of the synagogue was of the same order as his presbyters, so the bishop was of the same as his presbyters. **At the ordination **of the president there were always three presbyters present to lay on hands; so the early Church canons required three bishops to be present at the consecration of a bishop. As the president of the synagogue, so the bishop of the church alone could ordain, acting as the representative, in the name of the presbytery (Vitringa). So, in the Anglican church, the bishop ordains, the presbyters present joining with him in laying on hands.
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

guano,

There is no indication in the NT that the apostles ordained anyone. Laying on of hands was not ordination. Brown makes that clear

When he is speaking of the early church canons he is speaking of 3rd century or after. .

Rob

 

[guanophore]

What I am against is manufactured history. I stick with the top historians on subjects of history.

To date, none of your posts demonstrate that you have actually read any historical documents. The NT, certainly you read, but do so with your “there is no evidence” mentality, so you cannot see what is plainly before you.

Your presumption rejected by experts.

Your modern “experts” cannot make history disappear, Rob. Your, and their rejection of history does not make it go away.

None of them were ever ordained. Laying on of hands is not an ordination. There were no chistian clergy type priests in the NT.

Not all incidents of the laying on of hands are ordination, certainly. There is the sacrament of healing and confirmation that also include the imposition of hands.

What is a “christian clergy type priest”?

How is this concept of your different than the priests of the NT?

My church also has sacred traditions of scripture and the presence of Christ in our lives.

Yes. In spite of being separated from the Apostolic Succession, much of the Apostolic faith has been preserved among our separated brethren.

I was very comfortable as a Methodist, until I began to read historical theology.

 

[JaKael02]

"1. Antioch church sends Barnabas and Saul; Mission to Cyprus and SE Asia monor (Acts 13;1-14:28)

In this context of prayer and fasting, hands are laid on Barnabas and Saul. We should not
anachronistically speak of this as an ordination; it is a commissioning by the church of Antioc
for a mission that is often counted as the first Pauline journey and dated to AD 46-49."
Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, P 303, Imprimatur.

I would disagree that laying on of hands was used for appointing presbyters. It was possible sometimes but we do not have any evidence for that. Of course some presbyters were appointed, or recruited might be a better word to lead or assist in leading of a church body. Some may have appointed themself as did Paul appoint himself to be an apostle. There is no evidence there was any process at all except simply convincing someone to take on a responsiblity to use their house for gatherings.

Rob

Rob,

The quote you provides stated “commissioning”. I’m being persuaded towards “commissioning” because of the evidence you provided used that rational.

Given, the commissioning statement, you have extrapolated some meaning. That some appointed themselves or were recruited. You may or may not be right. I’m not to decide.

To add another though. I’ve always heard that in the beginning, Church congregations picked the Presbyter and subsequently brough the presbyter to the Church for the laying on of hands.

If you ever have time for audio, I have some great audio resources from a top American Church historian. Madden is the historians name.

Your fortitude in this discussion is admirable. I love reading the discussion and your posts. Glad to have you in this forum.

Take care,

James

 

[JaKael02]

Sorry it this has already been mentioned ( I tend to skim )

…Galatians 1-2 and in Acts 22.

Galatians is considered the first and oldest of surviving scripture. Paul is most explicit at the start of this letter than other letters (at least in my NIV)

Paul, an apostle —sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead — 2 and all the brothers and sisters with me,
To the churches in Galatia:

I’m not an expert, so I may be misinformed.

Paul, an apostle, converted by Jesus Christ and sent by Jesus Christ on mission, but did not go rogue. He was subsequently commissioned in Acts 13 by the Church?

I may be mistaken. If so, Please let me know. Thank you!

 

[guanophore]

I’m not an expert, so I may be misinformed.

Paul, an apostle, converted by Jesus Christ and sent by Jesus Christ on mission, but did not go rogue. He was subsequently commissioned in Acts 13 by the Church?

I may be mistaken. If so, Please let me know. Thank you!

Paul immediately submitted himself to the Church and the sacramental life. Though he was taught much directly by Christ, and ordained by Christ personally as were all the Apostles, Paul also learned the Sacred Traditions through the Church.

Acts 9:17-19
7 So Anani’as departed and entered the house. And **laying his hands on him **he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized, 19 and took food and was strengthened.

Many Protestants I have met on CAF seem to believe that Paul did not have regard for the Church, or the other authorities appointed by Christ, but Paul’s writings and actions say the opposite.

 

[57Bill]

Many Protestants I have met on CAF seem to believe that Paul did not have regard for the Church, or the other authorities appointed by Christ, but Paul’s writings and actions say the opposite.

Yes:thumbsup: (to Paul’s writings and actions say the opposite)

I believe he was called for a very specific purpose as Peter, by God, each for a specific purpose the other could not do.

The Risen Christ and Peter with the keys on His right, and Paul on His left with a sword.

 

[guanophore]

Yes:thumbsup: (to Paul’s writings and actions say the opposite)

I believe he was called for a very specific purpose as Peter, by God, each for a specific purpose the other could not do.

The Risen Christ and Peter with the keys on His right, and Paul on His left with a sword.

I often wonder if the two of them had much contact in Rome prior to their marytrdom there. I know that Paul might have been imprisoned as a Roman Citizen, but Peter as…I don’t know what, one of the unwashed masses. Did they ever pray together when they were in prison awaiting their fate? Did they teach together? did they make amends for their differences?

 

[JaKael02]

I often wonder if the two of them had much contact in Rome prior to their marytrdom there. I know that Paul might have been imprisoned as a Roman Citizen, but Peter as…I don’t know what, one of the unwashed masses. Did they ever pray together when they were in prison awaiting their fate? Did they teach together? did they make amends for their differences?

Medjugorje visionaries have stated before that they have seen St. Peter at the Gates of Heaven with keys in his hand.

I know this is not official Church teaching, but interesting.

*Vicka:

In describing Heaven in an interview with Fr. Livio for Radio Maria, Vicka explained that when they arrived at Heaven, there was a great big wooden door. She said that the door was closed, but when they arrived Our Lady opened it and they entered into Heaven. She said St. Peter was standing at the right of the door. Vicka said, “I immediately understood that it was him. With a key, rather small, with the beard, a little sturdy, with hair.”1

Fr. Bubalo asked Vicka to describe Heaven. She responded:

“…it can’t be described. That is something beyond description. It is filled with some sort of beautiful light…people…flowers…angels…All is filled with some indescribable joy. Your heart stands still when you look at it.”2*
medjugorje.com/medjugorje/heaven-purgatory-hell/613-description-of-heaven.html

 

[submariner2]

guanophore;9394181]To date, none of your posts demonstrate that you have actually read any historical documents. The NT, certainly you read, but do so with your “there is no evidence” mentality, so you cannot see what is plainly before you.

guano,

I have read many of them.

Your modern “experts” cannot make history disappear, Rob. Your, and their rejection of history does not make it go away.

You are saying Fr. Raymond E. Brown rejects history? Have you ever read any of his books? He is considered an expert in the Bible and early christian history. Most readers of history would consider you the one out of step.

Not all incidents of the laying on of hands are ordination, certainly. There is the sacrament of healing and confirmation that also include the imposition of hands.

I am not saying that some christian rites do not use laying on of hands. My own church does for ordination also. I am just saying that the laying on of hands in the NT is not the same thing as ordination developed in the 3rd century.

What is a “christian clergy type priest”?

There are a number of type priests described in the NT - 1. Jewish Levitical priests 2. Priesthood of all believers 3. Christ our high priest. But no other priests. No clergy.

I was very comfortable as a Methodist, until I began to read historical theology.

Good for you. I hope you are happy.

Rob

 

[JaKael02]

James,

Here is the definition by Brown. I just added blessing as my take on the general meaning. It was used for different purposes.

"1. Antioch church sends Barnabas and Saul; Mission to Cyprus and SE Asia monor (Acts 13;1-14:28)

In this context of prayer and fasting, hands are laid on Barnabas and Saul. We should not
anachronistically speak of this as an ordination; it is a commissioning by the church of Antioc
for a mission that is often counted as the first Pauline journey and dated to AD 46-49."
Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, P 303, Imprimatur.

Yes, laying on of hands in the OT was sometimes used for Blessings.
For example, Isaac blessed his son Jacob by laying on of hands (Genesis 27:27).

However,
laying on of hands was used for “ordination” in the OT.

For example:
Moses ordained Joshua through semikhah - i.e. by the laying on of hands: Num 27:15-23, Deut 34:9. The Bible adds that Joshua was thereby “filled with the spirit of wisdom”. Moses also ordained the 70 elders (Num 11:16-25). The elders later ordained their successors in this way. Their successors in turn ordained others. This chain of hands-on semikhah continued through the time of the Second Temple, to an undetermined time.

The Sanhedrain obtained their authority via “laying on of hands”.

I would disagree that laying on of hands was used for appointing presbyters. It was possible sometimes but we do not have any evidence for that. Of course some presbyters were appointed, or recruited might be a better word to lead or assist in leading of a church body.

Do you agree that the early Christians used the same customs and traditions of the Jews (given they were Jewish Christians)? If so, then it’s likely to assume that the laying on of hands that was done from Moses to the Sanhedrin was also done from the Apostles onward.

Some may have appointed themself as did Paul appoint himself to be an apostle. There is no evidence there was any process at all except simply convincing someone to take on a responsiblity to use their house for gatherings.

Rob

Paul did not appoint himself. Where is that in Acts? He has the “laying on of hands” when he arrived in Damascus.

The evidence lays with Jewish tradition of the Sanhedrin.

Thoughts? Thank you. Kindly - James

 

[57Bill]

did they make amends for their differences?

I can’t recall anything specific other than circumcision. A good example of “binding and loosing” re Jewish laws as given to Peter by Jesus as to loosing this for the Gentiles.

Paul was teaching mostly to different “camp” than Peter so one would expect differences of approach. Gentiles wouldn’t have much of clue if they only had teachings about Christ that flowed from Judaism. (IMO)

Good question that I haven’t given much thought.

 

[guanophore]

guano,

I have read many of them.

You seem to have read the Didache, at least.

You are saying Fr. Raymond E. Brown rejects history? Have you ever read any of his books? He is considered an expert in the Bible and early christian history. Most readers of history would consider you the one out of step.

No, Fr. Brown is Catholic, so he understands history in the light of what has been committed to the Church by the Apostles. You reject Sacred Tradition, so you have a different conclusion than he.

Yes, I love Fr. Brown’s books. Does that make me “out of step”? I used to read the Early church fathers with an anti-Catholic attitude also. It is easier to block out what is there if you make up your mind in advance that it must mean something other than what it says.

I am not saying that some christian rites do not use laying on of hands. My own church does for ordination also. I am just saying that the laying on of hands in the NT is not the same thing as ordination developed in the 3rd century.

That is where you and Fr. Brown part ways. For him, the fact the procedures were regularized in the 3rd century does not equate to their not being present prior to that.

There are a number of type priests described in the NT - 1. Jewish Levitical priests 2. Priesthood of all believers 3. Christ our high priest. But no other priests. No clergy.

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see…

Good for you. I hope you are happy. Rob

It made me very unhappy at first. It took a lot of study and prayer to reconcile myself to the fact that my comfortable ecclesial communion in my country United Methodist littte parish was inconsistent with the historical record.

I was not after “happy”, though, but the Truth, as you claim to be. So it was incumbent upon me to read with an open mind, and allow the HS to lead me.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Apostolic Succession is obvious prior to the 3rd century. Anyone familiar with the writings of St. Clement in the first century and Tertullian or Irenaeus in the 2nd would know this.

" Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”"

• Letter to the Corinthians (Clement), AD 80

 

[fisherman_carl]

…Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry."

• Letter to the Corinthians (Clement), AD 80