Priesthood of Believers

[SouthernSister]

Can someone tell me how to answer someone who says the Priesthood is unnecessary because of the “rending of the Temple veil”?

Thanks in advance,

SouthernSister

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

Moved to Apologetics from Sacred Scriptures.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Can someone tell me how to answer someone who says the Priesthood is unnecessary because of the “rending of the Temple veil”?

Thanks in advance,

SouthernSister

The rending of the temple veil represents the consummation of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary and the bursting forth of God from the Temple, where the Jewish authorities had in their hearts confined Him.

The priests of the order of Aaaron, whose job it was to tend the Holy of Holies, therefore became redundant.

However a Christian priest is of the order of Melchizedek, a non-Jewish figure in the book of Genesis, who “offered gifts of bread and wine”. This priesthood is not obsolete.

 

[Fidelis]

Can someone tell me how to answer someone who says the Priesthood is unnecessary because of the “rending of the Temple veil”?

Thanks in advance,

SouthernSister

They would first have to address the fact that the NT mentions at least two kinds of priesthood in existence today: the priesthood of all believers, which you mentioned and to which reference is made in one of Peter’s letters, and Christ’s eternal priesthood, treated extensively in the Letter to the Hebrews.

This at least proves that ALL priesthood did not cease when the Temple became obsolete. This point is what you must establish in their minds first and which they cannot deny.

The only remaing question then, is how and where that priesthood is exercised today. And the Catholic Church has the answer!

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Actually I am very interested to hear more about this. I recently had a protestant friend ask me what I thought about him calling himnself a priest. I figured he was trying to undermine the position of the Catholic priest… Frankly though I really had no idea what he was getting at. I responded that I didnt care what he called himself and left it at that. Anyone know what he was getting at?

God Bless

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Read Hebrews 7, only Jesus holds that priesthood and it is non-transferable. Don’t take my word for it, read that chapter in different translations.

 

[Fidelis]

Read Hebrews 7, only Jesus holds that priesthood and** it is non-transferable**. Don’t take my word for it, read that chapter in different translations.

Sorry, but Hebrews 7 just does not say what you think it does. It merely contrasts Christ’s priesthood with that of the imperfect OT priesthood:

26 It was fitting that we should have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, higher than the heavens.27 He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day, 20 first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself.
28 For the law appoints men subject to weakness to be high priests, but the word of the oath, which was taken after the law, appoints a son, who has been made perfect forever.

The most one can deduce from this is that Christ is the perfect high priest, but it says nothing about excluding a priesthood that is contingent upon his, or that his priesthood is “non-transferable.”

 

[mercygate]

Read Hebrews 7, only Jesus holds that priesthood and it is non-transferable. Don’t take my word for it, read that chapter in different translations.

Non-transferable? How do you get that out of the text?

If the priesthood of all believers does not take its authenticity from the great high priest, then – forgetting about the ministerial priesthood – what is the priesthood of all believers?