Questions about Jewish priests/Rabbis

[aball1035]

Are Old Testament Jewish Priests the same as today’s Rabbis? Is there a lineage?

If not, what’s the difference, and who was the last Priest and first Rabbi?

 

[Kaninchen]

Are Old Testament Jewish Priests the same as today’s Rabbis? Is there a lineage?

If not, what’s the difference, and who was the last Priest and first Rabbi?

One can’t help but feel that you kind of want a Jewish answer to what might be described as a paradigmatically Catholic question - rather as if the High Priest was a kind of Pope and it was necessary, after the destruction of the Temple, for the ‘Papal’ lineage to continue for Judaism to be valid.

The Priesthood revolved around the Temple, the first rabbis were the ancient sages. The Romans destroyed the Temple and persecuted organizations like the Sanhedrin - traditionally made up of Priests and sages out of existence, so we ended up with the kind of distributed format, based on the Pharisee rabbi tradition, that we have today.

 

[Bezant]

Are Old Testament Jewish Priests the same as today’s Rabbis? Is there a lineage?

If not, what’s the difference, and who was the last Priest and first Rabbi?

No, they are not the same. A priest (kohen) is one of the patrilineal descendants of Aaron responsible for carrying out the Temple services. Depending on your stream of Judaism, kohanim very much exist and still retain, to a lesser extent, certain privileges, responsibilities, and/or restrictions.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohen)

A rabbi is a scholar and teacher of Torah, regardless of his heritage. The understanding of what it takes to become a rabbi has changed throughout the centuries and also depends on your stream of Judaism.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi)

 

[grandfather]

Are Old Testament Jewish Priests the same as today’s Rabbis? Is there a lineage?

If not, what’s the difference, and who was the last Priest and first Rabbi?

A priest in any religion is a person designated to offer sacrifice. In Judaism from the time of Moses the priests were Levites, the descendants of Levi on of the sons of Jacob or Istrael. When Moses came down from the mountain with the ten commandments and the people were worshipping the golden calf, Moses asked who would defend God and the Levites responded and killed the idol worshippers. Moses established animal sacrifice in the practice of the Jewish religion designating the Levites as priests, the men who performed the temple sacrifice. The Romans put an end to the temple sacrifice when the Jews rebelled against the empire and the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and scattered the Jews in the diaspora. The Levitical priesthood essentially disappeared, although there remaiin descendants of Levi among Jews today.

A rabbi is a teacher. Jesus was called rabbi. Rabbinical Judaism is what remains of Judaism. The practice of the religion is limited to what takes place in the synagogues also call temples, reading of the Torah, barmitzvahs, keeping kosher households or not, keeping the sabbath at home or not, circumcising males. All this varies in degree from family to family and from orthodox to reformed branches of Judaism.

Since Jewishness is inherited even atheists are considered Jews. There is no requirement of religious belief or practice, or to recognize the authority of a rabbi or rabbis, or to be taught by any rabbi. Jews do not have to follow any faith belief that embraces the stories handed down from the ancient past as true, to be considered Jews in good standing, or a good Jew. Nevertheless, among Jews who do maintain some form of religious practices of the past established by Moses, rabbis are essential to their congregations. They perform ceremonies or maybe act as master of ceremonies and teach from the torah in the synagogues.

In a sense this is like Protestantism with ministers, but no priests or priestly sacrifice. Ministers teach, organize Bible studies and preside over weddings, funerals or different functions, but what they believe varies greatly.

 

[manualman]

One can’t help but feel that you kind of want a Jewish answer to what might be described as a paradigmatically Catholic question - rather as if the High Priest was a kind of Pope and it was necessary, after the destruction of the Temple, for the ‘Papal’ lineage to continue for Judaism to be valid.

The Priesthood revolved around the Temple, the first rabbis were the ancient sages. The Romans destroyed the Temple and persecuted organizations like the Sanhedrin - traditionally made up of Priests and sages out of existence, so we ended up with the kind of distributed format, based on the Pharisee rabbi tradition, that we have today.

Huh? I always thought that Jewish priests could only come from the tribe of Levi, so by definition that is a lineage approach passed from one generation to the next, no? But the Levitical tribe isn’t wiped out of existence. Isn’t the surname Cohen indicative of the priestly lineage? The destruction of the temple ended the practice of sacrifice, but (correct me if I’m wrong) there is no consensus in Judaism as to whether the sacrificial times in the covenant are over forever in accordance with God’s will or whether the lack of the temple is a lamentably temporary situation that should be rectified when/if possible.

The second part of what you said does sound familiar. Is it fair to say that the modern rabbinical system is the outgrowth of the Pharisee movement during the era of the christian gospels? (without the negative baggage some christians hold about the word Pharisee. Good christian scholarship acknowledges them as the theological good guys of their day)

 

[Kaninchen]

Huh? I always thought that Jewish priests could only come from the tribe of Levi, so by definition that is a lineage approach passed from one generation to the next, no? But the Levitical tribe isn’t wiped out of existence. Isn’t the surname Cohen indicative of the priestly lineage? The destruction of the temple ended the practice of sacrifice, but (correct me if I’m wrong) there is no consensus in Judaism as to whether the sacrificial times in the covenant are over forever in accordance with God’s will or whether the lack of the temple is a lamentably temporary situation that should be rectified when/if possible.

Perhaps you missed the point of what I was saying? (consideration of posting history is sometimes useful in judging responses ).

The second part of what you said does sound familiar. Is it fair to say that the modern rabbinical system is the outgrowth of the Pharisee movement during the era of the christian gospels? (without the negative baggage some christians hold about the word Pharisee. Good christian scholarship acknowledges them as the theological good guys of their day)

The Pharisees didn’t appear out of thin air, either.

 

[Nine_Two]

One can’t help but feel that you kind of want a Jewish answer to what might be described as a paradigmatically Catholic question - rather as if the High Priest was a kind of Pope and it was necessary, after the destruction of the Temple, for the ‘Papal’ lineage to continue for Judaism to be valid.

The Priesthood revolved around the Temple, the first rabbis were the ancient sages. The Romans destroyed the Temple and persecuted organizations like the Sanhedrin - traditionally made up of Priests and sages out of existence, so we ended up with the kind of distributed format, based on the Pharisee rabbi tradition, that we have today.

That reminds me of a question that I’ve had for a while that is somewhat related.

While the priesthood revolved around the temple, it also predates it. However once the first temple was built the two became inexorably connected, to the point that the priesthood ceased to practice during both the first and second (modern) intertemple periods.

Why?

Since the priesthood predates the temple it clearly wasn’t originally attached like that. What changed?

 

[manualman]

Perhaps you missed the point of what I was saying? (consideration of posting history is sometimes useful in judging responses ).

Am not sure what you are saying here. I’m not asserting that I (not Jewish) know more about Jewish history than you do I’m asking questions where I hear/read things that don’t gibe with what I thought I knew coming in.

What is the BC history of the Pharisees? Didn’t they arise as a resistance to some alleged abuses that arose during the Maccabean era?

 

[grandfather]

Good christian scholarship acknowledges them as the theological good guys of their day)

Not accordng to Jesus.

 

[manualman]

Not accordng to Jesus.

Common misconception. Jesus scolded the Pharisees all the time, true. Go sit on a bench in a public park some time. How often does a mom scold other kids for bad behavior compared to how often she scolds her own?

That’s Jesus and the Pharisees. What grated Jesus about them is that they should have known better than to behave how they did and they claimed to be the most faithful, but they still had a long way to go. They too were stained by original sin and needed a Savior. He scolded his own kids the strongest.

But the Pharisees were the ones that stood up against the creeping agnosticism of the Saduccees, they were the ones who renewed the faithfulness of Jewish society against the creeping idolotry after the Babylonian exile. Jesus had followers among them, not the Saducces. Theologically, the Pharisees were good guys! But simply following rules can never be good enough, you need Grace to be more than you are. The Pharisees had to be reminded of that.

 

[grandfather]

Common misconception. Jesus scolded the Pharisees all the time, true. Go sit on a bench in a public park some time. How often does a mom scold other kids for bad behavior compared to how often she scolds her own?
.

What happens to those who die impenitent?

When Jesus told the pharisees, Truly I tell you, you are going to die in your sins, He was telling them that they were going to hell. The statement is terrifying.

You can tell yourself whatever you like to try and twist the meaning of the plain statements recounting what took place. The analogy of mothers berating their children is a fantasy. Mothers may occassionally scold their children, but they also encourage them, or should. Jesus had nothing good to say of them, not a single thing. He called them a brood of vipers, whitewashed sepluchres full of dead men’s bones. They gave lipservice to the things of God, meaning they were not sincere. They were hypocrits. They cleaned the outside of the cup and were corrupt internally in their souls. They strained at gnats and swallowed camels. They were blind guides.

I have heard so much about what "Christian scholars, the most credible scholars now think, to try to justify modernist trash, that is pure nonsense. Whenever someone makes the claim of support of leading modern scholars the be suspicious sirens blare. What scholars in particular are the source of this nice claim about the good pharisees? Got any references?

With all that said I realize that had I been a religious Jew of the time I probably or could easily have been among the hypocrits and vipers, a product of my culture. I am no better than they were, but for God’s grace.

 

[Kaninchen]

Am not sure what you are saying here. I’m not asserting that I (not Jewish) know more about Jewish history than you do I’m asking questions where I hear/read things that don’t gibe with what I thought I knew coming in.

Sometimes, when a particular poster asks a particular question, one’s answers tend to reflect that fact. The question asked (which the poster has asked before) is one that a brief flirtation with google would answer. If you look at my answer, it might be described as anticipating the follow-on question.

What is the BC history of the Pharisees? Didn’t they arise as a resistance to some alleged abuses that arose during the Maccabean era?

That would be true if one was talking about the emergence of them as a distinct group, I was suggesting that they didn’t just emerge out of nothing, that the origins lie much further back. Bit like saying that the American revolutionaries didn’t invent a political theory, they developed on lines of thought that were older.

 

[manualman]

Thanks, K. I get it now.

grandfather, I can sympathize with suspicion of modern scholars. Many don’t seem to even be believers anymore. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not one to claim that there are any people on earth not in need of Grace to be saved. But catholicism has always required people to understand Scripture in context. And in context, it is a simple fact that the Pharisees were the best keepers of the covenant in the era just before Christ. To whom much has been given, much will be expected. Sound familiar? It should. Jesus’ reprimands for them were based on the fact that they should have learned more from what they knew. Instead they buried their talents in the ground and treated the law like lawyers do: searching for loopholes. But when you zoom out, a lawyer looking for a loophole to exploit is a whole lot better than a robber with a gun pointed at you.

 

[Publisher]

Sometimes, when a particular poster asks a particular question, one’s answers tend to reflect that fact. The question asked (which the poster has asked before) is one that a brief flirtation with google would answer. If you look at my answer, it might be described as anticipating the follow-on question.

That would be true if one was talking about the emergence of them as a distinct group, I was suggesting that they didn’t just emerge out of nothing, that the origins lie much further back. Bit like saying that the American revolutionaries didn’t invent a political theory, they developed on lines of thought that were older.

I understood the Pharisees developed out of the diaspora and the synagouges…while the Saducees “controlled” the “Temple cult”…when the Temple was destroyed the Pharisees were the “natural” religious leaders among the Jewish people as there was no “sacrifical cult” operating any longer.

 

[grandfather]

grandfather, I can sympathize with suspicion of modern scholars. Many don’t seem to even be believers anymore. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not one to claim that there are any people on earth not in need of Grace to be saved. But catholicism has always required people to understand Scripture in context. And in context, it is a simple fact that the Pharisees were the best keepers of the covenant in the era just before Christ. To whom much has been given, much will be expected. Sound familiar? It should. Jesus’ reprimands for them were based on the fact that they should have learned more from what they knew. Instead they buried their talents in the ground and treated the law like lawyers do: searching for loopholes. But when you zoom out, a lawyer looking for a loophole to exploit is a whole lot better than a robber with a gun pointed at you.

Do you understand the meaning of Jesus words when He told the pharisees they would die in their sins?

 

[manualman]

Do you understand the meaning of Jesus words when He told the pharisees they would die in their sins?

Same meaning they hold for me and you if we start to think that God owes us heaven as long as we behave ‘good enough’ here on earth, no?

 

[grandfather]

Same meaning they hold for me and you if we start to think that God owes us heaven as long as we behave ‘good enough’ here on earth, no?

Yes and no. It does mean the same for us as it did for them. There are two kinds of people. There are penitent sinners and impenitent sinners.

Jesus told His apostles to go into all the world and preach the good news of repentance for forgiveness of sin. No repentance means not forgiveness. If you are sorry for your sins you find mercy. If you are impenitent you are lost forever.

When Jesus told the pharisees they would die in their sins He was telling them they would be damned.

You and I can study theology and think about all the nuances of scripture and revelation all day long every day. It won’t help us a bit unless we repent.

If you die impenitent you are lost. I pray for the Jews for whom Jesus had only bad things to say. It is so easy to be a hypocrit. It is so easy to judge others. It is so easy to get caught up in the super fine points of religion and miss the big picture, strain at gnats and swallow camels.

When He says blessed are the merciful for mercy shall be theirs we better pay attention.

Something happens to the soul that forgives, besides also finding forgiveness. Something happens in the middle of showing and knowing mercy. The soul who is merciful receives the grace of repentance and then receives mercy.

If this does not happen to us we die in our sins. This should terrify anyone. Even though the pharisees were told they were in big trouble they died in their sins according to what Jesus foretold. All the time they spent studying religion and debating the what ifs of the law did them no good.

He did not say woe unto you saducees, and you pharisees will be ok. He said woe unto you saducees and scribes and pharisees. Imagine Jesus saying that to you.

 

[Nine_Two]

When Jesus told the pharisees, Truly I tell you, you are going to die in your sins, He was telling them that they were going to hell. The statement is terrifying.

What verse is that?

 

[grandfather]

What verse is that?

I would have to look it up.

 

[grandfather]

KJV John Chapter 8
21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.

Notice this was not the first time He said this to them. He said again to them…

He was going to heaven and telling them they could not come there. They would die in their sins. This was right after they brought the adulteress woman to Him. He told her he did not condemn her. Then they challenged Him about bearing witness to Himself and He told them they would die in their sins and not be able to go with Him where He was going, heaven.

The adulteress woman, the sinner is pardoned. Notice there is no profession of contrition on her part. He simply forgives her. Shortly thereafter, following some dialogue he makes the statement about dying in sin and not being with Him where He goes. This confused His questioners and they wondered if He was going to kill Himself.

In another place He said that they would die in their sins, because they did not believe in Him, but I don’t recall the exact phrasing.