Scripture Question About the Priesthood

[clmowry]

A boolean search of the word “priest” in the King James shows the use of some form of the word some 159 times in the New Testament. Interestingly, it is not used in Paul’s epistles, but is found in those epistles with Israel in view. I also searched in 8 versions including the Greek [Westcott-Hort critical text] and the results were the same in Paul’s epistles.

Grace and peace,

QC

You might want to broaden you search to include other words that are used to refer to priests operating in different capacities: presbyters, episcopate, bishop, apostle, elders, etc.

Chuck

 

[Trebor135]

A boolean search of the word “priest” in the King James shows the use of some form of the word some 159 times in the New Testament. Interestingly, it is not used in Paul’s epistles, but is found in those epistles with Israel in view. I also searched in 8 versions including the Greek [Westcott-Hort critical text] and the results were the same in Paul’s epistles.

1. A search for the word “trinity” in the Bible would bring up zero results.
2. Therefore, the doctrine of the trinity is not in line with the Bible.

(I wrote the above on the deduction that your post aimed to refute the notion of a ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant.)

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I disagree, the very mention of the priesthood (in the present tense) in Hebrews 5 suggests that it is in fact referring to the New Testament priesthood. St. Paul is merely demonstrating the continuity and transitioning of the priesthood (formerly under Mosaic Law) to to that of Christ’s Law (of the New Testament). Of course, I do not come to this assessment solely based on Hebrews 5 but in tandem with the rest of scripture taken as a whole which I will not enumerate on here. Also, the preceding verse at the end of Hebrews 4 only lends credence to this argument, pointing to Christ as the Great High Priest; immediately following this verse at the beginning of Hebrews 5 it speaks of the priesthood in the present tense while simultaneously referencing the Old Testament priesthood as well.

Which is pretty much what I said in my post:

Though this passage doesn’t directly deal with the establishment of the Christian priesthood, it DOES prove that there was already a Christian priesthood established at the time Paul wrote this letter.

Recall that Jesus stated He did not come to abolish the Law but fulfill it (Matthew 5:17)?

The first priest mentioned in the Bible is Melchizedek, who was a priest of the Most High, and who officiated for Abraham. The first mention of a priesthood occurs in Exodus 40:15 “And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father [Aaron], that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.” (KJV, 1611)

Among these priests a High Priest was anointed (first mentioned Leviticus 21:10), to serve in unique functions, such as entering the Holy of Holies once yearly on the Day of Atonement.

Paul is obviously connecting the Jewish priesthood with the priesthood of Christianity, and showing that Christ is the High Priest of this new order, who is the mediator between God and man, and has been appointed directly by God to be a High Priest.

So you are absolutely correct. You pointed out a passage that proves the priesthood did in fact exist. The existence of the priesthood is apparent, and there should be no question about it, since one should expect a continuation of Jewish derived traditions due to the fact that Jesus specifically stated he wasn’t here to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. He fulfilled the Law with His life: Baptism, Reconciliation, the Eucharist, Marriage, etc…culminating with His Death on the Cross and subsequent Resurrection. The very fact that Jesus is referred to as High Priest establishes the continuation of the priesthood.

 

[Luvtosew]

Actually I think Hebrews verse 5 is talking about the Jewish Priests who are still in the temple as it was not destroyed yet, but he is saying that is the old law which Jesus did away with, no need to offer sacrifices day after day. Continue reading Hebrews.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Actually I think Hebrews verse 5 is talking about the Jewish Priests who are still in the temple as it was not destroyed yet, but he is saying that is the old law which Jesus did away with, no need to offer sacrifices day after day. Continue reading Hebrews.

Read the other responses to this please. This was already stated, which makes your argument ad nauseum.

Furthermore, Jesus stated he wasn’t there to abolish the Law he came to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). So it wasn’t ‘done away with’…your interpretation of Hebrews 5 is flawed because it conflicts with something Jesus said.

 

[Luvtosew]

I disagree about the sacrifices,

Hebrews 8:11-13

King James Version (KJV)
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Old wine, new wine, don’t mix

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I disagree about the sacrifices,

Hebrews 8:11-13

King James Version (KJV)
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Old wine, new wine, don’t mix

Jesus is the Lamb of God. In the OT, sacrifices of animals (life) was given to atone for sins (read Leviticus). Sacrifice is part of the new covenant also: Jesus is the sacrifice offered by God under this New Covenant, and our own personal sacrifices- personal suffering, acts of selfless love (i.e. charity) are REQUIRED. Without God’s sacrifice our sacrifices would merit nothing. Jesus stated that it was Love that the Law was based on (Matthew 22:40), so then it is Love that fulfills the Law:

“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” - Romans 13:8

You can not have Love without sacrifice.

 

[Luvtosew]

I so agree, Jesus is the pure sacrifice for our salvation and thats how much we are loved, and in return we sacrifice our lives to him.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I so agree, Jesus is the pure sacrifice for our salvation and thats how much we are loved, and in return we sacrifice our lives to him.

Yes indeed, and we must sacrifice to Him, but in the way he wants us to sacrifice.

Jesus said whatever you do for the least of his people you do it to him, and whatever you neglect to do for the least of his people, you neglect to do it for him (Matthew 25:31-46).

“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity” - 1 Corinthians 13. The Greek word here for charity (love) is “agape”, which means: an unlimited loving-kindness towards all others. Not simply benevolent giving.

But this is getting away from the original topic so I’ll leave it at that.

 

[QuickCat]

You might want to broaden you search to include other words that are used to refer to priests operating in different capacities: presbyters, episcopate, bishop, apostle, elders, etc.

Chuck

Thanks, I will.
QC

 

[peace2u2]

1. A search for the word “trinity” in the Bible would bring up zero results.
2. Therefore, the doctrine of the trinity is not in line with the Bible.

(I wrote the above on the deduction that your post aimed to refute the notion of a ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant.)

1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

To deny this is to deny God.

Remember, also, just because a doctrine emerges after the days of the original Apostles, does not mean it was not being practiced because it was from the very beginning. First by Jesus Himself, then He taught His 12 Apostles who in turn have done what He commanded them to do: “Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

We had Oral Tradition before we actually had a written Bible!

Peace 2u2

 

[Trebor135]

1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

This verse is an interpolation from the Middle Ages and has since been discarded.

To deny this is to deny God.

Correct.

Remember, also, just because a doctrine emerges after the days of the original Apostles, does not mean it was not being practiced because it was from the very beginning. First by Jesus Himself, then He taught His 12 Apostles who in turn have done what He commanded them to do: “Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

The trinity didn’t “emerge after the days of the original Apostles”. The doctrine was always taught and believed but simply without reference to the technical philosophical language of the First Council of Nicea in 325.

We had Oral Tradition before we actually had a written Bible!

Indeed.

I should clarify the intent of my original post. I was making an argumentum ad absurdumm: denying a ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant on the grounds that the word “priest” is not applied to the apostles and their successors in the New Testament is akin to (and as misguided as) rejecting the doctrine of the triune God on the basis of the word “trinity” being employed nowhere in the New Testament.

In other words, a concept may be found within a text without a specific term being employed.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

This verse is an interpolation from the Middle Ages and has since been discarded.

I’ve heard of this before. Interesting that the Comma is not in my printed Catholic Bible, not even a footnote about it, but they include it in the newadvent.org bible even though the Greek in the column on the left doesn’t have it, but the Latin on the right does. I think that this addition seems to obscure the real meaning in chapter 5, which is clearly talking about Jesus’ Baptism, not the Trinity, and it speaks of His Baptism in such a way that it seems to support the Catholic Church’s interpretation of John 3:5-- that Jesus was in fact talking about Baptism.

 

[ABK]

This is such an old thread, I don’t know if anyone reads it anymore. But the 1st reading for Aug 25, 2013 ended with what seemed like a nonsequitur that jumped out at me that addresses this issue.

The reading was from the very last chapter of Isaiah (Is 66:18-21). It seems like Isaiah is talking about Israel’s far future – ‘in that day’ sort of stuff. “I come to gather nations of every language; they shall come and see my glory… They shall bring all your brothers and sisters from all the nations as an offering to the LORD…” Doesn’t it sound like he’s talking about the ‘church age?’ So, the last sentence of the selection reads, “Some of these I will take as priests and Levites, says the LORD.” I did a doubletake. Is the OT predicting priests of the church age?

There was someone earlier in this thread who had a quote from Isaiah 61 that mentioned the priesthood and it seemed to be talking about the church age. I wonder if anyone (a good Bible scholar, I mean) has looked at Isaiah, clarified what age Isaiah is speaking about in the various chapters, and tracked all these references to a priesthood that will be drawn from the nations. I suppose a Protestant could say that all of us are the priests referred to here; but it says, “SOME of these I will take…”

I’ll say a quick prayer for you, your mom and your family… I’m so glad to be back with Jesus in the Eucharist after being away for 20 years, 15 of those in Evangelical churches. A big chunk of my family is still far away from the Church, and part of my family is being too pushy about getting them back. I’m sort of in the soup with my own family… so hang in there. We’ll pray for each other and God will cook up something good.