Posted on 06/15/2009 1:42:58 PM PDT by NYer
As a Baptist Sunday School and Bible study teacher, one of the questions that used to nag at me incessantly was this: Why, after such painstaking deliberation in dictating an institutional religion that pleased Him in the Old Testament and that was designed to lead the people to recognize the Messiah when He came, would God then introduce a system in the New Testament Church that was so completely unlike the one He established in the Old? There are innumerable examples of how ridiculous this complete “change” would be, but take the priesthood, for instance.
Priests were the officiators of worship whose main duties, those that set them apart from the “priesthood of the people” (Exodus 19:6), were to maintain the tabernacle sanctuary, offer sacrifices, and facilitate the peoples’ confession of sins through them. God Himself established this formal priesthood, stipulating everything about it in the Law of the Torah. The priests must be descendants of Aaron, the first priest selected by God Himself; their bodies must have no defect in them, because their persons and bodies were an offering to God (like the animals they would sacrifice on the altar); they must be dedicated in a special seven-day ceremony that involved bathing, oils, and sacrifices.
They were clad in special garments. They wore a “coat” woven from a single piece of linen without seam that symbolized spiritual integrity, wholeness and righteousness. The headpiece, called a miter, was made by God’s direction to look like a flower in bloom to illustrate the wearers’ spiritual health and bloom. The girdle, specified by God, was a belt worn around the waist to show that theirs was an office of service to the people.
While in active service to God in the tabernacle, and later at the temple, the priests were to have no marital relations with their spouses. This celibacy illustrated the inherent purity which the priest must embody. Along with offering sacrifices, they were to be the teachers of the people. This was not to prevent the people from learning, praying, or studying the Law on their own; it was simply to protect the people from error. They were also the office of authoritative judgment for the people, a way of justice for them.
This priesthood was so sacred that even the priests’ possible, probable and, later, actual, infidelity to God would not negate it. The people were instructed to officially hear and obey them due to the sanctity of their office, as it was a function of God’s grace rather than the priests’ merit. The priesthood was to be a perpetual institution (Exodus 40:15), as were the sacrifices they would offer Him.
”If this is true, where is the priesthood in the New Testament, after Christ?” I asked myself as a Baptist. It cannot simply be that members of the body of Christ were now “The Priesthood” as I had been taught through 1Peter 2:9 and the Book of Hebrews; not if the Old Testament is to be our example as the Scriptures so clearly say (Matthew 13:52). In the Old Testament, the people were also said to be a priesthood, though still not of the official, institutional office (Exodus 19:6), and St. Peter uses the same wording when he speaks of the “priesthood of the believer.” If the Old Testament is our example, there must also be a formal New Testament office of the priesthood in addition to the priesthood of the believer. The “fulfillment” of the Old Testament in Christ cannot, and would not, negate the perpetual and institutional nature of the office of the priesthood. He Himself said He came to fulfill it, that is to give it its proper orientation and meaning, not abolish it (Matthew 5:17-18).
This was one of the questions that bothered me the more I learned about the Old Testament example, especially after experiencing the epidemic rebellion, disunity, and church-splitting of the sole “priesthood of the believer” propounded in Protestant churches. Although the Scriptures are full of how consecrated and special they are to God, there is little respect for pastors’ authority or office in denominational churches anymore. A sign of the times, of course, but also a sign of a fundamental structural error (and appropriately of the exact nature of the original error) that is now making itself evident; for the perpetual, institutional priesthood was carried forth in obedience in and through the Catholic Church.
Everything about the Old Testament example, including the priesthood of the believer, is both fulfilled and perpetuated in Her, through Christ’s eternal sacrifice, just as the Scriptures teach. The sacrifices Catholic priests make are the single sacrifice pleasing to God: His only Son. This is the Sacrifice pictured and eternally being offered in the heavenly temple revealed to St. John in the Book of Revelation, the Sacrifice initiated and perpetuated by Christ Himself in the words “do this in remembrance of me,” this being the very thing Jesus was about to do — sacrifice Himself. Who obeys this command to the letter, offering and consuming the Blood of the new covenant and the Body which is broken for us, but the priesthood of the Catholic Church? Who officiates at this true and perpetual Sacrifice but the priesthood of the Catholic Church? Who maintains the sanctuary, offers the Sacrifice, and facilitates the peoples’ confession of sin? Who carries forth the descendants and celibacy of Christ’s priesthood with the consecration and the garments? Who administers the official and error-free, authoritative Teaching of Christ? Who but the priesthood of the Catholic Church?
The formal priesthood was to be an eternal sign of God’s wish and order that there be an institutional system in service to His precious people. As Catholics, we can rejoice and rest in the provision, Scriptural nature, and orthodoxy of our beloved formal priesthood. Let us confidently pray for vocations, while striving to meet our own obligation to holiness as part of the priesthood of the believer.
I agree with you on every thing you wrote. I was raised Baptist and will never call another man “Father”.
A cult claims that they are the true cult and have the true priesthood, and without the true cult and its ordinances and ceremonies, you will be damned. Leave the cult and you will abandon your salvation.
Geeze! Talk about psychologically and spiritually abusive! Instead of Christ being our salvation it is the cult.
Actually we did! This is the first usage of the word “Saints” in the entire Bible: (Deu 33:1-3 KJV) And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. {2} And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. {3} Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words.
The Bible calls 'saints" to all believers, whether they lived before or after Christ. Now, if you are thinking on "Catholic-style" saints, you would be right, there ain'!
Can you please show me some biblical examples of confession, priests... in the early Church? As a Sunday school teacher I would be very interested to have a look at them. I love it when I can learn something new!
Jesus is the High Priest and He was celibate.
He’s in your New Testament, right?
You wrote:
“I was raised Baptist and will never call another man “Father”.”
What did you call your Dad?
Dad?
You wrote:
“Jesus said, “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)”
Okay, so what did you call your Dad?
“Thanks for letting me chime in—as a former Catholic, I am grateful that we can rely on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture—God’s very word—rather than on the traditions and words of men.”
Okay, please tell me how you know the gospel of Matthew is inspired? I would like a verse that specifically mentions his gospel please. Also, please let me know what verse in Matthew tells you Matthew wrote that gospel. Thanks in advance.
And what does “Dad” mean?
2 Tim. 3:16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".
This is the Gospel, my friend. Thank you for such a direct and profound statement of the truth. We are very grateful to God and happy for you that you have escaped the clutches of the Vatican.
Yes, indeed, once the blood was shed, we Gentiles who once were far off, were grafted in, and we have that direct access to the Father through His Son according to His grace, by faith. No longer needing other mediators, no longer needing ceremonies, no longer needing additional sacrifice. You have clearly set out the beauty of freedom in Christ, alone, as attested to in the innerrant Scriptures. Again, thanks.
Is there a scripture that specifically states that Jesus was celibate, or are the scriptures merely silent on that point?
With regard to “high priest”, specifically where does it use that term with regard to Jesus?
Personally, if the scriptures are silent on a particular point then I will be as well, and I will refrain from specious speculation.
You posted:
“2 Tim. 3:16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”.”
I didn’t ask you to post a verse that said scripture was inspired. I asked you for a verse that said the gospel of MATTHEW was inspired. Can you even post a verse that shows that Matthew’s gospel is scripture? Can you post a single verse that shows Christians in the New Testament thought Matthew’s gospel was inspired? Can you post a single verse that shows Matthew was in fact the author of the gospel ascribed to him?
Can’t you post any verses at all for what you believe about Matthew or his gospel?
You wrote:
“Is there a scripture that specifically states that Jesus was celibate, or are the scriptures merely silent on that point?”
Do you have any verses that show He was married? Was St. Paul married?
“With regard to “high priest”, specifically where does it use that term with regard to Jesus?”
Who else offered Jesus to the Father? Was it not Jesus Himself? Aren’t you familiar with Hebrews 3:1?
“Personally, if the scriptures are silent on a particular point then I will be as well, and I will refrain from specious speculation.”
I make no speculation. Jesus was celibate. He could never have taken a wife.
According to the Webster’s Dictionary, it means “father”. Notice, it does not say “Father”. You really don’t see the difference between calling your dad “father” or calling some one else “Father So-and-so”? I taught for one year at a Catholic high school, and I left (wasn’t fired, they tried to sue me to force me to return) among other things because of the way everybody looked at me when I called the priest who came once a week “mister” and “sir”. They thought I was being purposedly rude.
Can you even post a verse that shows that Matthew’s gospel is NOT Scripture? If it is, it obviously is inspired. If it isn’t, why do you find it it your Catholic Bible?
Daddy. ;0)
From one former-Catholic to another... praise the Lord!
I make no speculation. Jesus was celibate. He could never have taken a wife.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unless you can point to a scripture, then you are speculating.
Personally, I do not speculate. The scriptures are silent on this point. I do not know and will refrain from any speculation on Christ’s marital status.
I sure am thankful that I was saved into the Body of Christ by the free gift of God’s grace, without works. I didnt have to earn my salvation, nor be bothered with the traditions of men.
You wrote:
“According to the Webster’s Dictionary, it means “father”. Notice, it does not say “Father”.”
You think it’s in caps in the Greek mss.? So are you saying that you can call your Dad Dad, but you better not do it at the beginning of the sentence or else you’re in trouble with Jesus? Hilarious.
“You really don’t see the difference between calling your dad “father” or calling some one else “Father So-and-so”?”
Yes, I see the difference. I also see it doesn’t violate the scriptures. It just violates your own weird interpretation of them. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101dq.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
“I taught for one year at a Catholic high school, and I left (wasn’t fired, they tried to sue me to force me to return) among other things because of the way everybody looked at me when I called the priest who came once a week “mister” and “sir”. They thought I was being purposedly rude.”
The school’s better off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.