124 replies to this topic

[PacMan]

In another thread there has been discussion regarding the laying on of hands.  Rather than hijack the thread, I'm opening this in hopes that Hick Preacher and Rob Bowman will participate.

If there is a clear doctrine in the bible, I believe it is the importance and process of ordination and callings.

Quote

Hebrews 5:4: "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."

Now, remember that this is in context of "every high priest taken from among men IS ordained for men in things pertaining to God." (Heb 5:1).  What is clear from the language is that high priest ordinations were legitimately occurring at the time of Paul's writing.  Not only that, but there was the process.  So, the question is, how was Aaron called?

There isn't precise language referring to Aaron's "calling."  But there is very descriptive language of Joshua's ordination (which we can assume would be the same).  This is most probable because of the language in Numbers 27:20-23 -

Quote

20. "And thou shalt put some of thine honor upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient"

Note, the "honor" language as it relates to authority.

Quote

22. "And Moses did as the Lord commanded him: and he took Joshua, and set him before Eleazar the preist, and before all the congregation:
23. "And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses."

Now let us be sure that this was not some cultural show.  This process was "as the Lord commanded," and precisely what Paul references in Hebrews given the exact language referenced.

But this is not where it ends.  Indeed, the bible gives additional implication what this laying on of hands constituted.  In Deut. 34:9 -

Quote

"And Joshua . . . was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses."

Again, we see that the laying on of hands wasn't symbolic.  It was substantive.  It was as the Lord commanded, it was how the Lord ordained His authorized servants, and it was how the children of Israel knew whom it was that spoke for the Lord.

And all of this is explicitly adopted in the NT by Paul in Heb 5:4.

What orthodox Christians (generally protestants) tend to believe is that God calls the individual and it is up to the individual to know that calling.  But what happens when it is left to the individual?  Read 1 Sam 13:9; 1 Kings 13:33-34 for examples.  

The point is that the Lord provided a system in the NT of Apostles and Prophets, and that this structure is conditional "till we all come in the unity of the saints...that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and from, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."  (Eph 4:11-14).

If there is anything that describes the history of Christianity, it would be being tossed to and fro by the the sleight and craftiness of men.  Which is precisely why Apostles and Prophets, as well as evangelists and pastors and teachers are all necessary until we are all unified, which as not yet happened.

Edited by PacMan, 23 November 2010 - 05:25 PM.

[Vance]

PacMan, on 23 November 2010 - 05:21 PM, said:

I'm opening this in hopes that Hick Preacher and Rob Bowman will participate.

Hick Preacher has a better chance of showing up than Rob. HP is less likely to avoid a topic that don't further his agenda. (I can't even tell if he has an agenda).  Rob, not so much.

Edited to add.

Whoa!  Color me surprised.  Rob showed up.

Edited by Vance, 24 November 2010 - 01:11 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

PacMan, on 23 November 2010 - 05:21 PM, said:

In another thread there has been discussion regarding the laying on of hands.... If there is a clear doctrine in the bible, I believe it is the importance and process of ordination and callings.

It's always interesting to see what some people regard as "clear" and others do not.

You quoted Hebrews 5:4 and then verse 1. Let's get the whole context up:

"For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. 4 And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'; 6 as he says also in another place, 'You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.'" (Heb. 5:1-7)

I'll refer back to this passage as I go along here. You wrote:

Quote

What is clear from the language is that high priest ordinations were legitimately occurring at the time of Paul's writing.  Not only that, but there was the process.

When Hebrews was written, the high priest was officiating still under the old covenant, "to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" (v. 1). Although these high priestly functions were continuing to take place when Hebrews was written (almost certainly in the 60s, prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70), they were destined to come to an end and in fact had already become obsolete from God's perspective. This is because Christ had offered himself as the final and definitive sacrifice for sins, making the sacrifice of bulls and goats obsolete (Heb. 7:18-10:18). So there is no reason to think that earthly high priests were supposed to continue once that already-obsolete sacrificial system had come to an end.

You wrote:

Quote

So, the question is, how was Aaron called?

There isn't precise language referring to Aaron's "calling."  But there is very descriptive language of Joshua's ordination (which we can assume would be the same).  This is most probable because of the language in Numbers 27:20-23 -

Quote

20. "And thou shalt put some of thine honor upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient"

Note, the "honor" language as it relates to authority.

Quote

22. "And Moses did as the Lord commanded him: and he took Joshua, and  set him before Eleazar the preist, and before all the congregation:
23. "And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses."

Now let us be sure that this was not some cultural show.  This process was "as the Lord commanded," and precisely what Paul references in Hebrews given the exact language referenced.

But this is not where it ends.  Indeed, the bible gives additional implication what this laying on of hands constituted.  In Deut. 34:9 -

Quote

"And Joshua . . . was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid  his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and  did as the Lord commanded Moses."

Again, we see that the laying on of hands wasn't symbolic.  It was substantive.  It was as the Lord commanded, it was how the Lord ordained His authorized servants, and it was how the children of Israel knew whom it was that spoke for the Lord.

And all of this is explicitly adopted in the NT by Paul in Heb 5:4.

I'm sorry, but this simply is not the case. Hebrews 5:4 says nothing about the laying on of hands, so it isn't explicit there at all. Furthermore, your entire line of reasoning here draws from what the OT says about Joshua, not Aaron, whose ordination is not described. If the writer of Hebrews wanted his readers to know what was involved in someone becoming ordained, and the laying on of hands was essential to what he wanted to communicate, why did he cite Aaron (for whom no laying on of hands is mentioned in the OT) instead of Joshua? Your assertion that we can assume Aaron was ordained in the same way as Joshua is beside the point. Even if I agreed with that assumption, which I do not, it doesn't explain why Hebrews cites Aaron instead of Joshua as the exemplar of ordination.

The passage about the ordination of Joshua does not read as an institutionalization of an ordination rite to be repeated in perpetuity. Instead, it reads as an exceptional occurrence in response to Moses' request for someone to take his place in leading the people of Israel after Moses' death:

"The LORD said to Moses, "Go up into this mountain of Abarim and see the land that I have given to the people of Israel. 13 When you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was, 14 because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin when the congregation quarreled, failing to uphold me as holy at the waters before their eyes." (These are the waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin.) 15 Moses spoke to the LORD, saying, 16 "Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation 17 who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in, that the congregation of the LORD may not be as sheep that have no shepherd." 18 So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him. 19 Make him stand before Eleazar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight. 20 You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey. 21 And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the LORD. At his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation." 22 And Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and made him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole congregation, 23 and he laid his hands on him and commissioned him as the LORD directed through Moses." (Num. 27:12-23)

I see nothing in this passage to suggest that this was an institutionalized practice at all. Furthermore, I see no basis for applying what is said here to Aaron. Moses ordained Joshua as his replacement or successor as leader of Israel; he was not ordaining Joshua as a priest.

Now, what about Aaron? How was he made a priest? You claim that "there isn't precise language referring to Aaron's 'calling,'" but that simply is not true. I think what you mean is that the Bible never says specifically that anyone laid hands on Aaron to make him a priest. That is in fact the case -- but that simply shows that your assumption that such a laying on of hands must have taken place is an unwarranted assumption.

The fact is that the Bible goes into great detail about how Aaron became a priest. Indeed, the account of what was to be done for Aaron to become a priest goes on for three lengthy chapters (Ex. 28-30). Special holy garments had to be made for Aaron and his sons--beautiful outer garments of many colors (gold, blue, purple, scarlet) that they would wear while performing their priestly duties. Exodus devotes a whole chapter of 43 verses to the description of these garments (Ex. 28). Various animals were to be sacrificed as part of the ordination ritual for Aaron and his sons, with blood from the sacrificial animals dabbed on the men's ears and sprinkled on their beautiful new garments (Ex. 29:20-21). Aaron and his sons were also to be anointed with a special anointing oil (29:7; 30:23-33). So Exodus is very specific and extremely detailed about what was involved in Aaron's ordination as priest. It simply does not include a ritual laying on of hands as part of that detailed, specific description.

Simply read Exodus 28-30 and Numbers 27 and see for yourself: the ordinations of Aaron and Joshua are completely different. They are ordained to different positions. Aaron's sons are also ordained along with Aaron because their office of priest will be passed down from one generation to the next; not so with Joshua's position. Aaron and his sons wear elaborate and very special garments; not so with Joshua. Aaron and his sons are anointed with a very special oil; there is no mention of Joshua being anointed with oil. Animals are sacrificed in Aaron's ordination; there is no mention of sacrifices at Joshua's ordination. Moses lays hands on Joshua; there is no mention of anyone laying hands on Aaron.

Now let's go back to Hebrews 5:1-7. The writer does not say that just as Aaron was called through the laying on of hands, so people must be called today. No, that is simply not what he says. Instead, he says that just as God had called Aaron to be an (earthly) high priest, so God also called his Son, Jesus Christ, to be our (heavenly) high priest. The issue here is calling, not ordination: "only when called by God, just as Aaron was" (Heb. 5:4). When and how did God "call" Aaron to be high priest? Very simply, God told Moses that Aaron was to serve in that capacity: "Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests -- Aaron and Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar" (Ex. 28:1). Likewise, God the Father "called" Jesus Christ to be our heavenly high priest, which Hebrews says is revealed in Psalm 2:7 and 110:1. In neither of those texts is there an "ordination" ceremony or ritual mentioned, let alone a laying on of hands. Nor does any biblical text refer to anyone laying hands on Jesus to make him high priest. This is simply foreign to the point that Hebrews 5:4 is making. The point is that Christ serves as heavenly high priest because God the Father said that he should do so. Hebrews 5 has nothing to do with Christian rites of ordination.

Even if you were right about how Aaron was ordained, all you would have succeeded in showing is that an earthly high priest receives his office by the laying on of hands. Even if I accepted that conclusion, it wouldn't even begin to show that we need to have hands laid on us to receive the permanent presence of the Holy Spirit, or to have the authority to baptize other believers, or anything of relevance to the differences between Mormons and evangelical Christians. And since the office that Aaron passed down to his sons has been made obsolete by the final sacrificial death and heavenly high priestly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ in the new covenant (Hebrews 7-10), there is no more place for the Aaronic priesthood on the earth.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I saw this only after I posted my response to PacMan. How's that egg on your face?  

Vance, on 24 November 2010 - 01:04 PM, said:

Hick Preacher has a better chance of showing up than Rob. HP is less likely to avoid a topic that don't further his agenda. (I can't even tell if he has an agenda).  Rob, not so much.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 01:08 PM, said:

When Hebrews was written, the high priest was officiating still under the old covenant, "to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" (v. 1). Although these high priestly functions were continuing to take place when Hebrews was written (almost certainly in the 60s, prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70), they were destined to come to an end and in fact had already become obsolete from God's perspective. This is because Christ had offered himself as the final and definitive sacrifice for sins, making the sacrifice of bulls and goats obsolete (Heb. 7:18-10:18).

Although interesting, this fails to address the OP.

I notice that the author of Hebrews doesn't negate any portion of the OP either.  In fact the author goes out of his way to write verse 4 thus indicating that it was still a valid requirement for the Christian church.

Rather than drone on, the author could have clearly and succinctly stated that the priesthood was no longer valid, and then started a discourse on the priesthood of all believers.

But rather than doing that, he spent considerable effort explaining why the sacrifice for sins was longer needed.

The problem is in ASSUMING that the need for and requirements to obtain the priesthood ended with the sacrifices for sins. Especially when there is no indication for it and a perfect opportunity for a clear statement of such was studiously avoided by the author.

Quote

So there is no reason to think that earthly high priests were supposed to continue once that already-obsolete sacrificial system had come to an end.

You mean, other than the fact that the author studiously failed to take the perfect opportunity to indicate such. right?

Quote

I'm sorry, but this simply is not the case. Hebrews 5:4 says nothing about the laying on of hands, so it isn't explicit there at all. Furthermore, your entire line of reasoning here draws from what the OT says about Joshua, not Aaron, whose ordination is not described. If the writer of Hebrews wanted his readers to know what was involved in someone becoming ordained, and the laying on of hands was essential to what he wanted to communicate, why did he cite Aaron (for whom no laying on of hands is mentioned in the OT) instead of Joshua? Your assertion that we can assume Aaron was ordained in the same way as Joshua is beside the point. Even if I agreed with that assumption, which I do not, it doesn't explain why Hebrews cites Aaron instead of Joshua as the exemplar of ordination.

This is a fair point.  (Don't drop dead with shock Rob).

But to me, you are still missing the most salient point of Heb 5:4 which is recorded in the OT.
And that is the CALLING of Aaron.

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

And just how was Aaron called?

God spoke to the prophet Moses, and then Moses issued the call. Thus establishing the need for prophets.

But then again, there is NO REASON to even suspect that the ordination of Aaron was in any way different from the ordination of Joshua, is there.

[Vance]

Oh, and while we are on the topic of authority.

Rob, where do you claim to get yours?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 24 November 2010 - 01:57 PM, said:

Although interesting, this fails to address the OP.

Of course it does, if you read what I wrote in context. But hey, why should I expect you to read what I write in context if you won't do so for Hebrews?

You wrote:

Quote

I notice that the author of Hebrews doesn't negate any portion of the OP either.  In fact the author goes out of his way to write verse 4 thus indicating that it was still a valid requirement for the Christian church.

I fail to see any reference in Hebrews 5:4 to the Christian church, or any basis in the context for such an application.

You wrote:

Quote

Rather than drone on, the author could have clearly and succinctly stated that the priesthood was no longer valid, and then started a discourse on the priesthood of all believers.

But rather than doing that, he spent considerable effort explaining why the sacrifice for sins was longer needed.

The problem is in ASSUMING that the need for and requirements to obtain the priesthood ended with the sacrifices for sins. Especially when there is no indication for it and a perfect opportunity for a clear statement of such was studiously avoided by the author.

You are faulting the writer for not saying it in chapter 5 and instead waiting to develop that part of his argument later. Who do you think you are, telling the inspired writer how to write his book?

According to Hebrews, every high priest's job is to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin (Heb. 5:4; 8:3). He says this twice, including in the verse on which you are camping. But if every high priest's job was to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin, and no one on earth is supposed to be offering sacrifices for sin any longer, then the job of earthly high priests has come to an end.

You wrote:

Quote

This is a fair point.  (Don't drop dead with shock Rob).

You wrote:

Quote

But to me, you are still missing the most salient point of Heb 5:4 which is recorded in the OT.
And that is the CALLING of Aaron.

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

And just how was Aaron called?

God spoke to the prophet Moses, and then Moses issued the call. Thus establishing the need for prophets.

No, it establishes the need for God to call someone to be a high priest. That's exactly what Hebrews 5:4 says, and that's a point you are still missing.

You wrote:

Quote

But then again, there is NO REASON to even suspect that the ordination of Aaron was in any way different from the ordination of Joshua, is there.

Er? Did you read the rest of my post?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You asked:

Vance, on 24 November 2010 - 01:59 PM, said:

Oh, and while we are on the topic of authority.

Rob, where do you claim to get yours?

What "authority" do you think I claim to which I have no entitlement?

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 02:08 PM, said:

Of course it does, if you read what I wrote in context. But hey, why should I expect you to read what I write in context if you won't do so for Hebrews?]

Well, I may not waste my time fully reading your posts, but I am very aware of the context of Hebrews.

Quote

I fail to see any reference in Hebrews 5:4 to the Christian church, or any basis in the context for such an application.

You mean other than the context clearly identifies Hebrews as written for members of the church, right.

So the author writes a letter to a group and expects the group to not apply its contents to them?

Quote

You are faulting the writer for not saying it in chapter 5 and instead waiting to develop that part of his argument later.

Except he doesn't develop it later either.

Quote

Who do you think you are, telling the inspired writer how to write his book?

Who do you think you are, telling the inspired writer what he really meant in his book?

Quote

According to Hebrews, every high priest's job is to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin (Heb. 5:4; 8:3).

The author identifies himself as a high priest like Jesus.
Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

And he mentions the new Christian High Priests offering of sacrifice in Heb. 13, where he says
15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
  16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

Edited to add,
Peter also mentions sacrifices associated with the "royal" or Melchizedek priesthood.
1 Pet. 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Quote

  He says this twice three times, including in the verse on which you are camping. But if every high priest's job was to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin, and no one on earth is supposed to be offering sacrifices for sin any longer, then the job of earthly high priests has come to an end.

See above.

Quote

No, it establishes the need for God to call someone to be a high priest. That's exactly what Hebrews 5:4 says, and that's a point you are still missing.

Not at all, the point your missing is that the office of High Priest continued in the Christian Church.  No where is it abolished. Changed, yes, . .  abolished, NO!

Quote

Did you read the rest of my post?

Nope, got bored and fell asleep.   Your long winded, contorted explanations do that to me.

Edited by Vance, 25 November 2010 - 06:23 PM.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 02:12 PM, said:

What "authority" do you think I claim to which I have no entitlement?

Any, with regard to declaring, interpreting, or expounding doctrine or scripture.

[Vance]

Rob, and all,

Have a happy Thanksgiving!!

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Regarding your not reading my whole post before responding, you wrote:

Vance, on 24 November 2010 - 02:37 PM, said:

Well, I may not waste my time fully reading your posts, but I am very aware of the context of Hebrews.... Nope, got bored and fell asleep.   Your long winded, contorted explanations do that to me.

You have just conceded defeat. I see no reason to bother responding further to someone who won't make the effort to understand before he criticizes (Proverbs 18:13).

[Hick Preacher]

I am Jonny come lately on this one.

Thanks be to both sides of the discussion.

Thanks Rob for you elaborated explanations too.

I do not think that the Hebrews 5:4 "called of God"  mandate of is very complicated.

Vance said however,

Quote

And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

And just how was Aaron called?

God spoke to the prophet Moses, and then Moses issued the call. Thus establishing the need for prophets.

But then again, there is NO REASON to even suspect that the ordination of Aaron was in any way different from the ordination of Joshua, is there.

But actually the order of calling of Aaron are as follows in three steps:

1)God told Moses to have Aaron be his mouthpiece. (EXO 4:14)

2)Then God called Aaron to report to Moses to serve as a mouthpiece.(EXO 4:27)

3) So Aaron complied to this call that came directly from God, and reported to Moses. (EXO 4:28)


The point of Hebrews 5:4 is that real priests are called direct from God, and not by their own selfish human desires be honored by men.

======

As to the larger issue of Authority in the Bible, this has hardly been touched in this thread as of yet.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 24 November 2010 - 04:11 PM.

[ELF1024]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 02:58 PM, said:

Vance,

Regarding your not reading my whole post before responding, you wrote:



You have just conceded defeat. I see no reason to bother responding further to someone who won't make the effort to understand before he criticizes (Proverbs 18:13).

Wow, Pot meet Kettle...

[PacMan]

Rob,

Quote

When Hebrews was written, the high priest was officiating still under the old covenant, "to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" (v. 1). Although these high priestly functions were continuing to take place when Hebrews was written (almost certainly in the 60s, prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70), they were destined to come to an end and in fact had already become obsolete from God's perspective. This is because Christ had offered himself as the final and definitive sacrifice for sins, making the sacrifice of bulls and goats obsolete (Heb. 7:18-10:18). So there is no reason to think that earthly high priests were supposed to continue once that already-obsolete sacrificial system had come to an end.

Agreed that this is post-resurrection, which is more supported by the assumed authorship by Paul (although, unnecessary for our discussion).  Even so, the ordinations were continuing and nothing assumes that such appointment was inappropriate.  To stretch the text a bit, we can assume that these high priests were offering spiritual gifts and sacrifices as described by Peter.  But even so, they were being appointed.

Quote

I'm sorry, but this simply is not the case. Hebrews 5:4 says nothing about the laying on of hands, so it isn't explicit there at all.

What IS clear is that it references the Old Testament ordinations, and uses the same language of as the Old Testament in referencing “honor.”  Personally wonder if Paul (or the author) meant simply confused Joshua with Aaron because the language is identical.  But it doesn’t matter, because we can be sure that they were called in the same manner considering Heb 5:4 makes it rather explicit that this is THE way to get such an honor.

Quote

If the writer of Hebrews wanted his readers to know what was involved in someone becoming ordained, and the laying on of hands was essential to what he wanted to communicate, why did he cite Aaron (for whom no laying on of hands is mentioned in the OT) instead of Joshua? Your assertion that we can assume Aaron was ordained in the same way as Joshua is beside the point.

The only way you can come to this conclusion is via logical fallacy.  If Heb 5:4 cites THE way someone “gets” the honor, then we MUST assume that both Aaron and Joshua were called in a similar fashion.

Quote

The passage about the ordination of Joshua does not read as an institutionalization of an ordination rite to be repeated in perpetuity. Instead, it reads as an exceptional occurrence in response to Moses' request for someone to take his place in leading the people of Israel after Moses' death:

Except for the fact that Hebrews 5:4 ADOPTS the usage as the “ONLY” manner of receiving such an authority.  The OT explains a practice which the NT institutionalizes.  Do deny it sets you into a severe, logical quagmire.

Quote

Now, what about Aaron? How was he made a priest?

I said nothing of how he was made a priest.  The call must come before the ceremony, and it necessarily came through Moses.  I can’t imagine how this can be disputed.

Quote

Simply read Exodus 28-30 and Numbers 27 and see for yourself: the ordinations of Aaron and Joshua are completely different.

If they are so different, why does Heb 5:4 refer to the “honor” received by Aaron, as does Num. 27 regarding the “honor” received of Joshua.  I’m sorry – what is clear is that “honor” given by God is transferred in one manner.

Quote

God told Moses that Aaron was to serve in that capacity: "Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests -- Aaron and Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar" (Ex. 28:1)

That’s another good one that I overlooked.  The fact that the Lord told Moses to bring them “near to you” even more establishes the laying on of hands as a practice.  Else, why the necessary proximity?  Why point it out at all?  Wouldn’t they need to be close enough to speak anyway?  I think the answer is obvious.

Quote

Likewise, God the Father "called" Jesus Christ to be our heavenly high priest, which Hebrews says is revealed in Psalm 2:7 and 110:1. In neither of those texts is there an "ordination" ceremony or ritual mentioned, let alone a laying on of hands.

I am completely confident that the Father anointed and called Jesus as such anointing and callings had previously occurred.  Whatever your inference is per argumentum ad ignorantium, I reject it.

Quote

Hebrews 5 has nothing to do with Christian rites of ordination.

???  Then explain how someone gets the “honor” if it isn’t through ordination.

Quote

Even if I accepted that conclusion, it wouldn't even begin to show that we need to have hands laid on us to receive the permanent presence of the Holy Spirit, or to have the authority to baptize other believers, or anything of relevance to the differences between Mormons and evangelical Christians.

The problem that you have, is you can’t peg down “honor.”  The honor is pretty simple: It’s authority.  In both OT and NT terms, it was the “holy priesthood” (1 Pet 2:5).  It was certainly a different capacity for Aaron than Joshua, but in both cases the honor was undoubtedly authority.  Heb 5:4’s adoption of the OT practice as the “only” method of transferring this honor makes it very clear that this is the only way that authority is transferred.  I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to change the text to conclude otherwise.

Quote

And since the office that Aaron passed down to his sons has been made obsolete by the final sacrificial death and heavenly high priestly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ in the new covenant (Hebrews 7-10), there is no more place for the Aaronic priesthood on the earth.

Wrong, but that’s another discussion (ponder what John was supposed to restore in the meantime.  Matt 17:11-13).

Cheers,

PacMan

[Hick Preacher]

Golly PacMan,  I do not understand how you see the process of getting an 'honor'  as having to be necessarily dependent how the honor is conveyed.  Also how something is given, transfered or conveyed may well be completely separate from being called.
Hebrews 5:4 compares Jesus to a Levite High Priest-- these priests were sworn into service by elaborate rites and anointing that invoked the Spirit upon them.
When the honor was given to Jesus, were was the ceremony and rites? Who laids hands on Jesus? Who performed these rites, who layed hands on Jesus to give Him authority?   All we see is that Jesus was baptized, and immediately afterward the Spirit of God descended on Him in the form of a dove.   The whole point of a public ordination is so the people can see who was charged in society to become the High Priest, and to invoke God's blessing by the Priest having the Spirit.

Jesus fulfilled all righteousness, meaning that He underwent a public right, and was approved of God for His Earthly mission by the Spirit coming upon Him.

Quote

Matt 3: 13 Then Jesus  arrived bfrom Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him.
14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?”
15 But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us ato fulfill all righteousness.” Then he * permitted Him.

[PacMan]

Hick,

Quote

Golly PacMan, I do not understand how you see the process of getting an 'honor' as having to be necessarily dependent how the honor is conveyed. Also how something is given, transfered or conveyed may well be completely separate from being called.

It depends if you believe the calling includes the conveyance.  You seem to believe that the means of transfer is irrelevant (this presents a tremendous slippery slope to stop fabricated callings, FYI).  I think that because the many narratives actually speak to the process, it’s not a mere formality or nominal.  I think it’s an integral part of the process.  I have numerous examples that point that way, and you dismiss them.  That’s all you have going.  So be it.

Quote

When the honor was given to Jesus, were was the ceremony and rites? Who laids hands on Jesus? Who performed these rites, who layed hands on Jesus to give Him authority? All we see is that Jesus was baptized, and immediately afterward the Spirit of God descended on Him in the form of a dove. The whole point of a public ordination is so the people can see who was charged in society to become the High Priest, and to invoke God's blessing by the Priest having the Spirit.

The dove spirit ordained him?  Considering the text says nothing of the sort, I reject it.  Remember, Acts 21:25 which is going to cause you some problems in other sphere anyway.  But since you asked, I think the Father did.  I see something so sacred as not putting into scripture.  It didn’t need to be.  To leverage any sort of argumentum ad ignorantium is not only irresponsible, but very presumptuous.

Now, what we DO know is that your interpretation is just that – an interpretation.  Nothing in the text itself suggest that you are necessarily right.  Clearly, you must accept that as obvious.  The critical question that all this poses, is why in the world would god leave such an important part of his gospel (authority) to the interpretation of men?  I think my position is more tenable.  But even disagreeing that point, I at least don’t rely on the scholastic understanding of men.  I believe in prophets and apostles today whom have made it clear (not to mention the gift the spirit to confirm such a teaching – but that’s not measurable which leads to the slippery slope).  Where’s your “safety valve.”

Guaranteed – if you don’t have such a safety valve, there’s no way under the sun that I’m touching your doctrinal boat.  Faith does not require foolishness.

PacMan

P.S.  I didn’t see how Jesus’s fulfillment of righteousness was relevant to anything.  There’s no disagreement there.

[Hick Preacher]

PacMan in quotes

Quote

<<<It depends if you believe the calling includes the conveyance. You seem to believe that the means of transfer is irrelevant (this presents a tremendous slippery slope to stop fabricated callings, FYI). I think that because the many narratives actually speak to the process, it’s not a mere formality or nominal. I think it’s an integral part of the process. I have numerous examples that point that way, and you dismiss them. That’s all you have going. So be it.>>>

There is a difference between being called and chose—and chosen and ordained.   -

Quote

Matthew 22: 14  For many are called, but few are chosen.
John 15: 16  Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit

-

God is in control of the Church, and can call the shots using the Holy Ghost.

Quote

Acts 20:28  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Quote

Quote

<<<The dove spirit ordained him? Considering the text says nothing of the sort, I reject it.>>>

Here are the Old Testament steps that form a motif for covenant making—a person’s covenant is sealed when the Holy Ghost and makes it sealed.
1-A man is called by God  Exodus (4:27)
2-The man undergoes an ordinance
3-The man becomes a son of God in an adoption covenant and is sealed  ( even as a priest) by having the Holy Ghost come upon him.

Ne 10:1  Now those that sealed were, Nehemiah, the Tirshatha, the son of Hachaliah, and Zidkijah,

The New Testament version of this is—

Quote

Eph 1:13  In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Jesus in the New Testament was Called by God and had the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:38)  This followed a similar motif for sealing.

Jesus followed the steps that an Old Testament Priest did in getting ordained.  He got called, received and ordinance(baptized), and then the Holy Ghost came on Him.  But He did not have hands laid on Him to get the Holy Ghost  which sealed Him as a priest unto God.  Likewise the Christian is sealed by the Holy Ghost.

Quote

Joh 6:27  Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

2Co 1:22  Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

Eph 4:30  And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

The Dove was the Spirit coming upon Jesus after the ordination of the Father.  The voice of the Father was heard saying ‘This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased…”   This voice message from the Father declares that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  This is consistent with what follows Hebrews 5:4 in the fifth verse that says

Quote

Hebrews 5: 5  So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

When governments were based on monarchy and inheritance,  a first born son typically represents his father and has his father’s authority.   To the ancients in a culture of partriarchs, becoming a ‘son’ was a great honor, and came with considerable social  authority in a clan and tribe.  The son of a king had even greater honor in a nation with social and legal authority. To become a Son of God would mean one would have even a larger scope of authority.  A son of God will inherit a thrown.

For a Christian to be called ‘a king’, would mean that they would become kings by becoming sons of God, this is because God is the highest King. Being a Son of a King puts one in a position of authority.

Quote

<<<Remember, Acts 21:25 which is going to cause you some problems in other sphere anyway. But since you asked, I think the Father did. I see something so sacred as not putting into scripture. It didn’t need to be. To leverage any sort of argumentum ad ignorantium is not only irresponsible, but very presumptuous.

Now, what we DO know is that your interpretation is just that – an interpretation. Nothing in the text itself suggest that you arenecessarily right. Clearly, you must accept that as obvious. The critical question that all this poses, is why in the world would god leave such an important part of his gospel (authority) to the interpretation of men? I think my position is more tenable. But even disagreeing that point, I at least don’t rely on the scholastic understanding of men. I believe in prophets and apostles today whom have made it clear (not to mention the gift the spirit to confirm such a teaching – but that’s not measurable which leads to the slippery slope). Where’s your “safety valve.”

Guaranteed – if you don’t have such a safety valve, there’s no way under the sun that I’m touching your doctrinal boat. Faith does not require foolishness.  



PacMan

P.S. I didn’t see how Jesus’s fulfillment of righteousness was relevant to anything. There’s no disagreement there.  >>>

Considering you last comment, I find it odd that you have not provided any evidence of where Jesus or his Apostles were anointed into the Priesthood like Aaron, since you are saying that being called of Aaron must include the same rites and ordinances that Aaron received when becoming honored as a Priest. And on top of this there is nothing in the New Testament showing a motif exists for the requirement of Laying on of Hands for the Priesthood. Instead there appears to be a pattern of events that show that Authority from God in the New Testament comes directly from God, with NO Laying on of Hand, and NO anointing of oil required. The Old Testament practices seems to be a teaching tool pointing to the idea that what is critical in the life of the believer is not ordinances for authority, but rather the kind of authority that comes from inspiration that comes direct from God.  

I have briefly presented to you my perspective that the ordination of Levites into the Hebrew Priesthood was full of symbolic types of a fulfilled dispensation when believers would be ordained directly by God, and anointed by the Holy Ghost.  As I discussed, The anointing of  Kings and Priests with sacred oils represented the invocation of the Holy Ghost. The Priest and King processes of ordination with the anointing and Laying on of Hands all pointed to the critical event of having that leader ordained getting the power of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus  The Christ was given the title of “The Anointed One”, yet  was not given a priests anointing, but rather anointed from above directly by God with the Holy Ghost.  This leads to the strong inference that Christians also can get the same anointing in the same way as Christ.  And case histories in the New Testament

So why are not all LDS people anointed with oil along with the laying on of Hands as a requirement to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost?  There are many dimensions to all of these Hebrew rites—and protocols that surely are are being completely neglected in the LDS ordinances if your Hebrews 5:4 claims were to be followed through as you insist.

------------------------
In the real world, Evangelical Christians fit into a role that parallels that of priests of the Old Testament in Three main areas.  

Evangelicals often find themselves in these roles as the Holy Ghost prompts them, situating the Christian in these priestly activities. This is evidence that Evangelicals are truly the priests to God that Peter mentions in the New Testament whose authority and abilities come from Inspiration.  

The Three areas of Christian authority by Inspiration made manifest are...

1.   The Holy Ghost indwelling Christians to worship.
There were two major elements to the worship in the OT.
A-Sacrifices and offerings performed by priests who were helped by Levites.
B-Singing and praising God by choirs led by Levites.  Cf. 1Chr.23:27-32.
In the NT as priests we offer spiritual sacrifices.  I Pteter 2:5.
a         Our bodies as living sacrifice Rom.12:l
b         Our monitory offerings as sacrifice  Phil.4:18;
c         Our good works and sharing  Heb. 13:16
d        Fruits of our lips-sacrifices of praise Heb. 13:15.
e         We also sing praises to God as individuals and as groups when ever and where ever possible (Eph. 5:18-20; I Cor.14:16).


2.The Holy Ghost Prompts Christians to be witnesses on an every day basis.                                                                                                                                            
-OT Priests were custodians and teachers and preachers of the law as the following passages illustrate.  Neh. 8:9; 2 Chr.15:3;  Jer. 18:18; Eze.7:26;  Note the following verses. Hos.4:6 & Mal.2:7. Preaching, teaching etc. are part of witnessing.

Evangelical Christians are big on witnessing. This is because the Holy Ghost prompts them to do so because it is the companion of the Christian.  We see this very same kind of witnessing activity recorded in the New Testament.
Acts 1:8;  Mk.3:14; I Pet.2:9, - Life style witnessing at home I Pet.3:1,2.
Eph. 4-6 is all about the life style of a believer.
-Warning every man  Col.1:28, - Being a debtor  Rom.1:14
-As far as I can    Rom l:15, - Woe to me if I preach not  I Cor. 9:l6
We are responsible for this generation.  Their blood shall be required of us  Eze.3:l8.


3.  Warfare. Old Testament Priests were involved in Warfare and protecting the Nation of Israel.
Num. 10:8f; 31:6;  Dt.20:2.
Evangelical Christian are often involved in warfare, -- Spiritual Warfare. Christians often feel prompted by the Sprit to stand against evil forces in our world.
In the New spiritual warfare is required of all believers.
-Srtive with me… Rom.15:30-32;
-That you may able to stand against the viles of the devil Eph.6:10-18;
Js. 4:7; I Pet.5:9;      
Jude v.23.    


Evangelicals bear the evidence by their fruit. They enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost, and are prompted to fill the roles of Priests to God.-The fruits created from fulfilling these roles suggest strongly that Evangelicals have Authority from God. Some Evangelical have received their gifts of the Spirit by the laying on of Hand by Elders in Evangelical Churches, other directly from God without the rite.
There is evidence that they have received their anointings from above, and that they are the Sons of God.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 27 November 2010 - 12:19 AM.

[PacMan]

Hick,

Quote

There is a difference between being called and chose—and chosen and ordained. -

And you’ve given little, if any differentiation.  Even so, that doesn’t affect my previous statements.

Quote

God is in control of the Church, and can call the shots using the Holy Ghost.

Or a Prophet.  You need to stop inserting your own commentary as scripture.

Quote

Jesus followed the steps that an Old Testament Priest did in getting ordained. He got called, received and ordinance(baptized), and then the Holy Ghost came on Him. But He did not have hands laid on Him to get the Holy Ghost which sealed Him as a priest unto God. Likewise the Christian is sealed by the Holy Ghost.

I reject your argumentum ad ignorantium.  And Eph says that they are sealed “with,” not “by” the holy Spirit of promise.

Look, this is getting tangential, but your understanding of sealings or bindings is off.  In Matthew 16:19, the apostles are promised the keys of the kingdom and the power to seal/bind in earth as in heaven.  What is clear is that by Matthew 18:18 that power had been received by the apostles.  Now, were they given some magical power?  No.  Clearly, it’s the spirit that actually makes the sealing work.  But the apostles had the authority to administer that sealing, and the process of “how” remains, by you, unanswered.

Quote

For a Christian to be called ‘a king’, would mean that they would become kings by becoming sons of God, this is because God is the highest King. Being a Son of a King puts one in a position of authority.

Yes, but its more than that.  Although tangential, we become “co-heirs” with Christ.  And if Christ receives “all that the Father hath,” that means that as co-heirs, we get a portion of his infinite power and dominion.  Which, also happens to be infinite.  So if we have infinite authority/dominion/etc., how are we different from being a god?  Thank you for pointing out the exaltation of man as promised in the NT.

Quote

Considering you last comment, I find it odd that you have not provided any evidence of where Jesus or his Apostles were anointed into the Priesthood like Aaron, since you are saying that being called of Aaron must include the same rites and ordinances that Aaron received when becoming honored as a Priest.

Why in the world does it need to be written down?  Or why in the world can you conclude that because we don’t have it, that it wasn’t written?  The idea that we have all scripture is complete folly.  The last chapter in Acts says as much.  The NT is a compilation of documents – not a narrative.  It was never intended to be a step by step instruction booklet, but were distinct letters to individual churchs (generally) whom already had the context of understanding what was being said.  These were not the nursery lessons, but that’s what Christianity tends to use them as: they try and back-door the puzzle, which causes confusion and leaves a great many to be “tossed to and fro.”

If you want a great example, look at Matthew 17:  What in the world did Jesus, Moses, and Elias tell Peter, James, and John?  Why just those three, and not others?  Why three at all?  You have here, apart from the atonement of Christ, the most significant and grandiose event that had ever occurred since Moses (disagree if you will, but we can agree that it’s a big deal).  What was said?  What was taught?  What was given?  The fact is that you have NO idea!  The text doesn’t say, and the silence is incongruent with the magnitude of the event.  The only thing that we can fathom, is that the Apostles received the keys of the kingdom as well as power to bind in heaven and on earth.  That’s the only difference from Matt 16 and Matt 18.  But to say that’s it is a mistake, because the text doesn’t tell us.  And orthodox Christianity has NO idea!  I cannot accept as true, any preacher that promulgates his Christianity but has absolutely no insight to what is an occurrence of tremendous importance!  And what happened to those Christians that said they knew?  They got massacred to silence them.  True or false, only the gnostics came close to explaining those types of things were received, and they were slaughtered…all in favor of ignorance.  I can’t accept that kind of Christianity.

Quote

Jesus The Christ was given the title of “The Anointed One”, yet was not given a priests anointing

To come to such a conclusion is logical fallacy, and spiritual folly.  You have no idea, and are reckless in reading into scriptural silence.

Quote

So why are not all LDS people anointed with oil along with the laying on of Hands as a requirement to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost? There are many dimensions to all of these Hebrew rites—and protocols that surely are are being completely neglected in the LDS ordinances if your Hebrews 5:4 claims were to be followed through as you insist.

Let me say kindly, that you are completely ignorant.  Your conflations are unwieldy.  Let’s just say that being anointed had nothing to do with receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.  But Christ was anointed.

Quote

Evangelicals often find themselves in these roles as the Holy Ghost prompts them, situating the Christian in these priestly activities.

And use them to molest boys lost in the mega-churches of the South.  Again, you need to explain where the safety stop on the slippery slope is or it is unacceptable because God wouldn’t leave his children to be so “tossed to and fro,” for which he called Apostles and Prophets ‘till we all come in the unity of the faith.’

Quote

The fruits created from fulfilling these roles suggest strongly that Evangelicals have Authority from God.

Because you don’t have apostles and prophets as required by the NT, you don’t have the authority.  We are not unified in the faith, but all the contrary.  You have no authority, and nothing in the bible suggests you do.  For men of authority, the inspiration can come.  But they had authority in the first instance.  You don’t, and have begged the issue while trying to explain what I believe is clear text.  Disagree if you will, but your explanations do not make sense.  They are hopeful in justifying a position that is untenable in the text.  But even disagreeing with that, what is clear is that it isn’t “clear.”  There are many, many questions and orthodox Christians are left to try and interpret it themselves, which is why there are so many disagreements.  It seems that we should leave it to the Apostles and Prophets of Jesus Christ to do the interpreting, for which purpose they were placed, and remain, on the earth.

Rather than twisting the scriptures to justify your beliefs (i.e. authority), address the texts that explicitly require that which you can't deliver: Apostles and Prophets.  Again, what happened in Matt 17?  Why 3 Apostles, and those specifically?  Why perpetuate the "cultural" notion of laying on of hands if God didn't ordain it?  Why perpetuate the confusion of tradition if it's not a tradition that comes from God?  I simply believe that you're completely lost on these question.  Again, we disagree.  But there's no way the text can support your justifications.

PacMan

Edited by PacMan, 27 November 2010 - 10:11 AM.

[Zakuska]

Pacman,

It's interesting that Rob and Hick are promoting a God who "changes" methods half way through the story.

Mal. 3: 6
6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

I also have to disagree that Christs calling to be a High Priest by  anointing and by the laying on of hands is not recorded in Scripture.

Heb. 1: 9
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Who was it that put his hands on Christ and anointed him with the oil?  Why, His Father did of course!

Lev. 8
12 And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.

Ps. 45: 7
7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Ps. 89: 20
20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

Ps. 92: 10
10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Edited by Zakuska, 27 November 2010 - 12:35 PM.