Biblical Authority

[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.

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 -

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.

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 -

"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.

[Vance]

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.

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

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:

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:

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 -

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.

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 -

"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?

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]

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.

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?

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

You wrote:

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:

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:

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]

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

Did you read the rest of my post?

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

[Vance]

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:

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,

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.

[ELF1024]

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,

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.

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

[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.

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,

[PacMan]

Hick,

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

[Hick Preacher]

PacMan in quotes

<<<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

[PacMan]

Hick,

There is a difference between being called and chose

[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

[Vance]

I see nothing in this passage to suggest that this was an institutionalized practice at all.

Nor is there anything in that passage to suggest that this was not an institutionalized practice.

Furthermore, I see no basis for applying what is said here to Aaron.

Nor is there any basis for not applying it to Aaron.

Moses ordained Joshua as his replacement or successor as leader of Israel; he was not ordaining Joshua as a priest.

And how do you know that Moses wasn't ordaining Joshua as both leader of Israel and a priest (or royal high priest)?

After all, Philo said Moses was a king, lawgiver, high priest and prophet (Philo, Life of Moses II.292).

[Vance]

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.

Except that John the Baptist, operating under the authority of the Aaronic priesthood baptized.

Baptism is still necessary.

So your argument falls flat.

[Vance]

But actually the order of calling of Aaron to be Moses' spokesman are as follows in three steps:

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

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

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

Which has nothing to do with Heb 5:4 calling to the priesthood, other than having a similar pattern.

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

There, fixed it for you.

[Bill Hamblin]

The following examples from the New Testament show how the earliest Christians used laying on hands for three purposes--blessing/healing, giving Holy Ghost, and ordination to an assignment.

Blessing and Healing

[PacMan]

Hick,

I wanted to comment on a previous statement you made in the Cornelius thread, which is more relevant here:

Your thinking mistakes the meaning of

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,...

Note, from Ephesians 4:

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

. . .

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

There is one body, that is, one church. And they have apostles, etc. Such are required within the church 'till we all come in the unity of the faith.' Please explain how you get around this, because I find it very explicit and very clear.

PacMan