The Order Of Melchizedek

[Zemah]

What about John the Revelator? (and the 3 Nephites)

The apostle John (aka, the beloved, â??the one that He lovedâ??) represents the love the true believer has for Christ. Love of Christ has never left the planet. But our love does not equal the priesthood. Our love should be demonstrated in obedience to the requirements of faith, repentance, and water baptism. Then we can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and serve in the Aaronic and Melchizedek orders of the priesthood.

Does it say that Melchezedek was a Melchezedek priest or does it say he was a "priest of the most high God".

Melchizedek was his name and he was a "priest of the most high God". The Melchizedek priesthood was named in his honor, but it is also known as the â??priesthood of the Son of Godâ?.

Psalm 110 is a Messianic psalm about Christ.

It is a messianic psalm about the priesthood. Listen to how it begins: â??Yahwehâ??s oracle to you, my Lordâ?¦â? And, â??Yahweh will force all your enemies under the sway of your scepter in Zionâ?. So how is it that Yahweh (LORD) is speaking to Davidâ??s Lord Christ?

Yahweh (the Great I Am, Jehovah) is Lord; but scriptures teach that Christ is Lord, and Jesus is the Christ. Therefore Jesus was the incarnate Spirit of Jehovah. So it makes no sense that our Lord would be bestowing the priesthood to Himself when He says, â??Yahweh has sworn an oath which he never will retract, â??You are a priest of the order of Melchizedek and for everâ??.â? Here our Lord Christ bestows the Melchizedek priesthood to another. This is how the priesthood was restored to Joseph Smith when the apostles Peter, James, and John appeared to him; thusly it has been carried on in this way in the LDS Church since that time.

As you have stated, Melchizedek was the prefigure of Christ; but Melchizedek was not the Lord of the world. Christ is greater than Melchizedek, so how can the Psalm be speaking of Christ receiving the priesthood? Our Lord never lost His priesthood, so it need never be bestowed upon Him.

There is a definite hierarchy made plain in the scriptures which this Psalm supports. Christ is at the right hand of the Father and we in the priesthood are at the right hand of our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ promised that we would share the throne of the Father as He has, so the priesthood is Lord and Jesus Christ our Lord is the high priest in the priesthood.

Are there any other famous people in the OT that have the Melchezedek priesthood, such as Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, his 12 sons, Moses, or Aaron?

I am sure you well agree that all these men were sons of God. When the only begotten was born of Mary two genealogies were produced that described His lineage. One went as far back as Abraham and the other as far back as Adam. These are the families of the true vine. Each of these names is honored with the priesthood. Each of these has a Fatherhood in Christ. Each of these is a priest of God and Christ.

Does it say anywhere in the NT that the members had the Aaronic or Melchezedek priesthood (other than the keys to the kingdom quote)?

John-the-Baptist was a descendant of Aaron on his motherâ??s side. He was chosen of God to offer baptism to the masses of Jews that had no way of making an offering for their sins at the altar according to the Law of Moses. The priests of Jesusâ?? day were corrupt (He called them the children of the devil). The priesthood of Aaron is the priesthood of baptism; it had to be restored in the latter-days as well since the Jewish people and their priests continue to reject their Messiah.

He bypassed them 2000 years ago at the establishment of His Church and He bypassed them again 178 years ago with the restoration of His Church.

The Melchizedek priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of Christ. The apostles had this power and authority as witnessed in the book Acts of the Apostles. We know that Christ was a priest who did many miraculous things, so how can it be that the miraculous things the apostles did were accomplished without the same priesthood?

I hope that you don't believe that a church is what saves you? You are not saved by a church, you are saved by faith in Christ and his finished work on the cross.

I am saved because of the Atonement of Christ; such is the grace of God and Christ.

I hope you donâ??t believe you are saved by grace while ignoring the Atonement.

Zemah

P.S. - I answered all of your questions but you ignored all of mine.

1). The question all Christians need to answer is the same one Joseph Smith asked of God, â??Which of all the churches is true and which should I join?"

2). In your wisdom would you please point me to the true church of saints, of prophets, and of apostles?

3). In which church is the living word of God delivered?

4). And where oh where is Christâ??s Israel?

[Mudcat]

1). The question all Christians need to answer is the same one Joseph Smith asked of God, â??Which of all the churches is true and which should I join?"

2). In your wisdom would you please point me to the true church of saints, of prophets, and of apostles?

3). In which church is the living word of God delivered?

4). And where oh where is Christâ??s Israel?

Hi Zemah,

Those 4 questions, might make for a great "Question for the Critics Thread" (just a thought)

Mudcat

[consiglieri]

*Mudcat speaks in the tounge of Watered Down*

Gurgle, gurgle, glub, blub, blug, gurg.

translated to mean.

Seriously, not many Evangelicals say much more than the Priesthood of Christ or the Priesthood of All Believers. It isn't promulgated from the pulpit that we are Melchizedek Priests. However, most of the discussions I have had with the more thoughtful types of my faith and those I have relationships with in the ministry, have reached the same conclusion that these terms are synonymous with the MP.

Hi, Mudcat!

I hope I didn't offend you with that "watered-down" crack.

It just seems that many churches that seem to lay no particular claim to any priesthood will nevertheless see a reference (in Peter?) to a "royal priesthood" and then figure that this must mean them, and so they arrogate it to themselves under the rubric of "priesthood of believers," even though that phrase is nowhere found in the Bible.

They don't really do anything with the priesthood, and perform no salvific ordinances by virture of that priesthood. It seems more of an afterthought to most with whom I have discussed it.

In other words, the position of most evangelicals regarding this New Testament reference to the "priesthood" is, "We don't need it, but we have it anyway."

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[johnny]

consiglieri

This same priesthood was subsequently lost and had to be restored again, once more through angelic ministration

How silly to think that the priesthood needed to be restored.

I am aware of no other Christian church that even claims to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, unless they say it is the watered-down and unbiblical "priesthood of believers."

The Catholic Church is under the New Covenant and new priesthood of the Priesthood of Christ. Melchizedek is prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ.

[Zemah]

Hi Zemah,

Those 4 questions, might make for a great "Question for the Critics Thread" (just a thought)

Mudcat

Nice dodge!

Keeping with the subject matter of this thread, perhaps you can direct me to the church which professes to have and to maintain the Holy and Apostolic Melchizedek Priesthood.

Every Christian denomination under the sun is derived from the Nicene Creed which requires that a Christian believe in â??one holy and apostolic churchâ?.

So where is it?

Zemah

[Billy]

Melchizedek was his name and he was a "priest of the most high God". The Melchizedek priesthood was named in his honor, but it is also known as the â??priesthood of the Son of Godâ?.

Where does it say that it was named in his honor?

It is known as the â??priesthood of the Son of Godâ?, where do you get this from?

It is a messianic psalm about the priesthood. Listen to how it begins: â??Yahwehâ??s oracle to you, my Lordâ?¦â? And, â??Yahweh will force all your enemies under the sway of your scepter in Zionâ?. So how is it that Yahweh (LORD) is speaking to Davidâ??s Lord Christ?

God the father is speaking to (or about) God the Son

Christ actually stumps the Pharisees with this same quote

Matthew 22

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Yahweh (the Great I Am, Jehovah) is Lord; but scriptures teach that Christ is Lord, and Jesus is the Christ.

Remember that the idea of God the Father=Elohim=God and Jesus=Jehovah=LORD is caps is a LDS thing, not necessarily a Biblical thing.

Isa 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

In Isaiah 43:10

Who is LORD?

Who is God?

Billy asks,

Are there any other famous people in the OT that have the Melchezedek priesthood, such as Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, his 12 sons, Moses, or Aaron?

Zemah replies,

I am sure you well agree that all these men were sons of God. When the only begotten was born of Mary two genealogies were produced that described His lineage. One went as far back as Abraham and the other as far back as Adam. These are the families of the true vine. Each of these names is honored with the priesthood. Each of these has a Fatherhood in Christ. Each of these is a priest of God and Christ.

Where does it say that any of them had the Melchezedek priesthood? You are answering that they did, but did not provide any reference for your claim.

John-the-Baptist was a descendant of Aaron on his motherâ??s side.

Don't forget that he was a descendant of Aaron on his father's side as well.

The question is can you pass on the Aaronic priesthood by baptism, or was the Aaronic Priesthood based on lineage? (i.e. namely a person in the Levitical family)

The Melchizedek priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of Christ. The apostles had this power and authority as witnessed in the book Acts of the Apostles.

Does it say anywhere that the Apostles had the Melchezedek Priesthood?

Billy states,

I hope that you don't believe that a church is what saves you? You are not saved by a church, you are saved by faith in Christ and his finished work on the cross.

Zemah replies,

I am saved because of the Atonement of Christ; such is the grace of God and Christ.

I hope you donâ??t believe you are saved by grace while ignoring the Atonement.

Any idea what the "finished work on the cross" implies?

P.S. - I answered all of your questions but you ignored all of mine.

1). The question all Christians need to answer is the same one Joseph Smith asked of God, â??Which of all the churches is true and which should I join?"

You are not saved by a church. The body of Christ is an invisable body of saints that attend many different churches. I would join one that taught

1. True concept of God

2. Correct concept of salvation.

There are many good Bible teaching churches that would fit this bill.

2). In your wisdom would you please point me to the true church of saints, of prophets, and of apostles?

See answer to #1

Ephesians 2:20 "20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"

The church was built upon the FOUNDATION of apostles and prophets. How many foundations and chief corner stones do you think a building should have?

3). In which church is the living word of God delivered?

Tell me where you live and maybe we could get you a couple of recommendations

4). And where oh where is Christâ??s Israel?

Israel is Israel. Replacement theology is incorrect.

[Zemah]

Where does it say that...

Billy,

This is why Christian theology is in so much trouble: It is based on the interpretations of learned men, it denies modern prophets like Joseph Smith, and it lacks the spirit of the Holy Ghost to reveal to it the simple truths.

For example: I say that Melchizedek was honored by having the Priesthood of the Son of God named after him. You say, where does it say that?

It doesnâ??t have to say it. Melchizedek is named â??a priest of the most high Godâ? in Genesis; in Psalms David speaks of the priesthood of Melchizedek and in Hebrews it speaks of the Melchizedek priesthood as being greater than the priesthood of Aaron because it is one obtained by oath.

Likewise you ask, â??Where does it say that any of (the ancestors of Jesus) had the Melchizedek priesthood?â?

Again it doesnâ??t have to. It only requires that you have the spirit to believe that if Jesus Christ is the true vine, than His ancestors are also of Christ and glorified in the priesthood. Christâ??s lineage is our lineage as adopted sons and daughters in Abraham going back to Adam through all the patriarchs of the Bible. Through Christ all these are assured a Fatherhood and we are too in the priesthood of God and Christ.

Regarding the Aaronic priesthood and John-the-Baptist, I am only aware of his descent from Aaron through Elizabeth. His father is identified as â??belonging to the Abijah section of the priesthoodâ?. (Luke 1:5)

But the Aaronic priesthood was not and is not today passed on by baptism.

Regarding the apostles holding the Melchizedek priesthood, I will say that the Bible does not have to be specific. If it had been specific the churches of men who were doomed to fall into apostasy would today be claiming a false priesthood and naming it Melchizedek. Everything played out according to the will of God. Only the LDS Church rightful claims the power and authority of Christ in the Melchizedek priesthood.

As I said in my previous post, the evidence that the apostles were holders of the Melchizedek priesthood is the many miracles recorded in Acts that matched the miracles preformed by Christ.

Christians need to take the blinders off and stop denying the glorious vista of the living word of God provided by prophets and priests of God and Christ.

BTW, the answers to all four questions points to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You probably knew that.

Zemah

[Mudcat]

Hi Consiglieri,

Hi, Mudcat!

I hope I didn't offend you with that "watered-down" crack.

Not in the least. No worries there.

It just seems that many churches that seem to lay no particular claim to any priesthood will nevertheless see a reference (in Peter?) to a "royal priesthood" and then figure that this must mean them, and so they arrogate it to themselves under the rubric of "priesthood of believers," even though that phrase is nowhere found in the Bible.

Well, I'll put what are probably the most relevant verses on the subject up, even though I think you have been to this dance before. I'll take the liberty to exclude the verses in Hebrews for the moment.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:

This one seems to be a general address to all Christians, at least if I take the opening verses at face value, and as you have stated we could at least establish the fact that it seems to be declaring that all Christians are of a 'royal priesthood'. It certainly doesn't say Melchizedek priests.....just a royal priesthood, though it does leave you with the impression that all Christians are "royal priests". Don't you think?

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Here we see another declaration of being royal and priests in Revelation. This one is a little more ambiguous, because 20 Elders and 4 Beasts were singing this... so maybe he meant the beasts and the 20 Elders, but I think in context with 1st Peter, this more likely regarded the blood and kindred of every nation. Which is an affirmation to me that he wasn't just speaking to the Jews here, but gentile as well.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

I think in Revelation one, this citation of a royal priesthood is less ambiguous.

It seems clear to me that this 'royal priesthood' is afforded to "all Christians". And this is the main Scriptural basis for that belief.

They don't really do anything with the priesthood, and perform no salvific ordinances by virture of that priesthood. It seems more of an afterthought to most with whom I have discussed it.

You have a point here, but we do look at this role of priesthood differently for certain.

In the OT, we would see the priest intercede on behalf of God's children for their sin with sacrifices.

These things were I suppose what you would call, at least a type and shadow, of salvific ordinances. It is my opinion that Hebrews, distinctly conveys this role to Christ as our High Priest. I think this premise is furthered by this passage from 1 Timothy

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

So the salvific portion of the role of the priesthood rests solely upon the shoulders of Christ. Our salvation is based upon the effort of his work.

Well, with that being said, it still leaves open the role of the Christian who is also a member of this 'royal priesthood'.

1Co 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

We do have a role as ministers of Christ, Spiritual gifts to utilize for the Kingdom, and so forth. It is our role as priests to go and teach, be the earthly instruments of his will.

Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Another benefit of this priesthood is direct access to the Father, through Christ and by the Holy Spirit.

In other words, the position of most evangelicals regarding this New Testament reference to the "priesthood" is, "We don't need it, but we have it anyway."

What do you think?

I wouldn't go so far as to say the general attitude is that "We don't need it, but we have it anyway." But I do understand your sentiment. Evangelicals tend to talk more about being a Christian, becoming a Christian and what we need to do as Christians than what we need to do as priests. But you have to understand that we do believe that joining in the family of God as Christians is part and parcel of being in this 'royal priesthood'. The semantic focus is on Christ and Christianity and I can see how someone outside of Evangelical thought could make that observation.

Still, I suppose I haven't really done much to tie this 'royal priesthood' into the term Melchizedek. But I think you and I would agree that Christ is a Melchizedek Priest.

There isn't a 'spot on' specific verse that says this 'royal priesthood' is the priesthood of Melchizedek. Here is the Scripture that I would submit as my reasoning.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

.......

Rom 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

There are other verses that have similar reference, but I am of the opinion that this royalty we are given is the royalty of Christ. He is the King of Kings and by adoption, we are princes and princesses of this royal family. If we share jointly in his royalty would we not also share jointly in his priesthood?

What do you think?

Haven't rapped with you in a bit, and I sincerely hope life is good.

Your Brother in Christ,

Mudcat

[Billy]

Regarding the Aaronic priesthood and John-the-Baptist, I am only aware of his descent from Aaron through Elizabeth. His father is identified as â??belonging to the Abijah section of the priesthoodâ?. (Luke 1:5)

See 1 Chronicles 24:10

Edit addition

Looking at my patriarchal blessing it says that I am from the line of Ephraim. Ephraim is a son of Joseph, one of the 12 sons of Jacob (one of the 12 tribes of Israel/Jacob). The priestly line comes from the line of one of Jacobs other sons, namely Levi not Joseph.

When did the Aaronic priesthood change lines?

[Cold Steel]

The whole Church is a priestly people. Through Baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the "common priesthood of the faithful."

If this were indeed the case, why did the Catholic church keep the "priestly people" away from the scriptures and prohibit them, on pain of death, from possession of any part of the scriptures?

And what part of that priesthood conducted the Inquisition?

It seems that the only "priests" that matter in the Catholic church are the guys with collars.

While it's easy to form one's own opinions on the higher priesthood, it's enough for Latter-day Saints to say, simply, that none of our scriptures on priesthood contradict the holy writ. It may contradict the Catholic understanding of that priesthood, but there's nothing that specifically says that only Jesus and Melchizedek were members of this "order." Why would Shem have it and Noah not? Where else would he have gotten it. Shem disappears just as Melchizedek appears and most scholars think the term is a name-title, not a name.

All priesthood is that of service, not power. Melchizedek gathered tithes, certainly not for his own personal use, but for others. To think he somehow was the only other person that held it would be a great mystery indeed.

[howller]

I agree with Bill Hamblin that the "lot of Melchizedek" probably means "Sons of Light." It could even mean "the Eternal Ones," or be a reference to priests or high priests. There are a number of things associated with Melchizedek that seemed to circulate anciently--the role of a High Priest of sorts, and the idea of an eternal being, that is, one who lives perpetually. Margaret Barker alludes to this latter concept of page 8 of the PDF referenced by Urroner in comment 19 above:

The Levitical priests—Aaron and his sons—held

the priesthood “according to a legal requirement concerning bodily

descent” (Heb. 7:16), whereas Melchizedek had been raised up and had the

power of an indestructible life. Melchizedek was therefore an eternal priest.

These words, “he was raised up,” are often understood to mean no more

than that he was elevated to a high office, but the Greek word here is the

word for resurrection. Melchizedek was resurrected to the eternal priesthood,

which he held by the power of an indestructible life.

As to the point of whether the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek as mentioned in Hebrews 7 is "comprised" only of Christ, I would say in a sense, yes. Christ is the only being to perform the unique eternal redemption described there. That priestly role is Christ's and Christ's alone.

But that is not to say that any mention of Melchizedek or an "order" of Melchizedek strictly refers to the person of Christ or his priestly work. (Barker clearly equates Melchizedek with Christ in her article, but I simply don't think we have enough Melchizedek texts to consider her position conclusive.) It seems to me that if the ancients thought Melchizedek to be a perpetual, eternal being, then it would be logical for the writer to the Hebrews to speak of Christ's eternal, priest-like work to be after the order of the perpetual/eternal High Priest, Melchizedek.

I fleshed this subject out in an article on my blog, for those who are interested, here.

[Mudcat]

Hi Zemah,

Nice dodge!

How could I be dodging? You weren't even asking me that.

I just thought it was an interesting set of questions, though they had little to do with the OP.

I could be wrong though, some times I don't read so good, after a night out, saucing it up with other Protestants and Catholics.

Keeping with the subject matter of this thread, perhaps you can direct me to the church which professes to have and to maintain the Holy and Apostolic Melchizedek Priesthood.

I posted my thoughts on this on the last post I made on this thread. But the post was mainly addressing why I believe this priesthood is part of being a Christian. If you need me to tell which denomination is specifically Christian, I don't think I can do that. The Church goes beyond denomination, IMO, it is the body of all the elect and I do believe these elect can be found in the numerous denominations of Christianity. I certainly don't think all members of churches are Christians, but I think Christians can be found in nearly all of them.

Every Christian denomination under the sun is derived from the Nicene Creed which requires that a Christian believe in “one holy and apostolic church”.

Your statement is an often used assertion, but I don't think it is accurate, in that all denominations are derived from the NC. The Apostolic churches views are very different, for example.

So where is it?

Zemah

I don't think the Church is a physical location on planet earth, so I can't say its here or there.

Christs' Church is the children of God. It is his family.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[saemo]

If this were indeed the case, why did the Catholic church keep the "priestly people" away from the scriptures and prohibit them, on pain of death, from possession of any part of the scriptures?

This is a gross over simplification of history, and inaccurate. It is purely an anti-Catholic statement. Congratulations.

And what part of that priesthood conducted the Inquisition?

Again, a gross over simplification.

It seems that the only "priests" that matter in the Catholic church are the guys with collars.

Perhaps to you. Or are you just throwing out more anti-Catholic rhetoric for effect?

While it's easy to form one's own opinions on the higher priesthood, it's enough for Latter-day Saints to say, simply, that none of our scriptures on priesthood contradict the holy writ. It may contradict the Catholic understanding of that priesthood, but there's nothing that specifically says that only Jesus and Melchizedek were members of this "order." Why would Shem have it and Noah not? Where else would he have gotten it. Shem disappears just as Melchizedek appears and most scholars think the term is a name-title, not a name.

All speculation.

All priesthood is that of service, not power.

Which is a Catholic teaching.

Melchizedek gathered tithes, certainly not for his own personal use, but for others. To think he somehow was the only other person that held it would be a great mystery indeed.

Where does it say that there was any other but Melchizedek?

[Billy]

I could be wrong though, some times I don't read so good, after a night out, saucing it up with other Protestants and Catholics.

Mudcat

Hey Mudcat, maybe you could get a man of God to pray for you.

I met some believers as I was returning to my apartment after Church one day. They were drunk and still drinking. They recognized me as a man of God and asked me to pray for them.

[Mudcat]

Hey Mudcat, maybe you could get a man of God to pray for you.

That caught me off guard Billy.

I laughed Diet Mountain Dew out of my nose.

[consiglieri]

There are other verses that have similar reference, but I am of the opinion that this royalty we are given is the royalty of Christ. He is the King of Kings and by adoption, we are princes and princesses of this royal family. If we share jointly in his royalty would we not also share jointly in his priesthood?

What do you think?

Haven't rapped with you in a bit, and I sincerely hope life is good.

Your Brother in Christ,

Mudcat

Dear Mudcat,

Thanks for taking so much time to set forth your reasoning regarding this "royal priesthood" referred to by Peter, and the other references that you associate with it.

I am very glad that you took no offense at my snarky "watered-down" comment.

I understand that your view is that the "royal priesthood" is something granted to Christians by the mere act of their believing in Christ.

Do you think it possible that an ordination was involved, and that the "royal priesthood" reference was to those who had been so ordained?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mudcat]

Dear Mudcat,

Do you think it possible that an ordination was involved, and that the "royal priesthood" reference was to those who had been so ordained?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consiglieri,

That is a good question. I am going back to 1st Peter again, not only because it is the primary verse for my thoughts on the matter, but it also gives me the best answer to your question.

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

In the opening of the Book, I think a fairly clear picture is drawn of who he is addressing. I bolded one spot, to note that that particular portion has an alternate and IMO better translation as "the outcasts" instead of "the strangers".

Regardless, I think it falls in line that Christians are set apart from the world. To me at least it seems to address those who are set apart, the Elect.

In regards to requirements or ordination, verse two brings up some things that are indicators.

1. Sanctified of the Spirit -

The unto appears before these next two points and might be better stated as "for the intent of or for the purpose of"

2. Obedience to Christ

3. Sprinkling of the Blood of Christ

I'll try to come back and finish this later, but feel free to comment on what I have up if you want.

Mudcat

[consiglieri]

Hi, Mudcat!

I would think "outcasts" might serve as an alternative for "strangers," in that he is perhaps addressing the "strangers" or "pilgrims" in the earth.

Obviously "strangers" is a "code" word being employed by Peter which he expects the recipients of the epistle to understand. Do you know if this is a masculine form?

Also, the "sprinkling of the blood" of Jesus sounds as if the recipients are Jewish Christians, which would make sense if Peter is the author, harking as it does back to the Day of Atonement and the High Priest (representing Melchizedek and the Son of God per Barker) entering the Holy of Holies to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice hither and yon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mudcat]

Hi, Mudcat!

I would think "outcasts" might serve as an alternative for "strangers," in that he is perhaps addressing the "strangers" or "pilgrims" in the earth.

Obviously "strangers" is a "code" word being employed by Peter which he expects the recipients of the epistle to understand. Do you know if this is a masculine form?

Also, the "sprinkling of the blood" of Jesus sounds as if the recipients are Jewish Christians, which would make sense if Peter is the author, harking as it does back to the Day of Atonement and the High Priest (representing Melchizedek and the Son of God per Barker) entering the Holy of Holies to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice hither and yon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig,

The word was Parepidemos and ancient Greek is Greek to me. Maybe Mormon Mason will give the thread a browse.

My guess because of the 'os' at the end would be that it is masculine. But that is a guess. Strong's is my crutch for this sort of thing and it was specific as to whether it was masc., fem. or nueter.

As to the other part, I relate it more to when Moses sprinkled the people as it seems to reference people being sprinkled instead of objects.

Exo 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

What do you think?

Mudcat

[consiglieri]

What do you think?

Mudcat

I think I am glad I wasn't one of the people Moses was sprinkling!

I mean, it sounds like the prom scene in Carrie!

But I do wonder if a masculine form of "strangers" would limit the use to "male strangers," and hence those presumably capable of holding the priesthood through ordination.

In other words, I wonder if a masculine form limits the use of it somewhat from just generic "believer" of any gender.

It's all Greek to me, too!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[BCSpace]

The Protestant notion of a Royal Priesthood or, a "Priesthood of all believers" is contrary to the original Christian thinking on the subject. For example....

In conjunction with this, the faithful of that early sub-Apostolic period were also challenged by 1 Peter and by the Apocalypse to see themselves as a 'priestly' people. This did not imply that each one of them was a priest, but rather that the whole community was/is made up of those who are elect and holy, and to express this fact the community was described, by adopting the covenant formula of Exodus 19:6, as a body of priests or a priestly community. Noll, Christian Ministerial Priesthood, 43; cf. J.H. Elliot, The Elect and the Holy: An Exegetical Examination of I Peter 2:4-10 and the Phrase "Basileioun hierateuma" (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966), 223.

"Or are you ignorant that to you also, that is, to all the Church of God and to the people of believers, the priesthood was given? . . . [1 Peter 2:9] Therefore, you have a priesthood because you are a 'priestly nation . . . .'" Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 9:1:3, translated by Gary W. Barkley (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), FC 83:177.

[Zemah]

See 1 Chronicles 24:10

Thanks, I never made the connection back from Luke.

Edit addition

Looking at my patriarchal blessing it says that I am from the line of Ephraim. Ephraim is a son of Joseph, one of the 12 sons of Jacob (one of the 12 tribes of Israel/Jacob). The priestly line comes from the line of one of Jacobs other sons, namely Levi not Joseph.

When did the Aaronic priesthood change lines?

When the Jewish priesthood failed to follow Jesus.

BTW, the NT never limits the authority to baptize to the genealogy of the sons (physical descendants) of Aaron.

Paul baptized and he was from the tribe of Benjamin.

In Christ there is no genealogical requirement to be the children of Abraham or the descendants of Israel. Christ built a spiritual descendancy and fulfilled the Law of Moses. The requirement of the OT, binding the lesser priesthood to the sons of Aaron or the tribe of Levi, is finished because the perpetual sacrifice described in the Law was ended in the atonement and sacrifice of the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ.

All is new in Christ; He made a new creation.

He has the authority to change the rules.

Zemah

[Billy]

When the Jewish priesthood failed to follow Jesus.

BTW, the NT never limits the authority to baptize to the genealogy of the sons (physical descendants) of Aaron.

Paul baptized and he was from the tribe of Benjamin.

Zemah

Do you have a verse that says what exactly this authority was that allowed them to baptize (other than the keys to the kingdom verse)?

[Zemah]

Hey Mudcat, maybe you could get a man of God to pray for you.

Billy,

As I said in an earlier post regarding the false doctrine that all believers are the priesthood of God and Christ:

I met some believers as I was returning to my apartment after Church one day. They were drunk and still drinking. They recognized me as a man of God and asked me to pray for them. I assured them that they could pray for themselves as the Bible teaches â??to the Father in the name of the Sonâ?. As we spoke together I learned that one was Catholic and the other Protestant; they both believed in Christ. They soon requested that we pray together but wanted me to lead the pray. This we did.

Now tell me honestly, are these believers able to represent Christ in the priesthood?

You failed to answer the question.

Zemah

[Zemah]

That caught me off guard Billy.

I laughed Diet Mountain Dew out of my nose.

Mudcat,

As I said in an earlier post regarding the false doctrine that all believers are the priesthood of God and Christ:

I met some believers as I was returning to my apartment after Church one day. They were drunk and still drinking. They recognized me as a man of God and asked me to pray for them. I assured them that they could pray for themselves as the Bible teaches â??to the Father in the name of the Sonâ?. As we spoke together I learned that one was Catholic and the other Protestant; they both believed in Christ. They soon requested that we pray together but wanted me to lead the pray. This we did.

Now tell me honestly, are these believers able to represent Christ in the priesthood?

You failed to answer the question.

Zemah