Q&A With A Seventy Tonite

[Ceeboo]

Think College of Cardinals

So the "seventy" are guys who wear red and report to the Pope?

Cool! (Mormon progress, to be sure)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

You most certainly avoided my questions.

There you go again.

You have not addressed the rest of the Chapter 7- the beginning - about how it was that a man named Melchizadek to whom Abraham paid tithes, held a Priesthood with other apparent members according to Paul, ("But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people).

You are mixing Hebrews 7:1-10 with 1 Peter 2:9 to come up with a conclusion that neither book teaches and that contradicts Hebrews 7:11. Good going!

The issue here is not the priesthood of Melchizedek. The issue here is whether Jesus held the priesthood of the order of Aaron. Hebrews 7:11 says he did not. You say he did.

Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High in the time of the patriarchs. Psalm 110:4 says that the Messiah, David's descendant, will be a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek." This statement, made in a psalm, is a poetic way of saying that the Messiah will function in a way typified or foreshadowed by Melchizedek. This is a common phenomenon in biblical theology and in the Psalms in particular. We know this is what Psalm 110:4 means because Hebrews 7:15 says so: it tells us that Jesus is a priest "in the likeness ["similitude," KJV] of Melchizedek." This is the point of Hebrews 7:1-3. Melchizedek is "made like" or "made to resemble" the Son of God (v. 3) in the sense that in Genesis the description of Melchizedek makes him a type or foreshadowing figure pointing forward to the coming of Jesus the Messiah. The typology of Melchizedek shows him to represent (symbolically or typologically) a priesthood superior to that of the Levitical priesthood because Abraham, the great-grandfather of Levi, paid tithes to Melchizedek (Heb. 7:4-10).

You wrote:

You are playing word games.

This, from someone who claims that when Hebrews 7:11 says that Jesus was "a priest...not in the order of Aaron," it does not mean that Jesus was not a priest in the order of Aaron.

An "office to which he appointed some people" means he gave authority to some people to act "on behalf of people"- using your own words. It is authority "passed on" to people to act on their behalf. Same thing.

You're the one playing word games here. To say that God gave authority to someone does not mean that God must have exercised that authority himself. If God authorizes Aaron and his descendants to offer sacrifices for their own sins to God on the Day of Atonement, this does not mean that God also offered sacrifices for his own sins to himself on the Day of Atonement!

You wrote:

But you are ignoring this issue of who this person Melchizadek was and what priesthood he held.

It wasn't relevant to the simple point I was making, but I have addressed this issue clearly for you.

You wrote:

Perhaps you have forgotten what the scripture says FOLLOWING your much argued and misinterpreted verse 11:

Au contraire, perhaps you have forgotten that I was the one who first brought up the context of the following verses.

You wrote:

Who is this "Priest forever after the order of Melchizadek"? The Savior. Please explain again how it is that the Savior did not hold the priesthood, when the Bible clearly states he did?

I will not explain again what I never said in the first place. Jesus does hold a priesthood. He is our great high priest, our heavenly, exalted priest "after the similitude of Melchizedek." All I said was that he was not a priest in the order of Aaron. And that's exactly what Hebrews 7:11 says explicitly.

[Acris Venator]

We must observe the available verbs to understand the statement.

New International Version (©1984)

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

English Standard Version (©2001)

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

The verb that all of these eschew from the KJV seems to be "called":

King James Bible

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

That omission may be a right or wrong, I'm certainly not qualified to say. Stating that those who hold the Melchizedek automatically hold the Aaronic priesthood does indeed avoid the original question. But that doesn't change the verb usage in the verse. It seems obvious that the verse doesn't explicitly state that Jesus never held the AP. It simply says that his calling (Messiah) was not according to (or after the order of) the AP. To presume that Jesus never held it simply because he didn't arise to his mission according to that order is to demand an inference that doesn't actually exist within the sentence in question.

[mfbukowski]

That omission may be a right or wrong, I'm certainly not qualified to say. Stating that those who hold the Melchizedek automatically hold the Aaronic priesthood does indeed avoid the original question. But that doesn't change the verb usage in the verse. It seems obvious that the verse doesn't explicitly state that Jesus never held the AP. It simply says that his calling (Messiah) was not according to (or after the order of) the AP. To presume that Jesus never held it simply because he didn't arise to his mission according to that order is to demand an inference that doesn't actually exist within the sentence in question.

This is obvious to everyone except Rob apparently.

[ELF1024]

This is obvious to everyone except Rob apparently.

Rob has had years of college study to ensure that he misses the point. It's not his fault...

[David T]

There's a lot of talking past each other going on here.

The biblical usage of 'priesthood', is one who holds the office of 'priest'. It is not associated with Divine Power. It is a role. There is no biblical division of power with the Levitial/AAronic Preisthood being just a portion of a 'Melchizedek Priesthood'. According to the biblical usage, it is very incorrect to say Jesus Christ was a Levitical or Aaronic Priest. He was never either.

Modern Mormon usage views 'Priesthood' as another term for Power And/Or Authority of God, AND a term for ecclesiastical offices. Two completely separate concepts have been intertwined in one word. Personally, I think it's highly inconvenient, and leads to many misunderstandings and inconsistencies.

While Rob recognizes that the Levitial/Aaronid priests were authorized by God to stand as mediators - perhaps he even recognizes them as standing in as Types for the Future Christ - , he doesn't view them as 'holding' any kind of divine power, or Cosmic Priesthood. Which makes sense, because such an idea isn't present in the Bible.

Current Latter-day Saints overlay the modern concept of Cosmic Eternal Priesthood Power, or the expressing of Divine Gifts or Charisms, over the ecclesiastical (temporal) offices (or duties/responsibilities) of Priests, Teachers, and Deacons, Elders, etc. This is a modern concept found in Restoration thought, but not expressed in the Bible.

So in LDS thought, no, Jesus of Nazareth was never, nor is, a Priest of the Aaronic or Levitical Order. However, all true divine power and authority that has been manifested by anyone in scriptural history is understood as having Christ as its source. The power and authority given is that which Christ holds.

Hence, asking if Christ holds the Aaronic Priesthood is such a strange, confusing, contradictory concept.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

You wrote:

Rob has had years of college study to ensure that he misses the point. It's not his fault...

Ah, anti-intellectualism. Evangelicals take all sorts of abuse for supposedly being anti-intellectual, and some are. Here, though, the anti-intellectual shoe is on someone else's foot.

[mfbukowski]

The typology of Melchizedek shows him to represent (symbolically or typologically) a priesthood superior to that of the Levitical priesthood because Abraham, the great-grandfather of Levi, paid tithes to Melchizedek (Heb. 7:4-10)....

I will not explain again what I never said in the first place. Jesus does hold a priesthood. He is our great high priest, our heavenly, exalted priest "after the similitude of Melchizedek." All I said was that he was not a priest in the order of Aaron. And that's exactly what Hebrews 7:11 says explicitly.

Thank you.

You think it was symbolic; we do not.

We of course disagree on 7:11. No one else here seems to agree on your interpretation, not surprisingly.

That's about all there is to it.

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind. I am trying to repent.

[mfbukowski]

There's a lot of talking past each other going on here....

So in LDS thought, no, Jesus of Nazareth was never, nor is, a Priest of the Aaronic or Levitical Order. However, all true divine power and authority that has been manifested by anyone in scriptural history is understood as having Christ as its source. The power and authority given is that which Christ holds.

Hence, asking if Christ holds the Aaronic Priesthood is such a strange, confusing, contradictory concept.

For the record, I agree totally with this. Well stated- thanks!

[Rob Bowman]

Acris Venator,

This seems to be our first encounter. Howdy.

I addressed your question indirectly in an earlier post, in which I wrote:

The Greek text is equally plain. The key words here are ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, heteron anistasthai hierea, "cause to arise a different priest," and οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν, ou kata ten taxin Aaron, "not according to the order of Aaron."

There is no verb corresponding to the words "be called" in the KJV rendering of the verse. I don't have any objection to the KJV wording as long as "called" is not misunderstood to refer to something other than the priestly function itself. The actual verb that governs the phrase "and not according to the order of Aaron" is the verb "cause to arise" (anistasthai). That is, grammatically the sense of the sentence is as follows: "...why was there a need to speak of a different priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not [to arise] according to the order of Aaron?" The priestly order of Aaron was already in place, but it was not adequate to save people from their sins. There was a need for a different priest to arise of a different "order" who would be able to do what no Aaronic priest could do--and that different priest is Jesus. That is the point of the whole passage.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You told nackhadlow,

For the record, I agree totally with this. Well stated- thanks!

Oh, good. I'm glad he was able to help you see the point that Jesus is not a member of the Aaronic priesthood order. That's all I was trying to show.

[ELF1024]

Ah, anti-intellectualism. Evangelicals take all sorts of abuse for supposedly being anti-intellectual, and some are. Here, though, the anti-intellectual shoe is on someone else's foot.

Not Anti-Intellectualism, but making fun of the years you spent mis-learning.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You told nackhadlow,

Oh, good. I'm glad he was able to help you see the point that Jesus is not a member of the Aaronic priesthood order. That's all I was trying to show.

Lol

What he said and what I said are there for all to see, no matter how you twist it. The entire question makes no sense in our theology- that is what I agreed with.

I am glad you are here to try my patience, and help me learn to love you- I couldn't make it without you.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

The problem is that at least in this instance some of your own LDS brethren agree with me about Hebrews 7:11. Yet instead of engaging the arguments that I and they have presented, you make fun of my education. Sorry, I shouldn't take responses like yours seriously.

Not Anti-Intellectualism, but making fun of the years you spent mis-learning.

[Rob Bowman]

??????????

Lol

What he said and what I said are there for all to see, no matter how you twist it. The entire question makes no sense in our theology- that is what I agreed with.

I am glad you are here to try my patience, and help me learn to love you- I couldn't make it without you.

[mfbukowski]

ELF1024,

The problem is that at least in this instance some of your own LDS brethren agree with me about Hebrews 7:11. Yet instead of engaging the arguments that I and they have presented, you make fun of my education. Sorry, I shouldn't take responses like yours seriously.

Don't put me in that category. (of agreeing with you about Hebrews 7)

[ELF1024]

ELF1024,

The problem is that at least in this instance some of your own LDS brethren agree with me about Hebrews 7:11. Yet instead of engaging the arguments that I and they have presented, you make fun of my education. Sorry, I shouldn't take responses like yours seriously.

As usual you ignored my comments on the topic, it's nice to see that mocking you can still get your attention.

[ELF1024]

ELF1024,

The problem is that at least in this instance some of your own LDS brethren agree with me about Hebrews 7:11. Yet instead of engaging the arguments that I and they have presented, you make fun of my education. Sorry, I shouldn't take responses like yours seriously.

Honestly Rob, I think it was said best by:

In reality of course there is one priesthood with two divisions- the lesser and greater priesthoods, depending on the office, as you say.

Priesthood is "The authority and power that God has granted to act in His name".

One Priesthood, One. So if Christ held the Greater, he automatically held the keys to the Lesser. I mean, Christ was Diety, the Son of God! He held all the keys by default...

I don't know how much simpler we can make it for you.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

You wrote:

As usual you ignored my comments on the topic, it's nice to see that mocking you can still get your attention.

Your first two posts in this thread completely ignored Hebrews 7:11, the subject of my post. Your questions were also irrelevant, because I didn't claim that the Aaronic priests had some power that Jesus lacked. Hence, I didn't reply to those posts.

For the record: Jesus has all power, but he does not hold every office. He has never been an Aaronic priest for the simple reason that he is not of the tribe of Levi, as Hebrews 7 itself explains. And there are some things Jesus has never done and will never do. He has never sinned; he has never apologized for doing something wrong; and he has never offered a sacrifice for his own sin, because he has none of his own. And offering sins for one's own sacrifice is something the Aaronic high priest did that Hebrews tells us Jesus does not do (Heb. 7:27).

There, does that answer your questions?

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

Hebrews 7:11 says that there was a need for "a different priest to arise...not according to the order of Aaron." That priest was Jesus.

I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you.

You wrote:

Priesthood is "The authority and power that God has granted to act in His name".

You are apparently quoting something, but it isn't the Bible. What are you quoting?

You wrote:

One Priesthood, One. So if Christ held the Greater, he automatically held the keys to the Lesser. I mean, Christ was Diety, the Son of God! He held all the keys by default...

I don't know how much simpler we can make it for you.

As I explained in my previous post, Jesus holds all power, but he does not occupy every office. He holds the power and authority to determine who may serve in what offices and even to determine what offices there will be, but he doesn't have to occupy those offices to have that authority. Jesus was the Lord over the Aaronic priesthood, but he was never himself a priest in the order of Aaron, as Hebrews 7:11 explicitly says.

[Acris Venator]

Hello to you, Rob.

There is no verb corresponding to the words "be called" in the KJV rendering of the verse. I don't have any objection to the KJV wording as long as "called" is not misunderstood to refer to something other than the priestly function itself. The actual verb that governs the phrase "and not according to the order of Aaron" is the verb "cause to arise" (anistasthai). That is, grammatically the sense of the sentence is as follows: "...why was there a need to speak of a different priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not [to arise] according to the order of Aaron?" The priestly order of Aaron was already in place, but it was not adequate to save people from their sins. There was a need for a different priest to arise of a different "order" who would be able to do what no Aaronic priest could do--and that different priest is Jesus. That is the point of the whole passage.

I see. But I still don't see how this necessarily infers that Christ never held the Aaronic Priesthood.

[Rob Bowman]

A.V.,

You wrote:

I see. But I still don't see how this necessarily infers that Christ never held the Aaronic Priesthood.

"A different priest was to arise...not according to the order of Aaron" (Heb. 7:11). That priest was Jesus, "our Lord" (v. 13). Priests according to the order of Aaron had to be of the tribe of Levi. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, "and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests" (v. 14). Jesus was qualified to become a priest "not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent" (v. 16a), that is, not on the basis of being physically descended from Levi, "but by the power of an indestructible life" (v. 16b), that is, by his resurrection from the dead to immortality.

[ELF1024]

As I explained in my previous post, Jesus holds all power, but he does not occupy every office. He holds the power and authority to determine who may serve in what offices and even to determine what offices there will be, but he doesn't have to occupy those offices to have that authority. Jesus was the Lord over the Aaronic priesthood, but he was never himself a priest in the order of Aaron, as Hebrews 7:11 explicitly says.

Quote Link

I think you are being purposefully dense.

Christ holds all the power, and he has the keys to every office. He could perform anything that a Priest of Aaron could perform. He could delegate those Keys (of Aaron) to other people. He was the Son of God. He held the Higher Preisthood, which in and of itself means he held the lesser.

He held the Greater Priesthood, meaning he was not just a Priest according to the order of Aaron, but also someone who held all the Keys to the greater order.

There is only ONE Priesthood, and TWO Divisions. Holding the greater, includes holding the lesser.

[Acris Venator]

"A different priest was to arise...not according to the order of Aaron" (Heb. 7:11). That priest was Jesus, "our Lord" (v. 13). Priests according to the order of Aaron had to be of the tribe of Levi. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, "and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests" (v. 14). Jesus was qualified to become a priest "not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent" (v. 16a), that is, not on the basis of being physically descended from Levi, "but by the power of an indestructible life" (v. 16b), that is, by his resurrection from the dead to immortality.

I understand. But whether Jesus was a Levite or not, whether Moses associated the tribe of Judah with priests or not, the verse still does not explicitly state that Jesus never held the AP. It states that he arose according to the order of Melchizedek and not according to the order of Aaron. What does the verb "arise" specifically refer to?