Priesthood did not function in the Earliest Christian Communities

[Abulafia]

Beyond the points about women and priesthood, which is interesting,  there is a deeper and more significant layer about who and how people can operate within religious institutions.  The patterns that emerge from the earliest layers are significant in my view because they allow us to peer into the world of Jesus, what he taught, how he saw authority, how he saw women and men.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

So, Elder Oaks says quite concisely ..."But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood."

So, here, as I understand it, Elder Oaks is using a *divinely decreed pattern* as justification for why women do not hold priesthood office.  Today, in the modern LDS church,

that means women cannot be a Bishop, a Deacon, an Apostle,  a Prophet, a baptiser, a healer,  nor can a women bless or administer the sacrament.

 

The Jewish priesthood offices of Jesus' day were all-male, and He came out of that tradition/structure. There were also priesthood "order" roles and expectations for male non-priests and women within that tradition/structure.

Is there anything in the early text that shows that Jesus revolutionized the faith with anything other than the higher law that He taught, and His claim to be the Messiah and the Son of God--i.e. that He refuted the Jewish priesthood order and structure in His lifetime? I think instead He let the Jews do their thing and ordained new disciples to do His thing.

[Abulafia]

And how Jesus saw men and women operating in his Kingdom is important.  That's why Mark, Q, M, L and the 7 genuine letters of Paul are so interesting.   It is also why I give precedence to the gospel accounts over the Pauline letters (despite their earlier dating).

[saemo]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I understand that.  The part where I would take issue from a historical point of view is that the earliest followers were also not ordained.  if you could explain what you mean by *ordain* we could explore further,  but,  from my own research,  it isn't there in the earliest layers of the gospel and Pauline tradition.

For Roman Catholics Ordain, from Latin Ordo. To legally enter into an order. Rightly understood as a consecration, a setting apart, by the laying on of hands. Eastern Orthodox also call the sacrament Holy Orders, in English, but in Greek it is "laying on of hands".

Laity, men and women, have been and are also set apart, consecrated in service to God. For example, in religious orders (monks and nuns), or ancient orders of widows and virgins. But these are not ordained. Women in the ancient order of the diaconate were not ordained.

Timing wise, the people in the early church believed that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. As time went on and the Twelve began to be martyred, this belief changed and an associated change to designating successors to the Apostles, by the laying on of hands, is then seen.

Christ established a Church, but he did not establish during His ministry all the canons and laws that were to come.

He entrusted the Church to the Twleve, to build it, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They did so in faith, hope and charity, and did found the practice of ordaining their successors, in order to ensure the continuity of the Church and its mission. 

Ordination is not an innovation, however. The Twelve were set apart by Jesus and so they set apart their successors. Legally incorporating them into an order of men whose duties are that of high priest, as instituted by Jesus at the last supper and at other key moments in Christian history. Acting in the Person of Jesus Christ, our High Priest forever.

By legally, I mean licit, as practiced by the Apostles and their successors. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by saemo

[Abulafia]

Just now, CV75 said:

 

The Jewish priesthood offices of Jesus' day were all-male, and He came out of that tradition/structure. There were also priesthood "order" roles and expectations for male non-priests and women within that tradition/structure.

Is there anything in the early text that shows that Jesus revolutionized the faith with anything other than the higher law that He taught, and His claim to be the Messiah and the Son of God--i.e. that He refuted the Jewish priesthood order and structure in His lifetime? I think instead He let the Jews do their thing and ordained new disciples to do His thing.

Yes.  There is, not only in the Jesus movement but also in Jewish synagogue life and in the life of the Therapeutae,  for instance.  There is also precedence for the higher laws you speak of, within the general Jewish milieu.   Jesus was a man of his time.

 

The studies of Brooten and Lee Levine, and Amy Jill Levine have been useful and enlightening.

[Abulafia]

Just now, saemo said:

For Roman Catholics Ordain, from Latin Ordo. To legally enter into an order. Rightly understood as a consecration, a setting apart, by the laying on of hands. Eastern Orthodox also call the sacrament Holy Orders, in English, but in Greek it is "laying on of hands".

Laity, men and women, have been and are also set apart, consecrated in service to God. For example, in religious orders (monks and nuns), or ancient orders of widows and virgins. But these are not ordained. Women in the ancient order of the diaconate were not ordained.

Timing wise, the people in the early church believed that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. As time went on and the Twelve began to be martyred, this belief changed and an associated change to designating successors to the Apostles, by the laying on of hands, is then seen.

Christ established a Church, but he did not establish during His ministry all the canons and laws that were to come.

He entrusted the Church to the Twleve, to build it, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They did so in faith, hope and charity, and did found the practice of ordaining their successors, in order to ensure the continuity of the Church and its mission. 

Ordination is not an innovation, however. The Twelve were set apart by Jesus and so they set apart their successors. Legally incorporating them into an order of men whose duties are that of high priest, as instituted by Jesus at the last supper and at other key moments in Christian history. Acting in the Person of Jesus Christ, our High Priest forever.

By legally, I mean licit, as practiced by the Apostles and their successors. 

Again, what you are doing is overlaying later tradition and theological assumptions into the earliest texts that just aren't there.  Did Jesus really come to organise a church separate to Judaism?  I am not sure he did.  The earliest followers, and Paul, almost certainly considered themselves Jews.  This is, again why the letters of Paul are so interesting,  because he is competing with Jewish Christians, and they are a thorn in his side.  There was not supposed to be a need for a church because within a generation Jesus was going to return.  What we see is communities developing on a more permanent basis once it became apparent that Jesus wasn't coming back any time soon.  Not all those communities followed the Ignatian pattern.  

 

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Yes.  There is, not only in the Jesus movement but also in Jewish synagogue life and in the life of the Therapeutae,  for instance.  There is also precedence for the higher laws you speak of, within the general Jewish milieu.   Jesus was a man of his time.

The studies of Brooten and Lee Levine, and Amy Jill Levine have been useful and enlightening.

So isn't it reasonable that He would maintain the use of priesthood order and office in His own right? Especially in light of all the rekated trappings he maintained (I listed a few from 1 Timothy and Galatians ).

[boblloyd91]

5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I absolutely agree that ideas about authority and the role of priesthood in that authority (using Judaic practices as a pattern) developed and became orthodox, as did the silencing of women.  Ignatius, one might argue, is attempting to establish authority because his authority is also being questioned over there in Antioch.  For Ignatius the three fold role of bishop, presbyter and deacon (all male by this time) is the way to go, and followers need to accept these leaders as if they are God.  It's also important to remember that he is coming out of Pauline Gentile communities at a time when the Jerusalem church is no longer there.  It would be like how Mormon communities might react if Salt Lake City were destroyed and they were left to pick up the pieces.  There's also no canon at this time.

 

There are two works amongst the fathers that predate Ignatius, at least in their original forms, and that would be the Didache and 1 Clement.  They are also interesting for the examination of how structure developed.

Absolutely, I love reading 1 Clement. Out of curiosity, how much of a feminist approach do you take to scripture and early church history? 

[saemo]

33 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Again, what you are doing is overlaying later tradition and theological assumptions into the earliest texts that just aren't there.  Did Jesus really come to organise a church separate to Judaism?  I am not sure he did.  The earliest followers, and Paul, almost certainly considered themselves Jews.  This is, again why the letters of Paul are so interesting,  because he is competing with Jewish Christians, and they are a thorn in his side.  There was not supposed to be a need for a church because within a generation Jesus was going to return.  What we see is communities developing on a more permanent basis once it became apparent that Jesus wasn't coming back any time soon.  Not all those communities followed the Ignatian pattern.  

 

Right, Jesus came in fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic prophecies. He is Himself a Jew. He selected all Jewish men. This is all related to Jesus fulfilling OT prophecy. 

But then, he commissioned the Twelve after His resurrection to teach all nations. Keep in mind, throughout the OT the phrase "the nations"most often refers to groups of Gentiles.

St. Paul is called the apostle to the gentiles. He was teaching and baptizing gentiles. Which then raised the question answered at the first council of Jerusalem.  Should gentile converts to Christianity be circumcised? Meaning should gentiles convert to Judaism? The answer was of course no, as people came to Christ and were baptized, not circumcised. A New Covenant replace the Old Covenant.

The council itself is an example of the church in action.

Jesus explicitly established a Church and commissioned the Twelve to teach the Good News to everyone, not just Jews. The purpose of the Church is to bring people to Christ, and always has been. 

Christians have always gathered in communities to worship. While relatively recently western society views and imposes religious practice as an individual thing, this is not the historic or the current understanding of Christianity for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox or Jews. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by saemo

[Abulafia]

Just now, boblloyd91 said:

Absolutely, I love reading 1 Clement. Out of curiosity, how much of a feminist approach do you take to scripture and early church history? 

As a woman, I am certainly aware of male bias and editing when it comes to the texts I have looked at.  April DeConick's book called Holy Misogyny,  (if I remember correctly) indicates that it was alive and well then, and still is today!

[Abulafia]

Quote

 

Right, Jesus came in fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic prophecies. He is Himself a Jew. He selected all Jewish men. This is all related to Jesus fulfilling OT prophecy. 

But then, he commissioned the Twelve after His resurrection to teach all nations. Keep in mind, throughout the OT the phrase "the nations"most often refers to groups of Gentiles.

 

Which is again why Matthew (28) tends to be the favourite for the church.  But, as you will know Mark, the earliest gospel, didn't originally include the great commission. Given the wide differences in  the resurrection accounts, from a historical perspective, it appears that much was sacred fiction, like the nativity stories.  Who saw Jesus, where, for how long, and when and how all differ, and the implications of that are profound.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

So isn't it reasonable that He would maintain the use of priesthood order and office in His own right? Especially in light of all the rekated trappings he maintained (I listed a few from 1 Timothy and Galatians ).

It's reasonable, and it is what later happened, (how Jesus' life was later described and understood), but, again, it just isn't there in the earliest layers.  Paul mentions his work as *priestly/temple/sacred service* in Romans 15:16 by using the term *ἱερουργοῦντα*, but he is from the tribe of Dan, so the term is used in a non  literal manner.  It may be this type of usage that developed into a literal application as communities developed. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Abulafia

[saemo]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Which is again why Matthew (28) tends to be the favourite for the church.  But, as you will know Mark, the earliest gospel, didn't originally include the great commission. Given the wide differences in  the resurrection accounts, from a historical perspective, it appears that much was sacred fiction, like the nativity stories.  Who saw Jesus, where, for how long, and when and how all differ, and the implications of that are profound.

*shrug* If it is just fiction then there is no point to discussing any aspect at all. 

Paul himself taught that if the resurrection didn't happen then our faith in Jesus Christ is foolish. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by saemo

[Abulafia]

37 minutes ago, saemo said:

*shrug* If it is just fiction then there is no point to discussing any aspect at all. 

Paul himself taught that if the resurrection didn't happen then our faith in Jesus Christ is foolish. 

Oh. I didn't say the resurrection was fictional.  (although I personally have a nuanced view)  At least I didn't mean to say that.  I meant that what happened almost certainly contains mythical and fictional elements.  Like the nativity stories, the accounts (including Paul's in 1 Cor) are different.  

Edited December 2, 2016 by Abulafia

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

It's reasonable, and it is what later happened, (how Jesus' life was later described and understood), but, again, it just isn't there in the earliest layers.  Paul mentions his work as *priestly/temple/sacred service* in Romans 15:16 by using the term *ἱερουργοῦντα*, but he is from the tribe of Dan, so the term is used in a non  literal manner.  It may be this type of usage that developed into a literal application as communities developed. 

I thought you were using the letters of Paul as part of the earliest texts, where he uses the other terms associated with priesthood order, office, etc. in what seems like a more literal fashion (in the two letters I checked out, anyway... I'll take a look at the others as well).

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Beyond the points about women and priesthood, which is interesting,  there is a deeper and more significant layer about who and how people can operate within religious institutions.  The patterns that emerge from the earliest layers are significant in my view because they allow us to peer into the world of Jesus, what he taught, how he saw authority, how he saw women and men.  

...at one point in time (as early as you can place it textually), and supposedly throughout all subsequent developments. I see nothing lost as the priesthood order became more organized into a church, by virtue of the priesthood. But by its eventual misuse and the adoption of societal mores, there came a point where something and some things were eventually lost by apostasy.

[saemo]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Oh. I didn't say the resurrection was fictional.  (although I personally have a nuanced view)  At least I didn't mean to say that.  I meant that what happened almost certainly contains mythical and fictional elements.  Like the nativity stories, the accounts (including Paul's in 1 Cor) are different.  

I don't see that the ancient writers were concerned with preserving an exact, moment by moment account, of anything. The synoptic Gospels relate experiences that are of importance as to who the Person of Jesus Christ is, His mission and ministry. The Gospel of John is theological in nature. The letters of St. Paul are after the Resurrection, and teach all of us who have come after the Resurrectiom, what it means to be and how to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. The earliest letters of Paul rarely addressed church hierarchy unless it was in relationship to the communities to which he was writing. Or, a glimpse now and then into his own struggles with being accepted as equal to the Twelve. This does not mean that a hierarchy did not exist. He explains at one point he went to Jerusalem to seek the "pillars of the church", in order to obtain their blessing for his continuing missionary work among the gentiles. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by saemo

[Abulafia]

5 hours ago, saemo said:

I don't see that the ancient writers were concerned with preserving an exact, moment by moment account, of anything. The synoptic Gospels relate experiences that are of importance as to who the Person of Jesus Christ is, His mission and ministry. The Gospel of John is theological in nature. The letters of St. Paul are after the Resurrection, and teach all of us who have come after the Resurrectiom, what it means to be and how to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. The earliest letters of Paul rarely addressed church hierarchy unless it was in relationship to the communities to which he was writing. Or, a glimpse now and then into his own struggles with being accepted as equal to the Twelve. This does not mean that a hierarchy did not exist. He explains at one point he went to Jerusalem to seek the "pillars of the church", in order to obtain their blessing for his continuing missionary work among the gentiles. 

Absolutely.   It is the same issue as many have with the Book of Mormon, if you like.  How much is history, how much is not.  

You mention hierarchical above,  and again, what I find interesting is the nuance.. so that's why, above, I noted three strands to consider when talking about emerging structures

Egalitarian versus hierarchical, charismatic versus formal, and liberal versus conservative.  There is a tendency to overlay hierarchical,  formal and conservative approaches (because that is how things developed) into the earliest texts, when what they can express are egalitarian,  charismatic and liberal  approaches.  It's hard to grapple that, but it is there,  and it is most certainly there in Paul's genuine letters.

[Abulafia]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I thought you were using the letters of Paul as part of the earliest texts, where he uses the other terms associated with priesthood order, office, etc. in what seems like a more literal fashion (in the two letters I checked out, anyway... I'll take a look at the others as well).

If it's okay, and I don't come here expecting to be agreed with, as I said above, I'll address the seven letters of Paul.  They are very interesting! As I say above, believe it or not, in his genuine letters you don't get Paul establishing his authority by virtue of priesthood, but by   virtue of a visionary experience with the risen Jesus.  This vision was real and powerful to him as someone who disliked and persecuted members of this, then, Jewish sect.  People later slap the name *priesthood* on him and others to describe that experience and give authority to the movements, but it initially just isn't there. That's the nuance.

[Abulafia]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

...at one point in time (as early as you can place it textually), and supposedly throughout all subsequent developments. I see nothing lost as the priesthood order became more organized into a church, by virtue of the priesthood. But by its eventual misuse and the adoption of societal mores, there came a point where something and some things were eventually lost by apostasy.

The author of Hebrews expresses that authority in terms of Melchizedek because of what  Melchizedek represents in  the sacred writings these early followers had access to.  One can insert that understanding into the early texts.  It's a reasonable position, and not without precedent from other Jewish sects, but it isn't there in the earliest layers of Mark, Q, M L or fhe 7 undisputed letters of Paul. Even if Hebrews was found to be early, that wouldn't change.  Hebrews is interesting! 

[saemo]

34 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Absolutely.   It is the same issue as many have with the Book of Mormon, if you like.  How much is history, how much is not.  

You mention hierarchical above,  and again, what I find interesting is the nuance.. so that's why, above, I noted three strands to consider when talking about emerging structures

Egalitarian versus hierarchical, charismatic versus formal, and liberal versus conservative.  There is a tendency to overlay hierarchical,  formal and conservative approaches (because that is how things developed) into the earliest texts, when what they can express are egalitarian,  charismatic and liberal  approaches.  It's hard to grapple that, but it is there,  and it is most certainly there in Paul's genuine letters.

I don't see it as the same. Ancient authors of the OT and NT Gospels were penning what was an oral tradition. The importance in oral traditions is not exact history, though this does not man history is absent. Sometimes they go to extraordinary length to place a story in time, and therefore history.  A detail can change here or there and both the authors and the readers were not concerned. The original claim of Joseph Smith is that this is a flaw in Biblical scripture and that the Book of Mormon is free of this so-called flaw. 

Personal interpretation of scripture and oral traditions was not practiced. There were authoritative persons or groups in place to interpret the meaning. In the NT and the Sacred Tradition of the Church it is the Apostles themselves. Then their successors.

What you call nuances we call tensions. Sometimes these tensions can appear to be paradoxes, particularly if a view is taken that hierarchy and charismas cannot exist together.  But of course tensions and paradoxes are a nature inherent to Christianity. A King whose crown He wore on a Cross and who is also Lord over all of creation. Jesus had a way of turning our understanding of things on its head. The Church is no different, in this regard. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by saemo

[Abulafia]

Saemo, just as an aside, it was my Catholic tutor who asked me to pursue this line of study for my dissertation.   He has had the honour of having a whole group of Catholic priests walk out of his lecture on a similar subject.  (Jesus replacing Priesthood and the Temple if I remember correctly). 

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Abulafia said:

If it's okay, and I don't come here expecting to be agreed with, as I said above, I'll address the seven letters of Paul.  They are very interesting! As I say above, believe it or not, in his genuine letters you don't get Paul establishing his authority by virtue of priesthood, but by   virtue of a visionary experience with the risen Jesus.  This vision was real and powerful to him as someone who disliked and persecuted members of this, then, Jewish sect.  People later slap the name *priesthood* on him and others to describe that experience and give authority to the movements, but it initially just isn't there. That's the nuance.

 

7 hours ago, Abulafia said:

The author of Hebrews expresses that authority in terms of Melchizedek because of what  Melchizedek represents in  the sacred writings these early followers had access to.  One can insert that understanding into the early texts.  It's a reasonable position, and not without precedent from other Jewish sects, but it isn't there in the earliest layers of Mark, Q, M L or fhe 7 undisputed letters of Paul. Even if Hebrews was found to be early, that wouldn't change.  Hebrews is interesting! 

This seems to be a case of “a rose by any other name…”

It seems to me that, because the early texts testify that Jesus is God, and His power and authority can be called priesthood, how He shared that power and authority would constitute delegated priesthood. And of course how that was done evolved even in His lifetime (for example from Mark 1:16-20 to 3:14 to 6:7-12 to 16:14-18).

What aspects of the early texts, which were lost to Christendom by 1820, do you view as having been restored through Joseph Smith, and how do they show up in the Church today?

[saemo]

7 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Saemo, just as an aside, it was my Catholic tutor who asked me to pursue this line of study for my dissertation.   He has had the honour of having a whole group of Catholic priests walk out of his lecture on a similar subject.  (Jesus replacing Priesthood and the Temple if I remember correctly). 

Protestant arguments repackaged by Catholics seems to be the popular thing. Most approach it as, let's be ecumenical and wear the Protestant argument to see if there is anything to argue about. I knew a man a few years ago who had taken on the sacraments, in the same way, for his dissertation. 

It's bound to shake things up for some people. Your professor knows that so claiming an honor in this regard is the honor of trolls.

Edited December 2, 2016 by saemo

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, saemo said:

Protestant arguments repackaged by Catholics seems to be the popular thing. Most approach it as, let's be ecumenical and wear the Protestant argument to see if there is anything to argue about. I knew a man a few years ago who had taken on the sacraments, in the same way, for his dissertation. 

It's bound to shake things up for some people. Your professor knows that so claiming an honor in this regard is the honor of trolls.

Oh. As a well published author,  theologian and historian, troll, is a disservice to him.   When you take a course in history,  you do a great disservice to the texts to apply later theological assumptions to them.  That's not what historians do.