Was the death of Jesus on the Cross Aaronic in nature

[Mateo61]

Was the death of Jesus on the Cross Aaronic in nature or was it of the priesthood of the son of god?

[Robert F. Smith]

As Jesus was dying on the cross, he said 'afqid ruhi beyadka "Into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46, from Ps 31:5).  He then declared "It is finished" (John 19:30 tetelestai), an accounting term meaning "Debt paid in full."  Then he died.

It is not clear whether such statements are part of divine liturgy for executions of gods, but it is clear from Hebrews that Jesus was both High Priest and the Sacrificial Lamb of God the Father, in that case as High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.  Jerusalem was the Temple, and Golgotha (Calvaria) the sacrificial altar.  He is the Passover Lamb whose blood saves the faithful, just as lamb's blood saved the firstborn of Israel on the eve of the Exodus.  Thus, each week we celebrate his saving body and blood, even though it is administered by Aaronic Priests.

The late Jewish scholar Jacob Milgrom commented that “it seems strange that the high priest is both expiator and the expiated, that he officiates for his own sin.”[1]  In the case of Jesus, who also played that dual role, he could provide permanent remission of sins, unlike the regular sin offerings of Aaronic priests.  Why?  Because he was sinless.

[1] Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, Anchor Bible, 232 (re Leviticus 4:5).

[Maidservant]

Yes and yes.

From the point of view of where we lived before we came here and who we were/are, and our purpose for entering this earth life (the waters of baptism)--the descent we make that is actually an ascent; or to make the descent that is preparatory to the ascent--we are all presently on the cross and in the process of the sacrifice; and are or are becoming in that order of the son of God.  Jesus showed the way, but we are all in that way.  So yes, it is the order after the son of God, and we are all already participating.

I had never considered yet whether or not there was Aaronic significance to it, or at least explicitly although I may have been feeling into it, but I felt like: wow; when I read your title.  So I would have to ponder on it a little more.  But there really isn't as much a difference between the Aaronic and any other priesthood as might at first seem, since in the end, the priesthood is the priesthood is the priesthood.  Nevertheless, to refer to something as Aaronic does locate one in a specific portion of the map of progression.  (All salvific.)  Baptism (descent, sacrifice, crucifixion, earth life, our eyes opened, Noah's ark, passage through the Red Sea, etc etc etc etc--all the same template) IS under the auspices of the Aaronic Priesthood, and has Robert mentioned, every Sabbath the Aaronic Priests (under the true High Priest, the Bishop) perform a sacrifice AND (I add) a resurrection BOTH.

So Jesus' resurrection--is it Aaronic or the priesthood after the order of the son of God?  YES.  Both.

[Mateo61]

3 hours ago, Maidservant said:

and has Robert mentioned, every Sabbath the Aaronic Priests (under the true High Priest, the Bishop) perform a sacrifice AND (I add) a resurrection BOTH.

 

Thanks for your response. Can you explain this a little more. How the Aaronic priests perform a sacrifice and resurrection.

[Maidservant]

7 hours ago, Mateo61 said:

Thanks for your response. Can you explain this a little more. How the Aaronic priests perform a sacrifice and resurrection.

Sure.

The sacrament table is the tomb, and the bread and water is the Christ, as covered by the shroud (grave cloths), which are the white cloths.  So the Christ is sacrificed on the altar of the sacrament table.  This is performed symbolically by the priests.  Also symbolically the teachers are involved in this death preparation, although this is not seen in the meeting.  The teachers probably think they are just doing a job getting the sacrament ready, but they are doing a symbolic, salvific, necessary part of the death/sacrifice.

After the priest's prayer, they take off the shroud (grave cloths), perhaps it can be more triumphant, thrown off.  And now the Christ rises (becomes alive again) and the Deacons actually are part of the performance of the resurrection, so they actually have the most powerful priesthood :).  The alive, resurrected Christ is carried to every person, who as a group, are the body of Christ, and who each and all, have taken upon themselves the name of Christ.  So the resurrection of the Christ is in all the people.  The bread and water carried by the Deacons is like the action of rays of great energy, carried out and penetrated into each one.

[Benk]

It's a nice thought all that symbolism, but it doesn't bear out the historical reality. Preparation of the sacrament by teachers wasn't on the official list of duties until 1933. Before then it was commonly done by women. Similarly with deacons, Heber J. Grant as President of the church wrote in a letter in 1928 that "he would have "no objection" to unordained worthy boys passing the sacrament and that "it would in nowise invalidate the ordinance." He wrote having only priesthood holders pass it was a "custom" and that there was "no rule in the church" that it should be such. Whether that would fly today is another matter! Although plenty of unordained folk, worthy or otherwise, pass it along the row. Scripturally the only part of the ordinance requiring priesthood is the blessing by a priest.

Read all about it in the attached article:

Hartley - From Men to Boys.pdf

Edited April 17, 2018 by Benk

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, Maidservant said:

Sure.

The sacrament table is the tomb, and the bread and water is the Christ, as covered by the shroud (grave cloths), which are the white cloths.  So the Christ is sacrificed on the altar of the sacrament table.  This is performed symbolically by the priests.  Also symbolically the teachers are involved in this death preparation, although this is not seen in the meeting.  The teachers probably think they are just doing a job getting the sacrament ready, but they are doing a symbolic, salvific, necessary part of the death/sacrifice.

After the priest's prayer, they take off the shroud (grave cloths), perhaps it can be more triumphant, thrown off.  And now the Christ rises (becomes alive again) and the Deacons actually are part of the performance of the resurrection, so they actually have the most powerful priesthood :).  The alive, resurrected Christ is carried to every person, who as a group, are the body of Christ, and who each and all, have taken upon themselves the name of Christ.  So the resurrection of the Christ is in all the people.  The bread and water carried by the Deacons is like the action of rays of great energy, carried out and penetrated into each one.

 

2 hours ago, Benk said:

It's a nice thought all that symbolism, but it doesn't bear out the historical reality. Preparation of the sacrament by teachers wasn't on the official list of duties until 1933. Before then it was commonly done by women. Similarly with deacons, Heber J. Grant as President of the church wrote in a letter in 1928 that "he would have "no objection" to unordained worthy boys passing the sacrament and that "it would in nowise invalidate the ordinance." He wrote having only priesthood holders pass it was a "custom" and that there was "no rule in the church" that it should be such. Whether that would fly today is another matter! Although plenty of unordained folk, worthy or otherwise, pass it along the row. Scripturally the only part of the ordinance requiring priesthood is the blessing by a priest.

Read all about it in the attached article:

Hartley - From Men to Boys.pdf

Yep, no question about it!  I like both these posts.  The symbolism as described by Maidservant pleases me, but it needn't be so formal.  After all, when the deacon passes the sacrament down a row of worshippers, practically every person there is "passing the sacrament".  Including unbaptized and potentially excommunicated persons who might be sitting there.

[Maidservant]

4 hours ago, Benk said:

It's a nice thought all that symbolism, but it doesn't bear out the historical reality. Preparation of the sacrament by teachers wasn't on the official list of duties until 1933. Before then it was commonly done by women. Similarly with deacons, Heber J. Grant as President of the church wrote in a letter in 1928 that "he would have "no objection" to unordained worthy boys passing the sacrament and that "it would in nowise invalidate the ordinance." He wrote having only priesthood holders pass it was a "custom" and that there was "no rule in the church" that it should be such. Whether that would fly today is another matter! Although plenty of unordained folk, worthy or otherwise, pass it along the row. Scripturally the only part of the ordinance requiring priesthood is the blessing by a priest.

Read all about it in the attached article:

Hartley - From Men to Boys.pdf

Interesting, cool.  Hadn't heard of this (granted, hadn't studied it).  However, it doesn't change the symbolism i.e. if a woman prepares the Sacrament, she is preparing the death, sacrifice.  And which now that I think of it, is VERY historical i.e. New Testament of women preparing bodies for tombs.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Maidservant said:

Interesting, cool.  Hadn't heard of this (granted, hadn't studied it).  However, it doesn't change the symbolism i.e. if a woman prepares the Sacrament, she is preparing the death, sacrifice.  And which now that I think of it, is VERY historical i.e. New Testament of women preparing bodies for tombs.

Wow...I didn't know this either...very interesting!