Why do we need priests?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pearl

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Apr 9, 2019
11,341
17,174
113
Lancashire
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Yeah, what has changed is no more animal sacrifice, food Laws- eat or don't eat, be circumcised or not:
" I am a Jew among the Jews and Greek among the Greeks" Paul. BUT THE HOLINESS REQUIRED OF A PRIEST HAS NOT CHANGED. "I did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets but to fulfill". Christ is the Law and the prophets. If one says the priesthood in Christ can be corrupt you say Christ takes part in that corruption and accepts it. That would be to deny the reason for Christ coming to the world.
Those who are born again, ie those that have made a conscious decision to turn to Christ and receive him as Saviour, are now part of the Royal priesthood made HOLY through Jesus's blood. So we don't need ordained priests to give us absolution from sin as Jesus himself has already done that. We are now saints not sinners and have the right to approach God's throne directly.
 

Pearl

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Apr 9, 2019
11,341
17,174
113
Lancashire
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
That is the way it was for over a thousand years in Christianity. There was a time when people who wanted to get married inside a church couldn't but had to get married on the steps outside. I think it was the Council of Verona that declared marriage was a sacrament. A later council said a priest and two witnesses had to be present.
It was the Catholic Church that brought marriage within the bounds of the church. Prior to that marriage was a civil contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It was the Catholic Church that brought marriage within the bounds of the church. Prior to that marriage was a civil contract.
Exactly, and the way the Catholic Church defined it is causing them grief today.

No clergyman can join a man and a woman. Only God can do that. I've no objection to people getting married in churches; in fact, I think it's nice; but only God can join the two.

Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
 

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,230
113
North America
Yeah, what has changed is no more animal sacrifice, food Laws- eat or don't eat, be circumcised or not:
" I am a Jew among the Jews and Greek among the Greeks" Paul. BUT THE HOLINESS REQUIRED OF A PRIEST HAS NOT CHANGED. "I did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets but to fulfill". Christ is the Law and the prophets. If one says the priesthood in Christ can be corrupt you say Christ takes part in that corruption and accepts it. That would be to deny the reason for Christ coming to the world. That would be to deny His divinity, you would then call Christ corrupt.
Hebrews 7 makes for good reading; the Old Testament Levitical priesthood and any attempts to perpetuate it are devoid of relevance, Biblically, now. The Lord Jesus the believer's great High Priest Who has passed into the heavens is a priest for ever after the order of Mechizedek.

The Lord's servants do need to be sanctified vessels, and fit for the Master's use (2 Timothy 2.21).
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,693
5,574
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Genesis 2:24
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How does God join people?
I suspect only He knows; but I think it's only really done after the two love each other in a way that the Old Testament uses the word "knew."

I don't think God is going to "join" a man who beats his wife or a woman who cheats on her husband. Those may be marriages in the eyes of the government or in a church; and they are even valuable if the two are still trying to love each other better. I couldn't say how or when God does it.
 

Waiting on him

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2018
11,674
6,096
113
56
North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We see that the ideal situation would be if a man acted as priest or spiritual leader for his family. I think that was true then and is true now. We see that most men back then were unable to perform that role, so a new kind of priesthood was given; and then the question is how many men today are qualified to act as priests for their families. For example, what does a believing wife do if she has a nonbelieving husband? Who is going to act as her spiritual covering?
The way I see it is if Christ is her head then He is her covering. Same for the man, in his kingdom there’s neither male or female.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

CovenantPromise

Active Member
Sep 14, 2019
718
135
43
52
Northeast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hebrews 7 makes for good reading; the Old Testament Levitical priesthood and any attempts to perpetuate it are devoid of relevance, Biblically, now. The Lord Jesus the believer's great High Priest Who has passed into the heavens is a priest for ever after the order of Mechizedek.

The Lord's servants do need to be sanctified vessels, and fit for the Master's use (2 Timothy 2.21).
Already covered that. But thanks for telling me what I already said and that still does not change the discussion.....the priesthood must be holy and a priest in mortal sin does not serve God. And that is especially true in the new covenant.
God Bless!
 

CovenantPromise

Active Member
Sep 14, 2019
718
135
43
52
Northeast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It was the Catholic Church that brought marriage within the bounds of the church. Prior to that marriage was a civil contract.
No, marriage as you describe it was an institution already established with God's covenant people (ISRAEL). That is an obvious truth because the RCC did not write the scriptures they received them from the Jews. Israel set the standard , no one else.
 

CovenantPromise

Active Member
Sep 14, 2019
718
135
43
52
Northeast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Already covered that. But thanks for telling me what I already said and that still does not change the discussion.....the priesthood must be holy and a priest in mortal sin does not serve God. And that is especially true in the new covenant.
God Bless!
Hebrews 7 makes for good reading; the Old Testament Levitical priesthood and any attempts to perpetuate it are devoid of relevance, Biblically, now. The Lord Jesus the believer's great High Priest Who has passed into the heavens is a priest for ever after the order of Mechizedek.

The Lord's servants do need to be sanctified vessels, and fit for the Master's use (2 Timothy 2.21).
Not sure what Timothy you are reading
2 Timothy 2:21, : "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work."

I love this I am living prophecy in real time. So glad I have a book circulated. People really do twist the scriptures.

FULL CONTEXT:
The Lord's Approved Workman
…20A large house contains not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay. Some indeed are for honorable use, but others are for common use. 21So if anyone cleanses himself of what is unfit, he will be a vessel for honor: sanctified, useful to the Master, and prepared for every good work. 22Flee from youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, together with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.…
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It was the Catholic Church that brought marriage within the bounds of the church. Prior to that marriage was a civil contract.
How could marriage be a *civil contract* when God instituted marriage (Genesis 2)? If Christians can't be clear about this, how do you expect the heathen to understand? Even Christ pointed to Genesis 2 as the foundation of marriage, and He did not distinguish between the saved and the unsaved in this matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottA

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How could marriage be a *civil contract* when God instituted marriage (Genesis 2)? If Christians can't be clear about this, how do you expect the heathen to understand? Even Christ pointed to Genesis 2 as the foundation of marriage, and He did not distinguish between the saved and the unsaved in this matter.
Did Adam and Eve need a clergyman?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottA

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, marriage as you describe it was an institution already established with God's covenant people (ISRAEL). That is an obvious truth because the RCC did not write the scriptures they received them from the Jews. Israel set the standard , no one else.
Your posts confuse me. What are you saying?
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Those who are born again, ie those that have made a conscious decision to turn to Christ and receive him as Saviour, are now part of the Royal priesthood made HOLY through Jesus's blood.
True.
So we don't need ordained priests to give us absolution from sin as Jesus himself has already done that.
False.
We are now saints not sinners and have the right to approach God's throne directly.
We are now saints, that's true, we have the right to approach God's throne directly, that is also true. But according to scripture, that right does not exclude the need for the New Testament Priesthood, otherwise Jesus would not have instituted the ministerial priesthood..., He would have had 120* with Him when He instituted the ...Eucharist, not 12. (*alluding to Pentecost) Let's connect the dots.

John records the story of Jesus washing the feet of His disciples.
1 John 1:8-10 The footwashing recorded in St. John's Gospel is in fact a veiled allusion to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and that the washing of the disciples' feet symbolically marks their transition from being mere disciples to being priests of the New Covenant. The text itself lends several clues that lead us to this conclusion. Although St. John does not record the typical details of the Last Supper (as the Synoptics do), having exported the substance of those words and actions into the "Bread of Life" discourse in John 6, still the narrative of John 13 contains several links to the Passion/Eucharist content of the Last Supper.

John 13:1

The Beloved Disciple makes the feast of Passover the liturgical backdrop for this account, just as he did for the multiplication of the loaves and the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. He also makes mention of the "hour" of Jesus, which in St. John is a shorthand way of referring to the Passion of Christ (c.f. John 12:23-26). Thus it can be said that the Passover and the Passion are the underlying theme of this narrative.

The narrative details are also given a more immediate context in time when St. John says next, John 13:2

The footwashing event, then, takes place "during supper" — the Last Supper — and at a point in time "when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas … to betray him." This harkens back to John 6:70-71 again.

The scene is familiar then: the "hour" of the Passion has come, Our Lord and His disciples are in the Upper Room at "supper," and the devil has provoked Judas to the betrayal of Christ. Adding to this overall picture, the text next says: John 13:3-5

The word translated as "laid aside [his garments]" is tithemin, a word which is used repeatedly in St. John's Gospel with one particular meaning: to lay down one's life (see John 10:11, 15, 17, 18; 13:37, 38; 15:13). That Jesus is here "laying aside" His garments is a cryptic allusion to His act of laying down His mortal body in sacrifice. The Eucharist is still very much close at hand in this narrative, even though the outward action is one of ritual washing, not distributing bread and wine.

As He begins to wash the feet of the disciples, Jesus meets some resistance from St. Peter: John 13:6-11

St. Peter's resistance here mirrors his resistance to Jesus' prediction of His Passion in Matthew 16:21-13. He cannot come to grips (yet) with a Messiah who humbles Himself in such a way as this, performing the menial task of the lowliest servant.

But Jesus' words are clear: if St. Peter is not "washed," then he can have "no part" in Jesus. St. Peter's response is typically overstated and melodramatic: "not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" Jesus' answer to this is curious in itself: "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you."

What does all of this mean? The easy interpretive option here, and the one chosen by most commentators, is to see the footwashing almost entirely as a social gesture – something humanitarian. Jesus humbles Himself and serves the needs of others, and this is the moral/social lesson He wishes us to learn from His good example.

I do not deny that this kind of interpretation can be extracted from the text, if it is the moral sense of Scripture that is being looked for. But this is almost too simplistic an understanding to find a proper place in St. John's Gospel. St. John is mystical and sacramental, and there is often more going on underneath the textual surface than is obvious at first. It would be unlike him to relate a narrative like this simply for the purpose of communicating to future Christians a platitudinous message, such as, "be servants to one another."

The words of Our Lord, in fact, seem to point beyond this meaning: "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand." (vs. 7) After what? As R. Brown points out, most likely this refers to the same thing as it did in the previous chapter:

Literally, "after these things [tauta]." In itself the phrase is vague … but the meaning is probably the same as in John 12:16 (Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible Vol. 29A [Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1970], p. 552)​

Jesus hints that what He has done in the footwashing will not be understood by the disciples until after His glorification, a mysterious statement that tends to make one think that the true meaning of the footwashing is somewhat deeper than simply, "love one another and serve one another." The disciples could have figured that out, it would seem, apart from any extra grace given after Jesus' glorification. No, there is something about the aftermath of His Passion, Death, and Resurrection that will shed light on this footwashing ritual.....

The footwashing was actually a "status transformation ritual." (source) He rightly points out that the weighty words passed between Our Lord and St. Peter point to a meaning that goes beyond mere meal etiquette — this is not just an act wherein Jesus cleanses some dirt from the feet of the disciples so that they can properly eat the meal.

Rather, this is something of great importance, so much so that, Jesus says, if St. Peter refuses to be a participant in the ritual, he can have "no part" in Jesus.

Neyrey also points out a significant fact about the words used by Jesus to communicate this ultimatum to St. Peter: the presence of the keyword "unless," a presentation of the Divine "if/then."

This kind of ultimatum has been used in St. John's Gospel before, in similar "status transformation" situations. In John 3:3-5, unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter heaven. The reception of the ritual changes his status from that of "outsider" to "insider." Likewise, in John 6, unless a man eats the flesh of Christ and drinks His blood, he has no life in him. Again, participation in the ritual brings about a change of status — the one who once had "no life" in him now has eternal life.

Similar uses of the word can be found in John 8:24 and John 15:4 In this light, consider again what Our Lord says to St. Peter:
John 13:8

In the Greek, the words are exactly the same in all cases: ean me, a conjunction that means "unless" or "except." This suggests to us, given the way the word has been used by St. John thus far, that what is taking place in the footwashing ceremony is some kind of status transformation ritual — a ritual that will find the disciples at their current status, but will elevate them to a new status.

At this point, it is worth going on a brief excursion to examine the meaning of foot washing in the Old Testament. Although the washing of one's feet in the Old Testament is normally done for practical purposes (i.e., cleanliness), there is one striking example where foot washing is a metaphor for something quite different...


quote-i-believe-in-god-not-in-a-catholic-god-there-is-no-catholic-god-there-is-god-and-i-believe-in-pope-francis-388028.jpg
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
2 Samuel 11:8-11

Uriah understood the metaphor quite readily when King David sent him to his own house, to his own wife, with the words "wash your feet." What David intended for Uriah to do was to embrace his wife in the marital way, and thus to sire a child (or rather, in this case, to cover the fact that David had already sired a child with her).

Similarly, in the Song of Solomon we find the male lover pursuing his bride, coming to her at night to knock on her door. She responds by saying, "I had put off my garment, how could I put it on? I had bathed my feet, how could I soil them?" (Songs 5:3) Notice here not only the mention of footwashing as a prelude to marital love, but also the mention of laying down one's garment, just as Jesus did in the Upper Room.

It would appear that footwashing can be a metaphor for the marital embrace, which is to say, it is a ritual that is performed when one is preparing to reproduce —
preparing to become a father.

Also of interest is the Levitical instruction concerning the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which the epistle to the Hebrews takes for granted as the kind of sacrifice which Jesus offered on the Cross). In Leviticus 16:23-24

The High Priest was constrained by the Law to wash himself in water before making the atoning sacrifice, and it is interesting to note the order:
  1. he takes off his garments,
  2. performs the washing ritual,
  3. puts the garments back on again,
  4. then makes the sacrifice.
In St. John's narrative, Our Lord follows this exact order:
  1. He takes off His garments (vs. 4),
  2. performs the washing ritual (vv. 5-11),
  3. puts the garments back on (v. 12),
  4. and then goes on to endure His Passion.
It is odd that St. John would have included the details of Jesus taking off His garments and putting them back on again, if he did not have Leviticus 16 in the back of his mind.

There are only two differences between the Levitical ritual and the ritual performed in the Upper Room: in Levitical Law, the High Priest washed not only his feet, but his entire body, whereas in the Upper Room Jesus makes a point of only washing the disciples' feet; and in Levitical Law it was the High Priest who washed himself, whereas in the Upper Room Jesus does not wash Himself, but His disciples.

The first point of difference can be explained by an appeal to the elaboration of the laws in the Talmud, particularly in Tract Yomah, which is concerned precisely with the Day of Atonement rituals. There, the rabbis argued, as Jesus does in the Upper Room, that once the priest has taken his full bath, he need only be concerned with the cleanliness of his hands and feet.

The second point of difference comes closer to explaining the significance of the footwashing in John 13. It was the High Priest who was to wash Himself before the sacrifice; the fact that it is not Jesus who is washed, but rather His disciples, strongly encourages the interpretation that it is by having their feet washed that they come to share in the priesthood of Christ.

Finally, we may look again at Christ's words to St. Peter: "If I do not wash you, you have no part [meros] in me." (v. 8) This word used by Jesus is reminiscent of what St. Peter said to Simon Magus when the latter attempted to purchase the power of the Apostolic office: Acts 8:18-21

BOTTOM LINE: The moment Christ instituted the priesthood can be boiled down to His words,: Do this in commemoration of me

… declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them). source

Are we not then going against the teaching of the Church to suggest that the ordination of the disciples as priests took place during the footwashing ritual, as opposed to when Jesus commanded them to "do this" in memory of Him?
The Footwashing Ritual and the Sacrament of Holy Orders: A New Look at John 13
 
Last edited:

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
That is based on the parents and men and women's intention of heart. That is why God is the judge of ones heart. And what you said still does not detract from the fact that priest must be Holy . Jeremiah 17:10 "I the LORD search the mind and try the heart, to give to every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings."

They are married because of their vow before God and God in them protects them from any defilement because of their sincere faith. But nothing , in the case of an unholy priest, is because of him. Rather it is because of the faith of the unaware lay person who sincerely believes in God. God will render to each according to his own heart . Just as the scriptures say. Now would you fault God for rendering to people according to their own works? Will you call Him a liar for doing that too?
He wipes the dung of their solemnities upon their faces not the people who do not know of their sins.
Did I say anything about an unaware lay person? Who was I speaking about? Boy some people are good at getting off base to avoid the real discussion.
2Timothy 4:2-4
Preach the Word
…2Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage with every form of patient instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. 4So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.…

Ezekiel 22:26-27
26Her priests do violence to My law and profane My holy things. They make no distinction between the holy and the common, and they fail to distinguish between the clean and the unclean. They disregard My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. 27Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey, shedding blood, and destroying lives for dishonest gain.…
Leviticus 21:6
They must be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God. For they present the offerings made by fire to the LORD, the food of their God. So they must be holy.

But I know there is a an even newer doctrine than the New Covenant and that doctrine says not so- a priest does not have to be holy.
I guess I am the only one here who sees a problem with this.

1 Corinthians 11:17In the following instructions I have no praise to offer, because your gatherings do more harm than good. 18First of all, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19And indeed, there must be differences among you to show which of you are approved.…
CP,,,,you kind of have to learn the difference between when someone is AGREEING with a statement or when someone is just explaining something.

I was explaining what a priest is and how his work is honored before God...even though HE is not. I WAS NOT agreeing that a priest should NOT be holy....priests are called to be holy.
Problem is, they're human just like the rest of us. I don't any human that does not sin.

As to a newer Covenant than the New Covenant...
First you said you knew a new covenant...
then you called it a doctrine.
Two different animals.

So what is the new thing you know (whatever it's called).
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnPaul
Status
Not open for further replies.