Theology Club: The Priesthood of Christ

[Arsenios]

I've been trying all my life to be hungry and naked and poor and scourged, defamed, reviled, with no certain dwelling place and persecuted. Nobody will force that upon me, so I can't be just like Paul !

Matt 11:12
And from the days of John the Baptist until now
the Kingdom of Heaven is suffering violence,
and the violent take it by force.

I mean, waiting around for someone to force persecutions on me is not my idea of "trying all my life"...

What did Paul mean by this passage and his injunction to "be ye followers of me" in this manner of life...

How many people do you know who when cursed by another, bless that other? It is not natural... It is peculiar to do so...

Is "redeeming the times" a priestly function?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

and candor

:thumb:

A.

 

[Arsenios]

My response to your emotionalism is:

I appreciate your murderous non-emotionality (NOT)...

I did warn you about the connection between mockery and murder...

Jes' sayin'...

A.

 

[musterion]

Thanks for reinforcing the point that you are dishonest and don't know what you're talking about, vain babbler.

 

[Arsenios]

Thanks for reinforcing the point that
_you
____are dishonest
________and
____don't know what you're talking about,
_vain babbler.

Flattery will get you nowhere...

I mean, those are the least of mine iniquities...

Your Arsie Yoo hoo...

 

[Arsenios]

When God chose a priesthood, an holy nation in the past, they would be above all people.


Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.


So will be in the future for Israel,


Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


but that is not the case for us as SaulToPaul already pointed out


Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


Those who pose as priests today are 2 Timothy 11:13-15 KJV!

The last citation appears to be a typo...

But Revelation has the following:

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

Among its other gifts, Revelation gives us the future history of Christianity in every generation - eg the quality of Christian Life in Christ upon this earth. And this little passage would seem to be saying that the Lamb HAS ALREADY MADE us to be Kings and Priests upon the earth, BUT that we do NOT YET reign...

So we are now kings unto God Most High but we do not reign - eg rule over - the earth... And we are now priests unto God, and His Kings, and we SHALL reign on the earth... In the Age to Come...

So whereas kings without power will reign with priests on earth in the Age to Come, it does not say that priests have no ministry here and now.

Indeed Rev 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:
On such the second death hath no power,
but they shall be priests of God and of Christ,
and shall reign with him a thousand years.

So it would appear that the priesthood of God we find in 5:10 is found by those who have taken part in the first Resurrection, the one in Christ, and these shall reign with God and Christ a thousand years - a long time - and at the end will be tempted one more time, and the second death at the last dread Judgement will have no power over them... eg Over such as these...

And all of this within the context set forth in the first chapter:

Rev 1:6
And hath made us kings and priests
unto God and his Father;

So we, who have a part in the first resurrection, are both kings and priests, here and now, in this life on this earth... Yet we do not yet reign over the earth... We are ONLY kings and priests unto God, and our rulership is heavenly, not earthly... Upon this earth, our reign is only over ourselves, barely, and that only through Christ and the Holy Spirit... Within the Body of Christ on earth... Communally... "Drink of this all of you..."

So the question still stands - We ARE a Royal Priesthood here and now, those who have a part in the first resurrection - Paul himself spoke of this when he wrote:

Col 1:24
Who is now rejoicing in my sufferings for you,
and filling up that which is lacking
of the afflictions of Christ
in my flesh for his body's sake,
which is the Church:

To suffer for the Body of Christ with rejoicing IS the part taken by His Disciples of the first Resurrection, because it fills in that which is NOT YET the afflictions of Christ, and does so in one's own flesh, for the sake of the Body of Christ, which is the Church...

See how the words of that passage read?

A peculiar Royal Priesthood indeed!

Tested and purified in the afflictions of one's own flesh...

A spectacle to men and angels alike, as Paul says...

Arsenios

 

[patrick jane]

The last citation appears to be a typo...

But Revelation has the following:

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

Among its other gifts, Revelation gives us the future history of Christianity in every generation - eg the quality of Christian Life in Christ upon this earth. And this little passage would seem to be saying that the Lamb HAS ALREADY MADE us to be Kings and Priests upon the earth, BUT that we do NOT YET reign...

So we are now kings unto God Most High but we do not reign - eg rule over - the earth... And we are now priests unto God, and His Kings, and we SHALL reign on the earth... In the Age to Come...

So whereas kings without power will reign with priests on earth in the Age to Come, it does not say that priests have no ministry here and now.

Indeed Rev 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:
On such the second death hath no power,
but they shall be priests of God and of Christ,
and shall reign with him a thousand years.

So it would appear that the priesthood of God we find in 5:10 is found by those who have taken part in the first Resurrection[, the one in Christ, and these shall reign with God and Christ a thousand years - a long time - and at the end will be tempted one more time, and the second death at the last dread Judgement will have no power over them... eg Over such as these...

And all of this within the context set forth in the first chapter:

Rev 1:6
And hath made us kings and priests
unto God and his Father;

So we, who have a part in the first resurrection, are both kings and priests, here and now, in this life on this earth... Yet we do not yet reign over the earth... We are ONLY kings and priests unto God, and our rulership is heavenly, not earthly... Upon this earth, our reign is only over ourselves, barely, and that only through Christ and the Holy Spirit... Within the Body of Christ on earth... Communally... "Drink of this all of you..."

So the question still stands - We ARE a Royal Priesthood here and now, those who have a part in the first resurrection - Paul himself spoke of this when he wrote:

Col 1:24
Who is now rejoicing in my sufferings for you,
and filling up that which is lacking
of the afflictions of Christ
in my flesh for his body's sake,
which is the Church:

To suffer for the Body of Christ with rejoicing IS the part taken by His Disciples of the first Resurrection, because it fills in that which is NOT YET the afflictions of Christ, and does so in one's own flesh, for the sake of the Body of Christ, which is the Church...

See how the words of that passage read?

A peculiar Royal Priesthood indeed!

Tested and purified in the afflictions of one's own flesh...

A spectacle to men and angels alike, as Paul says...

Arsenios

Has the first Resurrection happened ? :rapture:

 

[Arsenios]

Has the first Resurrection happened ? :rapture:

Yes - In every generation...
We are baptized into Christ's Crucifixion...
and our death in His Death by Baptism...
Leads into OUR Resurrection in Him...
Because HE is Resurrected from the Dead...

The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ
is an ever-present reality for those Baptized into Christ
who have put on Christ, Gal 3:27
and become perfected in Him...

The first Resurrection is the ontological reality of all mature Christians.

Arsenios

 

[Shasta]

Has the first Resurrection happened ? :rapture:

The passage is not speaking of the time period following the General Resurrection. It applies to believers whom John was writing to in the last decade of the First Century and, by extension to us in the present age.

4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:

Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.

To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:4-7)

To get see who are kings and priests and when this status is given we need to look at the time tenses of the verbs.

A. First, John is writing to a group of Churches in Asia Minor in the First Century.

B. He tells them Christ "loves" them.
This is in the PRESENT tense.

C. Next he says that Christ "washed" (or rather, "released") them from sin.
This word is in the PAST tense (their past).

D. He then says Christ "made them Kings and Priests"
The word "made" is a simple PAST tense verb. It had ALREADY HAPPENED to them by virtue of their having been cleansed and redeemed by the blood of Christ.

E. When John says "He (Christ) is coming" he uses the Present tense in a futuristic sense, in the same way we say "Christ is coming" meaning a future event.
The coming of Christ in the clouds is a definite reference to the Second Advent which had not not happened then nor has it happened yet but they (and we) are kings and priests even before that happens..

E. These believers had been redeemed, cleansed by his blood and released from sin. At that time they already were Kings and Priests by virtue of their special relationship to The King and High Priest.

We do not have to wait for the day when "kingdoms of this world to become a Kingdoms of Priests" According to this passage we hold those titles in the present just as did the Churches of Asia Minor. We have been given authority over the enemy. We can "reign in life" as Kings, more than conquerors. We are priests in the here because we have access to throne of grace and can intercede for men.

F. I think it is important to note that at this time in history the Gentiles not the Jews were dominant. According to Irenaeus (130 - 201AD), John the son of Zebedee (6 - 100AD) had moved to Ephesus and spent his last years ministering to the Gentile Churches of Asia Minor many of whom were started by Paul. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp (69 - 155 AD), who was the leader of the Church of Smyrna and a student of John himself, so Irenaeus was very close to these events.

G.There is no trace of any "multiple gospels" in their writings. Not only that but when I looked at the Church fathers citations of the NT writings I found that they quoted from them more or less indiscriminately in such a way that showed that they believed the NT (both Pauline and non-Pauline portions) was inspired throughout, relevant and mandatory for all true believers.

 

[Arsenios]

The passage is not speaking of the time period following the General Resurrection. It applies to believers whom John was writing to in the last decade of the First Century and, by extension to us in the present age.

4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:

Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.

To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:4-7)

To get see who are kings and priests and when this status is given we need to look at the time tenses of the verbs.

A. First, John is writing to a group of Churches in Asia Minor in the First Century.

B. He tells them Christ "loves" them.
This is in the PRESENT tense.

C. Next he says that Christ "washed" (or rather, "released") them from sin.
This word is in the PAST tense (their past).

D. He then says Christ "made them Kings and Priests"
The word "made" is a simple PAST tense verb. It had ALREADY HAPPENED to them by virtue of their having been cleansed and redeemed by the blood of Christ.

E. When John says "He (Christ) is coming" he uses the Present tense in a futuristic sense, in the same way we say "Christ is coming" meaning a future event.
The coming of Christ in the clouds is a definite reference to the Second Advent which had not not happened then nor has it happened yet but they (and we) are kings and priests even before that happens..

E. These believers had been redeemed, cleansed by his blood and released from sin. At that time they already were Kings and Priests by virtue of their special relationship to The King and High Priest.

We do not have to wait for the day when "kingdoms of this world to become a Kingdoms of Priests" According to this passage we hold those titles in the present just as did the Churches of Asia Minor. We have been given authority over the enemy. We can "reign in life" as Kings, more than conquerors. We are priests in the here because we have access to throne of grace and can intercede for men.

F. I think it is important to note that at this time in history the Gentiles not the Jews were dominant. According to Irenaeus (130 - 201AD), John the son of Zebedee (6 - 100AD) had moved to Ephesus and spent his last years ministering to the Gentile Churches of Asia Minor many of whom were started by Paul. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp (69 - 155 AD), who was the leader of the Church of Smyrna and a student of John himself, so Irenaeus was very close to these events.

G.There is no trace of any "multiple gospels" in their writings. Not only that but when I looked at the Church fathers citations of the NT writings I found that they quoted from them more or less indiscriminately in such a way that showed that they believed the NT (both Pauline and non-Pauline portions) was inspired throughout, relevant and mandatory for all true believers.

Glory to God!

A man who pays attention to the tenses of the verbs of John!

I never thought I would see it here on TOL...

That enterprise richly rewards...

You are right - The NT writings are all about the ONE Gospel of Jesus Christ... There has never been a differing or different Gospel... That idea is a very late and modern diversion from the truth...

Arsenios

 

[patrick jane]

T.

Excellent post, although it was a rhetorical question, it turned out nicely. BTW, I'm familiar with tenses, and how to read.

 

[Shasta]

Glory to God!

A man who pays attention to the tenses of the verbs of John!

I never thought I would see it here on TOL...

That enterprise richly rewards...

You are right - The NT writings are all about the ONE Gospel of Jesus Christ... There has never been a differing or different Gospel... That idea is a very late and modern diversion from the truth...

Arsenios

Have you read any writing of a Church Father who addresses the idea of more than one gospel, or one who hints at the possibility that there once was? I never have. The only group that believed only in the Pauline writings was the Second Century Marcionites who were considered to be heretics. Marcion himself was banned from fellowship with all the Churches and the considerable sum of money he had donated was returned to him.

Regardless of whether people respect the leaders the Apostle trained or not, I have always thought the historical argument alone should be enough to convince us what was and what was not orthodox in Early Christianity. If there had been two (or more) gospels (which the scriptures never explicitly states or explains) you would EXPECT some remnants of it would still be around at the end of the First Century. Instead, seems to have mysteriously vanished...as if it never had been.

 

[heir]

The last citation appears to be a typo...

But Revelation has the following:

Again, having nothing to do with the Body of Christ. Your latest post is just another mixed up mess. Where does Paul say the Body of Christ is a priesthood? I'll wait.

 

[heir]

Have you read any writing of a Church Father who addresses the idea of more than one gospel, or one who hints at the possibility that there once was? I never have. The only group that believed only in the Pauline writings was the Second Century Marcionites who were considered to be heretics. Marcion himself was banned from fellowship with all the Churches and the considerable sum of money he had donated was returned to him.

Why do you say things like this? Is that what you claim "MAD" believes? And do try to lend an effort to NOT be so long winded in your reply. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[musterion]

Again, having nothing to do with the Body of Christ. Your latest post is just another mixed up mess. Where does Paul say the Body of Christ is a priesthood? I'll wait.

He's already (kinda) answered that by saying he believes the BoC is a priesthood, therefore it is. :idunno:

 

[Shasta]

Why do you say things like this? Is that what you claim "MAD" believes? And do try to lend an effort to NOT be so long winded in your reply. A simple yes or no will suffice.

My point was that Revelation affirms that believers are Priests and Kings.

Saying non-Pauline writings are written for us but not to us is double-talk. It means that they are not mandatory. However, it is a matter of historic record that nobody in the Early Church (end of 1st century on) believed that. The concept of multiple gospels simply did not exist. It is like going to a crime scene and finding no evidence at all that it ever happened.

The heretical Marcionites only believed in the writings of Paul and left all other writings out of their canon. This is the only early group vaguely like yours and their canon was treated with horror by the Early Christians.

 

[Shasta]

Again, having nothing to do with the Body of Christ. Your latest post is just another mixed up mess. Where does Paul say the Body of Christ is a priesthood? I'll wait.

It was the last decade of the First Century. The seven Churches of Asia were Gentile believers which had been started by Paul. When Revelation was written Paul had been dead for some 40+ years. John the Apostle, was still living, and actively ministering to the Churches of Asia minor. He delivered the Revelation Christ gave to him to all the believers who lived in that region first.

He was not talking so much to Jews since they had already turned against the faith and had even helped the Romans persecute the Christians. You seem to think "Body of Christ" is a special doctrinal code word when Paul just used it as a synonym for the Church (ecclesia). Both words meant an or the assembly of believers.

Since the Churches of Asia minor were started by Paul what makes you think they were not part of the "Body of Christ?"

 

[Arsenios]

Have you read any writing of a Church Father who addresses the idea of more than one gospel, or one who hints at the possibility that there once was? I never have. The only group that believed only in the Pauline writings was the Second Century Marcionites who were considered to be heretics. Marcion himself was banned from fellowship with all the Churches and the considerable sum of money he had donated was returned to him.

I am unfamiliar with this history -

But in the 2000 year history of the Christianity that Christ established through His Apostles upon this earth, there has NEVER been ANY idea that there were TWO Gospels... There are not...

Regardless of whether people respect the leaders the Apostle trained or not, I have always thought the historical argument alone should be enough to convince us what was and what was not orthodox in Early Christianity. If there had been two (or more) gospels (which the scriptures never explicitly states or explains) you would EXPECT some remnants of it would still be around at the end of the First Century. Instead, seems to have mysteriously vanished...as if it never had been.

HAD there EVER been a TWO GOSPEL intrusion into the Faith of Christ, it would have been spat out summarily... No one would have dared, in the face of Paul's words in 2Cor 11:4 and other places...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

It was the last decade of the First Century. The seven Churches of Asia were Gentile believers which had been started by Paul. When Revelation was written Paul had been dead for some 40+ years. John the Apostle, was still living, and actively ministering to the Churches of Asia minor. He delivered the Revelation Christ gave to him to all the believers who lived in that region first.

He was not talking so much to Jews since they had already turned against the faith and had even helped the Romans persecute the Christians. You seem to think "Body of Christ" is a special doctrinal code word when Paul just used it as a synonym for the Church (ecclesia). Both words meant an or the assembly of believers.

Since the Churches of Asia minor were started by Paul what makes you think they were not part of the "Body of Christ?"

Great reply...

Or...

As Christ said to Paul...

It is hard to kick against the pricks...

:thumb:

A.

 

[Arsenios]

Since the Churches of Asia minor were started by Paul
what makes you think
they were not part of the "Body of Christ?"

The problem you will find here is that in order for their theory of a Pauline Gospel that is not Christ's Gospel to the Jews to hold water, its adherents must deny that Paul was successful in his ministry, and this they do pretty much openly, citing his writing saying that when he departed, the wolves would not spare the flock... Having a shepherd like Paul scatters the wolves, true enough, and his absence will give such wolves a daring they would not otherwise have had, but by no means does his absence mean that the whole Church fell into heresy upon the death of the last Apostle, and remained in that heresy until 2000 years later, when English speaking Americans were reading their English translated VERSION of the Greek New Testament, the truth would finally come forth and God would have at last succeeded in getting His True Gospel understood by MADalists...

So your arguments from history are ruled out, you see...

God failed, and Christ failed...

UNTIL...

The 20th Century MADalists came to God's rescue...

And finally got it right...

And may I add here, that even Christians are not THAT peculiar...??

A.