Jesus is our Priest

[Larry Cotrell]

Hebrews 7:23-28

 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

[mordorbund]

What do you make of priests outside the Levitical order, such as Jethro and Melchizedek?

And how do you make sense of Melchizedek's eternal orphan status?

[Jane_Doe]

Larry,

If you're trying to understand the LDS priesthood, I'm going to address a few common misconceptions I've encounter from Evangelicals on this topic--

1) Misconception: LDS somehow believe that we should still sacrifice up animals as a restitution for sin.     Truth: the sacrifice of animals ended at the meridian of time, with Christ's great sacrifice.  No more sacrifices of animals are needed.  Rather it is a contrite heart and a broken spirit that we offer up to God.  

2) Misconception: the presence of LDS priests put them between God and man.  Truth: Christ is the great mediator, not a man.  That being said, Christ does send His servants to do His will in His stead.  But servants are always servants and not the Master.  In fact, priests today are priests after His order to do His work.  

I'm sure that there's more common misconceptions, but I'm drawing a blank right now...

[mordorbund]

5 hours ago, mordorbund said:

What do you make of priests outside the Levitical order, such as Jethro and Melchizedek?

And how do you make sense of Melchizedek's eternal orphan status?

@Larry Cotrell To clarify, and you can call out any false assumptions I'm making along the way, the passage you cite shows that there are two orders of priesthood - a priestly one (held by Levites, and which serves as a type for the other) and a heavenly one (held by Jesus). The exegesis that shows there is a priesthood greater than that held by the Levites is that Abraham acknowledged the greater authority of Melchizedek by paying tithes to him. So if Abraham is less than Melchizedek and Moses/Aaron are less than Abraham (or the seed of Abraham), then Levite priests are less than Melchizedek priests, and the two examples of those (as stated by Paul) is Melchizedek (because, duh) and Christ (whom the psalmist declared "thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek".

So I'm curious about your thoughts [really any non-LDS thoughts] on these heavenly priests? Melchizedek is described very strangely, as being without father, mother, beginning, or end of days. What does that mean?

And is Melchizedek a special case, or are there others like him, such as Jethro?

[Larry Cotrell]

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

So I'm curious about your thoughts [really any non-LDS thoughts] on these heavenly priests? Melchizedek is described very strangely, as being without father, mother, beginning, or end of days. What does that mean?

And is Melchizedek a special case, or are there others like him, such as Jethro?

Melchizedek and Abraham first met after Abraham’s defeat of Chedorlaomer and his three allies. Melchizedek presented bread and wine to Abraham and his weary men, demonstrating friendship. He bestowed a blessing on Abraham in the name of El Elyon (“God Most High”) and praised God for giving Abraham a victory in battle (Genesis 14:18–20).

Abraham presented Melchizedek with a tithe (a tenth) of all the items he had gathered. By this act Abraham indicated that he recognized Melchizedek as a priest who ranked higher spiritually than he.

One common view is that the appearance of Melchizedek was a Christophany.

Although there is no way to be 100% sure of this, the pieces fit.

[Jane_Doe]

50 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

One common view is that the appearance of Melchizedek was a Christophany.

Although there is no way to be 100% sure of this, the pieces fit.

There's also zero indication of this in the Bible.

LDS believe that Melchizedek was a priest after the higher priesthood, that of the Son of God.

[Larry Cotrell]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

There's also zero indication of this in the Bible.

Hebrews 7:3

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

This could not apply to a human being.

@Jane_Doe, aside from Melchizedek, do you believe that there were Christophanies in the Old Testament?

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Hebrews 7:3

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

This could not apply to a human being.

If one is to take Hebrew 7:3 literally Christ Himself does not count, as He had a Father and mother.  Clearly it is not meant to be taken literally, but meaning one's devotion to God.  

2 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

 

@Jane_Doe, aside from Melchizedek, do you believe that there were Christophanies in the Old Testament?

Christ is Christ.  The end.

[zil]

9 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

made like unto

...is not the same as "made into", "in other words", "meaning", "the same as", "morphed", "possessed", etc.  If A is "like unto" B, A is separate from B, but "like" (similar to) B; A is NOT, "another name for" B.

Meanwhile, I love the Joseph Smith Translation, which helps us understand plain and simple truths.  It is the Mechizedek Priesthood itself that has no father or mother (meaning it is not inherited by virtue of birth), without descent (meaning the same - it is not passed on to one's child by virtue of birth), having neither beginning of days nor end of life (meaning it is eternal, existed before this life and continuing after it).  And it is those who receive this priesthood (and honor it, obviously) who are made like unto the Son of God in that they remain priests "continually" (which I take to mean the same as "eternally").  Aaah, true doctrine restored, logic and reason now fit with faith - I love the Gospel.

Sorry @mordorbund if this interferes with your intended thread direction / pace...

[Larry Cotrell]

What do you all think of this verse?

Genesis 18:1-3

And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

The story continues

Who do you think the three men were?

Edited September 20, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[Larry Cotrell]

8 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

If one is to take Hebrew 7:3 literally Christ Himself does not count, as He had a Father and mother. 

Jesus was born of the virgin Mary so He didn't have biological parents.

[zil]

7 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Jesus was born of the virgin Mary so He didn't have biological parents.

Then what was he doing for 9 months in Mary's womb?  I'm pretty sure he was having a mother.

[zil]

27 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

What do you all think of this verse?

Genesis 18:1-3

And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

The story continues

Who do you think the three men were?

JST to the rescue, yet again.

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, zil said:

Sorry @mordorbund if this interferes with your intended thread direction / pace...

As this is the Christian Beliefs forum, my intended thread direction is not to teach Larry what LDS believe, but to learn more about what @Larry Cotrell and other Evangelicals believe.

[A general note] Let's be as generous and considerate of Larry with his beliefs as we would like him to be with ours.

Edited September 20, 2016 by mordorbund

[Larry Cotrell]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Then what was he doing for 9 months in Mary's womb?  I'm pretty sure he was having a mother.

Luke 1:35 KJV

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Mary was more of a surrogate mother (for lack of a better word). What I mean is that Mary didn't pass her genes to Jesus. Jesus was from the Holy Spirit born through Mary. In this way, Mary was not the literal mother of Jesus. Although, some of my Catholic friends might not agree.
 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[Larry Cotrell]

16 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

As this is the Christian Beliefs forum, my intended thread direction is not to teach Larry what LDS believe, but to learn more about what @Larry Cotrell and other Evangelicals believe.

[A general note] Let's be as generous and considerate of Larry with his beliefs as we would like him to be with ours.

Thank you, I love discussion though. It is welcome on my post.

[mordorbund]

15 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Melchizedek and Abraham first met after Abraham’s defeat of Chedorlaomer and his three allies. Melchizedek presented bread and wine to Abraham and his weary men, demonstrating friendship. He bestowed a blessing on Abraham in the name of El Elyon (“God Most High”) and praised God for giving Abraham a victory in battle (Genesis 14:18–20).

Abraham presented Melchizedek with a tithe (a tenth) of all the items he had gathered. By this act Abraham indicated that he recognized Melchizedek as a priest who ranked higher spiritually than he.

One common view is that the appearance of Melchizedek was a Christophany.

Although there is no way to be 100% sure of this, the pieces fit.

In general, aren't Christophanies more angelic in nature? Like in the other Abraham instance you mentioned and other instances with "the angel of the Lord's presence". Are there other Christophanies where He is given a name? (or do you view Melchizedek as more of a title than a name?)

And what then of Jethro, the priest of Midian? Is this also a Christophany (siring 7 daughters(!))? Or is he operating under Levitical priesthood - outside of Levi? Or does he hold earthly priesthood but of a different order? Is this priesthood legitimate?

Also, would Paul's exegesis work in the modern church? Would there ever be a case where someone of greater authority pays tithes to someone of lesser?

[Jane_Doe]

57 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

As this is the Christian Beliefs forum, my intended thread direction is not to teach Larry what LDS believe, but to learn more about what @Larry Cotrell and other Evangelicals believe.

[A general note] Let's be as generous and considerate of Larry with his beliefs as we would like him to be with ours.

Agreed!

[Larry Cotrell]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

And what then of Jethro, the priest of Midian? Is this also a Christophany (siring 7 daughters(!))? Or is he operating under Levitical priesthood - outside of Levi? Or does he hold earthly priesthood but of a different order? Is this priesthood legitimate?

I don't believe nor do I know of people who believe that Jethro was a Christophany. Here's a great article about him: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jethro-in-the-Bible.html. Anyway, I do believe that he was a priest of God (note that he was a Midianite, not a Jew by heritage). 

In any case, (again this is the common Evangelical view) there is no longer need for priests, just like we don't need animal sacrifices, because Jesus was our sacrifice and is our priest. 

Hebrew 4:14-16

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[Blueskye2]

On 9/19/2016 at 11:42 PM, Jane_Doe said:

If one is to take Hebrew 7:3 literally Christ Himself does not count, as He had a Father and mother.  Clearly it is not meant to be taken literally, but meaning one's devotion to God.  

Christ is Christ.  The end.

The Leviticus priesthood was inherited, son from father. Jesus was clearly from the tribe of Judah and so did not inherit the Levitical priesthood. Hebrews 7 justifies Jesus Christ, as High Priest forever, using Melchizadek as a type of Christ. One who had no lineage for the priesthood, yet was a high priest forever. Genesis not indicating whether the figure Melchizedek died, there was some thought among the rabbis that Melchizedek did not die, making him a priest forever. Those of the lineage of Levi, died, necessitating that a son inherit the priesthood of his father. 

Jesus lives, and as the figure Melchizedek, was not born of father or mother, meaning having no lineage, for the Levitical priesthood. He lives, and as such there is no necessity of another (son or otherwise) to inherit the priesthood of Jesus Christ. He is is the true High Priest, who offered himself as a sacrifice, once, and for all. Making the Levitcal priesthood unnecessary. 

Edited October 15, 2016 by Blueskye2

[anatess2]

On 9/20/2016 at 11:17 AM, Larry Cotrell said:

Luke 1:35 KJV

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Mary was more of a surrogate mother (for lack of a better word). What I mean is that Mary didn't pass her genes to Jesus. Jesus was from the Holy Spirit born through Mary. In this way, Mary was not the literal mother of Jesus. Although, some of my Catholic friends might not agree.
 

You're right.  Catholics don't agree.  It is a foundation of Catholic faith that it is through Mary that Jesus became fully Man as He is fully God.

As far as Melchizedek, Catholic faith teaches these verses in Genesis and the Messianic Psalms as an imagery that Paul used to prefigure Christ and not a Christophany.

[Larry Cotrell]

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You're right.  Catholics don't agree.  It is a foundation of Catholic faith that it is through Mary that Jesus became fully Man as He is fully God.

I do believe He was both fully man and fully God.

Hebrews 2:9

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 1 also talks about how the Word (Jesus) became flesh.

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I do believe He was both fully man and fully God.

Hebrews 2:9

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 1 also talks about how the Word (Jesus) became flesh.

Yes.  But Catholic believes it is through Mary that God made this happen.  That's why they believe that Mary was purified through an immaculate conception so she can qualify to bear Jesus as the fruit of her womb.

Edited October 15, 2016 by anatess2

[Jane_Doe]

14 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

The Leviticus priesthood was inherited, son from father. Jesus was clearly from the tribe of Judah and so did not inherit the Levitical priesthood. Hebrews 7 justifies Jesus Christ, as High Priest forever, using Melchizadek as a type of Christ. One who had no lineage for the priesthood, yet was a high priest forever. Genesis not indicating whether the figure Melchizedek died, there was some thought among the rabbis that Melchizedek did not die, making him a priest forever. Those of the lineage of Levi, died, necessitating that a son inherit the priesthood of his father. 

Jesus lives, and as the figure Melchizedek, was not born of father or mother, meaning having no lineage, for the Levitical priesthood. He lives, and as such there is no necessity of another (son or otherwise) to inherit the priesthood of Jesus Christ. He is is the true High Priest, who offered himself as a sacrifice, once, and for all. Making the Levitcal priesthood unnecessary. 

I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint.  My thoughts here are a little disjointed--

* We are in agreement that neither Christ nor Melchizedek were of the Levitical line and did not inherit their priesthood that way.  With Melchizedek, the Levitical priesthood wasn't even around and wouldn't be for generations. 

* LDS interrupt a person's priesthood not ending on that person's mortal death-- after all that's not the end of a person's life!  Rather a priest is always a priest- aka a servant of God.  

* Christ did have a mother (Mary) and a Father.  I know this is stating the obvious, but just wanted to make sure that no one is trying to interrupt the verse literally.

* The presence of LDS priests nowadays is not to fulfill the sacrificial rites of the OT, nor does their presence somehow render Christ as being anything as less than The High Priest.  Human priest nowadays are servants of the Son of God, not the Master (that's Christ).

 

[Blackmarch]

On September 18, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Larry Cotrell said:

Hebrews 7:23-28

 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Indeed for he is priest of priests, prophet of prophets, and king of Kings. It is his will that shall continue.