Priesthood - Old to New

[Pressing-On]

I was reading an interesting article in a pdf and wanted to share it here for comment. Coming from the Catholic Church, I can see his point.

I will post his points and then ask a question, specifically of what I highlighted in bold:

The early Church understood that the Levitical priesthood was dead. If there was any doubt, God resolved it with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD just as Jesus prophesied. However, as time moved on and the teachings of the early Church were corrupted the idea of a Levitical style priesthood was introduced into the Church during the time of Constantine. While patterned after the Roman ruling hierarchy, elements of Levitical procedure and heathen concepts were added to what was to become the Roman Catholic priest system. The people of God were divided into two groups—those who were priests and those who were not. This was a step backward to the Law and the Scriptures tell us that grace becomes ineffective to those under the Law (Galatians 5:4), which is why so much abuse of God's people has occurred under the Catholic priest system.

The Protestant Reformation sought to correct the wrongs of the Catholic system and restore Truth that had been lost to those walking under the Catholic legal system. The goal of the Reformation was not to eliminate the priests but to eliminate the laity because we are all priests to our God. The desired result was only partially achieved. The Protestant Reformation established our modern Pastoral model of leadership, which is actually a slightly modified priest hierarchy of Roman Catholic origin. Although different titles are used, in functional application our pastor system is styled like the Levitical system with the “pastors” doing the praying, the teaching, the care of the “house”, and the other priestly functions. With the Catholics the people of God are divided into priests or not priests; whereas, with the Protestants the people are divided into clergy or not clergy. We need to continue the Reformation by eliminating the Levitical style of priest and restoring the Melchizedek style of priest.

The Scriptures make it clear that there are no priest mediators anymore. There is one and only one mediator. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
(1 Timothy 2:5-6 NASB)

http://www.lifestreamteaching.com/Present%20Truth/Volume%207%202009/Sept%20Functioning%20Priests.pdf

I started out reading this file first, for anyone interested.

http://www.lifestreamteaching.com/Teaching%20pdf/Priestly%20Functions.pdf

I agree with his view that the pastor is styling himself after a priest in the Catholic Church, after the Levitical Priesthood. It might just be me, but it still feels, in many ways, like the Catholic Church.

However, I also find that the Bible does delegate specific functions for the church, i.e., apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, Ephesians 4:11-12.

I am for these offices as they are for the perfecting of the saints. The church would be weak without being perfected.

I guess I just wonder how a pastor could function and not style himself as the writer of the article describes as " doing the praying, the teaching, the care of the “house”, and the other priestly functions."

I have watched for over 30 years and these various congregations, seem to be largely paralyzed unless the leadership instructions them on how to respond. That doesn't mean there hasn't been free worship, gifts in operation. It is just that overall, it seems people allow him to do almost all of the thinking for them.

This isn't a bashing of any specific organization as I have seen that to be true in other's organizations - Baptist, etc.

I am sure the simple answer is in the knowledge of the leadership, but if I had to lead, I am not sure I would do anything different.

Just rambling after reading a comment that stuck a chord....

[Pressing-On]

Also, on that same note, I was thinking of forgiveness. If a pastor were to sin, but sincerely repented, the church doesn't forgive as quickly as God would.

I heard Jeff Arnold say that God would forgive in a moment, but we won't. I wish I could remember his exact words. It was very powerful.

Anyway, that is another element of the Catholic Church we have - paying penance in the Catholic Church. After you go into the Confessional and repent, you have to say a million prayers (it felt that way, lol) and your Rosary.

But, the thing is, you never really feel forgiven because of the price you have to pay for it. It isn't as simple as saying, "I am truly sorry." You have to receive your punishment.

I think we do that in the church. We linger on the judgment and mental punishment. We aren't that ready to forgive. Just my observation.

Musing again...

[Esaias]

I was reading an interesting article in a pdf and wanted to share it here for comment. Coming from the Catholic Church, I can see his point.

I will post his points and then ask a question, specifically of what I highlighted in bold:


I started out reading this file first, for anyone interested.



I agree with his view that the pastor is styling himself after a priest in the Catholic Church, after the Levitical Priesthood. It might just be me, but it still feels, in many ways, like the Catholic Church.

However, I also find that the Bible does delegate specific functions for the church, i.e., apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, Ephesians 4:11-12.

I am for these offices as they are for the perfecting of the saints. The church would be weak without being perfected.

I guess I just wonder how a pastor could function and not style himself as the writer of the article describes as " doing the praying, the teaching, the care of the “house”, and the other priestly functions."

I have watched for over 30 years and these various congregations, seem to be largely paralyzed unless the leadership instructions them on how to respond. That doesn't mean there hasn't been free worship, gifts in operation. It is just that overall, it seems people allow him to do almost all of the thinking for them.

This isn't a bashing of any specific organization as I have seen that to be true in other's organizations - Baptist, etc.

I am sure the simple answer is in the knowledge of the leadership, but if I had to lead, I am not sure I would do anything different.

Just rambling after reading a comment that stuck a chord....

All this is due to churches modeling themselves on the catholic model.

[Pressing-On]

All this is due to churches modeling themselves on the catholic model.

Right. I understand that. I see it. But, what is the answer? How do you have order, which is certainly the idea behind the 5-fold ministry and avoid that?

[Esaias]

Right. I understand that. I see it. But, what is the answer? How do you have order, which is certainly the idea behind the 5-fold ministry and avoid that?

Be the church instead of go to church, serve instead of command, everyone contributes what God has given them, and let God be in charge via His Word. And all the little wanna be Diotrepheses have to be corrected or removed.

[Pressing-On]

Be the church instead of go to church, serve instead of command, everyone contributes what God has given them, and let God be in charge via His Word. And all the little wanna be Diotrepheses have to be corrected or removed.

Agreed! :thumbsup

I was listening to Chester Wright, who said that pastors read and get their words from other people instead of from God. He said we are missing the Rhema of the Word. I agree with that as well and that could be the crux of the matter.

If I come to you with enticing words of men's wisdom, we have a huge problem. We are not then being guided by the Spirit.

It is Jesus that people want to see.

Wright talked about some young guy that used to jump on the pulpit. He instructed him that he needed to be careful with that because at some point, people will want the circus and they won't be listening to his words. He said that is exactly what happened to the guy. Sad.

I am remembering Bro. Billy Cole at BOTT. He simply said, "God is doing great things." No response. He then yelled it really loud - "GOD IS DOING GREAT THINGS!!!!" Everyone came unglued shouting and clapping.

He said, "Do you see what you did? You didn't respond to what I said, you responded to how I said it."

We keep doing that - looking for smoke and lights. It is a path and opens a door to becoming deceived, I'm afraid.

[Esaias]

Right. I understand that. I see it. But, what is the answer? How do you have order, which is certainly the idea behind the 5-fold ministry and avoid that?

Speaking of "order"...

EVERY church has a liturgy. A liturgy is, simply put, an "order of service", which is nothing else than "what we do and how we do it when we get together."

Some churches have extensive, complicated, highly formalised, detailed liturgy. Some churches have a stripped down bare bones extremely flexible liturgy. Most are in between. There is no church that has NO order of service, however.

The goal I would think would be to have a BIBLICAL order of service. Now, the Bible contains no strictly laid out order of service with everything spelled out. But that doesn't mean there is no order of service!

The church is designed to last across time, to transcend any one local region, language, culture, or time period. There must be allowance for variety of expressions of the faith across nations, tongues, tribes, lands, and times. Yet there must also be some basic structures, or "essentials" that are universal to all true churches, regardless of where or when they might exist.

And the Bible provides exactly that!

For example, churches are to teach one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. That is universally essential. But the language, melody, the individual particular songs, and how many, and when in the meeting they occur, are variable factors that will be different from assembly to assembly.

Corporate prayer likewise is a universal constant, but when in the meeting, the particular form of words used, volume, length of time spent, etc are going vary from church to church and even perhaps from meeting to meeting.

I believe the Bible provides some structure, and some hints as to the Divine Pattern of a new covenant "order of service", but much is variable and depends on the church, culture, and the occasion. Our goal, then, in my opinion, is to be as Biblical as possible in all we do. Recognizing of course that being Biblical includes the Biblical instruction to allow for some variation, and especially allowing for the leading of the Spirit, all within the boundaries set by the Word.

[Pressing-On]

Speaking of "order"...

EVERY church has a liturgy. A liturgy is, simply put, an "order of service", which is nothing else than "what we do and how we do it when we get together."

Some churches have extensive, complicated, highly formalised, detailed liturgy. Some churches have a stripped down bare bones extremely flexible liturgy. Most are in between. There is no church that has NO order of service, however.

The goal I would think would be to have a BIBLICAL order of service. Now, the Bible contains no strictly laid out order of service with everything spelled out. But that doesn't mean there is no order of service!

The church is designed to last across time, to transcend any one local region, language, culture, or time period. There must be allowance for variety of expressions of the faith across nations, tongues, tribes, lands, and times. Yet there must also be some basic structures, or "essentials" that are universal to all true churches, regardless of where or when they might exist.

And the Bible provides exactly that!

For example, churches are to teach one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. That is universally essential. But the language, melody, the individual particular songs, and how many, and when in the meeting they occur, are variable factors that will be different from assembly to assembly.

Corporate prayer likewise is a universal constant, but when in the meeting, the particular form of words used, volume, length of time spent, etc are going vary from church to church and even perhaps from meeting to meeting.

I believe the Bible provides some structure, and some hints as to the Divine Pattern of a new covenant "order of service", but much is variable and depends on the church, culture, and the occasion. Our goal, then, in my opinion, is to be as Biblical as possible in all we do. Recognizing of course that being Biblical includes the Biblical instruction to allow for some variation, and especially allowing for the leading of the Spirit, all within the boundaries set by the Word.
I like all of your points. :thumbsup

I have a few additional thoughts, which aren't fully organized. When I get a bit more time, I will add more.

Good discussion! Thanks! :thumbsup

[Tithesmeister]

I like all of your points. :thumbsup

I have a few additional thoughts, which aren't fully organized. When I get a bit more time, I will add more.

Good discussion! Thanks! :thumbsup

This is an excellent topic, and one that is very needful of discussion and vetting. The article has it right and Esaias has made some good points as well.

The Levitical priesthood is dead.

The pulpit, supposedly sacred, is making division in the church, as is the platform. The pulpit is only mentioned once in the Bible, and is certainly not referred to as sacred. It reminds me of the brazen serpent in the OT. Before it was over with the Israelites were worshiping the brazen serpent. Instead of the physical serpent of brass serving as a reminder of the wondrous works of God, wrought on behalf of His people, the Israelites skipped the memorial part and went straight into idolatry. Think about the pulpit being sacred in this context, How is it sacred? What makes it sacred? The same for the platform.

I think the truth is that proclaiming the pulpit to be sacred fosters a hope that the message that comes forth from the pulpit will be regarded as sacred. The only thing that makes the message sacred, is if it is the pure, unadulterated (therefore true) word of God. It makes no difference if there is a pulpit, or if it is delivered on a street corner, or at someone's dinner table or living room. The pure Gospel delivered in a foxhole or a bar, is much more sacred than false doctrine delivered from a fancy pulpit, with seven columns (God's perfect number) in a gorgeous edifice, worthy of royalty and the upper crust of society.

The Apostolic Church is susceptible to the same temptations as the Roman Catholic Church. We are making the very same mistakes that they made hundreds of years ago. They aren't mistakes because the Roman Catholic Church made them. They are mistakes because they are based on false doctrine. False doctrine doesn't care where it is taught.

We are not supposed to base our "priest system" on the Old Covenant. We are supposed to be "founded" on the "foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone". As long as we adhere to the "Old Covenant", instead of the superior "New Covenant", we will very likely get results that are NOT optimal.

Pressing On, you are musing.

I am musing back.

Good subject!

:thumbsup:yourock

[Amanah]

Pastor Raymond Woodward - I will build my church
A study on the book of acts.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL03294B6D6CAB683D

[Pressing-On]

Pastor Raymond Woodward - I will build my church
A study on the book of acts.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL03294B6D6CAB683D

Thanks, Amanah! Put that in my watch list! Raymond Woodard is a great teacher!

[Esaias]

I guess I just wonder how a pastor could function and not style himself as the writer of the article describes as " doing the praying, the teaching, the care of the “house”, and the other priestly functions."

A pastor is a teacher. Their function is to teach. We have to get away from "pastor = guy in front who leads everything and decides everything." A person may be a pastor/teacher but not necessarily an overseer or elder.

Apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor/teacher are functions. Bishop and deacon are offices. There is overlap, but also distinction.

[Pressing-On]

Pastor Raymond Woodward - I will build my church
A study on the book of acts.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL03294B6D6CAB683D

Wow, Amanah! This is a long series! Thanks again for posting! :thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

A pastor is a teacher. Their function is to teach. We have to get away from "pastor = guy in front who leads everything and decides everything." A person may be a pastor/teacher but not necessarily an overseer or elder.

Apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor/teacher are functions. Bishop and deacon are offices. There is overlap, but also distinction.

I agree with you!

Let's look at another aspect concerning the pastor, which many who have held leadership positions have experienced.

It is the saints that you feel you have to drag along and make things easier or you can't get cooperation.

I feel that also sets up the Pastor to be forced into being everything. I remember working on a project and my pastor, at the time, and I were talking about it. I said to him, "Well, you do have to make things easier so that people will become involved." His eyes got big and he said, "Yes, that is true." He seemed surprised that I realized that fact.

Another experience I had while talking to another pastor friend. He said that the people in the church force you to be what they want and need, putting you in a box you don't really want to be in. I thought that was true and interesting.

More musing...

[Amanah]

Wow, Amanah! This is a long series! Thanks again for posting! :thumbsup

it is really good though, he stresses prayer, unity, and church members being evangelists this series, along with his series on prayer "If" have a lot of impact


https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVRofhQWk4oXtNnopp_JyOW4oQfEIpaza

[Pressing-On]

it is really good though, he stresses prayer, unity, and church members being evangelists this series, along with his series on prayer "If" have a lot of impact


https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVRofhQWk4oXtNnopp_JyOW4oQfEIpaza

They are good. I've listened to a couple. I usually have to listen more than once as my mind is always wandering. I have too many irons in the fire.

[votivesoul]

The simplest answer is for the church to live as a family, with pastors seen more like older brothers who show their younger siblings the ropes, likewise the elder women with the younger sisters. My older kids love to show their younger siblings how to do stuff. My oldest, our only daughter, even sometimes creates a curriculum for her brothers and teaches them (because that's what my wife does and my daughter follows her lead) and she's only 8!

Make church gatherings be more like family get-togethers, and those who have been invited by the Lord to shepherd and are given the grace to do so, can and will do so naturally, without it having to seem like an "office" where one person wears all the hats.

I've done more shepherding from a living room couch or a table at Subway or Starbucks, or even just on the job than I ever have in a so-called traditional church service from behind a lectern in front of an audience.

Literal shepherds of sheep spend more time giving individualized care than they do collective care all at once. How about we try that out and follow in the footsteps of our namesakes?

[Apostolic1ness]

Im not so sure the first century church saw the Apostles and Pastors as just older brothers in the family.

[Esther]

This is an excellent topic, and one that is very needful of discussion and vetting. The article has it right and Esaias has made some good points as well.

The Levitical priesthood is dead.

The pulpit, supposedly sacred, is making division in the church, as is the platform. The pulpit is only mentioned once in the Bible, and is certainly not referred to as sacred. It reminds me of the brazen serpent in the OT. Before it was over with the Israelites were worshiping the brazen serpent. Instead of the physical serpent of brass serving as a reminder of the wondrous works of God, wrought on behalf of His people, the Israelites skipped the memorial part and went straight into idolatry. Think about the pulpit being sacred in this context, How is it sacred? What makes it sacred? The same for the platform.

I think the truth is that proclaiming the pulpit to be sacred fosters a hope that the message that comes forth from the pulpit will be regarded as sacred. The only thing that makes the message sacred, is if it is the pure, unadulterated (therefore true) word of God. It makes no difference if there is a pulpit, or if it is delivered on a street corner, or at someone's dinner table or living room. The pure Gospel delivered in a foxhole or a bar, is much more sacred than false doctrine delivered from a fancy pulpit, with seven columns (God's perfect number) in a gorgeous edifice, worthy of royalty and the upper crust of society.

The Apostolic Church is susceptible to the same temptations as the Roman Catholic Church. We are making the very same mistakes that they made hundreds of years ago. They aren't mistakes because the Roman Catholic Church made them. They are mistakes because they are based on false doctrine. False doctrine doesn't care where it is taught.

We are not supposed to base our "priest system" on the Old Covenant. We are supposed to be "founded" on the "foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone". As long as we adhere to the "Old Covenant", instead of the superior "New Covenant", we will very likely get results that are NOT optimal.

Pressing On, you are musing.

I am musing back.

Good subject!

:thumbsup:yourock

Not sure that I agree with you on this. How do you see the pulpit as dividing?

God has always set some things apart and they were dedicated for sacred use.

I see the pulpit as being set apart and should be respected that when you stand behind it you should be careful that you are saying what God is telling you to say.

I am reminded how God split the pulpit in Houston after they started preaching a different message.

I personally believe the pulpit still matters in how it is treated.

[Esaias]

Im not so sure the first century church saw the Apostles and Pastors as just older brothers in the family.

Well, in the first century, older brothers (including cousins and uncles) held a far more highly respected position in a family than they do nowadays. The modern (intentional, planned) degradation of the family has warped our concepts regarding family structure and authority, unfortunately.

[votivesoul]

Im not so sure the first century church saw the Apostles and Pastors as just older brothers in the family.

The first century church absolutely saw itself as a family (e.g. Ephesians 3:15).

Among other things, it also saw Jesus as a brother (Mark 3:34, Romans 8:29, and Hebrews 2:11-12, and 17).

The church also called its many fellow believers as brothers (many numerous examples).

And it understood an "elder" less of a title and more as a description. The Greek word prebyteros comes from presbus meaning "an old man". In fact the word "older" and the word "elder", much like the term "alderman" come from the same word eald.

Simon Peter called himself a "fellow-elder" (1 Peter 5:1). A few verses down he makes a comparison between the older and younger saints. There and elsewhere "younger" is not seen as a title, and neither is "elder" (verse 5).

https://biblehub.com/greek/4245.htm

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=pre/sbus

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4245&t=KJV

When the apostles and elders wrote to the churches in Acts 15, they called they called themselves "brothers" (Acts 15:23), grammatically (nominative masculine plural) agreeing with apostles and elders:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/15-23.htm

[votivesoul]

Well, in the first century, older brothers (including cousins and uncles) held a far more highly respected position in a family than they do nowadays. The modern (intentional, planned) degradation of the family has warped our concepts regarding family structure and authority, unfortunately.

:thumbsup

[votivesoul]

The first century church absolutely saw itself as a family (e.g. Ephesians 3:15).

Among other things, it also saw Jesus as a brother (Mark 3:34, Romans 8:29, and Hebrews 2:11-12, and 17).

The church also called its many fellow believers as brothers (many numerous examples).

And it understood an "elder" less of a title and more as a description. The Greek word prebyteros comes from presbus meaning "an old man". In fact the word "older" and the word "elder", much like the term "alderman" come from the same word eald.

Simon Peter called himself a "fellow-elder" (1 Peter 5:1). A few verses down he makes a comparison between the older and younger saints. There and elsewhere "younger" is not seen as a title, and neither is "elder" (verse 5).

https://biblehub.com/greek/4245.htm

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=pre/sbus

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4245&t=KJV

When the apostles and elders wrote to the churches in Acts 15, they called they called themselves "brothers" (Acts 15:23), grammatically (nominative masculine plural) agreeing with apostles and elders:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/15-23.htm

A good case is Esau and Jacob where it reads that the "elder" shall serve the "younger". These weren't titles just descriptions based on relative age, i.e. who was born first and who was born second.

[votivesoul]

Well, in the first century, older brothers (including cousins and uncles) held a far more highly respected position in a family than they do nowadays. The modern (intentional, planned) degradation of the family has warped our concepts regarding family structure and authority, unfortunately.

I teach my children to rise up before the hoary head and honor their elders. If one of them sits down in a chair and I see, for example, my parents or older brothers do not have a place to sit I have my child vacate immediately.

[Esaias]

I teach my children to rise up before the hoary head and honor their elders. If one of them sits down in a chair and I see, for example, my parents or older brothers do not have a place to sit I have my child vacate immediately.

:thumbsup

Older siblings also need instruction in their role in the family as well.

[votivesoul]

:thumbsup

Older siblings also need instruction in their role in the family as well.

True dat!