YZKCU@cunyvm.bitnet (Yaakov Kayman) (12/14/90)
This is my second of what I guess will be three posts on the subject of priesthood. The first has not yet gotten through your moderator, and the third must wait until my older daughter returns my copy of Psalms. Judaism holds Malki-Tzedek to be Shem, the son of Noah. He was, in fact, considered a priest, but as indicated by the "and *he* is/was a priest...." of the verse in Genesis, only he was and not all his sons. The priesthood, in the Judaic view, then passed to Abraham and eventually devolved upon Aaron and his sons exclu- sively. This is borne out in the Torah, which later on says (about sacrifices to be offered and other priestly duties to be performed in the Temple) "and the stranger who appoaches shall be put to death." This verse specifically includes Jewish leaders such as King David, as is explicitly stated in the Oral Torah. Yaakov K. -------- Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock Internet: YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain"
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (12/17/90)
In article <Dec.14.04.14.56.1990.28115@athos.rutgers.edu> YZKCU@cunyvm.bitnet (Yaakov Kayman) writes: >Judaism holds Malki-Tzedek to be Shem, the son of Noah. He was, >in fact, considered a priest, but as indicated by the "and *he* >is/was a priest...." of the verse in Genesis, only he was and >not all his sons. The priesthood, in the Judaic view, then passed >to Abraham and eventually devolved upon Aaron and his sons exclu- >sively. This is borne out in the Torah, which later on says (about >sacrifices to be offered and other priestly duties to be performed >in the Temple) "and the stranger who appoaches shall be put to death." >This verse specifically includes Jewish leaders such as King David, as >is explicitly stated in the Oral Torah. I take this to be a partial response to Frank Farkas' question about Psalm 110:4. I hope Yaakov will respond some more when he gets his copy of the Psalms back. While we are waiting, I thought it might be interesting to look at the English translation of Ps 110:1-4 in the NIV: "The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet' The LORD will extend you mighty scepted from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth. The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek' " To me, this speaks of the Messiah as both priest and king. He is described as holy, a ruler, eternal, and a priest. I don't see here any kind of priestly order such as that practiced among the Mormons. Yaakov had also asked about Ex. 19:6. Admittedly he did not ask me, but Frank. But this is my answer. Ex 19:5,6: "Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, than out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." This speaks of Israel's special status before the Lord, in their covenant relationship with him. If they had oveyed him fully and kept his covenant, they would have been a nation of priests for the whole world, i.e., witnesses to the Gentiles of God's grace. Unfortunately, Israel did not obey God fully and did not keep his covenant, and so their priesthood is terminated, at least as (most, I think) Christians see it. Christians see the fullfillment of these words in 1 Peter 2:5-9: "you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says: 'See, I lay a stone in Zion a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame' [here Peter quotes Isaiah 28:16, which in my Bible reads: See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed ] "Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,' [Here Peter quotes Psalm 118:22, which reads the same in my OT] "and, 'A stone that men will stumble over and a rock that makes them fall' [Isaiah 8:14, which is preceded by the words 'But for both houses of Israel he will be] "They stumble because they disobey the message -- which is also what they were destined for. "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." I haven't intended this as harsh, but simply as an honest answer to Yaakov's question. The priesthood is the universal priesthood of believers. They can directly approach God and ask for mercy and forgiveness, with no need of intercession. I am sincerely interested in Yaakov's view on these questions. BTW, I revised the NIV translation, 'A stone that causes men to stumble' in accordance with the translation that Lutherans think is correct. No man's stumbling is desired by God. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "Hail to the Lord's Anointed, Great David's greater Son! Hail in the time appointed, His reign on earth begun! He comes to break oppression, To set the captive free, To take away transgression, And rule in equity." --"Hail to the Lord's Anointed", v.1 --James Montgomery, 1821. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (12/19/90)
In article <Dec.16.21.03.04.1990.23140@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: Text deleted. >I take this to be a partial response to Frank Farkas' question about >Psalm 110:4. I hope Yaakov will respond some more when he gets his >copy of the Psalms back. > My question to Yaakov was strictly made out of the desire to want to know how our Jewish brothers interpret some of the passages in the Bible. I do respect their understanding of the scriptures. They do know the method which was used to write the scriptures. Also, they understand their own history better then we do. >While we are waiting, I thought it might be interesting to look at the >English translation of Ps 110:1-4 in the NIV: Text deleted. >To me, this speaks of the Messiah as both priest and king. He is described >as holy, a ruler, eternal, and a priest. I don't see here any kind of >priestly order such as that practiced among the Mormons. We hold the same priesthood which was held by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. Apostle John said the following: Rev 1:6 ======= "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." Tell me, in what way were "they" kings and priests? >David H. Wagner With brotherly love, Frank
YZKCU@cunyvm.bitnet (Yaakov Kayman) (01/07/91)
This is the third of the three articles I said I would post on this subject. Regarding Psalms 110:4, among the entire chapter, I have looked at the chapter, and find two alternative interpretations. In one, the chapter speaks of Abraham, who is referred to many times (by 'Efron the Hittite, to cite one example) as "adoni" (my master), and the priesthood spoken of in verse 4 refers to both priesthood and kingship to be granted to his descendents, the priesthood to Aaron and the kingship to Judah (from whom David came, and from whom the Messiah will come). The reference to Malki- Tzedek is just that: a reference to the event of Abraham's giving tithes to Malki-Tzedek. The kings referred to in verse 5 are Kedarla'omer and his three fellow-kings against whom Abraham waged war to save his nephew, Lot, and the gathered corpses referred to in verse 6 are those of the Egyptians after their drowning in the Red Sea at the time of the Exodus. In the other interpretation, the chapter refers to King David himself, and the priesthood spoken of in verse 4 refers exclusively to kingship, which is described as at a higher level than ordinary (Levitical) priest- hood. The reference to Malki-Tzedek in this case is a comparison. The kings referred to are those of 'Amon, the Philistines, and of the seven Cana'anite nations fought and conquered by King David, and the gathered corpses are Sancheriv (the Assyrian king)'s cohorts who were killed by a plague when they attacked Jerusalem. To all those "interested" in seeing me "explain" my way out of various predicaments they believe they may have put me in, I assure you that the Jewish Torah (there is no other Torah) makes no mention or hint of the one you hold to be your messiah and/or deity. While I'm sure you, among others, would love to see my people robbed of its rightful legacy, with that same legacy devolving upon yourself /selves, you will have to find a way to do so without the support of the Jewish Torah. I submit you will fail miserably in this attempt. Though the assumption of conditionality in the promise of the Jews' becoming a kingdom of priests is correct, G-d's Covenant with us, on which the promise is conditioned, is that of our observance of our Jewish Torah, having nothing at all to do with you. We were once, and will again be that kingdom of priests and holy nation mentioned in Ex. 19:6. Furthermore, not only will we do it without your help, but we'll do it in spite of your opposition. The point, however, if you recall, was that there is no lasting biblical context of priesthood outside of the family of Aaron. This has not been contradicted. Ponder, if you will, the UNCONDITIONAL language employed in Numbers 25:10-13, which says: "And G-d spoke to Moses saying,"Pinchas, the son of E-l'azar, the son of Aharon the Kohen(priest) turned away My Anger from the Children of Israel in his taking up My Jealousy (the jealousy of My Name) in their midst, and I did not destroy the Children of Israel in My Jealousy. Therefore say, "Behold, I give him My Covenant of peace. And there shall be to him and his seed after him an EVERLASTING covenant of priesthood.""" In no place is this made conditional upon behavior - not his, not that of his descendants and certainly not that of the Nation of Israel. While I fully understand that Christians believe otherwise (for what are to me quite obvious reasons in this case), as is their right as members of an utterly different and completely separate faith from my own, which is Judaism, the Jewish Torah does not deal with J____, even though it most certainly does deal with the Messiah. Though I respect your right to believe in whatever you wish, the Jewish faith does not believe as you do. At this point, I will take my leave of your newsgroup, limiting my sometime participation in it to those times that both involve Jewish interest and where such involvement is, in my opinion, needed to further that interest. Jewish Law, citing Deut. 33:4 and Psalms 147:19,20, for- bids a Jew from teaching Torah to a non-Jew, though a rabbi whose rab- binic opinion I sought as a result of an understanding Christian's Bible questions, told me that in the specfic case where a non-Jew wished in good faith to better understand Judaism, I could answer such questions. As the "questions" I have seen in this group are of any nature but that, I will teach you no more Torah. To those wanting to know an inoffensive term to use in place of the of- fensive "O.T.," which implies the existence of something newer and bet- ter, a claim categorically rejected by all practicing Jews, "Torah," or "Tanakh", the Jewish names for the Jewish legacy, are best. To the still hoped-for mutual respect for the very real, very basic, and very many differences between Judaism and Christianity, Yaakov K. -------- Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock Internet: YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain"
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (01/07/91)
David, before we would proceed with any exchanges regarding the priesthood, we need to agree on some definations. Like, what is the priesthood? Let me give you my understanding of it. The priesthood is simply the power to act in behalf of God. Let me give you an example of this. When I go to another company to negotiate, I do so because I am an agent of the company I work for. I have the power to negotiate, and to sign contracts to the extent I am authorized to do so. It is the same way with the priesthood. There are two things which are required: 1. That I am authorized by one who has the power to give it. 2. That I remain worthy to practise it (the actual power comes from righteousness). You said that the following: >I don't disagree that our priesthood is the same as that of the apostles. >I do disagree when you say that our priesthood is the same as that of >Christ. Christ, in his priesthood, made the one sacrifice necessary to >redeem us from sin. Not only is it not necessary for us to make a sacrifice >for sin, but it would be impossible for us to do that. >I think we are priests in the sense that we can directly approach God's >throne of grace and ask for mercy. The only intercession we need is >Christ's. But he is not only our high priest, he is also our brother, and >His Father is our adopted Father, whom we can call 'abba', idiomatically, >Papa, or Daddy. First of all, I do agree that we don't need to atone for our own sins. However, this doesn't mean that we can't hold the same priesthood as Jesus held. He had clearly a special role to play. However, not all of the offices in the priesthood has the same responsibility. For example, Philip had the authority to baptize, but had no authority for the laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:12-17). There are many offices in the priesthood. Some of the priesthood offices you can find listed in Ephesians 4:11. Let me ask the question, if I am a priesthood holder, whose priesthood do I hold if it is not God's? Is there another power under which I can operate, and yet it is not God's? If it is not God's, whoes is it then? With brotherly love, Frank
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (01/15/91)
Re: David Wagner In article <Jan.9.23.34.21.1991.21183@athos.rutgers.edu>, math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes, in response to Frank Farkas: >> David, before we would proceed with any exchanges regarding the priesthood, >> we need to agree on some definations. Like, what is the priesthood? >I would say that a priest is one who acts as a go between between God and >his people. I don't think we are that far apart on the question of 'What >is a priest?' Just as a random interjection, my personal view of a priest is a man (and hopefully women, someday) who is literally married to God. In my [indirect] experience, marriage is the bonding of two souls in a unique, sacred, and permanent manner (providing that the marriage is a good and valid one). That's what I see happening when someone decides to become a priest and "marry" God. ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (01/15/91)
In article <Jan.9.23.34.21.1991.21183@athos.rutgers.edu>, math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: >In article <Jan.6.22.57.49.1991.22801@athos.rutgers.edu>, farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >The first, and central question is whether you are a Christian. I am inclined >to think you are not. Ultimately this is something for God to judge. David, why would you say that it is "ultimately this is something for God to judge", while you judge me so severly? Your judgement made your statement regarding God judging of no effect, at least not in this life. >However in our discussions I have not found the doctrinal agreement that >I believe is a prerequisite for fellowship between us. I am sorry that you feel that way. Can you tell me what you find so objectionable regarding what I have communicated to you? >However, if you are indeed a Christian,... I would like to tell you that I do believe that I am a Christian who holds that Jesus is the Christ. That there is no salvation except for the great atoning sacrifice of Christ. Jesus is my savior and my Lord. If you define a Christian as one who believes in the various doctrines as you do (i.e. the predestination), then I clearly don't meet your defination. On the other hand most others of the various Christian denominations don't either. >Really, the differences between us have to do with more important issues. I sure would like to find out what is it which troubles you about my faith, and comes in the way of meaningful communication. Since the Moderator doesn't believe that any leghty discussion of the LDS believes are timely, I did offer that we could exchange some private communications. >David H. Wagner >a confessional Lutheran. With brotherly love, Frank