Matthew 23:8, . . . and all ye are brethren.

[37818]

1 Peter 2:9, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: . . .

1 Peter 2:5, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 2:5, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; . . .

 

[37818]

Scofield Note:
Revelation 2:6
'Nicolaitanes


From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelation 2:15.'


Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15

 

[JD731]

1 Peter 2:9, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: . . .

1 Peter 2:5, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 2:5, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; . . .

I find it interesting, 37818, very interesting, how Peter addresses these people that he has written his letter to as 1) a chosen generation, and 2) a royal priesthood, and 3) an holy nation, and finally 4) a peculiar people. This is worthy of much curiously and study and meditation and wonder. Being a literalist when it comes to the scriptures I admit I may be more curious than some who do not take it as literal as I do.

These letters landed in someone's lap so Peter had some specific people in mind to whom he wrote, no? He called them whom he addressed , strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Moreover, he singled out those who had received the Spirt in those areas, i.e. had been born again and referred to as the "elect." This designation reminds me of Romans 11: 5 where Paul speaking to those of Israel who were saved and designated them with this title when he said, "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

Another interesting point is that Peter did not write to churches but to a people scattered over a wide area as if they had something in common besides the faith of Jesus Christ while Paul wrote to an area, Galatians, church congregations, Ephesians and Colossians, and individuals, Timothy & Philemon. both of Ephesus.

Paul did not refer to these people as a nation, nor did he say anything about a priesthood in his letters. As a matter of fact in all of Paul's letters he did nor ever use the word "priest" in any of it's variations and he was the special called apostle designated to explain the church. The word does not appear in the scriptures between Acts 26:12 and He 2:17. I figure there is something to learn here.

There are many questions to solve and when I get one figured out I am faced with another and I go to work on it. For instance, why did God choose to have John, the revelator, to send his Revelation of Jesus Christ to seven churches in the province of Asia which is in the land mass of Asia Minor, one of the places where the scattered strangers of Peter's interests were.

So many interesting things and I do believe all born again men are brothers because they are sons of God through this new birth but there are different administrations in the kingdom of God.

I hope I am in context of your thread. It was a little vague to me.

 

[37818]

I find it interesting, 37818, very interesting, how Peter addresses these people that he has written his letter to as 1) a chosen generation, and 2) a royal priesthood, and 3) an holy nation, and finally 4) a peculiar people. This is worthy of much curiously and study and meditation and wonder. Being a literalist when it comes to the scriptures I admit I may be more curious than some who do not take it as literal as I do.

These letters landed in someone's lap so Peter had some specific people in mind to whom he wrote, no? He called them whom he addressed , strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Moreover, he singled out those who had received the Spirt in those areas, i.e. had been born again and referred to as the "elect." This designation reminds me of Romans 11: 5 where Paul speaking to those of Israel who were saved and designated them with this title when he said, "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

Another interesting point is that Peter did not write to churches but to a people scattered over a wide area as if they had something in common besides the faith of Jesus Christ while Paul wrote to an area, Galatians, church congregations, Ephesians and Colossians, and individuals, Timothy & Philemon. both of Ephesus.

Paul did not refer to these people as a nation, nor did he say anything about a priesthood in his letters. As a matter of fact in all of Paul's letters he did nor ever use the word "priest" in any of it's variations and he was the special called apostle designated to explain the church. The word does not appear in the scriptures between Acts 26:12 and He 2:17. I figure there is something to learn here.

There are many questions to solve and when I get one figured out I am faced with another and I go to work on it. For instance, why did God choose to have John, the revelator, to send his Revelation of Jesus Christ to seven churches in the province of Asia which is in the land mass of Asia Minor, one of the places where the scattered strangers of Peter's interests were.

So many interesting things and I do believe all born again men are brothers because they are sons of God through this new birth but there are different administrations in the kingdom of God.

I hope I am in context of your thread. It was a little vague to me.

Do you believe all born again believers are priests as Peter described?

 

[JD731]

Do you believe all born again believers are priests as Peter described?

I know you have probably never considered some of the things I said but suppose for the sake of argument that Peter was not addressing church doctrine except inasmuch as church doctrine coincided with kingdom or national doctrine in a post resurrection of Jesus Christ world, which would certainly include a born again citizenry. Where would you get the doctrine of the priesthood of the church? Would you go to the Pauline epistles that says nothing about it albeit Paul claimed that he was commissioned to teach the gentiles and make the believers obedient in every good work of God, Rom 15? That would be strange if you did.

This is THE generation of Jesus Christ, see Mt 1:1. This is 70 years, see Psa 90:10. Jesus Christ would have set up his physical kingdom in 70 AD, had his people believed in him in mass. See Lk 24 where he says as much;

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The last 40 years tested the generation from the cross going forward and it was a time of probation for them as it was for the nation in the wilderness under Moses. He 3 says as much if you will read it. But the prophecy of Jesus just before his final week says this to the Jews.

Lk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard (Judaea), Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree (symbol for national Israel), and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?

The Jews in the land rejected Jesus as Messiah.

8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

The final 40 years was probation. Every one must be tested. The tree was removed from the vineyard in AD 70 and buried in the nations and treated from that time onward as gentiles. Both Jesus and the nation were removed but both will return when all are saved.

That was the long answer. The short answer is "NO."

 

[37818]

A Baptist Distinctive: The Priesthood of the Believer
44 minutes

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Perhaps Exodus 19:5-6 will be helpful.
Now, therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'
If one compares that with 1 Peter 2:9, it appears that what was conditional to Israel, is granted unconditionally to the Church, through the merits of Christ. The Church of course, includes believing Israelites and believing Gentiles in fulfilment of Genesis 12:3c and Ephesians 2:18-20. This is not, of course, 'replacement theology,' but Fulfilment and Inclusion Theology.

 

[Ben1445]

Revelation 1:4
John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

Revelation 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.

 

[37818]

. . . if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, . . . .

Confusion of covenants. The old must be keep by the people, the new God himself keeps for His people. Jeremiah 31:31-34.

 

[JD731]

Revelation 1:4
John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

Revelation 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.

There is a real chance I could be wrong, Ben1445. I am in a learning curve and I am looking for sound doctrine that is supported with scripture and will not purposely reject a sound biblical argument in favour of my opinion.

The church of Jesus Christ is a unity of believers and functions as a body but there are three things that are said about it.

1 Cor 124 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

This is 3 fold signature.

Here is an interesting prophesy of Jesus Christ to his 12 apostles during the last week of his ministry on earth that historically will be fulfilled after the events of Revelation 19 and in chapter20.

Mt 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
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.

Are the 12 apostles in the church, the body of Christ? The answer is yes.

Speaking of the church, the body of Christ;

18 For through him we both (Gentile members & Jewish members) have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye (gentile members - the ones Peter addressed in his letters) are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints (Jewish members), and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye (gentiles ) also (in addition to the Jews) are builded together (both of you collectively) for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

All the members of the body are the same in standing - sons of God through Christ) - Administrations can vary. We are not all sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the millennial reign of Christ on the earth, nor in the eternal state.

 

[Ben1445]

There is a real chance I could be wrong, Ben1445. I am in a learning curve and I am looking for sound doctrine that is supported with scripture and will not purposely reject a sound biblical argument in favour of my opinion.

The church of Jesus Christ is a unity of believers and functions as a body but there are three things that are said about it.

1 Cor 124 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

This is 3 fold signature.

Here is an interesting prophesy of Jesus Christ to his 12 apostles during the last week of his ministry on earth that historically will be fulfilled after the events of Revelation 19 and in chapter20.

Mt 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
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.

Are the 12 apostles in the church, the body of Christ? The answer is yes.

Speaking of the church, the body of Christ;

18 For through him we both (Gentile members & Jewish members) have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye (gentile members - the ones Peter addressed in his letters) are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints (Jewish members), and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye (gentiles ) also (in addition to the Jews) are builded together (both of you collectively) for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

All the members of the body are the same in standing - sons of God through Christ) - Administrations can vary. We are not all sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the millennial reign of Christ on the earth, nor in the eternal state.

In the Mosaic Law, the Levites had no earthly inheritance. They were told that the Lord was their inheritance. We don’t see a lot of priestly references made to the gentile audiences. My opinion is that the priests of gentile reference would be nothing close to what the people should be modeling. The Jewish priests were all dedicated to God and strictly in the sense that the Law made them, they were perfect examples of our relationship with the Lord. (Not in every sense because there were many of them, Eli’s family for example, who were not models of the relationship in anyway but the Law) Each of the priests served the Lord. Only the High Priest had access to the Most Holy Place. Jesus, our High Priest, granted each of us access to the Father by the removal of the veil. By His exclusive access we have been given the access to God directly by the work of His Son. A priest is a go between, a person who offers gifts in place of another. We don’t and won’t be accessing God through anyone else. We are our own priests. Jesus is still our High Priest. Not one of us needs to have another person between ourselves and God. This is why God didn’t give priests to the churches. We all are priests with God as our inheritance. Hebrews is an amazing book for this study because it lays out exactly what Christ did in regard to earthly priests and earthly high priests.

 

[Zaatar71]

Confusion of covenants. The old must be keep by the people, the new God himself keeps for His people. Jeremiah 31:31-34.

What is confusion of Covenants? Not sure what you mean, could you clarify?

 

[37818]

What is confusion of Covenants? Not sure what you mean, could you clarify?

The old covenant, Hebrews 8:8-13 being replaced by the new.

Romans 3:19-20, Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Hebrews 8:12, . . . For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

 

[JD731]

In the Mosaic Law, the Levites had no earthly inheritance. They were told that the Lord was their inheritance. We don’t see a lot of priestly references made to the gentile audiences. My opinion is that the priests of gentile reference would be nothing close to what the people should be modeling. The Jewish priests were all dedicated to God and strictly in the sense that the Law made them, they were perfect examples of our relationship with the Lord. (Not in every sense because there were many of them, Eli’s family for example, who were not models of the relationship in anyway but the Law) Each of the priests served the Lord. Only the High Priest had access to the Most Holy Place. Jesus, our High Priest, granted each of us access to the Father by the removal of the veil. By His exclusive access we have been given the access to God directly by the work of His Son. A priest is a go between, a person who offers gifts in place of another. We don’t and won’t be accessing God through anyone else. We are our own priests. Jesus is still our High Priest. Not one of us needs to have another person between ourselves and God. This is why God didn’t give priests to the churches. We all are priests with God as our inheritance. Hebrews is an amazing book for this study because it lays out exactly what Christ did in regard to earthly priests and earthly high priests.

Do you think it is instructive that Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, did not apply this priesthood to the gentile church and did not mention the priesthood of the believer in his 13 letters to us?

 

[37818]

There is the persuasion that the Apostle Paul authored Hebrews.

Hebrews 2:3, How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; . . .
Paul referred to those who were contemporary during Jesus' ministry.

 

[Ben1445]

Do you think it is instructive that Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, did not apply this priesthood to the gentile church and did not mention the priesthood of the believer in his 13 letters to us?

Not especially. Paul wrote, for the greater part, to a gentile audience. His writing would be expected to direct that way. John in writing to the seven churches in Asia addressed them as kings and priests. John was not wrong simply because Paul doesn’t seem to mention it.
And yet the idea is not foreign to Paul. He said to the church in Rome:

Romans 12:1
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

The priest is the only person allowed to offer sacrifices and the sacrifices that we bring are not foreign our salvation. They are much more the category of free will offering and thank offering. We offer ourselves as a living sacrifice.
Paul would have been keenly aware of the implications of a person who is not a priest offering gifts and sacrifices. He would have to be recognizing the authority of the believer to offer directly to God. While Paul doesn’t name the office here, he certainly lays out the duties restricted to that office.
I have no problem accepting the title or doctrine of the priesthood of the believer as long as no one is stepping in to be someone else’s priest.

 

[JD731]

Not especially. Paul wrote, for the greater part, to a gentile audience. His writing would be expected to direct that way. John in writing to the seven churches in Asia addressed them as kings and priests. John was not wrong simply because Paul doesn’t seem to mention it.
And yet the idea is not foreign to Paul. He said to the church in Rome:

Romans 12:1
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

The priest is the only person allowed to offer sacrifices and the sacrifices that we bring are not foreign our salvation. They are much more the category of free will offering and thank offering. We offer ourselves as a living sacrifice.
Paul would have been keenly aware of the implications of a person who is not a priest offering gifts and sacrifices. He would have to be recognizing the authority of the believer to offer directly to God. While Paul doesn’t name the office here, he certainly lays out the duties restricted to that office.
I have no problem accepting the title or doctrine of the priesthood of the believer as long as no one is stepping in to be someone else’s priest.

"Therefore" in Romans 12:1 is a logical and reasonable concluding action that he desires from the argument he had just made where he said nothing about the priesthood of the believer. What he is admonishing the Romans, and by extension, all of us to do because of being secure in Christ is a reasonable service. If one gets a priesthood in this context he must put it there because Paul did not.

Having concluded his 11 chapters of doctrinal explanation and instruction in his letter he now in chapter 12 and going forward begins to have us to engage the practical application in our lives. This is typical of Paul in his doctrinal letters. Doctrine first, then practice.

 

[Ben1445]

"Therefore" in Romans 12:1 is a logical and reasonable concluding action that he desires from the argument he had just made where he said nothing about the priesthood of the believer. What he is admonishing the Romans, and by extension, all of us to do because of being secure in Christ is a reasonable service. If one gets a priesthood in this context he must put it there because Paul did not.

Having concluded his 11 chapters of doctrinal instruction in his letter he now in chapter 12 begins to have us to engage the practical application in our lives. This is typical of Paul in his doctrinal letters. Doctrine first, then practice.

Sacrifice. The key is presenting a sacrifice. Not a dead sacrifice as is usually the case but a living sacrifice. Offering sacrifices is a practice of priesthood and no other occupation. It is definitely present. It is true that he does not elaborate on our duties or position as priests but you can only mindfully reject the premise by ignoring the meaning of the words stated in the text of the verse.

 

[Ben1445]

"Therefore" in Romans 12:1 is a logical and reasonable concluding action that he desires from the argument he had just made where he said nothing about the priesthood of the believer. What he is admonishing the Romans, and by extension, all of us to do because of being secure in Christ is a reasonable service. If one gets a priesthood in this context he must put it there because Paul did not.

Having concluded his 11 chapters of doctrinal explanation and instruction in his letter he now in chapter 12 and going forward begins to have us to engage the practical application in our lives. This is typical of Paul in his doctrinal letters. Doctrine first, then practice.

Going back as far as chapter 9 (which is not that far. It is all the same epistle) you will find the phrase “the service of God.” This comes in a list of things that the Jews owned as duties and privileges. The following chapters present Israel’s rejection and gentile acceptance of these things.
While the term priesthood or priest are not used, “the service of God” refers specifically to the ministration in the temple.

 

[JD731]

Sacrifice. The key is presenting a sacrifice. Not a dead sacrifice as is usually the case but a living sacrifice. Offering sacrifices is a practice of priesthood and no other occupation. It is definitely present. It is true that he does not elaborate on our duties or position as priests but you can only mindfully reject the premise by ignoring the meaning of the words stated in the text of the verse.

The epistle is to the Romans. Romans are gentiles. Rome is, at the time of writing, the seat of government over the whole world. The Date is 58 AD. It is the sixth of Paul's thirteen letters. The history that has passed from the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the beginning of his church is 28 years. It is 18 years since God opened the door of faith to gentiles through the preaching of Peter at the house of the Italian, Cornelius, in Acts 10 and was when God began saving them who would believe the gospel. This would have been in 40 AD. Paul would write this letter from the city of Corinth and the record of the time frame was after he first met Aquila and his wife Pricilla who were chased out of Rome by Claudius because they were Jews. The secular history books says he chased the Jews out of Rome sometimes during the decade of the 50.s.

Acts 18:1 ¶ After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome) and came unto them.
3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

Now, here is the point. There can not be an effective gospel without a series of historical events that shapes the workings of this age going forward and there cannot be a need for an explanation concerning the two groups, Jews and gentiles without a good deal of that history being already in the past. So Romans is the letter that explains the history that has unfolded so far in Acts 1-18 and defines the intentions of God for these two groups that have been, and mostly still are, enemies (he has dealt with both groups extensively up to chapter120). He is going to mesh both groups together IN CHRIST, that is in a new family that is neither Jewish or gentile, if and when they will be converted by faith in Jesus Christ.

There is therefore no mention about a priesthood because holding on to Jewish religious practices would certainly not endear the gentiles to Jesus. It would more likely drive them away. What would gentiles in Italy know about a priesthood in 58 AD any ways? The idea is to give them light into the things of God, not to confuse them.

God is not dealing with the church at Rome as servants, but as sons. Honoring God with our lives is a reasonable service.