The Priesthood Which Entered the Church
The Priestly Tradition and the Church
There is evidence that the baptismal rites of the Church which include washing in water, anointing wih oil and sealing the candidate with the name of God, is intended to continue the rite of washing, anointing and recieving the name present among the sons of Aaron. As we now the temple was destroyed in AD 70. However Jesus Christ and John the baptist were both prophesying great changes in the life of Israel. Jesus especially, according to the witness of all the gospels foresaw the destruction of the temple. The priests were the guardians of the name Yaua. It was they who were responsible to minister in the name and to put the name Yaua o the people. The evidence from the New Testament and the early Church appears to indicate that the guardianship and transmission of the name was intended to continue in the Church. The evidence for this thesis, that the actions of the priest in bearing the name Yaua into the holy of holies and the ministry of the priest before God on behalf of the people of Israel, and of putting the name Yaua on the people, and sanctifying the name Yaua in the earth were all, in the eyes of the Church transfered from the families of the priesthood operating in the first century and continued with priests who joined the Church. That is the priests who joined the Church understood that they work continued, despite the destruction of the temple, inside the Church. We need to look at three key points:
Were there priests who were part of the Church and the life of Jesus?
Is there evidence that the rites of the Church reflect the rites of the priesthood?
Is there evidence of the transfer of titles from the priesthood to the Church?
The sum of the matter may perhaps be seen in this. The answer to the question where did the priesthood go after the destruction of the temple, is perhaps demonstrated in this study. The priesthood and many of the priests entered the Church and continued to operated, admittedly without the temple, inside the Church.
Were there priests in the Church?
The two or three most well known priests in early church history are Zechariah of the course of Abijah, John the Baptist, John the Apostle or disciple whom Jesus loved. Whether John the Apostle who wrote the letters is the same John who wrote the Apocalypse is not an issue we will take up. But the evidence presented in both documents is that they were members of the sons of Aaron and thus of the priesthood. The geneaology of John the Baptist is well known. He is the miracle son of the priest Zechariah.
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before GOD, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of Yaua blameless.
So the story of John the Baptist begins not only with a priest but one who was from the sons of Aaron and so could possibly have a right to the high priesthood. The text does not indicate that he was a Saducee but he is introduced as having one of the most important roles in the temple. He had been selected that day by the drawing of lots, to burn incense at the time of prayer. Zechariah like many priestly prophets before him, such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Haggai had an encounter with an angel of Yaua in that period often described as the Word of Yaua (Gieschen, Fossum 1985). The angel Gabriel indicated Zechariah would have a son who would be great in the face, presence, or sight of Yaua. It is then John the levitical priest of the course of Abijah who then baptisesYeshua the son of David. At the same time Jesus recieved an anointing of the holy spirit, which appeared as a dove (yonah H). This for some Valentinian groups represented recieving the name Yaua (Fossum, Qusipel). So in this baptism some see a transfer of the name Yaua from John the priest to Jesus the son of David. Fossum refers to the idea of being vested with the name. The intimate connection between the son of David and the son of Aaron reminds us of the ordination of king Solomon.
“Zadok the priest then took the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon.” (1 Kings 1:39). That event also took place at a body of water. But there are perhaps more parallels with the anointing of David which had to be done in private, because Shaul was already king.
“And Yaua said arise , “Arise, anoint him; for this is he.” Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of Yaua came mightily upon David from that day forward” (1 Sam. 16). So again we see that it is the high priest at the time who anoints David and immediately the spirit of Yaua came upon him. However unlike the baptism of Jesus this was not a national event but like the baptism Yaua spoke confirming the choice and sent the spirit. John the Baptist baptised Jesus and recognised him as the son of God. He later testified: “This is He on behalf of whom I said, After me comes a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me. And I did not recognize Him but in order that he might be manifest to Israel, I came baptizing in water. I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and he remained upon him” (John 1:32-33). Perhaps the greatest pair they can be compared with is Moses and Aaron. Aaron performed the signs Yaua gave him in order to support Moses (Ex 4).
The Priest John the Evangelist
The next priest of the early Church context is that of the author John’s gospel and epistles. We will call him John the Evangelist for the sake of clarity and convenience. This man is according to Westcott clearly a priest from the evidence present in the gospel. His detailed knowledge of Jewish practices in the gospel of John point to this idea, at the same time he was a close disciple of Jesus. “Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest” While the text doesn not say specifically that he was a priest there are evidences evincing this fact including a late antique tradition recorded in Eusebius we will look at below.
This disciple had the ability to influence the door man (who was most likely a priest) and get Peter into an area where only certain people were permitted. The Church then had connections not just close to the priesthood but to the high priest. This disciple is later given the name John in Church tradition. Late evidence supporting the closeness of John the Evangelist to the priesthood is represented in the tradition handed by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and recorded by Eusebius. “In Asia great luminaries sleep who shall arise again on the last day, the day of the Lords advent...there is John, who leant back on the Lord’s breast and who became a priest wearing the mitre, a martyr and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus” (H. E. 3:31).
Here Polycrates first supports the point that John was a priest. But in addition he notes that John wore the mitre. But he does not say this in any way so as to make a theological point. For him its was simply and matter of fact. In the same way that Philip was not a priest. The mitre in the septuagint is that which is mentioned in Exodus 28.
And thou shalt make a plate (petalon) of pure gold, and thou shalt grave on it as the graving of a signet, Holiness to Yaua (H. qodesh la Yaua-G. hagiasma kuriou). And thou shalt put it on the spun blue cloth, and it shall be on the mitre: and it shall in the front of the mitre (H. misnepheth). And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron; and Aaron shall bear away the sins of their holy things, all that the sons of Israel shall sanctify every gift of their holy things, and it shall be on the fore head of Aaron continually acceptable for them before Yaua.
As is evident from the text the mitre is not worn by the ordinary priest. It is worn by the high priest. The likelhood is that there would not have been many mitres around the temple. It also bore a plate of gold attached by blue lace which had qadosh layaua engraved on it. That is it had the name Yaua engraved on it. In some Jewish tradition the name Yaua was the special preserve not only of the priesthood but of the high priest. Although there is much evidence to the contrary some still believe that the high priest only said the name Yaua once year on the holiest day of the year, yom kippur. This was in the holiest place on earth, the qodesh qodeshim. But of all Israel it was only the high priest who was allowed to utter that name. But according to Exodus it was Aaron alone in Israel who wore the mitre . If then the mitre was used by the various high priests down to the destruction of the temple the final one to use it would be either Matthias son of Theophilus or Phanas of Phannias. The question then would be where did the mitre go? Where is the mitras which bore the name Yaua and was worn only by the high priest. Is it possible that John recieved it and and brought it into the Church?
John the bond Servant
There is strong evidence in the Apocalypse that the author was a priest. The Apocalypse is one of the texts which is use by scholars to indicate temple practice at the end of the second temple period. His message goes into the intricate deatails of temple practices and as a priest follows in the tradition of priest prophets or prophets with revelations of the heavenly temple such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Haggai, Malachi and Zechariah son of Berechiah. Again if, as Church tradition has maintained he is the same John who wrote the anonymous gospel of John then we have another evidence to support his priestly position.
As we have noted the special of the priesthood was the memorial name Yaua. And there are scholars who argue that central to understanding the apocalypse is the recognition that Yaua, the name of God extremely important to it. Why would this be? Perhaps because the Church continued the work of the priesthood in Jerusalem. Not just in a symbolic sense but in a literal sense. When the temple was destroyed the priesthood did not disappear it went into the Church.
Theophilus grandfather of Joanna
With the evidence coming of regarding the high priest Theophilus who ruled from AD 37-41 and was appointed by King Herod Agrippa 1 Andersen has recieved support for his thesis. His thesis asserts that the Theophilus which Luke wrote to was one and the same with Theophilus the high priest in AD 37. The evidence includes an ossuary of Johanna grandaughter of Theophilus. The names Theophilus and Johanna are only mentioned by Luke. This evidence also strengthens the idea that the Church continued the line of the priesthood. It is also in this context notable that Johanna the grandaughter of Theophilus the high priest is in this thesis held thought to be a witness of the resurrection. It was also Matthias the son of Theophilus who was the last high priest before the war with Rome. If it was his daughter who was the witness of the resurrection and as a result a believer this would be a very close connection to the Church.
A Great Company of Priests
Strong support for this position is also represented by the witness of Luke in Acts. There he rcords “And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith”. This phrase a great many is clearly important in this respect. Who were these priests and why did they become obedient to the faith at that time? There were a large number of priest who joined the Church just beofree the martydom of Stephen. Luke as been established by the works of such scholars as CJ Hemer and Gasque, is a first clast historian. When he says a large number of priests we need to take him seriously. Marshall (Acts, 1980) simply skips over the verse. However Ellicot (1971, 871) picks up the significance:
The fact is every way significant. No priest is named as a follower of our Lord’s. None, up to this time, had been converted by the apostles. The new fact is connected with the new teaching of Stephen. And the main feature of that teaching is an anticipation of what was later proclaimed more clearly by Paul: the the time for sacrifices has passed away, and that the Law and the Temple were decaying.” His observation of the fact is significant, although to assign the cause to Stephen is can not gain support for his case is taken up following the conversion of many priests. Bruce (1970, 980) observes “Many of the ordinary priests were humble pious men unlike the wealthy ecclesiatical politicians of the high priestly family.” He does not say much more. Bairds notes that, “This sumary refers again to the increase in the Churches membership. It includes the only record of converts from the Jewish priesthood. Apparently the Church had little impact on the cultic leaders of the Jews and, in contrast to the sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls, had little interest in priestly tradition.” (Baird, 1971, 736). It is this last statement I would like to take issue with. What is more reasonable is that the priest saw in the teaching of the Church something connected with their work not simply its nullification. We will see that the Church was not only interested in priestly tradition, which itself is centred around the name Yaua, but they were establishing the priestly tradition of the kingdom of God, which began with John the Baptist. The Life Application Bible (1991, 1946) notes “Jesus had told the disciples that they were to witness first in Jerusalem (1:8). In a short time, their message had infiltrated the entire city and all levels of society. Even some priests were being converted, an obvious violation of the wishes of the council that would endanger their position.”
The Life Application Bible down plays the numbers of priests and seems to see their conversion as surprising. But with Lukes historical assertion of their conversion we need to perhaps wonder what were the possibles causes of their conversion. The first cuase may have been the signs, wonders and healing which were taking place at the hands of the apostles. According to Acts 5 two person in the congregation dropped dead having had thier sins revealed. Immediatley afterward it is recorded that they were highyl regarded by the people but no one else dared to join them. The level of holiness demonstrated when Ananias and Saphira dropped dead may have impressed priest who were used to the idea of those violating God’s holiness dropping dead, as with two of Aarons sons. Secondly with the head on clash with the high priests over the name and the trial with the sanhedrin it is clear the Apostles won that battle. The Angel of Yaua released then from prison and all the priests knew about it. After Peter’s shadow started healing people the high priest and his associates arrested him. The Pharisee Gamaliel the spoke out in support of the apostles implying that the high priests and the Sanhedrin by fighting the apostles might be fighting God. Although Gamaliel’s influence among the priest is likely to by minimal he was said to be honored by all the people. It is not surprising then that priest having seen their high priests defeated in the Sanhedrin and the prison emptied and people publicly healed began to realised the message of these followers of the son of David may have some truth to it.
2 Is there evidence that the rites of the priesthood influenced the rites of the priesthood?
In his “Baptismal Praxis in the Book of Revelation Gieschen asserts “This paper will demonstrate that revelation evinces early Christian baptismal praxis wherein the iniciate recieved a mark that was the bestowal of the Divine Name as a seal. Furthermore, it will be argued from the text of Revelation that this reception of the Divine Name, washing, and clothing in white was understood to be the foundational priestly preparation for the early Christian mystical experience of the presence of God, especially in the Eucharist”
(www.andreiorlov.com)
Firstly we note that it is John the Baptist a priest of the sons of Aaron who began the practice of baptism. His purpose is baptising is manifold. He was witnessing to the true light (Joh 1:6). But who was this true light? This true light was the Word of God. According to Gieschen “It is not surprising that Israelites and Jews, long before and during the first century C. E. , referred to this angel [the angel of Yaua who had the Name Yaua in him] as “the Word of YHWH”, “the Word of God”, or simply “the Word”” For Gieschen “Since this “angel” has the name YHWH in him, he is not from among the myraids of created angels; he is YHWH in a visible form”. Thus John was bearing witness to the word who would have Yaua’s name in him. He bore witness in a priestly way by washing people in the waters of baptism. They came and were immersed, confessing their sins. In other words through their confession and baptism their sins were washed away. However in the Temple based society, people recieved forgiveness of sins in a number of ways. Firstly they had the sacrifices, the sins offerings and the trespass offerings. This were designed to prepare for the forgiveness of their sins. The same with the day of atonement where the high priest would intercede for the whole nations and obtain the forgiveness of his sins, his families sins and Israel sins. But John a priest, came offering the forgiveness of sins on another level. But John’s activity only prepared people for the one who was coming in the name Yaua. Although it is likely that at the baptism the people were returning to Yaua and so at some point, probably after they were immersed they would speak the name Yaua, this prepared them for whe they would be immersed not in water but in the Holy Spirit. It is clear that Holy Spirit is understood by John to be a far more powerful work of God than his baptism in water. The Holy Spirit to John represented the presence of Yaua himself. For he claimed to be fulfilling Isaiah 40: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness prepare the way of Yaua; nake straight a highway for our God...And the glory of Yaua will be revealed and all mankind will see it together.” In setting himself in this context John understands the Holy Spirit baptism the revelation of the glory of Yaua. This revelation is also some how connected with the temple in the thinking of Mark. For in Marks Gospel a citation is made from Malachi 3 “See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.” This is Yaua speaking and it is clear that it is he who will follow the coming of the messenger. In this passage John becomes a messenger preparing the way for Yaua. Then the messenger of the covenant comes, whom Israel has desired. His specific work in the Malachi context is to “purify the levites and refine them as godl and sivler. Then Yaua will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness.” Part of the work the is with the priesthood, with those who offer sacrifices.
So baptism connects with the forgiveness of sins which was a priestly operation in the Jewish culture. In the normal context people would turn to Jerusalem, to where Yaua and placed his name. They would then confess their sins and God would forgive, for his eyes and his heart were on Jerusalem because his name was there. We see this in the prayer of Solomon. _However in the first century John had gone out to the desert to the Jordan. And people were flocking to him to recieve the forgiveness of sins. This indicates that Yaua name must have been with him.
There is evidence that the baptismal rites of the Church which include washing in water, anointing wih oil and sealing the candidate with the name of God, is intended to continue the rite of washing, anointing and recieving the name present among the sons of Aaron. As we now the temple was destroyed in AD 70. However Jesus Christ and John the baptist were both prophesying great changes in the life of Israel. Jesus especially, according to the witness of all the gospels foresaw the destruction of the temple. The priests were the guardians of the name Yaua. It was they who were responsible to minister in the name and to put the name Yaua o the people. The evidence from the New Testament and the early Church appears to indicate that the guardianship and transmission of the name was intended to continue in the Church. The evidence for this thesis, that the actions of the priest in bearing the name Yaua into the holy of holies and the ministry of the priest before God on behalf of the people of Israel, and of putting the name Yaua on the people, and sanctifying the name Yaua in the earth were all, in the eyes of the Church transfered from the families of the priesthood operating in the first century and continued with priests who joined the Church. That is the priests who joined the Church understood that they work continued, despite the destruction of the temple, inside the Church. We need to look at three key points:
Were there priests who were part of the Church and the life of Jesus?
Is there evidence that the rites of the Church reflect the rites of the priesthood?
Is there evidence of the transfer of titles from the priesthood to the Church?
The sum of the matter may perhaps be seen in this. The answer to the question where did the priesthood go after the destruction of the temple, is perhaps demonstrated in this study. The priesthood and many of the priests entered the Church and continued to operated, admittedly without the temple, inside the Church.
Were there priests in the Church?
The two or three most well known priests in early church history are Zechariah of the course of Abijah, John the Baptist, John the Apostle or disciple whom Jesus loved. Whether John the Apostle who wrote the letters is the same John who wrote the Apocalypse is not an issue we will take up. But the evidence presented in both documents is that they were members of the sons of Aaron and thus of the priesthood. The geneaology of John the Baptist is well known. He is the miracle son of the priest Zechariah.
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before GOD, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of Yaua blameless.
So the story of John the Baptist begins not only with a priest but one who was from the sons of Aaron and so could possibly have a right to the high priesthood. The text does not indicate that he was a Saducee but he is introduced as having one of the most important roles in the temple. He had been selected that day by the drawing of lots, to burn incense at the time of prayer. Zechariah like many priestly prophets before him, such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Haggai had an encounter with an angel of Yaua in that period often described as the Word of Yaua (Gieschen, Fossum 1985). The angel Gabriel indicated Zechariah would have a son who would be great in the face, presence, or sight of Yaua. It is then John the levitical priest of the course of Abijah who then baptisesYeshua the son of David. At the same time Jesus recieved an anointing of the holy spirit, which appeared as a dove (yonah H). This for some Valentinian groups represented recieving the name Yaua (Fossum, Qusipel). So in this baptism some see a transfer of the name Yaua from John the priest to Jesus the son of David. Fossum refers to the idea of being vested with the name. The intimate connection between the son of David and the son of Aaron reminds us of the ordination of king Solomon.
“Zadok the priest then took the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon.” (1 Kings 1:39). That event also took place at a body of water. But there are perhaps more parallels with the anointing of David which had to be done in private, because Shaul was already king.
“And Yaua said arise , “Arise, anoint him; for this is he.” Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of Yaua came mightily upon David from that day forward” (1 Sam. 16). So again we see that it is the high priest at the time who anoints David and immediately the spirit of Yaua came upon him. However unlike the baptism of Jesus this was not a national event but like the baptism Yaua spoke confirming the choice and sent the spirit. John the Baptist baptised Jesus and recognised him as the son of God. He later testified: “This is He on behalf of whom I said, After me comes a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me. And I did not recognize Him but in order that he might be manifest to Israel, I came baptizing in water. I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and he remained upon him” (John 1:32-33). Perhaps the greatest pair they can be compared with is Moses and Aaron. Aaron performed the signs Yaua gave him in order to support Moses (Ex 4).
The Priest John the Evangelist
The next priest of the early Church context is that of the author John’s gospel and epistles. We will call him John the Evangelist for the sake of clarity and convenience. This man is according to Westcott clearly a priest from the evidence present in the gospel. His detailed knowledge of Jewish practices in the gospel of John point to this idea, at the same time he was a close disciple of Jesus. “Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest” While the text doesn not say specifically that he was a priest there are evidences evincing this fact including a late antique tradition recorded in Eusebius we will look at below.
This disciple had the ability to influence the door man (who was most likely a priest) and get Peter into an area where only certain people were permitted. The Church then had connections not just close to the priesthood but to the high priest. This disciple is later given the name John in Church tradition. Late evidence supporting the closeness of John the Evangelist to the priesthood is represented in the tradition handed by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and recorded by Eusebius. “In Asia great luminaries sleep who shall arise again on the last day, the day of the Lords advent...there is John, who leant back on the Lord’s breast and who became a priest wearing the mitre, a martyr and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus” (H. E. 3:31).
Here Polycrates first supports the point that John was a priest. But in addition he notes that John wore the mitre. But he does not say this in any way so as to make a theological point. For him its was simply and matter of fact. In the same way that Philip was not a priest. The mitre in the septuagint is that which is mentioned in Exodus 28.
And thou shalt make a plate (petalon) of pure gold, and thou shalt grave on it as the graving of a signet, Holiness to Yaua (H. qodesh la Yaua-G. hagiasma kuriou). And thou shalt put it on the spun blue cloth, and it shall be on the mitre: and it shall in the front of the mitre (H. misnepheth). And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron; and Aaron shall bear away the sins of their holy things, all that the sons of Israel shall sanctify every gift of their holy things, and it shall be on the fore head of Aaron continually acceptable for them before Yaua.
As is evident from the text the mitre is not worn by the ordinary priest. It is worn by the high priest. The likelhood is that there would not have been many mitres around the temple. It also bore a plate of gold attached by blue lace which had qadosh layaua engraved on it. That is it had the name Yaua engraved on it. In some Jewish tradition the name Yaua was the special preserve not only of the priesthood but of the high priest. Although there is much evidence to the contrary some still believe that the high priest only said the name Yaua once year on the holiest day of the year, yom kippur. This was in the holiest place on earth, the qodesh qodeshim. But of all Israel it was only the high priest who was allowed to utter that name. But according to Exodus it was Aaron alone in Israel who wore the mitre . If then the mitre was used by the various high priests down to the destruction of the temple the final one to use it would be either Matthias son of Theophilus or Phanas of Phannias. The question then would be where did the mitre go? Where is the mitras which bore the name Yaua and was worn only by the high priest. Is it possible that John recieved it and and brought it into the Church?
John the bond Servant
There is strong evidence in the Apocalypse that the author was a priest. The Apocalypse is one of the texts which is use by scholars to indicate temple practice at the end of the second temple period. His message goes into the intricate deatails of temple practices and as a priest follows in the tradition of priest prophets or prophets with revelations of the heavenly temple such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Haggai, Malachi and Zechariah son of Berechiah. Again if, as Church tradition has maintained he is the same John who wrote the anonymous gospel of John then we have another evidence to support his priestly position.
As we have noted the special of the priesthood was the memorial name Yaua. And there are scholars who argue that central to understanding the apocalypse is the recognition that Yaua, the name of God extremely important to it. Why would this be? Perhaps because the Church continued the work of the priesthood in Jerusalem. Not just in a symbolic sense but in a literal sense. When the temple was destroyed the priesthood did not disappear it went into the Church.
Theophilus grandfather of Joanna
With the evidence coming of regarding the high priest Theophilus who ruled from AD 37-41 and was appointed by King Herod Agrippa 1 Andersen has recieved support for his thesis. His thesis asserts that the Theophilus which Luke wrote to was one and the same with Theophilus the high priest in AD 37. The evidence includes an ossuary of Johanna grandaughter of Theophilus. The names Theophilus and Johanna are only mentioned by Luke. This evidence also strengthens the idea that the Church continued the line of the priesthood. It is also in this context notable that Johanna the grandaughter of Theophilus the high priest is in this thesis held thought to be a witness of the resurrection. It was also Matthias the son of Theophilus who was the last high priest before the war with Rome. If it was his daughter who was the witness of the resurrection and as a result a believer this would be a very close connection to the Church.
A Great Company of Priests
Strong support for this position is also represented by the witness of Luke in Acts. There he rcords “And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith”. This phrase a great many is clearly important in this respect. Who were these priests and why did they become obedient to the faith at that time? There were a large number of priest who joined the Church just beofree the martydom of Stephen. Luke as been established by the works of such scholars as CJ Hemer and Gasque, is a first clast historian. When he says a large number of priests we need to take him seriously. Marshall (Acts, 1980) simply skips over the verse. However Ellicot (1971, 871) picks up the significance:
The fact is every way significant. No priest is named as a follower of our Lord’s. None, up to this time, had been converted by the apostles. The new fact is connected with the new teaching of Stephen. And the main feature of that teaching is an anticipation of what was later proclaimed more clearly by Paul: the the time for sacrifices has passed away, and that the Law and the Temple were decaying.” His observation of the fact is significant, although to assign the cause to Stephen is can not gain support for his case is taken up following the conversion of many priests. Bruce (1970, 980) observes “Many of the ordinary priests were humble pious men unlike the wealthy ecclesiatical politicians of the high priestly family.” He does not say much more. Bairds notes that, “This sumary refers again to the increase in the Churches membership. It includes the only record of converts from the Jewish priesthood. Apparently the Church had little impact on the cultic leaders of the Jews and, in contrast to the sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls, had little interest in priestly tradition.” (Baird, 1971, 736). It is this last statement I would like to take issue with. What is more reasonable is that the priest saw in the teaching of the Church something connected with their work not simply its nullification. We will see that the Church was not only interested in priestly tradition, which itself is centred around the name Yaua, but they were establishing the priestly tradition of the kingdom of God, which began with John the Baptist. The Life Application Bible (1991, 1946) notes “Jesus had told the disciples that they were to witness first in Jerusalem (1:8). In a short time, their message had infiltrated the entire city and all levels of society. Even some priests were being converted, an obvious violation of the wishes of the council that would endanger their position.”
The Life Application Bible down plays the numbers of priests and seems to see their conversion as surprising. But with Lukes historical assertion of their conversion we need to perhaps wonder what were the possibles causes of their conversion. The first cuase may have been the signs, wonders and healing which were taking place at the hands of the apostles. According to Acts 5 two person in the congregation dropped dead having had thier sins revealed. Immediatley afterward it is recorded that they were highyl regarded by the people but no one else dared to join them. The level of holiness demonstrated when Ananias and Saphira dropped dead may have impressed priest who were used to the idea of those violating God’s holiness dropping dead, as with two of Aarons sons. Secondly with the head on clash with the high priests over the name and the trial with the sanhedrin it is clear the Apostles won that battle. The Angel of Yaua released then from prison and all the priests knew about it. After Peter’s shadow started healing people the high priest and his associates arrested him. The Pharisee Gamaliel the spoke out in support of the apostles implying that the high priests and the Sanhedrin by fighting the apostles might be fighting God. Although Gamaliel’s influence among the priest is likely to by minimal he was said to be honored by all the people. It is not surprising then that priest having seen their high priests defeated in the Sanhedrin and the prison emptied and people publicly healed began to realised the message of these followers of the son of David may have some truth to it.
2 Is there evidence that the rites of the priesthood influenced the rites of the priesthood?
In his “Baptismal Praxis in the Book of Revelation Gieschen asserts “This paper will demonstrate that revelation evinces early Christian baptismal praxis wherein the iniciate recieved a mark that was the bestowal of the Divine Name as a seal. Furthermore, it will be argued from the text of Revelation that this reception of the Divine Name, washing, and clothing in white was understood to be the foundational priestly preparation for the early Christian mystical experience of the presence of God, especially in the Eucharist”
(www.andreiorlov.com)
Firstly we note that it is John the Baptist a priest of the sons of Aaron who began the practice of baptism. His purpose is baptising is manifold. He was witnessing to the true light (Joh 1:6). But who was this true light? This true light was the Word of God. According to Gieschen “It is not surprising that Israelites and Jews, long before and during the first century C. E. , referred to this angel [the angel of Yaua who had the Name Yaua in him] as “the Word of YHWH”, “the Word of God”, or simply “the Word”” For Gieschen “Since this “angel” has the name YHWH in him, he is not from among the myraids of created angels; he is YHWH in a visible form”. Thus John was bearing witness to the word who would have Yaua’s name in him. He bore witness in a priestly way by washing people in the waters of baptism. They came and were immersed, confessing their sins. In other words through their confession and baptism their sins were washed away. However in the Temple based society, people recieved forgiveness of sins in a number of ways. Firstly they had the sacrifices, the sins offerings and the trespass offerings. This were designed to prepare for the forgiveness of their sins. The same with the day of atonement where the high priest would intercede for the whole nations and obtain the forgiveness of his sins, his families sins and Israel sins. But John a priest, came offering the forgiveness of sins on another level. But John’s activity only prepared people for the one who was coming in the name Yaua. Although it is likely that at the baptism the people were returning to Yaua and so at some point, probably after they were immersed they would speak the name Yaua, this prepared them for whe they would be immersed not in water but in the Holy Spirit. It is clear that Holy Spirit is understood by John to be a far more powerful work of God than his baptism in water. The Holy Spirit to John represented the presence of Yaua himself. For he claimed to be fulfilling Isaiah 40: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness prepare the way of Yaua; nake straight a highway for our God...And the glory of Yaua will be revealed and all mankind will see it together.” In setting himself in this context John understands the Holy Spirit baptism the revelation of the glory of Yaua. This revelation is also some how connected with the temple in the thinking of Mark. For in Marks Gospel a citation is made from Malachi 3 “See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.” This is Yaua speaking and it is clear that it is he who will follow the coming of the messenger. In this passage John becomes a messenger preparing the way for Yaua. Then the messenger of the covenant comes, whom Israel has desired. His specific work in the Malachi context is to “purify the levites and refine them as godl and sivler. Then Yaua will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness.” Part of the work the is with the priesthood, with those who offer sacrifices.
So baptism connects with the forgiveness of sins which was a priestly operation in the Jewish culture. In the normal context people would turn to Jerusalem, to where Yaua and placed his name. They would then confess their sins and God would forgive, for his eyes and his heart were on Jerusalem because his name was there. We see this in the prayer of Solomon. _However in the first century John had gone out to the desert to the Jordan. And people were flocking to him to recieve the forgiveness of sins. This indicates that Yaua name must have been with him.
posted by Evangelist Edi Nachman Bsc. PGCE @ 9:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home