The Meaning of Hebrews 7:26-8:2 (Orthodox only please)

[TheLostCoin]

This is a question which by means of compartmentalization / cognitive dissonance I've admittedly never wanted to fully address (shame on me), because I've either never wanted to look like an idiot, or I just don't want to be wrong.

I feel like after reading it for the nth time, especially because it's a part of today's readings (in the OCA), I think we should talk about it.

Scripture Readings

So, obviously, I don't think it is a rejection of the Eucharist - if this were the case, we wouldn't have 1 Corinthian 11:27-29. Who in the Evangelical Protestant tradition fears taking communion unto damnation?

I've always read this as understanding that Saint Paul was addressing "the Hebrews" in Rome who were continuing their Jewish liturgical practices in an erroneous manner, even to the point of continuing the Jewish sacrifice.

But even then, I feel like there's still something that's definitely "different" from how the Church back then and the Church now practices these things.

I've always had the understanding that the Priesthood of the Old Covenant was a typology of the New Priesthood of the Church. The sacrifices of the Jews and their liturgical practices, including the offering of bread and meat were just a foreshadowing of Christ's Church and The Sacrifice of Her Priesthood (the Eucharist being both simultaneously bread and meat mysteriously) - in fact, the Priests now are connected to the Priesthood of Aaron.

However, Saint Paul seems to say here that the Priesthood has been abolished, and there is no continued Priesthood - rather, the Old Covenant Priesthood was merely just a typology of Christ, who now serves the permanent function of Priesthood in Heaven, and that to have a Priesthood is following "the weaknesses of men under the Law."

More than this is the explicit rejection of the usage of Tabernacles or a man-made sanctuary, which Saint Paul seems to think is a wrongful Judaization, because such a Sanctuary and Tabernacle already exists in Heaven.


There seems to be some kind of contradiction, and I was wondering if someone who's Orthodox can try to explain it.

Thanks.

 

[ArmyMatt]

it doesn't say the priesthood is abolished, since the priesthood of the New Covenant taps into the eternal sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, Who is our High Priest and calls all Christians into the priesthood of all believers.

 

[TheLostCoin]

it doesn't say the priesthood is abolished, since the priesthood of the New Covenant taps into the eternal sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, Who is our High Priest and calls all Christians into the priesthood of all believers.

But what is the priesthood of all believers in comparison to the priesthood of the New Covenant, and why would there be two priesthoods of the New Covenant?

Is there at all a connection between the Priesthood of Aaron and the Priesthood of the New Covenant, and if so, why does Saint Paul seem to say that the Priesthood of Aaron has been fulfilled by Christ?

 

[ArmyMatt]

But what is the priesthood of all believers in comparison to the priesthood of the New Covenant, and why would there be two priesthoods of the New Covenant?

Is there at all a connection between the Priesthood of Aaron and the Priesthood of the New Covenant, and if so, why does Saint Paul seem to say that the Priesthood of Aaron has been fulfilled by Christ?

the only connection is the OT priesthood was a prototype of the one to come. there aren't two priesthoods, as ordained clergy are called from the laity, and all Orthodox make the same offering at the Chalice.

 

[TheLostCoin]

the only connection is the OT priesthood was a prototype of the one to come. there aren't two priesthoods, as ordained clergy are called from the laity, and all Orthodox make the same offering at the Chalice.

"Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"

Why is a Sacrament (of Holy Orders) then necessary though in order to be given the faculty of changing the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?

Not to mention that I would like your take, Father, on what Saint Paul means by his negative attitude towards man-made tabernacles and sanctuaries (something which the Orthodox both have).

 

[ArmyMatt]

"Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"

Why is a Sacrament (of Holy Orders) then necessary though in order to be given the faculty of changing the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?

because it's the only way Christ gave it

 

[TheLostCoin]

because it's the only way Christ gave it

Fair enough.....

This theological understanding though really does help a lot though - it makes sense why in case of emergencies the Laity can legitimately administer the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

[TheLostCoin]

Not to mention that I would like your take, Father, on what Saint Paul means by his negative attitude towards man-made tabernacles and sanctuaries (something which the Orthodox both have).

 

[ArmyMatt]

it's not negative, it just points to the true tabernacle. Christ's Body is the True tabernacle, which is in our tabernacles and sanctuaries.

 

[Calvary4me]

This is a question which by means of compartmentalization / cognitive dissonance I've admittedly never wanted to fully address (shame on me), because I've either never wanted to look like an idiot, or I just don't want to be wrong.

I feel like after reading it for the nth time, especially because it's a part of today's readings (in the OCA), I think we should talk about it.

Scripture Readings

So, obviously, I don't think it is a rejection of the Eucharist - if this were the case, we wouldn't have 1 Corinthian 11:27-29. Who in the Evangelical Protestant tradition fears taking communion unto damnation?

I've always read this as understanding that Saint Paul was addressing "the Hebrews" in Rome who were continuing their Jewish liturgical practices in an erroneous manner, even to the point of continuing the Jewish sacrifice.

But even then, I feel like there's still something that's definitely "different" from how the Church back then and the Church now practices these things.

I've always had the understanding that the Priesthood of the Old Covenant was a typology of the New Priesthood of the Church. The sacrifices of the Jews and their liturgical practices, including the offering of bread and meat were just a foreshadowing of Christ's Church and The Sacrifice of Her Priesthood (the Eucharist being both simultaneously bread and meat mysteriously) - in fact, the Priests now are connected to the Priesthood of Aaron.

However, Saint Paul seems to say here that the Priesthood has been abolished, and there is no continued Priesthood - rather, the Old Covenant Priesthood was merely just a typology of Christ, who now serves the permanent function of Priesthood in Heaven, and that to have a Priesthood is following "the weaknesses of men under the Law."

More than this is the explicit rejection of the usage of Tabernacles or a man-made sanctuary, which Saint Paul seems to think is a wrongful Judaization, because such a Sanctuary and Tabernacle already exists in Heaven.


There seems to be some kind of contradiction, and I was wondering if someone who's Orthodox can try to explain it.

Thanks.

While I am not Eastern Orthodox, my understanding matches yours. The church has not replaced the OT priesthood. The text is clear that Christ Himself has replaced the priesthood. We no longer have a priesthood of mere men. Also, Matt 5 makes it clear that Christ did not "abolish" the law (the need for sacrifice, etc.), but has FULFILLED the law. We take the Eucharist in remembrance of his permanent, complete, and universal sacrifice, offered as our one and only high priest.

 

[Alithis]

there is no laity in Gods sight

 

[ArmyMatt]

there is no laity in Gods sight

yeah there are, it's just that a lot of folks nowadays don't see the laity as a unique and needed ministry.

 

[Alithis]

yeah there are, it's just that a lot of folks nowadays don't see the laity as a unique and needed ministry.

im not sure how the rules work here in this forum so i cant reply in full but i know the teaching of laity stems from the doctrines of the Nicolaitans (from which is derives the term "laity" -and Jesus said he HATES it .

-i'm out

 

[ArmyMatt]

im not sure how the rules work here in this forum so i cant reply in full but i know the teaching of laity stems from the doctrines of the Nicolaitans (from which is derives the term "laity" -and Jesus said he HATES it .

-i'm out

laity doesn't come from Nicolaitans. you just made a false cognate.

 

[Alithis]

laity doesn't come from Nicolaitans. you just made a false cognate.

im out of this thread dont want to break any rules here - i opened the topic elsewhere
Fellowship - Nicolaitan doctrines (teachings) which Jesus hated info' for spirit filled believers .

 

[ArmyMatt]

im out of this thread dont want to break any rules here - i opened the topic elsewhere
Fellowship - Nicolaitan doctrines (teachings) which Jesus hated info' for spirit filled believers .

that's not the issue. the word laity doesn't come from Nicolaitans. we agree they are heretical, but that's not where the word laity comes from.

 

[Alithis]

that's not the issue. the word laity doesn't come from Nicolaitans. we agree they are heretical, but that's not where the word laity comes from.

cant reply here .you know that

 

[ArmyMatt]

cant reply here .you know that

not looking for a reply. the heresy has the same root as laity, but laity didn't come from the heresy. that is not where we got it from.

 

[Chris V++]

because it's the only way Christ gave it

that's not the issue. the word laity doesn't come from Nicolaitans. we agree they are heretical, but that's not where the word laity comes from.

That's a curious cognate. Where does it come from? Is it Greek “laikos?”

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's a curious cognate. Where does it come from? Is it Greek “laikos?”

originally yes, and then through French to English.