This week in Elder Benson’s email home to us he related an interesting account he had with an Assistant Minister of a church in Houston.
Forever ago the Elders who were in our area before us helped a woman who had locked her keys in her car. We switched companions for a day and the District Leader, who was one of those Elders, and I went out to talk with people on the street. We bumped into the woman with the car keys problem. We asked if we could visit her. She said yes. Later my companion and I arrived at the appointed time and she wasn’t there, but her husband David was. He said if I could answer his question correctly he would listen to us. The question was, “If Jesus had wanted to be a priest could he have become one?” I answered, “no, because Jesus was not a Levite”. He let us in.
“For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law” (Hebrews 8: 4).
At first I was perplexed by Elder Benson’s answer, after all essentially Jesus (in Hebrew Yeshuah) IS the Priesthood, right? I spent a few hours studying Jesus’ Priesthood position during his earthly ministry. Hebrews was the source for me to gain understanding. What I learned was Jesus was not permitted to be a Levite priest on earth according to the laws of Aaron. Obviously, only a man who was born as a Levite could be eligible to be a Priest of Aaron. The Epistle to Hebrews sheds some light on this doctrine. Many Jewish coverts were still committed to the Law of Moses. The Jewish converts were taught by the author * of Hebrews that Jesus was the High Priest of the greater priesthood of Melchizdek and Jesus was not just another in a long succession of Aaronic Priests. To the masses he would have been a great teacher or a Rabbi.
Up until the ministry of Christ, the Mosaic ordinances prepared the People of Israel for His ministry. The earthly mission of Jesus Christ ended The Law of Moses. The old covenant Moses made with God used the blood of sacrificed animals to atone for the sins of Israel. Christ did as His Father willed and became the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus who is the mediator for us, and with God made a new and everlasting covenant. This new covenant nullified the sacrifice of animals because the death of an animal could not truly pay for the sins of mankind. Jesus does not need to make any more sacrificial offerings, nor do we, for His one offering was for all time. He lives on forever to intercede for His own.
*As a bit of trivia, Biblical scholars theorize the author of Hebrews is probably Paul, but might be Peter.
Thoughts anyone?
That Elder Benson is as sharp as a tack! Great response!
I am glad Elder Benson knew the answer, some of us would have stumbled on that question. Now I have to go read Hebrews again.
Thank you Ben. It is a wonderful/hard thing when your children surpass you in knowledge, which in my case starts to happen with math in middle school and then goes down hill from there.
LGrey thanks for stopping by. We are hoping that now they have passed the test, E. Benson and his companion will develop a good relationship with this family.
That’s one smart Elder! I wonder where he gets it from? 😉
So do I, Brian. So do I. 🙂
…you learn something new everyday! I would NOT have been let in!
To me that answer is problematic, but at least it got them in the door. Much of the point of Hebrews is to establish Jesus as a Melchizedek High Priest rather than an Aaronic or Levitical one.
The Jews had the ability to accept priests outside of the Levite tribe. Arguably at least some Davidic Kings were considered after the order of Melchizedek. Not only that, but messianic expectations could include the idea of a restoration of royal priest from the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David.
I am not saying that the Jews universally recognized Jesus as that priest, but some certainly did. That is one of the points of why some of the Gospels point out his Davidic lineage, his temple cleansing, and many proofs of his Messiahship. The very name Christ, “the anointed one”, is a reference to his Melchizedek priesthood. His spiritual anointing came at his baptism (pouring oil is symbolic of pouring on the Spirit and anointing is a way of consecrating a priest).
After Jesus died, his brother James received a portion of that Melchizedek priestly mantel. Legend has it that he wore the High Priest’s garment and served in the Holy of Holies. When the Aaronic High Priest had James killed, God withdrew protection of the temple and it was soon destroyed.
I have lots of sources, but this comment is already obnoxiously long, so I will desist.
Keller, you can’t make a comment like that, reference having sources, then not provide any. Link something, at least.
Brian, Ray and Uncle Nette, I have no idea how he knew to answer the question like that. Neither Mike or I knew the answer. I suspect the spirit was the one whispering the answer to the “trick” question.
Keller- Fascinating. I agree with Ray and want to learn more. If you can remember your source that would be great.
Here is a piece I wrote for Mormon Times a few months ago answering the speculative question about when Jesus was ordained (or consecrated) as a Melchizedek priest. They haven’t posted it yet, so I might as well do so here. It has a few of my sources.
The scriptures are very clear that Christ (“the anointed one”) was ordained to the priesthood before mortality by his Father. Before Christ’s birth, prophets testified that the Messiah would restore lost priesthood authority, especially that of the Melchizedek priests and kings (Luke 1:67–69, 72–75; Zechariah 6:12–13; see James Falcouner in Early Christians in Disarray for details.) New Testament writers provided evidence that Jesus was the promised Messiah and had not taken that honor upon himself during his ministry (Heb. 5:4). When the chief priests and elders questioned Jesus about the source of his authority, Jesus countered by asking whether John’s baptism came from man or heaven (Matt. 21:23-27). Through modern revelation, we learn that John was ordained by an angel (D&C 84:28). The angelic ministrations occurring on the Mount of Transfiguration add evidence that Jesus’ authority was “of heaven.”
An important moment where it was recognized that Jesus’ authority came from his Father occurred at his baptism. A voice declared that Jesus was the beloved Son (Matt. 3:17, compare to Matt. 17:5 and Heb. 5:5) and the Holy Ghost descended upon him. Early Christians, such as Tertullian and Cyril, saw this as the occasion when Christ was anointed, in a spiritual sense, like kings and priests were with anointed with oil before him. Symbolically this anointing represented the reception of the Holy Ghost and becoming endowed with knowledge and power (compare 1 John 2:20,27 to John 14:26 and see Daniel Becerras 2008 BYU SANE Symposium lecture titled The Chrism in Early Christianity [1,2] for details.) Kevin Christensen suggests that Christ’s visionary experiences that soon followed his baptism may have conferred the knowledge of who he really was in light of D&C 93’s description that Jesus did not receive of the fulness at first (see “Messiah in Barker’s Work and Mormon Scripture” chapter in Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and its Significance for Mormon Studies ) Christensen quotes Methodist scholar Barker:
Some believe that the Savior additionally received an ordination by the laying on of hands, if only to set an example for us. However this reasoning is somewhat diminished when we have no record of such an event. How, exactly can we follow an example that nobody left a written witness of? There are things that we are required to do in our dispensation that we sometimes assume, in presentist fashion, were done the same way anciently. That may or may not be the case, but I think we need to be careful of going beyond the evidence.
I speculate that the underlying purpose of hand laying can be accomplished without them. First, there have historically been other rituals associated with consecrating or setting apart priests involving an anointing or an endowment. Secondly, in an ordination, the hands’ activity symbolize the transmission of the word of God (see a recent FAIR blog post on ordination). The reality behind that symbol, the Father’s voice, was heard at Jesus’ baptism, so we may not need to look for another occasion. The laying on of hands is also a way for members to officially recognize the source of one’s authority, a guarantee he hasn’t called himself, a confirmation of the premortal appointment, and a way of empowering the individual and giving him access to the Holy Ghost so he can perform his duties with inspiration. All these underlying purposes were met at Jesus’ baptism and other incidents that provided evidence of Jesus’ divine Sonship merely reinforce those purposes, in my opinion.
Here is another note with a source that is probably more on target than the ones above:
After Moses set up the AP, the MP was not entirely taken from Israel (as some might infer from D&C 84:25-26) . For example, I regard Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, and Lehi as MP holders. It appears that MP holders and AP holders at times in the OT had somewhat of rivalry (see the Two High Priesthoods? by David Larsen.
Missionaries are supposed to avoid the mysteries and I can’t think of anything more mysterious (in the original sense of the word) than the Melchizedek Priesthood in ancient times.
I am currently writing about James’ (the brother of Jesus) priesthood for the FARMS Review. It is hard to discern what is actually true in the legends as the idea of a non-Levite in the Holy of Holies would have also been seen as a major act of sacrilege.
Some trivia for you all: One of Israel’s High Priests named Menelaus was from the tribe of Benjamin rather than Levi. That was in the days a carefully placed bribe to the ruling power could buy you the office. Some might look at this incident as the exception that proves the rule as many considered the Aaronic priesthood line corrupt and were looking for a Aaronic messiah/restorer (this appears to be the position of the Essenes).
Another mystery is that of the Rechabites who were allowed to serve as temple priests. They kept strict vows like the Nazarites did. But some later Jewish sources claimed that they were so allowed because they intermarried with Levites (I think the same people emphasized keeping lineages pure by avoiding intermarriage.) The tribe of Judah is also said to have intermarried with the Rechabites. Where do the Rechabites come from? Some have associated them with Midianites, of which Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law was a member. Note that Jethro gave Moses the Melchizedek Priesthood and continued to advise and assist Moses in his priestly duties.
Thank you Keller for the information. This is over and above what I expected. I appreciate the time you took to further enlighten us. I have spent the afternoon on and off reading your comments and links.
I do have one question, when you refer to legends, are the sources Josephus, Coptic or Apocrypha?
wow, Keller, great stuff!
@JA Benson
All the above. A combination of traditions have to be considered to get at the real James in terms of his office (bishop, apostle, and/or high priest), his Davidic and temple connections, his prominence in Jerusalem, and the significance of Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to him.
The NT affirms Christ’s appearance to him (1 Cor 15:7 34? AD), his apostleship (Gal. 1:19 36? AD), have him heading up the big 3 pillars (Gal. 2:9 50? AD), perhaps only after the other James’ death and Peter’s escape from Jerusalem (Acts 12:27, 43? AD), emphasizes his role as a Davidic restorer (Acts 15:16, 50? AD), connect him to the temple (Acts 21:18-26, 57 AD), but the Gospels and early Acts may down play his role during Christ’s ministry and early Church while emphasizing the prominence of Peter (Matt 16:18, Matt 18:18, Mark 9:2) and the Twelve.
Josephus (98 AD) is important because he affirms James’ prominence in Jerusalem and his account of James’ martyrdom can be used to corroborate the later legends, though it lacks details about James’ priesthood and temple activities. See Ant. 20:9
Eusebius (-339 AD)collected orthodox accounts:
Hegesippus (-180?) provides a lengthy account of James’ martydom and role as a high priest. HE 2.23.4-18
Clement of Alexandria (-215?) emphasizes James’ primacy is receiving the post-resurrection gnosis and selection as first bishop by Christ and P,J,J. HE 2.1.3-4
Eusebius puts Christ’s appearance to James after the others (HE 1.12.4), puts his ordination after Stephen’s death (HE 1.2.1-2), has John wear high priestly clothing (HE 3.31.3), and describes James’ successors (HE 3.11, HE 4.5, HE 3:32).
Another orthodox account is from Epiphanius (-402) (Panarion 29-30 see page 113 — ??) is late, but it elaborates Jesus and James’s role as Davidic priest-kings.
Jerome and Origen do something similar to Eusebius in citing and spinning Josephus and other sources. They had an additional interest in questioning James’ brotherhood status to defend Mary as the ever-virgin.
The NT apocryphal writings contribute to the legend even further:
The Pseudo-Clementines makes James bishop of bishops and have him debating the high priest in the temple, makes Paul a perpetual enemy, and makes Peter a subordinate.
A fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews has the resurrected Jesus appear to the High Priest’s servant and James first after the resurrection. It places James at the Last Supper.
Coptic/Nag Hammadi texts:
Gospel of Thomas Logion 12: “The disciples said to Jesus, ‘We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?’
Jesus said to them, ‘No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.’ ”
The Apocryphon of James has Christ reveal the gnosis to James and Peter, but portrays James as the leader and guardian of that knowledge (see John Painter in Just James p. 164; I am relying on him a lot for these summaries)
The First Apocalypse of James depict his secret conversations with Christ before and after the resurrection, but leave the 12 out of the loop. The Second Apocalypse seems to do more of the same.
While LDS scholars draw parallels to gnosis and a temple endowment (which reinforce a connection of James as a royal priest) and there is somewhat of an orthodox acceptance of the true gnosis (especially Ignatius and the Alexandrian school that claim to have got it from Peter->Mark–>Pantaenus—>Clement->Origen->Eusebius), I detect a lot of widespread skepticism because of Gnostic corruption and heresy. Some aspects of Catholic liturgy seem to have drawn on the esoteric knowledge that Christ taught post resurrection. At least Marcus von Wellnitz(LDS) and Margaret Barker (Methodist) have drawn some connections.
That James was a high priest or held a special level of priesthood is well attested to in the traditions. Whether he had access to the Holy of Holies doesn’t really change that, although some use that problem to reject the traditions. (In Nauvoo they baptized for the dead in the Mississippi and performed endowments above the red brick store while waiting for the temple to be built.) I accept the theory that the Aaronic Priest absorbed Melchizedek High Priestly functions, obscured the role of the MP in the OT, and that it was possible to restore the notion of a High Priest outside of Aaronic lines (of course this would be have been considered a threat to the existing Aaronic/Sadduccee High Priest.) It seems to me that some of level of common ground on this is possible with some Catholics, but would be harder with those Protestants that are quick to use Hebrews 7 to prove that Christ was the last High Priest. I read Hebrews more along the lines that Christ was the last High Priest that needed to mediate a living sacrifice. After Christ’s death that Law of Moses/Aaronic aspect was done away with, paving the way back to a pre-Aaron model for High Priest (Melchizedek) that was not confined to a primogeniture succession model (“without father or mother.”)
Protestants may not put a lot of stock into James as having a special level of priesthood because of the “priesthood of all believers” doctrine. There is also not a lot of high regard for liturgy (Protestantism was in part a reaction of what it regarded as excessive ritual), so there is little patience for a secret knowledge tradition outside the parameters of sola scriptura. I am not attempting to speak for all Protestants, just pointing out some possible tendencies.
Wonderful, another question, we tell the primary children that Jesus “did not
NEED to be baptized….” and did it for example. I know he didn’t have sins
to wash away, but was baptism part of his ordination?
Also do you see any similarities between Gnostic and Kabballah doctrines?
I think both Gnostics and the Kabballah likely both developed from a common source but went their own ways. I do not know much about the Jewish side of the split. It makes me wonder if Christians influenced a resurgence in Jewish mysticism. In my other M* Star post I used Ray Brown’s division of Jewish-Christianity into factions but only used 3 of his 6. The other three were 1) Jews who completely rejected Christ, 2) Jews that secretly embraced Christ, but stayed active in the synagogue, and 3) Jews that publicly embraced Christ and tried to stay active in the synagogue or retain their Jewish heritage (strict adherance to the Torah).
Raymond Brown put James in faction 3. The Book of Acts mentions that many of the temple priests converted to Christianity. The epistle of James show him to be a champion of the poor, likely an attractive stance to the poorer, populist Pharisaic priests, but not to the exploitive, elitist Sadducceas who bogarted most of the temple revenue. Even in Josephus’s account we can see somewhat of an alliance with James and the Pharisees (Josephus was a non-Christ believing Pharisee and he was sympathetic to James.) Being a nazarite like John the Baptist, might explain some of James’ crossover appeal and reputation as a holy man. He also carried the torch for those who harbored Davidic messianic expectations (keep in mind Jesus’ triumphant entry in Jerusalem), yet all of that crowd did not necessarily accept Christ’s claim to divinity. So faction 2 included some of those folks and prominent Pharisees/ Sanhedrin members may have been closet believers. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arithmethia (sp?) might be examples. Tradition has it that even Gamaliel who was the nazi (=”prince” or patriarch) of the Sanhedrin and Paul’s teacher was a secret believer (pseudo-Clement makes this claim). Make that St. Gamaliel even!
So I can conceive of a James who would have been highly sought after to make sense of some of the older temple traditions and texts (note that his brother Jude relies rather heavily on Enoch texts, for example). Like the 12 year old Jesus expounding scripture to the temple elders, James may have been able to wow Jewish scholars with his knowledge, perhaps sparking renewed interest. I can even imagine it as part of James’ missionary pitch. But my speculation is running amuck. . .
It would take much more closer textual analysis to be able to figure out where Jews and Christians drew on the same sources and what cultural influences caused them to diverge. The loss of the temple in 70 AD had a huge impact on both. The Jews became concerned about preserving temple memories through writing down the traditions and rituals. The Christians likewise lost their mother church in Jerusalem and lost a centralized, quality control over the dissemination of Christ’s post-resurrection teachings.
“we tell the primary children that Jesus “did not NEED to be baptized….” and did it for example. I know he didn’t have sins to wash away, but was baptism part of his ordination?”
I think that the primary understanding should be considered canonical. While it is rewarding to contemplate the symbolism behind the ordinances and how we re-enact what Christ went through in his progression towards exaltation, I hesitate to impose my speculative interpretation of events on others. If Jesus’ baptism helped people recognize his authority, that would be secondary to his demonstration of obedience and setting an example regarding baptism. So I probably could be accused of looking beyond the mark in thinking the equivalent of an ordination occurred at Jesus’ baptism in conjunction with his visionary experiences while fasting in the wilderness.
Thank you Keller. I appreciate your opinions.