Comments on: Rescuing priesthood from Witherington’s “perfectly clear” NT

By: clayboy

clayboy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:02:10 +0000

I hadn’t reflected on alternative Jewish “priestliness” so thanks for that comment. I guess there’s more than one way to consecrate a cat.

By: Gareth Hughes

Gareth Hughes — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:03:26 +0000

Thanks for this; I much appreciate the points you make here. I, for one, recognise my own tendency to overuse ‘clearly’ in exegesis. We do have the same problem that the author of Hebrews has: that the classical priesthood of the Pentateuch is normative rather than a first-century actuality. I’m sure that one element of Paul’s perceived ‘hieratic service’ is a continuation of early rabbinic understanding of themselves acting as priests in the dissemination of Oral Torah. This is seen in the mishnaic instruction that atonement was through keeping of halakha. Perhaps it is no wonder then that Paul describes the priestliness of his mission in the context of the Gospel.

By: Bob MacDonald

Bob MacDonald — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:51:06 +0000

Malachi 1:2 is a good example of plural ‘you’ with the same ambiguity. Does God love Israel as a whole or each of the many individuals who reads the prophecy?

Ellen Van der Wolde makes the same distinction, I am told by Joel, in image and likeness. The image is individual, the likeness corporate. (I am not heading in this direction but it may have some merit.)

By: Bob MacDonald

Bob MacDonald — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:46:29 +0000

Plural corporate means the Church as a whole but seen as comprised of many members, none acting individually. Plural severally is each one though of many acting in singular ways. No – one could not distinguish these grammatically, but your statement 2> The so-called “priesthood of all believers” (much better understood as the corporate priesthood of the church) is no argument against an order of priests … implies that you yourself are distinguishing between the corporate role as priest and the individual role as a member of the body as priest.

By: clayboy

clayboy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:20:46 +0000

I’m not entirely sure how one would distinguish between “plural corporate” and “plural severally” nor what the import of that distinction might be.

By: Bob MacDonald

Bob MacDonald — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:14:22 +0000

It is good that you note Paul’s offhand comment in Romans 15. He is by his own admission not of the line of Aaron, but of Benjamin. He also asks that we ‘present our bodies a living sacrifice’ (12:1) as a response to the truth of the prior 11 chapters. This individual offering seems to me to be plural severally rather then only a plural corporate. Is that a reasonable thought?