Royal priesthood

[Avatar4321]

I had a discussion elsewhere concerning priesthood. A person there took a common position that Christ is the only high priest after the order of melchizedek based on the passage in Hebrews. I don't think this interpretation makes sense. After all melchizedek was a high priest in the same order.

This was oddly ignored. And the original viewpoint was continued to be pushed. The person claimed there was no evidence of anyone else who was after this order in the Bible.

I asked about Peters claim that to be of a royal priesthood. What priesthood was he claiming to be a part of? I know of only two priesthood orders mentions in the Bible. The order of Aaron and the order of melchizedek. And yet supposedly the only one in the melchizedek priesthood is Christ? It doesn't make sense to me.

Despite asking multiple times about Peters comment, I received no response. I've been thinking about it and thought I'd ask and see what others thought. What is the royal priesthood Peter claimed?

 

[ninja007]

Peter is speaking to the Church, all Christians.

“If we suffer with Him, we will reign with Him” (2 Tim. 2:12).

“God has made us kings and priests and we shall reign on earth”
(Rev. 5:10).

 

[JakeStarkey]

The AWF offers the explanations below: Priesthood of all Believers Alliance World Fellowship

Echoing the major Old Testament passages pointed out above, 1 Peter 2:9 states, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” God’s people, as the text maintains is a “royal priesthood” with no marked distinction between leaders and community members. Furthermore, the text speaks of one unified body of believers in Christ.

Verses 4 and 5 of I Peter 2 provide the backdrop to the motif of a collective priesthood.

and

As emphasized, the identity of the believers is described in Scripture as the “people of God,” and “royal priesthood.” This is a unified identity that refers to the entire believing community, indicating the absence of dichotomy from within the body.[133] The scriptural distinctiveness of believers as affirmed in history remains normative in the modern era.[134]

 

[Meriweather]

I had a discussion elsewhere concerning priesthood. A person there took a common position that Christ is the only high priest after the order of melchizedek based on the passage in Hebrews. I don't think this interpretation makes sense. After all melchizedek was a high priest in the same order.

This was oddly ignored. And the original viewpoint was continued to be pushed. The person claimed there was no evidence of anyone else who was after this order in the Bible.

I asked about Peters claim that to be of a royal priesthood. What priesthood was he claiming to be a part of? I know of only two priesthood orders mentions in the Bible. The order of Aaron and the order of melchizedek. And yet supposedly the only one in the melchizedek priesthood is Christ? It doesn't make sense to me.

Despite asking multiple times about Peters comment, I received no response. I've been thinking about it and thought I'd ask and see what others thought. What is the royal priesthood Peter claimed?

What we know about Melchizedek: He was a king of peace. He was prophet. He was priest by divine appointment, not by heredity. That is the line of Melchizedek, and through Baptism, Catholics believe the faithful become a part of this line: Appointed not by heredity but by divine appointment to be priest, prophet, and king.

Like you, I am uncertain why the person you were conversing with believes there was a third priesthood, or why disciples of Christ are not considered priest, prophet, and king in the order of Melchizedek.