|
Sign up for a web hosting account at 741.com |
Origins of the Priesthood
I apologize if this part will be somewhat longwinded, but the
priesthood is a complex topic and I just can’t deal with it
briefly on the level it took to convince me. Let’s
first take a look at priesthood in the Old Testament.
The most important
priest in the OT, I believe, is found way back in Genesis 14.
Returning from his victory, Abram visits Melchizedek. His
name means “King of Righteousness”, and he is the king
of Salem (later Jerusalem), which means “peace”. The
ancient Jews and Church Fathers understood his priesthood to be
that of a father, as fathers were high priests and firstborn sons
priest under them. Melchizedek “brought out bread and
wine: he was the priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18).
Now there is a disagreement on the interpretation and
significance of this passage. For Catholics, Melchizedek
fulfills his role as a priest by both blessing Abram and
by offering bread a wine, which is viewed as a sacramental
offering. This interpretation is of early origin:
"Also in the priest Melchizedek we see the Sacrament of the
Sacrifice of the Lord prefigured, in accord with that to which
the Divine Scriptures testify, where it says: ‘And
Melchizedek, the King of Salem, brought out bread and wine, for
he was a priest of the Most High God; and he blessed Abraham'.
Letter of Cyprian to a Certain Cecil 63,4 [cica 250 AD]
“[Abram] was then openly blessed by
Melchizedek, who was priest of God Most High… For then first
appeared the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians
in the whole wide world, and that is fulfilled which long after
the event was said by the prophet to Christ, Who was yet to come
in the flesh, ‘Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Mechizedek’ – that is to say, not after the order of
Aaron…” Augustine, City of God, XXVI, 22 [413-436 AD]
Protestants interpret Genesis 14:18 differently in that they do not see Melchizedek’s offering of bread and wine as a form of sacrificial offering but as the mere supply of sustenance for Abram’s hungry troops. Melchizedek will be important later.
I should not have to go into much detail about the Levitical priesthood. They offered bloody sacrifices after Israel went back to the golden calf. They wanted to worship the ‘gods’ of the Egyptians, so God made them slaughter those ‘gods’ continually in the animal form in which they worshiped them. These sacrifices, of course, were unable to bring about lasting atonement or salvation.
As we can both heartily agree, Jesus changed all this. He is, as you say, our High Priest. Both priest and victim, he accomplishes what all the daily offerings of the Levitical priesthood never could, “For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (Heb 10:14). He is the “one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5). Through his offering of his perfect self, he accomplished what none of us ever could. Amen!
Now, your primary question was how is it possible to reconcile verses such as Revelation 1:16 or 1 Peter 2:5-9, which declare us to be “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God” - in essence the priesthood of all believers - with the idea of a separate priesthood. My first response is that at Sinai, a chapter before giving the Ten Commandments, God tells Moses that the Israelites “will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:6), essentially the same words as we find the in the NT. This does not, however, prevent the creation of a separate priesthood among the Levites in Exodus 28-30. In fact, Exodus 19:20-24 refers to a separate group of priests among the people at Sinai. They existed before the Levitical, as did Melchizedik.
This separate priesthood established by God in the OT met with resistance from some of the Israelites. In Numbers 16, we find the story of Korah, who leads a rebellion against Moses and Aaron, stating: “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD's assembly?" Korah rejects the idea that there should be a separate priesthood under Moses and Aaron. Moses responds "Now listen, you Levites! Isn't it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the LORD's tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. It is against the LORD that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?" Moses taunts them to offer up incense, a privilege of the priesthood. (In the NT, we find ‘elders’ similarly offering incense to the Lord in heavenly worship in Revelation 5:8 just as the priests in the OT had done.) When they do, the earth opens and swallows them up. “This was to remind the Israelites that no one except a descendant of Aaron should come to burn incense before the LORD, or he would become like Korah and his followers.” So in the OT, we find that the separate priesthood is established and sanctioned by God, and the usurpation of it is taken gravely serious by God Himself. In rejecting Moses and Aaron, Korah was rejecting the God of Moses and Aaron.
This problem is not, however, confined to the OT. Although the short book of Jude denounces primarily the sins of the flesh, it does also condemn some who have crept into the church: “Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.” (Jude 1:11) Jude also laments that these rebels ‘reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries’ (Jude 1:8) and ‘grumble’, just as Korah had done against Aaron. So we see the NT condemns men who reject those rightly commissioned by God to the priesthood and seek to establish themselves in the position of the priesthood on the basis that all Israel are members of a priesthood of all believers. Problems with the priesthood are in fact the common thread of Jude 1:11. Cain was jealous of Abel’s “more excellent sacrifice” (Heb 11:4), and Balaam corrupted his ministry for money.
Having said that, Catholics do in fact believe in the ‘priesthood of all believers’ as well as the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ and the ministerial priesthood. The Catechism states: “Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church ‘a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.’ The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are ‘consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.’" Likewise, we offer ourselves up “through Him, with Him, and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit” to the Father as members in the body of Christ. As 1 Peter 5 states, we are also to “offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
I think we can more or less agree on most of that. Several questions still need to be answered, though. Why a separate priesthood, how does it differ from the priesthood of believers, what is its purpose, and what are the Biblical and historical reasons for it.
First off, we should look at the origins of the word ‘priest’. “Paul and Barnabas appointed (or ‘ordained’) elders [presbuteros] for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” Acts 14:23. The Greek ‘presbuteros’ or ‘presbyteros’ is the root of the Latin ‘presbyter’, which ultimately became the English word ‘priest’.
The Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and other communions which generally hold to the idea of Apostolic succession maintain three basic distinctions within the ministerial priesthood: bishop, priest, and deacon (most of the other offices such as archbishop, cardinal, pope, or apostle are really just bishops with a specific function). Scripture at times merges these offices or functions into one person, such as Paul who is a teacher, apostle, and a “priestly” minister (Romans 15:16). One reason for this confusion, of course, is that these words actually have meanings in Greek which they do not have in English. A deacon is literally a ‘servant’ and a bishop is an ‘overseer’, whereas a ‘priest’ or ‘presbyter’ is just an ‘elder’ or ‘old man’. Its easy to see how Paul could be an overseer, a presbyter, and a servant. Despite the confusion between these different offices in the NT, we nevertheless see some sort of ordination or commission, such as Paul’s mention of the laying on of hands by the elders to Timothy in 1 Tim 4:14, or the appointment of Matthias to Judas’ ‘bishopric’ “That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell” (Acts 1:20-26).
Although the NT leaves the reader with some ambiguity, the writings of the early church, even in the apostolic fathers who learned directly from the apostles, show the existence of this three-fold ministry. I know that we differ on the importance of extra-biblical evidence (although we agree that the writings of the church fathers are not inerrant like the Bible), but I think that particularly the apostolic fathers are a useful resource in clarifying some matters that might be ambiguous in Scripture. It is particularly apparent in St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John. Here are just a few things he wrote concerning the priesthood:
“the bishop
is to preside in the place of God, while the presbyters are to
function as the council of the Apostles, and the deacons, who are
most dear to me, are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus
Christ.”
“let all
respect the deacons as representing Jesus Christ, the bishop as a
type of the Father, and the presbyters as God’s high council
and as the Apostolic college. Apart from these, no church
deserves the name.”
He was also firm in insisting that this practice had the direct sanction of Jesus:
“the bishop
and his assistants, the presbyters and deacons, that have been
appointed in accordance with the wish of Jesus Christ, and whom
He has, by His own will, through the operation of His Holy
Spirit, confirmed in loyalty.”
Although there is endless debate on how prevalent the clear three-fold distinction in ministry was in the first couple centuries – its prominence in Ignatius’ letters would indeed suggest that in some areas that it was being questioned or ignored altogether – it is difficult to imagine that its universal and unquestioned acceptance from the third century to the sixteenth would be allowed by the Holy Spirit if it had been in fundamental error.
Why, however, would the church adopt a priesthood like the OT had? I mean didn’t Christ, our High Priest offer his “once for all” sacrifice? Well, for one thing Christ being our High Priest might, albeit not necessarily, imply that there are priests underneath Him. Earlier back in Numbers we saw that offering up incense was a responsibility of the OT priesthood. While I haven’t done extensive research on the offering of incense, we do see the 24 ‘presbyters’ in Revelation 5 with bowls of incense. It’s just a thought, but this might signify the continual priesthood under the High Priest Jesus Christ in the heavenly Jerusalem. In fact, the very presence of these elders shows a continued distinction within Christ’s heavenly kingdom. We see a further continuation in what is really a three-fold priesthood. In the OT, we find a high priest, ministerial priests, and the royal priesthood of all. If in the NT we find a High Priest and the royal priesthood of all believers, why shouldn’t our ordained ministers also continue in the OT model of a ministerial priesthood like the High and universal priests?
It is the second part of the objection, however, that is more important for our discussion. Christ’s “Once for all” (Heb 7:27) sacrifice can grammatically either convey the sense of over and done with, as in the one sacrifice that is in no way repeated or continued, or it can also mean one time and continued in perpetuity. I have come to believe the latter. Now does this mean that Christ will again sacrifice Himself on the Cross. Of course not! He has died, raised from the dead, and ascended into Heaven! His suffering here took place under the temporal conditions of creation, limited by the bounds of time and space. But as God, Christ exists apart from the limitations of time. Jesus Christ is the same “yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 13:8). Although he died on the cross one Friday, he offers himself eternally to the father for the remission of sins. “But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.” (Heb 7:24). We are also told that “He always lives to make intercession for us.” It is precisely the ‘unchangeable priesthood’ of Christ, who serves eternally in the sanctuary as our High Priest interceding for us forever, that has changed my reading of that passage.
Now you are probably thinking that I am off on some wild tangent. Here is why I believe this is central. Remember Melchizedek back in Genesis 14? Well he is back in Hebrews. In fact, Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek is cited as subordinating the Levitical priesthood to Melchizedek in Hebrews 7. What is important about Melchizedek? We are told repetitively in Hebrews that Christ is “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”. But what does this mean by the order of Melchizedek? We know from the tithes paid that this priesthood is superior to that of the Levites (Heb 7). Is this all? Here we return to the differing interpretations of Genesis 14:18. Now Melchizedek is a type of Christ of whom very little is said in Genesis, yet who is cited in the Psalms and in Hebrews. It thus makes sense that of the scant information Genesis gives us, everything becomes important because his priesthood is modeled after Christ’s. What did Melchizedek offer? Bread and wine, exactly what Christ offered up when instigating the new Passover, the Eucharist, in the upper room! Similarly, that’s what he tells his followers to do in remembrance of him. I cannot believe that this is a coincidence. What is, therefore, the offering that a priest according to Melchizedek will make forever? Bread and wine. So like the High Priests of old, Jesus makes his blood sacrifice and enters into the Holy of Holies, into the true sanctuary, only he needs not do this every year but only makes one blood sacrifice, from whence he ministers at the true sanctuary in the true tabernacle that the Lord erected (Heb. 8:2). The next verse reads “For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer.” (Heb 8:3) We know from verse one that Christ is here enthroned in heaven at the right hand of the Father: his death and resurrection are over and done with. Yet he still has something to offer? I believe this is bread and wine, which He offers forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
As I explained in my first letter, I believe that the Eucharist is fundamentally linked to the crucifixion, and that the first three cups of the Passover feast are celebrated in the upper room and the fourth cup of consummation occurs on the cross. This links the sacrifice on the cross with the last supper. Hebrews 13:10 tells us that “We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.” So we have a meal that those in the Old Covenant have no right to partake it which is associated with an altar. Could this be the Eucharistic meal of the New Covenant? And why an altar. An altar is something on which sacrifices are offered. Also remember that many sacrifices offered to God are not death sacrifices but living sacrifices, such as ourselves, or drink and grain offerings. There is also reason from the language of the last supper to see the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The Greek “Touto poiete eis tan emain anamnesin” of Luke 22:19 or “do this in remembrance of me” has sacrificial overtones. These words are elsewhere used in clear reference to the offering of sacrifices, such as “that which you shall offer (poieseis) up on the altar: two lambs” (Ex 29:38) or “you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial (anamnesis) for you before your God” (Num 10:10). Again, I know you probably do not place much faith in the writings of the church fathers, but I have found the patristic evidence of the Eucharist as a sacrifice to be more than convincing that this is what the early church believed, even during the lifetime and living memory of the apostles.
Why am I going on about Communion as a sacrifice? It is because although a priest is someone who by definition performs religious rites as part of his vocation. The primary function of a priest is to make sacrificial offerings. So why a ministerial priesthood? To serve the High Priest by ministering at the NT altar of the Eucharistic sacrifice, a sacrifice in which all three priestly groups (Christ, his ministers, and the faithful) take part.
The Catholic priesthood is essentially a ministerial priesthood. In the church we find the fusion of the OT elder, who served in the synagogue where the teaching and reading of the Word occurred, and the OT priest, who served in the temple and offered sacrifices. It is in the unity of these two functions that we find the emergence of the liturgy in the first and second centuries. The liturgy is divided into two basic parts, the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist. We have seen the priestly connection to the Eucharist, but there is also one to reading the gospel and preaching. Paul says in Romans 15:15-16 that “because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God.” Paul has a priestly duty of proclaiming the Gospel, which again we all have to an extent as Christians, but Paul has a specifically “priestly” duty as a ‘minister of Christ Jesus” to do so. Proclaiming the Gospel before the congregation, the minister serves in a “priestly” role. In the two elements of the liturgy the ministers thus serve in the “priestly” roles of pronouncing the Gospel and participating in Christ’s Eucharistic offering.
You asked specifically why we needed a priesthood to intercede for us when we are that priesthood and can go directly to God the Father through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. To that last part I can’t say anything but Amen! Christ made one perfect intercession for us that no one else ever could have made, and he “always lives to make intercession for [us]” (Heb 7:25). But is he the only one who intercedes for us? 1 Timothy 2:1 says: “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—“ So we, as Christians, are to intercede for one another and for non-Christians as well. This is what we do every time we gather together in prayer for one another.
Now I think what you are really getting at when speaking of intercession, however, is essentially why do we need a priesthood that somehow plays a role in the forgiveness of sins. Now to start out with, we both absolutely agree that only God can forgive sins, and the forgiveness of sins is only possible with Christ’s death and resurrection. The question is whether or not He grants this power to men to exercise in His name.
Well, first off we have baptism. Peter states: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). While most every communion would recognize an emergency baptism performed by any baptized Christian, baptism is most everywhere performed by a ‘minister’ of some form. Now I am guessing you probably don’t believe in regenerative baptism being Baptist and all, but the substantial majority of Christians do. For them, the minister or priest thus already plays a role in the forgiveness of sins by performing a rite, established by Christ, which by the power of the Holy Spirit effects the grace that it signifies.
Priests are also held to intercede for us through other sacraments. James states: “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders [presbyters] of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven (Jas 5:14-15). So through God’s grace the sick man will be forgiven because the elders or priests prayed over him and anointed him with oil. This is a very interesting passage, as the prayer of the presbyters will make the sick person well. Through the prayers of a third party, God works the forgiveness of sins in the sick person. (Jesus himself had worked forgiveness partially through a third party during his earthly ministry when the paralytic’s friends had lowered him though the roof. “When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” Mark 2:5) Sadly, this is not something that is practiced in many evangelical churches, and I certainly cannot remember anything vaguely like it from my experience. But it sure does look a lot like the Catholic and Orthodox sacraments of the anointing of the sick.
The most obvious role that the ministerial priesthood has in interceding for us, however, is in penance and reconciliation. Sin is an offence against God; it damages our communion with him and with his church. Now only God can forgive sin, but I believe that he has delegated to his disciples the power to forgive sins in his name. The first thing Jesus tells his disciples after his resurrection in John is:
“So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" John 20:21-23.
I found it impossible to refuse the notion of any sort of sacrament of confession and reconciliation, believing instead that we are to go to Christ and to Christ alone, and yet still hold any sort of interpretation of this important passage that did justice to the plain words of Christ. It has to become some sort of abstraction about sharing the Gospel – which is precisely how evangelical exegetics have viewed it. I don’t think this does justice to Jesus’ words. Ockham’s razor aside, I think it would have been clear to the disciples that “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” would have naturally meant “I give you the power to forgive and retain sins in My Name.”
James 5:16 tells us to “Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” In the early church, this often took the form of confessing ones sins in front of the entire congregation, but for practical and pastoral reasons it now largely between the penitent and priest. The formula for absolution largely sums up the role of the ministerial priesthood in reconciliation: “God, the Father of mercies, through the death and the resurrection of his Son, has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” It is vital to remember, of course, that the priest has no power to intercede or pronounce the Christian to be forgiven in and of himself, but merely stands in for Christ and pronounces forgiveness in His Name because Christ promised His disciples the power to forgive and retain sins in His Name, and also that this is not at all efficacious without the proper motives because you cannot fool God.
This is lastly related to the Church’s power to bind and loose. Jesus grants this specifically to Peter in Matthew 16:19 and to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18. Contextually from Matthew 18, this means “whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into communion will be restored to God.” Jesus tells his disciples to confront their brother in sin. If he does not listen, bring a witness. If he still refuses, take it to the Church. If he still remains unrepentant, let him be like a heathen. Christ gives the Church the power to anathematize and excommunicate. It is difficult to separate this from his later statements on forgiving and retaining sins. It is even more difficult to imagine how this might work out apart from the ministerial leadership we already see in the NT. It is impossible to retain a pure Christian individualism and still do these passages any justice.
I hope this serves at least as an introduction to the concept of the ministerial priesthood. Thanks for your patience, and apologies if it was too heavy at times.
In Christ,
Ryan