Priestly Role and Presbuteros

[SolomonVII]

Based upon the quote from Romans, Paul's ministerial priesthood was necessary for the offering of the Gentiles (priesthood of believers) to be acceptable.

It also aligns with the OT foreshadowing -- the OT Levitical priesthood foreshadows the ministerial priesthood referred to by Paul, and the priesthood of the nation (Israel's calling as the chosen people) foreshadows the priesthood of the believer.

There is no doubt that foreshadowing and typing from the OT is involved. My little link points out as much.

There is also no doubt that Paul, as Apostle to the Gentiles, delivered the nations unto the Lord, like nobody else. Historically, Paul's contribution to the Christian religion are unparalleled.

Where there still is doubt is how the heireus of St Paul differs in kind from the heireus of the Christian sainthood in general.
Paul made a point of noting that he was appointed by no apostle, but by God himself, and made a point to instruct Christians in his letters that we are not to be followers of Cephas or Barnabus or Paul, but, like him followers of Christ.

It is hard to not understand this without looking through the distorting lens of two thousand subsequent years of history, for sure and what we all have come to see the priesthood to entail.

 

[ebia]

Since only priests and bishops could (and still can) officiate at Holy Communion (which is well known and accepted),

Where's your evidence in this supposed universal apostolic witness?

and because Holy Communion is being referred to as a sacrifice (it is in the text), and because we know that sacerdotalism is characterized by offering something sacred (definition), it just seems to make sense.

So we have some sacramental notions, but nothing linking those to the presbytery except circular reasoning.

This universal apostolic witness seems remarkably silent on the immediate question.

 

[narnia59]

I have to start a thread on this wrong "alignment".

I don't see a thread and I'm about to leave town for a long weekend, so I will respond to this here based upon an "assumption" of what your argument will be from past conversations. So if I'm wrong and there's some new evidence to present, forgive me and I'll check it out late Monday.

The alignment I present is the one that Scripture presents. God makes Israel a kingdom of priests in Exodus 19 "5 Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

I'm assuming you will try to make the argument that God revokes the priesthood of the nation from Israel and gives it to the Levites because in Exodus 20, "18 Now when all the people perceived the thunderings and the lightnings and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled; and they stood afar off, 19 and said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die."

The theory that God promises Israel they will be to him a kingdom of priests and then revokes it because they want to hear God through Moses falls completely flat for many reasons:

1) Nowhere in Scripture does God revoke or even indicate he is revoking the priesthood of the nation from Israel -- prove me wrong on that
2) When Moses receives the instructions for the Levitical priesthood from God, nowhere does God indicate this is being put in place of the priesthood of the nation.
3) The role of the Levitical priesthood is not defined as "hearing" God for the people. Moses was in this role yes, but Joshua who succeeds him is neither a Levite or a priest. The role of "hearing" God for the people falls to the prophets, many of whom are neither Levites or priests.
4) This calling of God to the people of Israel to be a kingdom of priests coincides with his call to "be my own possession among all peoples", the 'chosen' people. This call is not revoked by God.
5) In 1 Peter 2:9 when Peter tells us that we are a "chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people", he quotes Exodus 19 and God making Israel a nation of priests, directly aligning the priesthood of the believers with the priesthood of the nation of Israel, not the priesthood of the Levites. Nowhere does he use the opportunity to align the NT priesthood of the believers with that of the OT Levitical priesthood.

The theory that because Israel asks to not hear God directly he somehow revokes the priesthood of the nation from them and puts the Levites in their place is not supported by Scripture. It arises from a need to make the NT priesthood of the nations align and therefore fulfill the Levitical priesthood in order to fit a desired NT model where there is no separate ministerial priesthood. It starts with a conclusion and tries to backfill into it. The concept that there is a not a separate ministerial priesthood in the NT is flatly shown to be false by Paul in Romans 15 when he says:

15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (RSV)

If the only priesthood in the NT (aside from Christ as high priest) is the priesthood of believers, Paul's statement about his role as 'minister' being one of 'priestly service' so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, makes absolutely no sense. The only way it makes sense if his priesthood is separate and apart from their priesthood of the believers. It can only make sense in light of a true ministerial priesthood in the NT that is indeed different than the priesthood of believers. Just as is found in the OT shadows of the Levitical priesthood and the priesthood of the nation.

 

[narnia59]

There is no doubt that foreshadowing and typing from the OT is involved. My little link points out as much.

There is also no doubt that Paul, as Apostle to the Gentiles, delivered the nations unto the Lord, like nobody else. Historically, Paul's contribution to the Christian religion are unparalleled.

Where there still is doubt is how the heireus of St Paul differs in kind from the heireus of the Christian sainthood in general.
Paul made a point of noting that he was appointed by no apostle, but by God himself, and made a point to instruct Christians in his letters that we are not to be followers of Cephas or Barnabus or Paul, but, like him followers of Christ.

It is hard to not understand this without looking through the distorting lens of two thousand subsequent years of history, for sure and what we all have come to see the priesthood to entail.

Paul was called directly by God but he immediately blinds him and sends him to the established authority of the church to be

1) healed of his blindness
2) wash away his sins by baptism (Acts 22:16)
3) laid hands upon

Paul's ministry is not separate and apart from the church.

His argument about following Christ, not men is rooted in people somehow thinking who baptized them is important. They have missed the concept that it is Christ himself who works through baptism and the other sacraments without any dependency upon the personal holiness (or importance) of the one baptizing. He could just as easily be informing the Gentiles that it is of no import which priest offers their sacrifice for it is Christ himself who is the sacrifice and does the offering.

But there is no room to think that Paul's role in offering for the Gentiles is unique to Paul's ministry to the exclusion of the other apostles....

As for 2000 years, the church is a living organism and cannot be expected to look the same -- it has grown and developed. An oak tree doesn't look much like an acorn, but they are substantively the same thing. In the NT we can see the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons as their roles just begin to be defined and take form. And we see a ministerial priesthood operating along with the priesthood of believers. That those seeds would develop to fit the needs of a growing and dynamic church is to be expected, but we still see the seeds and foundation right there in the NT church.

 

[SolomonVII]

Paul's ministry is not separate and apart from the church.

There is no argument there. As extraordinary as Paul himself was, his ministry is not separate and apart from the Christ's Church either, elevated to a special genus in accord to his special gifts.

It is that special level of hiereus separate and distinct from the priesthood of believers that is is the point of contention.

 

[Thekla]

There is no argument there. As extraordinary as Paul himself was, his ministry is not separate and apart from the Christ's Church either, elevated to a special genus in accord to his special gifts.

It is that special level of hiereus separate and distinct from the priesthood of believers that is is the point of contention.

But I don't think it's separate and distinct any more than any other gift, talent, or role is separate and distinct in Christ's Church.

Christ alone is head and all; He alone has every gift and talent. It takes the rest of us as body, if you will, as aggregate to approximate the fullness of Christ. Thus, as Paul teaches, every part of the body is needed.

 

[Standing Up]

But I don't think it's separate and distinct any more than any other gift, talent, or role is separate and distinct in Christ's Church.

Christ alone is head and all; He alone has every gift and talent. It takes the rest of us as body, if you will, as aggregate to approximate the fullness of Christ. Thus, as Paul teaches, every part of the body is needed.

No argument there. The question is whether hierus type office of priest exists in the Body? The answer is no.

There are presbyteros/elders, but again, no one early on defined it as it was later defined, to mean sacerdotal priest.

 

[Thekla]

No argument there. The question is whether hierus type office of priest exists in the Body? The answer is no.

There are presbyteros/elders, but again, no one early on defined it as it was later defined, to mean sacerdotal priest.

Actually, the NT gives no explicit definition of those terms at all. Nor of proistamenos.

Without such a clear descriptive, one cannot from Scripture say conclusively anything on the matter.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't see a thread and I'm about to leave town for a long weekend, so I will respond to this here based upon an "assumption" of what your argument will be from past conversations. So if I'm wrong and there's some new evidence to present, forgive me and I'll check it out late Monday.

Have a great weekend.

3) The role of the Levitical priesthood is not defined as "hearing" God for the people. Moses was in this role yes, but Joshua who succeeds him is neither a Levite or a priest. The role of "hearing" God for the people falls to the prophets, many of whom are neither Levites or priests.

Quick comment here, to be developed later.

Moses was both priest and prophet. Joshua succeeds in the role of prophet and the Levites continue the priest role.

Later, the role of kings came. But the separate roles of prophet and priest continued.

As you know, Christ now fulfills all three offices of priest, prophet, king.

 

[Markus6]

Yet the fact remains that presbuteros=Christian priest.

Facts and equalities are for mathemetics, not the complex field of translation, unless you want to make it painfully obvious that you're trying to oversimplify things.

Hierarch works well if you think carefully about it.

I had tried to, but lets go further. The difference between "hiereus" and "hierarch" is the suffix "-arch". That is not devoid of meaning, it means "high" or "chief" (as in archangel) so the "hierarch" would be the "high priest".

So...?

I said:
"The word priest nowadays carries more connotations with the Old Testament and pagan priesthoods than it does with the early church role seen in the New Testament."
Doesn't the fact that well used translations only use the word priest for the Old Testament and pagan priesthoods and not for the early church role back that up a little?

You skipped the Christian section...how convenient.

It was rather rambling and complex. My point was that the association of the word priest with Old Testament and pagan priesthoods is common in society. The fact that most of the wikipeida article is about Old Testament and pagan priesthoods backs that up. Catholic use of the word generally assumes a connection with the Old Testament priesthood too right?

 

[Markus6]

Actually, the NT gives no explicit definition of those terms at all. Nor of proistamenos.

Without such a clear descriptive, one cannot from Scripture say conclusively anything on the matter.

Well there's not much on the specifics of the roles as they apply to the christian church. However, both roles were already defined in the Judaism of the time and, if we don't have anything else to work with, those definitions should be the ones we read into scripture. A priest was a very specific term in Judaism - a descendent of Aaron who serves in the temple (or a heretical imposter). Judaism also had elders as can be seen by the term "chief priests and elders" used in the gospels. The phrase makes it pretty clear that the elders are not priests. I've not seen much about the role of the elders in Jewish life but I would expect it would be safe to assume that they were actually "elder" in years.

 

[PaladinValer]

Facts and equalities are for mathemetics, not the complex field of translation, unless you want to make it painfully obvious that you're trying to oversimplify things.

I had tried to, but lets go further. The difference between "hiereus" and "hierarch" is the suffix "-arch". That is not devoid of meaning, it means "high" or "chief" (as in archangel) so the "hierarch" would be the "high priest".

That's MY point.

I said:
"The word priest nowadays carries more connotations with the Old Testament and pagan priesthoods than it does with the early church role seen in the New Testament."

...except it doesn't.

Doesn't the fact that well used translations only use the word priest for the Old Testament and pagan priesthoods and not for the early church role back that up a little?

Read the Greek. What does it use?

It was rather rambling and complex. My point was that the association of the word priest with Old Testament and pagan priesthoods is common in society. The fact that most of the wikipeida article is about Old Testament and pagan priesthoods backs that up. Catholic use of the word generally assumes a connection with the Old Testament priesthood too right?

1) Read the Christian portion of the article. No one has the logical right to pick and choose. And seriously, just because most philosophy is non-Christian doesn't make philosophy non-Christian. Just because most people believe in the Divine aren't Christians doesn't mean the concept of God isn't Christian. Do you see the error in this sort of logic of "most" in this regard? Heck, most religions have a sort of ritual washing...does that mean baptism is right out the window too?!
2) Anglicans aren't different from the Vatican Catholics in this regard. As someone who says his mother is a priest, you should be fully aware of this.

 

[Markus6]

As someone who says his mother is a priest,

Head slapping emoticons and choosing not to actually engage with what I'm saying aside - you do not need to accuse me of lying about my mother. We can either enjoy this interesting discussion without accusing each other of lying unneccessarily or we can not have the discussion at all. Civility costs nothing.

 

[PaladinValer]

Head slapping emoticons and choosing not to actually engage with what I'm saying aside - you do not need to accuse me of lying about my mother. We can either enjoy this interesting discussion without accusing each other of lying unneccessarily or we can not have the discussion at all. Civility costs nothing.

Answer then: does the Anglican Church have the same belief as the Vatican Catholics about priests? Do we have them? Do they function in the same way? Do they act in the person of Christ in their ordained ministry?

Furthermore, I'm not saying you are lying. For all I know, you are misinformed. Furthermore, should isn't the same as must. God knows how many Vatican Catholics I know who don't know much of their own church's theology...same with my fellow Anglicans or the Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, or even Jews, Muslims...heck...Wiccans too.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by narnia59 Haven't forgotten it at all.

OT:
The high priest
Levitical priesthood in service of the people
Priesthood of the nation

NT:
Christ as high priest
Ministerial priesthood in service of the people
Priesthood of believers

I have to start a thread on this wrong "alignment".

No need.
Just study on the 7th chapter of Hebrews

Hebrews 7:12 for the priesthood being changed/translated, of necessity also, of the law a change/translation doth come,

Greek NT - Textus Rec.) Hebrews 7:12 metatiqemenhV gar thV ierwsunhV ex anagkhV kai nomou metaqesiV ginetai

Kindgdom Bible Studies Royal Priesthood Part 24
The Royal Priesthood of Melchizedek

One of the most intriguing descriptions of the unique character of the High Priesthood of Jesus is found in Heb. 7:17 wherein it is stated, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This one grand statement shows that Jesus is not like any of the other priests who the people of Israel knew so much about.

The entire seventh chapter of Hebrews is about THE MELCHIZEDEK CONNECTION, that is, it is about the way Jesus Christ, and thus, His body, the Royal Priesthood, is related to a strange man named Melchizedek. And the connection between Jesus Christ and Melchizedek is worth exploring. Let's take a look at the Melchizedek Connection.

 

[Markus6]

Answer then: does the Anglican Church have the same belief as the Vatican Catholics about priests? Do we have them? Do they function in the same way? Do they act in the person of Christ in their ordained ministry?

I was born and raised in the Church of England so I can quite honestly say: yes and no. My mother's previous church was very anglo-catholic and the role of the priest was practically identical to the catholic role.

Personally I have spent more time in evangelical churches were mostly the answer would be no - as the lack of vestments make pretty clear. Their role in communion is still the same by mandate of course.

None of this was my point though and you seem so keen to dismiss my responses with emoticons that I really doubt whether you're actually taking the time to try and understand my points. My one point about my mother was that the bible she uses in her, rather traditional, church ONLY uses "priest" for "hiereus" and "kohen" and "elder" for "presbuteros". My mother is a "presbuteros" not a descendent of Aaron. If her congregant go to the bible to see the origins of her role they WILL miss it.

Furthermore, I'm not saying you are lying. For all I know, you are misinformed. Furthermore, should isn't the same as must. God knows how many Vatican Catholics I know who don't know much of their own church's theology...same with my fellow Anglicans or the Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, or even Jews, Muslims...heck...Wiccans too.

I say my mother is a priest? She is. If you want to engage in civilized rational discussion you can just go ahead and accept that.

 

[Thekla]

Well there's not much on the specifics of the roles as they apply to the christian church. However, both roles were already defined in the Judaism of the time and, if we don't have anything else to work with, those definitions should be the ones we read into scripture. A priest was a very specific term in Judaism - a descendent of Aaron who serves in the temple (or a heretical imposter). Judaism also had elders as can be seen by the term "chief priests and elders" used in the gospels. The phrase makes it pretty clear that the elders are not priests. I've not seen much about the role of the elders in Jewish life but I would expect it would be safe to assume that they were actually "elder" in years.

But this still does not actually define their role and actions.

Presbyter in Greek denotes not just age (geronta means elderly, as in geriatrics), but also refers to a role of responsibility within the community.

 

[PaladinValer]

I was born and raised in the Church of England so I can quite honestly say: yes and no. My mother's previous church was very anglo-catholic and the role of the priest was practically identical to the catholic role.

I'm not talking about emphasis on the Catholicity or the protestantism of Anglicanism; I'm talking about the priests, period. I've seen plenty of Open Evangelicals who don't doubt that priests are in the "personage of Christ" based solely on the liturgies of the 1662 BCP, and that's just the "role" of the priest, to use the word you use.

Personally I have spent more time in evangelical churches were mostly the answer would be no - as the lack of vestments make pretty clear.

Again, see my initial sentence above. A priest who wears just a cassock, surplice, tippet, and hood who presides at Morning or Evening Prayer and then replaces the tippet for a stole when celebrating Holy Communion at the same worship service is acting just as much as a priest as if he or she were wearing a cassock, amice, alb, cincture, maniple, chasuble, biretta, and wore a cross.

Their role in communion is still the same by mandate of course.

Then therefore, it is the same theology and understanding of priests as that of the Vatican Catholics. Why else did Archbishops Temple of Canterbury and Maclagan of York counter Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae with Saepius Officio? We didn't need to prove to Rome anything about our Orders, but we did need to correct them because by their bull, they were questioning our intended beliefs about our clergy. It doesn't matter whether the Vatican accepts Anglican Orders or not; what matters by it is that their accusation based on our intent and theology about clergy is mistaken.

None of this was my point though and you seem so keen to dismiss my responses with emoticons that I really doubt whether you're actually taking the time to try and understand my points. My one point about my mother was that the bible she uses in her, rather traditional, church ONLY uses "priest" for "hiereus" and "kohen" and "elder" for "presbuteros". My mother is a "presbuteros" not a descendent of Aaron.

And as you admitted, presbuteros -> priest.

No one is questioning that the NRSV, which my parish uses and I honestly prefer, translates hiereus as priest, but it does so in the context of priest as understood in Judaism, not Christianity. If a translation were to be made that had hierarch for hiereus and priest for presbuteros, it is just as fine a translation, with an obvious bias towards the ancient Christian and current Anglican/Vatican Catholic/Eastern and Oriental Orthodox understanding of priest.

I say my mother is a priest? She is. If you want to engage in civilized rational discussion you can just go ahead and accept that.

Reread it again...I said "Furthermore, I'm not saying you are lying. For all I know, you are misinformed. Furthermore, should isn't the same as must. God knows how many Vatican Catholics I know who don't know much of their own church's theology...same with my fellow Anglicans or the Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, or even Jews, Muslims...heck...Wiccans too." which was in obvious reference to your understanding of Anglicanism, not your mother. I don't doubt your mother is a priest; I have no reason to doubt your words because there's no evidence to give rise to doubt. I do have reason to question your knowledge of Anglicanism however.

 

[Markus6]

But this still does not actually define their role and actions.

Presbyter in Greek denotes not just age (geronta means elderly, as in geriatrics), but also refers to a role of responsibility within the community.

Indeed, though it does denote relative age. I'm saying we can discover some sort of idea of what the role means by looking at the role of the elders of the time.

Again, see my initial sentence above. A priest who wears just a cassock, surplice, tippet, and hood who presides at Morning or Evening Prayer and then replaces the tippet for a stole when celebrating Holy Communion at the same worship service is acting just as much as a priest as if he or she were wearing a cassock, amice, alb, cincture, maniple, chasuble, biretta, and wore a cross.

And if they're wearing jeans and a shirt too?

And as you admitted, presbuteros -> priest.

No one is questioning that the NRSV, which my parish uses and I honestly prefer, translates hiereus as priest, but it does so in the context of priest as understood in Judaism, not Christianity. If a translation were to be made that had hierarch for hiereus and priest for presbuteros, it is just as fine a translation, with an obvious bias towards the ancient Christian and current Anglican/Vatican Catholic/Eastern and Oriental Orthodox understanding of priest.

So two translations, which used the same word to refer to two different things would be fine? In the mind of society (which is our mission field so it would be great if they could understand us) and the average person in the pew priest is bound to be associated with either the idea of hiereus or presbuteros, most likely hiereus. Most christians I am sure do not understand the etymology, theology and sacramental practice surrounding presbuteros <-> priest <-> hierueus.

I do have reason to question your knowledge of Anglicanism however.

I'm not sure why. I used my mother as an example and I still don't feel like you've grasped the point behind that. I was not making a point about Anglican theology. I am not currently an Anglican and I am aware that I do not agree with the Anglican position on a number of issues.

 

[PaladinValer]

Indeed, though it does denote relative age. I'm saying we can discover some sort of idea of what the role means by looking at the role of the elders of the time.

And if they're wearing jeans and a shirt too?

Why speak of things not permissible by the canons?

So two translations, which used the same word to refer to two different things would be fine?

It happens all the time. Some translations use "bishops;" some "overseers;" some other words. Same rose, different name. Each has its own biases and emphases (bishop for those episcopal churches; overseers for Protestants, etc).

That's the marvel of the English language that is, admittedly, also as much a pain in the rear.

In the mind of society (which is our mission field so it would be great if they could understand us) and the average person in the pew priest is bound to be associated with either the idea of hiereus or presbuteros, most likely hiereus.

That's a problem with catechesis.

Most christians I am sure do not understand the etymology, theology and sacramental practice surrounding presbuteros <-> priest <-> hierueus.

Most Christians have priests, so I question that entirely.

I'm not sure why. I used my mother as an example and I still don't feel like you've grasped the point behind that.

Try explaining it again in different words?

I was not making a point about Anglican theology. I am not currently an Anglican and I am aware that I do not agree with the Anglican position on a number of issues.

Fine, but

1. You shouldn't ascribe to Anglicanism things that are not Anglican. Not only is it poor taste, it is intellectually dishonest. I don't think you are like that.
2. It doesn't change the fact that we do find the Catholic understanding of priest in the earliest times of the Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch was one of the Apostolic Fathers and he offers the threefold ordained ministry. When you combine it with the inherent sacerdotal aspect found in the others, and you can come up with the theology of priest that is found in the Catholic churches, be they of Canterbury, the Vatican, Constantinople, Utrecht, or Alexandria. Heck, even the Assyrian Church of the East, which split earlier than the Oriental Orthodox, still have the same beliefs as they always did, and that includes a sacerdotal priesthood.

Where's your evidence in this supposed universal apostolic witness?

Most of the Apostolic (that is, those within a generation of the Apostles) Witnesses offer the evidence. It isn't a big step nor is it then hasty to assume it to be the orthodox belief based on it.

So we have some sacramental notions, but nothing linking those to the presbytery except circular reasoning.

How is it circular?