Off the top of my head, are we all agreed that:
(1) The English word "priest" as used in the Book of Common Prayer is related to the English word "presbyter" (elder) and not the Bible word "priest".
(2) When most informed Evangelicals think "priest" they are most likley to think mediator between God and man offering (propitiatory) sacrifices.
(3) Priests in the Bible are perhaps above all guard or guardians and stewards or servants.
(4) The terms elder (presbyter) and bishop / overseer (episcopos) are interchangable and refer to the same persons in the New Testament.
(5) It may be possible to distinguish the roles of "presbyters" and "bishops" in the New Testament (if not the terms) with "bishops" acting as senior presbyters with a wider geographical remit than ordinary presbyters.
(6) So all NT and modern presbyters are NT bishops and NT priests. Modern bishops are (senior) NT presbyters and priests.
(7) There are basically 2 orders of ministry: (1) deacons (2) priest / presbyters / bishops (2a) senior priest / presbyter "bishops"
(8) The Apostles were elders but not all elders were apostles even if eldership is somewhat apostolic. The modern role of bishop may be seen as especially apostolic since the NT figures who correspond to modern bishops were apostolic deligates or substitutes in a more direct way than elders were.
(9) This view may be thought of as a modified presbyterianism or a reduced episcopasy and has eccumenical potential! It is historically and biblically accurate and adapted to contemporary and abiding needs. It represents a classical Anglican understanding even if Anglicans today generally think more in terms of a 3 fold ministry.
Clear? Any corrections, additions?
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
How can the English word "priest" not be related to the Bible word "priest"? They are both the same English word.
You might be trying to say that the English word priest is etymologically rooted in the Greek presbyteros ("presbyter") and not hierus ("priest"). That's true. It's also entirely irrelevant, because when someone English reads the Bible, who do they see doing all the sacrificing and God-propitiating in the Old Testament? It's people called "priests" in their translation. It's not a great leap for them to think that people with the same name today must be doing the same function.
So an argument which says "but the English word priest is actually a modification of presbyteros, so if I call myself a priest, I'm not actually associating myself with those OT guys" is bogus IMO.
Forgive me for theological naivety, but you are going to have to provide support for assertion 3 for me. Particularly how they can have two different roles "above all".
Doesn't 4) contradict 5)? If not, how is it "possible to distinguish"? On Biblical grounds or other grounds?
How do your limits in assertion 6) and your points in 7) fit with 1 Peter 2:9?
Hope that's useful feedback :-)
Gerv
Very helpful feedback, Gerv, thanks.
I've no books here at the moment, but:
Okay, maybe I was being a bit brief: properly speaking the Bible word translated "priest" in our english versions is a greek word not an english word as you say.
I wouldnt say its at all irrelevant!
You are suggesting there must be an illegitimate totality transfer such that:
(1) some priest sacrified and propitiate
(2) Marc is a priest
(3) Marc must be sacrificong and propitiating.
I'm not esp. suggesting calling myself a priest or at least not prefering the title.
But I do think there are obvious continuities as well as discontinuities between NT pastor-teacher-elder-bishops and OT priests and maybe levites too.
I am inclined to think that the pastor is a kind of representative of Christ and does some kind of mediatorial things in a way that doesnt undermine or detract from teh unique high priesthood of Christ, just as OT priests did not rule out Jesus!
Well, on 3 I meant them as one role really! A guarding steward servant!
Theological justification:
Adam guards and keeps the garden where there is the sacramental food of the Tree of Life. OT priests guard and serve / minister in the Temple and at the altar. NT priests minister at the Table which they fence and lead the Lord's Day service.
I'd look esp, to James B Jordan and maybe Peter Leithart for more on that.
I wasnt especially thinking about what people might or might not think legitimately or illegitamately but what is the case.
I wasnt wanting to have a huge go at evangelicals for associating the word priest with OT sacrificing propitiating / mediator priests.
4 and 5 - roles not terms. In the NT there are people who perform functuions a bit like modern day bishops though the NT term bishop does not refer only to them. I had Timothy and Titus in mind.
1 Peter 2:9 - yes, all God's people are priests (the priesthood of all believers) or the church is priestly (it is a bit more corporate than that might suggest). But OT Israel was specifically said to be a priestly nation. This did not rule out their having a special ordained priesthood, neither does it for us today. Those who believe in Jesus are the New Israel in her priestly role.
Have I missed any of your points, Gerv, I was struggling a bit to remember my points and look back at what number was what?!
(Non-priestly) Blessings,
Marc
Gerv,
You're right that the English origin of priest from presbyter is irrelevant for ordinary folk. However it is very relevant in debates with fellow-Anglicans.
If Cranmer et al. (and indeed the 1662 chaps as well) meant presbyter rather than hieratic/sacerdotal priest, then what "the Anglican tradition" means by 'priest' is very different from what our Anglo-Catholic friends might like to think.
Marc,
I agree.
Except with the "above all" in point 3. Perhaps "among other things" is better.
You are suggesting there must be an illegitimate totality transfer...
Nothing so posh; I'm just saying that when the man on the street thinks "priest", if he thinks anything, he'll be thinking something like "the dude I have to/Catholics have to confess my sins to" or "the guys who make sacrifices in the Old Testament/pagan rituals" or "an old bald guy who fiddles with children", none of which are ideas we want to have associated with ministers of the Gospel.
What sort of "mediatorial things" can a pastor do when we have only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus?
Your theological justification draws parallels between OT priestly sacrifices and the Lord's Supper. I'm trying to avoid having this immediately give me the heeby-jeebies :-) Can you elaborate on where you find such parallels being drawn Biblically?
Jeffers: I quite take your point about the etymology being important in debates within Anglicanism, but it didn't strike me that this was where Marc was going with his post.
Well, I'm not sure what the man in the street would associate with "priest". I guess little more than vicar / fella in dog colar who works for church.
The pastor is kind of mediatorial in that he acts in the name of / on behalf of the people and also in the name of / on behalf of Christ, for example when he prays, announces absolution, preaches etc. The gospel of reconciliation comes through him. Certainly he "mediates" through Christ and must never replace him or usurp his place. The OT priests' mediation was also effective only through Christ.
Parallels between OT sacrifices and Lord's Supper e.g. in OT meals (e.g. peace offering) eaten in fellowship with God as climax of Old Testament covenant renewal worship. Lord's Supper as fulfilled Passover (a sacraficial meal) etc.
Nope, sorry, you've still lost me. Perhaps you'll have to point me at a book.
As far as I understand it, covenant renewal is when God comes and says "I'm now renewing the covenant" - e.g. Genesis 15:18. Where is the justification for arguing that when OT priests sacrificed, this was covenant renewal? You mean, the covenant was so shaky that it needed renewing daily?
I've always been told that covenants are one-sided - God's initiative. So how do _we_ get to renew them? Surely that's something he does?
Also, I guess I need NT references for the idea that the Lord's Supper is a fulfilled Passover. Again, as I currently understand it, the Passover is fulfilled at the Cross, where the true Lamb was sacrificed once and for all. The Lord's Supper is something we do in remembrance of that event, but that doesn't make it a sacrificial meal, it makes it a "do this in remembrance of me".
And I still think your drawing of parallels between OT priest mediation and NT pastor mediation doesn't take sufficient account of Hebrews 10:1-14, which seems to me to say that the priestly mediatorial function is entirely fulfilled in Christ.
Gerv,
Thank you. These are important questions and I think many contemporary conservative evangelicals would sympathise with what you say.
I think a meta / method question is involved: "entirely fulfilled in Christ" need not mean abolished (cf. Mt 5 on the law fulfilled by Christ but not abolished). Also, even if the Passover is about the cross, that does not mean it is not also relevant to the Supper, which after all is also about the cross. Both types (supper and sacrifice) could illuminate one another as well as their antitype. That would all apply to your Heb 10 point.
I would reccomend Myers, The Lord's Day Service on the Christian Lord's Day service as following the OT sacrificial pattern of (call) cleansing [sin / guilt offering / confession / absolution], consecration [whole burnt offering / ascension offering, creed, Bible reading and sermon, intercessions etc] communion [peace offering / supper]. I may have got that a bit muddled, no books here.
Covenant renewal does not imply the covenant is shakey any more than my kissing my wife and telling her that I love her is an unnecessary udermining of our once for all marriage vows. You could say the same thing about your quiet time: you don't need to read your Bible every day since you were saved once for all and can remmeber bits of it.
On the Lord's Supper as a memorial (like the rainbow in Genesis, or OT trumpets) see Jeremais, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. Jesus told us to do this as his memorial to "remind" God of his covenant, pleading the blood, if you want it in Protestant sounding terms.
The intiative is God's since he established and commanded the sacrificial system and the Lord's Day service. We act in respionse to him. I should have said, God commands and invites us to his house that he may renew covenant with us and we with him. This should principally be done on the Lord's Day morning.
Post a Comment