Jean Galot, addressing whether the epistle to the Hebrews teaches that the leadership of the New Testament church participated in an ordained, New Covenant priesthood, wrote the following:
Participation in the Priesthood of Christ
Here we must raise a question: Are the leaders of the community invested with a priesthood that extends the priesthood of Christ?
The fact that they are not called “priests” does not justify a negative answer. As noted earlier, Jesus did not call himself a priest, nor did he bestow this title upon his disciples. By engaging in a doctrinal model of reflection, the author of the Epistle came to apply this title to Christ, while stressing that his priesthood is transcendent and radically different from the Jewish priesthood. He did not engage in a similar reflection concerning the true situation of the “leaders” of the community, for to do so was not his purpose.
However, what he says concerning these leaders makes of them the prolongation of the mission of “the great Shepherd of the sheep”, the mission he attributes to Christ (“the leaders are saints who insure the ministry of unity along the course of a history that unfolds under the leadership of Christ, apostle, archegone and forerunner of salvation [Ch. Perrot, “L’Epître aux Hébreux”, in Le Ministère et les ministères selon le Nouveau Testament [Paris, 1974], p. 136). Christ is the one who first guides the community by entering as a forerunner into heaven through his own sacrifice and by continuing to guide those for whose benefit he opens up the way to the Father (cf. Heb 6:20; 7:25). Christ becomes the source of eternal salvation “for all who obey him” (Heb 5:9). The obedience due to the leaders who are responsible for the care of souls (Heb 13:17) seems to fit within this same perspective. Thus, the authority of the leaders emerges as a participation in the authority of Christ (B. Sesboüé notes: “The activity of the ministers in their relation to the community expresses and realizes part of what Jesus does for the community” (“Ministères et structures de l’Eglise: Réflexion théologique à partir du Nouveau Testament”, Le Ministère et les ministères selon le Nouveau Testament, p. 386).
This participation has been objected to on the ground that the priesthood of Christ is “exclusive and intransmissible”. It has been written that “Christ remains forever and our only priest in heaven and earth” (Ch. Perrot, L’Epître aux Hébreux”, p. 130. Perrot adds: “To reject the absolute unity of his priesthood is to deny that he is alive or us today, and that he truly leads us from this earth to heaven”. In what follows, Perrot insists that Christ “is the only one to whom priestly terminology can be rigorously applied”, but he qualifies his position somewhat by conceding that the people of God can be called a priestly people, and that the specific ministry of the leaders can all the more be described as a priestly one [p. 137])). The question has been asked even more pointedly: “Are we to maintain that Christ has forever abolished the priesthood here on earth, and that there will never be another priesthood, or are we to say rather that Christ renews the priesthood and brings it to fruition in his own self, thus founding a new priesthood open to participation by others?” The question has received a radical answer: “With the death of Christ there ceases to be a reason for offering new sacrifices for sin. Consequently, there is no longer any reason at all why there should be a priesthood” (Heb 7:23-28)” (J. Moingt, “Services et lieux d’Eglise”, Etudes [October 1979]:379).
True, the Epistle does assert the uniqueness of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. In this priesthood the author sees the abolition of the Jewish priesthood as well as the proof of its inefficacy. The remission of the sins of mankind has been secured once and for all by the priestly sacrifice of Christ. This principle excludes any other priesthood parallel or concurrent with the priesthood of Christ. But we should not say that the author intends to deny that the Christian ministry is a prolongation of, or a participation in, that priesthood of Christ is unique and definitive.
Nor should we claim that the quality of “great Shepherd of the sheep” abolishes, in the intention of the author, all pastoral functions in the Church. On the contrary, the pastoral ministry, conceived as a ministry deriving from Christ the shepherd, attests that the pastoral activity of Christ is a living actuality in the Church here below.
The author of the Epistle does not deal explicitly with this participation because his purpose does not call for special reflections on the ministry of the leaders of the community. But this participation is consistent with the basic thrust of his doctrine. (Jean Galot, Theology of the Priesthood [trans. Roger Balducelli; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005], 63-64)
