. . . it is an oft-repeated refrain
that the New Testament never designates any Christian leader as a “priest” (hiereus).
From this observation, many have concluded that any notion of a Christian
ministerial priesthood only develops a radical break from earliest Christian
understanding. Is this a proper conclusion? Terminology can be a tricky thing.
Simply because a word does not appear in a text does not mean that the text
outright opposes the use of such a word, or that the text opposes any
conceptual notion of the same. In our present case, for the first statement to
be true (that the NT opposes Christian ministers being called hiereus),
we would have to find texts that say explicitly, “There is no warrant for a
Christian minister to be called a priest.” (Of course, no such texts exist in
any early Christian period) (Brian Alan Stewart, "'Priests of My People': Levitical
Paradigms for Christian Ministers in the Third and Fourth Century Church" [PhD Dissertation; University of Virginia,
May 2006], 233-34)
Other objections, largely theological,
may also be raised. The most common argues that since the book of Hebrews
declares Christ as the high-priest who has fulfilled and abrogated the
Levitical priesthood, there can be no warrant for human priests built on the
model of the (now abrogated) Levitical priesthood. This objection can be
answered on two fronts. From a historical and textual front, the book of
Hebrews and the high-priesthood of Christ rarely factored into third century
consideration of a ministerial priesthood. Perhaps the late acceptance of the
book accounts for this.
On a more theological front, the third
century writers never deny Christ’s high-priesthood; rather, they affirm it
whole-heartedly even while maintaining a ministerial human priesthood. In other
words, Christ’s priesthood and a ministerial priesthood were not deemed mutually
exclusive to these writers, and in many cases, the two priesthoods are
inter-related so that the ministerial priesthood derives from Christ’s
priesthood. I believe there is more work to be done in this area and hope
someday to address this broader question.
As for the objection that the book of
Hebrews, by its abrogation of a Levitical priesthood, denies any possibility of
a Christian appropriation of the Levitical priesthood I offer this brief defense.
The book of Hebrews seems to be arguing against the literal continuation of the
Levitical priesthood after Christ. The third century writers however, never
appropriated this Israelite priesthood in a literal, successive manner; rather
they saw the Levitical priesthood as a type or figure for Christian ministry
such that there were analogies with important differences and transformations.
The Christian priesthood, as I have shown, was portrayed in typological ways,
and by such figural reading, the writers accepted the reality that the
Levitical priesthood no longer existed. In this sense, there is no
contradiction with the book of Hebrews. Finally, [in Rom 15:15-16; 1 Cor
9:13-14], Paul is quite willing to appropriate the Levitical priesthood for
Christian ministry in similar ways. If one argues that the later Christian
ministerial priesthood is at odds with the book of Hebrews, then so is the
apostle Paul himself. (Ibid., 234-35 n. 617, comment in square brackets added
for clarification)
