Blog 3 of 7 - Christ The Priest
The author of the epistle to the Hebrews makes it clear that one of the victories won by Christ through His passion, death on the cross and resurrection, was the completion and replacement of the old Levitical priesthood. In Hebrews, Jesus is titled the “apostle and high priest of our confession” (Hebrews 3:1. This and following quotations are from NRSV translation), and is described in a complex, layered metaphor, as both the builder of the house, and the “son” there, while Moses is a “servant” of that house (Hebrews 3:1-6). The metaphor indicates that Christ (and His priesthood) is somehow foundational, the source of the house (as builder); but also that He has a higher status than Moses’ Old Testament covenant, and that He holds the key to the future of the household, as the natural inheritor of the estate.
In order for Christ to be a priest, in a way that both completes and replaces the Levitical priesthood enacted in the Old Testament, a new source of priestly authority needs to be established. The author of Hebrews uses the figure of Melchizedek, a non-Levitical priest and a king, mentioned obliquely a couple of times in the Old Testament, as the foundation for this authority:
Jesus… has entered [the inner sanctum], having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 6:20
Melchizedek and his priesthood is introduced in a short story in Genesis, taking place when Abram returns from rescuing Lot:
And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most high. He blessed [Abram] and said,“Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him one tenth of everything.
Genesis 14:18-20
The author of Hebrews uses this character to articulate the supremacy of Christ’s priesthood over the Levitical priesthood that went before; Abram gives “one tenth of everything”, a tithe of all his spoils, to Melchizedek, thus showing that Melchizedek is greater than Abram and his descendants; Levi is in the loins of Abram when this happens, so Melchizedek’s priesthood is greater than Levi’s (Hebrews 7:3-10); Melchizedek is king of “Salem”, which (probably by similarity with shalom, Hebrew for “peace”) is translated as “King of peace”, while “Melchizedek” itself is translated as “king of righteousness”, again probably by its similarity to melek zedek, which has this meaning in Hebrew (Hebrews 7:2).
Further, the author draws on psalm 110,
The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”,
to argue for the everlasting nature of the Melchizedekian priesthood:
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
Hebrew 7:3
The author also argues for the superiority of a priesthood inaugurated by an oath from God (“The Lord has sworn…” in Psalm 110) rather than by birth.
This latter point is of course important, as Jesus was not born of the tribe of Levi, so could not be a priest by birth. But Hebrews tells us that Christ is a member of this other priesthood, which is superior to the Levitical priesthood, has ancient, Old Testament roots, and was ordained by an oath from God. Finally, it is a priesthood which is eternal, both because Melchizedek did not have to prove his ancestry to be appointed a priest (so it is not rooted in mortal ancestry), and because Christ Himself is eternal: “he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever” (Heb 7:24).
Having defined the nature and origin of the priesthood of Melchizedek, Hebrews also tells us about what Christ does as a priest. He saves “those who approach God through him” as he “always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25). He replaces the need for daily sacrifices, the ritual practice of the Levitical priesthood, by his offering of his perfect self, in his passion and death. Hence the offering of gifts and sacrifices, a key raison d’etre for the priest in the mind of the author of Hebrews, is completed by the flawless self-offering of Christ, “not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12), “to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people” (Heb 2:17), in contradistinction with the Levitical priesthood, which can never complete its ongoing work of sacrifice for sins.
All of this is helpful in a discussion of priesthood today, principally as it tells us what non-divine priests/presbyters cannot be; first, they cannot be continuations of the Levitical sacrifice-makers, as Christ’s priesthood has completed that work and rendered it unnecessary. Second, they cannot be clones of Christ-the-priest, as no normal human is able to offer themselves as a flawless sacrifice; nor do they need to, as “there is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb 10:18).
The First Epistle of Peter in the New Testament gives us another image of Christ’s priesthood over the church, which is Christ as the chief shepherd:
He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
1 Peter 2:24-5
This picture adds a literally pastoral slant to Christ’s priesthood, as one who shepherds the sheep, keeping them in safety. The people of the church are to be like “newborn infants” who need spiritual milk to “grow into salvation” (1 Pet 2:2-3). Interestingly, the elders of the church are themselves also exhorted to care for the community using the same shepherding metaphor:
I exhort the elders among you to tend the flock of God that is in your charge… Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of glory that never fades away… Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour.
1 Peter 5:1-8
This gives a glimpse of a church leadership which somehow shares, in some limited sense, in the overseeing work of Christ at a church level. The Common Worship Ordination Service states explicitly that those being ordained are to “set the Good Shepherd before them as their example and pattern” as part of the call to “make Christ known”. In part, at least, being a priest in a church will involve pointing to the work of Christ as chief shepherd as well as ultimate giver of Himself as once-for-all sacrifice, as is reflected in the “Tell” portion of the Five Marks of Mission. Yet there is something of an imitatory role here, of being a shepherd on behalf of the chief shepherd, which we will unpack further later on.
We have seen one clear way in which Christ alone is a priest, and that is in the offering of a sacrifice that replaces the Levitical system of ritual sacrifices. Because of this, some in the evangelical tradition are uncomfortable with using the word “priest” for people who lead churches. Interviewee C was troubled when asked about their priesthood, and showed a marked preference for the word “presbyter”, saying that they were “called to leadership not priesthood”, and that the term “priesthood” carried with it unhelpful overtones of a hierarchical spiritual structure. They viewed a presbyter as someone “commissioned as a person of authority”, authorised and given a theological foundation. But they viewed the expulsion of unnecessary church hierarchy as a key step in releasing the laity, freeing the body of the church to equip itself for its mission; and they viewed the term “priest” as a blocker to this liberation.
Such a strong expression of this viewpoint of human priests may be rare in the Church of England, but I think the use of the word “priest” for Christ as well as for human ministers can cause some overlapping thinking which is possibly confusing. For example, Church of England canon law states,
No person who has been admitted to the order of bishop, priest, or deacon can ever be divested of the character of his order.
Canon C1-2 from https://www.churchofengland.org/more/policy-and-thinking/canons-church-england/section-c
A critic may feel that such a statement is confusing the eternal, unchangeable nature of Christ’s priesthood, with a non-divine human. It is clear that Christ’s character as priest can never be changed, as He is revealed in scripture as being a priest forever. But normal humans can have changes of character throughout their lives. While we do hope that someone ordained a priest maintains the character necessary to fulfil the role throughout their life, it seems strange to legislate that this must be the case.
It would perhaps be useful if humans working as priests had a different title, which reflected their participation in Christ’s work without fully identifying them with Christ’s perfect sacrifice and continual intercession - this is why I think the term 'presbyter' (from presbuteros, 'elder') is more useful to use for human ministers than 'priest' (which nowadays seems to correspond to the Greek hiereus, even though it derives from presbuteros as well). As the Greek New Testament had different terms for these different-but-related concepts, it seems sensible to me that we should have the same in English. Of course, as in so many areas, once a name has stuck, it is hard to shift it; as much benefit may be gained from clarifying exactly how human priests participate in the work of Christ’s priesthood, as by campaigning to have the term changed across the church.
The next blog will be on "the church as priest".
コメント