Christian Priests?

I recently read a couple thought-provoking quotes from James Dunn (1939-2020).

Dunn served as a New Testament professor at the University of Durham for about twenty years. In his book Jesus according to the New Testament, which I highly recommend, Dunn explores how Jesus is presented in each section of the New Testament. In chapter 7 titled Jesus according to Hebrews, Dunn traces the author’s argument regarding Christ’s “unique and unrepeatable” priesthood. Since Christ is our great high priest, we now have direct access to God through Christ’s blood (Heb 10:19-22).

And this leads to the elimination of the need for priests as mediators between God and believers.

Dunn then writes:

For if we have properly understood Hebrews, it would have been most natural to conclude that the worshipers of Jesus no longer needed priests. Christ himself was the only priest now needed. All could go directly, for themselves, into the presence of God. But, despite Hebrews, the centrality of priests as intermediaries and essential to effective worship was reaffirmed in second-century Christianity—and quickly became established, again despite Hebrews. Quite how Hebrews could be so prized (as to become canonical) and yet at the same time could be so ignored (by the reaffirmation that priests are still necessary for legitimate worship of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ) is one of the great puzzles in the early history of Christianity. (153)

Dunn adds that the return to priests is the opposite of what occurred in Judaism after the destruction of the temple.

This always strikes me as one of the most astonishing developments of the late first and early second century in the two religions closest to the heart of Jesus and the first disciples. Despite its long history of being a temple-centered religion, with priests and sacrifices so fundamental to the religion that the religion could hardly be conceived without priest and sacrifice, Judaism became something different from the second century onwards—a religion of book (Torah) and teacher (rabbi), no longer priest and sacrifice. In contrast—indeed in complete contrast—Christianity began with a focus on the word which Jesus preached and embodied, with priest and sacrifice not at all at the center; and yet in the second century Christianity reverted to the concept and practice of religion as focused on priest and sacrifice. The Lord’s Supper was in effect transformed from being part of a shared meal into a reenactment of a priestly sacrifice. Whereas in Judaism priestly ritual gave way to word expounded, in Christianity the word became in effect subordinated to the revived priestly ritual. (154)

Dunn is right; these are truly “astonishing developments.”

The early church certainly had leaders as attested by the New Testament. Consider the following data:

• The church in Jerusalem had apostles and elders (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 21:18).
• The churches in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch in Syria had elders. “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust” (Acts 14:23).
• The church in Ephesus had elders who are called both “elders” and “overseers” (Acts 20:17, 28). According to 1 Timothy, the Ephesian elders “direct the affairs of the church” and preach and teach (5:17).
• The churches on the island of Crete were supposed to have elders. Paul tells Titus, “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). Since Paul continues by talking about overseers in verse 7, he seems to be using elder and overseer interchangeably.
• “Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.” (Heb 13:7)
• The churches “scattered among the nations” had elders (Jam 1:1). James says, “Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord” (5:14).
• The churches in the “provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia” had elders. Peter writes, “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed” (1 Pet 5:1).

While there were leaders in the NT, these leaders were never called priests. What were they called?

The two terms used for church leaders are “overseers” and “elders.” Some churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal or Anglican Church, believe the leadership structure was a two-tiered system with bishops (episkopos) in authority over elders (presbuteros). (The word priest comes from the Greek work presbuteros.) Others, however, argue that the New Testament uses the terms for “overseers” and “elders” interchangeably. Bill Mounce concludes,

It appears best to interpret Paul’s use of the terms “overseer” and “elder” as interchangeable references to the same group of church leaders. “Elder” may historically show that much of the leadership in the church was drawn from the older men, and “overseer” is more indicative of their function. (308)

Notably, “elders” is almost always in the plural, indicating multiple elders in each location. Elders-overseers were responsible for directing “the affairs of the church” and “preaching and teaching” (1 Tim 5:17).

What happened to the priesthood?

According to Peter, the priesthood is now composed of all believers.

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Pet 2:4-5)

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Pet 2:9)

Conclusion

The first churches had a leadership structure as seen in the office of elder-bishop. Evidence to support that statement comes from Acts, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter. But in this early period, we don’t have evidence to support the idea that leaders were viewed as priests.

Why, then, did the Christian movement return to the priesthood as reserved for a select group, especially when the book of Hebrews emphatically rejects such a notion and when all believers are called priests? If “priest” merely means church leader, there is no major issue. As we have seen, the church has always had leaders.

Using the term priest, though, causes confusion because it brings to mind the role of Old Testament priests. If believers consider the priest to be their mediator with God then a major theological problem exists because “there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Tim 2:5-6). The church has leaders, but they are not intermediaries between God and the believer. That place is reserved for Christ alone.