Topic: Minsterial Priesthood
Q. In the article on the ministerial priesthood, I read that the New Testament Christians didn't have priests until the destruction of the Temple 70 A.D. Until then, they used the Jewish priesthood. Am I reading the article correctly?
A. Evidently not, Damien. Rather, it is the position of the Catholic Church that New Testament Christians possessed a ministerial priesthood from the Last Supper on. Essentially, the first Christians (all of whom were Jewish) possessed **two** priesthoods (the Levitical and the Messianic), and this was because (until 70 A.D.) they were living under **two** Covenants (the Old and the New) **simultaneously**. By 70 A.D., the Old Covenant ceased to be in effect for the Christian Church, as the split between Christianity and Judaism became permanent.
Q. But the Jewish priesthood was only a shadow of the New Testement priesthood and the Jewish Priests had no right to be associated with the table of the Lord (Heb 13:10). How could the Jews, who denied the Lord Jesus, still be associated with the early Christian community?
A. Well, again ... The Levitical (Jewish) priests were not directly associated with the early Christian community. Rather, it was the early Christian community (I specifically refer to the Jewish Christians) who were in association with the Levitical priests. As already mentioned, before 70 A.D., the permanent split between Judaism and Christianity had not yet occurred. Thus, all of the earliest, Jewish Christians were still connected to the Old Covenant (as was Jesus Himself), insofar that their ministry was to operate within the context of the Old Covenant and to bring Jews to a knowledge of their own Messiah. In this context, the early Jewish Christians still participated in Temple worship and its sacrifices ...not because they were necessary, but because these Jewish Christians wished to be faithful to the Law (again, as was Jesus) and to work under the Law so as to build up the Kingdom of God within cultural Judaism itself ...something that could have worked if the Jerusalem establishment had accepted the Gospel.
Q. How exactly did the New Testament Christians use the Jewish priests and Levites? >>>
A. Well, again ... The earliest Jewish Christians, like all other Jews, continued to participate in Temple worship. Jesus Himself speaks about such a context for His disciples, and gives instructions related to it (e.g. Matthew 5:23-24). What's more, as Acts 6:7 tells us, large groups of Levitical priests actually accepted the Gospel and entered the Church; and so, while they themselves were Christians, they continued to offer Jewish sacrifices in the Temple. Again, not because these sacrifices were necessary (as Christians, these Jewish priests would have known that they were not), but because they wished to be obedient to the Law (in imitation of Jesus Himself) and to serve God within their own natural stations in life. Given that the spit between Judaism and the Church had not yet occurred; and given that it was still presumed that all Jews would soon embrace Jesus as the Messiah, it would have made no sense for any of these priests to stop serving in the Temple or to forego their other priestly duties.
Q. But didn't the New Testament Christians have priests of their own? If they didn't have their own priests until after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D., does that mean that they didn't have the Eucharist Proper for 30 years?
A. Again, the Church did possess its own ministerial priesthood. For example, even though Jesus was born under the Law and participated in Temple worship (which included the ministry of Levitical priests), He Himself was a Messianic Priest of the order of Melchizedek. Thus, all throughout Jesus' earthly ministry, two priesthoods were in effect. At the time of Jesus' Passion, He conveyed this self-same Messianic priesthood to His Twelve Apostles, giving them a share in His own priestly ministry; and so the earliest Christians believed that the Eucharist was the only necessary Sacrifice:
1 Corinthians 10:16-22: "The Cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a PARTICIPATION in the Blood of Christ? The Bread that we break, is it not a PARTICIPATION in Body of Christ? ...Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who EAT THE SACRIFICES (e.g. the Levitical priests) ***PARTICIPANTS*** in the altar? So, what am I saying? That meat SACRIFICED to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what THEY (the pagans) SACRIFICE they SACRIFICE to demons, NOT TO GOD, and I do not what you to become PARTICIPANTS with demons. You cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord AND ALSO of the cup of demons. You cannot PARTAKE of the Table of the Lord AND ALSO of the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to JEALOUS anger?"
Here, we must keep in mind **why** the Levitical priesthood came into effect in the first place, so as to understand how the Christian ministerial priesthood was held, not by a "priestly caste" per se, but by "presbyters" ("elders") who were ordained by the Apostles to be the "fathers" within the various city-churches (e.g. Acts 14:23). If one reads the book of Genesis, one sees again and again how sacrifices were always offered by the father of the family or tribe (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.). Thus, in Exodus, when God tells Israel that He intends to make them a kingdom of priests, what is meant (within the cultural context of the Israelites) is that every father of a family (along with his eldest son) would be able to offer sacrifices on behalf of that family or clan. Yet, after the rebellion of the Golden Calf, the priesthood was taken away from the rest of Israel, and given to the tribe of Levi alone. This is where the Jewish priesthood, a priesthood **under the Law**, comes from. It comes about because of a punishment due to Israel's hardness of heart and its inability to enter into a non-legalistic Covenant with God. However, in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, this prohibition is taken away, and the ministerial priesthood is, once again, open to all "presbyters" (elders / fathers) within the New Israel, the Church. This is what happened at the Last Supper, when Jesus empowered the Apostles to offer the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. He, in effect, made them elder-priests in the sense that Abraham and all the pre-Mosaic patriarchs were able to offer sacrifice apart from the Law.
Q. In Corinthians Paul speaks to the Church about the celebration of the Eucharist. However, the letter is meant for the WHOLE Church. He doesn't seem to single out priests. Doesn't this say that all believers are entitled to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist? >>>>
A. Ah! :-) But, Damien, ... In the Catholic understanding, all believers **do** offer the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. ...Only not in the same way. Above I mentioned how, in Genesis and ancient Israelite society, the father of the family, tribe, or clan offered sacrifices **on behalf** of that family or clan. Yet, while the father performed the actual ministry of killing the animal and burning it atop an altar, the sacrifice itself was considered the sacrifice of the entire family, tribe, or clan; and by standing there with the father (the officiating minister) and offering prayers, the family, tribe, or clan was participating in the act sacrifice as well. ...even though they themselves were not the actual ministers of the sacrifice. Well, the Catholic Mass is no different. For example, just before the Consecration, the priest says:
"Pray, brethren, that OUR Sacrifice will be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father."
And the assembled congregation (i.e., the tribe / family / clan) responds:
"May the Lord accept the Sacrifice at YOUR hands, for the praise and glory of His Name, for OUR GOOD and for ALL HIS CHURCH."
Thus, while the Sacrifice is offered at the hands of the priest alone (for he alone is the priestly minister), the entire family participates in the Sacrifice and it is offered for the good of all. This is what St. Paul is referring to in Corinthians.
Mark Bonocore
Catholic Apologist
February 15, 2003