Jesus established a New Covenant ministerial priesthood

[Rusty T]

Dr. Brant Pitre, assistant professor of Scripture and Theology at Our Lady of Holy Cross College, in New Orleans, has a paper available on the web (http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2520) that has to be one of the better explorations of this question: Did Jesus establish a New Covenant ministerial priesthood?

He builds the case, starting with Christ as the New Temple. The fulfillment of Old Testament worship and sacrifice. And from there, he makes several points that I would like to share concerning the understanding of the the New Covenant ministerial priesthood. I encourage everyone to read the entire article, of course.

The question this should raise for us, is, of course: if Jesus symbolized the cessation of sacrifice in the Temple, did he think it would be restored? Would the sacrificial worship of God cease altogether? Or would it be superseded by something greater? To answer this question, I turn to one of the great Jewish scholars of the twentieth century: Jacob Neusner. In his interpretation of the cleansing of the Temple, he states:

The overturning of the money-changers’ tables would have provoked astonishment, since it will have called into question the very simple fact that the daily whole offering [known as the tamid] effected atonement and brought about expiation for sin, and God had so instructed Moses in the Torah. Accordingly, only someone who rejected the Torah’s explicit teaching concerning the daily whole offering could have overturned the tables—or, as I shall suggest, someone who had in mind setting up a different table, and for a different purpose: for the action carries the entire message, both negative and positive. … The overturning of the moneychangers’ tables represents an act of rejection of the most important rite of the Israelite cult, the daily whole-offering, and, therefore, a statement that there is a means of atonement other than the daily whole offering, which is now null. Then what was to take the place of the daily whole-offering? It was to be the rite of the Eucharist: table for table, whole offering for whole offering

But at the same time, this does not mean that sacrificial worship will be entirely brought to an end. Rather, it is the very “pouring out of blood,” which was formerly confined to the Temple, that will now be transferred to the rite of the Last Supper, and, through the command for it to be repeated, to the early Eucharist of the disciples. Indeed, when the Jewish background is properly taken into account, it becomes clear that it is precisely the Jewish notion of one single locus of sacrificial worship that lays the foundation for Jesus’ prophecy of the Temple’s destruction. Once the offering of the “blood of the covenant” is transferred from the Temple sacrifices to the offering of his own body and blood, there can no longer be any room for Jerusalem Temple cult. Its time has come to an end. There can be only one Temple of sacrifice: the body of Jesus.

In this final section, I would like to challenge this widespread assumption and suggest instead that if Jesus expected a new, eschatological Temple, then it stands to reason that he also expected a new, eschatological priesthood. From a first-century Jewish perspective, the Temple cult and the sacrificial priesthood were inextricably intertwined. Although I cannot develop the arguments at length here, several of the texts we have already examined regarding Jesus and the new Temple also suggest that Jesus not only awaited an eschatological priesthood but also saw in himself and his disciples a new priesthood. Indeed, it is no coincidence that in the very texts wherein Jesus speaks about the eschatological Temple, he also speaks of the eschatological priesthood.

I commend the whole article to you.

Rusty T

[RBerman]

Thanks for wanting to spark discussion Rusty. A few things:

1) You're really not supposed to just post links or quotations from elsewhere. Anyone who responds to your posts will do so in his own words, taking time and care to respond fully to the points you raise. You should extend the same courtesy by actually making your own arguments. It's not fair to expect anyone to give you customized responses to cut-and-paste assertions. Nor is it helpful to engage in debate along the lines of, "Your expert is wrong because (insert link to my own expert)".

2) I'll briefly respond to a matter of substance in Pitre's article this one time. He cites Neusner's claim that in upsetting the tables in the temple, Jesus was upending the Jewish sacrificial system in toto. Is that your understanding of that gospel pericope, though? As I read the gospels, Jesus was upset with the hypocritical and money-grubbing way that the temple worship was being conducted, rather than with the concept of the temple sacrifices in general.

[John D. Brey]

Interesting article. . . But the primary points of the article have been taught and thoroughly studied for quite some time by Protestant Dispensationalists. Every single point of the article is pretty much an article of accepted faith (and has been for a long time) within the Dispensationalist branch of Christian Protestant theology. I was thoroughly indoctrinated in all of these points growing up in the teaching of Christian Dispensationalism, such that it’s interesting to see a Catholic scholar just now coming to see things which have been orthodoxy for Protestant Dispensationalists for a very long time. . . Which is to say that it’s odd to see this Catholic scholar supposing that these ideas are new, or un-researched when many treatise, like Chafer’s Systematic Theology, have pointed all of this out, and justified it with scripture and scholarship, for going on a 100 years.

One of the primary points of Protestant Dispensationalism is the idea that Jesus started a new “dispensation,” such that the “Church” is something like a heavenly version of OT Israel. Jesus and his followers are the new temple and priesthood of this new dispensation. . . Any educated Dispensationalist has to be scratching his head wondering that Catholicism should just now be giving consideration to these things, and in a language that suggests that it’s a new idea, rather than something Dispensationalist Protestants have been teaching for better than a century.

[Rusty T]

But the primary points of the article have been taught and thoroughly studied for quite some time by Protestant Dispensationalists. Every single point of the article is pretty much an article of accepted faith (and has been for a long time) within the Dispensationalist branch of Christian Protestant theology.

So Protestant Dispensationalists believe in the established ministerial priesthood? I think Dr. Pitre is well aware of previous scholarship, and quotes and cites it extensively in the article - including Protestant and non-Christian scholars. I also grew in the Protestant tradition, and much of what Dr. Pitre discusses was old hat to me. Jesus as the new Temple, Jesus over-throwing Old Testament sacrificial systems, etc. But I definitely wasn't in the Protestant tradition that extended this understanding to the established ministerial priesthood. Protestantisms abound, so I know experiences vary.

Rusty

[Rusty T]

He cites Neusner's claim that in upsetting the tables in the temple, Jesus was upending the Jewish sacrificial system in toto. Is that your understanding of that gospel pericope, though? As I read the gospels, Jesus was upset with the hypocritical and money-grubbing way that the temple worship was being conducted, rather than with the concept of the temple sacrifices in general.

I think that much of what Jesus said and did in his ministry and life had more than one level of meaning. I am sure that at one level, Jesus was upset with the practices in the temple. But how he reacted, and the recording of the event in scripture, points to a deeper meaning.

Rusty T

[John D. Brey]

So Protestant Dispensationalists believe in the established ministerial priesthood? I think Dr. Pitre is well aware of previous scholarship, and quotes and cites it extensively in the article - including Protestant and non-Christian scholars. I also grew in the Protestant tradition, and much of what Dr. Pitre discusses was old hat to me. Jesus as the new Temple, Jesus over-throwing Old Testament sacrificial systems, etc. But I definitely wasn't in the Protestant tradition that extended this understanding to the established ministerial priesthood. Protestantisms abound, so I know experiences vary.

. . . Could you define what “ministerial priesthood” means in the context of how you understand Dr. Pitre’s essay?

[RBerman]

I think that much of what Jesus said and did in his ministry and life had more than one level of meaning. I am sure that at one level, Jesus was upset with the practices in the temple. But how he reacted, and the recording of the event in scripture, points to a deeper meaning.

John D. Brey will be all too happy to discuss with you the deeper Kaballistic meaning he finds in the Scriptures. However, I myself will require specific evidence within the text which points to the meaning that someone wishes to assert. Jesus explained his actions at the time as a fulfillment of OT passages about hypocritical worship, not as a judgment against the existence and function of the temple itself.

[John D. Brey]

I think that much of what Jesus said and did in his ministry and life had more than one level of meaning. I am sure that at one level, Jesus was upset with the practices in the temple. But how he reacted, and the recording of the event in scripture, points to a deeper meaning.

Right. You’re probably familiar with the acronym PARDeS. “Peshat” means the plain, simple, or straight-forward meaning. “Remez is the meaning just beyond the literal sense. “Derash” is the comparative, or midrashic meaning (based on synthesizing similar passages). While “Sod” means the esoteric or mystical meaning given only through direct revelation of the Holy Spirit, i.e., “face-to-face” with God.

What we see so often in a forum like this, or anywhere believers discuss scripture, is those who cling to the literal, or peshat meaning, demonizing anyone who has reached a level of spiritual growth where they are privy to something beyond the most literal meaning. --- And sadly, the literal meaning that most believers cling to, is not even spiritual. It is that understanding of the text that comes about through simply reading the text, as you would read Moby Dick, without the need for any metaphysical/spiritual insight whatsoever.

[Rusty T]

. . . Could you define what “ministerial priesthood” means in the context of how you understand Dr. Pitre’s essay?

Simply this: a priestly class, called to offer sacrifices. The sacrifice in the New Covenant is the Eucharist. The priests are those ministers with the office of offering this sacrifice to God. Of course, my understanding is buttressed by the fact that this is exactly what happened. For two-thousand years, priests in unity with their Bishop (the successors of the Apostles), have offered the perfect sacrifice of Christ to God the Father, on the "table of the Lord".

God bless,
Rusty T

[John D. Brey]

Jesus explained his actions at the time as a fulfillment of OT passages about hypocritical worship, not as a judgment against the existence and function of the temple itself.

It’s clear he also taught that his body was the temple (which he would raise again in three days). So the real question concerns the relationship between his body as a temple, and the stone temple where the priests of Israel were worshipping someone or thing other than him.

[John D. Brey]

Simply this: a priestly class, called to offer sacrifices. The sacrifice in the New Covenant is the Eucharist. The priests are those ministers with the office of offering this sacrifice to God. Of course, my understanding is buttressed by the fact that this is exactly what happened. For two-thousand years, priests in unity with their Bishop (the successors of the Apostles), have offered the perfect sacrifice of Christ to God the Father, on the "table of the Lord".

Dispensationally speaking, there is no distinction between priest, and non-priest in the “Church.” Every believer in Jesus Christ is a priest. We are a kingdom of priests. We’re all priests. That’s made pretty clear in Paul’s Epistles.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Simply this: a priestly class, called to offer sacrifices. The sacrifice in the New Covenant is the Eucharist. The priests are those ministers with the office of offering this sacrifice to God. Of course, my understanding is buttressed by the fact that this is exactly what happened. For two-thousand years, priests in unity with their Bishop (the successors of the Apostles), have offered the perfect sacrifice of Christ to God the Father, on the "table of the Lord".

The priestly class was established by Christ in the persons of the Apostles, and they in turn designated others who then could additionally designate... And this is important, because not just anyone can consecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord, but only our Lord Himself... And He does so in the Service of the Eucharist, and those who have been empowered by Ordination are the only ones who CAN so consecrate it in their obedience to Christ's Commandment...

Clearly, not ALL Christians can consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ... Clearly merely reading Scripture and believing in Christ is not enough to do so... That consecration is an Apostolic Gift given by Christ to the Apostles alone, and not to just anyone who happens to believe... More than that is needed, because Christ required more... "Feed My sheep" was said to the Apostles only...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Every believer in Jesus Christ is a priest. We are a kingdom of priests. We’re all priests. That’s made pretty clear in Paul’s Epistles.

The Body of Christ is a Royal Priesthood, but not all in it can consecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord... The Priesthood that we are is one that is the bestowal of Grace through intercession... We are intermediaries of God's Grace to the world... Every Divine Liturgy, and remember that the services are liturgical, we together and corporately pray for the benefit and welfare of the whole world... It is a work that the faithful do... Even the term "liturgy" means "common work", and it is a work of blood, sweat and tears... And great Grace flows through it to the world, and especially to the immediately surrounding area...

This, you see, is the meaning of us being a "Royal Priesthood", and not the specific functioning of the Priest who leads/conducts the Divine Liturgy that consecrates the Body and Blood of Christ... In the Body of Christ are many members... Not all are called to be Apostles... Or Presbyters... Or Prophets... etc etc...

Arsenios

[Rusty T]

Dispensationally speaking, there is no distinction between priest, and non-priest in the “Church.” Every believer in Jesus Christ is a priest. We are a kingdom of priests. We’re all priests. That’s made pretty clear in Paul’s Epistles.

This is why I use the term "ministerial priesthood." The Church recognizes that we're all, in Christ, a royal priesthood. This does not negate the fact that Christ called His apostles to offer the Eternal Sacrifice in the Eucharist. And only those ordained by Christ can do so. The rejection of the ministerial priesthood is a sad consequence of rebellion against God and His Church. We see in the Old Testament, that God calls Israel a kingdom of priests, but Israel itself had ministerial priests that served at the altar of the Lord. In the Old Testament, one of the functions of the priest was to assist in atoning for the sinner. Christ gives to his apostles the authority to forgive sins. The Old Testament priest offered sacrifice to God. The New Covenant ministerial priesthood presides in the liturgy as we offer to God the perfect sacrifice - Christ Himself. This is the faith. This is the faith handed to the Apostles, they to Bishops they ordained, and the faith of the Church universal until this day. It is the innovators, the revolutionaries, who have denied the Truth.

Rusty T