Christos Sp. Voulgaris
IV.
Sacramental Priesthood in the New Testament. Jesus Christ the perfect
Highpriest.
In God’s counsel, Old Testament
sacramental priesthood was to have a limited scope, validity and duration,
like the Covenant of which it was an institution, and its human mediator,
Moses. Therefore, in the secont and final period of the history of
Salvation, Moses God’s mediator wich Israel, was replaced by the «one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus» (1 Tim. 2,5. Cf. Heb.
8,6. 9,15. 12,24).i.e. the incarnate eternal Son and Logos of God through
whom He established His new and «greater» Covenant with the entire human
Kind (Heb. 7,22. 8,6;8.9,15. 13,20 cf. Matth. 26,28 par. 2 Cor. 3,6). This
means that the superiority of the secont Covenant depends upon the
superiority of its mediator, the divine and human person of Jesus Christ, in
whom all divine power and authority was «ex officio» and all offices were
united in order to carry out effectively his redemptive work[xix].
It is
common place in the New Testament that Jesus Christ carried out his work on
earth willingly and in complete obedience to the Father’s will[xx].
It was the Father who sent «his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and
for sin he condemned sin in the flesh» (Rom. 8,3 etc.). The New Testament
doctrine in this respect can be summed up in two points. First, that the
goal of the incarnation of the eternal Son was to abolish the power of
Satan, by his entire work on earth and especially through his passion and
death and so to grant the forgiveness of sins to all men. This explains why
in the Gospels Jesus is pictured as deliberately going up to Jerusalem to
suffer and die
[xxi]. Second, that Christ’s
death has a redemptive and vicarious significance, offered as a sacrifice of
himself to God on behalf of all men and for their salvation. This explains
why New Testament authors use terms similar to the sacrificial cult in the
Old Testament. It was Jesus Christ himself who described his own death as
«a ransom for many»[xxii].
Thus in his passion Christ functioned as a highpriest «par excellence»
putting an end to the role of the Old Testament highpriests and its
sacrificial system within which they functioned. This idea dealt with in
detail in the Letter to the Hebrews where Paul[xxiii]compares
the Old Testament priesthood and the sacrifices of animals with the
priesthood of Christ and his sacrifice of himself, stressing the superiority
of the latter over the former. In this way Christ inaugurated God’s «new»
and «better» Covenant with all humanity, thus effecting the forgiveness of
men’s sins to the end of time (Heb. 2,8-18. 4,14. 10,18), in contrast to the
levitical priesthood and the animal sacrifices connected with it «which can
never take away sins» (Heb. 10,11.cf.9,9). Old Testament sacrifices were
offered simply as «a reminder of sin year after year, for it is impossible
that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins» (Heb. 10,3-4).
Instead, «the sprinkling of defiled person with the blood of goats and with
ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh» (Heb. 9,13),
while Christ’s blood «purifies our conscience from dead words to serve the
living God» (Heb. 9,14).
The
Epistle to the Hebrews sheds light upon three major aspects of Christ’s
priesthood of which we get only hints from the other books of the New
Testament[xxiv].
The first aspect refers to the time when Christ was invested with the
priestly office. Of particular importance in this respect is Heb. 5,1-6
placed in the wider context of Heb. 4,14-5,10. Thus in Heb. 5,1-3 Paul
states that the work and task of human high priests, to which they are
appointed, consists in offering gifts and sacrifices to God for the
remission of the sins of the people and of their own (cf. 8,3-4). And in
order that their work be effective, human highpriests must enjoy God’s
confidence. This means that they cannot become highpriests by their own
initiative, but they have to be appointed by God himself(v.4). In other
wother words men highpriests can not possess highpriesthood but depend on
God who is the only source of the real highpriestly office and gives it to
those whom He chooses. On the other hand, since God is the receiver of the
gifts and sacrifices, offered by human highpriests, He alone can grant the
forgiveness of sins to those fer whom they are offered. A proof of this is
the priesthood of Aaron.
The same
principle applies also in the case of Christ who «did not by his own
initiative think of himself («εδόξασεν») to be a highpriest, but was
appointed by him who said to him, «Thou art my Son, today I have begotten
thee»; as he also says in another place. «Thu art a priest for ever, after
the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5,5-6), Scholars have difficulties here with
the aorist «εδόξασεν» which they believe to mean «glorified». So a number
of commentators suggest that Christ was named by God a highpriest at his
exultation, in accordance with John 8,54 («it is my Father who glorifies
me»). Accordingly, they also think that Ps. 2,7 and Ps.109,4 in verse 6
refer to Christ’s exultation[xxv].
Such an interpretation, however, is totally, is totally foreign to the
context. If Christ had been appointed highpriest at his exultation at the
right hand of God, then he was not a highpriest during his earthy work and
most particularly during his passion and death, which also means that his
work on earth had not a redemptive value[xxvi].
But this notion is totally foreign not only to the teaching of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, but also to that of the entire New Testament.
Besides
here, Ps. 2,7 is also used in Heb. 1,5 together with 2 Kings 7,14 where both
texts indicate clearly the eternal birth of the Son from the Father. Here
Paul stresses the divinity of the Son in contrast to the created nature of
the angels and so the Son’s superiority over them. This is precisely the
case in Heb. 5,5, too, as well as everywhere else in the New Testament where
Ps. 2,7 stresses Christ’s divinity as the Son of God (cf. Heb. 1,3)[xxvii].
It follows that Ps. 109,4 also refers to the same time, because it stresses
the Son’s appointment as highpriest by God simultaneously with his eternal
birth from Him[xxviii].
It is interesting to notice at this point the intentional omission of the
verb “ει” (you are) in the text of Ps. 109,4 in order to stress the identity
of Christ’s person as Son of God and priest alter the order of Melchizedek.
It is plain, therefore, that Son of God Jesus received priesthood from the
Father at the very moment of his timeless birth from Him, which means that
his priesthood is inherent to his divine nature. This explains the exact
meaning of the aorist «εδόξασεν» in Heb. 5,5: Christ did not think
arbitrarily to be highpriest by his own initiative, but was named highpriest
at the moment of his eternal birth, by the Father[xxix].
This explains also the preposterous statement in Heb. 4,14 which contrasts
the nature of the highpriest Jesus the Son of God to the nature of the human
highpriests. Thus the «great highpriest» Jesus is able «to sympathize»
(i.e.to suffer together) with our weaknesses because «he has been tempted in
every respect as we are, yet without sinning» (Heb. 4,15, cf. 2,14; 17,18).
That Christ’s priesthood originates from God does not imply his
underestimation since divine nature is common to both. Rather, this fact
emphasizes the Father’s priority in the divine order, as the generator of
the Son, as well as the Father’s quality as the source and cause of
everything that exists, including the offices[xxx].
The Son possesses everything which the Father possesses, even his own
existence, by reception from the Father (John 10,29;37. 14,20. 15,15. etc.)
The
connection of Christ’s priesthood «for over after the order of Melchizedek»
with his divinity is explained in Heb. 7 where the king and priest
Melchizedek is described as a «type» of Christ. That nothing about
Melchizedek’s origin and death is recorded in Gen.14,17-20 is, according to
Paul, a proof that «he is without father or mother or genealogy, and has
neither beginning of days nor end of life»; therefore, «he continues a
priest for ever» (7,2). In other words, in connection with the endlessness
of the priesthood of Ps. 109,4 referring to the Messiah, this fact
indicates, for Paul, the timelessness and endlessness of Melchizedek’s
priesthood[xxxi].
It is exactly for this reason that «he resembles the Son of God»[xxxii].
Their timeless and endless existence (of Melchizedek and Christ) implies the
timelessness of their respective priesthood, which for this reason is
«permanent» (7,24)[xxxiii],
in contrast to the priesthood of the levite priests which was handed over
to their successors after their death: «the former priests (the Levites)
were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in
office» (7,23)[xxxiv].
The second
aspect refers to the time when the eternal Son of God functioned his
highpriestly office. So in Heb. 5, after stressing that his highpriesthood
is inherent to his divine origin and nature (vs. 5-6). Paul says that the
Son conformed to the will of the Father «in the days of his flesh», and
after he finished («τελειωθείς») his highpriestly work «he became the source
of eternal salvation to all who obey him» (Heb. 5,7-9). Following this the
Son was received by the Father at his exultation with the exclamation «a
highpriest after the order of Melchizedek» (5.9-10). At this point also
interpreters have difficulties with the participle «προσαγορευθείς» in 5,10,
interpreting it in the sense that the Son was designated (or appointed) a
highpriest at the moment of his exultation. This is totally wrong, however,
for the reasons we explained before, as well as for the position of v. 10 as
the conclusion of the entire pericope 4,14-5,10. Verse 10, as a matter of
fact, concludes and recapitulates v.4,14. So, having acted as highpriest on
earth and having achieved salvation for those who appropriated his work,
Jesus the Son of God «passed again through the heavens» at his exultation
from the earth[xxxv],
being received by God with the exclamation («προσαγορευθείς») «a high priest
after the order of Melchizedek». The verb «προσαγορεύω» has an air of
solemnity. The scene is similar to Heb. 1,3 where, retutning to heavens
after his campaign on earth, the Son is received by the Father and hailed
with the words of the same Ps. 109,1 after which he is invited to take the
seat of honor at the Father’s right hand till all of his enemies are
subjected to him (cf. also 1 Cor. 15,24-28). Thus the Father who named him
a high priest for ever at his eternal birth, welcomes him at his return with
the exclamation of his highpriestly office. In other words,the Son is
welcomed by the Father for what he was and functioned on earth.
The third
aspect refers to the purpose of the incarnation of the eternal Son. Thus in
Heb. 2,14-18 we find an introduction to the highpriestly function of the
incarnate Son. Thus in Heb. 2,14-18 we find an introduction to the
highpriestly function of the incarnate Son. Taking to himself a human body
(«blood and flesh», v. 14) was necessary because the Son was not concerned
with the salvation of angels who are spirits, but with the salvation of
Abraham’s offspring. Therefore only in the human form could the eternal Son
function as a merciful and faithful to God highpriest in order to redeem the
sins of the people. The same idea is stated in a more explicit way in Heb.
10,5-18. Just before that Paul spoke about the fulfillment of the prophecy
of Jeremiah (18,31-34 LXX) by Jesus Christ concerning «the new covenant» and
its superiority over the Old. But Jeremiah’s prophecy does not specify the
way in which this Covenant would be realized. For this purpose Paul appeals
to Ps. 39,7-9a where God is presented as disliking the O. Testament animal
sacrifices, because though «offered according to the law» (10,8) «can never
take away sins» (10,11). So, He decided to replace the entire Covenant by a
new and better one. To this purpose the Son appears coming forth to offer
himself: «Lo, I have come to do thay will» (10,9), Hence, God «prepared for
him a body» (10,5b) which he offers to Him as a sacrifice «once for all»
(10,10). In other words, the goal of the incarnation of the Son was to
offer human body as a sacrifice to God. Indeed, Christ’s sacrifice «has
perfected for all time those who are sanctified» (10,14), so that «where
there is forgiveness of these (sins), there is no longer any offering for
sin» (10,18).
It is
clear, therefore, that Christ’s vicarious self-sacrifice was a function of
his highpriestly office. So, in the new Covenant we have the paradox of the
sacrificer being identified with the victim. As highpriest, Jesus Christ
entered the heavenly sanctuary «taking bis own blood, thus securing an
eternal redempion»[xxxvi].
After his sacrifice offered «once for all» to the and of time men can be
saved by appropriating effects to themselves. This means that Christ’s
sacrifice has a perpetual value as it is extended into history «until he
comes» again (1 Cor. 11,26). The procedure was provided by himself during
his last Super with his disciples, when in a special act he instituted the
Sacrament of the Eucharist[xxxvii].
As a matter of fact, that moment Christ instituted this Sacrament by
performing it himself. This is clear from the offering of the bread and the
wine, his blessing upon them which resulted in the transformation of the
bread and the wine into his real body and blood, and finally from his
offering them to the disciples «for the forgiveness of sins», together with
the command to repeat it themselves over and over again «in remembrance of
him» (1 Cor. 11,24)[xxxviii].
The institution of the Eucharist had a sacrificial and sacramental
significance. This is clear from the use of the expressions «he gave
thanks», «blessed», «sacrifield», «is given», «is poured out», «eat»,
«drink» and «for the forgiveness of sins», and also from the identification
of the bread and the wine, after their blessing, with Christ’s own body
which was to be sacrificed on the cross, as he himself did by saying «this
is my body» and «this is my blood», and finally from the divine action
expressed in both (cf. John 6,55: «For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood
is drink indeed»)[xxxix].
After all, this was the way in which the disciples who were present
understood it as it is seen from Paul’s comments expressing at this point
the conviction of the entire early Church: «The cup of blessing wich we
bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ. The bread which we
break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ», (1 Cor. 10,16), and
also: «For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim
the Lord’s death until he comes» (1 Cor. 11,26).
The
identification of the Eucharist with his passion, by Christ himself, makes
it also a field in which he functions as highpriest. Every time the
Eucharist is celebrated by the Church we exerience in a sacramental
(mystical) way the real repetition of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
This is done by the action of the Holy Spirit who at each particular time in
the Church’s life actualizes the redemptive events of the historical past.
And whenever the Church celebrates this Sacrament, in accordance with
Christ’s command, she actually repeats in a real as well as in a sacramental
way his dual act when he performed both of them, i.e. his own sacrifice of
himself and the Eucharist. Thus, together with the celebration of the
Eucharist in the history of the Church we experience also the function of
Christ’s priesthood which is tight to his self-sacrifice. In this way,
through the Eucharist the priesthood of Christ is extended also into the
history of the «new» Covenant. As a matter of fact, this is the only and
unique sacrifice of new Covenant because it put an end to all other kinds of
sacrifices. And the Covenant is in fact renewed each time the Eucharist is
celebrated because it is time and again confirmed as the believers partake
of Christ’s flesh and blood[xl].
In addition to this, Jesus Christ performed them both, i.e. the Eucharist
and his own sacrifice of himself in his highpriestly capacity, it follows
that the repetition of his own sacrifice in the Eucharist by the Church must
of necessity be performed by those members of the church who partake in his
priesthood. Such persons were at first the Apostles who were also present
at the institution of the Eucharist and who were commanded by Christ to “do
this in remembrance of him” (1 Cor. 11,24). This means that the priestly
office is connected with the apostolic one. Let us notice, however, that as
Christ is “a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” and so holds
his priesthood for ever (Heb. 7,24), the priests of the new Covenant
inaugurated by his sacrifice of himself do not possess the priesthood by
their own right. Instead, they simply partake in Christ’s priesthood so
that when they celebrate the Eucharist and repeat Christ’s sacrifice, it is
rather Christ himself who performs them, invisibly present, through the
priests.
V. Christ’s
Priesthood in the history of the New Covenant.
Their
election and appointment personally by Jesus Christ himself underlines the
Apostle’s unique place in the history of the divine Economy. Of course,
several other persons are called “apostles” in the primitive Church, but
when it refers to those of authority in the Church which stems from their
personal relation to Christ, this term is strictly limited to the Twelve
(and Paul) because only they were given by Christ his own unique authority
and power on earth and were commanded by him to preach the Gospel to the
whole world.[xli]
This means that their election to be Christ’s apostles refers to the
continuity of his redemptive work and so to his presence in history through
them.
More
particularly, with respect to the Apostle’s unique place in the New
Testament and beyond, three points need to be emphasized here. First,
because they were elected personally by Christ himself, they are “apostles
of Christ”, i.e. his own personal and exclusive representatives in the
world. So they were invested by Christ with his own power and authority as
it becomes clear from their right to preach the Gospel, their power to cast
out demons and perform healings, and their authority to retain and forgive
sins[xlii].
This is to say that in every respect they act Christ’s name[xliii],
which indicates his continuous presence in the world through them.
Second, because of their personal relation to Christ, they are the
authentic “witnesses”and “interpreters” of his person and work and so of the
entire histiry of Salvation culminated in Christ[xliv].
Third, the Apostles’ role as Christ’s personal representatives and
their absolute dependence on him extends and carries on the same type of
relationship between Christ and God. Their comission to the world continues
Christ'’ comission to it by the Father (cf. John 17,18.20,21) for the same
purpose and with the same power and authority. In a sense, the Apostles
carry on the “apostolic office” of Christ as the Father’s “apostle” (Heb.
3,1). As a matter of fact, Jesus Christ himself indicated this Kind of
relationship between the Apostles and God through himself when he said “He
who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent
me ” (Matth. 10,40), and “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you
rejects me, and who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk. 10,16)[xlv].
Thus, Christ’s “apostleship” is handed over to his own Apostles, so that
God’s salvation in Christ be carried on in history through them.
Therefore, eventually everything goes back to God the Father who is
the sole origin and cause on the divine as well as on the human level.
And so Christ’s Apostles are also God’s Apostles or as Paul phrased it, they
are “apostles of Christ Jesus by the will of God”[xlvi],
or “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God”[xlvii].
The
Apostle’s investment with Christ’s own power and authority signifies at the
same time their participation in his offices in order to be able to continue
his work on earth after his departure. Now, this explains why at the
institution of the Eucharist Christ instructed them to repeat its
celebration from that time until his second coming, for the same purpose and
with the same effects. Having the apostolic office, they had at the same
time the priestly one, too, as part of it. The history of the primitive
Church informs us the Apostles conformed at once and completely with
Christ’s command by “breaking bread” during the Church’s first worship
services after his resurrection[xlviii].
Even the risen Christ himself celebrated again the Eucharist by breaking
bread (cf. Lk. 24,30-35. John 21,13) in order to stress anew its vital
importance for the life of the Church and in order to renew his command to
the Apostles:”do this in remembrance of me”. Indeed, as we gather from
Paul’s acounts in 1 Cor. 10,16 and 11,26, each time the Apostles celebrated
the Eucharist, they went again through all those events which they had
experienced living with Jesus Christ, especially his passion and the
institution of the Eucharist preceding and tightly connected with it.
VI. The
Successors of the Apostles. Church Order.
It has
become clear, therefore, that the Apostles were placed “jure divino” in the
leadership of the Church. As such they handled right from the beginning all
functions of Church life as its supreme authority. Their first collective
action was to elect a substitute for Judas in the circle of the Twelve right
before Pentecost (Acts 1,15-26). But the Church’s rapid expansion in
Jerusalem and Judaea necessitated the Apostles’ release from certain duties
so that they could concentrate in the preaching of the Gospel and the
conducting of worship centered in the Eucharist. The first measure towards
this goal was the appointment of seven Deacons (Acts 6) whose function, as
it appears, was related to the social work of the Church. By this the
Apostles transferred part of their own responsibility of minor importance.
Although the deacons were installed into office by ordination, which
involved a prayer and the imposition of hands by the Apostles, their
function did not, nevertheless, have a sacramental significance, but a
social one confined to the service at the common meals of the community[xlix].And
as we gather from Paul in 1 Cor. 11,17-34, these common meals took place
after the celebration of the Eucharist, thus realizing in daily life the
believers’ unity with Christ and with one another which they experienced
through their participation in this Sacrament. But as Paul again informs
us, serious incidents of disorder started soon taking place during these
meals which eventually resulted in the Church’s decision to discontinue
them. Therefore, it was after this, most probably, when the deacons at
tables moved, to the service at the table of Christ, the Eucharist. This
early development in the order of deacons apparently appears in the case of
the deacons at Philippi (Phil. 1,1) and in the area of Ephesus (1 Tim.
3,8-13). On the other hand, that the deacons were originally confined to
the Church’s social work, is confirmed by the fact that women also were
appointed to it, like the deaconess Phoebe at Cenchreae who “has been a
helper of many” including Paul (Rom. 16,1-2). Thus the deacons, appointed
by the Apostles who ordained them, represented them in this particular
aspect of Church life. That some of them were also preaching the Gospel,
like Stephen (Acts 6,8f) and Philip (Acts 21,8f), does not mean that they
were acting without the permission of the Apostles who supervised all Church
life.
All of a
sudden shortly afterwards the Presbyters appear in the Church of Jerusalem
(Acts 11,30), Luke keeping silence about the conditions that necessitated
their appearance and the procedure of their installment into office.
Fortunately, however, we get information about all this from Acts 14,23 and
1 Tim. 5,17-22. According to Acts 11,30, the office of the presbyters, too,
is connected with the social work of the Apostolic Church. Thus, the aid of
the Church of Antioch send to the Church of Jerusalem, during the famine at
the time of Claudius in AD 43, was received in Jerusalem by the presbyters.
From Acts 15 also we learn that the presbyters occupied a leading place in
the Church of Jerusalem after the Apostles, together with whom they received
the delegation of the Antiochian Church and discussed with it the issue of
the presuppositions of the Gentiles joining the church and, following the
negotiations, they also took part in the Apostolic Council and together with
them they signed the letter of that Council to the communities of Antioch,
Syria and Cilicia. Also, according to Acts 16,4, the presbyters were
responsible on maters of faith, and according to Acts 21,18, they formed a
group around James, the leader of the Church of Jerusalem.
Now, Acts 14,23
reports that when Paul and Barnabas finished their mission to the regions of
Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, and “after they had ordained
presbyters for them in every Church, with prayer and fasting, they committed
them to the Lord in whom they believed”. It is clear then that the Apostles
ordained these presbyters in view of their own departure from those local
churches. So they had to appoint leaders to each one of them to manage
their life on their behalf. This means that if in the case of the deacons
the Apostles transferred part of their own responsibility to them, on
matters concerning the social work of the Church, in the case of the
presbyters they gave full responsibility to them with respect to the entire
life of the local churches which comprised also the worship and the didache
except the right of ordination of other presbyters, as we shall see below.
The evidence, therefore, to the conclusion that the presbyters are subject
to the Apostles, installed by them to lead the life of the local churches on
their behalf in matters concerning doctrine, worship and administration. It
was to this effect that Paul gave a farewell address to the presbyters of
Ephesus in Miletus (Acts 20,17f), whom he obviously ordained during his
three-year stay there (Acts 20,31).
The presbyters are
mentioned again in 1 Tim. 4,14 and 5,17-19 were Timothy is instructed to be
careful with the ordination of new presbyters (1 Tim. 5,22) and deacons
(3,8). The ordination of presbyters was also part of Titus’ main task in
Crete to whom Paul writes “this is why I left you in Crete, that you might
amend what was defective, and appoint presbyters in every town as I directed
you…” (Tit. 1,5) after his departure from that island (Tit. 3,12).
According to 1 Pet. 5,1-4, presbyters already existed in all the churches of
Pontus. Galatia Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia, at the time of the writing
of that epistle, “tending the flock of God that was their charge” in Peter’s
name who instructs them accordingly. The picture is concluded with the
evidence of the epistles of James (5,14), Second and Third John and the
Apocalypse[l].
It becomes clear, therefore, that the presbyters and the deacons, who moved
from the social work of the Church to worship, after disorders broke out at
the common meals, formed the group of leaders of the local communities (cf.
Phil. 1,1).
Now comes the
question: what necessitated the order of the presbyters? The answer is
connected with the expansion of the Church in the areas outside Jerusalem,
following the death of Stephen and the persecution of the Christians (Acts
8,1-4.11,19-21) who being scattered preached the Gospel and established
communities in Phoenicia, Cyprus, Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It is obvious
then, that the expansion of the Church increased the work of the Apostles
who thus had to transfer part of their own duties to local leaders whom they
appointed. Thus the presbyters represented the Apostles on the local level
authorized to govern the Churches in their stead as teachers, leaders of
worship and pastors.
But as time went on
the most important issue was that of the succession of the Apostles
themselves by person fully authorized and having the fullness of the
priestly office like them. At this time, as we know, the use of the term
“επίσκοπος” alternated with that of the term “πρεσβύτερος”, being identical
in content and significance[li].
Both however were deprived of the right to ordain others and so to renew the
order[lii].
This being so, there comes the question as to the person to whom the
Apostles gave full authority over the apostolic work, including the right of
ordination. At this point Protestant research insisted that the Apostles
avoided to consider the issue of succession to the extent that there existed
a gap which the Church hastened to fill after their death by promoting one
of the “supervising” presbyters to the office of the bishop as we know it
later. But if this was the case, then there is no apostolic succession
whatsoever in the history of the Church’s life. Protestant theologians
arrived at this conclusion by contrasting the so called “permanent”
ministers of the local communities (presbyters or bishops, and deacons) to
the so called “charismatic” ones, like f.e. the prophets, teachers, apostles
(in a wider sense), tongue speakers interpreters, etc., (cf. Rom. 12,3-8. 1.
Cor. 12,1-30. Eph. 4,1-16).
A more careful
consideration of the evidence, however, gives a different picture by showing
the substantial importance of the “prophets” and their rode in the order and
leadership of the primitive church. In their case we observe the connection
of charismatic element to the ordination[liii].
These prophets[liv],
differing from those who received the prophetic (teaching) gift
occasionally, freely and temporarily, were the Apostles’ immediate
disciples, collaborators and companions, and eventually their successors
over wide geographical areas[lv].
They were chosen by the Holy Spirit (“through prophecy”) and ordained by the
Apostles, as in the case of Timothy (1 Tim. 4,14), or by other prophets, as
in the case of Saul and Barnabas (Acts 13,1-3)[lvi].
They were used as the Apostles’ companions in their apostolic mission[lvii],
as their emissaries to local communities when facing various problems[lviii],
as preachers of the Gospel over large areas, to appoint (ordain) local
leaders and organize the local communities[lix],
to communicate the decision of the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem to local
Churches[lx],
etc., generally speaking these prophets worked closely with the Apostles in
carrying out the apostolic work and shared with them the responsibility in
maintaining the faith entrusted to them by the Lord (1 Tim. 6,13;14;20). As
long as the Apostles were alive, they were called prophets because they were
singled out by the Holy Spirit for this office. But after the death of the
Apostles the title “prophet” alternated with the title “apostle” because
they succeeded the Apostles in their work and status[lxi].
Occasionally, however, the prophets were indicated by the use of their
proper names alone on account of the authority they had gained so far. Here
it is interesting also to notice that the title “prophet” is alternated in
the Didache with the title “αρχιερείς” (highpriest). This proves beyond any
doubt that as immediate successors of the Apostles, the prophets had also
the fullness of the priestly office[lxii].
Finally, from the post-apostolic literature we learn that the prophets were
succeeded in their task and work by the “επίσκοποι” (bishops) on the local
level[lxiii].
In this way the unbroken succession of the apostolic office was established
and secured in the history of the Church and with it also the continuous
celebration of the Eucharist and the other Sacraments through the priestly
office, and so Christ’s saving work on earth is perpetuated in history to
the end of time, “until he comes again” (1 Cor. 11,26).
Next page /
Start
Notes
[xix]
Cf. Cyrill of Jerusalem, Catechism, X,5; «There are many titles for our
Savior. But in order not to think that the many titles correspond to
many Sons, too, as the heretics err saying that different is the Christ,
and different is Jesus, and different is the door, and so on, Faith
provides security to you saying rightly in one Lord Jesus Christ.
Though there are many titles, there is only one subject. So the Savior
becomes different to every one’s best interest. Thus, to those in need
of gladness, he becomes the vine; to those who want to enter, he is the
door; and to those who need to offer their prayers, he is the mediator
highpriest. Again, to those in sin, he becomes the sheep which will be
slaughtered for them; he becomes everything to every one, himself
remaining in substance what he really is. But though remaining and
truly possessing the unchangeable quality of sonship, he takes care of
our sickness as the best doctor and compassionate teacher ».
[xx]
Cf. f.e. Matth. 26,39;42;44 par. Rom. 5,19. Phil.
2,5-11. Heb. 5,8.
[xxi]
Cf. Matth. 16,21 par. 17,22-23 par. Lk. 12,50.
17,25. 18,31-34.
[xxii]
Matth. 20,28. Mκ.
10,45. Cf. 1 Tim. 2,6: «a ransom for all». Cf. also Rom. 5. 2 Cor. 5,14;
etc.
[xxiii]
I strongly support a pauline authorship for the Epistle to the Hebrews
written shortly before Paul’s release from his prison in Rome (60-62
AD), thus being, too, a prison epistle (the last one). It was addressed
to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, with particular reference to
those «zealous for the law» (Acts 21,20f), stressing the end of the
Covenant with its institutions, in order to prevent them from falling
back into Judaism (10,26-39, 12,22f. 13,10-14), as well as in order to
win back his own place in their respect (13,18-19) in view of their
accusations against him in the past, as a traitor of the religion of the
fathers (Acts 21,20-24,22). See extensively on this my recent
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Athens 1993 (in Greek).
[xxiv]
See more in my book, The Fulfillment of the Divine Economy of Salvation
in Christ according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Athens 1985, pp. 73f,
99f.(in Greek).
[xxv]
Cf. B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London 1904, p. 124f.
J.Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews, New York 1924, p. 23, etc., On the contrary, P. N. Trembelas,
Υπόμνημα εις τας Επιστολάς της Καινής Διαθήκης,
Αθήναι 1956, vol. 3,p.
76f, while thinking that the expression «Thou art my Son» of Ps. 2,7
refers to Christ’s eternal birth from the Father, the subsequent
expression of the same verse «today I have begotten thee», he thinks
that it refers to the exultation of Christ’s human nature!
[xxvi]
This is also suggested by P. N. Trembelas, Op. Cit. Who says that thus
God expresses His love towards Christ in official and panegyric way, as
well as towards Christ’s appointment to messianic and highpriestly
offices. In addition to this, according to Trembelas, God expresses His
approval for Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
[xxvii]
See more on this in my book, The Perfection of the Divine Economy of
Salvation in Christ...,pp. 30-33.
[xxviii]
Cf. Theophylact, In Heb. V. Migne, P. G. 125,241: «Paul joined together
at this point what is said in both Psalms, as if he wanted to say: Do
not think that the expression ‘ You are a priest forever’ is said about
anyone else, but about the one Who was born before ‘Eosforos’; and he is
no one else except the one about whom the second Psalm says that he is
born today; because, before ‘Eosforos’ indicates his eternal birth,
while ‘today’ means from the beginning, i.e. from the time of the
Father’s origin. It is evident that the second Psalm refers everything
to Christ».
[xxix]
Cf. Oecumenius, In Heb. VI. Migne, P.G. 119,321: «Christ is first
highpriest because he did not enter priesthood by his own initiative,
but was instead ordained by the Father»; «God who said this ordained him
as a priest».
[xxx]
Cf. Justin, Dialogue, 86,3:»Likewise he (the Son) received from the
Father the offices of the king and of Christ and of the priest and of
the angel (messenger) and everything else which he has or had».
[xxxi]
Cf. Theodoret, In Heb. Migne, P.G. 82,725: «because he did not hand the
priesthood over to descendants».
[xxxii]
Crysostom, Interp. Heb., Migne, P.G. 63,98: «because we ignore the end
and the beginning of both (i.e. of Christ and Melchizedek); in the case
of Melchizedek, we ignore them because they have not been recorded,
while in the case of Christ, we ignore them because he does not have
them». Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio IV,21; «Christ resembles Melchizedek
because he is without mother for our sake and without father in our
human way; and without genealogy from above».
[xxxiii]
Oecumenius, Op. Cit. : «that is, continuous, without successors,
endless».
[xxxiv]
Chrysostom, Ibid., Migne, P.G. 63,105: «Showing that he is one, and that
he could not be unless he is immortal. As there are many priests
because they are mortal, likewise the one is one because he is
immortal». See more in C.S. Voulgaris, Commentary, ad loc.
[xxxv]
Cf. Heb. 4,10. 6,20. 8,1f. 9,11f; 24f. 10,12;20.
[xxxvi]
Heb. 9,12;14. 10,19;29. 13,12;20. John 19,34. Acts 20,28. Rom. 3.25.5,9.
Eph. 1,7.2,13. Col1,20. 1 Pet. 1,2;19. 1 John 1,7. Rev. 1,5. 7,14.
12,11.
[xxxvii]
Matth. 26,26-30. Mk. 14,22-24. Lk. 22,15-20. Cf. 1 Cor. 10,16-17.
11,23-25. John 6,27-40.
[xxxviii]
See more in M. A. Siotis. The Divine Eucharist. The New Testament
information about the Divine Eucharist in the light of the
interpretation of Church writers, Thessalonica 1957 (in Greek). C. S.
Voulgaris, The Unity of the Apostolic Church, p.415f.
[xl]
M. A. Siotis, Idib. It must be noticed that
because the Eucharist has a capital importance in the New Covenant,
being its Sacrament «par excellence», the early Church was performing
all other Sacraments, too, during its celebration.
[xli]
Matth. 28,19-20. Mk. 16,15;20. Lk. 24,47. John 20,21. Acts 1,8.
[xlii]
Mk. 3,14-15. Matth. 10,5-42. John 20,23. Cf. Matth. 18,18. 1 Cor. 5,3f.
2 Cor. 2,5f.
[xliii]
Lk. 10,17. 24,47. Acts 3,6. 4,7;10;17;18. 5,28;40. 8,12. 9,27-28. 16,18.
19,13 etc.
[xliv]
Lk.24,25;27; 44-48. Eph. 3,1-12. Col. 1,21-25 etc.
[xlv]
Cf. Mk. 9,37. Lk. 9,48. Matth. 15,24. Lk. 4,43. 7,3 etc., John 3,17.
5,36. 6,29,57. 7,29 etc.
[xlvi]
Gal. 1,1;15. Eph. 1,1. 1 Tim. 1,1. Col. 1,1.2
Tim. 1,1. Tit. 1,1.
[xlvii]
1 Cor. 4,1. Cf. 2 Cor. 5,20. Gal. 4,14. Similar characterization is
given by Paul also to the “επίσκοποι-πρεσβύτεροι”
in Tit. 1,7.
[xlviii]
Acts 2,42;46. 20,7. 27,35. 1 Cor. 10,16-17. 11,26-28. Cf. Also the
expressions “ομοθυμαδόν”and
“επί αυτόν” indicating
gatherings, Acts 1,15. 2,1;44;47.
[xlix]
This interpretation belongs to S t. J o h n C h y s o s t o m, In Acts,
Hom. XIV, 3. Migne, P.G. 60,116, and is confirmed by the XVI canon of
the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople running thus:
“Since the book of Acts handed down that the apostles consecrated seven
deacons…we, having fixed the mind of the fathers in the apostolic
saying, found that its purpose was not the deacons’service at the
Sacraments, but their service at the tables…John Chrysostom the teacher
of the Church, interpreting it says the following…concerning which
office they had, and what kind of ordination they received. Did they
have the office of the (present day) deacons.But this did not exist in
the churches. Did they have the office of the presbyters. But there
were no bishops, yet, save the Apostles alone. Therefore, I think that
the title indicates neither the deacons nor the presbyters. For this
reasons we also declare that the seven deacons in question must not be
considered as serving the Sacraments, in accordance with the above
interpretation. Rather, they were appointed to serve at the common
meals of those who came together…” Cf. Minutes of the Holy and
Ecumenical Councils, Mount Athos 1986, vol. III, pp. 685-686 (in Greek).
[l]
Rev. 4,4;10. 5,1-14.7,11;13. 11,16. 14,3.
19,4.
[li]
Cf. Acts 20,17;28. Phil.1,1. Tim. 3,1-2. Tit. 1,5-9. 1 Pet. 5,1-4.
[lii]
See below on the “prophets”.
[liii]
Cf. the study of V. Phidas, Church Order and the Order of the Prophets,
AD 70-100, Athens 1985.
[liv]
Such as Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Luke, Mark, Apollos, Silas, Tychikos,
Artemas, Creskens, Gaius, Erastus, Epaphras, Zenas, Trophimus, Symeon
Niger, Lukius, Manaen, etc.
[lv]
F.e.Trophimus in Ephesus, Titus in Crete and Illiricum, Creskens in Gaul
(Southrn France and Spain), Erastus in Achaia, etc.
[lvi]
See V.Phidas, op. cit.,p.133.
[lvii]
F.e. Timothy, Titus, Silas, Sosthenes, as Paul’s companions, or Siluanus
and Mark, as Peter’s.
[lviii]
F.e. Timothy and Titus, in Corinth, etc.
[lix]
F.e. Timothy and Tychikos in Ephesus; Titus,Artemas, Zenas and Apollos
in Crete; Cf. note 43 above. The fact that the presbyters were also
ordained by prophets, indicates that they did not have the right to
ordain prophets in return. See V. Phidas, op. cit.
[lx]
Like Jude, Barsabbas and Silas, Acts 15,22f.
[lxi]
See Didache, XII, 3-12.
[lxii]
Didache, XIII: “…to the prophets; for they are our highpriests” (αρχιερείς)
[lxiii]
Didache, xv, 1-2. See more in v. phidas, op.cit.
ΘΗΣΑΥΡΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΚΑΙΝΗΣ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗΣ
