Christian ministers are not the direct historical successors of any of the ministries mentioned in the Old Testament, but because successive generations of Christians have drawn upon those texts and used them as images or “types” for their various ministries, in order to help define their essential character, it is important that we consider them before passing on to ministry in the New Testament.
THE OLD TESTAMENT PRIESTHOOD
As we shall see in chapter 3, from the third century onward the ordained ministry was increasingly viewed as a priesthood, and the threefold pattern of bishop, presbyter, and deacon that had emerged in the course of the second century was understood as forming the counterpart of the threefold ministry of high priest, priest, and Levite found in the Old Testament. According to the Pentateuch, Aaron was appointed as the first high priest and his sons as priests (see, e.g., Exod 28ff.), with certain other members of the tribe of Levi as their ministers (Num 8:5-26), thus forming a threefold hierarchy that continued throughout the centuries. Historical-critical scholarship, however, suggests that the true story of the Israelite priesthood was not as simple as that.1
The oldest layers of the Pentateuch know of no professional priests. Instead, in the patriarchal narratives it is the family or tribal leader who officiates at sacrificial acts on behalf of his people. Examples include Noah (Gen 8:20), Jacob (Gen 31:54), and, above all, Abraham in his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen 22:1-19). Similarly, although the later contributors to the Pentateuch material never portray Moses as a priest (because they regarded the Israelite priesthood as stemming from his brother Aaron), Moses nonetheless consecrates Aaron and his sons as priests and offers sacrifice on that occasion (Exod 28–29), in line with the ancient tradition by which tribal leaders exercised that role. Remnants of this remain in the presiding position of the head of the household at the domestic celebration of the Passover meal.
The only partial exception to the rule is the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, described as King of Salem and a priest of the most high God who “brings forth bread and wine” and blesses Abraham (Gen 14:18-20). He fulfills none of the conditions of priesthood that later Israelites would regard as requisite—he is neither a Hebrew, nor a worshiper of Yahweh, nor a member of the tribe of Levi—and the story seems intended to justify the later prerogatives of the kings of Israel to control the cult and receive revenues from it. We may note, for example, the story of David bringing the ark of the Lord to Jerusalem and sacrificing and dancing before it in the procession (2 Sam 6:13-14). The figure of Melchizedek was, however, seized on by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews, who describes Jesus as being “a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17, 21), because although he did not come from a priestly family like Melchizedek did, Jesus possessed a priesthood that transcended earthly limitations of time and lineage (see the section below, “Priesthood in the New Testament”).
It was only after the settlement in Canaan and the abandonment of the nomadic life that local shrines were established, which then needed resident officials to staff them. Eventually members of the tribe of Levi became the preferred persons to function as these sanctuary attendants, one of whose duties was to cast lots to determine God’s will. Why the Levites came to predominate in this capacity is not clear, except that they lacked tribal territory of their own and thus needed to acquire income in some other way. The story in Judges 17 well illustrates this development. Here a man by the name of Micah had consecrated one of his sons as the priest for his household shrine, but when a Levite came by, Micah appointed him as his priest instead, at a salary of ten shekels of silver a year. Similarly, in 1 Samuel 1–2, the sons of Eli function as priests at the prestigious sanctuary at Shiloh. The impression given is that individual worshipers still offered the sacrifices themselves and the officials simply assisted and received a portion of what was offered in recompense.
After the establishment of the monarchy came an element of centralization in these cultic activities. Abiathar, a Levite, became King David’s priest in Jerusalem along with Zadok (2 Sam 15:23-37), but in the quarrel over who should succeed David as king, Abiathar supported Adonijah, while Zadok supported Solomon (1 Kgs 1) and thus won a privileged place for Zadokite priests at Jerusalem when Solomon became king (1 Kgs 2:35). Later tradition portrayed Zadok as a descendent of Aaron through his son Eleazar (Num 20:24-29; 1 Chr 6:50-53). The Levites and other priests continued to function in sanctuaries elsewhere after the division of the kingdom, such as at Bethel, Beer-Sheba, Dan, and Gilgal in the north (1 Kgs 12:26-33), but the fall of the northern kingdom to the Assyrians in 721 BCE put an end to these sanctuaries, and the subsequent Deuteronomic reform in the south in the seventh century brought about an even greater centralization of the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem.
This would have left the traditional Levitical priesthood without a place to minister, but Deuteronomy 18:1-8 attempted to legislate a role for the Levites in the Jerusalem Temple, assigning to them a proportion of what was offered there in return for their service. However, with the Zadokite priests firmly in control of Temple, the Levites were forced to be subordinates, resulting in the existence thereafter of two levels of cultic officials. Ezekiel 44:10-31 explains this situation as punishment for the Levites having gone astray after idols and reward for the Zadokite priests for having remained faithful. The Levites were permitted only to take charge of the Temple gates, the slaying of the animals, and other menial tasks, while the Zadokites had the privilege of entering the sanctuary and offering the sacrifices. A further consequence of the reform was that everything concerned with the sacrificial act was now in the hands of these professionals. Individuals who were not priests no longer performed sacrifices themselves.
While the exile in Babylon from 587 onward led to the destruction of the Temple and the temporary cessation of the sacrificial cult, King Cyrus’ edict of 539, permitting a return, led to the construction of the Second Temple by the end of the century and to the restoration of its worship. In the pre-exilic period the cultic figure in charge at a shrine had often been called simply “the priest,” as in the case of Zadok (e.g., 1 Kgs 4:2; 1 Chr 16:39), although sometimes “high priest” (e.g., 2 Kgs 12:10; 22:4), but it was after the exile that this third tier of cultic official came to prominence, filling the void created by the absence of a king as such. The summit of the high priest’s ministry was the Day of Atonement—an annual feast that seems to have come to the fore in this period—when he entered the Holy of Holies to sprinkle the blood of bull and goat and offer incense for the transgressions of the people (see Lev 16).
It also appears that at this time a formal consecration of the high priest at his appointment was established, transferring to him the anointing and other ceremonies that had been the practice with regard to the installation of the monarch, as evidenced by the later strata in the Pentateuch, which direct that Aaron shall be ritually washed, vested, and his head anointed with oil. His sons, too, are to be vested, and the vestments of both Aaron and his sons sprinkled with oil and the blood of a sacrificial ram (Exod 29; Levi 8). Eventually the unction with oil seems to have been extended to the consecration of other priests, as Exodus 40:12-15 directs that the sons of Aaron are also to be anointed. Levites, too, were purified by sprinkling water on themselves, shaving themselves, and washing their clothes (Num 8:6-14).
Israel subsequently found itself part of the empire of Alexander the Great and following his death, under Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule and subject to the ever-increasing pressure of Hellenization. During this period the prestige of the old priestly aristocracy eroded, and new non-Zadokite priestly families achieved prominence and held the position of high priest.
Because there were far too many priests and Levites for all of them to be employed year round in the Temple, they were organized into twenty-four courses or divisions—an arrangement credited to King David in 1 Chronicles 24. Each of these, consisting of several hundred men, came up to Jerusalem in turn to perform a week’s service from one Sabbath to the next. During the rest of the year they resided in their hometowns and only rarely exercised any priestly function, such as declaring a leper clean after he had been healed (see Matt 8:4; Luke 17:14). Although they received various tithes and taxes, these were not sufficient to support them, and they were obliged to supplement their income in other ways.
According to the Mishnah (Ta’an. 4.2), attached to each of these priestly divisions were groups of pious laymen known as ma’amadoth or “standing-posts.” When the corresponding division went up to Jerusalem to fulfill its duty, part of the ma’amad accompanied it and was present at the daily sacrifices to represent the people as a whole and part remained behind in the hometown or village and came together each day at the time of the daily sacrifices in order to read the account of creation in Genesis, thus associating themselves with the offering at a distance.
ELDERS
The term “elder” (in Greek presbyteros) was used by early Christians to designate one of the three orders of ministers that came into being in the second century, and the seventy elders appointed by Moses to govern the people in Numbers 11:16-17, 24-25 were later sometimes appealed to as an Old Testament “type” for this Christian ministry. Because those appointed by Moses are said to have been given some of the Spirit that he had received, this, in turn, encouraged the association of appointment to office with a particular gift of the Spirit. But Christians were using the term elder at an even earlier date, deriving it from Old Testament and Jewish use, making it important to understand its meaning in that context.
The tribes of Israel were composed of clans, which in turn consisted of a number of extended families. The heads of these families, clans, and tribes were the people referred to as elders in the Old Testament, the senior men whose age and attributed wisdom gave them respect and authority. Although quite prominent in the Pentateuch narratives and in the early history of the nation, they tend to diminish in importance under the monarchy, as the king appointed officials to take charge of everyday affairs, but they regain significance during and after the Exile (see Jer 29:1; Ezra 5:5; 6:7; 8:1). The word always occurs in the plural as a collective term for a group of leaders, and never as the title of a specific office to which an individual might be appointed. Thus, Moses does not appoint seventy men to be elders to govern the people of Israel but chooses seventy of the elders to carry out this role. In early Judaism, elders becomes a generic term to cover various groups of leaders, not solely the official members of the Sanhedrin, and is used in this way by the writers of the New Testament Gospels and Acts.2 In Greco-Roman society, older men occupied a similar place of privilege, although the preferred Greek term for a ruling oligarchy as distinct from senior citizens in general was gerontes and not presbyteroi.
THE SYNAGOGUE
Because the first Christians were Jews and would therefore have attended synagogue, it is natural for scholars to imagine that the pattern of synagogue leadership and administration provided a model for ministry within the earliest Christian communities. There is considerable uncertainty as to when the synagogue first emerged. Some would place its origin immediately after the return from Exile, others centuries later.3 What is clear, however, is that the term referred primarily to those who assembled and not to a building in which such meetings took place. Although at one time it was thought that the gatherings each Sabbath were for an act of worship, it is now widely accepted that synagogue liturgy as such was a creation of the period after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and that prior to that the prime purpose of the assembly was the study of the Torah, although this activity might have been accompanied by prayer.4
Within the synagogue, any male with sufficient competency might in theory function as reader, translator, or interpreter of the Scriptures, although inevitably prominence tended to be given to those regarded as sages, mainly of the Pharisaic party. Each synagogue had two officials, both mentioned in the New Testament. One was the archisynagogos, “ruler of the synagogue” (Luke 8:41, 49; 13:14; Acts 13:15), a kind of superintendent, although the precise nature of his appointment is not clear. Some scholars have argued that he was elected for a limited period, perhaps a year, others that the office was permanent and hereditary, and others that he was the patron or principal benefactor of the synagogue. There is also evidence for priests assuming this leadership role in some places.5 Some have suggested that there could have been more than one such person in each synagogue (note the use of the plural in Acts 13:15), and even that the office could have been held by women.6 The principal functions exercised by the archisynagogos were administrative and presidential, keeping order at the meetings and inviting individuals to perform various tasks. The other official was the hazzan, “attendant,” mentioned in Luke 4:20 as the one to whom Jesus handed back the scroll after reading the passage from Isaiah and before expounding its meaning to those assembled. (If historically reliable, this passage suggests that not only the Law but also the prophets were being read in the synagogue in the first century.) This person seems to have been a sort of janitor, taking care of the building and its furnishings, especially the scriptural scrolls.7
Traditionally, it had been thought that each synagogue was governed by a formally appointed board of elders, but it is now seriously questioned whether this was so at such an early date, and it is considered more likely that in first-century Palestine the elders of the synagogue would have been the same natural elders of the community mentioned in the section above (see “The Elders of the Jews” of Luke 7:3). What might have been the case in the Diaspora is less clear. Similarly, it was also once believed that rabbis would have exercised a leading role in the synagogue, especially in the interpretation of the Law, but that, too, now seems a less likely assumption in the face of Lawrence Hoffman’s arguments that the term “rabbi” did not come into use until after the destruction of the Temple, and that although individual rabbis subsequently did appoint disciples, if ever there was any liturgical ceremony associated with this act in the early period, we do not know anything about it.8
As said above, it has been popular to suppose that the administrative structure of the synagogue would have provided a natural pattern for the early Christian church to adopt and adapt, with the bishop replacing the ruler of the synagogue, the presbyters its elders, and the deacons the attendant, but that assumption too now seems more questionable. Although the very first converts were Jews, they seem to have met together more often in houses for shared meals than in assemblies modeled on the synagogue, and so it is the Greco-Roman household that now appears to have exercised a greater influence on shaping the practice of Christian congregations in the long term. This would have especially been the case in Gentile communities with no experience of a regular meeting of the synagogue type and who would in any case not have been covered by the exemption from work on the Sabbath granted to Jews in the Roman Empire and so unable to devote part of the day to corporate Bible study as their Jewish counterparts could. For them, of necessity—except perhaps for the leisured few—the communal study of Scripture would have had to be an activity associated with the gatherings for evening meals: early mornings before work could not have provided sufficient time for anything substantial of this kind.
NEW TESTAMENT TITLES
The Twelve
For the writers of the books that make up the New Testament, the events in the life of Jesus and the foundational moments of the first Christian communities belong to the past and not to their present. Particular groups who had apparently assumed leadership roles in the emerging church were known to them through stories that were handed down, just as they were to later generations of Christians. Thus “the Twelve” are figures belonging to memories of the past. As companions of Jesus, they symbolized the leaders of the eschatological twelve tribes of Israel that would exist in the kingdom of God, and for Luke they had formed the leadership of the church in Jerusalem; but, apart from the replacement of Judas by Matthias at the beginning of Acts, they appoint no successors to themselves. Although later Christians would seek to forge a link between the subsequently emergent episcopate and these men, such a connection is not made anywhere in the New Testament. Among the Twelve, Peter is recalled as having exercised a leading role, but both Acts and Paul also ascribe to James, the brother of the Lord, a prominent position in the Jerusalem church even though he is not listed as having been one of the original Twelve (see Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12).
Apostles
The place of James raises the question as to the meaning of the word apostle in the New Testament. Although the book of Acts appears generally to equate the Twelve with “the apostles” and so later ecclesiastical tradition has tended to speak of “the twelve apostles,” the term is not restricted to the Twelve in the writings of Paul but refers to a much wider circle of people—this extension no doubt occasioned by his own desire to be numbered among them (Rom 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 4:9; 9:1-5; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; 11:5; 12:11-12; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1). Thus, he includes James among the apostles (Gal 1:19), Barnabas (1 Cor 9:6) and Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7). Even Luke describes both Paul and Barnabas as apostles in Acts 14:14, and Paul also speaks of the existence of other “false apostles” (2 Cor 11:13). Chapter 11 of the Didache, too, is familiar with people it calls apostles—apparently itinerant preachers, similar or identical to those called prophets.9 Subsequent to this, however, the title appears to have died out and we do not encounter it being used for current church leaders in later documents.
The Seventy
Unique to Luke’s gospel is the sending out, in addition to the twelve disciples, of a further seventy in pairs “to every city and place” to which Jesus was intending to go (Luke 10:1-17). Various sources for the number seventy (or in some manuscripts, seventy-two) have been proposed, among them the seventy descendants of the sons of Noah in Genesis 10, the seventy elders chosen by Moses to govern Israel in Numbers 11, and the seventy-two translators of the Septuagint mentioned in the Letter of Aristeas. Later traditions gave names to each of them, differing somewhat from list to list and drawn to some extent from names mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. Some modern commentators have suggested that this sending out was meant to prefigure the eventual mission to the Gentiles, but others doubt that Luke would have viewed the Samaritans as the equivalent of the Gentiles. Medieval writers on the subject of orders commonly viewed the episcopate as being derived from the apostles and the presbyterate from these seventy commissioned by Jesus.
The Seven
The appointment of the Seven in Acts 6:1-6 was later interpreted as the institution of the first deacons, but there is nothing in the account itself to suggest such a link, and the earliest evidence for this identification occurs only in the late second century—first in the writings of Irenaeus.10 It seems to have been the phrase “serve tables” that led later Christians to view those appointed as having been deacons, but there is no reason to understand their role as the equivalent of merely being waiters. The distribution of charity was one of the fundamental aspects of the life of the early Christian community, and the need to appoint some from the Greek-speaking members of the movement as administrators to ensure that the indigent from that same group received their fair share of goods would have been a natural step to take. In any case, their activities do not seem to have been restricted to this particular function: Stephen does great wonders and miracles (Acts 6:8); Philip evangelizes and performs miracles in Samaria (Acts 8:5-7) and he baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch on the road to Gaza (Acts 8:26-40). Some modern commentators have suggested that these individuals were actually Christian prophets and that the author created this plausible appointment scene so as to portray their authority as deriving from that of the Twelve and not independent of them.11
It is interesting to note that those chosen are described as already being “full of the Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3), which does not suggest that their appointment involved the bestowal of any particular new gifts of the Spirit. Nevertheless, prayer was made for them in their new responsibility and hands were laid on them. After the early chapters of Acts we hear no more about the Seven (except for “the house of Philip the evangelist” being mentioned in Acts 21:8) and no direct successors to them ever emerge.
THE IMPOSITION OF HANDS
The appointment of the Seven is not the only place in the New Testament where the imposition of hands is mentioned in connection with the commissioning of individuals for a particular task or ministry. In Acts 13:1-3, Barnabas and Saul are set apart by the laying on of hands after fasting and prayer for a particular work to which the Spirit has called them, and there are two references to the gesture in the Pastoral Epistles that have usually been understood as related to appointment to office: 1 Timothy 4:14 speaks of a gift received by the addressee of the letter at “the laying on of hands by the eldership,” and 2 Timothy 1:6 of the gift of God possessed by the addressee through the laying on of the author’s hands. (1 Tim 5:22 instructs the recipient not to be hasty in the laying on of hands, but this may concern a different ritual context, possibly initiation or healing.) Later Christian tradition has generally treated these four occurrences as sufficient proof that the imposition of hands in commissioning ministers was standard practice in New Testament times and that the later use of the imposition of hands in ordination stood in direct continuity with it. It is at least questionable, however, whether this view is correct.
In particular, the author may have introduced the imposition of hands when describing the two instances in Acts in order to emphasize the legitimation of that commissioning by others, just as he added a subsequent imposition of apostolic hands on the Samaritans baptized by Philip in Acts 8:14-25 and on twelve disciples who had only received the baptism of John in Acts 19:1-7—this is highly unlikely to have been standard baptismal practice in his day as it did not continue as a universal custom in connection with that rite. (The coupling of a laying on of hands with “washings” in Hebrews 6:2 may be thought to suggest a baptismal context there, but is too ambiguous to draw any firm conclusion.) Indeed, it has been suggested by some that the commissioning of Joshua, son of Nun, “a man in whom is the Spirit,” as leader by Moses through the laying on of hands (Num 27:16-23; see also Deut 34:9) may have provided the model for the description of the Seven’s appointment in Acts 6. It has even been proposed that the reference to the imposition of hands on Barnabas and Saul in Acts 13 may also have been influenced by another Old Testament precedent—that of the appointment of the Levites in Numbers 8:10.12 Even the references to the laying on of hands in the Pastoral Epistles might be related to the need to reinforce the authority of the unusually youthful Timothy rather than a mere reflection of standard practice.
It is interesting to note that apart from the two instances just referred to, the imposition of hands is never mentioned in association with other acts of appointment or commissioning in the Old Testament—neither the consecration of the sons of Aaron as priests in Exodus 29, nor the anointing of kings (see Judg 9:8, 15; 1 Sam 9; 15:1, 17), nor in the recognition of prophets, nor even the authorization of the seventy elders to govern in Numbers 11—so that is unlikely to have been the source of the later general Christian use of it in ordination. On the other hand, it does occur there in relation to other actions: the conferral of blessing (e.g., Gen 48:8-22), on an animal about to be sacrificed (e.g., Exod 29:10, 15, 19; Lev 4:4; Num 8:12; and esp. Lev 16:21, where the guilt of the people is transferred to the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement), and prior to stoning for blasphemy (Lev 24:14).
Similarly in the New Testament, while other places where some sort of appointment is referred to fail to mention the use of the imposition of hands (e.g., Mark 3:14; Acts 1:26), it is frequently spoken of in relation to healing, something with which it is not associated in the Old Testament (see Matt 9:18 // Mark 5:23; Mark 6:5; 7:32; 8:23, 25; 16:18; Luke 4:40; 13:13; Acts 9:12, 17; 28:8). It is also, not surprisingly, found where a blessing is taking place (Matt 19:13, 15 // Mark 10:16). Thus, even though innumerable pages have been published on the origin and meaning of the gesture in relation to ordination, its inherent ambiguity seems to preclude reaching any definitive conclusion as to its precise significance in those few New Testament instances where it might be connected with appointment, still less abstracting from them a fixed interpretation that can then be applied unequivocally to its use in later ordination rites. Furthermore, as we have seen earlier, the suggestion often made that Christians derived the custom from contemporary rabbinic ordination practice also lacks any evidence to support it.
In other words, we cannot safely assume that when this ritual act is first explicitly mentioned in connection with ordination in Christian sources from the third century onward, it must have been either copied from the New Testament references or practiced in direct continuity from the first days of the church, and with precisely the same meaning that it might have had in those days. It is quite possible that when we first encounter it in the ordination practice of subsequent centuries, it signifies no more than the person or persons for whom the accompanying prayer is being made. As Augustine of Hippo observed of the laying on of hands in a different context, that of baptism: “What is it but prayer over a person?”13 This interpretation is supported by the fact that it is given little prominence in some of those early texts, and not explicitly mentioned at all in others. It does not, at least at first, necessarily imply that something is understood as being transmitted from whoever is laying on hands to those on whom the hands are laid, and without any corroborating evidence to that effect within the particular text itself, it would be unwarranted to draw that conclusion.
The increasing prominence given to the imposition of hands in ordination from the third century onward seems to be related to a change that took place in the interpretation of the Greek word cheirotonia, “the lifting up of the hands,” and of its associated verb cheirotoneo. In classical Greek usage it had signified the act of election, voting by raising the hand, but early Christianity extended it to designate not just the first half of the process of ministerial appointment but the whole ordination—both election and prayer with the laying on of the hand. Later, however, the word came to be understood as referring to the second action rather than the first—the lifting up / laying on of the hand in prayer—thus giving that gesture greater importance and obscuring the significance given earlier to the act of election as integral to the process.
PRIESTHOOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
There are no signs in the New Testament that any members of the Jewish priesthood who might have been attracted to join the new Christian movement were granted any privileged role within it. Instead, it is the risen and glorified Jesus to whom the title of high priest comes to be applied in the Letter to the Hebrews, where Jesus is said to possess a priesthood like that of Melchizedek (see above, p. 2), who is described as being “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Heb 7:3). Not only was Jesus immortal like Melchizedek but his priesthood, too, was based neither on physical descent from a priestly family nor on the Law and was one that was permanently effective (Heb 4:14-5:10; 6:19–7:28). In a complex and rather repetitive argument, the author asserts that while the Jewish priests exercised their function on earth, Jesus’ priesthood is in heaven (Heb 8:1-4); while they offered the blood of animals, Jesus sacrificed his own blood (Heb 9:11-14); while the Jewish high priest entered an earthly sanctuary, Jesus had entered a heavenly one (Heb 9:24); while the high priest had to do this year after year on the Day of Atonement, Jesus had done this once and for all (Heb 9:25-28); and while his offerings only dealt with ritual impurity, Jesus’ sacrifice took away sin (Heb 10:11-12). Jesus had thus eliminated for ever the need for earthly priests and sacrifices and given his followers confidence to draw near to God to find mercy and grace (Heb 4:16; 10:19-22).14
The designation of Jesus as high priest is not taken up explicitly in any of the other New Testament writings, but it is implicit in other passages that speak of thanksgiving or glory being offered to God through Jesus Christ (see Rom 1:18; 16:27; Col 3:17), and it finds a place in some other early Christian writings.15 On the other hand, the New Testament does attribute a priestly character to the Christian people. This is made most explicit in 1 Peter 2:9, where four Old Testament titles that had been applied to Israel are attributed to the body of Christians: they are a chosen race (see, e.g., Deut 7:6), a kingdom of priests (Exod 19:6), a holy nation (Exod 19:6), and God’s own people (Hos 2:23). As living stones, they are built up into a spiritual temple and “a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 2:5). It cannot be emphasized enough that this description does not refer to the ordained ministry or to the exercise of specific liturgical functions within the church. It concerns the relationship between Christians and the rest of the world. Just as Israel had been intended to be a nation dedicated to the service of God and thus a mediator between other nations and God, so now the Christian church assumes that privilege and duty. The same designation of Christians as priests is also found in the book of Revelation (1:6; 5:10; 20:6). Although, therefore, in one sense the priesthood possessed by Jesus was seen as absolutely unique to him, in other respects Christians could be said to share in his priesthood.
As for the nature of the “spiritual sacrifices” that they are to offer, these are to be primarily the ways in which they conduct their lives, so that when the Gentiles see their good works, they too will come to glorify God (1 Pet 2:12). The same idea is put forward in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: “I beseech you, therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God that you present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, your rational worship” (Rom 12:1). So familiar are these words to so many of us that we fail to notice how striking they would have been to Paul’s original readers. A living sacrifice would have seemed an oxymoron, as sacrifices were things that were usually killed, and “rational worship” is precisely contrasting the offering of human reason with that of animals.
Even the Letter to the Hebrews, in spite of its emphasis on the unique and ultimate character of the priesthood of Jesus, urges its readers to offer through Jesus “the sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, the fruit of the lips that confess his name. And do not neglect to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (Heb 13:15-16). Here we have the twin aspects of Christian priestly living: worship offered through the words uttered by the lips, combined with deeds of charity and generosity toward others, both actions being described as sacrifices. The expression, “the fruit of the lips,” meaning what comes out of the mouth, and here specifically the verbalization of praise, also occurs in Isaiah 57:19 and Hosea 14:2 and had been taken up by the Jewish community at Qumran, who, finding themselves unable to perform the requisite sacrifices in the Temple because they regarded it as corrupt and defiled, were forced to turn to the offering of verbal praise as a temporary substitute for that activity.16 However, what they regarded as merely temporary became for Christians the permanent replacement for those sacrifices.
1 Much of the material in this section is based on Aelred Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, Analecta Biblica 35 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969).
2 See further, R. Alastair Campbell, The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 20–44.
3 See Lee Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 21–173.
4 See ibid., 134–59; Heather A. McKay, Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1994); Pieter W. van der Horst, “Was the Synagogue a Place of Sabbath Worship before 70 C.E.?,” in Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue, ed. Steven Fine (New York: Routledge, 1999), 18–43.
5 See Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 136–37, 415–20; Tessa Rajak and David Noy, “Archisynagogos: Office, Title and Social Status in the Greco-Jewish Synagogue,” Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993): 75–93.
6 See Bernadette J. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue, Brown Judaic Studies 36 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982).
7 See Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 435–42.
8 Lawrence Hoffman, “Jewish Ordination on the Eve of Christianity,” SL 13 (1979): 11–41.
9 For ministries in the Didache, see below, pp. 25–27.
10 See below, p. 37.
11 See, for example, Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina 5 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 110–12.
12 See, for example, Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, 107; Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 251. Note that grammatically the subject of the verbs “pray” and “lay hands” in Acts 6:6 would most naturally be the whole company, as was the case in Numbers 8:10, an interpretation accepted by some modern commentators but rejected by others who struggle to explain that it must mean the Twelve alone (presumably because later Christian laying on of hands at ordinations only involved ordained ministers and not the whole assembly).
13 Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas 3.16
14 See further, Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989); Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2001); Eric F. Mason, “You are a Priest for Ever…” Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 74 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).
15 1 Clement 36.1; 61.3; 64; Polycarp, Philippians 12.2; Martyrdom of Polycarp 14.3. For other examples, see below, pp. 41–43.
16 See, for example, James VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 117. But cf. Russell C. D. Arnold, “Qumran Prayer as an Act of Righteousness,” Jewish Quarterly Review 95 (2005): 509–29.