Posted on 12/17/2014 4:04:52 PM PST by Salvation
Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?
Full Question
The New Testament mentions three categories of Church leaders: bishops, presbyters, and deacons. So how can the Catholic Church justify its office of "priest"? The New Testament writers seem to understand "bishop" and "presbyter" to be synonymous terms for the same office (Acts 20:17-38).
Answer
The English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as "elder" or "presbyter." The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.
They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear--except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)--the word may rightly be translated as "priest" instead of "elder" or "presbyter."
Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally "an overseer": We translate it as "bishop." The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as "bishopric" (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).
The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the term "minister" to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the term diakonos is rendered both as "deacon" and as "minister" in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.
In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are called presbyteroi (v. 17) and episcopoi (v. 28). Presbuteroi is used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership. Episcopoi is used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: "And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for the elders [presbuteroi]of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . 'Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.'"
In other passages it's clear that although men called presbuteroi ruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul's instructions: "This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you" (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22).
“Again, you are ignorant of the history of the term priest and its usage in English.”
No, I am not. It was used for Catholic “priests”. The meaning is someone who did what the Catholic priest does, including offer sacrifices. What it meant in Old English is irrelevant, since none of us use Old English now.
Does the New Testament, as delivered by the Apostles, warrant “priests” - hiereus - in the Church? The answer is obviously NO.
So what is the role envisioned by the Apostles for the elders - the presbutero?
Contrary to the article, this passage:
“13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”
does NOT suggest they administered sacraments, with all the theological baggage that word includes. It means the elders - plural - would go and pray for the sick members. This has nothing to do with sacramental theology.
It is important to be accurate in translating the Word of God. Translating “presbutero” as “priest” can only be deliberate distortion. It is utterly unjustified linguistically. That is why Tyndale, in 1526, translated it correctly:
“Is there any man diseased among you? Let him call for the seniors of the congregation, and let them pray over him, and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”
That is a good Greek to English translation. There is no justification for translating “presbutero” as priest. Doing so is deceptive. It mangles the Greek to impose a theology the Apostles did not share.
“That English uses only one term for these two distinct offices is a result of a defect in English...”
Incorrect. English does in fact HAVE words for the proper translation, and no honest translator would pretend otherwise.
“A-1,Adjective,4245,presbuteros
an adjective, the comparative degree of presbus, “an old man, an elder,” is used
(a) of age, whether of the “elder” of two persons, Luke 15:25, or more, John 8:9, “the eldest;” or of a person advanced in life, a senior, Acts 2:17; in Heb. 11:2, the “elders” are the forefathers in Israel; so in Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:3,5; the feminine of the adjective is used of “elder” women in the churches, 1 Tim. 5:2, not in respect of position but in seniority of age;
(b) of rank or positions of responsibility,
(1) among Gentiles, as in the Sept. of Gen. 50:7; Num. 22:7;
(2) in the Jewish nation, firstly, those who were the heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy who assisted Moses, Num. 11:16; Deut. 27:1, and those assembled by Solomon; secondly, members of the Sanhedrin, consisting of the chief priests, “elders” and scribes, learned in Jewish law, e.g., Matt. 16:21; 26:47; thirdly, those who managed public affairs in the various cities, Luke 7:3;
(3) in the Christian churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches.
To these the term “bishops,” episkopoi, or “overseers,” is applied (see Acts 20, ver. 17 with ver. 28, and Titus 1:5,7), the latter term indicating the nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturity of spirtual experience.
The Divine arrangement seen throughout the NT was for a plurality of these to be appointed in each church, Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5. The duty of “elders” is described by the verb episkopeo. They were appointed according as they had given evidence of fulfilling the Divine qualifications, Titus 1:6-9; cp. 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 1 Pet. 5:2;
(4) the twenty-four “elders” enthroned in heaven around the throne of God, Rev. 4:4,10; 5:5-14; 7:11,13; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4. The number twenty-four is representative of earthly conditions. The word “elder” is nowhere applied to angels. See OLD.”
http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0000866
What a load of bovine excrement, AGAIN. You imply AGAIN something which is not based on any proof, just supposition and TRADITIONS of the Roman horde. Paul wrote and spoke the same things.
The ministerial offices were established as a result of the preaching of the apostles prior to the writing of the New Testament.
It sure seems important for the Catholics to justify that which cannot be justified within Scripture. They bend and assert what they want it to mean, regardless of the actual writings. It's all a house built on sand, but surely displayed with lots of gold and jewels to fool those trusting in such!
Trust should be placed on the Word of God, not some groupthink which establishes a cult such as the Roman Catholics apparently has become.
Here is a caption from an essay that can explain things better than I...
... Paul’s salvation is our pattern for this dispensation, so the Holy Spirit tells us to follow Paul as he follows Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1; cf. 1 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 5:1; Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:6). There is no command to follow Peter, James, or John in the Bible. Why? Remember, Paul is “the apostle of the Gentiles” (Romans 11:13; Romans 15:16; 2 Timothy 1:11). Remember, James, Peter, and John were apostles of Israel (Matthew 10:5-7; Matthew 19:27,28; Galatians 2:9).
When the nation Israel asked the Apostle Peter, “What must we do to be saved?,” notice Peter’s answer: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38; cf. Acts 3:19). However, when the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved?,” notice what Paul and Silas declared: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31). Obviously, these are not the same message. Peter told people to repent and then get water baptized, so they could receive forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit. Yet, Paul simply taught that salvation comes by “believing on [trusting] the Lord Jesus Christ,” without preaching water baptism or repentance. If words mean anything, Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels.
Confusion abounds when we mix the nation Israel with the Church the Body of Christ. We must “rightly divide” the Bible, separating Law from Grace (Romans 6:14-15), the prophetic program (Acts 3:21) from the mystery program (Romans 16:25-26a), just as the Apostle Paul instructed Timothy: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV). (Another verse that modern English versions pollute.) All of the Bible is for us, but not all the Bible is to us or about us. Paul’s epistles, Romans through Philemon, have direct application to us; the rest of the Bible involves the nation Israel and her prophetic program. We cannot take Israel’s verses as though they were ours. ... excerpted
A thought, just because. My Priest told me I was Baptized priest, prophet and king! Told a Sister she was already a priest. That went over big let me tell you! I got the “look”. :)
Also in the NT there those who are neither bishops nor priests who also serve, they are called deacons.
>>> *The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably<<<
This is why they are regarded as being under one sacrament. The office of Holy Orders is a single sacrament in the the Catholic Churches.
We do know that scripture insisted in a rite of ordination through the lay on of hands.
The problem is, you don’t simply call them “priests”, while maintaining their proper role as described in the NT. You also give them the duties and privileges of a priestly class, even explicitly comparing them to the OT temple priests, which is contrary to the NT.
On the other hand, there is a group of people in the church that is described as a priesthood similar to the OT priests, and it is not the presbyters:
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” 1 Peter 2:9
The word for priesthood used there is “hieratuma”, from the same Greek root “heiros” used to denote sacred priesthoods like the OT temple priests. It is applied in the NT to all members of the church, not to one special group, as the modern Catholic church does.
Does that come from the NT though? That was my question.
Sorry, but Strong’s doesn’t cut it for me. You need a Catholic concordance.
There is no catholic Greek or non catholic Greek. The Greek is the Greek. That you want to appeal to a catholic Greek source is telling.
Great response from a Christian!
You imply AGAIN something which is not based on any proof, just supposition and TRADITIONS of the Roman horde. Paul wrote and spoke the same things.
Actually Paul spoke more than what he wrote. His letters are to communities who have already evangelized and established. The establishment of the ministerial offices was the result of his preaching, not his writing.
Petrosius: The ministerial offices were established as a result of the preaching of the apostles prior to the writing of the New Testament.
WVKayaker: It sure seems important for the Catholics to justify that which cannot be justified within Scripture. They bend and assert what they want it to mean, regardless of the actual writings. It's all a house built on sand, but surely displayed with lots of gold and jewels to fool those trusting in such!
It is clear from the Bible that these offices were already in existence prior to Paul's letters to these communities. His mention of these offices in a few letters does not imply something new. Indeed, the office of deacon existed even before Paul's conversion.
Trust should be placed on the Word of God, not some groupthink which establishes a cult such as the Roman Catholics apparently has become.
I do trust the Word of God. That is why I am a Catholic. What I do not trust is your private interpretation of the Word of God. Perhaps you should take another look at your reliance on Protestant groupthink.
Here is a caption from an essay that can explain things better than I...
A silly and desperate attempt to avoid the full truth of the Gospel.
The actual problem is trying to discern the proper role of presbyter solely from the Bible. The New Testament is not an organizing manual for the church. The local churches were organized prior to its writing. The epistles in particular were written to address specific issues in the local churches. There were not intended to be a comprehensive instruction on the order of worship. Indeed, it is clear that the common worship of the community was very important to the early church. That there is not a detailed instruction in the Bible of how to carry this out shows the error of sola scripture.
Your reference to the "royal priesthood" in 1 Peter, as well as similar language in Revelation, shows that there is an ongoing priesthood (here I use the term for that of hiereus, not presbuteros) and thus an ongoing sacrifice. The relationship between the common priesthood of the baptized and that of the ordained ministers is not indicated in the Bible. Reference to the writings of the early Church Fathers shows what the early Christians actually believed rather than trying to postulate back the ideas of the 16th century Protestant reformers.
Oh good grief.
Catholics have to my knowledge redefined the following words to suit their needs:
worship
to
pray
priest
It's like listening to the clintons with catholics.
It is Strong and other Protestants who have attempted to redefine priest. It original meaning was only for the presbyterate. This meaning has continued despite Protestant efforts to disassociate it from the New Testament office of presbyter than continues today in the Catholic priesthood.
“The New Testament is not an organizing manual for the church. The local churches were organized prior to its writing.”
Yes, which is exactly why we can look to the NT to see how they were organized, and note that it doesn’t look much like the system Rome promotes today.
“That there is not a detailed instruction in the Bible of how to carry this out shows the error of sola scripture.”
Actually, this statement just shows your misunderstanding of what the doctrine of “sola scriptura” means.
“The relationship between the common priesthood of the baptized and that of the ordained ministers is not indicated in the Bible. Reference to the writings of the early Church Fathers shows what the early Christians actually believed rather than trying to postulate back the ideas of the 16th century Protestant reformers.”
Oh yes! We can go back to the church fathers and see what they say about these matters. In fact, they tell us where the change sprang from, that accounts for why the Catholic offices appear different from the NT offices:
“The distinction between the order of clergy and the people has been established by the authority of the Church.” - Tertullian
Not from God, not from Christ, not from Scripture, but from the church. The church invented this distinction itself.
Episcopoi (bishops), presbuteroi (priests) and deaconoi (deacons); it looks pretty much like the Catholic Church to me.
Not from God, not from Christ, not from Scripture, but from the church. The church invented this distinction itself.
Just as the church established the office of deacon, something never mentioned by Jesus. The office of deacon was not established from Scripture. Acts only records what the church did with its own authority. The church exercised the authority given to it by Jesus Christ himself, an authority that it continues to exercise.
Not at all if what you want is a literal translation of the word. But πρεσβυτέριον does not simply describe a group of elders but a particular office of ministry in the church. This office has continued to exist in the Catholic Church throughout the centuries. In English it became known as preost/priest which is just the Old English rendering of πρεσβυτέριον.
“Episcopoi (bishops), presbuteroi (priests) and deaconoi (deacons); it looks pretty much like the Catholic Church to me.”
Multiple bishops for a city (who were all married)? Chosen by the members of the congregation? With no over-arching authority of the Pope above them? Presbyters, who were not accorded any priestly title or duties? That’s what the NT describes, and it doesn’t look much like the Catholic Church to me.
“Acts only records what the church did with its own authority. The church exercised the authority given to it by Jesus Christ himself, an authority that it continues to exercise.”
When that authority conflicts with Scripture, then its use is invalid, and must be rejected. The authority of the church only applies in matters where Scripture is silent, or leaves room for interpretation. It cannot overrule God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.