For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

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).

The root words are the Latin presbyter (a transliteration from the Greek) ...

NO, the root words are in Greek, translated incorrectly by the Roman cabal to unScripturally support their suppositions. The literal interpretation of the ORIGINAL Greek translates as "overseer", not "priest"!

Nowhere in the New Testament GREEK do we find it! Nowhere!

The reference to any leadership comes from Paul, where the qualifications clearly state:

1 Timothy 3:

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

8 In the same way, deacons[b] are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

11 In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

I think that you have it backwards. The English word priest is derived from the Greek presbuteros. Its original meaning was exclusively for the New Testament office of presbyter, a meaning which has continued from the Old English proest. Old English used sacerd to translate the Greek hiereus. There was no Roman conspiracy to mistranslate. Indeed, in the Latin, the language of the Roman church, there are two distinct terms: presbyter and sacerdos. Modern Italian maintains these two terms as prete and sacerdote. That English uses only one term for these two distinct offices is a result of a defect in English, not a conspiracy of Rome. If there is a mistranslation it is an inappropriate use of priest for hiereus. Perhaps you could lead an effort to bring back the English term sacerd.

No matter how much you wish to change the ORIGINAL TEXT and meaning, the proper definition suggests “overseer”, no “priest”.

presbuteros

1) elder, of age

1a) the elder of two people

1b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior

1b1) forefathers

2) a term of rank or office

2a) among the Jews

2a1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)

2a2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice

2b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably

2c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

I enjoyed reading the postings on this thread. Whatever name is used in the N.T. for bishops, elders, or other similar terms, it is always in the plural for each local congregation. No grouping of congregations under any single religious authority is mentioned. Chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation issues individual letters to 7 independent congregations.

In the KJV. “priests” is used in Revelation 1:6 “And hath made us kings and priests;...” The Pulpit Commentary on page 4, Volume 22 (Revelation exposition) says: “Rather, as in the Revised Version: ‘And he made us (to be) a kingdom, (to be) priests.’....Collectively, Christians are a kingdom of priests...or as Peter in I Peter 2:9: “...a royal priesthood...”; From page 70,Volume 22, Pulpit Commentary (I Peter exposition) I Peter 2:6 “...holy priesthood...” “The Church collectively is called a priesthood...Christians individually are called priests.”

“Since the English word priest, despite the desire of some, means both presbuteros and hiereus your statement is misleading.”

No, it is not. The English word for priest includes the theology of the Catholic Church - which makes sense in that a Catholic priest functions like a Jewish priest, offering a sacrifice. Indeed, in English, the word “priest” includes the idea of offering sacrifices.

But the Apostles knew of no such thing. There was no offering of sacrifice by the elders. The only sacrifices offered were offered by the universal priesthood of believers offering sacrifices of thanksgiving and good deeds.

When the Apostles used presbutero (elder) and NOT hiereus (priest), there was a reason. The elders were not priests. They were never, ever referred to as priests by the Apostles. To take a meaning from an English word which was born out of Roman Catholic theology and inject it into a word which had no such meaning to the Apostles is at best ignorance and at worst deliberate dishonesty.

If the Apostles had wanted the elder to be thought of as a priest, they could have used the word for it. That they refused to do so, even though they were Jewish, is very important.

The Apostles COULD have described presbutero as overlapping hiereus. They did not. At no time do they call the elders “priests”. Instead, they clearly describe Jesus as the High Priest, serving perpetually and giving ALL access to God:

“24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself...

...Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water...

... 15 Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.”

I already posted Paul's qualifications for the position of church leadership, and it clearly sets out that first the man must be a good father to his own children.

If your understanding is that one must be a father then that would disqualify Paul himself! No, what Paul is stating is that those fathers who are to be chosen must be a good father to one's own children. One that has shown that he cannot govern his own household is unfit to govern the church. But this does not mean that those not fathers are disqualified.

You also err in thinking that the ministries of the church are based on Scripture. No, the offices of episcopoi, presbuteroi and deaconoi were established prior to the completion of the New Testament and are not derived from it. This is a major misunderstanding of those who would advance sola scriptura. These offices were established by the authority of the church herself, an authority attested to by the Scriptures and which continues to exist.

“No, the offices of episcopoi, presbuteroi and deaconoi were established prior to the completion of the New Testament and are not derived from it.”

Sorry, but the NT and OT have no beginning or ending date as they are eternal as our God.

John 1:1 New International Version (NIV)
The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Apostles were led by the Holy Spirit, so the the Scripture was indeed in their heart because our God was there.

The Church was established by God through Jesus Christ again the “Word” was already there. Oh it may have been wrote down on paper later on, but God led them with the word anyways.

Sola Scripture

Galatians 1:8 New International Version (NIV)

8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

Again, you are ignorant of the history of the term priest and its usage in English. Priest/preost was not born out of Catholic theology of the sacerdotal nature of the presbyterate. It was simply the Old English rendering of presbyter and was originally used exclusively for this office. Its original meaning was not that of a sacrificial officer, i.e. hiereus. The term for this was sacerd. As an example, from the Wessex Gospel of Luke from the 10th century.:

1:5 On Herodes dagum, Iudéa cyniges, wæs sum sacerd on naman Zacharias, of Abian túne: his wíf wæs of Aárones dohtrum, and hyre nama wæs Elizabeth.
In the days of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

It is indeed unfortunate the two terms became conflated into the one English word but this was the result of natural linguistic development, not a conspiracy by Rome. In Latin, the language of Rome, these two terms have remained distinct. The New Testament office of presbyter has continued to exist in the Catholic Church. In English this office is known by the term priest/preost, a usage that predates the conflation of the terms for presbuteros and hiereus.

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.