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).
Not so. The use of a literal translation for presbuteros introduces an error since it separates it from the continuing office of the Catholic presbyter (priest). The presbuteroi of the New Testament were not just any group of elders but those who were appointed to hold a specific office in the church. This is an office that no one or no separate group can take upon themselves but must be appointed by the church. Let us be honest, Tyndale first introduced the translation of "elder" in an attempt to deny that the Catholic priests of his day were true presbyters. It is this disassociation that makes the simple use of a literal translation of the term problematic.
It is an historical fact that the church was established before the writings of the New Testament. How could Paul write to the church in Corinth, etc. if there were no church until he wrote his letters?
Perhaps you ought to read the scriptures to see what they really say.
Not so. The use of a literal translation for presbuteros introduces an error since it separates it from the continuing office of the Catholic presbyter.
You make my point for literal translation of the Word. The Greek is the Greek.
It is the catholic church that has introduced the error to fit its office of priest.
That is but one of many errors of understanding the Word the catholic church has made.
There is indeed such a class of clergy since the office of presbyter still exists and is commonly known as "priest."
Taking hiereus which is distinctively used for a distinctive class of OT clergy and translating it into a word used for both hiereus and presbuteros is the problem.
Granted but the problem is not that priest is used for presbuteros but that it is used for hiereus.
The KJV correctly uses "elder" for presbuteros as that is what it originally meant.
No, this introduces a new problem in that it disassociates the modern office of the Catholic priest from that of the New Testament presbyter.
No, it is a continuation of the office of presbyter.
Perhaps you ought to read the scriptures to see what they really say.
The roman catholic church was not started before the scriptures were written. It manifested itself several hundred years later.
The church established at Pentecost would not recognize the edifice known as the rcc.
Your last comment....sound advice catholics need to heed.
Methinks you answered your own question.
In Hebrews where the priesthood of Jesus is explained which shows why any other priesthood is no longer necessary.
Established by whom? By the church established by Jesus Christ and governed by the apostles and their successors, the bishops. Do not try to avoid this truth by speaking in the passive voice.
This statement is demonstratively false. The term preost/priest was introduced when there was still a distinction between it and sacerd. The confusion of terms was the result of natural linguistic development, not a conspiracy by Rome. Do you really think that Rome had that amount of power over the development of the English language in the 11th century?
Give me the exact date and tell me what happened to the New Testament church that preceded it.
Give me the exact date and tell me what happened to the New Testament church that preceded it.
There was no mary worship
no hail Mary's; no statues to Mary; no prayers to Mary
No indulgences
No penance
No pope
No cardinals
No diocese
No priesthood as constituted in the RCC today
No leanings on the writing of the ECFs which contradict each other on many topics the RCC claims they support.
In essence...when did the rcc begin.....
When it departed from the teachings of the New Testament.
The date, please.
Let me see if I understand you correctly the Scriptures of the Eternal God are not Eternal? So for them to exist they had to be written by a set of men on Earth to be real...lol. I’m so sorry that your god is that puny and your humans are so powerful! Are you kidding me, my God had the Word in the Heavenly Realms with him until us puny humans could handle his Truth. Since you didn’t post any Scriptures refuting what I posted it’s your word against Scripture and well you can figure that out.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
If I come off a little strong I apologize, but your writings act like God isn’t strong enough to do whatever he wants. He doesn’t need us in any capacity we are but dust to him, but due to his Love, Mercy, and Grace we are saved. He gives us what we can handle at the time and place of his good will and pleasure. Your Church My Church or our people haven’t done anything worthy of God. We can do nothing by ourselves, but he does all things through us.
See post #94
Did you actually read all of what i wrote? The church did not establish itself upon its own authority, while its Scriptural basis was due to men discerning writings as being of God long before a church of Rome would presume it was essential for this.
And if most of what it in the Bible was established (if not universally) as being of God before Rome, then certainly the rest could follow.
Meanwhile it took Rome over 1400 years after the last book was penned to issue an infallible/indisputable complete canon. Do not try to avoid this truth by speaking in the propagandist voice.
Is your argument that if we agree with Rome about the NT canon then we should assent to her in all else?
It seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.
Along with the Catechism right? Actually I don’t need either the Bible is what I use.
No matter how much you want to repeat it, the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors - mean "priest."
Granted but the problem is not that priest is used for presbuteros but that it is used for hiereus.
Indeed. Thus the rebuke of its use for presbuteros is valid.
No, this introduces a new problem in that it disassociates the modern office of the Catholic priest from that of the New Testament presbyter.
No, as that is Rome's problem with the Holy Spirit, as it is He who unlike Rome, never uses the distinctive title given to OT and pagan hiereus for presbuteros, nor describes the latter as engaging in a uniquely sacrificial function, or as offering bread and wine as their primary one.
Thus it is God which disassociates the modern office of the Catholic priest from that of the New Testament presbyter. Best not to argue with the Holy Spirit's choice of words by making His distinctions of none effect by using the same word for OT and pagan priests as NT presbuteros. But such befits her autocratic arrogance.
The word “pope” means Father, or grandfather. Historically, the same title was born by the bishops of Alexandria, which is why the Coptic Christian leader is still known by that title. The authority associated with Pope Francis is another matter. His office is bishop of Rome, one of the successors of St. Peter.
No, it is a continuation of the office of presbyter.
C'mon, your religion admits it is...The robes of the priests and the gold and jewels on the pope and others...
The priesthood can not be a continuation because the priesthood of the bible is dead and gone...There's no need for it...
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.