We do disagree in that we contend the authoritarian monarchy centered in Rome, complete with an intermediate echelon of priests exerting sacerdotal power over the laity
If every Christian from the Reformer tradition, instead of arguing some off-the-cliff Sola Scriptura theology raised questions about whether the modern "authoritarian monarchy" is identical to the papacy of Peter and the first popes, I would have no quarrel with the argument. It is entirely legitimate to examine the evidence of scripture and the historical evidence of the early Church to see what were the earthly mechanisms of authority and how the pope, bishops and priesthood fit into it. 1 Peter 5 is an excellent insight into the question.
One note on the translation. The original employs not "elder", -- which can mean anything, really, -- but presbyter, "πρεσβυτερος", the word which English equivalent is "Christian priest". Unfortunately in English there is no separate word for "Pagan priest". "πρεσβυτερος", however, is used in the New Testament to indicate Christian men of sacerdotal authority. Translating, like Douay, "ancients" or as KJV "elders" somewhat obscures the nature of the authority that is not from old age but rather is "grace that is in thee [Timothy], which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." (1 Timothy 4:14).
With this in mind, let us look at the passage. Peter here addresses πρεσβυτερους and points out that he, Peter is a "συμπρεσβυτερος", -- a fellow priest. As a Catholic I do not find it in any way surprising. whether one is a pope, a bishop or a parish priest in some backwater town, the decisive, indelible mark on his soul is priesthood. Papacy is a function, priesthood is the essence. While I recognize the special authority of Pope Francis, he is to me foremostly a priest, from whose hands I eat the Holy Eucharist. To describe himself as bishop would not be inaccurate, but it would insert a distinction between the speaker and the audience where Peter wants to emphasize unity. He does mention one distinction of his: "συμπρεσβυτερος και μαρτυς των του χριστου παθηματων", "fellow priest and witness of the Christ's Passion". That, I think, is mentioned in order to encourage the young priests who do not belong to the generation of Apostles to still carry on the mark of priesthood same as is on Peter.
This being said, there is no argument that bishops and priests were not strictly separated in the Early Church. That is because theologically, -- I repeat myself -- priesthood is significant as priest is the stand-in for Christ. Bishop is a priest who has extra administrative duty. Pope is a priest who administers bishops. In the Early Church there was probably one Christian Church per town (and probably not a distinct building, but rather a known community that met in peoples' homes) so the priest was at the same time bishop for that town.
But neither is this passage teaching absence of priestly authority. You chose not to follow with the next verse, but the passage actually concludes with a call to obedience to the Church in humility:
In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients [υποταγητε πρεσβυτεροις]. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.
Now let's go back to that "authoritarian monarchy". That the pope is a monarch is true; and he is recognized as one by other heads of state. "Authoritarian", however, means that he can order people around at will. That is not the case with most monarchs (American allergy to monarchism notwithstanding) and it is certainly not the case with papacy. The pope is constrained by the 2 thousand years of Catholic tradition that leaves him very little theological room for innovation. Further, the Church is Catholic: that means, it moves as a single collegiate body. The pope, for example, cannot tell a bishop what to do; he can engineer his retirement, but he cannot not dictate to him. Conservative Catholics in the US, for example, sorely wish our popes were more authoritarian in their dealings with the liberal bishops and the liberal Catholic colleges such as Notre Dame. Likewise, the liberal Catholics would wish the pope to be able to proclaim female priesthood, or access to communion after remarriage. The pope can't do that either. Papacy is a rigid institution, and I am convinced that is how God wants it. Institutional rigidity is the very opposite of authoritarianism.
Which is all very nice, but if you read the rest of my sentence you see that the root of my objection is that the sacerdotal system "has no basis in Scripture." So while I always appreciate a kind word (and I never turn down free donuts at work either), I think in the end you will find me as much an "off-the-cliff Sola Scriptura" guy as any of my evangelical brothers and sisters here.
But "Sola Scriptura," like so many other things we evangelicals believe, has seldom if ever been accurately represented by our opposition. It was never meant to imply that the Bible is the only useful source of information in studying a theological problem. Language, reason, history, all have their place in such studies.
But at the end of the day, in sorting through conflicting data, the mind of the student must declare a winner and go with that. Therefore if the Bible says there were Hittites and 19th Century archaeology says there weren't, the believer goes with the Bible, and come the 20th Century they will be vindicated.
So the Protestant mindset is not to reject all knowledge outside Scripture. It is to give Scripture preeminence in deciding what is true. If Scripture actually taught, in plain and unequivocal language, that a ministerial priestly class was necessary for the administration of the Eucharist, I for one would not be sitting up late like this arguing the point with you.
But Scripture teaches no such thing. The etymology of πρεσβυτερους strongly suggests “elder” is the more illuminating translation. See Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2386306&redirect=true
Note that Liddell & Scott build their case from established classical Greek usage. For just one of many examples, in Euripides, when Menelaus says, “Hail, old man, rival of Zeus for a bride!,” he is using the same word. That’s how lexical values are determined, broad surveys of common usage, both within and without the document to be translated.
It is true there is a relationship between “presbuteros” and “priest,” but not in Greek. “Priest” is a shortened form of “presbuteros,” and was avoided in later English translations because its meaning had evolved away from the original simplicity of the Greek to mean something quite different than what is found in the Apostolic writings.
BTW, this is not unusual, but a regular phenomenon in language, and it is the real reason translations must be refreshed from time to time. Words shift in their meaning over time. One of my favorite examples is “Goodbye.” Now, any atheist can say “goodbye,” and all he means is “I’m leaving now.” But “goodbye” is a contraction of “God bless you.” So would we say in translating they are the same, that the atheist was really invoking the blessing of God? Of course not.
Which is why “elder” really is the better choice for English readers, because while it is indeed associated with the exercise of authority, it also conveys wisdom, maturity, purity of motive, etc., without any of the misleading baggage associated with the modern English sense of "priest."
But neither is this passage teaching absence of priestly authority.
And again I would remind you that is not the key to the conflict between us. We do not deny the existence of human authority within the churches as God certainly has given gifts by His Holy Spirit for just that purpose:
1Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
The word κυβερνησεις (“governments/administrations”) does appear in the list, so we do have an obligation to be responsive to those whom God has so gifted. But notice where they are in the list. They are almost last. Only tongues come in lower. The high ranking gifts are all those who bring the message of the Gospel.
Anyway, past my bedtime. The point is, in the New Testament church there is a complete lack of individuals acting as sacramental go-betweens, no stated reliance on priests performing the miracle of transubstantiation, no demonstration of penance as modernly practiced, etc.
In other words, the true interdependency of the body of Christ is not based on mediatorial priesthood, but the diversity of divine gifts given to the entire body. If the apostles had wished to teach a sacramental intermediating priest class, there was a word for that, "hieros", for which there was a handy model in the Old Covenant priesthood.
Yet that term is never applied to the plurality of elders in any given Christian congregation (nor, BTW, is there any suggestion of a single bishop per city-wide congregation). If there was supposed to be a Christian continuation of the priestly office instituted under Moses, complete with a power for routine Eucharistic miracles upon which the laity were absolutely dependent for spiritual life, it is stunning that no such institution is recorded in the New Testament. God was very clear about it in Moses.
But the truth is, it doesn’t appear because Jesus’ sacrifice renders it unnecessary. He is the last and only Priest of the Christian. We have teachers and administrators and helpers aplenty. But Jesus has worked all the priests offering sacrifice out of a job. It’s over. They can go home now:
Heb 10:15-23 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR HEARTS, AND IN THEIR MINDS I WILL WRITE THEM," then He adds, "THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, 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. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.
Peace,
SR