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
Well, but it surely does not say the opposite either, so wouldn't this be the case where we involve history, patristic writings and the decisions by the Church? Perhaps you would equivocate, but to me it is rather clear from the Scripture also: Christ said at the Last Supper
This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me (Luke 22:19
Do what? Say a blessing, break the bread, fill the chalice and give to others. Who are at the table? The same people who in a few months will be filled with the Holy Ghost and form the Church, the future presbyters. Should the administration of this sacrament be limited to people appointed by Christ? Sounds like it. Christ is not giving the command publicly; at another time He said: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21) and also "he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me" (John 13:20). There is a clear sense in the scripture that Christ sends His Church as Himself. This logically cannot include the laity. And indeed, St. Paul understood Him: "be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ". (1 Cor 4:16); he was one of not too many "fathers" to the flock (verse 15).
In James 5:14 we read "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord"; that anointing then cannot be done just by anyone if the advice is to go find a priest. In 1 Timothy 5:17ff we see that priests should have a special legal status; that would not be possible if they were not "a ministerial priestly class". In Titus 1:5 we learn that priests are to be "ordained" in "every city". Why ordain someone if any volunteer would do?
The etymology of πρεσβυτερους strongly suggests “elder” is the more illuminating translation.
Actually, "leader" would be most correct etymologically, as "pres" indicates "in front". But the issue is not even the tendentious Protestant translation "elder" just to run away from established meaning of "priest". From the scripture we see that these presbyters, however you put it in English as a word, were functioning as priests: were necessary for certain acts, were sent by Christ through ordination, had a separate status.
he word κυβερνησεις (“governments/administrations”) does appear in the list
But that is administrative duty; it is not central to the priesthood. Priests are sent to do confect the Eucharist and give absolution of sin. The rest that they do indeed does not have to be exclusive.
n 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
There is, as I pointed out, ample scriptural indication that the priests had separate status and separate duties; the status of one being "sent" is precisely that of a "go-between"; and I don't need to remind you that Christ sent plenty of messengers -- to His contemporaries and to us -- thus establishing the model of the Church as the bringer of the Kingdom. There is no scene where the Eucharist or the absolution is actually done by a priest. But we have a scene of the messy Holy Communion at 1 Cor. 11 where Paul suggests the need for order. That means that the happy meals that the Early Church practiced were replaced by communion administered centrally even when the Apostle was still alive. Surely the very nature of the commandment to forgive or retain sins (John 20:23) assumes authority in those sent, but not everyone. There is no question that the Early Church evolved from the Upper Room to the Church converting thousands very rapidly; we see that it developed hierarchical structures as almost the first order of business by ordaining deacons (Acts 6:2ff). So the absence of a detailed account of the Eucharist or confession done by priests is the result of the historical focus of the New Testament rather than the intention of the inspired writers to disallow ministerial priesthood.