3090 6103 1 SM

The Nigerian Journal of Theology (NJT) 34 (2020), 35 (2021) &
36 (2022)
THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD AS A PURE GIFT:

BIBLICAL, DOGMATIC AND THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS
Anthony Chidozie DIMKPA*1

Abstract
The priesthood is a cross-cultural reality. It is so common to nearly all
humans that it could be used to buttress the fact that man is a religious
being by nature. This is not different with the biblical conception of man.
In the bible, the idea of priests and of relation with God occurs from the
earliest chapters of the Old Testament. This idea is carried into the New
Testament with a great diversity of language and modification. But the
core of what the priesthood is remains. The problem is that modern and
contemporary scholarship both in the scriptural and in the theological
dimensions have seemed to take a direction that totally misrepresents the
facts on the priesthood. It is boldly asserted that the priesthood of the
Old Testament was homogeneously that of the whole nation or that of the
family of Aaron alone. The various developments, nuances, distinctions,
and specifications are hardly brought to bear on the reflections. The
consequence is that when the idea of the New Testament priesthood is
presented and examined, based on a few texts and a simplistic
examination of terminologies, the full reality of a special ministerial
priesthood willed by Christ and actually established by him is denied.
But the reality on ground contradicts this theoretical explanatory
scheme. The consequence is that the reality is reinterpreted in terms
outside the New Testament itself and explained in terms of a
heterogeneous development of a simplistic reality. This poses the risk of
making the ministerial priesthood a totally human invention unconnected
with the Founder of Christianity, Christ. This write up, seeks on the
bases of a thorough analysis of Old Testament biblical texts, a
theological interpretation of New Testament actions and gestures of
Jesus, and a linguistic study of hieratic terminologies used in the
Scriptures, to offer a reconciliation between the existent reality of an age
old ministerial priesthood extant in Christianity and the more explicit use
of the term for priests only for the common priesthood and the
contemporary attitude of treating of the question with levity. The method
1
* STD, PhD, Lecturer, Seat of Wisdom Seminary, Owerri, Nigeria
21
DIMKPA: The Ministerial Priesthood as a Pure Gift: Biblical,
Dogmatic and Theological Foundations
is strictly biblical, dogmatic and theological. The difficulties include that

the majority of the thinkers are not ready for a non-political theological
correctness and that they would prefer a more democratic than
theological attitude to the reality. The findings of the article is that a very
dispassionate, logical and profoundly open attitude to the facts, will
restore the dignified place and understanding of the ministerial
priesthood to the image and consciousness of the average Christian and
stop this current wild slipping of almost every one unto ministry in the
understanding that it is a totally human subjective thing.
Keywords: Ministerial Priesthood, Pure Gift, Foundations, Biblical,

Dogmatic, Theological
1. Dispositio
God has a way of constantly and permanently remaining above and
beyond all man’s anthropomorphic designations of him. No wonder, the
religiously rooted Italian proverb, ‘le vie del Signore sono infinite’ (the
ways of the Lord are infinite – probably from the modification of Rm.
11: 32 -33) is very apt. This is important because, the title, the priesthood
– a gift from God and an offering to God for his people really fascinates.
One would have expected a title with a Prelude like, the Catholic
Priesthood. Instead the broad designation, the priesthood, opens us all to
the very marvelous immensity of the grandeur of God. This is interesting
since the priesthood is neither restricted to the Catholic faith, nor to the
Judaeo-Christian religion, nor even to revealed religions alone. Yet, it
remains a gift of God in some real way. It certainly is an offering of God
to his people. The caption clearly indicates the transcendental horizon of
anthropology. It underlies the fact that man is essentially a relational
being on the theological horizon. In some way, the transcendent is wired
deeply into the DNA of man. This would be expressed by the saying that
man is a creature of God and made in his image. He naturally seeks back
his maker. The human means of doing this and mediating it will
essentially capture the philosophical core of what priesthood stands for.
That is why it becomes richly elucidating to ponder on this wonderful
present from God and gift to Him.
But the most interesting part is the finding of the reflection. It has often
been said that the (Catholic) ministerial priesthood is not reflected in the
22
36 (2022)
New Testament and that the New Testament does not have anything in
common with the priesthood of the Old Testament. This is such that
when it is accepted that the letter to the Hebrews does express itself in
calling Christ a priest and does identify Christian priesthood, it does not
really seem to fit in with contemporary Catholic and Christian practice of
the priesthood. What the occasion of this reflection has provided is a
rich way and a deeper manner of examining the New Testament
understanding of the Priesthood. It is a broader vision and a more
spiritually open attitude to the revelation of Christ that goes way beyond
just what has been echoed by scholars. Is life exhausted in writings? Is
writing limited to what is either copied or printed? Does learning issue
only from writing on ink and paper? Do lives and practices, traditions
and custom not document event, truth and intention? Is it possible that
such a sublime mystery as the Christian way was transmitted and pious
believers had the audacity to invent what Christ did not intend or develop
it along lines that are deviatory from the master’s will?
The obvious point is that the Latin dictum, ab actu ad possum illatio licit
(from the act to the possibility, the inference is valid) and its inverse, a
posse ad actum, illatio non licit (from the possibility to the act, the
inference is not valid) are still very viable principles today. They must be
kept in mind when reflecting on the topic. That in reality there exist
ministerial priests and a hierarchy in the Church (today) is a fact. Also,
that they are called overseers (episcopi - i.e., bishops) and elders
(presbyters) in the New Testament [without the word, priests (hierus)], as
different from the generality of the faithful, to whom these minister or
render their service is another fact. But these realities are stronger
pointers to an understanding of Christ as willing and acting like a priest.
They are pointers to his special priesthood in a more pre-eminent manner
than the inverse argument that Christ and his disciples had nothing to do
with such a special understanding of priesthood but that only historical
situations and circumstances gave rise to their development. These issues
will occupy us for a better appreciation of the gift itself and the Divine
love that instituted it. Consequently, the title for the article reads: The
Ministerial Priesthood: A Pure Gift; Biblical, Dogmatic and Theological
Foundations.
23
2. Positio
The idea of the priesthood is a cross-cultural one. In ancient times and in
traditional societies, religion and culture were very much tied together. In
that socio-cultural milieu, often most people were automatically priests
for themselves as well as their households. They said their prayers,
poured libations, made invocations and offered sacrifices directly to what
they considered the deity. In a culture like that of the Igbos of Nigeria in
Africa, this was obtainable.2 But in addition to this, there were also
people specifically dedicated to and assigned the role of mediation with
the deity. In Igbo culture again, such figures, as dibia afa, dibia aja, dibia
ogwu, dibia mgborogwu, Ezemmuo and the like readily come to mind.
For that type of traditional religion, there was an athematic, i.e. a non
reflected, distinction of the priesthood that was general and particular.
This is also valid for the Judaeo-Christian religion. In Israel, there
existed a time when anybody could offer sacrifices and approach God.
Sacrifices were not the exclusive prerogative of the priest in early times:
Cain and Abel (cf. Gen. 4: 4), Noah (cf. Gen. 8: 20), Abraham (cf. Gen.
12: 7 – 8; 13: 4, 8; 15: 9), Isaac (cf. Gen. 26: 25) and Jacob (cf. Gen. 35:
3 – 7) offered their personal sacrifices. Priestly functions are also
discharged by heads of households in the bible (cf. Jdg. 13: 19; cf. Job. 1:
5, the killing of the paschal lamb also), by a judge and even by a king.
Priests were associated with particular shrines (cf. Jdg 20: 18 - 27; 1
Sam. 1: 3ff; 21: 1ff; 22: 9-11, 19).3 All offered sacrifices personally and
directly without needing any intermediaries or special mediators. In that
sense, if the priesthood, before we define it, is understood to be tied with
approaching God and offering sacrifice, then the agents of these
sacrifices and invocations of the deity exercised priestly roles and were
priests. This is in a very wide and general sense. But in the history and
development of Israel, the establishment of the priesthood is well known
in the case of the Levites. But much before them, Moses also offered
2
In Ngwa land of Abia State, Nigeria, for instance, itu mai – pouring libation –
which is like an act of sacrifice in its original sense, could be done by almost
any man traditionally.
3
Cf. R. Abba, “Priests and Levites” in Keith, Crim; Lloyd, Richard, Bailey;
Victor, Paul, Furnish; Emory, Stevens, Bucke (eds.), The Interpreter’s
Dictionary of the Bible, An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1986, p. 881.
24
36 (2022)
sacrifice, and even his father-in-law, Jethro, was known to be a priest of

Midian.
In such cases as the one of the Ezemmuo among the Igbos, as an

institution, it has been traditionally held that the lot falls on someone, a
member of the family or community to become the chief priest or priest
of the deity. Refusal to accept this has been historically associated with
severe consequences. Arinze captures this in his Sacrifice in Igbo land.4
In that sense, the traditional religious priesthood becomes a gift of the
deity for the community. This is because the lot that falls on someone is
no mere chance event but an indication of the choice of the deity to be
served about the specially chosen one to exercise that role. When this
choice is generously accepted, the acceptance also becomes an offering
by the community to the deity for its adherents and for their mutual
relationship.
Biblically and analogously, the designation of a specific person by an

oracle of God as a servant also constitutes one as priest and the person
becomes a gift of God for his people. But the mere obedience of man to
the divine and the free collaboration of the human with the transcendent
are also acts of offering to God. But in the idea of the priesthood, the
philosophical indubitable background idea behind its gratuity is the fact
of the specificity of a class, a group, a unit as distinct from the general in
the service and the inter-relationship between man and the divine.
3. Compositio:
3. 1. Priesthood in the Old Testament

In biblical thought, the priesthood represents Israel’s union with God.5
As stated in the positio, the whole nation, under the Mosaic covenant is
to be a kingdom of priests (cf. Ex. 19: 6; Lev. 11: 44 ff; Nm. 15: 40).
According to Abba, it is this whole nation that becomes the mediator of
4
He mentions Agwu specifically as a deity which possesses people and assigns
them a function. See F. A. Arinze, Sacrifice in Ibo Religion, Ibadan: Ibadan
University Press, 1970, 20.
5
Cf. R. Abba, “Priests and Levites,” 876.
25
the covenant.6 A particular way of life, a holy living is expected of the

nation. The sanctity required of the people for the service of God is
symbolized in the priesthood. The latter, therefore, becomes the mediator
of the covenant. Things develop till when in the second temple, there is a
threefold hierarchy of cultic officials: the high priest, the priests and the
Levites. These constitute three distinct orders with distinct functions,
characteristics and privileges.7
The word, priest, with either the prefix, high or chief or alone in itself
without any prefix, is said to occur over seven hundred (700) times in the
Old Testament and over eighty (80) times in the New Testament. The
other word, Levite occurs about eighty (80) times in the Old Testament
and about three (3) times in the New Testament. The usual Hebrew term
for priest is kohen. Words from Aramaic and Phoenicia sounding like
Kohen or even Kamen, kahan or kahin as loan words are used. From
Arabic and other language groups with affinity, kohen or kahin also
means seer or soothsayer. It is believed to be the origin of the Hebrew
kohen, priest. But it is also associated with the word kun which means to
stand. “The priest is therefore one who stands before God as his servant
or minister.”8
The words could sometimes designate idolatrous priests (cf. 2 Kgs 23: 5;
Hos. 10: 5; Zeph. 1: 4; Hos. 4: 4). Only foreign priests are mentioned in
the book of Genesis and the early chapters of Exodus for instance,
Melchizedek (cf. Gen. 14: 18) and also Egyptian priests (cf. Gen. 41: 45,
50; 46: 20; 47: 26) and the Medianite priest, Jethro (cf. Ex. 2: 16; 3: 1;
18: 1). 9 Other foreign priests mentioned include Philistine priests (cf.
1Sam 6: 2), Priests of Dagon (cf. 1Sam. 5: 5), priests of Baal (cf. 2Kgs.
10: 19), priests of Chemosh (cf. Jer. 48: 7) and priests of the Baalim and
Asherim (cf. 2Chr. 34: 5).10 These are all professional priests strictly as
distinct from every other person who can do some priestly functions.
6
7
8
R. Abba, “Priests and Levites,” 87.
9
10
26
36 (2022)
Later on, for the professional ministry, the teaching function of the
priesthood seems to have taken precedence over the sacrificial one. The
priesthood was the custodian of past revelation and legal precedent. The
priest was a teacher and an administrator of Justice. He was God’s
spokesman before the people and people’s spokesman before God.11 In
the Septuagint and New Testament Greek, the Hebrew word, kohen, is
translated by the Greek hierus, which is the word for priest. It is this
Greek form that appears all through in the New Testament.12
In the Old Testament, one finds three orders of high priest, priest and
Levites who had their distinctive roles in the post-exilic period. The
restored community of Judah appeared to be more of a hierocracy than a
monarchy. The high priest assumed more and more importance. This
came to the extent that the high priest, Joshua and the Davidic governor
Zerubbabel were placed side by side (cf. Hag 1: 1, 12, 14: 2: 2. 4). The
high priest traced his descent from Eleazar, the Son of Aaron. The office
was hereditary and was conferred for life (Nm. 3: 32; 25: 11ff; 35: 25,
28; Neh. 12: 10 -11). His clothings are special and with detailed
specifications. So are his duties.13 But “the ceremonies of the Annual
Day of Atonement are the most important of the High priest’s duties.”14
Like the high priest, the priests are cultic specialists associated with the
high priest. They are restricted to the Levitical house of Aaron (cf. Ex.
28: 1, 41; 29: 9; Lev. 1: 5. 7 -8, 11; Num. 3: 10; 18, 7). They are to be
free from physical defects (cf. Lev. 21: 16 -22). They were divided into
twenty four groups that took turns per week to serve in the temple.
Sixteen of these traced their origin through Zadok to Eleazar, son of
Aaron while eight traced their origin through Ithamar to Eleazar (1Chr.
24: 1 – 19). Like the high priest, they were consecrated in elaborate
ceremonies and wore specific clothings, but were not anointed like the
high priest.15
11
Cf. R. Abba, “Priests and Levites,” 881
12
Cf. R. Abba, “Priests and Levites,” 877 - 878
13
14
R. Abba, “Priests and Levites,” 878.
15
27
The priests had specific functions which included the care of the vessel
of the sanctuary and the sacrificial duties of the altar. For instance, that
only the priests might sacrifice (cf. Num. 18: 5-7), the ancient
prerogative of giving instructions in the way and requirements of God
(cf. Mal. 2: 6- 7; Jer. 18: 18), custodians of sacred tradition, authorities
par excellence in all matters of law, and like the prophet, mediums of
revelation. As Israel developed and used written laws and became a
people of the book, the instructions and teaching increasingly passed into
the hands of the scribes.16
In addition, priests were the custodians of medical lore who played an

important function in safeguarding the health of the community (cf. Lev.
13 – 14); they retained their traditional role of the administrators of
justice (cf. Deut. 17: 8-9; 21: 5; 2 Chr. 19: 2- 11; Ez. 24: 44); they blew
the trumpets which summoned people to war and to the beginning of a
feast (cf. Num. 10: 1-10; 31: 6); and they were the only ones who could
bless in the name of God (cf. Num. 6: 22 – 27). There is a symbolic
sanctity of the priesthood that is expressed in different gestures: freedom
from physical defects (cf. Lev. 24: 21), white linen robes (cf. Ex. 39: 27
– 29) and conformance to regulations for ceremonial purity (cf. Ex. 29:
1ff; 40: 31 etc).17 He gives instruction in ceremonial and moral matters
(cf. Lev. 10: 10 – 11). Only the Aaronite priest may burn incense and not
even the king may usurp priestly prerogatives (cf. 2 Chr. 26: 16-20; Ex.
30: 1 – 10; Nm. 16:40; 18:7).18
Priests did become so important in Davidic dynasty that they were

almost like the real leaders (cf. 2Chr. 23-24). By the time of the
Chronicler, the priesthood had almost reached its final form such that he
is called head or chief priest (cf. 2 Chr. 19: 11), the great priest (2Chr.
34: 9), or the Prince of the house of God (1Chr. 9: 11). His spiritual and
temporal authority was formally established.19
16
17
18
19
28
36 (2022)
Any violation of priestly sanctity is to be expiated by the high priest and

the whole priestly brotherhood together (cf. Num. 18: 1). The priesthood
is invested in the house of Aaron and his descendants and all others are
barred from it under pain of death (cf. Ex. 28:1, 43; Num. 3: 10; 16: 40;
18: 1-7). A priest is chief among his brethren (cf. Lev. 21: 10)20 while his
death marks the end of an epoch (Num. 35: 28). It was also possible to
find some non Levites incorporated into the Levitical priestly ministry
for instance, Samuel (cf. 1 Sam. 1: 1, 27 – 28). These are various
developments that happened over several centuries in the understanding
of priesthood in Israel.
These various developments in the course of history assume their

importance in the context of this article as many have rigid ideas on the
composition of the priesthood of Israel without making any rooms for
exceptions, growth and development. They are fixated on the idea that all
priests were of the house of Levi. That was the norm indeed. But there
were also apart from the Levitical priests, Mosaic priests of the house of
Dan, priests of the house of Eli and Zadokite priests. Jeroboam even
consecrated some people priests in the Northern kingdom (cf. 1 Kgs. 12:
31, 13: 33).21
Finally, the Levites are the third order of the hierarchy. They come from
one of the tribes of Israel, from Levi, the third Son of Jacob by Leah. But
the word, Levite also means to be attached. So, they were attached to
Aaron or could be foreigners attached to Israel and to cultic activities.22
They were a tribe that engaged in fights with Israel before they were
separated for cultic functions (cf. Gen. 34: 25 – 30; 49: 5; Deut. 33: 8ff).
The Levites became a representative group for the Hebrews. They
constituted a special priesthood in the midst of a nation that was itself
that of priests in general.23 They are subordinate cultic officials. They
have charge of the lower duties of the sanctuary (cf. Num. 1: 50; 3: 28,
32: 8: 15; 31: 30, 47; 1 Chr. 23: 28, 32). They are responsible for the care
of the courts and sometimes function as interpreters of the Law (cf. Neh.
20
21
22
23
Cf. R. Abba, “Priests and Levites,” 877 - 8.
29
8: 7-9; 2Chr. 17: 7 – 9). Although listed separately from the singers
sometimes, at other times, they functioned as singers, porters, gate
keepers, choristers and musicians.24 They often assisted the priests since
they “were more upright in heart than the priests in sanctifying
themselves” (2 Chr. 29: 34).25
3.2. Priesthood in the New Testament

Many theologians and following them, scholars and ordinary Christians
of today do not believe that there is any reference to the priesthood as it
is today, especially to the ministerial priesthood in the New Testament.
They do accept that the letter to the Hebrews mentions the priesthood.
But they restrict it to only Jesus rightly but in such a way as if it is only a
mere nomenclature without real content. The next thing is that they refer
to only the common priesthood of the faithful. Following this line of
thought, A. E Harvey states that “the story of the priesthood in the
Christian religion is one that contains both a reassurance and
disturbance.”26 He considers the idea and the reality of the priesthood
only as a metaphor. So, according to him this metaphor of the priesthood
“supplies a rich source of imagery and spirituality and need create no
conflict with the constantly non-sacerdotal teaching and style of Jesus.”27
To say non-sacerdotal already implies non-priestly. Yet it was shown
above that kohen, priest in Hebrew was translated with hierus priest in
Greek. According to him, elaborate instances of the sacrificial imagery
and the priestly metaphor occur in the letter to the Hebrews. Otherwise,
one finds less elaborate instances in the rest of the New Testament
(notably in Rm. 15: 16, Rm. 8: 3, 1 Pt. 2: 9; Ex. 19: 6). Since in the
opinion of the writer, this is only a metaphor, therefore, this metaphorical
use of the priestly imagery in the New Testament was enlisted both for
the justification and for the repudiation of the priestly institutions.28
24
25
26
A. E Harvey “Priesthood” in Adrian Hastings, Alistair Mason and Hugh Pyper
(eds.), The oxford Companion to Christian Thought, Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press, 2000, 565.
27
A. E Harvey “Priesthood,” 567.
28
Cf. A. E Harvey “Priesthood,” 565.
30
36 (2022)
Harvey holds that after biblical times, a potent use of the imagery
emerged in the 2nd Century in Christianity. This was in connection with
the Eucharist. In his opinion, interpreting the Eucharistic bread and wine
in terms of sacrifice seemed to imply priestly function. Therefore,
sacerdotal language began to be used of bishops. But he holds that it does
not immediately enter into the priestly definition of the Christian
mysteries. Nevertheless, he maintains that the sacrifice metaphor does
transform the role of the presiding minister.29 From a purely
ecclesiological point of view, he states that in the 13th Century at the 4th
Lateran Council, it was ordered that only an ordained priest had the
power to effect the Eucharistic sacrifice. In this line, thinking of a revert,
he states that at Vatican II, the Council replaced the word, sacerdos with
the less priestly one, presbyter in Presbyterorum Ordinis.30 The
implication of this analysis is that priestly only rightly refers to sacrificial
and the sacrificial here only accurately again points to the bloody. He
holds that there is a power and authority which members of the hierarchy
want to wield and that this is what was challenged by the reformation.
There was something of the power and limitation of the priestly
metaphor when applied to Christian ministry. He avers that Christian
priesthood was something different from its pagan and Jewish
predecessors. This is in the fact that it embraced not only just the
sacerdotal functions but also responsibilities for teaching and pastoral
care and leadership. He insists that Catholic and protestant ministries
while not being extremely polarized have been engaged in divisions.
This he attributes to the power of priestly and sacrificial metaphors and
the traditional instinct of maintaining priestly presence as opposed to
faithfulness to the record of a founder and his followers who seem not to
have envisaged any such development. But this appears to be a clearly
superficial and biased reading of facts from the scriptures and a very
shallow theological exposition. Continuing, Harvey believes that in the
20th Century, a number of factors put under strain the traditional forms of
sacerdotal mystery. Among them, he identifies celibacy. According to
him, this was first made compulsory in 1153 in Catholicism. In
protestant Churches, the necessity of ordained ministers in a society
tolerant of divorce, remarriage, sexual relationship out of heterosexual
29
30
31
marriage, and this belonging to another age, with discrepancy between

Church support for democracy and its challenge to the Church’s
hierarchical structure, the waning privilege of priests in education as it
was previously and the rising theological competence of more lay
people, the debate on the ordination of women, the inadequacy of the
term priestess – indicative of the power and limitation of the priestly
metaphor, liturgical reform, such as from backing the people to facing
them, the direct access of the ministers to the people without an altar
today but using only a table in between, all form part of what has really
weakened the priesthood metaphor as it stands today.31 These are
Harvey’s submissions. But the list appears to us to be that of all the ways
of politically being correct today, by being Christians without the
saltiness of Christianity and therefore not being it too much at the same
time.
About the idea of the priesthood, Harvey holds that when this is taken
literally, and when it is given institutional form, “it sets up inevitable
tensions within a religion that cherishes Jesus’ promise of immediate
personal access to a heavenly Father to be gained by every believer
through repentance and faith.”32 So spoken, this sounds delightful and
beautiful. But is it all the reality about it? If the disciples of Jesus often
laboured to understand Jesus when he spoke or acted and only later
understood as he himself promised them, does it follow that one just
reads their ‘memoirs’ and can already claim that he has so understood
him as to make correct definitive statements as an individual as parallel
to the Church? That is the worry with the sweet comments on New
Testament events by nearly all overzealous exegetes and scholars.
What these suggest is that the practical reality where there are priests as a
special class of people – ministerial priests – really is an anomaly when
viewed in the light of the New Testament. But although many, as stated
earlier, do feel this way, is that all there is to it? There is need to still
investigate further into the New Testament itself and see the view of
other if earlier experts to know whether everyone sails on the same
frequency on this. M. H. Shepherd, in examining the theme of priests in
31
32
A. E Harvey “Priesthood,” 567.
32
36 (2022)
the New Testament, states that the Greek words for priest and its
cognate, high priest (hiereus and archhiereus) are found in the gospels
and Acts only with Jewish priests (and Levites) with only one exception
(in Acts 14: 13). There it is used for the pagan functionary of the cult of
Zeus at Lystra in Asia Minor.33
In Judaism, priesthood was hereditary in the tribe of Levi. Among

Ancient pagan cults of the Mediterranean world, some were hereditary,
some voluntary while some were associated with civil magistracy. A
persistent tradition invested kings and monarchs with priestly
prerogatives. Their entitlements and advantages depended on many
factors like whether the cult was official and state-sponsored, famous or
insignificant, voluntary or forced.34 “The essential concept underlying
priesthood in the ancient world among Jews and gentiles was that of
mediatorship between the divine and the human.”35 Based on his superior
knowledge of or the power of communication, the priest was the director
of if not the actual performer of sacrifices offered to the deity. He was
the dispenser and the interpreter of the message and the auguries from
the divine realm. Therefore, he was the channel of weal or woe according
to the divine pleasure. All these are very important as they will enable us
to see the radical discontinuity and the continuity between the old
covenant and the new and to intuit the reason behind this in
understanding the Christian realities.36
The antagonism of Christians to all pagan priesthood was a legacy from

Jewish contempt for everything associated with idolatry. The same
marked bitterness is found in the gospels and Acts between the early
Christians and the Jewish priesthood. This attitude reflects the opposition
and the persecution of Jesus and his followers by priests, high priests,
and the priestly party of the Sadducees and their associates. The
33
Cf. M. H. Shepherd Jr., “Priests in the New Testament” in Keith, Crim; Lloyd,
Richard, Bailey; Victor, Paul, Furnish; Emory, Stevens, Bucke (eds.), The
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1986, p. 889.
34
Cf. M. H. Shepherd Jr., “Priests in the New Testament,” 889.
35
M. H. Shepherd Jr., “Priests in the New Testament” 889.
36
33
rejection, by the Sadduccean priesthood, of any doctrine of the

resurrection exacerbated the antagonism to the preaching of the early
apostles and evangelists. Yet it is testified (in Acts 6: 7) that a number of
Jewish priests were converted to the faith.37 But this hostility of attitude
from a group could reasonably make the oppressed reject any
terminological semblance to the oppressor.
It is believed that even among themselves, some priests were critical of

the practices of some others. Among priests who could have detested the
policies of the personages of the chief priests of the hierarchy or the
Jewish priesthood was John the Baptist. This is evident in his brief
recorded preaching ministry (cf. Mt. 3: 7).38 Having mentioned John the
Baptist, it is good to immediately keep in mind, that he was related to
Jesus through his mother, Mary who was a close relation of Elizabeth
such that the total exclusion of priestly relationships even in the life of
Jesus may be out of place. The fact is that according to the Law (cf. Lk.
2: 22-24) the rite of purification should be accompanied by the rite of
ransom with five shekels (cf. Ex. 13: 2, 12-15; 34: 20; Nm. 8: 16; 3: 47;
18: 26) for a first-born male. But this did not apply to the first-born sons
of the Levitical families (cf. Nm. 3: 12, 46; 8:16). But Levites were
presented to the Lord (cf. Nm. 8: 10). Jesus is presented but the ransom
is not mentioned. In fact, Feuillet, holds that a certain interpretation of
the presentation by some exegetes suggests that “Luke would be
insinuating that Jesus was a Messiah both of Aaron and of Israel,…” but
also it is possible that Luke thought that because of his transcendent
sanctity, there was no need to ransom him.39
In spite of the criticisms of today on the priests of those days, it remains

valid that Jesus and his orthodox Jewish disciples accepted the
priesthood and the sacrificial system of the temple. The Essenes of
Qumran community repudiated any sacrifices in the temple but esteemed
other priests. Jesus’ personal attitude to them is manifested in the episode
37
Cf. M. H. Shepherd Jr., “Priests in the New Testament,” 889-890.
38
39
Cf. Andre, Feuillet, The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers, 231.
34
36 (2022)
of the healing of the lepers (cf. Mk. 1: 44; Lk. 17: 4) where he sends
them to present themselves to the priests.40
Nevertheless, the process of separation between the Church, the priestly

and the sacrificial institutions of Judaism began early. After the
destruction of the temple, the Jewish characters developed sharp
polemics against sacrifices and exalted the prophetic against the priestly
traditions of the Old Testament. According to Shepherd, “Christianity
made a positive and creative development of the concept of priesthood,
however, in its transferal to Christ himself of the role of the perfect and
great High Priest.”41 It is this type of observation and jump from the Old
Testament to the Letter to the Hebrews which we consider very
superficial. It is also the unobservant weakness of nearly all or majority
of the scholars on the New Testament texts on the priesthood. They are
not able to read beyond the letters of the New Testament, to the actions,
the events, the spiritualizations, the transpositions, and the adaptations of
the priestly reality in the life, activity and ministry of Jesus. They rather
depend only on the terminological use of the term priest or its cognates.
In the Letter to the Hebrews, Christ is exalted as unblemished, sacrificial
victim, sinless High priest, the consummation of the Old Testament
cultus, who brings it to a definitive end in history. He establishes a once
and for all eternal mediatorship between God and man. The authority,
honour and effect of Christ’s priesthood makes it “disarm and supplant
forever, the Aaronite priesthood of the Old covenant and it finds its type
and pattern in the legendary figure of Melchizedek (Gen. 15: 18; Ps. 110:
4) …”42 It is interesting that Shepherd goes beyond other contemporary
exegetes in noting that though the Letter to the Hebrews is the only New
Testament book to apply the title to Christ, yet the idea and conception is
not absolutely original to the writer. The conception, he rightly notes is
rooted in Christ’s own interpretation of his atoning mission as a “ransom
for many” (Mk. 10: 45). It is also more especially from his conception as
found in his words of the new sacrifice associated with the bread and the
cup of the last supper.43 Unlike Harvey who states that the Church came
40
41
M. H. Shepherd Jr., “Priests in the New Testament,” 890.
42
M. H. Shepherd Jr., “Priests in the New Testament,” 890.
43
35
to interpret the Eucharist in these terms, Shepherd understands that the

words of institution have the sacrificial conception inherent in them. This
issue of the conception of the sacrificial nature of the life and ministry of
Christ, of the victim nature and the sacerdotal character is at the core of
understanding how Christ understood his mission personally. Everything
goes back there – the self-consciousness of Christ.44 It is what has
already been denied by Harvey as we saw a few pages above. Now, it is
clear that Shepherd gives it some credence to the measure it serves him.
This is where the whole work will be focusing to discover what progress
has been made in the intellectual articulation of this point in the two
thousand years of Christian history. It is precisely here that the action of
the Church – its lived life, its liturgy, through the sensus fidei – the
general believers’ sense of the faith – and the guidance of the Holy Spirit
have manifested themselves as more secure, more solid, better rooted and
more advanced than all the intellectual articulations of these years.
In Paul the apostle, according to Shepherd, the sacrificial character of

Christ’s death is well marked out (cf. 1Cor. 5: 8; Rm. 8: 3; 3: 25). The
doctrine of Christ’s mediatorship (cf. Gal. 3: 20) as well and his
reconciliation of God and man (cf. 2Cor. 5: 19; Col. 1: 20-21; Eph. 2: 16)
are all very clear. Such ideas are also found in the letter of St. Peter (cf.
1: 2; 18:19; 2: 24; 3:18). The theme of expiation for sin and ransom
links all Johannine writings (cf. Jn. 1 29; 1Jn. 1: 7: 2: 2; 4: 10; Rev. 1: 5;
5: 9; 7: 14; 12: 11). These are very important since without saying priest,
they apply all the actions and practices that constitute the content of what
is understood as priesthood to Christ. They also transpose the priestly
material actuations in a spiritualized and elevated form and present it of
him. Thus, the discontinuation with the past and the continuation in a
radically new manner are already present, sowing the seed for the future
adoption of the vocabulary that will capture these without the
contemporary dangers that were being avoided. The New Testament
application of “the priesthood” to all the faithful of the Church is,
therefore, a corollary of the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ.45 The
Church is made one with Christ through the indwelling of the Holy
44
Cf. Anthony C. Dimkpa, The Self-consciousness of Jesus Christ, Enumclaw:
Winepress Publishers, 2010.
45
36
36 (2022)
Spirit. By sacramental union and communion with him in Baptism and

the Eucharist, the Church shares in the prerogative of its master (see 1
Pet. 2: 5, 9; Rev. 1: 6; 5: 10; 20: 6). The contents of the cited passages
are typological applications of the Old Testament promises to the Church
(cf. Ex. 19: 6).
Shepherd maintains that no New Testament writer ever applies the title
of priest to any particular individual member or order of ministry in the
Church. However, he notes that the development of the usage has been
considered inevitable. Early Church patristic writings like 1 Clement 40
– 44, employ an analogy of the threefold hierarchy of high priest, priest
and Levite to describe in analogous manner, the Christian ministry. It
applies sacrificial language to describe the liturgy of bishops and elders.
The Didache (13: 13) also calls the elders, “your high priests.” It calls
the Eucharist a sacrifice and sees it in terms of the prophecy of Malachy
1: 11.46 Does this mean that like Harvey holds, this is the point of human
imposition on the master? To give a name to a reality surely does not
change the reality in itself but only reveals it if the name is expository.
Shifting his attention to the pastoral letters, Shepherd also holds that if
they could be dated with greater accuracy and security, they would have
been of immense help. They provide the clearest testimony in the New
Testament to the developed norm of a threefold hierarchy. According to
him, James 5: 14 and first and second John do not establish much47 as
regards the priesthood. One finds the qualifications for ministers (listed
in Titus 1: 5-9; 1Tim. 3: 1-13). 1 Tim. 4: 14 contains a reference to
ordination by the laying on of hands. Ignatius of Antioch is the first clear
witness to monarchical episcopacy and the threefold offices of bishops,
priests and deacons as these emerge clearly from his writings.48 These
are different biblical and post-apostolic times testimonies to the reality of
an understanding of Christian ministry in terms that are priestly.
46
47
Cf. M. H. Shepherd Jr., “Ministry, Christian,” Keith, Crim; Lloyd, Richard,
Bailey; Victor, Paul, Furnish; Emory, Stevens, Bucke (eds.), The Interpreter’s
Dictionary of the Bible, An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1986, p. 390.
48
Cf. M. H. Shepherd Jr., “Ministry, Christian,” 391.
37
It is in the history of the development of the offices of bishop and priest

– elders that an obscure problem is noticed as regards ordination and
succession. This could have developed in very many different ways. But
clear information of apostolic tradition happens at the turn of the third
Century with the work of Hypolitus about ordinations. He writes that
Bishops were ordained by other bishops, elders by a bishop with the aid
of other elders, while deacons were ordained by a bishop alone.49 The
point is that it would have been too strange to adopt this mentality at this
early stage if there was no connection with the apostles and with the
transcendent master who chose them.
4. Transpositio: A Synthetic View of the New Testament Priesthood

from Christ
One could decide to take a totally different view from how the priesthood
has been hitherto presented and seen. But that there is evident
development from a radical dissociation of the Old Testament
terminology and its referent in the New, to a weak-willed
acknowledgement; that there are elements of priestly and sacrificial
actions if not language in the New Testament, is what the write up has
done so far. André Feuillet,50 has adopted a radically different approach
that synthesizes and surpasses the approaches examined so far. This
section is going to follow his line of analysis in offering up reflection on
the wonderful gift of the priesthood as willed by Christ himself. He sets
out from the texts of John where Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that
true worshippers as the Father wants must worship God in Spirit and in
truth (cf. Jn. 4: 21 – 22). He interprets this as amounting to the fact that
Christ has provided mankind with a new worship, related to the Old
Testament but immensely superior to it. The new worship demands a
new priesthood. So, Christ brings a new worship and a new priesthood
that is continuous and discontinuous with the Old.51
Feuillet raises the problem that there appears to be a complete break

between the Old and the New Testaments given that while at least, the
49
Cf. M. H. Shepherd Jr., “Ministry, Christian,” 391.
50
Andre, Feuillet, The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers, Matthew J.
O’Connor (transl.), New York: Double Day and Co., Inc. 1995.
51
38
36 (2022)
Letter to the Hebrews acknowledges Christ as priest (hiereus, six times;

archiereus: ten times),52 it does not indicate any way in which any other
person can be a priest invested with special powers to continue Christ’s
work. So, what are the facts of the case? He decides to engage the texts
of the Servant songs of Isaiah especially chapter 53 and the text of the
priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17 for the purpose of investigating into
strict priestly characteristics. He does this through an exegetico-
theological study to present a better understanding of two inseparable
realities, the sacrifice and the priesthood of Christ which he says are at
the heart of the Christian religion.53 Feuillet notes that a number of
issues were raised to him as a member of the International Theological
Commission which had studied the priesthood. Most studies, on the
priesthood, in his opinion, seem to amount to a challenge to the
conception of the priesthood as held in the Catholic Church. The position
is that the ministerial priesthood “differs … in essence and not only in
degree”54 from the priesthood shared by all the baptized. The resulting
denial of this affirmation and the confusion to which many are thrown
because of it is the crux of the matter. The causes of the problem are
complex. But the fact is that the Council did not expressly address the
problem of the ministerial priesthood, focused as it was, on the role of
the college of bishops as successors of the apostles and underlining the
sharing of the baptized in the priesthood of Christ. By this, it
inadvertently appeared to suggest that the bishops and the people of God
were the only two necessary elements of the priesthood of Christ in a
priestly Church, thereby forgetting the simple priest.55 The problem is
captured in a more poignant manner when Feuillet states: “The problem
is this: Were the Apostles who are clearly the source and starting point of
all the ministries now exercised in the Church, really constituted priests
by Christ and is their priesthood distinct from that of God’s people as a
whole?”56
52
Cf. Andre, Feuillet, The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers, 29, 106.
53
54
Vatican Council II, Presbyterorum Ordinis,
55
Andre, Feuillet, The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers, 13.
56
39
The issue of the radical discontinuity between the Old Testament and the
New is noted by Feuillet who insists that even the Letter to the Hebrews
highlights it in underlining the deep gulf between the Old Testament
priesthood and worship and the New. But given that the New Testament
does see itself as a fulfillment of the Old, the correct way to see things is
as simultaneously being a continuity and a discontinuity. 57
Though several non-Catholic scholars seem to relativise the content of

the priestly references in Hebrews as being only in expression but not in
content, Feuillet makes an extended excursus. Starting from the synoptic
gospels, he states that Jesus really applied to himself at least the concept
of a new high priest if not the name. Why the New Testament is reluctant
about the application of the term high priest is explained by the Jewish
prescription that: every high priest must come from the house of Levi,
specifically from the family of Aaron and must be descended from
Zadok; any non Aaronite claiming the priestly dignity was to be put to
death (Nm. 2: 10; 2 Chr. 26: 16 – 21).58
Having noted the above, the first place to examine the reality or
priesthood or priestness or sacerdotality, if that could be said, is the
synoptic gospels. There are several actions of Jesus that have been
interpreted as priestly. They include the blessing of little children, the
exorcism and expulsion of demons, the forgiveness of sins whereby
Christ reconciled men to God among others. These are held by
contemporary standards of the time to be more priestly actions than
Messianic. Also the name, “the holy one of God” (cf. Mk. 1: 24; Lk. 6:
69) is held to be the equivalent of the priestly title “consecrated to God”
(cf. Lev. 21: 6; 2 Chr 23: 6; 35: 3) or “consecrated to Yahweh” (cf. Ex.
28: 36). Again, Jesus liked to apply Ps. 110 to himself, which reads: you
are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek (cf. Mk. 12:
35 - 36). The white colour of his garments at the transfiguration is also
compared with what is said of the vestings of the high priest in the Old
Testament.59 This is akin to the white garment he is described to put on
in the Apocalypse. The point of all these sacrificial and priestly
57
58
59
40
36 (2022)
indications is that “once the sacrificial character of the rite performed at

the Last Supper is assured, Jesus’ priestly attitude on this occasion is
automatically demonstrated.”60
Furthermore, Shepherd claims that there are too many reminiscences of

the last servant song (cf. Is. 52: 13 – 53: 12) in the synoptics. This last
servant song suggests seriously that the servant is a priest. The others
allude to his being a prophet, a master of wisdom and a mediator like
Moses. He offers his life as an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of his
brethren (cf. Is. 52: 13 – 53: 12). There are so many connections
between the actions of Jesus and this last servant.61 His character is so
similar to that of Jesus that Feuillet in studying the texts states that
“every time the New Testament speaks of Christ’s role by alluding to the
self-offering of the servant of Yahweh, it is implicitly presenting Jesus as
the priest of the new covenant.”62 Paul and John have been noted to make
a very repeated use of the motive and theme of the servant of Yahweh in
depicting Jesus Christ. The Johannine formula “lay down one’s life” and
that of the synoptics “the son of man did not come to be served… as a
ransom for many” and the one “for their sake I consecrate myself” are all
held to have some direct dependence on Is. 53: 10 and from their semitic
flavor, exegetes believe that they originate in Jesus himself.
Another major text of study by Feuillet is John 17. The passage is called
the priestly prayer of Jesus because of the two essential aspects of a
priest’s role that it portrays namely, sacrificial offering and intercession.
In the prayer, Jesus requests God to consecrate, hagiazein, him. The
other meanings of this word include, to sanctify, to set aside, to sacrifice
(cf. Deut. 15: 19, 21). The scriptures use this term when Yahweh is to set
someone aside for a mission. In this sense, the discourse in chapter 10 of
John where Jesus speaks of being consecrated and sent into the world (cf.
Jn. 10: 36), can only refer to his being set apart for a mission. It means he
is ordained and sent.
60
61
Cf. Andre, Feuillet, The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers, 30 - 32.
62
41
Exegetical studies of the use of the word, consecrate, show that what
Jesus refers to here is much deeper than just what appears on the surface.
In this sense, it has been said that ‘consecrate’ also means ordain (like in
Ex. 28: 35, 41) or is a short form for the expression ‘consecrate as
priest.’63 Jesus does refer to two consecrations. One is done by the Father
(cf. Jn. 10: 36) and one he, Jesus, does (cf. Jn. 17: 19). These are
connected with Jn. 3: 16 where God has made an ultimate gift of his Son.
‘I consecrate myself’ has been interpreted to mean ‘I offer sacrifice’64 (of
myself). As in Is. 53: 12, a prayer of intercession is connected with the
immolation of the servant, so sacrificial offering and intercession are
both co-extensive and unitary though logically separable. Similarly, in
John 17, there is sacrificial offering and intercession (cf. Jn. 17: 9, 15,
20) in a single comprehensive act of his as priest. Feuillet concludes that
“the conception of the Christian priesthood that emerges from the New
Testament as a whole… is a rich and complex one. It includes the
preaching of the word of God, to which so much importance is being
attributed today. It also includes the reconciliation of men to God
through the forgiveness of sins….” But fundamental to this idea of the
priesthood as obtainable from Is. 53 and John 17 is the idea of sacrificial
offering and intercession.
5. Propositio: Conclusive Remarks

Balanced and profound literature that is worth consulting on the
priesthood of the New Testament is vast. But good synthetic
presentations of the thorny questions are not. What this study has done is
to establish that Christ’s actions and speeches even as they are presented
in scripture do capture and express the essentials of what priesthood
radically redefined from what it was in the Old Testament, means and
implies. What has not been sufficiently shown is that the ministerial
priesthood was intended by him and instituted accordingly. That is the
gift that this last section would try to make. But succinctly, it has to be
noted that most of the study will involve indications of prototypes,
prefigurations, parallelisms and models and their transpositions,
fulfillments and surpassings as new accomplishment.
63
Cf. Andre, Feuillet, The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers, 38-42.
64
42
36 (2022)
It was noted above that the most important function of the high priest
was his service on the Day of Atonement. A good study of the fourth
gospel reveals that the Jesus’ reference to his return to the Father
corresponds to the entry of the high priest into the Holy of Holies on the
Day of Atonement. It is what makes possible the perfect glorification of
God the Father.65 There is a good and elaborate study of these
parallelisms that one can only refer the reader to read up. But the
closeness between the prayer of John 17 and the liturgy of atonement are
unmistakable.66 The letter of John and the letter to the Hebrews are very
closely related. In both, Christ is seen as a priest who is also a sacrificial
victim. He is the sanctifier, and others are sanctified by him. Numerous
identified parallels abound and all show that the two functions of
sacrificial offering and intercession which are specific to the priest and
show that the prayer of Jesus in John 17 has an authentic priestly
character are attributed to Christ by the author of the letter to the
Hebrews.67
The great connection between priesthood and sacrifice has been greatly
emphasized. They are said to be so “closely linked that it is impossible to
speak of the one without reference to the other.”68 This is important as
the context of the prayer of Jesus is connected with the liturgical and
priestly texts of the Old Testament. Moreover non professional priests in
the classical sense are seen to have offered sacrifice. Also it is noted that
in the history of mankind, priestly functions have not always been
handed over to specialists. The soft argument that many use to discredit
Christ as priest is that he was not from the tribe of Levi. But even in
Israel as already noted, offering sacrifice was exercised by heads of
families (cf. Jdg. 17: 10; 18: 19) and Kings (e.g., David and Solomon),
though the history of Israel shows that the practice disappeared before
the functional priesthood of Israel. Nevertheless, as one can imagine
from these lines, the history of Old Testament priesthood is
complicated.69
65
66
67
68
69
Cf. Andre, Feuillet, The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers, 81 -82.
43
Although the functions of priests have earlier been hinted at, they could
be said once more to include giving oracles and to teach and carry out
liturgical exercises. They were modified with time when prophets began
taking up the oracular function and scribes began taking up the teaching.
But all priestly functions were summed up in that of mediation.70
However, with time, prophets became themselves mediators of revelation
and instruments of God. They became intercessors. So, the abysmal
difference between the sacrifice of the Old Testament and that of Christ
does not so much lay in the fact that the former was a preparation and a
prefiguration. The key to understanding this would lay rather in the
ministry of prophets whose sanctity and commitment to the service of
God provided for most elements of what was required in the priest. It is
in this line that one finds Moses as a mediator par excellence – a
mediator of revelation and intercession.71 This is important because, even
if in the scriptures, Christ does not have the name, yet he does have the
function of a priest – a servant. One notices that the servant of Isaiah (cf.
Is. 53) appears to be the living synthesis of a prophet and a priest in his
prophetic and priestly mediation. He adds intercessory prayer to his
sacrifice and thus enters the prophetic mainstream. He becomes like
Ezekiel, a prophet-priest.72 In the gospels, Christ carries out
spiritualizations of events which one finds in the servant of Yahweh.
Mosaic institutions are transformed while prophecies are fulfilled. These
allow us to see in Jesus the sacrificial victim and the priest of the New
Testament. The elements that show this in the gospel according to John
include: the designation of Christ as the Lamb of God, his consecration
by the Father, his consecration of himself, and the great prayer of unity
(in John 17).73
Isaiah 53 is extended in John 10: 36. It shows Christ consecrated a priest

at the moment of his being sent into the world. Moreover, the use of the
term lamb, not only refers to the Passover Lamb of the Old Testament
but to the lamb of Is. 53: 7 who “like a lamb… is led to the slaughter-
70
71
72
73
44
36 (2022)
house.” The Apocalypse which is a part of the Johannine corpus shows

Christ as king, priest and sacrifice (cf. Rev. 1: 5, 17: 14). His appearance
to St. John in a long white robe shows him dressed like a priest.74 The
point is that a deepened study of the New Testament reveals more than is
obvious at first glance. The Letter to the Hebrews for instance seems to
suggest that every prayer of Jesus on earth is his prayer as Christ the
priest. It refers back to the Servant of Yahweh through the gospel
tradition of the synoptic accounts that is soaked with the ideas of
priesthood and sacrifice.75
The priesthood of Christ’s ministers and the consecration of the Apostles

is the real nucleus of the matter. While having pointed out the similarity
between the Letter to the Hebrews and John 17, there are essential
distinctions as well. The Letter to the Hebrews mentions the
sanctification of all Christians without distinction. John 17 is rather
divided into three parts. In part one, Jesus prays for himself asking for
the glorification of the Father and indicating his own consecration. In
part two, he prays for the consecration or sanctification only of the
apostles, while in part three, he prays for the sanctification of all
Christians who would come to believe in him through the apostles (John
17: 20 – 26).76
Furthermore, since God does not rescind his gift, and his choice is
irreversible (cf. Rm. 11: 29), it means that his offering them this special
privilege will remain. He asks the Father, I have consecrated myself so
that they too may be consecrated. This means that their consecration
derives from his. When he tells them, “do this as a memorial of me” (cf.
Lk. 22: 19; 1 Cor. 11: 24-25) and asks the Father to “consecrate them …I
consecrate myself” (cf. Jn 17: 17 – 18), both statements clarify each
other. The Father consecrates the apostles as priests. One of the essential
purposes of that petition is to be able to act in the person of Christ and to
consecrate him as a victim under the signs of bread and wine as a
memorial of the one sacrifice of Golgotha.77 When compared with the
74
75
76
77
45
Old Testament, evidently the priesthood of all God’s people under the
new covenant does not contradict or exclude a priestly ministry strictly
reserved for certain individuals. One sees God making the whole of
Israel as priests (in Is. 61: 6) but also identifying some (as in Is. 66: 21)
as priests and Levites to help Israel maintain its sacred character. These
are neither exclusive nor identical realities even in the Old Testament.
“In fact, the serious sin of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, which led to their
death, was to deny the distinction between the two kinds of priesthood”
(cf. Nm. 16: 3, 31 – 32).78
Already in the Old Testament this distinction is linguistically noted. The

Septuagint translation uses hierateuma for the priesthood of all the
people (cf. Ex. 19:6; 2Mc. 2: 17). For the priesthood restricted to a
definite group it uses hierateia (cf. Ex. 29: 9; 39: 19; 40: 15; Nm. 3: 10;
18: 1, 7; Jos. 18: 7; 1Kg. 2: 26; Ezr. 2: 62; Ne. 7: 64; 13: 29). The New
Testament directly borrows this distinction in terms. For Zecharia, it uses
hierateia (cf. Lk. 1: 9) or the sons of Levi (cf. Heb. 7: 5) and uses
hierateuma for the priesthood of the Christian faithful (in 1 Pet. 2: 5, 9).
Similarly, the consecration of Jesus as priest precedes his being sent on
mission (cf. Jn. 10: 36). As an exact and willed parallel, the consecration
of the apostles and their being consecrated as priests (cf. Jn. 17: 17 – 20)
precedes their being sent into the world. This happens after the
resurrection (cf. Jn. 20: 21) since they were consecrated at the last supper
after their formation in the time before the passion (cf. Mt. 28: 18-19;
Mk. 16: 15).79
From the foregoing, it is evident that the priesthood in the new covenant
is in line with that of Is. 53 and of Christ himself. This means that it is a
synthesis of both the priestly and prophetic conceptions of the Old
Testament. Just like in the Old Testament, only Yahweh teaches and
Moses and the prophets are only his instruments, so in the New
Testament, there is only one priest, Christ. But he communicates and acts
in the Church through many priests who are simply his chosen
78
79
46
36 (2022)
instruments. They can only act in dependence on him since their

priesthood and mission derive from his.80
Again the scene where Christ appears to the apostles on the evening of
the resurrection and breathes on them, giving them the gift of the Holy
Spirit and empowering them to forgive sins (cf. Jn. 20: 23) as different
from the Pentecost (recorded in Acts 2) is a complement of the
priesthood that Christ bestowed on the apostles in sacrificing himself.
The letters to the angels of the seven Churches in Rev. 2-3 when
analyzed, show as well that these are leaders of Christian communities
with an eminent dignity that is not exactly that of the rest of the members
of the Church. According to Feuillet, they are the hierarchic leaders of
the Church.81 This implies that succession in ministerial priesthood was
already operative and therefore, guaranteed.
Since the Vatican II, the terminology, ministerial priesthood has come
into use. It distinguishes bishops and priests from the priesthood of all
the baptized. It stands for the connection between consecration and
mission in the life of Christ which has been shown as well to be in the
life of the apostles (cf. Jn. 17: 18). The priesthood of the apostles is a
synthesis of the priestly and prophetic traditions of the Old Testament.
There are other events scattered in the New Testament and in the gospels
especially whose strict study reveal the priestly character and choice of
Christ in priestly lines. One of them is the washing of the feet at the last
supper. This could be interpreted as a spiritualization of the washing
demanded of Yahweh in the Old Testament before the consecration of
priests (cf. Ex. 29: 4; Lev. 8: 6; Nm. 8: 6-7). The ministerial priesthood is
instituted by Christ as the ministry of the apostles, situated within the
community of which they are a part and existing for the service of the
community. Paul even understands this and interprets his ministry in
priestly terms (cf. 1 Cor. 9: 13-14; Rm. 15: 15-16; Phil. 2: 17).82
80
81
Cf. Andre, Feuillet, The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers, 178-181, 221.
82
47
Finally, the main point of these reflections has shown that Jesus was a
priest. This is not according to the classical notion of the Old Testament.
In him – Jesus – is the perfection of what the priestly and prophetic
traditions had prepared and foretold of the Messiah. He wanted also to
bestow upon his apostles and their successors a priesthood that is quite
distinct from the priesthood common to all the baptized.83 One can only
come to grasp this if one is open and docile to the prompting of the Holy
Spirit in studying the person and work of Christ who is the sole priest of
the new covenant. The priestly and sacrificial dimension of his life is the
dimension of his love for us. This is from where the gift of ministerial
priesthood will be appreciated. In this manner, the priesthood will be
seen as an immense treasure of God’s love for man and in turn an
offering after the example of Christ, prompted by the grace of the Holy
Spirit, of man to God.
83
48

3090 6103 1 SM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3090 6103 1 SM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3090 6103 1 SM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Nigerian Journal of Theology (NJT) 34 (2020), 35 (2021) &

THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD AS A PURE GIFT:

Anthony Chidozie DIMKPA*1

is strictly biblical, dogmatic and theological. The difficulties include that

Keywords: Ministerial Priesthood, Pure Gift, Foundations, Biblical,

sacrifice, and even his father-in-law, Jethro, was known to be a priest of

In such cases as the one of the Ezemmuo among the Igbos, as an

Biblically and analogously, the designation of a specific person by an

3. 1. Priesthood in the Old Testament

the covenant.6 A particular way of life, a holy living is expected of the

In addition, priests were the custodians of medical lore who played an

Priests did become so important in Davidic dynasty that they were

Any violation of priestly sanctity is to be expiated by the high priest and

These various developments in the course of history assume their

3.2. Priesthood in the New Testament

marriage, and this belonging to another age, with discrepancy between

In Judaism, priesthood was hereditary in the tribe of Levi. Among

The antagonism of Christians to all pagan priesthood was a legacy from

rejection, by the Sadduccean priesthood, of any doctrine of the

It is believed that even among themselves, some priests were critical of

In spite of the criticisms of today on the priests of those days, it remains

Nevertheless, the process of separation between the Church, the priestly

to interpret the Eucharist in these terms, Shepherd understands that the

In Paul the apostle, according to Shepherd, the sacrificial character of

Spirit. By sacramental union and communion with him in Baptism and

It is in the history of the development of the offices of bishop and priest

4. Transpositio: A Synthetic View of the New Testament Priesthood

Feuillet raises the problem that there appears to be a complete break

Letter to the Hebrews acknowledges Christ as priest (hiereus, six times;

Though several non-Catholic scholars seem to relativise the content of

indications is that “once the sacrificial character of the rite performed at

Furthermore, Shepherd claims that there are too many reminiscences of

5. Propositio: Conclusive Remarks

Isaiah 53 is extended in John 10: 36. It shows Christ consecrated a priest

house.” The Apocalypse which is a part of the Johannine corpus shows

The priesthood of Christ’s ministers and the consecration of the Apostles

Already in the Old Testament this distinction is linguistically noted. The

instruments. They can only act in dependence on him since their

You might also like