Early Priesthood?

[abucs]

In Luke’s writings in Acts 6:7 he says :

              "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith."

My question is that once the Jewish priests became Christians, did they stop being priests?

Is there any evidence of Jewish priests once becoming Christians, then automatically no longer being priests?

If not, can we therefore say that the priesthood was an integral accepted part of early Christianity?

 

[Gorgias]

In Luke’s writings in Acts 6:7 he says :

              "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith."

My question is that once the Jewish priests became Christians, did they stop being priests?

Yes. There was no notion of the office of “priest”, per se, in the early Church. As the notion of the episkope – the bishop – developed, it was only the bishop who celebrated the Eucharist. (I’m not certain, but I believe, that this implies that only the apostles celebrated the remembrance of the Lord’s Supper.)

If not, can we therefore say that the priesthood was an integral accepted part of early Christianity?

It was not. Remember that the earliest Christians – Jewish Christians – still kept to their traditions, including synagogue and temple worship. In these contexts, Jewish priests still acted as priests; but their role did not include Christian worship.

 

[devoutchristian]

The office of priest has been around since the early church. However Jewish priest were not considered priest in the Christian sense so they would have been treated as laymen.

 

[twf]

Yes. There was no notion of the office of “priest”, per se, in the early Church. As the notion of the episkope – the bishop – developed, it was only the bishop who celebrated the Eucharist. (I’m not certain, but I believe, that this implies that only the apostles celebrated the remembrance of the Lord’s Supper.)

It was not. Remember that the earliest Christians – Jewish Christians – still kept to their traditions, including synagogue and temple worship. In these contexts, Jewish priests still acted as priests; but their role did not include Christian worship.

This isn’t the full story. It is true that there is evidence that only bishops (sucessors of the apostles) celebrated the Eucharist in the early Church as a norm (which makes sense, as only bishops are said to fully participate in the divine high priesthood of Christ)…but as early as C. AD 107 St. Ignatius of Antioch tells us
:

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
-St. Ignatius of Antioch - Epistle to the Smyrnaeans - Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm.

So we see even here that the bishop could entrust the Eucharist to another (we can assume one of the presybters).

The New Testament also makes it clear that the Apostles ordained presbyters where ever they established a local Church. Tradition tells us that these presbyters (from the Greek word for “elder”) were ordained priests, given a share of the Apostles’ own ministry as co-workers of the Lord.

 

[jcrichton]

In Luke’s writings in Acts 6:7 he says :

              "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith."

My question is that once the Jewish priests became Christians, did they stop being priests?

Is there any evidence of Jewish priests once becoming Christians, then automatically no longer being priests?

If not, can we therefore say that the priesthood was an integral accepted part of early Christianity?

…they are two distinct economies: Old Testament (Covenant) Priesthood was Temple-centered (sacrifice, Mosaic Laws, Torah, prophets and prophecies–all from the Jews and for the Jews in the temporal world with hints to a Spiritual) vs. New Testament (Covenant) Priesthood is Christ-centered (Salvific Plan includes both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the Only Sacrifice, Sacraments, the Church is Christ’s Body–in Christ all are part of the Body in a Spiritual existence in and with God in Christ Jesus)… as far as Biblical basis for the Old Priesthood’s secession… check the Acts–the Eleven (plus 1, plus St. Paul) are instituted as Christ’s Priests (though all of the world is a Priestly Kingdom) and they in turn ordained others into Christ’s Priesthood… this, of course, does not mean that none of the Jewish Priests that converted to Christianity opted to remain out of Christ’s Priesthood–that which is Written in Scriptures is not meant to be read/understood as a chronological-historical account of Judeo-Christian history/doctrine.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gorgias]

This isn’t the full story. It is true that there is evidence that only bishops (sucessors of the apostles) celebrated the Eucharist in the early Church as a norm (which makes sense, as only bishops are said to fully participate in the divine high priesthood of Christ)…but as early as C. AD 107 St. Ignatius of Antioch tells us

But that wasn’t the question. abucs asked whether the Jewish priesthood became active in the Christian tradition, and whether the notion of priest (hieros) was therefore present from the beginning of the Church. It was not.

So we see even here that the bishop could entrust the Eucharist to another (we can assume one of the presybters).

That’s quite an assumption. Nevertheless, by the beginning of the second century, the ways that the words “episkopos”, “presbyter”, and “deacon” were being used were becoming more consistent and distinct. Nevertheless, there were still differences in the meanings of the words “presbyter” (elder) and “sacerdos” (priest); in the early Church, bishops (episkopoi) were described as acting in a sacerdotal role, but presbyters were not. So, I think it would be important not to conflate the two meanings (elder and priest), but rather, admit that in the early Church, presbyters were elders only (and later took on the role of sharing in the bishops’ Eucharistic ministry).

The New Testament also makes it clear that the Apostles ordained presbyters where ever they established a local Church. Tradition tells us that these presbyters (from the Greek word for “elder”) were ordained priests, given a share of the Apostles’ own ministry as co-workers of the Lord.

Agreed. However, that doesn’t mean that they were “priests” as the word means today: their “share in the Apostles’ own ministry” wouldn’t have been independent of bishops’ ministry, and normally wouldn’t have included presiding at their own Eucharists.

 

[devoutchristian]

whether the notion of priest (hieros) was therefore present from the beginning of the Church. It was not.

Yes it was. The problem with theories of doctrinal change in the early church is that the laity wouldn’t have accepted a change to doctrine.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes it was.

Reference, please.

The problem with theories of doctrinal change in the early church is that the laity wouldn’t have accepted a change to doctrine.

Originally, the “laity” were Palestinian Jews; they had already accepted “doctrinal change” in the form of a ‘new covenant’ and a ‘new Passover’ and a ‘new Moses’. Having been kicked out of the Jewish fold following the destruction of the temple, a whole raft of doctrinal change washed over them (no temple sacrifice, no Sabbath worship, etc). Later, the laity included Gentiles. For the ethnic Jews, acceptance of Gentiles in God’s plan would be a drastic change; for the Gentiles, “change” in doctrine wouldn’t necessarily be visible, would it? No, the ability of the early Christians to accept change is probably one of the most characteristic facets of their faith lives…

However, perhaps you mean that, once we reached some arbitrary date (ca. 100 A.D.? 200 A.D.? 325 A.D.?) there would be resistance to doctrinal change. Could you be a bit more precise in your claim?

Blessings,

G.

 

[Gorgias]

The office of priest has been around since the early church. However Jewish priest were not considered priest in the Christian sense so they would have been treated as laymen.

devoutchristian:

Yes it (the office of priest) was (present from the beginning of the Church). The problem with theories of doctrinal change in the early church is that the laity wouldn’t have accepted a change to doctrine.

I just looked back in the thread and re-read your comments. I think you and I are answering different questions. You’re answering “was any notion of ‘priest’ present at the time of the beginning of the Church?” and I’m answering the question “was the notion of Christian ‘priest’ present at the time of the beginning of the Church?”

I think it would be fair to say that there was the notion of the actions that a priest does – that is, confect the Eucharist – since the apostles were doing so from the very beginning. However, they would not have called themselves “priests”, since ‘priest’ implied the notion of “Jewish priest, sacrificing animals in the temple”… and they certainly were not making that claim for themselves! The OP was asking if Jewish priests remained priests when they entered the Church. The answer to that is ‘yes’, if you mean “before 70 A.D., did they continue their Jewish practice”, but ‘no’ if you mean “did they celebrate the Eucharist”. I’m thinking that the OP was trying to imply Christian priesthood in the person of a Jewish priest, so the answer is still “no”.

 

[abucs]

My question was not so much about the Eucharist but whether early Christians saw priesthood as an integral part of their movement or whether they saw such a role as obsolete.

For example, are there Christian arguments for the redundancy of the priesthood?

I know “The Letter to the Hebrews” argues for a different kind of priesthood but are there indications from Christian sources that the priesthood was not needed.

Or put another way, was there a movement in early Christianity against the position of priest?

Thanks.

 

[PJM]

=abucs;9824111]In Luke’s writings in Acts 6:7 he says :

              "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith."

My question is that once the Jewish priests became Christians, did they stop being priests?

Is there any evidence of Jewish priests once becoming Christians, then automatically no longer being priests?

If not, can we therefore say that the priesthood was an integral accepted part of early Christianity?

Interestering question THANKS,

There is no reason [IMO] to think that converted “priest” did not in unknown numbers become “priest” of the New Covenant. They were educated, trained and experienced. IF they renounced Judism of the Old Covenant and taught by example and word the teachings of Christ, they would have been very useful.

No doubt their were “some” but I expect the New Covenant; the Messiah and the Ecuharist were too sublime for most of them.

God Bless,
Pat /PJM

 

[Gorgias]

My question was not so much about the Eucharist but whether early Christians saw priesthood as an integral part of their movement or whether they saw such a role as obsolete.

Are you asking whether the early Christians saw the Levitical priesthood as an integral part of their movement?

If so, then… no, they didn’t. As you mentioned, Hebrews demonstrates that Jesus took the Levitical priesthood and made it obsolete.

However, there’s the need to obey Christ’s demand for a remembrance of the Eucharist, and so there’s a need for apostolic ministry. Today, we would identify that ministry as “priestly”, but they wouldn’t have named it as such. (After all, for them, “priestly ministry” meant temple sacrifice.)

For example, are there Christian arguments for the redundancy of the priesthood?

Redundancy? I’m not sure what you mean. Are you asking whether they would have recognized two priesthoods – one that performs sacrifices of the Mosaic law, and another that performs sacrifices of the New Covenant?

Or put another way, was there a movement in early Christianity against the position of priest?

Before the destruction of the temple, Jewish Christians still saw themselves as Jews, so they would have continued in their observance of Jewish law. So, they wouldn’t have been “against” the Levitical priesthood. However, they wouldn’t have appropriated the Levitical priesthood as the means by which the Lord’s Supper was commemorated in their assembly.

 

[Gorgias]

There is no reason [IMO] to think that converted “priest” did not in unknown numbers become “priest” of the New Covenant.

I’m sorry – you’re asserting that Levitical priests became celebrants of the Christian Eucharistic celebration? No, there’s no evidence for that. If you’re saying that this is the case, could you provide some evidence of this?

They were educated, trained and experienced.

… as Jewish priests. Not as apostles. In fact, they would have had no authority as such in the early Church.

IF they renounced Judism of the Old Covenant and taught by example and word the teachings of Christ, they would have been very useful.

You’re going to have to clarify your statement. About which period of time are you speaking? Prior to the destruction of the temple? Prior to the expulsion from the synagogue of Jewish Christians? Prior to the formal establishment of Christianity as a ‘legal’ religion in the Roman Empire?

No doubt their were “some”

I doubt that; until the notion of presbyter as being able to take on the role of sacerdos and sharer in episcopal liturgical ministry, apostles (episcope) did not share the role of the celebration of the Eucharist with others.