I decided I had had enough fun taking on the toothless lions of modern atheism. So I found new opponents to spar with (not enemies, but people to have a bit of fun with) in the Roman Catholics, and on this matter probably also the Anglo-Catholics.
No, I am not getting involved in the row about the Pope’s forthcoming visit to Britain, and about what he said about British equal rights laws, not least because I agree with him on this matter.
However, I have expressed by disagreement with Brant Pitre, a Roman Catholic professor of theology in New Orleans. Brant asks a question at The Sacred Page: Does Hebrews Envision a New Ministerial Priesthood? That was how that epistle was interpreted at the Council of Trent in the 16th century – very likely in reaction against Reformation scholars who argued that there was no support in the New Testament for a specific class of Christian priests.
The Council of Trent found its support for a new priesthood in Hebrews 7:12. But it could only do so by wrenching that verse entirely out of context. For it is clear from that context that the “changed” priesthood of that verse is that of Jesus Christ – and that one of the main changes is from having many priests to having just one (7:23-24).
Brant finds a positive answer to his question not so much in 7:12 as in 13:10, where he sees the new altar and the mention of eating as a reference to the Eucharist, which to him, as a Roman Catholic, is a sacrifice and implies a priesthood.
This verse again needs to be seen in context:
Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by the eating of ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who observe such rituals. 10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.
11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.
Hebrews 13:9-13 (TNIV)
Here is my first comment in reply to Brant:
Surely (at least it seems sure from my Protestant perspective) the altar in Hebrews 13:10 is the one in the new holy place described earlier in the book. Chapters 8-10 spell out how the Jerusalem temple has been replaced not by church buildings with altars but by a heavenly sanctuary of which the temple was just a copy (8:1-6), a “greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands” (9:11). It is in this sanctuary, and so presumably on its altar, that Christ was sacrificed once (9:24-28). So the author proclaims the end of the old system by which priests offer daily sacrifices in a man-made building (10:11-14). Thus there is no way that in this author’s thinking the altar of 13:10 is one for daily sacrifices like the mass. He or she may have been thinking of the cross as the “altar” on which Christ died, but more likely of the altar in the heavenly tabernacle, from which flows the grace, contrasted with ceremonial foods (13:9), by which Christians alone are fed and strengthened.
If there is a reference to the Eucharist at all in this letter, I would suggest that it is in the “strange teachings” about the benefits of “ceremonial foods” mentioned in 13:9.
In reply to a further comment from Brant, I wrote:
Brant, I will grant that the “ceremonial foods” of 13:9 are “the earthly food eaten in the earthly Temple from the earthly altar”. But they are contrasted not with the Eucharist but with “grace”. So surely the same contrast is continued in 13:10, and on into verse 12: what the old priests could not eat but we can is this same grace. Of course we eat this only metaphorically. I can grant that the elements of the Eucharist are a sign or sacrament of this grace, but not that they are the literal referent here.
This chapter goes on to explain that there are sacrifices which Christians should offer: praise (v.15) and good works (v.16). But it is not through these sacrifices, but only through the blood of Christ (v.12), that we are made holy and worthy to come into God’s presence.
Yes, I can accept some kind of allusion to the Eucharist at 13:10. But I see it as a complete misunderstanding of Hebrews to see it as arguing for replacement of the Aaronic priesthood and sacrifices with a class of Christian priests offering the sacrifice of the Mass. Such a thought could not have been further from this author’s mind. He or she makes the main point very clearly: in the New Covenant there is just one priest, Jesus Christ, who offered one sacrifice, his own death on the cross.
And yes, there are the sacrifices of praise and of good works mentioned in 13:15,16. But these do not make us acceptable to God; rather they are the response to him of people who are already holy in his sight. And they are not to be offered by a special caste of priests but by all Christians, who are in that sense a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9) of all believers.
Peter
Like you I have more than a sneaky oneness with the Pope on the equality issue.!
This is a most helpful examination of the passages. If you have not already spotted it, have a look at TC’s New Leaven. He has been reflecting on the related issue of what is the dynamic of the Lord’s Supper and how often we should celebrate it. There is also some excellent material on the nature of the presbyterate, as they prefer to call it, on the Church Society website. It explores the concepts of elder/presbyter as compared to the Aaronic priesthood. I don’t go with everything the CS says, but that is one example of what to me makes perfect sense.
My take is the same as yours, but I will follow your links so I can better understand the flow of the argument.
I had an extended debate with an Orthodox priest on this very same subject. You can see how that went here, here and here.
Colin and Don, thanks for the tips. A lot more reading for me, when I have time. I follow TC’s blog but maybe I need to look more closely at his thread on the Lord’s Supper.
Don, that was an interesting discussion you had with Fr Greg. But I think the best authority he can claim for his position is tradition backed up with a few biblical quotations, which may well have been taken out of context.
I see Fr Greg found more another mention of the Eucharist in Hebrews 13, in verse 16 with the word koinonia. He wrote, in a long comment,
But, Fr Greg, where do you get the idea that koinonia here refers to the Eucharist? I accept that this word, traditionally usually translated “fellowship” or “participation”, is used of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 10:16. On the other hand, in Acts 2:42 “fellowship” seems to be distinguished from “breaking of bread”. And in other places where the word is used clearly the Eucharist is not at all in view.
So what does Hebrews 13:16 mean? In the context koinonia is clearly linked with doing good works. And this is how the word has been translated: “to share what you have” (RSV, NRSV), “to share with others” (TNIV). (KJV’s “to communicate” makes sense to me only in the sense of the word “to take communion”, but that sense implies that it is the communicant rather than the priest who is making a sacrifice.) This RSV/NRSV/TNIV rendering corresponds to how the word is used in Romans 15:26 and 2 Corinthians 8:4, 9:13, which clearly refer to sharing one’s possessions with the poor.
So if Fr Greg wants to interpret the word as about Eucharist, he certainly needs to make an exegetical case for this, and not use words like “explicitly states”.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom» Blog Archive » Freedom of Religion and Its Limits
Peter, I agree with you. Koinonia is certainly a broader term than the Eucharist, and in this case is linked with doing good works (which certainly are a sacrifice, no matter how much joy we do them with.)
My point in Hebrews is that Jesus Christ’s sacrifice is unique and complete. That in turn alters our view of what a New Testament “priesthood” should look like. The two are inexorably linked, which is why Catholic and Orthodox apologists are so adamant on the two subjects.
Sweet exchange. I admire the efforts of Roman Catholic apologists. But in this case, prof. Brant is guilty of anachronism. Let the Hebrew writer speak! Well done, Peter.