,
17 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
The lesson of history is even more encouraging. The "duo sunt genera christianorum" is a historical development different from - and in its theology largely inconsistent with - the first 3 centuries CE, when Christianity was priestless (as distinct from leaderless). THREAD
Nowhere in the NT is a separate priestly class – that is one mediating between the divine and Christians/human beings in general – regarded as desirable – never mind necessary. 2/16
On the contrary, and quite significantly, several passages explicitly reject it. This is most clear in Hebrews 4.14 and 8.1. It’s implied in 1 Pet. 2.9 (when all Christians are priests, a mediating priesthood is no longer needed). 3/16
Paul also excludes it, by praising the variety of Christian ministries while condemning those pretending to be able to do everything themselves. 4/16
Here's prof James Dunn, one of the foremost expert on Paul the apostle, on the view that the NT mandates a Christian priesthood. Some quotes: 5/16
"[T]he idea of mono-ministry or ministerial autocracy – that is, of all the most important gifts concentrated on one man (even an apostle) or in a select group – is one which Paul dismissed with some ridicule" in 1 Cor. 12, esp. vv. 29-30. 6/16
"It has never failed to astonish me that a principle so clearly formulated [ie the rejection of a separate priestly caste] could be so blatantly ignored […] by those who insist that nevertheless, despite Hebrews, an order of priesthood is necessary within Xianity." 7/16
"To use Hebrews 5.1 to justify or explain Christian priesthood, as Vatican II does, while ignoring the thrust and argument of the Letter as a whole is a form of eisegesis which ranks more as abuse than as correct use of Scripture." 8/16
Similarly the argument that the function of Christian priests is to represent the one true priesthood of Christ reads more like a rationalization than a justification. 9/16
And since it interposes once again a mediator of grace between believer and God, when the concern of Hebrews was to convince his readers that such mediation was no longer necessary, it can hardly look for support to Hebrews in good faith. 10/16
Mormons who operate with two orders of priesthood, the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, seem to have misunderstood the argument of the Letter still more. But the mistake is basically the same. 11/16
What price the canonical authority of Hebrews when one of its principal concerns is treated so casually and twisted to serve a variation of the very case it was written to oppose?” 12/16
Those who oppose women priests (or deacons) often base their conclusion on the fact that Jesus didn't "ordain" women, and/or that the NT makes no mention of women priests. 13/16
But by the same token they should oppose the ontologically separate, grace-mediating, sacramental priesthood as it is conceived now: Jesus didn't "ordain" anybody to the priesthood 14/16
and nobody was regarded as priest in the much later sense of being exclusively empowered to mediate God's grace. Post-Resurrection, the Mediator was understood to be only one, for all, and forever. 15/16
Plug: more on this in my book Democracy in the Christian Church available here amazon.com/Democracy-Chri… 16/16 END
