The Eucharist in New Testament Christianity Part VII

 

                                                               

                                                                            I. Introduction

So far, I have demonstrated that a literal belief in the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ fits well with the prophecy of a sacrifice known among the Gentiles (Malachi 1: 11),  that there is a unique priesthood that not all Christians share (Romans 15), and that the New Testament teaches the Eucharist to be Christ Himself (John 6, 1 Corinthians 11). I have also demonstrated that a belief in a literal sacrifice of Christ is reconcilable with church history and Christian philosophy. Now, I wish to show that the job of presenting a Eucharist Sacrifice according to Scripture and Early Christian history is not for all believers, but a unique calling for the priesthood. 

Interestingly enough, it was only the priest who served the elements of the Eucharist throughout most of church history. The Roman Catholic Church didn't even use altar boys until the early 1900s. 

In this post, I attempt to answer the question: Why do liturgical churches such as Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic only let priests consecrate Holy Communion? 

                                   II. The Sacrifices of Animals in Old Testament Theology

While there are examples of the people of God sacrificing animals for themselves in the Old Testament, this ceased with the Tabernacle. From this point unit the New Testament, it was the priest alone who sacrificed the animal (Levicus 27: 11). 

In the Old Testament, the lamb was an important symbol of God's redemption and forgiveness of sinful people. In the Book of Exodus, the Hebrews wiped the blood of lambs on their doorposts to protect them from God's wrath (Exodus 12: 7). 

By the New Testament, Paul affirmed that the new Lamb was Christ Himself (1 Corinthians 5: 7). All of the Old Testament sacrifices of animals were symbols of the Son of God who would take away the Sin of the world (John 1: 29, John 1: 36). 

                               III. The New Testament Sacrifice of Christ

In previous posts, I demonstrated Biblically that Christ was the new sacrifice, which replaced the old. I also have proven that the early church understood the Eucharist as the literal Body and Blood of Christ. 

Now, some will claim that since Christ ended the old priesthood, that we no longer need any other priests on our behalf. However, as I demonstrated in one of the last posts of this series, Paul understood himself as having a unique priesthood that was not shared by all else (Romans 15). His episcopal authority over the local churches (Galatians 1: 6-12 Acts 22: 5, Titus 1) is clear in the New Testament., The episcopal form of government did not end with Paul, however. Titus, not one of the original apostles, also exercised it over the local churches (Titus 1). The early church fathers continued the practice of elders under one overseer, just as the apostles had done. The New Testament nowhere teaches that this form of government was rescinded. For some who claim that it does not teach for it to be for all time (a strange argument since everything in the New Testament is the pattern that we should live by unless it says otherwise), the New Testament also does not teach elders, pastors, or deacons to be for all time. Thus, one must either believe as the Quackers do that no church government still exists or support an Episcopalian or Presbyterian form of government (as these latter two forms of government acknowledge church authorities beyond the local church). The congregational form of government is simply inconsistent with Scripture. Congragtionlaism was unknown in church history until the post-Reformation. 

But did not the New Testament Churches select their own pastors? Does this not mean congregationalism is Biblical. 

No passage of Scripture should be divorced from itself. Many who support congregationalism simply seem to ignore Titus 1 and Romans 15 as well as the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, which was not just decided by the elders, but those of higher church authority. 

Actually, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders throughout the churches (Acts 14: 23). Even when 1 Timothy 4: 14 describes a local church, it is the local church laying hands on the minister rather than the local minister claiming himself a minister. And this passage says nothing about the local church alone appointing the man a pastor (it actually refers to the council of elders, which Presnrterians would see as justifying their form of government). 

And what about 1 Timothy 3: 1-7 and Titus 1: 5-9? Do these not prove that the local church alone appoints the minister? 

Not at all. A church voting that man has been called by God does not mean they alone appoint him. Remember the arguments I used about myself being both a son and a brother? I can be both. Remember what I said about Christ was both man and God at once? Indeed, the local churches recognized the calling of men to God (1 Timothy 3: 1-7) and yet...yet, those same ministers also had to receive recognition from higher church authorities (Acts 14: 23). 

While it makes sense that the congregation and the higher authorities recognize the calling in the man (Acts 14: 23, 1 Timothy 3: 1-7), it is simply inconsistent to ignore the former passage while only holding to the latter. 

Thus, Scripture supports the Episcopal form of government. Seeing a minister's calling often starts at the local level (1 Timothy 3: 1-7) but the episcopal leaders have final authority to ordain or not ordain them (Acts 14: 23). 

This is again the danger of isolating one Biblical text from the rest of Scripture. It's also the idea that if Scripture articulates one thing in one passage, then all other passages in Scripture should be avoided if they contradict what the person is advocating. 

Those who claim that we are all equal in authority and don't need priests, also prove themselves inconsistent unless they follow the pattern of the Quakers in denying all church offices. For those who claim that we need no priest still choose to retain the parts of the New Testament concerning elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). They assume these parts of Scripture are still relevant (though conveniently not the part where Titus exercises authority over the local churches in Titus 1). 

But are not bishops and elders interchangeable in 1 Timothy 3? Does this not disprove the idea of bishops having authority over local elders? 

Much has been written about the relationship of episkopikós and presbtyerius in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Even if we concede that they are of the same office (which some debate), however, we are missing the point. 

Let's assume that the office of bishop in 1 Timothy 3 is the same as that of elder in Titus 1. Even if this were the case, the pattern of the New Testament Church is of an overseer having authority over the local elders (Romans 15, Titus 1). Thus, even if the use of ''bishop'' for the higher officer has been misleading for the purpose of semantics, the pattern of the New Testament Church still recognizes three offices: overseer (which was later called bishop), elder/bishop, and deacon. While elders/priests were not called bishops in later centuries, their position was still inferior to the overseers of the church (such as Paul, Peter, and Titus, who exercised authority over the local churches). 

Much more could be said about church government. I've written several previous posts on this topic. Now, let us return to the subject of the Eucharist. 

The pattern of the New Testament Church was of an Episcopalian form of government. Paul exercised a priestly authority that other Christians did not share (Romans 15: 15-17). When read in Greek, the passage teaches that Paul was a temple-worker. 

Thus, just as only the Hebrew priesthood brought sacrifices of animals into the tabernacle, only the new priesthood of Christ consecrates the Eucharist for the laypeople to receive. 

In short, only the priests in churches like Anglican, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox are the only ones to historically consecrate communion for their parishes, because the only example in the New Testament Church pertaining to the Eucharist is of priests consecrating it for the people to share. 

Thus, both the Episcopal form of government and Apostolic succession are proven by the Scriptures. Titus and Matthias continued on the authority of the apostles after the original apostles ceased (Acts 1, Titus 1). Peter and other church leaders exercised authority at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, not just the local elders of that city. 

This does not mean that every bishop or minister is good. History is full of examples of pastors who hardly shepherded their flocks from sin. Nevertheless, God promised that His church would never cease (Matthew 16) and those who claim that the true church ceased for centuries, accuse our Lord of being a liar. 

Apostolic Succession is then implied by the organization of church government as described in the New Testament. The fact that Paul understood himself as a priest in relation to the Eucharist (Romans 15: 15-`17) and that Titsr exercised authority over local elders (Titus 1) demonstrates that the early church continued the offices of a priestly line, with overseers above the elders even after the original apostles.

Read the history of congregationalism. It was simply unknown until the 1500s. It has no backing in Scripture. In fact, it contradicts Scripture. It had no backing from the church. In fact, it also contradicts the church fathers. 

Congragtionlalists make the following assumptions

1. That Acts 15 was just for the apostles and that the Council of Jerusalem's inclusion of church leaders beyond local elders was just for that time. 

2. That every passage in the New Testament about church leaders over the local elders was just for the apostles (Titus 1, Acts 15), except when it comes to the passages that they see as benefiting their view, which somehow, in their mind, have not ceased in authority over the church. 

3. Some of them assume that James of Jerusalem was not ordained because the New Testament doesn't say either way, though Eusebius and other early church fathers recorded his ordination. By this same reasoning, that we should only believe historical events that are in Scripture, however, we would have to reject all of the historical events of Josephus and Philo, as many of them are not recorded in the New Testament. Even worse still, we would not know what books are in the New Testament without studying the documents of Early Christianity as the New Testament nowhere lists its own canon or says that it is composed of twenty-seven books. No indeed, we only know the canon of the New Testament by studying how it was compiled by the Ealry Christians into one great canon of Scripture. That same canon has been faithfully passed down for two thousand years so that we all take the word of the Early Christians that there are indeed twenty-seven books in the New Testament (though by Scripture alone, we could not prove this). 

4. They assume because Paul the Apostle was not ordained, that no elders or church leaders must be. They often assume that anyone can thus be called by God to be a true and legitimate minister. However, Paul did not simply claim that God called him. He had a direct vision of Christ on his road to Damascus (Acts 9: 3-20). Have they had a divine revelation from Christ to be a minister of God? If not, they cannot compare their lack of ordination to his own. 

5. They assume that because the original twelve apostles were not ordained, that no other minster must be, though Christ handpicked the apostles (Luke 6) and gave them authority over the church (Matthew 16, Matthew 18) until His return. He also said that those against them, were against Him (Matthew 12: 30). 

6. They assume that the priesthood in Hebrews 10 is the same as that of Romans 15, which I believe that I proved otherwise in previous posts. 

7. They assume that those closest to the apostles such as Ignatius of Antioch and others, got the theology of Apostolic Successio wrongn as did nearly everyone else until the Protestant Reformation (and not all Protestants denied it). Those who claim that the early Christians could be wrong on theology because Judas Iscariot was a traitor to Christ, are equating apples to oranges. One was a traitor, while the others were faithful to the apostles. Furthermore, while not all early churches were faithful to the teachings of the church, such as many in the Book of Revelation, the general consensus of the church, such as the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, upheld apostolic teachings. It is quite the assumption to say that because Judas was unfaithful to Christ, that we should ignore all the early Christians who lived closest to our Lord. 

8. They ignore Paul's Koine Greek understanding of a new priestly ministry, which he claimed to hold in Romans `15: 15-17. They also assume that Malachi's prophecy about a sacrifice that shall be known among the Gentiles (Malachi 1: 11) is somehow irrelevant to the theology of the New Testament Church.  

9. They assume that the authority of higher church leaders beyond elders ceased after the New Testament (when the New Testament never says this). 

10. They assume that passages like 1 Timothy 1: 6 are irrelevant, even though it teaches that Timothy (not one of the original apostles) received a church office from elders (1 Timothy 1: 6). Later, Paul demonstrates that Timothy held Episcopal authority as he warned Timothy to not hastily ordain anyone (1 Timothy 5: 22). Considering that Christ's Church was handed authority (Matthew 16, Matthew 18) and that offices existed in the New Testament Church (Romans 15, 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1), all evidence points that if Christ's church lasted after Him, so did the church offices established in the New Testament. This is not a matter of an assumption. Rather, it is asserting the Biblical evidence that we have and not drawing a conclusion of what Scripture is silent about, but drawing a conclusion on what is reasonable according to what Scripture has taught us. It is simply unreasonable to say that Christ intended His church to be forever (Matthew 16), but then assume the church offices established along the way (Romans `15, 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1) ended after the completion of the New Testament. If His church continued after Him, so must have the church offices.  

Indeed, Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, himself bears witness to three offices existing in the ancient church: bishop, priest (or presbyter), and deacon*. Would he know less about the order of the New Testament Church than those who were born 1600 years later? It's amazing the conclusions that some people will come to. 

                                                                        IV: Conclusion

I realize, though, that not all churches have Apostolic Succession. I think very highly of many Lutherans, for example, who sometimes lack in the Episcopal form of government. It is unfortunate that not more bishops joined Lutheranism at the time of the Reformation. For this reason, many Lutheran denominations no longer have Apostolic Succession. 

I'm not advocating the belief that a Eucharist in a church is invalid if its minister doesn't have Apostolic Succession. In this post, I have simply demonstrated that Biblically and historically, it was the pattern of the church for only the priest to consecrate the elements of the Eucharist. For these reasons, I consider a priest consecrating the Eucharist to be the ideal situation. 

While I can respect a Lutheran minister, however, who has no bishop over him, I see a minister who denies the teachings of Christ that the Eucharist is our Lord's Body and Blood to be a serious error. Such a position contradicts Christ's words in John 6, Paul's teachings about the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11, makes void Malachi's prophecy in Malachi 1: 11, and throws out two thousand years of church history. While many Lutherans and other Protestants can be excused for the unfortunate divisions in the church over the past six centuries, a minster who denies Biblical teaching about our Lord's sacrifice for us every time we receive the Eucharist puts himself in a dangerous position, where he will be misleading others in serious theological heresies. 

Notes:

*1-https://shamelesspopery.com/ignatius-of-antioch-on-the-structure-of-the-early-church/