The Eucharist in New Testament Testament Christianity Part IV

                                                                     

                                               I. Introduction:

So far, I have demonstrated that the Old Testament Passover ended with Christ and a New Testament Sacrifice has replaced the old Jewish sacrifices (Malachi 1: 11). Now, I would like to prove further that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is a true sacrifice as it comes through a new priesthood, which began when the old ended. 

                                                                   II. The Priesthood in 1 Peter 

Let me begin by noting some who object to a distinct New Testament priesthood offering the Eucharist Sacrifice will turn to 1 Peter 2. Here, they will see that Peter understands all Christians as part of the new priesthood. Does this not then disprove my arguments about Paul having unique priestly powers in Romans 15 concerning the Eucharist? 

I think not. Look at the context of 1 Peter 1: 22-2:3. Although the passage does call us to holy living (1 Peter 2: 9), Peter says nothing about the Lord's Table or any of the Eucharistic doctrines specifically in these passages. Thus, when Peter affirms believers be in the royal priesthood of Christ (v. 9), he is not speaking within the same context as Paul's priestly ministry in Romans 15. 

For those who say that because Paul and Peter were Jews, only Jews may now share in the priesthood of Romans 15, they must also be reminded that the priesthood that Paul emphasizes in Romans does not include an entire people as does Peter's in 1 Peter. Rather, Romans 15 is about a unique priesthood concerning the sacrifice of the Mass. There is no specific office for Jewish believers of the royal priesthood, though there are offices for those of the New Testament priesthood concerning the Eucharist (Titus 1, 1 Timothy 3). 

All of this goes to prove that while all Christians are priests in Christ, we must ask ourselves, ''Are we all priests, in the sense of being able to offer up a Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood?'' In this post, I will argue Biblically that not all Christians share in the priesthood that Paul described in Romans 15. 

Furthermore, there is much inconsistency on the part of many who reject the idea that only some Christians are gifted with ordination to the priesthood. Many of these same Christians would argue that we are all priests in Christ and thus capable of the Lord's Table without priests. In reality, they often support a priesthood of their own by retaining elders and pastors who exercise authority over their congregations. 

Interestingly enough, if a person consistently believed that all Christians are equally priests in Christ, this would require rejecting Paul's teaching in Titus 1 about churches having elders. It would also require that women be able to exercise all church authority equal to men as Peter understands all believers, whether young or old, whether men or women as part of Christ's royal priesthood (1 Peter 2: 9). At least the Quakers are consistent! 

However, this is not the teaching of Scripture. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are clear that churches should be elder-led rather than one elder-controlled. Likewise, Peter emphasizes that are all priests in Christ (1 Peter 2: 9), while Paul emphasizes a unique priestly authority in Romans 15. Those who emphasize just Peter's words are again isolating one Biblical passage from the other. Scripture, however, teaches both. All Christians are priests in Christ and yet there is a unique priesthood distinct from what Peter is addressing .

Peter called himself an apostle (1 Peter 1: 1) and an elder (1 Peter 5: 1). Thus, he did not understand all Christians as having his unique authority. Nor did Paul. If Paul exercised no higher authority than any other believer, there would have been no point in him emphasizing his priestly authority (Romans 15: 15-17). 

The only consistent way to understand the passages of Romans 15 and 1 Peter 1-2 is to believe that Peter and Paul are speaking of two different priesthoods. If one says that they are speaking of the same priesthood, one will run into the problems I listed above. If one argues that Paul's priesthood was just for his time, then one will find it hard to reconcile passages like Titus 1 with a congregational view of church government. In Titus 1, for example, the elders are not merely selected by the local churches but receive ordination from a higher church authority---who is not one of the original apostles. Because Titus was not an original apostle and because the New Testament nowhere teaches that the episcopal authority over the local church was rescinded, we ought to believe that this form of government is the one that we are still Biblically bound to obey. 

Finally, historical context avails us to the theology of 1 Peter. Romans was clearly written for Gentile believers and this is the case Paul's teaching about the priesthood in Romans 15. 1 Peter, however, was written for the Jews. Because of this, Peter has to emphasize that all believers are now priests in Christ to contrast New Testament Christianity from Jews who still linger on to the old priesthood. 

Indeed, when Paul speaks of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in 1 Corinthians 11, he understands that not all have been gifted with his priesthood. The Eucharist is presented by ordained church clergy, who exercise a unique priesthood from the priesthood that all believers share in Christ. 

As evidence that 1 Peter was written for Jewish believers, look to verse 1, where he describes his audience as having been dispersed into notable Genttile cities throughout Asia, etc. John Calvin, as well as most Christians historically, understood this book to have been written for the Jews*1. In the notes of this post, I have presented two posts whose authors differ on the chosen audience of 1 Peter. 

One of the reasons that 1 Peter's audience is so hotly debated is not just over the priesthood, however. Many feel that if the work was written for Jewish believers, which is what I affirm, then it teaches against replacement theology for Peter's words in 1 Peter 2: 9 would then only apply to the Jewish believers being part of Christ's royal priesthood rather than all Christians. 

However, if 1 Peter was written for Gentile Christians, there is no reason to believe that within its context, Peter is describing the same priesthood as that of Paul in Romans 15. Peter understands everyone in his audience as part of the royal priesthood (which could mean only Jewish believers), but even if this royal priesthood includes Gentile believers, Paul understood himself as having a unique priesthood in Romans 15 from his Gentile Church audience as Paul's emphasis of the priesthood in Romans 15 has nothing to do with ethnicity, but about the presentation of the Eucharist itself (as I explained in a previous post). 

In short, there are several other notable reasons to believe that 1 Peter was written only (or primarily) for Jewish believers. In 1 Peter 2: 10, it speaks of a people who previously did not receive mercy, which when read side-by-side with Hosea 1: 10, shows the same language that God had used towards the Old Testament Jews. 1 Peter 2:25 also refers to straying sheep, a language phrase conveyed in Isaiah 53: 6 about the Jews, not the Gentiles. 

But, did not Paul teach that Jews and Gentiles are all one in Christ's Church in Galatians 3? Would this not defeat the purpose that Jewish believers are thus the only royal priesthood among Christians? 

Not at all. Not all Christians have been assigned for the same tasks. Many of the same Calvinists who believe that God loves them more than the non-elect are offended by any concept that God may love the Virgin Mary or the Jews more than them. But God's assignments to Christians are not simply issues of whether or not He loves one person more than the next. 

God's way of salvation is through the Jews (John 4: 22). In the same vein, the Pharisees are judged harder by God than were those of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10: 15). Furthermore, more will be expected of those whom God has given more to (Luke 12: 48). 

If God assigned the Jewish believers to a royal priesthood that Gentile believers are excluded from, this is not an insult to Gentiles, as God did not have to give them salvation at all. After all, God's ways are not our own as Paul points out in Romans 11. 

Likewise, even if we all agree that God loves the Jews no more than the Gentiles, this does not mean that God has called Jewish and Gentile believers both for the same purpose. Concerning the 144,000, for instance, a literal reading of Revelation 14 would be that they are Jewish believers. Does this mean that God loves Jewish believers more than Gentile believers? Not necessarily. Does it mean that Jewish believers may be used in ways during the end of time that Gentile believers are not? I think so. 

This is not a point of dispensationalism vs. covenantal theology as dispensationalism holds Jews who reject Christianity to still be the true Israel, a view which I reject. Rather, I am speaking only of Jewish believers within the New Covenant, whom Peter addressed in 1 Peter 1-2. To Peter, they are the elect of God and a royal priesthood. 

Additionally, if we understand Galatians 3 to mean that Gentile believers necessarily hold all the same privileges as Jewish believers then in order to be consistent, we would have to say that women can be ordained as can men, for Galatians 3 speaks of both men and woman also now being equal in Christ. 

N.T. Wright, in The New Testament in its World, presents strong arguments both for believing that 1 Peter was written only for Jewish believers and for both Jews and Gentiles. Whatever side one agrees with, however, I have pointed out Biblical inconsistencies with those who use 1 Peter against the idea that God has only graced some with a distinct priesthood. 

Those who object to a liturgical New Testament priesthood over believers assume the following:

1. They assume that 1 Peter was written for all Christians, not just Jews. 

2. They assume that Peter's emphasis on the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2: 9) overrides Paul's unique priestly authority in Romans 15: 15-17. 

3. For those who accept Paul as having a unique priestly authority, they assume that all aspects of the New Testament Episcopal government in Titus 1 were just for the New Testament church but then apply verses that they see as benefiting congregationalism as still relevant. 

4. They assume that the royal priesthood (1 Peter 2: 9) and the elect of God (1 Peter 1: 1) are themselves, not Jewish believers of the first-century church. If anything, Scripture seems to understand only the Jews as having a royal priesthood in Christ while those in lawful ministry who exercise authority from the church, retain a distinct priesthood (Romans 15). Even if the royal priesthood includes all Christians, however, it is distinct from the office of priestly ministry (Romans 15, Titus 1, 1 Timothy 3).

5. They assume that everyone in Christendom, even the most notable of church fathers got these interpretations wrong until they suddenly correctly understood them. 

                                                                   III. Conclusion

It's taken me a lot of Biblical evidence to demonstrate my points about the New Testament priesthood (Romans 15) and the Sacrifice of the Mass (1 Corinthians 11). Now, it is time to turn to Early Christianity and Christian philosophy for other reasons to accept the Eucharist as the true Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. 

Notes:

*1-https://derekdemars.com/2019/09/28/audience-of-1-peter-jews-or-gentiles/

*2-https://dustinmartyr.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/is-1-paueter-written-to-jewish-or-gentile-believers/