|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 5
 May 1993 
|
|
|
WHERE DOES THE NT SAY “PRIESTS”?
Q: The New Testament mentions three categories of Church
leaders: bishops, presbyters, and deacons. So how can the Catholic
Church justify its office of "priest"? The New Testament
writers seem to understand "bishop" and "presbyter"
A: The English word "priest" is derived from the
Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible
English as "elder" or "presbyter." The ministry
of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New
Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties
of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.
They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14, 5:22),
they preached and taught the flock (1 Tim. 5:17), and they administered
sacraments (Jas. 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the
priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros
appear--except, of course, in instances which pertain to the
Jewish elders (Matt. 21:23, Acts 4:23)--the word may rightly be
translated as "priest" instead of "elder" or
"presbyter."
Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and
skopeo (to see), and it means literally "an overseer"--we
translate it as "bishop." The King James Version renders
the office of overseer, episkopen, as "bishopric"
(Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined
in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it
had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement
in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch
(d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as
distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians
6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to
the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).
The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros
interchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the
term "minister" to denote various offices, both ordained
and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister).
Similarly, the term diakonos is rendered both as "deacon"
and as "minister" in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches
the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate
to the office of minister.
In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are called presbyteroi (v. 17)
and episcopoi (v. 28). Presbuteroi is used in a technical
sense to identify their office of ordained leadership. Episcopoi
is used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry
they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the
verses: "And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for the
elders [presbuteroi]of the church. And when they came
to him, he said to them . . . 'Take heed to yourselves and all the
flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi],
to feed the church of the Lord.'"
In other passages it's clear that although men called presbuteroi
ruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained
certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses),
each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to
ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry
on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those early
episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros.
They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters,
as is evidenced by Paul's instructions: "This is why I left you
in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed
you" (Titus 1:5; cf. 1 Tim. 5:17-22).
Q: In your three-tape set, "I Escaped from the Watchtower,"
the former Jehovah's Witness being interviewed recommended a book
entitled The Finished Mystery. What is the book about, who
wrote it, and why is it important?
A: Leonard Chretien, an ex-Witness who spent 22 years as an
official in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the Jehovah's
Witnesses), recommended The Finished Mystery because it is
an example of the bizarre metamorphosis of Watchtower theology over
the last hundred years and is useful in showing Witnesses the problems
and contradictions in their religion.
The Finished Mystery was the seventh and final volume in Studies
in the Scriptures, a series of books written by the sect's founder,
Charles Taze Russell. It is a hodgepodge of false prophecies, rambling
discourses on the interpretation of Scripture, and the obligatory
rantings against the Catholic Church. The Finished Mystery was
printed posthumously in 1917 and was touted as an unanswerable
critique of "Christendom."
As the years passed, and as elements of its theology changed, the
Watchtower trumpeted a series of bogus prophecies concerning the date
of Christ's return. To its embarassment, the Watchtower was unable
to reconcile either its new theology or its more recent spate of failed
prophecies with Russell's book. In an understandable act of damage
control, the Jehovah's Witness leadership withdrew from circulation
all volumes of Studies in the Scriptures.
Most Witnesses are unaware of the existence of Russell's books, and
for obvious reasons the Watchtower is careful not to allow the rank
and file access to them. But you can get a photographically reproduced
copy of the book from Witness Inc., an Evangelical apologetics group
that focuses on refuting the errors of the Watchtower (P.O. Box 597,
Clayton, CA 94517, [415] 672-5975).
Two other groups that produce good apologetics materials for use with
Jehovah's Witnesses are Free Minds, Inc. (P.O. Box 3818, Manhattan
Beach, CA 90266, [310] 546-2937) and Comments from the Friends (P.O.
Box 840, Stoughton, MA 02072, [508] 584-3838).
As with all Evangelical apologetics organizations, however competent
they may be in their particular field, there is always the problem
of faulty Protestant theology being offered as the "solution"
to the errors of the "cults." You need to read around this
Protestant bias. The organizations' research is still helpful because
of their expertise in documenting the errors and contradictions in
Watchtower publications such as Awake! and the Watchtower,
as well as in many out-of-print works.
Q: How can you say Peter had authority over other church
leaders when he referred to himself as only their "fellow elder"
(1 Pet. 5:1). This proves Peter did not see himself as having any
"primacy" in the Church. He was just a presbyter.
A: No, it doesn't. To assert that Peter had no primacy is
to ignore the clear passages to the contrary, such as Matthew 16:18-19,
Luke 22:33, John 21:15-17, and Galatians 1:18. The answer to your
question is found within the very context you cite. Peter says, "Clothe
yourselves in humility in your dealings with one another, for God
opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble. So humble yourselves
under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time"
(1 Pet. 5:5).
By humbly calling himself a "fellow elder" Peter was not
implying he was merely equal in authority to the presbyters of the
Church; rather, he was practicing something he enjoined on others.
This self-effacement is the virtue of humility which Jesus calls all
Christians to cultivate: "Whoever wishes to be great among you
shall be your servant, whoever wishes to be first among you shall
be your slave" (Matt. 20:26-27).
Peter elsewhere reminds his readers that he is an "apostle of
Jesus Christ" and as such had authority to preach and teach in
the name of the Lord (cf. Luke 10:16). The very facts that Peter sent
his epistles to instruct and guide the Church, and that the Church
revered them as inspired, inerrant Scripture is sufficient testimony
that Peter possessed an authority above that of a presbyter.
This sort of humility in dealing with the Church is evident throughout
the apostolic writings. The lowest level of priestly minister was
the deacon. The apostles ordained men to this office originally to
distribute food to the needy and to wait on tables (Acts 6:1-6). Yet
Paul, the great and eloquent writer of about half of the New Testament,
describes himself as a mere deacon on several occasions (1 Cor.
3:5, 4:1; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23, 25).
If you're going to be consistent in claiming that Peter had no special
authority above that of a presbyter, you'll be forced to conclude
that Paul was only a deacon and therefore had no authority over bishops,
priests, or other deacons. But nobody would make such a patently unbiblical
assertion.
Paul, like Peter, presents himself in a humble, unassuming way--"I
am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because
I persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor. 15:10), "To me the
very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given" (Eph.
3:8)--but such humility does not indicate that Paul did not have
jurisdiction over others. After all, he said rather pointedly, "Although
I have the full right in Christ to order you to do what is
proper, I rather urge you out of love" (Phi. 8-9). Only people
in authority can issue orders.
Q: If the Holy Spirit inspired the whole Bible, why don't
the books all possess the same style of writing? If God never changes,
why would his writing styles change so radically? Doesn't this prove
the Holy Spirit wasn't the "principle author" of each book
in Scripture?
A: No, it proves that the Holy Spirit, although the principle
author of each book in Scripture, worked through human authors, preserving
and making use of each one's particular style of writing. Catholic
theologians and Scripture scholars in the early Church used a particularly
apt musical analogy. They explained that, when a piece of music is
played on various instruments, it will obtain a different sound and
aural texture from each one, yet each rendition will be the same melody
coming from the hand of the same composer.
The Star Spangled Banner, when played on a harmonica, piano,
clarinet, guitar, tuba, or a kazoo, will sound markedly distinct on
each different instrument, yet it's the same song being played in
each rendition.
The same is true for the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit, like
a composer, selected different men to be the inspired "instruments"
through which the melody of Scripture would be "played."
That's why the style and elegance of the Greek composition of Luke's
Gospel contrasts with the terse style found in Mark's Gospel, and
the Old Testament books differ widely in their choice of vocabulary
and literary style.
In each case the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical writer to write
what he wanted written, all the while preserving, in an admittedly
mysterious way, their free will and personal style of expression.
To learn more, read the encyclicals Providentissimus Deus (Leo
XIII, 1893), Spiritus Paraclitus (Benedict XV, 1920), Divino
Aflante Spiritu (Pius XII, 1943), and Humani Generis (Pius
XII, 1950), and don't omit Vatican II's Dei Verbum.
Q: Did Aquinas say a baby has no soul until forty days (for
a boy) or eighty days (for a girl) after conception, so abortion is
okay before those times?
A: This is only half true. Aquinas did say an unborn baby
receives a soul forty or eighty days after conception, depending on
gender. But he also said abortion is a violation of natural law and
is always wrong, no matter when a soul may be infused into the developing
child's body.
The forty/eighty-day view is based on the writings of Aristotle, who
said a child becomes human at "formation," the point at
which it first "has a human form"--that is, when it
looks human. He said this was forty days for boys and eighty days
for girls. Probably this distinction was based on the point at which
genitals could be observed on miscarried children. Keep in mind that
fetal embryology was then a restricted science; all observations could
be made only by the naked eye, the microscope being in the distant
future.
Aquinas accepted the idea of formation, which he said occurs when
a child receives a soul. But since abortion violates natural law whether
or not the child has a soul, Aquinas taught that abortion is always
gravely wrong.
Today we have better scientific tools than did Aristotle or Aquinas.
We know unborn males and females look human at the same time, and
we know they are human long before they look human.
Modern science verifies that the unborn have a human genetic code
from conception, and this is when their humanity begins.
The ancients did not know about the genetic code, of course--we
had to wait for Gregor Mendel, a nineteenth century monk for that--and
relied on outward appearances to identify species and gender. Appearance
was the best test available to them, but it was hardly reliable.
Aquinas overlooked the fact that the biblical view of the soul cannot
be squared with Aristotle's. In Psalm 51:5 David says he was a sinner
from conception, but sinfulness is a spiritual quality, so David must
have had a spirit, a soul, from conception.
|
[TOP]
