Are all baptized Christians priests unto God?
A Discussion Starter

One of the cherished doctrines of evangelical Protestants is “the
priesthood of all believers.” This doctrine is asserted as both being
biblical and as contrary to perceived sacerdotalism and emphasis upon
"ministerial priesthood" in Romanism and Anglo-Catholicism.

The biblical basis is to be found in 1 Peter 2:5 & 9 & Revelation 1:6; 5:10;
20:6, and the O.T. background is in Exodus 19:6 & Isaiah 61:6.

When we examine the teaching in 1 Peter we gain the impression that the
church, as the congregation of the baptized, is corporately a holy and
royal priesthood. That is the Christian assembly is priestly in its relation
to God and is so by his grace.

When we examine the teaching in the Book of Revelation we gain the
impression that each baptized believer is a priest and that the Christian
congregation is made up of “priests to his [Christ’s] God and Father.” And
they are so by God’s grace.

This priesthood which belongs to all Christians both corporately and
individually is closely connected in these texts with kingship (ruling – a
privilege of the End time) and holiness (obeying the Lord, a duty now and at
the End time).

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE

We are all familiar with the fact that it is normal in figurative language
to give the same name to things which are only alike in one or two aspects.
Thus here we should not expect that the Christian priesthood is in all
respects like the priesthood of the Old Testament and covenant. Rather the
two are alike only in certain basic respects.

Based upon the two OT references (Exodus 19:6 & Isaiah 61:6) it is possible
that the priesthood of the new covenant was seen by the N.T. writers in
terms of a redeemed people united to Christ by the Spirit, being set apart
as the specific chosen people of God, having direct access to this God of
the covenant and of offering to him acceptable, spiritual sacrifices, all as
means to serve him and glorify him in this world.

When we ask what are spiritual sacrifices then the answer of the N.T. is in
terms of worship (John 4:23), faith (Philippians 2:17), prayer (Revelation
5:8; 8:3), praise (Hebrews 13:16), gifts to sustain Christian ministry
(Philippians 4:18), gifts to the poor (Hebrews 13:16), evangelization
(Romans 15:16f.), martyrdom (Philippians 2:17; 2 Timothy 4:6) and the
consecration of one’s life to the Lord (Romans 12:1). Christian believers,
individually and corporately, can and do offer such spiritual sacrifices to
the Father through his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and by his Spirit in
their dedicated lives at home, at work, in service and at worship.

We recall from the evidence of the Old Testament that the priest of the
Mosaic covenant had the right of access to the Lord, of making intercession
for the people of Israel, of offering acceptable physical sacrifices, of
blessing the people and of teaching the Mosaic law. Most of what he did
could only be done by him because he was set apart as a priest to do these
very things. In contrast, the priesthood that belonged to the whole of God
’s chosen people, Israel, obviously did not include the specific
responsibilities and duties of the Levitical priesthood but rather
proclaimed and affirmed that Israel is God’s chosen people , called out from
the nations, and as such has the privilege and duty to draw close to him in
worship and prayer and for blessing from him.

In contrast, in the new covenant (and thus within the New Testament)
established by the blood of the Lord Jesus there is no order of priesthood
comparable to the Levitical priesthood for he himself is the only Priest and
not Levitical but of the ancient order of Melchizedec. However, and very
importantly, there is an universal priesthood of the new covenant which
belongs to the era of the gift of the Holy Spirit and not of outward
observances as in the old covenant. It is a priesthood which offers
spiritual sacrifices individually and corporately. Jesus). Yet in the New
Testament no specific connection is made between the priesthood of the
Church and of believers on the one hand and the high Priesthood of Christ in
heaven, on the other.

BISHOPS, PRESBYTERS AND ‘MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD’

The move to call ministers of the new covenant by the term “priest” belongs
to the period after the apostles and came about through the analogy of the
Levitical priesthood with the order of Bishops and Presbyters. The fact
that Old Testament was much read and studied as the Christian Bible and the
fact that the Eucharist was seen as an offering and sacrifice to the Father
through the Son in the Spirit assisted this apparently easy transfer of the
word priest first to the Bishop and then to the Presbyter. And as far as the
Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are concerned, this usage is
a permanent part of their theology and vocabulary. In contrast, with the
Church of England and Anglican Communion of Churches the usage is not
universal.

It may be noted that once this analogy is in use and once this transfer is
made, then the universal priesthood of the Church and the priesthood of each
member of the new covenant becomes the more difficult to sustain and
explain. [And this fact is made the more problematic for English-speaking
persons because the word “priest” can simply be a contraction of the word
“presbyter” (as it apparently is in the BCP & Ordinal of 1549, 1662) and
have no reference to the Levitical priest.]

Further, it may be seen that if the analogy is dropped and the doctrine of
“the priesthood of all believers” is emphasized (as happened in the
Protestant Reformation of the 16th century) then the problem arises as to
how to define this priesthood in such a way as to make room for good order
in the Church where the pastoral and sacramental and teaching duties of
bishops, presbyters and deacons are clear.

The Anglican Reformers (as may be seen from the evidence of the historic
Formularies of the Church of England and from their own writings) embraced
the doctrine of the priesthood of the Church and of all believers but did so
while maintaining the traditional three-fold order of the ordained Ministry.
Further they retained to this Ministry the conduct of divine service, the
preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments --- except in
the case of emergency (in terms of infant baptism) or urgent practical need
(an educated layman reading a homily). They worked on the principle that one
does not change that which has existed for good reason a long time and
belongs to sound order.

Thus what is known as the Elizabeth Settlement of Religion (1559) is a
carefully worked out form of reformed Catholicism or conservative
Protestantism in which there is a marrying of biblical theology and
received, purified and simplified tradition. To set aside its major
provisions is to do great harm to the Anglican Way of Christianity and make
it unworkable.

Bearing this in mind, protests rightly arise when, on the one side, there
seems to be an effort to minimize or to negate “the priesthood of all
believers” and emphasize “the ministerial priesthood” of the clergy; and,
on the other side, when there seems to be an attempt to draw deductions from
the universal priesthood which are innovatory and radical. Thus, over the
last century, evangelical churchmen [and others] have protested against the
claims made for, and the use of the very name of, “a ministerial
priesthood,” and more recently, in the last few decades, anglo-catholic
churchmen [and others] have protested against the calls for lay celebration
[presidency] of the Holy Communion.

Certainly the Anglican Family has developed the practice of
comprehensiveness to keep the Elizabethan Settlement in place and also to
allow for varieties of emphasis in doctrine and of ceremonial in
churchmanship. However, this practice of comprehensiveness does have its
limits and these do not include claiming an unique priesthood [like that of
the Levitical] for the ordained clergy and the right of a layperson, even if
authorized, to be the Celebrant at the Service of Holy Communion.

The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon. July 30, 2001