Priests Among Priests:

The Office of the Ministry in

Light of the Old Testament
Priesthood
Paul L. Schrieber

To suggest any relationship, correlation, or application of Old Tes-

tament priesthood to the office of the ministry poses certain challenges
to Lutherans, especially because of deep-seated fears of regressing to
the ritualism and hierarchic clericalism of traditional Roman Catholi-
cism. Moreover, to suggest a positive relationship is out of step with
Protestantism's long-held preference for the prophetic office ("freedom
of the spirit," "everyone a minister," and high ethical and social relevance
of a "prophetic ministry") in opposition to the self-serving dogmatic
ritualism of a ministerium whose primary goal is to maintain the status
quo and preserve the "system." Such prejudice betrays a misunderstand-
ing of Old and New Testament priesthood. The task is to review matters
pertaining to the Old Testament priesthood and to discuss its connection
with the New Testament, especially the office of the ministry.
The issues in all respects are extremely complex, the details of which
will not receive the discussion they deserve. It is hoped that this brief
presentation will direct thinking in a theological perspective which here-
tofore has received minimal attention. This discussion is offered with
the desire to contribute to a better understanding of the pastoral office
today in terms of its dimensions as contoured by the Old Testament
priesthood.
The Negative Reconstruction
Critical Old Testament scholarship generally presents a description
of the origin and development of the priesthood which differs widely
from that of the Old Testament itself. Rejecting its origin in the context
of the Sinai covenant, critical scholarship posits a development along
linear lines, marked by power struggles between competing priesthoods
of differing socio-political ideologies. The priesthoods expressed claims

Dr. Paul L. Schrieber is Associate Professor ofExegetical Theology at Concordia

Seminary in St. Louis. He has served on the faculty of the seminary since 1981.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 1988 215

to legitimacy through the convention of fictionalized genealogies, pur-
porting descent under key eponyms such as "Aaron" and "Levi." Ac-
cording to the critical scenario the priesthood reached its final stage in
the post-exilic period with the emergence of the Aaronic priesthood.
Critical assessment of the priesthood largely takes its direction from
the work of Julius Wellhausen, which focused previous scholarship in a
revolutionary (and somewhat evolutionary) approach to understanding
the history of the priesthood together with the effects its development
had in the formulation of the literature of the Old Testament. While
specifics in current attempts of reconstruction diverge widely, the fol-
lowing points, based on Wellhausen's conclusions, prevail:

A. In the earliest period anyone, without exception—without re-

gard to family, tribe, vocation or sex—could perform priesdy
duties: "everyone a minister."
B. In the next stage people hired specialists called "Lévites"—
landless people who formed a guild or who later linked them-
selves as a tribe by genealogical fiction—to perform their
priesdy tasks for them.
C. With the emergence of Jerusalem as a royal and cultic center,
its Zadokite priests—alleged to be of Jebusite origin—gained
preeminence, expelled the Lévites from Jerusalem, and sub-
sequently disfranchised them totally.
D. When Jerusalem fell the Zadokites were deported to Babylon,
during which time the Lévites (having scattered throughout
northern Israel) returned to Jerusalem and regained control
of the temple. Shortly before the return from the exile the
Zadokites and Lévites reached a compromise in which both
claimed descent from Aaron and the new office of high priest
was created, to be filled by the Zadokites. The high priesthood
was an office of the highest power and authority ever to ap-
pear in Israel's history, representing a merging of church and
state for hierarchic maintenance of a complex and rigid cult.1
Accompanying, informing, and shaping such a reconstruction are
presuppositions of a philosophic system which had roots especially in
Romanticism and Idealism.2 It is on those grounds that Wellhausen
offered a negative value judgment especially on the last stage of devel-
opment as he reconstructed it. In contrast to the early period which he
characterized as spontaneous, warm, animated, full of life, and blossom-
ing, the later period brought only ritual for ritual's sake, technique, and
strict fidelity to rubric.3 In this negative assessment, Wellhausen is rep-
resentative of post-Enlightenment Protestantism's predilection for in-

216
dividualism, freedom, and spirit in opposition to authority, dogma, of-
fice, and ritual.4 The Bible entertains no such dichotomy. Moreover,
such a negative view of the institution of the Aaronic priesthood is not
shared by either the Old Testament or the New Testament.5
The Biblical View
According to the Biblical description, Old Testament priesthood was
not simply Levitical but specifically Aaronic from its inception. Tech-
nically it is more correct to think in terms of "Aaronic" priesthood than
more broadly "Levitical." Of course, Aaron was from the tribe of Levi,
but the priesthood proper was initiated with Aaron and restricted to his
family. Thus, "all priests were Lévites, but not all Lévites were priests."
Perceiving the priesthood as Aaronic has profound implications for un-
derstanding the origin, nature, and purpose of the Old Testament priest-
hood vis-à-vis critical reconstructions. This means that the priesthood
was not determined by power struggles among groups vying for legiti-
macy and authority. Rather, the priesthood was an institution graciously
given by God at Sinai for maintaining Israel in the covenant by a service
of mediatorial atonement for violations of God's will. A brief summary
of the Biblical account of the history of the priesthood will reveal the
proper relationship between the various cultic offices.
The institution of the priesthood began when Moses consecrated
Aaron who was of the tribe of Levi, and his four sons, the priesthood
of the sons being subordinate to that of their father (Ex. 28). The distinct
office of Aaron's priesthood is indicated by: 1) special garments (Ex.
28:2-39; Lev. 8:7-9), which were transferred to the oldest living son at
the time of Aaron's death (Ex. 29:29; Num. 20:25-28); 2) a special anoint-
ing (Ex. 29:7; Lev. 4:3, 5, 16; 6:19-22; 8:12; Num. 35:25); and 3) distinct
functions, such as officiating on the Day of Atonement. Priesthood was
restricted to Aaron's male and unblemished descendants, upon penalty
of death (Ex. 28:43; Num. 4:15-20; 16; 18:1,7). The Lévites, descendants
from the third son of Jacob, were not to serve as priests but as auxiliary
helpers. They were dedicated to this service on several grounds: 1) they
had shown themselves to be zealous for Yahweh (Ex. 32:25-29); 2) they
served as substitutes for the first-born sons spared in the Passover (Ex.
13:2-13; Num. 3:11-13; 8:16-18); 3) they represented Israel as a wave
offering to Yahweh (Num. 8:11); and 4) they were gifts from the people
to the priests (Num. 8:19).
The high priesthood passed on to Aaron's oldest living son, Eleazar,
whose son Phinehas was granted a covenant of perpetual priesthood (not
restricted to high priesthood) because he acted with zeal for Yahweh
(Num. 25:12-13). Phinehas officiated in the time of the judges. The high
priesthood was filled by Eli, apparently from the family of Ithamar,

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 1988 217

Aaron's fourth son. Descendants of Eli officiated until Solomon deposed
Abiathar in favor of Zadok, a descendant of Eleazar (1 Kings 2:27; 1
Chron. 24:3), whose descendants officiated as high priests until Jeru-
salem fell. Ezekiel limited priestly service in the visionary temple to the
"sons of Zadok," prohibiting it from all Lévites who had fallen into
apostasy (Ezek. 44:10). After the exile, Zadokites resumed the high
priesthood until Antiochus IV transferred it to Menelaus. T h e n began
a continual struggle among individuals and groups claiming sole legit-
imacy to the priestly office.

Theological Implications
1. Viewing the institution of the priesthood in the context of the Sinai
covenant provides a basis for positive theological reflection. According
to the Biblical account the priesthood was not created in opposition to
prophetic theology. Neither was sacrificial theology antithetic to cove-
nant theology, contra the views of many scholars today. The priesthood
served as the principal means of covenant mediation and renewal.
"Moses," "Aaron," and "Levi" do not stand as symbolic (eponymic) rep-
resentatives of different competing priestly groups. In their respective
offices, Moses and Aaron together accent the complementary and nec-
essary connection between prophecy and sacrifice, ethic-societal respon-
sibility and atonement, freedom and ritual. For just as the covenant was
ratified by blood sprinkling and sacrifice (Ex. 24), so also was Aaron
installed (Lev. 8-9) for the purpose of keeping Israel in the covenant
relationship with the holy God through similar sacrificial rites. Priest-
hood and sacrifice are central to the covenant, to the Old Testament,
even to the work of Christ. This perspective is shared by such "spiritual"
material as the Psalms, in which worship, prayers, and true obedience
are inconceivable without forgiveness through sacrificial atonement.
Nevertheless, Israel often regressed into a mechanical, do ut des inter-
pretation of sacrifice which was at the heart of Canaanite belief and
practice. Israel formally shared things in common with Canaanite wor-
ship; however, what made Israel's sacrifices unique was the character of
Yahweh, who had prescribed the priestly system as a gracious means by
which He might be approached. Since by grace Yahweh had elected and
delivered Israel, the sacrificial system was not a means of winning God's
favor or for forcing His hand to grant forgiveness. Sacrifices were more
akin to "Sacraments" which were administered by the priests and through
which Yahweh conveyed the forgiveness of sins and atonement, as Le-
viticus emphasizes throughout. 6 Of course, apart from the vicarious
atonement and priesthood of Christ, of which these Old Testament
institutions were types, none of them would have been of any value. On
this side of the cross the sacramental ministry continues, with its focus

218
on the sacrifice of Christ. It is now the privilege of those in the office
of the ministry to administer the means of grace, the washing of holy
Baptism and the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
All the Old Testament priests ever touched was the flesh and blood of
bulls and goats.
Nonetheless, Old Testament priests did convey God's forgiveness to
those who confessed their sins and offered the proper sacrifices. Upon
judging the acceptability of a sacrifice the priest presided over the rituals
by which atonement was made and sins were absolved (Lev. 1:4; 5:16;
19:7; 22:17-25). The Aaronic Benediction (Num. 6:22-27) likewise served
as an actual conferral of God's blessing, grace, peace, and forgiveness
on Israel. In so blessing the people, the priests had the privilege of
"placing the name of Yahweh" upon the people.
The continuity of this with the pastoral office is obvious. Pastors have
been given the privilege of placing the name of the triune God upon
people, as for example in the rite of holy Baptism, the words of invo-
cation, and the words of benediction concluding a service. Moreover,
similar to the priests' duty of judging the acceptability of a sacrifice, the
pastor exercises the "Office of the Keys." He must prayerfully determine
whether to announce God's wrath unto repentance or proclaim the Gos-
pel and forgive sins. Upon hearing public confession of sins, the pastor
says, "in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive
you all your sins." Continuity with the Old Testament priesthood is
clearly evidenced in that the pastor as the representative of the great
High Priest Jesus uses the Aaronic Benediction at the end of a service.
This is a gracious privilege.
2. The selectivity of the priesthood exclusively in Aaron's line was a
matter of grace, too. The "sons of Aaron" did not elevate themselves
into the office in a spirit of rivalry or elitism. While Israel was designated
a "kingdom of priests" (or "royal priesthood") in Exodus 19:6, not all
were required to serve as priests. In the people's place and on their
behalf the Aaronic priesthood served them as their substitutes and rep-
resentatives before Yahweh. This representational role is indicated in
the high priest's bearing the tribes of Israel on his shoulders and chest
(in the gem stones). Aaron stood as the embodiment of Israel before
Yahweh. In and through Aaron, all Israel was "holy to Yahweh," as
inscribed on his turban (Ex. 28:26).
It is not surprising that Aaron, as a Lévite, Moses' brother and spokes-
man, and a leader in the exodus, should be chosen as the progenitor of
the priesthood; nevertheless, his election was also a matter of grace,
particularly in view of his role in the golden calf apostasy (Ex. 32). In
the golden calf apostasy, which was before Aaron's installation as Yah-
weh's priest (Lev. 8-9), he functioned as a priest called by the people to

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 1988 219

preside over an anti-cult. Yet Yahweh called him, sanctified him, and
conferred upon him His righteousness in order to mediate between a
holy God and a sinful people, who likewise deserved nothing but His
wrath. The call by God into the office of the ministry is likewise a matter
of grace rather than of self-appointment and superiority.
3. The grace and holiness of Yahweh were conferred upon the priests
through the ritual of investiture. As Exodus 28:2 states, the garments
were for "beauty and for glory," thus reflecting the glory of Yahweh.
Any attempt to officiate without the holy garments would incur guilt
and death upon the high priest (Ex. 28:43). In connection with the
vestments the priests were clothed with righteousness (Ps. 132:9). This,
too, served as a type of Christ and His righteousness which He imputes
to His priests, namely, all Christians.
Vestments today serve a different purpose, having primarily symbolic
significance. Various parts of clerical garb gradually have accrued dif-
ferent meanings. But most importandy they may serve well in focusing
on the holy things of Word and Sacraments to which the office of the
ministry points. Contrary to fixing attention on the officiant as a person,
they serve as testimony that it is not John Doe at the altar or in the pulpit
but a "called and ordained servant of the Word." The vestments serve
to call attention to the office and not the person. (One still occasionally
hears remarks against the use of vestments because they allegedly focus
attention on the man!) The worshipper is reminded that through the
Word and Sacraments which the pastor preaches and administers, he
also has been clothed in the righteousness of Christ. The high priest's
garments were typological of that same righteousness. Even so, on this
side of the cross, vestments in Christian worship today attest to the
mystery, holiness, and glory of God's presence and power in forgiving
sins through Word and Sacraments. Vestments accent the dignity of the
office of the ministry.
4. Old Testament priests (also Lévites) were ministers of the Word
of God. Not only did they preside over the sacrifices and festivals and
commune with the people before Yahweh, they also were to teach and
preach the Torah and, as occasion arose, setde legal disputes in accord
with it (Deut. 17:8ff.; 19:17; 21:5; 31:9; Mai. 2:5f.). Theirs was the
responsibility of maintaining true doctrine and unity of the faith as
revealed through Moses. Part of this task was preserving, and perhaps
copying (see Ezra's work), the books of Scripture (Deut. 31:9). All the
above required extensive training and study. It was not sufficient simply
to be born into the office. If they were to be teachers, they must have
been taught. The responsibility of parents in the intensive instruction
of children is accented throughout Deuteronomy. Those families in the
line of Aaron would especially focus on education which prepared their

220
sons for future priestly duties. There may have been an additional five
years of apprenticeship before a priest was installed at the age of thirty.7
(Samuel received even more intensive training.)
The demands of the ministry in today's world suggest the need for
equal attention to intensive preparation of ministers. Such preparation
should begin long before formal training in a seminary. What is required
is a full grasp of God's Word together with the ability rightly to interpret,
preach, teach, and apply it to the hearts and lives of people. Paul's
injunction against quick ordination should be seriously considered (1
Tim. 5:22). The great need of the world to hear the Gospel, both in Old
and New Testament times, does not diminish the criteria of selectivity,
qualifications, and training of a minister. Indeed, it is good reason for
the high standards and requirements.
5. One often hears arguments on both theological and pragmatic
grounds against adherence to traditional requirements and restrictions
regarding those permitted to enter the public ministry. The distinctive-
ness of the pastoral office has been questioned on the basis of the "priest-
hood of all believers." It is argued on pragmatic grounds that women
can perform the tasks of ministry just as well, if not better, than many
men. In light of the Old Testament these arguments seem to be irrel-
evant. It has been shown that the selectivity of the Aaronic priesthood
was grounded on the principle of grace. This applies no less to those
called into the pastoral office. Yet for whatever reasons there may be
for the distinctions, the Old Testament makes it quite clear that the
maintenance of the selectivity was important in Yahweh's eyes, upon
pain of death. Even those who held office and failed to observe distinc-
tions were "defrocked," "excommunicated," by death (such as Nadab
and Abihu for their "strange fire" in Lev. 10).
The anti-clerical argument as based on the theology of the "priest-
hood of all believers" is nothing new. It was employed by Korah and his
group in questioning the authority and exclusiveness of Aaron and Moses
(Num. 16-17). Korah even had Levitical credentials. Moreover, there
really was nothing so specialized about priestly duties that any ordinary
person, male or female, could not perform. Nevertheless, Yahweh vio-
lently demonstrated the need for honoring His specifications: Korah
and company were consumed by fire and earth. One can scarcely think
of any clearer substantiation of God's prescribed distinctions—for what-
ever reasons He may have for making them, even if the restrictions seem
inconsequential, unimportant, or unfair to people.
The New Testament likewise presents certain requirements and qual-
ifications of the pastoral office which are obviously restrictive—in full
recognition of the priesthood of all believers. An analogy with the Old
Testament is evident: just as not everyone in Israel or even in Aaron's

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 1988 221

line could serve as priests, even so not all Christians may serve as pastors.
The major point of contention today seems to be the exclusion of women,
although the office is not automatically inclusive of all men. Just as in
the Old Testament, the restriction to men, and certain men, was not on
functional terms, so also the New Testament does not exclude women
on cultural or pragmatic grounds. They are not excluded because of
lower social status or because of lack of education, but on theological
grounds that reach back to the order of creation and the designated
relationship of the first man and woman prior to the Fall (1 Tim. 2:11-
14).
The regulations of worship in the Old Testament presuppose Genesis
1 and 2. The sacrificial system, including the construction of the tab-
ernacle and priestly garments and manner of their consecration, is firmly
undergirded by "creation" and "sabbath" theology. The evidence and
implications of the order of creation for Israel's worship are far too vast
and complex to present here. Suffice it to say here that in presupposing
Genesis 1 and 2, the institution of the priesthood continued to maintain
the restriction to men for official duties in worship.
This by no means implies that women were excluded from the wor-
ship life of Israel. It is evident that the males always took the lead in
performing cultic acts; however, several examples may be cited to show
that women were not always dependent on the mediation of their hus-
bands or of priests; God dealt with them directly: Hagar (Gen. 16:7;
21:17); Manoah's wife (Judg. 13:3); Rebekah (Gen. 25:22); Rachel (Gen.
30:6,22); Leah (Gen. 30:17); Hannah (1 Sam. 1:8-10—incorrectly under-
stood by Wellhausen as performing priestly duties); and Jeroboam's wife
(1 Kings 14:4). Thus, in the Old as well as in the New Testament, in
worship there is neither "male nor female": male and female equally
receive forgiveness and God's blessing, without disrupting the "order of
creation." ^
Still, one may wonder if there were not some cultural or pragmatic
reasons for the exclusion of women. Clarence Vos has suggested a few
possibilities: priesthood was a profession by which one supported his
family; the priestly task of slaughtering large animals was not ordinarily
women's work; woman's work of raising a family left little time for other
tasks; and women had to contend with periodic uncleanness which re-
quired a time of separation from holy things.8 It should be noted re-
garding the latter point that men became unclean more frequently than
women, every time they had a natural or unnatural discharge of semen
(Lev. 15). None of these issues are cited as factors by the Bible.
From a sociological perspective there was much in the ancient world
to encourage women's participation as cultic personnel. Moreover, it was
essentially the secular nature of the Canaanite cultic rituals which ne-

222
cessitated the participation of women as priestesses (designated as "holy
ones" in the Canaanite material). In the Old Testament, restoration of
creation was not achieved through mythology and fertility rites as it was
thought in Baalism. In this context it can hardly be credited to male
chauvinism which determined the exclusion of women from the priest-
hood in the Old Testament—quite the contrary! Perhaps the weightiest
reason for their exclusion in this context was to keep the cult of Yahweh
purged of the sexual motif which was central in Baalism. After all, Phi-
nehas received an eternal priesthood on account of his zeal in purging
Israel of Baalism, and in executing an Israelite in the act of "worshipping
Baal" (Num. 25:6-18). This may have had implications for who was, and
who was not, eligible for the priesthood. Vos offers a fitting conclusion
to this discussion:

We do not mean of course to say that woman qua woman would

be more prone to carry this motif into the cult than a man; we
merely point out that it was important for the Yahweh cult that
the sexual motif be kept out. Neither do we suggest by this that
the Yahweh religion considered sex as sinful per se; it is simply a
matter of wanting to keep worship unpolluted of the sexual per-
versions of the pagan religions.9

This rationale is never explicitly stated in the Old Testament, and it

certainly did not specifically fit the context of the New Testament's
explicit exclusion of women from the pastoral office. Nevertheless, an
application may be in order. Perhaps the problem in Corinth which Paul
addressed arose from a similar spirit of radical feminism as persistent
in pagan cults. This is not to suggest that every Christian woman who
questions the wisdom of the Lord's restrictions is guilty of Baalism. The
point is that Christians today should resist neo-pagan spirits which seek
to distort or overthrow God's intended relationship between men and
women, especially in the church.
Conclusions: From the above discussion it is clear that the Old Tes-
tament priests were more significant than meat cutters, immolators, and
blood smearers, or simply as those who were concerned about ritual,
purely for the sake of ritual in a dead legalistic elitism. The heart of
their ministry, as that of the pastoral office, was the proclamation of the
Gospel in Christ. Chytraeus summarizes this theological perspective:
On the contrary, the far greater task intrusted to them, and their
first and foremost duty, was to study, preserve, and interpret the
true doctrine of God. Specifically, they were to expound to the
people the Law of God and the promises concerning Christ; righdy

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 1988 223

 interpret the sacrifices as types and representations of the sacrifice
of Messiah (by which alone the sins of the human race would be
expiated); explain the services of discipline and gratitude owed
to God and the ministry; and learn and disseminate all the skills
necessary for elucidating heavenly doctrine and guiding the
church. . . . The weightiest responsibility of the priestly college
was to judge all doctrinal controversies from God's Word in a
pious and clear way. This first and foremost task of the priests
— that of guarding and disseminating the heavenly doctrine of
God's Law and of the promises concerning Christ—should be
considered particularly with reference to the history of the Le-
vitical priesthood.10
The last statement has been the focus of this paper to this point. Many
other details could have been cited, yet all points of similarity and con-
tinuity between Old Testament priesthood and the New Testament office
of the ministry occur precisely because both are ministries of Christ's
Gospel.

The New Testament Perspective

1. Christ as High Priest: A study of the priesthood provides for a deeper
understanding of Christ's mediatorial role, especially as presented in
Hebrews. The following outlines the points of comparison and contrast
between Old Testament priesthood and that of Christ: 1) Just as the
priest did not exalt himself but was appointed by God, so also was Christ
(Heb. 5:4-5); however, the priest was subject under the authority of
Moses and the terms of the old covenant, while Christ's high priesthood
came directly from God apart from the old legislation (Heb. 7:11-12).
2) While the priest needed purification and special garments, Christ was
sinless and needed no special priestly garments (Heb. 5:3). The priest's
garments were reflections of God's glory and holiness; Christ manifests
the glory of God in Himself (John 1:14; 1 Cor. 2:8). 3) The priest entered
a tabernacle made by human hands to intercede for Israel; Christ entered
the heavenly temple and forever intercedes for the saints (Heb. 7:25).
4) The priest many times offered sacrifices for the people of Israel and
for himself; Christ offered Himself once, for all people (Heb. 7:27; 9:14).
5) The priest was sprinkled with animal blood; Christ's own blood "pur-
ifies our conscience" (Heb. 9:13-14). 6) Old Testament priesthood was
instituted under a covenant mediator (Moses); Christ is the mediator of
a new covenant sealed with His own blood (Heb. 9:15). 7) Old Testament
priesthood passed on from father to son: Christ's office continues as He
has ascended into glory and is arrayed in the heavenly priestly garments
(Rev. 1:13).

224
 2. Priesthood of all believers: Because of Christ's high priesthood, the
Old Testament priesthood is abandoned in that all Christians have been
elevated to the status of priests, as Walther states in Thesis IV in his
treatise on the ministry:
The ministry is not a special or, in opposition to that of ordinary
Christians, a more holy state, as was the levitical priesthood, but
a ministry of service.11
As all Christians are priests (Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6; 1 Pet. 2:9), it would
serve well to consider anew the Christian life in terms of priestly service.
Emphasis would include the privilege of all, male and female, in the
study of God's Word, prayer, sanctified living, fraternal unity, and of-
fering the entire life as a living sacrifice flamed by the fire of the Spirit,
to bring the message of reconciliation to the world.
3. Pastor as priest: Lutheran theologians have occasionally described
the pastoral ministry in priestly terms: 1) While the Lutheran Confes-
sions reject the Romanist concept of priesthood, they employ both the
term "priest" and the priestly term liturgia as applied to pastoral admin-
istration of the Lord's Supper (Ap. XXIV, pars. 82-88). 2) Chytraeus
refers to the public ministry as the public execution of the priestly office,
and he speaks of bishops and ministers as having sacerdotal functions.12
3) Walther drew a comparison between the relationship of a pastor as
a minister among priestly people and the sons of Aaron who served as
priests among others in the priestly family and status who did not publicly
minister. Nevertheless, Walther rightly denies that the pastor is a "priest
before others."13
The Biblical basis for viewing the ministry along priestly lines lies
both in the Old and New Testaments. The New Testament office of the
ministry apparently is described in typological fashion in Ezekiel's vision
of the Messianic restoration. Ezekiel described an absolute perfect hol-
iness which would be maintained by the continuing sacrificial service of
the "sons of Zadok," a further delineation of the Aaronic line (Ezek.
40:46). Ezekiel's vision finds its fulfillment in Christ, the church, and
the New Testament ministerium.
Similarly, Isaiah foresaw a Messianic kingdom in which not only all
in Israel would be priests who are served by Gentiles (Is. 61:5-6), but
also a restoration so great that some of the converted Gentiles would
officiate as priests and Lévites (Is. 66:20-21). This may refer to those
Gentile Christians today serving in the special ministry of the church.14
As for the New Testament, nowhere do the writers explicitly reject
the Old Testament priesthood or that of the Jews of their own time. But
a radical shift regarding the entire Old Testament cultic system occurred
when it was viewed in light of Christ's fulfilling work. It became clear

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 1988 225

that all Christians were the bona fide (literally understood, too) priests
under the great High Priest. But before Peter spoke of a "priesthood
of all believers" (1 Pet. 2:1-10), Paul made a comparison between Old
Testament priestly service and his ministry of the Gospel: just as priests
received their sustenance from the offerings, so also should those preach­
ers receive their living from the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:13-14).
On the basis of Romans 15:16 it appears that Paul not only drew
analogies from the priesthood but actually understood his ministry as
priestly service: "to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the
priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gen­
tiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (RSV). All the
terms breathe of the priestly sphere. First, Paul described himself as a
λειτσυρΎός. While this term for "minister" has broad application, it es­
pecially denoted public service performed by priests and Lévites (Ex.
28:35, 43; 29:30; 37:19 in the LXX; Num. 8:22; 16:9; 18:4). It is also
used of Christ as high priest in Hebrews 8:6 and 9:21. When Paul de-
scribes himself as a "minister of Christ Jesus" he is, in effect, indicating
that he has a priesthood subordinate to that of Jesus.
Secondly, in this passage Paul uses a cultic term ιερσυρΎσϋντα, whose
root means priest. It has many forms all related to the priestly realm.
This term specifically refers to Paul's serving as a priest. There is dispute
over what is intended by the phrase "that the offering of the Gentiles
might be acceptable" (NKJV). Others render this passively: "so that the
Gentiles might become an offering" (NIV). Vanhoye argues that the
phrase "offering of the Gentiles" must be understood actively: the pagans
furnish the victims of the sacrifice, as they are the sacrifices themselves,
in accord with Romans 12: l.15 Vanhoye concludes: "Paul is then viewing
himself as a celebrant, one who offers, and not as an ordinary believer."
It is clear that Paul does not intend this in a literal sense or in the sense
of Old Testament priesthood. Paul uses circumlocutions to express priesdy
concepts, as Vanhoye suggests:
And truly, if one admits that the sacrificial transformation brought
about by the Holy Spirit merits the name of sacrifice better than
the ancient holocausts, one must also agree that the ministry of
the Christian apostles deserves a priestly characterization much
more than does the ancient cult.16
Paul elsewhere referred to his ministry of the Gospel in priestly terms.
For example, in Romans 1:9 Paul employed the term λατρεύω with ref­
erence to his serving God by preaching the Gospel. Its cultic connection
is clear from the following passages: Exodus 3:12; 23:24; Ezekiel 20:32;
Numbers 16:9; Hebrews 8:5; 9:9; 10:2; 13:10. Thus there appears to
be Biblical support for viewing the pastoral office positively in terms of
Old Testament priesthood.

226
Conclusion
That it is possible to see the pastoral ministry in continuity in certain
respects with the Old Testament priesthood is evident in the many func-
tions both have in common. Both consist of men who are called into the
office, (pastors, however, not by birth); both need to meet certain qual-
ifications and restrictions; both receive their living from the people's
contributions; both have concern for people in distress and sickness;
both lead in public worship; both administer "sacrifices" of praise and
thanksgiving; both administer "Sacraments"; both deal with confession
and absolution; both are to lead sanctified lives; both pray for themselves
and the people under their care; both teach and preach the Word of
God publicly; and both bless in God's name and place God's name upon
people.
One great difference which distinguishes the work of the pastor and
the priest is that the pastor does not mediate through a holier status or
through offering atoning sacrifices. Nevertheless, the center of his min-
istry is precisely blood and sacrifice—that of Christ. Preaching the com-
pleted vicarious atonement and administering the Sacraments are the
greatest priestly service anyone may render.
In describing the New Testament office of the ministry in light of
Old Testament priesthood, one is faced with the danger of slipping back
into the old, discarded concepts of priesthood and ritual. Indeed, hang-
ing on to the "shadow" and ignoring the "body" is a regression to which
the flesh all too readily succumbs. Yet the problem currently seems to
be to the other extreme of throwing out the "body" and clinging to some
"spirit." Considering the ministry in terms of the Old Testament priest-
hood may help to retain a proper balance of understanding the ministry
as a matter of Body and Spirit.
All sorts of correlations and corollaries may be used in stating the
various relationships between offices in the church. Clearly, "everyone
a minister" does not suffice. In the Old Testament, "all priests are Lévites,
but not all Lévites are priests"; and Israel was a kingdom of priests, but
not all served as priests. In the New Testament the relationship between
the public office of the ministry and the priesthood of all believers well
might be described as "priests among priests."

Notes
1
Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. (Cleveland and New
York: The World Publishing Co., 1957). For an overview of the critical perspectives and
reconstructions see the work by Aelred Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969). For an update and point-by-point refutation of critical
positions as well as theological treatment of the Aaronic priesthood see my unpublished

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JULY 1988 227

dissertation, "The Origin of the Aaronic Priesthood in the Context of the Sinaitic Cove-
nant," submitted to Concordia Seminary in May, 1983).
2
Hans-Joachim Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments,
2nd ed. (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), p. 269.
3
Wellhausen, p. 78.
4
See Gordon Wenham's critique of Wellhausen in Numbers (TOTC) (Downers Grove,
IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), p. 27.
5
For an exegetical review of the New Testament attitude toward the priesthood see
the study by Albert Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests and the New Priest, trans, by J. Bernard
Orchard (Petersham, Massachusetts, 1986).
6
David Chytraeus, On Sacrifice, trans, by John Warwick Montgomery (St. Louis: Con-
cordia, 1962), p. 60.
7
This is arrived at upon comparing Numbers 4:3 and 8:24, as well as on the basis of
rabbinic tradition.
8
Clarence Vos, Women in Old Testament Worship (Delft: Jubels and Brinkman, 1968), p.
193.
9
Ibid., p. 175.
10
Chytraeus, pp. 40-41.
11
C. F. W. Walther, Church and Ministry, trans, by J. T. Mueller (St. Louis: Concordia,
1987), p. 198.
12
Chytraeus, pp. 98-99.
13
Walther, p. 40.
"Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, Vol. Ill (NICOT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1972), p. 535.
15
It is of further interest that part of Paul's priesdy duty was to raise money from the
Gentiles for the Christians in Jerusalem. We may see in this a continuity with the Old
Testament offerings to support and carry on the "ministry of the Gospel" through con-
tributions.
16
Vanhoye, p. 269.

228
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.