Christ the Royal Priest: An Essay on Priesthood and Government

Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them. 

We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Therefore let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come. Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. (Hebrews 13: 7-17)

--

A good king could only by preaching the word of God persuade an evil people to love God; for otherwise, by forcing them he will not succeed. But if a king has to better a people by preaching … he is not a king any more, he becomes a priest. As a king he could do naught but hang all evil men. For no king, not even the best one, could succeed in correcting an evil people except by the law of Christ. This law alone is capable of making sinful men better through their conscience. The king, having no power to force his people to obey this law, also has no authority to force their consciences, not to speak of the right to coerce their improvement through royal or civil laws; just as a fruit-tree cannot blossom in a winter season of cruel frosts, neither goodness can prosper through the laws of the Emperor (Petr Chelcicky, The Net of Faith)

Holiness is about a unique separation, where one thing is set a part from the rest (usually for God or a divine figure). Throughout Scripture, the process of separation involves purification and is for maturation. Israel as a "holy" nation were to be dedicated, uniquely, to the Creator-Savior God's work in the world. Similarly, the priests (cohenim) were uniquely dedicated servants to God. In His Temple-Palace, the work of the priesthood was akin to table-service (the word cohen is used elsewhere for royal servants). They prepare God's banquet table, perform mediatory roles between the rest of the people and their heavenly king, and guard the boundaries between what uniquely belongs to God and what remains common ("belong" is a spatial-possessive metaphor for a unique relation; as scripture states repeatedly, all things belong to God).

Many Protestants (and thus their secular bastards) have a mistaken notion of the Levitical priesthood,  due mainly in part to Medieval sacerdotal notions. In exaggerated form, Levitical priests are mainly in the business of killing animals and offering them to God. Almost like Aztec sun-worshippers, the usual account focuses on the knife and the blood. But that's hardly true. The Levitical priesthood involved a lot more than killing animals. While there was ritualized butchering, the main part of the sacrifice was the burning. The meat would be distributed (some of which went to different groups of people, and the priests would bring a portion into the Temple They had the distinct honor of serving in the Lord's house, bearing His cup and waiting on His altar-table. Additionally, the priesthood was involved in teaching. Publishing the Torah before the people, the priesthood made known and explicated the divine commandments to the people of Israel. As servants of the heavenly king, to whom the covenant contracted them as suzerain and vassal, the Levitical priesthood uniquely represented God to His people.

As the royal imagery should suggest, the Levitical priesthood's role was not unlike the earthly king's servants (cohenim is even used of royal household servants). The Temple in Jerusalem was a larger version of the Davidic king's palace (thus the Temple should be considered a divine-palace, or the palace a mortal-temple). The king's servants set his table, mediated between him and the rest of the people, and made known (and enforced) his royal decrees. The glorification of Israel through the monarch represented a necessary fissure within the economy of redemption. Though God lamented the request for a king (1 Sam. 8:7), it represented a further step forward (and downward) towards salvation. The kings would be both the bane and hope of Israel, leading the people into darkness and hopefully into the light. Such would be the macro-pattern of scripture: death and resurrection.

It's this pattern that creates the typological division between priest and king. The two are mingled together in the patriarchal shepherd-sheiks, who both rule over their people as divine viceregent, as well as teaching and mediating "holy things" (sacrifice means, literally, to make something holy) between the High God and man. Abraham is an obvious model, but there were many before (Abel, Noah) and after (Isaac, Jacob) him. In Moses, one sees a distinction of office appear. Moses, as ad hoc mediator, will lead the people (and appoint successors, like Joshua) and his brother, Aaron, is blessed with the tasks of priestly service. The charismatic viceregency continues through the period of Judges, and the distinction (as noted above) crystallizes in the period of kings. The mobile Tabernacle becomes the enthroned Temple, as the ad hoc Judge becomes the Davidic kings of Jerusalem. The separation intensifies up unto the point of destruction (and hobbles along, after the Return, with the kingly Macabbean High Priests). But this separation is undone in the Melchidekan royal prieshood, or priestly kingshop, of Jesus of Nazareth, the long awaited Christ.

But before I continue, it should be useful to describe kingship and priesthood in a little more detail.

Kingship is primarily defined in terms of judgement. The king judges according to Torah (with his royal decrees operating within the bounds of the covenantal law). Thus Kingship of Christ signifies His right to judge now ("I say to you..." in the Sermon on the Mount) and in the eschatological future (i.e. separating sheep from goats c.f. Matt. 25). Christ Jesus, as Word of God and Israel's representative, stands in both as the divine king and the human king. He is the son of David and the one who David spoke as "my Lord". Christ unites the heavenly palace and the earthly palace in one. Service in Christ's household is royal and priesly, as He is enthroned. Additionally, Christ is the supreme servant of His Father's household. As the One who dispensed the goods of creation and gathered them up again in glorified form, Christ as the Word and as High Priest mediates between Heaven and Earth. He is the agent of transformation, guarding the boundaries and bringing about the fruitfulness of the Temple so it may flow out and bless the entire creation. As it might be obvious, Christ not only reunites kingship and priesthood, rule and service, but in doing so fulfills Adam's original mandate. Adam was the original priest-king, who fell into corruption. To save both the priesthood and kingship, they along with the children of Adam had to enter the cursed realm of the Serpent, death, so as to be purified in the new life of resurrection. Christ holds together temple and palace as part of the single task of mankind. Such is to live in light of the Age to Come, awaiting its incoming consummation.

This way of (I think rightly) construing matters runs against superficial political analogies. Israel did not invent "separation of church and state" as a divine good. Rather, the narrative runs the other way (Christianity reintegrates church and state, so to speak). But this concept (not entirely wrong, even if superficially false) is a result of how Christianity reintegrates several concepts in living out the new life of the church. It's from here we return to the Letter to the Hebrews quoted at the beginning. In it, the author writes exclusive about the priesthood of Christ, as well as His status as the eternal (original) Temple. He makes no analogy to Christ's kingship (a concept basically missing). This emphasis may reflect the historic circumstances of 1st c. intra-Jewish polemic (i.e. there was no rival king of Israel the way the Temple hierarchy was a rival to Christ as God's temple). But these circumstances were providentially arranged to bring out Christ's royal priesthood. For the Christ did not assume Aaron's office, but Melchizedek, the king of Salem. The patriarchal king-priest returns as the original intent, but now in refulgent glory. Jesus reigns in the heavenly Jerusalem as priest, not the earthly Salem/Jerusalem. The emphasis in Hebrews clearly falls on Christ as royal priest (not priestly king), who stands at the eternal Altar of the eternal Temple.

The role of priesthood, in contrast to kingship, is eternal, but it is transformed in contact. The need to judge will pass as the conflict of the ages and the drama of history will come to an end*, and human maturation will be fulfilled. Priestly living, generalized as meditation on God's Word and dwelling in His house, is the great hope. It is the source of joy, to dwell in God's presence with His Word and sitting at His table no longer as servants. Priesthood develops through its royalty into divine friendship: the matured and righteous human now sits in God's council. No longer in bondage to "the elements of this world" (stoicheia tou cosmou), the Melchidekan nation of royal priests are crowned in glory. Jesus tells the Twelve that they're no longer servants, but friends. And instead of publishing and teaching the Commandments,man chews/dwells upon the words of God written onto hearts of flesh. External and internal become one as redeemed mankind shines forth the eternal light of God's glory. The royal Mechizedekan priesthood is another way of saying glorification or theosis, fully partaking of God's nature (2 Pet. 1:4).

It's from this vantage that one can better understand the offices of ordained ministry (bishop/deacon) and how they took on priestly characteristics early on. During the Reformation, some among the Reformed identified the pastorate with the prophetic office. While not entirely wrong, I think it's a mistake, as well as the triple (rather than double) office of prophet-priest-king**. However, what the Reformed wanted to get at, through analogy with the prophet, was a genuine good. They wanted to defend the integrity of church office, while rejecting the medieval sacerdotalism of Rome. The Reformers wanted to emphasize the word against the thaumaturgy of what the Roman mass had become. Sacraments, detached from word (meaning, not only teaching, but the symbolic significance given in divine promise), became a form of magic (even if "white" or good magic). But it's precisely this role that the priesthood played throughout ancient Israel.

And it's in this way that the ordained offices represent a priestly (even if royally priestly) officew ithin the church. The bishops and deacons of the churches participate in the reading and exegesis of scripture (publishing and interpreting the law), as well as overseeing the sacramental table-service (handling the elements for the Lord's Supper). Additionally, they oversee the handling of funds and corporate prayers of the church. While it may not appear to be the case, this authoritative oversight is nothing less than sacrifice: money, elements (bread, wine, water), and words (prayers) set apart, made holy, for God. While the laity, from laos, the people, eat from the table and may engage in reading/exegeting scripture, for they too are royal priests, they lack the office to exercise authority. They are not responsible for teaching the congregation and resisting false teachers and doctrine. They are not responsible for leading the prayers, for handling the alms, and for properly conducting the Lord's meal of table fellowship. This isn't to say laity may not participate in those things (such would to lapse into a false view of priesthood, or deny the sanctity of the laity), but they do not possess any office of "oversight" or "service" (root of the words 'bishop' and 'deacon'), who are responsible for these duties. For doing these things, St. Paul states that they're worthy of double-honor (meaning, financial support c.f. 1 Tim 5:17). As overseers, they must have character beyond reproach. Failure is severe (st. James hold teachers accountable for error and wickedness c.f. Js. 3).

Understanding the priestly dimensions of the ordained ministry might clear up a lot of confusion about what exactly the priesthood is supposed to do. Many Protestants do not see the office as particularly holy, and attempts to sanctify certain sets of responsibilities appears to be ad hoc and ridiculous. There's nothing unique about a pastor's role to organize community events, council people, or run a board meeting. Such has led to apathy and myopia, resulting in poorly grounded counter-arguments against the onslaught push for women's ordination. Many turn to Roman Catholicism (whose view of priesthood is rooted entirely in misguided form of sacrifice) or Eastern Orthodoxy (which downplays the importance of teaching) to find safe harbor. If Protestants are to retain biblical orthodoxy, they must emphasize the priestliness of the pastorate.The priesthood has a distinctly masculine character to it, which is quite clearly manifest across the whole of scripture. There are female prophets and female rulers (whether Deborah the judge or queens), but there are never female priests. It's in this vein one can make sense of Paul's prohibitions on women teaching. It is distinctly the male office*** to mediate the things of God. Paul's prohibition (in light of his recognition of prophetesses and his deep respect for women like Phoebe and Junia) can't be taken for anything less than the priestly office of publishing and explicating the divine words. It's worth taking this into account when thinking about women's ordination, as well as women publicly and corporate reading scripture or leading prayer.

Besides these points, it might also change notions and expectations about kingship. If the consummation of kingship and priesthood sees the former sublated into the latter, the task and scope of government is different. As the Hebrews passage above adumbrates through sandwiching: obedience to ordained leaders follows Christ's sacrificial, and priestly, pattern (which, I think, establishes the priestliness of the ordained ministry). The history of the church has revealed two, generally, misinterpretations of the king-priest relationship:

The first continues Israel's Temple-palace distinction into the Christian era. Thus extra-biblical concepts like the Gelasian dyarchy ("two swords") are invented to justify a division of power: the priestly spiritual sword and the kingly temporal sword. This development took time to instantiate and tended to defend/define papal prerogatives against emperors and kings. Constantine may have considered himself as a fellow apostle (and he is memoralized as their equal in Eastern Orthodoxy), but Eusebius honored him with the less flattering title of fellow bishop (narrating how Constantine, as emperor, saw himself as bishop to those outside the church, even as he was not baptized). In practice, however, the emperors of Rome were treated as deacons: they could sit on the other side of the altar with ordained ministers. However, generally, the emperor was treated as possessing a unique set of powers to rule over the civil world. Rome was to image Heaven, with Christ the king imaged in the emperors and Christ the priest imaged in the patriarchs. In the Latin west, this became the parity between emperor/king and pope (until later papal pretensions) in separate domains. The result is a kind of Judaizing, a reinvention of a political commonwealth (usually Rome or something channeling Rome) into a new Israel. The results were mixed, sometimes closer to the biblical vision and other times much further away.

The second is what we typically know as theocracy, which is primarily manifest in the extremes among ultramontane defenders of the papacy (as well as the small 20th c. Protestant movement). Metastasized into existence with the Gregorian reforms, and mutating ever since, the papacy declares itself the acting representative of Christ on Earth. This monstrous set of doctrines inverts the biblical pattern, sublating priesthood into kingship, moving into a kind of post-Christian shadow world. Such might not seem obvious, as the pope's titles emphasize his divinely given priestly authority (pontifex maximus, servant of servants, etc). But the eschaton is dumped into the present, an eternal economy over which the papal theocrat oversees. Judgement becomes the eternal task, as the "end" becomes more and more of a metaphor for the eternal juxtaposition of heaven, hell, and purgatory in between. Man's maturation is more about escaping debt-bondage of sins, which are economized and managed through the magic-complex of the church. It's a return to eternal-world of paganism.

Am I exaggerating? Not conceptually. Of course, the pretensions of this system were never fully enforced. Many medieval bishops and priests found this papalism absurd, leading to not a few supporting the emperor in his conflicts with the pope (Investiture controversy, Conciliar movement, etc.). But the vision still remained as a dark whisper, inscribed in papal encyclicals and pronouncements. Ancient city-states and empires had no distinction between civil and sacred, with the king/senators/officials presiding over sacred rituals. For some,  the ultramontane papacy is a return of this religion, with the pope as the divine-king, who has the authority to inscribe territorial boundaries, organize cultic festivals, install new divine entities (basically the canonization process), etc. It's not secularism that put the state at the head of a commonwealth's religion, but a return to ancient pagan dynamics. It was this vision that inspired Machiavelli's republican theories (which spilled into the French Revolution through Rousseau's similar republicanism). Republicanism wanted to redivinize the state. It didn't abolish priestly powers, but reinscribed them into the government. It's this reason why republicans and papalists could find theoretical common cause against the Judaizing of Protestant royal reformation (the Tudors were far more Byzantine, and Judaized, than this paganizing).

Later theorists, like Hobbes, pursued a similar conflation of priestly and civil along different lines. Hobbes is an interesting theorist for what he wanted to accomplish. He despised both Judaizers, papists, and (to a degree) republicans as subversive. For the sake of order (which is needed for law, civility, or freedom to exist), the state needed an absolute divinely mandated sovereignty. The palace and temple had to become one, but on the palace's terms. Papal pretensions were delusions, usually stirred up on behalf of another national power (such as Spain). Because they weren't realizable, they only created civil strife which could (and would) lead to civil war. It's why Hobbes calls Rome "the kingdom of darkness" and refers to it as "the ghost of the Roman empire enthroned on its grave". It's not that the papal vision was anathema to him in principle, only that the pope had no real power (in Hobbesian key, Stalin once quipped "how many divisions has the pope?"). Screeching morally binding decrees across the Continent (such as Pius V's Regnans in Excelsis, which unburdened Catholics from obeying Elizabeth I and unthroned her), popes could only cause chaos, but not establish real order. The very catholic kings of France often ignored the pope in defense of Catholicism (ie Gallicanism). For the same reason did Hobbes despise presbyterians, whose pastors reserved to themselves the right to excommunicate kings and provoke civil unrest. Republicans got the same treatment, though its unclear if Hobbes changed his mind about Cromwell. Their problem was in overthrowing the sovereign out of faulty principles. But if they succeeded, and erected the kind of state Hobbes envisioned, then they were to be obeyed (and thus, perhaps, Hobbes described Cromwell in Leviathan). In either case, the eschaton is voided and the return to the endless cycles of an undying world return. The hierophantic king/state reigns****.

In contrast to these two (thought multivalent) false paths, the eternal and royal priesthood of Melchizedek is to properly subordinate and sublate kingship within priesthood. Judgement is provisional (since the final judgement, reserved to Christ, is still in the future) and temporary (since the task will end). The church, as the community of Christians, possesses this task in a unique way. Christians are to be patient and slow in judgement, as well as tempering all judgements with a provisional nature. The spiritual sword of excommunication is a pastoral tool, not an exercise of kingly government. It's a provisional task and one serviced to renew the life of the offender. It is undertaken not by the bishop alone, but "the church". It is not equivalent to a judicial penalty of exile or deportation. It is an office all Christians, as royal priests, undertake in their daily affairs. In Christ, Christians receive a wisdom greater than Solomon's and are called to give judgement (though one, again, which is patient and slow).

And it's from this reformatting that the state, for Christians, becomes a secular instrument. As Oliver O'Donovan has pointed out, the secularity of the state (which possesses no permanence, no sanctity, no divine significance, and no altar) is a product of Christian evangelizing. One can see a flash of this reality (though only that) in Constantine's Edict of Milan, which is worth quoting substantially:

When we, Constantine and Licinius, emperors, had an interview at Milan, and conferred together with respect to the good and security of the commonweal, it seemed to us that, amongst those things that are profitable to mankind in general, the reverence paid to the Divinity merited our first and chief attention, and that it was proper that the Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best; so that that God, who is seated in heaven, might be benign and propitious to us, and to every one under our government. And therefore we judged it a salutary measure, and one highly consonant to right reason, that no man should be denied leave of attaching himself to the rites of the Christians, or to whatever other religion his mind directed him, that thus the supreme Divinity, to whose worship we freely devote ourselves, might continue to vouchsafe His favour and beneficence to us. And accordingly we give you to know that, without regard to any provisos in our former orders to you concerning the Christians, all who choose that religion are to be permitted, freely and absolutely, to remain in it, and not to be disturbed any ways, or molested. And we thought fit to be thus special in the things committed to your charge, that you might understand that the indulgence which we have granted in matters of religion to the Christians is ample and unconditional; and perceive at the same time that the open and free exercise of their respective religions is granted to all others, as well as to the Christians. For it befits the well-ordered state and the tranquillity of our times that each individual be allowed, according to his own choice, to worship the Divinity; and we mean not to derogate aught from the honour due to any religion or its votaries.

The "secularity" of this state of affairs is not in the absence of religion, but the state turning that responsibility to other groups to conduct in their own way. I don't think it's *necessarily* wrong for Christians to participate in public affairs, though how they go about it is a different matter. The Apostles' (NT's) relative silence ought to temper any paradigmatic pronouncements. Public authority is a divinely mandated control, a servant to reveal God's ultimate judgement as well as to restrain wickedness in this age (c.f. Romans 13). And yet it's a passing phenomenon, one easily and constantly veering towards self-divinization. The Powers That Be facilitate a return to the divine state, whether as a return to paganism viz. Renaissance republicanism or as a devilish antichrist when it adopts Christian gloss viz. papalism. Christians must be wary of any governing authority, whether public or private (which, as corporations, easily vies for a faux-public takeover of the governing task). But such is not to promote libertarianism or any faux-piety of separatism. Rather, Christians learn to live within whatever commonwealth they find themselves as pilgrims, whose altar is in the Heavenly Jerusalem. Faithful Christian witness may bring secularity as a divine reward (though, as O'Donovan notes, one that is temporary and a sign of the truth, not a good in itself). If Christians find themselves working in any capacity for a given commonwealth, they ought to treat the state as a secular servant, knowing God's vision. But none of these things have to do with the ordained ministry.

Instead, knowing that all things outside the Holy City will be destroyed, the task of Christians (the eternally significant one) is to perform the priestly tasks. In the ordained ministry, its a responsibility to offers sacrifices of praise, petition, and thanksgiving to the Creator-Savior God through the Christ Jesus, the head and high priest of His people, in His Spirit (given to sanctify through His presence and indwelling). Additionally, the priestly task to make known the divine words and exegete them is of supreme importance. Hence, Protestants have done ill disconnecting preaching and teaching from the priesthood. While not necessary, it would go some ways to ordain full-time evangelists, who are now responsible (as an authority) for the words they speak and teach. All Christians are called to these tasks, though not all are responsible for their public and corporate enactment. All Christians should pray privately, but only the ordained ministers oversee corporate prayers. Similarly all Christians may speak and teach, but none officially in a public manner except under a bishop. This does not mean only the ordained may pray, preach, teach, read scripture, or officiate the liturgy. Rather, it means that they have the responsibility to oversee who does it (which, per Paul, should be well-fitted men). That is why lay Christians must submit to these shepherd-rulers, who have the holy duty to care for souls as Christ the high priest cares for the world.

At last, I'll conclude with Chelcicky's reflection at the beginning. Many young Christians want to participate in God's work. They get involved in politics or business to make the world a better place, often inscribing a near holy element to their task. But only the word of God can shatter the darkness or bring light. Thus, if these men want a taste of the eternal work, they should teach God's word. But such a task is fit for a priest.

*End can be misconstrued as both a stop and as reaching a goal. In a way, "end" here means both. However, it's an end that doesn't destroy human dynamism and vitality, but one that does not require returning to a childish state. Childhood is "ended" in adulthood, but through sublation. The child is not destroyed, but brought upwards, as a man matures. The drama of history is brought into something better. Hence, it's best to refrain from discussing the warp and woof of the Age to Come, beyond what Christians begin to experience now. To talk of it is to cheapen it (as well as mythicize it).

**As is clear from St. Paul's list of the Spirit's charisma, I think prophecy is a gift, while prophethood is something of an ad-hoc councilor position. I don't want to get into word-games and semantics; I think if you prophesy, you're a prophet. But the prophet hears God's words and brings them to the people, he/she is not the organizer, collector, and maintainer of these words. The prophet has a temporary position for a given situation and event, whether extremely contingent (as Agabus' words were for Paul) or in a longer arc of redemptive-history (the words of David about Christ). But in either case, while the prophet brings the word(s) of God, the priest is the one who maintains them. In this sense, Christ is both the Prophet, that Moses prophesied, who brings the Word of God (namely Himself), as well as the High Priest who not only offers sacrifices, even the sacrifice of atonement, but also constantly republishes these words among His people, through the efficacious acts of the Spirit.

***Just as not all Levites were priests, and not all of Israel Levites, not all Christians have an ordained office to a set of functions that characterize the whole. There was no contrast or tension in the dual expectation that the priesthood would teach Israel, and the father would teach his household, or an older or wiser woman would teach other women. These things worked in tandem, proving the hierarchy of things.

****There's some room to argue that this does not exactly apply to Hobbes. There's an open debate whether Hobbes was an idiosyncratic and heterodox Christian or an atheist. But Hobbes does not deny the importance of Christian truth, only that it has no place in the externals of civil affairs (radicalizing Lutheran Two Governments doctrine). Thus, he does not want the state to pry into the consciences of men or force them to believe beyond doing their civilly prescribed cultic duties. In some ways, Hobbes may be exempt according to his non-sacramental view of Christianity (reduced to a personal belief/loyalty to Jesus as the Christ). However, if such was a cryptic way to profess his own atheism (what does "believe Jesus is the Christ" mean within Hobbes' scheme anyway?), its a cynical way to shortcircuit Protestant arguments against the state's assumption of spiritual powers, or to coax others into this way of thinking.