We continue this week with an examination of the New Testament sacrificial priesthood that is found in the writings of the ancient Church. Let us begin again by acknowledging the aversion Protestants typically have to the idea of “priests” in New Testament worship, an opinion with which we are sympathetic and to which we are equally averse. Nevertheless a “priesthood” is found in almost all the ancient writings, just as we find evidence of an ancient “sacrifice” on an ancient “altar.” In fact, the “bishop” of the ancient church was sometimes called “high priest.” As we suggested last week, let us set aside (for a moment) the objection to having priests, and focus instead on what those priests are found to be offering. Once we discover the substance of the offering, we find an implicitly Protestant liturgy in which the chief objective of corporate worship was to glorify God according to a “pure religion” that worships in spirit and in truth, while caring for the material needs of the widow, the orphan and the stranger (James 1:27). In their new spiritual temple a New Covenant priesthood is found offering spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5), and in that paradigm, the New Covenant clergy was considered a limited conceptual analog of the ancient Levites, in which the clergy, as well as “the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow” could “come, and shall eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 14:29) from the first fruit offerings of the people. So they cast aside the propitiatory sacrifices of the Old Testament, and offered their praise and the fruit of their labors to the Lord out of gratitude for what He had done for them. And they called these New Covenant sacrifices their Eucharist and prayers.

Origen (AD 235)

As we observed last time, Origen asked rhetorically, “Where now are the sacrifices? Where now is the altar? … Is not the Law dead in all these things?” (Homilies on Genesis, Homily 6.3). Adding to this, he understood Hosea 3:4 to prophesy a time when the Jewish priesthood would end:

“‘The children of Israel shall abide many days without king, without prince; and there shall be no victim, nor altar, nor priesthood;’ [Hosea 3:4] … And this manifestly seems to be fulfilled in the multitude of those who have believed on God through Christ out of the different nations.” (de Principis 4.3)

That is not to say Origen entirely ruled out priests, altars, temples and oblations in the New Covenant. In his treatise, Against Celsus, Origen criticized Celsus for thinking Christians had abandoned altars and temples and oblations altogether. To the contrary, Christianity had embraced them, albeit, in a different form. The Christian “altar” is the soul of every man, on which is offered the “incense” of his prayers. In this sense, each man is a high priest, “For that part which is the most precious in man can hold the office of high priest” (Homilies on Exodus 9.4). And the “gifts” and “statues” we offer in worship are not literal victims and images, but rather the attributes of Christ that are formed in us by the Word of God:

“the statues and gifts which are fit offerings to God are the work of no common mechanics, but are wrought and fashioned in us by the Word of God, to wit, the virtues in which we imitate ‘the First-born of all creation,’ who has set us an example of justice, of temperance, of courage, of wisdom, of piety, and of the other virtues.” (Against Celsus 8.17; c.f. 8.18)

By this figurative approach Origen sought to correct Celsus. Christians do not object to “altars, images and temples,” per se, he wrote: “It is not therefore true that we object to building altars, statues, and temples.” We just don’t take them literally, but rather offer figurative “incense” of prayers, on the “altar” within us, our bodies a living sacrifice as we imitate the virtues of Christ in the figurative temple of His Church (Against Celsus 8.20).

But there was something more than this. Origen understood the Christian religion to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament nation of Israel, complete with tribes and a Levitical order: “the people of God was divided into twelve tribes, and over and above the other tribes it had the levitical order … . In the same manner, it appears to me that the whole people of Christ …  has in a more mystic way the characteristics of the tribes” (Commentary on John 1.1).

What is the significance of such a New Testament Levitical order? Very simple: just like in the Old Testament people brought their first fruits to the priests as a tithe to feed the priests, and minister to the poor, Christians through their tithe offerings support those who preach and conduct the overall ministry of the Church. They bring their tithe to the bishop or presbyter who can, by way of analogy, be styled a “priest” as he leads in the offering of the tithe:

Didascalia (early 3rd century)

The Didascalia reminds the reader that under the new covenant, the Lord “has set you loose and given you rest, and brought you out into refreshment, that you should no more be bound with sacrifices,” “oblations,” “sin offerings,” “purifications,” “vows,” “gifts” and “burnt offerings.” Such burdens were laid upon the Jews “as of necessity, but you are not bound by these things” (Connolly, R. Hugh, Didascalia Apostolorum (Oxford: 1929) chapter 28). Here Jewish sin offerings are utterly ruled out. “Instead of the sacrifices which then were, offer now prayers and petitions and thanksgivings” (chapter 9), which is to say, Eucharist and prayer.

That, of course, is not to say the Didascalia entirely rules out “oblations” and “altars.” Rather, altars and oblations have taken on a different form. The author speaks of an “altar” upon which oblations are offered to “the True High Priest” Jesus Christ, and speaks of a Christian ministerial priesthood. But what he gives with one hand, he takes back with the other. On the one hand, “the bishop sits for you in the place of God Almighty” (chapter 9), but on the other hand, such typological language is intended only as a mnemonic aid to encapsulate the sacrificial worship of a Trinitarian ecclesiology. The bishop sends deacons and deaconesses out to aid the poor, just as the Father sends the Son and the Spirit to us:

“[T]he bishop sits for you in the place of (typum) God Almighty. But the deacon stands in the place of (typum) Christ; and do you love him. And the deaconess shall be honoured by you in the place of the (typum) Holy Spirit; and the presbyters shall be to you in the likeness of the (typum) Apostles ; and the orphans and widows shall be reckoned by you in the likeness (typum) of the altar” (chapter 9, [Connolly 89]).

[N.B.: The “deaconess” here merely assists the bishop in cases where modesty and propriety pertain. For example, it would be unseemly for a bishop either to perform a full body anointing of a nearly naked female catechumen at her baptism, or for him to visit houses full of women to comfort them in their distress (chapter 16).]

When we read that a deaconess is like the Holy Spirit, the deacon like Christ, and the bishop like God (Who sends both), the presbyters like Apostles, and widows and orphans like the altar, it is difficult to see a rigid sacerdotal caste here. Rather we see a liturgy focused almost entirely on what James calls the the “pure religion” of God: “To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction” (James 1:27). And once we see widows and orphans as the “altar,” all that remains is to discover the sacrifice that is offered upon it, and the priests who perform its ministrations. We need not look far:

“Do you the bishops and the deacons be constant therefore in the ministry of the altar of Christ,—we mean the widows and the orphans … widows are nourished from (the fruits of) righteous labour” (chapter 18)

As with Irenæus, the oblation of the church was called “Eucharist.” It was to be modeled not after the sacrifice of a Passover Lamb, but after the statutory offering of first fruits for the priests and the poor on the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Didascalia appeals to the same passage Irenæus does when describing the New Covenant oblation Jesus instituted at the Last Supper. Here, like the widow of Mark 12:42 who “cast in” her modest gift to the treasury, Christians are instructed to “cast in” their Eucharist oblation so the bishop can minister to the needs of the stranger:

“And hold not aloof from the Church ; but when thou hast received the Eucharist of the oblation, that which comes into thy hands cast (in), that thou mayest share it with strangers: for this is collected (and brought) to the bishop for the entertainment of all strangers. Wherefore lay up and set by as much as thou canst, for the Lord has said in the Law: ‘Thou shalt not appear before me empty‘ [Exodus 23:15; 34:20; Deuteronomy 16:16-17]” (chapter 9).

As with Clement, those of the episcopate were charged to handle the gifts faithfully. As with Justin, the purpose of the oblation was that the Church use it to support the ministry and for those who are in need, and these oblations of prayers and thanksgivings replace the Old Covenant sacrifices. As with the Didache, Tertullian and Origen, the oblation of the New Covenant is analogically related to the Old Testament tithe offerings that were brought to the Levites.  Now people bring their tithes to the bishop instead, both to sustain the church in its ministry and to provide for the needs of the poor. In that sense, though Christ be the true and only high priest, we are all priests in Christ, and we gather with other Christians to return to the Lord the best of the harvest. Note well that even the widow and the orphan are “priests” in this sense, because like the Levites, they feed from the “altar” and join in the offering of a “sacrifice” of prayer. The bishop thus occupies a role of a “high priest” of sorts, leading the congregation in the offering of the gifts by which we thank God for His kindness toward us:

“You also then to-day, O bishops, are priests to your people, and the Levites who minister to the tabernacle of God … As then you have undertaken the burden of all, so also ought you to receive from all your people the ministration of food and clothing, and of other things needful. And so again, from these same gifts that are given you by the people which is under your charge, do you nourish the deacons and widows and orphans, and those who are in want, and strangers. ” (Chapter 8)

“Set by part-offerings and tithes and firstfruits to Christ, the true High Priest, and to His ministers, even tithes of salvation (to Him) … . … instead of the sacrifices which then were, offer now prayers and petitions and thanksgivings. Then [in the Old Testament] were first fruits and tithes and part-offerings and gifts; but today the oblations which are offered through the bishops to the Lord God. For they are your high priests; but the priests and Levites now are the presbyters and deacons, and the orphans and widows: but the Levite and high priest is the bishop.” (chapter 9)

“And our Lord and Saviour also said: ‘If thou offer thy gift upon the altar … [Matthew 5:23-24]’. Now the gift of God is our prayer and our Eucharist” (chapter 11)

“Your fruits and the works of your hands present to him [the bishop], that you may be blessed; your first-fruits and your tithes and your vows and your part-offerings give to him; for he has need of them that he may be sustained, and that he may dispense also to those who are in want, to each as is just for him” (chapter 27)

The New Covenant sacrifice was an offertory of gratitude with prayers and praises of thanks, and the New Covenant “priesthood” was analogically Levitical, consistent with Paul’s admonition in 1 Timothy 5:17-18:

“Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out (the corn). As then the ox which works unmuzzled in the threshing floor eats, indeed, but does not consume the whole, so do you [bishops] also, who work in the threshing floor which is the Church of God, be nourished from the Church, after the manner of the Levites who ministered in the tabernacle of witness, which in all things was a type of the Church: for even by its name it declares (this), for the tabernacle ‘of witness’ foreshowed the Church” (chapter 8).

Remarkable for its absence in the Didascalia is any suggestion at all that the Eucharist oblation of the New Covenant was an offering of the “real presence” of Christ to the Father for sins. The closest the Didascalia comes to that is the instruction that Christians ought to “offer an acceptable Eucharist, the likeness (antitypum) of the royal body of Christ” (chapter 51). Such an exhortation is consistent with the ancient practice of including bread and wine in the tithe offerings so the proper elements would be available to symbolize His body and blood for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper that began only after the tithe oblation was complete.

Justin Martyr spoke of the sacrifices of “prayers and giving of thanks” that Christians offer, and particularly of “the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind” (Dialogue with Trypho, 117). Irenæus spoke of “the cup of emblematic significance” that Jesus offers to us (Against Heresies, 3.16.7), and Tertullian of “the figure of my body” Jesus gave to the disciples after the offering (Against Marcion 4.40), and Origen spoke of “the symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus 8.57). The Didascalia speaks of that practice here when imploring Christians to “offer an acceptable Eucharist.” Such a thank offering would include bread and wine for their symbolic value in the meal immediately to follow, as the context demands.

Hippolytus (AD 235)

Hippolytus touches only briefly on a priesthood in the New Covenant. Christ is “the great High Priest” (Refutation of All Heresies, 6.27), and the apostles were sent by Christ in the power of the Holy spirit: “we, as being their successors, and as participators in this grace, high-priesthood, and office of teaching … must not be found deficient” (Refutation of All Heresies 1 (intro.))

An allegedly “celibate” priesthood

Having read in the Didasacalia, which was contemporary to Hippolytus, an admonition that sexually active married laymen should freely “offer an acceptable Eucharist,” we are baffled at the translators and scholars who think they have found in a disciple of Irenæus, proof an a celibate priesthood. Irenæus, who discipled Hippolytus, refers to the beautiful wife of a deacon (Against Heresies 1.13.5), making no judgment against his marital estate. Without historical precedent, and without contemporary evidence to support it, Hippolytus’ criticism of Callistus, bishop of Rome is offered as proof that he insisted on marital celibacy for priests. Hippolytus ostensibly lists “priests” among the clergy, insisting that they must not marry, neither bishop, nor “priest,” nor deacon:

“About the time of this man [bishop Callistus], bishops, priests, and deacons, who had been twice married, and thrice married, began to be allowed to retain their place among the clergy. If also, however, any one who is in holy orders should become married, Callistus permitted such a one to continue in holy orders as if he had not sinned.” (Refutation of all Heresies, 9.7).

Such a reading gives the appearance that “priests” were not allowed to marry thrice, twice or even once. In reality, Hippolytus rather had written of “bishops, presbyters (πρεσβυτεροι), and deacons” (Migne, PG 16, 3386), not “bishops, priests, and deacons”. Nevertheless, we are presented here with a timely and relevant opportunity to put to rest the Roman Catholic claim that Hippolytus insisted on celibacy for all clergy. Such a claim is grossly anachronistic, giving the impression that Hippolytus believed a Christian priesthood required ritual sexual purity to be valid, even as contemporary writers were insisting that such ritual purity belonged to the retired Old Covenant order. Several clarifications are in order.

Digamy vs. Bigamy

First, according to the reading above, Hippolytus was allegedly complaining that Callistus allowed clergy to remain in office even after second or third marriages, e.g. clergy “began to be allowed to retain their place.” That nuanced anachronism is made possible by an uncareful transliteration of Hippolytus’ original Greek. He wrote of clerical διγαμοι (dígamoi), which when transliterated becomes “digamy,” a word that literally means a second marriage contracted after the first is over. The problem with such a reading is that “digamy” in English really does mean married twice, but διγαμοι (digamoi) in ancient Greek literally means “bigamy” in English, which is to be married to two women at the same time. Hippolytus’ objection was not to successive marriages, but to a polygamous clergy.

This fact is reinforced by Hippolytus’ own language in which he lists the incremental offenses of clerical διγαμοι (digamoi) and clerical τριγαμοι (trigamoi) (Migne PG XVI, 3386), the latter of which literally means married to three women at the same time. Here, Hippolytus’ objection was not that bishops, presbyters and deacons were contracting multiple successive marriages, but that they were joined to multiple wives. The Latin translator here was much more careful, rendering “διγαμοι και τριγαμοι” precisely as Hippolytus meant it, that is “bigami et trigami” (Migne PG XVI, 3385), bigamy and trigamy. Callistus’ error was that he had been allowing clerical polygamy.

What is more, the above translation suggests Hippolytus was concerned that bigamists and trigamists “began to be allowed to retain” their offices, as if the polygamists were already ordained, and under Callistus began to be allowed to remain in office after being discovered. That reading is incorrect. Hippolytus’ Greek reads, “καθιστασθαι εις κληρους,” which is literally, “began to be ordained.” He was not complaining that polygamist bishops, presbyters and deacons began to be allowed to remain in the ministry, but rather that they began to be ordained into the ministry. This was a grave violation of the Scriptural imperative that bishops, presbyters and deacons be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, 3:12; Titus 1:6).

γaμος (gamos) vs, γνωμη (gnome)

In the next sentence, after objecting that men with multiple wives “began to be ordained,” Hippolytus is alleged to have complained that ordained clergy began to be allowed to marry: “If also, however, any one who is in holy orders should become married, Callistus permitted such a one to continue in holy orders as if he had not sinned.” Such a reading gives the impression that, after objection to twice- and thrice-married clergy, Hippolytus was against clergy entering into marriage at all. This, too, is a gross anachronism.

Jacques Paul Migne, in his series on the Greek fathers, adds a footnote here indicating that while Hippolytus is alleged to have written “γαμοιη (gamoih)” or “marriage”, another known reading is “γνωμη (gnome)” (PG XVI, 3386 n12). The alternate reading refers not to “marriage,” but rather to “knowledge,” “opinion” and “intelligence,” as in, sharing the same belief or error. Under that reading, Hippolytus may be understood in the most reasonable and obvious contemporary context. He had complained both that polygamous men began to be ordained to the clergy, and that already ordained clergy were discovered to be polygamous were allowed to continue. This passage would thus read as follows:

“About the time of this man, bishops, presbyters, and deacons who had two or three wives began to be ordained to the ministry, and if those who were already in the clergy were found guilty, such a person remained in the clergy as if he had not sinned.”

This is not a complaint about tolerance of clerical marriage, but rather a complaint about tolerance of clerical polygamy. When examined in proper context, this appears to be the only consistent possible reading of Hippolytus, and in that light, the prevalent reading is found to be an ambitious but horrible anachronistic attempt at retroactive continuity with later novelties. If this were truly an opinion of Hippolytus on a celibate clergy, it would be the only hint of it in all his writings! This is precisely why Catholic scholars resort neither to Hippolytus in the third century, nor even to Nicæa in the early fourth, but rather to the late fourth century, to discover the “apostolic origins” of priestly celibacy!

“We will therefore choose the late 4th century as our chronological basis for inquiry on the birth and development of the law on clerical celibacy rather than the year 325, the date of the First Ecumenical Council.” (Christian Cochini, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, foreward)

A Christian High-priesthood

Having dispensed with the halting attempt of the Romanist to find priestly celibacy in the early third century, we now turn to Hippolytus’ conviction that even though there is only one “great High Priest,” the Christian bishop nevertheless may be analogically considered a “high priest” of sorts, after the same fashion described by the Didache, Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen and the Dicascalia. The bishop is the high priest not because he sacrifices Jesus’ body and blood on the altar, but because upon the Christian New Covenant altar are offered the oblations of first-fruits of the harvest as a tithe for the poor. These gifts, in analogically Levitical style, Hippolytus refers to as “the inheritance of your high priests,” the bishops (Apostolic Tradition, 8).

As with Justin, a newly baptized person is allowed to participate in the Eucharist tithe offering. As with Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Origen and the Didascalia, the presbyters are to offer as an oblation the gifts that the people bring with them to church. As with the Didache, Justin, Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, and the Didascalia, the Eucharist oblation was to consist of the first fruits of the harvest. And as with the Didascalia, even the deacon is authorized the offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, for the bishop as “high priest” is authorized to deputize him for the oblation:

“The bishop says this over the deacon: O God … give the Holy Spirit of grace and earnestness and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve your church and to offer up in holiness in your sanctuary that which is offered from the inheritance of your high priests” (Apostolic Tradition 8).

“Those who are to be baptized are not to bring any vessel, only that which each brings for the eucharist. It is indeed proper that each bring the oblation in the same hour.” (Apostolic Tradition 20).

“All shall be diligent to offer to the bishop the firstfruits of the fruits of the first harvest. He shall bless them, saying, ‘We give thanks to you, God, and offer to you the firstfruits … .’ … These are the fruits which he shall bless: the grape, fig, pomegranate, olive, pear, apple, blackberry, peach, cherry, almond, and plum.” (Apostolic Tradition 31-32).

When it comes to offering each individual item of the Eucharist, be it bread, wine, cheese or olives, Hippolytus, in similar fashion with the Didache, gives instruction on how to conduct the Eucharistic prayer over the oblation of the church:

“Therefore, remembering his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the chalice, giving thanks to you, who has made us worthy to stand before you and to serve as your priests.” (Apostolic Tradition 4)

And lest the Roman Catholic think he has found in Hippolytus an offering of consecrated bread and wine, we remind him that Hippolytus here is merely reciting a Eucharistic prayer over each item in the oblation, calling to mind its symbolic significance as it is offered. After the bread and chalice, he continues with the symbolic significance of oil, cheese and olives in the Eucharist oblation:

“If someone makes an offering of oil, the bishop shall give thanks in the same manner as for the oblation of the bread and wine. He does not give thanks with the same words, but quite similar, saying, ‘Sanctify this oil, God, as you give holiness to all who are anointed and receive it, as you anointed kings, priests, and prophets, so that it may give strength to all who taste it, and health to all who use it.'” (Apostolic Tradition 5).

“Likewise, if someone makes an offering of cheese and olives, the bishop shall say, ‘Sanctify this brought-together milk, just as you also bring us together in your love. Let this fruit not leave your sweetness, this olive which is a symbol of your abundance, which you made to flow from the tree, for life to those who hope in you.” (Apostolic Tradition 6).

These are simply Eucharist offerings of the first fruits of the harvest, and in all of his writings, we find nothing of a Eucharistic sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. It is true that in a commentary on Proverbs 9, Hippolytus is alleged to say “she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table” refers to the sacrifice of Jesus’ body and blood:

“it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper.” (Second Fragment on Proverbs 9)

Thus, it would appear that Hippolytus understood the New Covenant oblation to be a sacrifice of Jesus’ body and blood. However, there is a problem with that conclusion.

Hans Achelis (1865–1937) a German church historian, theologian, and archaeologist, was widely known for his study of early Christian literature and in particular the life and works of Hippolytus. His exhaustive work on Hippolytus, including his ostensible fragment on Proverbs 9, may be found in his 1897 Hippolytstudien. Achelis recognized what is plainly obvious: the fragment was spurious. The Catholic Encyclopedia, in its attempt to reconstruct the ancient liturgy from Hippolytus, laments Achelis’ finding:

“… we make particular mention of Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) whose celebrated fragment [on Proverbs 9] Achelis has wrongly characterized as spurious” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass)

We understand why the Catholic Encyclopedia was so eager to reject Achelis’ opinion on the spurious fragment, just as we understand the eagerness of the scholars to find clerical celibacy in Hippolytus’ objection to clerical polygamy. But the proof is in what Hippolytus believed about the New Covenant oblation: it was an offering of first fruits of the harvest, and everyone in the church was privileged to offer that Eucharist sacrifice. The bishop was only analogically a Levitical priest authorized to lead in the offering of “the inheritance of your high priests,” an offering consisting of the Eucharist of the oblation that the laypeople had brought with them to offer at Church. This was no Roman Catholic mass sacrifice of Jesus’ body and blood, but rather bears a striking similarity to the a Protestant offertory of tithes for the support of the clergy and the ministry the church. We would neither call our bishops and elders “priests” and “high priests,” nor upon inspection, do we fail to see why the ancient church was willing to do so. Once we discover the substance of the offering, we can appreciate the ancient Church’s devotion to the Scriptures, and the way the ancient Levitical priests and sacrifices foreshadowed the well-pleasing, acceptable sacrifices of the New Covenant religion. It was a Protestant liturgy to its core.

What the Ancient offerings “foreshowed”

We will continue this series next week. What we have seen consistently thus far is that the early Church understood the Eucharist offerings to be analogous to the ancient Levitical oblations of first fruits, the people bringing in the tithes in a New Covenant analogy of a Levitical class. Under that limited and narrow construct, the person leading the offering could therefore be analogous to a “high priest” who was sustained by the offerings and charged with their faithful use to minister to the poor. These offerings were neither compulsory nor propitiatory, but rather an expression of gratitude in the form of tithes and praise in fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy (Malachi 1:10-11), or more succinctly, Eucharist and prayer, the oblation and incense of the New Covenant.