Romans 15:15-16, the Evangelical Minister as a Priest?

[Archlute]

"...but on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 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 Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."


I came across this passage today while completing a more detailed outline of the book of Romans for personal study. It struck me that while much is made in modern evangelical circles of "every member ministry" using Peter's statement that the Church as a whole is a "holy/royal priesthood" (1 Pt. 2:5,9), very little is made of the priestly role of the minister as Paul might have understood it. The language of the priesthood as applied to ministers of the Gospel is generally avoided in Protestant circles due to the RC misappropriation of that term as it is applied to the offering up of the mass, and this along with the modern egalitarian spirit within our evangelical bodies seems to eliminate any discussion of this passage and its implications from common ecclesiological discourse.

I believe that the translation given above by the ESV fits best, as it more clearly renders the participial form of hierourgeoas "in the priestly service of", rather than the KJV's less pointed "ministering the Gospel of", which does not distinguish this second priestly use of "ministering" from the first use of "minister" in the verse which has a differing verbal stem which refers to public service, but not necessarily priestly duties (could that have been a translation choice based upon a prevailing anti-RC sentiment?). Clearly, Paul is identifying his role between God and the Gentiles to whom he ministered as a mediatorial/priestly role in some sense.

Is this something that has been forgotten by evangelicals in over-reaction to Rome? Is this a role that was unique to Paul, or does it apply by extension from him as a minister of the Gospel to every other minster? What bearing does this have upon questions being raised in the church regarding what role women or unordained men can have in leading in prayer and reading Scripture? Does it conflict with the ideal in many churches today of every-member ministry (but see v.14, preceding)?

Have at it.

 

[Archlute]

C'mon. Don't be shy.

 

[Puritanhead]

I think it's trifling over semantics. We Protestants profess a belief in the priesthood of all believers based on doctrine revealed in Gospels and more particularly Pauline epistles. Pastors are in a sense play a mediator/priestly role between congregants in a church body and God, in much the same way an evangelist has a connection with the person he witnesses to. But we all know we believers have access to the throne of grace through prayer in Jesus Christ.

 

[Archlute]

I think it's trifling over semantics. We Protestants profess a belief in the priesthood of all believers based on doctrine revealed in Gospels and more particularly Pauline epistles. Pastors are in a sense play a mediator/priestly role between congregants in a church body and God, in much the same way an evangelist has a connection with the person he witnesses to. But we all know we believers have access to the throne of grace through prayer in Jesus Christ.

What exactly are you referring to as a trifling over semantics? I asked you to discuss the implications of the verse in several areas. Please clarify.

Of course the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not here being attacked, as I mentioned the clear affirmation of that doctrine as found in the first epistle of the apostle Peter in my OP, but I find that Paul states this in a very striking manner which, as seems obvious by the response (or lack thereof so far) on the PB, is a difficult thing for most Protestants to wrap their heads around. I myself am interested in studying this in greater depth, both in regards as to what relationship this role of Paul spiritually/metaphorically had with OT priestly function, as well how that would apply to modern ecclesiological practice (which no one can doubt has been influenced far more by corporate business terminology and paradigms of thought, even in Reformed churches, than anything else).

For the record, I have never heard this passage and its imagery discussed or preached upon in a Protestant church, and I have grown up in them all of my life, so I was interested in hearing a few lucid thoughts from the crowd.

Have any of you here ever heard this passage preached upon in worship, discussed in a Sunday school or bible study, or exegeted in a seminary course on the Pastoral Ministry, or have you preached/taught/exegeted this to others? Maybe this line of approach would be a more profitable pursuit if a discussion of the passage itself proves to difficult for the board.



Edited to add: Please don't post links to Wikipedia when attempting to illumine an exegetical or theological subject, or at least cite a basic ST or commentary before so doing. Anyone can put up any manner of silliness on that site - it is not to be seen as a substitute for serious personal research!

 

[SolaGratia]

I just finish reading Matthew Henry and he talks about how Paul was a Christian priest as he preach the Gospel unto the Gentiles, see below reference and it is not from wikipedia.

Matthew Henry, Romans 15:14-16
(Link: Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible)

What he ministered: the gospel of God; hierourgounta to euangelion—ministering as about holy things (so the word signifies), executing the office of a Christian priest, more spiritual, and therefore more excellent, than the Levitical priesthood. (4.) For what end: that the offering up (or sacrificing) of the Gentiles might be acceptable—that god might have the glory which would redound to his name by the conversion of the Gentiles. Paul laid out himself thus to bring about something that might be acceptable to God. Observe how the conversion of the Gentiles is expressed: it is the offering up of the Gentiles; it is prosphora toµn ethnoµn—the oblation of the Gentiles, in which the Gentiles are looked upon either, [1.] As the priests, offering the oblation of prayer and praise and other acts of religion. Long had the Jews been the holy nation, the kingdom of priests, but now the Gentiles are made priests unto God (Rev. 5:10), by their conversion to the Christian faith consecrated to the service of God, that the scripture may be fulfilled, In ever place incense shall be offered, and a pure offering, Mal. 1:11. The converted Gentiles are said to be made nigh (Eph. 2:13)—the periphrasis of priests. Or, [2.] The Gentiles are themselves the sacrifice offered up to God by Paul, in the name of Christ, a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, ch. 12:1. A sanctified soul is offered up to God in the flames of love, upon Christ the altar. Paul gathered in souls by his preaching, not to keep them to himself, but to offer them up to God: Behold, I, and the children that God hath given me. And it is an acceptable offering, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. Paul preached to them, and dealt with them; but that which made them sacrifices to God was their sanctification; and this was not his work, but the work of the Holy Ghost. None are acceptably offered to God but those that are sanctified: unholy things can never be pleasing to the holy God.

 

[MW]

I note the ESV is at least careful not to use the noun "priest," but settles on the adjective as descriptive of the kind of service given by the apostle as a minister of the gospel. A "minister" or "leitourgon" itself possesses sacerdotal associations; the apostle was only filling out this overtone of the word when he spoke of the service of the minister in terms of priestly language. There is no basis in the words for suggesting the apostle taught that the minister of the gospel serves as a priest who mediates between God and men.

Examining the way the ESV has translated the verse itself, I fail to see why one would render a participle in this manner. The translators have filled out the figure of speech for the reader, and thus illustrated rather than translated the original. Though the apostle uses a different word for "ministering," it is clear from the syntax that the verb was intended to show the action of the minister; by rendering it "ministering" the reader is provided the basic sense of what the apostle intended to say, and allows further study to bring to light the exact nature of the figure of speech.

 

[Archlute]

I note the ESV is at least careful not to use the noun "priest," but settles on the adjective as descriptive of the kind of service given by the apostle as a minister of the gospel. A "minister" or "leitourgon" itself possesses sacerdotal associations; the apostle was only filling out this overtone of the word when he spoke of the service of the minister in terms of priestly language. There is no basis in the words for suggesting the apostle taught that the minister of the gospel serves as a priest who mediates between God and men.

Examining the way the ESV has translated the verse itself, I fail to see why one would render a participle in this manner. The translators have filled out the figure of speech for the reader, and thus illustrated rather than translated the original. Though the apostle uses a different word for "ministering," it is clear from the syntax that the verb was intended to show the action of the minister; by rendering it "ministering" the reader is provided the basic sense of what the apostle intended to say, and allows further study to bring to light the exact nature of the figure of speech.

I think that the reason for them translating 'leitourgon' as minister w/o the priestly overtones has more to do with the fact that that term if more often associated with general servanthood/service than it is with the priestly function. 'Hierous' and its cognates all have exclusively to do with the priesthood, however, which is what made it stand out to me, and appearantly also to the translators of the ESV.

I fail to see how their translation does anything other than clarify the meaning of the participle. BDAG fills out it's meaning as "to act in some cultic or sacred capacity; perform holy service, act as a priest". I think that both BDAG and the ESV translators here are doing us a service by bringing out that which would also have also stood out to a Greek reader. It is not just that the participle is showing the action of the minster, which is obvious, but that the action of the one serving in a priestly role is defining what it means in this context for Paul to have been a minister.

I agree that this does not mean that he was a special mediator, as Christ was by then serving as the Great High Priest, but it is still a significant statement. I do think that more attention should be given this passage and its implications. Paul's role was unique in certain aspects, but one of continuity in others also. I am interested in studying how this priestly role may or may not have ceased as applied to ministers in the church, or possibly even more fittingly here, to evangelists and those who are being brought the Gospel for the first time.

 

[MW]

I am content to say the words employed by the apostle have priestly overtones, and that the passage employs an extended metaphor. There is no need to read into the figurative language a doctrine of priesthood which was foreign to the apostle. In Phil. 2, he uses a slightly different metaphor when he speaks of the service of the Philippian church as the sacrifice upon which his own life is poured out like a drink-offering. Figures of speech are by nature illustrative and are best interpreted that way.