The Origin of the Priesthood of Christ

 

(This is part of series on the doctrine of Christ's priesthood, based off of my studies on John Owen's treatise on the subject).

The origin of the priesthood of Christ lies chiefly and most originally in the counsel of God (cf. Acts 15:18)

"Wherefore God did not pre-ordain the priesthood of Christ with respect unto the obedience of man under the law of creation; nor did he appoint either priesthood or sacrifice, properly so called, in that state of things whilst it did continue; nor should any such have been, upon a supposition of its continuance." (John Owen)

Hebrews 5:1 shows that the priests are separated from other men in a special way. Their primary function is to offer sacrifice to God, and make atonement and reconciliation (Exodus 18:19). 

There is no doubt a close connection between priesthood and sacrifice. By definition, neither of these things can exist without the other. 

Sacrifices can only exist by means of slaying or killing the thing which is to be offered up as a sacrifice.

This is shown from the Hebrew verb zabach (from which we get zebach - "sacrifice") which means "to kill" or "to slay" (1 Samuel 28:24; Deuteronomy 12:15-16; 1 Kings 1:9; 19:21). 

"It is therefore evident that there neither is nor can be any sacrifice, properly so called, but what is made by killing or slaying of the thing sacrificed; and the offerings of inanimate things under the law, as of flour or wine, or the fruits of the earth, were improperly so called, in allusion unto or by virtue of their conjunction with them that were properly so." (John Owen)

One issue/controversy related to the doctrine of Christ's priesthood is the question of whether God the Son would have been incarnate even if man had never fallen into sin. The Socinians and Romanists (among whom is Robert Bellarmine), mostly in order to assert that sacrifice is an essential part of the worship of God, thus they think their Popish mass is proven. John Owen makes the following points in order to prove that if man had never fallen into sin, Christ would not have taken on a human nature:

[1]. The end of Christ's incarnation and being sent by the father is portrayed in Scripture as being for the purpose of saving men from sin (Luke 19:10; John 3:16; Romans 3:25; 5:8; 8:3; Galatians 4:4-5; 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 John 4:9)

Augustine said "Hence he came into the world to save sinners. There is no other reason why he came into the world." (Sermon 8 de Verbis Apostoli, tom. x)

[2]. "The design of God to glorify himself in the creation and the law or covenant of it, and his design of the same end in a way of grace, are distinct; yea, they are so distinct as, with reference unto the same persons and times, to be inconsistent" (John Owen)

Next, Owen answers the principal arguments put forward in favor of the view under discussion: 

Argument 1: "It would have perfected creation"

Answer: When God made creation, he called it "very good" (tob meod), implying that it was perfect, not needing anything else at that point in time. 

Argument 2: "Human Nature was Capable of the Grace of Union in the State of Innocence."

Answer: Replace human nature with the nature of angels, which was also capable of this grace of union when they were innocent, and the whole original argument falls apart.

Argument 3: "God Revealed the Mystery of the Incarnation to Adam"

Answer: "God, in his infinite wisdom, ordered the things of the first creation so as they might be laid in a subserviency, in a way of representation, unto the new creation, or the renovation of all things by Jesus Christ; that is, he so made them as that they might be natural types of what he would do afterwards. This doth not prove that they were designed to make any revelation of Christ and his grace, or prefigure them, but only were meet to be brought into an useful subordination unto them, so that from them instructive allusions might be taken."

The next issue to be discussed is whether or not sacrifices were in use (or were meant to be used) in the garden of Eden before the fall into sin. This is used by Bellarmine to demonstrate the Roman Mass. Owen responds:

"Christian religion hath not only in it a proper sacrifice, but that alone and single sacrifice with respect whereunto any services of men in the worship of the church formerly were so called, and whereby they were animated and rendered useful. For all the sacrifices of the law were but obscure representations of, nor had any other end or use but to prefigure, that sacrifice which we enjoy in Christian religion, and to exhibit the benefits thereof unto the worshippers. This is the sacrifice of Christ himself, which was external, visible, proper, yea, the only true, real, substantial sacrifice, and that offered once for all.....And, beyond all contradiction, he determined either this one sacrifice of Christ to be insufficient, or that of the mass to be useless; for he shows that where any sacrifices will make perfect them that come to God by them, there no more will be offered. And it is an undoubted evidence that no sacrifice hath obtained its end perfectly, so as to making reconciliation for sin, where any other sacrifice, properly so called, doth come after it. Nor doth he prove the insufficiency of the Aaronical sacrifices unto this purpose by any other argument but that they were often offered from year to year, and that another was to succeed in their room when they were over, Heb. 10:1–5; and this, upon the supposition of the Romanists, and the necessity of their missatical sacrifice, falls as heavily on the sacrifice of Christ as on those of the law. It is apparent, therefore, that they must either let go the sacrifice of Christ as insufficient, or that of their mass as useless, for they can have no consistency in the same religion" (John Owen)