The Priesthood of Christ

Its Necessity and Nature

John Owen

• Publisher: Christian Focus Publication
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781781911976

1

The Office of Priesthood

---

A Unique Emphasis on Christ’s Priesthood

Amongst the many excellencies of this Epistle to the Hebrews, which render it as useful to the church as the sun in the firmament is to the world, the revelation that is made therein concerning the nature, singular pre-eminence, and use of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ, may well be esteemed to deserve the first and principal place; for whereas the whole matter of the sacrifice that he offered, and the atonement that he made thereby, with the inestimable benefits which thence redound to them that do believe, depend solely on this, the excellency of the doctrine of this must needs be acknowledged by all who have any interest in these things. It is indeed, in the substance of it, delivered in some other passages of the books of the New Testament, but yet more sparingly and obscurely than any other truth of the same or a like importance. The Holy Ghost reserved it to this as its proper place, where, upon the consideration of the institutions of the Old Testament and their removal out of the church, it might be duly represented, as that which gave an end to them in their accomplishment, and life to those ordinances of evangelical worship which were to succeed in their room.

When our Lord Jesus says that he came to ‘give his life a ransom for many’ (Matt. 20:28), he had respect to the sacrifice that he had to offer as a priest. The same also is intimated where he is called ‘The Lamb of God’ (John 1:29); for he was himself both priest and sacrifice. Our apostle also mentions his sacrifice and his offering of himself to God (Eph. 5:2); on the account of which he calls him ‘a propitiation’ (Rom. 3:25); and mentions also his ‘intercession,’ with the benefits of that (Rom. 8:34). The clearest testimony to this purpose is that of the apostle John, who puts together both the general acts of his sacerdotal office, and intimates with that their mutual relation (1 John 2:1–2); for his intercession as our ‘advocate’ with his Father respects his oblation as he was a ‘propitiation for our sins.’ So the same apostle tells us to the same purpose, that he ‘washed us in his own blood’ (Rev. 1:5), when he expiated our sins by the sacrifice of himself. These are, if not all, yet the principal places in the New Testament in which immediate respect is had to the priesthood or sacrifice of Christ. But in none of them is he called ‘a priest,’ or ‘an high priest,’ nor is he said in any of them to have taken any such office upon him; neither is the nature of his oblation or intercession explained in them, nor the benefits rehearsed which accrue to us from his discharge of this office in a peculiar manner. Of what concernment these things are to our faith, obedience, and consolation—of what use to us in the whole course of our profession, in all our duties and temptations, sins and sufferings—we shall, God assisting, declare in the ensuing exposition. Now, for all the acquaintance we have with these and sundry other evangelical mysteries belonging to them or depending on them, with all the light we have into the nature and use of Mosaic institutions, and the types of the Old Testament, which make so great a part of the Scripture given and continued for our instruction, we are entirely obliged to the revelation made in and by this epistle.

A Mysterious Doctrine

And this doctrine, concerning the priesthood of Christ and the sacrifice that he offered, is on many accounts deep and mysterious. This our apostle plainly intimates in sundry passages of this epistle. With respect to this he says, the discourse he intended was δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν, ‘hard to be uttered,’ or rather, hard to be understood when uttered (Heb. 5:11); as also another apostle, that there are in this epistle δυσνόητά τινα (2 Pet. 3:16), ‘some things hard to be understood,’ which relate to this. Hence he requires that those who attend to this doctrine should be past the condition of living on ‘milk’ only, or being contented with the first rudiments and principles of religion; and that they be able to digest ‘strong meat,’ by having ‘their senses exercised to discern both good and evil’ (Heb. 5:12–14). And when he resolves to proceed in the explication of it, he declares that he is leading them ‘on to perfection’ (Heb. 6:1), or to the highest and most perfect doctrines in the mystery of Christian religion. And several other ways he manifests his judgment, as of the importance of this truth, and how needful it is to be known, so of the difficulty there is in coming to a right and full understanding of it. And all these things do justify an especial and peculiar inquiry into it.

Why Focus on This Subject?

Now, although our apostle, in his excellent order and method, has delivered to us all the material concernments of this sacred office of Christ, yet he has not done it in an entire discourse, but in such a way as his subject-matter and principal design would admit of, and indeed did necessitate. He does not in any one place, nor upon any one occasion, express and teach the whole of the doctrine concerning it, but, as himself speaks in another case, πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως, ‘by various parts,’ or degrees, and ‘in sundry ways,’ he declares and makes known the several concernments of it: for this he did partly as the Hebrews could bear it; partly as the series of his discourse led him to the mention of it, having another general end in design; and partly as the explanation of the old Aaronic institutions and ordinances, which, for the benefit of them that still adhered to them, he aimed at, required it of him.

For me to have undertaken the discourse of the whole upon any particular occasion, would have lengthened out a digression too much, diverting the reader in his perusal of the exposition; and had I insisted on the several parts and concernments of it as they do occur, I should have been necessitated to a frequent repetition of the same things. Neither way could I have given an entire representation of it, whereby the beauty and the symmetry of the whole might be made evident. This, therefore, inclined my thoughts, in the first place, to comprise a summary of the entire doctrine concerning it in these previous exercitations. From hence, as the reader may take a prospect of it singly by itself, so he may, if he please, carry along much insight with him from it into the most abstruse passages in the whole epistle. And this, added to what we have discoursed on chapter 1:2, concerning the kingly right and power of Christ, will give a more full and complete account of these his two offices than, it may be, has as yet been attempted by any.

Not the Pope’s Favourite Doctrine

Moreover, the doctrine concerning the priesthood and sacrifice of the Lord Christ has in all ages, by the craft and malice of Satan, been either directly opposed or variously corrupted; for it contains the principal foundation of the faith and consolation of the church, which are by him chiefly maligned. It is known in how many things and by how many ways it has been obscured and depraved in the Papacy. Sundry of them we have occasion to deal about in our exposition of many passages of the epistle; for they have not so much directly opposed the truth of the doctrine, as, disbelieving the use and benefit of the thing itself to the church, they have substituted various false and superstitious observances to effect the end to which this priesthood of Christ and his holy discharge thereof are alone of God designed. These, therefore, I shall no otherwise consider but as their opinions and practices occur occasionally to us, either in these exercitations or in the exposition ensuing.

But there is a generation of men, whom the craft of Satan has stirred up in this and the foregoing age, who have made it a great part of their preposterous and pernicious endeavours in and about religion to overthrow this whole office of the Lord Christ, and the efficacy of the sacrifice of himself depending thereon. This they have attempted with much subtilty and diligence, introducing a metaphorical or imaginary priesthood and sacrifice in their room; so, robbing the church of its principal treasure, they pretend to supply the end of it with their own fancies. They are the Socinians whom I intend. And there are more reasons than one why I could not omit a strict examination of their reasonings and objections against this great part of the mystery of the gospel. The reputation of parts, industry, and learning, which the bold curiosity of some has given to them, makes it necessary, at least upon unavoidable occasions, to obviate the insinuation of their poison, which that opens a way for. Besides, even among ourselves, they are not a few who embrace and do endeavour to propagate their opinions.

And the same course, with their faces seeming to look another way, is steered by the Quakers, who have at last openly espoused almost all their pernicious tenets, although in some things as yet they obscure their sentiments in cloudy expressions, as wanting will or skill to make a more perspicuous declaration of them.

And there are others also, pretending to more sobriety than those before mentioned, who do yet think that these doctrines concerning the offices and mediation of Christ are, if not unintelligible by us, yet not of any great necessity to be insisted on; for of that esteem are the mysteries of the gospel grown to be with some, with many among us. With respect to all these, added to the consideration of the edification of those that are sober and godly, I esteemed it necessary to handle this whole doctrine of the priesthood of Christ distinctly, and previously to our exposition of the uses of it as they occur in the epistle.

A Comprehensive Endeavour

There are also sundry things which may contribute much light to this doctrine, and be useful in the explication of the terms, notions, and expressions, which are applied to the declaration of it, that cannot directly and orderly be reduced under any singular text or passage in the epistle. Many dawnings there were in the world to the rising of this Sun of Righteousness—many preparations for the actual exhibition of this High Priest to the discharge of his office. And some of these were greatly instructive in the nature of this priesthood, as being appointed of God for that purpose. Such was the use of sacrifices, ordained from the foundation of the world, or the first entrance of sin; and the designation of persons in the church to the office of a figurative priesthood, for the performance of that service. By these God intended to instruct the church in the nature and benefit of what he would after accomplish, in and by his Son Jesus Christ. These things, therefore—that is, what belonged to the rite of sacrificing and the Mosaic priesthood—must be taken into consideration, as retaining yet that light in them which God had designed them to be communicative of. And, indeed, our apostle himself reduces many of the instructions which he gives us in the nature of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ to those institutions which were designed of old to typify and represent them. Besides all these, there may be observed sundry things in the common usages of mankind about this office, and the discharge of it in general, that deserve our consideration; for although all mankind, left out of the church’s enclosure, through their own blindness and the craft of him who originally seduced them into an apostasy from God, had, as to their own interest and practice, miserably depraved all sacred things, every thing that belonged to the worship or service of the Divine Being, yet they still carried along with them something that had its first fountain and spring in divine revelation, and a congruity to the inbred principles of nature. In these also—where we can separate the wheat from the chaff, what was from divine revelation or the light of nature from what was of diabolical delusion or vain superstition—we may discover what is useful and helpful to us in our design. By these means may we be enabled to reduce all sacred truth in this matter to its proper principles, and direct it to its proper end.

And these are the reasons why, although we shall have frequent occasion to insist on this office of Christ, with the proper acts and effects of it, in our ensuing exposition, both in that part of it which accompanies these exercitations and those also which, in the goodness and patience of God, may follow, yet I thought meet to handle the whole doctrine of it apart in preliminary discourses. And let not the reader suppose that he shall be imposed on with the same things handled in several ways twice over: for as the design of the exposition is to open the words of the text, to give their sense, with the purpose and arguings of the apostle, applying all to the improvement of our faith and obedience, of which nothing will here fall under our consideration; so what may be here discoursed, historically, philologically, dogmatically, or eristically, will admit of no repetition or rehearsal in the expository part of our endeavours. These things being premised, as was necessary, we apply ourselves to the work lying before us.

Biblical Terms for ‘Priest’

Our Lord Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament, as prophesied of, called כהֵן, ‘cohen:’ (Ps. 110:4) אַתָּהכהֵן לְעוֹלָם—‘Thou art cohen for ever.’ And Zechariah 6:13, וְהָיָה כהֵן עַלכִּסְאוֹ—‘And he shall be cohen upon his throne.’ We render it in both places ‘a priest;’ that is, ἱερεύς, ‘sacerdos.’ In the New Testament, that is, in this Epistle, he is frequently said to be ἱερεὺς and ἀρχιερεὺς; which we likewise express by ‘priest’ and ‘high priest,’—‘pontifex,’ ‘pontifex maximus.’ And the meaning of these words must be first inquired into.

כָּהַן, the verb, is used only in Piel, ‘cihen;’ and it signifies ‘sacerdotio fungi,’ or ‘munus sacerdotale exercere,’—‘to be a priest,’ or ‘to exercise the office of the priesthood;’ ἱερουργέω. The LXX mostly render it by ἱερατεύω, which is ‘sacerdotio fungor,’—‘to exercise the priestly office;’ although it be also used in the inauguration or consecration of a person to the priesthood. Once they translate it by λειτουργέω (2 Chron. 11:14), ‘in sacris operari,’—‘to serve (or minister) in (or about) sacred things.’ ῾Ιερουργέω is used by our apostle in this sense, and applied to the preaching of the gospel: Εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ (Rom. 15:16);—‘Employed in the sacred ministration of the gospel.’ He uses both λειτουργός and ἱερουργέω metaphorically, with respect to the προσφοράv or sacrifice which he made of the Gentiles, which was also metaphorical. And ἱερατεύω is used by Luke with respect to the Jewish service in the temple (Luke 1:8); for originally both the words have respect to proper sacrifices.

Some would have the word כִּהֵן to be ambiguous, and to signify ‘officio fungi, aut ministrare in sacris aut politicis,’—‘to discharge an office, or to minister in things sacred or political.’ But no instance can be produced of its use to this purpose. Once it seems to be applied to things not sacred. Isaiah 61:10, כֶּחָתָן יְכַהֵן פְּאֵר—‘As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments;’ or, ‘adorns himself with beauty;’ that is, beautiful garments. If the word did originally and properly signify ‘to adorn,’ it might be thence translated to the exercise of the office of the priesthood, seeing the priests therein were, by especial institution, to be clothed with garments לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאָרֶת (Exod. 28:40), ‘for glory and for beauty.’ So the priests of Moloch were called ‘chemarims,’ from the colour of their garments, or their countenances made black with the soot of their fire and sacrifices. But this is not the proper signification of the word; only, denoting the priesthood to be exercised in beautiful garments and sundry ornaments, it was thence traduced to express adorning. The LXX render it by περιτίθημι, but withal acknowledge somewhat sacerdotal in the expression: ῾Ως νυμφίῳ περιέθηκέ μοι μίτραν·—‘He has put on me’ (restraining the action to God) ‘a mitre as on a bridegroom;’ which was a sacerdotal ornament. And Aquila, ‘as a bridegroom, ἱερατευμένος στεφάνῳ·’—‘bearing the crown of the priesthood,’ or discharging the priest’s office in a crown. And the Targum, observing the peculiar application of the word in this place, adds, וככהנא דכא—‘And as an high priest is adorned.’ All agree that an allusion is made to the garments and ornaments of the high priest. The place may be tendered, ‘As a bridegroom, he’ (that is God, the bridegroom of the church) ‘does consecrate me with glory,’—‘gloriously set me apart for himself.’ The word therefore is sacred; and though כּהֵןbe traduced to signify other persons, as we shall see afterwards, yet כּהֵן[properly] is only used in a sacred sense.

Divination and Soothsaying

The Arabic כהן, ‘cahan,’ is ‘to divine, to prognosticate, to be a soothsayer, to foretell;’ and כאהן, ‘caahan,’ is ‘a diviner, a prophet, an astrologer, a figure-caster.’ This use of it came up after the priests had generally taken themselves to such arts, partly curious, partly diabolical, by the instigation of the false gods whom they ministered to. Homer puts them together, as they came afterwards mostly to be the same, Iliad. A. 62:

ἀλλ̓ ἄγε δή τινα μάντιν ἐρείομεν, ἢ ἱερῆα

ἢ καὶ ὀνειροπόλον,

‘A prophet, or a priest, or an interpreter of dreams.’

Μάγους καὶ ασστρονόμους τε και θυτας μετεπέμπετο (Herod., lib. 4); ‘He sent for magicians, astronomers, and priests,’ for θύτης is a priest; for the priests first gave out oracles and divinations in the temples of their gods. From them proceeded a generation of impostors, who exceedingly infatuated the world with a pretense of foretelling things to come, of interpreting dreams, and doing things uncouth and strange, to the amazement of the beholders. And as they all pretended to derive their skill and power from their gods, whose priests they were, so they invented, or had suggested to them by Satan, various ways and means of divination, or of attaining the knowledge of particular future events. According to those ways which in especial any of them attended to were they severally denominated. Generally they were called חֲכָמִים, ‘wise men;’ as those of Egypt (Gen. 41:8), and of Babylon (Dan. 2:12–13). Hence we render μάγοι, the followers of their arts, ‘wise men’ (Matt. 2:1). Among the Egyptians they were divided into two sorts, חַרְטֻמִּים and מְכַשְּׁפִים (Exod. 7:11); the head of one sort in the days of Moses being probably Jannes, and of the other Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8). We call them ‘magicians and sorcerers.’ Among the Babylonians there is mention of these, and two sorts more are added to them, namely, אַשָּׁפִים and כַּשְׂדִּים (Dan. 2:2). Of the difference and distinction among these we shall treat afterwards. From this practice of the generality of priests did כָּהַן come to signify ‘to soothsay’ or ‘divine.’

The Priests of Egypt

כהֵןis then a priest; and he who was first called so in the Scripture, probably in the world, was Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18). On what account he was so called shall be afterwards declared. Sometimes, though rarely, it is applied to express a priest of false gods; as of Dagon (1 Sam. 5:5); of Egypt (Gen. 41:45), ‘Joseph married the daughter of Poti-pherah, כּהֵן אן’—‘priest of On,’ that is, of Heliopolis, the chief seat of the Egyptian religious worship. Nor is there any colour why the word should here be rendered ‘prince,’ as it is, רבא, by the Targum—the Latin is ‘sacerdos,’ and the LXX. ἱερεύς—for the dignity of priests, especially of those who were eminent among them, was no less at that time in Egypt, and other parts also of the world, than was that of princes of the second sort; yea, we shall consider instances afterwards in which the kingly and priestly offices were conjoined in the same person, although none ever had the one by virtue of the other but upon special reason. It was therefore, as by Pharaoh intended, an honour to Joseph to be married to the daughter of the priest of On; for the man, according to their esteem, was wise, pious, and honourable, seeing the wisdom of the Egyptians at that time consisted principally in the knowledge of the mysteries of their religion, and from their excellency therein were they exalted and esteemed honourable. Nor can it be pleaded, in bar to this exposition, that Joseph would not marry the daughter of an idolatrous priest, for all the Egyptians were no less idolatrous than their priests, and he might as soon convert one of their daughters to the true God as one of any other; which no doubt he did, whereon she became a matriarch in Israel. In other places, where, by כהֵן, an idolatrous priest is intended, the Targum renders it by כומרא; ‘comara,’ whence are chemarims. Yet the Syriac translator of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls a priest and an high priest, even when applied to Christ, כּוּמָרָא and רַב כּוּמָרֵא, though elsewhere in the New Testament he uses כָּהֲנָא, ‘chahana,’ constantly. The reason for this I have declared elsewhere.

A Princely Title

It is confessed that this name is sometimes used to signify secondary princes, those of a second rank or degree, but is never once applied to a chief, supreme prince, or a king, though he that is so was sometimes, by virtue of some special warrant, cohen also. The Jews, therefore, after the Targum, offer violence to the text (Ps. 110:4), where they would have Melchizedek to be called a cohen because he was a prince. But it is said expressly he was a king, of which rank none is, on the account of his office, ever called cohen; but to those of a second rank it is sometimes accommodated: ‘Ira the Jairite was כהֵן לְדָוִד,’—‘a chief ruler’, say we, ‘about David’ (2 Sam. 20:26). A priest he was not, nor could be; for, as Kimchi on the place observes, he is called the ‘cohen of David,’ but a priest was not a priest to one man, but to all Israel. So David’s sons are said to be cohanim: וּבְנֵי דָוִד כּהֲנִים הָיוּ—‘And the sons of David were cohanim’ (2 Sam. 8:18); that is, ‘princes,’ though the Vulgate renders it ‘sacerdotes.’ So also Job 12:19, we translate it ‘princes.’ And in those places the Targum uses רבא, ‘rabba;’ the LXX sometimes αὐλάρχης, ‘a principal courtier,’ and sometimes συνετός, ‘a counsellor.’ It is, then, granted that princes were called כּהֲנִים, but not properly, but by way of allusion, with respect to their dignity; for the most ancient dignity was that of the priesthood. And the same name is therefore used metaphorically to express especial dignity: תִּהְיוּלִי מַמְלֶכֶת כּהֲנִים—‘And ye shall be to me a kingdom of priests’ (Exod. 19:6), speaking of the whole people. This Peter renders βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα—‘A kingly’ (or ‘royal’) ‘priesthood’ (1 Pet. 2:9). The name of the office is כְּהֻנַּה (Exod. 40:15), ἱεράτευμα, ‘pontificatus, sacerdotium,’ ‘the priesthood.’ Allowing, therefore, this application of the word, we may inquire what is the first proper signification of it. I say, therefore, that כהֵן, ‘cohen,’ is properly θύτης, ‘a sacrificer;’ nor is it otherwise to be understood or expounded, unless the abuse of the word be obvious, and a metaphorical sense necessary.

Melchizedek—the First Priest

He who is first mentioned as vested with this office is Melchizedek: וְהוּא כהֵן לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן—‘And he was a priest to the most high God’ (Gen. 14:18). The Targumists make a great difference in rendering the word כהֵן. Where it intends a priest of God properly, they retain it, כהן and כהנא; where it is applied to a prince or ruler, they render it by רבא, ‘rabba;’ and where an idolatrous priest, by כומרא. But in this matter of Melchizedek they are peculiar. In this place they use משמש, ‘meshamesh:’ והוא משמש קדם אל עלאה—‘And he was a minister before the high God.’ And by this word they express the ministry of the priests: לשמשא קדם ייי כהניא דקריבין—‘The priests who draw nigh to minister before the Lord’ (Exod. 19:22); whereby it is evident that they understood him to be a sacred officer, or a priest to God. But in Psalm 110:4, where the same word occurs again to the same purpose, they render it by רבא, ‘a prince,’ or great ruler: ‘Thou art a great ruler like Melchizedek:’ which ...