Under the New Covenant all who have "obtained access to this grace in which we stand" are priests of God. Those who once were enemies, when reconciled to God, become His ministers, through Him "who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father" (Rev. 1:5,6). No wonder that celestial voices raise in a paean of praise unto Him in the stirring words:
"Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals,
For thou wast slain and by thy blood didst redeem men for God
From every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
And hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev. 5:9, 10).
The terms "high priest" and "chief priest" are found about 123 times in the New Testament. Of these occurrences 113 directly or indirectly refer to the high priests or chief priests of Judaism. The ten exceptions are located in the epistle to the Hebrews and are direct references to our Lord Jesus Christ, presenting Him as the great high priest who was foreshadowed by the high priests under the law of Moses. Accordingly, there is not the slightest hint in these occurrences of any priest in the kingdom of God, except our Lord Himself.
The Greek word for priest is hiereus, and the term "priest" is found 33 times in the New Testament, where it refers to the Levitical priests 18 times. Of the 15 remaining occurrences, 8 refer to Christ, 3 to Melchizedek, 1 to the pagan priest of Jupiter, and the other 3 to the entire membership of the church of our Lord, who are designated as "a kingdom, even priests." In no case is the term applied to a special ministry or caste in the congregation of our Lord. No gospel preacher, bishop, or deacon was ever referred to as a priest in any distinctive sense; no such individual was a priest by right of office.
The word "priesthood" is found but six times in the New Testament. Four of these appearances are in one chapter (Hebrews 7) and in every instance the four refer either to the Levitical priesthood or to that of our Lord. The other two instances designate the entire body of believers as "a holy priesthood" (1 Peter 2:5) and "a royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9). Nothing is clearer than the fact that in the primitive church there was no priesthood other than that of the Lord Jesus Christ and every one of His followers, who were to "offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable unto God." The special priesthood in the apostate church and her denominational daughters is without scriptural warrant and represents an ungodly imposition by men who have captured these institutions for their own glory and exaltation, and manipulate them for their gain. Was ever such another widespread deception palmed off on a gullible people? Did ever another rise with such a pretentious claim to authority, asserting a divine right without a word of Divine Writ to sustain it? God's plan of the ages culminates in every saint recognized as a regal priest. Any attempt to create a special priesthood clothed with special powers to minister in things pertaining unto God is an attempted revolt against the Great King and his humble, loyal subjects.
So powerful are the ambitions of men, and so wide spread are the ideas of a sacerdotal caste in the realm of religion that it is virtually impossible to eliminate the idea of a special clergy from the minds of men so they may make a complete return to apostolic simplicity in work and worship. There is an almost universal idea among the "priests of God" that they may hire or contract with someone of superior talent to approach God in their behalf and to minister in their stead. They little seem to realize that this attitude is the seed from which priestcraft has grown.
The word "clergy" is from the Greek kleeros which means "a lot, an inheritance." The word in the original occurs 13 times in the Scriptures, where it is rendered heritage 1, inheritance 2, lot 3, lots 5, and part 2 times. It is never used to mark off a segment or portion of God's people from the rest, in the New Covenant. All who have been redeemed and have entered into Christ constitute the heritage of God. He has not selected a special group to serve as His lot or inheritance.
Under the Old Covenant, God had a special inheritance or clergy. "At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi, to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister to him and to bless in his name, to this day. Therefore Levi has no portion or inheritance with his brothers; the Lord is his inheritance, as the Lord your God said to him" (Deut. 10:8, 9). Observe that here a special group was set apart to minister unto God and to pronounce a blessing upon the remainder in God's name. Thus there was a distinction between the clergy and the laity in the previous dispensation.
Inasmuch as the Levitical priests constituted a special clergy to minister unto God, they were to be supported in their clerical duties by those in whose behalf they ministered. "The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings by fire to the Lord, and his rightful dues. They shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the Lord is their inheritance as he promised them" (Deut. 18:1,2). But under the reign of grace every child of God is sanctified or set apart, ordained to offer spiritual sacrifices unto Him, thus every Christian without exception is a clergyman or clergywoman in the only Scriptural usage of the term.
You cannot create a special clergy without by the same act creating "a laity." Wherever a clergy is recognized there must as a result be a laity. The word laos from which we get the term "laity" is found at least 141 times in the New Covenant Scriptures, where it is translated "people." In every instance when applied to the church, it refers to the whole body of believers. It never refers to a group as distinguished from a priestly or ministerial caste. Indeed, in a passage which affirms the royal priesthood of all believers, the term "laos" appear as a designation for the same group. "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people (laity), that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9).
This is a significant passage because the royal priesthood is identified as God's laity. Every priest of God is one of his laity, every member of God's laity is a priest. Every child of God is His inheritance, all of God's children constitute His clergy, but since they also constitute His laity, there can be no distinction in clergy and laity in God's church. Any church which makes such a distinction is not the Lord's church. It is noteworthy that Peter declares that Christians are God's own people (laity) "that you may declare the wonderful deeds of Him who called you out of darkness." God's laity are not those to whom messages of God are brought; but they are themselves the bringers of a message. The laity are not those who listen to a clergy declare the wonderful works of God, but they are the clergy who do the declaring!
Just as any attempt to create a special clergy must result in a laity, so any attempt to create the idea of a distinctive laity must result in the creation of a special clergy. You may designate the clergy by whatever terms you wish, borrowing the language of the apostate church, or "stealing the livery of heaven" in which to clothe them, but so long as the idea of a special ministerial caste exists, and the remainder of the saints are recognized as "the laity" that long you are nearer to Rome than to Jerusalem. It matters not if you call the clergyman "our minister," "local evangelist," or just plain "preacher." If he occupies a place of prominence in the assembly of the saints as the exclusive minister to "declare the wonderful works of God" when the whole church comes together in one place, and other saints are excluded from the opportunity by virtue of his very presence, you have a special clergy. A preacher can be a clergyman as easily as a clergyman can be a preacher.
It is at this juncture that the church of the living God is always threatened by the creation of a professional class of preachers. It is impossible to create a human organization to specialize in production of a ministerial class without by that very act implying that those who have not taken "ministerial training" are not ministers of God. This is manifest in the very language of the heads of such theological seminaries as specialize in ministerial courses. We cite the following as examples.
J. P. Sewell, president of Abilene Christian College: "A. C. C. Bible Lecture week is a regular part of the program of Abilene Christian College--the last week of February each year. The lectures begin on Sunday morning and continue until Friday night with three each day. Brethren, preachers and laymen, who are outstanding in their Christian living and teaching are invited to deliver the lectures" (Abilene Christian College Lectures, 1919).
One of the lecturers the same year was Joseph U. Yarbrough, whose subject was "Our Educational Program." He declared, "The Junior College should be a part of our educational program because it does have a distinctive place in society, and it does have a peculiar service to render to its people. It is here that most of our preachers receive their early training. The church today demands and deserves a trained minister...The small college must train for the church Christian laymen; men who live above narrow prejudices and pettiness of spirit" (A. C. C. Lectures, 1919, page 69).
When young preachers are nourished upon such clerical pap drawn from the breast of a theological Alma Mater they cannot help but become professional clergymen, and in truth "the trained minister" of today in the churches of Christ occupies exactly the same role in the thinking of the membership as does the parson or clergyman in sectarian bodies. The bane of every real attempt at restoration of God's system has been the continuous recurrence of the spirit of the clergy system, fostered by pride and encouraged by ambition. Special training given to special men leads to the development of a special class which expects special support for performance of special duties, which in the final analysis are the duties of all. Perhaps it was a recognition of this fact which led David Lipscomb to write: "We believe the selecting of a young man or middle-aged man, and giving him special training to qualify him to preach is hurtful both to him and to others in various ways and disqualifies him in some most essential particulars, for the work of preaching" (Gospel Advocate, Jan. 20, 1876, page 80).
Those restorationists who caught a true vision of the church as a royal priesthood well knew that the pristine purity of the primitive worship could never be recaptured so long as the saints came not to minister, but to be ministered unto. Among them was John Smith, from whom we have the following as quoted in Apostolic Times, April 13, 1876, page 227:
"The disciples of Jesus have been so long priest-ridden that they do not know their own privileges or abilities. They have lost or given up that system which would have made them kings and priests to God our Father; and they do not know that they can and should meet together to worship God and learn his ways without a humanly constituted priest or clergyman at their head. It seems as difficult to convince the great majority of the professed disciples of this day that they can meet and worship without a clergyman in the sacred desk as it would have been about half a century ago to convince a European that a nation could exist without a king on its throne. But the United States has fairly demonstrated the absurdity of this hypothesis; and I have strong reasons to believe that before a half century to come it will be fully proved that a congregation of believers in Jesus can walk together in the Lord with only a president (as the early Christians were wont to call their bishop or elder) chosen from among the brethren."
It is not an easy matter to convince those who have been "priest-ridden" of their "own privileges or abilities." There are two forces which militate against it. In the first place an entrenched clergy will bitterly oppose any move to jolt them from their positions of power and pelf. Many of them would be utterly incapable of making an honest living at any trade or business, and their position in the social world can only be maintained at the expense of the disciples of the lowly Nazarene. It might even be easier to convert Catholic priests into missionaries, than to convert Protestant and other "Ministers," for the former are not married, whereas many of the latter have wives who are ardent social climbers and wish to maintain for themselves and their children a high community standing in a professional sense. As Kipling has phrased it: "The female of the species is more deadly than the male!"
But the chief impediment to a complete restoration of the noble and heavenly concept of a royal priesthood of all believers upon an equitable basis, is the lethargy and indifference of those who compose the church. It is easier to pay someone to study and teach the Word than to nourish the thought that "Ye ought to be teachers." It is more convenient to hire someone to visit the sick, comfort the afflicted, restore the erring, care for the widows and orphans, proclaim the glad tidings, and minister unto the saints, than it is to do these things personally. Religion is now on a mercenary basis: It is "Big Business." A lazy and unconcerned membership demands someone to minister unto them, and there will always be a supply to meet the demand.
It has come to pass that our Christian privileges are looked upon as onerous and disagreeable duties, which we are happy to saddle upon others for a stipulated fee. We cannot take time from our favorite television programs to study the word of the Lord, our personal pleasure occupies so much of our time that we cannot go to carry the glad tidings to dying souls. So we contract with someone and guarantee him so much money to assume this grievous burden with which the Lord has laden us, and we are "at ease in Zion."
But there is a divine law of retribution and recompense. Heavenly privileges are bestowed with commensurate responsibilities attending them. It requires the personal exercise of all of these prerogatives if we are to mature in Christian service and be adjudged worthy of entrance into eternal life. God has arranged for only those exercises of spiritual faculties essential to the development of a well-attuned personality. If a person in school could hire another to take his physical education course while he sat in the bleachers and watched, the one who was hired would get both the money and the benefit accruing from the training. He would grow stronger while the one who paid him would grow flabby and weak. Likewise, when the priests of God band together to hire one to minister unto them, the one who is hired gets both their money and the strength which should be theirs. As he grows more able to teach, they become less able to do so, until finally reason is stunted, and they are helpless financial pawns in the hands of a dominant clergy. To be free men must be strong.
Many do not recognize their abilities because they have been so long buried and sublimated. It is inconceivable that in a congregation of one hundred or more eager, consecrated saints that no man could be found able to encourage his brethren to a greater zeal for God, and a professional would have to be imported to minister unto God's ministers. Certainly, abilities which have grown rusty through disuse will require some time before they once more operate fluently. This will require patience on the part of all, and a spirit of forbearance in love while brethren are developing. It will be difficult for those who have been so long fed on the richly spiced viands of professional dispensers to once more feed upon the plain rough diet as given by those whose only aim is to serve God and their fellows, but only by this method can we divest ourselves of sectarian tendencies and restore the church in the fulness of the purpose of God.
"Christianity can never be fully developed, nor can the points of difference between Christ and antichrist ever be fully settled till the liberty of the ministry to all (male) believers be fully understood, and freely admitted as valid and sufficient. This is the axe that strikes at the root of the tree of popery, inexpugnable by any other instrument, but by this, ultimately to be everted. To deny all distinction between clergy and laity, prohibits at the threshold the advance of any other papal argument; neither pope nor prelate can plant his feet where this is boldly held forth. It meets him with confutation and expulsion at the door of the sanctuary, and by referring to the sole priesthood of the divine Head of the church, who assumes into union with himself all his people, and places them "with boldness and confidence" in the "holiest of all" as "priests to God and the Father" renders it impossible for any clergyman to intrude into the fold of Christ, and to usurp functions which his brethren may not perform with an authenticity and validity fully equal to any that he can claim. But it is marvellous to see how this important truth of the gospel has been neglected, and how Christians (antichristians) have in almost all Protestant denominations, set themselves to the work or consolidated such a form of church government as should reduce the priesthood of the whole body to a naked theory, and make that a mere idea, abstracted from anything practical or tangible, which was intended to be a governing principle of the church upon earth" ("How to Exclude the Clergy"--The Christian Messenger and Reformer, March, 1840, page 33).
There is no sacrifice demanded of one of God's people today, which is not demanded of all. The sacrifice may differ in degree but not in nature. There is no act of devotion which is required of one of the regal priests which is not equally required of every other. Any system which operates to forbid or render impossible the functioning of every priest according to ability is subversive of God's whole system. Equality of opportunity does not imply equality of ability. The divine right of every Christian to give of his means does not argue that all will be able to contribute an equal amount, but the right of the widow to cast in her two mites was equal to that of the wealthier to cast in their far greater amounts. So the divine right to speak to his brethren to their edification, exhortation and comfort, belongs to every priest, although one may differ from another in ability to express his deep emotions.
God's house is a "stone house" and while all the animate stones in the superstructure may not be the same size, shape or weight, each is essential to the superstructure and each contributes his proportionate share both to the strength and symmetry of the building. "Like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Whatever spiritual sacrifices are required in these days, it is the prerogative of the whole spiritual house, the entire holy priesthood, to offer within the bounds of sacred restrictions imposed for the good, as the gifts are bestowed for the benefit, of the body as a whole.
We are not left to test and experiment with other forms and ideas. God has established a system which is the climax of all his creative genius. The inferior priesthood of the past pointed toward this sublime age of universal priesthood. We are not to go back to the literal and limited ministry of the previous dispensation, but we are to implement and utilize the spiritual and comprehensive priesthood made possible by the one who first became both sacrifice and priest. God's plan will work for us, if we will work his plan for him. When God had a limited priesthood, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram sought to make it inclusive of the whole congregation, and perished for their evil attempt. Of what punishment shall he be thought worthy who now seeks to install a limited priesthood for the universal one which God has revealed?