The Making of a Priest in the Byzantine Tradition - Bishop Basil of Sergievo
In the Byzantine tradition no provision is made for the ordination of a priest. One ordains either a high priest, a presbyter or a deacon. In any case, it is the Holy Spirit who ordains, not the bishop. Imprecise language is often used, however, as for example in the standard English translation of the service for the consecration of a bishop made by Isabel Hapgood (Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Appstolic Church, Syrian Antiochian Archdiocese, 4th ed., New York, 1965). Whereas the Greek and Slavonic original regularly has 'high priest', e.g. 'as You sanctified high priests', Hapgood renders this 'as Thou hast consecrated bishops'. The service of consecration of a bishop in both its Greek and its Slavonic form assumes a close link with the Old Testament high priesthood and develops it liturgically. After his election, on the eve of consecration, the candidate is invited to stand on the orlets, the small circular carpet bearing the image of a single-headed eagle flying over the walls of a city. Only a bishop is allowed to stand on the orlets while celebrating, and thus its use here implies that God has already marked out the candidate as a bishop before his consecration. The next morning, the candidate, wearing presbyteral vestments, stands at the altar, whilst the consecrating bishops stand in the middle of the church. They enter the sanctuary at the Little Entrance, and the deacon, who has been censing the presiding bishop as he enters, hands him the censer and he then censes the altar and sanctuary. The bishops pass behind the altar to their thrones in the apse. The Mystagogia of Maximus the Confessor explains that the bishop's coming into the church represents the Son of God coming into the world, while his passing into the sanctuary to ascend his throne represents the ascension and enthronement of Christ. The consecration service of a bishop thus represents liturgically the candidate being taken into the heavens and enthroned. In the Russian practice, the presiding bishop blesses during the 'Thrice Holy' with a two-branched candlestick (i.e. he represents the God-man, Christ), while after he has ascended the throne he blesses with the three-branched candlestick (i.e. he is one of the Trinity). The bishops then descend to surround the altar, and the candidate is led in to kneel on both knees directly before the altar. (A presbyter kneels on both knees, a deacon on his right knee only, both at the side of the altar to indicate that they serve the bishop who stands as high priest before God). A Gospel is opened over the candidate's head, written side downwards, and the presiding bishop reads the first prayer. In this, and in the litany and prayer that follow, high priesthood is mentioned five times. The candidate is then vested and the ordaining bishops greet him with a kiss. Afterwards the new bishop ascends to his throne behind the altar and for the first time blesses the people using both hands (a presbyter blesses with one hand only). Liturgically, the new bishop has ascended into heaven and joined Christ at the right hand of the Father. The printed texts for the consecration do not now include the prayers for vesting, but when a bishop is vested in the centre of a church before the Liturgy, special verses of Scripture are used:
With the stikharion, a white, sleeved garment, originally of linen, Isaiah 61.10, is intoned. The Targum specifically links Isaiah's 'robe of righteousness and garment of salvation' to the vestment of the high priest.
With the epitrakhelion, or stole, Psalm 132.9 (English Ps.133) is used, 'the myrrh on the head of Aaron'.
With the girdle a form of Psalm 17.32ff (English Ps 18) is chanted, thereby introducing a royal element and combining the roles of king and high priest.
With the right cuff, Exodus 15.6ff, 'the right hand of the Lord'; with the left cuff, Psalm 118.73 (English Ps 119) 'thy hands have made and fashioned me'. (Compare Irenaeus's reference to the Son and the Spirit as 'the two hands of God'.)
With the palitsa, a diamond-shaped piece of stiffened cloth hung by a cord from the shoulder on the right side, Psalm 44.3-5(English Ps.45) is used, 'gird thy sword', another royal element, perhaps to linked to the sharp two-edged sword of the Son of Man in Rev.1.12ff.
With the sakkos, a kaftan-like garment, Psalm 131.9 (English Ps.132), modified to read: 'Thy [high] priests shall clothe themselves'.
With the omophorion (the pallium of the Western Church): 'Thou hast taken upon Thy shoulders our human nature that had gone astray, and hast ascended to heaven, bearing it to God and Father'. This differs from Philo's understanding of the high priest, that he was no longer a man when he entered the holy of holies (On Dreams II.189,231). The Byzantine bishop, like Christ, puts on human nature and carries it with him to his throne in heaven.
After the cross and panaghia have been put around the bishop's neck, the mitre is set on his head while the deacon chants a form of Psalm 20.3ff (English Ps.21). At the front of the mitre there is normally an icon of Christ, with a cross in his halo and the words ho on, 'He Who Is', the Septuagint translation of the Name of the Lord revealed to Moses (Exodus 3.14). The high priest of Israel also wore the Name on his forehead, engraved on a gold seal (Exod.28.36). Maximus the Confessor explains that what one finds in the Old Testament is a shadow (skia) of the Truth, while the new dispensation in an icon (eikon) of the Truth in that it is closer to the reality, in this case, Christ.
After his consecration, the new bishop stands in the middle of the church and receives his staff (zhezl). This is not like a Western crozier, but has two serpents twined around it, not unlike the caduceus, or messenger's wand. He is an angelos, one of the earliest titles of Christ. No verse of Scripture is associated with the giving of the staff. Whoever composed the Byzantine consecration service had a consistent view of what he was doing. The man chosen by the Holy Spirit is made high priest, king and shepherd. The new bishop passes from earth to heaven, and joins the Liturgy of heaven in his new role. The orlets, the eagle on which he stands, seems to indicate the mystical heights to which he is carried (Isa. 40.31), and reminds one of the woman in Revelation 12.14 and of Jesusā sayings: 'where I am, there shall my servant be also' (John 12.26); and 'that they also whom thou hast given me, should be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory' (John 17.24). This is not the eschatological future, but a present reality that is given expression in the Liturgy. The Byzantine service for the consecration of a bishop has its roots in the oldest strata of the New Testament and ultimately in the worship of the Temple in Jerusalem. It is only within the framework of Temple worship that it can be understood. Indeed, it preserves aspects of Temple tradition that would not have been independently available to Christians living in later centuries. The oldest MS text of the service belongs to the ninth century, but the service reflects Maximus's understanding of Liturgy in the seventh century. It also reflects the world of Dionysius the Areopagite in the sixth century. Other aspects are attested in the fourth century Fathers, while the spirit of the prayers can be traced back to the Apostolic Tradition at the beginning of the third century. What is most striking, however, is that the service expresses liturgically the understanding of the word of Christ that is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Although Melchizedek appears in only three places in the Bible (Gen.14.18-20; Ps.110; Hebrews 7), there are many more traditions about him in the Qumran texts, in the Targums, in Rabbinic tradition, in the Nag Hamadi Gnostic texts, in the Greek, Latin and Syriac Fathers and in Coptic Liturgy. He is cited in support of several different arguments, but he must have been a controversial figure as he is not mentioned in the Targum of Psalm 110, and his name is very obviously missing from Jubilees 13.25-26. In recent years he has become the object of much interest as it is now quite clear that there was a large body of pre-Christian tradition about Melchizedek which is later attested in both Jewish and Christian materials. Modern books dealing with the history of doctrine do not notice that the oldest form of teaching about the universal priesthood has its roots in traditions which were also known to the Rabbis. The polemics and the narrower views were a later development. In the light of this study of Melchizedek, it is also clear that the character of the sacrificial meal, the Eucharist, must take account of the priesthood of Christ as Melchizedek, who offered bread and wine to Abraham. Justin Martyr (Trypho 33, also 19 and 113) argued that Melchizedek was the uncircumcised high priest who blessed the circumcised Abraham; Tertullian (Against the Jews 2) had similar views. These were examples of Christian polemic against the Jews. There were, however, non-polemical interpretations of Melchizedek, for example Theophilus of Antioch (about 190CE) who argued that Melchizedek was the first priest of priests, the first of the universal priesthood (Autolycus 2.31). There was a similar tradition in 2 Enoch 71.28 ( The Slavonic Enoch), where the infant Melchizedek was recognised as the Lord's priest to all priests. Melchizedek as a type of Christ witnessed to the universality of an ancient priesthood before the time of Moses and Aaron. Clement of Alexandria has a non-polemical view of Melchizedek's priesthood, (Miscellanies 2.25), which is also found in the consecration prayers for a bishop in the Apostolic Constitution. These are still used in the Coptic Church, citing Melchizedek as one among many Old Testament priests. Jewish tradition, perhaps conscious of the problem of a non-levitical priesthood, sometimes identified Melchizedek as Shem, the son of Noah, and ancestor of the Semitic people. The Palestinian Targum tradition has Melchizedek as Shem (Neofiti and Fragments, Ps Jonathan) but T. Onkelos does not. Jerome, recording the Hebrew traditions of his own time, says they believed Melchizedek to have been Shem, and his sons to have been priests before the time of Aaron. Shem lived 800 years (Gen 11.11) and so would have been alive until the time of Isaac, and could have met and blessed Abraham (Questions on Genesis). Melchizedek as Shem was also known to St. Ephrem the Syrian (Commentary on Genesis 11.2). Linked to this was the question of the heirs of Melchizedek; who was priest after him? According to a teaching attributed in the Babylonian Talmud to R Ishmael (early second century CE), Melchizedek in his blessing had mentioned Abraham before God Most High (Gen. 14.19), and so his priesthood passed to Abraham, to whom Ps.110 was addressed (b.Nedarim 32b; c.f. Lev.R 25.6). Given the date of this teaching, it could have been anti-Christian polemic, to counter the claims in the Epistle to the Hebrews that Jesus was Melchizedek. Jerome and other Western scholars seem not to have known this tradition, but it was known in Antioch in the school founded by Diodorus, e.g. in St John Chrysostom's Commentary on Psalm 110. Melchizedek was the king of Salem who brought out bread and wine to Abraham. He was a priest-king and his name was understood to mean 'the righteous king' (e.g. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan), and the bread and wine he offered to Abraham were said to be symbols of the priesthood, the bread being the Shewbread and the wine being the libations (Gen.R.XLIII.6). Philo also noted that Mekchizedek did not bring out the usual hospitality gifts of bread and water for his guests; instead of water he brought out wine (Allegorical Interpretation III.82). This must be the significance of Jesus's miracle at Cana, when he 'manifested his glory' (John 2.11). Melchizedek was the king of Salem who brought out bread and wine to Abraham (Gen.14.18), but where was Salem? Psalm 76.2 identifies it as Zion, c.f Josephus Ant 7.3.2; War 6..10.1; and all the Targums render Salem as Jerusalem. So also does the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon (1Q 20 XXII). Jerome noted that the Hebrews identified Salem as Jerusalem (Hebrew Questions on Genesis), but in a later work he thought Salem was Samaria (Letter 73). There had been an ancient city Salim (Salem) near Nablus (LXX Gen.33.18; LXX Jer 48.5 Salem= Hebrew 41.5, where Salem was Shiloh; also Jub.30.1; Judith 4.4). This may be the Salim of John 3.23, near where John baptised. The Spanish Christian pilgrim Egeria (about 390CE) was shown a large village in the Jordan valley, said to have been the city of Melchizedek. The Samaritans had claimed Salem at least since Pseudo-Eupolemos, 2nd century BCE, who says Abraham met Melchizedek near Mount Gerizim. Melchizedek went to meet Abraham 'in the Valley of Shaveh, that is the King's Valley' (Gen.14.17). There were various traditions about this place; it was not the Shaveh Kiriathim of Gen 14.5, but possibly that of 2 Sam.18.18, which Josephus says was two stadia from Jerusalem (Ant.7.10.3). Fragment Targum has Valley of hzwz` (Vat E 440), with similar hzwh, 'vision' in Neofiti margin. In the Palestinian Targums, the valley of vision was the 'oaks of Mamre' (Gen.12.6). T. Neofiti identifies the meeting place as 'the valley of the gardens', pardesaya, a paradise place. Ps Jonathan Gen 14.3,8,10 identifies the Valley of Siddim, where Abraham fought the kings, as the Valley of Gardens, implying that it was the same as the Valley of Shaveh where Abraham met Melchizedek. According to Jerome, Aquila and Theodotion both understood the name of this valley to mean 'pleasant groves' and in the Vulgate, Jerome rendered Siddim as vallis silvester, woodland valley. Origen of Alexandria understood that this was the Paradise where Adam and Eve had lived. Thus there were memories of Melchizedek as a priest in Paradise, as can be seen in 2 Enoch 72.1(The Slavonic Enoch), which describes how the infant Melchizedek was taken to Paradise for safety when the Noah's flood was about to destroy the earth. The Midrash Rabbah also says that meeting place had several names: the Valley of Siddim, the valley of Shaveh and also the Valley of Succoth, Siddim meaning that oaks trees grew there, Succoth that it was shaded with trees (Gen.R.XLII.5). But there was also a Salt Sea there (Gen.14.3) which was a problem. R.Aibu taught: 'There was no sea there but the rocky banks of the river (Jordan?) were broken through and a sea was formed...'(Gen.R XLII.5). This is important for Christian liturgical tradition as the Jordan was regarded as one of the rivers of Paradise (c.f. ben Sira 24.25-27, where the Jordan is one of the rivers of Paradise). In the Qumran Melchizedek Text, (11 QMelch). Melchizedek is depicted as the heavenly anointed high priest who returns in the last days to bring judgement on evil and to rescue and protect his faithful. He was to make the final great Atonement sacrifice of the tenth Jubilee... and then the text breaks off. In the Coptic Liturgy, Psalm 110 is recited before a bishop reads the Gospel during the Eucharist. Coptic commentaries on the Liturgy can be traced back to the 10th century and perhaps even earlier, and retain early elements. The bishop as the type of Christ brings the victory of God over evil and darkness. Coptic bishops carry the book of the Gospels and repeat the words of Exodus 15.1-2 to declare the victory of God and peace. Psalm 110, the Melchizedek Psalm, is used more often in the New Testament than any other text of Scripture. It declares the Kingship, Priesthood and Ascension of Jesus, but should not be separated from the other Melchizedek traditions: that God was revealed in the old land of Paradise, an idea which dominates the Eastern Liturgies, where the Church becomes the Paradise of God. If Melchizedek was the priest God Most high, and his priesthood passed through Abraham, then Jesus was the priest to bring all the sons of Noah back into the fold.
The Heavenly Liturgy in Eastern Orthodox Christian Tradition - David Melling
The Jewish world out of which the Christian Church emerged knew of angelic worship before the heavenly Throne (e.g. Isa. 6, Rev.4-6 & 19), and an angelic liturgy is known from Qumran (Sabbath Songs 4Q400-407; Blessings 4Q 280, 286-290). The theological synthesis of Origen furnished the Church with a sophisticated Christian Platonism. Platonistic theologians and the Byzantine hymnographers saw the angels as forming a whole invisible world of immortal intelligences. Pseudo-Dionysios wove angelogical doctrine into the heart of the Mysteries and the hierarchy. The liturgical books of the eastern Church are a major written deposit of the Church's tradition. Eastern liturgical texts are particularly theologically rich, and offer crucially important witness to the living doctrinal tradition of the Church. An enquirer seeking to identify the angelogical doctrine of the Eastern Church will find it in the texts of the Mysteries and the hymns of the feasts and offices. The prayers of the Divine Liturgy furnish further important evidence for Eastern Christian angelology, as do many of the prayers used in the other Mysteries. Liturgical texts show the angels praising God with unceasing hymns. Many hymns emphasise the unceasing quality of angelic worship: like their creator the angels do not sleep. The Akoimetoi monks symbolically imitated this aspect of their worship. The angels' unceasing song is accompanied by an endless dance and the earthly faithful are invited to join in their dance. The image the hymns offer of Heaven's liturgical life is not one of unchanging calm and stillness, but of unending change and progress. The angels are created as living images of God and reflect back his divine light. The illumination of the angels by the divine light deifies them. The angels' worship is offered to God in unity and trinity. It is contemplative worship, but at the same time it is worship offered by intelligences ablaze with divine love. Several hymns, however, emphasise the role of Christ the Word as object and content of the angels' contemplation, and as the object of the angels' doxologies. The Word is presented in the hymns as the Creator of the angels. The angels' doxology is a manifestation in the human world of the worship the angels offer to the incarnate Word. The contemplation of the divine mystery by the highest angelic choirs involves for Dionysios a shared rumination on the wonder of the Jesus economy and enlightenment from Jesus himself as to its nature and significance. The knowledge received as the result of the highest ranks' contemplations is disseminated downwards through the lower choirs of angels, spreading enlightenment. Their 'participation in divine knowledge' is, he says, ' purification, enlightenment and perfection' (CH VII.3). At the heart of the eastern Christian liturgical paradosis is the notion that the Divine Liturgy and the Mysteries are actions of Christ through the Holy Spirit in which humans are drawn into the life of the Holy Trinity. The rites are the outward expression of divine transforming action. According to Dionysios, divine illumination pours down upon the Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones, who impart it to the lower angelic choirs in so far as they are able to receive it. Angelic worship is not merely doxology; it is theology in the fullest sense, contemplation, and its fruits expressed in song and dance. Dionysios presents the Church's hierarchy as an image of the angelic, but the Church's worship is not merely an image of the angelic liturgy. In celebrating the offices, we join ourselves to the angels' worship. The Byzantine Rite inherited from Jewish worship the liturgical use of the Tersanctus and produced three variants:
The acclamation Holy Holy Holy Lord Sabbaoth, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosannah in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the Lord's name Hosannah in the highest' This, as in the Latin Rite, concludes the preface to the Anaphora.
The Trisagion' Holy God, holy Strong, holy Immortal, have mercy on us' which forms a part of the opening prayers of many offices and is sung solemnly before the scriptural reading in the Divine Liturgy.
The Hagios Kyrios sung at the Pasa Pnoi at Sunday Matins.
The angelic hymns play an important part in the Divine Liturgy. The prayers and the Thrice Holy Hymn symbolically identify the sanctuary and the holy table where the earthly rite is celebrated with the altar and throne on high where the angelic liturgy is celebrated. The relationship of the human congregation with the angels is not merely that of imitators, or even of privileged participants in their worship; the office hymns ask the angels to intercede for humankind, and they are co-workers of the faithful. The angels are guardians of humanity and ministers of salvation. Like humans beings, the angels, even the Cherubim, fear to gaze on God, though they are pure of mind and sinless. Just as human worshippers join in the angelic hymns and are taken in some way into the angels' worship, so too the angels join in the worship of the earthly church. Both Gospel Book and bread and wine are symbols of Christ. Both enter the assembly and both are escorted to the altar in a procession where angels form part of the escort. The implication of the prayers and hymns associated with the entrance rites is that the angels share with the human congregation in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. It is a commonplace to interpret the earthly Divine Liturgy as an icon of the heavenly liturgy. What the prayers imply is something more. The holy table in the earthly temple mystically becomes the exalted throne, the assembly in the church building becomes the court of heaven gathered with the angels before the Throne. The rite occurring on earth in a temple of brick and wood becomes identical with the heavenly liturgy. John of Damascus (De Fide Orthodoxa II 12) presents humanity as created by God to be a link, connecting the invisible with the visible.
Evolving Notions of Priesthood in Rabbinic Literature - Professor Stefan Reif
In the Hebrew Bible, the priest mediates for Israel by way of the sacrificial ceremonies, enjoying special privileges but also suffering from significant restrictions. He functions in various ways in the community and has a major role in the religious hierarchy of ancient Israel. It is not therefore surprising that the Hebrew Bible is permeated with priestly practices and ideas. During the Second Temple period, the priests became involved in broader Temple activities and in proto-synagogal contexts that included Torah education. Although they remained religiously conservative regarding biblical precepts, their political role expanded and they were not averse to influences from the Greek world. Reactions to such activities may be found in the communities of Qumran and the early Rabbis. The evidence from Qumran points to a rejection of the Jerusalem priesthood in favour of their own, and a consequent spiritualisation of the notion of sacrifice. The priests play a leading role in the sect's ritual and judicial activities and in their ideology but there appears to be a gradual weakening of priestly power over the three centuries of its existence. The extensive talmudic sources record a degree of animosity towards the priesthood's cultic, ethical and political behaviour in the period leading up to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple but at the same time elements of priestly liturgy are absorbed into the proto-rabbinic prayers. This tension about whether priests are to retain their privileged position or are to be succeeded by the rabbis is manifest throughout the talmudic literature. Although biblical privileges are to a large extent retained, and the priestly genealogy continues to be recognised, intellectual and halakhic leadership becomes more democratically available. As the rabbinic liturgy acquired a more formal nature in the early medieval period, only the recitation of the priestly benediction remained in the priest's possession and there were some arguments for weakening even that privilege, especially among the Jewish communities in Christian lands. The halakhic authorities in the Middle Ages generally maintained the biblical restrictions and some of the special honour that applied to the priests but were content to leave the restoration of their total power to the messianic age. The priests did at times mount counter-attacks in attempts to restore their earlier authority but generally with only limited success. With the rise of the modern progressive movements, even the few ceremonial roles and restrictions left to the priests were abolished in all but orthodox communities. In the latter, there were doubts about the priestly role in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but these seem to have been widely overcome in more recent decades.
Priesthood in the Syriac Tradition - Dr David G.K. Taylor
After a brief introduction to Syriac Christianity, in which factors that affected the emergence of a distinctive local theology of priesthood were noted, such as its contact with a wide variety of religious groups and its Biblical canon which differed in a number of significant respects from that employed in Greek and Latin Christianity, the paper explored the evidence for the historical development of the Syriac priestly offices in biblical, patristic, and canonical sources. The emphasis on the practical, pastoral duties of priests to be found in the 'demonstrations' of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (fl. 337) was then explored, and the later development of this concern in the Doctrina Addai and Moshe bar Kipho. The paper then turned to explore Syriac attitudes towards the Jewish Aaronic priesthood, and in particular the early belief that Christ was himself an Aaronic priest (either by birth, or by consecration at the hands of Simeon and/or John the Baptist) and that this priesthood was not annulled but was passed on to the apostles through the laying on of hands. The rise to dominance within Syriac Christianity of a theology of priesthood based on the Melchisedeq tradition, a tradition that usually regarded the Aaronic priesthood as having been abrogated, was then charted. The two traditions were still held in uneasy tension in Jacob of Serugh, but with the translation into Syriac later in the sixth century of the writings of Ps-Dionysius the balance shifted. The influential treatises on priesthood of Iwannis of Dara (C.9), Bar 'Ebroyo (C.13), and Patriarch Timothy II (C.14), reflect the acceptance in both East and West Syrian Christianity of the belief that Christ instituted a new priesthood for the Church modelled on that of the heavenly hosts. Finally some Syrian traditions that reflect a wider understanding of priesthood than the established offices of the Church, such as the priesthood of the laity and the hidden priesthood of the ascetics were examined.
