The Biblical Foundations of Christian Ministry

CHAPTER TWO

from Women and Ministry in the New Testament,by Elisabeth M. Tetlow, Paulist Press, 1980.
Republised on our website with the necessary permissions

Religious Office In The Old Testament

The religious milieu in which Jesus lived his own ministry and in which the early Church began to select the forms of its ministry was predominantly that of late Judaism in Palestine. Judaism in the intertestamental period, although influenced from the outside to some extent by hellenism and other currents of oriental syncretism, was primarily grounded from the inside on the rock of Old Testament scripture. To understand the character of Jesus’ own ministry and to comprehend the meaning of the forms of ministry chosen by the earliest Christian community, it is necessary to have some knowledge of the forms of religious office portrayed in the Old Testament.

From the time of the exile, and even earlier, it is possible to distinguish two traditions of ministry and worship in the Old Testament. First there is the tradition of cult, sacrifice and temple. The ministry for this type of worship was restricted to the levitical priest- hood. But there was also a second tradition of worship and office 1 which was centered in the word. The forerunners of this tradition were the prophets and sages of ancient times. After the exile the ministers of the word were wisdom teachers, scribes and rabbis. This became the Torah-centered tradition of the synagogue.

In the time of Jesus both traditions were important in the religious life of Palestinian Judaism. Both were available models upon which Jesus and the early Christian community might draw in defining the character of Christian ministry and religious office within the nascent Church. Some knowledge of the meaning of each of these traditions in the Old Testament is an essential prerequisite for derstanding development of Christian ministry in the New Testament.

The Tradition of Priesthood

The dominant tradition of worship and religious office in Israel before the exile was that of the priesthood and temple cult. But priesthood and cult did not appear out of a vacuum. They have a history, and this history had an influence on the character of the office as it later developed.

The History of Priesthood in Israel

During the early period of the Israelite monarchy, the people began to seek understanding about how the important offices of king and priest came into being. Stories were composed about an earlier time, an age of great patriarchal ancestors. The patriarch was the head of his family and clan. As such he was also the religious leader of the clan and their representative before God. The patriarch built altars and shrines, consecrated them and offered sacrifices to God. The office of patriarch has been called a form of “natural priesthood” since the patriarch exercised priestly functions based upon his position within the family and clan rather than upon official consecration. There are numerous stories in the book of Genesis about the cultic activities of the major patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.(1) Each was portrayed consecrating sanctuaries and offering sacrifices to God.

Levi is named among the twelve sons of Jacob and the twelve tribes of Israel.(2) It is not certain whether the tribe of Levi was actually considered priestly from the beginning, or whether it was originally a secular tribe which later became specialized in cultic office.(3) Exodus twice mentions the existence of priests in Israel before the formal institution of the tribe of Levi as priests by Moses at Sinai.(4) There was, however, no well-defined order of priesthood until the ratification of the Sinai covenant.

Moses himself is called a priest only in Psalm 99:6, but never in the Pentateuch. The Yahwist account of Moses’ birth in Egypt affirms his levitical ancestry.(5) The priestly editors of the Sinai narrative, however, recognized only Moses’ brother Aaron and Aaron’s sons as legitimate priests. Moses was portrayed as anointing Aaron and his sons as priests with oil and with blood from the sacrifice.(6)

Moses was the last individual whom the priestly tradition in the Old Testament described as approaching God directly. After the establishment of the covenant, priesthood and cult at Sinai, thenceforth it was the function of the priest to mediate the relationship between the people and God. The social and religious importance of the priests increased in proportion to the exclusiveness of their claim to the right to this function.

During the period of the settlement in the promised land, members of the tribe of Levi began to take over the cultic functions of the people. For the first time in this period there are historical texts which were actually composed during the time that they describe. The situation which is presented is that there were at first many Levites in the south. The tribe of Levi was becoming increasingly specialized in cultic activity. There were too few cultic positions in the south, so many Levites migrated north seeking employment. Gradually they put non-levitical ministers both in the south and later in the north out of business. The levitical priests achieved economic security by asserting their exclusive rights to exercise cultic functions through clan solidarity against all competitors.(7)

The title “priest” (kohen) and the concept of priestly office seem to have been of Canaanite origin.(8) This type of office emerged in most ancient near eastern cultures as they reached a certain degree of sedentary urban civilization.(9) In Israel the institution of priesthood developed around established sanctuaries, many of which had originally been Canaanite. Priestly families arose to prominence at the major shrines of Dan, Nob and Shiloh.(10)

During the monarchy the history of the priesthood became increasingly complex. At the beginning of the monarchy the levitical house of Eli moved from Shiloh to Nob where they were massacred by Saul. Only Abiathar escaped. When David became king, he made Abiathar, who was the sole heir of the priesthood of the most powerful sanctuary in Israel, and another unknown and mysterious figure, Zadok, the official priests of his new royal capital, Jerusalem, When Abiathar supported Adonijah, Solomon deposed him and made Zadok the sole official priest of his reign.(11) From that time until the second century B.C. the house of Zadok controlled the official priesthood of the Jerusalem Temple.

Who was this Zakok? One scholarly theory is that Zadok was the Jebusite(12) priest of Jerusalem before David conquered the city.(13) David then simply allowed him to continue in that position after he took over, possibly to make his own authority more acceptable to the Jebusite inhabitants of the city. If this were true, it would have been necessary to legitimize the priesthood of Zadok in the eyes of Israel. This may have been the intention of two Old Testament passages which date from this period: Genesis 14 and Psalm 110. Both refer to the archetypal ancestor of the Jebusite priesthood at Jerusalem, Melchizedek, and to the recognition of Melchizedek’s priesthood by Abraham, the archetypal ancestor of Israel. Both would lead the reader to conclude that if Abraham recognized the priesthood of Melchizedek, then the contemporary Israelite could accept the legitimacy of the priesthood of Zadok.(14)

The reform of Josiah in 621 B.C. was a turning point in the history of Israelite priesthood. Before that time shrines still existed outside of Jerusalem and each shrine had its own priesthood. The Josian reform put a definitive end to the provincial shrines and centralized all worship in the Jerusalem Temple. Sacrifice henceforth was permitted only in the Temple and could only legitimately be offered by the temple priesthood.

Many Israelites lived outside of Jerusalem and were unable to travel to the city to worship very frequently. The centralization of the priestly cult in Jerusalem created a situation in which other forms of worship began to develop which were independent of priesthood and cult.

In the Temple itself a hierarchical structure of clerical offices was developing. Some of the provincial levites who migrated to Jerusalem after the closing of the shrines found work in the Temple as menial functionaries. At the summit of the hierarchy there was one official priest who was head of the house of Zadok and chief of the temple clergy.(15) When Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in 587 B.C. there were a chief priest and a “second priest” who administered the Temple, and three “keepers of the threshold” who were in charge of collections.(16) Under them were the “elders of the priests” who were the heads of the various priestly families. At the bottom of the hierarchy, under the ordinary priests, were the singers and gatekeepers, some of whom were levites, Women had no place in the hierarchy. They were permitted only the task of serving outside the entrance to the Temple.(17)

In 587 B.C. the highest priestly classes were deported into exile in Babylon. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed and the traditional cult ceased. The cultic role of the king came to a permanent end. The catastrophe of the exile made persons of different classes into peers. This led to power struggle and polarization. The former ruling classes sought restoration of their power based upon models of their own institutions. The formerly oppressed classes sought power based upon archaic models and a program of revolution.(18) 1 The powerful and aristocratic zadokite temple clergy had been taken into exile in Babylon. The poor client levites had been left in the land. It is possible that those who remained in Palestine during; the exile performed cultic functions at the site of the ruined Temple.(19) Whatever form their ministry had taken, these priests and levites had enjoyed complete freedom of ministry for more than half a century. The conflict was inevitable when their former zadokite superiors returned from Babylon. The restoration program of the zadokite aristocracy is recorded in the book of Ezekiel. The pre-exilic zadokite temple structures were transformed into a program for a future ideal hierocratic state. Only zadokites were to function as priests in the new temple.(20) An explicit distinction was made between priests and levites. Only priests were considered sufficiently holy to approach the presence of God. Levites were to function only as temple servants. Before the exile there is no recorded zadokite claim to aaronic descent. During the restoration the zadokite clan sought to increase and legitimize their authority by establishing roots in the traditions of Torah and Yahwism through a new genealogy linking their ancestry to Aaron. Those priests who could not prove their descent from Aaron were excluded from priestly service in the Second Temple.

In the year 445 B.C. Ezra promulgated the final priestly edition of the Pentateuch, which was thenceforth recognized as sacred scripture and as law. The actual powers of the priests were thereby transformed into legal institutions.(21) In the “priestly code” all priests were declared “sons of Aaron.” Aaron himself was presented as the first high priest. The ritual actions, vestments and regulations of purity of the Second Temple were ascribed to institution by Moses himself. priests and levites were represented as distinct from the very beginning Levites were shown not to be descended from Aaron. They were described as being given to the priests to be their servants.(22)

The zadokite control of the temple priesthood came to an end in 172 B.C. with the deposition of Jason. The Hasmonean rulers later appointed themselves to the office of high priest. But many Jews rejected them as illegitimate because they were not members of the zadokite clan.(23)

During the Roman period the high priesthood became a political appointment with no regard for genealogical legitimacy.(24) The office ceased to be held for life. The frequent replacement of high priests created a new class of high priestly families in Jerusalem. These formed an influential aristocracy at the time of Jesus. The high priesthood itself, however, was no longer the supreme authority it had been in the Persian period.

When the Roman legions destroyed the Second Temple in 70 A.D. the active functioning of the priesthood and the cult itself came to a final end. Priestly ministry and cultic worship thenceforth ceased to exist in Judaism. They were replaced by the ministry of the word.

The Nature of Israelite Priesthood

The priesthood of Israel was an exclusive and elite professional caste in which there was membership only on the basis of birth. A man was born a priest if he could trace his ancestry through Aaron to Levi. Priesthood was a caste which specialized in the performance of the cult. In the last five centuries of its existence, the primary function of Israelite priesthood was to officiate at the rites of animal sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple.

After the exile and the demise of the monarchy, the high priest replaced the king as the most important and influential political figure m the nation. Since all worship had been centralized by law in the Temple, the temple priesthood had complete control over the cult. They were paid taxes and stipends for their services and thereby became quite wealthy in many periods of history. Priesthood in Israel was an institution of power, which was both political and economic.

The priest was understood as the representative of God to the people and of the people to God. Thus he stood in the middle, between the two, as mediator. Other religious offices, such as that of prophet, were governed by divine charism. For the priesthood, technique replaced charism. The priest was the person who knew the proper rites and rituals to influence God to be favorable to the petitioner’s request. The performance of such rites was generally bought; and sold for money or goods.

The institution of priesthood reflected a theology of God as transcendent, holy and set apart from his people.(25) The priest, as mediator between this unapproachably transcendent deity and the people, himself took on some of the qualities of the deity he represented. Priests came to be viewed as themselves holy and set apart from the people. There was an acute awareness of ritual impurity or lack of holiness as a barrier to entering the presence of the holy. Only the priests had access to God’s presence. This was ultimately restricted only to the high priest and that only once a year on Yom Kippur. Women, who were generally viewed as ritually impure, were totally excluded both from the priesthood and from access to the presence of God, Priesthood was the most completely male dominated religious institution in Israel. It was the only religious office from which women were excluded by law. There was simply no question that a woman could ever serve as priest in Judaism.

Installation into the Office of Priest

Ordination, understood as incorporation into a new order, did not take place in Israelite priesthood. Priesthood was understood as an office, not a vocation. A person was born a priest by virtue of his ancestry. God had chosen the archetypal ancestors, Levi and Aaron. It was not necessary that he choose the descendent.

Priests were installed into the service of a particular sanctuary. In the early history of Israel there were various forms of installation ritual. One early form was the ceremony of the “filling of the hands,”(26) in which a symbol of the stipend he would receive in the service of the sanctuary was placed in the hands of the new priest. Later a new priest was given parts of the sacrificial victim, symbolizing his share in the revenues of the sanctuary. Another rite of installation was the imposition of hands. It was performed by the people.(27) It symbolized the offering of the first-born to God, for which the priest acted as substitute. This rite was not used only for priests. Joshua was installed in the secular office of leader of the people through the imposition of hands by Moses.(28) After the exile the high priest was installed into office in a tripartite ceremony of purification, investiture and anointing.(29) The ritual of anointing was extended to other priests in later times.(30)

A man was born a priest, then installed into the priesthood of the Temple or a sanctuary. Through service in the sanctuary he came to be viewed as further set apart from the people. Thus through his work the priest took on a greater aura of holiness. It was imperative that he observe all the special regulations of ritual purity in order to enter the holy place. These regulations and ritual practices then served to set him even further apart from other people and attached an even greater sense of holiness to his person.

Thus in Israel a man became a priest by birth and was consecrated and set apart through his functioning as a priest. A ceremony of installation was not necessary to make him a priest, only to install him officially into a particular priestly position. Ultimately it was the grounding of priesthood upon genealogy that made any sort of ordination unnecessary.

The Meaning of Priesthood in Israel

Admission to the priesthood in Israel was determined by genealogy. Call by God, possession of his gifts, merit or competence were totally irrelevant. Priests were viewed as holy, but this was understood in terms of observance of regulations and rites, not in terms of goodness or sanctity.

The object of priestly ministry was not the people or their spiritual needs, but the cult itself, its practice and preservation. In its social consequences, priesthood in Israel came to mean power, elite status and membership in an exclusive caste which held itself above and apart from the rest of the people. Like any human institution it was subject to internal corruption, which was frequently proportionate to the amount of power it held at the time. The history of the office was one of almost continual conflict, feud and power struggle. Priesthood in Israel was primarily a conservative force, dedicated to preserving its own power and status, its cult and itself as an institution.

The Tradition of the Word

Priesthood and sacrificial cult were not the only forms of ministry and worship in Israel. From the very beginning of the monarchy there is written evidence of the activity of prophets and wisdom teachers. Although prophecy and wisdom were themselves independent schools, the two traditions are alike in emphasizing the word and standing apart from the cult. They are also similar in the practice of grounding religious office upon call and competence, not upon clan membership or genealogy.

The Prophetic Tradition

The prophet was a person who was called by God to speak his word. The person, man or woman, was called on the basis of God’s choice, not on the basis of personal status or ancestry. When God chose an individual as his prophet, he then gave that individual the gifts necessary to carry out the call. Thus prophecy in Israel may be described as a charismatic office. The prophet was called and gifted to proclaim God’s word of covenant and promise, of judgment and redemption.

Prophecy emerged in Israel as part of a revival of Yahwism against the threat of Canaanite syncretism centered in the priestly cult of the provincial shrines and sanctuaries. Again and again the prophets called the people and their priests away from idolatry of cult and back to the word of Yahweh. Often the people did not want to listen to the harsh words of the prophets. Sometimes their refusal to listen and return to the word is portrayed by the Old Testament writers as resulting in national disaster. God called prophets and commissioned them to proclaim his word. When the people did not listen and repent, foreign armies destroyed the nation and even its Temple.

Only a few of the prophets committed their prophecy to writing. The writing prophets lived during a period of less than three centuries.(31) The most active years of prophecy in Israel were before the exile. Many prophets were associated with the monarchy. One of the functions of the Israelite prophet was to challenge the king. Some prophets lived at the royal court. With the demise of the monarchy after the exile, the office of prophet also came to an end. Post-exilic writers began to speculate about the coming of a future prophet in the messianic age.

The primary difference between prophecy and priesthood was that the prophet communicated with God on the basis of personal relationship and charism. The priest consulted God through the use of sacred objects and cultic techniques, and on the basis of membership in a special caste.(32) The priesthood was itself a power structure, whereas the prophets generally challenged existing power structures. Another difference between priesthood and prophecy was a contrasting view of the role of women. Women were totally excluded by law from the office of priesthood. But women were called to the office of prophet which they exercised on the same basis as men. Five women prophets are named in the Old Testament: Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, the wife of Isaiah, and Noadiah.(33) The prophet Joel envisioned both men and women prophesying in the future ideal age.(34)

The Wisdom Tradition

The wisdom tradition was a continual factor in the history of Israel from earliest times. King Solomon modeled his court on the courts of Egypt, collecting wisdom teachers around himself as court officials. In later centuries wisdom schools grew and spread throughout the land.

In the earliest wisdom literature of Israel there is mention of wise women: the wise women of Tekoa, of Abel and of the court of Sisera.(35) Later the wisdom schools were dominated by men. Women were excluded not only from teaching wisdom, but also from studying it. Ironically the post-exilic wisdom schools personified both Wisdom and Torah as feminine figures with many stereotypical feminine roles and attributes. Both Wisdom and Torah were exalted almost to a state of divinity as feminine hypostases of God active in the world.

Whereas the priest and the prophet were more concerned with the religious life of the people as a whole, the wisdom teacher addressed the individual person and educated him in the traditions of wisdom. Priesthood and prophecy were theocentric. Priesthood presented a transcendent God who was far distant from the people and unapproachable in holiness. Prophecy presented a God who was transcendent, but who was also very concerned about and involved in the moral and religious conduct of his people. Wisdom on the other hand was more anthropocentric. It focused on the human person in the midst of ordinary life on this earth. This included the person’s relationship to God. The wisdom teacher taught how to live in wholeness and dignity in relationship with fellow human persons and with God. A man became a wisdom teacher on the basis of study and competence which were recognized by the community that he served.

After the exile, when kingship and prophecy had ceased, it was the wisdom tradition which responded most effectively to the crisis and gave it theological meaning. After the return to Palestine the temple cult was restored but no longer met the religious needs of all the people. Other non-cultic forms of worship had been discovered during the exile in Babylon when there was no temple cult available. The law and the word of scripture had become the axis of Jewish religion. Scribes such as Ezra emerged from the wisdom schools, teaching and interpreting the Torah. Other places of worship called synagogues were established in Babylon and later throughout Palestine. Wisdom schools came to be located in the synagogues, and the wisdom teachers who taught there later came to be called scribes and rabbis.

The Synagogue Tradition

According to rabbinic tradition the Torah was handed down directly by Moses through the prophets to the hundred and twenty elders of the “Great Synagogue” as Israel returned to Palestine after the exile. These men were said to have instituted the prayers of synagogue worship.(36) The tradition of the Great Synagogue and its elders as the religious leaders of Israel after the exile was based upon rabbinic exegesis of Nehemiah 8-10. Historically it is not known for certain when the synagogue originated. Rabbinic tradition, Philo and Josephus traced it all the way back to Moses. This view was, however, based upon legend. The prototype of the synagogue began to develop in the seventh century B.C. when worship was centralized in Jerusalem and the provincial shrines closed down and their clergy exiled. During the Babylonian exile the development of non-sacrificial worship became an urgent need since during the decades of exile it was the only form of worship available to the Jewish people. After the return the synagogue tradition continued to grow both in the diaspora and in Palestine where it existed for centuries side by side with the temple cult. It became not merely a substitute for temple worship, but an important form and tradition of worship in its own right. By the first century A.D. there were synagogues in every town and village in Palestine, and even one within the precincts of the Temple itself.(37)

In late Judaism the synagogue tradition gradually increased in importance as the temple tradition diminished in importance. In the Greek and Roman periods, scribes and rabbis came together in the Pharisee party and dominated the religious life of the synagogue. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. the rabbis came to dominate the entire religious thought, literature and worship of Judaism.

In the time of Jesus the synagogue formed the religious tradition and worship of Galilee, as it did in all the regions of Palestine outside of Jerusalem. The Temple was still important and people went up to Jerusalem on the great pilgrim festivals. However, four decades after the death of Jesus the Temple was destroyed by Roman legions. In the diaspora Jewish communities were already totally independent of the temple tradition and united in the synagogue. Thus at a time when the early Church was still in its period of formation in the areas of ministry and worship, the tradition of the word superseded the tradition of priesthood and cult as the sole form of ministry and worship in Judaism. This fact was one among many influences on the development of early Christianity.

The Religious Offices in the Synagogue

The office of wisdom teacher, scribe and rabbi was a teaching office, proclaiming and interpreting the word of God to the people. It was based upon individual competence and acceptance by the community. There was another office in the synagogue tradition which an office of administration, of judging and sometimes also of proclamation of the word. This was the office of elder, an ancient institution which emerged out of the patriarchal structures of Israel’s pre-history.

The office of elder in Israel, as in other ancient near eastern societies,(38) was based upon the authority of age and the wisdom which presumably accompanied it. The Hebrew word for elder, zaqen, literally meant “one who wore a beard.” The earliest historical texts in the Old Testament mention the existence of the office of elder. During the period of the settlement, elders were chiefs of clans and heads of families.(39) Somewhat later they formed the collective governing bodies of the towns.(40) They played a role in the establishment of the monarchy and in its politics, including those of the divided monarchy. It was the elders, not the priests, who anointed David king.(41) Elders continued to play an important political role during the exile(42) and in the Persian(43) and Greek periods.(44)

Elders performed judicial, as well as administrative functions. They sat at the town gates and judged disputes.(45) Later they formed judicial institutions.(46) When someone was killed by an unknown murderer, the elders of the nearest town were supposed to kill a heifer to prevent a blood feud.(47)

Elders also performed religious functions. They are portrayed in the Old Testament as representing the people before God at important moments in the history of Israel: at the exodus and the ratification of the covenant at Sinai.(48) In the Sinai narrative in Exodus 14, the elders were allowed to approach the presence of God as closely as Aaron, who symbolically represented the priesthood of Israel. In Exodus 18:12 it was Aaron and the elders who shared in eating the bread of Jethro’s sacrifice. In Numbers 11:16-26 the Elohist writer presented Moses choosing seventy elders from among the elders of Israel and communicating to them the divine Spirit which rested on him.(49)

The elders of Israel were the forerunners of the elders of the synagogue. The latter were selected by co-optation and then chose from among their number the “head” of the synagogue.(50) Synagogue elders were installed in office by prayer and the imposition of hands.(51) Elders were given seats of honor in the synagogue and permitted to interpret the Torah. Some of their interpretations were preserved and collected.(52)

The highest offices in the synagogue were voluntary lay offices. The elders ruled the synagogue. The head of the synagogue was the chief administrator. Under the elders there were salaried lay officials whom the elders hired to serve the synagogue. The hazzan was the person in charge of the building and its furnishings. He also announced the times of service and handed the scroll to the reader and received it back from him. If there was no one else to do it, he might lead the prayers and read from the Torah. In practice he was a sacristan, master of ceremonies and teacher.(53)

Schools were located in the synagogues. Worship was understood as a means of instruction, and learning was understood as worship. Any adult person was permitted to read and preach. Women technically had this right, but were forbidden to exercise it at public services.(54) In late Judaism women were not even permitted to study Torah. Naturally persons who had spent years studying the Torah were more welcome as preachers and teachers than persons who had little education. The wise and educated preachers were called rabbis, a title of honor. In post-biblical Judaism the rabbinate developed into an ordained and salaried office.

In the synagogue tradition there were two types of religious office. That of elder was held on the basis of age and patriarchal status within the community. Because of its patriarchal nature, this office was closed to women. The office of rabbi, which was religiously the more important, was based upon learning and competence, wisdom and knowledge. Theoretically it was open to women, although its exercise was in practice closed to women by contemporary social custom and by restrictions on their access to the requisite education.

Conclusion

The tradition of priesthood had confined worship to the prescribed rituals of the cult. The tradition of the word focused worship on the hearing, understanding and living of the word of God found in scripture. The cult was concerned with the relationship of the people as a whole to God. The synagogue tradition was concerned with the religious life of the individual. The elders of Israel did at times hold political power, but they exercised it collectively. The priests held political power most of the time and exercised it hierarchically, with one individual standing at the top of the pyramid of power. Patriarchal structures existed both in the priesthood and in the office of elder. Such structures did not, however, determine the character of the offices of prophet, wisdom teacher or rabbi. The office of prophet was grounded in the call of God and exercised through the charisms of his Spirit. The office of rabbi was grounded upon individual competence and wisdom, a combination of the person’s own effort of study and the gifting of God

Thus there were two major traditions of ministry and worship in late Judaism. The one was focused on cult, the other on the word. The first related to God as object, to be moved by means of ritual. The second related to God as subject, to be listened to when he spoke to his people. The first based religious office on membership by birth in an elite caste. The second based it upon vocation and gifting by God. The first shaped its official structures on a model of hierarchy. The second followed a collective model of community.

The ministry of priesthood was completely closed to women by law. The ministry of word was at least theoretically, although not practically, open to women. Marriage was mandatory for rabbinic ordination and was considered an asset to that ministry.(55) Marriage was practiced by priests, often polygamously. Yet it remained a hindrance to cultic ministry since contact with a woman rendered the priest ritually impure and unable to participate in his cultic duties.

The ministries of priesthood and word each satisfied some of the religious needs of the people. Yet each left other needs unfulfilled. I Neither tradition of ministry or worship was sufficient in itself. In post-exilic Judaism dissatisfaction with the situation and institutions of the present age led some writers to describe their hopes for an ideal age to come. Frequently these expectations took the form of the figure of a messianic king who would solve the immediate problem of political emancipation. Other writers expressed hope for the advent of an ideal prophet or priest.(56) Only one writer, Second Isaiah, described a new and unique figure, a suffering servant, who would combine in himself the functions of priest and minister of the word and at the same time transform and elevate both traditions.(57)

The two models of ministry of priesthood and word both existed during the lifetime of Jesus and were important in the contemporary religious life of Palestinian Judaism. The tradition of priesthood and cult had little influence, however, on Judaism in the diaspora. In 70 A.D. this tradition came to a definitive end even in Palestine itself. All ministry in Judaism henceforth was that of the word.

The New Testament was formed in the milieux of both Palestinian and diaspora Judaism. The evangelists drew upon earlier traditions of the life and ministry of Jesus which had originated in Palestine. But the actual written scripture of the New Testament was composed in the second half of the first century, mainly by authors coming out of various regions of the diaspora whose knowledge of Palestinian Judaism was secondhand. The next section of this chapter will explore the question of the models of ministry presented by the New Testament writers in the light of the historical background of contemporary Jewish religious offices.

MINISTRY ACCORDING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Ministry of Jesus

The foundation of all Christian ministry is Jesus himself: who he is and what he said and did. The writers of the New Testament portray the ministry of Jesus in scenes of teaching and proclaiming the gospel, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, serving and self-offering in suffering and death. A theology of ministry must seek to understand Jesus in terms of his life and actions and what these mean for the shape of the ministry of his followers. It will not consider all the christological titles through which New Testament theologians sought to understand Jesus’ identity. Most of these emphasized his exalted status which set him apart from ordinary persons. It will focus rather on the words and actions which the evangelists attributed to Jesus’ historical life and ministry. These will be considered within the context of two great ministerial traditions of late Judaism. Then it will be necessary to ask the question whether the ministry of Jesus fit within either or both of these traditions, or whether he initiated a third new and unique form of ministry. After determining the nature of Jesus’ own ministry, the subsequent section of the chapter will explore the question of which tradition of ministry became normative for Jesus’ followers. Did the early Church experiment with more than one of the antecedent traditions before defining its own structures and forms of ministry? Did its final decision for the forms of ministry within the New Testament era coincide with the character of the life and ministry of Jesus and the type of ministry he personally demanded of his followers?

Ministy of Word

All four evangelists present Jesus as a teacher. Despite the evangelists’ different theological understandings of Jesus’ identity they nonetheless consistently portrayed him as a teacher, both in his own actions and words, and in the response of those who heard him. Jesus was commonly addressed by the people as “teacher.”(58) He taught in the synagogue on numerous occasions,(59) and also in the Temple.(60)

Like other contemporary Jewish teachers, Jesus taught the general public, but also gathered disciples around himself for a deeper and ongoing teaching relationship. The disciples addressed Jesus as “rabbi” or “teacher” and they are called “disciples,” as were contemporary rabbinical students. Jesus is described as a “teacher of the law,”(61) and is portrayed like the rabbis as frequently being asked questions about the interpretation of scripture. He customarily began his teaching with a text from scripture and then expounded upon it.(62)

As a teacher Jesus was also radically different from contemporary Jewish rabbis. He went beyond their traditional interpretation of the Torah and proclaimed his own teaching.(63) He taught with power and his teaching caused astonishment in his listeners.(64) He reversed some current interpretations of Torah and in one case may: even have contradicted the letter of the law.(65) Jesus also used his own; unique forms of teaching, such as the parable.

In the synoptic gospels Jesus’ teaching was often associated with a ministry of healing.(66) Frequently in miracle stories the person requesting Jesus’ aid addressed him as “teacher.(67)

During his lifetime Jesus did not follow a systematic program for healing all the sick people in the world. Rather he healed those with whom he came into contact, in spontaneous compassion and on the basis of the person’s need. Such healings were exemplary, serving as signs of who Jesus was and of how he came to serve. He did not heal only the physical symptoms, but the whole person, in his or her psychological, spiritual and moral dimensions as well. Jesus’ ministry of healing was a form of ministry of the word through concrete signs of the presence and power of God’s word in his gospel and in himself.

Jesus’ ministry of teaching was also associated with acts of feeding the hungry. When he taught the crowds of thousands, he did not give them only ideas for their heads. The evangelists portray Jesus as aware of the deeper hunger of human beings. He gave them food for their bodies and his word which was food for the deepest longings of their hearts. He finally gave them himself at the last supper and at Calvary, the ultimate food which would heal and strengthen the whole person, giving life in the Father.

The message of Jesus’ teaching is a word of life. The synoptic evangelists portray Jesus as proclaiming the advent of the kingdom of God. God’s reign is already present in Jesus’ own person. After his death and resurrection it will be manifested in power.(68) Jesus entrusted the mystery of the kingdom to his disciples.(69) The reign of God will bring life and salvation.(70) It may be experienced initially in the community of those who believe in Jesus. It will be experienced fully at the end of time.

The fourth evangelist developed the teaching of Jesus theologically. Jesus’ teaching is presented in John as not his own, but that of the Father who sent him.(71) Jesus received it from his Father.(72) Throughout the fourth gospel Jesus is portrayed as the supreme teacher of wisdom. His work is to utter truth and to instruct men and women in the ways of God, thereby leading them to eternal life. His word demands allegiance.(73) His instruction is symbolized concretely in images of food (bread) and drink (wine and water). These are the sources of life, which satisfy the human person’s deepest hunger and thirst. Jesus is more than just a wisdom teacher. He is wisdom itself. He is himself the bread and the word of life.

Thus in every aspect of his teaching Jesus went far beyond the tradition of the rabbis. He did not repeat their traditional interpretations of the Torah. He proclaimed and himself embodied a radically new torah. He proclaimed not the words of others, but the word of God which was himself. He did not only feed the minds of his listeners with instruction. He fed human persons in their wholeness, healing their brokenness and feeding them with his word of life.

Ministry of Priesthood

In the New Testament writings, with the sole exception of the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is no explicit affirmation that Jesus was a priest. Historically he was not a priest according to the norms of Judaism. However, there are hints in the synoptic gospels,(74) pauline epistles,(75) and in the johannine literature(76) that the communities which produced these writings were aware of some aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry which could possibly be understood as priestly.

The only book in the New Testament in which Jesus is explicitly called “priest” and “high priest” is the Epistle to the Hebrews. Written by an unknown author and addressed to Jewish Christians, Hebrews focused the greater part of its contents on the question of the priesthood of Jesus. The epistle itself was a “word of exhortation”(77) intended to aid a community of Christians whose misunderstanding of the identity and ministry of Jesus had led to a real danger of apostasy.

Hebrews compared the priesthood of Jesus with the priesthood of Israel. It did not find them on an equal level. The epistle continually points out the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood. First of all it is superior to the priesthood of Moses(78) and to that of Aaron and his descendents(79) because Jesus is the Son of God. Then the epistle presents the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood to that of the whole tribe Levi. Through Melchizedek, Jesus’ priesthood was eternal and confirmed by oath.(80) The levitical priesthood was temporal and not confirmed by oath. Furthermore, the sacrifice of Jesus was offered once for all, whereas those of the levitical priests had to be repeated daily Finally, Jesus’ priesthood was superior because he himself was sinless and perfect, whereas the levitical priests had to offer sacrifice for their own sins.

The epistle next contrasted the old and the new covenants. The former was considered obsolete for it had been abrogated, Jesus’ priesthood is again shown to be superior because it is based upon a new and better covenant.(81) Then the two covenant sacrifices are contrasted.(82) Jesus’ sacrifice is seen as superior to those of the levitical priests first of all because he offered his own blood, not merely that of an animal. Through his offering of himself, Jesus mediated and ratified the establishment of a new covenant. Secondly, Jesus entered not only into the Holy of Holies in the Temple, but into the very presence of God in heaven. Thirdly, the sacrifice of Jesus was superi-or because it was offered once for all with no need of repetition. The epistle developed these points still further in the following section (83) Since the repeatedly offered animal sacrifices are themselves imperfect, they cannot make human beings perfect. Only the perfect sacrifice of Jesus can effect the perfection and sanctification of God’s people.

The priestly functions of Christ according to the Epistle to the Hebrews are the offering of sacrifice once for all, continuing intercession for the people, and the establishment of a new covenant through his blood. Because Jesus was a priest of the new covenant, he was a new and different sort of priest. His offering of himself in sacrifice resembled not the cult of the levitical priests but the self-offering of the suffering servant. The re-establishment of the covenant was one of the functions of the suffering servant.(84) His suffering and death would heal the sins of Israel and restore the relationship of the people with their God.(85) After his sacrificial self-offering, the servant, like Jesus, would be vindicated and exalted by God.

Nowhere does the Epistle to the Hebrews connect the priesthood and sacrificial ministry of Jesus with any sort of priestly or sacrificial ministry on the part of Christians. On the contrary, it presents reasons against such a development. Jesus’ priestly act of sacrifice was performed once for all and abolished any need for further sacrifice. The present ministry of Jesus, according to Hebrews, is one of intercession. The new covenant is one of promise and inheritance which elicits a response of love and righteous conduct.(86) It is not a covenant of cult, of sacrificial ritual or of observance of regulations.(87) Nowhere does Hebrews propose Old Testament priesthood as a model for Christian ministry. The type of ministry suggested by Hebrews is rather one of healing, peacemaking, sanctification, exhortation, love, hospitality and care of prisoners and outcasts.(88)

Ministry of Service

In the Old Testament the phrase “servant of the Lord” is profoundly rich in connotative meaning. It was applied to all the great religious heroes: the patriarchs, Moses, David, the prophets and the wise man Job. It denotes a righteous Israelite, one who kept the covenant of the Lord. It frequently formed part of the confession of faith and humility of the good person calling him/herself “your servant” when standing before God in prayer.(89)

The word “servant” in Hebrew means one who does work for another or who belongs to another like a slave. It also meant one who was committed to another in loyal allegiance, as the soldiers or ministers of the king. The word “service” in Hebrew had the further meaning of cultic worship. The “servant of the Lord” was thus a person who stood faithful to God in worship and prayer. Finally, the Lord’s servant was the person who lived in faithful obedience to his covenant.(90)

The title “servant of the Lord” is used with special significance in Second Isaiah. In the book as a whole, outside of the servant songs, the phrase denotes the whole people Israel. Yahweh has created his servant, chosen and called him. God asked the servant only to trust him and promised the gift of his help.

In the servant songs, which are distinct from, yet closely related to the other parts of Second Isaiah, the figure of the servant has also been understood collectively. Yet the second servant song(91) portrays both the servant and God speaking about a mission of the servant to Israel. This passage presents the greatest obstacle to a collective understanding of the servant, for it is difficult to see how the same figure can represent both Israel and God’s minister to Israel.(92) Some interpreters of these passages from the intertestamental period on through the centuries have understood the servant as an individual and some have even identified the servant with the messiah.(93)

The servant songs draw a vivid portrait of the servant of the Lord. The servant has been formed by Yahweh from the womb, chosen, called and solemnly named by God who endowed the servant with his own Holy Spirit.(94) Righteous and innocent, he would bear the sins of the people. He would suffer violence, humiliation and rejection. Finally, he would be put to death, offering his life for the salvation of the people.(95)

The ministry of the servant was to serve Yahweh and the people Israel and ultimately also the gentiles. It was to serve those who most needed but did not necessarily merit help. This service was to be accomplished in several ways. The ministry of the servant was first of all the proclamation of God’s word of justice.(96) In Second Isaiah the establishment of God’s justice was connected with the historical restoration of Israel, In the servant songs this meaning was extended so that the servant was called to mediate God’s truth, righteousness and salvation as a light to the nations.(97)

The second ministerial function of the servant in these passages was to suffer. The servant accepted suffering voluntarily and made it an offering and an intercession for the sin of the people. His suffering would effect the healing of the people from their sins and their restoration to wholeness. This suffering would culminate in the death of the servant. Yet he would ultimately be vindicated by Yahweh before all the kings and peoples of the earth.(98)

In the Old Testament and the intertestamental literature the servant of the Lord was sometimes identified with the messiah.(99) However, none of these texts goes so far as to suggest that the servant as messiah would suffer.(100) There was a basic dichotomy in late Judaism between the expectation of a victorious king-messiah who would restore the national and earthly glory of Israel, and the humble and obscure figure of the suffering servant.

In the New Testament the title “servant” with a personal pronoun connecting it to God was applied to Jesus five times: at his baptism, twice in Peter’s sermon in Acts, and twice in the response of Peter’s friends.(101) All of these passages are from early strata of tradition.

The servant songs of Second Isaiah are explicitly cited six times in the New Testament.(102) The influence of the songs on New Testament christology is however much greater. Implicit references to the servant songs are found in pre-pauline,(103) pre-synoptic,(104) and early johannine tradition.(105) Servant references appear in the archaic confessional and liturgical formulae which are much older than the written epistles and gospels. Thus the servant understanding of Jesus seems to have been important in the very earliest christological tradition of the New Testament.

Three elements in the synoptic account of Jesus’ baptism are related to the first servant song:(106) the phrases “son,” “beloved” and “well pleased.” Matthew described Jesus’ ministry of preaching and healing in terms of two Isaian passages which reflect the theology of servant.(107) According to Cullman,(108) all three synoptic gospels and Paul present Jesus in the role of the servant in the last supper accounts. Underlying the passion predictions there may also be a veiled reference to Isaiah 53. The title “lamb” in the baptism narrative in John, when understood through its Aramaic equivalent which means both “lamb” and “servant” is generally accepted as another designation of Jesus as the servant.(l09) In Acts it was by showing the identity of Jesus as the servant of Isaiah 53 that Philip effected the conversion of the Ethiopian.(110)

It is not possible to know for certain whether Jesus understood himself as the suffering servant of Second Isaiah. The synoptic evangelists portray Jesus speaking about himself in the imagery of servant theology.(111) Such sayings stem from early, pre-synoptic tradition. It is possible that they do represent actual sayings of Jesus. This cannot, however, be known for certain. In these passages the evangelists present Jesus explicitly connecting his own servanthood with the nature of discipleship which he expected of his followers.(112) “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant.”(113)

What is evident from the New Testament is that the suffering servant of the Lord was an important image through which the primitive Christian community sought to understand Jesus’ identity and ministry. The early servant christology was later eclipsed by other christological images, perhaps because the humble figure of the servant seemed less than adequate to the christology of the gentile church which preferred to portray Jesus as the son of God and the exalted and glorified Lord.

The servant according to the Old Testament was, like the prophet, called and chosen by God and gifted with his charisms and with his Spirit. The servant was also, like the prophet, commissioned to proclaim the word of the Lord. Both the servant and the prophet confidently expected that even if their efforts were a failure in the eyes of the world they would ultimately be vindicated by God. Like the priest the servant represented the people before God and offered sacrifice.(114) Thus the ministry of the servant was a ministry of both word and sacrifice. Yet it transcended the ministry of prophet and priest because the servant ultimately offered himself, his own suffering and death, as word and sacrifice, thereby bringing the salvation of the Lord.

The ministry of the servant as presented in the New Testament is a combination of service of the word and of priesthood. Yet it also transcended both. The servant served the Lord and his people.(115) He served by proclamation of the word and by himself being the word. He served by feeding the hungry, healing the broken, suffering and dying.(116) Jesus’ own ministry of service was presented in the New Testament as a primary model for the ministry of his followers.(117)

The ministry of the servant in the Old Testament was rooted in his relationship with God and in the gifting of the Holy Spirit. The foundation of Jesus’ own ministry lay in his relationship to his Father and its manifestation in continuous personal prayer. For Jesus as for his followers the source of ministry is not the self, but God. Ministry is possible only insofar as the minister’s life is rooted in deep personal relationship to God.

In the New Testament there are strong traditions of Jesus’ prayer. The evangelists attest to the importance of prayer in the life of Jesus by the great number of times they portray Jesus praying. For Jesus prayer was both a private act(118) and a communal one. Jesus regularly attended public worship in the synagogue where he also ministered himself by preaching and healing.(119) He also sought privacy and solitude for prayer.(120) The traditions of his private prayer are strongest in Luke(121) where Jesus is portrayed as habitually praying at moments of importance and decision.(122) Five independent traditions bear witness to Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane at this great moment of crisis.(123) Jesus prayed also during his final moments on the cross.(124)

Jesus’ teaching on prayer is found in all four strands of synoptic tradition.(125) He strongly urged his followers to approach God in prayer and to expect God to hear and answer their prayers.(126) He taught them to come together in groups to pray, as well as to pray individually.(127) Finally he taught them how to pray: Abba, Father.(128)

Jesus related to God in a special way as son to his Father. Yet he taught his followers also to relate to God as their Father. As children of the same Father, he proclaimed them his own brothers and sisters.

Jesus’ relationship to God as son is linked with the image of his anointing by the Holy Spirit in the gospel scenes of his baptism.(129) In the course of his ministry Jesus continually experienced the power of the Spirit in his acts of healing and exorcism.(130)

The character of Jesus’ own life and ministry stand as an example for his followers. Christian life and servant ministry must fundamentally be rooted in deep personal relationship with God. This relationship is manifested both in prayer which is frequent and sometimes even constant, and also in the presence and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

The ministry of Jesus was a ministry of both word and sacrifice. Yet it was a ministry which far transcended the functions of the rabbi and priest. His ministry was a ministry of service, service of gratuitous self-offering in suffering and even death for the salvation of the people. Jesus came to serve: to serve his Father and all the people. His service was manifested in many forms: teaching and healing, proclaiming the gospel and feeding the hungry, suffering and dying. His service effected the restoration of men and women to wholeness before God.

The primary Old Testament image through which the writers of the New Testament understood Jesus’ ministry was that of the suffering servant of Second Isaiah. Some New Testament writers did also portray Jesus as priest, but with important qualifications. His priesthood was radically different from that of the levitical priests and his once-for-all sacrifice of himself abolished the need for any continuation of priesthood or cult of the levitical model. In short, Jesus’ priesthood resembled that of the suffering servant, not that of the temple priests.

The evangelists also presented Jesus as a rabbi, but here too the image was qualified. Jesus was not bound to the rabbinic tradition of legal interpretation. In total freedom he preached God’s reign, in comparison to which the law was of subordinate importance and might even be put aside when it stood in the way of God’s working in love.

Thus Jesus united in himself the great ministerial traditions of Judaism through the image of the servant. At the same time he transformed these traditions and gave them new meaning. The words and actions of Jesus as presented by the four evangelists provide the concrete basis for a model of Christian ministry. Jesus was himself a servant, and he instructed his followers also to be servants. He ministered to the deepest needs of the people, healing their brokenness, satisfying their hunger and thirst for God, restoring them to wholeness in their humanity. His own life and ministry were grounded in his relationship to his Father and in the presence and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Jesus called men and women to follow him and to live and serve as he had lived and served

Ministry During the Lifetime of Jesus: Discipleship

While Jesus himself was yet living and ministering on this earth, he began to send forth other persons to minister also. This was the beginning of Christian ministry. What was the nature of this earliest form of ministry during Jesus’ own lifetime? It was determined by Jesus himself: who he was, how he himself ministered, his call to follow him and his sending forth. Jesus did not establish structural offices, much less a hierarchy of offices. Nor did he ordain. There is no mention of a Christian priesthood either during the lifetime of Jesus or in the New Testament Church.

There is only one title used in the New Testament to describe the ministry of Jesus’ followers before the resurrection: discipleship. Jesus called men and women to follow him and become his disciples. Those persons whom he called left their previous occupations and possessions, followed Jesus and became his disciples. What precisely did it mean to be a “disciple”? In the New Testament discipleship of Jesus is presented within the framework of ministry of word. However, this is qualified as, more importantly, ministry of service. The Christian disciple differs from the rabbinic disciple precisely because (s)he is called to be God’s servant, just as the master, Jesus, was himself servant.

In the ancient Mediterranean world, the concept of discipleship originated in the Greek philosophical schools.(131) The Hebrew and Greek words for “disciple” are not found in the Hebrew Old Testament or in the Septuagint. The Old Testament prophets seem to have avoided the image of the teacher-disciple relationship.(132) Instead they pointed to God as sole teacher and human persons as disciples of God.(133) There was little veneration of persons or of tradition in the Old Testament in comparison to what developed later in the rabbinic schools. In the Old Testament God was presented as revealing his word more or less directly to his people.

In the Greek philosophical schools disciples served and imitated their teachers as well as learned from them. This concept of discipleship influenced Judaism in the hellenistic period. The first mention of a distinct class of wisdom teachers in Judaism occurred in Ben Sira which was written in the early second century B.C. shortly before the Maccabean revolt when hellenistic influence on Palestinian Judaism was intense.(134) Ben Sira himself presided over a scribal school in Jerusalem.

In the Greek and Roman periods these scribal schools grew and developed into rabbinical schools. The rabbis dedicated their lives to the study of the Torah. Rabbis who were members of the Pharisee party at the time of Jesus called themselves “disciples of Moses.”(135) Rabbinic teachers required of their disciples learning of the Torah itself and also of the rabbi’s own interpretation of the Torah. Service of and submission to the teacher were also expected of rabbinic disciples. In the first century, schools of rabbinic interpretation were developing in which tradition was formally handed down from master to disciple. When the disciple had mastered the tradition of his teacher, then he in turn was ordained a rabbi and began to teach and to acquire disciples in his own right. The discipleship of Paul to Rabbi Gamaliel is described in Acts.(136) In the first century women were not permitted to study Torah in the rabbinic schools.

In the New Testament Jesus was addressed as “rabbi” by his own disciples and by outsiders. He taught, interpreted scripture and had disciples. There were, however, major differences between the mode of discipleship required by Jesus and that of the rabbinical schools. In the first place, Jesus himself personally called at least some of his disciples.(137) The rabbis usually waited until disciples came to them. The disciples called by Jesus lacked appropriate qualifications for rabbinic discipleship, such as learning and strict observance of the law. They were instead unlettered fishermen and public sinners. According to the fourth gospel, the disciples were given to Jesus by his Father.(138) Some disciples did, however, come to Jesus on their own initiative.(139)

The disciples of Jesus were committed to his person(140) instead of just to his teaching as were rabbinic disciples. This commitment was total and exclusive.(141) Jesus demanded radical detachment from all else and radical obedience to himself, rather than to the Torah.(142) Discipleship of Jesus was a permanent state, to be lived until death. It was not, like rabbinic discipleship, a temporary stage on the way to becoming a rabbi. Jesus called his disciples to share in his present work and suffering.(143) It was not necessary to wait until they had successfully completed their term of discipleship. Jesus also called his disciples to share in his own servanthood which culminated in gratuitous suffering and death. They were not asked, like the rabbinic disciples, to serve their teacher during their period of discipleship and then to subject others to serve them. The relationship between Jesus and his disciples was unique within Judaism and Hellenism. It was determined by who Jesus was and by his own self-awareness.(144) Jesus related to his disciples not as rabbi but as lord and as servant.

In the call narratives of all four gospels Jesus is portrayed calling persons to follow him. When the persons heard the call, they left their previous existence and followed Jesus. The following of Jesus required detachment from anyone or anything other than him.

The synoptic gospels present some of the teaching of Jesus on the subject of discipleship. The disciples must love no one more than Jesus.(145) They must give away all possessions.(146) They must be willing to embrace suffering and even death for Jesus.(147) They must become as children and servants.(148) Yet in their discipleship they will be blessed by God more than the greatest of other human persons.(149) In their suffering and persecution they can rely on the Spirit of God to help them, and upon God to save and vindicate them in the end.(150) John 17 presents the prayer of Jesus for his disciples, entrusting them to his Father as he entrusted the Father’s word to them, and praying that the Father’s love may be in them and that Jesus himself remain present to them.

What were the tasks of the disciple of Jesus according to the New Testament evangelists? The first task was the preaching of the gospel.(151) This involved proclaiming Jesus’ message about the reign of God(152) and bearing witness to the inbreaking of the kingdom in the person of Jesus.(153) Through their preaching mission the disciples were instructed to make disciples of all people.(154)

The second task of the disciple of Jesus was healing. The disciples were sent to heal the sick(155) and to exorcise demons which might cause physical or mental illnesses.(156) Finally they were sent to heal through the forgiveness of sins.(157) Physical healing and forgiveness of sins had been connected in the ministry of Jesus as portrayed by the synoptic evangelists.(158) These ministries were later extended to the disciples.The disciples of Jesus were explicitly commissioned to the ministries of preaching and healing in the synoptic gospels. They were implicitly commissioned to a third ministry: feeding the hungry. Mark portrayed Jesus as having the disciples share in the work of feeding the multitude.(159) In the parallel story of the multiplication of the loaves Jesus commanded the disciples to feed the people: “You give them something to eat.”(160) In the johannine version of the story Jesus told the disciples to gather up the fragments after the meal was over. In the following discourse on the bread of life Jesus is portrayed by the fourth evangelist as calling the food the bread of eternal life which is his own flesh, given for the life of the world.(161)

The final task of the disciple was to serve. The disciple was expected to serve as his master served, in total self-offering even to the giving up of one’s life.(162) In Matthew 23 Jesus is portrayed as addressing his disciples and contrasting their mode of discipleship with that of the scribes and pharisees:

As to you, avoid the title “Rabbi.” One among you is your teacher, the rest are learners. Do not call anyone on earth your father. Only one is your father, the One in heaven. Avoid being called teachers. Only one is your teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be the one who serves the rest. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled, but whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.(163)

Thus contemporary rabbinic understanding of discipleship was radically altered by Jesus, precisely through the application of the connotations of the suffering servant of the Lord. This is the closest the New Testament comes to a definition of Jesus’ own understanding and teaching about the nature of ministry. Jesus formed and sent forth disciples to minister as he himself ministered, that is, as servants who were ready to embrace suffering and even death as part of their ministry.

Who were the disciples of Jesus? They are variously described as “the Twelve” and “the Seventy (or seventy-two)” and as a great multitude. There are stories in the New Testament of the call of the Twelve(164) and of the commissioning of these men by Jesus.(165) But these are not the only official disciples. There are also accounts of the commissioning of the Seventy by Jesus.(166) The Seventy were given the same mission of proclaiming the gospel and healing the sick.(167) It stated that those who heard the Seventy heard Jesus, and those ho rejected them rejected Jesus.(168) The disciples of Jesus were also referred to as a “great number.”(169) Many disciples were named in the gospels who were not members of the Twelve: Nathanael, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea.(170) It is among this larger group of disciples, perhaps identical with the Seventy, that a number of women were found. Luke described the Twelve and the women disciples sharing in the ministry of Jesus in Galilee.(171) He named Mary of Magdala, Joanna the wife of Chuza, and Susanna, and mentioned that there were also many other women who served.

Ministries of the Early Church

a. The Office of Apostle. The word “apostle” means “one sent forth.” The institution may derive from the Jewish office of the sha-liah.(172) This was an official emissary, commissioned and sent forth by the Sanhedrin or later by the Jewish high council at Jamnia. Such emissaries were usually sent out in pairs to collect tithes and resolve disputes on religious questions and to proclaim religious truths. They were commissioned for their task by the imposition of hands. When acting within the limits of their specific mission, they possessed the authority of the body which had sent them. They were given letters of accreditation verifying their authority and mission. In Judaism such officials were not, however, missionaries and did not attempt to make converts.

In the New Testament in the Epistle to the Hebrews Jesus himself was called apostolos, the one sent by the Father.(173) John 20:21 connects the sending of Jesus by the Father with Jesus’ own sending of his followers: “As the Father has sent me, even so do I send you.” However, the two are not totally analogous. Jesus was sent as God’s own son, as a sign of his divine glory, and as judgment to those who accept or reject him. The followers of Jesus are fallible human persons who are sent to bear witness to the good news of his life, death and resurrection.

Historically, the office of apostle arose after the resurrection out of the groups of disciples who had been associated with Jesus during his lifetime. On the basis of their faith in his resurrection the disciples were commissioned by the risen Jesus to proclaim his gospel, to heal the sick and feed the hungry. Through the example of their lives they were to bear witness to the crucified and risen Jesus.(174)

All four gospels portray Jesus sending forth his disciples as witnesses to his resurrection.(175) It is only after the resurrection that these persons are called “apostles.”(176) In the writings of Paul the term “apostle” denotes a person who had seen the risen Christ and been commissioned by him.(177) Luke added a third condition in Acts, that the apostle had accompanied Jesus throughout his historical ministry.(178) This criterion disqualified Paul and most of the missionary apostles. In the fourth gospel John connected Jesus' commissioning of his followers with their reception of the Holy Spirit.(179)

In the first decade after the resurrection the apostolate was closely associated and sometimes identified with the institution of the Twelve, although there were other apostles in Jerusalem and Judaea. Later the understanding of apostolate was expanded to include missionary apostles. The apostleship of both groups was grounded upon the same two basic criteria of having seen and been commissioned by the risen Jesus.

When the first generation of eyewitnesses who had accompanied Jesus during his ministry and had witnessed his post-resurrectional appearances died out, there was no one who could then qualify for the office of apostle. By its very definition, requiring personal witness of and commissioning by the risen Jesus, the office of apostle prepared for its own demise. After the death of the Twelve, there were other apostles in the Church for a time, especially the missionary apostles. But after the end of the period of the founding of churches in the various cities and provinces of the Roman empire, missionary apostles also disappeared from the scene. Responsibility for the leadership and administration of the churches passed from the apostles to local leaders. It was from the offices of these local leaders, which varied in form from place to place, and not from the institution of the apostolate, that the later structural offices of the Church developed.

b. The Twelve. Much of the current controversy about the nature of ministry in the Church and the role of women in ministry is due to a misunderstanding of the institution of the Twelve. The Twelve were distinct from the other apostles, but they were definitely not the only apostles. They had a very specific theological function in the nascent Church, although the historical role of individual members of the Twelve was not very different from that of other apostles.

All four gospels and Acts mention the Twelve.(180) In the synoptic gospels and Acts they are named in three groups of four. The groups remain stable in all the lists, although there are variations among the names in the second and third groups. According to Mark, Jesus himself chose the members of the Twelve.(181) There is no question that many of the Twelve, and all of the first group, were close companions of Jesus during his ministry. During the lifetime of Jesus they were called disciples.(182) Only one passage in the New Testament portrayed Jesus himself using the term “apostle” but the reference there was to the future.(183) After the resurrection the disciples were uniformly called apostles.

The Twelve played a special role immediately after the resurrection. They symbolically represented the twelve tribes of Israel. As such the role of the Twelve was to symbolize the completeness of the new people of God at two important moments: at Pentecost, which was the beginning of the Church, and at the eschaton which would mark the end of the Church as an historical institution. For this reason it was theologically necessary for the Eleven to reconstitute their number to twelve by the election of Matthias to replace Judas. This was done immediately before Pentecost, so that the new people of God would be symbolically complete at the moment when the Church was born. After Pentecost it was no longer important that there be twelve historical persons, and the members were not replaced after their death.(184)

It was because of this symbolic function of representing the completeness of Israel that the members of the Twelve were all men.(185) According to the tradition of Judaism, Israel was legally constituted by its male members. Thus the male character of the members of the Twelve had to do with the theological symbolism of that temporary institution, not with the ministry of the Church. After the Church had expanded far beyond Judaism, such symbolism had less and less importance. Nowhere does the New Testament indicate any handing down of this symbolic, and therefore male, role of the Twelve to others in the Church. Nor is there any evidence that other offices or ministries in the time of Jesus and the earliest decades of the Church were limited to men.

After the resurrection, the community of Christians which gathered in the upper room in Jerusalem to await the coming of the Spirit was composed of three groups: the Eleven, the women and the family of Jesus.(186) The group of women were those who had been present at the crucifixion and who had been witnesses of the resurrection appearances. The name most often mentioned by the evangelists from this group was Mary of Magdala. It is probable that she was their leader.(187) The family of Jesus also included at least one woman, his mother.

After Pentecost some members of the Twelve, and especially Peter, played an important leadership role in the primitive Church.(188) The authority of Peter was acknowledged by Paul in the early years of his own ministry.(189) It is not certain that the Twelve as an institution ever exercised administrative authority, although some of its members did individually.(190)

The authority of the Twelve disappeared altogether in the Church after the death of its members. After Pentecost the original members were not and theologically could not be replaced. James, son of Zebedee, was martyred under Herod Agrippa in the early 40’s.(191) As early as Paul’s first visit as a Christian to Jerusalem,(192) the leaders of the Jerusalem church were Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, who was not a member of the Twelve. By the time of the council of Jerusalem the administration of the church of Jerusalem consisted of “apostles and elders” of whom James, the brother of Jesus, was the recognized leader and spokesperson.(193) Thus within a decade after the resurrection the leadership of the Jerusalem church was already passing to persons outside the institution of the Twelve.

The authority of the Twelve and of the Judean apostles was connected in part with their location at Jerusalem. In the beginning Jerusalem was the heart of the Christian community. But this situation soon changed. As early as the martyrdom of Stephen, many Christians of the Jerusalem community were scattered “throughout the region of Judaea and Samaria.”(194) The apostles remained in the city at that time, but meanwhile other churches were being founded and growing to maturity in the more important cities of the empire, such as Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus and Rome. During the Jewish war of 66-73 A.D. the Christian community left Jerusalem altogether and did not return in any significant numbers until centuries later. The institution of the Twelve did not reappear in any other city, since its membership could only be constituted by eyewitnesses, most of whom by that time had died, and since its authority was grounded in its symbolism which had no further theological relevance until the eschaton. In the other cities of the empire new forms of leadership and authority were developing which were completely independent of the institution of the Twelve.

The New Testament passage which is generally cited as a basis for the theological doctrine of apostolic succession, understood as a transmission of office in a quasi-physical sense, is Acts 6. Acts 6:2 is the only mention of the Twelve in the entire book. The contextual situation of the passage is a dispute between factions of hebrew and hellenist Christians. The Twelve are not portrayed as deciding the dispute themselves, but as summoning the larger community of apostles to resolve it collegially.

Seven hellenists were chosen to minister to their own community. The apostles, not exclusively the Twelve, prepared them for this new mission through prayer and the imposition of hands. This was not ordination as it is generally understood today. Ordination denotes incorporation into an order. It presupposes first that a concretely defined official order already exists and secondly that those administering ordination are themselves members of or incorporated into the same order. A number of passages in the New Testament mention the practice of laying on of hands, but in none of these does it denote ordination. The latter did not develop into an official practice in the Church until post-biblical times. In the New Testament the role of laying on of hands is by no means limited to apostles. In Acts 13 it was the prophets and teachers of the church of Antioch who laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, blessing them for a new mission. Later on in the pastoral epistles reference was made to the gifts of the Spirit which Timothy had received earlier in his life when the council of elders had laid hands upon him.(195)

Thus Acts 6 may not be understood as proof that the Twelve transmitted their office to successors through the laying on of hands. On the contrary, the Seven seem to have been chosen for a new and different ministry, not for a continuation of the apostolic office. Apart from this passage there is no other evidence in the New Testament that the apostolic office was transmitted to successors. What was handed down were the apostolic functions and tradition. A pre-pauline confessional formula in 1 Corinthians 15 traced the transmission of tradition not only from the Twelve, but also from James and the other apostles. Thus the authority of Christian tradition is preserved not through the continuation of the office of the Twelve, but through continuity with the eyewitness generation who had personally received the tradition from Jesus himself.

c. Missionary Apostles. It was the missionary element which distinguished the Christian apostolate from the otherwise similar Jewish office of emissary. Christian apostles were sent forth to witness to the risen Christ “to the ends of the earth.”(196) The primary work of the apostles was the proclamation of the gospel in order to effect conversions and found churches.

Paul was the missionary apostle par excellence and also the one about whom the most information is known. He too was commissioned by the risen Jesus, although after the close of the period of resurrection appearances as such. His apostolate was confirmed by other apostles and by the church of Antioch.(197)

The missionary apostle was, according to Paul, a person set apart as the representative or ambassador of Christ.(198) As such the task of the apostle was to proclaim to the people the saving words and actions of God in Jesus. The apostle was both co-worker with Christ and, like him, a servant.(199) For Paul the authority of the apostle existed for the building up of the Church in love and for bearing witness to the world of the love of God in Jesus.(200)

Paul further understood his own apostleship in terms of preaching the cross of Jesus, correcting moral abuses, reconciling people to God and guiding the Church. Paul described his own apostolic ministry as taking place through a combination of hard work and divine grace.(201) For Paul the fact of being sent on a mission as witness to the risen Christ was the essential element of apostleship. But the imitation of the death and resurrection of Jesus in his own life was also an important task of the apostle.(202)

A theological understanding of the ministry of the apostle began to be developed in the letters of Paul. Paul first described the ministry of Jesus as that of servant.(203) He wrote of his own ministry in terms of being the “servant of Christ.”(204) In the authentic pauline letters the words “service” (diakonia), “servant” and the verb “to serve” are used more than twenty times to describe Paul’s own apostolic ministry.(205) Yet the meaning of diakonia is not strictly limited to apostolic service. In Ephesians 4:12 it is applied to the ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. All are forms of service. All serve to build up the community of Christ’s body.

The imitation of Jesus in service and in suffering was one of Paul’s greatest ideals But it was an ideal which he lived in his own ministry, serving real human persons and communities more than structures or ideologies. He believed that the true test of authenticity of apostolic ministry was whether the apostle imitated Jesus in his service of suffering.(206) The authority of the apostolic office derived from the authentic imitation of Jesus in suffering service. It was the antithesis of hierarchical authority. It was not imposed from above through the exercise of power, but came from below, from humble service. This service was exercised collegially with other servants of Jesus, respecting the equality and freedom of other human persons.(207) Through the exercise of this type of authority the apostle was able to elicit true and lasting conversion-commitments to Jesus.

The Judean apostles, as presented by Luke-Acts, were historical companions of Jesus. Their role and authority were concerned with guaranteeing the tradition of Jesus handed down through them. It was on this basis that they resolved new questions which arose. The authority of the missionary apostle, on the other hand, was based upon his or her knowledge and experience of the risen Christ. Out of this understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus and their implications for Christian life, the missionary apostle drew data by means of which to decide new issues. For this reason the missionary apostles tended to be more innovative than their Judean counterparts,(208)

As primarily the founders of churches, the missionary apostles’ role diminished as the churches grew and developed independent lives of their own. The missionary apostles were gradually replaced by the indigenous leaders of the churches they had founded. After the deaths of the original missionary apostles who could claim to have been personally commissioned by the risen Christ, the apostolic office as such disappeared from the Church. There is no evidence that the missionary apostles, any more than the Twelve or the other Judean apostles made any attempt to transmit their own office to successors. Although there is evidence of the transmission of apostolic function and tradition, there is no traceable succession of office from the Twelve or the apostles to the presbyters and bishops who emerged as the leaders of local churches later in the first century.(209)

Ministry of Priesthood

There is no evidence in the New Testament for the existence of a ministerial office of priesthood in the earliest Christian Church. The title “priest” in the New Testament was applied only to Jesus himself, to the Jewish temple priests, and to the whole Christian people.(210)

In the Epistle to the Hebrews Jesus was presented as the eternal high priest whose once-for-all sacrifice of himself had abolished any further need for a cultic, levitical type of priesthood. Some have used this fact to explain the absence of Christian priests elsewhere in the New Testament. Raymond Brown has criticized this procedure as illegitimate since it deduces a general principal applying to the New Testament as a whole from the theology of one epistle which was itself relatively isolated and late and had little influence on other New Testament writings.(211)

Hebrews does proclaim the priesthood of Jesus, but a priesthood of a new and different order, a priesthood like that of the suffering servant. It does not make any connection between Jesus’ own priesthood and any sort of priestly ministry on the part of Christians.

The four texts in the New Testament which proclaim the priesthood of the whole Christian people have been understood by some, including Luther, to mean that if all are priests, then no official priestly office is necessary.(212) This assumption is also open to question. All of these texts are based on Exodus 19:6. John H. Elliott has shown that the purpose of this text was to describe the holiness of the people.(213) Because of their covenant relationship with Yahweh the people are to be as holy as priests. This does not imply that they are to function as cultic priests. The Exodus text stands almost immediately before the account of the institution of the levitical priesthood at Sinai. It was never viewed as precluding it. The texts about the priesthood of the Christian people in the New Testament do not give any information about the development of the office of priest in the Church, which occurred after the close of the New Testament period, or about the appropriateness of such a development.

There is only one text in the New Testament which might indicate the beginning of an understanding of Christian ministry as priestly. In Romans 15:16 Paul wrote: “The grace given to me by God to be a minister (leitourgos) of Christ Jesus to the gentiles in the priestly service (leitourgounta) of the gospel of God, so that the offering (prosphora) of the gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified (hagias-menos) by the Holy Spirit.” This description of Paul’s own ministry of word in cultic terminology was written for the purpose of supporting his authority to criticize and exhort members of the Roman church in the finer points of Christian living. However, Paul’s primary office and title was that of apostle. His own descriptions of his ministry are always in terms of ministry of the word and of service, not of cult. Paul did baptize, but did not reserve this function to himself or to apostles in general. On the contrary he argued that it should not be the task of missionary apostles.(214) His own ministry was primarily concerned with proclamation of the gospel and witness to Jesus in suffering service. Romans 15:16 indicates that priestly connotations were not thought of, at least by Paul, as completely incompatible with Christian ministry of word and service. However, in Paul’s understanding ministry was a much larger concept of which the cultic or priestly was only a minor part. Ministry for Paul was service, service like that of Jesus’, a service which was authenticated through suffering.

In the early years of the Church, Christians continued to recognize the Jewish priesthood and to participate in temple worship.(215) Brown has suggested that a Christian priesthood could not develop until the Church had broken off from Judaism and acquired a self-identity as a distinct religion, and until it had developed its own sacrificial cult for which the presence of priests was required.(216) The first condition occurred after the Second Temple had been destroyed and the Christian movement excommunicated from the synagogue (circa A.D. 85). The eucharist began to be understood as a cultic sacrifice toward the end of the first century.(217) The role of presiding at the eucharist had, of course, existed much earlier and been exercised by various ministers. It is Brown’s thesis that Christian priesthood did not develop directly out of any one office in the New Testament, but emerged as a combination of several different offices or ministries, especially those of disciple, apostle, presbyter-bishop and presider at the eucharist.(218) This does not, however, account for the levitical character of the Christian priesthood in later centuries. It is perhaps more accurate to say that Christian ministry in general emerged out of the convergence of various New Testament forms of ministry, whereas Christian priesthood as a structural institution was molded by the second-century rediscovery of the model of levitical priesthood.

Ministry of Service

a. The Meaning of Diakonia in the New Testament. In hellenistic Greek the basic meaning of the word diakonia is service. This service often took the form of service at table. In Greek culture no form of service was desirable or meaningful. In the Old Testament and semitic culture, on the other hand, service was honorable in proportion to the greatness of the master served.

In the New Testament diakonia denotes service and is synonymous with ministry. It is used in two ways: one general, of all Christian ministry, and in the later writings in a narrower sense referring to a specific office within the Church, that of the diaconate.

All diakonia ultimately derives from Jesus’ own ministry as servant. Paul called Jesus a diakonos, or servant, of the Jewish people.(219) The synoptic gospels proclaimed service as the purpose for which Jesus came.(220) They also explicitly linked Jesus’ own ministry of service with the nature of ministry he expected of his disciples.(221) The ultimate form of service for Jesus and for his followers would be total self-emptying in offering one’s life for others.(222)

In the New Testament the basic ministry of service is the following of Jesus, becoming his disciple.(223) This general form of diakonia is further described as service of the word,(224) of witness to the gospel,(225) as service of reconciliation,(226) service of the new covenant,(227) service of the gospel,(228) service of Christ’s body, the Church,(229) service of alms for those who are in need,(230) and service of healing and discernment.(231) Paul emphasized the obvious point: there are many varieties of service.(232) Paul uses the term diakonos, meaning “minister” or “servant,” several times to describe his own ministry,(233) although his principal title was apostle. He used the term also of his co-workers.(234) He described service as a gift given by the risen Christ through the Holy Spirit to those whom he has chosen for his service.(235)

The narrower meaning of diakonia denotes a specific office within the Church. This office first appeared in the churches of the diaspora as early as the mid-fifties.(236) The New Testament gives little information either on the origins of the diaconate or of the functions of this office. It is certain that by the time of the pastoral epistles, near the end of the first century, the diaconate was a formally established office within the Church.

b. The Office of Deacon. The story of the seven in Acts 6:1-6 has often been called the “institution of the diaconate.” This understanding is problematic for several reasons. The contextual situation of the passage was that there had been a conflict in the early Jerusalem church between hellenist and hebrew Christians over the question of whether the widows of the hellenist community were receiving their just due of alms money. Pressured by the necessity of dealing with such questions, the Twelve, acting collegially with the other apostles, appointed seven hellenists to serve, presumably by distributing alms to the widows of their community. The apostles blessed and commissioned them for this new ministry by prayer and the imposition of hands. This passage has often been understood as the basis for the rite of ordination. Yet what is described is not ordination in the later technical sense, of incorporation into an order, but blessing and commissioning.(237) There is no evidence that the Seven were being installed into an existing office or incorporated into the order of those who commissioned them. In fact, it is not at all clear from this passage exactly to what sort of ministry they were being commissioned. It was explicitly stated that this ministry was intended to be different from that of the apostles commissioning them.

There is a further problem that the actual ministry of the Seven according to other texts in Acts was not limited to the distribution of alms to hellenist widows. Two of the Seven, Stephen and Philip, were portrayed as exercising a ministry of proclamation and miracles. In the case of Stephen it is possible that he was already engaged in a preaching ministry before the commission to alms distribution, since at that time it was noted that he was already full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.(238) Philip is presented at a later time in a ministry of evangelism and was called by the title “evangelist.”(239) Raymond Brown has suggested that the Seven were originally the leaders of the hellenist community and as such were more comparable to the later office of bishop than to that of deacon. Luke, writing in the 80’s may have viewed the apostles as bishops and may have been seeking in this passage to portray the hellenist leaders in a subordinate position.(240)

Thus Acts 6 does not give evidence of the institution of the office of deacon in the Church. It is not certain whether the ministry for which the Seven were chosen had any real relationship to the later ecclesiastical office of deacon. The passage does show that at a rather early time in the New Testament period distinctions between different types and forms of ministry were being made. It also gives evidence of the use of prayer, blessing and the laying on of hands for the purpose of commissioning persons to new ministries.

The diaconate as an official ecclesiastical office did emerge early in the history of the Church. The first reference to deacons is in the epistle to the Philippians where Paul addressed himself to the “bishops and deacons” of the church at Philippi.(241) It is probable that the office of bishop emerged first, as the local leader of a diaspora church. As the churches grew larger, the bishops came to need the service of helpers, both in liturgical and in administrative functions. At some point such helpers came to be called “deacons,” a title which formerly had designated all Christian ministers, but which gradually came to denote a specific office within the Church. During the time of Paul, when this transition in the meaning of the term was taking place, the word diakonos was used with both meanings, the general and the specific. By the end of the first century, in the pastoral epistles it is used only of the specific office of deacon.

A passage which may shed some light on this development is 1 Corinthians 16:15. Here Paul mentioned the household of Stephanas, who were the first converts in Asia. Since the time of their conversion, they had devoted themselves to the service (diakonia) of others. Paul urged the Christians of Corinth to recognize the legitimate authority of these persons. Many exegetes agree that diakonia in this passage designates at least an incipient form of church office.(242)

By the time of the pastoral epistles both the episcopacy and the diaconate were recognized as offices in the Church. 1 Timothy 3:8-13 lists the qualifications necessary for the office of deacon. This passage immediately follows the list of qualifications for the office of bishop. The deacons, like the bishops, were to be persons of good character, married only once and managing their own households well. There is an additional qualification for deacons, that they not he “double-tongued” or “slanderers.” This may suggest that their ministry took them into people’s homes, in closer and more intimate relationship with individual members of the Christian community.(243) Thus by the close of the New Testament period it is certain that the office of deacon existed at least within the pauline churches and that it was associated in subordinate relationship with the office of bishop.(244)

c. Charismatic Ministries. In his letters Paul wrote of the variety of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and of the diversity of ministries in the Church. He compared these to many members of one body, all working and suffering together. No one gift or ministry is sufficient by itself. What is important is that all be present, working together for the building up of the Christian community in faith and love.

In four different passages Paul gave lists of charismatic ministries which were exercised in the churches. The lists are not identical, although there is some basic overlapping.

All of these lists are presented within the context of Paul’s theology of the Church as the body of Christ. The ministries common to most of the lists are ministries of the word (apostle, prophet, teacher, evangelist), and ministries of service (serving, healing, helping, contributing, giving aid, acts of mercy and administration).

The charisms of ministry are, according to Paul, given to all Christians, irrespective of their office in the Church. All these charismatic ministries were found in the pauline churches, but not every charism was given to every Christian. The word “charism” became a technical term in pauline theology. Paul had a broad understanding of the meaning of the gifts of the Spirit and emphasized their diversity. The value of the charismata lay not in their possession, but in their exercise for the benefit of the community. The manifestation of the gifts was in no way due to any inherent talent or capacity of the person who received them. Rather they were given gratuitously by the Spirit for the service of the building up of the Christian community in love. The upbuilding of the Church through the exercise of the charismata contributes to its growth in unity as the body of Christ.(245) Each of the four passages listing the charismatic ministries culminates in an exhortation to love.(246) Love is both the principle of Christian unity and the greatest of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The ministry of the apostle has been discussed above. Suffice it to add here that in 1 Corinthians where apostleship is presented as a charismatic ministry, Paul described the functions of the apostle as preaching, correcting immorality and guiding the Church.(247) The ministry of the apostle is a gift of the Spirit which serves for the building up of the Church.

The second charismatic ministry is that of the prophet. It followed apostleship in importance in the churches. The Christian prophet was a proclaimer and interpreter of divine revelation. It is not certain how common the phenomenon of prophecy was in the early Church. Paul noted that not all Christians were prophets,(248) but that there were both men and women among the prophets.(249) Prophets were required to acknowledge the authority of Paul. At the same time there was some sort of ecclesiastical recognition of their status as prophets.(250)

In the pauline letters prophecy is described as serving the Christian community through edification, encouragement and consolation.(251) It is connected with knowledge and the understanding of mysteries.(252) Like the latter it is given only to those who are ruled by the Spirit.(253) Prophecy should be interpreted by the measure of faith and the prophet ought to prophesy only within the bounds of faith.(254) The prophet never stands for him/herself, but stands with other prophets who possess the same gift and authority within the Church. Through the Spirit (s)he is united with them and with the whole community. The authority of the prophet is not absolute.(255) It must he used for the building up of the Church and judged by the criterion of its confession of the lordship of Jesus.(256)

It is probable that the prophets were among the earliest presiders at the eucharistic liturgy. The Didache, which was composed around the end of the first century, concluded a lengthy treatise on the eucharist with a statement about the prophets as eucharistic celebrants.(257) Acts described prophets and teachers as ministering liturgi-cally, using a verb which in the Septuagint was a technical term for cultic service.(258) The Didache used the same verb for the conduct of Christian worship both by prophets and teachers, and by bishops and deacons.(259) At this time liturgical leadership was beginning to pass to the bishops and deacons. However, the prophets and teachers at least in the community addressed were still more highly honored.(260) In the second century, prophecy as a special ministry disappeared as institution replaced charism and liturgical functions were subsumed by institutional offices.

Another prominent charismatic ministry was that of teaching. Already in the early letters of Paul teaching was an important mode of service in the Church. The function of teachers was to preserve, hand down and interpret the kerygma and to understand and explain the Hebrew scriptures. Paul himself had taught the Corinthians and handed down to them his own tradition or halaka.(261)

Prophecy and teaching were closely connected ministries. Both mediated the Spirit of Jesus and proclaimed his word. Both prophets and teachers presided at eucharistic worship. Both helped to build up the community. Both creatively transmitted the word of God to the Church. Both exercised some ministry of leadership in the Church. In Acts 13:1-2 it was the prophets and teachers of the church in Antioch who made the decision to choose Paul and Barnabas and send them forth on their first missionary journey. Paul and Barnabas were commissioned for their ministry through the imposition of hands by the prophets and teachers of Antioch.(262)

The administrators (kuberneseis) were those gifted by the Spirit to guide and direct the Christian community. This ministry was probably equivalent to that of presiding over the community (proista-menos).(263) Those who presided were exhorted to perform their ministry with zeal. It was they who governed the community in the Lord.(264) The epistle to the Hebrews mentioned “leaders” (hegou-menoi) who exercised authority and a ministry of word and care in the community.(265)

Administrators seem not to have been the most important ministers in the community. Apostles, prophets and teachers were always mentioned first. The forms and titles of administrative office in the earliest decades of church history were quite diverse. Administrators did hold and exercise authority in the early Church, but it was an authority of service, and less than the authority of the primary ministers of the word.

It is not justified on the basis of the New Testament evidence to set the charismatic ministries in contradistinction to the official ministries, such as those of apostle and deacon, presbyter and bishop.(266) There is much overlapping. One office, that of apostle, is also listed by Paul among the charismatic ministries. It is possible that the offices of presbyter and bishop grew out of the earlier charismatic ministries of administration. The holders of many early church offices frequently exercised the charismatic ministries of teaching, preaching, exhorting, healing, helping and serving. Charism and office were complementary dimensions of Christian ministry. Charismata without some sort of official structuring often led to conflict or chaos within the community. And office without the charismata could become sterile and fossilized.

The charismatic ministries gradually disappeared from the life of the Church after the first century as they were absorbed into the offices of bishop, priest and deacon. The institution of ecclesiastical office came to replace the phenomenon of charismatic ministry. Yet as the Holy Spirit was always present and active in the Church, offering gifts to all Christians, various forms of charismatic ministry re-emerged in various times and places in history, and not always within the official institutions. Insofar as Christian ministry is grounded in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the charismatic dimension of ministry should remain an integral and important aspect of ecclesiastical office.

Administrative Office in the Early Church

a The Structures of Administrative Office. Administration first emerged as a charismatic ministry of service. At the time when it first appears in the letters to the churches of Corinth and Rome, the primary authority was still that of the missionary apostle Paul. In the following decade the missionary apostles began to die off, leaving a vacuum of authority in which it soon became necessary for some sort of local leadership to emerge. Local officials began to appear in the rapidly growing churches of the empire. In some locales they were called “presbyters” or “elders,” and in others “bishops” or “overseers.”

The traditional understanding of this development has been that the office of presbyter grew out of the tradition of synagogue elders in the Jewish Christian communities. The office of bishop developed in the gentile churches with some connection to the secular Greek office of overseer. However, the actual historical development was far more complex. What may prove to be a more correct understanding of the process is the following. After both Jewish and gentile churches had been founded by missionary apostles, these apostles eventually died or went elsewhere. As the communities grew larger some form of structure became necessary. Local leaders emerged and, after the disappearance of the founding apostles, came to exercise sole authority over their churches. In the communities whose background lay in the pharisaic, rabbinic Judaism of the synagogue, the structure and terminology of the presbyterate were used. In the churches with some contact with sectarian Essene Judaism or possibly also with Greek structures, the term “bishop” was used.(267)

Acts 20 indicates that in at least some churches the two titles, presbyter and bishop, were interchangeable.(268) In Luke’s introduction to the passage the officials were called presbyters of Ephesus. But within Paul’s speech to them, they were addressed as bishops. Another indication that this was the situa