Some say all men were priests in the beginning, but there is no scripture to this effect. The first named priest was Melchizedek, an order of priesthood of which order the Christ was also one. Priesthood is a ministry of one or a few to the many.

"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things [pertaining] to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:" (Hebrews 5:1).

While this pertains to a high priest it confirms the idea that a priest is one ordained of God in things toward God. Priests today do not offer animals, as they did under the Mosaic law and the Aaronic priesthood, but we do have a sacrifice which we can plead -- that of the Christ -- and gifts which we can render to Him:

"By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name" (Hebrews 13:15).

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service" (Romans 12:1).

With Christ as our High Priest a perfect offering has been made which satisfies every need of the one pleading for representation (Hebrews 10:14).

Priesthood is for a Covenant People

In ancient Israel the arrangement was for every head of a household to be the priest. This was true in Abraham’s house, and in those succeeding him. But it is specially stated in conjunction with the giving of the law:

"And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel" (Exodus 19:6).

This connects doctrinally with the situation in the next age:

• "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Revelation 5:10 KJV)."
  
• "And hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth." (Revelation 5:10 RSV).

This surely says that the office of kings and the office of priests will be exercised by those reigning with Christ in the age to come. For those who have all the saved, the so-called Universal Church, reigning with Christ, I would ask: Who shall they reign over and for whom shall they intercede as priests? How can the unspiritual and uninstructed benefit anybody in that time? They certainly are not able now.

The Priesthood of the Church

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5)

Surely we can see that the language of Peter in this epistle is to churches. It is further confirmed in his life of a church, surely must be in conformity to what is opening address. Though it is to "strangers scattered abroad" over Asia Minor, we know there were at least seven local churches in this area as stated in Revelation chapters 2 through 3), and their names are given. John the Revelator was once pastor of one of them. Both he and Peter are concerned for their spiritual welfare. Each was a spiritual house, but some were more deteriorated in John’s day than formerly. The words of the opening text in this article (1 Peter 2:9 also are applicable to a church, or churches, but not to mere professing Christians, nor even to unorganized believers. Such are no part of a spiritual house. A spiritual house requires the indwelling of God through the Spirit;

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:20-22)

Is it not clear that all believers are not a "house" at all? Is it not also clear that they can comprise no spiritual house while manifesting the divisions of Protestantism? This is true, even if they call themselves Missionary Baptists, or any sort of Baptists, as long as they are not spiritual How can they be spiritual in any sense when they are not under the Headship of Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit? This Ephesian letter, addressed to a church, strongly states the case for the local body.

"And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church." (Ephesians 1:22)

What Is Spirituality?

There are so many wrong roads to take, cut out and surveyed by men, until men are not able to recognize the Spirit of Christ, nor know the Spirit’s leadership. The Holy Spirit gave the Word, so one’s life, or the written or it is not spiritual (1 Corinthians 2: 10-14; cf. 2 Peter 1:21). Do note the language in Romans 8:8ff.

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (Romans 8:9,10)

Can we not see that the one walking after the flesh, though he may have trusted Jesus earlier, does not have the Spirit and is said to be "none of his," that is, not of his church, not of his special people, not in covenant relationship?

Men often measure spirituality by what makes them feel good. They feel good if the crowd is large, if the music is pleasing, if outward movement is seen in the congregation. Some feel that there must be certain specific motions, as the raising of hands, the clapping of hands, the calling of praises, even the prostration of people. Any number of these conditions may appear without the presence of the Holy Spirit. He honors the meeting where He is recognized and the Christ is honored.

Please do not think that my saying that these outward signs may not be an evidence of the Spirit is the same as saying that the lack of them is evidence of spirituality. I am also saying that the absence of these is not necessarily the evidence of the Spirit’s absence, either. We cannot judge by the hearing of the ear nor the sight of the eyes. That verse (1 Corinthians 2:15) is there for a purpose. Only when one is submissive to God and has the mind of Christ (v. 16) is he in a position to evaluate true spirituality.

As long as one is dependent only upon his own understanding of words and of feelings he cannot truly discern the mind of God. He will mistakenly compare his thoughts with other men’s thoughts, neglecting to compare spiritual things with spiritual (cf. v. 13). The natural man, mentioned in this context (v. 14) is not necessarily an alien sinner. He may be, often is, a carnal believer, measuring as natural men judge.

The rational spirit of man is naturally influenced by the whole scope of natural things, unless he has grown in grace and in the knowledge of God. Perhaps the saddest error that believers make is continuing to judge by their natural feelings instead of by the written word. The outcome is that we are more conscious of other men than we are of the Lord. The sensitivity to the presence of other people, including a judging of them in various ways, is likely an evidence of a not spiritual condition. Over time a maturing believer can better trust his feelings, but it must always conform to the actual language of the Book, the Bible.

Terms Descriptive of the Lord’s Church

Without going into lengthy textual proof; may we consider a few expressions descriptive of the church today, some of which are carried over from the Old Testament, where a covenant people were the separated people of God. I give this list of descriptive phrases that we may understand that the church alone can qualify for the benefits and blessings included in this list, including the priesthood.

I have adapted much of this section from The Lord’s Church, by Herbert Morehart, my pastor. Familiarity with these terms should forestall their use to include all believers, since they apply only to a restricted group, God’s covenant people.

Sheep, Flock
It may seem that God calls all people who have trusted Him for salvation His sheep. But this causes confusion when "goats" are considered, (cf; Psalm 23 ; Matthew 10:6,16). Note the nature of sheep (John 10:4,7). Not only "birds of a feather flock together," but also sheep. In the universal church philosophy and practice the so-called sheep refuse to flock together, especially with Baptists.

Sheepfold
The place where the shepherd comforts and shields the sheep. Only faithfij.l members of the church are sheep today. They do not seek to enter "some other way" (John 10:2-3).

The House of God (l Timothy 3:15)
This is not all the saved, nor even all Baptists. These stand a stricter judgment than others (1 Peter 4:17). It is His house "through the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:20-22).

A Spiritual House (1 Peter 2:5)

The Pillar and Ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)
How could this expression describe all the saved? The very diversity among believers, their doctrines and their practice, precludes such a possibility. The church’s business, besides making Christ known to the world, is to develop the membership to "grow up unto Him in all things" (Ephesians 4: 12-16). When He and His words are the standard there is no accommodation to the feelings and whims of the flesh.

The body of Christ (Romans 7:14; 1 Corinthians 10:16, 27; Ephesians 4:12)
What sort of body would that be which could not fit one member to another in any peaceful, functioning relationship? Would that be a body which was simply a pile of arms, legs, torsos, heads, and body parts? When the scriptures tell us that Jesus is the Head of the body, can we not see the human body, with all of its integrated members, functioning according to the mind of the Head. A local church, and only a local church, can possibly fit this description. It must be able to function as a unit. Nor would it be a body if a number of individuals were tied together, that is joined forcefully.

Zion, Holy City, New Jerusalem (Revelation 2 1:3-7 ; Revelation 22: 4,15,19 ; Hebrews 12:22-25)
These Old Covenant (Old Testament) terms are carry-overs to the church, just as flock, house of God, sheep, sheepfold, and many others. It is a mistake to apply these terms to all the saved in either Testament. Let those who doubt or deny that the church is the Israel of God today (Galatians 6:16) try to explain the multiplied usage of terms descriptive of both the Old and the New Testament people.

Holy Nation (1 Peter 2:9 with Exodus 19:6)
Jesus had said that the kingdom would be taken from the nation of Israel which had become merely legalistic and not truly righteous, and would be given to a "nation bringing forth the fruit thereof’ (Matthew 21:43). The word "nation," here is used of a multitude, as against the few or restricted people of Israel The multitude could be of men associated in like pursuits, or it could be composed of men and animals, insofar as a definition of the Greek word is concerned. Christ’s gathering together in "one" the "children of God out of all nations" makes them one holy nation (John 11:52), as prophesied by the high priest. A warning is in order just here. "Children of God out of all nations" does not describe a universal church made up of all the children of God, but it confirms that none are children unless they are brought into the covenant of baptism and church relationship.

Royal Priesthood (1 Peter 2:9)
The word "royal" is appropriate because of the anticipated rulership of this covenant people with Christ in the Kingdom.

Peculiar People (1 Peter 2:9)
This term carries the meaning of "a people for His own Possession," (cf. Ephesians 1:4). For rebel believers to lay claim to these expressions upon the basis of their being believers is presumptuous. "Ye are bought with a price" is an expression addressed to church members (Acs 20:28; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 Corinthians 6:20: 7:23).

While the record says he should "taste death for every man" Hebrews 2:9), and "lightens every man coming into the world," it is interesting to note that the blood was "shed for many" (Matthew 26:28 ; Mark 14:24), an expression descriptive of the cup of the Lord’s Supper, the blood of the New Covenant, which is not for all men.

Saints that is "holy ones," sanctified; "the faithful in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians1:1); "faithful brethren" (Colossians 1:2). It seems apparent to me that other terms, as "household of faith" (Galatians 6:10), "holy brethren" (1 Thessalonians 5:27 ; Hebrews 3:1), "whole family in heaven and earth" (Ephesians 3:15), "brethren" and "sisters" (cf. Mark 3:35 ; Romans 16:l ; l Corinthians 7:15 ; 1 Timothy 5:2 ; James 2:15 ; 2 John 13), and "brethren," except when applicable to natural relations, must be limited to covenant relationship (either Israel or the church).

"In Christ" (Galatians 1:22; Ephesians 1:4 ; 1 Thessalonians 1:1 ; 2:14).

The "Elect" in Christ, the chosen (2 Thessalonians 2:13)
It is evident that this extends beyond coming to trust Him for salvation, hence one must "add to his faith," or "supply in his faith," the virtues named (2 Peter 1:3-10). How ridiculous that we ever thought to use the expression "fixed it up with Jesus 40 (?) years ago," referring to initial faith. Consider Colossians 3:12. Just consider the many references in the New Testament to God’s elect and imagine how to apply these to being initially saved. This is the radical error of Calvinism, making initial salvation the subject of election. True, there must be that first step, but God chose men for glory and valor (virtue) (2 Peter 1:3), "to be holy and without blame" (Ephesians 1:4). This is the goal of election, not merely a rescue from hell. He has "predestinated us unto the adoption of children unto Himself’ (Ephesians 1:5). Sonship is one of the goals. Thus is a birth necessary, one of relationship. Holiness of life cannot be separated from the grace of election (Ephesians 4:1-6). Without holiness of life there is no proof that anyone is one of the elect. Here again we are seeing children as belonging to a relationship. "Children of God" are predestinated ones, having been brought to this position through "adoption," the setting of sonship, a relationship in view of an inheritance.

The Ministry of the Priesthood

There is little question about the efficiency of Christ our High Priest. There is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (cf. Romans 8:34).

Then what is the business of human priests? In the Old Testament theirs was a ministry of faithfully instructing the people of Israel as to God’s will for their lives. Their sacrifices pointed them to Christ. They ministered to Him by performing the services He had prescribed, for the tabernacle and for the temple. Studying the third chapter of Numbers it appears that theirs was a ministry of carrying out the visible things which God had ordered for their worship, yet only as assistants to the high priest.

It was the high priest who did the teaching, the using of Urim and Thummim (Nehemiah 7:65), and the determining of the will of God for specific matters in the lives of the people. Perhaps we think of praying or interceding, as Moses did. Surely God is interested in our doing this, if thereby we afford a pattern for the people to remember that He is the guide of our lives, not men.

A large part of such praying or interceding was showing forth God’s praises. Would such not provide a challenge to believers today to recognize God alone as our Helper. A constant asking in order to have what we want is hardly a priestly ministry. It must be a recognition that His will for our lives will satisfy our every need. Since believers outside the church, or in false churches, have no idea of what God’s peculiar will for His people is, how could they possibly fill a useful place as priests?

Priesthood is a ministry to others. In our selfish natures the concern is for ourselves. It is true that many who are not in the Lord’s church have hearts able to discern their great benefit in trusting the Savior. A few of these may desire to serve lost humanity, But this does not mean God has appointed them as priests. Possibly this is a signal from the Lord to them to find the place where believers should unite and serve Him in a concerted manner.

Remember, no one takes the office of a priest on himself (Hebrews 5:4), again speaking of the high priest), but only those who are called of God. Few men even know about God’s calling to service today. Ministers have spoken of their call, but we may have failed to instruct others so they could hear the voice of the Lord too.

Even so, God’s callings are according to His Word, so He does not call one who is not obedient in his willingness to serve God and others for His sake. Assuming a calling, or an office, without the call of God is serious error. The fall of Man made a universal priesthood impossible. Next the head of each house was the priest for the family, for example, Noah (Genesis 8:20), Abraham (Genesis 12:7; 13:4), Isaac (Genesis 26:25), Jacob (Genesis 3 1:54), and Job (Job 1:5).

The heads of families system ended with the appointment of Levi and his sons to be priests, following the disturbance at Sinai in which Levites responded in repentance while others did not (Exodus 27:20-21; 28:1). They were to teach Israel God’s statutes (Leviticus 10:11). These covered every aspect of their lives, including when they should go to war and why. It was serious sin for anyone, even the king, to intrude into the office of the priesthood. See the case of King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:16-21). He was discovered burning incense in the Temple. The High Priest, Azariali, and forty gallant men of the sons of Aaron ordered him out. He became angry and God smote him with leprosy the rest of his life. Perhaps worse than that, he was thrust out of the house of the Lord and thus deprived of its benefits.

Remember the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who questioned God’s choice of the priesthood, feeling they should have that honor. The earth "opened its mouth" and swallowed them up (Numbers 16:lff). God’s choices are not to be claimed lightly, nor usurped at all. With the offering of the body of Christ once for all (Hebrews 10:10, 12) there is no need for an individual high priest among men; and individuals are not set forth as individual priests, but only as a part of the covenant people. It is the institution which assists in instructing the members and bringing them to maturity. Just any individual could not assume priestly functions under the law, and since Christ has come, and the Holy Spirit now administers the will of Christ in His body, the church, there is no need for such priestly functions. Therefore, it is presumptuous for one to think he is a priest because he can pray. This leaves too many loopholes for human wisdom.

How important it is that men learn to act as a part of the body. Our assisting in the preaching and the teaching is only as a part of the body. Every member is important, but no member can assume a function which ignores the will of all the others. Herein lies another reason why a "universal" church is not wise or needed, and why an "invisible" church is an anomaly.

Why cannot we accept God’s word, as it reflects His wisdom, and allow the Holy Spirit to direct us into the will of the Great Head of the church, our Lord Jesus Christ? It surely is our sin nature which causes us to feel that if we cannot be in some recognized office as individuals we are worthless. Human church systems thus find a "job" for every member in order to pacify him and keep him busy.

We have even created an office of service called "deaconship," when those serving in the early church were simply chosen as individuals in a particular need. Every church member should be a "deacon" (diakonos, -e, servant, a volunteer with or without wages), male or female. And all need to qualify according to those standards laid down in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 2, of whatever age or sex. How busy we are to "make us a name" like those at Babel (Genesis 11:4), whereas our real aim should be to exalt the name of the Lord (Isaiah 63:12-14).

Our Serious Conclusion

There is no "priesthood of believers," if by this is meant, all who have believed to be initially saved. The claim must have risen among Protestants in order to counter the claims of Rome for its priesthood. Not only does it ignore the pattern of the Bible for the priesthood, made of consecrated men who proved themselves by choosing to honor the Lord rather than to follow the crowd. This was the reason for Levi’s being chosen as priest in Israel (See Numbers 16:10; Leviticus 21: 16ff.).

As to the High Priest, the order of Aaron was superseded by the order of Melchizedek (in the Old Testament). As to the Aaronic priesthood, the lesser priests served by assisting the high priest.

In the "New Covenant" there is a "royal priesthood" made up of those adopted, set as sons, in the covenant position which is the church (Ephesians 1:5, 1 Peter 2:5, 9). These assist our High Priest in capacities similar to those in the old, but not in offering animals. But we serve the temple, praise the Lord Who is Head of he church, and show a spirit of humility in exalting Him before each other and the world in our lives.

This position requires one to have the indwelling Spirit, called the "Spirit of adoption," the sonship Spirit" (Greek, (huiothesia) (Romans 8:15). This is the Holy Spirit who came upon the church at Pentecost. This is a benefit for this age which those under the law or Old Covenant did not have. It does not come with initial salvation. If it pertained to initial salvation, then there would have been no need for the Pentecost benefit, and all would have had it by initial salvation. Since all do not, we conclude that it is NOT a blessing of INITIAL salvation; and to say it is makes salvation today different from what it was in Old Testament days.

It was the church which was baptized in Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:38; Acts 5:29-32; cf. John 7:37-39). There, in the church, is where men may "drink into one spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:12,13). The baptism in this verse is in water, which initiates one into the church where the Holy Spirit dwells (Ephesians 2:19-22). The apostle says, "In one spirit were we all baptized into one body." "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Here he speaks of the body generically. Each of us came into one body this way. There is where the Spirit ministers the gifts to each one who is willing. There is where God is pleased to bless all those who acclaim Jesus as Lord. When it is ascertained whom Peter addressed in his two epistles, it is settled that these could qualify for the priesthood.

Belonging to a New Testament church affords us the privileges of a covenant people, but these benefits are to be sought, entered upon, and enjoyed. Descriptive phrases through these two epistles make it certain he is speaking of a church or churches. The word "church" does not occur in the original, but the translators had good reason for thinking she or that who was at Babylon, elected of God, meant a church. Some suppose it was Peter’s wife, since Peter likely was at Babylon at the time of his writing these letters, and so was Mark. This one at Babylon is not mentioned by name in the list which John gives in Revelation 2 and 3.

The "strangers scattered" should be considered church members, elect (1 Peter 1:2 ; 2 Pet. 1:10), "sanctified of the spirit," (1 Peter 1:2), "a spiritual house" (1 Peter 2:5 ; 1 Peter 4:17), "an holy priesthood" "chosen (elect) of God" (1 Peter 2:4, 5), "Zion" (1 Peter 2:6), "living stones" (1 Peter 2:5), "people of God" (1 Peter 2:10), as Israel had been called before, "sheep" (1 Peter 2:25), "baptized" (1 Peter 3:2 1), "flock of God" (1 Peter 5:2), under "elders" (1 Peter 5:5).

Just read through this first and then the second epistle and observe language not applicable to individuals as such, but to church individuals who enjoyed a brotherhood relationship with each other and awaited the Lord’s coming. Most every doctrine of the church is touched on in these two letters.

We enter into great joy reading these letters and contemplating our privileges as saints in the Lord’s body. Saints, incidentally, is a noun from the adjective holy, terms befitting only people in covenant relationship with the Lord, that is, the church in this age.