I agree, there was no question of Phinehas and the Levites being set in orders over and against the existing priesthood. So there is no analogy to the Protestant situation in that respect.

It could be that Phinehas was already ordained priest, although I could find no reference to that effect. Compare Numbers 25:7 and Joshua 22:30. In the latter passage he is simply “Phinehas the priest,” in the former he is Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest….”

What I am still trying to figure out is, do these passages give us a principle of self-ordination, or immediate mission (including holy orders) by way of something other than unbroken succession to a once established office, and would this principle apply in the new covenant?

The larger question, with respect to Protestant and Reformed ecclesiology, has to do with the significance of the episcopal college as regards true doctrine.

How one addresses this matter will be determined by his convictions about a host of issues. It seems to me that the pressing questions with respect to the relationship of the college of bishops (i.e. considered as a unified whole and not a mere collection) and true doctrine are:

(1) What is it about the episcopal college, considered as a visible and historical and Apostolic ministry, that renders its judgments binding upon all who would be faithful to Christ Jesus?

(2) Why is it that Catholics cannot admit the possibility of appealing directly to “true doctrine” as adduced by private judgment over and against the solemn teachings of the college of bishops?

Finally, when it comes to the identification of those ordained ministers whose God-given duty it is to teach the pure doctrine of the revealed word:

(3) Why can’t any group of people who name the name of Jesus (in all sincerity and with the best of intentions) just choose and ordain for themselves bishops/presbyters who teach what the group believes to be the truth? Why is sacramental Apostolic Succession the indispensable criterion of valid orders?

Such questions go to the root of the European Schism.

Maybe. It is significant that Phinehas is thus introduced (25:10). We certainly cannot assume that had a non-Aaronite so acted he too would have been granted a covenant of perpetual priesthood. But listen to how the text speaks when the covenant of a perpetual priesthood is given to him:

And the LORD said to Moses, “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace; and it shall be to him, and to his descendants after him, the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the people of Israel.’”

(Numbers 25:10-13, RSV, emphasis added)

Note the reasons cited for the blessings given. We might be able to argue that the deeds of Phinehas merit (de congruo) the covenant of the priesthood, much as a certain quality of character merits the new covenant priesthood (i.e. the episcopate). Christ merited (strictly speaking) the priesthood of the new covenant. Only those men who sufficiently imitate Christ so as to merit (de congruo) a share of his office are to be grafted into the episcopal line.

I do not say that impaling covenant-breakers with a javelin or living an otherwise exemplary life ipso facto makes one a priest, clearly it does not; that is a matter of royal grant: the sacrament of holy orders is, as this text makes clear, an unconditional and gracious covenant.

This is, in part, why we argue that, in the new covenant in Christ’s blood, the priestly line holds regardless of the faithfulness of the very fallible and extremely peccable priests, regardless of when they begin to go bad; before or after ordination. The integrity of the Catholic priesthood is a matter of the faithfulness of Christ.

Futhermore, there is simply no question of a further covenant, or addition to the new and eternal covenant, in which the Catholic (Melchizedekian) priesthood might be either taken up and fulfilled or just set aside, involving a change in or of the priesthood. This is where Tim’s point about the Levites (Exodus 32) kicks in.

The most that a Protestant can get from these passages, and perhaps all they need, is the idea that meritorious deeds can call down holy orders, sans miracles and unbroken line of succession. I believe that Tim, and Jeff, have begun to address that as well.

I would love to hear more from you guys on this. I couldn’t find a mention of Phinehas in the Institutes of either Calvin or Turretin. Maybe this episode is simply not appealed to in support of Protestant orders, regardless of how it struck me.

Yes. When I was in my teens and was shaken up by Tolstoy, this passage kept me from being swept away. Its immediate context demands for a literal interpretation because they say “we have two” and He said, “that’s enough.” (Luke 22:38)

At the same time, His true meaning seems to be symbolic. He obviously didn’t want them going out and killing people with the swords or even arming themselves for defense> 1. Two swords are hardly adequate defense for 11 men against the temple guard, etc… 2. Far from barricading themselves up in armed defense, their real mission was revealed explicitly to be going into the streets openly and unarmed to proclaim the gospel. The Holy Spirit told Agabus to take Paul’s belt and bind his hand with it (Acts 21:10-11) and He meant it literally. But it was to be a sign. The ultimate meaning of the (literal) belt was a sign of what was to come; likewise, the (literal) swords were signs of the sword of the Word.

I look forward to your considered thoughts on the matter.

As one approaching that very threshold (and in admiration that you can hurdle past it), I could not agree more about small font.

Brett,

Thanks for the link, but your website suffers an aggravated case of the malady that afflicts this site: too small print for mortal eyes. Elven-kind doubtless take no pause, but I am not sure that they have the Internet over there.

Tim,

I enjoyed the observation about the two three thousands and the various and sundry swords. I take it that our people have not always believed that the swords of the disciples were figurative?

Great topic! I am pondering a response…

Brett,

Is there any way that you can increase the font size of you website? For those of us hurdling past the threshold of middle age, it is almost impossible to read!

God bless!

http://protestantwitness.xanga.com/708286758/originally-posted-on-facebook/

This argument of de Sales’ is what converted me from Calvinism to Catholicism.