What do you think?
Rate this book
The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism
In this seminal treatise, Peter J. Leithart argues that the coming of the New Creation in Jesus Christ has profound and revolutionary implications for social order, implications symbolized and effected in the ritual of baptism. In Christ and Christian baptism, the ancient distinctions between priest and non-priest, between patrician and plebian, are dissolved, giving rise to a new humanity in which there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. Yet, beginning in the medieval period, the church has blunted the revolutionary force of baptism, and reintroduced antique distinctions whose destruction was announced by the gospel. Leithart calls the church to renew her commitment to the gospel that offers "priesthood to the plebs."
312 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2003
2 people are currently reading
101 people want to read
About the author
Peter J. Leithart
130 books364 followersPeter Leithart received an A.B. in English and History from Hillsdale College in 1981, and a Master of Arts in Religion and a Master of Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1986 and 1987. In 1998 he received his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge in England. He has served in two pastorates: He was pastor of Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church (now Trinity Presbyterian Church), Birmingham, Alabama from 1989 to 1995, and was founding pastor of Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow, Idaho, and served on the pastoral staff at Trinity from 2003-2013. From 1998 to 2013 he taught theology and literature at New St. Andrews College, Moscow, Idaho, where he continues to teach as an adjunct Senior Fellow. He now serves as President of Trinity House in Alabama, where is also resident Church Teacher at the local CREC church. He and his wife, Noel, have ten children and five grandchildren.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
February 9, 2024
Stimulating and fresh. Leithart argues in this republished dissertation that baptism effectually initiates one into priesthood. In the introduction he states the argument was inspired by three things: 1) the historical model of examining the sacraments of the Old as prototypes of the New, 2) taking seriously passage of 1 Peter 3:21 (baptism now saves you), and 3) the ambition to write "a great cathedral of a book" (p. xii). That is, a vast theology to be filled in and fleshed out by further study.
One more quote expressing the purpose of the book is worth including:
"My goal was to provide a baptismal theology that would make it seem perfectly natural to speak, in an offhand way, about the salvific power of baptism." (xii)
All in all, the book is, imo, largely successful. If you are committed to a robust typology and continuity between the Old and New, then you will probably be forced to go further with Leithart than you think you would. And, if you are conscious of a dualistic tendency in modern thought to separate sharply the spiritual and the physical, the visible and the invisible, then you will likely go further with him than you are comfortable with.
Nevertheless, I have two criticisms of the overall argument, personally. First, Leithart does not distinguish carefully enough between the Old and New priest. A large part of his argument, for instance, is built merely on the fact that members of the New Covenant have High Priestly like access to God (they are holy). Leithart (rightly) makes a number of observations from this reality, but then makes others that I do not believe are warranted. Moreover, he does not even address the fact that Paul states an unbelieving spouse is holy (1 Cor. 7:14). Unless he believes this person is baptized, I think he needs to account for this in his work. I believe this seriously weakens his overall argument for paedobaptism, for example.
Second, Leithart seems to make his stance against dualism do too much of his work for him. I say this someone who has benefited tremendously from Leithart's teaching on this point. It is possible that Leithart goes too far in his efficacy of baptism on account of this.
I must say a few more things in praise of this book. Within its pages are some excellent sections on passages: 2 Cor. 5 (Chapter 3), Heb. 8–9 (Chapter 5), and Gal. 3 (Chapter 5). These are sections I plan on revisiting when I am studying those passages. Next, Leithart's final chapter on Gregory's influence is fascinating. In short, he argues that Gregory paved the way for the Church's reconstruction of the stoicheia of the world that Paul and the gospel (of baptism) explicitly condemns. I am not capable of providing a critique in any detail of this chapter, but the general gist of it seems quite strong and persuasive to me. And, as a credobaptist, I believe there are some sanctifying words in it for us all (not just Rome).
One more quote expressing the purpose of the book is worth including:
"My goal was to provide a baptismal theology that would make it seem perfectly natural to speak, in an offhand way, about the salvific power of baptism." (xii)
All in all, the book is, imo, largely successful. If you are committed to a robust typology and continuity between the Old and New, then you will probably be forced to go further with Leithart than you think you would. And, if you are conscious of a dualistic tendency in modern thought to separate sharply the spiritual and the physical, the visible and the invisible, then you will likely go further with him than you are comfortable with.
Nevertheless, I have two criticisms of the overall argument, personally. First, Leithart does not distinguish carefully enough between the Old and New priest. A large part of his argument, for instance, is built merely on the fact that members of the New Covenant have High Priestly like access to God (they are holy). Leithart (rightly) makes a number of observations from this reality, but then makes others that I do not believe are warranted. Moreover, he does not even address the fact that Paul states an unbelieving spouse is holy (1 Cor. 7:14). Unless he believes this person is baptized, I think he needs to account for this in his work. I believe this seriously weakens his overall argument for paedobaptism, for example.
Second, Leithart seems to make his stance against dualism do too much of his work for him. I say this someone who has benefited tremendously from Leithart's teaching on this point. It is possible that Leithart goes too far in his efficacy of baptism on account of this.
I must say a few more things in praise of this book. Within its pages are some excellent sections on passages: 2 Cor. 5 (Chapter 3), Heb. 8–9 (Chapter 5), and Gal. 3 (Chapter 5). These are sections I plan on revisiting when I am studying those passages. Next, Leithart's final chapter on Gregory's influence is fascinating. In short, he argues that Gregory paved the way for the Church's reconstruction of the stoicheia of the world that Paul and the gospel (of baptism) explicitly condemns. I am not capable of providing a critique in any detail of this chapter, but the general gist of it seems quite strong and persuasive to me. And, as a credobaptist, I believe there are some sanctifying words in it for us all (not just Rome).
February 22, 2010
What a marvelous, fantastic book. Leithart argues that baptism elevates the person baptized to the level of priest, and not just priest, but to the office of High Priest (on account of us being able to, through Christ, enter into the Holy of Holies). He examines the typology of the ordination rite of the Aaronic and Levitical priests and compares it to what the NT has to say about baptism, and shows that to Paul and Peter and John's minds baptism fulfills the ordination to priesthood. He looks at the fact that the entire families of the Levitical priests were able to eat the priestly portion of the sacrifices to argue for a typological basis for infant baptism (just as baptism ordains one for priesthood, it carries the whole household in with you) and an astonishingly powerful foundation for paedo-communion. He also examines the history of sacramental theology and shows a strong semi-Marcionite trend in understanding the sacraments, and reframes the whole debate, and likely the trajectory of that issue for years to come.
He shows that baptism was understood by the NT (focusing on Galatians) as removing the divide between priest/non-priest, between Jew and Gentile, and that later sacramental developments in Roman Catholic theology reintroduced this priest/non-priest divide by separating the people from the alter, and then from the wine, and then eventually from the whole Eucharistic rite itself. Wonderful stuff. Not only have his critics not really understood his point about the sacraments, but from reading this book and from reading their interactions with it, it appears they are completely out-matched. This just blew me out of the water.
A word of warning, however. It is Leithart's Cambridge PhD dissertation, so it is thick. I had to limit myself to a chapter or less every day, because by the time you're done, you feel overwhelmed. The sheer amount of information he has been able to internalize is just staggering.
He shows that baptism was understood by the NT (focusing on Galatians) as removing the divide between priest/non-priest, between Jew and Gentile, and that later sacramental developments in Roman Catholic theology reintroduced this priest/non-priest divide by separating the people from the alter, and then from the wine, and then eventually from the whole Eucharistic rite itself. Wonderful stuff. Not only have his critics not really understood his point about the sacraments, but from reading this book and from reading their interactions with it, it appears they are completely out-matched. This just blew me out of the water.
A word of warning, however. It is Leithart's Cambridge PhD dissertation, so it is thick. I had to limit myself to a chapter or less every day, because by the time you're done, you feel overwhelmed. The sheer amount of information he has been able to internalize is just staggering.
November 25, 2020
Really fascinating. It's a doctoral thesis so there is dense research throughout. But the engaging parts are worth reading. My assumption is that many of these themes are revisited and made more readable in Leithart's *Delivered from the Elements of the World*.
January 23, 2009
Really good.
February 28, 2016
Interesting and difficult book to review.
On the one hand, I do have to hand it to Leithart. This is his PhD, but already all the pieces seem to be in place: the Radical Orthodoxy historiography, the Biblical Horizons hermeneutics, and the sacramental politico-ecclesiology. I think that Leithart's exegesis is going to have the same impact as Calvin's commentaries. There are going to be readings that nobody has ever seen, but which will be so obvious centuries later that people will wonder how we never saw them. Kinda impressive. My favorite chapters are two and three, where all the exegetical ninja moves take place. For those chapters, and they are what distinguishes the book, I have nothing but praise.
But ... alas the day, I cannot give but a half-hearted cheer to much of the rest of the book and I think that the comparisons to Calvin are tragically apt. While John Calvin certainly had a very positive impact and was pure genius and self-giving, there were ambiguities in his work and even more so in his rhetoric and many of the Puritans did lead to some problems that we continue to face in America to this day. I think, however, that Leithart is more rhetorically confusing than Calvin and unless he changes course will have consequences not too far down the road.
While Leithart is fantastically consistent (indeed, Leithart's ideas are basically those which underlie his Baptized Body & Against Christianity), he is not clear in chapter four on some key points. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but somehow the argument is structured such that he avoids explaining the nature of faith and older protestant conceptions of soteriology. One wishes that Leithart would write a systematic theology to hammer these things out. What makes it problematic is that every single observation is good: sociology of baptism (good), permeability of ritual (great), expansion of Old Testament rites being expanded to the Priesthood of the Plebs (glory and Hallelujah)!
It's what's not on the page that seems to be problematic. Leithart talks a lot about baptism, about corporate salvation, and about the creation of a new people, but never seems to talk about faith and how it relates to baptism and one's eternal destiny. It comes up, but it's always at the end and none of the important distinctions are dealt with.
Just to clarify the difference on regeneration: for Luther (and indeed for Leithart's friend Rich Lusk) infants can have the seed of regeneration implanted in them, but this seed is faith and while such a faith can be lost, it is so difficult that truly breaking off would mean you can never come back. Perseverance verses are somewhat difficult, but at least the focus is kept more on Christ than on the quality of our faith. For Calvin, infants have to come to an age of reason and then they then respond in faith or not and are given persevering faith. This handles many passages better, but opens the door to figuring out the difference between persevering faith and false faith. People examine and cross-examine and double-triple cross-examine their works, their understanding of salvation, and their emotions. It involves a lot less certainty than the Lutheran view, but once you are in, you are IN. As C.S. Lewis said, Calvin lowered the honors requirements, but raised the pass bar.
I actually think this is an open discussion in hindsight and I am not opposed to bringing in Biblical Horizons exegesis to try to figure these things out. One way of handling the Reformed position might be to insist on the ultimate mysteriousness of regeneration and the depths of the human heart. There are people who really think they are getting saved and are not going to be saved. There are even people passionately in love with Jesus who will tell him Lord, Lord, etc. Perhaps quality of faith is, in fact, something that involves a bunch of factors, and not any one piece. I'm not sure.
You could handle the Lutheran position perhaps by emphasizing the perseverance passages as grace for perseverance. These passages then saying that no believer ever loses faith, but something more like the Word is near you in your mouth and heart. The Jews were NOT in fact able to keep the Law even though God commanded it, but the grace was offered in their circumstances and was in a hypothetical way, sufficient. Let me give an illustration of this: Adam in the Garden had all the fruit trees and all the information and all the faculties not to sin, but God predestined that he would do it anyway. Perseverance might be the same deal.
I personally think the way forward will lie with whoever can explain infants and their faith best, but regardless of this, in both sides regeneration has to do with faith in Jesus, even if regeneration is not accompanied by perseverance, and thus faith cannot be effected by baptism.
Leithart is different from all this because first he makes the valid point that baptism is an effective rite that brings us into the church. Fine. He also makes the valid point that baptism is a sociological force that comforts us and encourages our faith in Christ Jesus. Fine still. He even makes the point I'm willing to grant exegetically that salvation does not refer merely to the change of hearts, but also includes the replacement of Israel with the church. The problem is when you take all those valid points and say that baptism is an effective rite that comforts us and tells us we are in the people of salvation, as if that were all there were. Hopefully this illustrates the problem: if salvation NEVER exegetically means individual faith, and if baptism NEVER refers to a sociological force that comforts the unsaved, and if if entry into the church is NEVER futile at times, then we have a problem. This is why Leithart is tricky: so much good, but a failure to define or carve out space, mixed with a preference to the Lutheran view outlined above.
Basically, in practice, if not in theory, Leithart's system can explain why the unbaptized and openly apostate go to hell and the baptized to heaven, he has very little grounds on which to argue that the lukewarm or fruitless go to hell. I'm sympathetic to this since the problems of the Calvinist view are very real and the modern evangelical version which make emotions the effective means of assurance is wrong, but this doesn't get you out of the woods.
Probably the part that will age the worst is his historiography in the last chapter which, while admirable insofar as he critiques Catholicism and the way its sacraments started lying about Christ, is halfheartedly Protestant and attributes modernity to the Reformers. Here, Leithart, however, does make one of his famous rhetorical flourishes: "The good news is not justification by faith, for that, as Paul insists, is a truth as old as Abraham. Luther was closer to the heart of Paul's gospel when he attacked the Babylonian Captivity of the church and exulted in the "clerical" status of the baptized." He's right insofar as you could get saved in the Old Covenant, and I'm sure if I pressed him he would admit that Paul is really talking about justification in the more traditional sense, but this is the kind of statement that makes people with less brains get confused.
But I don't want to end my review this way. I think Leithart is doing something great for the church. The Puritans didn't totally fail and in fact we read them with pleasure (or some of us do :)). Leithart avoids in practice the errors that (perhaps) his system will lead to, and perhaps his future interlocutors in Biblical hermeneutics will coral the wild horses back into the Reformed pen. Who knows what the future of theology holds? Anyway, I do want kids reading the Bible the way Leithart does and I do want them asking questions of the text with his relentless leave-no-stone-unturned-in-how-we-consider-the-Bible. He also has a genuine humility and sense of humor. Anyone who critiques Leithart needs to realize these things. Maybe Leithart barked up the wrong philosophical and historical trees; even the failure is impressive and worth the climb.
On the one hand, I do have to hand it to Leithart. This is his PhD, but already all the pieces seem to be in place: the Radical Orthodoxy historiography, the Biblical Horizons hermeneutics, and the sacramental politico-ecclesiology. I think that Leithart's exegesis is going to have the same impact as Calvin's commentaries. There are going to be readings that nobody has ever seen, but which will be so obvious centuries later that people will wonder how we never saw them. Kinda impressive. My favorite chapters are two and three, where all the exegetical ninja moves take place. For those chapters, and they are what distinguishes the book, I have nothing but praise.
But ... alas the day, I cannot give but a half-hearted cheer to much of the rest of the book and I think that the comparisons to Calvin are tragically apt. While John Calvin certainly had a very positive impact and was pure genius and self-giving, there were ambiguities in his work and even more so in his rhetoric and many of the Puritans did lead to some problems that we continue to face in America to this day. I think, however, that Leithart is more rhetorically confusing than Calvin and unless he changes course will have consequences not too far down the road.
While Leithart is fantastically consistent (indeed, Leithart's ideas are basically those which underlie his Baptized Body & Against Christianity), he is not clear in chapter four on some key points. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but somehow the argument is structured such that he avoids explaining the nature of faith and older protestant conceptions of soteriology. One wishes that Leithart would write a systematic theology to hammer these things out. What makes it problematic is that every single observation is good: sociology of baptism (good), permeability of ritual (great), expansion of Old Testament rites being expanded to the Priesthood of the Plebs (glory and Hallelujah)!
It's what's not on the page that seems to be problematic. Leithart talks a lot about baptism, about corporate salvation, and about the creation of a new people, but never seems to talk about faith and how it relates to baptism and one's eternal destiny. It comes up, but it's always at the end and none of the important distinctions are dealt with.
Just to clarify the difference on regeneration: for Luther (and indeed for Leithart's friend Rich Lusk) infants can have the seed of regeneration implanted in them, but this seed is faith and while such a faith can be lost, it is so difficult that truly breaking off would mean you can never come back. Perseverance verses are somewhat difficult, but at least the focus is kept more on Christ than on the quality of our faith. For Calvin, infants have to come to an age of reason and then they then respond in faith or not and are given persevering faith. This handles many passages better, but opens the door to figuring out the difference between persevering faith and false faith. People examine and cross-examine and double-triple cross-examine their works, their understanding of salvation, and their emotions. It involves a lot less certainty than the Lutheran view, but once you are in, you are IN. As C.S. Lewis said, Calvin lowered the honors requirements, but raised the pass bar.
I actually think this is an open discussion in hindsight and I am not opposed to bringing in Biblical Horizons exegesis to try to figure these things out. One way of handling the Reformed position might be to insist on the ultimate mysteriousness of regeneration and the depths of the human heart. There are people who really think they are getting saved and are not going to be saved. There are even people passionately in love with Jesus who will tell him Lord, Lord, etc. Perhaps quality of faith is, in fact, something that involves a bunch of factors, and not any one piece. I'm not sure.
You could handle the Lutheran position perhaps by emphasizing the perseverance passages as grace for perseverance. These passages then saying that no believer ever loses faith, but something more like the Word is near you in your mouth and heart. The Jews were NOT in fact able to keep the Law even though God commanded it, but the grace was offered in their circumstances and was in a hypothetical way, sufficient. Let me give an illustration of this: Adam in the Garden had all the fruit trees and all the information and all the faculties not to sin, but God predestined that he would do it anyway. Perseverance might be the same deal.
I personally think the way forward will lie with whoever can explain infants and their faith best, but regardless of this, in both sides regeneration has to do with faith in Jesus, even if regeneration is not accompanied by perseverance, and thus faith cannot be effected by baptism.
Leithart is different from all this because first he makes the valid point that baptism is an effective rite that brings us into the church. Fine. He also makes the valid point that baptism is a sociological force that comforts us and encourages our faith in Christ Jesus. Fine still. He even makes the point I'm willing to grant exegetically that salvation does not refer merely to the change of hearts, but also includes the replacement of Israel with the church. The problem is when you take all those valid points and say that baptism is an effective rite that comforts us and tells us we are in the people of salvation, as if that were all there were. Hopefully this illustrates the problem: if salvation NEVER exegetically means individual faith, and if baptism NEVER refers to a sociological force that comforts the unsaved, and if if entry into the church is NEVER futile at times, then we have a problem. This is why Leithart is tricky: so much good, but a failure to define or carve out space, mixed with a preference to the Lutheran view outlined above.
Basically, in practice, if not in theory, Leithart's system can explain why the unbaptized and openly apostate go to hell and the baptized to heaven, he has very little grounds on which to argue that the lukewarm or fruitless go to hell. I'm sympathetic to this since the problems of the Calvinist view are very real and the modern evangelical version which make emotions the effective means of assurance is wrong, but this doesn't get you out of the woods.
Probably the part that will age the worst is his historiography in the last chapter which, while admirable insofar as he critiques Catholicism and the way its sacraments started lying about Christ, is halfheartedly Protestant and attributes modernity to the Reformers. Here, Leithart, however, does make one of his famous rhetorical flourishes: "The good news is not justification by faith, for that, as Paul insists, is a truth as old as Abraham. Luther was closer to the heart of Paul's gospel when he attacked the Babylonian Captivity of the church and exulted in the "clerical" status of the baptized." He's right insofar as you could get saved in the Old Covenant, and I'm sure if I pressed him he would admit that Paul is really talking about justification in the more traditional sense, but this is the kind of statement that makes people with less brains get confused.
But I don't want to end my review this way. I think Leithart is doing something great for the church. The Puritans didn't totally fail and in fact we read them with pleasure (or some of us do :)). Leithart avoids in practice the errors that (perhaps) his system will lead to, and perhaps his future interlocutors in Biblical hermeneutics will coral the wild horses back into the Reformed pen. Who knows what the future of theology holds? Anyway, I do want kids reading the Bible the way Leithart does and I do want them asking questions of the text with his relentless leave-no-stone-unturned-in-how-we-consider-the-Bible. He also has a genuine humility and sense of humor. Anyone who critiques Leithart needs to realize these things. Maybe Leithart barked up the wrong philosophical and historical trees; even the failure is impressive and worth the climb.
March 9, 2019
There is work of genuine interest here, and Leithart essentially provides a theological argument for women's equality based on Galatians 3 but because of his theological convictions must shy back from it.
Read
December 1, 2021As with everything of Leithart’s, I find it unbelievably profound one moment and ridiculous the next. I took a lot of little bits home on this one. Not sure the whole thesis holds together in my mind - but there are some nice bits.
July 14, 2023
This book was a challenging read, but well worth it in the end. Leithart makes a strong case arguing for "the priesthood of the baptized" and unpacks its significant implications. Overall, this was a great book!
February 9, 2010
An excellent book that challenged my own thoughts about baptism. Like an elephant, this book must be chewed upon very slowly, one bite at a time. More useful on an academic / research level than a layman level.
June 15, 2009
Another quickly-read book while I was baptism papering.
March 7, 2012
Leitharts dissertation. Full of practical application for church, family,and society.
November 26, 2012
Read back in 2003 and a second time just now. Really wonderful stuff!!
March 18, 2014
Lots of interesting exegesis. Should not serve as the foundation for understanding baptism since it is weak on key terminology. But worth a read.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews