Most likely His Excellency meant that Christ was not a member of the “Levitical” Priesthood which ruled the Temple in Jerusalem at the time; and thus, Our Lord would have been technically considered a “layman” with respect to the Levitical Order as established by the Law of Moses. And in this, His Excellency is correct. The Lord, as the Son of David from the Tribe of Judah, was not born into the priestly Tribe of Levi as a son of Aaron. Therefore, in accordance with the perspective of those who controlled and were a part of the religious accounting of that time, Christ could rightly have been called then, what we define or refer to as a “layman” in our ecclesiastical nomenclature of today. And it is also clear from the context of his message that the Archbishop was not referring to the Melchizedek Order of the Priesthood, to which Our Lord most assuredly belongs and by which His sacrificial ministry was conducted. Such an assertion would not only be heretical, it would also be highly illogical. Christ’s Melchizedek Priesthood, as defined in the New Testament Book of Hebrews, was a higher priestly order than that of the Levitical Priesthood, to which He never belonged and often condemned.

And with regard to the part about “sacrifice” in relation to Christ’s substitutionary death, it is quite clear that the Archbishop was referring to the erroneous and misguided perspective of those there who killed Our Lord and had a part in or rejoiced over His horrific demise - how THEY saw Him and the death perpetrated by their own actions. Not from God’s omniscient perspective or what Christ’s death actually meant to humanity in the sovereign will and plan of God which was ordained before the foundation of the world. Those who cruelly slew Our Lord did not see Christ’s death as a sacrifice, and did not understand the sacrificial nature of its perpetual significance. They were blind to the fullness of the Gospel and what the Lord’s death meant to the whole world throughout the ages, and only thought they were murdering a troublemaking rebel-rouser who deserved his agonizing punishment. They did not realize they were actually slaying The King of Glory, Who, as the Eternal Son of the Living God, was offering His Life as the Sacrifice for all sin everywhere and for all of time. Those who were guilty of His crucifixion did not see His death as SACRIFICIAL, they saw it as punishment. That is what the good Archbishop was trying to say.

So come on, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and cut him a little slack, people …it’s Christmas.