|
|
FULL BACKGROUND
DEFINITION OF TERMS
MELCHIZEDEK — king of righteousness, the king of Salem (q.v.). All we know of him is recorded in Gen. 14:18–20. He is subsequently mentioned only once in the Old Testament, in Ps. 110:4. The typical significance of his history is set forth in detail in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. 7. The apostle there points out the superiority of his priesthood to that of Aaron in these several respects, (1) Even Abraham paid him tithes; (2) he blessed Abraham; (3) he is the type of a Priest who lives for ever; (4) Levi, yet unborn, paid him tithes in the person of Abraham; (5) the permanence of his priesthood in Christ implied the abrogation of the Levitical system; (6) he was made priest not without an oath; and (7) his priesthood can neither be transmitted nor interrupted by death: “this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.â€
The question as to who this mysterious personage was has given rise to a great deal of modern speculation. It is an old tradition among the Jews that he was Shem, the son of Noah, who may have survived to this time. Melchizedek was a Canaanitish prince, a worshipper of the true God, and in his peculiar history and character an instructive type of our Lord, the great High Priest (Heb. 5:6, 7; 6:20). One of the Amarna tablets is from Ebed-Tob, king of Jerusalem, the successor of Melchizedek, in which he claims the very attributes and dignity given to Melchizedek in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
MELCHIZEDEK (Heb. malkéÆsed_eq, ‘Sedeq is (my) king’ or, as in Heb. 7:2, ‘king of righteousness’). He was the king of Salem (probably Jerusalem) and priest of ‘God Most High’ Õeµl ÔelyoÆn) who greeted Abram on his return from the rout of *Chedorlaomer and his allies, presented him with bread and wine, blessed him in the name of God Most High and received from him a tenth part of the booty which had been taken from the enemy (Gn. 14:18ff.). Abram thereupon declined the king of Sodom’s offer to let him keep all the booty apart from the recovered prisoners, swearing by God Most High that he would allow no man to have the honour of making him rich (v. 22, where MT, but not Samaritan, LXX, or Pesh., adds Yahweh before Õeµl ÔelyoÆn, thus emphasizing that the two names denote one and the same God). The incident is probably to be dated in the Middle Bronze Age (*Abraham). Melchizedek’s name may be compared with that of a later king of Jerusalem, Adoni-zedek (Jos. 10:1ff.).
In Ps. 110:4 a Davidic king is acclaimed by divine oath as ‘a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’. The background of this acclamation is provided by David’s conquest of Jerusalem c. 1000 BC, by virtue of which David and his house became heirs to Melchizedek’s dynasty of priest-kings. The king so acclaimed was identified by Jesus and his contemporaries as the Davidic Messiah (Mk. 12:35ff.). If Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, he must be the ‘priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’. This inevitable conclusion is drawn by the writer to the Hebrews, who develops his theme of our Lord’s heavenly priesthood on the basis of Ps. 110:4, expounded in the light of Gn. 14:18ff., where Melchizedek appears and disappears suddenly, with nothing said about his birth or death, ancestry or descent, in a manner which declares his superiority to Abram and, by implication, to the Aaronic priesthood descended from Abram. The superiority of Christ and his new order to the levitical order of OT times is thus established (Heb. 5:6-11; 6:20-7:28).
A fragmentary text from Cave 11 at Qumran (11QMelch.) envisages Melchizedek as divinely appointed judge in the heavenly court, expounding Pss. 7:7ff.; 82:1ff. in this sense (cf. A. S. van der Woude, ‘Melchisedech als himmlische Erlösergestalt’, OTS 14, 1965, pp. 354ff.).
BIBLIOGRAPHY. Commentaries on Genesis, Psalms, Hebrews; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIC, 1964, pp. 94ff., 133ff.; H. H. Rowley, ‘Melchizedek and Zadok’, Festschrift für A. Bertholet (ed. W. Baumgartner et al.), 1950, pp. 461ff.; A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, 1955; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 1959, pp. 83ff.; J. A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the NT, 1971, pp. 221-269; F. L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 1976; B. A. Demarest, A History of Interpretation of Hebrews 7:1-10 from the Reformation to the Present, 1976.
PRIEST — The Heb. kohen, Gr. hierus, Lat. sacerdos, always denote one who offers sacrifices.
At first every man was his own priest, and presented his own sacrifices before God. Afterwards that office devolved on the head of the family, as in the cases of Noah (Gen. 8:20), Abraham (12:7; 13:4), Isaac (26:25), Jacob (31:54), and Job (Job 1:5).
The name first occurs as applied to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18). Under the Levitical arrangements the office of the priesthood was limited to the tribe of Levi, and to only one family of that tribe, the family of Aaron. Certain laws respecting the qualifications of priests are given in Lev. 21:16–23. There are ordinances also regarding the priests’ dress (Ex. 28:40–43) and the manner of their consecration to the office (29:1–37).
Their duties were manifold (Ex. 27:20, 21; 29:38–44; Lev. 6:12; 10:11; 24:8; Num. 10:1–10; Deut. 17:8–13; 33:10; Mal. 2:7). They represented the people before God, and offered the various sacrifices prescribed in the law.
In the time of David the priests were divided into twenty-four courses or classes (1 Chr. 24:7–18). This number was retained after the Captivity (Ezra 2:36–39; Neh. 7:39–42).
“The priests were not distributed over the country, but lived together in certain cities [forty-eight in number, of which six were cities of refuge, q.v.], which had been assigned to their use. From thence they went up by turns to minister in the temple at Jerusalem. Thus the religious instruction of the people in the country generally was left to the heads of families, until the establishment of synagogues, an event which did not take place till the return from the Captivity, and which was the main source of the freedom from idolatry that became as marked a feature of the Jewish people thenceforward as its practice had been hitherto their great national sin.â€
The whole priestly system of the Jews was typical. It was a shadow of which the body is Christ. The priests all prefigured the great Priest who offered “one sacrifice for sins†“once for all†(Heb. 10:10, 12). There is now no human priesthood. (See Epistle to the Hebrews throughout.) The term “priest†is indeed applied to believers (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6), but in these cases it implies no sacerdotal functions. All true believers are now “kings and priests unto God.†As priests they have free access into the holiest of all, and offer up the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, and the sacrifices of grateful service from day to day. 1
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. The relationship between the priests, who are the descendants of Aaron, and the Levites, the other members of Levi’s tribe, is one of the thorny problems of OT religion. Any treatment of the Levites must deal with the biblical evidence, Julius Wellhausen’s reconstruction of it and the numerous ways in which contemporary scholars have reacted to his evolutionary approach.
I. The biblical data
a. The Pentateuch
The Levites come into prominence in the Pentateuch in connection with Moses and Aaron (Ex. 2:1-10; 4:14; 6:16-27). After Aaron led the people into apostasy with the golden calf (Ex. 32:25ff.), the sons of Levi avenged the Lord’s honour by punishing many of the miscreants. This display of fidelity to God may partially account for the signal responsibilities given the tribe in the pentateuchal legislation.
The role of the Levites as ministers in the tabernacle, clearly detailed in Numbers, is anticipated in Ex. 38:21, where they co-operate in the construction of the tabernacle under the super-vision of Aaron’s son, Ithamar. In the laws preparatory to the wilderness march, Levi was separated by God from the other tribes and placed in charge of the dismantling, carrying and erecting of the tabernacle (Nu. 1:47-54). The sons of Levi camped around the tabernacle and apparently served as buffers to protect their fellow-tribes from God’s wrath, which threatened them if they unwittingly came in contact with the holy tent or its furnishings (Nu. 1:51, 53; 2:17).
Forbidden to serve as priests, a privilege reserved, on penalty of death, for Aaron’s sons (Nu. 3:10), the Levites were dedicated to an auxiliary ministry for the priests, especially in regard to the manual labour of caring for the tabernacle (Nu. 3:5ff.). In addition, they performed an important service for the other tribes by substituting for each family’s first-born, to whom God was entitled in view of the fact that he spared Israel’s first-born at the Passover in Egypt (cf. Ex. 13:2ff., 13). As representatives of the tribes’ first-born (Nu. 3:40ff.) the Levites were part of ‘the far-reaching principle of representation’ by which the concept of a people utterly dependent upon and totally surrendered to God was put across (cf. H. W. Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament, 1953, pp. 219-221).
Each of the three families of Levi had specific duties. The sons of Kohath (numbering 2,750 in the age-group from 30 to 50 according to Nu. 4:36) were in charge of carrying the furniture after it had been carefully covered by the priests, who alone could touch it (Nu. 3:29-32; 4:1ff.). The Kohathites were supervised by Aaron’s son, Eleazar. The sons of Gershon (2,630; Nu. 4:40) cared for the coverings, screens and hangings under the supervision of Aaron’s son Ithamar (Nu. 3:21-26; 4:21ff.). Merari’s sons (3,200; Nu. 4:44) had the task of carrying and erecting the frame of the tabernacle and its court (Nu. 3:35-37; 4:29ff.)
The representative function of the Levites is symbolized in the rituals of cleansing and dedication (Nu. 8:5ff.). For instance, both the fact that the Israelites (probably through their tribal leaders) laid hands on the Levites (8:10), acknowledging them as substitutes (cf. Lv. 4:24, etc.), and the fact that the priests offered the Levites as a wave-offering (probably by leading them to and then from the altar) from the people (8:11), suggest that the Levites were given by the Israelites to serve Aaron’s sons in their stead. This is made explicit in 8:16ff., where Levi’s sons are called net_uÆnéÆm, ‘gifts’.
Their service began at 25 years of age and continued until the 50th year, when the Levite went into a kind of semi-retirement with limited duties (Nu. 8:24-26). There may have been a 5-year apprenticeship, because apparently the full responsibility of carrying the tabernacle and its furnishings fell on the shoulders of the men from 30 years to 50 (Nu. 4:3ff.). When David established a permanent site for the ark, the age was lowered to 20 years because there was no longer a need for mature Levites as porters (1 Ch. 23:24ff.).
The levitical responsibility of representing the people carried with it certain privileges. Although they had no inheritance in the land (i.e. no portion of it was appointed for their exclusive use: Nu. 18:23-24; Dt. 12:12ff.), the Levites were supported by the tithes of the people, while the priests received the parts of the offerings not consumed by sacrifice, the firstlings of flock and herd, and a tithe of the levitical tithes (Nu. 18:8ff., 21ff.; cf. Dt. 18:1-4). Occasionally both priests and Levites shared in the spoils of battle (e.g. Nu. 31:25ff.). In addition, the Levites had permission to reside in forty-eight cities set aside for their use (Nu. 35:1ff.; Jos. 21:1ff.). Surrounding each city an area of pasture-land was marked off for them. Six of the cities, three on each side of the Jordan, served as *cities of refuge.
The transition from the wilderness marches to settled life in Canaan (anticipated in Nu. 35 in the establishing of levitical cities) brought with it both an increased concern for the welfare of the Levites and an expansion of their duties in order to cope with the needs of the decentralized pattern of life. In Deuteronomy great stress is laid on the Israelites’ responsibilities towards the sons of Levi, who were to share in the rejoicing of the tribes (12:12), in their tithes and certain offerings (12:18-19; 14:28-29), and in their chief festivals, especially Weeks and Tabernacles (16:11-14). The Levites dispersed throughout the land were to share equally both the ministry and the offerings with their brethren who resided at the central shrine (18:6-8).
Whereas Numbers characteristically calls the priests the sons of Aaron (e.g. 10:8), Deuteronomy frequently uses the expression ‘the Levitical priests’ (e.g. 18:1). Though some scholars (see below) have held that no distinction is made between priest and Levite in Deuteronomy, the fact that different portions are ascribed to priests in Dt. 18:3ff. and to Levites in 18:6ff. suggests that the distinction is maintained. The phrase ‘the Levitical priests’ (e.g. Dt. 17:9, 18; 18:1; 24:8; 27:9; cf. Jos. 3:3; 8:33) seems to mean ‘the priests of the tribe of Levi’. To them the Deuteronomic code assigns numerous duties in addition to the care of the sanctuary: they serve as judges in cases involving difficult decisions (17:8-9), regulate the control of lepers (24:8), guard the book of the law (17:18) and assist Moses in the ceremony of covenant renewal (27:9).
Within the family of Kohath the office of high priest (Heb. hakkoµheµn, ‘the priest’ [Ex. 31:10, etc.]; hakkoµheµn hammaµsûéÆah, ‘the anointed priest’ [Lv. 4:3, etc.]; hakkoµheµn haggaµd_oµl ‘the high priest’ [Lv. 21:10, etc.]) was exercised by the eldest representative of Eleazar’s family, unless the sanctions of Lv. 21:16-23 were applicable. He was consecrated in the same manner as the other priests and shared in their routine duties. He alone wore the special vestments (Ex. 28; *Breastpiece of the High Priest, *Mitre, *Dress) and interpreted the oracles (*Urim and Thummim). On the Day of *Atonement he represented the chosen people before Yahweh, sprinkling the blood of the sacrificial goat on the mercy-seat (*Sacrifice and Offering).
b. The Former Prophets
The priests play a more prominent role than the Levites in the book of Joshua, especially in the story of the crossing of Jordan and the conquest of Jericho. Sometimes called ‘the priests the Levites’ (e.g. Jos. 3:3; 8:33) and more often simply ‘the priests’ (e.g. Jos. 3:6ff.; 4:9ff.), they had the crucial task of bearing the ark of the Lord. The tabernacle, however, carried by the Levites is not mentioned (with the possible exception of 6:24) until it was pitched at Shiloh (18:1; 19:51) after the conquest of Canaan. Apparently the carrying of the ark was entrusted to the priests rather than the Kohathites (cf. Nu. 4:15) because of the supreme importance of these journeys: God, whose presence the ark symbolized, was marching forth conquering and to conquer. The Levites came into the forefront only when the time for dividing the land was at hand (cf. Jos. 14:3ff.). The distinction between priests and Levites is clearly maintained: the Levites remind Eleazar, the priest, and Joshua of Moses’ command concerning levitical cities (Jos. 21:1-3); the Kohathites are divided into two groups—those who have descended from Aaron (i.e. the priests) and the rest (Jos. 21:4-5).
The general laxness of worship during the days between the conquest of Canaan and the establishment of the Monarchy is illustrated in the two levitical stories in Judges. Micah’s Levite (Jdg. 17-18) is said to hail from Bethlehem and to be a member of the family of Judah (17:7). How was he both Levite and Judahite? The answer hangs on whether the Levite is to be identified with *Jonathan, the son of Gershom (18:30). If they are identical (as seems likely), then the Levite’s relationship to Judah must be geographical, not genealogical, in spite of the phrase ‘family of Judah’ (17:7). If the two men are not identical, then the Levite may be an example of the possibility that men of other tribes could, in this period, join themselves to the priestly tribe. This may have been the case with *Samuel, an Ephraimite (cf. 1 Sa. 1:1; 1 Ch. 6:28). There is some evidence that the term Levite may have been a functional title meaning ‘one pledged by vow’ as well as a tribal designation (cf. W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel3, 1953, pp. 109, 204ff.); however, T. J. Meek (Hebrew Origins3, 1960, pp. 121ff.) maintains that the Levites were originally a secular tribe who assumed a priestly function not only in Israel but perhaps in Arabia as well. The macabre story of the Levite and his concubine (Jdg. 19) is further testimony to the itinerations of the Levites and to the general laxness of the era. Lack of central authority curtailed the control which the central sanctuary at Shiloh should have enjoyed (Jdg. 18:31) and allowed numerous shrines to exist which paid little heed to the Mosaic regulations.
Levites appear only rarely in the rest of the Former Prophets, usually in connection with their role in carrying the ark (1 Sa. 6:15; 2 Sa. 15:24; 1 Ki. 8:4). When *Jeroboam I set up rival shrines at Dan and Bethel, ‘staffed them with nonlevitical priests, probably in order to sever relationships with the Jerusalem Temple as completely as possible (1 Ki. 12:31; cf. 2 Ch. 11:13-14; 13:9-10). Royal control of the centre of worship in both kingdoms was an important feature of the Monarchy.
c. The Chronicles
The priestly perspective of the writer of the books of *Chronicles tends to accentuate the role of the Levites and fills in numerous details of their ministry which the authors of Kings have omitted. In the genealogies of 1 Ch. 6, which also describe the role of Aaron’s sons (6:49-53) and the distribution of levitical cities (6:54-81), special attention is focused on the levitical singers, Heman, Asaph, Ethan and their sons, who were put in charge of the Temple music by David (6:31ff.; cf. 1 Ch. 15:16ff.). The list of Levites in 1 Ch. 9 bristles with problems. The similarities between it and Ne. 11 have led some (e.g. ASV, RSV) to treat it as the roll of Levites who returned to Jerusalem from the captivity (cf. 1 Ch. 9:1). Others (e.g. C. F. Keil) view it as a list of early inhabitants of Jerusalem. Both the carefully organized assignments of duty and the numbers of Levites involved (cf. the 212 gatekeepers of 1 Ch. 9:22 with the 93 of 1 Ch. 26:8-11) suggest a period subsequent to that of David. The close co-operation between Levites and sons of priests (cf. 1 Ch. 9:28ff.) and the fact that Levites cared for some of the holy vessels and helped to prepare the showbread may indicate that the rigid division of duties suggested in Nu. 4 and 18 broke down during the Monarchy, perhaps because the sons of Aaron were not numerous enough (the 1,760 in 1 Ch. 9:13 probably refers to the number of kinsmen, not to the number of heads of houses) to cope with the demands of their office. Therefore, in addition to their regular tasks as singers and musicians, gate-keepers, porters, etc., the Levites had to help in the actual preparation of the sacrifices, as well as in the care of the courts and chambers, the cleansing of the holy things and the preparation of the showbread, the cereal offering, the unleavened bread, the baked offering, etc. (23:14).
David’s orders in 1 Ch. 23 illustrate the two dominant factors which produced substantial changes in the levitical offices: the permanent location of the ark in Jerusalem, which automatically made obsolete all the regulations concerning the Levites’ function as porters; and the centralization of responsibility for the official religion (as for all other affairs of life) in the king. The Heb. view of corporate personality saw the king as the great father of the nation whose essential character was derived from him. As David brought the central shrine to Jerusalem (1 Ch. 13:2ff.) and established the patterns of its function (1 Ch. 15:1ff.; 23:1ff.) in accordance with the principles of the Mosaic legislation, so Solomon built, dedicated and supervised the Temple and its cult according to his father’s plan (1 Ch. 28:11-13, 21; 2 Ch. 5-8, note especially 8:15: ‘And they did not turn aside from what the king had commanded the priests and Levites. . .‘).
Similarly, Jehoshaphat commissioned princes, Levites and priests to teach the law throughout Judah (2 Ch. 17:7ff.) and appointed certain Levites, priests and family heads as judges in Jerusalem (2 Ch. 19:8ff.) under the supervision of the chief priest. Joash (2 Ch. 24:5ff.), Hezekiah (2 Ch. 29:3ff.) and Josiah (2 Ch. 35:2ff.) supervised the priests and Levites and re-established them in their functions according to the Davidic pattern.
The relationship between the levitical office and the prophetic is a moot question. Were some Levites cult-prophets? No firm answer is possible, but there is some evidence that Levites sometimes exercised prophetic activity: Jahaziel, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, prophesied Jehoshaphat’s victory over the Moabite-Ammonite coalition (2 Ch. 20:14ff.) and Jeduthun, the Levite, is called the king’s seer (2 Ch. 35:15).
d. The Latter Prophets
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel touch briefly upon the role of the Levites after the Exile. Is. 66:21 speaks of God’s gathering of dispersed Israelites (or perhaps converted heathen) to serve him as priests and Levites. Jeremiah (33:17ff.) envisages a covenant with the levitical priests (or perhaps priests and Levites; cf. Syr. and Vulg.) which is as binding as God’s covenant with David’s family (cf. 2 Sa. 7). Ezekiel forces a sharp cleavage between the levitical priests, whom he calls the sons of Zadok (e.g. 40:46; 43:19), and the Levites. The former are deemed to have remained faithful to God (44:15; 48:11), while the latter went astray after idols and therefore could not approach the altar or handle the most sacred things (44:10-14). Actually Ezekiel’s suggestion seems to be a return to the careful distinction between priest and Levite found in Numbers from the somewhat more lax view which prevailed during the Monarchy.
e. The post-exilic writings
Under Joshua and Zerubbabel 341 Levites returned (Ezr. 2:36ff.) with the 4,289 members of priestly families, and the 392 Temple servants (net_éÆnéÆm, i.e. ‘given’, ‘appointed’, who were apparently descendants of prisoners of war pressed into Temple service; cf. Jos. 9:23, 27; Ezr. 8:20). The difference between the large number of priests and the comparatively small number of Levites may be due to the fact that many Levites took on priestly status during the Exile. The other Levites responsible for menial tasks in the Temple seem to have been reluctant to return (Ezr. 8:15-20). The Levites played a prominent part at the laying of the foundation (Ezr. 3:8ff.) and at the dedication of the Temple (Ezr. 6:16ff.). Ezra, after recruiting Levites for his party (Ezr. 8:15ff.), instituted a reform to ban foreign marriages in which even priests and Levites had become involved (Ezr. 9:1ff.; 10:5ff.).
Similarly in Nehemiah, the Levites and priests engaged in their full range of duties. After repairing a section of the wall (Ne. 3:17), the Levites were busily occupied with instruction in the law (Ne. 8:7-9) and participation in the religious life of the nation (Ne. 11:3ff.; 12:27ff.). They were to receive tithes from the people and in turn to give a tithe of the tithes to Aaron’s sons (Ne. 10:37ff.; 12:47). The need for a central authority to enforce the levitical regulations was shown by the deterioration of the cult during Nehemiah’s absence from Jerusalem: Tobiah, the Ammonite, was allowed to occupy the room in the Temple which should have served as a storeroom for the levitical tithes (Ne. 13:4ff.); deprived of their support, the Levites had forsaken the Temple and fled to their fields in order to sustain themselves (Ne. 13:10ff.).
It may have been during this period that the priests put personal gain above their covenanted responsibility to teach the law and accepted corrupt sacrifices (Mal. 1:6ff.; 2:4ff.). For Malachi, the purification of the sons of Levi was one of God’s central eschatological missions (3:1-4).
The high priesthood remained in the family of Eleazar until the time of *Eli, a descendant of Ithamar. The conspiracy of *Abiathar led Solomon to depose him (1 Ki. 2:26f.). The office thus returned to the house of Eleazar in *Zadok and remained in that family until political intrigues resulted in the deposition of Onias III by the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 174 BC). Thereafter it became the patronage of the ruling power.
II. Wellhausen’s reconstruction
The development of the documentary hypothesis with its emphasis on the post-exilic date for the completion of the priestly code (*Pentateuch) brought with it a drastic re-evaluation of the development of Israel’s religion. The classical form of this re-evaluation was stated by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) in his Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1878; E.T. 1885).
The crux of the relationship between priest and Levite for Wellhausen was Ezekiel’s banning of Levites from priestly duties (44:6-16). From Ezekiel’s statement Wellhausen drew two inferences: the separation of the holy from the profane was not part of the temple procedure, as the use of heathen temple servants (see above) indicates; Ezekiel reduced the Levites, who had hitherto performed priestly functions, to the status of temple-slaves. The sons of Zadok were exempt from Ezekiel’s indictment because they served at the central sanctuary in Jerusalem and, unlike the Levites, had not defiled themselves by service at the high places throughout the land. When the sons of Zadok objected to relinquishing their exclusive control, Ezekiel devised ‘moral’ grounds for maintaining their exclusiveness, although actually the distinction between priests and Levites was accidental not moral (the priests happened to be at Jerusalem, the Levites at the high places). Wellhausen concluded that the priestly law of Numbers did not exist in Ezekiel’s time.
Since the Aaronic priesthood is stressed only in the priestly code, it was viewed by Wellhausen as a fiction in order to give the priesthood an anchor in the Mosaic period. The genealogies in Chronicles are artificial attempts to link the sons of Zadok with Aaron and Eleazar.
Central in Wellhausen’s reconstruction was the striking contrast between the ‘elaborate machinery’ of the wilderness cult and the decentralization of the period of the Judges, when worship played apparently only a minor role according to Jdg. 3-16. The latter period he took to be the authentic time of origin of Israelite worship, which began simply as various family heads offered their own sacrifices, and developed as certain families (e.g. Eli’s at Shiloh) gained prominence at special sanctuaries. A startling example of the contrast between the complexity of the wilderness religion and the simplicity during the settlement was the fact that Samuel, an Ephraimite, slept nightly beside the ark (1 Sa. 3:3) in the place where, according to Lv. 16, only the high priest could enter annually.
When Solomon built the permanent shrine for the ark, the prominence of the Jerusalem priests (under Zadok, whom David had appointed) was assured. Like Judah, like Israel: Jeroboam’s shrines were royal shrines and the priests were directly responsible to him (Am. 7:10ff.). In Judah the process of centralization reached its acme when Josiah’s reform abolished the high places, reduced their priests to subsidiary status in the central sanctuary and set the stage for Ezekiel’s crucial declaration.
Against this evolutionary schematization, Wellhausen set the various strata of the Pentateuch and found a remarkable degree of correspondence. In the laws of J (Ex. 20-23; 34) the priesthood is not mentioned, while the other parts of J mark Aaron (Ex. 4:14; 32:1ff.) and Moses (Ex. 33:7-11) as founders of the clergy. The mention of other priests (e.g. Ex. 19:22; 32:29) was disregarded by Wellhausen, who considered these passages as interpolations. It was in D (Dt. 16:18-18:22) that he saw the beginning of the use of the name Levites for the priests. The hereditary character of the priesthood began not with Aaron (who, according to Wellhausen, ‘was not originally present in J, but owed his introduction to the redactor who combined J and E‘) but during the Monarchy with the sons of Zadok. Recognizing the basic authenticity of the inclusion of Levi in the tribal blessings of Gn. 49, Wellhausen believed that this tribe ‘succumbed at an early date’ and that the supposed tie between the official use of the term Levite and the tribe of Levi was artificial.
The priestly code (P) not only strengthened the hand of the clergy but introduced the basic division into the ranks of the clergy—the separation of priests (Aaron’s sons) from Levites (the rest of the tribe). Therefore, while the Deuteronomist spoke of levitical priests (i.e. the priests the Levites) the priestly writers, especially the Chronicler, spoke of priests and Levites.
Another priestly innovation was the figure of the high priest, who loomed larger in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers than anywhere else in the pre-exilic writings. Whereas in the historical books the king dominated the cult, in the priestly code it was the high priest, whose regal status, according to Wellhausen, could only reflect a period when the civil government of Judah was in the hands of foreigners and Israel was not so much a people as a church—the post-exilic period.
One need only consult such representative works as Max Loehr’s A History of Religion in the Old Testament, 1936, e.g. pp. 136-137; W. O. E. Oesterley and T. H. Robinson’s Hebrew Religion, 1930, e.g. p. 255; and R. H. Pfeiffer’s IOT, 1948, e.g. pp. 556-557, to see the stubbornness with which Wellhausen’s reconstruction has persisted.
III. Some reactions to Wellhausen’s reconstruction
Among the conservatives who have set out to tumble Wellhausen’s structure, three names are noteworthy: James Orr (The Problem of the Old Testament, 1906), O. T. Allis (The Five Books of Moses2, 1949, pp. 185-196), G. Ch. Aalders (A Short Introduction to the Pentateuch, 1949, pp. 66-71).
Basic to Wellhausen’s reconstruction is the assumption that the Levites who were invited in Dt. 18:6-7 to serve at the central shrine were the priests who had been disfranchised by the abolition of their high places during Josiah’s reform. But solid evidence for this assumption is lacking. In fact, 2 Ki. 23:9 affirms the opposite: the priests of the high places did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. The critical view that priests and Levites are not clearly distinguished in Deuteronomy has been discussed above, where it was seen that a clear distinction was made between them in regard to the people’s responsibility towards them (Dt. 18:3-5, 6-8). Nor can the view that the phrase ‘the priests the Levites’ (Dt. 17:9, 18; 18:1; 24:8; 27:9), not found elsewhere in the Pentateuch, argues for the identity of the two offices in Deuteronomy be maintained. The phrase serves merely to link the priests with their tribe. Confirmation for this seems to be found in 2 Ch. 23:18 and 30:27, where the ‘Levitical priests’ are distinguished from other Levites (30:25), gatekeepers, etc. (23:19).
Attention has frequently been directed by Wellhausen and others to the apparent discrepancy between the law of *tithes in Nu. 18:21ff. (cf. Lv. 27:30ff.), which earmarks the tithes for the Levites, and the counterpart in Dt. 14:22ff., which allows Israelites to eat of the tithes in a sacrificial meal while enjoining them to share it with the Levites. Judaism has traditionally reconciled these passages by calling the tithe of Deuteronomy ‘a second tithe’, e.g. in the Talmudic tractate MaÔasŒer Sheni. This explanation may not be so acceptable as James Orr’s (op.cit., pp. 188-189): the laws of Deuteronomy, he held, apply to a time when the tithe-laws (and those relating to levitical cities) could not be fully enforced, since the conquest was not complete and there was no central agency to enforce them. In other words, Nu. 18:21ff. deals with Israel’s ideal while Dt. 14:22ff., is an interim programme for the conquest and settlement.
Pivotal in Wellhausen’s reconstruction is his interpretation of Ezekiel’s denunciation of the Levites (44:4ff.), in which he finds the origin of the cleavage between priests (the sons of Zadok) and Levites (priests who had previously engaged in idolatry at the high places). But James Orr (op.cit., pp. 315-319, 520) calls attention to the deplorable condition of the priesthood just prior to Ezekiel’s time and points out that Ezekiel did not establish the law but rather re-established it by depriving Levites of privileges not rightly theirs, which they had usurped during the Monarchy and by demoting idolatrous priests to the already well established lower rank of Levite. Furthermore, the ideal context of Ezekiel’s pronouncement suggests that the degradation in view may never have been carried out, at least not literally. The tone of Ezekiel stands in contradiction to that of the priestly code in that the latter knows nothing of priestly degradation but stresses divine appointment. In addition, the priests in P are not Zadok’s sons but Aaron’s sons.
The office of high priest has been largely relegated to the post-exilic period by the Wellhausenian school. Though the title itself occurs only in 2 Ki. 12:10; 22:4, 8; 23:4 in pre-exilic writings (usually considered by documentary critics to be post-exilic interpolations), the existence of the office seems to be indicated by the title ‘the priest’ (e.g. Ahimelech, 1 Sa. 21:2; Jehoiada, 2 Ki. 11:9-10, 15; Urijah, 2 Ki. 16:10ff.) and by the fact that a priesthood of any size at all involves an administrative chief, even if the king is the head of the cult. (Cf. J. Pedersen, Israel, 3-4, p. 189.)
In The Religion of Israel, 1960, Yehezkel Kaufmann examines a number of Wellhausen’s key conclusions and finds them wanting. The high priests, for instance, far from being a royal figure reflecting the post-exilic religious leaders, faithfully mirrors the conditions of the military camp which is subject to the authority of Moses, not Aaron (op.cit., pp. 184-187).
Kaufmann turns his attention to ‘the one pillar of Wellhausen’s structure that has not been shaken by later criticism’—the reconstruction of the relationship between priests and Levites. Noting the absence of evidence for the demotion of the rural priests, he then calls attention to a basic weakness in the documentary view: ‘Nothing can make plausible a theory that the very priests who demoted their colleagues saw fit to endow them with the amplest clerical due, a theory the more improbable when the great number of priests and paucity of Levites at the Restoration (4,289 priests, Ezr. 2:36ff.; 341 Levites plus 392 temple servants, Ezr. 2:43ff.) is borne in mind’ (p. 194).
Why did the priests preserve the story of the Levites’ faithfulness during Aaron’s defection (Ex. 32:26-29), while glossing over the idolatry, which, for Wellhausen, was responsible for their degradation, and according the Levites the honour of divine appointment rather than punishment? After affirming that the Levites are clearly a distinct class in the Exile, Kaufmann points out that they could not have developed as a distinct class in the brief period between Josiah’s reform (to say nothing of Ezekiel’s denunciation) and the return, and that on foreign soil.
Kaufmann’s own reconstruction may not prove entirely satisfactory. He denies a hereditary connection between the sons of Aaron and the Levites, since he deems the Aaronids to be ‘the ancient, pagan priesthood of Israel’ (p. 197), and thus rejects the firm biblical tradition connecting Moses, Aaron and the Levites (cf. Ex. 4:14). In the golden calf incident the old secular tribe of Levi rallied with Moses against Aaron, but was forced to yield the privilege of altar service to the Aaronids (p. 198), while they themselves had to be content as hierodules. This raises the question as to how, apart from a connection with Moses, the Aaronids survived the catastrophe of the golden calf and continued as priests. Kaufmann’s opinion that the Deuteronomic legislation was compiled during the latter part of the Monarchy and thus is considerably later than the priestly writings may be more of a return to an old critical position (i.e. that of Th. Noeldeke and others) than a fresh thrust at Wellhausen.
Rejecting the linear view of institutional evolution which was a main plank in Wellhausen’s platform, W. F. Albright notes that Israel would be unique among her neighbours had she not enjoyed during the period of the Judges and afterwards a high priest, usually called (in accordance with Semitic practice) the priest (Archaeology and the Religion of Israel3, 1953, pp. 107-108). The lack of emphasis on the high-priestly office during the Monarchy represents a decline, while, after the Monarchy’s collapse, the priesthood again rose to a position of prestige. Albright accepts the historicity of Aaron and finds no reason for not considering Zadok an Aaronid. Concluding that the Levite had first a functional (see above) and then a tribal significance, Albright points out that Levites may sometimes have been promoted to priests and that ‘we are not justified either in throwing overboard the standard Israelite tradition regarding priests and Levites, or in considering these classes as hard and fast genealogical groups’ (op.cit., p. 110).
The assumption that the tabernacle in the wilderness was the idealization of the Temple and had no historical existence, so basic to Wellhausen’ s reconstruction, has now largely been abandoned (although cf. R. H. Pfeiffer’s Religion in the Old Testament, 1961, pp. 77-78). Both arks and portable tent-shrines are attested among Israel’s neighbours, as archaeology has revealed. Far from being figments of a later period, these, as John Bright notes, are ‘heritages of Israel’s primitive desert faith’ (A History of Israel, 1960, pp. 146-147).
Obviously the last word has not been said on this puzzling problem of the relationship between priests and Levites. The data from the period of the conquest and settlement are meagre. It is hazardous to assume that the pentateuchal legislation, representing the ideal as it often does, was ever carried out literally. Even such stalwart kings as David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah were not able to ensure complete conformity to the Mosaic pattern. But it is even more tenuous to hold that because laws were not enforced they did not exist. The combination of argumentation from silence, straight-line evolutionary reconstruction, and a resort to textual emendations and literary excisions when passages prove troublesome, has resulted more than once in interpretations of biblical history which have proved to be too facile to stand permanently in the face of the complexities of biblical data and Semitic culture. Wellhausen’s ingenious reconstruction of the history of the Levites may prove to be a case in point.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. In addition to works cited above, R. Brinker, The Influence of Sanctuaries in Early Israel, 1946, pp. 65ff.; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, E.T. 1961; A. Cody, A History of the Old Testament Priesthood, 1969; M. Haran et al., ‘Priests and Priesthood’, EJ, 13, 1970; H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Israel, E.T. 1966.
IV. Priesthood in the New Testament
a. Continuity with the Old Testament
With the single exception of the priest of Zeus, who wrongly seeks to venerate Paul and Barnabas in Lystra (Acts 14:13), references to priest and high priest in the Gospels and Acts assume an historical and religious continuity with the OT: no explanation is needed of the priest’s function in the story of the good Samaritan (Lk. 10:31) or of the duties of the ‘priest named Zechariah’, father of John the Baptist (Lk. 1:5); Jesus recognized the lawful function of the priests in declaring lepers clean (Mt. 8:4; Mk. 1:44; Lk. 5:14; 17:14; see Lv. 14:3). Jesus also pitted the freer practice of some OT priests against the legalism of his opponents (Mt. 12:4-5). He had no basic quarrel with the prescribed functions of the Temple and priesthood.
b. Conflict with Judaism
The lion’s share of references to priests, especially high priests (or chief priests as RSV usually has them) are found, however, in contexts of conflict. Matthew depicts the high priests as actively involved in the gospel events from beginning (Mt. 2:4) to end (Mt. 28:11). Their opposition mounts as the claims and mission of Jesus become clear, e.g. in his challenge to the Sabbath legislation (Mt. 12:1-7; Mk. 2:23-27; Lk. 6:1-5) and in his parables that censured the religious leaders (Mt. 21:45-46). This conflict to the death was anticipated immediately after Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mt. 16:21; Mk. 8:31; Lk. 9:22), was intensified at the Palm Sunday reception and the subsequent Temple cleansing (Mt. 21:15, 23, 45-46; Mk. 11:27; Lk. 19:47-48; 20:1), and reached its bitter climax in the arrest and trial (Mt. 26-27). The Fourth Gospel also bears witness to the conflict (Jn. 7:32, 45; 11:47, where Pharisees are the partners in crime; 12:10, where the hostility focuses on Lazarus; 18:19, 22, 24, 35, where Caiaphas’ role in Jesus’ trial is stressed; cf. 19:15).
The chief priests (archiereus) rarely acted alone in their desire to crush Jesus’ influence. Depending on the issue and circumstances, they were joined by other officials of the Sanhedrin (archontes, Lk. 23:13; 24:20), by scribes (grammateis, Mt. 2:4; 20:18; 21:15), by scribes and elders (grammateis, presbyteroi, Mt. 16:21; 27:41; Mk. 8:31; 11:27; 14:43, 53; Lk. 9:22), by elders (Mt. 21:23; 26:3). The singular ‘high priest’ usually refers to the president of the Sanhedrin (e.g. Caiaphas, Mt. 26:57; Jn. 18:13; Annas, Lk. 3:2; Jn. 18:24; Acts 4:6; Ananias, Acts 23:2; 24:1). The plural ‘chief priests’ describes members of the high-priestly families who serve in the Sanhedrin; ruling and former high priests together with members of the prominent priestly families (Acts 4:6). J. Jeremias has argued that ‘chief priests’ include Temple officers like treasurer and captain of police (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, E.T. 1969, pp. 160ff.).
The death and resurrection of Jesus did not quell the conflict, as Acts amply documents. The apostolic witness to the resurrection drew the Sadducees into the struggle alongside the chief priests and other Temple officials (Acts 4:1; 5:17). Priestly involvement in the story of Saul of Tarsus is noteworthy. The proposed persecution of Christians in Damascus apparently had the official sanction of the high priest (Acts 9:1-2, 14); the ‘itinerant Jewish exorcists’ who sought to duplicate Paul’s miracles in Ephesus were described as ‘seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva’ (Acts 19:13-14); like his Master, Paul stood trial before a high priest, Ananias, who also pressed charges against him before the Roman governors Felix and Festus (Acts 24:1ff.; 25:1-3). Almost nothing in the apostle’s life illustrates so clearly the radical change wrought by his conversion than the dramatic reversal in his relationships to the priestly establishment: the beginning of his story found him riding with the hounds; the end, running with the foxes.
c. Consummation in Christ
At root this conflict sprang from the Christian conviction and the Jewish suspicion that Jesus’ life, death, resurrection and ascension spelt the eclipse if not the destruction of the old priestly structures. Jesus’ own teaching had placed him at the heart of a new sacerdotal structure: ‘something greater than the temple is here’ (Mt. 12:6); ‘destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’ (Jn. 2:19); ‘for the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many’ (Mk. 10:45).
Of the NT writers, it is the author of Hebrews who picks up these threads and weaves them into a many-coloured fabric. In its passion to prove that the Christian faith is superior to, indeed has replaced, the OT patterns of worship, Hebrews presses persistently its claim that Jesus has been appointed by God (5:5-10) to be the new, the true high priest who can finally deal with human sin. His priesthood, surpassing Aaron’s (7:11) and reaching back to Melchizedek’s (7:15-17), contains the perfection missing in the older sacrificial system (7:18): 1. It is based on God’s own oath (7:20-22); 2. It is permanent because it is centred in the eternal Christ (7:23-25); 3. It partakes of the perfection of Christ who had no need to be purged of sin, as did the sons of Aaron (7:26-28); 4. It continues in the heavens where God himself has erected the true sanctuary of which Moses’ tent was but ‘a copy and shadow’ (8:1-7); 5. It is the fulfilment of God’s promise of a new covenant (8:8-13); 6. Its sacrifice needs no repeating but was rendered ‘once for all’ (7:27; 9:12); 7. Its offering was not ‘the blood of bulls and goats’, unable to take away sins, but ‘the body of Jesus Christ’, through which believers are sanctified (10:4, 10); 8. Its result is full and regular access to God for all Christians not just a priestly order (10:11-22); 9. Its promises and hopes are assured by the faithfulness of God and the assurance of Christ’s second coming (9:28; 10:23); 10. Its full forgiveness provides the highest motivation for our works of love and righteousness (10:19-25); 11. Its effectiveness in the lives of God’s people is guaranteed by Christ’s constant intercession (7:25). Though Paul did not choose to make Christ’s priesthood a dominant theme in his writings (probably because his ministry was largely to Gentiles, for whom a knowledge of their freedom from law and their new place in God’s purpose was the pre-eminent need), we can be grateful that the rich insights of Hebrews are among God’s gifts in the canon of Scripture. See G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 1974, pp. 578-584.
d. Commission of the church
As Christ’s body and as his new Israel (cf. Ex. 19:6), the church is anointed to a priesthood in the world—a mediatorial service that declares the will of God to humankind and bears human needs before God’s throne in prayer. Two related duties of this priesthood are mentioned by Peter: 1. ‘to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ’ (1 Pet. 2:5), i.e. to worship God and do his loving will; 2. to ‘declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light’, i.e. to bear witness to his saving work in the world (1 Pet. 2:9).
Peter’s ‘royal priesthood’ is echoed and amplified in Rev. where the beloved and forgiven church is called ‘a kingdom, priests to his God and Father’ (Rev. 1:6; cf. 5:10; 20:6). This royal role not only entails obedience to Christ ‘the ruler of kings on earth’ (Rev. 1:5) but also participation in his rule over others: ‘and they shall reign on earth’ (Rev. 5:10; cf.20:6). Here the circle of conflict has taken a full turn: the people of Christ, afflicted by a priesthood that opposed their Master, will share in his victory as triumphant high priest and demonstrate his loving sovereignty in a hostile world.
The church’s priesthood in the NT is corporate: no individual minister or leader is called ‘priest’. The post-apostolic writings, however, move quickly in that direction: Clement (AD 95-96) describes Christian ministry in terms of high priest, priests and Levites (1 Clem. 40-44); the Didache (13:3) likens prophets to high priests. Tertullian (On Baptism 17) and Hippolytus (Refutation of All Heresies, preface) seemed to have pioneered the use of the titles ‘priest’ and ‘high priest’ for Christian ministers (c. AD 200). 2
1. Easton, M. G., M. A. D. D., Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1996.
2. The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.
|
|
