A Royal Priesthood

Several days ago, I wrote two posts dealing with the idea of priesthood in the Old Testament. The first post “Jesus: A High Priest After the Order of Melchizedek,” dealt with the priesthood of David and the fact that he inherited the religious traditions of Jerusalem and became a priest in the same way Melchizedek served as priest and king of the old Jebusite city.

That article also dealt with the priesthood of Jesus. Jesus, a man from the tribe of Judah, became a priest, not because he was a Levite or from the tribe of Levi, but because he was a descendant of David. As such, he was considered eligible to carry on the tradition initiated by David. Thus, Jesus was a priest according the tradition established by Melchizedek and adopted by David.

The second article, “Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘David’s Sons Were Priests,’” dealt with the statement in 2 Samuel 18:8 that the sons of David were priests. Although the writer of Chronicles was not willing to affirm that David’s sons could serve as priests, the article concluded that David’s sons were indeed priests. They did not become priest because they were Levites. David’s sons exercised the priesthood because, as sons of the king of Jerusalem, they followed the same tradition established by Melchizedek and continued by David when he became king of Jerusalem.

Today I want to address the passage in 1 Peter 2:9 and offer a new proposal for the proper understanding of the fact that Christians are called “a royal priesthood.” My proposal is based on my previous discussion in the articles above. I presuppose that you have read those articles; if you have not read them, I suggest that you do so for the proper understanding of the discussion below.

The text in Peter reads: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9 ESV).

The expression “a royal priesthood,” has been interpreted in many different ways. Most commentators understand this expression as describing the dignity of the priestly office that Christians have attained (see 1 Peter 2:5). This expression was taken from Exodus 19:6. In Exodus the entire nation of Israel was to be a kingdom of priests. Thus, for Peter, Christians were set apart to offer spiritual sacrifices to God.

The word “royal” has been understood in different ways: that these priests belong to the king, that they are priests of the kingdom of God, that this title demonstrates the exalted position of believers, or the dignity of their office as priests, or that they belong to God, the king, and for this reason, all of God’s followers are royal.

Peter H. Davids, in his commentary on The First Epistle of Peter (p. 87) wrote:

The term for “priesthood” is found in the NT only here [2:5] and in 2:9. The latter reference shows clearly that Peter sees the church in terms of Israel’s priestly functions, for it alludes to Exod. 19:6. And other NT authors pick up the theme using different words (e.g, Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6)–such language is used elsewhere only of Christ as a priest in Hebrews and of the Aaronic priesthood in Jerusalem.

The expression in 1 Peter 2:9 “a royal priesthood, a holy nation,” is taken from Exodus 19:6:

“You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

All English translations translate the expression ממלכת כהנים as "a kingdom of priests.” The Septuagint (LXX) translates the Hebrew expression as “a royal priesthood” in Exodus 19:6 and in Exodus 23:22, although the extended text of Exodus 23:22 does not appear in any English translation. It is clear that the citation in 1 Peter 2:9 was taken from the Septuagint.

What is lost in all the discussion of 1 Peter 2:9 and in all the commentaries of the text is the most obvious question: how could Gentile Christians become priests of God? Since most believers were not Jews, the possibility of a Levitical priesthood is out of the question. How could non-Levites act as priests of God even when they only offered spiritual sacrifices (as in 1 Peter 2:5)?

The answer seems to be in the way David’s sons served as priests. Since David, a man from Judah, served as a priest following the tradition established by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, David’s sons exercised a “royal priesthood,” a priesthood based on the authority delegated by their father, who was a king.

Jesus, a man from Judah, exercised the priesthood following the tradition established by Melchizedek and continued by his ancestor David. His followers became priests by the authority given to them by their Lord, who was the King of kings.

Both the sons of David and the followers of Christ did not exercise a Levitical priesthood because they were not from the tribe of Levi or from the family of Aaron. They exercised a “royal priesthood,” the type of priesthood established by Melchizedek who was the king and priest of Jerusalem and adopted by David when he became the leader of the Canaanite population who continued to live in Jerusalem after the conquest of the city.

Reference: Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing House, 1990.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: 2 Peter 2:9, David, Melchizedek, Priesthood, Priests

Non-Aaronite Priesthood

Darrell Pursiful has written a post “Melchizedekian (and Other) Priesthood” in response to my post on Jesus and Melchizedek. In his post, Darrell introduces several ideas worthy of consideration. In this post, I would like to join Darrell in his discussion of non-Aaronite priesthood and pursue some of his suggestions.

In his post, Darrell wrote: “There are, in fact, several hints in the Bible about a non-Aaronic priesthood associated with the tribe of Judah in general and the Davidic line in particular.” As an example of a non-Aaronite priesthood, he mentions the Levite in Judges 17:7. He wrote:

In Judges 17:7, there is mention of a Judahite who was also a Levite: “Now there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah, of the clan of Judah. He was a Levite residing there.”

The key factor in this verse is the expression “residing there.” These words mean that the Levite was a ger, a resident alien who was living in Judah. Thus, the text may be understood in two different ways:

First, since Levites did not possess land of their own, they would live within the territory of other tribes as resident aliens (gerim). For this reason, the Levite mentioned in Judges 17:7 may not have been a man from the tribe of Judah, but a man from the tribe of Levi who was living in Judah.

Second, it is possible that a Levite was a person who dedicated himself to the service of Yahweh irrespective of tribe affiliation. Thus, a Levite could be from the tribe of Judah, as Judges 17:7 indicates. Samuel functioned as a priest and later is called a Levite even though his family are said to be Ephraimites (1 Samuel 1:1).

Since Micah, a man from Ephraim, appointed his son to be a priest of his idol (Judges 17:5), it is very possible that one did not have to be a Levite to be a priest. These references to Levites may indicate that in pre-monarchic Israel, the Levites and the tribe of Levi were two different groups.

Another point Darrell raises in his post is the issue of David’s priesthood. Darrell quotes 2 Samuel 6:17, a text which declares that “David offered burnt offerings and offerings of well-being before the Lord.” The evidence that David acted as a priest is found in the next verse, 2 Samuel 6:18: “When David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the offerings of well-being, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts.” In Israel, one of the functions of the priests was to bless the people (Numbers 6:22-27).

Solomon also acted as a priest. During the dedication of the temple, Solomon prayed before the altar of the Lord (1 Kings 8:54), blessed the people (v. 55) and offered peace offerings before the Lord (v. 63). In the post-exilic period, at the time when only priests could offer sacrifices before the Lord, Solomon’s altar becomes a platform (2 Chronicles 6:13) and the mention of the peace offerings is removed from 2 Chronicles 7:5.

On the significance of the omission of the words that said that Solomon “sacrificed peace offerings to the Lord” in 2 Chronicles 7:5, Gray (232, note a) wrote:

“This phrase of MT is omitted from the parallel version in II Chron. 7:5 in accordance with the view of the late priestly writer that sacrifice was the monopoly of the priests.”

So far Darrell and I agree. There were priests in Israel who were not descendants of Aaron. Levites from different tribes exercised the duties of the priesthood. In addition, before the Josianic reforms, other people could offer sacrifice, and Elijah is a good example (1 Kings 18:30-38).

Darrell and I differ on two small points: I do not think there is evidence of numerous examples of intermarriage between the descendants of David and the descendants of Aaron. It is true that the case of Joseph and Mary in the New Testament could be cited as an example, but off hand, I do not remember many examples in the Old Testament.

Second, I do not believe the Rechabites were priests. The Rechabites were the descendants of Jehonadab, the son of Rechab (2 Kings 10:15-17). The Rechabites had made a commitment to keep the desert way of life because they believed that was the best way to worship the God of Israel. Although their practices were similar to the Nazarites, the Rechabites lived nomadic lives that were characterized by the rejection of sedentary life. Jeremiah used the Rechabites as an example of a people dedicated to the Lord.

As for Zechariah 6:13, that is a problematic text that deserves a post all of its own. I may return to the issues raised by Zechariah 6:13 at a later time.

I want to thank Darrell for his very stimulating post.

Reference:

John Gray, I & II Kings. Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Aaron, David, Levites, Priesthood, Rechabite