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

David, History, and Evangelicals: A Response to Chris Heard

My fellow blogger Chris Heard has written a post, "David’s sons and the history of biblical ideas," in which he addresses some of the issues I raised in my post on the priesthood of David’s sons, Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: “David’s Sons Were Priests.” Some of the issues Chris raised deserve some kind of response. It is impossible to provide a detailed response to every one of these issues, but I hope with this response to Chris’ post, to clarify some of my views and address some of Chris’ concerns.

The Historical Issue

Chris wrote: As Claude wrote, the Chronicler apparently found it unacceptable for non-Levites to be priests, but, in Claude’s words, “Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.” Claude apparently means this as a historical point about David, which I judge a tenuous point to make.

There is much debate about the historicity of David and some events related to his kingdom. Those who are familiar with the history of the debate also know that scholars on both sides of the issue cannot come to a definite conclusion.

Notwithstanding the unwillingness of scholars and archaeologists to accept the reality that David is mentioned in extra-biblical sources, archaeological discoveries make references to the “house of David,” clearly indicating that David was a historical figure. The name of David appears in the Tell Dan stela, in the Mesha stela, and possibly in the Karnak monument commemorating Shishak’s conquest of cities in Canaan.

If David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it his city, and even if Jerusalem was a small city, it is possible that he would become king or leader of the Jebusite city and assume some of the duties associated with the religious life of the city. I have no problem in accepting the historical reality of “the house of David.

"From “Priests" to "First Ministers"

Chris wrote: we are basically presented with the dilemma that either the author of the smallest original unit containing 2 Sam 8:18, as well as (presumably) the tradents who preserved that unit through to canonical expression, either (a) did not know anything about the Priestly Torah’s insistence that only Levites may be priests, or (b) were not bothered enough by David’s flouting of these commandments to rewrite the text or to insert an editorial comment on the impropriety, or (c) they themselves were not happy with this situation but thought it represented historical reality, and they were historically sensitive enough to realize that times change.

Chris’ statement may reflect a lack of understanding of the theology behind the Deuteronomistic history (even though I doubt it). The books of 1 and 2 Samuel are part of what is known as the Deuteronomistic history and were probably the work of the people involved in Josiah’s reform c. 622 B.C.

In their book The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman wrote (p. 14) that “archeology has provided enough evidence to support a new contention that the historical core of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History was substantially shaped in the seventh century B.C.E.”

Finkelstein and Silberman also wrote (p. 14): “And we shall side with the scholars who argue that the Deuteronomistic History was compiled, in the main, in the time of King Josiah, aiming to provide an ideological validation for particular political ambition and religious reforms.”

The book of Deuteronomy, which is the initial chapter of the Deuteronomistic History, makes a clear distinction between the Levitical Priests and the Levites. The writers of the Deuteronomic History were well aware that there were priests who were not Levites. In fact, at the instigation of the reformers, Josiah “deposed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places of Judah and round about Jerusalem” (2 Kings 23:5).

So, the historian knew about priests who were not Levites. It is the Deuteronomist who insisted that all priests be Levitical priests. Chris’ statement, that the writers of 2 Samuel 8:18 “did not know anything about the Priestly Torah’s insistence that only Levites may be priests” is incorrect because it was the writer or writers of 2 Samuel 8:18 and the whole Deuteronomistic history who insisted that all priests must be Levitical Priests.

The tradition initiated in the seventh century continued in the post-exilic period and the Chronicler was very adamant that only descendants from the tribe of Levi could become priests. In saying this, I am avoiding the controversy between the Zadokites and the Aaronites, an issue that, I believe, is very evident in the book of Chronicles.

The Dictation Theory

Chris wrote: Many on the conservative/evangelical end of Christendom apply to the Bible a Qur’anic model of inspiration, resulting in the idea that God basically wrote the Bible by means of dictation to human secretaries.

I am surprised that Chris could make such a statement. His statement that evangelicals believe in the dictation theory is mind-boggling. The statement shows that Chris may not have a clear understanding of the evangelical movement. The fact is that only a minority of fundamentalist Christians would accept dictation theory. Many conservatives and evangelicals are not fundamentalists and they reject the dictation theory.

I hope he is not including me among those who believe in the dictation theory. If Chris has been reading some of my posts, he should know by now that I reject any view that can be classified as dictation theory. I believe in the inspiration of Scriptures but I reject any aspect of the dictation theory.

Chris’ Conclusions

At the end of his post, Chris wrote: By implication, it seems that the restriction of the priesthood to the Levites did not occur in some pre-monarchical wilderness experience, real or imagined, but sometime relatively late in the monarchy or after it. The whole thing has implications for the authorship and provenance of the Torah and of the book of Samuel.

First, I never said that “the restriction of the priesthood to the Levites occurred in some pre-monarchical wilderness experience.” To the contrary, I inferred in my post that the restriction was the work of the Chronicler. What I did not say in the post was that I believe the restriction originated at the time of Josiah’s reform.

Second, I never implied in my post that the Torah was the work of Moses or that the book of Samuel was written by Samuel himself or even written in the early monarchy. Maybe if I had given more detailed information in my post, Chris would have had a better understanding of my own position.

Now, let me clarify what I tried to convey in my post. First, I believe that David and his sons exercised some form of priestly duties by virtue of having conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites. Yes, I believe in a historical David and I believe that there was a “house of David.”

Second, I believe that with the Deuteronomic reform the cultus was centralized in Jerusalem and that all non-Levitical priests were removed from official duty and that in the seventh century, restrictions were established on who could serve as priests.

Third, in the post-exilic period, the Chronicler made an attempt at eliminating the reference that David’s sons served as priests in Jerusalem because during his days only Levites could serve as priests.

I hope these clarifications will give Chris a better understanding on where I stand on these issues.

Reference: Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. New York: The Free Press, 2001.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Deuteronomic History, Evangelicals, Priests

Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: “David’s Sons Were Priests”

Last week, in my post on “Jesus: A High Priest After the Order of Melchizedek,” I wrote that after David conquered Jerusalem and made the city the capital of his government, he “incorporated the original inhabitants of Jerusalem into the population of Israel and became their king.”

I also wrote that David became a priest of the people who lived in Jerusalem, “not because he was a Levite, but because he continued the tradition established by Melchizedek.” Then I concluded: “Melchizedek now becomes a type of the Davidic king. The descendants of David will be kings and they will be priests; this is clearly expressed in 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘and David’s sons were priests.’”

The statement in 2 Samuel 8:18 that “David’s sons were priests” is very controversial and even the translations disagree on how to translate the word kohanim (“priests”) in this section of the verse.

The following translations translate the word kohanim in 2 Samuel 8:18 as “priests”:

The Bible in Basic English (BBE), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Bible (NAB), the New English Translation (NET), the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Jewish Publication Society (TNK), the New English Bible (NEB), and the Today’s New International Version (TNIV).

Other translations are not willing to accept that David’s sons were priests. Instead, they reinterpret the word and say that David’s sons were his advisors. These are the ways the word kohanim is translated:

“Chief ministers”: the American Standard Version (ASV), the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New King James Version (NKJV).

“Chief officials”: the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).

“Chief rulers”: the King James Version (KJV), the Revised Webster Bible (RWB), and the Geneva Bible (GNV).

“Princes”: the Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB).

“Royal advisers”: the New International Version ( NIV).

“Priestly leaders”: the New Living Translation ( NLT).

“Princes of the court”: the Septuagint ( LXX).

In defense of the translations of kohanim as “chief rulers” or “royal advisors,” some commentators acknowledge that the word “kohen” means “priest,” but that in early Israel the word was also used to designate a royal minister or a person who advised the king.

Keil (p. 369), in order to justify translating the word kohanim as “confidants,” cites 1 Kings 4:5, where Zabud, Nathan’s son, is a kohen (“priest”) and “the king’s friend,” that is, the king’s confidential advisor..

Most of the translations that say that David’s sons were advisors base their translations on the interpretation offered by the Chronicler in 1 Chronicles 18:17 where David’s sons are called “the chief officials in the service of the king.” This description of the office occupied by David’s sons reflects the post-exilic perspective of the Chronicler, where only Levites could serve as priests. Thus, the designation of David’s sons as priests was unacceptable to the Chronicler.

Many English translations follow the Chronicler’s unwillingness to acknowledge that individuals who were not Levites could become priests. Since the Chronicler does not use the word “priests” but calls the sons of David “chief officials at the king’s side” (NIV), many English translations follow the reading of the Chronicler.

But, as P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. (p. 255) concluded:

“Almost all critics, therefore, have agreed that the readings of I Chron 18:17 and the versions in II Sam 8:18 are interpretive paraphrases of the reading of MT by scribes who considered it impossible that there should be non-Levitical priests.”

In conclusion, it is better to translate the word kohanim as “priests” rather than “royal advisors.” Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.

References:

C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary of the Books of Samuel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Priests, Translations