PRIESTS AND LEVITES. Although the terms “priest” and “Levite” occur hundreds of times in the OT and the NT, much divergence of opinion exists among scholars as to the identity, function, and development of the individuals so designated. The subject of priests and Levites is inseparably bound up with certain basic presuppositions and conclusions of the critical school with which Julius Wellhausen’s name is associated. Ultimately, the matter has farreaching ramifications for the history, worship, and religion of Israel.
I. Terminology
The word “priest,” with and without modifiers, appears over 700 times in the OT and over 80 times in the NT. “Levite” occurs 80 times in the OT and 3 times in the NT. The customary word for priest is כֹּהֵן, H3913. The view of Harold M. Wiener (ISBE, IV, 2446) that nothing definite is known concerning the origin of the word is without general concurrence of the scholars. The same word that designates priest in the OT is found in Phoen. inscrs. as the proper name of the priest. W. Baudissin (HDB, IV, 67-97) thinks it is quite possible that the priests of the OT were at first soothsayers (see Arabic kâhin, “soothsayer”), but admits there is no evidence in the OT of ecstatic conditions on the part of the priests. An important part of their ministry, however, was the giving of oracles by means of the lot (cf. Urim and Thummim). Some relate the word כָּהַן, H3912, (as a verb) to כּוּנ֒, H3922, (to stand), thus a priest is “he that stands.” In its favor is the oft used expression (עָמַד, H6641) of the ministry of priests as they stood to offer sacrifices on the altar. The name כְּמָרִ֗ים is used in the OT exclusively for pagan priests (2 Kings 23:5; Hos 10:5; Zeph 1:4; possibly by emendation, Hos 4:4). It appears to be a loan term from the Aram. (cf. Syr. kûmrâ for priest). In Deuteronomy, the priests are named הַלְוִיִּ֣ם וְהַכֹּהֲנִ֗ים, “the Levite priests,” for Moses had delegated priestly rights to the sons of Levi (Exod 32:26ff.; cf. Deut 33; Jer 33:17ff.). In Aram. kāhēn is found eight times in Ezra.
It is contended that לֵוִי֒, H4290, (Levi, Levite) was first an official name for a priest and then later came to be attached to a tribe. The difficulty is that the history gives no sure support to this view, and, furthermore, it is hard to conceive of a supposed tribal name having come from an official name. The picture of the tribe of Levi (Gen 49) gives no hint of its being a priestly tribe. According to Baudissin, the more probable conclusion is that Levi was at first a tribal name and afterward gained a secondary connotation as the official name of the priests who were chosen from this tribe.
The Heb. word for Levite indicates a descendant of Levi, son of Jacob and Leah. The force may be that the tribe of Levi is to be joined or attached to Aaron (Num 18:2, 4). On the basis of this etymology and interpretation, it is claimed that the Levites were either foreigners who joined Israel in the time of the Exodus or Heb. attendants escorting the Ark or assigned to a local sanctuary. These views do not sufficiently credit the Biblical evidence that Levi was one of the original tribes, which appears repeatedly in the records (Gen 34:25-30; 49:5; Deut 33:8ff.); it does not take into account the well-known literary device of paronomasia.
כֹּהֵן, H3913, is not restricted to priests of the Lord. Egyptian priests (Gen 41:45, 50; 46:20; 47:26), Philistine priests (1 Sam 6:2), priests of Dagon (5:5), priests of Baal (2 Kings 10:19), priests of Chemosh (Jer 48:7), and priests of Baalim and Asherim (2 Chron 34:4) are similarly designated.
To recapitulate, the cognate Arab. term kâhin designated a seer or soothsayer. At one time it was held that this was the original meaning of the Heb. word. Now evidence is available to show that the loan word in transfer came to have another meaning. Thus the Heb. word came from the verb כָּהַן, H3912, with the same sense as (kûn), “to stand.” The priest, then, would be the one who stands before God to minister. Actually, כֹּהֵן, H3913, ἱερεύς, G2636, and sacerdos are equivalent terms. Priesthood is to be generally found throughout the world. Henry P. Smith (HERE, X, 308) maintains that the Levite was a priest considered as part of the personnel of a sanctuary, whereas the priest (kōhēn) was the same individual when ministering as the interpreter of an oracle. His conclusion is, then, that the Levite was the one qualified to minister in divine things; the priest was the officiant at a sanctuary. As seen above, such distinctions cannot be substantiated from etymology or usage of the terms.
II. Origins
A. Priesthood in general. In the pagan countries surrounding Israel, such as Egypt and Babylon, priesthood was closely connected with magic and superstition. Numerous examples are available to illustrate the firm tie between the priesthood and the occult in ancient religions.
B. Semitic priesthood. In this area, students of the subject have drawn heavily on parallels from the Arab religion in its pagan forms. This procedure is legitimate (so the work of W. Robertson Smith), but care must be exercised in drawing one-for-one parallels with conditions in Israel. The priesthood in Israel takes into account another dimension in the religious world, that of supernatural revelation.
C. Israel’s priesthood (the Levites). The prevalent mood in OT criticism assigns the most priestly portions of the OT to the latest dates. Priests are not mentioned at all in Exodus 20-23 where the Mosaic legislation is being set forth for the first time. It has been suggested that a priest is implied even from earliest times in matters not related to sacrifice, such as the administration of justice (Exod 22:7ff.). Such a function of the priesthood, however, is not made explicit until a later time. The historical account places the origin of Israel’s priesthood in Mosaic times in connection with ministry in the Tabernacle where the Ark was kept, relates the priesthood to the kin of Moses, and specifically connects the sacerdotal office with Aaron and his family (Exod 25-40).
The office of priesthood was vested in the tribe of Levi. The Levites traced their origin to a common ancestor (Gen 49). Deuteronomy 33:8-10 indicates broadly that the priests were to minister at the altar, burn the sacrifices, and teach the law. Although the Levites have been defined as the descendants of Levi (Gen 29:34), some consider that Levi was an ideal personality (eponym theory). Levi was the third son of Jacob by Leah, and the ancestor of the tribe of Levites. The curse of Jacob on Levi (34:25ff.; 49:5ff.) was turned into a blessing by Moses (Exod 32:29; Deut 33:8, 9). They were given no tribal inheritance in Canaan. There were three families: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. It was Kohath who supplied the actual priests. Other Levites helped as their assistants around the sanctuary (Num 3:5ff.). When Hezekiah and Josiah instituted their reforms (2 Kings 18:4; 23:8f.), the Levites who were ministering at other sanctuaries in the land lost their positions. Priesthood was restricted to descendants of Aaron.
However, some non-Levites performed priestly functions on occasion: the son of Micah an Ephraimite (Judg 17:5); David’s sons (2 Sam 8:18); Gideon (Judg 6:26); and Manoah of Dan (Judg 13:19).
III. Significance of Levitical priesthood
In Israel, the priesthood represented the nation’s relationship with God. The original intention in the Mosaic covenant was for the entire nation to be a kingdom of priests (Exod 19:6; cf. Lev 11:44ff.; Num 15:40). The covenant of God was mediated through the priesthood. In Biblical theology the concepts of priesthood and covenant are closely related. Because of the covenant at Sinai, Israel was meant to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5, 6; cf. Isa 61:6). God’s holy character was to be reflected in the life of Israel (Lev 11:44ff.; Num 15:40). The fact that God vested priestly functions in one tribe did not release the rest of the nation from their original obligation.
The Levites served in a representative character for the whole nation in the matter of the honor, privilege, and obligation of priesthood. When the priests ministered, they did so as the representatives of the people. It was a practical necessity that the corporate obligation of the covenant people should be carried out by priestly representatives. Furthermore, the priests in their separated condition symbolized the purity and holiness God required. They were a visible reminder of God’s righteous requirements. Moreover, as substitutes for the people they maintained the nation’s covenant relationship with God intact. The primary function of the Levitical priesthood, therefore, was to maintain and assure, as well as reestablish, the holiness of the chosen people of God (Exod 28:38; Lev 10:7; Num 18:1). The priesthood mediated the covenant of God with Israel (Mal 2:4ff.; cf. Num 18:19; Jer 33:20-26).
In early Israel, an important function of the priests was to discover the will of God by means of the ephod (1 Sam 23:6-12). They were constantly occupied with instruction in the law (Mal 2). Of course, their duties always included offering of sacrifices. Early priests were guardians of the sanctuary and interpreters of the oracle (1 Sam 14:18). Instructions in the law belonged to the priests (Hos 4:1-10). The priest acted as judge, a consequence of his imparting answers to legal questions (Exod 33:7-11).
IV. Threefold division of hierarchy
The priesthood was divided into three groups: (1) the high priest, (2) ordinary priests, and (3) Levites. All three descended from Levi. All priests were Levites, but by no means were all Levites priests. The lowest order of priesthood was the Levites who cared for the service of the sanctuary. They took the place of the first-born who belonged by right to God (Exod 13:2, 12, 13; 22:29; 34:19, 20; Lev 27:26; Num 3:12, 13, 41, 45; 8:14-17; 18:15; Deut 15:19). The sons of Aaron, who were set apart for the special office of priest, were above the Levites. Only they could minister at the sacrifices of the altar. The highest level of the priesthood was the high priest. He represented bodily the height of the purity of the priesthood. He bore the names of all the tribes of Israel on his breastplate into the sanctuary, thus representing all the people before God (Exod 28:29). Only he could enter the holiest of all and only on one day a year to make expiation for the sins of the entire nation.
V. Consecration of priests
The ceremonies connected with the consecration of the priests are described in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8. They included a consecration bathing, anointing, clothing, and sacrifices. The washing was intended to symbolize cleansing of heart for the duties that were so intimately related to the purity of the nation before God. The anointing (Lev 8:10, 11) involved pouring of oil on the head of the high priest and the sprinkling of oil on the garments of the other priests (vv. 22-24). The vestments of the priests, and esp. of the high priest were both costly and beautiful (Exod 28:3-5; Lev 8:7-9). The consecration sacrifices included a sin offering (8:14-17), burnt offering (vv. 18-21), and a special consecration offering (vv. 22-32). Ram’s blood was applied to the right ear, thumb, and toe of Aaron and his sons to symbolize complete bodily consecration to the Lord.
VI. History and development
A. Traditional view
1. General observation. In prob. no other field of OT research are the conclusions of modern critical investigation in such marked opposition to the traditional view as in the matter of priests and Levites. The Wellhausen approach to OT religion brought about a radical reconstruction of the history of priesthood in Israel and the relationship of priests and Levites. Critical scholars, however, are far from agreement. Modifications of a thoroughgoing character in the critical appraisal are called for. Before the beginning of the historical criticism of the OT, the account of the priesthood in the Pentateuch was accepted as valid history. The record indicates that the priesthood began with Moses who was of the tribe of Levi. By divine authority, Moses consecrated his brother Aaron and Aaron’s sons to be priests (Exod 28:1). The consecration rituals lasted for a week (29:35, 36; Lev 8:15-29, 35). After that, Aaron and his sons undertook the sacrificial duties (Lev 9). The priesthood was restricted to the family of Aaron and his descendants (Exod 28:1, 43; Num 3:10). Aaron’s position was unique as the anointed priest (Exod 29:7), with special robes of office (28:4, 6-39; Lev 8:7-9). At his death, the office passed to his son Eleazar (Num 20:25-28). The high priest was in the first rank among the priests, and his death marked the end of a theocratic era or cycle (Lev 21:10; Num 35:28).
Because Aaron was a Levite, the Heb. priesthood resided in the Levites exclusively. All authorized priests were Levites. After the induction of Aaron and his sons into the priesthood, the whole tribe of Levi was set apart, as substitutes for the first-born, to minister in the service of the sanctuary (Num 3:5ff.). The Levites consisted of three groups: Gershonites, Kohathites, and Merarites, with specific duties for each group (3:14-18). When Korah and his followers rebelled against the authority of Aaron (Num 16), he and his followers were destroyed and the priesthood of Aaron was signally confirmed.
The traditional position of the priesthood is uncomplicated. In this view, the three ranks of the hierarchy are high priest, priests, and Levites; they originate with Moses in the wilderness, and the system is operative through the postexilic period, thus spanning the whole history of Israel. In short, all the pentateuchal laws came from God through Moses; the record of the later history given in Chronicles was accurate; the vision of Ezekiel, if interpreted literally, could not be reconciled with known facts, hence needed further explanation, and in cases of discrepancies in the records, harmonizations were to be accepted.
2. Priesthood in pre-Mosaic times. In early Heb. times as in the time before Abraham (both prediluvian and postdiluvian), there was no special priestly class. The Pentateuch explicitly relates the sanctuary, the sacrificial system, and the priestly class with divine revelation through Moses. In patriarchal times, the head of each household exercised the priestly function of sacrifice. In fact, God Himself initiated the concept of priesthood at the time of the fall of Adam (Gen 3:21). It has been suggested that inquiry at an oracle (25:22) and giving of tithes (28:22) imply a sanctuary with an officiating priest, but this may be overloading the facts with an unwarranted conclusion.
3. Mosaic age. As previously stated, the fullfledged priestly system in Israel began with Moses. This does not mean that priestly functions of sacrifices and gifts to God were lacking, because, as shown above, fathers of households cared for these important matters. In light of this, it is unnecessary to be embarrassed by the mention of “priests” (Exod 19:22), and a reading of “elders” (so Aquila’s VS) is uncalled for. Wellhausen claimed on the basis of Exodus 33:7-11 that Joshua had charge of the Ark. A careful examination of the passage reveals Joshua was an attendant at the special tent of meeting that Moses pitched outside the camp, a temporary arrangement. Joshua was an Ephraimite and was never considered a priest (Josh 3:3ff.) from whom he is distinguished, nor did he ever perform priestly duties. The Pentateuchal books firmly lodge the priesthood in the tribe of Levi, in the house of Aaron by direction of God through Moses.
Aaron and his sons were consecrated for their duties. Exodus 28f. treats of the details of their consecration (cf. Lev 8; 9). The priests ministered about the altar (Lev 1; 4). They taught the people the law of the Lord (Lev 10:11; Deut 24:8; 33:10; Hos 4:1-6). There were special laws for the maintenance of their purity (Lev 21; 22). The provisions were principally concerned with prevention of defilement, which rendered them unfit for service.
A portion of the sacrifice was given the priest as revenue by the offering Israelite, and the skin of the slain animal was his. In Deuteronomy it is stated that at the sanctuary, the priest shared in the firstfruits and the tithe. Every third year the tithe was to be distributed to the poor, among whom the Levites were listed (Deut 12:17-19; 14:22, 29; 26:12). It is laid down that a tenth of the produce of the land was to go to the Levites for their support (Num 18:21-24). The sin offerings and trespass offerings belonged to the priests along with an annual tax of half a shekel for each male Israelite for the support of the sanctuary. A tenth of the tithes collected by the Levites went to the priests. Cities with pasture lands were assigned to the Levites with a designated number of these cities for the priests.
The Levites were given additional duties in place of their transport obligations, and they were the necessary personnel to implement the legislation when Israel was scattered over the land of Canaan (Deut 18:6-8; 21:5; 24:8; 33:8). All the writers of the second division of the Heb. canon had this understanding of the matter. All knew of the validity of a Levitical priesthood; nowhere do they mention exclusive Aaronic rights.
The traditional position has held to a Mosaic division of the priesthood into priests and Levites. It cannot find that in the Pentateuch there is evidence of a reading back of later conditions into the wilderness age. Further, it can find no ground for the contention that, if the hierarchical system was actually ancient and Mosaic, it is incomprehensible that traces of it would be completely absent in the days of the monarchy. It is claimed that Ezekiel’s demotion of the non-Zadokite Levites was indicated as a new provision, an arrangement strange if the priestly ranks were a matter of ancient days. The traditional view cannot accept the concept that there is no indisputable evidence available for the presence of a distinction between priests and Levites in the Heb. lit. of the pre-exilic period. By way of refutation, it is pointed out by conservative scholars that there is a list of Levitical cities in Joshua 21, and the account of the rebellion of Korah, showing that the provisions of the postexilic law were already recognized. The critical rebuttal is that at the time of Israel’s settlement in the land Joshua 21 could not have been implemented, because the majority of cities listed were not occupied by Israel until long afterward, or, if occupied, were not inhabited by Levites. The evidence of the rebellion of Korah is discounted on the basis that the record of the incident is of composite origin. Subjective reasoning does not yield readily at any time to objective evidence.
4. Moses to Malachi. From this discussion, the evidence of Ezekiel will be withheld for a later time. The priesthood is designated the inheritance of the Levites (Josh 18:7). “The priests the Levites” and “the priests” are expressions found alternately in the same book. It is clear that the sacred character of the tribe of Levi was recognized in early post-Mosaic times. Eli was threatened (1 Sam 2:27-36) with loss of the high priesthood, which was fulfilled (1 Kings 2:27) when Solomon replaced Abiathar with Zadok. Zadok (1 Chron 6:8, 53; 24:3; 27:17) was a descendant of Aaron through Eleazar. Others do not take the Chronicler literally and hold that Zadok was not of Aaron, thus the Aaronic succession was terminated and transferred to a family of non-Aaronic Levites. 1 Samuel 2:27-36 furnishes information on the organization of the priesthood, showing that the high priest had authority over a number of priestly offices with remuneration and other privileges. This calls for a more advanced hierarchy than envisioned in the critical PC (Priestly Code). Passages in the Books of Kings reveal development in hierarchical organization (2 Kings 12:10; 19:2; 25:18; cf. also Jer 20:1, 2; 29:26).
5. From David to the Exile. When David made the Jebusite stronghold his capital, he transferred the Ark of the covenant there, making it a royal sanctuary. He performed certain priestly functions (2 Sam 6:17f.) and wore on occasion the priestly linen ephod (v. 14). Solomon offered sacrifices at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings 8:5, 62ff.) and certain offerings three times a year (9:25). Although priests are not mentioned at these times, their presence appears to be self-evident. The relation of the kings of the northern kingdom to the sanctuary at Bethel was analogous to that of the kings of Judah to the Temple in Jerusalem. At Jerusalem with a large complement of priests there was one designated as in first place, the head priest or chief priest, e.g., Jehoiada (2 Kings 11:9f.), Uriah (16:10f.), Hilkiah (22:10), and Seraiah (25:18). “Chief priest” is found only in 2 Kings 25:18; Jeremiah 52:24; Ezra 7:5; and Chronicles, and occurs along with “high priest.” His influence at Jerusalem was considerable (Jehoiada and Athaliah, 2 Kings 8:26; 11:4ff.; 12:2; 2 Chron 22:2).
Reference is made to a Zephaniah, along with the head priest Seraiah, as kōhēn mĭshnĕh (kōhēn hămĭshnĕh), lit., “priest of the repetition,” prob. the representative or second in rank to the chief priest (2 Kings 23:4; 25:18). The keepers of the threshold (25:18), standing in rank next to the head priest and the second priest, must have been higher than doorkeepers. In the time of Joash (12:10), they are seen as guards of the entrance to the inner court of the altar of burnt offering. They also collected the people’s gifts to the Temple (22:4). Theirs was a preexilic priestly office, because it is not mentioned in later times.
The critical claim is made that the presence of a class of sanctuary personnel, different from the priests or lower in rank, called Levites, cannot be proved for the period of the monarchy, and this in spite of such passages as 2 Samuel 15:24 and 1 Kings 8:3f.; 12:31, which are summarily dismissed as later interpolations.
After the Exile, references are made to Temple servants, the Nethinim (“those given,” Ezra 2:54ff.), who were given by David and the princes for the ministry of the Levites or the Temple (8:20). Postexilic Temple singers and doorkeepers were evidently descendants of those who had served in the same capacity in the preexilic Temple (Ezra 2:41f.; Neh 7:44f.).
The Deuteronomic regulations in behalf of the Levites were not completely implemented in Josiah’s reform. There is no indication of a wholesale influx of non-Jerusalemite Levites into Jerusalem and their participation in the ministry there. 2 Kings 23 has a threefold distinction between the priests outside Jerusalem: the kĕmārîm were deposed (v. 5), for they were idolatrous priests; the priests from cities of Judah were gathered by Josiah (v. 8); the priests of the high places were not permitted to approach the altar in Jerusalem, but were allowed to remain where they resided and find their sustenance there (v. 9).
Jeremiah called his relatives at Anathoth priests (1:1). The Book of Jeremiah gives no proof for the existence of a class of Levites distinct from the priests. Some organization of the priests evidently existed, for there is reference to elders of the priests (19:1), the position of chief overseer of the Temple (20:1; 29:25f.), and keeper of the threshold (35:4). Priests seem to be considered as court officials (21:1; 29:25f., 29; 37:3).
6. In Ezekiel. Ezekiel set forth a body of laws during the Exile for the future theocracy. Because of the prominence he gave to the Zadokites, it is held that he was also of this family (Ezek 1:3). In his Temple of the future, only the Levite priests, the sons of Zadok, are to enjoy priestly privileges (43:19): to offer sacrifices and approach the table of showbread, because in Israel’s time of apostasy these did not go into idolatry. Those priests who took part in Israel’s departure into idolatry would not be allowed to minister in the office of priest or approach the holy things, but would be occupied with less sacred duties (44:6ff.; 46:24). Ezekiel speaks neither of a priest nor a king in the future commonwealth, but of a prince with certain priestly privileges. In Ezekiel’s Temple there is no sacred ark to which a priest might draw near, for God inhabits the Temple.
Ezekiel gives certain rules for the priests relative to their clothing (44:17f.), the manner of boiling the sacrifices, baking the meal offering (46:19f.), the care of their hair, the drinking of wine (44:20f.), their marriage (v. 22), defilement from dead bodies (v. 26f.), eating habits (v. 31), and judicial decisions (v. 23f.). The priests are not to have an inheritance in the land (44:28); however, a portion of land immediately about the Temple is assigned to them (45:1ff.; 48:10ff.) and a district bordering on the priests’ land to the Levites (45:5; 48:13). Portions of sacrifices as well as sacred gifts are to be given them.
It is undeniable that Ezekiel inaugurated certain reforms in his portrayal of the future, as he was instructed by divine revelation. Ezekiel 22:26 reveals an acquaintance with Leviticus 10 and other passages in the so-called PC. How is Ezekiel’s vision of the future in chs. 40-48 to be understood? One view has held that it is impossible to reconcile Ezekiel with PC. Wellhausen according to his view dated Ezekiel before P (priestly source of the Pentateuch) and claimed Ezekiel introduced the distinction between priests and Levites for the first time. The third position is that Ezekiel knew P and built from it a new division among the Levites, in which the sons of Zadok held a position similar to that of the sons of Aaron in the wilderness (44:6-16). This view appears to have the most to commend it.
B. Critical position
1. General observation. OT scholars claim that the history of the priesthood in Israel is highly complex. It is asserted that in spite of the unanimous Heb. tradition concerning the Mosaic origin of the Levitical priesthood, evidence appears in even the older records that the priesthood was not exclusively Levitical in the early period. It only came to be so restricted by the close of the 7th cent. b.c. with a further narrowing during the subsequent two centuries to a special group within the Levites. However, the Priestly Code (PC) includes a distinction between priests and Levites from the beginning.
Each tenet of the traditional position has been opposed. The Pentateuch is denied to Moses, the Chronicler is unreliable, harmonizations are useless, and Ezekiel is accorded a prominent place in the development of Israel’s religious history. The view is developed after this manner: “Levite” was originally a word to indicate professional skill; thus the first Levites were not of the tribe of Levi, but were professional priests. The entire Levitical law was unknown, and there was no distinction between priests and Levites. Throughout the preexilic lit., the terms “Levite” and “priest” were used synonymously (cf. Deut 17:9, 18; 18:1; 21:8; 27:9; Josh 3:3; Jer 33:18, 21); the only exception is said to be 1 Kings 8:4, where, however, as the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 5:5 shows, the presence of the Heb. “and” of “and the Levites” is a later insertion.
A few great sanctuaries existed with one prominent priesthood at Shiloh and later at Nob. The priesthood became more influential with the monarchy, the royal priests at Jerusalem in time overshadowing all others. Deuteronomy gave equal priestly privilege to all Levites. Josiah’s reform put the sons of Zadok, who were priests at Jerusalem and not descendants of Aaron, in a superior position. Later, Ezekiel made a new distinction between the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok in charge of the altar, and other Levites who were assigned as keepers of the charge of the house, because they had officiated at idolatrous high places. PC accepted this distinction and claimed for it Mosaic origin, representing the sons of Zadok as sons of Aaron. This situation became normative, and the formula “the priests and the Levites,” esp. in Chronicles, was customary. From that time priests and Levites were two well-defined classes.
2. Priesthood in the earliest period. The only priests mentioned in Genesis and Exodus before the giving of the law of Moses were foreign priests: Melchizedek (Gen 14:18), Egyp. priests (41:45), and Jethro the Midianite priest (Exod 2:16; 3:1; 18:1). General references to priests before the law are found in Exodus 19:22, 24, which seem to imply a Heb. priesthood before Moses. Moreover, Exodus 32:25-29 (assigned to P) indicates the Levites were given the priesthood for their faithfulness in carrying out the wrath of God after the sin of the golden calf.
At first the priest was concerned both with sacrifice and with direction in the affairs of life. In Deuteronomy 33 (dated to late 10th or early 8th cent. b.c.), the teaching function of the priest is prominent (v. 10). It was done through the Urim and Thummim (v. 8) and by reference to the legal code. He was teacher and administrator of legal precedent and justice (Deut 17:8-9; 21:5).
In earliest times sacrifice was not the sole province of a priest, e.g., Cain and Abel (Gen 4:4), Noah (8:20), Abraham (12:7, 8), Isaac (26:25), and Jacob (35:3, 7). Heads of families performed priestly functions before the building of the Temple (Judg 13:19; cf. Job 1:5). It was true of a judge (Judg 6:19ff.), a prophet (1 Kings 18:30ff.), and a king (2 Sam 6:17; 1 Kings 8:22, 54ff.). It appears that priests were connected with specific shrines where they transmitted the will of God by oracle and offered sacrifices (Judg 20:18, 27; 1 Sam 1:3ff.). At this time (premonarchical) the priesthood was not exclusively Levitical (Judg 17:5, 7-13). In the early monarchy, references show non-Levitical priests were present alongside the Levitical order. Two Levitical families existed in the judges’ period: that of Dan set up by Jonathan, grandson of Moses (Judg 18:1-4, 14-20, 30) and that of Shiloh, occupied by Eli and his sons, descendants of Aaron (1 Sam 1-4; 22:20; 1 Kings 2:27). Probably some not of Levitical descent were joined to the tribe of Levi (Deut 33:8, 9). It was true of Samuel. He was an Ephraimite by birth (1 Sam 1:1ff.), but ministered as priest in the sanctuary (1:27, 28; 2:11, 18; 3:1); so the Chronicler considered him as a Levite (1 Chron 6:16-28).
3. Under the monarchy. During this time, the priesthood was found in families. The priesthood of Dan lasted to the end of the northern kingdom in 721 b.c. When the Philistines captured the Ark (1 Sam 4:10, 11), the house of Eli prob. moved from Shiloh to Nob, where Saul had them slain (21:1-9; 22:9-19). Abiathar escaped (22:20) and officiated in David’s reign at Jerusalem with Zadok (2 Sam 8:17; 15:24-29). He was removed from office by Solomon for his support of Adonijah (1 Kings 1:5-8; 2:26, 27); Zadok took his place (2:35). The Zadokite house of priests remained at Jerusalem until the destruction of the Temple in 586 b.c. (1 Chron 6:8). Zadok’s descent is traced to Aaron’s son Eleazar (1 Chron 6:3-12, 50-53; 24:3). During the monarchy, the non-Levitical priesthood was established by Jeroboam the son of Nebat in the northern kingdom (1 Kings 12:31; 12:33).
Three other references to priests apart from the Levitical order are: (1) David’s sons (2 Sam 8:18); (2) Ira the Jairite as a priest to David (2 Sam 20:26); (3) Zabud the son of Nathan as priest of Solomon (1 Kings 4:5). The difficulty is that Zadok and Abiathar, regular priests, were ministering as well during the reigns of David and Solomon. A solution has been suggested by understanding these men to be friends of the king with the courtesy title of priest.
During the early monarchy the king performed priestly duties. Saul offered a burnt offering and peace offerings in Gilgal during the absence of Samuel, and received the latter’s rebuke (1 Sam 13:8-13). David oversaw the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:12-19), wore the priestly ephod (v. 14), offered sacrifices (vv. 13, 17), and blessed the people in God’s name (v. 18). At the dedication of the Temple, Solomon stood before the altar to offer the prayer of dedication, presented the offerings (animal and cereal), and blessed the people (1 Kings 8:22-53, 62, 63, 64; cf. 8:14ff., 54ff.), while the priests and Levites brought the Ark and holy vessels into the holy place (vv. 4, 6ff.). Solomon offered burnt offerings, peace offerings, and incense three times a year (9:25). Jeroboam son of Nebat offered sacrifices and burned incense (12:32, 33). Ahaz, in the 8th cent. b.c., instructed Uriah the priest to build at Jerusalem a copy of the altar at Damascus, but he himself offered sacrifices on it (2 Kings 16:10-13). Evidently the king was a priest-king, mediating between God and Israel. The Chronicler, however, viewed Uzziah’s attempt to burn incense in the Temple as a violation of the priests’ rights, for which the king was stricken with leprosy for life (2 Chron 26:16-20).
A general observation for this period would be that with the multiplication of sanctuaries and the forming of the priests throughout the land into one well-defined class, priests and Levites became equivalent terms. Their common traditions of law and ritual were then traced to Moses (Deut 33:11). Though dependent on the monarchy, they enjoyed an increasing influence (cf. Jehoiada, 2 Kings 11:4ff.).
4. Under Josiah (Deuteronomy). The reform of Josiah in 621 b.c. determined to put an end to the high places and centralize worship at Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:1-24). The book of the law found in the Temple is generally considered to be the Book of Deuteronomy (22:8-13; 23:1-3). Sacrifice now belonged to the priesthood and could be offered only at the Temple in Jerusalem (Deut 12:5-7, 11, 13, 14). Priests were all sons of Levi (10:8; 18:1; 21:5; 33:8). It has been suggested that every priest did not have to be a lineal descendant of Levi; the Levites may have adopted into the Levitical priesthood those who were not related to Levi. The consensus of most OT scholars is that in Deuteronomy, “priest” and “Levite” are synonymous, that is, all priests are Levites and all Levites are priests without distinction (Deut 10:8; 18:1; 21:5; 33:8ff.). The case is not incontrovertible.
Before Josiah’s reform, the priesthood was distributed widely throughout the land. Nob was the city of the priests in the early monarchy (1 Sam 22:18, 19); in Josiah’s reign there was a priestly group at Anathoth (Jer 1:1). Every town seemed to have had its local sanctuary with at least one Levitical priest (Deut 18:6). This priesthood had no territorial inheritance (Deut 18:1). There is no mention of a Levitical tithe, but the Levite was to share with the sojourner, fatherless, and widow the bounty of the community where he resided (14:27-29; 16:11, 14; 26:12). The removal of the local sanctuaries meant the loss of sustenance for those who became unemployed through this decree. Josiah had them all come to Jerusalem to share in the duties of the priesthood at the Temple (2 Kings 23:8; cf. Deut 18:6-8, assuming Levite means priest). In actual practice, the priests of the high places did not minister at the Jerusalem altar, but received their share of the support (2 Kings 23:9). There is the possibility that 2 Kings 23:8 has reference to others beside the idolatrous priests of the high places (v. 5). In that case, Josiah may have made a distinction, deposing those who had apostatized and allowing the others full equality in the Jerusalem priesthood. It is clear that Ezekiel (Ezek 44:10) made such a distinction.
Whereas Ezekiel restricts certain priestly duties to the house of Zadok (44:13-15 with 1 Chron 6:3-8), Deuteronomy shows that all Levites were considered priests; cf. “the priests the Levites,” or the “Levitical priests” (Deut 18:1). The conditions of the priesthood at the end of the monarchy are said to be “unquestionably portrayed” in Deuteronomy. Since Deuteronomy does not aim particularly to present the divine service, its author does not give a complete picture of the existent priestly relations, the gaps of which cannot be filled in with certainty.
As already stated, priests are constantly referred to in Deuteronomy as “the Levitical priests” (17:9, 18; 18:1). Special descent is indicated (cf. also 21:5; 31:9). Deuteronomy does not distinguish between “Levitical priests” and “Levites” (18:1). Levites who lived elsewhere in the land apart from Jerusalem could claim the same privileges as the Levite priests settled in Jerusalem if they came to reside at the capital (18:6ff.). Throughout Deuteronomy, then, Levites were those called to the priesthood proper. Chief priest is meant (Deut 10:6) where Eleazar succeeded Aaron, and prob. this is the sense in 26:3.
The tribe of Levi had no inheritance in the land according to Deuteronomy, for the Lord was their portion, that is, they were to be supported by their service (10:9; 18:1). Deuteronomy stresses kindness to the Levites who were not ministering at the central sanctuary (12:12, 18). Specific provisions were made for them: invitations to meals made from tithes (14:27, 29), to sacrificial meals (12:12, 18f.; 26:11), to celebrations of the festivals (16:11, 14), and the receipt of the third year’s tithe with other needy ones (26:12).
W. Robertson Smith and A. Bertholet hold that in Deuteronomy 33, Levi appears as the collective name for the priesthood (EB, III, 2770-2776). The priesthood referred to is said to be that of the northern kingdom under the dynasty of Jehu (their origin supposedly indicated, Judg 17:9; 18:30). Judean priesthood in later times came also to be known as Levites (Deut 10:8f.; 18:1f.). It is revealed that the Judean Levites were not limited to Temple service, but involved the priests of the high places removed by Josiah (Ezek 44:10f.). In Judah and in the N, the priestly rights of Levi were traced to Mosaic times (Deut 10:8; 33:8). However, the Judean priests did not recognize the Levitical position of their northern counterparts (1 Kings 12:31).
5. In Ezekiel. In no area of the subject of priests and Levites do the traditional and critical positions diverge more than at this point. It is undeniable that the Exile marked for Israel a great dividing boundary between two eras. In the latter part of the 7th cent. b.c., the priesthood was limited to the Levites. By then all priests were Levites. With postexilic times there came a restriction of the priesthood to a special part of the Levites, i.e., those of Aaronic descent. Ezekiel is transitional between preexilic and postexilic conditions, supplying, it is commonly claimed, the bridge between the organization of the worship of the 7th cent. b.c. and that of the second Temple.
Ezekiel’s vision of the new Temple (chs. 40-44) pictures God as dwelling in the midst of His people in holiness, a basic concept in the prophet’s view of the future theocracy. He sees holiness through separation. To achieve this objective, there must be a radical change in the priesthood (44:5-16). The Nethinim and sons of Solomon’s servants, who did menial tasks about the Temple, were prob. war captives given to the Levites as Temple slaves (Num 31:28-30, 40, 41, 47; Josh 9:23, 27); their place now to be taken over by the Levites who had gone into idolatry (Ezek 44:9-14). These Levites would no longer be permitted ministry at the altar (vv. 12, 13), a service now limited to the Zadokites of Jerusalem who had been faithful in times of apostasy (vv. 15, 16).
Some scholars identify the non-Zadokite Levites with the priests of the high places which Josiah had proscribed. It is held that the priests of the surrounding country, although admitted to the Temple personnel by Josiah, nevertheless, were barred by the Jerusalem priests from access to the altar. On the other hand, it could be that Josiah did not demote all the priests of the provinces but only those who had committed idolatry at the high places; it is of these that Ezekiel spoke in his new regulations for the future. The prophet never intimated wholesale degradation of the Levites, but only those who were guilty of participation in idolatry.
It is not conclusive that Ezekiel had in mind Levites (apart from those of the Judean local sanctuaries) other than those who were faithful and unfaithful in times of Israel’s national apostasy, a condition by no means restricted to Josiah’s reign (44:10, 15ff.). However, Abba (IDB, III, 883) feels that Ezekiel is referring to one specific act of national (?) apostasy of which no Zadokite priests of Jerusalem were guilty, i.e., the idolatry inaugurated by Jeroboam I of the northern kingdom (1 Kings 12:28-32). One might ask whether all non-Zadokite Levites were involved in this apostasy. The data are not at hand to answer the question definitely.
It is clear that Ezekiel laid down two regulations (Ezek 44:6-16): (1) only consecrated persons could enter the Temple; and (2) the family of Zadok was to enjoy special privileges among the consecrated persons. The discussion later will deal with the subject of the priesthood in P, but here it may be well to state some considerations relative to Ezekiel and P. Ezekiel 44:9-14 required of Levites, services as gatekeepers, slaying of burnt offerings and sacrifices for the people, and the performance of certain duties in the house of God. P says nothing of gatekeeping or slaying of burnt offering and sacrifice (the duty of the offerer himself, Lev 1:3). A Levite would have courted death if he had entered the places where Ezekiel expected him to serve. Notice also the Chronicler’s position (1 Chron 23:28, 31). According to P, an approach to the altar by a Levite would have meant death to themselves and the priests (Num 18:3). The conclusion is inescapable that the Levites in P are not a projection of the Levites of the Second Temple or any age after Moses back into the wilderness age. Levites are sacred porters in P. The views of Ezekiel (and of the Chronicler) do not coincide with those of P.
In short, the most advanced stage of the priestly system saw the division of the sanctuary personnel into two ranks. All were viewed as Levites by descent (Exod 6:25), but the majority of the Levites were subordinate ministers who were not permitted access to the altar or the performance of any priestly ministry. The priesthood resided in the descendants of Aaron. In preexilic documents, it is claimed, no such condition existed as between priests and Levites. Ezekiel was unaware of