Its Political Tendencies
By J. O. Corliss
History of the Jewish Priesthood—No. 7
The Hebrew priesthood was established for one great and enduring purpose. Its services, of themselves, were of no value, except to shadow forth the atonement work of Him who was to come as the heavenly Head of a “royal priesthood.” I Peter 2:9; Heb. 10:1-12. Had the Israelites, or even the priests themselves, comprehended the design of the sacrificial offerings so constantly exhibited, probably there would have been no occasion for the Lord to say: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? . . . I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?” Isa. 1:11, 12. But important as were the daily ceremonies of the priesthood in foreshadowing the continual sacrifice and ministry of Christ, the personnel of that priesthood materially failed as a true type of him who was an eternal priest in the Melchizedek line of ministration. Heb. 6:20. They had been chosen of God to be a holy, or separate order (I Peter 2:5), that they might minister in “holy things.” I Cor. 9:13. They were therefore anointed with holy oil (Ex. 30:25), and clothed in holy garments (Ex. 28:2, 4), that they might minister in the holy places of the earthly sanctuary. Ex. 26:33. Yet for all this, the Hebrew priesthood was but the mere skeleton, or framework, of the Hebrew religion. Its place, though highly important, was inferior to some other positions in God’s work. Moses was pointed out as standing incomparably above every other person, whether prophet, priest, or king. Num. 12:6-8. It was, however, steadfast in the celebration of its appointed rites, even after their significance was lost to the intellect. Heb. 9:12-14. Its persistence in these forms not only maintained the order intact, but rendered it the rallying-point of the nation upon its return from Babylonian captivity. It lived to the end of the Persian and Grecian empires, and into the opening of the world-wide Roman dynasty. It witnessed the advent of Him whose sacrifice for sin and whose future ministry were typified in its daily and yearly services. When the Jewish earthly types were to give way to the heavenly substance, and the nation’s last struggle for the mastery came, its priesthood was the last institution visible as the great crisis culminated. Even now the family names of “Cohen” and “Levy” are persistent witnesses to the cohesiveness of that priestly system. In Jewish synagogues the modified priestly services are still honored, so far as consistent with modern usages. The people are still blessed by the rabbi priest as of old, and his attendant pours water on his hands after the Levitical manner. All these functions are purely mechanical, as they came to be under the old system, after their failure to herald the approach of the better, heavenly way. After the establishment of the monarchy under Saul, the priests became seemingly mere instruments under the king’s direction. Why this position of superiority was assumed by the king one can only conjecture. The fact that the king was anointed to his office by the same holy oil as the priests (I Kings 1:39), may have made them think themselves above the priests, because of being rulers over the whole nation. The assumption of a political attitude by the priests may also have strengthened the incentive to make underlings of the priests. Be that as it may, we know that Ahimelech was the victim of Saul’s wrath. I Sam. 22:18. Briefly told, the story is this: David fled from Saul, and went to Nob, where he met the priest, and was there fed by him. The incident was related to the king, when he called the trembling priest before him for an explanation. The result of the affair was that Doeg, who gave the information to Saul, was commanded to slay all the priests, which he did to the number of eighty-five. Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, and joint high priest with Zadok (2 Sam. 8:17), was deposed by Solomon. I Kings 2:27. During the Reign of David and Solomon
The priestly services seem to have improved somewhat under the direction of David and Solomon. The earlier military blasts of silver trumpets by which the national assembly was brought together (Num. 10:2-7), and the discordant din of explosive sounds from ram’s horns, by which to strike terror to the hearts of enemies,—all this gave way to a milder service, in which song and prayer, accompanied by harp, psaltery, and cymbal, were connected with the more sanguinary functions. I Chron. 25:1; 15:19. We are told that when David rearranged the priesthood and its services, he named the families to whom would belong the twenty-four courses to be served. I Chron. 24:7-19. He also set apart two families, one each from the line of Eleazar and Ithamar, from which the high priests should be taken to serve over the other priests. Verse 6. The result of this was that more than one high priest was likely to be serving at the same time. In fact, we find under David three high priests in service at one and the same time. I Kings 4:4; compare with I Chron. 27:5. Abiathar was banished by Solomon to Anathoth, his birthplace, because of his interference with the succession to the throne, and then was expelled from office, which was filled by Zadok. I Kings 2:20, 27, 35. Not only did the priesthood become subject to the will of the kings, but the kings’ sons were permitted to fill the office of “chief rulers.” 2 Sam. 8:18. It will be noticed that this last reference follows the enumeration of King David’s chief officers. Benaiah, a priest, is mentioned as having control of certain divisions of the army, and then come the words which speak of David’s sons as chief rulers over all these. The matter is made still clearer in the enumeration of Solomon’s chief officers. In this case, Azariah, the son of Zadok, was the priest, or, as the margin has it, “chief officer.” I Kings 4:2. Thus we see that the chief priest is put next to the king himself in the enumeration of his head officers. In 2 Sam. 8:18, David’s sons held this same position, which shows that the office of chief ruler was at least interchangeable with that of the high priest. Where the words “chief rulers” occur in the Authorized Version, the Latin Vulgate always has it “sacerdotes.” The connection of the Jewish priesthood with the secular power, so that its members were no longer separate from the common people, but became tax-collectors, warriors, etc., was the reason why its services lost their significance upon the people. Probably this was just as the enemy of all true service would have it. It has ever been his design to cover up and destroy the true view of the Saviour’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, lest the sinner should avail himself of its provisions, and be saved from the delusive snare which besets the feet of all. This may be fully seen in the false priesthood of the present.