Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

PRIESTHOOD, ISRAELITE

This article focuses on the Israelite priesthood in the wider context of the ancient Near East, because that is where it was active. Exercising caution against parallelomania, either pan-babylonianism or pan-ugaritism, we will see that the Israelite priesthood shows many affinities with the obviously more complex picture of that in Mesopotamia with its more than 3000 years of history. Egypt had its own unique theology which surprisingly influences Israel very little, though its close proximity would suggest otherwise.

Practices in Israel reflected those of the peoples immediately surrounding them, so the Hebrews could be considered a kind of “Canaanite.” For the Canaanite cult, we rely upon archaeology and look far north to the Ugaritic tablets, and east to the Amorites as reflected in the Mari Letters. Furthermore, Mesopotamian sources represent vast land areas, thousands of years of history, and many tens of thousands of texts, many of which had sacerdotal elements, in the areas of historiography, royal annals, geography, economics, marriage, mathematics, astronomy, law, medicine, school, wisdom, divination, magic, liturgy, lexicography, grammar, all interpreted by art of many varieties.

By contrast, the ancient Hebrew writings provide quite limited data. To obtain sufficient information about the Israelite priesthood then, we must consider the whole gamut of writings in the Bible, but even then we are asking questions of the Bible which it was not designed to answer.

Another limitation is that we know almost nothing of the priesthood in the northern kingdom, and what is described in our texts is from the standpoint of their rivals. The OT professes to represent practices extending over perhaps a 1000-year period, but much of this material may have been edited rather late in Israelite history.

Every civilization had its own way of handling sacred space and sacred time. In all of them one figure is chosen to represent the movement both human to divine and divine to human, and so does the liturgy in the name of humanity. In Israel, the Deuteronomic stratum assumes one worship place, the temple in Jerusalem. Archaeologists have discovered, however, that there were other places where some kind of worship was carried on. Worship at the enigmatic bāmôṯ (“high places”), whose configuration is unclear, appears often. Excavations at the sites of Arad, Hazor, Beth-shan, Shechem, Bethel, and many others show worship activities. All of these used cultic officials, in Hebrew called by the general term kōhēn.

Another term for a priestly office, kōmer, appears rarely. Zeph. 1:4 prophesies in the vein of the other preexilic prophets that the names of both the kōhănîm and the kĕmārîm will be cut off, i.e., their priesthood will be nullified. In a typical Deuteronomic criticism, 2 Kgs. 23:5 tells of Josiah deposing the kĕmārîm for making offerings in the “high places,” as well as to Baal, the sun, moon, and stars. However, it says that the kings of Israel had assigned them these offices (cf. 1 Kgs. 13:33)! Hos. 10:5 sardonically describes them as exulting with ritual joy over the calves of Beth-aven.

The root kmr is an old one in Semitic languages, appearing as Akk. kumruy in Old Assyrian (19th century) and at Mari (18th century), where there was an Amorite society. The term continues into Aramaic, and in Syriac appears alongside knh designating a priest. In Mesopotamia dozens of titles were given to cultic officiants, in Israel only a few.

The root of kōhēn, by contrast, appears in almost all Semitic languages, although not all have the same meaning. An exception is Ugaritic, where it appears with much the same definition as in Hebrew. The Western word “priest” comes ultimately from Gk. presbýteros, “elder”; this later meaning should not be read back onto the original word. The norm for the OT, then, is the Jerusalem temple, with the kōhēn as the cultic official. The status of the kōhēn is shown by the theology that the Israelites are to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6). The subject of the priesthood overarches much of the narrative of Exodus-Deuteronomy as well as Psalms.

The kōhēn was “ordained” (Heb. millēʾ, lit., “fill up his hand”; Exod. 28:41; Judg. 17:5). In this ceremony he was anointed (Exod. 29:7) and consecrated (28:41; qiddēš, lit., “treat as holy”). He wore an ornate garb (Ezek. 44:17), of linen rather than wool, which he changed upon leaving the sanctuary (v. 19). His principal vestment, the ephod, is described in great detail in Exod. 28, 39. David acting in a priestly role wore an ephod (2 Sam. 6:14). The kōhēn also had a special tonsure (Ezek. 44:20).

Duties

The kōhēn’s tasks were quite varied, and the literary evidence is sporadic. Thus, it must suffice to say that at some time in Hebrew history the tradition records the priest as doing this-or-that. The priest was essentially the guardian of the holy place (Num. 18:5). To do this he took on the holiness of the sanctuary. This invested him with a kind of authority, but responsibility also. He had to bear the guilt for any lapse of propriety in the sanctuary (v. 1). Though all the people were to follow the tôrâ and are commanded to be holy (Lev. 19:2), the priests were the paradigm holy people (Ezra 8:28). They were to be as the people they prayed for should be, because the stones woven into the ephod had written on them the names of the sons of Israel (Exod. 28:9-12).

The kōhēn’s liturgical functions were first and foremost to preside over the many types of sacrifice at the main altar; Num. 28–29 list the main ones. The food items then became part of their sustenance (1 Sam. 2:29; Ezek. 44:29-30). No details of what must have been a highly physical and dirty operation are described in our sources except obliquely.

A major part of the kōhēn’s duties was to pray (1 Sam. 7:5), although praying was not exclusively his duty (cf. 2 Kgs. 6:18; Jer. 37:3; also Job 42:8; 1 Sam. 2:1-10). As an aspect of this, the priest asked Yahweh questions on behalf of others (Judg. 18:5), reminiscent of the šaʾilu (masculine) and šaʾiltu (feminine) “questioner” in Mesopotamia. A more literary function was to pronounce the blessing (Deut. 10:8). The poetical form of Num. 6:24-26 suggests that it may have been chanted; it is unclear whether the blessing was said once only or repeated, or if it was part of a longer prayer.

The physical actions of the priest may be inferred from words in the psalms and elsewhere: processing into the sacred area (Ps. 68:24-27[MT 25-28]), lifting the hands (134:2), kneeling (95:6), dancing (149:3), singing (149:1), blowing the horn (Num. 10:10). These ritual acts were not so much embellishments to the liturgy, but represented symbolically the very heart of the belief which lay behind it. Other cultic activities included burning the incense (Exod. 30:7-9), tending the oil lamps (27:21), setting out the bread of the presence (25:30; 1 Sam. 21:4-6[5-7]), sprinkling salt (Ezek. 43:24), sprinkling blood (Lev. 3:2), and pouring drink offerings (Exod. 37:16), the latter a prevalent act in Mesopotamia.

Analogy with Mesopotamian practices suggests a cultic character to some of the narratives in Genesis and Exodus, perhaps indications of a cultic drama. There are ties between religion and drama in most of the world’s religions. Joshua orchestrates a procession of priests to circumambulate the walls of Jericho, blowing horns and carrying the ark (Josh. 6). References to the movements, garments, responses, limits, and trumpets may indicate a ritual performed at the base of Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19:10-13), acted out by Moses, as a priest.

Outside the altar area, the priest’s duties included consultation of the sacred lots Urim and Thummim (Num. 27:21), used in cases of difficult decisions. Some think they could give only yes or no answers, but there may have been various configurations of their falling (we do not know their shape nor their number) or there could have been multiple castings, and so they might have given a more complex answer. The fact that both words are in the plural would indicate that. In some literary strata they were described as kept in the breastplate, bound to the ephod (Exod. 28:30). Casting lots was common in ancient Israel, used in the scapegoat ceremony by Aaron in his holy vestments (Lev. 16) and in the division of the land by lot by a priest and Joshua (Josh. 14:1-2). The use of lots apparently continued into postexilic times (cf. Neh. 10:34[35]). In late Assyrian times puru, “lots,” were used to determine the limmu-official, for whom the year was named.

The OT offers no indication of a physician, and the priest sometimes took on the role of healer. He made decisions in some cases of leprosy (Lev. 13:30-46; Deut. 24:8), but this could also be done by the prophet (2 Kgs. 5:1-14).

The priest shared judicial office with those entitled judge (Deut. 17:8-9). In difficult cases he used the ordeal, a cultic act performed “before Yahweh,” i.e., the altar. Num. 5:11-31 vividly describes the case of a woman suspected of adultery.

The priestly office at times had a teaching function (Lev. 10:11), a role shared with the prophet (Isa. 28:9; Mic. 3:11), responsible for transmitting tôrâ (Deut. 33:10).

Responsibility for distinguishing between clean and unclean (Lev. 10:10) was wholly under the aegis of the priest. Among the numerous acts rendering a person unclean was contact with certain animals, birds, seafood, and insects.

The priest also had administrative duties. The money that came into the temple was probably overseen by the priests. In 2 Kgs. 22:4 the “keepers of the threshold” collected the money and the high priest handled it. In postexilic times the priest had the title “treasurer” (Neh. 13:13).

The priest also operated, although astutely, in the political realm. Zadok’s anointing of Solomon as king (1 Kgs. 1:39) hearkened back to a practice described in 1 Sam. 10:1, described perhaps from a later perspective. In a reform context, the king would obtain and read “this tôrâ,” monitored by the “levitical priests” (Deut. 17:18-19), the latter a term especially used by the Deuteronomist.

The priesthood shared some of the sacerdotal tasks with the king, as was true of Mesopotamia, where one of the king’s titles actually was “priest” (šangu). David made the offering (2 Sam. 6:17; cf. Ezek. 46:4). Solomon prayed at the altar (1 Kgs. 8:22) and blessed the people (v. 14). Jeroboam burned incense (1 Kgs. 13:1). In later Maccabean times, the ruler took over some of the priestly prerogatives, e.g., pronouncing the blessing (Sir. 50:20), and he finally assumed the title “high priest” (1 Macc. 16:24).

To give a balanced account, mention must also be made of the many times the prophets accused the priest of wrongdoing. He was a sinner (Hos. 4:8-9) and was like a robber (6:9). He taught for money and was complacent of being taken care of by his God (Mic. 3:11). He became intoxicated (Isa. 28:7), worshipped false gods (Jer. 2:27; 8:1-2), did not distinguish between clean and unclean (Ezek. 22:26), and gave wrong instructions (Mal. 2:8). All of this must be exegeted, and some statements are probably metaphorical.

History and Development

The above has treated the texts synchronically, as if they all were written at the same time and by the same group. Nevertheless, there was a history to and development of the Israelite priesthood, although it is difficult to determine what that was, being limited by the probable later editing of the texts. The few notes that can be gleaned show that the office was held from the earliest times by the tribe of Levi (Deut. 10:9; 33:8, probably from an old stratum), with Aaron the eponymous priest (Exod. 28:1). A priest became such through training (1 Sam. 3:1) or inheritance (Jer. 1:1; cf. 1 Kgs. 2:26). At the time of Solomon there is an indication of a new order or family heading the priesthood. Zadok (1 Kgs. 2:35) is found in a leadership position, and this continued to the end of the state (Ezek. 48:11). Ezra also was a Zadokite (Ezra 7:1-2). Zadok’s origin goes unmentioned.

Little is known about another order (diḇrâ, lit., “manner”) in the priesthood, that of Melchizedek. Ps. 110:4 is the only mention of it in the OT in an Israelite stratum, though Gen. 14:18 narrates the old tradition. The Qumran scroll 11QMelch and the gnostic Nag Hammadi Melchizedek present him as an end-time figure, not a priest. The reference to Melchizedek in 2 En. 71–72, telling of his originating a line of priests, is a later commentary on the Genesis passage, as is Heb. 7:15-17.

Even though all priests were supposed to be from the family of Levi, non-Levites also served (1 Kgs. 12:31). Some of the lesser roles were assigned to Levites. Num. 4:17-45 tells of three families, the Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites, who had other than priestly duties in the sanctuary, keeping the implements and trappings. Postexilic data shows singers and doorkeepers among the Levites (Neh. 10–12), but listed separately from the priests. If 1 Chr. 24:7-19 represents a postexilic arrangement, the priesthood then appeared in 24 divisions, each one taking its turn (cf. Luke 1:8).

After the Exile the office of high priest plays a significant role, recorded especially in the postexilic and intertestamental literature (Hag. 1:1; Sir. 50:1) and the Synoptic Gospels, though the term had appeared earlier (Josh. 20:6). Earlier the head was usually called simply priest (1 Kgs. 4:2-4) or chief priest (2 Kgs. 25:18; Jer. 52:24).

With the capture of the temple in 70 c.e., the cultic functions of the priesthood ceased, although priestly families continued to bless the people in synagogue service.

See Women in the Israelite Cult.

Bibliography. M. Haran, “Priests and Priesthood: Function of the Priests,” EncJud (New York, 1971) 13:1076-80; R. A. Henshaw, Female and Male: The Cultic Personnel: The Bible and the Rest of the Ancient Near East. PTMS 31 (Allison Park, 1994), §1.4; B. A. Levine, “Priesthood: Jewish Priesthood,” Encyclopedia of Religion (New York, 1987) 11:534-36; J. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture III (London, 1940).

Richard A. Henshaw

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

PRIESTHOOD, ISRAELITE

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)