PRIESTS AND LEVITES.—The method here adopted as on the whole the most satisfactory is first to give some account of the highly organized hierarchical system of the Second Temple, as we know it from the Priestly Code, and, taking this as a standard, next to trace its history up to this point, and, lastly, follow its subsequent developments.
I. The Hierarchy of the Second Temple.—The chief authority for the religious institutions of the early period of the Second Temple is the document known as the Priestly Code (P
A. The high priest
1. His consecration
The high priest, who is the eldest son of his predecessor in the office, is consecrated by an elaborate ritual consisting of washing, solemn vesting in his robes, anointing by pouring oil on the head, and several sacrificial rites, among them the sprinkling with blood and the anointing with oil of different parts of the body. The sacrificial ceremonies lasted for seven days (Exo 29:1-46, Lev 8:1-36).
2. The distinctive vestments of the high priest, in addition to those worn by all priests (B. 2), were the robe of blue, which was woven without seam, had a hole for the head, and was said to have reached down to the knees; the ephod of curiously wronght embroidered work; the breastplate, also of embroidered work, which was attached to the ephod, and contained originally the Urim and Thummim (II. B. 4); the turban with the crown or plate engraved ‘Holy to Jahweh’ (Exo 28:36).
3. The special duties of the high priest included the offering of a daily meal-offering (Lev 6:19-20, where the words ‘in the day when he is anointed’ are probably a later interpolation). He had also to perform the ceremonial sprinklings in the case of sin-offerings for the whole people (Lev 4:13-21). But by far the most important ceremonies were those connected with the great Day of Atonement, on which day alone he, and he alone, attired merely in the linen garb of the priest, entered the ‘Holy of Holies’ and sprinkled the mercy seat with the blood of a bullock as a sin-offering for himself, and that of a goat as a sin-offering for the people (Lev 16:1-34).
B. Priests.—1. Their consecration.—The priests who belonged to the family of Aaron were consecrated by special ceremonies like those of the high priest, but less elaborate (Exo 29:1-46, Lev 8:1-36). These did not, however, include, in later times at any rate, anointing, the high priest being called by way of distinction ‘the anointed priest’ (Lev 4:1-35 passim, cf. Psa 133:2). At most the anointing of priests meant sprinkling the different parts of the body with the holy oil as well as with the blood (Exo 29:21, Lev 8:30).
2. All priests were required to wear, during their ministrations only, special vestments. These were ‘linen’ breeches, coats of checker-work, girdles and head-tires (Exo 28:42; Exo 29:3; Exo 29:9, Lev 8:13).
3. The work of the priests consisted in (a) offering up all sacrifices. This included especially collecting the blood and sprinkling the altar with it; washing the inwards and legs, making the fire, placing the pieces of the burnt-offering upon it and burning them, doing the same to the ‘memorials’ of other offerings, and the removal of ashes. They did not, except usually in the case of public sacrifices, themselves kill the victim (Lev 1:1-17; Lev 2:1-16; Lev 3:1-17; Lev 4:1-35; Lev 5:1-19; Lev 6:1-30).—(b) They were required to give decisions, after examination, about suspected leprosy, plague, and mouldin garments and houses, and to perform the required rites (Lev 13:1-59; Lev 14:1-57).—(c) It was also their duty to blow the trumpets, whether as the alarm of war or at the new moon, especially that of the 7th month, and at the set feasts (Num 10:10, Lev 23:24; cf. Psa 81:3) and on the Day of Atonement of the Jubilee year (Lev 25:9). The words used in different passages suggest the probability that the instruments employed were originally horns, for which silver trumpets were afterwards substituted.
4. The priests were supported (a) partly by the tithe of the tithe which they received from the Levites (Num 18:26); (b) partly by the first-fruits and firstlings, including the redemption money for men and unclean beasts (Num 18:12-18, Lev 7:30-34); (c) partly by sacrificial dues of various kinds. The latter included (1) practically the whole of private meal-offerings, whether flour or cakes, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings (Num 18:9, Lev 5:16; Lev 10:16-20). These were regarded as ‘most holy,’ and might be eaten only by the priest and his sons as a sacrificial act in the Temple precincts (Lev 6:16; Lev 6:26; Lev 7:8, Num 18:10). (2) Of peace-offerings the breast and the thigh, which might be eaten by any of the priest’s family, the sacrificial act consisting in their first being ‘waved’ or ‘heaved’ respectively (Num 18:11, Lev 7:30-34). (3) The skin of the burnt-offerings (Lev 7:8). (4) The shewbread and several special offerings, as that of the leper, etc. (Lev 24:9, Mar 2:26, Lev 14:1-57 etc.). The language suggests that these dues were in some cases fresh enactments (see esp. Lev 10:18-20, Num 18:18). The tendency to increase the dues of the priests was the natural consequence of the increase of work arising out of the continually greater complication of religious ceremonies.
C. Levites
1. Dedication.—The Levites were also dedicated to their work by special ceremonies. They were sprinkled with water, their bodies shaved, and their clothes washed. Then they were solemnly presented to God, the high priest laying his hands on them, and were required to present two bullocks, one as a burnt-offering, the other as a sin-offering (Num 8:5-22). The ceremonies signified the solemn offering up of the Levites to God as a wave-offering (Num 8:13; Num 8:15 b). This is said to have been as a substitute for the firstborn of the Israelites, who by right belonged to God (Num 3:9-13).
2. The age at which they entered upon their office varied at different times between 30, 25, and 20 (Num 4:3; Num 8:24, 1Ch 23:3; 1Ch 23:24; 1Ch 23:27). Probably it was twice reduced because of the increasing difficulty in procuring Levites to do the work.
3. Work.—The Levites were said to have been given as a gift (nĕthûnîm) to Aaron and his sons. In other words, they were to be regarded as the servants of the priests. This included especially the work of fetching and carrying, as they were believed to have carried the Tabernacle and its furniture in the Wilderness. Beyond this belonged to them the work of ‘keeping the charge,’ i.e. protecting and keeping clean the vessels and the furniture. In short, they were required to do everything connected with the service which was not by law required of the priests themselves (Num 18:2-7; Num 3:5-39).
4. The Levites were supported from the tithe, which was in the first instance paid to them (Num 18:21-24).
D. Levitical and priestly cities.—According to Num 35:1-8, there were assigned to the Levites in different parts of Palestine 48 cities with suburbs and surrounding pasture land to about 500 yards distance. In the description of the division of the land under Jos 13:1-33 of these, in the territories of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, are given to the priests (Jos 21:1-45; see also 1Ch 6:54-81, where, however, the text is very corrupt). No trace of any such arrangement is to be found in Ezekiel’s ideal sanctuary, according to which the priests and Levites have their possessions in the ‘oblation’ or sacred ground, which included the sanctuary (Eze 48:9-14). This provision of cities and land in P
This assignation of priestly cities must therefore be regarded as a sort of historical theory, which grew partly out of some sort of provision, in land and houses in and about Jerusalem, having been actually made in the period of the Second Temple for the priests and other officers (Neh 11:3; Neh 11:21, 1Ch 9:2), partly because the cities so assigned in P
E. Genealogical theory of the hierarchy.—P
II. OT evidence for the evolution of the hierarchy.—There is reason to believe that the hierarchical system of P
A. The Book of the Covenant
1. Status of the local priests.—The earliest document bearing at all fully on the subject is the ‘Book of the Covenant’ (Exo 21:1-36; Exo 22:1-31; Exo 23:1-33), to which we should add Exo 20:1-26; Exo 24:1-18. The priests of the several sanctuaries, of which many are contemplated (exo Exo 20:24 b), are called Elohim (RV
2. Their work, etc.—These local priests were required to superintend the ancient primitive ceremony connected with the retention of a slave after 6 years’ service (Exo 21:6), decide suits, impose fines and the like (Exo 21:22, Exo 22:9; Exo 22:9). To ‘revile’ them was a crime (Exo 22:28, where the order of phrases suggests that they were of more consequence than the ‘rulers’). No mention is made of any distinctive dress, even where one might certainly have expected it (cf. Exo 20:26 with Exo 28:42, from which we may gather that the linen breeches were the addition of a later, probably post-exilic, date). Nor is anything said of their being an hereditary guild. But silence on this latter point does not prove that they were not. In laws what is customary is often taken for granted.
B. The First Book of Samuel
1. Temple of Shiloh.—With the Book of the Covenant we may compare I Samuel, which points in many ways to the state of society and religion assumed by the former. Here we find several local sanctuaries. One of the most important of them, at the time when the book opens, is the ‘temple’ of Shiloh.
The words ‘tent of meeting’ in 1Sa 2:22 are a very late insertion not found even in LXX
In this temple was the ark, and the infant Samuel slept inside the sanctuary to protect it (1Sa 3:3). The priest Eli seems to have had a large influence and to have exercised a jurisdiction over at least the whole tribe of Ephraim. In 1Sa 2:29—in a document probably at earliest only a little before Josiah’s reign—he is spoken of in a way which implies that he held a unique position among the tribes of Israel. The further statement in 1Sa 4:19, that he judged Israel 40 years, is a still later editorial insertion connecting 1Samuel with Judges (see Jdg 15:20; Jdg 16:31 etc.).
2. Position of Samuel.—When Shiloh had been destroyed by the Philistines, Samuel came to be a still more powerful priest, being, according to 1Sa 7:10; 1Sa 7:17, connected, both as priest and ruler, with several local sanctuaries—Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, and Ramah. But even these were comprised within a very small circle. It is curious that, according to 1Sa 9:6—part of one of the earliest sources of the book,—Saul did not appear, at the time of searching for his father’s asses, to have even heard of Samuel’s existence. It is also significant that in 1Sa 2:26 Eli uses Elohim as in the Book of the Covenant, showing that, in his time at any rate, there were other priests exercising jurisdiction at their several sanctuaries.
3. Absence of regular religious organization.—1Samuel points to great liberty of action on the part of the priests, or, at least, of Samuel himself. His movements do not seem to imply any regularly organized sacrificial system. Except for new moons and yearly feasts of perhaps more than one kind (1Sa 1:3; 1Sa 20:5-6; 1Sa 20:29), to which we should probably add sabbaths (cf. 2Ki 4:23), there seem to have been no regular feast days. The priest appoints and invites whom he chooses to the sacrificial meal (1Sa 9:23-24), and on one occasion takes with him the animal for sacrifice (1Sa 16:2-5).
4. Dress of the primitive priests.—In 1Sa 2:18-19 the two parts of the dress of Samuel, the ephod and the robe, are, in name at any rate, what afterwards belonged to the peculiar dress of the high priest (Exo 28:6-12; Exo 28:31-35). But the robe is also the common name for the upper garment, and is used of that worn by Jonathan and Saul (1Sa 18:4; 1Sa 24:4). Of the use of the ephod by the priests of this date there is abundant evidence. It was essentially the priestly garment of primitive times, and is especially connected with ascertaining the will of God by means of the sacred lots, Urim and Thummim, which was the peculiar province, and one of the most important functions, of the priest (1Sa 14:13; 1Sa 22:18; 1Sa 23:6; 1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 30:7). The Urim is expressly mentioned in 1Sa 28:6, and the Urim and Thummim were both originally in the text of 1Sa 14:41-42, as a comparison with the LXX
5. The priests’ means of support.—According to 1Sa 2:1-36—from a relatively old document—the priests had no fixed dues; but the passage seems to suggest that then, or at least in the writer’s day, what had been voluntary gifts were passing into customary claims which were liable to abuse. The chief ground of complaint was the wrong committed not so much against the sacrificer as against God, to whom was due the fat of the inwards, which should first be burnt (1Sa 2:16).
6. A colony of priests.—In addition to the priests of the local sanctuaries, we find in 1Sa 21:1-15; 1Sa 22:1-23 an account of a settlement of priests at Nob under Ahimelech, all of whom except Abiathar his son were put to death by Doeg at Saul’s command. This settlement may have originated in the troubles brought about by the Philistines.
7. Priests not regarded as Levitical.—There is nothing in the Books of Samuel which affords a sufficient reason for connecting the priesthood of this period directly with a tribe of Levi, the mention of the ‘Levites’ in 1Sa 6:16 and 2Sa 15:24 being clearly a very late interpolation which assumes the liturgical arrangements of P
C. Jdg 17:1-13; Jdg 18:1-31; Jdg 19:1-30; Jdg 20:1-48; Jdg 21:1-25 (a document which, though revised by a priestly writer, belongs to rather the earlier part of the monarchy and speaks of a still earlier condition of things) confirms in many ways the Books of Samuel. It speaks of different sanctuaries—Mizpah (Jdg 20:1) and Bethel (Jdg 20:18; Jdg 20:26), besides Shiloh, which is a place of comparatively small importance, yet marked, as in 1 Samuel., by a yearly religious festival of a somewhat secular character with 1Sa 1:3; 1Sa 1:13-15; 1Sa 1:21). The ‘Levite’ who is priest to Micah is actually of the tribe of Judah (Jdg 17:7). There is mention of an ephod and a suit of apparel for the priest; but it is uncertain whether the ephod refers to the priest’s dress or, as apparently in Jdg 8:27, to some kind of image.
D. 1 and 2Kings (original documents) up to Josiah’s reform.—There were two circumstances which tended to diminish the prestige of the local priests.—1. The establishment of the monarchy, by which many, if not all, of the secular functions of the priests had passed into the hands of the king or his deputies. Of these one of the most important was the practice of jurisdiction (see esp. 2Sa 12:1-31; 2Sa 14:1-20; 2Sa 15:2-4, 1Ki 3:9; 1Ki 3:16-28; cf. also Deu 16:18). It is also true that, sooner or later, the idea of the king as God’s earthly representative was substituted for that of the priest.
2. Of even greater importance was the building of the great Temple at Jerusalem by Solomon. From the very first it made for the centralization of worship, though not of course intended originally to be the one single lawful sanctuary which it afterwards became. The local sanctuaries (‘high places’) were still tolerated (1Ki 15:14; 1Ki 22:48 etc.), but would tend more and more to sink into insignificance beside this splendid building. This was especially the case in the Southern Kingdom. In the North the local sanctuary worship had more vitality, but it was largely maintained and also debased for political reasons (1Ki 12:26-29). The calves of Jeroboam were probably Canaanitish, though he probably meant them as symbols, not rivals, of Jahweh. The cult of the ‘high places’ seems gradually to have relapsed into familiar and popular types of Semitic worship; and in the books of the early prophets Amos and Hosea it is not always easy to distinguish between heathenism and a heathenish worship of Jahweh.
With the decline of the local sanctuary the status of the priest gradually declined, till it reached the low level implied in Jdg 17:1-13; Jdg 18:1-31; Jdg 19:1-30, and in Deuteronomy.
E. Deuteronomy
1. Levites.—In Dt. (first published in all probability in Josiah’s reign) we find the terms ‘priests’ and ‘Levites’ rather curiously used. The latter occurs frequently, but when used alone it is always as of a class deserving of pity. The Levite is frequently ranged with the slave, the widow, and the fatherless (Deu 12:12; Deu 12:18; Deu 16:11; Deu 16:14). The descriptive phrase ‘that is within thy gates’ means in the towns generally as distinct from Jerusalem, as we see from Deu 12:15, Deu 16:5, where the local sanctuaries are contrasted with the one permissible sanctuary. The Levites were certainly the priests of these local sanctuaries. The poverty of the Levites is also testified by Jdg 17:1-13; Jdg 18:1-31; Jdg 19:1-30, in which we find more than one case of Levites wandering about in search of a living.
2. Effect of abolishing local sanctuaries.—Deu 18:3-8 suggests that Levites might desire to go up to Jerusalem and perform priestly functions and receive support, and orders that they should be allowed to do both, and be treated in these respects on an equality with the priests at Jerusalem. When we realize that the ideal of Dt. was the one only sanctuary, it becomes evident that the case contemplated was one which would naturally arise when the local sanctuaries were abolished, as in fact they were by Josiah.
3. ‘The priests the Levites.’—On the other hand, the priests of Jerusalem are generally called distinctively, it would seem, ‘the priests the Levites’; occasionally ‘priests’ only, when the context makes it clear that the priests of Jerusalem are meant, as in Deu 18:8, Deu 19:17.
4. The dues of these priests, including the Levites who joined them, were the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw, and the first-fruits of field and garden produce. They did not include, as in P
5. Levitical theory variously explained.—Not only are the priests of the local sanctuaries and those of Jerusalem both called ‘Levites’ in Dt.; but the name is distinctly understood as that of a tribe to which both belonged (Deu 18:1; Deu 18:7). The traditional explanation accepted by Dt. of the exceptional position of the tribe, was that it was a reward for having slain a large number of rebellious apostates, probably on the occasion of the golden calf (cf. Deu 10:8; Deu 10:8 with Exo 32:28-29. [There are some critical difficulties in both passages concerning the connexion of the incident with the context]). This does not very well accord with P
F. Reforms of Josiah as they concerned the Levites.—When Josiah abolished the local sanctuaries, the difficulty about the priests contemplated by Dt. seems to have arisen in fact. But it was not solved altogether in the way directed. Probably the priests of Jerusalem resented the presence of the local priests at their altar, and certainly their services could hardly have been required. In fact the language of Dt. almost suggests that the main purpose was to secure means of support (18:8). This purpose was at any rate secured by Josiah. They were to receive allowances of food with the priests of Jerusalem, but were not allowed to perform priestly functions (2Ki 23:9). It is to be noticed that the writer treats them with respect, calling them priests, and speaking of the priests of Jerusalem as brethren.
G. Ezekiel’s ideal sanctuary
1. His direction concerning the Levites.—In his ideal sanctuary Ezekiel makes a marked distinction between the ‘Levites that went far from me, when Israel went astray,’ and the ‘priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok,’ who had faithfully ‘kept the charge of my sanctuary’ (Eze 44:10; Eze 44:15). The Levites are here charged with apostasy and idolatry, in reference, no doubt, to the sin of Jeroboam, which Ezekiel so regarded. He directs that as a punishment they should be forbidden the office of priest, and be allowed to do only the servile work of the sanctuary, such as the oversight of the gates, slaying of victims—work that had hitherto been done, so Ezekiel complains, by uncircumcised aliens (Eze 44:5-10). There can be little doubt that Ezekiel here gives the clue to the way in which the ‘Levites’ in the later sense of the term arose. The descendants of the priests, turned out from their local sanctuaries and not allowed to do the regular work of the priests, became a sort of inferior order, to do the menial service of the Second Temple.
2. The appellation ‘sons of Zadok’ seems to imply that the priests in Jerusalem also were, at least in Ezekiel’s time, an hereditary guild. Zadok himself was the chief priest appointed by Solomon in the room of Abiathar, in consequence, no doubt, of his loyalty with reference to Adonijah (1Ki 2:35). It is obvious that at first all the priests of Jerusalem could not have been ‘sons of Zadok,’ and it is extremely unlikely that their successors were all descended from him or any other one ancestor.
3. Like the ‘Levites,’ the high priest seems to have emerged gradually. In the different small sanctuaries each priest probably occupied an independent position. As some of these grew in importance, the priest attached to them would obtain a relatively greater influence, or possibly a paramount influence, over a district or tribe, as in the cases of Eli and Samuel, whose power, however, a later tradition seems to have greatly magnified. When several priests were associated together, as exceptionally perhaps at Noh (see II. B. 6), and afterwards in Solomon’s Temple, some kind of leadership became necessary, without any necessary difference of religious functions. Such a leadership seems to have been held by Ahimelech (1Sa 21:1-15), Zadok (1Ki 2:35), and Jehoiada (2Ki 11:1-21). These were known as ‘the priest.’ Such is probably meant by ‘the priest that shall be in those days’ in Deu 26:3.
In Ezekiel’s ideal sanctuary there is no distinction between priest and high priest, and the only special vestments sanctioned for the priests are the garments kept in the priests’ chambers, but no details are given as to their character or style (Eze 42:14).
The earliest document in which the distinction appears is probably the almost contemporary ‘Code of Holiness’ (Lev 17:1-16; Lev 18:1-30; Lev 19:1-37; Lev 20:1-27; Lev 21:1-24; Lev 22:1-33; Lev 23:1-44; Lev 24:1-23; Lev 25:1-55; Lev 26:1-46). In Lev_Lev 21:10 we find the curious phrase ‘he that is the high priest among his brethren’ (RV
III. Developments in the hierarchy after the Priestly Code.
1. Relation of lower officers to Levites.—The historical sketch just given shows clearly how, in many ways, the earlier arrangements paved the way for the hierarchical system of P
The Nethinim are always distinguished from the Levites, as in 1Ch 9:2 (Neh 11:3), Ezr 2:43 (Neh 7:46). Both singers and porters are distinguished from the Levites in documents contemporary with Nehemiah and Ezra, but included among them by the Chronicler (cf. 1Ch 9:14-34 (Neh 11:15-24) 15:16–24 etc. with Ezr 7:24; Ezr 10:23-24, Neh 7:1; Neh 10:28). This shows that the ‘porters and singers’ came to be regarded as ‘Levites,’ and were believed to be descended from one tribe. Meanwhile the more menial work of the Levites passed into the hands of the Nethinim, who are said in a Chronicler’s note to have been given by David to the Levites just as in P
2. (a) Their history.—The origin of the singers and porters is unknown. That they were both in existence in some form when Ezra began his work of reform is clear from Ezr 7:24, where they as well as the Nethinim were exempted from taxation by a decree of Artaxerxes. What is apparently the first mention of them is in what is, on the face of it, a list of the families which returned from the Exile in Ezr 2:1-70 (Neh 7:6 ff.), in which the singers, porters, and Nethinim appear as separate classes. A closer examination, however, of the parallel passages makes it clear that the list in Nehemiah is not what was found in the archives, but the census made by himself. This is shown by the use of ‘Tirshatha,’ the official title of Nehemiah, in Neh 7:65, and the references to contemporary events in Neh 7:64; Neh 7:70; Neh 7:73. The Chronicler in Ezr 3:1-13, after giving the list, continues the parallel context of Nehemiah, showing that here too he has taken the whole extract from the same source as in Nehemiah; Ezr 2:1-70 cannot, therefore, be cited as independent evidence for the early date of this list.
The porters might very naturally have arisen out of the necessity of defending the city and Temple from hostile attack (2Ch 23:4, Neh 11:19). The complicated arrangements in 1Ch 26:1-19 suggest that an original necessity had become a stately ceremonial.
The singers, or at any rate the musicians, of Nehemiah’s time appear to have belonged to one particular guild, that of Asaph (Neh 12:35; Neh 12:45). The note in v. 45 is probably a later insertion of the Chronicler, who ascribed to David all the Temple institutions not already assigned to Moses in P
It appears from Neh 7:1 that Nehemiah probably went a long way in re-organizing the work of Levites, singers and porters.
(b) The Books of Chronicles and the Psalms as a whole point to a later development of the Temple offices. (1) New guilds connected with the names of Korah, Heman, and Jeduthun (or Ethan) were added. The guilds of Asaph and Korah, and perhaps Heman and Jeduthun, had each a psalm-book of their own, of which several were afterwards incorporated into the general Psalter (see Psa 73:1-28; Psa 74:1-23; Psa 75:1-10; Psa 76:1-12; Psa 77:1-20; Psa 78:1-72; Psa 79:1-13; Psa 80:1-19; Psa 81:1-16; Psa 82:1-8; Psa 83:1-18; Psa 84:1-12; Psa 85:1-13; Psa 87:1-7; Psa 88:1-18; Psa 89:1-52, 1Ch 15:16-22). On the other hand, in 1Ch 9:19, the Korahites, who were perhaps really of Levitical origin, are represented as doing the menial work, which had been that of the Levites, and yet are classed (1Ch 9:33) under the general name of ‘singers.’ It is impossible to say which represents the earlier arrangement. (2) Another change in organization testified by the Chronicler is the division of priests and Levites (singers) into 24 ‘courses’ (1Ch 24:1-19; 1Ch 24:25). These were believed to have been arranged by David, but first appointed by Solomon (2Ch 8:14). This meant that in later times the whole body of priests and ‘Levites’ was arranged in 24 guilds, each of which was believed to be a separate family. So the work could be conveniently arranged. Thus it became customary for each of the courses of priests to attend in turn to the public work of the Temple. Like much that came to be ascribed to David, the beginning of some arrangement of the kind was probably the work of Nehemiah (Neh 13:30-31).
3. Further development of Levitical theory.—In the Books of Chronicles we find a considerable development of the Levitical theory of the hierarchy. (1) A Levitical origin is assigned to Samuel, Asaph, Heman, etc. (1Ch 6:27-28; 1Ch 6:33; 1Ch 6:39; 1Ch 6:44). (2) Zadok is held to be a descendant of Eleazar (1Ch 6:4-12); Ahimelech (or Abimelech), Abiathar’s father or son, a descendant of Ithamar, Eleazar’s younger brother (1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6; cf. 1Sa 22:20, 2Sa 8:17, 1Ch 24:6). That Abiathar was a descendant of Eli, and Eli a descendant of Aaron, had already been implied by an editorial note in 1Ki 2:27, which explained Solomon’s supplanting Abiathar by Zadok as a fulfilment of the prophecy against the house of Eli (1Sa 2:27-36), whereas in all probability by the ‘faithful priest’ is meant Samuel. According to the Chronicler, what Solomon did was to restore the high priesthood from the line of Ithamar to that of Eleazar. The office had originally passed, according to the priestly tradition, from Eleazar to his son Phinehas (Jdg 20:28), but how or when it got into the line of Ithamar is nowhere explained. There is a tendency in the Chronicler to ignore the priesthood of Abiathar, even in David’s reign. In 1Ch 16:39 Zadok is appointed priest when the ark is first brought to Jerusalem, and in 1Ch 29:22 he is anointed together with Solomon shortly before David’s death.
4. Extra ecclesiastical work of the priests and Levites.—The later books of the Bible make it likely that in the later period, at least from Nehemiah onwards, the priests and Levites engaged in other than sacrificial work, and especially in religious teaching (see 2Ch 15:3, where the Chronicler characteristically reads into the history the ideas of a later time, Mal 2:7, Neh 8:4; Neh 8:7). In 2Ch 19:8-11 the work of administering justice is similarly referred to them. Thus the influence and also, to some extent, the work which in primitive times had been theirs, and had dwindled with the rise of king and prophet, seem to have returned to them, when these officers disappeared.
IV. Influence of the hierarchy on the religion of Israel at different periods.—1. In primitive times, when each local sanctuary was the centre of religious, and, to some extent, of social and political, life, we find the influence of the priests very considerable (see II. A.). They were the natural persons to consult in case of difficulty. With them grew up a religious and moral tradition. They became the earliest channels of Divine revelation, and handed down that Divine teaching or Instruction (the ‘law’ of our English Bibles, as in Isa 1:10).
2. It was probably out of the early priesthood that the prophetic office, as represented in the Books of Samuel, emerged. The prophet Samuel, who, according to tradition, combined the two offices, marks the transition between the spiritual influence of priest and prophet.
3. As the priestly power declined through loss of spiritual vigour, the prophetic influence became stronger, and we find the early prophets, in both the North and the South, but in the North especially, denouncing the unspiritual character of the priesthood, and the prevailing religious rites (see esp. Hos 4:4-9, Isa 1:10-17).
4. With the religious revival under Josiah and the publication of the early chapters of Dt. we may notice a temporary reaction, but one marked by a strong tendency to give religion a more spiritual tone. It is still the prophet who is to be the source of Divine revelation (Deu 18:15), though even the words of a prophet are not necessarily infallible (Deu 13:1-5). At about the same period Jeremiah denounces the popular valuation of a purely formal worship and an unworthy priesthood (Deu 3:16, Deu 5:31, Deu 7:11).
5. The possibilities, however, of a spiritual worship and a holy priesthood were never lost sight of, and a fresh impetus to priestly ideas is given, at latest during the Exile, by the ‘Code of Holiness’ (Lev 17:1-16; Lev 18:1-30; Lev 19:1-37; Lev 20:1-27; Lev 21:1-24; Lev 22:1-33; Lev 23:1-44; Lev 24:1-23; Lev 25:1-55; Lev 26:1-46) and the ideal sanctuary and priesthood sketched by Ezekiel (Eze 40:1-49; Eze 41:1-26; Eze 42:1-20; Eze 43:1-27; Eze 44:1-31; Eze 45:1-25; Eze 46:1-24; Eze 47:1-23; Eze 48:1-35).
6.With the first Return and the re-institution of Temple worship, the priesthood gained a fresh accession of power, all the greater as the secular power was under Persian rule. The contemporary prophets, Zech. and Haggai, not only insistently urge the importance of using every effort to re-build the Temple, but speak of Joshua the high priest as though on all but equal terms with Zerubbabel (Hag 1:14; Hag 2:1-9, Zec 3:1-10; Zec 4:11-14; Zec 6:9-15).
7. The same priestly feelings influence Malachi, almost the contemporary of Nehemiah, who, while he attacks unmercifully the unworthy priests (Neh 1:6 to Neh 2:9), is loud in denouncing those who robbed God by not paying tithes (Neh 3:16), and seeks for a religious ideal in a purified Levitical system (Neh 3:3-4).
8. The exaltation of the priesthood reached its climax in the person of Simon the Just, who restored the Temple, and re-built the city walls which had been demolished by Ptolemy. The people regarded him with supreme veneration. Sir 50:5-12 gives a most glowing description of the impression that he made as he officiated in his high-priestly vestments: ‘He was as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, and as the moon at full; as the sun shining upon the temple of the Most High, and as a rainbow giving light in the bright clouds,’ etc. etc.
9. In the Maccabæan period we find Simon II., the younger brother of Judas, actually ruling the people as high priest. Later on (b.c. 106) Judas (Aristobulus), according to Josephus, bore the title of ‘king,’ and the title actually appears on the coins of his brother Jannæus.
10. The close of this period, nevertheless, marks a decline, at any rate in the spiritual influence of the priesthood, and especially of the high priest. The latter office ceased to be hereditary, and was often bought and sold. A high priest could be deposed, and another appointed for political purposes. One reason for this decline was that religious interest tended in an increasing degree to be diverted to ethical and moral questions, as we see in the Wisdom literature of the age. Other causes or perhaps rather symptoms of the spirit of the time at a later period were the growth of the Jewish sects and the practice of a childish casuistry, which depended more on the opinion of the ancients than on the spiritual needs of the present.
F. H. Woods.
(
I. DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE HISTORY
1. The Old View
2. The Graf-Wellhausen View
3. Mediating Views
4. An Alternative View
II. THE DATA OF THE PRIESTLY CODE (P) IN THE PENTATEUCH
1. The Levites
2. Aaron and His Sons
III. THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PENTATEUCH
IV. FROM MOSES TO MALACHI
1. The Sources Other than Ezekiel
(1) The Custody of the Ark
(2) On Its Return from the Philistines
(3) In Abinadab’s House
2. Ezekiel
V. EZRA, NEHEMIAH, CHRONICLES
1. Estimates of the Chronicler
2. His Data
VI. LEGAL PROVISIONS
LITERATURE
In some Minaean inscriptions found at El-’Ola, dating back about 1200-800 BC (Hommel in Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, 719), certain “priests and priestesses of the god Wadd are designated by the term
I. Different Views of the History.
1. The Old View:
There are great divergences of opinion among modern writers as to the true course of history and the dating of the different documents. It will therefore be best to sketch these views in rough outline, and then give the evidence of the various authorities, together with the reasons that in each case arise naturally from the consideration of that evidence.
The old belief was that the whole of the Pentateuchal laws were the work of Moses, that the account of the subsequent history given in the Books of Chronicles was correct, that Ezekiel’s vision, if taken literally, could not be reconciled with the other known facts and was inexplicable, and that in the case of all other discrepancies harmonistic explanations should be adopted.
2. The Graf-Wellhausen View:
The modern critical school have traversed every one of these doctrines. The Chronicler is declared to be in constant and irreconcilable conflict with the older authorities, harmonistic explanations are uniformly rejected, the Pentateuch is denied to Moses and split up into a variety of sources of different ages, and Ezekiel gains a place of honor as representing a stage in a continuous and normal development. The subject is thus inextricably linked with the Pentateuchal problem, and reference must be made to the article PENTATEUCH for an explanation of the supposed documents and a consideration of the analysis with its nomenclature. On the other hand the present article and the article SANCTUARY (which see) explain and discuss the most widely held theory of the historical development into which the history of the supposed Pentateuchal sources has been fitted.
The dominant theory is that of Wellhausen. According to this, “Levite” was originally a term denoting professional skill, and the early Levites were not members of the tribe of Levi, but professional priests. Anybody could sacrifice. “For a simple altar no priest was required, but only for a house which contained a sacred image; this demanded watching and attendance” (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 130). The whole Levitical Law was unknown and the distinction between priests and Levites unheard of. There were a few great sanctuaries and one influential priesthood, that of Shiloh (afterward at Nob). With the monarchy the priesthood became more important. The royal priests at Jerusalem grew in consequence and influence until they overshadowed all the others. Deuteronomy recognized the equal priestly right of all Levites, and Josiah’s reformation placed the sons of Zadok, who were the priests of Jerusalem and not descendants of Aaron, in a position of decisive superiority. Then Ezek drew a new and previously unknown distinction between “the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” who are “keepers of the charge of the altar,” and the other Levites who were made “keepers of the charge of the house” as a punishment for having ministered in the high places. The Priestly Code takes up this distinction and represents it as being of Mosaic origin, making of the sons of Zadok “sons of Aaron.” “In this way arose as an illegal consequence of Josiah’s reformation, the distinction between priests and Levites. With Ezekiel this distinction is still an innovation requiring justification and sanction; with the Priestly Code it is a ’statute forever,’ although even yet not absolutely undisputed, as appears from the priestly version of the story of Korah’s company. For all Judaism subsequent to Ezra, and so for Christian tradition, the Priestly Code in this matter also has been authoritative. Instead of the Deuteronomic formula ’the priests the Levites,’ we henceforward have ’the priests and the Levites,’ particularly in Chronicles” (op. cit., 147). From that time onward the priests and Levites are two sharply distinguished classes. It is an essential part of this theory that the Chronicler meant his work to be taken as literal history, correctly representing the true meaning of the completed law. See CRITICISM.
3. Mediating Views:
There have been various attempts to construct less thoroughgoing theories on the same data. As a rule, these views accept in some form the documentary theory of the Pentateuch and seek to modify the Wellhausen theory in two directions, either by attributing earlier dates to one or more of the Pentateuchal documents - especially to the Priestly Code - or else by assigning more weight to some of the statements of Chronicles (interpreted literally). Sometimes both these tendencies are combined. None of these views has met with any great measure of success in the attempt to make headway against the dominant Wellhausen theory, and it will be seen later that all alike make shipwreck on certain portions of the evidence.
4. An Alternative View:
The independent investigations on which the present article is based have led the writer to a view that diverges in important particulars from any of these, and it is necessary to state it briefly before proceeding to the evidence. In one respect it differs from all the rival schemes, not merely in result, but also in method, for it takes account of versional evidence as to the state of the texts. Subject to this it accepts the Mosaic authenticity of all the Pentateuchal legislation and the clear and consentient testimony of the Law and the Prophets (i.e. of the two earlier and more authoritative portions of the Hebrew Canon), while regarding Chronicles as representing a later interpretation, not merely of the history, but also of the legal provisions. In outline the story of the priesthood is then as follows: Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons as the priests of the desert tabernacle. He purified the rest of the tribe of Levi as a body of sacred porters for the period of wanderings, but in the legislation of Numbers he made no provision whatever for their performing any duties after the sanctuary obtained a permanent location. At the same time he gave a body of priestly teaching requiring for its administration in settled conditions a numerous and scattered body of priests, such as the house of Aaron alone could not have provided immediately after the entry into Canaan. To meet this, Deuteronomy - the last legislative work of Moses - contains provisions enlarging the rights and duties of the Levites and conferring on them a priestly position. The earlier distinction was thus largely obliterated, though the high-priestly dignity remained in the house of Aaron till the time of Solomon, when it was transferred from the house of Eli to that of Zadok, who, according to Ezekiel’s testimony, was a Levite (but see below, IV, 1). So matters remained till the exile, when Ezekiel put forward a scheme which together with many ideal elements proposed reforms to insure the better application of the Mosaic principle of the distinction between holy and profane to greatly altered circumstances. Taking his inspiration from the wilderness legislation, he instituted a fresh division in the tribe of Levi, giving to the sons of Zadok a position similar to that once held by the sons of Aaron, and degrading all other Levites from the priesthood conferred on them by Dt to a lower rank. The duties now assigned to this class of “keepers of the charge of the house” were never even contemplated by Moses, but Ezekiel applies to them the old phrases of the Pentateuch which he invests with a new significance. As a result of his influence, the distinction between priests and Levites makes its appearance in post-exilic times, though it had been unknown to all the writers of the second division of the Hebrew Canon. At the same time a meaning was read into the provisions of the Law which their original author could not have contemplated, and it was this interpretation which is presented (at any rate to some extent) in Chronicles, and has given us the current tradition. Many of the Chronicler’s statements are, however, not meant to be taken literally, and could not have been so taken by his original public.
II. The Data of the Priestly Code (P) in the Pentateuch.
1. The Levites:
To arrive at an objective conclusion it is necessary, in the first instance, to examine the facts without such bias as any view put forward by any other author, ancient or modern, sacred or profane, might impart. Every legislator is entitled to be judged on his own language, and where he has, so to speak, made his own dictionary, we are compelled to read his meaning into the terms used. The very first of the material references to the Levites drives this truth home. “But appoint thou the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all the furniture thereof” (Num 1:50). It is necessary to consider whether such expressions are to be read in a wide or a narrow sense. We learn from Num 18:3 that death would be the result of a Levite’s touching any of these vessels, and it therefore appears that these words are meant to be construed narrowly. “They shall bear the tabernacle, and all the furniture thereof; and they shall minister unto it,” are the next words (Num 1:50); but yet we read later of the Kohathites who were to bear it that “they shall not touch the sanctuary, lest they die” (Num 4:15). This shows that the service in question is strictly limited to a service of porterage after the articles have been wrapped up by Aaron and his sons. By no possibility could it include such a task as cleaning the vessels. It is then further directed that the Levites are to take down and set up the dwelling and camp round about it. All these are desert services and desert services only. Then we read that “the Levites shall keep the charge of the tabernacle (dwelling) of the testimony. This concludes the first material passage (Num 1:50-53). The other passages of Nu only amplify these directions; they never change them. But some phrases are used which must be more particularly considered.
(1) Technical Phrases.
We hear that the Levites are “to serve the service of the tent of meeting,” and this looks as if it might refer to some general duties, but the context and the kindred passages always forbid this interpretation. Num 7:5 ff is an admirable instance. Six wagons are there assigned to the Levites for this service, two to the Gershonites and four to the Merarites. “But unto the sons of Kohath he gave none, because the service of the sanctuary belonged unto them; they bare it upon their shoulders.” Here service is transport and nothing else. Again we read of the charge of the Levites in the tent of meeting, e.g. Num 4:25 f. If we look to see what this was, we find that it consisted of transporting portions of the tent that had been packed up. The “in” of English Versions of the Bible does not represent the meaning of the Hebrew fairly; for the context makes it clear that the legislator means “in respect to.” “But they shall not go in to see the sanctuary even for a moment, lest they die” (Num 4:20). In English idiom we cannot speak of the transport of portions of a dismantled tent as service in that tent. One other expression requires notice, the phrase “keep the charge” which is distinguished in Num 8:26 from “doing service.” The exact meaning cannot be determined. It appears to denote something kindred to service, but of a less exacting nature, perhaps the camping round the tent and the guardianship of the articles on the march. We shall see hereafter by comparison with other books that in P it does not bear the same meaning as elsewhere.
(2) Other Legal Provisions.
The Levites were to act under the orders of Aaron and his sons, who were to assign to each man his individual functions (Nu 3; 4, etc.). They were to undergo a special rite of purification (Nu 8), but not of consecration. They were taken in place of the firstborn (Nu 3). The age for beginning service is given in Nu 4 as 30 years, but in Num 8:24 as 25 years, if the text is sound. The age for ceasing to serve was 50. In many passages the versions suggest that a good many phrases are textually doubtful, and it is probable that when a critical text of the Pentateuch is formed on scientific principles, a good many superfluous expressions will be found not to be original; but there is no reason to suppose that any real difference in the meaning of the passages would be revealed by such a text.
The story of Korah is easily misunderstood. It appears from Num 16:3 that his real object was to put himself on an equality with Moses and Aaron, and this is the “priesthood” referred to in Num 16:10. Nu 18 reinforces the earlier passages. It is noteworthy as showing that in the conception of the legislator the Levites were not to come near the vessels or the altar (Num 18:3). The penalty is death for both Levites and priests.
(3) Contrast with Ezekiel and Chronicles.
The impression as to the meaning of P which may be gathered from an examination of its statements is powerfully reinforced when they are tested by reference to Ezekiel and Chronicles, Eze 44:9-14 seems to demand of the Levites some service as gatekeepers, the slaying of burnt offering and sacrifice for the people and a keeping of “the charge of the house, for all the service thereof,” which in the light of Eze 44:7 f appears to mean in his terminology, not a service of transport, but an entry into the house and the performance of certain duties there. The Priestly Code (P), on the contrary, knows nothing of gatekeepers, regards the slaying of the burnt offering and sacrifice as the duty of the individual sacrificant (Lev 1; 3), and - if, as Wellhausen thinks, it refers to the temple - it would have visited with death a Levite who was present in the places in which Ezekiel requires him to minister. Similarly with the Chronicler. For instance, he the Levites being ’for the service of the ... in the courts and over the chambers, and over the cleansing of every holy thing’ (1Ch 23:28), but P knows nothing of any chambers, would not have allowed the Levites to touch (much less clean) many of the holy things, and regarded service simply as porterage. In 1Ch 23:31 the Levites are to offer burnt offerings on certain occasions; in P their approach to the altar would have meant death both to themselves and the priests (Num 18:3). Other instances will be found in PS, 238 f.
(4) What the Foregoing Proves.
In view of these facts it is impossible to hold that the Levites in P represent a projection of the Levites of the second temple or any post-Mosaic age into the desert period. To P they are a body of sacred porters. The temple of course could not be carried about, and it cannot be held that in this respect the legislation mirrors later circumstances. “Secondly, the net result of such a scheme would be to create a body of Levites for use during the period of wanderings and never thereafter. As soon as the desert age was over the whole tribe would find their occupation gone. How can we conceive that any legislator deliberately sat down and invented such a scheme centuries after the epoch to which it relates, well knowing that in so far as his scheme purported to be a narrative of events it was fictitious from beginning to end, and in so far as it might be regarded as a legislation applicable to his own or any future day, there was not a line in it that could conceivably be put into practice? If any theorist can be conceived as acting in this way, how are we to suppose that his work would meet with acceptance?... Thirdly, P neither embodies the views of Ezekiel nor finds an accurate reflection in Chronicles. The facts are such as to enable us to say definitely that P is not in line with them. It is impossible to assume that he appointed the death penalty for certain acts if performed by Levites because he really wished the Levites to perform those acts” (PS, 241 f).
2. Aaron and His Sons:
Priests and Levites also speaks of Aaron the priest and the sons of Aaron the priest. It is doubtful whether the expression “the sons of Aaron the priests,” which occurs frequently in the Massoretic Text, is ever original; the Massoretic expression is nowhere supported by all the authorities. “The phrase
At this point two features only of the legislation need be noticed: the inadequacy of the staff to post-conquest conditions and the signs of date. For example, the leprosy laws (Lev 13 f) postulate the presence of priests to inspect and isolate the patient. “Remembering that on the critical theory P assumes the capital at Jerusalem as self-evident, we must ask how such provisions were to work after the conquest. During the desert period nothing could have been simpler, but what was to happen when the Israelites dwelt all over Canaan from Beersheba to Dan?” (PS, 246). The difficulty is immensely increased if we postulate an exilic or post-exilic date, when the Jewish center of gravity was in Babylonia and there were large colonies in Egypt and elsewhere. And “What are we to say when we read of leprous garments (Lev 13:47 ff)? Was a man to make the pilgrimage from Babylonia to Jerusalem to consult a priest about a doubtful garment? And what about the leper’s offerings in Lev 14? Could they conceivably have been meant to apply to such circumstances?” (PS, 247). The case is no better with the law of leprous houses, which is expressed to apply to the post-conquest period (Lev 4:33 -53). The notification to the priest and his inspections require a priesthood scattered all over the country, i.e. a body far more numerous than the house of Aaron at the date of the conquest. Such instances could easily be multiplied from the legislation; one more only will be cited on account of its importance to the history of the priesthood. According to Leviticus, the individual sacrificant is to kill the victims and flay the burnt offerings. How could such procedure be applied to such sacrifices as those of Solomon (1Ki 8:63)? With the growth of luxury the sacrifices would necessarily become too large for such a ritual, and the wealthy would grow in refinement and object to performing such tasks personally. This suggests the reason for later abuses and for the modifications of Ezekiel and the representations of the Chronicler.
Result of the Evidence.
Thus, the evidence of P is unfavorable alike to the Wellhausen and the mediating views. The indications of date are consistently Mosaic, and it seems impossible to fit the laws into the framework of any other age without reading them in a sense that the legislator can be shown not to have contemplated. On the other hand P is a torso. It provides a large body of Levites who would have nothing to do after the conquest, and a corpus of legislation that could not have been administered in settled conditions by the house of Aaron alone.
III. The Other Portions of the Pentateuch.
In Exo 19:22, Exo 19:24 we read of priests, but a note has come down to us that in the first of those verses Aquila had “elders,” not “priests,” and this appears to be the correct reading in both places, as is shown by the prominence of the elders in the early part of the chapter. In Hebrew the words differ by only two letters. It is said by Wellhausen that in Exo 33:7-11 (E) Joshua has charge of the ark. This rests on a mistranslation of Exo 33:7, which should be rendered (correcting English Versions of the Bible), ’And Moses used to take a (or the) tent and pitch it for himself without the camp.’ It is inconceivable that Moses should have taken the tent of the ark and removed it to a distance from the camp for his private use, leaving the ark bared and unguarded. Moreover, if he had done so, Joshua could not have been in charge of the ark, seeing that he was in this tent while the ark (ex hypothesi) remained in the camp. Nor had the ark yet been constructed. Nor was Joshua in fact a priest or the guardian of the ark in E: (1) in the Book of Joshua E knows of priests who carry the ark and are quite distinct from Joshua (3 ff); (2) in Deu 31:14 (E) Joshua is not resident in the tent of meeting; (3) in E, Aaron and Eleazar are priests (Deu 10:6), and the Levitical priesthood is the only one recognized (Deu 33:10); (4) there is no hint anywhere of Joshua’s discharging any priestly duty whatsoever. The whole case rests on his presence in the tent in Exo 33:7-11, and, as shown in the article PENTATEUCH (which see), this passage should stand after Exo 13:22.
Then it is said that in Exo 4:14; Jdg 17:7, “Levite” denotes profession, not ancestry. In the latter passage the youth whom Micah made a priest was of Levitical descent, being the grandson of Moses (Jdg 17:13), and the case rests on the phrase, “of the family of Judah.” Neither of the Septuagintal translations had this text (Field, Hexapla, at the place), which therefore cannot be supported, since it cannot be suggested that Moses belonged to the tribe of Judah. As to Exo 4:14, the phrase “Aaron thy brother the Levite” is merely an adaptation of the more usual, “Aaron, son of Amram, the Levite,” rendered necessary by the fact that his brother Moses is the person addressed. The Wellhausen theory here is shown to be untenable in PS, 250 and RE3, XI, 418.
Exo 32:26-29 foreshadows the sacred character of Levi, and Deu 10:6 (E) knows the hereditary Aaronic priesthood. In D the most important passage is Deu 18:6-8. In Deu 18:7 three Septuagintal manuscripts omit the words “the Levites,” and if this be a gloss, the whole historic sense of the passage is changed. It now contains an enactment that any Levite coming to the religious capital may minister there “as all his brethren do, who stand there,” etc., i.e. like the descendants of Aaron. “The Levites” will then be the explanation of a glossator who was imbued with the latest post-exilic ideas, and thought that “his brethren” must mean those of his fellow-Levites who were not descended from Aaron. The passage is supplemented by Deu 21:5, giving to the Levites judicial rights, and Deu 24:8 assigning to them the duty of teaching the leprosy regulations. Together with Deu 33:10 (E), ’they shall teach thy judgments to Jacob and thy law to Israel: they shall put incense in thy nostrils and whole burnt-offering on thine altar,’ these passages complete the provisions of P in giving to the Levites an occupation in place of their transport duties, and providing the necessary staff for administering the legislation when the Israelites were no longer massed together in a single camp, but scattered over the country. We shall see in the next section that this view of the meaning of the Law was taken by every writer of the second part of the Canon who touches on the subject. Everywhere we are confronted with the legitimacy of a Levitical priesthood; nowhere is there any mention of an exclusive Aaronic right. Smaller points which cannot be discussed here are examined in PS. It only remains to notice that these provisions fully explain the frequent Deuteronomic locution, “the priests the Levites.” One other remark must be made. Though it is not expressly stated, we may assume that consecration would be necessary in the case of any Levite acting on the provisions of Deu 18:6-8, and was not mentioned because in Hebrew antiquity it went without saying that every priest must be consecrated (compare Jdg 17:1-13).
IV. From Moses to Malachi.
1. The Sources Other than Ezekiel:
Joshua adds but little to our information. In Jos 18:7 the priesthood is called the inheritance of the Levites, and it is singular that the Wellhausen critics attribute this to a priestly redactor, though such a writer should ex hypothesi have been jealous to withhold the priesthood from the Levites. It is very interesting to find that in Josh 3; 4, all the different critical documents speak in exactly the same terms of “the priests that bare the ark.” The priestly writer ought, on the Wellhausen theory, to have said “the Levites.” The expression “the priests the Levites” is found alternating with the expression “the priests.” All this points to the construction put upon the provisions of the Law in the preceding section, and finds fresh confirmation in Judges, where we see Micah rejoicing at having a Levite as a priest (Jdg 17:13), thus showing that the sacred character of the tribe was recognized in the earliest post-Mosaic times. The lay sacrifices in this and the following books are explained under SANCTUARY; SACRIFICE (which see).
The period of the early kings shows us kings blessing the people (e.g. 2Sa 6:18). It is claimed that this is the priestly blessing, but without evidence, and there seems no more reason to see special priestly rights here than in David’s blessing his household (2Sa 6:20), or the frequent blessings of the Bible (e.g. Genesis passim, especially “in thee will Israel bless,” Gen 48:20), while in 1Ki 8:55 ff we actually have the words of the blessing delivered on one of those occasions by Solomon, and it is quite unlike the blessing of the priests (Num 6:22 ff).
Textual criticism disposes of the supposed priesthood of certain non-Levitical persons. In 2Sa 8:18 the Massoretic Text makes David’s sons “priests,” but this reading was unknown to the Septuagint, Symmachus, and Theodotion (Field, ad. loc.). The Septuagint has “aularches,” i.e. chamberlains. That this represents a different Hebrew word is proved by the Septuagintal list of 3 Ki 2:46 (not extant in Hebrew), where we read that Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, was “over the aularchy and over the brick-making.” It cannot be suggested that this represents an original Hebrew “over the priesthood and over the brick-making,” and accordingly we must concede the existence of some secular court office which was rendered by this Greek phrase. Hitzig and Cheyne conjecture that
Various dealings with the ark and the age of Samuel require notice. As a boy, Samuel himself is given into the service of Eli. It has been argued that he really officiated as a priest, though probably (if the Chronicler’s data is rejected) not of the Levitical descent. The answer is to be found in his age. Weaning sometimes took place at as late an age as three, and accordingly, the boy may have been as much as four years old when he was taken to Shiloh (1Sa 1:24). His mother used to bring him a little cloak (1Sa 2:19) every year, and this notice also shows his extreme youth. In view of this, it cannot be seriously contended that he performed any priestly service. He must have been something like a page, and he performed some duties of a porter, opening the door-valves of the temple at Shiloh (1Sa 3:15).
(1) The Custody of the Ark
When the ark was captured by the Philistines, it was in the charge of priests. When David brought it to Jerusalem, it was again placed in priestly custody, but there is an interregnum of some 20 years (1Sa 7:2).
It must be remembered that whatever may have happened during this period of great national confusion, the practice of all the rest of history, extending over some 600 or 700 years, is uniform and would far outweigh any irregularities during so short and troubled a period.
(2) On Its Return from the Philistines
The first difficulty arises on 1Sa 6:14, 1Sa 6:15. In the second of these verses the Levites come up after the Beth-shemites have finished, and, in Wellhausen’s words, “proceed as if nothing had happened, lift the ark from the now-no-longer-existent cart, and set it upon the stone on which the sacrifice is already burning” (Prolegomena, 128). It is therefore suggest that 1Sa 6:15 is a gloss. But there is difficulty in 1Sa 6:14 which tells of the breaking up of the cart, etc., without explaining what happened to the ark. The trouble may be met by a slight transposition, thus: ’14a and the cart came into the field,... and stood there, and there was there a great stone: 15a and the Levites took down the ark, etc. and put them on the great stone: 14b and clave the wood of the cart,’ etc., followed by 15b. This makes perfect sense.
(3) In Abinadab’s House
The second difficulty is made by 1Sa 7:1, where we read that the ark was brought to the house of Abinadab ’and Eleazar his son they sanctified to guard’ it. Its old abode, the house at Shiloh, had apparently been destroyed (Jer 7:12, Jer 7:14; Jer 26:6, Jer 26:9). There it enjoyed considerable importance, for Poels is unquestionably right in identifying the Gibeah of God (1Sa 10:5) with the Gibeah (hill) of the ark. Thus, there was a high place there and a Philistine garrison (compare 1Sa 13:3, where Septuagint and Targum have “Gibeah”). There remains the difficulty caused by the guardianship of Eleazar. Poels may be right in reading
When David at the end of this period removed the ark, it was first taken in a cart. This proved fatal to Uzzah, and the ark was deposited in the house of Obededom the Gittite. The text of Samuel knows nothing of any guardianship of the ark by Obed-edom. Probably he took very good care not to go near it in view of Uzzah’s fate. Then it was transported to Jerusalem by bearers (2Sa 6:13) - presumably of Levitical descent. No further irregularities are urged.
More important is the change of priesthood; 1Sa 2:27-36 clearly threatens Eli, whose house had been chosen in Egypt, with a transference of the high-priesthood to another line. Careful comparison with 1Ki 2:27 makes it certain that the prophecy was fulfilled when Zadok was placed by Solomon in the place of Abiathar. Who was Zadok? According to Chronicles (1Ch 6:8, 1Ch 6:53; 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 27:17) he was descended from Aaron through Eleazar, and this is accepted by Orr, Van Hoonacker and many others, who take Chronicles in a literal sense. According to Ezekiel he was a Levite (Eze 40:46, etc.). It is noteworthy that throughout the prophetical books we always hear of the Levitical priesthood, not the Aaronic (see especially 1Ki 12:31; Jer 33:18-22; Mal 2), and the “father’s house” of 1Sa 2:27-36 that was chosen in Egypt could only be the house of _ Aaron, not of Ithamar, if the passage is to be taken in its natural sense. On this view Zadok’s appointment could only have fulfilled the prophecy if it terminated the Aaronic succession. It would seem therefore that the high-priesthood was transferred to a family of non-Aaronic Levites. For the alternative view see ZADOK.
The prophet’s speech in 1Sa 2:27-36 is also important for the light it throws on the organization of the priesthood. The high priest has in his gift a number of priestly offices with pecuniary and other emoluments. This postulates a far more advanced hierarchy than that of Priest.
The reference to “the priests and the Levites” in 1Ki 8:4 was unknown to the Septuagint, but in other passages the Books of Kings show further advances in hierarchical organization. There is not merely the high priest - generally like Aaron in the Priestly Code (P) called “the priest,” but sometimes the high priest - but also the second priest (2Ki 25:18; Jer 52:24; 2Ki 23:4, according to the Targum), three keepers of the threshold (ubi supra, and 2Ki 12:10) and “elders of the priests” (2Ki 19:2; Isa 37:2; perhaps also Jer 19:1). See also Jer 20:1 f; Jer 29:26 for priestly organization and jurisdiction in the temple precincts. All this contrasts strikingly with the simplicity of the Pentateuchal organization.
2. Ezekiel:
Ezekiel is entirely in line with the other sources for this period, but he seeks to institute certain reforms. He writes, “Her priests have done violence to my law, and have profaned my holy things: they have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they caused men to discern between the unclean and the clean,” etc. (Eze 22:26). If these words have any meaning they signify that he was acquainted with a law which followed the very words of Lev 10 and other passages of the Priestly Code (P), and was intended to reach the people through the teaching of the priests. In Ezekiel 40 through 48, there is a vision of the future which stands in the closest relation to the Pentateuch. Three views have been held of this. The old view was that Ezekiel could not be reconciled with the Pentateuch at all, and that the difficulties presented were insoluble. Wellhausen and his followers maintain that the prophet is prior to the Priestly Code (P), and here introduces the distinction between priests and Levites for the first time. The third alternative is to hold that Ezekiel was familiar with P and drew from it the inspiration to make a fresh division among the Levites, giving the sons of Zadok a position similar to that occupied by the sons of Aaron in the wilderness period, and reenacting with slight modifications the legislation applicable to the sons of Aaron, this time applying it to the sons of Zadok. The crucial passage is Eze 44:6-16, from which it clearly appears that in Solomon’s temple aliens had performed sundry tasks that should have been executed by more holy persons, and that Ezekiel proposes to degrade Levites who are not descended from Zadok to perform such tasks in the future as a punishment for their ministrations to idols in high places. Either of the two latter views would explain the close connection that evidently exists between the concluding chapters of Ezekiel and the Priestly Code (P), and, accordingly, in choosing between them, the reader must consider four main points: (1) Is P shown on the internal evidence to be early or late? Is it desert legislation, or is it accurately reflected in Chronicles? This point has already been discussed in part and is further treated in PENTATEUCH (which see). (2) Is theory of the late composition of P psychologically and morally probable? On this see PENTATEUCH and POT, 292-99. (3) Is it the case that the earlier history attests the existence of institutions of P that are held by Wellhausen and his followers to be late - e.g. more national offerings than the critics allow? On this see EPC 200 ff, and passim; POT, 305-15, and passim; SBL and OP passim, and article PENTATEUCH. (4) Does Ezekiel himself show acquaintance with P (e.g. in Eze 22:26), or not? On this too see SBL, 96; PS, 281 f.
With regard to the non-mention of the high-priesthood and certain other institutions in Ezekiel’s vision, the natural explanation is that in the case of these the prophet did not desire to institute any changes. It is to be noted that Ezekiel does not codify and consolidate all existing law. On the contrary, he is rather supplementing and reforming. In his ideal temple the prince is to provide the statutory national offerings (Eze 45:17), i.e. those of Nu 28; 29. Apparently the king had provided these earlier (2Ki 16:13). But in addition to these there had grown up a “king’s offering,” and it is probably to this only that Eze 45:22 ff; Eze 46:2-15 relate. In Eze 46:13 Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and some Hebrew manuscripts preserve the reading “he” for “thou.”
V. Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles.
Whatever the course of the earlier history, there is general agreement that in these books a distinction between priests and Levites is established (see e.g. Neh 10:37 f (38 f); Neh 12:1 f). We also find singers and porters (Neh 13:5, etc.), Nethinim and the sons of Solomon’s servants (Ezr 7:7, Ezr 7:24; Ezr 10:23 f; Neh 10:28 (29); Neh 11:3, etc.). It must not be assumed that these classes were new. The story of the Gibeonites (Josh 9) gives us the origin of some of these grades, and the non-mention of them in many of the earlier books is easily explained by the character of those books. We know from such passages as Amo 5:23 that there were musical services in far earlier times (compare Neh 12:42).
1. Estimates of the Chronicler:
Chronicles presents an account of the earlier history of the priests and Levites that in many respects does not tally with the older sources. Many modern writers think that the author’s views of the past were colored by the circumstances of his own day, and that he had a tendency to carry back later conditions to an earlier period. On the other hand it is impossible to deny fairly that he used some sources which have not been preserved to us elsewhere. Again, there is evidence to show that his work was not intended to be taken for history and would not have been so regarded by his contemporaries. Talmudical authorities held some such view as this. The historical value of his work has yet to be appraised in a more critical and impartial spirit than is exhibited in any of the current discussions. For the present purpose it is only possible to notice the effect of some of his statements, if interpreted literally. As there are passages where he has clearly substituted Levites for the less holy personages of the older sources (contrast e.g. 2Ki 11:4-12 with 2Ch 23:1-11), it may be that Levites have also been substituted by him for other persons in notices of which no other version has survived.
2. His Data:
David and Solomon recognized the hierarchy. The former king instituted the musical services (1Ch 6:3 ff; 1Ch 16:4 ff; 25). The Levites were divided into courses (1Ch 23:6) and were rendered liable to service from the age of twenty by his enactment (1Ch 23:27). There were also 24 courses or divisions of priests, 16 of the sons of Eleazar and 8 of the sons of Ithamar (1Ch 23:24). The courses were divided by lot. In Neh 12:1-7 we read of “chiefs of the priests,” but these are only 22 in number, while Neh 12:12-21 give us 21 in the time of Joiakim (Neh 12:26). But not much importance can be attached to such lists, as names could easily fall out in transmission. According to 1Ch 9:26 the four chief porters were Levites, and Levites were also over the things baked in pans and the shewbread (1Ch 9:31 f). This of course is not in accordance with the Law, but is found elsewhere in Chronicles. In 1 Ch 23 the Levites from 30 years old and upward number 38,000, of whom 24,000 oversee the work of the house of the Lord, 6,000 were officers and judges, 4,000 were doorkeepers and 4,000 were musicians. David altered the age of beginning service to 20, and an account of their functions is given in 1Ch 23:27-32 (see, further, MUSIC). All these arrangements were confirmed and enforced by Solomon (2Ch 8:14 ff). There is often uncertainty as to whether the Chronicler identifies priests and Levites in particular cases or not, e.g. in 2Ch 30:27, “the priests the Levites” bless the people according to the ordinary text, but many authorities read “the priests and the Levites.” Hezekiah appears to have undertaken some reorganization (2 Ch 29 through 31), but the details are not clear. Jehoshaphat established in Jerusalem a court composed partly of Levites and priests (2Ch 19:8-11). Previously he had sent priests and Levites and others to teach the Law in Judah (2 Ch 17). In 2Ch 29:34 it is clearly the duty of the priests to flay burnt offerings (contrast Lev 1). It is impossible to draw any consistent picture from the Chronicler because he gives different data for different periods; it is doubtful whether he meant his statements to be taken as historical, e.g. in 1 Ch 25 we find Levites whose names Giddalti (= “I have magnified”), etc., are really words forming part of a prayer, and it is difficult to believe that either the Chronicler or his public intended this chapter to be interpreted in any but a spiritual sense (see PS, 284-86).
In Ezr 2:40 the number of Levites who returned with Zerubbabel is given as 74, as against 973 priests (Ezr 2:36), 128 singers (Ezr 2:41), 139 children of the porters (Ezr 2:42), 392 Nethinim and children of Solomon’s servants (Ezr 2:58), and the figures are the same in Neh 7, except that there the singers number 148 (Neh 7:44) and the porters 138 (Neh 7:45). When Ezra went up, he was at first joined by no Levites (Ezr 8:15), but subsequently gathered 38 Levites and 220 Nethinim (Ezr 8:18-20). We get glimpses of the organization in Neh 12:44-47 and Neh 13:10 ff. It appears that in this period genealogies were carefully scrutinized in the case of doubtful claims to priestly descent (Ezr 2:61 ff; Neh 7:63 ff). In Ezr 6:19 ff the Levites are represented as killing the Passover.
Of these books no satisfactory account can be given in the present state of textual criticism and Biblical science generally. Some writers, e.g., hold that the Chronicler had before him a source to which the Levites were entirely unknown, others that he invented freely, others again that he reproduces trustworthy pre-exilic information. The student has only an assortment of theories from which to choose. The bedrock fact is that the statements of these books, if taken in their natural meaning, convey an entirely different impression from the statements of the earlier books construed similarly. Modern research has not yet been seriously addressed to the question whether all the statements were really intended to be interpreted as mere history.
VI. Legal Provisions.
Aaron and his sons underwent consecration to fit them for their duties. Ex 28 f prescribes their garments and consecration (see DRESS; BREASTPLATE; EPHOD; ROBE; COAT; MITRE; GIRDLE; URIM AND THUMMIM), and the account of the latter may be read in Lev 8 f. In individual sacrifices brought to the religious capital the priests performed the part of the ritual which related to the altar (sprinkling, burning, etc.) (Lev 1 through 4). See SACRIFICE. A principal function was the duty of teaching the people the law of God (Lev 10:11; Lev 14:54-57; Deu 24:8; Deu 33:10; compare Eze 44:23; Hos 4:1-6; Hag 2:11 ff, and many passages in the Prophets).
The priests were subject to special laws designed to maintain their purity (Lev 21 f; compare Ezek 44). The rules aim at preventing defilement through mourning (save in the case of ordinary priests for a near relation) and at preventing those who were physically unfitted from performing certain functions, and those who were for any reason unclean from approaching the holy things. See further STRANGER. They performed several semi-judicial functions (Num 5:5 ff, 11 ff, etc.; see JUDGE). They also blessed the people (Num 6:22; compare Deu 10:8, etc.). See BLESSING. On their dues see SACRIFICE; TITHES; FIRSTLINGS; FIRST-FRUITS; LEVITICAL CITIES; AGRARIAN LAWS; see further CHEMARIM; NETHINIM; SONS OF SOLOMON’S SERVANTS; SINGERS; DOORKEEPERS; SERVING-WOMEN; JUDGE.
Literature.
Wellhausen, Prolegomena, chapter iv, for the Graf-Wellhausen view; Wiener, Wiener, Pentateuchal Studies, 230-89, for the view taken above; S.I. Curtiss, Levitical Priests, for the conservative view. This writer afterward changed to the critical view. James Orr, POT; A. Van Hoonacker, Le sacerdoce levitique (important); W. Baudissin, article “Priests and Levites” in HDB, IV, for mediating views. The best account in English of the details of the priestly duties is contained in Baudissin’s article, where a further bibliography will be found.
Priests and Levites were servants of God in the Old Testament.
There were three main kinds of religious leaders in ancient Israel:
Prophets
Wise men
Priests and Levites
The prophets spoke messages from God. They did not work for pay. They only spoke when God called them to do so.
The wise men gave advice in government and education. Some of their work was not religious. But they also taught people how to live in a way that pleased God.
The priests and Levites did many kinds of religious work. They helped the people worship God. They also taught the laws of God and cared for the holy place. They were like full-time church leaders today. The people gave them food and gifts so they could serve God full-time.
The role of the priesthood is best understood by looking at how Israelites practiced their religion. The most important part of Judaism was a relationship with God. Being an Israelite or a Jew meant staying close to the living God every day.
This relationship showed in many parts of life. It included:
the covenant (God’s special promise),
worship,
the temple, and
daily life with other people.
Religion was both personal and shared with the whole community.
The priest helped take care of these connections between God and people. This was the most important part of Old Testament religion. Everything priests did was about helping people stay close to God. Prophets also helped with this special promise between God and people. While the priests did the regular religious work, prophets had a special job. When people stopped following God, prophets called them to come back to Him.
The Old Testament often talks about both priests and Levites. Sometimes it is hard to tell them apart like in Deuteronomy 18:1–8. Even today, people who study the Bible carefully are still trying to understand exactly how priests and Levites are different.
Usually, only Aaron's sons could be priests. Other Levites did religious work too, but they were not priests. Most Bible passages make this clear, but some do not. It is clear that both priests (Levites from Aaron's family) and Levites (not from Aaron's family) had important religious jobs. These jobs changed during Israel's history.
Preview
The Beginnings of the Priesthood
The High Priest
The Priests
The Levites
The History of the Priesthood
The Priesthood in New Testament Times
The Beginnings of the Priesthood in Israel
The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron.
The book of Exodus tells the story of how God freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. This was not only a rescue story. It was also the beginning of the nation of Israel.
Soon after this, God made a covenant with the people at Mount Sinai. This covenant gave them laws to follow. These laws became the foundation for Israel’s way of life.
The covenant also explained how the people could worship God. It included rules for the priests and Levites. These rules show us the three main groups of religious leaders:
The high priest (the most important priest)
The priests (who served in the temple)
The Levites (helpers who assisted the priests)
The High Priest
Every big group needs a leader. He was the leader of the other priests. In the early days, this was a small group, but his job was still very important. God chose Moses the prophet to give the covenant to the people. Then God chose Aaron as the first high priest to lead the religious life of the people.
At first, the high priest's job was simple. He was the leader of the other priests, but his job was still important. He had special ceremonies to make him a high priest, wore special clothes, and had special duties. The high priest did many of the same things as other priests, but he also had duties only he could do.
The high priest managed the other priests, but his job was more than just being a manager. All priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship between God and Israel. The high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. He was responsible for the spiritual life of all God's people.
We can see how important the high priest was by looking at what he did. The best example is the Day of Atonement called Yom Kippur. Only on this day could the high priest go into the most holy place, the Holy of Holies. Standing there before the "mercy seat" he would ask God to forgive all the people of Israel (Leviticus 16:1–19).
This special day showed what Israel believed about God. They believed in having a close connection with God. When people did wrong things, it hurts this connection. While they worshiped God all year to keep this connection, the Day of Atonement was the most serious day of the year. All the people focused all of their attention on the meaning of life.
Life only had meaning if they stayed close to God. The high priest had the honor and heavy duty of asking God to forgive all Israel.
The high priest wore special clothes that showed how important his work was. While some of the meaning is unclear, the Bible explains some of the meaning behind the clothes. There were three main ideas shown in his clothing.
The first idea was beauty. His clothes were beautiful because of how they were made. They were made of different colors and precious stones. The most beautiful piece was his breastplate. The breastplate was a special piece worn over his chest. In the Hebrew language, the word for his breastplate actually means "beautiful" or "excellent." The clothing is a symbol of beauty. The other two themes bring out the excellence of the office.
The second idea showed how the high priest spoke to God for all Israel. This important part of the office of the high priest is shown in two ways. First, the priest wore two onyx stones on his ephod (a special outer garment). His breastplate also had 12 precious stones attached to it. When the high priest went to God, these stones reminded God of His people. The breastplate was linked to God's judgment (Exodus 28:15). It was intended to constantly remind God of his people (Exodus 28:12).
The third idea is the role of the high priest as God's representative to his people. This role of the office is seen by two special objects called the Urim and Thummim. They were kept in the breastpiece (a chest covering worn by the priest). Through the Urim and Thummim, God told the people what he wanted them to do. When Aaron wore all his special clothes, he looked magnificent. His beautiful clothes showed how important his job was.
The position of high priest was meant to stay in the family. The high priest had to be married, and when he died, his son would become the next high priest. But later in Israel's history, people did not always follow this rule. Aaron had four sons. When Aaron died, his son Eleazar became the high priest.
The Priests
People became priests because they were born into a priest family, not because they chose to be priests. The first priests were Aaron's four sons: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. They became priests at the same time Aaron became the high priest (Exodus 28:1).
Like Aaron, they wore special clothes. Their clothes were similar to the high priest's, but they did not wear his most special items. The special ephod, the chest piece, and the crown were only for the high priest. When the priests had sons, their sons would also become priests.
The job of the priest was very holy, so there were special rules to keep it pure. A man had to be from Aaron's family to be a priest, but that was not enough. There were other rules too. A priest could not marry a woman who had been divorced or who had been a prostitute (Leviticus 21:7).
Some health problems could stop a man from being a priest. If he was blind, could not walk well, was missing body parts, had a curved back, or was very short, he could not be a priest (Leviticus 21:16–23). This was like the rule about animals used in sacrifice. They had to be perfect to serve God.
The Bible tells us what some of the first priests did. Eleazar was in charge of the tabernacle (the holy tent) and its offerings (Numbers 4:16). He helped Moses with a few jobs. He counted the people and divided the land (26:1–2; 32:2). Later, he gave advice to Joshua.
Ithamar watched the building of the tabernacle (Exodus 38:21). He was also in charge of two groups of families called the Gershonites and Merarites (Numbers 4:28–33).
Nadab and Abihu died soon after becoming priests. They did something wrong while doing their priestly duties (Leviticus 10:1–7). The Bible suggests they may have been drunk when this happened (Leviticus 10:8–9).
Priests had three main jobs (Deuteronomy 33:8–10). First, they worked with the high priest to tell people what God wanted them to do. Second, they taught people about God's rules and laws (Deuteronomy 33:10). Third, they served in the tabernacle, helping with sacrifices and worship. They shared some other duties with the Levites.
Unlike other Israelite tribes, priests and Levites did not own any land. Their only job was to serve God directly. Because they had no land to grow food or raise animals, they needed help to live.
So God made a rule that the people should support the priests. When people brought animals to the tabernacle for worship, the priests got to keep some parts of the animals. People also gave them grain, wine, oil, and wool.
The Levites
The word "Levites" can mean all people from the tribe of Levi. Usually, "Levites" means the people from Levi's tribe who were not priests. Levites helped at the tabernacle, but they had less important jobs than priests.
Like priests, Levites worked full-time in religious service and got paid with money and food. Though they did not own land as a tribe, they had special cities to live in (Numbers 35:1–8). Outside these cities, they had fields where their animals could eat.
The Levites had three main family groups: Kohath's family, Gershon's family, and Merari's family (Numbers 4:1–49). Each family had different jobs caring for the tabernacle when it moved:
The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture after priests covered it
Gershon's sons took care of the coverings and curtains
Merari's sons carried and put up the frame of the tabernacle
The priests, not the Levites, carried the ark of the covenant. The ark was the special box containing God's law. Levites could only work between ages 25 and 50 (Numbers 8:24–26).
Though some Levite jobs were ordinary, they had an important religious meaning. God's law said all firstborn sons belonged to God, remembering when God saved Israel's firstborn in Egypt. God accepted the Levites to serve him instead of Israel's firstborn sons (Numbers 3:11–13). Their animals also replaced Israel's firstborn animals.
When Moses counted the people, there were more firstborn Israelites than Levites. Each extra person had to pay five shekels (a type of money) to the priests (Numbers 3:40–51). The Levites represented the people before God like the priests did.
The book of Deuteronomy lists other jobs that both priests and Levites might have done:
Being judges in court, especially for religious crimes (Deuteronomy 17:8–9)
Taking care of God's law book (Deuteronomy 17:18)
Checking people with skin diseases (Deuteronomy 24:8)
Helping with special ceremonies when people renewed their promise to follow God (Deuteronomy 27:9).
The History of the Priesthood
In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. Even more significantly, the people who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.
The Priesthood before the Monarchy
In Joshua's time, the priests continued their important work of carrying the special holy box known as the ark of the covenant. The members of the tribe of Levi helped divide the new land among the tribes of Israel. Joshua 21 gives a detailed list of which cities were given to the priests and Levites, following God's earlier instructions. After the Israelites settled in the land, some records show that the Levites began carrying the ark (1 Samuel 6:15; 2 Samuel 15:24).
The book of Judges tells two stories about specific Levites. The first story is about Micah (Judges 17–18). Micah set up a place of worship and made his son a priest, even though his son was not from the tribe of Levi or Aaron's family. Later, Micah hired a traveling Levite to be his priest at his shrine. This Levite later left to be a priest for the tribe of Dan.
This story does not fit well with the normal rules about priests and Levites, but it shows how confused religious practices were at the time. What is important to note is that this Levite-priest's main job was to ask God for guidance (Judges 18:5–6).
The second story in Judges is a disturbing account of a Levite and his concubine (Judges 19). A concubine is a woman a man lives with who is not his wife. The story shows how morally wrong things were in Israel. It shows no one was enforcing the laws. However, it does not tell us much about what the Levites did.
We know more about the priests during the 1100s BC, just before Israel had its first king. The tabernacle became more permanent. The ark of the covenant and the tabernacle were placed in Shiloh.
Eli was the priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh. He probably came from the family of Aaron’s son Ithamar. Eli had two sons Hophni and Phinehas. They also served as priests. This shows that being a priest was still passed down in families. Eli was a good priest, but his sons misused their role as priests.
It is hard to know exactly what role Samuel had during this time. He was mainly a judge and a prophet. Judges were the leaders of Israel before the Israel had kings. Prophets spoke God's messages. We are not sure if he was also a priest. The history books of the Bible do not call him a priest. However, Psalm 99:6 might suggest he was one.
Several passages show Samuel doing things priests usually did. He offered sacrifices (1 Samuel 7:9–10). When he was young, he served at Shiloh and wore an ephod (1 Samuel 2). Ephods were special priestly clothing. Also, one of the family records in the Bible suggests he came from a priestly family (1 Chronicles 6:23–30).
However, people do not normally call Samuel a priest. His story begins by saying he was from the tribe of Ephraim, like his father (1 Samuel 1:1), not from the tribe of Levi. If a priest always worked in the sanctuary like Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. However, Samuel's priestly role may be connected to how his mother gave him to God (1 Samuel 1:28) while he was young.
The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon
Many big changes happened when David and Solomon were kings. These changes came mainly because they built a permanent temple in Jerusalem and put the holy chest there called the ark of the covenant.
During the time when Saul was the first king of Israel, society was similar to the way it was during the time of the judges. King Saul was a military leader. His relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.
David changed the situation in many important ways. After he captured the city of Jerusalem, he made it the government center and the religious center of his nation.
He made Jerusalem the religious center by moving the ark of the covenant and the tabernacle there. Jerusalem was now the permanent location of the ark. This made it the permanent home of the religion. At the same time, many local places of worship that had grown up before Israel had kings slowly disappeared.
These changes affected the priests and Levites in many ways. Abiathar and Zadok were the two main priests during David’s time as king. Abiathar was first a priest in a place called Nob. He joined David before he became king. Abiathar came from Eli's family. Eli came from Aaron's son Ithamar.
We know less about Zadok’s background. It seems he came from the family of Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. When the old writings talk about David's time as king, they always name these two priests together with Zadok first.
The old writings do not clearly call either one "high priest" or the top priest. There are signs that Abiathar worked as the high priest (1 Kings 2:35). Later, in New Testament times, (Mark 2:26) calls him high priest. It seems Zadok was responsible for taking care of the ark of the covenant during David’s time as king (2 Samuel 15:24–25).
These two priests had important positions in David’s royal government. They probably shared the job of leading all the priests, who now worked at the temple in Jerusalem.
David spent much time planning to build a permanent temple for God. As they prepared for and built the temple during King Solomon's time, the Levites got new jobs.
When they built the permanent temple, the Levites no longer needed to care for and carry the tabernacle. Many Levites worked as builders to construct the temple. Other Levites found new ways to serve God, first at the tabernacle during David's time, then at the temple when it was finished.
Three Levites were put in charge of music for worship. Their names were Heman, Asaph, and Ethan. These music leaders led both singing and a group of people who played many different kinds of instruments, like an orchestra. The Levites had many other jobs too.
They worked as guards at the holy place. They helped the priests prepare for sacrifices. They kept the holy place clean. They also worked as officials who helped run things and make decisions (1 Chronicles 23:1–32). Other Levites worked like bankers. They took care of the money stored in the temple (1 Chronicles 26:20–28).
After David died, people argued about who should be the next king. Solomon won and became king. During Solomon's time as king, they finished building the temple. The nation now worshiped regularly at the temple.
During the fight over who would be king, Abiathar had supported someone else, not Solomon. When Solomon became king, he took away Abiathar's important position in the royal court. During Solomon’s time as king, Zadok took control of all the priests.
The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy
The great nation that David and Solomon built fell apart after Solomon died. Two smaller nations formed from what was left. The southern nation was called Judah. It kept Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its worship center. The northern kingdom was called Israel. Its first capital was at Shechem. Later they moved it to Tirzah.
In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued their normal work at the Jerusalem temple. The position of high priest stayed in Zadok's family. Zadok was the high priest when Solomon was king.
This job continued to be passed down through Zadok's family until the time of the second temple about 171 BC. Even though worship continued in Jerusalem, there were problems with religion in Judah.
These problems started with their first king, Rehoboam. The problems continued with the kings after Rehoboam. During Rehoboam’s time as king, religion got worse. People brought in ways of worship from other countries (1 Kings 14:22–24).
Throughout Judah's history, religion would get worse and better through reforms. The reforms were changes made by prophets to make things right.
The priests rarely led people in spiritual matters as they should have. The prophets often criticized the priests for doing wrong things (Jeremiah 2:8, 26).
Israel's first king was Jeroboam I. He had to make some big changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem. First, the temple was outside of Israel in Judah. Second, it was associated with the family of King David of Judah.
Jeroboam made two principal places of worship in his kingdom. Both places were important during the life of the northern kingdom. It lasted about 200 years. The first place of worship was at Bethel. It was located in the southern part of Israel near the border of Judah. It was only about 19.3 kilometers (12 miles) north of Jerusalem. The second place of worship was at Dan. It was in the far northern part of his kingdom.
Both these places of worship had long histories and traditions. As early as the time of Abram (Genesis 12:8), Bethel is known. The worship place at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Judges 18). Priests and Levites may have still been living and working in both places.
Jeroboam created a priesthood that was not related to the family of Levi to work in these two places and other shrines. This separated the religion of Israel from the religion of Judah. The worship place for the king was at Bethel, near the Jerusalem temple. This location may have been used to compete with the temple in Judah.
The priesthood in Israel was often just as bad as the one in Judah. Many of God's messengers called prophets spoke strongly against Israel's places of worship and their priests. These prophets included Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah.
Hosea spoke very strongly against them, saying: “Like raiders who lie in ambush, so does a band of priests; they murder on the way to Shechem; surely they have committed atrocities.” (Hosea 6:9).
The priests were supposed to take care of the spiritual lives of God's chosen people, but they rarely did their job well.
Priests and Levites during and after the Exile
The northern kingdom of Israel ended in 722 BC when the Assyrian army defeated them. The southern nation of Judah continued worshiping God for a while longer.
Finally, in 586 BC, the Babylonian army defeated Judah. They destroyed Jerusalem and its temple (Lamentations 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah (the high priest) and Zephaniah (his assistant) to Riblah. At Riblah, they killed Seraiah, Zephaniah, and the other leaders (2 Kings 25:18–21).
Then Babylonians made a plan. They forced the most important people of Judah to move to Babylon. The less important people stayed in Judah because these people probably would not cause trouble. Many of those forced to move to Babylon were priests (Jeremiah 29:1) because priests were powerful leaders.
However, it seems fewer Levites were forced to move to Babylon. This might show that Levites were less important in society than priests.
The time when people were forced to live in Babylon was called the exile. During the exile, there was little normal worship in Jerusalem. The altar had been destroyed and was not rebuilt until after the exile.
Some form of worship probably continued, but it was very limited. Most priests were in Babylon, but they could not do their work because there was no temple. Ezekiel said that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the people in exile (Ezekiel 11:16). The priests and the Levites could not do their work until the people returned from exile and rebuilt Jerusalem and its temple.
When the Persian army defeated Babylon, they let the Hebrew people return home. Of those who returned, 4,289 were priests and their families, but only 341 were Levites (Ezra 2:36–42). These numbers were probably similar to how many were forced into exile at first.
They began rebuilding under the leadership of Joshua the priest (also called Jeshua) and Zerubbabel. The priests helped rebuild the altar in Jerusalem during the first year of the return. This let people start offering sacrifices and worshiping God again.
After they rebuilt the altar, they started rebuilding the temple in the second year. Both the priests and the Levites helped with this work. When they finished the temple's foundation, they had a special ceremony.
At the ceremony, the priests wore their special clothes, and the Levites sang and played music (Ezra 3:8–13). When the temple was finished, both priests and Levites joined in another special ceremony (Ezra 6:16–18).
The rebuilding was not just about buildings. It was also about fixing moral and religious problems. Priests and Levites helped with this, but they also had problems themselves. For example, many had married women from other nations (9:1), so they had to follow Ezra’s new rules.
After returning from exile, the priests and Levites started doing their normal duties in worship. The priests led worship at the temple.
The Levites helped as temple servants (Nehemiah 11:3). They managed valuable things and collected tithes (gifts for God) (10:37–39). They also taught people God's law (8:7–9).
But even after the exile, the priests still did wrong things. The prophet Malachi spoke strongly against how they misused their position (Malachi 1:6–2:9). The bad things the priests did were like what the evil priests had done when Israel had kings.
After the exile, Zadok's family continued to provide the high priests. The high priest was the top priest in charge. Joshua was the first high priest after they returned (Haggai 1:1).
But things were different politically now, and this changed what it meant to be high priest. Before the exile, the high priest had to obey the king. After the exile, there was no real king anymore.
Politically, the Jewish people were now part of a province or colony. In practice, they were a group of people connected by their shared religion.
The high priest no longer had to obey a Jewish king. He had a lot of religious power. In some ways, he did things like kings used to do before the exile.
The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period
From 200–100 BC, some changes took place in the priesthood. This was especially true of the office of high priest. These changes ended the Old Testament time and set up how things would be in New Testament times.
During this time, the Seleucid kings ruled Judea. The Seleucids received part of Alexander the Great's large Greek empire. Judea was controlled by the high priesthood. The high priest got his power from the Seleucid kings.
From 200 BC to 170 BC , the high priests still came from the family line of Zadok. The high priests were from the Oniad family which was part of the Zadokite family. Onias III was high priest from 198–174 BC. Onias's brother Jason was high priest from 174–171 BC. During Jason's time, things started happening that would end the tradition of high priests coming from Zadok's family.
Onias III had fought against Antiochus IV's plan to make Jewish people follow Greek ways. This threatened their faith. Antiochus replaced Onias with Jason, who basically bought the job of high priest from the Seleucid king. Even though Jason was a part of the Zadok family, buying the job of high priest showed that the family line was not the most important thing anymore.
Jason's enemies were called the Tobiads. They removed him and put one of their own priests Menelaus. He was not from Zadok's family. This act led to a war between Jason's supporters and Menalaus's supporters.
The war led to Antiochus IV doing terrible things. He killed many people in Jerusalem and made descreated the temple (made it unclean) in 167 BC. This led to the Maccabean revolt, which gave the Jews freedom for a short time.
Menelaus stayed high priest until 161 BC. Then Alcimus became the high priest from 161–159 BC. After that, there was no high priest for seven years.
The situation made it unlikely that Zadok's family would ever be high priests again. The Zadok family began ruling in the time of King Solomon. Jonathan, a Maccabean leader, took control of Jerusalem. In 152 BC, with the Seleucid king's approval, Jonathan was given the robes and job of the high priest.
Jonathan's brother Simon became the high priest and ruler in 143 BC, also with Seleucid approval (Demetrius II).
In the third year of his reign 140 BC, a big religious meeting approved Simon as high priest, and his family became "high priests forever" (1 Maccabees 14:41–47). This officially ended the tradition of the high priests coming from Zadok's family and started the Hasmonean family line of high priests.
Not everyone accepted changing the family line of the office of the high priest. A Jewish group called the Essenes probably started because they opposed Simon being high priest. The Essenes were known for writing and preserving the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were probably started by a priest from Zadok's family who said Simon was not a real high priest. So, in a small way, priests from Zadok's family continued to exist.
The Priesthood in New Testament Times
In early New Testament times, both priests and Levites kept working in the Jewish religion. Zechariah, John the Baptist's father, was a priest from the group of Abijah (Luke 1:5). His wife also came from a priestly family.
When an angel visited Zechariah, he was working as a priest in the Jerusalem temple. Different groups of priests took turns doing temple work and then went home (Luke 1:23).
The New Testament still shows the difference between priests and Levites (John 1:19). Jesus talks about both in his story about the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:31–32). Some of the first Christians were priests and Levites.
Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36). Many priests became Christians (6:7).
The New Testament often mentions the high priest. Several high priests are named. There were many high priests because it had become a political job, not passed from father to son like before.
The two most important high priests in the New Testament lived during Jesus's life. Annas was high priest from around AD 6 to 15. Even after he stopped being high priest, he still had power through his son-in-law Caiaphas who was high priest from around AD 18–36.
Both Annas and Caiaphas were important in Jesus's trial. Later, Ananias was the high priest from around AD 47–58. He led the Sanhedrin (the Jewish council) during Paul's trial.
The priests had a lot of power in New Testament times. The Sanhedrin controlled most of the religious matters in Judea, though Rome limited some of their power. The Sanhedrin included current and former high priests and many members from many important priestly families who were members of a Jewish group called the Sadducees. This showed how important the temple was to Jewish life in the first century AD.
In AD 70, when the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, the priesthood changed completely. Without the temple, priests had no real purpose. Although priests continued until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in AD 135, their time was ending after AD 70.
Since the end of the first century AD, Judaism has developed without priests. Instead, Jewish teachers known as rabbis have led Judaism until today. The rabbis come from another Jewish group called the Pharisees.
See also Priesthood.
Aquifer Open Bible Dictionary © 2026 Mission Mutual, an adaptation of the Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary © 2023 Tyndale House Publishers. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.