Dear Brother Russell,
Fraternal greetings.
I notice that the question is asked in “The Believer” ‘How could David or his sons perform priestly functions when they were of Judah and not Levi?’
The fact is that as one reads through Judges, Kings and Chronicles, burnt sacrifices appear to have been offered by various individuals and at varying places, and the Levitical priesthood does not seem to have been developed.
When Saul was demoted from his kingship, it was not because he offered a sacrifice, not being a priest, but because he had disobeyed the command of a prophet, Samuel — himself not of the priestly tribe.
Samuel took the opportunity to enforce the truth that obedience is better than sacrifice, and this is the line taken by all the prophets, e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.
In Jeremiah 7:21,22 the prophet denies that when the people were brought out of Egypt they were commanded anything about burnt offerings and sacrifices, and then goes on to put the positive claims of the moral law.
This is particularly interesting, because Jeremiah was a priest, and the son of Hilkiah, who discovered the book of the law in the days of Josiah. As a result of that discovery, it was the feast of the Passover which was kept — thus indicating that it was probably the Book of Deuteronomy, and not Leviticus, which was found.
There was then no attempt to introduce, or reintroduce the Levitical sacrifices, and Jeremiah says in 3:16 that the ark of the covenant is a thing of the past His theme is moral reform, and the development of the New Covenant, written in the the heart. It is noteworthy that in ch. 33:18 the words about the Levites never wanting a man to offer burnt offerings are not to be found in the LXX. The suggestion has been made that they are an interpolation on the part of later scribes.
In conformity with this suggestion, and to account for the facts about sacrifices recorded in the historical books, it has further been suggested that after the exile, when Ezra and the scribes tried to account for the calamity which had overtaken them, they developed the priestly approach to God by way of sin offerings, burnt offerings. and peace offerings. To lend authority to this Levitical code, they attributed this to Moses.
All one can say is that during the period of the Judges and the Monarchy, though burnt offerings were made, there is no indication of the priests being much involved. Leviticus stands as an unfulfilled aspiration, so it would seem.
The reforms of Hezekiah culminated in the keeping of the Passover, and as I have stated, later, under Josiah, only the Passover was kept.
In Psalm 51, David does not mention a sin offering, and realises the uselessness of making a burnt offering, and says, ‘For thou desirest not sacrifice: else would I give it: Thou delightest not in burnt offering’.
How soon after Aaron the priests went astray may be seen by the fact that the grandson of Moses appears to have been an idolatrous priest (Judges 18:30 — see Bullinger).
The whole historical development of the two strands of prophets and priests is a very interesting one.
Sincerely, your brother,
- W. J. Owler.
- How Could David’s Sons Be Priests?
The above contribution to this question by Bro. Owler is very interesting. We invite further comment from our readers.
There are many points that can emerge from it. Contributions please.
For myself, the question (because I see it as moral, rather than historical) remains largely unanswered: how could David’s sons be priests, when they were of Judah and not Levi? This is the Apostle’s argument in Hebrews 8. Jesus could not have been a priest on earth during his ministry because there was a particular priesthood ordained under the Law, the pattern of which God demanded to be followed exactly.
But what do you make of Bro. Owler’s historical suggestions?
- I regard Isaiah 6 as a record of the prophet’s call; why is it not therefore found at the beginning of the book?
I would say that it is well placed, as it is. Isaiah’s purpose seems to be to present the heart of his message first, and only then to relate the account of his own prophetic call. To do this, he begins with a general introduction (chapter 1), in which he sets forth the seeds to be developed in his later themes. Then he plunges straight into his message, beginning with a note of hope (2:2-4) and concludes on the same note (4:2-6). In this first utterance he announced the sinful depravity of the nation and the certainty of coming judgment. The only refuge from this judgment is to be found in God and in His redeeming grace.
In order to reinforce the message, chapter 5 presents a loving God gracious toward Israel, but leaving no doubt as to His justice in sending judgment upon sin.
It is only after this initial proclamation that the prophet is ready to relate the call to the prophetic office, an account that reinforces what he has already proclaimed.
- Did the prophet (Isa. 6) see God, or Christ, upon the throne?
He saw a vision of a great god-judge-king upon a throne, whom he styles the Lord (adonai). It is evidently and primarily God whom he “sees”; (cf. v.5) “mine eyes have seen the Lord of hosts”.
That the Sovereign of the universe gives His titles to His Son is one of the grand themes of the New Testament (God — manifestation). Thus, “Yahweh” in Isaiah 45:21-23 becomes “Jesus” in Philippians 2:9-10; and in the vision Isaiah has of the Holy One in chapter 6 “Yahweh Tsabaoth” becomes “Jesus” in John 12:41.
Whom did Isaiah see? He saw God as king; but with the N.T. development we know the vision leapt the span of time to reveal the glory of Christ, reserved for him by the Father from the foundation of the world.
- Where, in the Old Testament prophets, does it say that Christ will rise on the third day?
Paul, in 1 Cor. 15:4 said “that he (Christ) was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures”. I presume that by “Scriptures” the Apostle was referring to the O.T. If so, the only reference I can find is in Hosea 6:1-2. All others that come to mind, like “the third day” phrases scattered liberally through the Scriptures, or the types to be found e.g. In Joseph or Jonah, are at best, shadowy allusions rather than clear prophecies.
Some have suggested that Jesus himself prophesied that he would rise on the third day (e.g. Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34, etc.) and that Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 15:4 is therefore proof that, at the time of his (Paul’s) writing, Mark’s gospel was already written and regarded as “Scripture”.
That may be so, for my part, I’d offer Hosea 6:2, and suggest that there may have been other more direct “scripture” which is no longer extant.
- Why did Amos say that he was not a prophet?
He wasn’t the only prophet to do that. I think part of the reason was that the great prophets of the 8th and 7th centuries were a very different breed from their predecessors. No doubt they were connected in the public mind with the order of nabis, but clearly, they did not like either their company or the association. Amos repudiated any connection with the professional prophets. “I was no prophet”, he said, “neither was I a prophet’s son (i.e. a member of the ‘order’); but I was a herdsman” (Amos 7:14). He resented Amaziah’s imputation that he was prophesying for a living cp. Micah 3:5; Isa. 28:7; Jer. 23:13, 14; Zeph. 3:4 (R.V.) and Ezekiel 13:3, 6. None of the true prophets had anything but contempt for the nabis.
The Solution