The Basic Principles of the Old Testament Priesthood and Prophecy (1)

Author: Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya

Prophets and priests occupied a very special, outstanding position not only in the religious and cult life, but also in the civil and public life of Old Testament Jewry. The latter, of course, because the life of the Jewish people, like other peoples of ancient times, was almost equally permeated with religious principles in all its spheres. Prophecy and priesthood stand at the very center of the Old Testament revealed religion; these two institutions express its entire essence and its most typical features. At the same time, in the historical life of Old Testament Israel, prophets and priests act as very prominent figures. Therefore, the priesthood and prophecy can be considered in two ways. The subject of consideration, firstly, can be their historical activity and the historical development of the institutions themselves. It is possible to consider and expound how at different times prophets and priests together, in full agreement with each other, served for the benefit and good of the Old Testament religion and biblical Israel; how at other times the priesthood deviated from its direct purpose and how then the prophets began to confirm in faith and obedience to Jehovah not only the people, but also the priests. Such a chronological-pragmatic point of view on the subject of reasoning is possible. But no less interesting and, perhaps, no less important is the clarification of the fundamental foundations of the Old Testament priesthood and prophecy, the clarification of their fundamental relationship as two parallel and simultaneously existing institutions. It should be noted that in such works on biblical history and bibliology in general, the historical-pragmatic side of prophecy and priesthood is mainly developed, as well as all other Old Testament religious and civil institutions; the authors touch upon the fundamental side only in passing and hardly illuminate the entire historical activity of prophecy and priesthood from the point of view of their general principles. Even the articles of various encyclopedias devoted to prophecy and priesthood prefer to speak only of their external organization and the gradual historical evolution of forms, leaving aside the principles underlying all these forms.

The proposed reasoning is aimed at explaining precisely the fundamental foundations of the Old Testament priesthood and prophecy. The historical activity of individual representatives of both institutions can provide us with material only for judging the principles of the institution itself, and can only illustrate and confirm fundamentally logical definitions. The historical gradualness of the development of institutions in solving our problem must also recede into the background; the forms of institutions changed, but their principles remained unchanged1.

Religion, according to the philological explanation of Lactantius, is the union of God and people. In relation to the Old Testament religion, such a definition can be accepted with great convenience. In its meaning, religio (from religаre) can be rendered by the Hebrew berith, “covenant” (from bаrа). The Old Testament religion is precisely the covenant of Jehovah with the ancestors of Israel and with the people of Israel themselves. Israel and Jehovah, as two contracting parties, enter into an alliance that imposes on both parties certain mutual obligations. Persons occupying an outstanding position in this alliance – priests and prophets – can be thought of as mediators between the two parties that have entered into the alliance: between God and His chosen people. The most general principle of all religious-hierarchical institutions is precisely the principle of mediation. But, explaining in more detail the principles of the Old Testament priesthood and prophecy, we will see that their particular principles, although within the framework of a general fundamental definition, are very different, sometimes almost to the point of opposition. The general character of the fundamental aspect of the biblical priesthood and prophecy can be determined from a philological analysis of Jewish terms and their use in the Bible. There is no doubt and it is indisputable that the philological analysis of terms cannot always characterize the historical reality of phenomena, but, as we will see, the philological analysis of terms concerning the biblical priesthood and prophecy gives results that are in complete agreement with the data of the biblical text itself and biblical history.

1. PRIESTHOOD

The term used to denote the concept of priesthood in the Bible is “kohen”. There is a corresponding verb in Arabic – kahana. The general meaning of the common Semitic root kahan is: “to stand in front of, to stand directly opposite something or someone”. A similar meaning has the related verb kun, corresponding to the Arabic kana, which also means – “to stand in front of, to stand in general”. This meaning of the verbs kahan and kun allows the participial form kohen to be given the meaning: “standing in front, coming before” – in application to a religious and cult institution it can mean, of course, only “standing in front of the people and coming before God”. The participial form kohen itself is used in the books of the Old Testament in application not only to Jewish priests, but also to pagan priests. Kohen are called the priest of Heliopolis (see: Gen. 41:45, 50), the priest of Midian (see: Ex. 2:16, 3:1), the priests of Dagon (see: 1 Samuel 5:5, 6:2). Consequently, kohen, according to biblical usage, does not necessarily denote a Jewish priest and does not have any specifically Jewish connotations. There is also a completely identical noun in Arabic – kahan. According to the Arabic interpretation given by Gesenius in his “Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary”, kahan means someone who carries out someone’s affairs and works in someone’s interests. In the Bible, the word kohen always retains its meaning – “standing before, standing in front”2.

A philological analysis of the word kohen, which denotes priests in the Bible, starting with Melchizedek, gives grounds for introducing two characteristic features into the concept of priesthood: 1) intercession before God on behalf of the people, mediation in a religious union on the part of the people and 2) institution, establishment.

A more detailed definition of the principles of the Old Testament priesthood, of course, can be given from an examination of the data of the biblical text.

At the center of the entire Old Testament religion is sacrifice. It should be noted that sacrifice, arising from the inner need of man himself, constitutes, primarily, the subjective-human side of religion. The Old Testament priesthood stands in the most inseparable connection with sacrifice, and for this reason alone it can be said that the priest who brings the sacrifice is a representative on the part of man in his religious union with God. The Bible gives very few examples when man himself brings a sacrifice according to his inner needs. The Bible gives such an example at the very beginning of the existence of the earth and man, when Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord (Gen. 4:3), and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat (Gen. 4:4). Obviously, according to the Bible, initially man, having an inner need to bring a sacrifice, himself brought it. But such, so to speak, “self-representation” in the matter of religion was only at the very beginning. Very soon special people are singled out for bringing a sacrifice, not all people bring sacrifices themselves; from an individual private matter, sacrifice becomes a more or less common matter. The sacrifice is brought primarily by the elders of the family or clan. Thus, Noah brings a sacrifice, obviously, on behalf of his entire family (see: Gen. 8:20), since after the sacrifice the Lord blesses Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:1); Job brings a sacrifice for his sons (see: Job 1:5). In these cases, one represents (kohen) many. The circle of persons represented by one bringing the sacrifice expanded more and more and reached the size of a tribe; civil unity coincides with religious-cult unity, the civil representative of the people is, at the same time, its religious representative. Thus, Melchizedek was the king of Salem and at the same time a priest of the Most High God (Gen. 14:18). However, in the religious life of the Jewish people, as it is presented in the Bible, the last stage in the development of the priesthood was almost completely absent. In the book of Genesis the Jewish people appears to us only as the family of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who were successively the religious representatives of their families, were priests, although on special occasions individual members of the families also brought sacrifices. The book of Exodus, however, presents the Jews as a whole people, among whom, in the very short time after their exodus from Egypt, a priesthood of a special type was organized, at least de jure. One can only point to Moses, who combined in his person the leadership in civil and religious relations, but the personality of Moses in the history of the Jewish people is a special personality, and the time and circumstances of his life and work are also completely exceptional. At the very beginning of the history of the Jews as a people, their priesthood was organized. However, the exclusive assignment of certain persons to religious and cult functions in Mosaism was carried out more in theory and legislation than in practice; The Bible presents many cases where the sacrifice was made by a person who was not at all related to the priesthood, but, in any case, theoretically the Old Testament establishes a monopoly, so to speak, of the priesthood. The idea of ​​a necessary mediator in religious relations with God, a special designated representative, could quite naturally arise on the basis of the psychological consciousness of the Old Testament man. The psychology of sinful consciousness is such that it forces a person to imagine the Deity only as strict and punishing. To appear before such a God in person has always been considered terrible and even unsafe. The Bible very clearly shows us the emergence of the consciousness among the people that a special representative is necessary for them ас a leader who would free the people from direct relations with the Deity and who alone would enter into direct relations with Jehovah. Thus, after the Sinai legislation, when Jehovah showed all His terrible and terrifying power (see: Ex. 19:16-19), the people who saw the thunder and the flame, and the sound of the trumpet, and the smoking mountain, themselves retreated and stood at a distance, and then they said to Moses: Speak with us, and we will listen, but do not let God speak with us, lest we die… And all the people stood at a distance, and Moses entered into the darkness where God was (Ex. 20:18-19, 21).

This idea about the impossibility for every simple person to approach the Lord is very decisively expressed in the book of Exodus and on behalf of God Himself. The Lord said to Moses: The priests and the people shall not rush forward to go up to the Lord, lest the Lord break forth upon them (Exodus 19:24), and even to Moses Jehovah said: You cannot see My face, for no man shall see Me and live (Exodus 33:20). Who will dare to come near Me in himself? says the Lord (Jeremiah 30:21). The awareness of the impossibility of having direct communication with the Deity always lived in the Jewish people. When the Angel who appeared to Gideon miraculously destroyed the offered sacrifice and just as miraculously disappeared from Gideon’s eyes, Gideon saw that it was the Angel of the Lord, and Gideon said: Alas is me, Lord God! for I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face (Judg. 6:22; cf. Is. 6:5). This consciousness serves as the internal psychological basis of the institution of the priesthood, and this consciousness in the Bible and in Judaism in general has emerged more and more sharply over time, sometimes even as if in excess. On the first pages of the Bible, God is represented as walking in paradise; He speaks to people face to face. Then unfortunate circumstances forced Adam and his wife to hide from the face of the Lord God among the trees of paradise (Gen. 3:8); between God and people were placed a Cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every way (Gen. 3:24). Further, God Himself says that a man must necessarily die if he sees the face of God; Finally, the Jews avoid using the name of God, by which God Himself called Himself to Moses at Horeb – an artificial tetragram is created: yod†ge†vav†ge, which is not known how it was read and under which the true name of God is buried forever: our reading “Jehovah” or the Western “Yahweh” – after all, only guesses. Later, even the tetragram is depicted symbolically, with three letters “yod” arranged in a triangle, and the like. Thus God withdrew from man! Although the entire Jewish people, as a chosen people, as the property of Jehovah, were a priestly people, holy – kodecsch in the sense of being distinguished (see: Ex. 19:5-6; Num. 16:3 and so on), – but in reality they did not correspond to their purpose of being the people of God. The chosen people, throughout their history, have only proven that God’s power is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9). The entire people were unworthy of direct communication with God (see: Ex. 19:21-25). Therefore, from among the Jewish tribes, the tribe of Levi was chosen, which was placed religiously ahead of the entire people. The Bible, speaking about the establishment of the Levitical priesthood, clearly notes that the priests must stand before God, and stand specifically on behalf of the people. The Lord said to Moses: take… Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister to Me in the priesthood (Ex. 28:1) – specifically from among the people. Priests are the people’s deputies, their representatives in the religious relationship between God and people. The Lord your God chose Aaron out of all your tribes, to stand before the Lord your God to minister and to bless the name of the Lord your God, he and his sons always (Deut. 18:5). In religious matters, the Levitical priesthood stood at the forefront of the people and facilitated their communication with God (see Ex. 28:38; Lev. 10:17, 21:8; Num. 1:53, 8:19, 16:5, 17:5, 18:23). The priesthood was for the Lord’s favor toward the Jewish people (see Ex. 28:38); the Levites and priests performed the service for the children of Israel… so that no plague would befall the children of Israel when the children of Israel came near the sanctuary (Num. 8:19). On behalf of God, the priests impart a blessing to the people (see Lev. 9:22–24; Num. 6:22–27 et seq.). The entire Jewish people are called the kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6; see Is. 61:6), the people of priests. It may be thought that they were such not for themselves, but for other peoples. As the priest stood between God and man, so the Jewish people, according to the idea of ​​being chosen by God, stood between God and the pagan peoples. The principle of representation in the concept of priesthood is preserved here as well. As is evident from the ritual of slaughtering the Passover lamb, everyone slaughtered it themselves (hence the expression zevach pasah, “to slaughter the Passover”, Slav.: “to eat the Passover”), and the Jews said that on the day of the Passover everyone is a priest, that is, they do without the mediation of priests, they themselves directly (although with some restrictions) approach God, and the rest of the time their representative and deputy is a priest (kohen). Thus, the priests were intermediaries between God and the people. Intermediaries precisely on the part of the people. Saying this, we do not want to leave without due attention the well-established Levitical priesthood, which is constantly emphasized in the books of the Old Testament. The books of the Old Testament never say that the priests were appointed by the people themselves, for example, by election. On the contrary, on behalf of God it is always said: I have chosen them (see: Ex. 28:1; Deut. 18:5; Sir. 45:20, etc.). This divine election and divine institution of the Levitical priesthood, according to the Bible, is undoubted, and this will be discussed further on. But it is necessary to note that then the priesthood always retains its character of popular representation in religious matters. In the Bible, by the way, there is a typical expression: Behold, Amariah the high priest is over you in all the work of the Lord, and Zebadiah… in all the work of the king (2 Chronicles 19:11; cf.: v. 8). The religious side of life, “the work of the Lord,” had its representatives just as all other sides had theirs.

Only one tribe of Israel was called to the priesthood – Levi, [in particular] the descendants of Aaron. From the principled side, one can note several characteristic points in the Bible in the election of one tribe. Indeed, why did God choose only one tribe for the religious representation of Israel, and specifically the tribe of Levi? The Bible gives the following explanation for this fact. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Behold, I have taken the Levites from the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that open the womb of the children of Israel; they shall be in their stead; …for all the firstborn are mine: in the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to myself all the firstborn of Israel (Num. 3:11–13). When all the Levites were numbered, their number – 22 thousand (see Num. 3:14–39) – turned out to be almost identical with the number of firstborn males, of whom there were 22,273 (see Num. 3:40–43). The replacement was easily carried out, and for the surplus of firstborns, 273 people, a ransom of 5 shekels was taken (see Num. 3:44–51). In this biblical explanation of the election of the tribe of Levi, one can see that the Bible also preserved the connection between the new order, the new principle of election, and the old one. Previously, the natural representative in the cult was the eldest in the family; later, a special tribe was determined from among the Jews, but it was determined specifically to replace the firstborn, who were freed from serving at the tabernacle. The reform of the priesthood carried out by Moses, as is evident from the instructions of the 3rd chapter of the book of Numbers, concerned only sacred persons, and the principle of the priesthood remained the same, which is especially noted. As previously the patriarch or firstborn was the natural representative of his family, so now the priest from the tribe of Levi is such a representative; the priest acts as an artificial representative in place of the former natural representative. But when establishing the Levitical priesthood, one cannot fail to note its distinctive features. According to some biblical data, the very election of the tribe of Levi was based on certain features of this tribe, and features of an ethical nature. In the consciousness of the Jew of later times, this ethical moment appears quite clearly. Sirach says that the Lord exalted Aaron, holy like Moses, his brother (Sir. 45:7). From among all the Levites, the descendants of Aaron were called to the priesthood, perhaps due to the special ethical qualities of the patriarch. In any case, the law requires special qualities from the priesthood, which even from the outside would distinguish it and make it an ethical representative instead of a natural-generic representative.

The Law of Moses does not tolerate any physical defects in a priest (see Lev. 21:17-23); special requirements are made of the wife and the family of the priest in general (see Lev. 21:7-9). The circle of deceased persons whom a priest can touch, defiling himself, and for whom he can mourn is limited (see Lev. 21:1-6). In relation to the high priest, all these requirements are increased (see Lev. 21:10-14). All these requirements constitute a feature of the Levitical priesthood, and all of them distinguish the priest from other people ethically, in the sense of a stricter Levitical purity; after all, the concept of Levitical purity in the Old Testament sometimes coincides with the concept of holiness. The said ethical representation, which is the basis of the Levitical priesthood, places the priesthood on a higher level of development, compared to the level when the priesthood was based on family and clan representation. The newly instituted dedication with the pouring out of oil and the donning of special garments (see Lev. 8:1–30) also points to the same elevation of the priesthood. However, the principle of representation remains in the Levitical priesthood. At Sinai, in the words of Metropolitan Philaret, there was only a “majestic renewal of the priesthood.” This renewal did not affect the basic principle; some persons were replaced by others, but the new persons also remained the same representatives of the people, their advanced members in the religious and cult sense. Other biblical data characterize the Old Testament institution of the priesthood also with features of representation on the part of the people. Thus, biblical data never ascribe religious creativity to the priesthood. The activity of the priesthood consists in the guardianship of this law, its dissemination, and the execution of cultic regulations. The priests taught the people the law, but they taught precisely this law. The priests were to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which the Lord had spoken (had already spoken) to them through Moses (see Lev. 10:11). Azariah says to Uzziah, when he went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense: It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord: this is the business of the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense (2 Chronicles 26:16, 18). An everlasting covenant is made to Aaron and to his seed throughout the days of heaven, that they should minister to the Lord, and serve as priests together, and bless His people in His name. He chose him from among all the living to offer sacrifice, incense, and sweet savour to the Lord, as a memorial of propitiation for his people; and he gave him his commandments and authority in judicial decisions, to teach Jacob the testimonies and to keep Israel in His law (Sir. 45:19–21).

The law of truth… is in their mouth. The priest’s lips shall keep knowledge, and men shall seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger (malah) of the Lord of hosts (Mal. 2:6-7). Thus says the Lord of hosts: Ask the priests concerning the law (Hag. 2:11). The prophet Ezekiel reproaches the priests for defiling the law given by God, for not separating the holy from the unholy, and for not indicating the difference between the clean and the unclean, for they have shut their mouths against the Sabbaths (Ezek. 22:26; cf. 44:23). The same prophet repeats many of the laws of Moses, which the priests must especially keep and carefully implement both in their own life and in the life of the people (see: Ezek. 45:9-25, 46:5-20; cf.: Lev. 19:19, 27, 21:1, 5, 7, 13, 14, 17:15, 22:8, 23:4, etc.). In the historical life of the Jewish people, priests often act as teachers of the law. But it is characteristic of the Old Testament priesthood that the priests act as preachers of the already given law. For the first time, the law is proclaimed directly from God not through the priests, but through other persons; the priests only later disseminate the finished law (see: Lev. 10:11); the sermon of the Old Testament priest is only a sermon of the law, reading of the law, a sermon from someone else’s notebook. There is, however, a small group of facts when a priest or high priest communicates the will of God, directly revealed to him by God. We mean all that revelation or proclamation of the will of God, which was received through the Urim and Thummim. The Urim and Thummim are something completely incomprehensible and obscure in the sphere of the Old Testament priesthood. The appearance and meaning of the Urim and Thummim cannot be clearly and definitely presented, and representatives of science refuse this task3. According to the Bible, the Urim and Thummim were placed on the breastplate of judgment (see: Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8), together they are called the judgment of the sons of Israel (see: Exodus 28:30), but “what the Urim and Thummim were, how the Lord declared His will through them – this, despite all attempts, remains and threatens to remain forever completely unsolved” (Maibaum). It can be thought that the Urim and Thummim were one of the types of religious-cult divination, questioning the Deity. The story about David is especially characteristic in this regard. When Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, ran to David in Keilah, he brought the ephod with him. When David learned that Saul had devised evil against him, he said to the priest Abiathar: bring the ephod of the Lord (1 Samuel 23:6, 9). As can be concluded from what follows (see: vv. 10-12), David himself asks the Lord, of course, through the ephod, and he himself receives an answer through the Urim and Thummim. The revelation is, as it were, tied to the subject. In the Bible we often encounter that this or that revelation is given through the Urim and Thummim (see: Judges 1:1, 20:18, 23, 27-28, 21:2; 1 Samuel 14:36-37, 22:10, 13, 23:2, 4, 6, 9, 28:6, 15, 30:7; 2 Samuel 2:1, 5:19, 23). According to Maibaum, questioning through the ephod was practiced in cases of special importance. Revelation through the Urim and Thummim is mentioned in the Bible along with other types of revelation – in a dream, in a vision, through the prophets. Thus, Saul inquired of the Lord; but the Lord did not answer him, neither in a dream, nor through the Urim, nor through the prophets (1 Samuel 28:6; see also: 15). Thus, the Bible, speaking of the breastplate of the judgment with the Urim and Thummim, places the high priest in a direct relationship with the Deity, Who gives him some new revelations. But this fact in no way contradicts the position we have expressed that the priesthood did not have religious creativity, that religious creativity was not the proper sphere of the priesthood. All those biblical passages that speak of the priest receiving revelations through the Urim and Thummim do not give grounds to assume that the priest was given a revelation in the proper religious sense. Revelation through the Urim and Thummim answered the pressing questions of the time, questions of a practical nature, and these answers do not have eternally valuable religious content. The sons of Israel inquired of the Lord, saying, Which of us shall go up first against the Canaanites to fight them? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up (Judges 1:1–2; cf. 20:18). They also asked whether to engage in battle with Benjamin (see Judges 20:23, 28). Saul asked the Lord, Should I go in pursuit of the Philistines? (1 Samuel 14:37). David also asked the same thing (see 1 Samuel 23:2, 4, 10–12). In general, according to the data available in the Bible, the Urim and Thummim can be considered a kind of Jewish oracle, parallel to the classical oracles. The occasions and reasons for questioning through the Urim and Thummim and through oracles are completely parallel. But from the principle point of view, one more remark must be made. In the religious union of the Deity and men, the initiative, of course, must belong to the Deity, the stronger, the absolute side. Religious revelation must therefore be on the initiative of the Deity; but the revelation through the Urim and Thummim, whatever its content, was it genetically on the initiative of the Deity? – No. Through the Urim and Thummim man questioned God, the initiative here is human. The Deity is the passive side, not the active one. He will, – it is said in the Bible about Jesus Navin, – turn to Eleazar the priest and ask him for a decision, through the Urim before the Lord (Numbers 27:21). Revelation through the Urim and Thummim cannot be called a religious revelation in the full sense; it is only the answer of the Deity, similar to the answer of an oracle, to the practical question of interested people. Thus, the existence of the Urim and Thummim does not change the fundamental aspect of the priesthood in any way. The priesthood is only the advanced part in the religious life of the people who have entered into a covenant with God.

But in accordance with the very essence of the Old Testament religion, the Old Testament priesthood also receives another very significant feature in the Bible. The Old Testament religion is, first of all, a religion of sacrifice. Sacrifice in relation to God had a propitiatory meaning, and in relation to man, it cleansed him of sins, ritually atoning for them in a symbolic punishment, the destruction of him (man) in the person of an animal replacing him (the idea of ​​​​vicarism). Therefore, the priest who brings the sacrifice cleanses the sinning man from his sin, slaughtering his substitute (vicar). The essence of the Old Testament religion is most clearly expressed in the sacrifice for sin, and the Bible, when it speaks of this sacrifice, says quite positively that it is the priest who cleanses from sin. The first step of the newly established Levitical priesthood was the sacrifice for sin (see: Lev. 9:7). In the book of Leviticus, after setting forth each individual case of a sin offering or a trespass offering, it is repeated: And so the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him, that is, all the people (Lev. 4:20), or an individual (see: Lev. 4:26, 31, 35, 5:6, 10, 13, 18, 6:7, 14:19, 31, 15:30, etc.). There was a day when the priesthood acted in the religious and cult life of the people precisely as an institution for the cleansing of sins, this is the day of purification, when the high priest purified himself and his house (see Lev. 16:11), and the sanctuary from the impurity of the sons of Israel and from their transgressions, in all their sins (Lev. 16:16), finally, placing the sins on the goat chosen by lot (see Lev. 16:8, 10), he confessed over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel … and all their sins (Lev. 16:21). “On this tenth day of the seventh month God commanded to make atonement for you, to make you clean from all your sins, that you might be clean before the Lord. And the priest was to make atonement” (see Lev. 16:24, 30, 32-34). On this day, once a year, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins of ignorance of the people (Heb. 9:7). This side of the Old Testament priesthood is revealed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The entire Old Testament priesthood stood in the closest connection with the sins of the people, fed on the sins of the people (Hos. 4:8), cleansing them in sacrifice. According to the Bible, the priesthood is a Divine institution appointed for the cleansing of sins. But even in this case, the priest is still standing ahead of the people in their long-term symbolic self-satisfaction of their religious conscience. The priest is precisely the one standing (kohen) and repeatedly offering the same sacrifices, which can never eradicate sins (Heb. 10:11). The same principle of representation in religious satisfaction of conscience lies at the basis of all the complex, according to the Bible, external purity and various purifications, where we also see the priest acting. The priest judges leprosy and cleanses the leper (see: Lev. 13:1-32), judges leprosy in the house and cleanses it (see: Lev. 14:34-56), etc. Since, with all its activity, the priesthood remained a religious institution from the side of people and for human purposes, it is quite natural that the Levitical priesthood received the full organization necessary for earthly service. Even many details of the external organization of the priesthood are defined in the books of the law. Everything that was added to the external organization of the priesthood later was caused by special circumstances: the building of the temple, the multiplication of priests and Levites, and the whole addition consisted almost entirely in the establishment of a rotation of service (see 1 Chronicles 24:1–19; 2 Chronicles 31:2, etc.). In general, the priesthood is an institution with a strictly and thoroughly defined external organization. We should not be concerned in this case with the form of this organization, but we state the fact of its existence, because it proves that from its fundamental side the priesthood was – if religion is a union between Heaven and earth – an institution on the part of the earth. The external life of the Levitical priesthood was also organized. Thus, the special content of the priesthood was determined: partly permanent – ​​tithes, first fruits, partly occasional – various parts of the sacrifices. The priesthood is one of the earthly human institutions, and therefore, like any state or public office, according to the Old Testament view, it is paid. In short, the Levitical priesthood was on a salary. The number of biblical passages that speak of the maintenance of the Levites and priests is very large, and we do not need to cite them. But it is characteristic that some passages seem to emphasize that the maintenance of the Levites and priests was in the full sense a payment for the performance of their duties. And he commanded, it is said of Hezekiah, that the people who lived in Jerusalem should give a certain amount to the priests and Levites, that they might be zealous in the law of the Lord (2 Chronicles 31:4). Here a completely worldly point of view is applied, according to which an increase in salary should encourage a more zealous performance of the duties.

As might be expected from Jewish theocracy, the priesthood, in addition to its special religious and cult duties, also performed other positions of a state and public nature. Thus, the priests judged (see: Deut. 17:8-12), participated in the division of the land (see: Joshua 19:51), and sometimes took an active part in various coups d’état, such as the high priest Jehoiada during the accession of Joash (see: 2 Kings 11:4-12; 2 Chronicles 23:1-21). However, influence on the political and state life of the people depended on circumstances and on the personal authority of representatives of the Old Testament hierarchy. Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord… as long as the priest Jehoiada instructed him (2 Kings 12:2). The best representatives of the priesthood, by their personal authority, restored such a relationship between the various aspects of national life, in which the religious principle takes precedence. On the contrary, if the representatives of the priesthood were unsatisfactory, then the religious side of national life retreated to second place, and the state principle came to the fore. It must be admitted that in the Bible we more often encounter illustrations of the second position. We constantly see that the state power disposes of the priesthood (see: 1 Chronicles 24:1-19; 2 Chronicles 19:8, 29:4 ff. 31:2, 4). The priests meekly obey the unlawful orders of the state power (see: 2 Chronicles 36:10-16). Under the most powerful representatives of state power, during the heyday of Jewish Caesarism, the priesthood turns into a state office along with all others. When the heads of the various aspects of the state administration under Solomon are listed, then along with the scribes, the recorders, the military leaders, the courtiers, the tax officers and the food masters, Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, are also named (see: 1 Kings 4:2-19). The priesthood is flesh of the flesh and bone of the bone of its people; it is the advanced part of the people in the religious sense, but a part inseparably connected with the whole people. In the historical life of the Jewish people, we can often observe how the priesthood itself deviated from the law, sharing the shortcomings of its time. Together with the kings or in subordination to the kings, the priests pursue dynastic and hierarchical goals, leaving as if without attention the will and piety of some of the people; sometimes the moral and religious convictions of the people were shaken. The priesthood itself served its time more than the time forced it to serve itself, it followed the flow of time more than it directed this very flow along the channel of the law, which the priesthood had to do according to its duty. In a word, the priesthood did not always stand at the height of its calling and completely merged with the life of the people. Therefore, the prophets often threaten the priests with judgment (see: Hos. 5:1) and denounce their low fall. Fornication, wine and drink took possession of the heart of the priesthood (Hos. 4:11), it departed from the covenants and statutes of God (see: Mal. 3:7), the priests robbed God (see: Mal. 3:8). According to the prophets, the priests await the same fate as the people: whatever happens to the people, that will happen to the priest (Is. 24:2; Hos. 4:9). All the facts and biblical judgments cited illustrate the principle of the Levitical priesthood that we have established. The Levitical priesthood represented the people in a religious covenant with God, cleansed them from sins by means of a sacrificial cult, and was supposed to, by teaching the people the given law, preserve the people’s life on the paths of the law. The priesthood was specially assigned to correct the cult, and the whole meaning, the whole beauty of the Old Testament cult was united in the consciousness of the Old Testament Jew with the person of the priest, standing in front of the people and expressing the people’s religion by his personality. And the touchingly enthusiastic description of Simon, son of Onias, the great priest, by a pious Jew of later times becomes understandable. How majestic he (Simon) was among the people, when leaving the curtain of the temple! As the morning star among the clouds, as the full moon in days, as the sun shining upon the temple of the Most High, and as the rainbow shining in the majestic clouds, as the color of roses in the days of spring, as lilies by the springs of water, as a branch of Lebanon in the days of summer, as a fire with incense in a censer, as a vessel of beaten gold, adorned with all kinds of precious stones, as an olive with its fruit, and as a cypress rising to the clouds. When he took on a magnificent robe and clothed himself in all his majestic adornment, then, as he ascended to the holy altar, he illuminated with his splendor the circumference of the sanctuary. Also, when he received the sacrificial portions from the hands of the priests, standing at the fire of the altar, around him was a crown of brothers, like branches of a cedar in Lebanon, and they surrounded him like date branches, and all the sons of Aaron in their glory, and the offering to the Lord in their hands before the whole assembly of Israel (Sir. 50:5-15).

In the poetic words cited, the Jew praises his religious representative, who carries out in the face of his people and on their behalf all the beauty of the Old Testament cult. The Jew himself does not carry out the cult, but only watches how the religious representative of the people, the priest, carries it out on behalf of the people.

Notes:

1. We consider it necessary to say a few words about the nature of the proposed reasoning. It is based on the tacitly acknowledged position that the Bible is a source equally valuable in all parts. Therefore, we completely leave aside the criticism of the text and the polemics with the rationalistic views of the representatives of modern biblical hypercriticism, such as Stade, Wellhausen, Lippert (Allgemeine Geschichite des Priesterthums B. A. II.), Maibaum (Die Entwickelung des altisräelilischen Priesterthums. Breslau, 1880; Die Entwickelung des isräelitischen Prophetenthums. Berlin, 1883) and the like. The proposed discussion is written mainly on the Bible. The Bible, concordances, concordances and Jewish dictionaries are our main references. Fundamental discussions of prophecy and priesthood are scattered throughout various works. An indication of literature on prophecy can be found in the dissertation of M. Verzhbolovich, “Prophetic Ministry in the Israeli (Ten-Tribe) Kingdom” (Kyiv, 1891). On the priesthood – in the dissertation of Priest Georgy Titov, “The History of the Priesthood and Levitism of the Old Testament Church, from the Beginning of Their Establishment under Moses to the Foundation of the Church of Christ, and Their Relation to the Pagan Priesthood” (Tiflis, 1878, pp. 5–13). The journal controversy regarding this dissertation also has fundamental content. See the articles: Priest G. Titov. On the Question of the Old Testament Priesthood and Levitism. – Wanderer. 1879. July-August. pp. 184–189. Prof. F. G. Eleonsky. On the Old Testament Priesthood. – Christian Reading. 1879. Vol. 2. Pp. 606–638; and “Concluding Explanations on the Question of the Old Testament Priesthood” – an article by Priest Titov with explanatory notes under the line by Professor Eleonsky (Christian Reading. 1880. Vol. 2. Pp. 453–530). Several more articles on prophecy and priesthood have appeared quite recently. These are: Professor A. I. Pokrovsky. Old Testament Prophetism as the Main Typical Feature of the Biblical History of Israel. – Theological Herald. 1908. Vol. 1. Pp. 764–793; and a separate brochure (Sergiev Posad, 1908). The latest literature on the subject is also indicated here (Theological Herald. Pp. 767–769). However, the article itself gives mainly a historical description of prophetism, depicting the “historical evolution of Old Testament prophetism” (Ibid. pp. 769–770). The original articles by prof. M. M. Tareev “The Old Testament Kingdom and Prophecy” (Christian. 1907. Vol. 3. pp. 529–561) have fundamental content. The same is true in the Complete Works. “The Life and Teaching of Christ”. Part 2. Sergiev Posad, 1908. pp. 81–109 (on prophecy) and “The Old Testament Priesthood” (Ibid. pp. 64–74). The articles by E. A. Vorontsov “Revelation in the Prophets and Revelation in Christ” (Faith and Reason. 1908. Vol. 1. pp. 28–44) and “Views of the Old Testament Prophets on Pastoral Care and Their Assessment of the Shortcomings of the Pastoral (Levitical) Ministry of Their Time” (Faith and Reason. 1908. Vol. 1. pp. 579–593 and 723–739. Vol. 2. pp. 17–34) should also be included here. However, by indicating this literature, we nevertheless absolve ourselves of the obligation to present and criticize anyone’s views. We will present only or almost only what we found in the Bible; we will not skimp on biblical quotations, and we will keep all others to ourselves, as of little use to the reader.

2. The Jewish Targum in some places, such as Gen. 41:45; Ps. 109:4 (You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek), and others, conveys kohen through rabba-status emphatiens from rav, which, when used especially in the book of the prophet Daniel, means a nobleman, the first in the state, rav-princeps (see: Dan. 4:33, 5:1, 3, 6:17, and others). The meaning of the word kohen is especially clear where it is used to designate not priests, but other persons. Thus, in 2 Samuel 8:18 the sons of David are called kohanim, but the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 18:17 calls the sons of David the first at court harischonim, plural of rischon, meaning first in time, in rank, in dignity. The priests are called kohanim, therefore, as the first in a religious sense, standing in front.

3. S. Maybaum. Die Entwickelung des israelitischen Prophetenthums. S. 24–25; in general about the Urim and Thummim. Ibid. S. 24–28. He also indicates some literature about the Urim and Thummim. Ibid. S. 25. Epiphanius. Panarion. 1.

(to be continued)

Source in Russian: Works : in 3 volumes / Holy Martyr Hilarion (Troitsky). – M. : Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2004. / V. 2: Theological Works. / The Basic Principles of the Old Testament Priesthood and Prophecy. 33-64 p. ISBN 5-7533-0329-3