Mosaic law: Could one be a king and a priest?
I have often heard and read that Mosaic law prevented a person from being a priest and a king simultaneously. I can not find scripture to verify /dispute this. Any help would be appreciated.
Comments
-
The closest you're likely to get is Deu 17, specifically v9 (judge/ruler) and v18 (king), in both instances separating from priests/levites. Of course, the text always accomodates another point, which would be v14 which introduces the concept of a king representing the god (other nations).
You said 'Mosaic law'; the plot thickens, of course, when Saul and David arrive. And eventually accomodates the Persian administrative system (priest/ruler). Which eventually becomes priest and messiah/annointed (two; DSS) .... or priest/messiah (one; Jesus).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Thanks;
The only conclusion I can reach is that since the priests had to be Levites, accept no salary, and own no property, They were not "likely" to be kings. ...But I still find no LAW.
0 -
Paul C said:
Thanks;
The only conclusion I can reach is that since the priests had to be Levites, accept no salary, and own no property, They were not "likely" to be kings. ...But I still find no LAW.
You're close here. Priests had to be Levites. While there's no law prohibiting a priest from being a king, unless a king were a descendant of Levi, he could not be a priest - according to the Law of Moses. However, since the line of kings must follow the line of David (2Sam. 7:16), and he was from the tribe of Judah, no king of Judah or Israel could be a priest.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
~
0 -
Depending upon the question behind the question you might be asking, in case it was a Christ-centric type of question, Melchizedek was a king and a priest of the God most high (Gen 14:18), which was not a Levitic priest but it was the priestly line that Jesus was from (Heb 5:6 ref. Ps 110:4). Hebrews 7:1 explains how Melchizedek is the foreshadowing of Christ.
0 -
You zeroed in on my thought process. However, was Melchizedek an Israelite? Was he subject to Mosaic law?Don Awalt said:Depending upon the question behind the question you might be asking, in case it was a Christ-centric type of question, Melchizedek was a king and a priest of the God most high (Gen 14:18), which was not a Levitic priest but it was the priestly line that Jesus was from (Heb 5:6 ref. Ps 110:4). Hebrews 7:1 explains how Melchizedek is the foreshadowing of Christ.
0 -
Paul C said:
However, was Melchizedek an Israelite. was he subject to Mosaic law?
Of course not. He was alive when Abraham still had no son. Couldn't be an Israelite then.
The Mosaic Law also came over 400 years later.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
Exactly. So the story of Melchizedek is no support for the assertion that those under Mosaic law could not wear both hats.
0 -
Paul C said:
You zeroed in on my thought process
I thought that might be why you are wondering. :-)
Melchizedek lived before Moses, and in fact before Jacob, who was renamed Israel. There's nothing else in the Bible about Melchizedek, but being a priest of the God of Abraham, I wouldn't think it was a stretch to say he was subject to the law of God which in covenant was given to Moses starting with the 10 commandments.
But since God's relationship with people is a covenant relationship that precedes Moses, and since we see it with Abraham among others, and since obedience to God's law would have been binding on his people and his covenants even back to Adam and Eve, we can confirm that even before Moses and certainly in Abraham's time obedience to law of God was binding, even though it preceded the 10 commandments on tablet given to Moses (could have been revealed in another way?).
Quite a few books on covenant theology in the Logos library!
0 -
Paul C said:
Exactly. So this is no support for the assertion that those under Mosaic law could not wear both hats.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that, sorry if it came off that way. I was answering a question I thought the OP might really be asking, which is how did Jesus come to wear both hats, and it came from Melchizedek not Mosaic law/Levitical priesthood per my scripture references.
0 -
Sorry for the confusion...but my original pause to ponder was whether this gentleman was correct when he said Mosaic law prevented a person holding both offices.
0 -
Paul C said:
Sorry for the confusion...but my original pause to ponder was whether this gentleman was correct when he said Mosaic law prevented a person holding both offices.
Mosaic law does prevent it, if one assumes the restriction of kingship to the Davidic line (the only kingly line in Israel/Judah). Sometimes (we) teachers are not as clear/precise/complete as we could be. I'd give the benefit of the doubt here.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Ok;
My mistake was giving you background on what started my investigation. Believe me, My intent was not to defame the teacher...but to fully understand the concept. The assertion was that Christ could do what was impossible for Israelites. ... Be both priest and king. My understanding is that it is not impossible. ... just improbable. A sizable difference in my view. [:)]
I removed that comment so as not to cause a brother to stumble.
0 -
Paul C said:
My understanding is that it is not impossible. ... just improbable.
In fact, this so-called restriction cannot be established by a direct reference to Mosaic Law. We are inferring, which is what the person who made the statement must have been doing. I remain open to correction on this, however.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
Paul C said:
The assertion was that Christ could do what was impossible for Israelites. ... Be both priest and king. My understanding is that it is not impossible. ... just improbable.
I was improbable because a Jew would be a Levitic priest. Christ was a priest of the order of Melchezedek.
0 -
Might I suggest that if the question is Mosaic law one might search the Talmud et. al.?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
The person in question did not infer. He flatly made the statement. ... More than once. I could supply a link to the lecture...but I fear it would just cause further unrest. That was not my intent.Mark Smith said:We are inferring, which is what the person who made the statement must have been doing. I remain open to correction on this, however.
0 -
I've not seen where 'king' and Davidic were necessarily Mosaic. Certainly Saul didn't have any problems (king-y-wise) until the Talmud arrived.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Paul C said:
The person in question did not infer. He flatly made the statement.
I gathered that he/she had done so. What I meant was that he/she was inferring from the data but presenting it not as inference but as fact.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
[:#]
0 -
No I'm merely stating that Mosaic Law had an oral as well as a written component unless you are speaking specifically of Karaite Mosaic law.. And that to interpret Mosaic law from a Christian perspective rather than from a Mosaic perspective is apt to lead to error. If you wish to speak of Christian-interpreted-Mosaic law, that is a different question.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Point taken. Do you find that restriction in the Talmud?
0 -
No. Some consider the Talmud et. al. as a partial record of the oral tradition.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I was wrong. I just read the whole. He was punished here for not followingdirect orders pertaining to 7 days. My teacher was wrong! lol. But I know they cant hold 2 offices simultaneously. I'll find it
1Sa 13:8 And he tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed: but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him.
1Sa 13:9 And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering.
1Sa 13:10 And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him.
1Sa 13:11 And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;
1Sa 13:12 Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the LORD: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.
1Sa 13:13 And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.
1Sa 13:14 But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.0 -
Marsella Harrison said:
But I know they cant hold 2 offices simultaneously. I'll find it
Saul was punished for his disobedience to Samuel (1 Sam 10:8). Neither of them were/could be priests, but Samuel clearly had authority to make offerings whilst Saul thought that being King allowed him to perform (some of) the duties of a priest.
David made burnt offerings (2 Sam 6:17-18) and these were clearly pleasing to the Lord (2 Sam 24:24-25), whilst he also was not a priest. Likewise with Solomon.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
But why would Jesus want to be a priest under Mosaic law? The while point was that he came as the mediator of a better covenant than the one through Moses.
Sidenote: It actually was impossible to be both priest and king in Israel. Priests are from Levi's family. Kings are from Judah's.
0 -
Jason West said:
But why would Jesus want to be a priest under Mosaic law?
He would not, as you say. Jesus needed to belong to an undying priesthood, established outside the Law ---> Heb 5.9-10; 6:20; 7:1, 11-22
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0
