Mosaic law: Could one be a king and a priest?

Page 1 of 2 (29 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 28 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 406
Paul C | Forum Activity | Posted: Mon, Nov 10 2014 11:48 AM

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.

Posts 11332
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 12:05 PM

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).

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 406
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 12:14 PM

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.

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 12:24 PM

Paul C:

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)

Posts 406
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 12:38 PM

~

Posts 2829
Don Awalt | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 12:39 PM

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.

Posts 406
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 12:45 PM

Don Awalt:

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.

You zeroed in on my thought process. However, was Melchizedek an Israelite? Was he subject to Mosaic law?

Posts 9396
Forum MVP
Mark Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 12:52 PM

Paul C:
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

Posts 406
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 12:54 PM

Exactly. So the story of Melchizedek is no support for the assertion that those under Mosaic law could not wear both hats.

Posts 2829
Don Awalt | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 12:58 PM

Paul C:
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!

Posts 2829
Don Awalt | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 1:00 PM

Paul C:

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.

Posts 406
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 1:05 PM

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.

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 1:20 PM

Paul C:

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)

Posts 406
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 1:29 PM

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. Smile

I removed that comment so as not to cause a brother to stumble.

Posts 9396
Forum MVP
Mark Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 1:38 PM

Paul C:
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

Posts 2829
Don Awalt | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 1:50 PM

Paul C:
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. 

Posts 30234
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 1:56 PM

Might I suggest that if the question is Mosaic law one might search the Talmud et. al.?

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 406
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 2:08 PM

Mark Smith:
We are inferring, which is what the person who made the statement must have been doing. I remain open to correction on this, however.
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.

Posts 11332
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 2:10 PM

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.

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 9396
Forum MVP
Mark Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 10 2014 2:25 PM

Paul C:
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

Page 1 of 2 (29 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS