- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,428
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
It is interesting when reading the scriptures to see those who were Non-Levitical priests in Israel and how they seem to have many powerful dynamics.Whenever it comes to examining the NT and the covenant we've now been given, I'm always reminded of how the focus is Yeshua, who he is, what he did, and what he will do...as our High Priest:
And in reading of what was noted on Him, there are many interesting accounts that do not often seem to be considered. One of them comes to mind with Acts 15 when the council was set up, concerning the requirements for Jews and Gentiles and how they were to be treated when others were saying that the Gentiles were not saved:
In Acts 15:15-17, James said that the prophets (the Septuagint version of Amos 9:12) agreed with what God was doing in the times James lived in....as it concerns believing that God will rebuild David's fallen tent - a reference to Christ and/or his kingdom - so the remnant of men, including Gentiles who have God's name, may seek him. This quote from Amos helps bring out more clearly the way in which the progress of the church is in accordance with the Old Testament prophecies. By quoting Amos, James puts the Gentile mission into a new age.
And in going through my Chronological Study Bible/reading the Life of David, what was noted in Amos about David's Fallen tent has been on my mind.
There was a thread on the subject I was reminded of, entitled The Sukkah of David and the Davidic Covenant -but I've been very fascinated going through the life of David...and witnessing many of the actions that he took during his reign. It is interesting to me in seeing David acting as a priest.
That doesn't mean he acted exactly as one within the Levitical priesthood....and the same goes for the sons of David who were known to be priests as well (even though the line of Judah had no right to the Davidic priesthood.
And on the issue of David's sons being priests:
If saying David's sons were priests, if correct (as the textual evidence seems unclear), one would have to suppose that membership into the priesthood was not limited to Levites in the time of DAvid. David already possessed significant power over the priesthood...with many saying he was a priest akin to Melchizedek (i.e. the king having the priest/prophet dynamic going to mirror the Messiah, who was also a High Priest)--and although Zadok was indeed the high priest according to the Word, in replacement of Abithar (1 Kings 2:26-28 /, 1 Kings 1:44-46 , 1 Kings 2:34-36 , 2 Samuel 20:24-26 , 2 Samuel 15:34-36 , 2 Samuel 8:16-18 , 2 Samuel 15:23-25 , 1 Chronicles 15:10-12 , 1 Chronicles 24:2-4 , 1 Chronicles 29:21-23 ), it's possible David was also priestly in a different sense since David did many things that one would think only Zadok was allowed to do as a Levitical Highpriest.
One can consider David making sacrifices (even though he was descended from the line of Judah and only priests were allowed to do that in the temple). This was in contrast to others such as King Saul (from the tribe of Benjamin) who offered sacrifices rather than waiting for a priest---and this was against God's laws in Deuteronomy 12:5-14 and against the specific instructions of Samuel in I Samuel 10:8.
Under pressure from the approaching Philistines, he took matters into his own hands...for He was doing a good thing (offering a sacrifice to God before a crucial battle) but he was considered as doing it in the wrong way. However, again, David and Solomon did the SAME THING---offering sacrifices as a king in I Kings 3:4, I Kings 8 and I Kings 8:62-63 when it came to the temple. I find it striking examining the example in scripture of a king (who was not a Aaronic) acting as a high priest (for example 1 King 9:25)--David, Solomon, and other kings speak about the many sacrifices they offered (as a means to prove their personal piety)---with 1 Chronicles 21:27-29 ...and even David himself, not being a Levite, had SIGNIFICANT access with the priesthood and ability in shaping it in differing ways, especially as it concerned Praise/Worship ( 1 Chronicles 15:15-17 /, 2 Chronicles 7:5-7 , 2 Chronicles 8:13-15 2 Chronicles 29:25-27, Ezra 3:9-11 , 1 Chronicles 23:5-7 ). David was even allowed to eat the showbread that was meant for the priests to eat.
Some have sought to explain the issue by saying what David/Solomon did was a matter of reflecting a heart to worship the Lord---and others have said it was all connected to the Melchizedek dynamic. If those Judahites were priests after the order of Melchizedek, then maybe that is why Solomon and David got away with it. It also raises the question of how one would be a priest in the order of Melchizedek while at the same time witness a priesthood set up in the order of Levi....and how one would qualify for the Melchizedek version. One was obviously superior to the other and the Messiah came through the Mechizedek one to accomplish his work....and what's interesting is that there's no real record showing that Melchizedek was a Hebrew at the time of his meeting ABraham...even though they both were in the same vicinity.
David ate the bread which had been consecrated by the priests, as we read in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. David tells Abimelech in verse 2 that he is alone because the king has charged him with a matter, and thus he has gone about his business. After speaking with Abimelech, we read in verse 6 (verse 7 in Hebrew Bible) he ate the showbread
Leviticus 24:5 makes clear that only cohanim were allowed to eat the bread of the Presence set aside for display before the ark in the House of God (tabernacle). Each week 12 consecrated loaves of bread, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed on the table in the temple. This bread was called the bread of the Prescence. Davids obedience to the kingly decree leads him to eat the bread that has been sanctified by the priests, which further shows how the priestly and kingly offices clashed for David...even though he did blend the monarchy with the priesthood ..and even ate the sacred bread of the tabernacle which was punishable by death in a way that no other Hebrew King ever did. David was a prophet, a priest and a king.....
Something else I find interesting is that David, despite Zadok being the high priest, also had one named Ira the Jairit who was a priest unto David (2 Samuel 20:25-26 ). Ira the Jairite was a native of Havvoth-jair in Gilead ( Numbers 32:41/Numbers 32:17, Deuteronomy 3:14 , etc)--and he was a descendant of Manasseh...Joseph's clan. Again, the man was a non-Levitical priest and descendant of Jair ...and in contrast to later periods it seems to have been acceptable during David's reign for the king to have a private priest who was not a Levite.
Some think that the idea behind the phrase "chief minister" is that Ira was sort of a chaplain to David.
For commentary from Lexicon:
Additionally, as Clarke's Commentary and Gill said best:
Seeing the differing examples of priesthood being done in the OT, it has really had me processing the role of Christ--our Messiah---and how He was able to do as He did in becoming Highpriest outside of the Levitical order since there already seems to be a bit of a precedent with others who did so as well.....and as Christ came to restore the Tent of David, one must wonder if David was a type of what the Messiah would come to do.
As Yeshua was called the Son of David (as a Messianic Title) and expected to restore the Davidic Kingdom in new ways, IMHO, it would not be surprising to see Him act as David did.
And in going through my Chronological Study Bible/reading the Life of David, what was noted in Amos about David's Fallen tent has been on my mind.
There was a thread on the subject I was reminded of, entitled The Sukkah of David and the Davidic Covenant -but I've been very fascinated going through the life of David...and witnessing many of the actions that he took during his reign. It is interesting to me in seeing David acting as a priest.
That doesn't mean he acted exactly as one within the Levitical priesthood....and the same goes for the sons of David who were known to be priests as well (even though the line of Judah had no right to the Davidic priesthood.
And on the issue of David's sons being priests:
If saying David's sons were priests, if correct (as the textual evidence seems unclear), one would have to suppose that membership into the priesthood was not limited to Levites in the time of DAvid. David already possessed significant power over the priesthood...with many saying he was a priest akin to Melchizedek (i.e. the king having the priest/prophet dynamic going to mirror the Messiah, who was also a High Priest)--and although Zadok was indeed the high priest according to the Word, in replacement of Abithar (1 Kings 2:26-28 /, 1 Kings 1:44-46 , 1 Kings 2:34-36 , 2 Samuel 20:24-26 , 2 Samuel 15:34-36 , 2 Samuel 8:16-18 , 2 Samuel 15:23-25 , 1 Chronicles 15:10-12 , 1 Chronicles 24:2-4 , 1 Chronicles 29:21-23 ), it's possible David was also priestly in a different sense since David did many things that one would think only Zadok was allowed to do as a Levitical Highpriest.
One can consider David making sacrifices (even though he was descended from the line of Judah and only priests were allowed to do that in the temple). This was in contrast to others such as King Saul (from the tribe of Benjamin) who offered sacrifices rather than waiting for a priest---and this was against God's laws in Deuteronomy 12:5-14 and against the specific instructions of Samuel in I Samuel 10:8.
Under pressure from the approaching Philistines, he took matters into his own hands...for He was doing a good thing (offering a sacrifice to God before a crucial battle) but he was considered as doing it in the wrong way. However, again, David and Solomon did the SAME THING---offering sacrifices as a king in I Kings 3:4, I Kings 8 and I Kings 8:62-63 when it came to the temple. I find it striking examining the example in scripture of a king (who was not a Aaronic) acting as a high priest (for example 1 King 9:25)--David, Solomon, and other kings speak about the many sacrifices they offered (as a means to prove their personal piety)---with 1 Chronicles 21:27-29 ...and even David himself, not being a Levite, had SIGNIFICANT access with the priesthood and ability in shaping it in differing ways, especially as it concerned Praise/Worship ( 1 Chronicles 15:15-17 /, 2 Chronicles 7:5-7 , 2 Chronicles 8:13-15 2 Chronicles 29:25-27, Ezra 3:9-11 , 1 Chronicles 23:5-7 ). David was even allowed to eat the showbread that was meant for the priests to eat.
Some have sought to explain the issue by saying what David/Solomon did was a matter of reflecting a heart to worship the Lord---and others have said it was all connected to the Melchizedek dynamic. If those Judahites were priests after the order of Melchizedek, then maybe that is why Solomon and David got away with it. It also raises the question of how one would be a priest in the order of Melchizedek while at the same time witness a priesthood set up in the order of Levi....and how one would qualify for the Melchizedek version. One was obviously superior to the other and the Messiah came through the Mechizedek one to accomplish his work....and what's interesting is that there's no real record showing that Melchizedek was a Hebrew at the time of his meeting ABraham...even though they both were in the same vicinity.
David ate the bread which had been consecrated by the priests, as we read in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. David tells Abimelech in verse 2 that he is alone because the king has charged him with a matter, and thus he has gone about his business. After speaking with Abimelech, we read in verse 6 (verse 7 in Hebrew Bible) he ate the showbread
Leviticus 24:5 makes clear that only cohanim were allowed to eat the bread of the Presence set aside for display before the ark in the House of God (tabernacle). Each week 12 consecrated loaves of bread, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed on the table in the temple. This bread was called the bread of the Prescence. Davids obedience to the kingly decree leads him to eat the bread that has been sanctified by the priests, which further shows how the priestly and kingly offices clashed for David...even though he did blend the monarchy with the priesthood ..and even ate the sacred bread of the tabernacle which was punishable by death in a way that no other Hebrew King ever did. David was a prophet, a priest and a king.....
Something else I find interesting is that David, despite Zadok being the high priest, also had one named Ira the Jairit who was a priest unto David (2 Samuel 20:25-26 ). Ira the Jairite was a native of Havvoth-jair in Gilead ( Numbers 32:41/Numbers 32:17, Deuteronomy 3:14 , etc)--and he was a descendant of Manasseh...Joseph's clan. Again, the man was a non-Levitical priest and descendant of Jair ...and in contrast to later periods it seems to have been acceptable during David's reign for the king to have a private priest who was not a Levite.
Some think that the idea behind the phrase "chief minister" is that Ira was sort of a chaplain to David.
For commentary from Lexicon:
And Ira also the Jairite was a chief ruler about David
And Ira
`Iyra' (ee-raw')
wakefulness; Ira, the name of three Israelites -- Ira.
also the Jairite
Ya'iriy (yaw-ee-ree')
a Jairite or descendant of Jair -- Jairite.
was a chief ruler
kohen (ko-hane')
literally, one officiating, a priest; also (by courtesy) an acting priest (although a layman) -- chief ruler, own, priest, prince, principal officer.
And Ira
`Iyra' (ee-raw')
wakefulness; Ira, the name of three Israelites -- Ira.
also the Jairite
Ya'iriy (yaw-ee-ree')
a Jairite or descendant of Jair -- Jairite.
was a chief ruler
kohen (ko-hane')
literally, one officiating, a priest; also (by courtesy) an acting priest (although a layman) -- chief ruler, own, priest, prince, principal officer.
Ira - was a chief ruler about David - The Hebrew is כהן לדויד cohen ledavid, a priest to David; and so the Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic. The Chaldee has רב rab, a prince, or chief. He was probably a sort of domestic chaplain to the king. We know that the kings of Judah had their seers, which is nearly the same: Gad was David's seer, 2 Samuel 24:11, and Jeduthun was the seer of King Josiah, 2 Chronicles 35:16.
The conclusion of this chapter is very similar to the conclusion of 2 Samuel 8:16-18
The conclusion of this chapter is very similar to the conclusion of 2 Samuel 8:16-18
And Ira also the Jairite,.... Which some take to be the same with Ira the Ithrite, 2 Samuel 23:38; a son of Jether or Ithra the Israelite, 2 Samuel 17:25; though others suppose he was Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite, 2 Samuel 23:26; and so the Targum here calls him Ira the Jairite, which was of Tekoah; and Tekoah being the chief place in Israel for oil olive (d), with which the lamps were lighted, Jarchi thinks he had the name of Jairite from Jair, which signifies to enlighten; but rather he was a descendant from Jair the Gileadite, and perhaps was a great friend to David when in Gilead, and from whence he brought him and promoted him: for he was a chief ruler about David; a prime minister, an intimate friend, the chief of his privy council; perhaps he succeeded Ahithophel; it is much we hear nothing of Hushai.
As Yeshua was called the Son of David (as a Messianic Title) and expected to restore the Davidic Kingdom in new ways, IMHO, it would not be surprising to see Him act as David did.
Last edited:
