“And these were his chief officials:
Azariah son of Zadok—the priest;
Elihoreph and Ahijah, sons of Shisha—secretaries;
Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud—recorder;
Benaiah son of Jehoiada—commander in chief;
Zadok and Abiathar—priests;
Azariah son of Nathan—in charge of the district governors;
Zabud son of Nathan—a priest and adviser to the king;
Ahishar—palace administrator;
Adoniram son of Abda—in charge of forced labor.”
-1 Kings 4:2-6
I wanna show you something interesting.
Take a look at verse 2 of 1st Kings Chapter 4.
It says…
“Azariah son of Zadok—the priest…”
The problem is, it’s hard to tell who exactly the priest is in this sentence.
Is it Azaryah or is it Zadok?
The only two possibilities are that Azaryah is the priest or Zadok is the priest.
Ya feeling me here?
The problem is that if the word “priest” is referring to Zadok, then Azaryah has no title or duties.
On the other hand, if the word “priest” is referring to Azaryah, then obviously that makes him the priest.
So what’s the point I’m trying to make here?
The point I’m trying to make here, homie, is that the word “priest”…
Even though it says “priest”…
Doesn’t always mean “priest”!
Are you feeling me here, man?
I’m telling you the word COHEN doesn’t always mean priest.
Take a look at verse 5:
“Azariah son of Nathan—in charge of the district governors;
Zabud son of Nathan—a priest and adviser to the king.“
Zabud, the son of Nathan, is also described as a priest (and an advisor) to the king.
Here’s the thing.
The word “priest” here does NOT mean priest in the classic sense of a religious person overseeing the holy rituals at the Tabernacle.
The Hebrew sages say the same thing.
Rather, in these particular instances, the word COHEN more means something like a “chief officer” or “head councilor” or something like that.
Now, you might be thinking…
Well, man, since Azaryah is the son of the High Priest Zadok, couldn’t he be called a priest due to genealogy?
The answer to that question is, of course, yes.
But that is NOT the meaning of the word here.
As the first name mentioned at the beginning of this list, he was the chief officer in Solomon’s government.
Today, we might call him the Prime Minister who represents the King to the people…
Just as the Prime Minister of Japan represents the emperor to the people.
This leads to an important point.
By contrast, when examining the list of men in David’s court in 2nd Samuel Chapter 8, the first person on his list was his military commander.
This person was the most important man in David’s Kingdom, second only to David himself.
However, the 2nd in command in Solomon’s government was a civilian politician who was the son of a high priest, and even called a priest (even though the meaning of priest differs from the classical meaning as I just explained).
The point is that the character of Solomon’s administration differed radically from that of his father, David’s.
David’s government was a full-blown military administration pumped and primed for war on the battlefield.
And when I say war, I’m talking about both internal and external conflict with foreign or gentile nations.
On the other hand, the color and character of Solomon’s administration reflected peace and prosperity.
Solomon was NOT a warrior leader like his father.
He was a civil leader and a diplomat.
Interestingly, Yeshua the Messiah will be both.
As a son of David, he will be a warrior-leader.
Yet, as the son of Joseph, he will also be the Prince of Peace.
This brings us to our takeaway for today.
A lot of folks, especially those in the Christian camp, tend to have this crazy and incessant focus on Yeshua as being only a Messiah of love who kissed babies all day long and would never hurt a fly.
They completely ignore the Davidic warrior aspect of the Messiah.
I’m telling you that’s not a good thing.
We must accept the entire testimony of Scripture when it speaks of the nature and character of the Messiah.
The bottom line is that he is BOTH a son of David and a son of Joseph.
Ya feel me?
Done.
Hey Rich, it’s Brandon. Thanks for getting back to me on 1K4-1, I do appreciate it. Just to confirm something we discussed on 1K2-20 in regard to the ongoing Levitical Priest/system: I do believe that the Levitical High Priest and Priesthood, with the sacrifices DO STILL STAND. I do not believe that they are “abolished.” One thing that is very interesting on this topic is that when you read the Book of Acts, NONE of the disciples appear to be operating as though the Priesthood was “done away with.” In fact, Paul apologizes to the High Priest for cursing him and even calls him a leader of the people I believe. Combine this with the ending chapters of Ezekiel and it seems clear to me that the Levitical High Priest, Priesthood, and sacrifice Laws (perhaps the Levitical system if you will) DO STILL STAND. Would you agree with this? In your reply to my question 1K2-20 you stated that: “the Levitical system was established by God, continues to have a role in His plan”- so you do agree that the Levitical High Priest and Priesthood as well as the sacrifices still have a role or function, correct? You do agree that they DO STILL STAND correct? Please let me know. Thanks again!
Shalom
Great question, Brandon.
I would answer this carefully by making an important distinction.
I do agree that the Levitical priesthood, Temple system, and sacrifices still have a role in God’s overall prophetic program and therefore were not “abolished” in the sense of being meaningless, evil, or outside of God’s plan.
As you pointed out, the apostles themselves continued to respect the priesthood structure that existed in their day. Paul apologized to the High Priest in Acts 23:5 saying:
“You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.”
That shows he still recognized the authority of the office.
Also, the disciples continued going to the Temple in Acts, and Ezekiel 40-48 does appear to describe a future Temple system involving priests and sacrifices.
So in that sense, yes, the Levitical system still has a role in God’s purposes.
However, where I would disagree is with the idea that the Levitical priesthood still stands as the active covenant mechanism through which believers obtain atonement or draw near to God today.
The Book of Hebrews speaks very strongly on this.
Hebrews 7 says:
“For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.”
-Hebrews 7:12
And Hebrews 8 says:
“In speaking of a new covenant, He makes the first one obsolete.”
-Hebrews 8:13
The writer of Hebrews repeatedly contrasts the Levitical priests who offered sacrifices continually with Messiah’s sacrifice which was offered “once for all.”
Hebrews 10:18 says:
“Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
So I would say this:
The Levitical priesthood was established by God and still has prophetic significance in His plan.
But the New Testament teaches that Yeshua now functions as the greater High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and therefore the Levitical priesthood is no longer the means by which believers obtain atonement or access to God.
That is why the apostles could still respect the priesthood structure socially and nationally while also proclaiming Messiah as the ultimate High Priest.
I think both truths must be held together to avoid going too far in either direction.
Shalom,
Rich