“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 he is BOTH a son of David and a son of Joseph.
Ya feel me?
Done.
Leave a Reply