Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Priest, Hebrew
Subjects in this Topic:
( ëֹּäֵï , koh, ἱåñåýò ). We base the following article upon the Scriptural information, with important additions from other and more modern sources.) SEE SACERDOTAL ORDER.
I. General Considerations. —
1. The Name.
(1.) The English word priest is generally derived from the New Test. term presbyter ( ðñåóâýôåñïò , elder), the meaning of which is, however, essentially different from that which was intended by the ancient terms. It would come nearer if derived from ðñïú v óôçìé or ðñïú v óôáìáé “to preside,” etc. It would then correspond to Aristotle's definition of a priest, “presiding over things relating to the gods” (Polit. 3, 14), and with the very similar one in Heb_5:1 : “Every high-priest taken from among men is constituted on the behalf of men, with respect to their concerns with God, that he may present both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” It would then adequately represent the ἱåñåýò ( ὁ ἱåñὰ ῥÝæùí ) of the Greeks, and the sacerdos (a sacris faciundis) of the Latins. SEE PRESBYTER.
(2.) It is unfortunate that there is nothing like a consensus of interpreters as to the etymology of the above Hebrew word kohên. Its root-meaning, uncertain as far as Hebrew itself is concerned, is referred by Geseniuls (Thesaurus, s.v.) to the idea of prophecy. The kohên delivers a divine message, stands as a mediator between God and man, represents each to the other. This meaning, however, belongs to the Arabic, not to the Hebrew form, and Ewald connects the latter with the verb äֵëִéï (hekin), to array, put in order (so in Isa_61:10), seeing in it a reference to the primary office of the priests as arranging the sacrifice on the altar (Alterthüm. p. 272). According to Saalschütz (Archaöl. der Hebr. c. 78), the primary meaning of the word is to minister, and he thus accounts for the wider application of the name (as below). Bahr (Symbolik, 2, 15) connects it with an Arabic root= ÷øá , to draw near.
Of these etymologies, the last has the merit of answering most closely to the received usage of the word. In the precise terminology of the law, it is used of one who may “draw near” to the Divine Presence (Exo_19:22; Exo_30:20) while others remain afar off, and is applied accordingly, for the most part, to the sons of Aaron, as those who were alone authorized to offer sacrifices. In some remarkable passages it takes a wider range. It is applied to the priests of other nations or religions, to Melchizedek (Gen_14:18), Potipherah (Gen_41:45), Jethro (Exo_2:16), to those who discharged priestly functions in Israel before the appointment of Aaron and his sons (Exo_19:22). A case of greater difficulty presents itself in 2Sa_8:18, where the sons of David are described as priests (kohanim), and this immediately after the name had been applied in its usual sense to the sons of Aaron. The writer of 1Ch_18:17, as if reluctant to adopt this use of the title, or anxious to guard against mistake, gives a paraphrase, “the sons of David were first at the king's hand” (A. V. “chief about the king”). The Sept. and A.V. suppress the difficulty by translating kohanim into áὐëÜñ÷áé and “chief officers.” The Vulg. more honestly gives “sacerdotes.” Luther and Coverdale follow the Hebrew strictly, and give “priests.” The received explanation is that the word is used here in what is assumed to be its earlier and wider meaning, as equivalent to rulers, or, giving it a more restricted sense, that the sons of David were Vicarii Regis, as the sons of Aaron were Vicarii Dei (comp. Patrick, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, ad loc., Keil on 1Ch_18:17).
It can hardly be said, however, that this accounts satisfactorily for the use of the same title in two successive verses in two entirely different senses. Ewald accordingly (Alterthüm. p. 276) sees in it an actual suspension of the usual law in favor of members of the royal house, and finds a parallel instance in the acts of David (2Sa_6:14) and Solomon (1 Kings 3, 15). De Wette and Gesenius, in like manner, look on it as a revival of the old household priesthoods. These theories are in their turn unsatisfactory, as contradicting the whole spirit and policy of David's reign, which was throughout that of reverence for the law of Jehovah and the priestly order which it established. A conjecture midway between these two extremes is perhaps permissible. David and his sons may have been admitted not to distinctively priestly acts, such as burning incense (Num_16:40; 2Ch_26:18), but to an honorary, titular priesthood. To wear the ephod in processions (2Sa_6:14), at the time when this was the special badge of the order (1Sa_22:18), to join the priests and Levites in their songs and dances, might have been conceded, with no deviation from the law, to the members of the royal house. There are some indications that these functions (possibly this liturgical retirement from public life) were the lot of the members of the royal house who did not come into the line of succession, and who belonged, by descent or incorporation, to the house of Nathan, as distinct from that of David (Zec_12:12). The very name Nathan, connected as it is with Nethinim, suggests the idea of dedication. SEE NETHINIM.
The title kohên is given to Zabud, the son of Nathan (1Ki_4:5). The genealogy of the line of Nathan in Luke 3 includes many names-Levi, Eliezer, Malchi, Jochanan, Mattathias, Heli-which appear elsewhere as belonging to the priesthood. The mention in 1 Esdras 5, 5 of Joiakim as the son of Zerubbabel, while in Neh_12:10 he appears as the son of Jeshua, the son of Josedek, indicates either a strange confusion, or a connection, as yet imperfectly understood, between the two families. The same explanation applies to the parallel cases of Ira the Jairite (2Sa_20:26), where the Sept. gives ἱåñåýò . It is noticeable that this use of the title is confined to the reigns of David and Solomon, and that the synonym “at the king's hand” of 1Ch_18:17 is used in 25:2 of the sons of Asaph as “prophesying” under their head or father, and of tie relation of Asaph himself to David in the choral service of the Temple.
2. Essential Idea of the Hebrew Priesthood. — This may be called mediation; hence the fact that in the epistle to the Hebrews mediator and priest are considered as synonymous. Yet by this the specific object of the priesthood, in contradistinction to the two other theocratical offices of prophet and king, is by no means sufficiently expressed. The prophet is also a mediator between God and man, since he speaks to the latter in the name of tie former; while the king is the mediator of the judicial and executive power of God among his people, acting in the name of Jehovah. The priest also was clothed with representative power (Deu_18:5); but this power was mainly directed to represent the people as a holy people in the presence of Jehovah, and to prepare a way by which they themselves might approach God.
Israel was the full-grown family of God, and the domestic priesthood was to become a nation of priests, a royal priesthood (Exo_19:3-6; Deu_7:6; Num_16:3). But that Israel was chosen to be the royal priesthood with respect to other nations, like many other things, was only expressed in idea, and not actually realized in fact. Israel was incapacitated by its natural sinfulness, and by its incessant transgressions of the very law through the fulfillment of which it was to be sanctified, to penetrate into the immediate presence of God (Exo_19:21). Hence the necessity of the nation having individual representatives to mediate between them and Jehovah. As a separate element the priesthood represented the nation as yet unfit to approach God. The people offered their gifts to God by means of a separated class from among themselves, and in connection with the propitiatory sacrifices this was calculated to keep alive the consciousness of their estrangement from God. The very place assigned to the priests in the camp was expressive of this idea, that they keep “the charge of the sanctuary for the charge of the children of Israel” (Num_3:38).
The insufficiency of the priesthood was expressed by their being excluded from the most holy place. Only the high-priest, in whom the idea of this typical institution concentrated, could penetrate thither; and he only as the type of the future Mediator who was absolutely to lead us into the most holy of the world of spirits. Because the priests were not altogether removed from the sins of the people, even the chief-priest had access only once a year to the most holy, and that just on the day when the entire guilt of the nation was to be atoned for. He had on that occasion to confess his own sin, and bring a sin-offering; to lay aside his magnificent robes of office, and to officiate in a plain linen garment. Moreover, when he entered the dark, narrow space of the most holy, the cloud of incense was to cover the mercy-seat “that he die not” (Lev_16:13).
The idea of mediation between God and the people is expressed by the priest presenting the atonement for the congregation, and the gifts of a reconciled people ( ä÷ְøִéá , Lev_21:7; Num_16:5; Num_17:5). Again, he brings back from God's presence-the blessing of grace, mercy, and peace (Leviticus 9:27, etc.; Num_6:22-27). In the earliest families of the race of Shem the offices of priest and prophet were undoubtedly united; so that the word originally denoted both, and at last the Hebrew idiom kept one part of the idea and the Arabic another (Gesenius, Hebraisches und Chalddisches Handworterbuch [Leips. 1823]). It is worthy of remark that all the persons who are recorded in Scripture as having legally performed priestly acts, but who were not strictly sacerdotal, come under the definition of a prophet, viz. persons who received supernatural communications of knowledge generally, as Adam, Abraham (Gen_20:7), Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Samuel, Elijah (comp. Luk_1:70). The following definition of a priest may be found sufficiently comprehensive: A man who officiates or transacts with God on behalf of others, statedly, or for the occasion.
3. Origin of the Sacerdotal Order. — The idea of a priesthood connects itself, in all its forms, pure or corrupted, with the consciousness, more or less distinct, of sin. Men feel that they have broken a law. The power above them is holier than they are, and they dare not approach it. They crave for the intervention of some one of whom they can think as likely to be more acceptable than themselves. He must offer up their prayers, thanksgivings, sacrifices. He becomes their representative in “things pertaining unto God.” He may become also (though this does not always follow) the representative of God to man. The functions of the priest and prophet may exist in the same person. The reverence which men pay to one who bears this consecrated character may lead them to acknowledge the priest as being also their king. The claim to fill the office may rest on characteristics belonging only to the individual man, or confined to a single family or tribe. The conditions of the priesthood, the office and influence of the priests, as they are among the most conspicuous facts of all religions of the ancient world, so do they occupy a like position in the history of the religion of Israel.
No trace of a hereditary or caste priesthood meets us in the worship of the patriarchal age. (For its occasional appearance in a general form, see § 3.) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob perform priestly acts, offer sacrifices, “draw near” to the Lord (Gen_12:8; Gen_18:23; Gen_26:25; Gen_33:20). To the eldest son, or to the favored son exalted to the place of the eldest, belongs the “goodly raiment” (Gen_27:15), the “coat of many colors” (Gen_37:3), in which we find perhaps the earliest trace of a sacerdotal vestment (comp. Blunt, Script. Coincid. 1, 1; Ugolino, 13:138). Once, and once only, does the word kohên meet us as belonging to a ritual earlier than the time of Abraham. Melchizedek is “the priest of the most high God” (Gen_14:18). The argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews has a historical foundation in the fact that there are no indications in the narrative of Genesis 14 of any one preceding or following him in that office. The special divine names which are connected with him as the priest of “the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,” render it probable that he rose, in the strength of those great thoughts of God, above the level of the other inhabitants of Canaan. In him Abraham recognized a faith like his own, a life more entirely consecrated, the priestly character in its perfection. SEE MELCHIZEDEK.
In the worship of the patriarchs themselves, the chief of the family, as such, acted as the priest. The office descended with the birthright, and might apparently be transferred with it. As the family expanded, the head of each section probably stood in the same relation to it. The thought of the special consecration of the first-born was recognized at the time of the Exodus (see below). A priesthood of a like kind continued to exist in other Shemitic tribes. The Book of Job, whatever may be its date, ignores altogether the institutions of Israel, and represents the man of Uz as himself “sanctifying” his sons, and offering burnt-offerings (Job_1:5). Jethro is a “priest of Midian” (Exo_2:16; Exo_3:1). Balak himself offers a bullock and a ram upon the seven altars on Pisgah (Num_23:2, etc.).
In Egypt the Israelites came into contact with a priesthood of another kind, and that contact must have been for a time a very close one. The marriage of Joseph with the daughter of the priest of On — a priest, as we may infer from her name, of the goddess Neith (Gen_41:45) SEE ASENATH the special favor which he showed to the priestly caste in the years of famine (Gen_47:26), the training of Moses in the palace of the Pharaohs, probably in the colleges and temples of the priests (Act_7:22)—all this must have impressed the constitution, the dress, the outward form of life upon the minds of the lawgiver and his contemporaries. Little as we know directly of the life of Egypt at this remote period, the stereotyped fixedness of the customs of that country warrants us in referring to a tolerably distant past the facts which belong historically to a later period, and in doing so we find coincidences with the ritual of the Israelites too numerous to be looked onl as accidental, or as the result of forces which were at work independent of each other, but taking parallel directions. As circumcision was common to the two nations (Herod. 2, 37), so the shaving of the whole body (ibid.) was with both part of the symbolic purity of the priesthood, once for all with the Levites of Israel (Num_8:7), every third day with those of Egypt. Both are restricted to garments of linen (Herod. 2, 37, 81; Plutarch, De Isid. 4; Juven. 6:533; Exo_28:39; Eze_44:18). The sandals of byblus worn by the Egyptian priests were but little removed from the bare feet with which the sons of Aaron went into the sanctuary (Herod. 2, 37). For both there were multiplied ablutions. Both had a public maintenance assigned, and had besides a large share in the flesh of the victims offered (ibid. 1. c.). Over both there was one high-priest. In both the law of succession was hereditary (ibid.; comp. also Spencer, De Leg. Hebrews 3, 1, 5, 11; Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. 3, 116). They were exempt from taxes. Wine was allowed to them only in the strictest moderation, and entire abstinence from it was required during the fasts, which were frequent (Plutarch, De Isid. 6). Each grade of the priests was distinguished by its peculiar costume. The high-priests, who, among other official duties, anointed the king, wore a mantle made of an entire leopard-skin; as did the king, when engaged in priestly duties. The sacerdotal order constituted one of the four principal castes, of the highest rank, next to the king, and from whom were chosen his confidential and responsible advisers (comp. 2Sa_8:18; 1Ch_18:17; Isa_19:11; Diodorus, 1, 73); they associated with the monarch, whom they assisted in the performance of his public duties, to whom they explained from the sacred books those lessons which were laid down for his conduct (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. 1, 237, 257-282). SEE EGYPT.
Facts such as these leave scarcely any room for doubt that there was a connection of some kind between the Egyptian priesthood and that of Israel. The latter was not, indeed, an outgrowth or imitation of the former. The faith of Israel in Jehovah, the one Lord, the living God, of whom there was no form or similitude, presented the strongest possible contrast to the multitudinous idols of the polytheism of Egypt. The symbolism of the one was cosmic, “of the earth earthy,” that of the other, chiefly, if not altogether, ethical and spiritual. But looking, as we must look, at the law and ritual of the Israelites as designed for the education of a people who were in danger of sinking into such a polytheism, we may readily admit that the education must have started from some point which the subjects of it had already reached, must have employed the language of symbolic acts and rites with which they were already familiar. The same alphabet had to be used, the same root-forms employed as the elements of speech, though the thoughts which they were to be the instruments of uttering were widely different. The details of the religion of Egypt might well be used to make the protest against the religion itself at once less startling and more attractive.
At the time of the Exodus there was as yet no priestly caste. The continuance of solemn sacrifices (Exo_5:1; Exo_5:3) implied, of course, a priesthood of some kind, and priests appear as a recognized body before the promulgation of the Law on Sinai (Exo_19:22). It has been supposed that these were identical with the “young men of the children of Israel” who offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings (Exo_24:5) either as the first-born or as representing in the freshness of their youth the purity of acceptable worship (comp. the analogous case of” the young man the Levite” in Judges 17 :and Ewald, Alterthümer, p. 273). On the principle, however, that difference of title implies in most cases difference of functions, it appears more probable that the “young men” were not those who had before performed priestly acts, but were chosen by the lawgiver to be his ministers in the solemn work of the covenant, representing, in their youth, the stage in the nation's life on which the people were then entering (Keil, ad loc.).
There are signs that the priests of the older ritual were already dealt with as belonging to an obsolescent system. Though they were known as those that “come near” to the Lord (Exo_19:22), yet they are not permitted to approach the Divine Presence on Sinai. They cannot “sanctify” themselves enough to endure that trial. Aaron alone, the future high-priest, but as yet not known as such, enters with Moses into the thick darkness. It is noticeable also that at this transition-stage, when the old order was passing away, and the new was not yet established, there is the proclamation of the truth, wider and higher than both, that the whole people was to be “a kingdom of priests” (Exo_19:6). The idea of the life of the nation was that it was to be as a priest and a prophet to the rest of mankind. They were called to a universal priesthood (comp. Keil, ad loc.). As a people, however, they needed a long discipline before they could make the idea a reality. They drew back from their high vocation (Exo_20:18-21). As for other reasons, so also for this, that the central truth required a rigid, unbending form for its outward expression, a distinctive priesthood was to be to the nation what the nation was to mankind. The position given to the ordinances of the priesthood indicated with sufficient clearness that it was subordinate, not primary, a means and not an end. Not in the first proclamation of the great laws of duty in the Decalogue (Exo_20:1-17), nor in the application of those laws to the chief contingencies of the people's life in the wilderness, does it find a place. It appears together with the ark and the tabernacle, as taking its position in the education by which the people were to be led towards the mark of their high calling. As such we have to consider it.
II. Personal Characteristics of the Hebrew Priesthood, -
1. Consecration. — The functions of the HIGH-PRIEST, the position and history of the LEVITES as the consecrated tribe, have been fully discussed under those heads. It remains to notice the characteristic facts connected with “the priests, the sons of Aaron,” as standing between the two. Solemn as was the subsequent dedication of the other descendants of Levi, that of the priests involved a yet higher consecration. A special word ( ÷ָãִùׁ , kadásh) was appropriated to it. Their old garments were laid aside. Their bodies were washed with clean water (Exo_29:4; Lev_8:6) and anointed with the perfumed oil, prepared after a prescribed formula, and to be used for no lower purpose (Exo_29:7; Exo_30:22-33). The sons of Aaron, it may be noticed, were simply sprinkled with the precious oil (Lev_8:30). Over Aaron himself it was poured till it went down to the skirts of his clothing (Lev_8:12; Psa_133:2). The new garments belonging to their office were then put on them (see below). The truth that those who intercede for others must themselves have been reconciled was indicated by the sacrifice of a bullock as a sin-offering, on which they solemnly laid their hands, as transferring to it the guilt which had attached to them (Exo_29:10; Lev_8:18). The total surrender of their lives was represented by the ram slain as a burnt- offering, a “sweet savor” to Jehovah (Exo_29:18; Lev_8:21). The blood of these two was sprinkled on the altar, offered to the Lord. The blood of a third victim, the ram of consecration, was used for another purpose. With it Moses sprinkled the right ear, that was to be open to the divine voice; the right hand and the right foot, that were to be active in divine ministrations (Exo_29:20; Lev_8:23-24). Lastly, as they were to be the exponents, not only of the nation's sense of guilt, but of its praise and thanksgiving, Moses was to “fill their hands” with cakes of unleavened bread and portions of the sacrifices, which they were to present before the Lord as a wave-offering. This appears to have been regarded as the essential part of the consecration; and the Heb. “to fill the hand” is accordingly used as a synonym for “to consecrate” (Exo_29:9; 2Ch_13:9). The whole of this mysterious ritual was to he repeated for seven days, during which they remained within the Tabernacle, separated from the people, and not till then was the consecration perfect (comp. on the meaning of all these acts, Bähr, Symbolik, vol. 2, ch. 5, § 2). Moses himself, as the representative of the Unseen King, is the consecrator, the sacrificer throughout these ceremonies; as the channel through which the others receive their office, he has for the time a higher priesthood than that of Aaron (Selden, De Synedr. 1, 16; Ugolino, 12:3). In accordance with the principle which runs through the history of Israel, he, the ruler, solemnly divests himself of the priestly office and transfers it to another. The fact that he had been a priest was merged in his work as a lawgiver. Only once in the language of a later period is the word kohên applied to him (Psa_99:6).
The consecrated character thus imparted did not need renewing. It was a perpetual inheritance transmitted from father to son through all the centuries that followed. We do not read of its being renewed in the case of any individual priest of the sons of Aaron. Only when the line of succession was broken, and the impiety of Jeroboam intruded the lowest of the people into the sacred office, do we find the reappearance of a like form (2Ch_13:9) of the same technical word. The previous history of Jeroboam and the character of the worship which he introduced make it probable that, in that case only, the ceremonial was, to some extent, Egyptian in its origin. In after-times the high-priest took an oath (Heb_7:23) to bind him, as the Jews say, to a strict adherence to established customs (Mishna, Yoma, 1, 5).
2. Dress. — The “sons of Aaron” thus dedicated were to wear during their ministrations a special apparel at other times apparently they wore the common dress of the people. The material of the sacred garments was to be linen, and not wool (Ezekiel 44, 17; Lev_21:1-10); but Ewald (Alterthümer, p. 317), Josephus (Ant. 4:8), and the rabbins (Mass. Kilaim, p. 9) maintain that the holy garments were made of a mixture of wool and linen, called ùִׁòִèְּðֵæ (shaatnez); and a typical meaning is found in this by Braun (Vest. Sac. Hebr. § 30), as if it was to signify the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood; while Eze_44:17, which restricts the material to linen, was considered significant of the simplicity of the New Test. SEE HETEROGENEOUS.
The prohibition in Lev_19:19; Deu_22:11 against the people generally wearing any garments of such “mingled” material was hence explained by Josephus that they might not assume what was characteristic of the priests (Ant. 4:11). But the more satisfactory and natural view is that the priests only wore linen, and that the Israelites were prohibited from wearing the mixture to teach them that even in garments they should avoid all needless artificiality, and to respect the creation of God in the simplicity of the material. SEE LINEN.
It is well known that the Roman poets speak of the Egyptian priests as the linigeri, the wearers of linen (Juvenal, Sat. 6; Ovid, Met. 1). The reason for fixing on this material is given in Eze_44:18; but the feeling that there was something unclean in clothes made from the skin or wool of an animal was common to other nations. Egypt has already been mentioned. The Arab priests in the time of Mohammed wore linen only (Ewald, Alterthüm. p. 289). As there were some garments common both to the priests and the high priest, we shall begin with those of the former, taking them in the order in which they would be put on. SEE APPAREL.
(1.) The first was be îִëְðְñֵé áָã , “linen breeches,” or drawers (Exo_28:42; Sept. ðåñéóêåëῆ ëéíÜ ; Vulg. feminalia linea). These extended from the loins to the thighs, and were “to cover their nakedness.” The verecundia of the Hebrew ritual in this and in other places (Exo_20:26; Exo_28:42) was probably a protest against some of the fouler forms of nature-worship, as e.g. in the worship of Peor (Maimonides, Moreh Nebochim, 3, 45; Ugolino, 13:385), and possibly, also, in some Egyptian rites (Herod. 2, 60). According to Josephus, whose testimony, however, of course relates only to his own time, they reached only to the middle of the thigh, where they were tied fast (Ant. 3, 7, 1). Such drawers were worn universally in Egypt. In the sculptures and paintings of that country the figures of workmen and servants have no other dress than a short kilt or apron, sometimes simply bound about the loins and lapping over in front; other figures have short loose drawers; while a third variety of this article, fitting closely and extending to the knees, appears in the figures of some idols, as in the cut. This last sort of drawers seems to have been peculiar in Egypt to the gods, and to the priests, whose attire was often adapted to that of the idols on which they attended. The priests, in common with other persons of the upper classes, wore the drawers under other robes. No mention occurs of the use of drawers by any other class of persons in Israel except the priests, on whom it was enjoined for the sake of decency. SEE BREECHES.
(2.) Over the drawers was worn the “coat of fine linen” ( ëְּúֹðֶú ùֵׁùׁ , kethôneth shesh, tunica byssina, Exo_39:27), a close-fitting shirt or cassock, such as was worn by men in general (Gen_37:3), also by women (2Sa_13:18; Song of Solomon 5, 3), next to the skin. It was white, but with a diamond or chess-board pattern on it (Bahr, Symb. vol. 2, ch. 3, § 2). This came nearly to the feet ( ðïäήñçò ÷éôώí , Josephus, Ant. 3, 7, 1), and was to be woven in its garment-shape (not cut out and then sewed together), like the ÷éôὼí ἄῤῥáöïò of Joh_19:23, in which some interpreters have even seen a token of the priesthood of him who wore it (Ewald, Gesch. 5, 177; Ugolino, 13:218). Here also modern Eastern customs present an analogy in the woven, seamless ihram worn by the Mecca pilgrims (Ewald, Alterthüm. p. 289). Josephus further states that it sat close to the body, and had sleeves, which were tied fast to the arms, and was girded to the breast a little above the elbows by a girdle. It had a narrow aperture about the neck, and was tied with certain strings hanging down from the edge over the breast and back, and was fastened above each shoulder (Ant. 3, 7, 2). But this garment. in the case of the priests and high priest, was to be broidered (Exo_28:4), ëְּúֹðֶú úִּùְׁáֵּåֹ , “a broidered coat,” by which Gesenius understands a coat of cloth worked in checkers or cells. Braun compares it to the reticulum in the stomach of ruminant animals (De Vestitu, 1, 17). The Sept. gives ÷éôὼí êïóõìâùôüò , which seems to refer to the tassels or strings; Vulg. linea stricta, which seems to refer to its close fitting.
(3.) The whole tunic was gathered at the waist by the “girdle” ( àִáְðֵè , abnet, Exo_28:40; Sept. æώíç ; Vulg. balteus; comp. Eze_44:17-19). This was also worn by magistrates (Isa_22:21). The girdle for the priests was to be made of fine twined linen, and blue and purple and scarlet of needlework (Isaiah 39:29). Josephus describes it as often going round, four fingers broad, but so loosely woven that it might be taken for the skin of a serpent; and that it was embroidered with flowers of scarlet and purple and blue, but that the warp was nothing but linen. The beginning of its circumvolution was at the breast, and when it had gone often round it was there tied, and hung loosely down to the ankles while the priest was not engaged in any laborious service, for in that position it appeared in the most agreeable manner to the spectators; but when he was obliged to assist at the offering of sacrifices and to do the appointed service, in order that he might not be hindered in his operations by its motion, he threw it to the left hand and bore it on his right shoulder (Ant. 3. 7, 2). The mode of its hanging down is illustrated in Fig. 4, where the girdle is also richly embroidered, while the imbricated appearance of the girdle ( øֹ÷ֵí îִòֲùֵׂä ) may be seen very plainly in Fig. 1. The next cut (Fig. 3), of a priestly scribe of ancient Egypt, offers an interesting specimen of both tunic and girdle. SEE GIRDLE.
(4.) Upon their head they were to wear a turban ( îִâְáְּòָä , migbeâh; Exo_28:40; Sept. êßäáñéò ; Vulg. tiara; A… “cap” or “bonnet,” which two words are there synonymous) in the form of a cup-shaped flower, also of fine linen (Exo_39:28). In the time of Josephus it was circular, covering about half the head, something like a crown, made of thick linen swathes doubled round many times and sewed together, surrounded by a linen cover to hide the seams of the swathes, and sat so close that it would not fall off when the body was bent down (Ant. 3, 7, 3).
These garments they might wear at any time in the Temple, whether on duty or not, but they were not to sleep in them (Josephus, War, 5, 5, 7). When they became soiled they were not washed or used again, but torn up to make wicks for the lamps in the Tabernacle (Selden, De Synedr. 13:11). In Eze_42:14; Eze_44:17-19, there are directions that the priests should take off their garments when they had ministered, and lay them up in the holy chambers, and put on other garments; but these directions occur in a visionary representation of a temple, which all agree has never been realized, the particulars of which, though sometimes derived from known customs, yet at other times differ from them widely. The garments of the inferior priests appear to have been kept in the sacred treasury (Ezra 2, 69; Neh_7:70). They had besides them other “clothes of service,” which were probably simpler, but are not described (Exo_31:10; Ezra 42, 14). In all their acts of ministration they were to be barefooted. This is inferred
(a) from the absence of any direction as to a covering for the feet;
(b) from the later custom;
(c) from the universal feeling of the East. Shoes were worn as a protection against defilement. In a sanctuary there was nothing that could defile.
Then, as now, this was the strongest recognition of the sanctity of a holy place which the Oriental mind could think of (Exo_3:5; Jos_5:15), and throughout the whole existence of the Temple service, even though it drew upon them the scorn of the heathen (Juven. Sat. 6, 159), and seriously affected the health of the priests (Ugolino, 8:976; 13:405), it was scrupulously adhered to.
The dress of the high-priest was precisely the same with that of the common priests in all the foregoing particulars; in addition to which he had
(1.) a robe, îְòִéì , meil (Exo_28:4, ðïäήñç , tunica). This was not a mantle, but a second and larger coat without sleeves; a kind of surtout worn by the laity, especially persons of distinction (Job_1:20; Job 2, 12, by kings; 1Sa_15:27; 1Sa_18:4; 1Sa_24:5-12). This garment, when intended for the high-priest, and then called “the robe of the ephod,” was to be of one entire piece of woven work, all of blue, with an aperture for the neck in the middle of the upper part, having its rim strengthened and adorned with a border. The hem had a kind of fringe, composed of tassels, made of blue, purple, and scarlet, in the form of pomegranates; and between every two pomegranates there was a small golden bell, so that there was a bell and a pomegranate alternately all round (Exo_28:31-35). The use of these bells may have partly been that by the high-priest shaking his garment at the time of his offering incense on the great day of expiation, etc., the people without might be apprised of it, and unite their prayers with it (comp. Sir_45:9; Luk_1:10; Act_10:4; Rev_8:3-4). Josephus describes this robe of the ephod as reaching to the feet, and consisting of a single piece of stuff parted where the hands came out (Joh_19:23). He also states that it was tied round with a girdle embroidered with the same colors as the former, with a mixture of gold interwoven (Ant. 3, 7, 4). It is highly probable that this garment was also derived from Egyptian usage. There are instances at Thebes of priests wearing over the great-coat a loose sleeveless robe, which exposes the sleeves of the inner tunic. The fringe of bells and pomegranates seems to have been the priestly substitute for the fringe bound with a blue ribbon, which all the Israelites were commanded to wear. Many traces of this fringe occur in the Egyptian remains. The use assigned to it, “that looking on this fringe they should remember the Lord's commandments,” seems best explicable by the supposition that the Egyptians had connected some superstitious ideas with it (Num_15:37-40).
(2.) The ephod, àֵôåֹã , ἐðùìßò , superhumerale (Exo_28:4). This was a short cloak covering the shoulders and breast. It is said to have been worn by Samuel while a youth ministering before the Lord (1 Samuel 2, 18); by David while engaged in religious service (2Sa_6:14); and by inferior priests (1Sa_22:18). But in all these instances it is distinguished as a linen ephod, and was not a sacred but an honorary vestment, as the Sept. understands it in 2Sa_6:14, óôïëὴí ἔîáëëïí . The ephod of the high priest was to be made of gold, of blue, of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work, çùֵׁá . Though it probably consisted of one piece, woven throughout, it had a back part and a front part, united by shoulder-pieces. It had also a girdle; or, rather, strings went out from each side and tied it to the body. On the top of each shoulder was to be an onyx stone, set in sockets of gold, each having engraven upon it six of the names of the children of Israel, according to the precedence of birth, to memorialize the Lord of the promises made to them (Exo_28:6-12; Exo_28:29). Josephus gives sleeves to the ephod (Ant. 3, 7, 5). It may be considered as a substitute for the leopard-skin worn by the Egyptian high-priests in their most sacred duties, as in Fig. 4, where the ephod appears no less plainly. In other figures of Egyptian priests, the shoulder-pieces were equally apparent. They are even perceptible in Fig. 1. The Egyptian ephod is, however, highly charged with all sorts of idolatrous figures and emblems, and even with scenes of human sacrifices. The Sept. rendering of çùֵׁá , “cunning work,” is ἔñãïí ὑöáíôὸí ðïéêéëôïῦ , a woven-work of the embroiderer, a word which especially denotes a manufacturer of tissues adorned with figures of animals (Strabo, 17 p. 574, Sieb.). In the earlier liturgical costume, the ephod is mentioned as belonging to the high-priest only (Exo_28:6-12; Exo_39:2-5). At a later period it is used apparently by all the priests (1Sa_22:18), and even by others, not of the tribe of Levi, engaged in religious ceremonial (2Sa_6:14). SEE EPHOD. Then came
(3.) the breastplate, çùֶׁï , chôshen (Sept. ðåñéóôήèéïí ; Vulg. rationale); a gorget ten inches square, made of the same sort of cloth as the ephod, and doubled so as to form a kind of pouch or bag (Exo_29:9), in which were to be put the Urim and Thummim, which are also mentioned as if already known (Exo_28:30). The external part of this gorget was set with four rows of precious stones-the first row a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle; the second, an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond; the third, a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst; and the fourth, a beryl, an onyx, and a jasper-set in a golden socket. Upon each of these stones was to be engraven the name of one of the sons of Jacob. In the ephod, in which there was a space left open sufficiently large for the admission of this pectoral, were four rings of gold, to which four others at the four corners of the breastplate corresponded; the two lower rings of the latter being fixed inside. It was confined to the ephod by means of dark-blue ribbons, which passed through these rings; and it was also suspended from the onyx stones on the shoulder by chains of gold, or, rather, cords of twisted gold threads, which were fastened at one end to two other larger rings fixed in the upper corners of the pectoral, and by the other end going round the onyx stones on the shoulders, and returning and being fixed in the larger ring. The breastplate was further kept in its place by a girdle, made of the same stuff, which Josephus says was sewed to the breastplate, and which, when it had gone once round, was tied again upon the seam and hung down. Here is another adaptation and correction of the costume of the higher Egyptian priests, who wore a large, splendid ornament upon the breast, often a winged scarabaeus, the emblem of the sun, as in the cut, Fig. 5, which exhibits the connecting ring and chain to fasten it to the girdle.
(4.) The remaining portion of dress peculiar to the high-priest was the mitre, îִöְðֵáֶú , mitsnebeth (Sept. ÷éÓáðë÷ ; Vulg. cidaris, Exo_28:4). The Bible says nothing of the difference between this and the turban of the common priests. It is, however, called by a different name. It was to be of fine linen (Exo_28:39). Josephus says it was the same in construction and figure with that of the common priest, but that above it there was another, with swathes of blue, embroidered; and round it was a golden crown, polished, of three rows, one above another, out of which rose a cup of gold, which resembled the calyx of the herb called by Greek botanists hyoscyamus lie ends a most labored description by comparing the shape of it to a poppy (Ant. 3, 7, 6). Upon comparing his account of the bonnet of the priests with the mitre of the high-priest, it would appear that the latter was conical. The cut, Fig. 6, presents the principal forms of the mitres worn by the ancient priests of Egypt, and affords a substantial resemblance of that prescribed to the Jews, divested of idolatrous symbols, but which were displaced to make way for a simple plate of gold, bearing the inscription, “Holiness to Jehovah.” This plate ( öִéåֹ , tsits; Sept. ðÝôáëïí ; Vulg. lamina) extended from one ear to the other, being bound to the forehead by strings tied behind, and further secured in its position by a blue ribbon attached to the mitre (Exo_28:36-39; Exo_39:30; Lev_8:9). Josephus says this plate was preserved to his own day (Ant. 8:3, 8; see Reland, De Spol. Templi, p. ]32). Such was the dress of the high priest: see a description of its magnificence in corresponding terms in Sirach 1, 5-16.
Josephus had an idea of the symbolical import of the several parts of the pontifical dress. He says that being made of linen signified the earth; the blue denoted the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and in the noise of its bells resembling thunder. The ephod showed that God had made the universe of four elements, the gold relating to the splendor by which all things are enlightened. The breastplate in the middle of the ephod resembled the earth, which has the middle place of the world. The girdle signified the sea, which goes round the world. The sardonyxes declare the sun and moon. The twelve stones are the twelve months or signs of the zodiac. The mitre is heaven, because blue (Ant. 3, 7, 7). He appears, however, to have had two explanations of some things, one for the Gentiles, and another for the Jews. Thus in this section he tells his Gentile readers that the seven lamps upon the golden candlesticks referred to the seven planets; but to the Jews he represents them as an emblem of the seven days of the week (War, 7:5, 5; Whiston's notes ad loc.). It was not always worn by the high-priest. It was exchanged for one wholly of linen, and therefore white, though of similar construction, when on the day of expiation he entered into the holy of holies (Lev_16:4; Lev_16:23); and neither he nor the common priests wore their appropriate dress, except when officiating. It was for this reason, according to some, that Paul, who had been long absent from Jerusalem, did not know that Ananias was the high-priest (Act_23:5). Bahr (Symbolik, vol. 2, ch. 3, § 1, 2) finds a mystic meaning in the number, material, color, and shape of the priestly vestments, discusses each point elaborately, and dwells in § 3 on the differences between them and those of the Egyptian priesthood. According to Fairbairn (Typol. of Script.), the garments represent the office, and the person who was officially invested was to have them sprinkled with a mixture of oil and sacrificial blood (Kurtz, Opfercultus, p. 292).
These garments, which were first worn at the consecration, and which were preserved in the Temple when not actually required, were not allowed except to such as were legally consecrated for service, though they belonged to the house of Aaron. These garments were “holy garments” (Exo_28:4), made ‘for glory and for beauty;” but they were not only for a glorious ornament, for the whole of the vestments bore a symbolical meaning, and the inscription on the golden plate which adorned the brow of the high-priest, “Holiness to Jehovah,” might be properly applied to all the holy garments. The four pieces of the priestly attire were each and all of them required none was to fail; nor was it permitted to wear more than was prescribed; and the warning— “that he die not” (Exo_28:35; Exo_28:43) seems to bear upon an exact fulfillment of the divine command in this, no less than in other things. The shining white of the linen garments typified that the servants of him who covers himself with light as with a garment (Psa_104:2; Dan_2:22; Dan_7:9), and who dwelleth “in light which no man can approach unto” (1Ti_6:16), are clothed typically in light (Exo_34:29); so that the ministers should minister in the earthly sanctuary in the same livery as his ministers wear in the heavenly sanctuary (Dan_12:6; Eze_10:2; Eze_10:7; Mat_17:2; Mat_28:3; Act_10:30). But light (consequently white, as the most perfect reflection of light) is universally the type of salvation (Job_18:5, etc.; Psa_27:1; Isa_59:9), of righteousness (Psa_37:6; Mal_4:2), of purity and holiness (1 John 1, 5, 7); just as darkness, black, is the type of wickedness, uncleanness, etc. (Isaiah 5, 20; Lam_4:7-8; Joh_3:19; Rom_3:12; 2Co_6:14). It is not without meaning that the priests, like the angels, are specially called the holy ones.
3. Regulations. — The idea of a consecrated life, which was thus asserted at the outset, was carried through a multitude of details. Each probably had a symbolic meaning of its own. Collectively they formed an education by which the power of distinguishing between things holy and profane, between the clean and the unclean, and so ultimately between moral good and evil, was awakened and developed (Ezekiel 44, 23). Before they entered the tabernacle the priests were to wash their hands and their feet (Exo_30:17-21; Exo_40:30-32). During the time of their ministration thiey were to drink no wine or strong drink (Lev_10:9; Ezekiel 44, 21). Their function was to be more to them than the ties of friendship or of blood, and, except in the case of the nearest relationships (six degrees are specified, Lev_21:1-5; Ezekiel 44, 25), they were to make no mourning for the dead. The high-priest, as carrying the consecrated life to its highest point, was to be above the disturbing power of human sorrow even in these instances. Public calamities seem to have been an exception, for Joacim the high-priest, and the priests, in such circumstances, ministered in sackcloth with ashes on their mitres (Jdt_4:14-15; comp. Joe_1:13). Customs which appear to have been common in other priesthoods were (probably for that reason) forbidden them. They were not to shave their heads. They were to go through their ministrations with the serenity of a reverential awe, not with the orgiastic wildness which led the priests of Baal, in their despair, to make cuttings in their flesh (Lev_19:28; 1Ki_18:28), and carried those of whom Atys was a type to a more terrible mutilation (Deu_23:1).
The same thought found expression in two other forms affecting the priests of Israel. The priest was to be one who, as the representative of other men, was to be physically as well as liturgically perfect. The idea of the perfect body, as symbolizing the holy soul, was, as might be expected, wide-spread among the religions of heathenism. “Sacerdos non integri corporis quasi mall ominis res vitanda est” (Seneca, Controv. 4:2). As the victim was to be without blemish, so also was the sacrificer (comp. Bahr, Symbol. vol. 2. ch. 2, § 3). The law specified in broad outlines the excluding defects (Lev_21:17-21), and these were such as impaired the purity, or at least the dignity, of the ministrant. The morbid casuistry of the later rabbins drew up a list of not less than 144 faults or infirmities which involved permanent, and of twenty- two which involved temporary deprivation from the priestly office (Carpzov. App. Crit. p. 92, 93; Ugolino, 12:54; 13:903); and the original symbolism of the principle (Philo, De Vict. and De Monarch. 2, 5) was lost in the prurient minuteness which, here as elsewhere, often makes the study of rabbinic literature a somewhat repulsive task. If the Christian Church has sometimes seemed to approximate, in the conditions it laid down for the priestly character, to the rules of Judaism, it was yet careful to reject the Jewish principles, and to rest its regulations simply on the grounds of expediency (Constt. Apost. 77, 78). The marriages of the sons of Aaron were, in like manner, hedged round with special rules. There is, indeed, no evidence for what has sometimes been asserted, that either the high priest (Philo, De Monarch. 2, 11; 2, 229, ed. Mang.; Ewald, Alterthüm. p. 302) or the other sons of Aaron (Ugolino, 12:52) were limited in their choice to the women of their own tribe, and we have some distinct instances to the contrary. It is probable, however, that the priestly families frequently intermarried, and it is certain that they were forbidden to marry an unchaste woman, or one who had been divorced, or the widow of any but a priest (Lev_21:7; Lev_21:14; Ezekiel 44, 22). The prohibition of marriage with one of an alien race was assumed, though not enacted in the law; and hence the reforming zeal of a later time compelled all who had contracted such marriages to put away their strange wives (Ezr_10:18), and counted the offspring of a priest and a woman taken captive in war as illegitimate (Josephus, Ant. 3, 10; 11:4; c. Apion. 1, 7), even though the priest himself did not thereby lose his function (Ugolino, 12:924).
The high-priest was to carry the same idea to a yet higher point, and was to marry none but a virgin in the first freshness of her youth (Lev_21:13). Later casuistry fixed the age within the narrow limits of twelve and twelve and a half (Carpzov. App. Crit. p. 88). It followed, as a matter of necessity, from these regulations that the legitimacy of every priest depended on his genealogy. A single missing or faulty link would vitiate the whole succession. To those genealogies, accordingly, extending back unbroken for 2000 years, the priests could point, up to the time of the destruction of the Temple (Josephus, c. Apion. 1, 7). In later times, wherever the priest might live-Egypt, Babylon, Greece-he was to send the register of all marriages in his family to Jerusalem (ibid.). They could be referred to in any doubtful or disputed case (Ezr_2:62; Neh_7:64). In them was registered the name of every mother as well as of every father (ibid.; comp. also the story already referred to in Suidas, s.v. É᾿çóïῦò ). It was the distinguishing mark of a priest, not of the Aaronic line, that he was ἀðÜôùñ , ἀìήôùñ , ἀãåíåáëüãçôïò (Heb_7:3), with no father or mother named as the ground of his title.
The age at which the sons of Aaron might enter upon their duties was not defined by the law, as that of the Levites was. Their office did not call for the same degree of physical strength; and if twenty-five in the ritual of the Tabernacle (Num_8:24) and twenty in that of the Temple (1Ch_23:27) was the appointed age for the latter, the former were not likely to be kept waiting till a later period. In one remarkable instance, indeed, we have an example of a yet earlier age. The boy Aristobulus at the age of seventeen ministered in the Temple in his pontifical robes, the admired of all observers, and thus stirred the treacherous jealousy of Herod to remove so dangerous a rival (Josephus, Ant. 15:3, 3). This may have been exceptional, but the language of the rabbins indicates that the special consecration of the priest's life began with the opening years of manhood. As soon as the down appeared on his cheek the young candidate presented himself before the Council of the Sanhedrim, and his genealogy was carefully inspected. If it failed to satisfy his judges, he left the Temple clad in black, and had to seek another calling; if all was right so far, another ordeal awaited him. A careful inspection was to determine whether he was subject to any one of the 144 defects which would invalidate his priestly acts. If he was found free from all blemish, he was clad in the white linen of the priests, and entered on his ministrations. If the result of the examination was not satisfactory, he was relegated to the half-menial office of separating the sound wood for the altar from that which was decayed and worm-eaten, but was not deprived of the emoluments of his office (Lightfoot, Temple Service, ch. 6).
4. Functions. — The work of the priesthood of Israel was, from its very nature, more stereotyped by the Mosaic institutions than any other element of the national life. The functions of the Levites-less defined, and therefore more capable of expansion-altered, as has been shown, SEE LEVITE, from age to age; but those of the priests continued throughout substantially the same, whatever changes might be brought about in their social position and organization. The duties described in Exodus and Leviticus are the same as those recognized in the books of Chronicles, and those which the prophet- priest Ezekiel sees in his vision of the Temple of the future. They, assisting the high-priest, were to watch over the fire on the altar of burnt-offerings, and to keep it burning evermore both by day and night (Lev_6:12; 2Ch_13:11); to feed the golden lamp outside the veil with oil (Exo_27:20-21; Lev_24:2); to offer the morning and evening sacrifices, each accompanied with a meal-offering and a drink offering, at the door of the tabernacle (Exo_29:38-44). These were the fixed, invariable duties; but their chief function was that of being always at hand to do the priest's office for any guilty, or penitent, or rejoicing Israelite. The worshipper might come at any time. If he were rich and brought a bullock, it was the priest's duty to slay the victim, to place the wood upon the altar, to light the fire, to sprinkle the altar with the blood (Lev_1:5). If he were poor and brought a pigeon, the priest was to wring its neck (Lev_1:15). In either case he was to burn the meal- offering and the peace offering which accompanied the sacrifice (Lev_2:2; Lev_2:9; Lev_3:11).
After the birth of every child, the mother was to come with her sacrifice of turtle-doves or pigeons (Lev_12:6; Luk_2:22-24), and was thus to be purified from her uncleanness. A husband who suspected his wife of unfaithfulness might bring her to the priest, and it belonged to him to give her the water of jealousy as an ordeal, and to pronounce the formula of execration (Num_5:11-31). Lepers were to come, day by day, to submit themselves to the priest's inspection, that he might judge whether they were clean or unclean, and when they were healed perform for them the ritual of purification (Lev_13:14; comp. Mar_1:44). All the numerous accidents which the law looked upon as defilements or sins of ignorance had to be expiated by a sacrifice, which the priest of course had to offer (Lev_15:1-33). As they thus acted as mediators for those who were laboring under the sense of guilt, so they were to help others who were striving to attain, if only for a season, the higher standard of a consecrated life. The Nazarite was to come to them with his sacrifice and his wave-offering (Num_6:1-21). In the final establishments at Jerusalem it belonged to the priests to act as sentinels over the holy place, as to the Levites to guard the wider area of the precincts of the Temple (Ugolino, 13, 1052).
Other duties of a higher and more ethical character are hinted at, but were not and probably could not be, the subject of a special regulation. They were to teach the children of Israel the statutes of the Lord (Lev_10:11; Deu_33:10; 2Ch_15:3; Eze_44:23-24). The “priest's lips” (in the language of the last prophet looking back upon the ideal of the order) were to “keep knowledge” (Mal_2:7). Through the w hole history, with the exception of the periods of national apostasy, these acts, and others like them, formed the daily life of the priests who were on duty. The three great festivals of the year were, however, their seasons of busiest employment. The pilgrims who came up by tens of thousands to keep the feast came each with his sacrifice and oblation. The work at such times was, on some occasions at least, beyond the strength of the priests in attendance, and the Levites had to be called in to help them (2Ch_29:34; 2Ch_35:14). Other acts of the priests of Israel, significant as they were, were less distinctively sacerdotal. They were to bless the people at every solemn meeting, and that this part of their office might never fall into disuse, a special formula of benediction was provided (Num_6:22-27).
During the journeys in the wilderness it belonged to them to cover the ark and all the vessels of the sanctuary with a purple or scarlet cloth before the Levites might approach them (Num_4:5-15). As the people started on each day's march they were to blow “an alarm” with long silver trumpets (Num_10:1-8)-with two if the whole multitude were to be assembled, with one if there was to be a special council of the elders and princes of Israel. With the same instruments they were to proclaim the commencement of all the solemn days, and day