A Royal Priesthood

Claude Mariottini
Emeritus Professor
of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Several days ago, I wrote two posts dealing with the idea of priesthood in the Old Testament. The first post “Jesus: A High Priest After the Order of Melchizedek,” dealt with the priesthood of David and the fact that he inherited the religious traditions of Jerusalem and became a priest in the same way Melchizedek served as priest and king of the old Jebusite city.

That article also dealt with the priesthood of Jesus. Jesus, a man from the tribe of Judah, became a priest, not because he was a Levite or from the tribe of Levi, but because he was a descendant of David. As such, he was considered eligible to carry on the tradition initiated by David. Thus, Jesus was a priest according the tradition established by Melchizedek and adopted by David.

The second article, “Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘David’s Sons Were Priests,’” dealt with the statement in 2 Samuel 18:8 that the sons of David were priests. Although the writer of Chronicles was not willing to affirm that David’s sons could serve as priests, the article concluded that David’s sons were indeed priests. They did not become priest because they were Levites. David’s sons exercised the priesthood because, as sons of the king of Jerusalem, they followed the same tradition established by Melchizedek and continued by David when he became king of Jerusalem.

Today I want to address the passage in 1 Peter 2:9 and offer a new proposal for the proper understanding of the fact that Christians are called “a royal priesthood.” My proposal is based on my previous discussion in the articles above. I presuppose that you have read those articles; if you have not read them, I suggest that you do so for the proper understanding of the discussion below.

The text in Peter reads: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9 ESV).

The expression “a royal priesthood,” has been interpreted in many different ways. Most commentators understand this expression as describing the dignity of the priestly office that Christians have attained (see 1 Peter 2:5). This expression was taken from Exodus 19:6. In Exodus the entire nation of Israel was to be a kingdom of priests. Thus, for Peter, Christians were set apart to offer spiritual sacrifices to God.

The word “royal” has been understood in different ways: that these priests belong to the king, that they are priests of the kingdom of God, that this title demonstrates the exalted position of believers, or the dignity of their office as priests, or that they belong to God, the king, and for this reason, all of God’s followers are royal.

Peter H. Davids, in his commentary on The First Epistle of Peter (p. 87) wrote:

The term for “priesthood” is found in the NT only here [2:5] and in 2:9. The latter reference shows clearly that Peter sees the church in terms of Israel’s priestly functions, for it alludes to Exod. 19:6. And other NT authors pick up the theme using different words (e.g, Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6)–such language is used elsewhere only of Christ as a priest in Hebrews and of the Aaronic priesthood in Jerusalem.

The expression in 1 Peter 2:9 “a royal priesthood, a holy nation,” is taken from Exodus 19:6:

“You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

All English translations translate the expression ממלכת כהנים as “a kingdom of priests.” The Septuagint (LXX) translates the Hebrew expression as “a royal priesthood” in Exodus 19:6 and in Exodus 23:22, although the extended text of Exodus 23:22 does not appear in any English translation. It is clear that the citation in 1 Peter 2:9 was taken from the Septuagint.

What is lost in all the discussion of 1 Peter 2:9 and in all the commentaries of the text is the most obvious question: how could Gentile Christians become priests of God? Since most believers were not Jews, the possibility of a Levitical priesthood is out of the question. How could non-Levites act as priests of God even when they only offered spiritual sacrifices (as in 1 Peter 2:5)?

The answer seems to be in the way David’s sons served as priests. Since David, a man from Judah, served as a priest following the tradition established by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, David’s sons exercised a “royal priesthood,” a priesthood based on the authority delegated by their father, who was a king.

Jesus, a man from Judah, exercised the priesthood following the tradition established by Melchizedek and continued by his ancestor David. His followers became priests by the authority given to them by their Lord, who was the King of kings.

Both the sons of David and the followers of Christ did not exercise a Levitical priesthood because they were not from the tribe of Levi or from the family of Aaron. They exercised a “royal priesthood,” the type of priesthood established by Melchizedek who was the king and priest of Jerusalem and adopted by David when he became the leader of the Canaanite population who continued to live in Jerusalem after the conquest of the city.

Reference:

Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing House, 1990.

Claude Mariottini
Emeritus Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

NOTE: Did you like this post? Do you think other people would like to read this post? Be sure to share this post on Facebook and share a link on Twitter or Tumblr so that others may enjoy reading it too!

I would love to hear from you! Let me know what you thought of this post by leaving a comment below. Be sure to like my page on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, follow me on Tumblr, Facebook, and subscribe to my blog to receive each post by email.

If you are looking for other series of studies on the Old Testament, visit the Archive section and you will find many studies that deal with a variety of topics.

This entry was posted in David, Melchizedek, New Testament, Priests and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to A Royal Priesthood

  1. Rick B says:

    >I would have to disagree. 2 Sam 18:8 has nothing to do with the cause but the effect. Yeshua being a high priest, Peter quoting in 1 Peter 2:9 and 2 Sam 18:8 are effects of God’s covenant. Very simple, if you wish to learn what the ‘royal priesthood’ is, these following verses are all connected –what is Covenant, Ex 34:28 De 4:13, 9:9-11the Covenant, Ex 20:1-17 De 5:6-21who is a Priest, Ex 19:5-6why, De 29:14-15connected – Ps 110:4, Mat 3:17, Luk 3:22, Heb 5:4-5 all from Ex 19:5-6Any questions, please write!

    Like

  2. >Rick,I believe that you misunderstood the point I was making in my post. You read the third post on the series but did you read the first two posts? In ancient Israel, only Levites could become priests. Although Exodus 19:5-6 says that Israel would become a kingdom of priests, they never did. Again, only the members of the family of Aaron could become priests. How could David’s sons become priests when they were from the tribe of Judah?I encourage you to read all my three posts and you will recognize that what you are proposing is not correct.Thank you very much for visiting my blog. Claude Mariottini

    Like

  3. Anonymous says:

    >Some Catholics use this particular passage Peter 2:9 as a reference to all being called to the royal priesthood men and woman alike. Some have said that in the early Christian church women were indeed called to ministry. I enjoyed reading your reflections on the scriptures. Some Catholics are hinting that this particular passage affirms the importance of the role of the laity, and that we are inheritors of this royal priesthood.I would like your comments on this. thanks, Jane

    Like

  4. >Jane,Thank you for visiting my blog and for your comments. 1 Peter 2:9 is an important passage for the proper understanding of the work of Christians in the world.This passage says that all Christians, men and women, are called to be priests of God. Our mission as Christian is to work on behalf of God. This means that men and women have a part in the ministry. As the text says: “But you are . . . a royal priesthood . . . that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” This indicates that women also have a role in proclaiming God’s word.The New Testament clearly indicates that women had a role in the ministry, just as men did. In the New Testament, one woman was called an apostle. You can read my post on Junia by clicking here.I hope you visit my blog again and keep in contact about what you read.Claude Mariottini

    Like

  5. >Dr. Mariottini,Terrific presentation and discussion here. I've been writing on this very topic, including a good deal of my anthropological research. I'd be interested in your comments. The essays are here:http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/06/order-of-melchizedek.htmlhttp://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/06/testimony-of-blessed-john-forerunner.htmlBest wishes to you.

    Like

  6. >Alice,Thank you for the links. I will read the two posts and see how you developed the two topics.I will not have an opportunity to make a comment to your posts until later since I am planning to travel out of the country in a few days.Claude Mariottini

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.