that directed the Israelites to separate themselves from the common and impure unto the sacred and pure.”
52David Schrock notes the connection between the priests’ teaching ministry and their underlying duty to serve as guardians: “As part of their duty to protect the holy place of God, the priests were called to be teachers of the covenant (Lev 10:10-11; Deut 33:10; cf. 2 Chr 35:3; Ezek 22:26; Hag 2:11-13; Mal 2:6-9). While this didactic ministry was independent of the priests’ guarding duty, the two were not unrelated.”
53Peter Leithart picks up on this connection as well: “Priests guarded boundaries of holiness as much by teaching Torah as by serving as custodians of the literal gates of the
sanctuary.”
54Their teaching role was, thus, integral to maintaining the sanctity of the
people of God as they instructed God’s people according to appropriate moral and
physical boundaries, according to what was clean or unclean (Lev 11-15).
Furthermore, it meant seeking to reach, conquer, and possess the promised land of Canaan for God and his people. After Moses died, Joshua and the people of God finally entered (Josh 1:1-5:15), took over (Josh 6:1-12:24), apportioned the land to the various tribes of Israel (Josh 13:1-21:45), and began serving God in the land (Josh 22:1- 24:33). While Israel’s conquest of Canaan was only partial (Judg 1:1-2:5),
56there was a sense in which what the patriarchs had begun—by staking claim to the promised land as they built altars—was now coming closer to being realized through Israel’s conquest of Canaan.
57They now possessed, in large part, the land that God promised them, and it was the responsibility of the priests to manage its borders. That is, these priests were intended to maintain and protect the overall holiness and welfare of both the sanctuary of God and
56 Noting Israel’s failure to completely possess the promised land, Charles Simeon writes, If they had followed up their successes with becoming zeal, their difficulties would have been comparatively light: but at no time did they advance with that ardour which they should have manifested in such a cause. Joshua had reproved them for their indolence (Josh 18:3), and quickened them in some degree; but still, after his death, and fifteen years after their first invasion of Canaan, no one of the tribes had complete possession of the lot assigned them. The Israelites had increased, and now wanted the whole of their inheritance: but the Canaanites had increased also, and,
possessing still their strong-holds, were able to cope with Israel in battle. Now therefore the different tribes found the bitter consequences of their past indifference; and, as it should seem, were afraid to resume a warfare with such potent enemies. (Charles Simeon, Horae Homileticae: Judges to 2 Kings, vol. 3 (London: Samuel Holdsworth, 1836), 1; reprint in digital format, Horae Homileticae:
Discourses Condensed into One Continuous Series, Forming a Commentary upon Every Book of the Old and New Testament, Joshua to Esther, vol. 2. [Harrington, DE: Delmarva, 2014])
57 Gentry and Wellum note that many dispensationalists believe that “Israel, as a national people, still awaits the ‘literal’ fulfillment of the land promise in the future millennial age.” Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 704. Discarding this position, they argue instead that land must “be viewed as a type or pattern of something greater” (704) that reaches its fulfillment in Christ. Because the covenants require “an obedient, devoted covenant partner . . . , it is only in the provision of our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s own obedient, devoted Son who does not fail, that the new covenant is established on better grounds; indeed, unbreakable grounds” (705). Because of their disobedience, Israel forfeited the benefits of the promises, requiring a faithful covenant member to bring the promises to pass, including the land promise (706). Furthermore, they suggest that the land promises of the Abrahamic covenant were never meant to be “understood merely within the limited confines of specific geographical boundaries” (707) but should rather be understood to have international implications, such that “Abraham did not understand the land promise as referring only to a specific geographical location; rather he viewed the promise as that which ultimately would encompass the entire created order” (708). Furthermore, as this dissertation has argued, land did not originally become significant with Abraham and Israel’s “promised land.” Instead, the promises made to Abraham sprung from the creation design and God’s purposes with the Garden of Eden, indeed “with the mandate for God’s priest-kings and image-bearers to expand the borders of Eden to the uttermost parts of the world” (710). Thus, Israel’s partial conquest of Canaan, combined with Israel’s historical failure to maintain the land, leaves the Abrahamic land promises yet unfilled in full. According to Gentry and Wellum, the land promises reach their terminus in the new creation; that is, they will not be fulfilled in this age or even in some future millennial age, but rather in the new creation when all the nations have been brought in and the presence of God is made manifest throughout the entire created order (716).
the people of God in this land. Furthermore, they were set in place to continue to promote positive growth within the borders, exercising dominion, encouraging the numerical growth of God’s covenant people, progressively bringing about the realization of the covenant made with their forefathers.
Additionally, managing the borders meant that Israel’s priests were set in place to protect the sanctuary of God and the people of God from harm and defilement; indeed,
“guarding is the essence of [the] priestly task.”
58One way that Israel’s priests worked to protect the borders was by carrying out legal judgments among the people of Israel. They served as judges in lawsuits (Deut 17:8-13), were consulted to settle disputes among the people (Deut 21:5), and were judges over the affairs of Israel (2 Chr 19:5-11; Ezra 10).
This judicial role served to advance the priests’ duty to serve as guardians as they sought to maintain a holy and righteous people. Refusing the judgment of the priest incurred serious consequences: the death of the rebellious individual (Deut 17:12; cf. 1 Cor 5:13).
The priests of this era were also expected to be warriors, indeed soldiers for the sake of maintaining the sanctity of God’s people and sanctuary. This reality may be observed in Moses’ priestly blessing prior to his death.
59In his blessing, he commends the tribe of Levi for disowning their brothers and ignoring their children (Deut 33:9).
That is, he is referring back to the Golden Calf episode of Exodus 32 in which the tribe of Levi demonstrated its allegiance to the one true God. After the people of Israel had sinned by asking Aaron to create gods for them to worship, Moses asked for those among the assembly who were on the Lord’s side to come forward; when the sons of Levi came
58 James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock, 1999), 134, 136-38. Raymond Abba adds that “the essential function of the Levitical priesthood is . . . to assure, maintain, and constantly re-establish the holiness of the elect people of God.”
Raymond Abba, “Priests and Levites,” in IDB (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1981), 4:877. Further, Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman III argue that the “main function of the priesthood” was “to protect the holiness of God in the camp.” Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 80.
59 Just as Jacob extended his priestly blessing to his sons before his death (Gen 49:3-27), Moses does the same with Israel before he dies (Deut 33:8-11).
forward, God instructed them, “Go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor,” and the Levites obeyed, resulting in their ordination for service to God (Exod 32:26-29). Remembering this event, Moses spoke blessing over the people of Levi, and Moses commended them for serving God rather than their father, mother, brothers, and children (Deut 33:9) and for observing God’s Word and keeping his covenant (Deut 33:9). Thus, the Levites’ willingness to fight as warriors in defense of God’s holiness qualified them as priests: “Their willingness to shed blood for the sake of his holiness qualified them as priests and adumbrated a significant feature of their holy service—temple defense and spiritual warfare.”
60This overall defensive and guardian posture exemplified by the Levites was characteristic of the entire priesthood in Israel. While there was some level of distinction between the Levites and the Aaronic priests,
61they both worked together as guardians of God’s holy place and the people of God; for the priests and the Levites, “if any outsider comes near [the tabernacle], he shall be put to death” (Num 1:51).
62This guardian duty
60 Schrock, “A Biblical-Theological Investigation,” 97.
61 As Philip Peter Jenson points out, “The Levites’ subordination to the priests is clearly expressed in the Priestly presentation of their role.” Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 132. Offering proof of this, he writes, “In texts which mention both Levites and priests, the Levites are mentioned second, as in the records of their genealogies (Num 3:1-4 before 3:5-13), tasks (18:1, 6 bracketing 18:2-5), and maintenance (18:8-20 before 18:21-24). The appointment of the Levites (Num 8) also comes after that of the priests (Lev 8), whom they are commanded to serve” (132). The distinction is also made evident in their division of labor:
The Levites were to guard the sanctuary, while the priests protected the holy items inside. The Levites were not allowed access to the holy things on pain of death (Num 4:15). They were directed to serve Aaron, and were under the authority of him and his sons. They did not serve Yahweh directly in the sanctuary, as did the priests; rather they guarded the sanctuary from defilement on the outside and performed the hard labour of its dismantling and erection. Only the priests could safely pack and cover the holy items (Num 4:5-20), and subsequently the coverings provided the necessary barrier between the holiness of the Tabernacle and the Levites. (132)
John A. Davies recognizes this distinction as well; yet, he also upholds their similarities.
Speaking of one’s ability and privilege to “draw near” or “be brought near” to God, he writes,
At one level, as we have seen, it is true of all Israel (Exod 19:4). At another level, it is true of the Levites generally (Num 16:9-10), and at yet another level in the graded system of holiness, it is the exclusive prerogative of the priests (Numb 16:5; Ezek 40:46; 42:13; 43:19; 44:15) . . . Together with the Levites, the priests had charge of all aspects of maintaining and guarding the holiness of the sanctuary (Num 1:53; 3:32; 18:5; 2 Kgs 12:11; Ezek 40:45; 44:15). (Davies, A Royal Priesthood, 162)
62 Again, Moses, Aaron, and Aaron’s sons were instructed to camp “before the tabernacle on the east,” and their duty was “guarding the sanctuary itself” for the purpose of “protect[ing] the people of
was carried out “so that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the people of Israel” (Num 1:53).
One notable example of the priests’ work in protecting the holiness of God’s sanctuary is when King Uzziah unlawfully and arrogantly entered the temple of God to offer incense on the altar (2 Chr 26:16-23). When King Uzziah’s actions were
discovered, Azariah and eighty additional priests rushed in to confront him: “They withstood King Uzziah and said to him, “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the LORD God” (2 Chr 26:18). After rebuking him with the law of God, he was stricken with leprosy. Quickly and forcefully, the priests removed King Uzziah from the holy sanctuary of God, seeking to preserve the sanctity of God’s temple. While King Uzziah had to live with leprosy for the rest of his days, Azariah and the priests were commended for their priestly work of guarding God’s holy place.
Related to the priestly task of defending the holy place against intruders, it was also their duty to “distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the
unclean and the clean” (Lev 10:10). Chapters 11-15 of Leviticus stand as a manual for the people of Israel, but more specifically for the priests, to discern the clean from the
unclean. “To make a mistake in these matters,” says Wells, “provokes God’s judgement and could lead to death.”
63Priestly guardianship further concerned the active defeat of evil lurking outside the camp. In the time of Israel, this manifested itself in warfare against enemy nations (Josh 6:1-12:24). In so doing, Israel’s priests carried out their guardian duty in a way that is reminiscent of Adam’s responsibility to guard the Garden against the evil that lurked
Israel.” Specifically, this meant that “any outsider who came near was to be put to death” (Num 3:38).
63 Wells, God’s Holy People, 114.
outside.
64Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron and son of Eleazar, played a key role in serving the armies of Israel as priest.
65Phinehas fought to protect the people of God from outside contamination when Zimri the Israelite brought Cozbi the Moabite into the congregation of Israel and Phinehas killed them both (Num 25:7-8), propitiating God’s wrath against Israel (Num 25:11), bringing a deadly plague to an end (Num 25:8-9).
6664 While the priests did not always take up arms in the fight, their role was crucial in “rallying the troops” before battle, reminding the soldiers of “God’s presence on the battlefield,” and emboldening them “to have courage and fight for the Lord” (Deut 20:2-4). Schrock, “A Biblical-Theological
Investigation,” 100-101.
65 In addition to the account described here in Numbers, another account of Phinehas’ priestly involvement in warfare is found in the book of Joshua when the people of Israel heard that some of their kinsmen had built an altar “of imposing size” (Josh 22:10) that was believed to stand “in rebellion against the Lord” (Josh 22:7), ultimately replacing the “altar of the Lord” that was found “where the Lord’s tabernacle stands” (Josh 22:19). The whole assembly of the people of Israel gathered at Shiloh to make war against them (Josh 22:12), and Phinehas was sent to confront them (Josh 22:13). The eastern tribes respond to the accusations, claiming that the altar that they built was a “copy” of the real altar in Shiloh (Josh 18:1;
22:19) and that it stood as “as witness” between them “that the Lord is God” (Josh 22:27, 34). Phinehas’
wrath was averted (Josh 22:30-31), along with the rest of Israel (Josh 22:32-33). Nevertheless, the point here is to demonstrate Phinehas’ priestly jealousy for the glory and holiness of God. Moreover, he knew that their sins would have ominous consequences for the “whole congregation of Israel” (Josh 22:18), and so he seeks to defend Israel from the consequences of God’s righteous anger. Like the Levites had done under Moses (Exod 32:26-29), Phinehas was ready to declare war against his kinsman for what he believed may have been a “breach of faith against the Lord” (Josh 22:31) and an affront to the holiness of God’s sanctuary.
66 Phinehas’ work of defending the holiness of God among the people of God led God to initiate a “covenant of peace” with him (Num 25:12). God also awarded Phinehas and his descendants with a “covenant of perpetual priesthood” because he was righteously “jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel” (Num 25:13). This priestly or Levitical covenant, here given (ן ַתָנ) to Phinehas and his priestly descendants, demonstrates the permanence of God’s intent to carry out his priestly purposes (cf.
Num 18:19; Jer 33:18-22). This covenant with Phinehas harkens back to the establishment of the Levitical covenant made at the Golden Calf incident (Exod 32), and it ultimately serves to solidify the Levitical covenant going forward. See discussion above for a more detailed explanation of the significance of Phinehas’ priesthood, the covenant made with him, and how his priesthood would ultimately shape the future of priesthood in Israel as a whole.
Commenting on the significance of this priestly covenant and how it functioned within the life of Israel, Williamson writes,
These priestly covenants seem to have served the same general purpose as the Mosaic covenant with which they are so closely related; namely the priests facilitated the maintenance of the divine-human relationship between Yahweh and Abraham’s descendants. . . . Thus the Priestly and Mosaic covenants, while remaining distinct, run in parallel with one another, and are closely related in purpose; namely, maintaining the relationship between God and Israel. (Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose, NSBT [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007], 105-106)
It functions, further, as “a mechanism to administer the Israelite covenant especially before the
inauguration of kingship in Israel.” Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 528. But, Israel’s priests would eventually fall into a moral decline, as it explained below. These later priests are excoriated for their disobedience and failure to live in light of this priestly covenant (Neh 13:29; Mal 2:1-9), thus anticipating a new covenant and a better priest to perfectly carry out the priesthood.