The following is from Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions
(transl. John McHugh; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), pp. 113-114
(abbreviations for Bible books modified but spelling of names retained; formatting
mine):
The fact
remains that the king, sanctified by his anointing and adopted by Yahweh, is a
sacred person and seems thereby to be empowered to perform religious
functions. One often hears of the royal
priesthood in Israel. We recall that the
kings of Egypt, Assyria and Phoenicia were priests. In the Bible, Melchisedech is both king of
Salem and priest of El Elyon. And it is
precisely Psalm 110:4, which we have interpreted as an enthronement psalm,
which says: ‘Thou art a priest forever in the order of Melchisedech.’
In the historical books, the king appears several times as
the leader in acts of worship.
David sets up the first altar for Yahweh in Jerusalem (2 Sam
24:25); it is David, too, who conceives the project of building him a temple (2
Sam 7:2-3), and, according to 1 Chr 22—29, plans in detail how this is to be
served. It is Solomon who actually builds the temple directly opposite his own
palace, and who dedicates it (1 Kg 5—8). It is Jeroboam who founds the sanctuary
in Bethe], recruits its clergy and arranges its calendar of feasts (1 Kg
12:26-33); hence it is a ‘royal sanctuary’ (Am 7:13). The chief priests are
officials nominated and dismissed by the king (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25; 1 Kg 2:26-27;
4:2). Joas publishes ordinances concerning the Temple (2 Kg 12:5-9), and Josiah
supervises their enforcement (2 Kg 22:3-7). The same Josias takes the
initiative in the reform of worship and directs it in person (2 Kg 23). The
priest Uriyyah carries out the modification introduced by Achaz in the sanctuary
and its worship (2 Kg 16:10-18).
But the kings go even further: the historical texts show
them personally performing priestly acts.
They offer sacrifices: e.g. Saul at Gilgal (1 Sam
13:9-10), David at Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:13, 17-18; 24:25), Solomon at Gibeon (1
Kg 3:4, 15), at Jerusalem for the dedication of the Temple (1 Kg 8:5, 62-64),
and then at the three great feasts of the year (1 Kg 9:25).Some of these texts
can, of course, be taken in a factitive sense, that the king ‘had sacrifice offered’,
but not all are capable of this meaning. And other texts in fact exclude it: in
2 Kg 16:12-15, Achaz goes up to the new altar he has had made, offers the first
sacrifice, and then commands the priest to continue the liturgy there; in 1 Kg 12:33
it is said that Jeroboam ‘went up to the altar to offer sacrifice’ (cf. 13:1f).
Again, David and Solomon bless the people in the sanctuary (2 Sam 6:18; 1 Kg
8:14), which is a rite reserved to the priests by Num 6:22-27 and 1 Chr 23:13.
Solomon consecrates the middle of the court (1 Kg 8:64).David wears the
loincloth which is the vestment of officiating priests (2 Sam 6:14). Neither
the prophets nor the historical books before the exile make any protest against
these intrusions by the king into liturgical worship. It is only after the end
of the monarchy that they become a stumbling-block, and 2 Chron 26:16-20 says
that Ozias was struck with leprosy because he had dared to burn incense at the
altar, thus usurping a privilege of the sons of Aaron (2 Chr 26:18, cf. Num
17:5; 1 Chr 23:13).
All this evidence calls for a balanced solution. The part
played by the king in the regulation and supervision of worship or the nomination
of the clergy does not mean that he himself was a priest; it does not exceed
the prerogatives which the head of State may have over the State religion.
It is quite another thing when he performs actions which are
properly sacerdotal. But we must note that the instances where the king’s
personal action is beyond question are all very special or exceptional: the transference
of the Ark, the dedication of an altar or sanctuary, the great annual festivals.
Ordinarily, the conduct of worship was left to the priest (2 Kg 16:15).
Anointing did not confer on the king a priestly character, since, as we have
seen [p. 105] priests were not anointed in the days of the monarchy; but it did
make him a sacred person, with a special relationship to Yahweh, and in solemn
circumstances he could act as a religious head of the people. But he was not a
priest in the strict sense.
But, it may be objected, Ps 110 is a royal psalm, and it
calls the king a ‘priest’. It has recently been suggested that this verse (Ps
110:4) was addressed, not to the king, but to the priest whom the newly
enthroned king (vv. 1-3) was confirming in his functions, and these words were
originally addressed to Sadoq, the psalm being composed in David’s reign. It is
an interesting hypothesis, but without foundation. The text can be explained
otherwise: it could mean that the king was a priest, but in the only way in
which an Israelite king could be: that is, the way we have described. He was a
priest in the same way as Melchisedech, who it was thought, had been king and
priest in that same Jerusalem where the new king was being enthroned. It was
the starting point of the Messianic interpretation to be given to the verse in
Heb 5:6.
