This brings us to the matter of David’s
two lists of officials. In the first one (2 Sam 8:18) David’s two lists of officials.
In the first one (2 Sam 8:18) David’s two sons are listed as priests, along
with Zadok and Abiathar, while in the second list (2 Sam 20;:26) Ira the
Jairite is listed, again with Zadok and Abiathar, as David’s priest. Since
there is no indication that either David’s sons or Ira were Levites. I can only
surmise that they were part of another order, perhaps partaking of the royal
order connected with the Jerusalem shrine, which David himself served as a
monarch under Yahweh in his country. This could be argued more conclusively with
the sons of David, because of the nature of the relationship, but it may have
been true of Ira as well.
At the close of David’s life we see
the same sacrificial role being undertaken by his son Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:9, 18),
the latter activity with the assistance of Abiathar. The sacrificial act of
Adonijah, moreover, is most significant, as it was conducted before all of the
important men of Israel by the Serpent’s Stone by the spring Rogel (En-Rogel, 1
Kgs 1:9). It seem highly suggestive of the fact that Adonijah was proclaiming himself
the new “priest-king” in place of his father, or at least it was interpreted as
such by Bathsheba, Nathan, and eventually David. Later the same day Solomon is
anointed at another spring, this time by the priest Zadok (1 Kgs 1:38-40), but
there is no mention of sacrifice in the hastily prepared ceremony. It is only
from Solomon’s later activities that we may conclude that he too considered
himself the chief intermediary between his people and Yahweh.
Solomon’s priestly activities parallel
those of his father David. He prays at Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:15), after which a major
effort is given to the construction of the temple the priests are involved (1
Kgs 8:3-4), but it is Solomon himself who leads the procession, sacrificing (1 Kgs
8:5, 62-64), blessing the assembly (1 Kgs 8:12-21, 55-61), interceding before
God (1 Kgs 8:22-53), and making covenant with Yahweh (1 Kgs 9). (These
chapters, 1 Kgs 8-9, are generally considered post-exilic by literary critics,
so it is especially interesting to note that they in no way deny Solomon’s
central role in the priestly activity. The post-exilic book of Chronicles,
which likewise gives the king the most prominent priestly role, is here simply
a touched-up version of the Kings account.)
In a summary of his activities, the
author of Kings (1 Kgs 9:25) notes that Solomon would offer burnt offerings and
peace offerings on the altar three times a year. The following chapter (1 Kgs
10:5) cites the number and splendor of Solomon’s burnt offerings as part of
that which amazed the Queen of Sheba.
Finally, Solomon, like David, had a
list of court officials. Together with the usual reference to Zadok and
Abiathar (though the latter is ultimately deposed), there is reference mentioned
above, to one Zabud ben Nathan, who was the King’s Friend. The textual problem has
already been discussed, but either Zabud or his father Nathan is called a
priest (kōhēn), and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that we
have here the same order of priesthood noted earlier in David’s time. If the
father of Zabud is the same Nathan the prophet who was David’s adviser (1 Kgs
1:10, etc.) there is no indication that he had a Levitical background. Again,
it is difficult to know whether such men as Ira and Zabud had any connection
with the royal priesthood, but obviously both served in a special way in the
Jerusalem court.
Throughout the time of the monarchy
various examples of royal-priestly activities could be given, but the examples
noted should be sufficient. They hold special significance in light of Ps 110,
an enthronement hymn, which ties together the old Canaanite Melchizedek royal
priesthood with the Judean monarchy of David, Solomon and their successors.
Although some evangelical Christians through the years have shown a notable
reticence to apply Messianic Psalm terminology to OT individuals, it seems obvious
to me that there was a strong sense of royal-priestly ideology that existed in
early Israel, and a psalm like Ps 110 simply shows us the chain of thinking by
which this ideology was expressed. Melchizedek provides the prototype, and it
is after his “order” (‘al dibrātî) that David and Solomon are to be
thought of as priests. This order is different from the Aaronic one, and it
would require a full exegesis of the Ps 10 elucidate the matter. The royal
priest is not such by human investiture, and his commission is irrevocable. He
sits (figuratively) at God’s right hand, unlike Levitical priests who are not
so directly in God’s presence, and he rules in the midst of all his foes. His
scepter, coming forth from Zion, will ultimately judge all nations.
It is easy to see why later interpreters
have been loath to see in these so-called “enthronement” Pss any reference to a
human king. But I am convinced that we need not accept popular ideas about
annual re-enthronement feasts or excessive conclusions of the myth and ritual
school to appreciate the valid growth and development of this idea in the
ongoing history of Israel. I submit that he concept of royal priesthood, which
began with Melchizedek, continued to grow, though unconsciously, in the
non-royal figures of Moses and Samuel, and came to full flower when the
monarchy was established in Zion under the covenant God gave to David (2 Sam
7). If such hymns as Pss 2 and 110 were indeed used in the enthronement of
Judea monarchs, it was with the continued hope that each subsequent king would
be “the one who would come.” That none of the Judean kings ever fully lived up
to the expectations made the longing for one who would do so all the more
intense. Thus, when John the Baptist puts his very poignant question to our
Lord (Matt 11:3), it is with these years of expectation and longing, and
constant frustration, in mind.
Returning to the history and royal
priesthood, it is my belief that Ps 110 was used in early times, and that both
David and Solomon were conscious of holding a priestly investiture that was
different from that of the Levitical order. After their time the picture of an
ideal priest-king becomes less, rather than more, credible, until finally in the
course of history the line of David seems to have disappeared completely in
Babylonian exile. But even then, a few sparks of hope (e.g. the Jehoiachin survival
and restoration, 2 Kgs 25:27-30) appeared, and after the exile the priest-king ideology
is clearly a part of the prophetic message of Zechariah (especially Zech
6:9-14) and possibly Haggai. Again, hopes were dashed, and no ideal priest-king
appeared. In the Hasmonean line of Judas Maccabeus, the priest-king ideology
becomes a reality, but by the time of the actual investiture of Simon Maccabeus
or more properly his son John Hyrcanus with the dual office, many pious
observers had lost their hopes for any truly messianic figure to come form the
line. It is in light of this long history of the idea that the NT writer of the
letter to the Hebrews has developed the concept of our Lord’s priestly ministry
“after the order of Melchizedek.” To deny that David and Solomon were
priests, or that David’s sons could have been priests, is to break one of the
important links in this chain. (Carl Edwin Armerding, “Were David’s Sons
Really Priests?,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation:
Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented By His Former Students, ed.
Gerald F. Hawthorne [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975], 83-85)
