Priests and Levites (continued) – Promise

Priests and Levites (continued)

6. The possibilities, however, of a spiritual worship and a holy priesthood were never lost sight of, and a fresh impetus to priestly ideas is given, at latest during the Exile, by the ‘Code of Holiness’ (Lv 17-26) and the ideal sanctuary and priesthood sketched by Ezekiel (40-48).

6 .With the first Return and the re-institution of Temple worship, the priesthood gained a fresh accession of power, all the greater as the secular power was under Persian rule. The contemporary prophets, Zech. and Haggai, not only insistently urge the importance of using every effort to re-build the Temple, but speak of Joshua the high priest as though on all but equal terms with Zerubbabel (Haggai 1:14 2:1–9. Zee 3. 4 6).

7. The same priestly feelings influence Malachi, almost the contemporary of Nehemiah, who, while he attacks unmercifully the unworthy priests (l’-2»), is loud in denouncing those who robbed Godiby not paying tithes (S’"), and seeks for a religious ideal in a purified Levitical system (3).

8. The exaltation of the priesthood reached its climax in the person of Simon,the Just, who restored the Temple, and re-built the city walls which had been demolished by Ptolemy. The people regarded him with supreme veneration. Sirach 50:5–12 gives a most glowing description of the impression that he made as he officiated in his high-priestly vestments: ‘He was as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, and as the moon at full; as the sun shining upon the temple of the Most High, and as a rainbow giving light in the bright clouds,’ etc. etc.

9. In the Maccabaean period we find Simon 11., the younger brother ‘of Judas, actually ruling the people as high priest. Later on (b.c. 106) Judas (Aristobulus) , according to Josephus, bore the title of’ king,’ and the title actually appears on the coins of his brother Jannseus.

10. The close of this period, nevertheless, marks a decline, at any rate in the spiritual influence of the priesthood, and especially of the high priest. The latter office ceased to be hereditary, and was often bought and sold. A high priest could be deposed, and another appointed for political purposes. One reason for this decline was that religious interest tended in an increasing degree to be diverted to ethical and moral questions, as we see in the Wisdom literature of the age. Other causes or perhaps rather symptoms of the spirit of the time at a later period were the growth of the Jewish sects and the practice of a childish casuistry, which depended more on the opinion of the ancients.than on the spiritual needs of the present. ‘F. H. Woods.

Priest

(In NT). ‘Priest’ (Gr. Uerem’) is employed in the NT to denote anyone whose function it is to offer a religious sacrifice. 1. It is used of a GentiU priesthood in Acts 14:13 (‘the priest of Jupiter’), and also in Heb. as applied to the ‘order of Melchizedek’ (5:6, 10 6 7:1 ff.), (or Melchizedek, it is evident, was not merely a pre-Aaronic but a Gentile priest.

2. It is constantly employed to denote the members of the Jewish priesthood in their various ranks and functions. The ordinary officiating priests of the Temple come before us discharging the same offices of which we read in the OT. They burn incense (Lk !>• s), present the sacrificial offerings (Matthew 12:5, ct. Nu 28:9, 10), effect the ceremonial cleansing of the leper (Matthew 8:4 l"=Lk 5:14, cf. 17:14). The high priest (.archiereus) appears as president of the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26 II, Acts 5:27 7:1 23:2 etc.), and as entering every year on the Day of Atonement into the Most Holy Place with hia offering of blood (Hebrews 9:25). Most frequently of all the word occurs in the plural form ‘chief priests’ (archiereis), an expression that probably designates a high-priestly party consisting of the high priest proper, the ex-high priests, and the members of those privileged families from which the high priests were drawn.

3. In the Ep. to the Hebrews Christ is described as both priest and high priest, but the fact that Melchizedek (wh. see), the chosen type of His eternal priesthood, is also described by the same two terms (cf. 5:6 with v. 10, 6:20 with 7:1) shows that no distinction in principle is to be thought of, and that Christ is called a high priest simply to bring out the dignity of His priesthood. This conception of Christ as a priest is clearly stated in no other bools of the NT, though suggestions of it appear elsewhere, and esp. in the Johannine writings (.e.g. John 17:19. Revelation 1:13). In Heb. it is the regulating idea in the contrast that the author works out with such elaboration between the Old and the New Covenants. He thinlts of a mediating priest as essential to a religion, and his purpose is to show the immense superiority in this respect of the new religion over the old. He finds certain points of contact between the priesthood of Aaron and that of Christ. This, indeed, was essential to his whole copception of the Law as having a shadow of the good things to come (10:1). and of the priests who offer gifts according to the Law as serving ‘that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things’ (8). Christ, e.g., was Divinely called and commissioned, even as Aaron was (5:4, 5). He too was talcen from among men, was tempted lilse His fellows, learned obedience through suffering, and so was qualified by His own human sympathies to be the High Priest of the human race (4 5). But it is pre-eminently by way of antithesis and not of lil^eness that the Aaronic priesthood is used to illustrate the priesthood of Christ. The priests of the Jewish faith were sinful men (S’), while Jesus was absolutely sinless (4). They were mortal creatures, ‘many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing’ (7). while Jesus ‘abideth for ever,’ and so ‘hath his priesthood unchangeable’ (v. 24). The sacrifices of the Jewish Law were imperfect (lO"*-); but Christ ‘by one offering hath perfected for ever them that are being sanctified’ (10). The sanctuary of the old religion was a worldly structure (9:1). and so liable to destruction or decay; but Christ enters ‘into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us’ (9).

And this contrast between the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Christ is brought to a head when Jesus is declared to be a priest — not after the order of Aaron at all, but after the order of Melchizedel: (7:11 ff.). ‘Order,’ it must be kept in mind, does not here refer to ministry, but to the high priest’s personality — a fact which, when clearly perceived, saves us from much confusion in the interpretation of this Epistle. The distinctive order of Christ’s priesthood is found in His own nature, above all in the fact that He is ‘a priest for ever.’ The Melchizedek high priest Is conceived of all through as performing the same kind of priestly acts as were discharged by the high priests of the house of Aaron; but the .quality of His Person is quite different, and this completely alters the character of His acts, raising them from the realm of copies and shadows to that of absolute reality and eternal validity (cf. A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, 149).

It is a mistake, therefore, to attempt, as some do, to distinguish between an Aaronic priesthood exercised by Christ on earth and a Melchizedek priesthood exercised by Him in heaven; and equally a mistake to attempt to confine His priestly ministry to a work of mediation and intercession that begins after His exaltation. No doubt it is true that His priestly work is not consummated until He enters into God’s presence in the heavenly places, but all that the writer has previously set forth as bearing upon His priesthood must be borne In mind. It was by His life on earth, by the obedience He learned and the human sympathy He gained, that Christ was qualified to be the high priest of men. Moreover, every high priest ‘must have somewhat to offer,’ and the ‘somewhat’ of Jesus was Himself, yielded up on earth in a life of perfect obedience (5:8, 9) and an atoning death of spotless self-sacrifice (9’‘-i5’- 2b). It was with this priestly offering of His life and death, and in virtue of it, that Jesus entered into the presence of God (9) as the ‘mediator of a new covenant’ (v. 15) and the ever-living Intercessor (7). and so secured for ub our access with boldness unto the throne of grace (4 10).

4. According to the teaching of the NT, the Church is a priestly institution, and all believers are themselves priests. The OT idea that Israel was ‘a kingdom of priests unto God’ (Exodus 19) is transferred in precise terms to God’s people under the New Dispensation. They are ‘a royal priesthood’ (1 Peter 2:9) Christ has made them to be ‘a kingdom of priests unto God and his Father’ (Revelation 1:6 5:10). Again, they are referred to by these same two writers as ‘a holy priesthood’ (1 2:5). ‘priests of God and of Christ’ (Revelation 20:6). And though the author of Heb. does not so describe them in set language, it follows from his way of speaking that he regards all Christ’s people as priests. When he says in the passage last cited (10) that they have boldness to enter into the Holy Place by a new and living way through the veil, it seems evident that he is thinking of those who draw near to God, by the blood of Jesus and in fulness of faith, as a company of worshipping priests; for under the old economy, which serves him at so many points as a type of the new, it was priests alone who could pass through the curtain into the Holy Place. It is the same idea, probably, that meets us in St. Paul when he speaks of our ‘access’ (Romans 5:2). our ‘access in one Spirit unto the Father’ (Ephesians 2:18). our ‘access in confidence through our faith’ in Christ (3:12). And it is nothing more than a carrying out of this same conception that all believers belong to a holy priesthood, when St. Peter writes of the ‘spiritual sacrifices’ which we are called to offer up (1 Peter 2:5) and St. Paul beseeches us to present our bodies a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1) and the author of Heb. bids us offer to God the sacrifice of praise (IS"), or declares that God is well pleased with such sacrifices as kindly deeds and gifts of Christian liberality (v. 16) ; and the seer of the Apocalypse speaks of the prayers of all the saints as rising up like incense from the golden altar before the throne (Revelation 8:3).

5. It is a noteworthy fact that the NT never describes the Christian ministry as a priesthood, or the individual minister as a priest, except in the general sense in which these terms are applicable to all believers — a fact which is all the more significant when we consider how frequently both the minister and the ministry are referred to. In particular, there is no trace in the NT of the later idea that in the Lord’s Supper a sacrifice of propitiation is offered to God, much less that this sacrifice is presented through the mediation of an official priesthood. The two terms ‘presbyter’ (presbyteros) and ‘priest’ {hiereus), which came to be confounded by and by, were at first kept absolutely apart. Thus, so far as the NT is concerned, it is only in an etymological sense that It can be said that ‘presbyter is priest writ large.’ J. C. Lambert.

Prince

This is the tr. of a considerable number of Heb. and Gr. words, expressing different shades of meaning, e.g. ‘chieftain,’ ‘ruler,’ ‘king,’ ‘governor,’ ‘noble,’ ‘deputy.’ The main terms are 1. sar, ‘one who has authority or bears rule.’ It is used of rulers (Isaiah 21:5. Numbers 21:18 etc.), of royal officials (Genesis 12:15. 2 Kings 24:12 etc.), of leaders in war (1 Samuel 22:2). of tribal chieftains (.e.g. Philistines, 1 Samuel 18:30). of the chief butler and baker (Genesis 40:2, 16). of the keeper of prison (Genesis 39:21). of the taskmaster (Exodus 1:11). of the prince of the eunuchs (Daniel 1:7). It came later to be applied to the guardian angels of the nations (Daniel 10:13, 20, 2), to Michael the archangel (Dn 12:1). It is the most general term for prince, and occurs in the fern, form sarah, ‘princess,’ used of the wives of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3). and also of Jerusalem ‘princess among the provinces’ (Lamentations 1:1). and it is translated ‘ladies’ in Judges 5:29 and ‘queens’ in Isaiah 49:23.

2. nagld, ‘one who is high, conspicuous, outstanding.’ It is applied to the governor of the palace (2 Chronicles 28:7). the keeper of the treasury (1 Chronicles 26:24). the chief of the Temple (1 Chronicles 9:11. 2 Chronicles 31:13) also to the chief of a tribe (2 Chronicles 19:11). the son of a king (2 Ch \V^), the king himself (1 Samuel 25:30). the high priest (Du 9:25). and is occasionally in AV translated ‘captain.’

3. nasi’, ‘one lifted up,’ is applied to chiefs of tribes, princes of Ishmael (Genesis 17:20). to Abraham (23:6), to Shechem (34:2). to Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8). It is often used of the heads of the Israelitic tribes, and translated ‘ruler’ in AV. The word is frequently in Ezekiel used of kings of Judah and foreign princes, and is also applied to the future head of the ideal State (34 etc.).

4. nadXb, ‘willing,’ ‘a volunteer,’ ‘generous,’ ‘noble,’ generally found in plur. and often translated ‘nobles,’ used of those of noble or princely birth (1 Samuel 2:8. Psalms 47:9 107:40 etc.).

Other less frequent terms are mSsSfc ‘installed,’ pariemlm ‘leading men,’ qatmn ‘judge,’ shallsh ‘officer,’ ‘captain,’ aegcinlm ‘deputies.’ In Daniel 3:2, 3, 27 g"- ‘■ the’ princes’ of AV are Persian satraps, while in the names Rabshakeh, Rabsaris the prefix rab signifies ‘chief,’ as also the proper name Rezon (1 Kings 11:23). which occurs as a common noun (razSn) in Proverbs 14:28. We may also note that in Job 12:19 the word ‘priests’ (kshanlm) is wrongly rendered ‘princes,’ and in Psalms 68:31 the word translated ‘princes’ is not found in any other passage, the text being likely corrupt.

The NT terms are 1. archlgos, applied to Christ ‘the Prince (author) of life’ (Acts 3:15). ‘Prince and Saviour’ (Acts 5:31) so in Hebrews 2:10 Jesus is ‘the author (AV’ captain’) of salvation’ and in Hebrews 12:2 the ‘author and finisher of our faith.’ 2. archSn, used of Beelzebub (Mt 12:24. iVIk 3). of the princes of the Gentiles (Matthew 20). the princes of this world (1 Corinthians 2:6, 8). prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2). the Prince of the kings of the earth (Revelation 1:5). 3. hSgemSn, used of Bethlehem, ‘not least among the princes of Judah’ (Matthew 2:6).

W. F. Boyd.

Prisca, Priscilla

See Aquila and Priscilla.

Prison

Imprisonment, in the modern sense of strict confinement under guard, had no recognized place as a punishment for criminals under the older Hebrew legislation (see Crimes and Punishments, § 9). The first mention of such, with apparently legal sanction, is in the post-exilic passage Ezra 7:26. A prison, however, figures at an early period in the story of Joseph’s fortunes in Egypt, and is denoted by an obscure expression, found only in this connexion, which means ‘the Round House’ (Genesis 39 40:3, 5). Some take the expression to signify a round tower used as a prison, others consider it ‘the Hebraized form of an Egyptian word’ (see Driver, Com. in loc). Joseph had already found that a disused cistern was a convenient place of detention (Genesis 37:24; see Pit). The same word (65r) is found in Exodus 12:29 and Jeremiah 37:16 in the expression rendered by AV ‘dungeon’ and ‘dungeon house’ respectively; also alone in 38:6. Zee 9:11.

The story of Jeremiah introduces us to a variety of other places of detention, no fewer than tour being named in 37:15–16. although one, and perhaps two, of these are later glosses. Rigorous imprisonment is implied by all the four. The first ‘prison’ of v. 15 EV denotes literally ‘the house of bonds,’ almost identical with the Philistine ‘prison house,’ in which Samson was bound ‘with fetters of brass’ (Judges 16:21, 25). The second w ord rendered ‘prison’ in Jeremiah 37 (also vv. 4, 18 52:31 and elsewhere) is a synonym meaning ‘house of restraint.’ The third is the ‘dungeon house’ above mentioned, while the fourth is a difficult term, rendered ‘cabins’ by AV, ‘cells’ by RV. It is regarded by textual students, however, as a gloss on the third term, as the first is on the second.

Jeremiah had already had experience of an irksome form of detention, when placed in the stocks (20:2; cf. Acts 16:24). an instrument which, as the etymology shows, compelled the prisoner to sit in a crooked posture. 2 Chronicles 16:10 mentions a ‘house of the stocks’ (RVm ; EV ‘prison house’), while Jeremiah 29:26 associates with the stocks (so RV for AV ‘prison’) an obscure instrument of punishment, variously rendered ‘shackles’ (RV), ‘pillory’ (Oa:/. Heb. Lex.), and ‘collar’ (Driver). The last of these is a favourite Chinese form of punishment.

In NT times Jewish prisons doubtless followed the Greek and Roman models. The prison into which John the Baptist was thrown (itft 14:3, 10) is said by Josephus to have been in the castle of MachEerus. The prison in which Peter and John were put by the Jewish authorities (Acts 4:3 AV ‘hold,’ RV ‘ward’) was doubtless the same as ‘the public ward’ of 5:18 RV (AV ‘common prison’). St. Paul’s experience of prisons was even more extensive than Jeremiah’s (2 Co 6:5). varying from the mild form of restraint implied in Acts 28:30. at Rome, to the severity of ‘the inner prison’ at Philippi (16:24). and the final horrors of the Mamertine dungeon.

For the crux interpretum, 1 Peter 3, see art. Descent INTO Hades. A. R. S. Kennedt.

Prize

See Games.

Prochorus

One of the ‘Seven’ appointed (Acts 6:5). .

Proconsul

This was originally two words — pro consule, meaning a magistrate with the insignia and powers of a consul. When the kingship was abolished In Rome it gave place to a rule of two men, not called by the now detested name, but named prmtores (‘generals’) or consules (‘colleagues’). As the Roman territory increased, men of praetorian or consular rank were required to govern the provinces (wh. see). During the Empire all governors of senatorial provinces were called proconsuls, whether they were ex-consuls and governed important provinces like Asia and Africa, or merely ex-praetors, like Gallio (Acts 18:12 AV deputy), who governed a less important province, Achaia.

A. SOUTER.

Procurator

Originally a procurator was a steward of private property, who had charge of the slaves and his master’s financial affairs. His importance depended on that of his master. Thus the Emperor’s stewards were persons of consequence, and were sometimes trusted with the government of some less important Imperial provinces as well as with the Emperor’s financial affairs in all provinces. They were of equestrian rank, like Theophilus, to whom the Third Gospel and Acts are addressed. The following were at different times procurators of Judasa: Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Pestus, called in NT by the comprehensive term ‘governors.’ A. Souteb.

Profane

‘To profane’ is ‘to make ceremonially unclean,’ ‘to make unholy.’ And so a ‘profane person’ (Hebrews 12:16) is an ‘ungodly person,’ a person of common, coarse life, not merely of speech.

Prognosticatob

See Magic Divination and Sorcery, and Stars.

Promise

Although the OT is the record of God’s promises to lowly saints and to anointed kings, to patriarchs and to prophets, to the nation of His choice and to the world at large, the word itself is rarely used in the EV, and less frequently in the RV than in the AV. The Heb. noun dabhar is generally rendered ‘word,’ but ‘promise’ is found in 1 Kings 8:56, Nehemiah 5:12 f.

In Psalms 105:42 the change made in the RV reminds us that God’s ‘holy word’ is always a ‘holy promise.’ Similarly, the Heb. verb dObhar is usually tr. ‘speak’; but ‘promise’ is found in Exodus 12:25. Jeremiah 32:42 etc. In several , passages, as, e.g., Deuteronomy 10:9, Nehemiah 9, the RV gives ‘speak’ or ‘say’ instead of ‘promise.’ A complete study of the subject would therefore require a consideration of the whole question of OT prophecy. ‘For thy word’s sake’ is the ultimate appeal of those who can say ‘thou art God, and thy words are truth, and thou hast promised’(2 S 7:21, 28). See Prophecy.

1. In a few passages (Joshua 9:21, Nehemiah 5:12 f.; Esther 4:7, Matthew 14:7, Mark 14:11, Acts 7:5, 2 Peter 2:19) the reference is to a man’s promises to his felloiv-man; once only (Acts 23:21) the noun has this meaning in the NT. In Deuteronomy 23:23 the verb refers to man’s promises to God, and is synonymous with vowing unto God. This passage is instructive, on account of the stress that is laid on the voluntary nature of the obligation that is incurred by him who promises or makes a vow. Driver renders ‘according as thou hast vowed freely unto Jehovah, thy God, that which thou hast spoken (promised) with thy mouth’ (ICC, in loc). The thought of spontaneity is an essential part of the meaning of the word when it is used of God’s promises to man, and especially of ‘the promise’ which comprises all the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom (Acts 2:39 7:17 etc.).

2. The Gr. word epangellesthai, tr. ‘promise,’ is found only in the middle voice in the NT; its root-meaning is ‘to announce oneself,’ hence it comes to signify ‘to offer one’s services,’ and ‘to engage oneself voluntarily to render a service.’ Dalman derives the NT conception of the ‘promise’ from the Rabbinic phraseology concerning ‘assurance.’ A typical example is Ber. R. 76: ‘for the pious there is no assurance (promise) in this age’; cf. Apoc. Baruch 53, ‘the promise of life hereafter’(The Words of Jesus, p. 103). The promises of God are numerous (2 Corinthians 1:20) they are also’ precious and exceeding great’ (2 Peter 1:4). ‘His every word of grace’ is a promise; even His commandments are assurances of grace, conditional only upon men’s willingness to obey. When God commanded the children of Israel to go in to possess the land, it was as good as theirs; already He had ‘lifted up’ His hand to give it them; but the promise implied in the command was made of no effect through their disobedience. The possession of Canaan, the growth of the nation, universal blessing through the race, are examples of promises of which the patriarchs did not receive the outward fulness (Hebrews 11:13). On the one hand, Abraham ‘obtained the promise,’ because the birth of Isaac was the beginning of its fulfllment (6:15) on the other hand, he is one of the fathers who ‘received not the promise,’ but ‘with a true faith looked for a fulfilment of the promises which was not granted to them’ (cf . Westcott’s note on Hebrews 11:39).

3. The NT phrase ‘inherit the promises’ (Hebrews 6:12) cf. 11:9. Galatians 3:29) is found in Ps. Sol 13 (b.c. 70 to B.C. 40). This passage is probably ‘the first instance in extant Jewish literature where the expression " the promises of the Lord" sums up the Msurances of the Messianic redemption’ (Ryle and James, Com., in loc). In the Gospels the word ‘promise’ is used in this technical sense only in Luke 24:49, where ‘the promise of the Father’ refers to the gift of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:4 2:33, 39. Galatians 3:14, Ephesians 1:13). The Ep. to the Hebrews is especially rich in passages which make mention of promises fulfilled in Christ (4:1 6:17 7 9 etc.); but both in his speeches and in his Epistles St . Paul looks atjthe Christian gospel from the same point of view (Acts 13 26:6 f.; Romans 9:8, Galatians 4:28, Ephesians 3:6; cf. the only Johannine use of ‘promise’ in 1 John 2:25). There are promises to encourage believers as they strive to perfect holiness (2 Corinthians 7:1), whilst ‘to them that love him’ the Lord hath ‘promised the crown of life’ (James 1:12) there is also the unfulfilled ‘promise of his coming’ (2 Peter 3:4). But ‘how many soever be the promises of God, in him is the Yea: wherefore also through him is the Amen, unto the glory of God through us.’ J. G. Tasker.