A High Priest List
There are various alternative understandings of this list of the sons of Aaron. One suggestion is that this is a list of those who held the position of "High Priest".225
It must be observed at the outset that nowhere in this list, nor in the list of 1 Chr 5:27-41 [6:1-15], is it suggested that these individuals held the position of "High
Priest".226 The term
!heko
(priest) is not mentioned in the genealogies until 1 Chr 9:2, although the verb!hk
(to serve as priest) occurs in 1 Chr 5:36 [6:10]. This occurrence does not demand that a person served in the capacity of "High Priest", for the verb is normally used to indicate the work of serving as a priest in general.227!hk
sometimes refers to a son succeeding his father into the position
225 This has been stated by many authors, e.g. Leslie C. Allen, 1, 2 Chronicles (Waco: Word,
1987), 63; Braun, 1 Chronicles, 95.
226 The list in 1 Chr 5:27-41 [6:1-15] will be investigated in Chapter 4.
227 Although often used in the infinitive with the meaning "to serve as priest" (Exod 28:1, 3, 4;
of High Priest (Lev 16:32; Deut 10:6),228 and once to a person being rejected from what may be assumed to be a high priestly position (Hos 4:6).229
The function of this list of the sons of Aaron is dictated not by the position that Aaron himself held as
lAdG"h; !heKoh;;
(the great priest; Lev 21:10),230 but by the duties and tasks that the sons of Aaron as a group were to perform as specified in 1 Chr 6:34 [6:49].231 This list in 1 Chr 6:35-38 [6:50-53] indicates who these sons of Aaron are who were to perform these stated duties.
4:6), it is sometimes used in the plural for many persons serving as priests (Exod 28: 41; 40:15; 1 Chr 24:2).
228 Leviticus 16:32 does not say that this is a succession to the position of "high priest" (NIV), but
to one of succeeding his father. However, as all the "sons of Aaron" operated as priests, the succession here is reasonably to that of "head of the priests". This is further highlighted by the observation that the commands of Lev 16:2-25 are directed to Aaron, and Lev 16:32 addresses the issue of the succession to the duties that Aaron performed on the day of atonement. Deuteronomy 10:6 does not state that Eleazar succeeded his father as High Priest, but only as "priest". The context, however, makes it clear that Eleazar had assumed the position of "head of the priests" in place of his father, consistent with the commands of Lev 16:32. These are the only passages which speak of the hereditary succession of the high priesthood.
229 Although not accepted by all scholars, some do suggest that this is a reference to a high
priestly position. "While no special title is given, it is clear that Hosea is speaking of a high priest or chief priest at a central shrine", Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea (AB 24; Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), 353. Although the NIV makes this plural ("I reject you as
priests"), the Hebrew here is singular (so NRSV).
230 Ezra 7:5, however, refers to Aaron as
varoh' !heKoh;
(the head priest). These are the onlyplaces where either term is applied to Aaron.
The Legitimization of Zadok
Some writers have suggested that the purpose of this list is the need to legitimise Zadok and his descendants as the lawful high priests in the postexilic community. This need is said to develop because of the Deuteronomistic History's statement that Zadok replaced Abiathar as priest (1 Kgs 2:35).232
The Need for Legitimization
In the Deuteronomistic History Zadok is presented as an equal priest alongside Abiathar (2 Sam 20:25), or Ahimelech (2 Sam 8:17), during the reign of David. During Absalom's rebellion, when David fled from Jerusalem, it is Zadok who appears to have the custodianship of the ark of the covenant (2 Sam 15:24), although both Zadok and Abiathar escort the ark back into Jerusalem (2 Sam 15:29). In the political instability which occurred toward the end of David's life, when rival claimants for the throne arose, Abiathar supported Adonijah, who was next in line for the throne (1 Kgs 1:5-7), while Zadok supported Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-45).
As a result of Solomon's ascendancy, Abiathar was dismissed from his position as priest and replaced by Zadok (1 Kgs 2:35). This is presented in the
Deuteronomistic History as fulfilment of a prophetic message to the family of Eli (1 Sam 2:27-36; 1 Kgs 2:26-27). Following this, Zadok disappears from the
232 "Diese Priesterschaft, die Bene Sadok, erheben den Anspruch, die rechtmäßigen Erben
Aharons zu sein, und das konnte nur durch eine feste Genealogie bewiesen werden", Rothstein and Hänel, Chronik, 112. Payne agrees, saying that this list "confirms that the Zadokite priests, alone among the Levitical divisions in David's day, had the authority to make a sacrificial atonement", "Chronicles", 354.
written record apart from a list of Solomon's officials in which he and Abiathar are both priests and one of Zadok's sons appears as priest (1 Kgs 4:2, 4).
The means whereby Zadok comes to the prominent priestly position, and the story generated which justifies that ascendancy, has raised questions regarding the legitimacy of Zadok as a priest. These questions would also have been present when the story was proclaimed, and the story would have acted to counter questions of Zadok's legitimacy and his right to replace an established priesthood. Once established in his position, and with the story accepted, his legitimacy would not be again questioned until an alternative means of
legitimization arose in the community which would challenge the previously accepted story.
The story presented in 1 Sam 2:27-36 and said to be fulfilled in 1 Kgs 2:26-27 is shaped so as to present Zadok, his ascendancy and his heirs in the best possible light. Corrupt priests, who did not treat the people's sacrifices according to the tradition (1 Sam 2:12-17), whose behaviour was morally questionable (1 Sam 2:22), and who refused to listen to their father when rebuked (1 Sam 2:23- 25), were justly and properly condemned by a man of God. This condemnation resulted in that priestly family losing its right to dominate the priestly service (1 Sam 2:31-33).233 Yahweh promised instead that a "faithful priest" (1 Sam 2:35) would be raised up to minister before Yahweh's "anointed".234 He would occupy
233 That opportunity to serve in a priestly capacity was still a possibility is indicated in 1 Sam 2:36. 234 The contrived nature of this prophecy is obvious from the term "my anointed". This phrase is
used to refer to the king, yet at the time of Eli, no king had yet been anointed for a priest to stand before, cf. 1 Sam 2:10. Saul (1 Sam 9:16; 10;1; 12:3, 5; 15:1, 17; 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam 1:14, 16), David (1 Sam 16:3, 6, 12, 13; 2 Sam 2:4, 7; 3:39; 5:3, 17; 12:7; 19:21; 22:51;
the priesthood in perpetuity. As a product of its own time, the story of the rise of Zadok prompts little comment. It is a piece of political propaganda used to justify the replacement of one priesthood by a new one.235 It is only in the light of later cultic developments, particularly the emphasis in the priestly literature upon the "sons of Aaron", that the legitimacy of Zadok might be questioned.
The Background in Ezekiel
Apart from the historiographical books of the Hebrew Bible, Zadok appears only in Ezekiel.236 Although the portrayal of Zadok in Ezekiel is often said to
present the demotion of unfaithful priests to the status of Levites and the claim to the exclusive rights to the altar by the Zadokites in Ezekiel's idealised temple, this is uncertain.237 Although this is not the place to fully investigate Ezekiel's view of the Zadokites, certain points are clear (see Figure 3.1).
23:1; 1 Chr 29:22), Jehu (1 Kgs 19:16; 2 Kgs 9:3, 6, 12; 2 Chr 22:7), Hazael of Damascus (1 Kgs 19:15) and the unnamed king of Lamentations 4:20, probably Zedekiah, are all said to be the "Lord's anointed", or simply the "anointed" king of the people. Other kings were said to be anointed, but none were anointed explicitly at Yahweh's command, Absalom (2 Sam 19:10), Solomon (1 Kgs 1:34, 39, 45; 5:1; 1 Chr 29:22); Joash (2 Kgs 11:12; 2 Chr 23:11), Josiah (2 Kgs 23:30).
235 For an evaluation of the entire account of David as "propaganda", see Baruch Halpern, David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). 236 Ezekiel 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11. Although the originality of Ezek 40-48 to the work of
Ezekiel has been questioned, what is not in question is the emphasis placed in this section on the prominence of Zadok.
237 For challenges to this view see, Raymond Abba, "Priests and Levites in Ezekiel," VT 28
Figure 3.1: Ezekiel and the Zadokites
Ezekiel
!heKo
tr,m,v.mi yrEm.vo
qAdc'
brq
trv
40:45
~ynIh]Kol;
tyIB'h; tr,m,v.mi yrem.vo
40:46
~ynIh]Kol; x;Bez>Mih; tr,m,v.mi yrem.vo qAdc'-ynEb. ~ybireQ.h; Atr>v'l.
43:19