Demonstration version—prototype quality only—still in development

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W XY Z

Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary

PRIESTS AND LEVITES

Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.

The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.

In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that priests (Levites descended from Aaron) and Levites (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.

Preview

• The Origins of the Priesthood

• The High Priest

• The Priests

• The Levites

• The History of the Institution

• The Priesthood in New Testament Times

The Origins of the Priesthood

The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.

The High Priest

Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.

In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.

This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.

The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.

The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.

The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.

The Priests

Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.

The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.

In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).

Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.

The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.

The Levites

This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.

The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).

Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.

The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).

The History of the Institution

In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.

The Priesthood before the Monarchy

In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).

The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.

More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century BC, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.

The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.

The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon

Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.

David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.

These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.

Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).

Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.

The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy

The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.

In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 BC. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).

The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.

Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.

The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, niv). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.

Priests and Levites during and after the Exile

The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 BC, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 BC; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.

In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.

When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.

To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.

The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.

The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period

During the second century BC, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.

For the first three decades of the second century BC, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 BC); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 BC). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.

Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 BC). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 BC and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 BC).

There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 BC, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 BC, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 BC), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.

The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.

The Priesthood in New Testament Times

In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).

The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about AD 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. AD 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. AD 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.

The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century AD.

In AD 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in AD 135, its days were numbered after AD 70. Since the end of the first century AD, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.