Was David a prophet, priest and king?
- Thread starter ST0218
- Start date
- Status
ParticularBaptist1677
Puritan Board Freshman
Maybe a helpful study would be the passage about David eating the showbread, which only priests were able to partake of. Leviticus 24:9 and 1 Samuel 21:6.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
He wasn't a Levite, so there's that. Yes, he did do some priestly actions, many of which weren't strictly commanded by God (organizing Levitical singers). But he wasn't a proper priest.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
Agree. Would it also be fair to say that David’s priesthood is of the order of Melchizedek then?Neither was Jesus, so there's that.
Neither was Melchizedek.
ParticularBaptist1677
Puritan Board Freshman
I would want to nail down that to be a priest does not mean you can only be one in the Old Covenant. An essential part of the priesthood is intercession, which David does in the Psalms for Israel at times, as we do in the New Covenant. Royal priesthood, holy nation, all of those texts shed some light here. David is a type for his greater Son to come. There is also the helpful point in Biblical Theology that the Kings of Israel during their time as King acted in a special role as covenant head (which could include a priestly role), which helps us understand more how the nation can be punished when the Kings did righteous things like destroy pagan high places in Israel, but....did not take down ALL the high places. And that helps us understand 2 Samuel 6:8 that you mentioned in your original post. In summary, David could be "head of the OT church" in a way that the king of England never could be because of the Yahweh established theocracy. I do not mean however they were to receive worship, but head in the sense of being the physical/visible figurehead God established for them, to lead them. Deuteronomy 17 is helpful in looking at the standard for the king and what he ought to do in leading the people of God. This argument strengthens the type aspect of the kingly role played, because when Christ comes He is actually able to fulfill all that the prior kings were unable to, making Him Lord, Savior, and Christ. Dr. David Scrock has a new book out called The Royal Priesthood that Reformed Forum (I believe Dr. Lane Tipton is involved with them) reviewed, and from what I heard would seem to do a service to your question.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That's true, but at the same time there were other kings, good kings, who did priestly actions and were judged harshly for it. If David is after the order of Melchizedek, we would need to see some evidence for it.Neither was Jesus, so there's that.
Neither was Melchizedek.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
Good point!
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Does the fact that he did priestly things and was neither condemned nor punished for it have any weight?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Maybe. And I certainly grant that he would have had priestly-typological connections, but that's still a leap to say he was after Melchizedek.
I would not interpret 2Sam.6:18, or comparable text like 1Ki.3:4, in a strict and direct sense applicable to David as the direct actor; but only after the sense of 2Chr.29:27, "And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar." As the titular head of the church, and the one who literally led the whole nation in worship, David properly is credited with the sacrifices, the apotheosis of what would be said of an average person bringing his sacrifice to the Tabernacle or Temple: that he made him and his family to sacrifice a burnt offering through the ministry of his priest. Num.10:10 describes such things as "your sacrifices" meaning the people's, (or Dt.12:6, etc.). Ps.4:5 commands, "Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord." This direction does not authorize personal altars.
David seeks from the priesthood time and again for their ministry to himself and the nation, which he needn't have done if he was entitled by an extraordinary dispensation or other expectation that he and his sons should serve as priests. King Uzziah was struck with leprosy for arrogating to himself the office of priestly sacrifice (of incense), 2Chr.26:16ff.
David himself seems to anticipate a greater sense than any he could himself hint at, for combining the offices of king and priest when by inspiration he conceives of a future priest "according to the order of Melchizedek," Ps.110:4. This his son, who shall also be so great as to command his obeisance, will be a true priest, not needing to invoke the presence of another authorized to do that work (as David understood of himself). Indeed, the separation of a priesthood from Levi, and the distinct tribe and family to which was given the monarchy (Gen.49:10) speaks clearly to the propriety of maintaining such a signal dispersion of these two callings within the nation until the time came to properly combine them.
Yet, David's leading the people in worship and sacrifice does hint at that eventual combination. But there are other biblical figures who bring the two offices quite close together, tighter even than David. Prior to the national instantiation and a division of offices, the patriarchs all demonstrate a combination of judging authority, leading worship by sacrifice, and proclamation of the word. Naturally, some vestiges remain of this office-bearing for every father in Israel. Among the judges of Israel, Samuel stands out as one who brought together both judgeship and a priestly affect, which we may tie both to his Levite heritage and his from-birth association with (we might almost say adoption by) Eli the high priest.
But Moses--alone of national Israelite figures--being the mediator of the Old Covenant, is the one back to whom a figure like Samuel reminds the believing Israelite, both whom point ahead to (not David) but the Christ, mediator of a better covenant. Moses was the end of the patriarch-era, and the start of the national existence. He was the great prophet, a priest (making sacrifice himself before and beside Aaron), and a king (or judge) of the whole nation. It would require one greater than Moses to eclipse him, and to obtain all three offices.
David seeks from the priesthood time and again for their ministry to himself and the nation, which he needn't have done if he was entitled by an extraordinary dispensation or other expectation that he and his sons should serve as priests. King Uzziah was struck with leprosy for arrogating to himself the office of priestly sacrifice (of incense), 2Chr.26:16ff.
David himself seems to anticipate a greater sense than any he could himself hint at, for combining the offices of king and priest when by inspiration he conceives of a future priest "according to the order of Melchizedek," Ps.110:4. This his son, who shall also be so great as to command his obeisance, will be a true priest, not needing to invoke the presence of another authorized to do that work (as David understood of himself). Indeed, the separation of a priesthood from Levi, and the distinct tribe and family to which was given the monarchy (Gen.49:10) speaks clearly to the propriety of maintaining such a signal dispersion of these two callings within the nation until the time came to properly combine them.
Yet, David's leading the people in worship and sacrifice does hint at that eventual combination. But there are other biblical figures who bring the two offices quite close together, tighter even than David. Prior to the national instantiation and a division of offices, the patriarchs all demonstrate a combination of judging authority, leading worship by sacrifice, and proclamation of the word. Naturally, some vestiges remain of this office-bearing for every father in Israel. Among the judges of Israel, Samuel stands out as one who brought together both judgeship and a priestly affect, which we may tie both to his Levite heritage and his from-birth association with (we might almost say adoption by) Eli the high priest.
But Moses--alone of national Israelite figures--being the mediator of the Old Covenant, is the one back to whom a figure like Samuel reminds the believing Israelite, both whom point ahead to (not David) but the Christ, mediator of a better covenant. Moses was the end of the patriarch-era, and the start of the national existence. He was the great prophet, a priest (making sacrifice himself before and beside Aaron), and a king (or judge) of the whole nation. It would require one greater than Moses to eclipse him, and to obtain all three offices.
- Status
