Priest and King

I'm currently reading part 1 of Crispin Fletcher-Louis 2 part JSHJ article entitled "Jesus As The High Priestly Messiah". In it he explores some aspects of 2nd temple political aspirations and specifically how the priestly class played into those aspirations. Fletcher-Louis then lays out five available options for Jesus in relationship to these political and priestly aspirations.

1 Jesus looked to the return of the golden age of the Hasmonean rule where a new high priest would function also as a monarch. He himself would not have qualified for this position being a layman.

2 A second possibility is that Jesus believed the nation should be headed by a priest with no royal responsibilities and no king at his side. I’m not entirely sure how this is distinct from the monarchy option first presented. Fletcher-Louis doesn’t spend much time elaborating on what he means by the priest having “no royal responsibilities”, but he is explicit that this would not involve having a separate king at the Priests side. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Jesus ever entertained this possibility.

3 A 3rd option was that Jesus believed that the nation should be ruled by a king along side of, but subordinate to a high priest. If this is the case then Jesus would have looked to another to be the new royal high priest. That might be an early possibly for Jesus as he paired up with John the Baptist early on. If this was the case though, and the evidence is sparse, Jesus changed his mind after John was imprisoned or possibly even before. (Fletcher-Louis notes Mk 2.18-20 as evidence for this) This is important as Fletcher-Louis puts because it “indicates that Jesus consciously rejected one of the ‘messianic’ options open to him—diarchy” (171)

4 Jesus believed him self to be the royal messiah (Son of God), and there would be no need for a royal priesthood. Fletcher-Louis notes this is a common Christian reading of the Gospels and is thoroughly apolitical. Fletcher-Louis rejects this view because it would have made Jesus thoroughly unintelligible to the disciples, crowds, and authorities. Fletcher remarks that there “just wasn’t the widespread expectation for the royal messiah that this scenario assumes. The Sources agree that a high priesthood is to figure somewhere in the nation’s polity.” (172) Fletcher-Louis backs this statement up with a number of footnotes scattered throughout the article for those wishing to follow up.

5 The last option Fletcher-Louis presents is that Jesus believed he was “Israel’s royal messiah, and as such, he was also her true eschatological high priest.” (172) Fletcher-Louis emphasizes the point that this also wasn’t a widespread view, and there’s evidence that it was rejected by at least some. Josephus for example, is clear that torah prohibits it. Fletcher-Louis cites Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 110 as text from which Jesus could have drew from for this position. The later with its mention of Melchizedek is obviously more explicit in making this connection than the former, but there is evidence of both ideas floating all over the New Testament. Earlier in the article Fletcher-Louis had discussed the relationship between the high priest and Gen 1-3. The high priest was the new Adam, wearing Adam’s lost garments, and doing what Adam failed to do in the temple-as-restored Eden. There is a host of footnotes Fletcher-Louis provides for the last 3 points and Fletcher-Louis is careful to point out that it was the office that these items applied to and not the private individuals who occupied the office at various times. All of this has tantalizing implications for the new Adam language in Paul and the high priestly language of Hebrews. Sadly Fletcher-Louis doesn’t pursue the details of the Adamic description and its priestly and royal characteristics and instead leaves them hanging choosing to rather focus on Psalm 110.

On top of Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 110, I believe there is one other pertinent passage that Jesus could and did draw upon for his combination of the kingly and priestly offices. In Mark 2.23 – 28 (note the proximity to earlier mentioned Mk 2.18-20) Lk 6.1-11 Mt 12.1-14 Jesus, when questioned about his unlawful action on Sabbath responds by pointing out that David, when his companions were hungry entered into the house of god and took the consecrated bread, which was lawful only for the priests to eat. Here Jesus’ response points in much the same direction as Psalm 110 and Genesis. Jesus presents David as one who transcends the Priestly and Kingly offices. I see that as I look ahead to the 2nd part of Louis-Fletchers article he address this passage. I’ll end here and see if Louis-Fletcher adds anything to this discussion. He doesn’t seem to include it as a passage from which Jesus may have drawn from for his priestly-king self understanding, but in light of part two that conclusion may be premature. Perhaps he’ll take the passage in a different direction.