05-06 Kings and Priests

Kings and Priests

 Revelation 1:5:  “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.” 

            Jesus was mockingly called the “King of the Jews” and “King of Israel” when He was being crucified, (Mark 15: 12, 18, 26, 32).  His resurrection proved that He was not only “King of the Jews” but also the Son of God with all power, even over death, hell and the grave.

            The passage from Psalm 2:1-3: “The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed” is quoted in Acts 4:26 as having been spoken of Jesus Christ.  In Acts the “kings of the earth and rulers” is applied to Herod, Pilate and “the people of Israel.”  We might, therefore, say that “rulers” applied to Herod and Pilate, while “kings of the earth” applied to “the people of Israel.” 

 Revelation 1:6: And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

            The RSV translates: “And made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father.” 

1 Pet. 2:9-10 says:

But you [Christians] are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.  Once you were no people, but now you are God’s people.” (RSV)

            In context of verse 5, then, Jesus is not only the “Prince of the Kings of the Earth,” the natural Israel, but also of the New Israel, the Christians, who have been made “Kings and priests unto his God and Father.”  The “kings of the earth” are those claiming fleshly descent from Abraham; the “kings and priests unto God” are those who through Christ have become the children of God through the faith of Abraham.

            In most ancient cultures only the kings and priests were educated and all literature was written by and for this group.  But it is notable that every Christian is a King and Priest restoring God’s original plan to give Mankind dominion.  This is not the distorted view of kingship and priesthood as Man dominating Man, however.  God’s original plan was for Man to rule over The Flesh, “everything that creeps upon the earth“, and subdue, not only the animal kingdom in general, but the passions and lusts of his own fleshly nature as well.

          Even in his fallen estate, there is a need in Man for power.  In its proper order, this need is fulfilled in self-discipline.  When a society is made up of self-disciplined men, then there can be freedom, but when self-discipline fails, laws must be enacted and restrictions must be imposed by outside force in an effort to maintain order.  The less self-discipline, the less freedom and the more chaotic the society.  As the failure of law and order progresses, the power of brute force becomes the dominant force.  Ultimately, the failure of self-discipline leads to the law of the jungle, “survival of the fittest”, the rule of tooth and claw and the disintegration of civilization.

          Man’s need for power, misused, becomes “power-lust.”  Like other lusts, it is insatiable; the more it is fed, the greater its appetite.  A taste of power often makes the man ravenous as a wild beast that gets a taste of blood.  The history of the world is replete with accounts of men who became maniacal tyrants through their lust for power.  Power-lust is manifest in other forms than military and political; popularity, fame, and wealth are some of the variations in its form.  It may even be found in religious systems.  Indeed, there is no power so strong as the power of superstition.

          The Flesh must be ruled; the Spirit must be free.  Only the man who can rule his own flesh can be free from the laws necessary to living in a society.  Government, therefore, must not be seen as merely the objective, rational science of politics and law.  This is only one of the more conspicuous manifestations of it.  The body of laws enacted by legislative bodies is also a manifestation of the governing force but not the essence.  Toynbee has wisely noted that codification of laws reaches its peak when the ungovernable forces are about to bring down the structure of civilization.

          The definition of government as a “social contract” is far too narrow.  Indeed, the “social contract” might conceivably be anti-government.  At best it can only deal with the limited aspect of Man’s relationship to Man.  It leaves out the relationship of Man to himself and the prerequisite relationship of Man to God.  I submit that government must be viewed as a closed continuum of Man to himself, Man to Man, and Man to God.  I therefore reject the notion that government can be a separate science from religion.

          It is commonly said that the family is the smallest unit of government.  At the same time we speak of self-control or individual government.  If the individual is a unit of government, then he, and not the family, would be the smallest unit.  Is the individual a governing unit?  The answer to this question determines whether or not democracy is possible, for democracy is self-government.  Freedom is not the absence of government, but the ability to govern oneself.

          In the earliest records of civilization, writings and drawings depict Man struggling with a Beast.  Indeed, this struggle continues its appeal even in modern times.  One of the earliest fears of small children is of beasts.  There is a deep symbolic significance to this dramatic appeal, for it represents Man’s struggle with his own fleshly passions.  This struggle is vital to civilized society, for without it civilization is impossible.  No relationship with others can survive unless and until Man comes to terms with himself.  There must be a degree of mastery of the Flesh.

          The earliest social contract on record is that of marriage, which began the governing unit of the family.  The importance of this unit can not be over-emphasized as it is basic to all further social contracts.  It is the most valuable and, if functioning properly, the only essential governing unit; without it, no greater unit can function properly. The concept of the family may be applied to ever widening groups – the community, the nation, the world.  The essential relationships of Man to Man are those of the family, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, and children.  If family ties are severed or strained, the person can hardly find the larger community compatible.

          The source of all successful social interaction is compatibility with God.  Government without a source and without a goal can not be.  Man must ultimately realize that God is the source of control, of order, of law.  It would naturally follow that He is also the goal, the ultimate Judge and Rewarder.

            It is no accident that religions which teach symbolically the sacrifice of the passions, often symbolized by the sacrifice of animals, precede, produce and sustain civilizations.  When passions are given full reign, civilizations fall.

            God is no small concept.  Unbelief is often the inability to see beyond the image of God one has fashioned for himself.  He is yet above and beyond as well as before and beneath all human ideas.  Yet He has revealed Himself to Man in government.  However, His government is not such that the undisciplined Man could perceive.  The government which issues from God is not one of force, but one of choice.  This is Freedom.  The alternative is slavery to the passions.  Freedom allows Man to develop his full potential; slavery exploits and dissipates his body, mind and soul.

            There can, therefore, be no dichotomy between spiritual and secular governments.  There can be “separation of Church and State” in theory when these are merely separate manifestations of Man’s lust for power.  Neither can have a desirable result unless the Spirit moves upon Man from within himself, effecting the conquering of passions and the desire for social order.  The only legitimate source of this power within Man is God.  Thus the circle is complete: God moves within Man; Man rises up to conquer passions, form social contracts, and in turn submits to the authority of God.  Government in any other form is only, at best, the imposition of the will of the strong.

            The reign of Nebuchadnezzar is a type of the reign of Man.  His dominion was given by God.  He exalted himself in disobedience.  When he was restored by God’s grace, he exalted the God of Heaven.

            Belshazzar‘s reign is a type of the reign of the Flesh.  He obtained his kingdom as a result of death.  He desecrated the holy vessels.  He worshipped the gods of gold, of silver and of precious stones.  His judgment is pronounced thus: “MENÊ’- God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it“.  Numbering indicates a soon end.  God forbad the numbering of his people except they bring a ransom for their souls, (Exod. 30:12-14).  Every soul that was numbered was under “mortgage” to God.  That is, they were under oath, or sworn, and must be redeemed or ransomed from death.  Therefore, the numbering meant that it was appointed or destined to die. 

            TEKEL- Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.”  The weighing indicated the payment of a price.  Flesh and blood have no value great enough to satisfy a sin debt.  The price weighed was not enough.

            PERES- Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians – “.  A divided kingdom cannot stand.  Therefore the kingdom of the Flesh (usurped by satan), cannot be established because it wars against the Spirit, causing the schism which brings its own downfall.[1]

            Therefore, the nation of “Kings and Priests unto God and his Father” is a kingdom united in the Spirit, overcoming the Flesh.

 Enumeration of High Priests

Revelation 1:6: “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.”

             From historical records we learn that the legitimate lineage of priests had been corrupted.  Following is the witness of the historian Josephus, (Ant.20.10):

 1. The number of all the high priests from Aaron … to Phanas, who was made high priest during the war by the seditious, was eighty-three: of whom thirteen officiated as High Priests in the wilderness, from the days of Moses, while the tabernacle was standing, until the people came into Judea, when king Solomon erected the temple to God; for at first they held the high priesthood till the end of their life, although afterward they had successors while they were alive.  Now these thirteen, who were the descendants of Aaron, received this dignity by succession, one after another; for their form of government was an aristocracy, and after that a monarchy, and in the third place the government was regal.  Now the number of years during the rule of these thirteen, from the days when our fathers departed out of Egypt, under Moses their leader, until the building of that temple which king Solomon erected at Jerusalem, was six hundred and twelve.

            After those thirteen high priests, eighteen took the high priesthood at Jerusalem, one in succession to another, from the days of king Solomon until Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, made an expedition against that city, and burnt the temple, and removed our nation into Babylon, and then took Josadek, the high priest, captive; the time of these high priests were four hundred and sixty-six years, six months, and ten days, while the Jews were still under the regal government.

            But after the term of seventy years‘ captivity under the Babylonians, Cyrus king of Persia, sent the Jews from Babylon to their own land again, and gave them leave to rebuild their temple; at which time Jesus, the son of Josadek, took the high priesthood over the captives when they were returned home.  Now he and his posterity, who were in all fifteen, unto king Antiochus Eupator, were under a democratical government for four hundred and fourteen years; and then the aforementioned Antiochus and Lysias the general of his army, deprived Onias, who was called Menelaus, of the high priesthood and slew him at Berea; and driving away the son [of Onias the third,] put Jacimus into the high priest’s place, one that was indeed of the stock of Aaron, but not of the family of Onias.  On which account Onias, who was the nephew of Onias that was dead, and bore the same name with his father, came into Egypt, and got into the friendship of Ptolemy Philometor, and Cleopatra his wife, and persuaded them to make him the high priest of that temple which he built to God in the prefecture of Heliopolis, and this in imitation of that at Jerusalem; but as for the temple which was build in Egypt, we have spoken of it frequently already.”

 This Marked a Break in the Line of Succession from Aaron.


[1] See Introductory Articles: “Calculating the Seventy Weeks,” also Commentary on 17:10, “Roman appointed Kings”, “Seven Kings”, and 17:11, “Eight Kings”, 17:12 “Ten Kings.”

Leave a Reply