Priest, High
Priest, High
The high-priest in the Old Testament is called by various names:
the priest (Numbers 3:6); the great priest (Leviticus 21:10); the head priest (2 Kings 25:18); the anointed priest (Leviticus 4:3): Gr., Archiereus (Leviticus 4:3), also in later books and New Testament.
In the Old Testament ho hiereus (Numbers 3:6); hiereus ho protos (2 Kings 25:18); ho hiereus ho megas (Leviticus 21:10), are the common forms. A coadjutor or second priest was mentioned in IV Kings, xxv, 18.
Aaron and his sons were chosen by God to be priests, Aaron being the first high-priest and Eleazar his successor; so that, though the Scripture does not say so explicitly, the succession of the eldest son to the office of high-priest became a law. The consecration of Aaron and his sons during seven days and their vestments are described in Ex., xxviii, xxix (cf. Leviticus 8:12; Sirach 45:7 sqq.). Aaron was anointed with oil poured on his head (Leviticus 8:12); hence he is called “the priest that is anointed” (Leviticus 4:3). Some texts seem to require anointing for all (Exodus 30:30; Leviticus 10:7; Numbers 3:3), but Aaron was anointed with oil in great profusion, even on the head (Exodus 29:7), to which reference is made in Ps. cxxxii, 2, where it is said that the precious ointment ran down upon his beard and “to the skirt of his garment”. The ointment was made of myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, cassia, and olive oil, compounded by the perfumer or apothecary (Ex., xxx, 23-25; Josephus, “Ant.”, III, viii, 3), and not to be imitated nor applied to profane uses (Exodus 30:31-33).
After the Exile anointing was not in use: both high-priests and priests were consecrated by simple investiture. The rabbis held that even before the Exile the high-priest alone was anointed by pouring the sacred oil “over him” and applying it to his forehead over the eyes “after the form of the Greek X” (Edersheim, “The Temple, Its Ministry and Service at the Time of Jesus Christ”, 71). No age is specified, and thus youth was no impediment to the appointment by Herod of Aristobulus to the high-priesthood, though the latter was in his seventeenth year (Josephus, “Antiq.”, XV, iii, 3). Josephus gives a list of eighty-three high-priests from Aaron to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans (Ant., XX, x). They were in the beginning chosen for life, but later removed at will by the secular power (Jos., “Ant.”, XV, iii, 1; XX, x), so that “the numbers of the high-priests from the days of Herod until the day when Titus took the Temple and the city, and burnt them, were in all twenty-eight; the time also that belonged to them was one hundred and seven years” (Jos., “Ant.”, XX, x). Thus one-third of the high-priests of fifteen centuries lived within the last century of their history: they had become the puppets of the temporal rulers. The frequency of change in the office is hinted at by St. John (xi, 51), where he says that Caiphas was “the high-priest of that year”. Solomon deposed Abiathar for having supported the cause of Adonias, and gave the high-priesthood to Sadoc (1 Kings 2:27, 35): then the last of Heli’s family was cast out, as the Lord had declared to Heli long before (1 Samuel 2:32). It seems strange, therefore, that Josephus (Ant., XV, iii, 1) states that Antiochus Epiphanes was the first to depose a high-priest. It may be that he regarded Abiathar and Sadoc as holding the office conjointly, since Abiathar “the priest” and Sadoc “the priest” were both very prominent in David’s reign (1 Kings 1:34; 1 Chronicles 16:39, 40). Josephus may have considered the act of Solomon the means of a return to unity; moreover, in the same section where he mentions the change, he says that Sadoc was high-priest in David’s reign (Ant., VIII, i, 3), and adds “the king [Solomon] also made Zadok to be alone the high-priest” (Ant., VIII, i, 4). Shortly before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans the zealots chose by lot a mere rustic named Phannias as the last high-priest: thus the high-priesthood, the city and the Temple passed away together (Josephus, “Bell. Jud.”, IV, iii, 8).
The prominence of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple need not lead to the conclusion that the king officiated also as priest on the occasion. Smith (“Ency. Bib.”, s. v. Priest) maintains this, and that the kings of Juda offered sacrifice down to the Exile, alleging in proof such passages as III Kings, ix, 25; but since priests are mentioned in this same book, for instance, viii, 10, 11 such inference is not reasonable. As Van Hoonacker shows, the prominence of the secular power in the early history of the people and the apparent absence of even the high-priest during the most sacred functions, as well as the great authority possessed by him after the Exile, do not warrant the conclusion of Wellhausen that the high-priesthood was known only in post-Exilic times. That such a change could have taken place and could have been introduced into the life of the nation and so easily accepted as a Divine institution is hardly probable. We have, however, undoubted references to the high-priest in pre-Exilic texts (2 Kings 11; 12; 16:10; 22; 23; etc.) which Buhl (“The New Schaff-Herzog Ency. of Religious Knowledge”, s. v. High Priest) admits as genuine, not interpolations, as some think, by which the “later office may have had a historic foreshadowing”. We see in them proofs of the existence of the high-priesthood, not merely its “foreshadowing”. Then too the title “the second priest” in Jer., lii, 24, where the high-priest also is mentioned, is a twofold witness to the same truth; so that though, as Josephus tells us (Ant., XX, x), in the latter years of the nation’s history “the high-priests were entrusted with a dominion over the nation” and thus became, as in the days of the sacerdotal Machabees, more conspicuous than in early times, yet this was only an accidental lustre added to an ancient and sacred office.
In the New Testament (Matthew 2:4; Mark 14:1, etc.) where reference is made to chief priests, some think that these all had been high-priests, who having been deposed constituted a distinct class and had great influence in the Sanhedrin. It is clear from John, xviii, 13, that Annas, even when deprived of the pontificate, took a leading part in the deliberations of that tribunal. Schürer holds that the chief priests in the New Testament were ex-high-priests and also those who sat in the council as members and representatives of the privileged families from whom the high-priests were chosen (The Jewish People, Div. II, V. i, 204-7), and Maldonatus, in Matt., ii, 6, cites II Par., xxxvi, 14, showing that those who sat in the Sanhedrin as heads of priestly families were so styled.
The high-priest alone might enter the Holy of Holies on the day of atonement, and even he but once a year, to sprinkle the blood of the sin-offering and offer incense: he prayed and sacrificed for himself as well as for the people (Leviticus 16). He likewise officiated “on the seventh days and new moons” and annual festivals (Jos., “Bell. Jud.”, V, v, 7). He might marry only a virgin “of his own people”, though other priests were allowed to marry a widow; neither was it lawful for him to rend his garments nor to come near the dead even if closely related (Lev., xxi, 10-14; cf. Josephus, “Ant.”, III, xii, 2). It belonged to him also to manifest the Divine will made known to him by means of the urim and thummim, a method of consulting the Lord about which we have very little knowledge. Since the death of the high-priest marked an epoch in the history of Israel, the homicides were then allowed to return home from the city where they had found a refuge from vengeance (Numbers 35:25, 28).
The typical character of the high-priest is explained by St. Paul (Hebrews 9), where the Apostle shows that while the high-priest entered the “Holy of Holies” once a year with the blood of victims, Christ, the great high-priest, offered up His own blood and entered into Heaven itself, where He “also maketh intercession for us” (Romans 8:34; see Piconio, “Trip. Expos. in Heb.”, 9).
In addition to what other priests wore while exercising their sacred functions the high-priest put on special golden robes, so called from the rich material of which they were made. They are described in Ex., xxviii, and each high-priest left them to his successor. Over the tunic he put a one piece violet robe, trimmed with tassels of violet, purple, and scarlet (Joseph., III, vii, 4), between the two tassels were bells which rang as he went to and from the sanctuary. Their mitres differed from the turbans of the ordinary priests, and had in front a golden plate inscribed “Holy to the Lord” (Exodus 28:36). Josephus describes the mitre as having a triple crown of gold, and adds that the plate with the name of God which Moses had written in sacred characters “hath remained to this very day” (Ant., VIII, iii, 8; III, vii, 6). In a note to Whiston’s Josephus (Ant., III, vii, 6) the later history of the plate is given, but what became of it finally is not known. The precious vestments of the high-priest were kept by Herod and by the Romans, but seven days before a festival they were given back and purified before use in any sacred function (Jos., “Ant.”, XVIII, iv, 3). On the day of atonement, according to Lev., xvi, 4, the high-priest wore pure linen, but Josephus says he wore his golden vestments (Bell. Jud., V, v, 7), and to reconcile the two Edersheim thinks that the rich robes were used at the beginning of the ceremony and changed for the linen vestments before the high-priest entered the Holy of Holies (The Temple, p.270). For additional information concerning the vestments and ornaments of the high-priest see EPHOD, ORACLE, PECTORAL, URIM AND THUMMIM.
———————————–
SCHÜRER, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, I 195-207; also GRÄTZ and other historians; JOSEPHUS, passim; SMITH, Dict. of the Bible, s. v. High-Priest; EDERSHEIM, The Temple, Its Ministry and Service at the Time of Jesus Christ, 57-79; VAN HOONACKER, Le sacerdoce lévitique (1899), 317-83; SMITH in Ency. Bib., s. v., Priest, gives the radical view; ORR, The Problem of the Old Testament (1906), 180-90, refutes Wellhausen and others of the radical school.
JOHN J. TIERNEY Transcribed by Vivek Gilbert John Fernandez Dedicated to the Holy Catholic Priesthood
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Priest, High
(, ha-kohen, , ho hiereus; , ha-kohen ha-mashah, , ho hiereus ho christos; , ha-kohen ha-gadhol, , ho hiereus ho megas; , kohen ha-ro’sh, , ho hiereus hegoumenos; New Testament , archiereus):
I.INSTITUTION OF THE HIGH-PRIESTHOOD
1.The Family
2.The Consecration
3.The Dress
4.The Duties of High-Priesthood
5.Special Regulations
6.The Emoluments
7.Importance of the Office
II.HISTORY OF THE HIGH-PRIESTHOOD IN ISRAEL
1.In the Old Testament
2.In the New Testament
LITERATURE
I. Institution of the High-Priesthood.
Temples with an elaborate ritual, a priesthood and a high priest were familiar to Moses. For a millennium or two before his time these had flourished in Egypt. Each temple had its priest or priests, the larger temples and centers having a high priest. For centuries the high priest of Amon at Thebes stood next to the king in power and influence. Many other high-priesthoods of less importance existed. Moses’ father-in-law was priest of Midian, doubtless the chief or high priest. In founding a nation and establishing an ecclesiastical system, nothing would be more natural and proper for him than to institute a priestly system with a high priest at the head. The records give a fairly full account of the institution of the high-priesthood.
1. The Family:
Aaron, the brother of Moses, was chosen first to fill the office. He was called the priest (ha-kohen) (Exo 31:10). As the office was to be hereditary and to be preserved in perpetuity in the family of Aaron (Exo 29:9, Exo 29:29), he is succeeded by his son Eleazar (Num 20:28; Deu 10:6), and he in turn by his son Phinehas (Num 25:11). In his time the succession was fixed (Num 25:12, Num 25:13). In Lev 4:3, Lev 4:5, Lev 4:16; Lev 6:22 he is called the anointed priest. Three times in the Pentateuch he is spoken of as great priest or high priest (Lev 21:10; Num 35:25, Num 35:28). The first of these passages identifies him with the anointed priest.
2. The Consecration:
The ceremonies by which he was installed in his office are recorded in Exo 29:29 ff. Seven days of special solemnities were spent. The first consecration was by Moses; it is not said who performed the others. There was special washing and anointing with oil (Psa 133:2). Each new high priest must wear the holy garments, as well as be specially anointed (Lev 21:10). Every day a bullock for a sin offering must be offered for atonement; the altar also must be cleansed, atoned for, and anointed, the high priest offering a sacrifice or minchah for himself (Lev 6:24 ff).
3. The Dress:
Besides the regularly prescribed dress of the priests, the high priest must wear the robe of the ephod, the ephod, the breastplate and the mitre or head-dress (Lev 8:7-9). The robe of the ephod seems to have been a sleeveless tunic, made of blue, fringed with alternate bells and pomegranates (Exo 28:31-35; Exo 39:22-26). The ephod seemed to be a variegated dress of the four colors of the sanctuary, blue, purple, scarlet and fine linen interwoven with gold (Exo 28:6-8; Exo 39:2-5). This distinguishing ephod of the high priest was fastened at the shoulders by two clasps of shoham stone, upon each of which was engraved the names of six tribes of Israel (Exo 28:9-14; Exo 39:6, Exo 39:7). Over the ephod and upon his breast he wore the breastplate, a four-cornered choshen suspended by little chains. Set in this in four rows were twelve precious stones, having engraved upon them the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. This breastplate must have contained a pocket of some kind inside, for in it were deposited the Urim and Thummim, which seemed to be tangible objects of some kind (Ex 28:15-30; Exo 39:8-21). The mitre or head-dress was of fine linen, the plate of the crown of pure gold, and inscribed upon it the words, Holy to Yahweh (Exo 28:36-38; Exo 39:30, Exo 39:31). When entering the Holy of Holies he must be dressed wholly in linen, but in his ordinary duties in the dress of the priests; only when acting as high priest he must wear his special robes. See PRIEST.
4. The Duties of the High-Priesthood:
In addition to his regular duties as a priest, the high priest was to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:3, Lev 16:15, Lev 16:33, Lev 16:34). He must also officiate at the ceremony of the two goats, when one is sent into the wilderness to Azazel, and the other slain to make atonement for the sanctuary (Exo 30:10; Lev 16:8-10). He alone could make atonement for the sins of the people, the priests and his own house (Lev 4:3 ff; Lev 9:8 ff; Lev 16:6; Num 15:25). He must offer the regular meal offering (Lev 6:14, Lev 6:15). He must share with the priests in the caring for the lamp that burned continually (Exo 27:21), He must assist in arranging the shewbread (Exo 25:30). When he carried the breastplate with the names of the tribes inscribed thereon he acted as mediator between Israel and God (Exo 28:29). He alone could consult the Urim and Thummim before Yahweh, and according to his decision Israel must obey (Num 27:21).
5. Special Regulations:
An office so important required certain special regulations. He must be free from every bodily defect (Lev 21:16-23). He must marry only a virgin of Israel, not a widow, nor a divorced woman, nor a profane one (Lev 21:14). He must not observe the external signs of mourning for any person, and not leave the sanctuary when news came of the death of even a father or mother (Lev 21:10-12). He must not defile himself by contact with any dead body, even father or mother (Lev 21:11); and is forbidden to let his hair grow long or rend his clothes as a sign of mourning (Lev 21:10). If he should bring guilt upon the people, he must present a special offering (Lev 4:3 ff). Sins affecting the priesthood in general must be expiated by the other priests as well as himself (Num 18:1). He must eat nothing that died of itself or was torn by beasts (Lev 22:8). He must wash his feet and hands when he went to the tabernacle of the congregation and when he came near to the altar to minister (Exo 30:19-21). At first Aaron was to burn incense on the golden altar every morning when he dressed the lamps and every evening when he lighted them (Exo 27:21), but in later times the common priests performed this duty. He must abstain from holy things during his uncleanness (Lev 22:1-3), or if he should become leprous (Lev 22:4, Lev 22:7). He was to eat the people’s meat offering with the inferior priests in the holy place (Lev 6:16). He must assist in judging the leprosy in the human body and garments (Lev 13:2-59), and in adjudicating legal questions (Deu 17:12). When there was no divinely-inspired leader, the high priest was the chief ruler till the time of David and again after the captivity. See PRIEST; PRIESTHOOD.
6. The Emoluments:
The emoluments were not much greater than those of the priests in general. He received no more inheritance among the tribes than any other Levite, but he and his family were maintained upon certain fees, dues and perquisites which they enjoyed from the common fund. In Num 18:28 the priests were to receive a tithe of the tithe paid in to the Levites. Josephus says this was a common fund (Ant., IV, iv, 4), but the high priest was probably charged with the duty of distributing it. In general the family of the high priest was well-to-do, and in the later period became very wealthy. The high priest and his family were among the richest people of the land in the time of Christ, making enormous profits out of the sacrifices and temple business.
7. Importance of the Office:
The importance of the high priest’s office was manifest from the first. The high priest Eleazar is named in the first rank with Joshua, the prince of the tribes and successor of Moses (Num 34:17 f; Jos 14:1). He with others officiated in the distribution of the spoils of the Midianites (Num 31:21, Num 31:26). His sins were regarded as belonging to the people (Lev 4:3, Lev 4:12). He acted with Moses in important matters (Num 26:1; Num 31:29). The whole congregation must go or come according to his word (Num 27:20 ff). His death was a national event, for then the manslayer was free to leave the City of Refuge (Num 35:25, Num 35:28). He had no secular authority, but was regarded generally as the leading religious authority. Later, he became also the leading secular as well as religious authority.
II. History of the High-Priesthood in Israel.
1. In the Old Testament:
In general the present writer accepts the historical records of the Old Testament as true and rejects the critical views of a fictitious or falsified history. Such views have only subjective reasons to support them and are based upon a naturalistic evolutionary view of the development of Israel’s religion. As Moses was the founder of the high-priesthood in Israel he anticipated a perpetuation of the office throughout the history (Deu 26:3). The high priest appears frequently. Eleazar officiated with Joshua in the division of the land among the twelve tribes (Jos 14:1). The law of the manslayer shows that he was an important personage in the life of Israel (Jos 20:6). He seemed to have the power to distribute the offices of the priests to those whom he would, and poor priests would appeal to him for positions (1Sa 2:36). The office seems to have remained in the family of Eleazar until the days of Eli, when, because of the wickedness of his sons, the family was destroyed and the position passed into the family of Ithamar (1Sa 2:31-36). A descendant of that family officiated at Nob in the times of Saul, whose name was Ahimelech (1Sa 21:2; 1Sa 22:11). His son, Abiathar, escaped from the slaughter, and later seems to have succeeded his father and to have been chief priest throughout David’s reign (1Sa 22:20-23; 1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 30:7). Zadok seems to have had almost equal privilege (2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 18:16; 1Ch 24:6 almost certainly by copyist’s error, transpose Abiathar and Ahimelech; Mar 2:26 may be based on this reading. See ABIATHAR, etc.). Because he joined the party of Adonijah rather than that of Solomon, Abiathar was deposed and banished to Anathoth, where he spent the rest of his days (1Ki 2:26, 1Ki 2:27). Zadok was put in his place (1Ki 2:35). He seems to have been a descendant of Eleazar. Under Jehoshaphat, Amariah was high priest (2Ch 19:11) and was the leading authority in all religious matters. In the time of Athaliah, during the minority of Joash and almost his entire reign Jehoiada was high priest and chief adviser. He seems to have been the most influential man in the kingdom for more than half a century (2Ki 11:4 ff; 2Ki 11:2-16; 2 Ch 24 passim). Azariah officiated in the days of Uzziah and Hezekiah (2Ch 26:20; 2Ch 31:10); Urijah in the reign of Ahaz (2Ki 16:10-16), and the latter priest seems to have been a friend of Isaiah (Isa 8:2). Hilkiah held the office in the days of Josiah when the Book of the Law was discovered (2Ki 22:4 f; 2Ki 23:4; 2Ch 34:9); Zephaniah in the time of Jeremiah (Jer 29:25 f); Seraiah in the days of Zedekiah, who was put to death at Riblah by Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 25:18 f; Jer 52:24). At the time, mention is made of a priest of the second rank (2Ki 23:4; 2Ki 25:18) and Zephaniah fills that office (Jer 52:24). It is doubtful whether this is the same Zephaniah mentioned in Jer 29:25. This second priest was doubtless a deputy, appointed to take the high priest’s place in case anything should prevent his performing the duties of the office. Lists of high priests are given in 1Ch 6:1-15; 1Ch 6:50-53. The first of these gives the line from Levi to Jehozadak who was carried away in the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar. The second traces the line from Aaron to Ahimaaz, and is identical so far with the first list.
There could have been no place for the functions of the high priest during the captivity, but the family line was preserved and Joshua the son of Jehozadak was among those who first returned (Ezr 3:2). From this time the high priest becomes more prominent. The monarchy is gone, the civil authority is in the hands of the Persians, the Jews are no longer independent, and hence, the chief power tends to center in the high-priesthood. Joshua appears to stand equal with Zerubbabel (Hag 1:1, Hag 1:12, Hag 1:14; Hag 2:2, Hag 2:4; Zec 3:1, Zec 3:8; Zec 4:14; Zec 6:11-13).
He is distinctly known as high priest (ha-kohen ha-gadhol). He takes a leading part in establishing the ecclesiastico-civil system, particularly the building of the temple. In the vision of Zechariah (Zec 3:1-5) Satan accuses the high priest who is here the representative proper of the nation. The consummation of the Messianic age cannot be completed without the cooperation of the high priest who is crowned with Zerubbabel, and sits with him on the throne (Zec 6:13). The prophet also describes Joshua and his friends as men of the sign, alluding to the coming Messiah under whom the sin of the land was to be taken away in one day (Zec 3:9 f). The promise is made to Joshua that if he will walk in Yahweh’s ways and keep His house, he shall judge Yahweh’s house, i.e. Israel, keep His court and have a place to walk among those who stand before Yahweh (Zec 3:7). He is anointed equally with the prince of the royal line, for the two sons of oil (Zec 4:14) almost certainly refer to the royal Zerubbabel and priestly Joshua who are to be joint inspirers of Israel in rebuilding the temple.
This exaltation of the high priest is very different from the state of things pictured by Ezekiel (Ezek 40 through 42). In that picture no place is left for a high priest; the prince seemed to be the chief personage in the ecclesiastical system. Ezekiel’s vision was ideal, the actual restoration was very different, and the institutions and conditions of the past were carried out rather than the visions of the prophet. In the time of Nehemiah, Eliashib was high priest (Neh 3:1, Neh 3:20). For abusing his office by using a temple chamber in the interests of his family he was reprimanded (Neh 13:4-9). The list of high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua is given in Neh 12:10. According to Josephus (Ant., XI, viii, 5) Jaddua was priest at the time of Alexander the Great (332 BC), but it is practically certain that it was Jaddua’s grandson, Simon, who was then priest (see W.J. Beecher, Reasonable Biblical Criticism, chapter xviii). Thus is preserved the unbroken line from Aaron to Jaddua, the office still being hereditary. No essential change can be found since the days of Ezra. The Book of Chronicles, compiled some time during this period, uses the three names, ha-kohen, ha-kohen ha-ro’sh, ha-kohen ha-gadhol. The word naghdh (prince) is also used, and he is called the ruler of the house of God (1Ch 9:11). This seems to imply considerable power invested in him. Usually the Chronicler in both books of Chronicles and Nehemiah uses the term the priest.
The line of Eleazar doubtless continued until the time of the Maccabees, when a decided change took place. The Syrian Antiochus deposed Onias III and put his brother Jason in his place (174 BC), who was soon displaced by Menelaus. About 153 BC Jonathan the Hasmonean was appointed by King Alexander, and thus the high-priesthood passed to the priestly family of Joiarib (1 Macc 10:18-21). Whether the family of Joiarib was a branch of the Zadokites or not cannot be determined. After the appointment of Jonathan, the office became hereditary in the Hasmonean line, and continued thus until the time of Herod the Great. The latter set up and deposed high priests at his pleasure. The Romans did the same, and changed so frequently that the position became almost an annual appointment. Though many changes were thus made, the high priest was always chosen from certain priestly families. From this group of deposed priests arose a class known as chief priests. The anointing prescribed in the law of Moses was not always carried out in later times, and in fact was generally omitted. The Mishna speaks of high priests who were installed in office simply by clothing them with their special robes (Schurer, II, i, p. 217, note 24).
2. In the New Testament:
In New Testament times the high priest was the chief civil and ecclesiastical dignitary among the Jews. He was chairman of the Sanhedrin, and head of the political relations with the Roman government. It is not clear just how far he participated in the ceremonies of the temple. No doubt he alone entered the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement, and also offered the daily offerings during that week. What other part he took in the work was according to his pleasure. Josephus says that he officiated at the Sabbath, the New Moon and yearly festivals. The daily minhah (Lev 6:12 ff) which he was required to offer was not always offered by the high priest in person, but he was required to defray the expense of it. This was a duty which, according to Ezekiel’s vision, was to be performed by the prince. The Jews had many contentions with the Romans as to who should keep the garments of the high priest. When Jerusalem fell into the hands of the Romans, the robe of state also fell into their hands.
In the time of Christ, Annas and Caiaphas were high priests (Luk 3:2), though, as appears later in the Gospel, Caiaphas alone acted as such. Annas had probably been deposed, yet retained much of his influence among the priestly families. For particulars see ANNAS; CAIAPHAS; JESUS CHRIST. These two were also the chief conspirators against Jesus. As president of the council Caiaphas deliberately advised them to put Jesus to death to save the nation (Joh 11:51). He was also chairman of the council which tried and condemned Jesus (Mat 26:57, Mat 26:58, Mat 26:63, Mat 26:65; Mar 14:53, Mar 14:60, Mar 14:61, Mar 14:63; Luk 22:54; Joh 18:12-14, Joh 18:19, Joh 18:24, Joh 18:28). They were also leaders in the persecution of the apostles and disciples after Pentecost (Act 4:6; Act 5:17, Act 5:21); Saul sought letters from the high priest to Damascus to give him authority to bring any Christians he might find there bound to Jerusalem (Act 9:2). He presided at the council which tried Paul (Act 22:5; Act 23:4). See PAUL, THE APOSTLE.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews the doctrine of the priesthood of Jesus is fully and carefully elaborated. Jesus is here called the great High Priest, as well as priest. The opening words of the Epistle contain the essential thought: when he had made purification of sins (Heb 1:3). The title of high priest is first introduced in Heb 2:17, a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God; also in Heb 3:1, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. Having thus fairly introduced his great theme, the writer strikes the keynote of his great argument: Having then a great high priest, etc. (Heb 4:14, Heb 4:15). From Heb 4:14 to Heb 7:28 the argument deals with the high-priestly work of Jesus. His qualifications are not only those which distinguish all priesthood, but they are also unique. He is named after the order of Melchizedek. The general qualifications are: (1) He is appointed by God to His office (Heb 5:1). (2) He is well fitted for the office by His experiences and participation in human temptations (Heb 5:2-6; Heb 2:18). (3) He undergoes a divine preparation (Heb 5:8, Heb 5:9). The special qualifications of His priesthood are: It is after the order of Melchiezedek (Heb 5:10). This is an eternal one (Heb 6:20); royal or kingly (Heb 7:1-3); independent of birth or family (Heb 7:3); it is timeless (Heb 7:8); superior to that of Levi (Heb 7:4-10); new and different from that of Aaron (Heb 7:11, Heb 7:12). It is also indissoluble (Heb 7:16); immutable (Heb 7:21); inviolable (Heb 7:24). Thus, with all these general and special qualifications, He is completely fitted for His work (Heb 7:26). That work consists in offering up Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the people (Heb 7:27); entering within the veil as a forerunner (Heb 6:20); presenting the sacrificial blood in heaven itself (Heb 8:3; Heb 9:7, Heb 9:24); thus obtaining eternal redemption (Heb 9:12); ratifying the new covenant (Heb 9:15-22). The result of this high-priestly work is a cleansing from all sin (Heb 9:23); a possibility of full consecration to God and His service (Heb 10:10); an ultimate perfection (Heb 10:14); and full access to the throne of grace (Heb 10:21, Heb 10:22). See CHRIST, OFFICES OF; PRIEST; PRIESTHOOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Literature.
Articles on the priesthood in general, with references to the high priest in HDB, HCG, EB, Jewish Encyclopedia, Kitto, Smith, Fallows, Schaff-Herzog, etc.; no article on High Priest only. For the history, Breasted, History of Egypt; Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, i, 207-99; Josephus, Ant., XV, XVIII, XX. For works on the priesthood from the radical viewpoint, see Graf, S.I. Curtiss, Jost, Graetz, Kautzsch, Budde, Baentsch, Benzinger, Buchler, Meyer, Wellhausen. For a more moderate position see Baudissin, Die Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Priesterthums untersucht. For a more conservative position see A. Van Hoonacker, Le sacerdoce levitique dans la loi et dans l’histoire des Hebreux. On the high-priesthood subsequent to the return from Babylon, see B. Pick, Lutheran Church Review, 1898, I, 127-41; II, 370-74; III, 555-56; IV, 655-64; and the commentaries on the passages cited.