The role of Cohen in society?
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:24 pm
In modern speech, we’re used to limiting the role of a priest to ceremonial activities connected with temple worship. But was this always the case?
Below are some of my thoughts:
In ancient societies, the emperor was both the civic top leader as well as the high priest. This seems to have been true in most societies of the world, East to West. The relatives who were excluded from being the tope dude were given the sop of being lesser “priests”, i.e. government officials, over other areas of government or as rulers over provinces. They’d still be required to carry out “religious” functions as well as their “civic” functions, there being no distinction between the two.
So when Pharaoh married Joseph to Asanath, the daughter of the “priest of On”, she was very likely Pharaoh’s cousin. This was part of making Joseph part of the ruling family, beholden to the Pharaoh.
We see this also in Deuteronomy 17:8–13 where the priest of the temple was to be the Supreme Court of the land, not just a “religious” leader.
Now this would explain 2 Samuel 8:18 where David’s sons became “priests”—they were not priests in the sense of leading services in the temple, rather they were “priests”, i.e. government officials who had the authority to stand in for the king in official functions.
These are my 2¢, what do y’all think?
Karl W. Randolph.
Below are some of my thoughts:
In ancient societies, the emperor was both the civic top leader as well as the high priest. This seems to have been true in most societies of the world, East to West. The relatives who were excluded from being the tope dude were given the sop of being lesser “priests”, i.e. government officials, over other areas of government or as rulers over provinces. They’d still be required to carry out “religious” functions as well as their “civic” functions, there being no distinction between the two.
So when Pharaoh married Joseph to Asanath, the daughter of the “priest of On”, she was very likely Pharaoh’s cousin. This was part of making Joseph part of the ruling family, beholden to the Pharaoh.
We see this also in Deuteronomy 17:8–13 where the priest of the temple was to be the Supreme Court of the land, not just a “religious” leader.
Now this would explain 2 Samuel 8:18 where David’s sons became “priests”—they were not priests in the sense of leading services in the temple, rather they were “priests”, i.e. government officials who had the authority to stand in for the king in official functions.
These are my 2¢, what do y’all think?
Karl W. Randolph.