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 (De 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; 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; 23:9; 30:7). Zadok seems to have had almost equal privilege (2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 18:16; 24:6 almost certainly by copyist's error, transpose Abiathar and Ahimelech; Mr 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 2:26-27). 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; 2Ch 24:1-27 passim). Azariah officiated in the days of Uzziah and Hezekiah (2Ch 26:20; 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; 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 6:1-15,50-53. 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 1:1,12,14; 2:2,4; Zec 3:1,8; 4:14; 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 (Eze 40:1-49 through Eze 42:1-20). 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 (Ne 3:1,20). For abusing his office by using a temple chamber in the interests of his family he was reprimanded (Ne 13:4-9). The list of high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua is given in Ne 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 naghidh ("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 minchah (Le 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 (Lu 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 (Mt 26:57-58,63,65; Mr 14:53,60-61,63; Lu 22:54; Joh 18:12-14,19,24,28). They were also leaders in the persecution of the apostles and disciples after Pentecost (Ac 4:6; 5:17,21); Saul sought letters from the high priest to Damascus to give him authority to bring any Christians he might find there bound to Jerusalem (Ac 9:2). He presided at the council which tried Paul (Ac 22:5; 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" (1:3). The title of high priest is first introduced in 2:17, "a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God"; also in 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. (4:14,15). From 4:14 to 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 (5:1). (2) He is well fitted for the office by His experiences and participation in human temptations (5:2-6; 2:18). (3) He undergoes a divine preparation (5:8,9). The special qualifications of His priesthood are: It is after the order of Melchiezedek (5:10). This is an eternal one (6:20); royal or kingly (7:1-3); independent of birth or family (7:3); it is timeless (7:8); superior to that of Levi (7:4-10); new and different from that of Aaron (7:11,12). It is also indissoluble (7:16); immutable (7:21); inviolable (7:24). Thus, with all these general and special qualifications, He is completely fitted for His work (7:26). That work consists in offering up Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the people (7:27); entering within the veil as a forerunner (6:20); presenting the sacrificial blood in heaven itself (8:3; 9:7,24); thus obtaining eternal redemption (9:12); ratifying the new covenant (9:15-22). The result of this high-priestly work is a cleansing from all sin (9:23); a possibility of full consecration to God and His service (10:10); an ultimate perfection (10:14); and full access to the throne of grace (10:21,22).
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, Jew 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.
James Josiah Reeve