I am reading through Biblical Interpretation by Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard. A question came to mind from the following text (pg 344)
They go on to make a distinction from texts addressing a lay audience. As such the use of 'leaders' is used in antithesis of 'lay audience.' But apart from this logic within the context, I am wondering if basis exists for identifying the priests as leaders, as having some sort of authority or as setting some type of example to the general people of Israel.
Instead of speaking of them as leaders, I would tend to see the tribe as a mediary group, sort of an intercessory group, to reconcile man with God, per the actions specified in the Pentateuch. A little extension of their role included a legal function of providing the city of refuge for a man to head to if improperly accused of murder.
Is there any basis to call them leaders? Were they even assigned a duty to teach the people? It seems that they assumed these duties by the time of Christ -- and possibly took on such role more strongly after the fall of the temple, but this would be a later development within Judaism.
Examples of priestly instruction include Lev 6-7 (about offerings) and Lev 21 ( about priestly purity). Given their intended audience, it is best to interpret them as texts that concern the duties and expectations specifically of leaders.
Instead of speaking of them as leaders, I would tend to see the tribe as a mediary group, sort of an intercessory group, to reconcile man with God, per the actions specified in the Pentateuch. A little extension of their role included a legal function of providing the city of refuge for a man to head to if improperly accused of murder.
Is there any basis to call them leaders? Were they even assigned a duty to teach the people? It seems that they assumed these duties by the time of Christ -- and possibly took on such role more strongly after the fall of the temple, but this would be a later development within Judaism.
Comment