What is the Priestly Covenant and Why Does it Matter?

One of the most oft-neglected covenants in Scripture is the priestly covenant. The priestly covenant is so named because it is made with a family that is of priestly lineage. In Numbers 25, Israel had tragically “yoked himself to Baal of Peor,” engaging in vile idolatry (cf. Num 25:3). In response to Israel’s unfaithfulness, the Lord brought a plague upon the people of Israel to punish them. The plague ravaged Israel until Phinehas, Aaron’s grandson, stopped the plague by killing a man of Israel and his seductress (vv. 7–8). Because of his actions, Phinehas received special commendation and a promise from the Lord.

The Details of the Priestly Covenant

God’s words to Moses about Phinehas are as follows (Num 25:10–13):

And the Lord said to Moses, “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.’”

There are a few important observations that we can draw from this promise. First, this covenant promises a “perpetual priesthood,” which uses the same term elsewhere translated as “everlasting” (עוֹלָם). This is the same language used in the Noahic covenant (Gen 9:12, 16), the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:7–8), and the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:13, 16). In no uncertain terms, then, this means that the priestly covenant is one of eternal or everlasting consequences.

Additionally, God gave this priestly covenant not just to Phinehas, but to his descendants (Num 25:13). This promise follows the same structure as the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (Gen 17:7; 2 Sam 7:12). Not only did Phinehas receive the promise, but his family would receive the blessing through their generations.

Another important observation is that the priestly covenant is called a “covenant of peace” (Num 25:12b). This is the same phraseology used of the new covenant (Ezek 37:26a). Often, people want to downplay the significance of the priestly covenant because it doesn’t work with their system of interpretation. However, we ignore the priestly covenant to our peril. Its significance is highlighted by the fact that it contains some of the same elements found in the other biblically significant covenants.

Are the Priestly and Mosaic Covenants the Same?

Some might wish to connect the priestly covenant with the Mosaic covenant, viewing them as the same covenant. However, the priestly covenant is to be viewed as distinct from the Mosaic covenant.

The prophets reveal that the priestly covenant continues in operation parallel with the new covenant, even when the Mosaic covenant is done away. For example, priests from Zadok’s line, who are descendants of Phinehas (1 Chron 6:50–53), will serve in the future temple described by Ezekiel (Ezek 44:15; 48:11). Similarly, Jeremiah 33:17–18 talks about the timelessness of the Davidic covenant and Levitical covenant side by side. This point is even more concretely made in Jeremiah 33:20–21 where God says that neither “my covenant with David,” nor “my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers,” can be broken.

It is clear in the prophets that they understood God’s promise to the priests to be distinct from that of God’s covenant to the people of Israel generally in the Mosaic covenant. Usually, those who try to make the Mosaic and priestly covenants the same are being driven by a systematic necessity to save their theological system.

The Significance of a Special Covenant Made with the Priests

The significance of the priestly covenant is multifaceted. First, because the priestly covenant deals strictly with the Levitical priesthood and does not pertain to God’s salvation promise, one cannot use it as evidence for a covenant of grace. Even though the priestly covenant uses similar language to the other covenants, it clearly cannot be referred to as the covenant of grace or a covenant of salvation. This can be problematic for various forms of covenant theology, which stipulate that the biblical covenants are simply manifestations of the Covenant of Grace or the Covenant of Works. The priestly covenant is evidence that multiple covenants are in operation, serving a variety of purposes. This view is a bit more complex than the simplistic interpretive grid of Covenant Theology.

One interesting example of the complexity and coextensive nature of the biblical covenants comes from Jeremiah 33:20–21:

Thus says the Lord: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers.

This text refers to three coextensive and cooperative covenants. There is the Noahic covenant (“my covenant with the day … and night”), the Davidic covenant (“my covenant with David”), and the priestly covenant (“my covenant with the Levitical priests”). God’s message in this text assumes the coextensive nature of these covenants. God assures the people of Israel that the Davidic and priestly covenants will continue, each finding fulfillment of their specific promises. The foundation for this assurance is the continuity of the Noahic covenant, a covenant that makes its own unique contribution to God’s story. Furthermore, the Noahic covenant is promised to continue daily. Given the flow and argument of Jeremiah 33, it seems improbable (to say the least!) that Jeremiah would say that each of the covenants mentioned in Jeremiah 33 is really a manifestation of just one covenant—the Covenant of Grace.

Conclusion

If God Himself refuses to forget the priestly covenant, we dare not treat it as a footnote in our theology. In Numbers 25, the “covenant of peace” with Phinehas is not a throwaway line but a divine pledge that reverberates all the way into Jeremiah and Ezekiel, standing shoulder to shoulder with the Noahic and Davidic covenants in God’s own argument for Israel’s future. That means our systems must bend to the text, not the text to our systems.

The priestly covenant will not fit neatly into a single Covenant of Grace or Works, nor will it quietly collapse into the Mosaic covenant once we are done with Sinai. It persists, it overlaps, it cooperates with the other covenants, and it demands to be accounted for on its own terms. To ignore it is not only to misread the Old Testament, but it is to downplay a key promise that applies to God’s plan of restoration. What’s at stake is not our ability to accommodate the priestly covenant, but our willingness to let our theology be governed by the actual covenants of God, of which the priestly covenant is a crucial element.