The focus of this article is not a historical exploration of the relationship between the Levitical and prophetic institutions of the Old Testament. I will reference Old Testament texts only as they bolster the main ideas of my subject, illuminating what’s significant about these two concepts through the light of the Bible. It’s crucial to note that no mention of Leviticus here is meant to diminish this sacred Old Testament institution, which was divinely instituted.
Moreover, the terms “Leviticus” and “prophecy” here are not my own. They are borrowed from the innovative mind of the 19th-century Russian scholar of church affairs, Ep. Porphyry (Uspensky). He assigned these expressions special meanings, seeing them not just in a biblical-historical sense as institutions for divine service, but as a terminus technicus characterizing a certain mood in this service. So, when using “Levite” or “prophet,” I imply a style of shepherding—categories of spirituality rather than religious institutions.
Pastoral theology outlines styles of shepherding. Whether it’s a country priest, a city priest, a missionary, a seminary teacher, or a law teacher, “Leviticus” and “prophecy” can feature in any path of priestly ministry. They’re styles within pastoral service—not inherently good or bad. A Levite may act from sincere and pure motives, yet their ministry style might still indicate spiritual backwardness.
So, what are these shepherding types and their key differences?
Leviticus represents a domestic, formal priesthood caste, narrow-national and non-creative. During the Old Testament times, the Mosaic priesthood was hereditary for justified historical reasons.
However, with Christ’s preaching and work, a new order emerged. God’s Word and Truth were no longer tied to one people; they spread worldwide. Christ, the God-man and Chief Shepherd, set a new priesthood path—non-caste, inclusive of apostles and saints from all walks of life. Christians became a “chosen race, a royal priesthood,” (1 Pet. 2:9) a concept remembered in Christianity’s early centuries.
Ep. Porphyry noted that early church leaders like Dionysius the Areopagite, Ignatius the God-bearer, and others did not inherit their altars but entered the Church to evangelize eternal life.
Historically, since the priesthood was open and dynamic, it became a clerical institution once it enclosed itself and acquired defects. The sacred ministry was misconstrued as a livelihood or unaccountable leadership rather than a “model of virtue.” Those Levites in spirit guarded their caste and resisted priests outside their lineage.
The Levite’s everyday imprint is also noteworthy, familiar to us Russians due to the deep-rooted social life. While we may fondly recall past clergy life, it’s unnecessary to recreate it as essential to priestly life and activity.
Presuming any narrow-life structure as essential to priestly ministry conflicts with the evangelical understanding of pastoral care, merging living pastoral care with formal Levitical service.
Personal life within social life connects closely. Levitical service includes conformism to social order and certain social evils. Old Testament prophets and New Testament figures exemplify resistance to social injustice, like Elijah and John the Baptist, and early apostles who embodied a heavenly citizenship. Courageous defenders of the Church against state overreach, like St. Ambrose of Milan and others, serve as examples, contrasting altar servers who served the system and upheld Leviticalism’s weaknesses.
This aberration, unfortunately, aligns Christianity with state structures and wealth. The simplicity of apostolic times, the “holy poverty” of figures like Francis of Assisi, has been forgotten, earning secular criticism.
Significant ascetics often justified social imperfection, mixing ascetic life with service or political attitude towards power, overshadowing the pastoral path and subjugating the Kingdom of God to earthly power.
Priestly ministry, the Holy Fathers claim, surpasses royal ministry. Yet historically, it was often reduced to serving low interests, seeking state protection, and thereby weakening its authority.
From the Levitical institute emerged scribal traditions and Talmudism, a mentality criticized by Christ for prioritizing forms over the Living Truth, unlike other human sins. This formality undermines true spiritual worship, converting it into formal service, a creed, or a legalistic system—a frightening Levitical trait.
Christianity, like any religion, contains eternal and temporal elements. Mixing these, treating temporary forms as eternal, indicates a Levitical tendency, a Christian Talmudism. Within religious life, a protective mood clashes with a creative one—the Old Believer-Levitic vs. the bold-prophetic.
These ideas don’t attack tradition’s sanctity but distinguish living from formal Tradition. Christianity thrives in the Church, where grace and Tradition’s preservation ensure its integrity. Disregarding centuries of Church experience for primitive Christianity is misguided
Leave a Reply