David, like Saul, used the remnants of
the priesthood at Nob to inquire of Yahweh (2 Sam 23:6; 30:7 and possibly 2 Sam
2:1 and 5:19, 23). However, when the ark is brought up to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6)
there is no reference to any special priesthood. The Chronicler makes it clear
that the reason for the abortive first attempt—the ark being brought then only
as far as the house of Obed-edom, the Gittie—was that there were no Levites in
charge (1 chr 15:2). Certainly David supervised the movement of the ark both
times, and the journey was accomplished amidst singing, sacrificing and dancing
(2 Sam 6:12-15), in all of which David (clothed
in a linen ephod) takes his place as the religious leader of the people I the tent
pitched for the ark, David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings (2 Sam
6:17) and dispensed the blessing of Yahweh, together with (ritual?) portions of
bread and raisins (2 Sam 6:19). It is interesting to note that the Chronicler,
with his concern not give the Levites their due, supplements but does not
contradict this picture. Although Levites enter this picture as porters of the
ark (1 Chr 15:2), and perform sacrifices (1 Chr 15:26; 16:1), it is still David
who is dressed in the ephod (1 Chr 15:27), blessing the people and distributing
the portion (1 Chr 16:2) and even offering the burnt offerings and peace
offerings (1 Chr 16:2). [15] The role of Zadok and Abiathar is supervisory, but
only in a secondary sense (1 Chr 15:11), and after the ceremonies Zadok is sent
back to the high place at Gibeon where, according to the Chronicler, were the
tabernacle, [16] the altar of burnt offering, and much of the Levitical
machinery (1 Chr 16:29-42). [17]
Zadok and Abiathar appears together,
but with Zadok apparently taking the lead, in carrying the ark out of Jerusalem
when David escaped before Absalom (2 Sam 15:24-29). Both are also counted in
David’s two lists of officials (2 Sam 8:17 and 20:25), but neither is named as
having participated in David’s final sacrifice at the threshing floor or Araunah,
whether in the 2 Sam 24:25 account or in its parallel in 1 Chr 21:26-28.
In summary, it seems plain that David himself
was the chief sacrificial and priestly intermediary between Yahweh and the
people during his reign. The Levitical priests were used for determining the
will of God, and apparently kept equipment for that purpose, such as an ephod
and the Urim and Thummim. The Zadokites seem to have been centered at the
shrine in Gibeon with its tabernacle, while the Abiathar line may originally
have served David more directly in Jerusalem, possibly having been eventually
attached to his new shrine after being detached form Nob. But David himself is
the chief priest of the Jerusalem tent, a role that seems to have created no
conflicts with his royal and non-Levitical status. (Carl Edwin Armerding, “Were
David’s Sons Really Priests?,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation:
Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented By His Former Students, ed.
Gerald F. Hawthorne [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975], 81-83)
Footnotes
for the Above:
[15] Some may feel I have built a case
for royal priesthood based on texts that speak of David or Solomon offering
sacrifice, while, in truth, neither of them actually sacrificed. Levites were
always there, but they are just not mentioned. It is as though the reporter
states in the evening news, “The President today has called up an additional
fifty thousand soldiers.” Any listener knows that the President does such a
thing only through his agents; so with the sacrifices of David and Solomon it
is not necessary to mention the Levitical functionary, but in light of material
in the Mosaic law it is obvious that the Levites would have done the actual sacrificing.
I can only say that, from my knowledge of the texts, there is too much that points
to personal sacrificial acts on the part of kings. Furthermore, sacrifice is
only one of the priestly activities of David and Solomon, and it is consistent
with the other activities they perform.
[16] It is true, as the marginal note
in the NASB suggests, that the word miškan can mean simply “dwelling
place.” However, its use in cultic terminology as a technical doubt such a use
here. If there were any doubt, the reference in 1 Chr 21:29 should remove it.
The problem arises because there is no other unambiguous reference to the tabernacle
after the destruction of Shiloh. Many scholars of an earlier day surmised that
the tabernacle in the wilderness was a literary reconstruction, based on Solomon’s
temple and, secondarily, on David’s tent in Jerusalem, but on this question there
is no unanimity currently.
[17] There is no information about the
whereabouts of Abiathar and the former priests of Nob. It may be that they
attended the ark of its new tent in Jerusalem. The reference to the high places
in Gibeon, with its tabernacle, has long intrigued that Solomon prayed there—1 Kgs
3:4.