Although it was he who united Israel,
and it was he who apparently attempted to establish some hereditary succession
(1 Sam 8:1-3), he never claimed the title of king and obviously found the
concept distasteful. But that Samuel functioned as a priest is without question.
Although this lineage is given in 1 Sam 1:1 as from Ephraim, the Chronicler (1
Chr 6:27 and 33-34) ties him to the Levitical tribe. His early training is as
an assistant to Eli in the Shiloh shrine, and 1 Sam 2:27036 seems to be in him
the legitimate successor to the fallen line of Eli. Whether in fact Samuel is intended
to be the “faithful priest” of 1 Sam 2:35, and, if so, who the “anointed” of
God might be, is not entirely clear. Christians have always seen in the
prophecy a pointer to the relationships between king and priest in the
development of a messianic consciousness.
But that Samuel functioned as a priest
(in addition to his functions as prophet and king-figure) is clear. To exactly
which role each of his acts should be assigned is not so obvious, as there is
much role-overlap at this time, but we should note the following: Samuel
received oracles (1 Sam 3:21—this was a priestly function; cf. 1 Sam 22:10;
23:6-12). He interceded in prayer for Israel, offered burn and other offerings
to Yahweh (1 Sam 7:8-9), and even after a king had been appointed he reserved
for himself certain sacrificial functions (1 Sam 13). Finally, he appeared in
the sanctuary service wearing a linen ephod (1 Sam 2:18). 1 Sam 22:18 would
seem to indicate that wearing a linen ephod was synonymous with being a priest,
but Cody questions the legitimacy of this text as it is traditionally understood.
This would leave only 2 Sam 6:14 where David wore an ephod before his dance
before Yahweh, and since the question is one of proving a priestly act by the
actor’s wearing an ephod we cannot use this as evidence. However, in light of
the Massoretic Text of 1 Sam 22:18 and the general context of Samuel’s position,
both while in training under Eli and in subsequent days, I would suggest that
the evidence points overwhelmingly to his having functioned as a priest. When
Cody claims that “he as not, in fact, a priest in any genuine sense,” I would question
his conclusions. It is precisely the fact of a priesthood operating outside of
the normal sanctuary that I wish to establish, and its tie with royalty and the
royal order is the key point at issue. Of course, the Chronicler does not testify
to Samuel’s Levitical heritage, and Ps 99:6 groups him with the priests, Moses
and Aaron, but this is not crucial for our study. What is important is that, in
Samuel, we have another prototype of the royal-priestly figure, though his
priesthood is presented as closer to the Levitical than the Melchizedek model.
In fact, it is Samuel who dominates the priestly role in his own time, even though
there is at least a functioning remnant of an old Levitical order. The old
order, weakened through the almost simultaneous death of Eli and his two sons,
resurfaced in the person of Ahijah (1 Sam 14:3), apparently a grandson of Eli,
who is found as a retainer in Saul’s rustic court at Gibeah. Later (apparently
after the destruction of Shiloh) members of the same family are found in the
sanctuary at Nob near Jerusalem (1 Sam 21-23), and the tragic story of their
destruction by Saul and the transfer of the line’s allegiance to David is well
known. Therefore, although (activities of the alternate line of Zadokites
descended from Eleazar and Phinehas are not even considered in our texts), it
is not until David finally order again predominates in the religious life of Israel.
In all this period it is the civil or royal head who acts as a priest.
Saul presents an exception to the civil
head functioning as priest, and it is tempting to say that the only reason his priestly
pretense are rejected is that the editors of Samuel regard everything Saul does
as irregular. Such a claim would leave the biblical editors open to the charge
of gross inconsistency, however, and we should expect them to have harmonized
the negative attitude toward Saul’s attempt at sacrifice with their apparent
approval of the same activity on the part of David and Solomon. Samuel’s
priestly activity is not as much of an issue as Saul’s, for Samuel was a
legitimate Levitical figure. Nevertheless, there is no hint that David’s or
Solomon’s sacrifices or other priestly acts were not perfectly in order. During
Saul’s tenure, the Levitical priests, represented by Ahiajah ben Ahitub, a descendant
of Eli, are represented in the court at Gibeah (1 Sam 14:3). In the same
chapter we find Saul using Ahijah as an oracular functionary in connection with
the Ark, (According to 1 Sam 7:2 the ark was then at Kiriath-jearim; possibly
the LXX reading “ephod” should be substituted in 1 Sam 14:18, as the Jerusalem
Bible does) though later Saul builds an altar himself with no mention of priestly
help (1 Sam 14:35). Again in the same chapter a priest appears (1 Sam 14:36),
and again it is in his role as chief oracle, though this time it is Urim and
Thummim that are used (1 Sam 14:41). Finally, the Levitical priesthood is represented
in 1 Sam 21-23, this time in the shrine at Nob (not far from Gibeah) and in the
person of Ahimelech, another son of Ahitub (1 Sam 22:20). Here is a shrine
complete with holy bread (the Bread of the Presence, 1 Sam 21:4), an ephod (1
Sam 23:9) and the sword of Goliath (1 Sam 21:9; cf. 1 Sam 17:54). Neither Saul
nor David, however, asks the priests to conduct sacrifices (though presumably
they did) and again the major interest seems to be in the oracular use of the
ephod.
During this entire period there are
but two references to sacrifice. One, recorded in 1 Sam 20:29, indicates with
apparent approval that David’s family would conduct a clan sacrifice in
Bethlehem, and it would not seem unusual if Saul’s clan had conducted the same
kind of sacrifices at Gibeah in connection with their new moon feast. The other
reference is to Saul’s condemned act at Gilgal (1 Sam 13:8-15), where that
monarch, facing the exigencies of an impending battle, took it upon himself to
offer the burnt offering and presumably, had time permitted, the peace
offering. Since both David and Solomon offered burnt offerings, and of course
Samuel was authorized to do the same, we are forced to certain conclusions.
There seems to have been no prohibition of family sacrifices (either in the period
of the Judges or in Saul’s time), but here either the occasion (beginning of a
battle) or the shrine (Gilgal) or Saul’s lack of credentials (perhaps he was
not ordained for that priestly role) demands that Saul refrain from the priestly
act. (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], 79-81)