Priest And King Or Priest-King In 1 Samuel 2:35

By Karl Deenick

[Karl Deenick is pastor of the Branch Christian Church in Launceston, Tasmania, Australia, and is currently a Th.M. student in theology at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia.]

The two books of Samuel are arguably an account of the rise of the kingship in Israel and in particular of the establishment of the house of David. And yet the account begins with a slightly peculiar focus on priesthood in the form of the account of the birth of Samuel and the decline of the priestly line of Eli. Perhaps the most significant moment in this prelude of 1 Sam 1-7 is the prophecy regarding the judgment of Eli and his line. In 1 Sam 2:35 Yahweh promises:

והקימתי לי כהן נאמן כאשר בלבבי ובנפשי יעשה ובניתי לו בית נאמן והתהלך לפני משיחי כל הימים

The ESV, for instance, represents the translation tradition and renders this as: “And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind. And I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever.”[1] This is often seen as an indication that the priesthood and the kingship will co-exist in two distinct persons.[2] This translation follows the Masoretic pointing. However, the unpointed text presents another curious possibility: “And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, he will do just as is in my heart and my soul. And I will build for him a sure house and my anointed one will walk before me all the days.” This translation requires only a slight re-pointing of the MT from וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵי־משִׁיחִיְ to וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי מְשִׁיחִי and taking מְשִׁיחִי as the subject of the verb. With that slight change kingship is cast from the outset not merely as an office in addition to the priesthood, but as the eventual solution to the demise of the house of Eli and of the priesthood itself. The aim here will be to demonstrate the reasons for going against the translation history and the Masoretic pointing in preference for this alternate reading.

I. Grammatical Data

It first ought to be shown that this translation is at least a grammatical possibility. According to the grammars it is not at all unusual that a suffixed preposition should occur immediately after the verb and before the subject; in fact, it appears to be the norm. Joüon writes, “There is a marked tendency for a suffixed preposition to occupy the position immediately after the verb, even before the subject. . . . Despite occasional deviations, the pattern seems well established, so much so that departure from it could suggest some emphasis.”[3] Similarly van der Merwe et al. note, “Constituents that are expressed by means of a preposition + pronominal suffix . . . stand as close to the verb as possible.”[4] In other words, according to the grammars the reason that לפני occurs before משיחי is not necessarily because the two are in construct relationship, but may simply be because the suffixed preposition prefers the position immediately following the verb. Thus, even though the expression והתהלך משיחי לפני may have avoided the ambiguity, nevertheless, according to the grammars, it would have been extremely unusual.

Added to the data of the grammars are two clear examples where the subject of הלך occurs afterלִפְנֵי + a suffix.[5] In Isa 52:12 we find the phrase יהוה הלך לפניכם(“Yahweh will go before you”). Similarly in Isa 58:8 there is the phrase, והלך לפניך צדקך (“Your righteousness will go before you”). It is clear in both examples that the subject is placed after the construction לִפְנֵי + a suffix. Similar examples can also be found with verbs other than הלך (e.g., Gen 43:33; Ps 22:28; 79:11; 143:2; Dan 1:13).

Nevertheless, it is important not to overstate the strength of this data. In the interests of true openness to the text it is worth pointing out two things. First, it does not appear that placing the subject last is as common as the grammars would suggest in the particular case of לִפְנֵי + a suffix. Certainly the majority of occurrences with הלך have the subject appearing before the verb.[6] Second, there do not appear to be any examples in Biblical Hebrew where the subject occurs after the construction לִפְנֵי + a suffix and where that suffix is the first common singular (i.e.,לְפָנַי ). Clearly such a construction presents ambiguities and may therefore have been avoided, but it is impossible to be certain.[7]

That being said, the existence of examples where the construction לִפְנֵי + a suffix occurs with suffixes other than the first common singular is probably sufficient to suggest at least the possibility of understanding משיחי as the subject of the verb in 1 Sam 2:35 and, as will be seen, there is a considerable amount of other evidence that supports this translation. In short, while the grammatical evidence is only slender, the contextual and literary evidence is much more decisive.

II. Context

For a book so intimately concerned with the rise of the kingship, the place where Samuel starts might seem a little strange. The books of Samuel begin, oddly enough, with the birth of Samuel. The precise significance of this is hinted at already in 1:3 where Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas, are mentioned. Samuel is born and his mother devotes him to the temple service (1 Sam 1:22) where he ministers before Eli and continues to grow in the presence of Yahweh (1 Sam 2:21, 26). The situation into which Samuel has been born quickly becomes apparent—the sons of Eli are worthless men (1 Sam 2:12) who treat with contempt the offering of Yahweh (1 Sam 2:17) and who sleep with the women serving at the tent of meeting (1 Sam 2:22). It is following this revelation that the man of God comes to Eli with the prophecy of judgment against his house. Thus the books of Samuel begin not with a crisis over the absence of a king, but with the failure of the priesthood. The promise of 1 Sam 2:35 is designed to address this problem.

In reading the narrative the most obvious first thought is that the faithful priest (כהן נאמן) is Samuel.[8] But only a few verses later the author notes that Samuel is established (אמן) as a prophet rather than as a priest (1 Sam 3:20).[9] And while that on its own is not enough to decisively rule out Samuel as the faithful priest,[10] the fact that his house does not continue because of the disobedience of his sons (1 Sam 8:1-5) would seem to be decisive, since the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 is not only of a faithful priest, but of a faithful priest who would have a “sure” or “faithful” house.[11] It is customary, then, to see the promised priest as being Zadok and the issue being the transfer of priestly power from the line of Eli to the line of Zadok.[12] It is certainly true that Zadok eventually becomes the sole high-priest (1 Kgs 2:27, 35) and that his descendants have a special place in the final vision of Ezekiel (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11),[13] but that is quite a different thing from saying that those events constitute the fulfillment of this promise in 1 Sam 2:35. Indeed, the following narrative of Samuel is fairly disinterested in the rise of Zadok and his house, so much so that Brueggeman decides that 1 Sam 2:35 cannot be authentic.[14] Yet better answers than Brueggeman’s lie close to hand.

Keil and Delitzsch see the promise more generally, so that the promise refers to “all the priests whom the Lord would raise up as faithful servants of His altar” with the final fulfillment being in the person of Christ.[15] They see a kind of partial fulfillment both in Samuel and in Zadok.[16] Yet few of the particular promises in 2:35 are specifically connected with either Samuel or Zadok. However, Keil and Delitzsch also identify the fact that the issue is not simply an issue of replacing one Aaronic priestly line with another—the Elides with the Zadokites—but of replacing the Aaronic priesthood in general.[17]

From the very beginning of the prophecy to Eli the emphasis falls not on Eli and his house, but on the house of his “father.” Yahweh asks: “Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh? Did I choose him out of all the tribes to be my priest?” (1 Sam 1:27-28). Brueggeman suggests that it is “the Mushite priesthood rooted in Moses” which is in view.[18] But as Woodhouse notes, “The arguments for the house of Eli being linked to Moses are not convincing.”[19] Such a view also overlooks the clear reference in this passage to the promise of perpetual priesthood given to Aaron (Exod 29:9) and to Aaron’s appointment to wear an ephod (cf. Exod 28:1-35; Lev 8:7).[20] As Augustine rightly asked: “Which of his fathers was in that Egyptian bondage, from which they were liberated when he was chosen to the priesthood, excepting Aaron?”[21] Furthermore, it is quite demonstrable, as Gordon Keddie points out, that “Eli was of the line of Ithamar, the fourth son of Aaron.”[22] In other words, Eli’s father is not Moses, but Aaron. That is important because in the context, it is not only Eli’s house but the whole house of Aaron which is in view.

It is with this genealogy in mind that the great turnaround forecast by Yahweh in 1 Sam 2:30-31 must be understood. “Therefore the Lord the God of Israel declares: ‘I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,’ but now the Lord declares . . . ‘I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father’s house’” (1 Sam 2:30-31). In other words, the disobedience of Eli and his sons has consequences not only for Eli’s house, but for the whole house of Aaron. R. P. Gordon suggests that Yahweh’s promise of a perpetual priesthood for the house of Aaron is here revoked.[23] Woodhouse, however, rejects the idea that what is in view is the replacement of the house of Aaron.[24] To be sure, the exact wording of the reversal in v. 31 suggests demise rather than utter destruction—it is the strength of Eli’s house and the strength of Aaron’s house that will be cut off, such that none will grow old.[25] The prophecy of the demise of the house of Eli is seen as fulfilled in the Aaronic priesthood being eventually given over to Zadok and his sons. Nevertheless, if the promise of v. 35 is construed as a continuation of the reversal begun in v. 31 and introduced by “but now,” a reversal that reflects upon the promise to Aaron recapitulated in v. 30, then it must be understood that the new “faithful priest” is neither from the house of Eli nor from the house of Aaron. Conflating vv. 30 and 35 will make the point: “‘I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,’ but now the Lord declares: . . . ‘I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to all that is in my heart and in my mind. And I will build him a sure house.’”

Should what follows, though, be rendered as “and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever,” or as “and my anointed shall go in and out before me forever”? Kaiser, following James E. Smith, suggests another alternative which sees the subject as being the immediate antecedent of והתהלך, that is, the house of the faithful priest, or the New Testament church. Thus, he renders this phrase: “I will firmly establish his house, and it will minister before my anointed one always.”[26] Block is right to suggest that Kaiser’s exegesis seems strained. Not least because, given that 1 Sam 2:35 forms part of the reversal from the situation expressed in 1 Sam 2:30, it makes sense to render לפני on both occasions as “before me.” This places 1 Sam 2:35 (והתהלך לפני משיחי) in deliberate parallel with 1 Sam 2:30 where Yahweh had promised to Eli and his house that יִתְהַלְּכוּ לְפָנַי עַד־עוֹלָם (“they will walk before me forever”). Both the traditional translation (“and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever”) and Kaiser’s translation fail to recognize this.

In this way, the “anointed” is understood to be synonymous with the faithful priest. This also makes far more sense of the use of משיח in the biblical literature up to this point.[27] So far it has predominantly been used to refer to the high priest (הכהן המשיח; Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15[22]).[28] The one exception is in 1 Sam 2:10 where Hannah uses משיח in parallel with מלך.29 But given the overwhelming interest in priesthood in these early chapters and the relative disinterest in kingship, and given that the entire context is bound up with priesthood, there seems little reason to understand משיח as meaning anything other than priest. And, as we shall see, Hannah’s remarks are simply a portent of what is to come in the rest of Samuel, and of the rather surprising direction from which this promise is fulfilled.

What is in view in v. 35, then, is the raising up of a priest neither from the house of Eli, nor the house of Aaron. Given the contrast between v. 30 and v. 35, it cannot be that Zadok and his house are the intended recipients of what is promised in v. 35, since Zadok is of Aaron’s house as well. In short, 1 Sam 2:35 is the beginning of the search for a priest not from the house of Aaron. Thus Woodhouse is right, in a sense, that this is not the total replacement of the house of Aaron; nevertheless, it is the beginning of the end. But who, then, is the anointed priest? Given the disinterest throughout the books of Samuel in connecting the promise of a faithful priest with either Samuel or Zadok, are these early chapters and the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 to be taken as a kind of useless appendage, a kind of banal distraction before the real meat of the kingship issue arises? Thankfully, although the author does not link the promise to Samuel or Zadok, he does link it to someone else.

III. Connections With David And The Davidic Covenant

Even a fairly superficial reading of the rest of Samuel reveals that the promise Yahweh made in 1 Sam 2:35 has strong connections with David and the Davidic covenant. Oddly enough, McCarter notes, “The language used in the oracle to refer to the house of Zadok is reminiscent of that used elsewhere to refer to the house of David,” but takes the thought no further.[30] It will be helpful to consider the several connections between David and the Davidic covenant and the language of 1 Sam 2:35.

First, the language of “walking before” Yahweh is used often in connection with the Davidic covenant (2 Kgs 2:4; 8:23, 25; 9:4; 2 Chr 6:14, 16; 7:17). Admittedly this language is never used in connection with the Davidic covenant in Samuel. Apart from 1 Sam 2:35 it is only used in the context of Eli’s line being rejected (1 Sam 2:30). Furthermore, when it is used in Kings and Chronicles it functions more as a condition than it does in 1 Sam 2:35 where it is part of the promise. Nevertheless, it must be noted that a key portion of the Davidic covenant matches up with this promise here in 1 Sam 2:35.

Second, the theme of the establishment of a “house” is intimately bound up with the Davidic covenant in 2 Sam 7. In 2 Sam 7:16 Yahweh promises to David that he will “make sure your house” (ונאמן ביתך) and in 7:27 that “I will build you a house” (בית אבנה לך). Both are clear reflections on the same idea in 1 Sam 2:35 where Yahweh will “build him a sure house” (ובניתי לו בית נאמן).[31] In fact, the expression בית נאמן is used almost exclusively in connection with David or the Davidic covenant itself (1 Sam 2:35; 25:28; 2 Sam 7:16; 1 Chr 17:23).[32] In 1 Sam 25:28, even before Yahweh makes his promises to David, Abigail expresses her certainty that Yahweh will make for David a “sure house.” The one place where it is used to refer to someone not within the Davidic line is in 1 Kgs 11:38 where a “sure house,” like the one Yahweh gave to David, is promised to Jeroboam but conditioned on his obedience. Nevertheless, the “sure house” is still connected with the kingship and still with David, although indirectly. Perhaps what is most significant is the fact that the promise of a “sure house” is never again mentioned in connection with a priest.

Third, the description of a man who does “according to what is in my heart and in my mind” sounds suspiciously like the description given of David later in 1 Sam 13:14. It is also reminiscent of Yahweh’s comment to Samuel when David is anointed, that Yahweh looks not on the outward appearance but on the heart (1 Sam 16:7). Interestingly, too, when Abigail predicts, as mentioned before, that Yahweh will build for David a “sure house” it is because “my lord is fighting the battles of the Lord, and evil shall not be found in you as long as you live” (1 Sam 25:28). So also when Yahweh makes his conditional promise to Jeroboam he urges Jeroboam to be like David and to “walk in my ways, and do what is right in my eyes by keeping my statutes and commandments” (1 Kgs 11:38). That is, the books of Samuel, and the Bible more broadly, portray David as the one who does, at least for the most part, all that is in Yahweh’s heart and mind.

Yet the most significant and telling event in the unfolding of the books of Samuel in relation to the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 occurs at the beginning of David’s reign when he brings the ark up to Jerusalem. There are several notable features. First, David dances before the ark wearing a linen ephod. While the ephod is not necessarily reserved only for priests, it does nevertheless serve to bring to mind the words in 1 Sam 2:28 that Yahweh had spoken to Eli concerning how his father had been chosen out of all the tribes “to be my priest, to go up to the altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me.”[33] The writer refers to David offering sacrifices, both after the first six steps of those who bore the ark (2 Sam 6:13) and when the ark had been set inside the tent that David had pitched for it (2 Sam 6:17). Perhaps less significantly, David blesses the people, a task often associated with priests[34] but by no means exclusively so (e.g., 2 Sam 8:10). Merrill writes, “The strongest suggestion of Davidic royal priesthood occurs in 2 Samuel 6. . . . The entire enterprise was at the initiative of David and though the regular Aaronic order of priests and Levites was involved, David himself was in charge, leading the entourage and, clothed in priestly attire, offering sacrifice and issuing priestly benedictions.”[35]

This suggestion is amplified by comparing 2 Sam 6 with the parallel account in 1 Chr 16. Merrill, in an attempt to refute the suggestion that David merely supervised the sacrifices, insists that it goes against “the clear intention of the text,”[36] and notes that both here in 2 Sam 6 and in the parallel account in 1 Chr 16, “Neither the chronicler nor the author of Samuel mentions a priest in the whole course of sacrificing. Clearly David saw himself as a priest and was accepted by the people and the Levites as such.”[37] Yet Merrill is perhaps a little overzealous. A closer comparison of the two accounts proves much more interesting.

Although the word priest is not used specifically in either passage in connection with sacrifice, the Chronicler certainly refers to “them” making sacrifices in the same breath as saying that David made sacrifices (1 Chr 16:1-2). But what is of much greater interest is the fact that the account in Chronicles appears to revolve around the whole idea of carefully delineating the role of the priests and the Levites. For instance, the Chronicler mentions David’s express realization, after the first abortive attempt to move the ark, that “no one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, for the Lord had chosen them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to him forever” (1 Chr 15:2). Upon that realization David summons the “sons of Aaron and the Levites” (1 Chr 15:4). Thus to say, as Merrill does, that no priest is mentioned in the context of the sacrifices is perhaps a little disingenuous. In fact, the point the Chronicler appears to be making is the quite central role of the priests and the Levites in bringing the ark up to Jerusalem, albeit under David’s leadership. Once the ark gets to Jerusalem David appoints priests and Levites to minister. From the account in Chronicles it would seem very unlikely that David was personally involved in the making of sacrifices, since the weight of the account seems to lie in distinguishing the particular role of the priests. At the very least it seems reasonable to say that David learned the hard lesson of respecting the boundaries between Levitical priest and king, and whatever sacrifices he may have participated in must have been above and beyond those regulated by the Mosaic law.[38]

Yet having viewed the account in Chronicles, what one notices when considering the account in 2 Sam 6 is that the priests or Levites are not mentioned at all. The “Levites who were carrying the ark” (1 Chr 15:26) becomes “those who bore the ark” (2 Sam 6:13); “they sacrificed” (1 Chr 16:26) becomes “he sacrificed” (2 Sam 6:13). The priests and Levites who are central to the account in Chronicles are not mentioned at all in the account of 2 Sam 6. There is no historical inconsistency here, the two accounts are easily put together. Historically we can say that evidently the Levites and the priests did play an important role, and so did David. But it appears that the writer of Samuel is trying to emphasize David’s role, even if it is as a patron rather than as an active participant. In the light of the unfolding story it seems that the writer is trying to bring David’s association with priestly activities into view in order to force us to ask the question: “Is this the one?” That is, the features of the portrayal of David in 2 Sam 6 serve to cast our minds back to the promise of an “anointed priest” in 1 Sam 2:35.

If this reconstruction seems speculative, it certainly gains considerable weight when the peculiar episode between David and Michal is examined. Arguably, it is this conflict that gives the clue to the writer’s notably priestly portrayal of David. There are a number of linguistic connections between this section and the context of 1 Sam 2:35. Both this and 1 Sam 2:30 display the same interchange between כבד and קלל.39 In 1 Sam 2:30 Yahweh declares that “those who honor [כבד] me I will honor [כבד], and those who despise [בזה] me shall be lightly esteemed [קלל]” While here Michal despises David for his exuberance and sarcastically refers to his honoring himself (כבד), it turns out that by humbling (קלל) himself David honored Yahweh rather than himself. As a result the people will honor (כבד) him and, as the following chapter will show, so too will Yahweh.[40] Michal despised (בזה) David and in doing so despised Yahweh, and as 2 Sam 6:23 shows, she will be lightly esteemed.

When all the evidence is pulled together it certainly suggests that the writer is trying to make a strong link between David and the promised priest of 1 Sam 2:35. But is the evidence strong enough to say that David is the promised priest? And if not, what would be the point of making these connections? It is to these questions that we now turn.

IV. Is David The Priest?

So far only the evidence up to 2 Sam 6 has been considered. But at the risk of stating the obvious, the books of Samuel do not end at 2 Sam 6. And where the books head is just as important as where the books have been for understanding who is the promised priest.

By 2 Sam 6 everything seems to be pointing to the fact that David is the promised priest. The author has shown the failure of Saul and the obedience of David. David has been strongly connected with the arrival of the ark in Jerusalem. The wearing of the ephod, the links with sacrifice, and the disagreement between David and Michal have cast our minds back to the promise of 1 Sam 2:35. But the situation begins to shift in 2 Sam 7 when David offers to build a house for God. The suggestion initially looks positive, being backed by Nathan the prophet. But things soon turn sour. David will not build a house; his son will build a house (2 Sam 7:13). And while David’s throne will last forever, David himself will not—he will lie down with his fathers in peace (2 Sam 7:12). That causes a significant problem since the anointed priest of 1 Sam 2:35 will minister before Yahweh forever.

Perhaps, then, the anointed priest is David’s son? But David’s son will be punished when he sins (2 Sam 7:14), yet the “anointed” will do all that is in Yahweh’s heart and mind. If David’s immediate son, Solomon, will be punished for disobedience, then another, perfect son of David must be intended further along in the Davidic line.[41] In fact, neither David nor Solomon ultimately meets all the criteria of the promised priest. Neither will live forever, and neither will be perfect. Nevertheless, the strong connections between the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 and the Davidic covenant do suggest that God intends to fulfill the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 through David and his line. That is, David’s throne will be sure and he will have a sure house if one of his descendants is the promised priest for whom God will build a sure house and who will live forever.

The reason why David is not the promised priest becomes clearer as the book moves on. Despite the early promise David’s later life is marred by imperfections, and that creates even more problems for identifying him as the promised priest. After all, the promised “anointed” will do “according to what is in my heart and in my mind,” and even though that initially sounds a lot like David, the long downhill slide of David’s reign which takes up most of 2 Samuel suggests otherwise.

David’s imperfections raise significant problems for identifying him as the promised priest-king. In fact, they suggest that while the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 is connected with David and the Davidic covenant, the promised priest is not actually David himself, nor his immediate son Solomon. But why is David so strongly connected with the promises of 1 Sam 2:35 when he himself is clearly not the promised priest? And if David is not the promised priest, then who is? A look at how the drama unfolds in Samuel will help to shed light on this question.

V. The “Anointed” In The Unfolding Drama In Samuel

As noted earlier, the crisis with which the book begins is not the absence of a king, but the failure of the priesthood. The sons of Eli are disobedient and Eli and his household are cut off, and the demise of the house of Aaron is foreshadowed. In this context Yahweh promises a new priest, an “anointed.” One naturally expects that Samuel will be that person. But his sons, too, prove unfaithful and the people ask for a king (1 Sam 8:1-5). In the light of earlier biblical history those who heard this promise of 1 Sam 2:35 would surely have understood “anointed” to refer to a priest. But the most surprising fact in these early chapters of Samuel is that the first person to be anointed after the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 is not a priest, but a king. In ch. 10 Saul is anointed king.

The beginning of Saul’s reign is successful, but strikingly his demise begins when he inappropriately offers a sacrifice (1 Sam 13:8-14). Interestingly, it is in this context of inappropriate sacrifice that we find echoes of 1 Sam 2:35. What precisely is going on? Yahweh has promised a new anointed priest. Saul is the first person to be anointed, but he is rejected for making inappropriate sacrifices. Does this fact not surely suggest that the king was not a priest? A closer examination of what follows Saul’s rejection proves helpful in clarifying the situation. Samuel tells Saul that Yahweh has sought out another man, a man “after his own heart,” who will be prince over the people (1 Sam 13:14). The account of Yahweh’s rejection of Saul in ch. 16 only makes the real issue clearer. In ch. 16 Saul again disobeys Yahweh in a priestly context, this time by keeping aside animals for sacrifices rather than destroying everything as Yahweh had commanded (1 Sam 16:9). Samuel’s rebuke of Saul is telling: “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than to sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of lambs” (1 Sam 15:22). In other words, what Yahweh wanted from his anointed was not sacrifice but obedience. Notably the priestly figure of 2:35 is not cast chiefly in terms of sacrifice but in terms of obedience—he is a faithful priest who will do all that is in Yahweh’s heart and mind. God desires from his “anointed” another kind of sacrifice, not the death of more animals. The demise of Saul begins to construct a picture of the nature of the promised “anointed”—he must be obedient.

This is reinforced in the very next chapter when David becomes the new anointed one and Yahweh remarks to Samuel that “man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Sam 16:7). It is also suggested by the long and arduous account of David’s rise to kingship. The extended account of Saul’s demise is matched by the stunning obedience and faithfulness of David. It is in this period, as noted before, that Abigail tells David, “For the Lord will certainly make my lord a sure house, because my lord is fighting the battles of the Lord, and evil shall not be found in you so long as you live” (1 Sam 25:28). David’s obedience is contrasted with Saul’s disobedience and it is this caliber of obedience that appears to qualify him, in Abigail’s mind, for the promise of a “sure house.” The events of the end of 2 Sam 6 again stress David’s devotion to Yahweh. As noted earlier, David humbles himself and Yahweh honors him. Yet David’s offer to build a house for Yahweh is rejected by Yahweh, and the reason for David’s unsuitability for the new priestly role is only uncovered as the book continues. His exemplary obedience changes into adultery and murder, and ultimately the idea that David could be the promised priest of 1 Sam 2:35 is cast aside.

The central issue in Samuel with respect to priesthood is obedience. It was the failure to be obedient that led to the despising of Eli and his house, it was the failure to be obedient that led to the rejection of Saul, and it was the success in being obedient that established David in the place of Saul. The long interval between the beginning of the demise of Saul and the installation of David is designed to show that David is a man after God’s own heart. Yet the almost equally long decline of David’s reign which follows his sin with Bathsheba is intended to show that although he is a good king, he is not nearly good enough. Indeed, the central thought in the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 is that the “faithful priest” will do all that is in Yahweh’s heart and mind.

It is important to realize that Yahweh’s promise of a replacement priest would have been understood in very particular terms. The natural assumption would be that if Yahweh wanted to replace the Aaronic priesthood he would do so by raising up other priests to serve in the mold of the Aaronic priests. The books of Samuel seek to overturn that assumption. It is certainly noteworthy that when Saul is reprimanded, both times illegitimate sacrifice is involved. In contrast, the one occasion when David is strongly connected with sacrifice is set in the context of his humility before Yahweh and his devotion to him. Despite these occasional sacrificial overtones, undoubtedly the strongest element of David’s portrayal is his obedience. It is in that regard that he largely succeeds where others have failed, although he too ultimately fails in obedience.

Part of the purpose of the books of Samuel, then, appears to be identifying what kind of priest will fulfill the promise of 1 Sam 2:35. Perhaps most surprising to the careful reader is that it is a king who is intended to function as a priest not after the mold of Aaron, but, as Ps 110 and the writer of Hebrews make clear (Heb 7), after the mold of a superior priesthood (Heb 5:1-7:28), after the mold of Melchizedek.[42] Melchizedek, the writer of Hebrews tells us, means “king of righteousness.”[43] In fact, the writer of Hebrews points out, “the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath [i.e., Ps 110:4], which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever” (Heb 7:28). In Heb 5:1-2 the “weakness” of the earthly high priests is identified as their sinfulness. In contrast, the oath of Ps 110:4 appointed Jesus as a priest who is without such weakness. This is the central thought of the Melchizedekian priesthood. So, although the books of Samuel show that the fulfillment of the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 was to be found in the house of David, they also show that the ultimate fulfillment of the “anointed priest” lay not in David, but in Jesus Christ.

At another level, it makes perfect sense that if the kind of priest being promised in 1 Sam 2:35 is not a Levitical priest, then neither David nor any of his descendants could be appointed without some major adjustments to the law. They are from the tribe of Judah and “in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests” (Heb 7:14). In fact, no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar (Heb 7:13-14). If there is to be a change of priesthood, then there must be a change of the law, since the law required that only Levites could be priests, and more specifically only sons of Aaron (Heb 7:12; cf. Num 16-18). The only way someone from the tribe of Judah could be appointed is if the law covenant could be put aside. It is that very idea that the writer of Hebrews goes on to discuss after having mentioned the high priesthood of Jesus; he discusses the putting aside of the Mosaic covenant and the establishment of the new covenant. Thus, neither David nor any of his descendants could function as another kind of priest until something was done about the Mosaic covenant, and it could not be put aside without death (Heb 9:16-17).[44]

So what is the point of all these events and this long, arduous narrative? Why the effort to make such strong connections between David and the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 if ultimately David is not the priest-king? The answer is, of course, that Yahweh has used David to demonstrate the kind of priest-king about which 1 Sam 2:35 was prophesying. The flawed David is held up as a model, as a picture, albeit still a shadowy one, of what the ultimate priest-king would be. The connections between David and the promises of 1 Sam 2:35 must be understood in two ways. First, the connection between David and the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 serves to show what kind of anointed priest Yahweh desires. It is not a Levitical priest, but another kind, one whose chief characteristic is obedience. Second, it reinforces David as the type of the one who is to come such that subsequent monarchs were often measured against his example (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:3, 11; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:3; 18:3; 22:2).

VI. Some Concluding Thoughts

In contrast to the apparent disinterest of the writer of Samuel in connecting the promises of 1 Sam 2:35 with Zadok, the evidence mustered above suggests that the author of Samuel, and more broadly the author of Scripture, is quite interested in identifying the direction from which the promised priest will come, however surprising it may appear at first. The strong connection between the Davidic covenant and the promises of 1 Sam 2:35 clearly suggests that it is through David’s line that the promised priest will come. That in turn supports the linguistic possibility that the “faithful priest” and the “anointed one” are one and the same person. Although there is no exact equivalent example where לִפְנֵי occurs with a first common singular suffix, the other grammatical evidence paired with the strong textual and theological links is probably enough to establish the legitimacy of the translation: “my anointed one will walk before me.”

Viewed in this light the books of Samuel are not simply an account of the rise of kingship, but of the promise of a king who is a priest, who serves before Yahweh, not as the Levitical priests do, but in obedience, doing all that is in Yahweh’s heart and mind. That in turn suggests that priest and king, even from the very outset, were intended to be brought together. The author’s view is not, as Klein suggests, of a diarchy, although it would be a thousand years before the two would be brought together.[45] Still, the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 and the books of Samuel as a whole present the kingship as ultimately a remedy to the failure of the priestly line of Eli and, even more broadly, that of Aaron. The rejection of Eli’s line is the motivation for establishing the kingship. For the people, the motivation for kingship lies in their desire to be like the other nations, and hence Saul is the best fit for them; but his failure in regard to religious duties shows that he is unfit to be a priest-king. For Yahweh the motivation for kingship lies in the failure of the priesthood. And while David may not be the man who will bring kingship and priesthood together in fulfillment of 1 Sam 2:35, David’s greater son will be.[46] It would be another thousand years or so before the ultimate priest-king would finally arrive.[47]

Notes

1. All Bible quotations are taken from the ESV unless otherwise indicated.
2. For instance, J. G. McConville, “Priesthood in Joshua to Kings,” VT 49 (1999): 79-80; John Woodhouse, 1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader (Preaching the Word; Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 72; P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB 8; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980), 93. Firth notes in connection with this verse: “Kingship is coming, and a faithful priesthood is an essential component of its structure” (David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel [Apollos Old Testament Commentary 8; Nottingham: Apollos, 2009], 71).
3. Joüon, §155t.
4. Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 341.
5. Of the 38 occurrences in the OT of הלך followed by לִפְנֵי(with or without a suffix), on only 12 occasions is this combination followed by a substantive of any kind (Exod 14:19; Deut 1:30; 31:8; Josh 3:6; 6:9; 1 Sam 2:35; 2 Sam 6:4; Esth 2:11; Ps 56:14; 116:9; Isa 52:12; 58:8). Thus, these are the only occasions where there is even a remote possibility that the subject might follow the construction הלך + לִפְנֵי + a suffix. Yet Isa 52:12 and 58:8 are the only examples where it is clear that the subject follows that construction.
6. Not least of which is the occurrence only a few verses earlier in 1 Sam 2:30 (the significance of that verse is discussed below). Other examples include Exod 13:21; 32:34; Num 14:14; Josh 6:9, 13; 1 Sam 12:2 (2x); 17:7; 2 Sam 6:4; 1 Kings 9:4; 2 Chr 7:17; Esth 2:11.
7. Certainly, in the unambiguous occurences of לִפְנֵי + a first common singular suffix following a finite form of הלך where an external subject is present, the subject always precedes the verb (1 Sam 2:30; 1 Kings 9:4; 2 Chr 7:17). Yet, a sample of three is hardly sufficient to definitively rule out the possibility that the subject may occur after such a construction.
8. Eugene Peterson takes this position (Eugene H. Peterson, First and Second Samuel [Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999], 36).
9. David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 170; Anthony F. Campbell, 1 Samuel (FOTL 7; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 54.
10. E.g., Firth thinks that Samuel being established as a prophet confirms rather than disqualifies him (Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 71).
11. Woodhouse points out that Samuel’s “house” fails just as Eli’s had (1 Samuel, 71). Keil and Delitzsch note that even though Samuel’s grandson, Heman, was appointed by David over the temple choir (1 Chr 6:33), and even though Heman had fourteen sons and three daughters (1 Chr 25:4-5), the fact that none of these was a priest shows that Samuel’s house is not the final fulfillment of 1 Sam 2:35 (K&D 2:47).
12. Daniel Block identifies this as the “prevailing scholarly opinion” (Daniel I. Block, “My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls [ed. Richard S. Hess and M. Daniel Carroll R.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], 34 n. 62), and so it would seem to be. See, e.g., Tsumura, First Samuel, 170; Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Waco: Word, 1983), 27; McCarter, 1 Samuel, 92-93; Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 23-24; Campbell, 1 Samuel, 53-54; Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (NAC 7; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 84.
13. K&D 2:47-48.
14. Brueggeman notes, “The divine decree is probably an intrusion in the text and demonstrates how narrative can be used for the purposes of propaganda and establishing legitimacy. The rise of the house of Zadok, however, has no bearing on the narrative of Samuel” (Samuel, 24).
15. K&D 2:46-47.
16. David Firth holds a very similar view, seeing the idea as a succession of priests which “begins with Samuel, but reaches its climax with Zadok” (1 & 2 Samuel, 71). See also Roy L. Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy: The Character of Samuel and the Deuteronomistic Evaluation of Prophecy (Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 440; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 62.
17. K&D 2:45-46.
18. Brueggemann, Samuel, 23. This is also the view of Klein (1 Samuel, 26); McCarter (1 Samuel, 89); Wellhausen (Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel [1888; repr., Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994], 142-43); and Cross (Frank Moore Cross, “The Priestly Houses of Early Israel,” in Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honour of S. Dean McBride Jr. [ed. John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005], 35-55).
19. Woodhouse, 1 Samuel, 562 n. 4.
20. In comparison, Wellhausen’s reference to Moses who “bears the priestly staff, is over the sanctuary, and has Joshua to assist him as Eli had Samuel” appears more than a little weak (see Wellhausen, History, 142).
21. Augustine, The City of God 17.5.2, quoted in K&D 2:46.
22. Gordon J. Keddie, Dawn of a Kingdom: The Message of 1 Samuel (Welwyn Commentary Series; Welwyn: Evangelical, 1988), 46. Keddie notes that we know this in a “roundabout way. Ahimelech was ‘a descendant of Ithamar’ (1 Chronicles 24:3). Ahimelech’s father was Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, who was, of course, the son of Eli (1 Samuel 22:9; 14:3)” (Keddie, 1 Samuel, 48 n. 8; cf. Woodhouse, 1 Samuel, 563 n. 5). In contrast to this clear genealogy Wellhausen (History, 142) rests his case on the sound of a name!
23. Robert P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986), 86.
24. Woodhouse, 1 Samuel, 69.
25. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 71.
26. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament (Studies in the Old Testament; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 76.
27. Selman argues that perceiving what was understood by the term “messiah” involves more than mere lexicography. Nevertheless he states, “The fact that the anointed priests existed before anointed kings and that the Israelite kings functioned in a priestly manner from the beginning of the monarchy suggests that priesthood belongs to the origins of the messianic concept” (Martin J. Selman, “Messianic Mysteries,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of the Old Testament Messianic Texts [ed. Philip E. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995], 283, 297).
28. Wenham notes that since both Aaron and his sons were anointed, the “anointed priest” could refer to any of them. However, the most obvious interpretation would be that it is referring to the high priest. Num 35:25 would seem to suggest that the anointing of the high priest is somehow unique (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 97; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [2 vols.; AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991], 1:231). The use of this phrase in 6:15[22] to describe the one to succeed Aaron supports the idea that it refers to the high priest.
29. A look at the related verb משח and its cognates shows something similar. Oswalt notes that these words primarily refer to two things: the inauguration of the tabernacle and the priesthood, and the kingship under Saul, David, and Solomon (John N. Oswalt, “משח,” NIDOTTE 2:1123-27). The uses that refer to kingship are all found after 1 Sam 2:35 except for two occurrences in the parable of Judg 9 where the trees seek to anoint a king (Judg 9:8, 15). In that context the kingship is hardly representative of the will of Yahweh and so it cannot be considered to fit within the proper theology of the people of Israel.
30. McCarter, 1 Samuel, 93 n. 4.
31. McCarter notes the connection between the “sure house” in 1 Sam 2:35 and 2 Sam 7. See ibid., 91. So too does Youngblood (Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [vol. 3; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992], 588); and Firth (1 & 2 Samuel, 386). But neither takes it any further.
32. Tsumura notes the use of the “enduring house” to refer to David, and goes on to note that it is also used for a priestly house but gives no references that demonstrate that use (First Samuel, 170). Indeed, it appears none can be found.
33. Certainly for Bergen, “David’s use of the ephod suggests that he possessed the credentials of a priest” (1, 2 Samuel, 331-32).
34. E.g., Gen 14:18-19; Num 6:23; 1 Sam 2:20. See Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 875; also Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 378.
35. Eugene H. Merrill, “Royal Priesthood: An Old Testament Messianic Motif,” BSac 150 (1993): 60. Firth also notes that “David acquired a priestly role with Jerusalem’s capture, a theme hinted at in Ps. 110:4. If so, his removal of the ark joins with the psalm in linking priestly and royal roles, and may also explain the fact that Jerusalem is never directly named in this chapter but is always ‘the city of David’ (vv. 9, 12, 16)” (Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 377).
36. Merrill, “Royal Priesthood,” 60.
37. Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 266.
38. Block certainly argues that the Aaronic/Zadokite priesthood is consistently distinguished from the Davidic messiah throughout the OT (“My Servant David,” 36, 42). Youngblood may be right when he suggests that while David assumed for himself certain priestly roles he did not assume the role of the Levitical priesthood—that of ministering at the tabernacle. To that task he appointed Zadok and his fellow priests, that they might do everything in accordance with the law. To support this idea Youngblood notes, “Thus there were in effect two tabernacles: The one in Jerusalem served as a repository for the ark (1 Chr 16:37), while the one in Gibeon housed the other tabernacle furnishings (1 Chr 16:39-40; cf. 1 Kgs 1:39, 2:28-30; 3:4)” (“1, 2 Samuel,” 875). Notably, when Uzziah does attempt to usurp the role of the Aaronic priesthood he is severely reprimanded (2 Chr 26:16-21). As Merrill points out regarding this situation, “The infraction was not that of a king functioning cultically, but of a king undertaking a cultic ministry limited to another order of priests” (“Royal Priesthood: An Old Testament Messianic Motif,” 61).
39. Youngblood too notes that “the counterpoise between כבד and קלל” also appears in 1 Sam 2:30 (“1, 2 Samuel,” 877-78).
40. Brueggemann writes, “David is indeed the one who humbles himself and who, by the power of God, is exalted” (Samuel, 253).
41. Understood in this light the promise of a son in 2 Sam 7 is not a direct prophecy of the Messiah, but rather a prophecy that Solomon will not be the Messiah. In other words, the fulfillment of 1 Sam 2:35 awaits another son of David.
42. Block, “My Servant David,” 42. Of Ps 110 Hays writes, “In Psalm 110, David clearly is connected to the priesthood, although it is the priesthood of Melchizedek rather than the priesthood of Aaron or Zadok” (J. Daniel Hays, “If He Looks Like a Prophet and Talks Like a Prophet, Then He Must Be . . .,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 67). There is a sense, though, in contrast to Hays, in which David is a mere patron of the Levitical cult, since his priesthood foreshadows something greater not belonging to that cult (cf. ibid., 68).
43. The writer of Hebrews also points out that “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” That part of Melchizedek’s title, in the book of Hebrews, most naturally lines up with the different sacrifice offered in the true tabernacle. But the different sacrifice is a far less dominant theme in the books of Samuel. The clear emphasis is on the righteousness of the faithful priest.
44. For a good analysis of the relationship between death and the covenant in these verses see Scott Hahn, “A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15-22,” CBQ 66 (2004): 416-36.
45. Klein, 1 Samuel, 28.
46. Interestingly, the view offered here helps explain the superficially peculiar use of Ps 2:7 by the author of Hebrews to refer to Jesus’ appointment, not as king, but as high priest (Heb 5:5).
47. My thanks go to Dr. Noel Weeks for his kind critiques of this work offered at various stages; nevertheless, the views expressed here are my own.