Featured Was Samuel High Priest?

I think he was joking - like getting high . . .

 

Seems AHITUB, Phinehas' son, became HP after Eli. Dunno how old he was at the time of Eli's death, but Eli was pretty old, so it's entirely possible Ahitub was an adult by then.

 

That’s not possible. Hophni and Phinehas both died the same day, and Eli died very shortly thereafter. The text then turns flatly to Samuel--even before the deaths of Eli and his sons. Again, while not calling him high priest, it does show him functioning as such.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The latter half of your post brings up an important issue: Jesus isn't qualified to be a priest under the Levitical law, and yet He is our High Priest. The Author of Hebrews goes out of his way to demonstrate that Jesus' priesthood is from a different order--that of Melchizedek. So, while He is Lord of the Sabbath, it seems that is a different issue from this one dealing with Samuel.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Ah, but it seems God allowed certain prophets to make offerings. He did so with Elijah. But Ahitub was next-in-line to be HP after Eli & his sons. he was Eli's grandson, We see Ahitub's son Ahijah later became HP, followed by his son Ahimelech, followed by Abiathar, who was removed for plotting against Solomon. Another son of Ahitub named Zadok was appointed in his place.

 

The succession isn’t the issue, the function of Samuel is. That Eli’s sons are called “worthless” is no small thing. That we never really see anyone going to the descendants of Eli and we do we them going to Samuel is another clue.

Remember... this is the time of the Judges and Israel has become—essentially—a Canaanite nation. The corrupted priesthood is exemplified by Eli and his sons. God’s righteous anger toward them is nothing more than fiercely terrifying. But, Samuel stands in sharp contrast to the sins of Eli as the faithful priest. None of the sons of Eli are depicted as faithful, at least until Zadok.

Also, the functioning as priests of Eli’s descendants seems to resume after Samuel is dead. At least while he is alive, Samuel may not bear the title, but he does seem to do the job.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

​

I'll rephrase:

Though by the letter of the law priests were to be Aaron's descendants, the bottom line is, 'God is God and He'll do as He pleases'.

 

1 Samuel 2:35-36 NLT
[35] “Then I will raise up a faithful priest who will serve me and do what I desire. I will establish his family, and they will be priests to my anointed kings forever. [36] Then all of your surviving family will bow before him, begging for money and food. ‘Please,’ they will say, ‘give us jobs among the priests so we will have enough to eat.’”

It seems very clear to me that this is not Samuel. His family was not established. He served as a Judge and Prophet. At best, one of his grandsons served in King David's Court.

1 Samuel 7:15-17 NLT
Samuel continued as Israel’s judge for the rest of his life. [16] Each year he traveled around, setting up his court first at Bethel, then at Gilgal, and then at Mizpah. He judged the people of Israel at each of these places. [17] Then he would return to his home at Ramah, and he would hear cases there, too. And Samuel built an altar to the LORD at Ramah.

It don't see how it could be more clear.

1 Samuel 8:1-3 NLT
As Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons to be judges over Israel. [2] Joel and Abijah, his oldest sons, held court in Beersheba. [3] But they were not like their father, for they were greedy for money. They accepted bribes and perverted justice.

Once again - judges not priests.

Psalm 99:6 NLT
Moses and Aaron were among his priests;
Samuel also called on his name.
They cried to the LORD for help,
and he answered them.

Once again - Samuel is not listed among his priests.

All it would take is the Bible to say Samuel was a priest just once with many opportunities to do so. But the Bible doesn't. Why is it so important to people that Samuel was a priest?

 

Sam was first of the "official" prophets, later followed by Elijah, Elisha, etc. The priests didn't give prophecies as the prophets did. But it was still the priests' job to perform tabernacle, and later, temple rites.

 

For him to hold office as priest, a change in the law is required, and that change was not made until Christ was made High Priest.

Samuel was certainly looked to as a prophet, and guided the Levites, as did David, who was a prophet, and who instituted some changes in temple worship (i.e, the addition of musical instruments, and the composition of Psalms), but did not serve officially as a priest.

 

This isn't correct. Christ is our high priest, that is true, but it is according to the order of Melchizedek, not Levi. Also, as Jesus Himself says, He came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it.

Again... Samuel functions very much like a high priest. He is the one who "ministered before the Lord" at the tabernacle in the early chapters of 1 Samuel. It is as if he is considered a priest because he was raised by Eli.

The Archangel

 

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.​

 

You should realize that the verse you quoted above is not talking about an every day occurrence. When Aaron (the brother of Moses) who was high priest died, another took his place (and so on, and so on). But the Law didn't change when the new high priest came into office.

What Hebrews is discussing here is the inferiority of the Law of Moses and the Levitical priesthood. The priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the priesthood of Levi. In fact, that Christ is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek and not Aaron shows that the Law of Moses is no longer in effect--that is the "change" that v. 12 is discussing. This has nothing to do with the function of Samuel.

The Archangel

 

Samuel was a Levite, it seems. But not of Aaron, and therefore could not function as high priest. To do so would require a change in the law, as Hebrews plainly states. And if it required a change for Christ, how much more for His fallen brother?

 

Samuel wasn't a Levite at all. He's likely an Ephriamite. And, the title of high priest isn't the question here; how Samuel functioned is. It seems he functioned in a manner consistent with the high priest. The early chapters of Samuel have him ministering before the Lord in the tabernacle.

Also, you're not thinking of Hebrews 7 correctly: The Law doesn't change when a new high priest comes into office. The Law of Moses has been fulfilled completely in Christ and therefor the Levitical priesthood is no longer needed. Christ is our high priest, but according to the order of Melchizedek, not Levi.

And, for good measure, Psalm 99 says:

[6] Moses and Aaron were among his priests,
Samuel also was among those who called upon his name.
They called to the LORD, and he answered them.
[7] In the pillar of the cloud he spoke to them;
they kept his testimonies
and the statute that he gave them. (Psalm 99:6–7 ESV)

So the psalmist here counts Samuel among the priests in a way.

The Archangel

 

That was originally my opinion, but @rlvaughn supplied scripture in the OP indicating otherwise.

6 Moses and Aaron among his priests, And Samuel among them that call upon his name; They called upon Jehovah, and he answered them. Ps 99

Yea, in a way. I don't think that's too much of a stretch. You've convinced me.

No change was required for these 'lawbreakers' to remain guiltless:

2 But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him;
4 how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? Mt 12

 

Perhaps, but it seems a genealogy in 1 Chronicles 6 may link him to Kohath.

I didn't say it did. I said, as did the Apostle, making one outside of the tribe of Levi a priest requires a change in the law, as would making one a high priest who is not of the line of Aaron.

More accurately, the Levitical priesthood was created by a carnal commandment, but Christ's priesthood is spiritual and eternal, and exists by the virtue and power of an endless life, and was in operation since before the foundation of the earth. The Levitical priesthood was added, and was temporary, but to transgress its statutes while in operation commanded swift retribution. For Christ, who is of the tribe of Judah, and not of the priestly tribe, to then take the place of the High Priest, the law had to change.

Or so says Paul, and I'm inclined to agree with him on that point.

Of course, to change the law in one part changes the whole law. The temple, the priesthood, the offerings, the inheritance of the other tribes, etc. is all changed. God now dwells in a temple not made with hands, constructed of living stones, whose light is the light of God. Melchizedek was priest of the Most High God, which is how YHWH, the LORD, was known by the nations. And Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, and received a blessing. And without debate, the lesser is blessed of the greater.

But there is no mixing of the law and grace. Christ did not function as a priest in the temple, but yielded to the law as long as it was in effect, commanding others to go to the priests to have offerings made on their behalf. And Christ is greater than Samuel.

Anyway, this is my last post on the subject. Conjecture all you want. The law says what is says. Paul's comments are what they are.

 

Now, Sammy didn't enter the Holy of Holies once a year, nor perform several other high priestly functions. But no question he was "the" prophet of his day, and judged Israel til Saul was made king.