Was Samuel a Priest?

The genealogy of I Chronicles 6:7-13 connects Samuel’s lineage with Levi, while in I Samuel 1:1 he is related to the tribe of Ephraim. According to the Torah only descendants of Aaron can serve as priests in the temple, and only members of the tribe of Levi can assist them. If Samuel was an Ephraimite, could he have served as a priest in Shiloh, which was controlled by a family of Levites? The service of Levites began at the age of twenty-five and ended at age fifty (Num. 4:3; 8:24-28). Samuel was brought to the temple by his mother at the age of two, after he was weaned. If Samuel was a Levite, his mother did not need to make a vow to give her son to serve in the temple. He would already be obligated to serve in the temple. So, what kind of function could Samuel perform since he did not belong to the priestly family, and he was below the age of twenty-five?

The Genealogy of Chronicles

In I Chronicles 6:11,19 the genealogy of Elkanah is given with a slight variation; his ancestry is traced back to Kohath, the son of Levi.¹ However, I Samuel 1:1 says that he was an Ephraimite. In other words, according to the book of Chronicles, Elkanah’s family belonged to the Levitical Kohathite settlement in the territory of Ephraim (Josh. 21:20). It appears that in the book of Chronicles there is an effort to present Samuel as a Levite, a descendent of Kohath.² This coincides with I Samuel 3:1 where it says that Samuel was “ministering to the Lord under Eli,” a role that was carried by the Levites. The genealogical list in Chronicles was created in order to answer questions about Samuel’s legitimacy to serve in the temple in Shiloh. According to the biblical law only Levites could serve in the temple (Num. 1:50-51; 3:5-9; 18:2-4,22-23). Any outsider or unauthorized person who encroached upon the sanctuary would be put to death (1:51). Samuel merited the death penalty and the author of the book of Chronicles tries to settle the contradiction between the book of Samuel and the biblical legislation. According to Kalimi, the author created an artificial genealogical list which presents Samuel as a Levite, in contrast to the book of Samuel where he is from the tribe of Ephraim.³ Klein similarly says that the Chronicler’s information is non-historical; it was necessary for the Chronicler to create this link.⁴ However, Albright suggests that “Samuel was not a member of the tribe of Levi by birth, but he became attached as a lay Nazirite to the Tabernacle.”⁵ Similarly Leuchter says that the Levites were not a “tribe” but a caste that was composed from different groups of the population connected to the priestly institution: “the institution of the Levites and priests was always permeable, with commoners becoming Levites and Levites becoming priests, as Samuel’s own track exemplifies.”⁶ However, there is no basis for this assertion in the texts. We believe the assertion that Samuel belonged to the tribe of Levi came to glorify this tribe, which is depicted favorably by the author of the book of Chronicles. In Chronicles we read, The king went up to the House of the Lord with all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the priest and the Levites (II Chr. 34:3), while in II Kings 23:2 the text says priest and the prophets. In other words, what the author of the book of Chronicles tries to convey is that a great leader such as Samuel came out of the tribe of Levi.

The Text of Samuel

Samuel’s service in the temple of Shiloh is defined by the verb šērēt (I Sam. 2:11, 18; 3:1). The verb is not always used to signify cultic services; it can describe the service of royal household servants (Gen. 39:4; 40:4; II Sam. 13:17f.; 1 Kgs. 10:5; 2 Chr. 9:4; Esth. 2:2; 6:3), or Joshua’s service to Moses (Ex. 24:13; 33:11; Num. 11:28; Josh. 1:1), and services given to Elijah (I Kgs. 19:21) and Elisha (II Kgs. 4:43; 6:15).⁷ Samuel is said to have been serving before Yahweh (I Sam. 2:18); and in 2:11 and 3:1 he was serving before Eli. In those three verses he is called na῾ar, boy — hence he probably was a priest’s servant. The title na῾ar was also known in the Phoenician world and described a subordinate temple servant.⁸ More than likely, Hannah offered her son to Yahweh’s service as a servant under the supervision of the priest. She did not offer him as a priest, where the Levitical family already existed.

Samuel wore a linen ephod while serving God in Shiloh (I Sam. 2:18). Later, when David brought the ark to the city of David, he also wore a linen ephod when he danced before Yahweh (II Sam. 6:14). In ancient Israel and in the ancient world, when people entered a sacred area, they changed their clothes. They had to be purified in preparation for an experience with God (Gen. 35:2-3; Ex. 19:10; Josh. 3:5). Samuel wore a linen ephod because he was in the presence of God; David changed his clothes and wore it because he was dancing before the ark. It was considered a sacred ritualistic activity because he was in the immediate presence of God.⁹ Samuel and David wore a simple ephod of linen during sacred services and celebration. This ephod was different from the precious ephod that was worn by the Israelite high priest.¹⁰

The ancients were gravely perplexed by the fact that Samuel was “lying down in the temple of the Lord where the Ark of God was located.”¹¹ How could a non-priest lie down in a holy place where only priests serve, and then only in an upright posture (see Deut. 18:5)? Accordingly, some have taken the prepositional letter bet to mean not “in,” but “next to or near” the sanctuary, a common usage. Evidently, Samuel was lying down in a chamber adjoining the sanctuary, from which it was possible to see the Ark, the focus of divine revelation. In I Samuel 3, the word hekal, “sanctuary,” refers to a structure that contains a number of rooms.¹² Samuel and Eli were not sleeping in the same room; later we also read that Samuel opened the doors of “the House of the Lord,” as the sanctuary is called both here and in 1:7. In both Ugaritic literature and the Bible, the terms house and sanctuary are frequently used interchangeably.¹³ The fact that the Ark of God stood in the Holy of Holies suggests that the voice that called to Samuel originated from the Holy of Holies.

The fact that Samuel served in Shiloh, which was a place of worship and a sacrificial center (I Sam. 2:11, 18; 3:1), has led to the understanding that he was a priest.¹⁴ In some passages he performs sacrificial functions that were part of the priest’s responsibilities. At Mizpah he took a suckling lamb and sacrificed it as a burnt offering to the Lord (7:9). He oversaw a sacred meal where he blessed the sacrifice (9:13, 22). Samuel told Saul to go down to Gilgal and to wait for him for seven days, where he would join him and offer burnt offerings (10:8). He invited the elders of Bethlehem to a sacrificial feast (16:1-5). He gathered the people for a fast day, prayed to God, and built an altar at Ramah to offer sacrifice (7:5-7, 17). It was these religious rituals, especially sacrifices, which led to the view that he was a priest.

Examination of the cultic activities that were attributed to Samuel reveals that they were not entirely privileges of the priesthood.¹⁵ The building of altars is not a priestly entitlement; later we read of Elijah who built an altar and offered sacrifices (I Kgs. 18:30-38). Kings such as Saul, David and Solomon are said to make sacrifices (I Sam. 13:9, II Sam. 6:13, 18; I Kgs. 8:5, 62-64). Blessing the sacrifice was not obligatory on the priest, nor was it his privilege. When Samuel blessed the sacrifice, he is not called a priest but a seer, which was the earlier term for “prophet” (I Sam. 9:9). Praying for the people as well as serving as intermediary between people and God was carried out by the prophets, kings, and the elders.

The Urim and Thummim was a procedure for the priests to inquire of God and for God to respond. In I Samuel 10:20, Saul is chosen by a “lot.” According to Radak the Urim and Thummim were brought to make the selection. Among modern scholars, van Dam suggests that the inquiry, which is described in the text, involved the Urim and Thummim, although the terms do not appear in the context.¹⁶ Examination of the Hebrew text reveals that the word “lot” is not used but is inferred. Instead, the writer uses the word hiqrib, “present,” which also means sacrifice. The biblical narrative does not include the Urim and Thummim in the text of the book of Samuel, nor in the unmasking of Achan (Josh. 7:14-18). Both Samuel and Joshua were not priests; thus, they used a different method to make their choice.

In Psalms 99:6 it appears as though Samuel is called a priest. However, a close reading of the verse shows otherwise. It is only Moses and Aaron among His priests. What Samuel, Moses, and Aaron share is that they would call upon the Lord and He would answer them. That Moses offered many prayers on behalf of Israel is well known. With Aaron the text does not clearly say so. Yet in Leviticus 9:24 we read, And Moses and Aaron entered the Tent of Meetings. What the text implies is that they entered the Tent of Meetings to pray, and indeed their prayers were answered by the fire that consumed the offerings. As for Samuel, in his capacity as a prophet, he called upon God at Mizpah and God answered him, and Samuel cried out to the Lord on behalf of Israel, and the Lord responded to him (I Sam. 7:9). In Gilgal Samuel prayed to the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day (12:18). More so, Samuel also said, As for me, far be it from me to sin against the Lord and refrain from praying for you (12:23). Samuel is depicted as holy as Moses and Aaron, which adds to his stature as a servant of the Lord. There is an interchange between Moses, Aaron, Samuel, and God: they called upon God and God answered.

Excluding his youth, there is no link between Samuel and the priestly family. Samuel did not do anything to strengthen the priestly office after the humiliation at Aphek. When the ark was returned it was left in obscurity at Kirjath-jearim. Samuel did not join the priests that moved to Nob (I Sam. 22). He returned to his hometown, Ramah, and was not associated with Nob, which suggests that he was not one of Shiloh’s priests.¹⁷ During this time people worshiped at places where Samuel administered the affairs of the people, places like Ramah, Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah.

There is no suggestion in the text that Samuel took the place of Eli as the high priest. Despite the calamity, the house of Eli remained in office (I Sam. 14:3; 22:20). Samuel appointed his sons as judges over Israel (8:1). On the other hand, the Bible says that the sons of Eli were priests who followed their father’s tradition. If Samuel were a priest, we would expect to find a similar tradition concerning his sons. In contrast, the sons of Eli were unfit to follow their father’s role as priests; young Samuel followed the path of Eli as one who serves the Lord. Eli was known for his ability to communicate with God and deliver His message (I Sam. 1:17), a mission that Samuel followed and fulfilled.

It was also thought that the prophecy of doom on the House of Eli, I will raise Me up a faithful priest (I Sam. 2:35), might suggest that Samuel was a priest.¹⁸ But this is unlikely; the verse is polemic by the Zadokite priests under Solomon who justified the rejection of the priests of the House of Eli’s lineage.¹⁹ The Zadokites are the ones who are referred to in this verse because they were the legitimate priests in Jerusalem at the time that the verse was composed. Buber, on the other hand, does not accept this explanation; according to him, it is unlikely that a dispute between the priestly families would be put into writing that “might reveal the disgrace of the priesthood itself.”²⁰ However, we should note that the text in I Samuel 3:20 says, And all Israel… knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the Lord. In other words, the prophecy of and I will build him a sure house (2:35) was never fulfilled with respect to Samuel. Samuel was known in Israel as an established, faithful prophet and not a priest. The material which describes Samuel’s service in the sanctuary does not come to depict Samuel as a priest. It describes Samuel as a person who received revelation from God, leading to his climax as a prophet.

In conclusion, although the genealogy of I Chronicles 6:7-13 connects Samuel’s lineage with Levi, Samuel was not a priest. He served as a priest’s servant in Shiloh. He wore a linen ephod while serving God in Shiloh because he was in the presence of God. Examination of the cultic activities that were attributed to Samuel reveals that they were not entirely privileges of the priesthood. Building altars, offering sacrifices, praying for the people, and interceding on their behalf were acts that were carried out by prophets, kings, and elders. Following the defeat at Aphek, Samuel did not join the priests at Nob. Samuel did not replace Eli as the high priest; he followed the path of Eli as a person who served the Lord and delivered His message.