The Tribes of Levi (1 Chron 6): The High Priestly Line

The previous article dealt with the Kohathites at the time of the Exodus, the wilderness journey and the conquest of the land. Both the Kohathites in general, as one of the three divisions of the Levites, and the priestly line in particular, the sons of Aaron, were dealt with. In this article we propose to pick out the high priestly line in the subsequent history of Israel, leaving the priestly class in general, and the Kohathite branch of the Levites, as topics for later consideration.

The Rouse of Eli

At the close of the book of Joshua we learn that Eleazar son of Aaron continued as high priest until after the death of Joshua. It is clear from Judges 20:27-28 that Phinehas his son succeeded him as high priest. At the opening of 1 Samuel Eli is high priest.

Eli is thought to be of the junior priestly line of Ithamar, Eleazar’s brother. The only verse which can be cited to prove this is 1 Chron.24:3 which speaks of Zadok of the line of Eleazar and Ahimelech of the line of Ithamar. All the indications are that Ahimelech was a descendant of Eli, as will be more apparent as this section proceeds.

Nothing is recorded in Scripture about when or why the high-priesthood passed from the line of Eleazar to the line of Ithamar. Josephus records that the high priests continued to be of the line of Eleazar until Uzzi (see Fig.13), and then Eli took over (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 5, ch.11:5). This is reasonable. Zadok and Abiathar were contemporaries when David ruled. Four generations back from Abiathar is Eli; four generations back from Zadok is Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi. Whatever the circumstances of the change, it would appear to have been at God’s instigation, for in 1 Sam.2:30 we read, as part of the warning to Eli from a man of God:

“I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever”.

As is well known, Eli and his two sons Hophni and Phinehas died the same day, so neither Hophni nor Phinehas were high priests. Years later, in the reign of Saul, Ahiah son of Ahitub, son of Phinehas, was priest at Shiloh (1 Sam. 14:3). A little later on another son of Ahitub, Ahimelech, was high priest, but the centre of worship was then at Nob (1 Sam.21:1, 22:9). Ahimelech and the rest of the priests at Nob were wiped out at Saul’s command for giving assistance to David; only Ahimelech’s son Abiathar escaped and he joined David and acted as his high priest (1 Sam.22:20,23:9).

There are some incidental points which come out of the narrative, which are worth a digression. It is generally supposed that:

1. The destruction of Shiloh referred to in Ps.78:60-64 and Jer.7:12-14 occur­red when the ark was taken, and Hophni and Phinehas perished (1 Sam.4), and that the centre of worship then passed to Nob.
2. The ark remained unused at the house of Abinadab in Kirjath-jearim from the time it went there (1 Sam.7:1 until David caused it to be brought up 198 to Jerusalem (2 Sam.6).

However, as stated above, Ahiah the grandson of Phineas was “the Lord’s priest in Shiloh” (1 Sam.14:3) in the reign of Saul. The destruction of Shiloh and the removal of the surviving priests to Nob must therefore have occur­red later on in Saul’s reign. We read, “There was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul” (1 Sam.14:52), and the Phil­istines were clearly in the ascen­dancy at the time when David slew Goliath, so it could easily have been sacked in some unrecorded attack later on. Furthermore, in 1 Sam.14:18 we read of Saul saying to Ahiah, “Bring hither the ark of God”, and the narrator, presumably Samuel, then comments, “For the ark of God was at that time with the children of Israel”. The implication of this statement is that the ark was taken from the house of Abinadab, and brought back into use for a time, before being consigned to oblivion again. It was not in general use at the time of Saul, for David later said, “We enquired not at it in the days of Saul” (1 Chron.13:3).

Zadok and Abiathar

The Ahitub who was the grandson of Eli and grandfather of Abiathar needs to be distinguished from the other Ahitub, who was of the line of Eleazar and was the father of Zadok. Whilst Abiathar was David’s high priest right from the time when he joined David in fleeing from Saul, Zadok first appears as a young man leading a band of others who came to David at Hebron (1 Chron.12:28), following which he soon became joint high priest with Abiathar at the bringing up of the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chron.15:11).

Why was Zadok appointed high priest alongside Abiathar? We may surmise that after Doeg had killed the priests of the family of Eli at Nob, with Abiathar only remaining, and he with David, Saul would haye turned to the house of Eleazar and plucked Ahitub from obscurity to raise him to the position of high priest. At the time when all the kingdom came over to David, after his seven years’ rule in Hebron over Judah only, then it would have been an impor­tant gensture of conciliation, typical of the sort of thing that David would do, for David to have appointed Zadok son of Ahitub as high priest alongside Abi­athar. Ahitub hithself would have been an old man by then, perhaps even recently deceased; hence it was his son who was raised to office.

Why did David have two high priests? Were they of equal status? or was one superior? If so, which one? We know that at the time of the end of the kingdom of Judah there was a “chief priest” and a “second priest” (2 Kings 25:18). If this wai the situation in David’s time, then Abiathar must have been the chief and Zadok the deputy, for it is hardly likely that Zadok would have been placed over David’s loyal supporter Abiathar. The fact that Zadok gener­ally appears first in the narrative merely reflects the fact that by the time the historical records were written, Abiathar had been disgraced and Zadok had become sole priest.

There is a reason why two high priests would have been appropriate, however. After the destruction of the priests at Nob, it seems that the taber­nacle was removed to Gibeon in Benjamin, for we read that, at the time when the ark was brought up to Jerusalem, “Zadok the priest, and his brethren the priests, (ministered) before the tabernacle of the Lord in the high place that was at Gibeon” (1 Chron.16:39). It was still there when Solomon began his reign (1 Kings 3:4) and presumably remained there until it was superseded by the tem­ple. The fact that Zadok and his brethren ministered there in David’s time supports our earlier suggestion that Zadok’s father Ahitub was appointed high priest after the destruction of the priests at Nob. Zadok’s role therefore was probably to act as high priest at the tabernacle at Gibeon. However, concerning the ark, we are told that it “came into the city of David”, and “they brought in the ark of the Lord, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it” (2 Sam.6:16,18). If Zadok was high priest at Gibeon, then it seems reasonable that Abiathar was high priest at Jerusalem in charge of the tent that David had set up for the ark. In 1 Kings 2:26 Solomon says, “because thou barest the ark of the Lord God before David my father”, as though that was Abiathar’s special charge.

There are two problems regarding Abiathar that could well be sorted out here:

1. In Mark 2:26 Jesus, in citing the occasion when David visited the priests of Nob, says, “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” when, in fact, it was to Ahimelech that David went. Jesus does not, however, say that it was Abiathar that gave David the shewbread. If we look at the matter the other way, and take the words as being true, as obviously we must (unless they are a copyist’s error or a later addition), then here we have more evidence for the duality of the high-priesthood. Abiathar evidently carried out the office of high priest along with his father Ahimelech. The reason why Jesus refers to Abiathar rather than Ahimelech is because Abiathar was the more important figure. This principle is illustrated in Mark la where the best texts have “Isaiah the prophet”, not “the prophets” (see RV, RSV as opposed to the AV), yet the succeeding quotations are from Isaiah and Malachi, and in Matt.27:9 where a reference to Zechariah 11 and Jeremiah 32 is said to be merely from Jeremiah. In both cases only the more important figure is named.
2. In 2 Sam.8:17 and 1 Chron.18:16, 24:6 we have a reference to Ahimelech the son of Abiathar as being priest along with Zadok. There seem to be three possible explanations:
   1. a copyist has transposed the two names. This would be feasible for one verse, but not for three. In any case 1 Chron.24 has the name Ahime­lech in verses 3 and 31 as well (in 1_.18:16 the name is Ahimelech, which probably is a copyist’s error).
   2. both father and son bore the two names Abiathar and Ahimelech. If true, this would solve the Mark 2:26 problem as well. However, the idea seems unlikely. Why refer to an individual the other way round in just three passages?
   3. that Abiathar did indeed have a son who was named Ahimelech after his grandfather. This leads to the problem that in all three passages he is connected with Zadok the priest, whereas one would expect Abiathar his father to be in that role. Again, this can be linked with the previous problem in that, just as Abiathar was associated with his father, Ahimelech senior, in the priestly role, so Ahimelech junior became similarly associated with his father Abiathar. There is a reference in 1 Chron.27: 34 to Abiathar where Zadok is not mentioned, and where Abiathar is refer­red to as though he were an important counsellor to the king:

      “and Ahi­thophel was the king’s counsellor…and after Ahithophel was Jehoida the son of Benaiah, and Abiathar”.

It may be that there were times when, due to his duties as counsellor, which Zadok did not have, Abiathar delegated his priestly duties to his son Ahimelech, who also acted as head of the house of Ithamar as recorded in 1 Chron. 24:3,6,31.

The Overthrow of Abiathar’s House

In the power struggle that took place in the last days of king David, Abiathar for some reason chose to support Adonijah against Solomon, the succes­sor chosen by God. It may be that Abiathar had to some extent been usurped from his more senior position by Zadok; at the time of the rebellion of Absalom it was Zadok who apparently bore the ark and who seems to have taken the domin­ant role (2 Sam.15:24,29). If Zadok had become associated with Solomon, then it would be natural for Abiathar to have supported Adonijah in the hope of retaining his position and influence.

His ambition, and his refusal to recognise where God had willed that the succession should fall, led to his downfall. He was dismissed to a retirement at Anathoth. The ascendancy of the line of Ithamar had fallen in fulfilment of what was said to Eli in 1 Sam.2:30-35. Yet it would seem that once a high priest, always a high priast, though in exile, for in 1 Kings 4:4 he is still given that title, just as in the New Testament Annas is still accorded the title, although, according to secular history, he had been deposed in favour of his son-in-law Caiaphas (Lk.3:2, Acts 4:6).

Nothing is known of what happened to either of Abiathar’s sons Ahimelech and Jonathan. The latter was associated with Zadok’s son Ahimaaz in the exciting episode of 2 Sam.17:15-21 when they narrowly escaped capture when carrying information from the city of Jerusalem, in the control of Absalom, to David and his forces encamped by Jordan.

Ahimaaz is later to be found as the bearer of the tidings of the defeat of Absalom who overtakes Cushi by running a different way (2 Sam.18:19-32). It does not appear that he lived to become high priest. In 1 Kings 4:2 Azariah his son is said to be priest. Azariah is termed the son of Zadok, but from 1 Chron. 6:8-9 it appears that he was in fact the grandson of Zadok. Presumably Ahimaaz had died by the time Solomon reigned.

In the line of Eleazar in 1 Chron.6:4-15 another Azariah is mentioned in v.10, the grandson of the previously mentioned Azariah. To his name is appended the comment: “He it is that executed the priest’s office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem” (v.10). It is tempting to assume that a copyist has appended these words to the wrong Azariah and that they really belong to Azariah the grandson of Zadok. The purpose of the remark would then be to show that it was he who officiated when Solomon’s temple was completed. Zadok must have been an old man by the time Solomon came to the throne and probably was dead by the time the temple was completed.

Returning to the succession to David, Adonijah was supported by Abiathar, representing the priesthood, and Joab, representing the military. Both had been with David from very early days. We have seen that Abiathar joined David whilst Saul was still alive. Joab, David’s nephew, was certainly with David at the start of David’, reign in Hebron (2 Sam.2:13), and we can confidently assume, especially in the light of his mention in 1 Sam.26:6, that he would have been one of David’s men in the days of exile from Saul’s court. Solomon, on the other hand, was supported by Zadok, representing the priesthood, and Benaiah, representing the military. We have seen already that Zadok came over to David’s side while David was reigning in Hebron, and may well have been Saul’s priest or the son of Saul’s priest. Benaiah was the son of Jehoiada, and Jehoiada is also listed amongst those who came over to David’s side in Hebron (1 Chron.12: 27). It was, therefore, those who had been associated with David from the start who turned against him at the end and sought to impose their own successor, whilst those who stood up for Solomon, the chosen of God, were those who had at one time faithfully served Saul.

Our exploration of side issues, which we hope has been of interest, has made this article rather longer than was anticipated. The consideration of the high priestly line from the days of Solomon onwards must, therefore, be left to another issue, God willing.