Why was Samuel allowed to offer sacrifices to God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mr_bamber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mr_bamber

Guest
We read in the scriptures that Saul grew impatient of waiting for Samuel to come and offer sacrifice and took it into his hands to do so. However Saul was punished for this since he wasn’t a priest and yet Samuel wasn’t even a priest, but a judge/prophet…How come Samuel was allowed to offer sacrifice and Saul wasn’t?
 
Because Samuel was a Levite while Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. Levites were the priestly tribe and only they were permitted to offer the sacrifices to God.
 
Because Samuel was a Levite while Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. Levites were the priestly tribe and only they were permitted to offer the sacrifices to God.
Thanks…But weren’t only priests selected from the Levi tribe and thus was Samuel actually a priest? Or were people ipso facto priests from the mere fact of being born into the tribe of Levi?
 
Thanks…But weren’t only priests selected from the Levi tribe and thus was Samuel actually a priest? Or were people ipso facto priests from the mere fact of being born into the tribe of Levi?
All the men of the levite tribe were priests, they took turns officially fulfilling the function of priest but they all had the rights of a priest such as the power to offer sacrifice as I understand it.
 
Where do you find that Samuel was a Levite. He appears to be an Ephramite.
1 There was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim of the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephraimite.
1 Samuel 1:1

I would speculate that Hannah’s dedicating him to the Lord in the service of Eli somehow empowered him as a priest. However, I can’t find anything that explicitly states that.
 
Where do you find that Samuel was a Levite. He appears to be an Ephramite. 1 Samuel 1:1

I would speculate that Hannah’s dedicating him to the Lord in the service of Eli somehow empowered him as a priest. However, I can’t find anything that explicitly states that.
Elkanah is Samuel’s father and lives at Ramah (1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11; comp. 28:3), in the district of Zuph. His genealogy is also found in a pedigree of the Kohathites (1 Chron. 6:3-15) and in that of Heman, his great-grandson (ib. vi. 18-22). According to the genealogical tables, Elkanah was, a Levite, a fact otherwise not mentioned in the books of Samuel. The fact that Elkanah, a Levite, was denominated an Ephraimite is analogous to the designation of a Levite belonging to Judah (Judges 17:7, for example).
 
Elkanah is Samuel’s father and lives at Ramah (1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11; comp. 28:3), in the district of Zuph. His genealogy is also found in a pedigree of the Kohathites (1 Chron. 6:3-15) and in that of Heman, his great-grandson (ib. vi. 18-22). According to the genealogical tables, Elkanah was, a Levite, a fact otherwise not mentioned in the books of Samuel. The fact that Elkanah, a Levite, was denominated an Ephraimite is analogous to the designation of a Levite belonging to Judah (Judges 17:7, for example).
Thanks, I missed that.
 
Not all Levites were priest, however all priests were Levites and of the lineage of Aaaron. Aaron was the first priest. Samuel was a Levite through the lineage of Kohath, Izhar and Korah (1Chron 6:33) and therefore not of the lineage of Aaron.
He was a judge, prophet and dedicated priest as he was a freewill offering to the Lord and as someone mentioned before, because he was dedicated to the priesthood by his mother Hanna he was accepted by God to offer sacrifice. His sacrifice was a burnt offering which was a freewill offering to the Lord and not a Sin or Trespass offering.
Nevertheless in 1 Sam 15:22 ‘So Samuel said: "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 sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams’. God had already told Eli that he would remove the tribe of Levi from the priesthood (1 Sam 2:31) and He would replace them with them that honoured Him.
 
We read in the scriptures that Saul grew impatient of waiting for Samuel to come and offer sacrifice and took it into his hands to do so. However Saul was punished for this since he wasn’t a priest and yet Samuel wasn’t even a priest, but a judge/prophet…How come Samuel was allowed to offer sacrifice and Saul wasn’t?
The system of governance established for the Israelites was prophetic, not monarchical. In the ancient near east, the king was responsible for overseeing worship, but this was not the case for the Israelites. (See for example 1Samuel 1-2.)

However, the Israelites rejected the system God established for them, choosing instead a monarchy like the nations around them–which was tantamount to rejecting the rule of God (1Samuel 8) and in the long run causing the downfall of Israel/Judah, the exile, and the destruction of the temple. In Saul you see a king who wants to be like the kings of other nations–in charge of worship–so he greedily oversteps his authority and is punished severely as a result–it’s basically a power struggle between Samuel and Saul.

Israel was never meant to have a king.
 
Not all Levites were priest, however all priests were Levites and of the lineage of Aaaron. Aaron was the first priest. Samuel was a Levite through the lineage of Kohath, Izhar and Korah (1Chron 6:33) and therefore not of the lineage of Aaron.
He was a judge, prophet and dedicated priest as he was a freewill offering to the Lord and as someone mentioned before, because he was dedicated to the priesthood by his mother Hanna he was accepted by God to offer sacrifice. His sacrifice was a burnt offering which was a freewill offering to the Lord and not a Sin or Trespass offering.
Nevertheless in 1 Sam 15:22 ‘So Samuel said: "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 sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams’. God had already told Eli that he would remove the tribe of Levi from the priesthood (1 Sam 2:31) and He would replace them with them that honoured Him.
This is very informative. I hope you read this and post more.

-Tim-
 
Israel was meant to have a king. It’s just that Israel’s king was supposed to be nobody but God.
 
Israel was meant to have a king. It’s just that Israel’s king was supposed to be nobody but God.
You know why the Israelites never got around to explicitly depicting God sitting on a throne (the cherubim on the Ark and on Solomon’s temple only vaguely suggests it)? There’s the commandment against depicting God in visible form, of course (which on the popular level wasn’t always followed, as can be seen from examples of Israelite art we have), but another possible reason is that it was Israelite reaction against the institution of human monarchy which they found among their neighbors, back when they were still a league of tribes. In the Ancient Near East, depicting a god sitting on a throne (like this) was one means through which royal authority was legitimated. But even in Solomon’s temple and the Ark, all you have are two winged creatures (cherubim) flanking an empty space. God is not explicitly depicted, and the throne is only implied. (Not to mention that these cherubs are hidden from public view.) On the folk level, when Yhwh is depicted, He is symbolically represented by the sun (or by another solar symbol, say the Egyptian scarab) or as a rider/warrior riding a bull or a horse (sometimes there is no rider: the animal only implies His presence.) But no Israelite AFAIK ever put Yhwh on a chair.



http://members.bib-arch.org/bswb_graphics/BSBA/27/03/BSBA270302910.jpg
 
This thread is more than 4 years old. We should not be encouraging resurrecting old threads by participating in them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top