Aaron and his sons were **appointed** by God, i.e. called by God, but neither he nor any of his sons were placed into that office with an oath of God (Hebrews 5:1, 4; Exodus 28:1, 41; 29:9; 30:30). Similarly, the kings of Israel were also appointed by God and anointed with oil, but none, including David, were ever placed into that office with an oath from God (1Samuel 9:16-17; 10:1; 16:1, 13; 2Samuel 7:12, 25-29). Nevertheless, Jesus ascended to his office as Messiah through such an oath by the Lord (Psalm 2:7; 89:3-4; Matthew 1:1; Acts 13:33).
Although Jesus had a legal right to David’s throne because, according to the flesh, he arose from the tribe of Judah and was of David’s lineage, he had no such legal right to the priesthood. This is because he was not of the tribe of Levi, and, therefore, couldn’t be of the lineage of Aaron. However, very early in Israel’s history, even before there was a king in Israel, the Lord mentioned he was dissatisfied with the Levitical priesthood system (1Samuel 2:30). The high priest at that time was Eli of the lineage of Aaron’s son, Ithamar. Eli’s sons were so wicked and evil (1Samuel 2:12) that they caused many in Israel to make light of the way of the Lord (1Samuel 2:17). Therefore, a man of God visited Eli (1Samuel 2:27) to tell him that the Lord had rejected him and his descendants (1Samuel 2:30-31), and would raise up a “faithful priest” who would act according to the heart of God (1Samuel 2:35).
Many scholars assume that Zadok is meant in 1Samuel 2:35, but this couldn’t possibly be so, because, although Zadok was of the lineage of Eleazar, Aaron’s elder son, and Zadok was a faithful priest, his descendants were not. Moreover, Ithamar could not have been the ‘father’ the man of God referred to in 1Samuel 2:30, because the Lord claimed he had appeared to Eli’s father in Egypt and chose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be his priest (1Samuel 2:27-28). Therefore, Eli’s father in 2Samuel 2:30 must refer to Aaron. In other words, even before there was a king in Israel, the Lord had rejected the Levitical priesthood system and had promised to raise up a faithful priest in its stead (1Samuel 2:35)!
Nevertheless, could the Lord have meant that Samuel would be the faithful priest, as some scholars have thought? I don’t think so, because, while it is true that Samuel was a prophet and officiated the office of a faithful priest all the days of his adult life, his sons weren’t any more faithful to God than Eli’s sons were (1Saumel 8:1-3). How, then, could Samuel be the intended priest in 1Samuel 2:35, when the Lord claimed he would build him a sure house? Could anyone really believe that Samuel’s sons were a product of the Lord’s work?
The Septuagint uses the Greek word pistos (G4103) for faithful priest in Samuel 2:35, and goes on to use the word once more in the same verse for the type of house the Lord would build for himself through his faithful priest. What is interesting is that Jesus is called the faithful (pistos – G4103) High Priest in Hebrews 2:17. The Greek word pistos (G4103) is never mentioned with the word priest at any other time in the New Covenant, and, if we consider the fact that the Lord made Jesus his High Priest with an oath and established him in his office forever (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7:20-21), here we have the fulfillment of 1Samuel 2:35.
Smoodock's Blog 