The adhesion of A. was of signal serWce to David, inasmuch as he brought with him an ephod, which, whether it were the high priestly ephod containing the Urim and Thummim (so Jerome, Qu. Heb. in loc, and Jos. Ant. vi. xiv. 6) or a sacred image, was at all events a recoCTiised method of 'inquiring of the Lord' (1 S 14", LXX, llVm). In this way A. was able to continue to David (1 S 23* 30') the services rendered before by his father (1 S 22"). Dean Stanley mentions (Jewish Ch. Lect. 36) a Jewish tradition that the power of thus inquiring of the Lord expired with A. ; and possibly in virtue of this power ho is men- tioned as one of David's counsellors (1 Ch 27**).
In David's flight from Absalom we find A. loyal, and only prevented by David's request from sharing his master's exile ; and his son Jonathan, with Ahimaaz, used to convey from the priests to the king secret intelligence of Absalom's plans. It is very doubtful if the words of Solomon, 'Thou barest the ark of the Lord God before David my father' (I K 2^), refer to the attempt made by Zadok and A. to carry the ark with David on his flight (Stanley), or to the commis- sion given by David to Zadok and A. (1 Ch 15"-'°) to superintend the carrying of the ark by the l.evites from the house of Obededom to Mt. Zion il-ord A. Hervey). On both these occasions A. is not so prominent as Zadok (see esp. 2 S 15^-', where Griitz reads, 'A. went up' for 'stood still,' cf. Jos 3'"). The reference is much more general, and alludes to the custom of the ark as the symbol of J"'8 presence accompanjring tlie host to battle (see, e.g., Nu 31», Jos %*, 1 S 4', 2 S 11"); The attempt made by Zadok and A. was an instance of this custom, and not a new departure; and David refuses to permit it, not because it was a violation of the sanctity of the
ark, but as being himself unworthy to claim the special protection of J". It may here be noted that a conjecture has been made, that aa Zadok ministered at the tabernacle at Gibeon (1 Ch 16^'), so A. may have been the custodian of the ark on Mt. Zion. On the defeat of Absalom, Zadok and A. smoothed the way for the king's restoration (2 S 19"). A.'s loyalty did not, how- ever, remain proof to the end ; he united with Joab in lending his influence to the abortive in.surrection of Adonijah. Both priest and chief captain were possibly actuated by jealousy, the one of Zadok, and the other of Benaiah. But while Joab was executed in accordance with David's dying in- structions, A.'s life was spared in consideration of his old loyalty: 'So Solomon thrust out A. from being priest unto the Lord ; that he might fulfil the word of the Lord which He spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh '(IK 2^).
With the deposition of A. the direct high priestly line of Eleazar came to an end. It is important to emphasize this, since it has been commonly held, on the authority of Chron. and Josephus, thai the high priests, from Eli to A. inclusive, were of the line of Ithamar, and that the line of Eleazar was restored in the person of Zadok. Let us examine the evidence on which this state- ment rests.
The Chronicler mentions as priests in David's time, ' Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Aliime- lech of the sons of Ithamar' (1 Ch 24»-^'), this Ahimelech being son of A., according to v.'. Now ' Ahimelech, son of A.,' is guite unhistorical. In 2 S 15-', 1 K 1", Jonathan is son and representa- tive of A. ; and, moreover, A. did not lose the oflice of high priest until the reign of Solomon. The mistake originated in 2 S 8", where, by a very ancient error, ' Ahimelech, son of A.,' is joint priest with Zadok. The emendation, 'A., son of Ahimelech,' found in the Sjt. version, is adojited by Gesenius, Wellhausen, and Driver, and may be regarded as certain. The Chronicler not only copies the mistake (1 Ch 18"), with the obvious blunder ' Ahimelech,' but treats this Ahimelech aa a real personage. It is noteworthy that Josephus in his paraphrase of I Ch 24 (Ant. vii. 14. 7) nientions A., not Ahimelech, and yet he accepts (viii. 1. 3, V. 10. 4) the descent of A. from Ithamar, and further distinctly asserts that during the high priestliood of Eli and his successors the descendants of Eleazar were merely private individuals. The Chronicler, on the other hand, ignores Eli and his descendants, and in 1 Ch 6"''^- ""'^ gives what seems intended to be a list of high priests from Aaron to the Captivity in the line of Eleazar. Those who are familiar with the peculiar tendencies of the Chron- icler will not think the suggestion unreasonable, that here we have an attempt both to vindicate the unbroken succession of the high priests of his own time, and to evade what he would have considered a stumbling-block in the earlier his- tory. Thus, if A. were the lineal successor of Eleazar, would not his deposition be a breaking on God's part of the promise to Phinehas of an ever- lasting priesthood? (Nu 25"). Yet the unbiiussed reader of I S 2^ can scarcely fail to see a plain allusion to the promise to Phinehas, and a no less plain assertion that the promise was conditional : ' I said, indeed, that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before Me for ever ; hut now the Lord saith. Be it far from Me,' etc. These words cannot refer to the general promise to Aaron's family in Ex 29», for God's puroose in that respect was not altered ; the Aaronic descent of Zadok being undisputed. It is interesting to observe that the Chronicler does not say that Eli's family had usurped the high priesthood, as Josephus insinuates; and, indeed, such a usurpation couhl not