Regarding their sanctuaries as their own private property, precisely as Micah does in the classical instance recorded in Judges xvii., xviii., and proceeding quite untrammelled in the appointment and removal of the officials employed, neither do these early kings hesitate in the least to exercise personally the rights which had emanated from themselves, and been delegated to others.  Of Saul, who indeed was in the habit of delegating but seldom, and of doing with his own hand all that required to be done, it is several times mentioned that he sacrificed in person; and it is clear that this is not brought as a charge against him in 1Samuel xiv. and xv.  David sacrificed on the occasion of his having successfully brought the ark to Jerusalem; that it was he himself who officiated appears from the fact that he wore the priestly ephod—­the ephod bad—­and at the close of the offering pronounced the benediction (2Samuel vi. 14, 18).  In the same way was the consecration of the temple conducted by Solomon; it was he who went before the altar, and after praying there upon his knees with outstretched arms, rose and blessed the people (1Kings viii. 22, 54, 53),—­doubtless also it was he who with his own hands offered the first sacrifice.  The priests’ technical skill is necessary only for inquiring of the oracle before the ephod (1Samuel xiv. 18).

IV.II.3.  These beginnings are continued in the history of the priesthood after the division of the kingdom.  Jeroboam I., the founder of the kingdom of Israel, is treated by the historian as the founder also of Israel’s worship in so far as the latter differed from the Judaean ideal:  “he made the two calves of gold, and set them up at Bethel and at Dan; he made the Bamoth-houses and made priests from the mass of the people, who were not of the sons of Levi, and ordained a feast in the eighth month and ascended to the altar to burn incense” (1Kings xii. 28 seq., xiii. 33).  Here indeed after the well-known manner of pious pragmatism retrospective validity is given to the Deuteronomic law which did not come into force until three centuries afterwards, and judgment is thus passed in accordance with a historically inadmissable standard; moreover, the facts on which the judgment is based are on the one hand too much generalised, and on the other hand laid too exclusively to the charge of Jeroboam.  The first king bears the weight of all the sins in worship of all his successors and of the whole body of the people.  But the recognition of the sovereign priesthood of the ruler, of the formative influence which he exercised over the worship, is just.  The most important temples were royal ones, and the priests who attended at them were the king’s priests (Amos vii. 10 seq.).  When therefore Jehu overthrew the house of Ahab, he did not extirpate all its members merely, and its officials and courtiers, but also its priests as well; they too were servants of the crown and in positions of trust (2Kings x. 11I; comp. 1Kings iv. 5).