Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 2:11
And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house. And the child did minister unto the LORD before Eli the priest.
The word minister is used in three senses in Scripture:
(1) of the service or ministration of both priests and Levites rendered unto the Lord Exo 28:35, Exo 28:43 :
(2) of the ministrations of the Levites as rendered to the priests, to aid them in divine Service Num 3:6 :
(3) of any service or ministration, especially one rendered to a man of God, as that of Joshua to Moses Num 11:28.
The application of it to Samuel as ministering to the Lord before Eli the priest accords most exactly with Samuels condition as a Levite.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 11. And Elkanah went to Ramah] Immediately after the 10th verse, the Septuagint add, , And she left him there before the Lord, and went unto Arimathea. Thus the Septuagint suppose that the song of Hannah was composed when she brought Samuel to present him to the Lord; and as soon as she had completed this fine ode, she delivered him into the hands of Eli the high priest, and the child entered immediately on his ministration, under the direction and instructions of Eli.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In some way agreeable to his tender years, as in singing, or playing upon instruments of music, as they used then to do in Gods service; or lighting the lamps, or some other way. For I suppose Samuel was not brought to the tabernacle in such tender years as some think; of which See Poole “1Sa 1:22“.
Before Eli the priest, i.e. under the inspection and by the direction and instruction of Eli.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
11. the child did minister unto theLord before Eli the priestHe must have been engaged in someoccupation suited to his tender age, as in playing upon the cymbals,or other instruments of music; in lighting the lamps, or similar easyand interesting services.
1Sa2:12-17. THE SINOF ELl’S SONS.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house,…. Of which see 1Sa 1:19. This was after he had offered the sacrifices at the feast, worshipped the Lord, and Hannah had delivered her prayer or song of praise, and both had committed Samuel to the care of Eli, and left him with him:
and the child did minister unto the Lord before Eli the priest; he not only read in the book of the law, but learned to sing the praises of God vocally, and to play upon an instrument of music used in the service of God in those times, and to light the lamps in the tabernacle, and open and shut the doors of it, and the like; which were suitable to his age, and which might not be quite so tender as some have thought; or this may respect some small beginnings in the ministry of the sanctuary, in which he gradually increased under the inspection, guidance, and instruction of Eli, which is meant by ministering before him; the Targum is,
“in the life of Eli the priest;”
he began his ministration before his death.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Samuel the servant of the Lord under Eli. Ungodliness of the sons of Eli. – 1Sa 2:11 forms the transition to what follows. After Hannah’s psalm of thanksgiving, Elkanah went back with his family to his home at Ramah, and the boy (Samuel) was serving, i.e., ministered to the Lord, in the presence of Eli the priest. The fact that nothing is said about Elkanah’s wives going with him, does not warrant the interpretation given by Thenius, that Elkanah went home alone. It was taken for granted that his wives went with him, according to 1Sa 1:21 (“all his house”). , which signifies literally, both here and in 1Sa 3:1, to serve the Lord, and which is used interchangeably with (1Sa 2:18), to serve in the presence of the Lord, is used to denote the duties performed both by priests and Levites in connection with the worship of God, in which Samuel took part, as he grew up, under the superintendence of Eli and according to his instruction.
1Sa 2:12 But Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas (1Sa 2:34), were , worthless fellows, and knew not the Lord, sc., as He should be known, i.e., did not fear Him, or trouble themselves about Him (vid., Job 18:21; Hos 8:2; Hos 13:4).
1Sa 2:13-14 “ And the right of the priests towards the people was (the following).” Mishpat signifies the right which they had usurped to themselves in relation to the people. “ If any one brought a sacrifice ( is placed first, and construed absolutely: ‘as for every one who brought a slain-offering’), the priest’s servant ( lit. young man) came while the flesh was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in his hand, and thrust into the kettle, or pot, or bowl, or saucepan. All that the fork brought up the priest took. This they did to all the Israelites who came thither to Shiloh.”
1Sa 2:15-16 They did still worse. “ Even before the fat was consumed,” i.e., before the fat portions of the sacrifice had been placed in the altar-fire for the Lord (Lev 3:3-5), the priest’s servant came and demanded flesh of the person sacrificing, to be roasted for the priest; “ for he will not take boiled flesh of thee, but only , raw, i.e., fresh meat.” And if the person sacrificing replied, “ They will burn the fat directly ( lit. ‘at this time,’ as in Gen 25:31; 1Ki 22:5), then take for thyself, as thy soul desireth,” he said, “ No ( for ), but thou shalt give now; if not, I take by force.” These abuses were practised by the priests in connection with the thank-offerings, with which a sacrificial meal was associated. Of these offerings, with which a sacrificial meal was associated. Of these offerings, the portion which legally fell to the priest as his share was the heave-leg and wave-breast. And this he was to receive after the fat portions of the sacrifice had been burned upon the altar (see Lev 7:30-34). To take the flesh of the sacrificial animal and roast it before this offering had been made, was a crime which was equivalent to a robbery of God, and is therefore referred to here with the emphatic particle , as being the worst crime that the sons of Eli committed. Moreover, the priests could not claim any of the flesh which the offerer of the sacrifice boiled for the sacrificial meal, after burning the fat portions upon the altar and giving up the portions which belonged to them, to say nothing of their taking it forcibly out of the pots while it was being boiled.
1Sa 2:17 Such conduct as this on the part of the young men (the priests’ servants), was a great sin in the sight of the Lord, as they thereby brought the sacrifice of the Lord into contempt. , causative, to bring into contempt, furnish occasion for blaspheming (as in 2Sa 12:14). “The robbery which they committed was a small sin in comparison with the contempt of the sacrifices themselves, which they were the means of spreading among the people” ( O. v. Gerlach). Minchah does not refer here to the meat-offering as the accompaniment to the slain-offerings, but to the sacrificial offering generally, as a gift presented for the Lord.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Samuel in the Sanctuary; The Wickedness of Eli’s Sons. | B. C. 1130. |
11 And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house. And the child did minister unto the LORD before Eli the priest. 12 Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD. 13 And the priests’ custom with the people was, that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand; 14 And he struck it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither. 15 Also before they burnt the fat, the priest’s servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but raw. 16 And if any man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; then he would answer him, Nay; but thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force. 17 Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD: for men abhorred the offering of the LORD. 18 But Samuel ministered before the LORD, being a child, girded with a linen ephod. 19 Moreover his mother made him a little coat, and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. 20 And Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, The LORD give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the LORD. And they went unto their own home. 21 And the LORD visited Hannah, so that she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters. And the child Samuel grew before the LORD. 22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 23 And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. 24 Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the LORD‘s people to transgress. 25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them. 26 And the child Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with the LORD, and also with men.
In these verses we have the good character and posture of Elkanah’s family, and the bad character and posture of Eli’s family. The account of these two is observably interwoven throughout this whole paragraph, as if the historian intended to set the one over against the other, that they might set off one another. The devotion and good order of Elkanah’s family aggravated the iniquity of Eli’s house; while the wickedness of Eli’s sons made Samuel’s early piety appear the more bright and illustrious.
I. Let us see how well things went in Elkanah’s family and how much better than formerly. 1. Eli dismissed them from the house of the Lord, when they had entered their little son there, with a blessing, v. 20. He blessed as one having authority: The Lord give thee more children of this woman, for the loan that is lent to the Lord. If Hannah had then had many children, it would not have been such a generous piece of piety to part with one out of many for the service of the tabernacle; but when she had but one, an only one whom she loved, her Isaac, to present him to the Lord was such an act of heroic piety as should by no means lose its reward. As when Abraham had offered Isaac he received the promise of a numerous issue (Gen 22:16; Gen 22:17), so did Hannah, when she had presented Samuel unto the Lord a living sacrifice. Note, What is lent to the Lord will certainly be repaid with interest, to our unspeakable advantage, and oftentimes in kind. Hannah resigns one child to God, and is recompensed with five; for Eli’s blessing took effect (v. 21): She bore three sons and two daughters. There is nothing lost by lending to God or losing for him; it shall be repaid a hundred-fold, Matt. xix. 29. 2. They returned to their own habitation. This is twice mentioned, v. 11, and again v. 20. It was very pleasant to attend at God’s house, to bless him, and to be blessed of him. But they have a family at home that must be looked after, and thither they return, cheerfully leaving the dear little one behind them, knowing they left him in a good place; and it does not appear that he cried after them, but was as willing to stay as they were to leave him, so soon did he put away childish things and behave like a man. 3. They kept up their constant attendance at the house of God with their yearly sacrifice, v. 19. They did not think that their son’s ministering there would excuse them, or that that offering must serve instead of other offerings; but, having found the benefit of drawing near to God, they would omit no appointed season for it, and now they had one loadstone more in Shiloh to draw them thither. We may suppose they went thither to see their child oftener than once a year, for it was not ten miles from Ramah; but their annual visit is taken notice of because then they brought their yearly sacrifice, and then Hannah fitted up her son (and some think oftener than once a year) with a new suit of clothes, a little coat (v. 19) and every thing belonging to it. She undertook to find him with clothes during his apprenticeship at the tabernacle, and took care he should be well provided, that he might appear the more decent and sightly in his ministration, and to encourage him in his towardly beginnings. Parents must take care that their children want nothing that is fit for them, whether they are with them or from them; but those that are dutiful and hopeful, and minister to the Lord, must be thought worthy of double care and kindness. 4. The child Samuel did very well. Four separate times he is mentioned in these verses, and two things we are told of:– (1.) The service he did to the Lord. He did well indeed, for he ministered to the Lord (1Sa 2:11; 1Sa 2:18) according as his capacity was. He learned his catechism and was constant to his devotions, soon learned to read, and took a pleasure in the book of the law, and thus he ministered to the Lord. He ministered before Eli, that is, under his inspection, and as he ordered him, not before Eli’s sons; all parties were agreed that they were unfit to be his tutors. Perhaps he attended immediately on Eli’s person, was ready to him to fetch and bring as he had occasion, and that is called ministering to the Lord. Some little services perhaps he was employed in about the altar, though much under the age appointed by the law for the Levites’ ministration. He could light a candle, or hold a dish, or run on an errand, or shut a door; and, because he did this with a pious disposition of mind it is called ministering to the Lord, and great notice is taken of it. After awhile he did his work so well that Eli appointed that he should minister with a linen ephod as the priests did (though he was no priest), because he saw that God was with him. Note, Little children must learn betimes to minister to the Lord. Parents must train them up to it, and God will accept them. Particularly let them learn to pay respect to their teachers, as Samuel to Eli. None can begin too soon to be religious. See Psa 8:2; Mat 21:15; Mat 21:16. (2.) The blessing he received from the Lord: He grew before the Lord, as a tender plant (v. 21), grew on (v. 26) in strength and stature, and especially in wisdom and understanding and fitness for business. Note, Those young people that serve God as well as they can will obtain grace to improve, that they may serve him better. Those that are planted in God’s house shall flourish, Ps. xcii. 13. He was in favour with the Lord and with man. Note, It is a great encouragement to children to be tractable, and virtuous, and good betimes, that if they be both God and man will love them. Such children are the darlings both of heaven and earth. What is here said of Samuel is said of our blessed Saviour, that great example, Luke ii. 52.
II. Let us now see how ill things went in Eli’s family, though seated at the very door of the tabernacle. The nearer the church the further from God.
1. The abominable wickedness of Eli’s sons (v. 12): The sons of Eli were sons of Belial. It is emphatically expressed. Nothing appears to the contrary but that Eli himself was a very good man, and no doubt had educated his sons well, giving them good instructions, setting them good examples, and putting up many a good prayer for them; and yet, when they grew up, they proved sons of Belial, profane wicked men, and arrant rakes: They knew not the Lord. They could not but have a notional knowledge of God and his law, a form of knowledge (Rom. ii. 20), yet, because their practice was not conformable to it, they are spoken of as wholly ignorant of God; they lived as if they knew nothing at all of God. Note, Parents cannot give grace to their children, nor does it run in the blood. Many that are sincerely pious themselves live to see those that come from them notoriously impious and profane; for the race is not to the swift. Eli was high priest and judge in Israel. His sons were priests by their birth. Their character was sacred and honourable, and obliged them, for their reputation-sake, to observe decorum. They were resident at the fountain-head both of magistracy and ministry, and yet they were sons of Belial, and their honour, power, and learning, made them so much the worse. They did not go to serve other gods, as those did that lived at a distance from the altar, for from the house of God they had their wealth and dignity; but, which was worse, they managed the service of God as if he had been one of the dunghill deities of the heathen. It is hard to say which dishonours God more, idolatry or profaneness, especially the profaneness of the priests. Let us see the wickedness of Eli’s sons; and it is a sad sight.
(1.) They profaned the offerings of the Lord, and made a gain to themselves, or rather a gratification of their own luxury, out of them. God had provided competently for them out of the sacrifices. The offerings of the Lord made by fire were a considerable branch of their revenue, but not enough to please them; they served not the God of Israel, but their own bellies (Rom. xvi. 18), being such as the prophet calls greedy dogs that can never have enough, Isa. lvi. 11. [1.] They robbed the offerers, and seized for themselves some of their part of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings. The priests had for their share the wave-breast and the heave shoulder (Lev. vii. 34), but these did not content them; when the flesh was boiling for the offerer to feast upon religiously with his friends, they sent a servant with a flesh-hook of three teeth, a trident, and that must be stuck into the pot, and whatever that brought up the priest must have (1Sa 2:13; 1Sa 2:14), and the people, out of their great veneration, suffered this to grow into a custom, so that after awhile prescription was pleaded for this manifest wrong. [2.] They stepped in before God himself, and encroached upon his right too. As if it were a small thing to weary men, they wearied my God also, Isa. vii. 13. Be it observed, to the honour of Israel, that though the people tamely yielded to their unwarrantable demands from them, yet they were very solicitous that God should not be robbed: Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, v. 16. Let the altar have its due, for that is the main matter. Unless God have the fat, they can feast with little comfort upon the flesh. It was a shame that the priests should need to be thus admonished by the people of their duty; but they regarded not the admonition. The priest will be served first, and will take what he thinks fit of the fat too, for he is weary of boiled meat, he must have roast, and, in order to that, they must give it to him raw; and if the offerer dispute it, though not in his own favour (let the priest take what he pleases of his part) but in favour of the altar (let them be sure to burn the fat first), even the priest’s servant had grown so very imperious that he would either have it now or take it by force, than which there could not be a greater affront to God nor a greater abuse to the people. The effect was, First, That God was displeased: The sin of the young men was very great before the Lord, v. 17. Nothing is more provoking to God than the profanation of sacred things, and men serving their lusts with the offerings of the Lord. Secondly, That religion suffered by it: Men abhorred the offerings of the Lord. All good men abhorred their management of the offerings, and too many insensibly fell into a contempt of the offerings themselves for their sakes. It was the people’s sin to think the worse of God’s institutions, but it was the much greater sin of the priests that gave them occasion to do so. Nothing brings a greater reproach upon religion than ministers’ covetousness, sensuality, and imperiousness. In the midst of this sad story comes in the repeated mention of Samuel’s devotion. But Samuel ministered before the Lord, as an instance of the power of God’s grace, in preserving him pure and pious in the midst of this wicked crew; and this helped to keep up the sinking credit of the sanctuary in the minds of the people, who, when they had said all they could against Eli’s sons, could not but admire Samuel’s seriousness, and speak well of religion for his sake.
(2.) They debauched the women that came to worship at the door of the tabernacle, v. 22. They had wives of their own, but were like fed horses, Jer. v. 8. To have gone to the harlots’ houses, the common prostitutes, would have been abominable wickedness, but to use the interest which as priests they had in those women that had devout dispositions and were religiously inclined, and to bring them to commit their wickedness, was such horrid impiety as one can scarcely think it possible that men who called themselves priests should ever be guilty of. Be astonished, O heavens! at this, and tremble, O earth! No words can sufficiently express the villany of such practices as these.
2. The reproof which Eli gave his sons for this their wickedness: Eli was very old (v. 22) and could not himself inspect the service of the tabernacle as he had done, but left all to his sons, who, because of the infirmities of his age, slighted him, and did what they would. However, he was told of the wickedness of his sons, and we may well imagine what a heart-breaking it was to him, and how much it added to the burdens of his age; but it should seem he did not so much as reprove them till he heard of their debauching the women, and then he thought fit to give them a check. Had he rebuked them for their greediness and luxury, this might have been prevented. Young people should be told of their faults as soon as it is perceived that they begin to be extravagant, lest their hearts be hardened. Now concerning the reproof he gave them observe,
(1.) That it was very just and rational. That which he said was very proper. [1.] He tells them that the matter of fact was too plain to be denied and too public to be concealed: “I hear of your evil dealings by all this people, v. 23. It is not the surmise of one or two, but the avowed testimony of many; all your neighbours cry out shame on you, and bring their complaints to me, expecting that I should redress the grievance.” [2.] He shows them the bad consequences of it, that they not only sinned, but made Israel to sin, and would have the people’s sin to answer for as well as their own: “You that should turn men from iniquity (Mal. ii. 6), you make the Lord’s people to transgress, and corrupt the nation instead of reforming it; you tempt people to go and serve other gods when they see the God of Israel so ill served.” [3.] He warns them of the danger they brought themselves into by it, v. 25. He intimates to them what God afterwards told him, that the iniquity would not be purged with sacrifice nor offering, ch. iii. 14. If one man sin against another, the judge (that is, the priest, who was appointed to be the judge in many cases, Deut. xvii. 9) shall judge him, shall undertake his cause, arbitrate the matter, and make atonement for the offender; but if a man sin against the Lord (that is, if a priest profane the holy things of the Lord, if a man that deals with God for others do himself affront him) who shall entreat for him? Eli was himself a judge, and had often made intercession for transgressors, but, says he, “You that sin against the Lord,” that is, “against the law and honour of God, in those very things which immediately pertain to him, and by which reconciliation is to be made, how can I entreat for you?” Their condition was deplorable indeed when their own father could not speak a good word for them, nor could have the face to appear as their advocate. Sins against the remedy, the atonement itself, are most dangerous, treading under foot the blood of the covenant, for then there remains no more sacrifice, Heb. x. 26.
(2.) It was too mild and gentle. He should have rebuked them sharply. Their crimes deserved sharpness; their temper needed it; the softness of his dealing with them would but harden them the more. The animadversion was too easy when he said, It is no good report. he should have said, “It is a shameful scandalous thing, and not to be suffered!” Whether it was because he loved them or because he feared them that he dealt thus tenderly with them, it was certainly an evidence of his want of zeal for the honour of God and his sanctuary. He bound them over to God’s judgment, but he should have taken cognizance of their crimes himself, as high priest and judge, and have restrained and punished them. What he said was right, but it was not enough. Note, It is sometimes necessary that we put an edge upon the reproofs we give. There are those that must be saved with fear, Jude 23. 3. Their obstinacy against this reproof. His lenity did not at all work upon them: They hearkened not to their father, though he was also a judge. They had no regard either to his authority or to his affection, which was to them an evident token of perdition; it was because the Lord would slay them. They had long hardened their hearts, and now God, in a way of righteous judgment, hardened their hearts, and seared their consciences, and withheld from them the grace they had resisted and forfeited. Note, Those that are deaf to the reproofs of wisdom are manifestly marked for ruin. The Lord has determined to destroy them, 2 Chron. xxv. 16. See Prov. xxix. 1. Immediately upon this, Samuel’s tractableness is again mentioned (v. 26), to shame their obstinacy: The child Samuel grew. God’s grace is his own; he denied it to the sons of the high priest and gave it to the child of an obscure country Levite.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Wicked Priests, vs. 11-17
First, it is said that Elkanah and Hannah returned to Ramah to their house, of course leaving Samuel with Eli at the tabernacle. A heartrending picture could be portrayed of the young child being left with an aged priest in a tabernacle ruled over by licentious priests, bereft of his mother. But he was born for this purpose, and Hannah must not have suffered any twinges of regret, for she trusted his care to the Lord who gave Samuel to her in answer to her prayer and vow. The Lord would comfort and care for His child, the gift of a dedicated mother.
Then the scene turns to another parent and his sons. Eli’s sons were already noted sons of Belial, which means they were sorry, no good, and wicked. The worst thing of all, “they knew not the Lord,” meaning they had not their trust in Him. They exercised their offices for their own profit, much like, it is feared, many professing ministers of the gospel in this day and age. Their infidelity was blatantly exposed in their treatment of the sacrifices which the Israelites brought to the tabernacle.
The law carefully set forth the manner of the sacrifices and the priests’ portion. The order concerning the burning of the fat is seen at Lev 7:22-27, and the one violating it was accursed from Israel. The portion which the priests was to receive from the people’s offering is plainly stipulated (De 18:3-5; see also the law of the peace offering, Lev 7:28-34). But Eli’s sons were not pleased with what the Lord had given them nor did they approve of His assessment. They did not wait for the boiling of the flesh to eat the sacrifice with the one offering as required by the law. They desired to eat the fat which was dedicated to the Lord, and they demanded the mw flesh before it was sacrificed, possibly implying that they ate it without properly bleeding it as the law required. They sent their servants to the sacrifice and belligerently demanded to make their own choice out of the offerings, even over the protestations of some.
The Scriptures state that their sin “was very great before the Lord.” It was an open defiance of God, reminiscent of Cain and Nimrod (Gen 4:5; Gen 10:8-11). Such put them under the certain judgment of the Lord. Their flagrant disobedience to the law of the offerings was abhorring of the law. The statement, “for men abhorred the offering of the Lord,” seems not to be said of them alone. Their light esteem caused those who came with their offerings also to abhor them. What seems permissible to those who represent the Lord is thought to be permissible by those they minister unto.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1Sa. 2:11. Minister. The word is used in three senses in Scripture.
1. Of the service of both priests and Levites (Exo. 28:35-43, etc.).
2. Of the ministrations of the Levites as rendered to the priests (Num. 3:6), where the phrase is nearly identical with that used here.
3. Of any service, especially one rendered to a man of God (Num. 11:28; 1Ki. 19:21; 2Ki. 6:15, etc.). The application of it to Samuel as ministering to the Lord before Eli the priest accords most exactly with Samuels condition as a Levite (Biblical Commentary). He must have been engaged in some occupation suited to his tender age, as in playing upon the cymbals, or other instruments of music; in lighting the lamps, or similar easy and interesting services (Fausset).
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(11) Elkanah went to Ramah.These simple words just sketch out what took place after Hannah left her boy in Shiloh. Elkanah went home, and the old family life, with its calm religious trustfulness, flowed on in the quiet town of Ramah of the Watchers as it did aforetime; the only disturbing sorrowful element was removed in answer to the mothers prayers, and little children grew up (1Sa. 2:21) round Hannah and Elkanah. But the life of the dedicated child Samuel was a different one; he lived under the shadow of the sanctuary, ministering with his child powers before the altar of the Invisible, and trained, we may well assume, in all the traditions and learning of Israel by the old high priest. The word minister is the official term used to signify the duties performed by priests and Levites in connection with the service of God.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(11-36) The Service of the boy Samuel in the SanctuaryThe Dissolute Life of the Sons of EliThe Doom of the House of Ithamar.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
SAMUEL’S YOUTHFUL MINISTRY THE WICKEDNESS OF ELI’S SONS, 1Sa 2:11-26. Observe in the following account how the piety of Samuel and the wickedness of Eli’s sons are mentioned in immediate connexion with each other, as if to call attention to the contrast, and to show how the saintliness of the one and the worthlessness of the others were developed in the midst of holy ministrations. To the one the sacred services were a savour of life unto life, to the others of death unto death. Hophni and Phinehas waxed great in wickedness, while Samuel grew in favour both with Jehovah and with men.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
11. The child did minister In such a way as was proper for a child, and in such services as he could perform, such as lighting the lamps, (1Sa 3:3,) and opening the doors of the tabernacle. 1Sa 3:15.
Before Eli Under his oversight and care.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
EXPOSITION
SAMUEL‘S MINISTRATIONS AT SHILOH (1Sa 2:11-21).
1Sa 2:11
The child did minister. Left by his parents at Shiloh, Samuel ministered unto the Lord; that is, certain duties were allotted him to perform suited to his age; but few at first, when he was but three years old, but increasing in importance as time went on; for the words refer to the whole period of his service, until Eli’s death. At first Samuel would be but a scholar, for, as we have mentioned on 1Sa 1:21, there were, no doubt, regulations for the training of children devoted to the service of the sanctuary. The peculiarity about Samuel was that he was devoted for life, for possibly it was a not uncommon practice for young persons to receive some training at Shiloh; just as we find that Samuel himself subsequently gathered youths round him at Naioth in Ramah for educational purposes. Learning practically was confined to the priesthood, and we can scarcely imagine that the knowledge which Phinehas and the family of Aaron brought with them out of Egypt would be allowed to perish. Samuel certainly had himself received careful instruction (see on 1Sa 10:25), and this could scarcely have happened if the training of young persons had not been part of the priests’ duties at Shiloh. This then explains why Samuel was brought to Eli at so tender an age, and why the charge of so young a child was undertaken without a murmur. Before Eli means under his general superintendence. Everything done at Shiloh was done before Eli, as being the chief ruler there.
1Sa 2:12
Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial, i.e. worthless men (see on 1Sa 1:16). They knew not Jehovah. He had never been revealed to their consciences, and so his fear had no influence upon their lives. The next words, in 1Sa 2:13, are difficult, but lit. mean, “The legal right of the priests, towards, or as respects, the people.” On this account the Vulgate and several commentators couple the sentence with what precedes: “they knew neither Jehovah, nor their own legal rights.” But the word also in 1Sa 2:15 is incompatible with this rendering; for if what is mentioned there be illegal, so must also the practice be which is recorded here. But neither does custom give the sense; for the Hebrews has not priest’s (sing.) as the A.V; but of the priests, of all priests generally, and not of Eli merely and his sons. The right translation is that given by the Sept; Syriac, and Chaldee, namely, “the due of the priests from the people,” on which see Le 7:31-35. In the original this is put absolutely “And as to the priests’ due from the people, when,” etc; but our language requires some insertion to make it read more smoothly. “And as to the due of the priests from the people, the manner of its exaction was as follows: When,” etc. But besides the due and legal portion, which, nevertheless, they took in an illegal way, they demanded a part of the flesh reserved for the feast of the offerer, and to which they had absolutely no right (see Le 8:31; 2Ch 35:13).
The legal due of the priest was the right shoulder and the wave breast; but before he took them they were to be consecrated to God by the burning of the fat upon the altar (Le 1Sa 3:5; 1Sa 7:1-17 :31, 34). It is worth observing that the people seem well acquainted with the words of the Law, and are indignant because the priests, its proper guardians, do not abide literally by them. This contempt of the Law distressed their religious susceptibilites, while the cupidity of Eli’s sons offended their moral nature. And so men abhorred the offering of Jehovah. Lit. it is the minchah, the unbloody sacrifice, or meat offering, but it is put here forevery kind of sacrificial offering.
1Sa 2:18
But Samuel ministered. While the misconduct of Eli’s sons was thus bringing religion into contempt, and sapping the nation’s morals, Samuel was advancing in years and piety, and was gaining that education which made him fit to retrieve the evil of their doings. He is still styled na’ar, a boy; for the word, according to the Rabbins, may be used up to fifteen years (1Sa 1:24). In the sense of servant there is no limit of age; and as it is the word translated “young men” in 1Sa 2:17, it probably means there not Eli’s sons, but the servants by whose instrumentality their orders were actually carried out. Samuel’s dress, an ephod of white linen, was probably that worn by the Levites in their ordinary ministrations; for the ephod of the priests was richer both in material and colour (Exo 28:6-8). As being thus the simplest ministerial garment, it was apparently worn also by laymen when taking part in any religious service, as by David when he danced before the ark (2Sa 6:14).
1Sa 2:19
His mother made him a little coat. The coat, meil, was worn by priests (Le 1Sa 8:7), by kings and their sons (1Sa 18:4), by prophets (ibid. 1Sa 28:14), and even by women (2Sa 13:18). It was an under garment of wool, woven throughout without seam, with holes for the head and arms, and reaching nearly to the ground: when used by women it had sleeves (ibid.). Under it they had a tunic or shirt fitting so closely that a man simply so clad was considered naked (1Sa 19:24), and over it priests and Levites wore the ephod, and so also David on the occasion mentioned above (1Ch 15:27). The meil seems, moreover, to have often been a handsome dress, as that of the priests was of purple blue, with embroidery of pomegranates in three colours, and golden bells (Exo 28:31-34); and when made of delicate materials for the use of the rich, it and the tunic are the soft luxurious clothing spoken of in Mat 11:8. As the meal was the ordinary dress of all classes of people, it was made for Samuel at home, and can have no special meaning; but the ephod shows that he was brought up in the daffy practice of holy duties. This annual present, however, of clothing made by the mother’s hands proves that the dedication of her son to God was not allowed to interfere with home affections, and both parents and child must have looked forward with joy to happy meetings at each recurrence of the family visit to the sanctuary.
1Sa 2:20, 1Sa 2:21
The Lord give thee seed, etc. The manner in which Eli blesses Elkanah shows that this surrender of a very young child to religious service was not looked upon as imposing a burden upon the sanctuary, but as the bestowal of a valued gift. Loan and lent by no means give the whole sense, which is in fact beyond the power of our language to express; for the Hebrew is remarkable for its manner of saying a great deal in a few words, by using them indefinitely. Besides the sense, then, of lending the child to God, the Hebrews also conveys the idea of Samuel having been obtained by prayer, but by prayer for Jehovah. Hannah had not asked simply for a son, but for a son whom she might dedicate to God. And now Eli prays that Jehovah will give her children to be her own (see on 1Sa 1:28).
ELI‘S COMPLICITY IN THE SINS OF HIS SONS (1Sa 2:22-26).
1Sa 2:22
Eli heard all that his sons did. To the profanity and greed described in 1Sa 2:12-17 the sons of Eli added unchastity; and their sin was the greater because the women whom they corrupted were those dedicated to religious service (see Exo 38:8). The order of ministering women instituted by Moses probably lasted down to the destruction of the temple, and Anna may have belonged to it (Luk 2:37); afterwards it appeared again in a more spiritual form in the widows and deaconesses of the Christian Church. The word rendered assembled means “arranged in bands,” and shows not merely that they were numerous, but that they had regular duties assigned them, and each one her proper place and office. The frequent sacrifices, with the feasts which followed, must have provided occupation for a large number of hands in the cleaning of the utensils and the cooking of the food. But though Eli heard of the depraved conduct of his sons in thus defiling those who ministered in the tabernacle, he gives them but the faintest rebuke, and that apparently only because their misdeeds were in everybody’s mouth; for the last clause of 1Sa 2:23 really is, “For I hear of your evil doings from all this people.” Eli’s old age may have increased his indifference, but his religious character could never have had much depth or earnestness, to allow him to regard such heinous sins so lightly. It seems even as if he chiefly felt the annoyance occasioned to himself by the expostulations urged upon him “from all this people.” Still all that he says is wise and thoughtful. The sins of men in high station do not end with themselves; they make others also to transgress. And as Eli’s sons were Jehovah’s ministers, and they had led into wickedness those who also were bound to holy service, their misconduct was a sin against Jehovah himself.
1Sa 2:24, 1Sa 2:25
Ye make, etc. Eli’s words are very obscure, but “Ye make Jehovah’s people to transgress” is upon the whole the best rendering of the clause. Both the Sept. and Syriac have a different reading: “Ye make Jehovah’s people cease to worship him” In the next verse there is no sufficient reason for supposing that Elohim, God, here means a judge. Elohim was the head of the theocracy, the ruler of Israel in all things, and he would set to rights these delinquencies of “one man against another” by the ordinary exercise of his judicial functions. So far all is easy, and we must translate, “If one man sin against another, God shall judge him.” But in the last clause there is one of those plays upon words to which the Hebrew language, with its numerous conjugations, so readily lends itself (see on 1Sa 1:28); and it is rarely possible to transfer to another language the force of passages in which the sense depends upon the terms in the original having a double meaning. The verb rendered shall judge in the first clause is used again by Eli in the second, but in a different conjugation, in which its usual meaning is to pray. According to the lexicon, therefore, we must translate: “If a man sin against Jehovah, who shall pray for him?” But surely it was just the occasion in which the only remedy left was intercessory prayer. Bearing then in remembrance the use made by Eli of the verb in the first clause, we must translate: “Who shall act as judge for him?” “Who shall interpose as arbitrator between him and Jehovah to settle the quarrel?” The verb itself, moreover, is a rare and old-fashioned one, and apparently means to settle a dispute. So it is used of Phinehas, who by his righteous zeal put an end to the rebellion against God’s laws; and accordingly in Psa 106:30, where our version renders “executed judgment,” the, Vulgate has placavit, appeased Jehovah’s anger.
The sense then is, In case of wrong done between man and man, God as the supreme Arbitrator settles the dispute; but where the two parties are God and man, what third power is there which can interfere? The quarrel must go on to the bitter end, and God, who is your opponent, will also punish you. The same idea is found in Job 9:33. Naturally to so mild a remonstrance, and founded upon so low a view of the Divine nature, the sons of Eli paid but slight attention, and by thus hardening themselves in sin they made their punishment inevitable, “because it pleased Jehovah to slay them.” Man can bring upon himself neither good nor evil except by the working of God’s will, and the punishment of sin is as thoroughly a part of God’s will as the rewarding of righteousness. An intense conviction of the personality of God was the very foundation of the religious life of the Israelites, and lies at the root of the words of Eli here and of those of Job; and it was this which made them ascribe to God that hardening of the wicked in sin which is the sure means of their punishment. We ascribe it to the working of natural laws, which after all is but saying the same thing in a round about way; for the laws of nature, in things moral as well as in the physical world, are the laws of God. In verse 26, in contrast with Eli’s sons ripening for punishment, and daily more abhorred to God and man, we have Samuel set before us advancing in age and “in favour with Jehovah and also with men,” like him of whom in so many respects he was a type (Luk 2:52), our blessed Lord.
HOMILETICS
1Sa 2:11-19
Degenerate sons.
The facts given are
1. Eli’s sons manifest their extreme wickedness by profaning the worship of God.
2. As a consequence, a grievous scandal is caused, and Divine worship comes into disrepute.
3. In spite of many evil surroundings, Samuel grows up in the blameless discharge of religious duties.
4. Hannah continues to visit and take a deep interest in her son’s spiritual life. The sorrowful experience of Eli in old age is sometimes repeated in modern times. Many a good man is bowed down even to the grave by the irreligion of sons of whom better things had been expected. No more painful condition can a father be in than when he scarcely dare name his children to those who ask after their welfare. The world and the Church look on with wonder and pain at the spectacle of vile children issuing from a pious home. The feeling of surprise with which men read of the family of the high priest of Israel becoming so utterly wicked is attended with the conviction that desperately bad youths ought never to issue from Christian homes. Such an event is contrary to all just expectations. The presumption that the offspring of pious parents would be holy is based on various considerations, which for the most part apply to the case of Eli.
1. There are various promises and statements to encourage the belief that the children of the pious will share in special mercies (e. g. Deu 30:2, Deu 30:6; Pro 22:6; Isa 44:7; Mal 2:15; 1Co 7:14).
2. In so far as susceptibility to religious impressions is affected by inherited qualities, they have an advantage over others.
3. The means of grace, instruction, example, and prayer are more employed for them than for the majority.
4. The power of early habit, which plays so important a part in the formation of character, is likely to be on the side of godliness where religious influences early operate. The causes which account for the ungodliness of the children of the pious are diverse, intricate, and partly inscrutable. A broad margin must be left for the mysterious action of a free being, even under the most favourable conditions. It is not possible to trace the lines and say where parental responsibility ends and the responsibility of the child begins. The two factors are to be recognised. Moreover, anterior physical causes, operating perniciously through ancestors, may act detrimentally on the mental and moral condition. But allowing for these and other untraceable elements of the case, there are causes of this sad feature of domestic life
I. IN THE CHILDREN. The natural depravity of the heart is a grave fact. It is the first foe to be encountered in seeking a child’s salvation. Its subtle power is beyond all knowledge. There may not be the complications of wickedness which exist in the full-grown nature of the adult after years of developed sin, but the power is persistent and insinuating. Eli’s children shared this tendency in common with others. The special propensities inherited are sometimes very strong, and seem to partake of the force of the old habits of the ancestors from whom they were derived. It is also a fact that where a malformation, or unequal development of the physical system, supervenes on the inheritance of special evil propensities, these latter gain immensely in force. A line of pious ancestors, as a rule, would guarantee freedom from such abnormal developments, because continuous piety tends to the symmetrical development of the entire man; but occasionally there are backward leaps in nature, and old elements reappear. Possibly some of Eli’s blood relatives were not so good as they ought to have been. No doubt grace can subdue even the worst natures, but the elements referred to must be considered in connection with other causes.
II. IN THE TRAINING. It cannot be supposed that Eli was perfect in this respect. Few persons consider how much of care, of wisdom, of forethought, of yearning sympathy, of specific, well adapted guidance, and of prayer is involved in the “nurture and admonition” required in training children for God. There may be a fatal lack of faith in the very possibility of infant piety; an expectation that, as a matter of course, a child will grow up in sin till an age for conversion arrives; a cold, cruel casting of the spiritual welfare of a child on teachers, attendants, official aidsthe parent, under pressure of business, declining to bear his offspring ever on his heart before God; or a lack of discretion in dealing with each soul according to its temperament. Absence of a mother’s deep and tender interest tells most prejudicially. An unwise method of instilling religious truth; an assertion of mere authority in severe tones; a lack of discipline to check wrong tendencies; a constant appeal to a sense of fear; an avoidance of the essential truths of the gospel, or a low, grovelling representation of them, may create aversion, awake silent resistance, and finally set the entire nature against what is falsely supposed to be religion. Perhaps there is no department of religious obligation so little studied as this. The tender, susceptible nature of children cannot be safely treated without much thought and prayer. No wonder if the promise which hangs on a faithful discharge of most delicate and solemn duties carried on year by year should sometimes not be fulfilled. Parents have need to pray, “Search me and try me.”
III. IN EXAMPLE. This is part of training, but, as exercising a perpetual and unconscious influence, it may be regarded as distinct from direct efforts. Children learn more of religion from what they observe in parents than by any other means. The life they see lived is their daily book of lessons. If it is selfish, hard, formal, worldly, no amount of verbal teaching or professed interest will avail. There is no surer encouragement for a child to despise all religion than a discovery of insincerity in the professions of a parent. Real character comes into clear view in the home, and those who, under influence of public considerations, restrain themselves in the world, but give freedom to unhallowed feelings in private, cannot wonder if children do not covet the piety they witness.
IV. IN ASSOCIATIONS. Associations out of the home circle, both in youth and early manhood, exercise much influence over character. It is not every youth that is solely formative on others. Most young people receive more from companions than they impart. The good of home may be largely neutralised by the tone of society outside the home. Eli’s sons were not strong enough to counteract the evil tendencies of the age, and their father erred in not taking precautions adequate to the occasion. Probably one reason why the sons of good and eminent men sometimes become notoriously godless is, that the utter absorption of the parent in public affairs, albeit religious, gradually issues in alienation of sons from home interests and committal to friendships evil in tendency. The charm of novelty is powerful where home life is rendered dull through inattention to the tastes and enjoyments of the young, and hence consent is given to enticing sinners. If, in any instance, there are in operation causes, either singly or combined, of the nature referred to, it is inevitable that a home, though in some degree pious, should be distressed by the presence of ungodly sons. So far as man’s conduct determines religion or irreligion in offspring, it would be contrary to the action of natural laws for pious sons to be the product of efforts inadequate to the end in view. If sons are godly in spite of errors and bad influence at home, it is because God in his mercy has brought other and more blessed influences to bear. Even defective training may be ultimately remedied by a more true use of prayer for mercy.
Great sinners.
The sons of Eli were the greatest sinners of their degenerate age. From the most favoured home the worst men came forth. All sin is a great evil. It is the curse of man, the abomination of God. In its essence it is rebellion against the All-wise and Holy One. For all lack of conformity to his will implies a will supposed to be a more desirable guide than his, which is insult and insubordination. But the Bible represents some sins as of deeper dye than others. There are beings deserving to be “beaten with many stripes.” The tests by which the enormity of sins is estimated are, after reference of all to the perfect purity of God
I. THE CHARACTER OF THE DEEDS. The deeds perpetrated by the sons of Eli were of the vilest kind. In themselves they were calculated to awaken the intensest disgust and abhorrence of every pure and reverent mind. It is hard to conceive how men blessed with early privileges could sink so low, were it not that modern Christian times have produced the darkest sins in the professedly religious. The sins of open profanation of the sanctuary, of despite to the solemn sacrifice, of pollution in guiltiest lust, were but the outward expression of a state of soul foul, reckless, defiant beyond all description. So, generally, the dark, horrid deeds on which men look are but the indicators of a very hell of iniquity deep down in the soul. There are
II. THE PRIVILEGES ENJOYED. It added guilt to the sin of the young men that they were the sons of the priest of God. It is a grave responsibility to be born of parents endued with any degree of piety. Especially are they under strong obligation to avoid sin who are, by virtue of their connection with the ordinances of worship, taught out of the law of the Lord, and surrounded by the hallowed influences of the sanctuary. Every wise book read, every kind influence exercised, every prayer offered in public, or by parents at home, gives additional light and power wherewith to avoid the paths of sin. It requires a long and hard inward struggle to keep down conscience so as to become a desperate sinner. Men do not sink to lowest depths of vice suddenly. Every successive step is taken against clear light and restraining powers, and when the final surrender to guilty deeds is made, the whole privileges of the past speak out the greatness of the evil. The poor idolater ignorantly causing his sons to pass through the fire to Moloch is less’ guilty than the sons of Israel’s high priest, when, crushing every sacred feeling, they turn from all the light of years to profane the sanctuary by violence and lust. Sodom was vile, but decorous Capernaum viler. The sin of despising a holier Sacrifice than of bulls and lambs is often committed by men blessed with faithful teaching.
III. THE POSITION OCCUPIED. To the eye of the Hebrew the office of priest was most sacred. The reverence cherished for the office was transferred in some degree to the person who filled it. Hence, perhaps, the patience and submission with which the worshippers endured the greed and violence of the guilty sons of Eli. In itself, being a consecration of life to the holiest of employments, and considered, also, as a type of the one perfect Priesthood, there was solid reason for the common sentiment. No position is morally higher than that of him who stands between man and God for the performance of most solemn duties. Hence in all ages it has been recognised that the ministers of the sanctuary, whether priests, as anciently, or pastors and teachers, do exercise an influence which, while increasing the force of goodness, also aggravates their guilt when sin is committed. Power, when used sinfully, means magnified sin. A professed Christian sinks relatively very low when he does what other men do. A pastor by one act may come under a condemnation from which on earth he will never recover. A judge who sells justice is the most despised of men. A statesman who barters truth and peace for personal greed is worse than a common forger. Holiness is to be loved and sought for its own sake, yet it is helpful to ask, “What manner of persons ought we to be,” who stand out in society as rulers, magistrates, pastors, teachers, parents? If the ordinary sinner cannot escape the swift judgment of God, where shall they appear who by virtue of exalted position become intensely and grievously sinful when they sin?
IV. THE NATURE OF THE EFFECTS. Some sins, like the falling of heavy bodies in still water, produce wider and more violent effects than do others. The effect is always pernicious, but when prominent men and professed servants of God sin, the consequences are painfully and conspicuously injurious. The sons of Eli by their crimes not only debased their own nature and fell to lower depths of shame, but they brought the holiest services into disrepute, alienated from the sanctuary the feelings of the people, caused intense anguish in the minds of the pious Jews, gave encouragement to wicked men more freely to transgress, and thus did more than others could do to exterminate morality and religion from the land. It is a serious question forevery one, and especially ministers and all persons in positions of influence, how far the neglect of religion by multitudes is the natural effect of their own short comings. It is a mark of a great sinner when, by reason of his conduct, the “wicked blaspheme.” Also, our Lord has branded those as great sinners who wantonly cause offence to “one” of his “little ones.” If scepticism and antagonism to Christianity are most lamentable evils, it is a matter of grave consideration how far the presence of these evils is due to the formality, the greed, the gross inconsistencies of those professing to exhibit and love the religion of Christ. It behoves all to see to it that they lift up “holy hands,” and speak a “pure language.” Otherwise the terrible woes pronounced by the Saviour over would be religious men may find an application to modern great sinners. Arising from this subject we may notice certain
Practical lessons.
1. The extreme importance of every one forming, by the aid of Scripture and of conscience, a proper estimate of the responsibility of his position as a professed Christian, a parent, a minister of the gospel, a teacher, or civil ruler.
2. The possibility of undergoing a process of spiritual decay by which the finer sensibilities of earlier days shall become almost annihilated, and deeds be done with impunity which once were most abhorrent.
3. The need of frequent self-examination, to ascertain whether the elements of religious degeneracy may be unconsciously at work in the soul; the more so as it is characteristic of spiritual declension to make us blind to the fact of declension.
4. The necessity of much prayer, lest, trusting to early privileges and official services, the elements of decay should enter the spiritual life, and, consequently, the duties of self-scrutiny and watchfulness be shunned.
Youthful piety.
It is not without significance that the sacred historian breaks the thread of his ordinary narrative by frequent references to the child Samuel (1Sa 2:11, 1Sa 2:18, 1Sa 2:21, 1Sa 2:26; cf. 1Sa 3:1, 1Sa 3:18). The contrast with ungodly priests is striking. “But Samuel ministered before the Lord, being a child.” “The child was young.” “The child grew before the Lord.” Beautiful progression! “Following on” to “know the Lord.” “The path of the just” grows brighter. Here in face of evil is the “perseverance of the saints.” The case of Samuel may be regarded as a typical instance of youthful piety. The frequent allusions to him, combined with the tenor of his subsequent life, go to prove that he was a religious child from earliest days. Humanly his piety was the product of his mother’s intense earnestness. Hannah had faith to believe that a child may be God’s from the very dawn of life. In essential features his piety was the same as that of all God’s people. There were special reasons for its assuming the form it did in that entire and early separation from home.
1. A mother’s prevision had respect to a new and higher office to be created and duly authenticated.
2. Extraordinary preparation was needful for the great work to be finally entered on, and such as separation to the hallowed service of the sanctuary would secure.
3. The mother could thus evince her freedom from mere selfish gratification in seeking a child from the Lord, and at the same time do all within her power to advance the coming kingdom.
4. There was a secret providence in this preparing the way for the first great step in the reformation of the people, namely, the authoritative announcement of national disaster (1Sa 3:11, 1Sa 3:20). Taking, then, Samuel’s as an instance of typical youthful piety, we may notice
I. That YOUTHFUL PIETY IS A POSSIBILITY. Evidently it was in Samuel’s case. Since all children are psychologically alike; are born under the same covenanted mercies; and are, therefore, open to the same Divine regenerating influence, the position might be considered as established. But the Church has been slow to believe the truth; and much of the nurture of families seems to proceed on the supposition that, as a rule, at least early manhood must be reached ere piety be regarded as trustworthy. The causes of this unfortunate distrust of child piety are varied. They may be indicated as
1. The habit of estimating all piety by the forms and manifestations appropriate to adult life, which habit is based on
2. A misconception of what constitutes the essence of all true religion.
3. The long continued neglect of the Church, as a consequence of this misconception, issuing in a scarcity of youthful piety.
But the possibility of it is seen in
1. The nature of a child being capable of the essentials of true piety. In Samuel, and so in every child, there was a capability of recognising the Great Unseen and Holy One; of cherishing pure love for the living, ever present Friend; of trusting on Almighty care with an unusual absoluteness; of learning the truth concerning the works and ways of God, both by witnessing and sharing in acts of worship, and listening to special instruction; and of obedience to a sovereign Will. Indeed, in some respects the nature of a child, being free from the carking cares of life and the unhappy suspicions of mature years, is much more susceptible of holy, elevating influences than is that of men.
2. The remarkable welcome to children given by Christ. The child Samuel was welcome in the house of Jehowth. He “grew up before the Lord,” and was in “favour with God.” Thus in his case we see a beautiful congruity with, and may we not say prophetic of, the loving welcome given later on by the blessed Saviour himself, in terms never to be forgotten. Possibly some officious priests might deem the presence of the child clad in sacred ephod an innovation and a nuisance in the tabernacle, just as some in excessive but erring zeal would not have Christ troubled with little ones who could not be supposed to understand his profound teaching. The only recorded instance of Christ being “much displeased” is when it was supposed that he was indifferent to the spiritual condition of little children.
3. The harmony of Hannah’s conduct and Samuel’s piety with the general tone of Scripture. Hannah both consecrated and nurtured her son for the Lord, thus exemplifying the precepts, “Train up a child in the way he should go,” “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” and also illustrating the just expectation of the apostle, who seemed to take for granted that pious parents rightly conforming to all their covenanted duties and privileges would have “holy” children (1Co 7:14).
II. That YOUTHFUL PIETY IS VERY DEPENDENT ON CAREFUL NURTURE. All religion needs culture. It is the most delicate as also the most precious of our treasures. The production of piety in children, though of God, as the Source of all grace, is intimately connected with the prayers and faith of parents. Hannah travailed in spirit for a holy child long before Samuel was born, and the succeeding nurture was only an expression of the same earnestness. There is no warrant to think that the world would have been blessed with a pious Samuel apart from the deep piety of a Hannah; and so the presence and growth of piety in our children rests with the Church of God. The very condition of children in a sinful world suggests a care on their behalf most wise, tender, and constant. The elements of true nurture are seen in Hannah’s care of Samuel. There was
1. The one and perpetual devotement of the child to the Lordthe absolute giving up to the grace of God with a faith that would take no denial. This act was repeated in spirit day by day for years. When leaving him in Shiloh; when silently bowing before God at home; when engaged in making the little ephod; when refitting it, as year by year he grew: when with joyous heart visiting Shiloh at the annual festivalsthe mother carried Samuel on her heart before God, and gave him up to be blessed. This is what mothers can ever do for their loved ones, and they sorely need such care in this sinful world.
2. The impressive teaching imparted. Surely Samuel was not placed in the house of the Lord without much teaching suited to his capacity as to the holy life he was to live. It is something to make a child believe that he is the Lord’s, to see the beauty and joy of being given up to his service. With exquisite delicacy did Hannah teach her son that he must forever be holy. The girding with the ephod meant to him, “Thou art a servant of God, a child of the sanctuary, thou canst not do any unworthy deeds or speak unholy words. Remember thou belongest to the Lord, my son.” Happy they who know the art of showing their sons the beauty of holiness, and the manner of persons they ought ever to be.
3. Association with the sanctuary. The hallowed associations of the house of God exercised power over the tender child; and so the principle is set forth that in our nurture of youthful piety we must seek to encourage a love for the worship of the Lord and of all pertaining to his service. It is a great gain when our youth can rejoice in the Sabbath services, feel that in the sanctuary they have a much loved spiritual home.
4. Engagement in useful religious work. It was a wise choice of this mother to divert the child’s attention from the evil habits of the age by absorption in works suited to his little powers, and under the immediate eye of a venerable man of God. Whatever love to God may dwell in the heart of a child is strengthened and guarded by being exercised in deeds pertaining to his service. And the service of God is very wide and varied. There are many ways in which youthful piety may be exercised. Let children be caused to feel that they by life, by simple prayers, and by sympathy can bless the sorrowing world, and their piety will grow and the world will be enriched. The momentous interests involved in the presence or absence of youthful piety should awaken deep concern on several
Practical questions:
1. To what extent does it prevail in Church and home?
2. How far the lack of early piety is due to parental neglect, erroneous views, defective Church organisations, or unhealthy literature?
3. In what form can the existing piety of children be more utilised for their own benefit and for the good of the world?
4. How is it possible to render the services of the sanctuary more interesting and helpful to the young?
5. How can the missing link between the youthful and more mature piety of the Church be restored?
6. By what means can Christian parents be led to manifest an all-absorbing concern for the development of piety in their offspring?
7. What would be the effect on the ultimate conversion of the world if the Church could be so wrought upon to exercise faith in the possibility of early piety as to save the need of employing agencies to convert in adult age any who have passed through its hands?
Faith’s symbols.
Judged by the customs of the age, it was a daring thing for Hannah to clothe her child with the ephod, the every day robe of the priest, seeing that her son was only a Levite (1Ch 6:19, 1Ch 6:23; cf. Exo 39:27; 1Sa 22:18). She clearly intended him to be invested with the prerogatives of the priest. The holy daring went further in her making for him the “little coat,” which properly was part of the dress of the high priest, and sometimes of princes and nobles. The act is in perfect keeping with the first deed of consecration, and with the tenor of the inspired song. To her prophetic vision this child was from birth ordained to be an extraordinary servant of God, for the reformation of that age and the advancement of that kingdom the glories of which she saw afar. It is not likely that a woman of such strong and exalted hope would be ready to speak out in detail what was in her heart, and yet the force of her faith would demand adequate expression. Some natures are not demonstrative by words, but prefer silent acts to both indicate their thoughts and to nourish their faith and hope. Therefore the clothing of Samuel with the pure “ephod” and the “little coat” was the creation of permanent symbols of faith for his instruction and impressment, and her own satisfaction and support. It is not for mere notice of casual incident that the sacred writer refers to the event, but evidently to set forth valuable truth.
I. FAITH SEES GERMS OF FUTURE GOOD WHERE UNBELIEF WOULD SEE NOTHING. It is probable that neighbours reflected on the eccentric conduct of the mother who so unnecessarily parted with her child. To them he was as other children. The spiritual travail of his birth was hidden from them. But Hannah, being in sympathy with God’s merciful purposes to mankind, saw in her son the man of the future, the defender of the faith, the restorer of pure worship, the consecrated spirit which has spiritual right to do priestly work, and it was rest to her soul to express this faith not by words which might be contradicted, but by a solemn act full of instruction to the child, and a permanent record of what she knew would be. So is it ever. The eye of faith sees in the infant Church of God the promise of a “glorious Church.” Simeon saw in a babe the “Salvation” of God. A few poor men saw in the “Man of sorrows” the coming “King of glory.” The true believer now sees in the occasional triumphs of the gospel the earnest of a world’s subjugation to Christ.
II. FAITH HOLDS MORE THAN CAN BE PUT INTO WORDS. There was no one to whom Hannah could unfold in words all that was grasped by her faith. To her the presence of this holy child in the house of God, serving him in the minor details of daily routine, was virtually the realisation of the prophet’s office, and the enhancement of Messiah’s glory. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for.” The essential reality of the remote is already in the heart. The future is as though it were present. Prevision and accomplishment become subjectively one. This holy mysticism of the highest spiritual life is foolishness to the unspiritual, but, is a profound and blessed fact in the experience of the true children of God. God s word given is as good as fulfilled, and the soul finds more in the consciousness of this truth than can ever be indicated in language. There is always a vast reserve of religious feeling that can never find expression. Life is more than the forms of life. The “ephod” and “little robe,” and the annual visits to the child, were outward signssymbolical formsof a something which was too great for utterance. They were the shadows of a great reality too sacred, too rich, too varied in its issues to be set forth in ordinary terms. So likewise our faith holds a Christ more glorious and precious than any terms can utter. He is “formed in the heart.” He is the “unspeakable gift.” Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor heart conceived what is grasped by the Christian’s faith as an ever present treasure. Human speech, in prose or song, falls below the soul’s sense of blessedness in Christ.
III. FAITH IS VENTURESOME IN ADOPTING FORMS OF EXPRESSING ITSELF. Holding converse with realities which lie beyond the ordinary mind, it deviates from routine, and carves out new and rare modes of indicating its existence. Hannah could not rest content with telling Elkanah, Eli, and Samuel, in casual conversation and fleeting words, what she knew this ministering child was to be in days to come, and what she knew of the coming kingdom. Jacob made a coat of many colours to gratify a questionable feeling of partiality. Jochebed made a covering of bulrushes to save a precious life, possibly with a trust in a wise Providence. But Hannah had a faith in God, in the revival of religion, in the Messiah’s glory, which not only sought vent for itself, but dared to create new and, to the eye of man, questionable forms of expression. Persistently, year by year, as the sacred ephod required readjustment to varying stature, did the faith reassert itself in every stitch and every trial of approval. Innovation it might be, but it was true to faith, and faith loves reality, and seeks congruity between itself and its outward forms. The apostle writing to the Hebrews on the triumphs of faith recognises its heroism, its superiority to conventional forms, its intense energy in asserting itself (Heb 11:1-40.). There are modern instances of the same holy daring. Symbolism may, like other things, sometimes be the resort of weak minds and superstitious tendencies, yet it may be a legitimate outgrowth of strong faith. The stately sanctuary; the hushed feeling in listening to the word of God; the surrender of fortune to the propagation of the gospel; the adoption of righteous usages against the current of opinion and custom, are only some of the symbols of a faith that longs and dares to indicate its presence. As feelings grow in power when exercised, so faith nourishes itself by fit permanent expressions, especially when in some bold and truthful deed.
Practical considerations.
1. How far the faith of these times is a reality as distinguished from a formal consent to what is commonly believed.
2. Whether the Church of Christ sufficiently lays hold of the fruition of all future toil in the acquired results of present toil. 3 To what extent the individuality of a powerful religious life proves itself by deeds of daring devotion.
4. The distinction to be drawn between a safe or unsafe symbolism in stated forms of worship, and the natural spontaneous symbolism of an energetic personal faith.
5. The possibility of a masterful faith in degenerate times, rightfully deviating from established practices, and being used by God as preliminary to great reformations.
1Sa 2:20, 1Sa 2:21
Solid character.
The facts are
1. Eli forms a favourable estimate of the conduct and character of Elkanah and Hannah.
2. God enriches them with several children.
3. Samuel advances in years and gains in repute.
4. The sons of Eli, becoming more dissolute, are rebuked by their father. Time had gradually brought out to the view of Eli the solid character of Elkanah and his wife. Their regular attendance on worship at the appointed seasons, and their reverent spirit, were in striking contrast with the degenerate habits with which Eli was too familiar. Their quiet, unassuming conduct harmonised with Hannah’s early professions of piety, and the child which they had presented to assist Eli in his ministrations had fully answered his expectations. Here, then, we have solid character:
I. APPRECIATED BY MAN. The opportunities given through a succession of years had enabled Eli to form a favourable estimate of these obscure dwellers on Mount Ephraim. He was the more glad to give them his priestly benediction because of the rash words with which he once (1Sa 1:13, 1Sa 1:14) wounded a “sorrowful spirit.” It is a blessed thing to enjoy the approval of the good. A good name is a precious treasure. There is a sweet reward for years of toil, and possibly under misapprehension and neglect, in being at last fairly appreciated for what one is and has done. Although there are proud ungodly men who will despise the godly poor, yet the conditions of character being appreciated by the better sections of society are within the reach of the most lowly. These conditions are
1. Constancy in the discharge of religious duties. Observance year by year of public worship and of all the ordinances of God is a good sign of a religious spirit. Eli was not wrong in supposing that there must be solid worth in a family that kept to the ways of the Lord when so many neglected religious duties. A man cannot claim a reputation by asking for it. The testimony of faithfulness in religious worship is admitted by all. Fluctuations in religious zeal always awaken distrust. Constancy is an element always honoured.
2. Manifestation of an unostentatious spirit. This must have impressed Eli very strongly. The quiet, unpretending spirit of the Levite and his wife gained on the venerable man year by year. And so always the quiet, even tenor of life tells an irresistible story. All sensible men shrink from the egotism and ostentation which sometimes assume the garb of religion. The proper thing for all is an earnest, lowly mind, more concerned with quietly doing what is right and pleasing to God than with making an impression on man. Those who think much of what men will say and think, and make corresponding demonstrations of zeal, are sure to fall into the snare of “eye service.” Like the steady influence of light and dew, quiet goodness at home and in the Church and world is a real power. There are thousands of such lives in Christian homes.
3. Self-denial in God’s service. Though Hannah’s joy in giving her heart to God took off the edge of self-denial, yet Eli could not but be deeply impressed with the unusual self-sacrifice of both husband and wife. The true religious spirit of a man comes out in spontaneous offerings to the efficiency of the services of the sanctuary and the advancement of Christ’s kingdom. Character expressed in free, unconstrained surrender of money, or time, or sons for religious purposes cannot but be appreciated. It is in the power of all to perform some acts of self-denial for God, and apart from such acts, no professions will establish a reputation in the true Church of God. The intrinsic value of self-denial lies much in its freeness, its timeliness, its form. The surrender of a Samuel at such a time, in such a spirit, is an example to all ages. Are there no other Hannahs? Is all the “precious ointment” of the Christian Church exhausted?
II. HONOURED BY GOD. God does not save by virtue of human merit, but through Christ; yet he honours fidelity by his special favour and greater blessing. Hannah had been honoured variously; e.g. in being heard, in having a son according to promise, in being permitted to consecrate him to the special service of God, in receiving grace to part with him from home if not from heart, and in being enabled to enjoy a blessed vision of One greater and more holy than Samuel. But the fidelity wherewith she and her husband had, during the period covered, served God in home and in public life, as also by the general tenor of their lives, was crowned with a great increase of domestic joy. The home of Hannah emptied for God became full The surrendered child was returned in fivefold form. The long, pining years of early life were followed by old age of blessed satisfaction. Thus do all ages show that “there is that scattereth and yet increaseth.” “I sent you forth;” “lacked ye anything’?” There is a promise of a “hundredfold” for all that has been forsaken for Christ. In one way or another God will prove that he is not unrighteous to forget the work of faith and labour of love. “Them that honour me I will honour.”
Practical lessons:
1. Let the lowly be patient in their endeavour to follow out the light they enjoy in worship and in service.
2. Many individuals and families can win for themselves the precious treasure of human and Divine favour, even though the wealth and fame coveted in the world fall not to their lot.
3. The multiplication of quiet, unostentatious religious characters is an end earnestly to be sought, as adding in every sense to the welfare of the world.
4. The severity of our trials in the cause of Christ, if entered into rightly, is sure to be crowned with blessing.
1Sa 2:22-26
Abandoned.
The facts are
1. Eli in advancing years hears of the abominable deeds of his sons.
2. He remonstrates with them, pointing out the con sequences of their conduct.
3. Heedless of the warning, they persist in sin, being abandoned by God. The narrative of the sacred historian seems to take in two extremestwo elements working on in moral antagonism till the one passes away and the other becomes ascendant. The abominations and profanations of Eli’s sons, and Samuel’s purity and entire devotion to God, are placed in striking contrast. The history of the former is sketched as explaining the course of Providence in the deliverance wrought by Samuel’s subsequent conduct. The stage in the course of the dissolute priests here indicated brings into view
I. FEARFUL PROGRESSION IN SIN. The iniquity of years culminates in the most abominable crimes men could commit. The descent to shamelessness and utter corruption becomes very rapid. One can hardly imagine these vile sons of Belial as once having been gentle youths taught to revere Jehovah’s name, and to tread his courts with awe. The momentum gained by evil desires when once let loose is among the most fearful features of human experience. It is the same sad story as often told now to the hearts of wailing parents:disobedience,. aversion to holy things, formal observances, secret associations of evil, seared conscience, loss of self-respect, profanation of sacred places, contempt for religion, self-abandonment to lust, defiance of God. What tears fall to earth nightly over erring ones! What blasted hopes lie on life’s pathway! What cruel triumphs of sin over all that is fair and strong in human nature! Holy Saviour, many of thy followers share in thy tears once shed over sin finished in righteous doom! (Jas 1:15). When, when shall the mighty power come in answer to the cry of try Church to turn back the tide of woe, and drive the curse from the heart and home of man? “How long, O Lord, how long?”
II. DEFECTIVE DISCIPLINE. No doubt Eli, as a good man, deplored the vices of the age, and above all the crimes of his sons, and he performed a father’s part in remonstrating with them on account of their deeds, warning them of the dangers to which they were exposed at the hand of the invisible Judge. But the day for warning and remonstrance was past, and the day for swift, unsparing punishment had come. As judge in civil capacity, and as high priest in spiritual capacity, the course of Eli was clearimmediate banishment from office and capital punishment (Le 1Sa 18:6, 1Sa 18:20, 1Sa 18:29; 1Sa 20:10; 1Sa 21:6, 1Sa 21:7, 17, 23). We see how a man good in many respects, may recognise duty and not perform it. Eli knew that the sin of contempt for the ordinance of sacrifice, utter disregard of the honour due to God, prostitution of the holiest office to the vilest uses, was past condoning, past covering even by sacrifice. For God, as Eli puts it, makes no provision to pardon and save those who wantonly scorn the means of pardon and salvation. No sacrifice l no intercessor! Yet the appointed judge in Israel is content with a bare declaration of truth, refraining from an exercise of the powers wherewith he is invested for the vindication of justice and the maintenance of order. Moral weakness was the sin of Eli. The imperious claims of God, of public welfare, of religious purity, appealed to the sense of duty in vain, because of some personal sentiment or lack of resolution. Cases often arise in national affairs, Church discipline, home life, where duty comes into collision with private sentiments and personal affection. Sometimes, as with Nathan in accusing David, and Ambrose in placing Theodosius under the ban, moral strength is conspicuous. Often, as with Eli, Jonah, and David in one instance, sense of duty yields to inferior impulses. True moral courage is a quality of high order. It confers great honour on those in whom it appears, and is a most important element in securing the welfare of the individual, the home, and the public. Its presence in most perfect Christian form may be ascribed to the combination of various elements.
(a) A natural sense of justicea psychological condition in which moral perceptions have more prompt influence than transitory emotions.
(b) A careful culture of the conscience through early years, and in relation to the minutiae of life.
(c) Intelligent faith in the inviolability of moral law.
(d) Formation of the habit of immediate submission to moral dictates, on the general principle that in morals first thoughts are truest.
(e) Strength of will to endure present suffering, as not being the worst of evils.
(f) A nature brought fully under the quickening influence of practical Christianity, as consisting in radical renewal, obedience to the precepts of Christ, fellowship with a holy God, and perpetual aspiration after holiness. There are instances still in which failure in moral courage is the one great blot on an otherwise excellent life. Where such occur sin flourishes, and the righteous mourn. The severe hand of justice is frequently the hand of true kindness. Favouritism and subordination of righteousness to personal ends, in public and domestic life, cause iniquity to abound, and sooner or later these will be visited by the judgment of God.
III. DIVINE ABANDONMENT. The sons of Eli were given up by God to their deserved doom. They heeded not remonstrance, for they had gone so far into sin as to be left destitute of that gracious influence from God, without which the soul is held fast in the cords of its iniquity. The outward fact of despising the father’s warning was evidence to the historian that God had judicially abandoned them. “They hearkened not, because the Lord would slay. them.” The solemn truth is clear that men may persist in sin so utterly as to be given up by God without mercy to all its consequences.
1. The evidence of this is full.
(a) Men are sometimes smitten with death as a consequence of persistent sin, as in case of Sodom, and the rebellion of Korah, all means of repentance being judicially cut off.
(b) The New Testament references to the sin against the Holy Ghost, and the apostasy of counting the blood of Christ an “unclean thing.”
(c) The fact that at the end of life the impenitent are given over to look for “tribulation and anguish.”
2. The rationale of this is partly discoverable. It is not mere arbitrariness, nor is it the effect of imperfect benevolence.
(a) It is consonant with the working of natural law. Physiology and psychology prove that there is a tendency to permanence of character in all. This is especially true of those who persist in strong unhallowed desires.
(b) There are transgressions even in society which admit of no restoration to society.
(c) In a wise and endlessly ramified moral government which rests on an eternal right, there can be no proof that a moral Ruler, whose existence is bound up with right and order, is obliged to cover the past of free beings who have deliberately persisted in evil, by giving them a new power which shall make them different from what they prefer to be.
(d) The judicial abandonment of the intensely sinful acts as a wholesome deterrent on the moral universe, by vindicating the holiness of God, and the claim of universal society on the pure, loving life of each of its constituents, and this too while giving to free beings only what they prefer.
Practical lessons:
1. The importance of guarding against first tendencies to deviate from the path of purity and truth.
2. The value of early habits of devotion, regard for right and purity, as a preventive of habits of a reverse character.
3. The extreme danger to the Church of a professional religion in alliance with a tendency to sensual indulgence, and the need of watching closely against such a possible combination.
4. The value of an early training of. the moral sense, and its constant culture, as against the inferior elements of our life.
5. The use of the lessons of history, as illustrating the terrible power of sin, and the damage done to society and the Church by defective discipline.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
1Sa 2:11. (SHILOH.)
Samuel’s childhood and. growth.
“And the child did minister unto the Lord before Eli the priest.” “And the child Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with the Lord, and also with men” (1Sa 2:26). (1Sa 1:24; 1Sa 2:18, 1Sa 2:19, 1Sa 2:21; 1Sa 3:1.) “Great is the reverence due to children.” It is said of an eccentric schoolmaster in Germany, who lived about 300 years ago, John Trebonius, that he never appeared before his boys without taking off his hat and bowing very humbly before them. “Who can tell,” said he, “what may not rise up amid these youths? There may be among them those who shall be learned doctors, sage legislators, nay, princes of the empire.” Even then there was among them “the solitary monk that shook the world.” But a much greater than Luther (with whom he has been comparedEwald) was the little Nazarite, who with unshorn locks ministered in the tabernacle at Shiloh; and at a very early age he gave signs of his future eminence. “Even a child is known by his doings” (Pro 20:11). “The child is father to the man.” But what he will be depends greatly on his early training; for “the new vessel takes a lasting tincture from the liquor which is first poured in” (Horace); “the soft clay is easily fashioned into what form you please” (Persius); and “the young plant may be bent with a gentle hand, and the characters engraved on the tender bark grow deeper with the advancing tree” (Quinctilian). Consider
I. HIS EDUCATION, or the influences to which he was subject, consisting of
1. Impressions under the parental roof. He did not leave his home at an age too early to prevent his receiving deep and permanent impressions from the example, prayers, and instructions of his parents. His destination would be explained to him by his mother, and made attractive and desirable; so that when the time came for the fulfilment of her vow he might readily make it his own. The memory of those early days must have been always pleasant to him; and the sacred bond of filial affection would be renewed and strengthened by the annual visit of his parents, and by the yearly present which his mother brought to him (verse 19). The making of the “little coat” was a work of love, and served to keep her absent boy in mind, whilst the possession of it was to him a constant memorial of her pure affection. The first impressions which he thus received were a powerful means of preserving him from evil, and inciting him to good. “Every first thing continues forever with the child; the first colour, the first music, the first flower paint the foreground of life; every new educator affects less than its predecessor, until at last, if we regard all life as an educational institution, the circumnavigator of the world is less influenced by all nations he has seen than by his nurse” (Locke).
2. Association with holy things. Everything in the tabernacle was to his childish view beautiful and repressive, and overshadowed by the mysterious presence of the Lord of hosts. “Heaven lies about us in our infancy.” And the veil which separates the invisible from the visible is then very attenuated. When he afterwards saw how much beneath the outward form was hollow and corrupt, he was strong enough to endure the shock, and distinguished between “the precious and the vile.” Association with sacred things either makes men better than others, or else very much worse.
3. Occupation in lowly services. Even when very young he could perform many little services in such a place as the tabernacle, and in personal attendance on Eli, who was very old and partially blind. A part of his occupation we know was to open the doors (1Sa 3:15). By means of such things he was trained for a higher ministry.
4. Instruction in sacred truth, given by his kind hearted guardian in explanation of the various objects and services in the tabernacle, and, still more, gained by the perusal of the religious records stored up therein (1Sa 10:25).
5. Familiarity with public life. “There at the centre of government, he must early have become conversant with the weightiest concerns of the people.”
6. Observation of the odious practices of many, especially Hophni and Phinehas. For this also must be mentioned among the influences that went to form his character. It as impossible to keep a child altogether from the sight of vice. External safeguards are no protection without internal purity. On the other hand, outward circumstances which are naturally perilous have often no effect on internal purity, except to make it more decided and robust. “The jarring contrast which he had before his eyes in the evil example of Eli’s children could but force more strongly upon his mind the conviction of the great necessity of the age, and impel to still more unflinching rigour to act up to this conviction” (Ewald). But this could only take place by
7. The power of Divine grace, which is the greatest and only effectual teacher (Tit 2:11, Tit 2:12). The atmosphere of prayer which he breathed from earliest life was the atmosphere of grace. The Holy Spirit rested upon him in an eminent degree, and he grew up under his influence, “like a tree planted by the rivers of water,” gradually and surely to perfection.
II. HIS CHARACTER, or the dispositions which he developed under these influences. He “grew on” not only physically and intellectually, but also morally and spiritually, manifesting the dispositions which properly belong to a child, and make him a pattern to men (Mat 18:3).
1. Humble submission.
2. Great docility, or readiness to learn what he was taught.
3. Ready obedience to what he was told to do. How promptly did he respond to the voice of Eli, who, as he thought, called him from his slumber (1Sa 3:5). The watchword of childhood and youth should be “Obey.” And it is only those that learn to obey who will be fit to command.
4. Profound reverence. For “he ministered before the Lord,” as if under his eye, and with a growing sense of his presence. “He was to receive his training at the sanctuary, that at the very earliest waking up of his spiritual susceptibilities he might receive the impression of the sacred presence of God” (Keil).
5. Transparent truthfulness and guilelessness.
6. Purity and self-control (1Ti 4:12; 2Ti 2:22).
7. Sincere devotion to the purpose of his dedication to the Lord. In this manner he gradually grew into the possession of a holy character, and needed not, like many others, any sudden or conscious “conversion” from the ways of sin to the ways of God. Like John the Baptist, “he grew and waxed strong in spirit” (Luk 1:80); and his childhood is described in the very words employed to describe the childhood of our Lord:. “And Jesus increased in favour with God and man” (Luk 2:40, Luk 2:51, Luk 2:52).
III. HIS ACCEPTANCE, or the favour he obtained (Pro 3:4).
1. With God, who looked down upon him with delight, beholding in him the effect of his grace, and a reflection of his light and love. For “the Lord taketh pleasure in his people” (Psa 149:4).
2. With men. The gratification which Eli felt in his presence and service appears in the benediction he uttered on his parents when they visited the tabernacle, and in accordance with which they were compensated with three sons and two daughters for “the gift which they gave unto the Lord” (1Sa 2:20, 1Sa 2:21). Even Hophni and Phinehas must have regarded the young Nazarite with respect. And the people who brought their offerings to the tabernacle looked upon him with admiration and hope. So he was prepared for the work that lay before him.D.
1Sa 2:12-17. (SHILOH.)
A degenerate priesthood.
“The best things when corrupted become the worst.” It is thus with official positions such as were held by the priests of old. Their positions were an hereditary right, and their duties consisted largely of a prescribed routine of services. It was required, however, that their personal character should accord with their sacred work (Mal 2:7); and their influence was great for good or evil. Whilst they reflected in their character and conduct the moral condition of the times, they a]so contributed in no small degree to produce it. The sons of Eli employed their high office not for the welfare of men and the glory of God, but. for their own selfish and corrupt purposes, and afford an example of “great and instructive wickedness.” Concerning them the following things are recorded:
I. CULPABLE IGNORANCE OF GOD (1Sa 2:12). They had no proper conception of him as holy and just, and they did not consider that he observed and hated sin by whomsoever it was committed, and would surely punish it. They had no communion with him, no sympathy with his purposes, and no sense of their own obligations to him. They were unspiritual men, and practically infidel. And they were such notwithstanding the instructions they received, the opportunities they possessed, and the services they rendered. Although the servants of God, “they knew not God,” and were “without excuse.” Amidst a blaze of light men may be dark within. “And if the light within thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!”
II. OFFICIAL ROBBERY OF MEN (1Sa 2:13, 1Sa 2:14). Not satisfied with the liberal portions of the peace offerings which were legally assigned to them (the breast and shoulder), they claimed other and larger portions, to which they were not entitled, and robbed the people for the gratification of their own appetites. What they would have fiercely denounced in others they deemed venial offences in privileged men like themselves. How often do official positions and selfish indulgences blind men to the injustice of their conduct, and harden them in iniquity.
III. WILFUL VIOLATION OF THE LAW (1Sa 2:15). It was required by the Levitical law that the fat should be burnt on the altar before the offering was divided between the priest and the offerer; but instead of doing this, the priest sent his servant beforehand to demand his portion with the fat, that it might be better fitted for roasting than boiling, which was not to his taste. He thus appropriated to his private use what belonged to the Lord, and “robbed God” of his due. It was a gross act of disobedience, sacrilege, and profanity, prompted by the same pampered appetite as his dishonesty toward men; and, in addition, it hindered the people from fulfilling their religious purposes, and made his own servant a partner in his sin.
IV. DESPOTIC EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY (1Sa 2:16). When the people gently remonstrated, and promised to give up their own portion if the fat were first burnt on the altar, it was said to them, “Nay, but thou shalt give it me now, or else I will come and take it by force.” Reason as well as right was overridden. Instead of regarding himself as a servant of God for the good of men, the priest made himself a “lord over God’s heritage” (1Pe 5:3). Having cast aside the authority of God, he made his own arbitrary dictum the law of others, and urged obedience to it by the threatening of force. By the same means, backed by spiritual terrors, he has often sought to accomplish his wishes in every age.
V. INJURIOUS INFLUENCE ON RELIGION (1Sa 2:17, 1Sa 2:24). Men abstained from presenting as many offerings as they would have given, or even from presenting them at all, being repelled from the service of God by the evil conduct of his ministers. “Ye make the Lord’s people to transgress” (1Sa 2:24). One unworthy priest has often made many unbelievers. Instead of strengthening what is noblest and best in men, he has destroyed it, and made its restoration impossible. And, generally, ungodly conduct on the part of professed servants of God is a great hindrance to the spread of truth and righteousness, and a powerful influence in extending error and evil in the world. “One sinner destroyeth much good.” To complete the picture, two other things must be added, viz.
VI. SHAMELESS INDULGENCE IN VICE (1Sa 2:22). They knew nothing of self-control, gave the rein to their lusts, and indulged in vices which the heathen commonly associated with their idol worship, and which made that worship so terrible a temptation to Israel. The idol feasts at Shiloh were doubtless scenes of gross sensuality; and the sons of Eli scarcely cared to disguise their participation in similar indulgences, and made the tabernacle of the Lord like a heathen temple.
VII. SUPERSTITIOUS USE OF SACRED THINGS (1Sa 4:11). Having become insensible to the presence of the invisible King, they treated his services as a mere outward ritual, which may be performed without any felt inconsistency between it and any amount of immorality. Why should they observe it at all? From self-interest and from superstition. They still supposed that there was some mysterious benefit inseparably connected with the ark, and enjoyed by those who possessed it, apart from their moral and spiritual state. Their religion had become a superstition, like that of the heathen. And hence they took the ark into the battle field, in sure confidence of their safety, and were deprived of it by the heathen, and they themselves destroyed.
1. It is possible for men to possess the highest privileges, and yet sink into the deepest degradation.
2. The patience of Heaven toward sinners, is wonderful, and designed to lead them to repentance.
3. When men despise the goodness of God, and persist in transgression, they are certain to meet with signal punishment.D
1Sa 2:22-25. (SHILOH.)
Ineffective reproof.
A man may possess many amiable qualities, and be, on the whole, a good man, and yet be marked by some defect which mars his character, prevents his usefulness, and makes him the unintentional cause of much mischief. Such a man was Eli. Of his early life nothing is recorded. He was a descendant of Ithamar, the youngest son of Aaron, and held the office of high priest, which formerly belonged to the elder branch of the Aaronic family, that of Eleazar (Num 20:26), but which was now transferred to the younger, from some unknown cause, and which continued therein until the time of Solomon. At the age of fiftyeight he became judge, and “judged Israel forty years” (1Sa 4:18). When first mentioned he must have been at least seventy years old. His sons were children of his old age; for some time afterwards they were spoken of as young men (1Sa 2:17), and, as is not uncommon in such cases, he treated them with undue indulgence. He was hasty and severe in reproving Hannah, but slow and mild in reproving them. The inefficiency of his REPROOF appears in that
I. IT WAS NOT ADMINISTERED IN PROPER TIME. The tendency to go wrong generally appears at an early age; and it must have been seen by him in his sons long before the rumour of their flagrant transgressions reached him, if he had not been blind to their faults. But he had no adequate sense of his parental responsibility, was old and weak, of a gentle and easy going temperament, and omitted to reprove them (1Ki 1:6) until they had become too strongly devoted to their evil ways to be amenable to expostulation. A little plant may be easily rooted up, but when it has grown into a tree it can only be removed by extraordinary efforts. If some children are “discouraged” (Col 3:21) by too much strictness, far more are spoiled by too much indulgence. “Indulgence never produces gratitude or love in the heart of a child.”
II. IT WAS NOT GIVEN WITH SUFFICIENT EARNESTNESS (1Sa 2:23, 1Sa 2:24). Gentle reproof may sometimes be most effective, but here it was out of place.
1. It was not sufficiently pointed in its application; being given to them collectively rather than individually, in indefinite terms, by way of question, and concerning things which he had heard, but into the certainty of which he had not troubled himself to inquire.
2. It exhibited no sufficient sense of the evil of sin (1Sa 2:25). He spoke of the consequences rather than of the nature, the “exceeding sinfulness” of sin, and spoke of them in a way which indicated little deep personal conviction.
3. It showed no sufficient determination to correct it. He did not say that he would judge them for their injustice toward men; and with reference to their sin against the Lord, which was their chief offence, he simply confessed that he could do nothing but leave them to the judgment of a higher tribunal. “In the case where the rebuke should have descended like a bolt from heaven we hear nothing but low and feeble murmurings, coming, as it were, out of the dust. Cruel indeed are the tenderest mercies of parental weakness and indulgence. And the fate of Eli shows that by such tender mercies the father may become the minister of vengeance unto his whole house” (Le Bas).
III. IT WAS NOT FOLLOWED BY ADEQUATE CHASTISEMENT. The law of Moses in the case of disobedient children was very severe (Deu 21:18-21). But Eli neither observed this law “when they hearkened not to his voice” (1Sa 2:25), nor took any further steps to prevent the continuance of the evil which he reproved. He had none of the zeal for which Phinehas the son of Eleazar was approved (Num 25:11-13); but as a father, a high priest, and a judge he was guilty of culpable infirmity and wilful disobedience (1Sa 3:13). “Osiers,” says an old writer, “can never be pillars in the State or in the Church.”
IV. IT DID NOT RESULT IN ANY IMPROVEMENT (1Sa 2:25). Their contempt of reproof showed that they were already infatuated, hardened, and abandoned to destruction; or (reading fortherefore), it filled up the measure of their iniquities, and exposed them to inevitable judgment. “He that hateth reproof shall die” (Pro 15:10).
1. Reproof is often a solemn obligation.
2. It should be given in an effective manner.
3. When not so given it does more harm than good.
4. When justly given it should be humbly and obediently received.D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
FOURTH SECTION
Samuels Service before the Lord in Contrast with the Abominations of the Degenerate Priesthood in the House of Eli
1Sa 2:11-26
I. The conduct of the sons of Eli In contrast with Samuel, the servant of the Lord. Vers. 1117.
11And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house. And the child did minister [ministered12] unto the Lord [Jehovah] before Eli the priest. Now [And] the sons of Eli 13were sons of Belial [wicked men]; they knew not the Lord [Jehovah]. And22 the priests custom [the custom of the priests] with the people was that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priests servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with 14a23 flesh-hook of three teeth in his hand; [,] And he (om. he) struck it into the pan, or kettle, or cauldron or pot; all that the flesh-hook brought up the priest took for himself.24 So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither. 15Also [Even] before they burnt the fat, the priests servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden 16flesh of thee, but raw. And if any [the] man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn25 the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; [,] then he would answer [say] him. [om. him26], Nay, but thou shalt give it me [om. me] now; and if not, I will take it by force. Wherefore [And] the sin of the young men 17was very great before the Lord [Jehovah]; for men abhorred the offering of the Lord [Jehovah].
II. Samuel as minister before the Lord. 1Sa 2:18-21
18But [And] Samuel ministered before the Lord [Jehovah], being [om. being] a 19child, girded with a linen ephod. Moreover [And] his mother made him a little coat [tunic], and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her 20husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. And Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, The Lord [Jehovah] give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the Lord [in place of the gift which was asked for Jehovah27]. And they went unto their own home [to his28 place]. And the Lord [Jehovah] visited Hannah, so that [and] she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters. And the child Samuel grew before the Lord [Jehovah].
III. Elis conduct towards his worthless sons. 1Sa 2:22-26
22Now [And] Eli was very old, and [ins. he] heard all that his sons did unto all Israel, and how [that] they lay with the women that assembled [served29] at the 23door of the tabernacle of the congregation [meeting (or assembly)]. And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings [deeds] by 24[from] all this people. Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear; ye 25make the Lords people [Jehovahs people are made] to transgress. If one man sin against another [If a man sin against a man], the judge [God30] shall judge31 him; but if a man sin against the Lord [Jehovah], who shall intreat10 for him ? Notwithstanding [And] they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because 26the Lord would slay them [for it was Jehovahs will to slay them]. And the child Samuel grew on and was in favour [grew in stature and favour32] both with the Lord [Jehovah] and also [om. also] with men.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. 1Sa 2:11-16. In 1Sa 2:11 the Sept. again clearly shows the effort to combine explanations with the translation of the Heb. text, rendering: and they left him there, and they went away. [The Vat. MS. reads in both instances she instead of they.Tr.]. There is the less need to change the Heb. text to accord with this, because, as Bttcher (ubi sup. p. 69) rightly remarks, the Elkanah of the former is quite sufficient, since this name would suggest to every reader Elkanah and his household, and the only one that remained behind is mentioned immediately afterwards. From 1Sa 1:21 Elkanah can be thought of only together with his whole house.The child was ministering to the Lord, or serving the Lord. These words express the whole work which the growing boy Samuel, conformably to his consecration, had to perform, certain duties connected with the service of God being laid upon him. Before Eli, that is, under his supervision, and according to his appointment. 1Sa 2:12. The sons of Eli were sons of worthlessness;33 their character and conduct forms the sharpest contrast with what they ought to have been before the whole people as highest in position, as children of the High-priestly House. Observe the sharp asyndeton in this short sentence: they knew not the Lord, that is, they did not live in the fear of the Lord, they did not trouble themselves about Him; comp. Job 18:21. This godlessness and irreligiousness is the source of their moral worthlessness, which is afterwards described. The two together give the religious-moral characteristics of Elis sons.
1Sa 2:13. This is not to be rendered: And the custom of the priests with the people was thisthis would certainly require simply 34 without [this is the custom without the priests], comp. Gen 11:6 (Bttcher); nor is it: the right (that is, the assumed right) of the priests in respect to the people was as follows (Keil), for [right] alone cannot be so understood; but the words are to be connected with the preceding: they troubled themselves not about God, nor about the real, true right of the priests in respect to the people, that is, about what was the legal due of the priests from the people (Thenius).
[The construction of this difficult clause adopted by Erdmann (with Vulg., Cahen, Wellhausen, Thenius, and perhaps Sept.) is open to grave objections. The reply to Keil is correct; cannot well mean assumed right. The objection to Bttchers translation (where read instead of Erdmanns ) is forcible in so far as we should expect to introduce the clause (comp. Deu 18:3); but the possibility of the omission of the pronoun, and of an apposition of the two clauses must be admitted. To the translation of by legal right Wellhausen properly objects that the (even) in 1Sa 2:15 introduces a graver outrage, and therefore the proceeding described in 1Sa 2:13 must be illegal.But against Erdmanns rendering it is to be said that the meaning assigned to (know) trouble ones-self about is rare and difficult; it is found only in poetical passages. The phrase to know the Lord occurs, and always in the sense of intimate sympathetic apprehension; but this sense will not suit the . Moreover, if here means right we should expect the prep. from (as Deu 18:3) instead of with the latter must be retained here, though the former is read in 9 MSS. and in LXX., Syr., Chald. Further, the narrative is, in this construction, introduced very abruptly (when any man, etc.). means not only right, but also custom, manner; see 2Ki 11:14; Jdg 13:12. The custom here described was not the legal right, but was in force under, apparently introduced by, the sons of Eli, the priests (); 1Sa 2:13 details one imposition of the priests, and a more serious imposition is properly introduced (1Sa 2:15) by even ().We retain, therefore, the rendering of Eng. A. V. (with Philippson, Bib. Comm, and others).Tr.].
Then follows the statement of the priests legal right.The connection required that the peoples part in the offering should now be distinctly set forth, in order to put the unseemly conduct of Elis sons in its true light. Therefore the participle sacrificing in connection with the indefinite subject every man, stands first in absolute construction, like the Lat. Abl. absolute (comp. Gesen. 145, 2, Rem.), = when any man offered, then came, etc. Ewald, 341 e.: If the subject of the circumstantial sentence is wholly undefined, then the mere combination of the participle with the subject suffices to express a possible case (Gen 4:15). Here is vividly portrayed the grasping selfish conduct of the priests in the preparation of the sacrificial meal after the offering was presented, which had already become the rule (so they did to all the Israelites).But still further. 1Sa 2:15. Even before the offering, before (in accordance with the law, Lev 3:3-5) the fat was burned that it might be offered to the Lord as the best portion, they committed a robbery on the meat, which they wanted only , that is, raw, fresh, full of juice and strength, in order to roast it. [Bib. Comm. points out that 1Sa 2:13-15 repeat the Language of the Law, and thus give evidence to its existence. See Lev 7:31-35; Lev 7:23-25; Lev 7:31; Lev 17:5; also Exo 29:28; Deu 18:3. Philippson: Roast was common in heathen sacrifices, and even now the Orientals do not like to eat boiled meat.Tr.]. 1Sa 2:16. The remonstrance of the offerer based on the legal regulation, of which they should be the guardians, is set aside. = at this time, now, as in Gen 25:31; 1Ki 22:5. The Qeri not is preferable to the Kethib to him: no, but now thou shalt give it; threats were combined with violent seizure. Rude force was added to lawlessness.
1Sa 2:17. The young men are not the servants of the priests (Keil) but the priests themselves, the sons of Eli. Their arbitrary conduct was a very great sin before the Lord, because the fat burned on the altar pertained to the Lord, and their legal portion of the sacrifice-meat fell to them only after the burning of the fat. What made their sin so great was the fact that they brought the offerings into contempt with the people, in so far as the wicked conduct of the priests took away in the eyes of the people their true significance as offerings to the Lord. Minchah () means here not the meat-offering as the adjunct to the bloody offerings, but the sacrificial gift in general as an offering to the Lord (Keil). In the succeeding narrative Samuels service before the Lord is contrasted with this wicked conduct of Elis sons in relation to the offering.
II. 1Sa 2:18-21.
1Sa 2:18. The Ephod can mean nothing but a garment resembling in form the High-priests ephod, consisting of two pieces which rested on the shoulders in front and behind, were joined at the top and held about the body by a girdle. Therefore it is said also: Samuel was girded with the ephod, comp. Exo 28:7-8. In distinction from the material of the High-priests ephod, it was made of the same material as the other priestly garments, white linen (). That the priests then all wore this ephod appears from 1Sa 22:18. It was the sign of the priestly calling, and was worn during the performance of the priestly functions. David was thus clothed, according to 2Sa 6:14, when he brought back the Ark, and in connection with this ceremony performed quasi-priestly functions. As the mention of this priestly dress of Samuel is connected expressly and directly with the reference to his calling as minister in the Sanctuary before the Lord, it is thus intimated that he, called to this life-long service, received therewith an essentially priestly calling. [Bib. Comm.: The word minister is used in three senses in Scripture: 1) Of the service of both Priests and Levites rendered unto the Lord, Exo 28:35, etc.; 2) of the ministrations of the Levites as rendered to the Priests, Num 3:6; Numbers 3) of any service, as that of Joshua to Moses, that of Elisha to Elijah, that of the angels in heaven, 2Sa 13:17; Psa 103:21, etc. The application of it to Samuel accords most exactly with his condition as a Levite.Tr.]. 1Sa 2:19. While the ephod was the High-priestly dress, which the boy received on the part of the Sanctuary (Thenius), the little mel35() was his every-day dress, which his mother renewed for him once a year, when she came with her husband to the Sanctuary to present the annual offering. The unbroken connection which the household thus maintained with the Sanctuary prevented any estrangement between the child Samuel and the house of his parents.The Impf. made () indicates a continued customary action, and thus answers to the Latin tense which is so called in a stricter sense.
1Sa 2:20. Elis blessing36 refers to two things: to the act of consecrating the son to the service of the Lord, and to the compensation which Eli wished the Lord to make for the son who was offered to the Lord. Keil explains the (asked [Eng. A. V. lent]) as 3 pers. singular instead of 2 pers. singular or plural from the indefinite form of speech (comp. Ewald, 249 b with 319 a) which the narrator chose because, though it was Hannah who in Elis presence had obtained Samuel from the Lord by prayer, yet Eli might assume that the father, Elkanah, had shared the wish of his pious wife. But the circumstance which alone permits such change of person, or rather of gender, in the subject, namely, the indefiniteness of the subject as indicated by the context, does not exist here, since such indefiniteness is undoubtedly excluded by 1Sa 1:27-28. Bttcher properly takes the verb form with altered points as 3 sing. fem. she asked.37The sing. pronoun in his place (for which we should expect their place) does not require the change of they went into the man went, as Bttcher and Thenius prefer, following the Sept. ; the singular suffix (after the plural verb) is explained by the fact that the place of residence is determined by the husband or owner of the house.
1Sa 2:21. is neither with Bunsen to be translated: When now Jehovah visited Hannah she conceived, nor with Thenius to be complemented by it came to pass, nor to be referred to and Eli blessed (1Sa 2:20), according to the view of Keil, who inserts a sentence (Elis word was fulfilled, or they went home blessed) in order to retain the causal meaning, but it is to be considered as strengthening the following assertion, with reference to the blessing in 1Sa 2:20, and = indeed, in fact, immo [German, ja, in der that]. See Ewald, 310 c and 330 b. Comp. Isa 7:9; Isa 32:13; Job 8:6.38Samuels growth before the Lord indicates not only that he remained in the Sanctuary, but also that (as the condition of his calling) he grew in fellowship of heart and life with God.
III. 1Sa 2:22-26. The chief thing in the content of this section is the description of Elis conduct towards his sons. But at the same time their worthlessness in relation to the Sanctuary in yet another direction is brought to view. They desecrated the latter not only by the wickedness described in 1Sa 2:12-17, but also by their unchaste dealing with the women who served at the Sanctuary. Wherein consisted their service at the door of the Tent of Assembly is not said in Exo 38:8, where they are mentioned. They formed a body, which was regularly and formally drawn up () at the door of the Tent for the performance of its duty, which consisted probably in the cleansing of the vessels used in offerings. Since, therefore, they were persons dedicated to the holy God, the wickedness of Elis sons, who seduced to the service of fleshly lust these persons destined for the service of the Lord, appears in so much the stronger light.The wickedness of Elis sons in what pertained to the sanctuary attached itself to the whole people, who were to hold themselves a holy people to the Lord through this Sanctuary and through the offering and persons connected with it.Elis conduct in connection with their misdeeds is in the beginning by the words and Eli was very old represented as the weakness of old age, not thereby to excuse or justify his slackness, but to explain it.
1Sa 2:23. The question: Why do ye such things? is but a feeble rebuke of their gross misdoings. It cannot be translated: Why do ye according to the words which I hear (Keil)? for the Heb. word () cannot mean reports about you, nor could these reports be termed evil, since they would be true reports of evil deeds; but the proper rendering is: Why do ye as these things? that is, such things.39 For I hear of your evil dealings from all this people, that is, those who came to the Sanctuary, and there saw the wickedness.
1Sa 2:24. Do not so () my sons. Not good is the report, or objectively the thing heard; this answers to the evil dealings (or things). The I hear () corresponds to the report, thing heard () and [being a particip.Tr.] shows that it constantly came to his ears. What follows is the explanation of the words: it is no good report.
The words: Jehovahs people are made to transgress ( etc.), express the guilt which the sons of Eli incurred by their misdoing towards the Lords people. The difficulties in the explanation of the particip. ( are causing to transgress) have give occasion to attempts at alteration, which, however, are unsatisfactory. Michaelis alteration (into ): the report which I hear incidentally (from people passing by) from Gods people. is against grammar; so says Thenius. But, says Bttcher rightly, Thenius own reading (made from Sept. and Arab., and therefore insecure): you plague, oppress the people of Israel ( ) is wholly without ground. For means only make to serve, enslave, or make to work, plague with work (Exo 1:13; Exo 6:5). From the last in the later prophetic style (Isa 43:23) has developed the meaning weary, burden, just as German: schaffen machen [to give trouble, lit. to make to do], [to cause trouble], and so always with the idea of work as fundamental. Elis sons, it is true, robbed and dishonored the people (1Sa 2:13 sqq., 22); but they did not burden them in such a way that our term give trouble would suit. The expression does not come up to the reality, for it is too narrow for the rebuke. And the addition of ye () here is both violent, and cannot be inferred from the Arab. text, where it was a necessity of Shemitic construction. The view thus opposed by Bttcher is maintained by Thenius (in his 2d ed. also) to suit the connection perfectly, though, on the other hand, he declares that Ewalds explanation, in which there is no change of text, must be accepted; this latter is held by Bttcher to be the only one permitted by the language and matter, and he gives it thus: to send forth a cry ( ), thence to cause to be called out, and to cause to trumpet forth ( ) are common expressions, appropriate to the simplest style, Exo 36:6; Lev 25:9; Ezr 1:1; Ezr 10:7. Why then should not send forth a report ( ) be said as well as send forth a voice ( )? The report which (as) I hear, Gods people are circulating, is quite proper; the plu. partcp. is joined to the collective people as in 1Sa 13:15. To this Thenius properly objects that it is a superfluous statement after 1Sa 2:23 (which I hear from all the people), and that we should here expect a more significant word. The train of thought requires after the declaration not good, etc., a statement of the ground of Elis judgment. The usual rendering: ye make the Lords people to transgress, satisfies the demands of the connection of thought. Only, as the pers. pron. ( ye) is wanting, the partcp. must be rendered impersonally: people make to transgress (comp. , 1Sa 6:3, and Exo 5:16). The objection that the object of the transgression, which is elsewhere always fouud with this verb as exacter determination, is not here expressed (comp. 1Sa 15:24; Isa 24:5; 2Ch 24:20; Num 14:41), cannot set aside the meaning: cause to sin or transgress, because the exact definition is contained in the context (Keil). The sin of the sons was, according to the context, very great before the Lord (1Sa 2:12-17), but was at the same time committed against the people of the Lord (1Sa 2:13; 1Sa 2:22) in reference to their holy calling, and had the destructive effect of bringing the Lords offering into contempt (1Sa 2:17). The people of the Lord not only knew and spoke of the wickedness of Elis sons, but were made by the latter partakers of their guilt, were seduced into transgression of the Law by those who ought to have watched over its fulfillment.
1Sa 2:25. Pillel () is used, in connection with wicked actions, in the sense to give a decisive judgment, and so between two contending parties, to compose a strife by judgment; comp. Eze 16:52; Psa 106:30. The elohim, however, cannot here mean the judge, or the authority that judges, but God is described as He who composes by judging. The sense of Elis discourse is: When men sin against men, it is God (of course through the appointed human organs), who restores the disturbed relations by composing the strife; but when we have to do with the relation, not between man and man, but between man and God, when a man sins against God, offends against Gods honor, who will interpose to arrange the matter? Eli sets two things therefore before his sons: 1) that their sin is a sin immediately against God, from which point of view it has been regarded in the whole preceding narration (1Sa 2:12; 1Sa 2:17); 2) that the consequent guilt is so great, that divine punishment therefor is certain. [Wordsworth: A man may intercede with God for remission of a penalty due for injury to himself; but who shall venture to entreat for one who has outraged the majesty of God?Tr.]Elis weakly mild words were too indefinite and general to check the bold wickedness of his sons. It was too late. They sinned against the Lord with a high hand ( ), as it were, with hardened hearts.And they hearkened not to the voice of their father.As reason of this (, because) is stated, that it pleased God, was Gods will, to slay them; that is, they were in a state of inner hardening, which excluded the subjective condition of salvation from destruction, and so they had already incurred Gods unchangeable condemnation. As hardened offenders, they were already appointed by God to death; therefore the word of instruction had no moral effect on them.
1Sa 2:26. In contrast with them, Samuel is now again presented, as he developed in his childhood as well physically as morally; while the sons of Eli were a horror to God and men, he was well-pleasing to God and men. On comp. Ges., 131, 3, Rem. 3. It is used frequently to express continuance in the sense advance, continue, and then also expresses advancing increase, the participial construction being not seldom employed in such cases, as here: The child Samuel grew constantly in stature and goodness. [See Luk 2:52.Tr.]
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. Since Elis judgeship rested on his high-priestly dignity, the High priestship, thus connected with the judicial office, had so much the higher calling to establish the theocratic unity of the people with their centre, the national sanctuary at Shiloh. But, in the person of the weak Eli, it showed itself incapable of fulfilling this calling. The godless priesthood, represented by the sons of Eli, corrupted the inner religious-moral life of the people, whose external centre and theocratic unity were in the Sanctuary. The priesthood could no longer fulfil its calling of mediating between God and His people, because its representatives, lacking the religious-moral conditions of the calling, were unworthy of it; they were not servants of God, but servants of sin.
2. The sins of Elis sons were a symptom of their spiritual heart-hardening and ruin in alienation from God and in immorality. They sinned with a high hand, boldly, presumptuously (comp. Num 15:22-31). To this internal judgment of hardening answered as necessary consequence the judgment of their rejection by God, which was a thing determined on in Gods will, because they knew nothing of God and His law (1Sa 2:12). Their crime against the divinely established holy ordinances and the sanctuary, the visible sign of Gods abode with His people, was at the same time a crime against the people of the Lord, and culminated in the crime against God Himself, in which indeed was its root.
3. Samuel, though not a priest, but only a Levite, is (by his repeated designation as servant of the Lord (1Sa 2:11; 1Sa 2:18), and by the reference to his priestly clothing) contrasted with the representation of the official priesthood as Gods chosen instrument for truly fulfilling, in and by the prophetic calling which was to take the place of the priesthood that mediated between God and His people, the priestly mission40 to fulfil which the existing priestly race had shown itself both powerless and unworthy. The condition of this theocratic calling of Samuel, the earnest, personal fellowship of life with the Lord, is pointed out in 1Sa 2:21; 1Sa 2:26. The life of the youth, who was chosen and called by the Lord to restore the theocracy, develops itself in the service of the sanctuary before the Lord in conformity to his divine mission, in order that some day he may become in place of the desecrated sanctuary the living personal centre of the theocratic national life, and in place of the corrupted priesthood the consecrated organ of Gods new revelations for His people.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1Sa 2:12. Starke: Where the true fear of God is lacking in the heart, there ungodliness prevails in the life, and thereby the heart reveals itself. S. Schmid: It is a bad state of things, when those who teach others the fear of God, do not fear God themselves.J. Lange: Preachers should most carefully guard against scandal, and earnestly strive to pursue a course of life which shall be not merely without offence, but also edifying, 1Ti 4:11.Starke: He who in the office of teacher seeks only his ownnamely, how he may become rich and have a good timebut not that which belongs to God and Jesus Christ, is a false prophet, a thief, and a hireling. Mark that, you who bear the vessels of the Lord, Php 2:20-21; Php 4:17; 2Co 12:14; 1Pe 5:2 sqq. [The misconduct of these leaders of worship may well suggest lessons for Christian ministers; but it should never be forgotten that the Christian minister corresponds much more nearly to the Old Testament prophet than to the priest, and that all Christians are priests, 1Pe 2:5; 1Pe 2:9; Rev 1:6; Rev 5:10.TR.]
1Sa 2:16. Starke: When hearers see something bad in him who has the care of their souls, they should duly remind him of it, and should not approve and commend his bad deeds, much less imitate him therein.
1Sa 2:17. Starke: Nobody makes more Atheists than godless teachers, and even if the people still remember so much as to do according to their words and not their works, yet they retain a powerful influence upon the furtherance of godlessness. That wicked teachers with their godless life make great their damnation, is beyond dispute; but it is irrational to infer from this that there is no such thing as religion. [The sin of the young men was very great is the text of a sermon by Wesley (Sermon CIX., Vol. II. p. 368) on the question whether God ever did bless the ministry of ungodly men.TR.]
1Sa 2:18. Starke: And so he (Samuel) was a right pious lad; for such piety is more acceptable to God than when one leads a good life among only pious people, since there is a greater victory and greater fidelity in living piously among the wicked. Comp. Enochs example, Gen 5:24; Gen 6:9.
1Sa 2:19. Daechsel: Petty little histories, cries unbelief. What matters it whether one knows that Samuel had a little coat or not! Holy Scripture is not written for the wise, but for child-souls, and a child-like soul does not doubt that even the little coat which Hannah prepared for her Samuel has its history. If I think of Hannah as every year sewing this coat at her home in Ramah, I know that at every stitch a prayer for her Samuel rose up to the throne of the Lord.The coat which she was sewing would remind her that she had given her Samuel to the Lord; and when the coat was ready, and she brought it to Shiloh, then every time with the coat she anew gave Samuel to her God, and said: I give him to the Lord again for his whole life, because he was obtained from the Lord by prayer.
1Sa 2:21. Starke: Whoever gives to God what is Gods, to him God also gives what his heart desires.Osiander: Nothing is better invested than what is given to God the Lord and to His service; for He richly repays it all.Daechsel: When our faithful God accepts from us poor creatures an offering of love, He takes it only to give it back five-fold, a hundred fold, and a thousandfold; from His fulness we receive grace for grace. Look at our Hannah! It was grace, that the Lord taught her to pray for Samuel; grace, that He gave her the promise; grace, that He made her willing to dedicate Samuel to him; but what shall we say of the fact that in place of the one child whom He had caused to be given to Himself, the Lord gave her five children, three sons and two daughters? When we in His service do for Him the least thing out of love, it is not enough that He gives to the act itself such blessedness, but, consciously or unconsciously to us, He crowns such an act with a rich blessing of grace, and this grace is completed when He blesses us with the greatest of all blessings, eternal life.[1Sa 2:22-25.] Starke: O, how often do pious parents, by indulging their wicked children, plait a scourge for their old backs! [Hall: I heard Eli sharp enough to Hannah, upon but a suspicion of sin, and now how mild I find him to the notorious crimes of his own. The case is altered with the persons. With all the authority of an Oriental father, a high-priest, and a judge, he was solemnly bound to do more than mildly censure his sons, 1Sa 3:13.TR.]
1Sa 2:25. Cramer: The sins of the first table are much weightier and more perilous than the sins of the second table.Osiander: Let no one sin purposely or wilfully and heap sins upon sins; for if he does, the door of grace is at last closed to him, and he finds no more place for repentance.Starke: The purpose of God was not the cause of their disobedience, but their disobedience was a sign that they were now ripe for destruction, and that the righteous purpose of God in their case should now soon be executed.
1Sa 2:26. Starke: The best way to make ourselves agreeable and beloved among men is to seek to please God in Christ, act according to our conscience, and lead an exemplary life.S. Schmid: Whoever uses the grace of God aright, to him God gives more and more grace.Daechsel: Our history is throughout a strong, firm consolation for parental heartsfor those who have to give back to the Lord in death a dear child which He has given to them in birth, for He can otherwise rejoice and bless them (1Sa 2:20 sq.); and also for those who have to let their sons and daughters go out into the wicked world, full of evil examples and corrupting influences, for He can even then shield and preserve their children, and carry them on in faith and godliness (1Sa 2:21-26).
1Sa 2:18-26. Young Samuel the pattern of a pious life in youth in the service of the Lord: 1) Planted and rooted in the soil of the early habit during childhood of consecrating himself to the Lord, 1Sa 2:18-19; 1 Samuel 2) Growing and increasing in the fear of the Lord under the care of godly parents and teachers, 1Sa 2:19-21; 1 Samuel 3) Preserved and proved amid the temptations and influences of an evil world, 1Sa 2:22-25; 1 Samuel 4) Blessed with favor in the sight of God and man.
1Sa 2:23-25. The judgment against obduracy in sin against the Lord: 1) Wherein is it founded? (a) In persistent, conscious sinning on against the Lord in spite of divine and human warning. (b) In the holy, unchangeable will of God, who does not suffer Himself to be mocked. 2) How is it executed? (a) In that God gives up the sinner to the service of sin from one degree to another. (b) In that the punitive divine justice gives over the sinner to the destruction to which he has condemned himself.
[1Sa 2:12-25. On wicked children of pious parents. 1) The number of such cases is often greatly exaggerated, because men are surprised at them, and notice, and remember; but it is in fact sadly greatin the Scripture historiesin our own observation. 2) The probable causes of this. (a) Piety is not properly hereditaryin what sense it is, and in what sense it is not. (b) Pious parents may, out of mistaken kindness, improperly indulge, and but feebly restrainas Eli. (c) In other cases, they are too strict and severe. Applicationto parentsto the children of the pious.TR.]
1Sa 2:26. The fruit of a godly life: 1) The gracious approval of the Lord; 2) Recognition by God-fearing men.
Footnotes:
[22][1Sa 2:13. Erdmann attaches this clause to the preceding, putting a full stop after people. See Exegetical Notes in loco.Tr.]
[23][1Sa 2:13. The Heb. has the Def. Art.; but, as the word is more naturally in st. const., the Art. is better omitted with Sept.Tr.]
[24][1Sa 2:14. The Eng. A. V. here follows the Sept.; Heb. reads in it; Erdmann, damit, therewith.Tr.]
[25][1Sa 2:16. The Heb. Inf. Abs.: let them (or, they will) verily burn.Tr.]
[26][1Sa 2:16. Kethib is to him, Qeri no (and so 18 MSS., some printed Eds.,LXX., Syr., Vulg., Arab., and one MS. of Targ. cited by De Rossi); the latter better suits the following , which, however, yields a good sense as it stands in the text. It may be translated but, supposing a preceding nay, as in Eng. A. V.; or regarded as introducing the substantive clause, and rendered that.Tr.]
[27][1Sa 2:20. Lit.: in place of the petition which one asked for Jehovah. Erdmann changes the form of the verb to the fem., and renders instead of the begged one (des Erbetenen) whom she begged from the Lord. Others point as part. pas. . The 3 sing. fem. is found in one MSS.; 2 sing. thou askedest in one MS., LXX., Syr., Vulg.; and Arab. has thou gavest. It is better to retain the Heb. text and render it as impersonal.Tr.]
[28][1Sa 2:20. The plu. suffix their is found in 12 MSS., Syr., Chald., Ar.; Vulg. in locum suum; some MSS. of Targ. have the sing. Wellhausen, combining LXX. and Heb., gives as the true reading he went to his place; but the more difficult reading seems preferable. See Exeg. Notes in loco. Erdmanns translation omits, by typographical error, the last sentence of 1Sa 2:20.Tr.]
[29][1Sa 2:22. The verb means to perform service, military or other. So in Exo 38:8.Tr.]
[30][1Sa 2:25. See Exeg. Notes in loco.Tr.]
[31][1Sa 2:25. Erdmann: will adjust and who can use his interest (or interpose) to adjust.Tr.]
[32][1Sa 2:26. See Exeget. Notes in loco.Tr.]
[33][For meaning of Heb. belial, worthlessness, see on 1Sa 1:16.Tr.].
[34][.Tr.].
[35][The mel was the outer garment worn by kings, nobles and others, probably a loose robe. The High-priests mel was peculiar in shape and color (Exo 28:31 ff.). Bib.Comm.: The pointed mention of the ephod and robe, taken in connection with his after acts, seems to point to an extraordinary and irregular priesthood to which he was called by God in an age when the provisions of the Levitical law were not yet in full operation.Tr.]
[36] , not because the saying as well as the blessing itself (hence also ) was repeated every year; and this is expressed by the Perf. consec. (Bttcher). [The two Perfects indicate a distinction between the blessing and the saying, but do not necessarily express repeated action; rather they sum up as complete Elis action in pronouncing the blessing and uttering the wish.Tr.]
[37]Bttcher: Historically for must have stood (Song of Solomon 1 Cod. of Kennicott), this alone being correct and connecting itself immediately with the context. But, because stood immediately before with the same , or because the feminine signification was obvious from the connection, the exceptional form shaala (which appears elsewhere also), without the final , was written. [The 3 sing. masc. may be retained here without great difficulty. See Textual and Grammatical Notes in loco. 1Sa 1:27-28 (cited by Erdmann above) excludes indefiniteness as to the fact, but not in the expression.Tr.]
[38][Eng. A. V. here follows Sept., reading instead of , and this seems the simplest way of taking it: and Jehovah visited Hannah.Tr.]
[39] has a comparative force, Ges. 154, 3 sq.The following is a conjunction, and=not so much [because] as [as], but, like the latter, goes over into the causative sense; it refers to such things, and points out the occasion and cause of the rebuke (comp. Ew. 333, 2 a with 331 e 3; Ges. 155, 2 d).
[40][This statement is liable to misconception. This prophet could never take the place of the priest. The priest represented the idea fo atonement by blood, a universal, fundamental religious fact; the prophet expounded the spirituality of Gods law and service. These complementary offices were equally necessary, and existed till they both culminated in Jesus Christ.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
(11) And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house. And the child did minister unto the LORD before Eli the priest.
While Elkanah returns to his home with his family, the child Samuel is left under the ministry of Eli. It is sweet and interesting to behold the early introduction of children into God’s service. This was the commendation of Timothy; 2Ti 3:15 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1Sa 2:11 And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house. And the child did minister unto the LORD before Eli the priest.
Ver. 11. And the child did minister unto the Lord. ] He did such offices as he was able about the tabernacle; which was the more commendable in young Samuel to be so sedulous, because Eli’s sons were at the same time so corrupt and dissolute. The word here rendered child , is by the Dutch translated Der knaben, the knave; which with them signifieth child or servant; and so it did in old English, not as now, a wicked varlet. And therefore manifest wrong is done to John Wycliffe by Bellarmine and others, because that, disallowing the invocation of saints, he called them servants, knaves, which was then a good word, – not gods, as the Papists made them.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
child = youth.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3. The Failure of Eli and His Sons
CHAPTER 2:12-36
1. The wicked sons of Eli (1Sa 2:12-17)
2. Samuel before Jehovah and Hannah blessed (1Sa 2:18-21)
3. The empty warning of Eli (1Sa 2:22-26)
4. Judgment announced (1Sa 2:27-36)
The corruption of the sons of aged Eli is next exposed. They were sons of Belial; they knew not Jehovah, and yet they ministered in the outward things of the sanctuary. It could result only in the worst corruption. They handled holy things and were wicked in heart and life. It has been well said a holiness that is but external is the worst unholiness. It is so today in Christendom. Men who know not Jehovah, who are not serving the Lord but themselves and are thus under the control of Satan, the god of this age, minister in the things of God. It results in all kinds of departures and corruption. It is the curse of Christendom. The sin of the young men was very great before the LORD, for the men despised the offering of Jehovah. Beholding such wicked conduct in the priests men became disgusted with all religious performances and the truth they foreshadowed. They turned away from the offering of Jehovah. It is so still. An unholy, selfish ministry is the greatest stumbling block to the great mass of the people.
And then the contrast! The child Samuel in his little ministry is mentioned once more. What a charming picture he must have been in his little ephod and the little robe finished by his loving mother! Upon him a mere child, so innocent and simple, the white linen robe had been bestowed. Everything else in Shiloh was corrupted.
Eli makes an attempt to warn his sons of their immoral and wicked conduct. His weak effort but reveals the state of his own soul. The law demanded as a penalty the death of the offenders. The lack of zeal in Elis remonstrance made no impression upon his wicked sons. Then an unnamed man of God came to Eli and carried to him the message of judgment. Hophni and Phinehas are to die both in one day. Then there is the promise of the raising up of a faithful priest. Such a priest was Zadok, but the promise finds its ultimate fulfillment in Him who is the King-Priest, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
minister: 1Sa 2:18, 1Sa 1:28, 1Sa 3:1, 1Sa 3:15
Reciprocal: 1Sa 1:22 – and there 1Sa 2:20 – General Act 13:2 – they Phi 3:19 – whose God Tit 1:6 – having Heb 11:32 – Samuel
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Sa 2:11-12. The child did minister unto the Lord As soon as he was capable, and in a way agreeable to his tender years, as in lighting the lamps, or in singing and playing on instruments of music. Before Eli the priest That is, under the inspection and by the direction of Eli. The sons of Eli were sons of Belial Very wicked men, Deu 13:13; being ungodly, profane, covetous, and guilty of violence and filthy lusts. They knew not the Lord They had no experimental and practical knowledge of his justice or mercy, of his holiness or grace, of his power, or love, or faithfulness; no saving acquaintance with his divine perfections, or with the relations in which he stands to his people; they neither honoured, loved, nor served him.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2:11 And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house. And the child did minister unto the {i} LORD before Eli the priest.
(i) In all that Eli commanded him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
B. The Contrast between Samuel and Eli’s Sons 2:11-36
Samuel’s innocence and the godlessness of Eli’s sons contrast strongly in this pericope (section of text). Samuel would succeed and become a channel of God’s blessing. Eli’s sons would fail, would become a source of frustration to Eli and the Israelites, and would ultimately perish.
"The section [1Sa 2:11 to 1Sa 4:1] poignantly illustrates the theme of ’Hannah’s Song’ as it is epitomized in 1Sa 2:7 b, ’he brings low, and also exalts’. For it is under the auspices of God who has determined the ruin of Hophni and Phinehas that Samuel makes his mark." [Note: Robert P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, p. 81.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
1. Eli’s sons’ wickedness 2:11-17
Eli’s sons were not only evil in their personal lives, but they flagrantly disregarded the will of God even as they served as leaders of Israel’s worship. They neither knew the Lord (in the sense of paying attention to Him, 1Sa 2:12) nor treated His offerings as special (1Sa 2:17; cf. Mal 1:6-14). The writer documented these evaluations with two instances of their specific practices (1Sa 2:13-16). The Law ordered the priests to handle the offerings in particular ways to respect God’s holiness (cf. Lev 3:3; Lev 3:5; Lev 7:34; Deu 18:3). However, Eli’s sons served God the way they chose (cf. Korah’s behavior in Numbers 16). The Law allowed the priests to take for themselves the breast and upper part of the right rear leg of animals brought as peace offerings (Lev 7:30-34). But Eli’s sons took all that the three-pronged fork brought up when plunged into the remaining meat being boiled for the sacrificial meal (1Sa 2:13-14). The priests were to burn the best part of the sacrifices on the altar as offerings to God, but Eli’s sons demanded for themselves raw meat that was not cooked at all (1Sa 2:15-16). Meat was luxurious food in Israel’s economy, so Eli’s sons were living off the fat of the land. They were worthless men (1Sa 2:12, i.e., wicked in God’s sight; cf. 1Sa 1:16).
"To this day, arrogant assertiveness and self-seeking are temptations to all those in positions of great power in society." [Note: Payne, p. 18.]
"Their sin was particularly egregious since they were supposed to be teaching morality and representing the people of God (1Sa 2:22-25; cf. 2Ch 17:7-9)." [Note: Heater, p. 120.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER IV.
ELI’S HOUSE.
1Sa 2:11-36.
THE notices of little Samuel, that alternate in this passage with the sad accounts of Eli and his house, are like the green spots that vary the dull stretches of sand in a desert; or like the little bits of blue sky that charm your eye when the firmament is darkened by a storm. First we are told how, after Elkanah and Hannah departed, the child Samuel ministered unto the Lord before Eli the priest (1Sa 2:11); then comes an ugly picture of the wickedness practiced at Shiloh by Eli’s sons (1Sa 2:12-17); another episode brings Samuel again before us, with some details of his own history and that of his family (1Sa 2:8-21); this is followed by an account of Eli’s feeble endeavours to restrain the wickedness of his sons (1Sa 2:22-25). Once more we have a bright glimpse of Samuel, and of his progress in life and character, very similar in terms to St. Luke’s account of the growth of the child Jesus (1Sa 2:26); and finally the series closes with a painful narrative – the visit of a man of God to Eli, reproving his guilty laxity in connection with his sons, and announcing the downfall of his house (1Sa 2:27-36). In the wickedness of Eli’s sons we see the enemy coming in like a flood, in the progress of little Samuel we see the Spirit of the Lord lifting up a standard against him. We see evil powerful and most destructive; we see the instrument of healing very feeble – a mere infant. Yet the power of God is with the infant, and in due time the force which he represents will prevail. It is just a picture of the grand conflict of sin and grace in the world. It was verified emphatically when Jesus was a child. How slender the force seemed that was to scatter the world’s darkness, roll back its wickedness, and take away its guilt I How striking the lesson for us not to be afraid though the apparent force of truth and goodness in the world be infinitesimally small. The worm Jacob shall yet thresh the mountains; the little flock shall yet possess the kingdom; “there shall be a handful of corn on the top of the mountains, the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon, and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth.”
It is mainly the picture of Eli’s house and the behaviour of his family that fills our eye in this chapter. It is to be noticed that Eli was a descendant, not of Eleazar, the elder son of Aaron, but of Ithamar, the younger. Why the high priesthood was transferred from the one family to the other, in the person of Eli, we do not know. Evidently Eli’s claim to the priesthood was a valid one, for in the reproof addressed to him it is fully assumed that he was the proper occupant of the office. One is led to think that either from youth or natural feebleness the proper heir in Eleazar’s line had been unfit for the office, and that Eli had been appointed to it as possessing the personal qualifications which the other wanted. Probably therefore he was a man of vigour in his earlier days, one capable of being at the head of affairs; and if so his loose government of his family was all the more worthy of blame. It could not have been that the male line in Eleazar’s family had failed; for in the time of David Zadok of the family of Eleazar was priest, along with Abiathar, of the family of Ithamar and Eli. From Eli’s administration great things would seem to have been expected; all the more lamentable and shameful was the state of things that ensued.
1. First our attention is turned to the gross wickedness and scandalous behaviour of Eli’s sons. There are many dark pictures in the history of Israel in the time of the Judges, – pictures of idolatry, pictures of lust, pictures of treachery, pictures of bloodshed; but there is none more awful than the picture of the high priest’s family at Shiloh. In the other cases members of the nation had become grossly wicked; but in this case it is the salt that has lost its savour – it is those who should have led the people in the ways of God that have become the ringleaders of the devil’s army. Hophni and Phinehas take their places in that unhonoured band where the names of Alexander Borgia, and many a high ecclesiastic of the Middle Ages send forth their stinking savour. They are marked by the two prevailing vices of the lowest natures – greed and lechery. Their greed preys upon the worthy men who brought their offerings to God’s sanctuary in obedience to His law; their lechery seduces the very women who, employed in the service of the place (see Revised Version), might have reasonably thought of it as the gate to heaven rather than the avenue of hell. So shameless were they in both kinds of vice that they were at no pains to conceal either the one or the other. It mattered nothing what regulations God had made as to the parts of the offering the priest was to have; down went their fork into the sacrificial caldron, and whatever it drew up became theirs. It mattered not that the fat of certain sacrifices was due to God, and that it ought to have been given oft’ before any other use was made of the flesh; the priests claimed the flesh in its integrity, and if the offerer would not willingly surrender it their servant fell upon him and wrenched it away. It is difficult to say whether the greater hurt was inflicted by such conduct on the cause of religion or on the cause of ordinary morality. As for the cause of religion, it suffered that terrible blow which it always suffers whenever it is dissociated from morality. The very heart and soul is torn out of religion when men are led to believe that their duty consists in merely believing certain dogmas, attending to outward observances, paying dues, and “performing” worship. What kind of conception of God can men have who are encouraged to believe that justice, mercy, and truth have nothing to do with His service? How can they ever think of Him as a Spirit, who requires of them that worship Him that they worship Him in spirit and in truth? How can such religion give men a real veneration for God, or inspire them with that spirit of obedience, trust, and delight of which he ought ever to be the object? Under such religion all belief in God’s existence tends to vanish. Though His existence may continue to be acknowledged, it is not a power, it has no influence; it neither stimulates to good nor restrains from evil. Religion becomes a miserable form, without life, without vigour, without beauty – a mere carcase deserving only to be buried out of sight.
And if such a condition of things is fatal to religion, it is fatal to morality too. Men are but too ready by nature to play loose with conscience. But when the religious heads of the nation are seen at once robbing man and robbing God, and when this is done apparently with impunity, it seems foolish to ordinary men to mind moral restraints. “Why should we mind the barriers of conscience” (the young men of Israel might argue) “when these young priests disregard them? If we do as the priest does we shall do very well.” Men of corrupt lives at the head of religion, who are shameless in their profligacy, have a lowering effect on the moral life of the whole community. Down and down goes the standard of living. Class after class gets infected. The mischief spreads like dry rot in a building; ere long the whole fabric of society is infected with the poison.
2. And how did the high priest deal with this state of things? In the worst possible way. He spoke against it but he did not act against it. He showed that he knew of it, he owned it to be very wicked; but he contented himself with words of remonstrance, which in the case of such hardened transgression were of no more avail than a child’s breath against a brazen wall. At the end of the day, it is true that Eli was a decrepit old man, from whom much vigour of action could not have been expected. But the evil began before he was so old and decrepit, and his fault was that he did not restrain his sons at the time when he ought and might have restrained them. Yes, but even if Eli was old and decrepit when the actual state of things first burst on his view, there was enough of the awful in the conduct of his sons to have roused him to unwonted activity. David was old and decrepit, lying feebly at the edge of death, when word was brought to him that Adonijah had been proclaimed king in place of Solomon, for whom he had destined the throne. But there was enough of the startling in this intelligence to bring back a portion of its youthful fire to David’s heart, and set him to devise the most vigorous measures to prevent the mischief that was so ready to be perpetrated. Fancy King David sending a meek message to Adonijah – “Nay, my son, it is not on your head but on Solomon’s that my crown is to rest; go home, my son, and do nothing more in a course hurtful u yourself and hurtful to your people.” But; it was this foolish and most inefficient course that Eli took with his sons. Had he acted as he should have acted at the beginning, matters would never have come to such a flagrant pass. But when the state of things became so terrible, there was but one course that should have been thought of. When the wickedness of the acting priests was so outrageous that men abhorred the offering of the Lord, the father ought to have been sunk in the high priest; the men who had so dishonoured their office should have been driven from the place, and the very remembrance of the crime they had committed should have been obliterated by the holy lives and holy service of better men. It was inexcusable in Eli to allow them to remain. If he had had a right sense of his office he would never for one moment have allowed the interest of his family to outweigh the claims of God. What! Had God in the wilderness, by a solemn and deadly judgment, removed from office and from life the two elder sons of Aaron simply because they had offered strange fire in their censers? And what was the crime of offering strange fire compared to the crime of robbing God, of violating the Decalogue, of openly practicing gross and daring wickedness, under the very shadow of the tabernacle? If Eli did not take steps for stopping these atrocious proceedings, he might rely on it that steps would be taken in another quarter – God Himself would mark His sense of the sin.
For what were the interests of his sons compared with the credit of the national worship? What mattered it that the sudden stroke would fall on them with startling violence? If it did not lead to their repentance and salvation it would at least save the national religion from degradation, and it would thus bring benefit to tens of thousands in the land. All this Eli did not regard. He could not bring himself to be harsh to his own sons. He could not bear that they should be disgraced and degraded. He would satisfy himself with a mild remonstrance, notwithstanding that every day new disgrace was heaped on the sanctuary, and new encouragement given to others to practice wickedness, by the very men who should have been foremost in honouring God, and sensitive to every breath that would tarnish His name.
How differently God’s servants acted in other days! How differently Moses acted when he came down from the mount and found the people worshipping the golden calf! “It came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands and brake them beneath the mount. And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it. . . . And Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said. Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate through the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.” Do we think this too sharp and severe a retribution? At all events it marked in a suitable way the enormity of the offence of Aaron and the people, and the awful provocation of Divine judgments which the affair of the golden calf implied. It denoted that in presence of such a sin the claims of kindred were never for a moment to be thought of; and in the blessing of Moses it was a special commendation of the zeal of Levi, that “he said unto his father, and to his mother, I have not seen him neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children.” It was the outrageous character of the offence in the matter of the golden calf that justified the severe and abrupt procedure; but it was Eli’s condemnation that though the sin of his sons was equally outrageous, he was moved to no indignation, and took no step to rid the tabernacle of men so utterly unworthy.
It is often very difficult to explain how it comes to pass that godly men have had ungodly children. There is little difficulty in accounting for this on the present occasion. There was a fatal defect in the method of Eli. His remonstrance with his sons is not made at the proper time. It is not made in the fitting tone. When disregarded, it is not followed up by the proper consequences. We can easily think of Eli letting the boys have their own will and their own way when they were young; threatening them for disobedience, but not executing the threat; angry at them when they did wrong, but not punishing the offence; vacillating perhaps between occasional severity and habitual indulgence, till by-and-bye all fear of sinning had left them, and they coolly calculated that the grossest wickedness would meet with nothing worse than a reproof. How sad the career of the young men themselves! We must not forget that, however inexcusable their father was, the great guilt of the proceeding was theirs. How must they have hardened their hearts against the example of Eli, against the solemn claims of God, against the holy traditions of the service, against the interests and claims of those whom they ruined, against the welfare of God’s chosen people! How terribly did their familiarity with sacred things react on their character, making them treat even the holy priest- hood as a mere trade, a trade in which the most sacred interests that could be conceived were only as counters, to be turned by them into gain and sensual pleasure! Could anything come nearer to the sin against the Holy Ghost? No wonder though their doom was that of persons judicially blinded and hardened. They were given up to a reprobate mind, to do those things that were not convenient. ”They hearkened not to the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them.” They experienced the fate of men who deliberately sin against the light, who love their lusts so well that nothing will induce them to fight against them; they were so hardened that repentance became impossible, and it was necessary for them to undergo the full retribution of their wickedness.
3. But it is time we should look at the message brought to Eli by the man of God. In that message Eli was first reminded of the gracious kindness shown to the house of Aaron in their being entrusted with the priesthood, and in their having an honourable provision secured for them. Next he is asked why he trampled on God’s sacrifice and offering (marg. Revised Version), and considered the interests of his sons above the honour of God? Then he is told that any previous promise of the perpetuity of his house is now qualified by the necessity God is under to have regard to the character of his priests, and honour or degrade them accordingly. In accordance with this rule the house of Eli would suffer a terrible degradation. He (this includes his successors in office) would be stript of “his arm,” that is, his strength. No member of his house would reach a good old age. The establishment at Shiloh would fall more and more into decay, as if there was an enemy in God’s habitation. Any who might remain of the family would be a grief and distress to those whom Eli represented. The young men themselves, Hophni and Phinehas, would die the same day. Those who shared their spirit would come crouching to the high priest of the day and implore him to put them into one of the priest’s offices, not to give them the opportunity of serving God, but that they might eat a piece of bread. Terrible catalogue of curses and calamities! Oh, sin, what a brood of sorrows dost thou bring forth! Oh, young man, who walkest in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes, what a myriad of distresses dost thou prepare for those whom thou art most bound to care for and to bless! Oh, minister of the gospel, who allowest thyself to tamper with the cravings of the flesh till thou hast brought ruin on thyself, disgrace on thy family, and confusion on thy Church, what infatuation was it to admit thy worst foe to the sanctuary of thy bosom, and allow him to establish himself in the citadel till thou couldst not get quit of him, so that thou art now helpless in his hands, with nothing but sadness for thy present inheritance, and for the future a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation!
One word, in conclusion, respecting that great principle of the kingdom of God announced by the prophet as that on which Jehovah would act in reference to His priests – “Them that honour Me I will honour, but they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.” It is one of the grandest sayings in Scripture. It is the eternal rule of the kingdom of God, not limited to the days of Hophni and Phinehas, but, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, eternal as the ordinances of heaven. It is a law confirmed by all history; every man’s life confirms it, for though this life is but the beginning of our career, and the final clearing up of Divine providence is to be left to the judgment-day, yet when we look back on the world’s history we find that those that have honoured God, God has honoured them, while they that have despised Him have indeed been lightly esteemed. However men may try to get their destiny into their own hands; however they may secure themselves from this trouble and from that; however, like the first Napoleon, they may seem to become omnipotent, and to wield an irresistible power, yet the day of retribution comes at last; having sown to the flesh, of the flesh also they reap corruption. While the men that have honoured God, the men that have made their own interests of no account, but have set themselves resolutely to obey God’s will and do God’s work; the men that have believed in God as the holy Ruler and Judge of the world, and have laboured in private life and in public service to carry out the great rules of His kingdom, – justice, mercy, the love of God and the love of man, – these are the men that God has honoured; these are the men whose work abides; these are the men whose names shine with undying honour, and from whose example and achievements young hearts in every following age draw their inspiration and encouragement. What a grand rule of life it is, for old and young! Do you wish a maxim that shall be of high service to you in the voyage of life, that shall enable you to steer your barque safely both amid the open assaults of evil, and its secret currents, so that, however tossed you may be, you may have the assurance that the ship’s head is in the right direction, and that you are moving steadily towards the desired haven; where can you find anything more clear, more fitting, more sure and certain than just these words of the Almighty, “Them that honour Me I will honour; but they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed”?